It seems that l opened a can of worms when l posted that the new Stones double cd was available for downloading, Some people here got in Holier than thou attitude,that it was wrong to download,that it was stealing, and so on and so forth,yet many of the same people have lam sure many bootlegs in their collection,or they may download a movie or a tv show.So whats the difference?
l understand BV"s position and his decision to delete the name of the place where you could find the cd,and then to close the thread..This is his place and he can do as he pleases, but l would like to hear from others, whats your opinion?

"No dope smoking no beer sold after 12 o'clock"

Bootlegs are unpublished material. So, that is not wrong or even illegal. But, stealing published material is wrong. How would you like it if someone used your product or service and did not pay you for it? It is also illegal, petty, cheap and miserly.

The Hot Stuff forum here is an INVALUBALE place to get boots. No one wants it to be shut down. Boots aren't protected the same way licenesed releases are.

Bringing in traffic to dowload pirated stuff could seriously damage iorr and ruin it for everyone by having the whole thing shut down. This has happened to other sites.

I'm all for people downloading my band's music, but I respect other artists not being okay with that too.

[thepowergoats.com]

my opinion? everyone needs to do what they feel okay with - but it's not true that "everybody does it".
when people resort to that line of "defense" it sounds to me like those people are feeling uncomfortable
and maybe ought to give some more thought to what it is they would really feel okay with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 18:51 by with sssoul.

Downloading commercially available material without paying the artist or person who owns it is wrong in my view. But in the case of live shows or studio recordings that are unreleased by the artist, and hence not a source of revenue, I don't have any qualms about it. However if they were to offically release the aformentioned material then I would buy it even if I had already downloaded it or obtained it by other means. To my way of thinking that would be the right thing to do.

------



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 21:56 by ryanpow.

Sorry but downloading official material that is released by the artist or on behalf of the artist illegally is theft. Downloading Bootlegged albums such as Brussells affair is not theft as the artist has not released it commercially.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Well I downloaded it...

and listened to it on my car radio...

I don't feel like a thief because I downloaded it yesterday and 2 days ago I ordered

-) the Double CD Version from amazon.com
-) the Single CD Version from amazon.com
-) the USB Version from amazon.co.uk
-) the Japanese Version from cdjapan.co.jp
-) the 6track promo sampler from ebay

So please tell me I'm a thief because I downloaded something to hear in advance which I already ordered AND PREPAID days before LOL to you all out there !

my best !

Well I gues that's fine as you bought the official product.

NickB

You can't always get what you want.....

www.myspace.com/thesonkings

Me too. I downloaded it because I was TOO excited to wait. It worked out great because I plan to purchase the Japanese version so this will tide me over until I find the overseas version cheaper...

But honestly, is there anyone on this board who would simply download it and not even buy the official product? Aren't most people here collectors and completists anyway? I think most people downloaded it much like I did---couldn't wait to hear it.

Great debate guys. My attitude is that I don't feel bad downloading an album that I originally bought on vinyl years ago. With The Stones and bands like The Who and Zeppelin I have bought their vinyl, 1st generation CDs, remastered CDs etc so I have lined their pockets enough times for the same piece of music.

I still detect double standards here because you can't say it is theft to download a studio release but OK to do so with unreleased/live material.It is in the interests of artists to keep reign of their live concerts/unreleased material for when they want to bring out Anthology like box sets. I'm sure the Stones know this site and could have had it closed down so I can only presume they dig it. Anyway, talking from the point of a huge collector of rare stuff I'm really glad for sites like this.

Quote
Silver Dagger
I still detect double standards here because you can't say it is theft to download a studio release but OK to do so with unreleased/live material.It is in the interests of artists to keep reign of their live concerts/unreleased material for when they want to bring out Anthology like box sets.

I agree. I do not see any difference in downloading a commercially released album and taping a live show and distributing it. To me, both are equally wrong. A live show recording is okay because it's not been commercially released? Isn't that even MORE a reason for it to be a no-no? The artists performed for two hours, with no intention of having the performance documented, the recording is untouched and in its rawest form and someone's taped it, sold it and spread it amongst the public? I mean, there's something still wrong there. I guess more back in the early days this process was a bigger money maker than today (with the addtion of the internet and etc.)

But still, you are still taking away a performance from a performer which he/she did not approve to be taken.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 19:26 by Justin.

I think most Stones fans who download it free would go out and buy it as well, I know I would, I don't download anyway as I would rather have the CD and packaging.

Quote
Justin

Quote
Silver Dagger
I still detect double standards here because you can't say it is theft to download a studio release but OK to do so with unreleased/live material.It is in the interests of artists to keep reign of their live concerts/unreleased material for when they want to bring out Anthology like box sets.

I agree. I do not see any difference in downloading a commercially released album and taping a live show and distributing it. To me, both are equally wrong. A live show recording is okay because it's not been commercially released? Isn't that even MORE a reason for it to be a no-no? The artists performed for two hours, with no intention of having the performance documented, the recording is untouched and in its rawest form and someone's taped it, sold it and spread it amongst the public? I mean, there's something still wrong there. I guess more back in the early days this process was a bigger money maker than today (with the addtion of the internet and etc.)

But still, you are still taking away a performance from a performer which he/she did not approve to be taken.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Once again, "legal" is what is not forbidden by the law.

In most countries it is against the law to trade/copy/broadcast/and of course sell official stuff as well as bootlegs of unreleased stuff.

The only difference is that violations referred to officially released stuff are more likely prosecuted because it is in the interest of big companies (the owners of the copyrights) and because the competent authorities can easily detect when there is a violation of copyrights.

In the case of unreleased/unregistered stuff, it is up to the author to seek for justice.

In this particular area there are diffrent policies. Some groups tend to be more or less trade friendly (the Stones as a matter of fact ARE trade friendly) and - at certain conditions - tolerate bootlegs. Some others are not. Metallica to name one.

That said I do not agree with the criminalisation of what is called copyright "piracy". It is against the law, fair enough, but is it also immoral? Of course in the past years all the big names in the business have payed big money to persuade the public opinion that said piracy is highly immoral. And it appears they have reached their goal!

Could you just imagine 20 years ago someone telling me that I am an immoral theif for exchaging LPs with my friends and making some copies on tape?

C

you seem to favour people being informed & aware of what they're doing, liddas -
so don't be disingenuous, okay? about home taping of LPs 20 years ago.
of course it was illegal then too, but the technology itself limited the practice -
due to the extreme loss in quality of every subsequent copy, i mean -
so the losses in income it entailed were negligible compared with what digital technology allows.

and it's not just the big bad record companies losing income - it's the artists as well.
do what you feel okay about doing - which is easier when we've thought about it some.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 20:26 by with sssoul.

Quote
Justin
But honestly, is there anyone on this board who would simply download it and not even buy the official product? Aren't most people here collectors and completists anyway? I think most people downloaded it much like I did---couldn't wait to hear it.

yes, me. I am not a collector and hardly a completist. I downloaded the sampler mp3s but haven't listened to them yet, so I haven't downloaded the full set. The packaging for Stones products have been boilerplate rush jobs for years now, since Bridges to Babylon (which was ugly but involved)... I wouldn't give a red cent for the CD packages. I'll probably download a lossless version of the album once it appears. But I will pay to see the film (and probably for 2). But maybe not as soon as it opens. I've exposed myself in this way here before... it hadn't occurred to me until talking to people here and on other boards that being a fan entailed buying as much crap as the band's management can throw at you.

I downloaded Shine A Light and will also buy it, but there have been other non-Stones releases that I downloaded and didn't buy. And one of the things that bugs me about the whole "downloading is stealing" arguement is the implication that if a person downloads an album the artist, record company, etc, loses money.

This assumes that the person was planning to buy the album but decided instead to save the money and download it. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but the stuff I downloaded and didn't buy was stuff I was never going to buy anyway and wouldn't otherwise ever possess or listen to. The same is true for all of my friends and, I suspect, for the vast majority of downloaders.

So when I download something I was never planning to buy anyway, the artist, record company, etc., does not lose one red cent. In fact, they gain something - there's one more copy of their album in circulation than there would have been otherwise. And sometimes, not always but sometimes, the artist ends up benefiting from that.

How? Because sometimes I really get into something I downloaded and end up buying the official release, which I never would have done had I not downloaded it and ended up liking it. And sometimes I buy not just the official release but other official releases, concert tickets, T-shirts, other merchandise, etc. And I give it to several other people who never would have otherwise bought it or heard it, and some of them end up buying albums, concert tickets, etc.

If I was in a band I'd want as many people as possible to download and hear my work, not only because having your music heard is the goal of every band but also because there's a good chance it would ultimately end up making my band more money than the old model ever did.

Bands make a lot more from concert tickets and merchandise than they do from album or single sales anyway. The record companies get most of that money, and I do not feel one bit sorry for the record companies for losing out (if indeed they are - as I said, I suspect that most people who download weren't going to buy the album anyway).

Record companies have been gouging artists and consumers for decades, basically because they controlled the supply and could get away with it. So now I download because they no longer control the supply and I can get away with it. Turnabout is fair play. But the difference is I actually have empathy for the artists and, if I like their music, will end up spending some cash on them at some point.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 21:07 by ohnonotyouagain.

Quote
with sssoul
my opinion? everyone needs to do what they feel okay with - but it's not true that "everybody does it".
when people resort to that line of "defense" it sounds to me like those people are feeling uncomfortable
and maybe ought to give some more thought to what it is they would really feel okay with.

with sssoul always has the calm voice of reason.

I agree, not everybody does it, cause everyone's not comfortable with it.

Plus downloading boots doesn't get your site shut down or the owner and downloaders into legal trouble...



BTW not everyone speeds on the road either.

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

>> Bands make a lot more from concert tickets and merchandise than they do from album or single sales anyway. <<

ahh good - so we won't hear you bitching about ticket prices, tacky baseball caps or the scarcity of great albums, right?
(i mean if no one needs to buy them, then clearly no one needs to make them either - especially since making them costs money)

having grown up with the idea that recorded music was a Great Thing,
it's interesting to ponder it being written off as just an impractical flash in the pan.
concert musicians, wandering minstrels & songbirds are forever, though - at least as long as we keep 'em fed :E



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 21:45 by with sssoul.

i completely agree with the argument of ohnonotyouagain

i will just add that in the last decade the companies that provide internet connection have made immense profit and the spin forward to mass use of broadband has been greately fueled by this "immoral black market"

when i pay my telephone bill though i am paying more or less the same sum of ten years ago i am still paying a huuuuge amount of money compared to the cost of the service i use for the company i pay

this immense profit is, in my view, where the money for the providers of content (music, film etc) should be found. If you think that sometimes the provider of the connection is also a provider of content it turns out that i am a "robber" that is being asked to pay someone twice with prices that usually hugely exceed the material vaule of the good

I wouldn't download an official album - especially not if it was with an artist that I didn't need to "check out"...like one check out a new band.
Why does everyone guilty of something believe that everybody are doing the same crime ?
Also.... surely, lossy MP3 will not be played through my speakers anyway - if the recording is available in real quality

quite simply, once Mick and Keith put pen to paper and write a song, it is copyrighted, regardless of whether or not they release it.

Having said that, I love my bootleg collection, but I dont download released stuff because I prefer to have the "real" album/cd in my collection.

In my opinion, it's rather pointless to discuss if it is right or wrong.
Masses of people are downloading movies, songs, books, etc. and this is not likely to change.
The big challenge for artists and labels now is how to accept it and learn how to use it to make money.
There are several artists already that offer the album for free or users can choose how much to pay. For higher audio quality you have to pay more, for a bit more money you get an interesting booklet, etc.


Belgrade-Bucharest-Budapest-Brno

Quote
with sssoul
you seem to favour people being informed & aware of what they're doing, liddas -
so don't be disingenuous, okay?

I am afraid I don't understand your point.

<<<< about home taping of LPs 20 years ago.
of course it was illegal then too, but the technology itself limited the practice -
due to the extreme loss in quality of every subsequent copy, i mean -
so the losses in income it entailed were negligible compared with what digital technology allows.

I fully disagree.

The difference in quality was absolutely minimal. The format, of course, was completely different. I would bet some big money that there were more people copying cassets then, than downloaders now. In the lp era, EVERYBODY had a cassette recorder, how many e.mulers are they today?

Decrease in sales of cds is not an argument. CDs are no longer THE only support for selling music. Also music DVDs, internet stores, etc. should be accounted. Who cares if itunes is making the big money and no longer the cd industry?

<<< and it's not just the big bad record companies losing income - it's the artists as well.
do what you feel okay about doing - which is easier when we've thought about it some.

The artist in most cases don't lose a penny: they trade their copyrights for flat fees. Plus, Ohnonotyouagain says it all.

The close future is made of flat fees for unlimited downloading.
Reading the terrorised reports of the music industry one should think that these flat fees should be in the range of 1000nds usd. Instead what? From 100 to zero!

If there is one ripped off that's me! Included in the price of every single recordable CD I buy to record MY OWN music, photos, files, there is a percentage that goes to the so called authors. By law.

I record they make profit!

C

There's a technical term for downloading an artists work (of anykind) without paying them for it, when their intention is to profit from their work: The term is "STEALIN"!

"Take all the pain...It's yours anyway"

of course i agree with liddas
moreover
about the technological difference that should be an argument for the criminalization of sharing of digital copies
i think quite the opposite
just as in "the good old days" the industry made profit producing tape recorders now is making profit offering broadband to download music and movies
there is this false image of you and me that go in a shop buy a cd and by doing so paying the artist... that is the image that the industry create to try to outlive without change and without accepting the challange Lorenz speaks of

meanwhile a lot of the young artists are screwed by the industry



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 21:42 by maumau.

>> they trade their copyrights for flat fees <<

trade it to whom, for what? as in: you reckon it's increasingly easy for "non-legacy" artists
to get record contracts that give them some leverage to make/market their music the way they want?

no no, i know: they don't need the record companies - they can record/market their own music
using the internet/equipment that ... hey, you can't mean artists have to pay for internet, recording equipment,
musical instruments, rehearsal space and all that?! they don't just find on the ground, like songbirds?!

who'da thunk it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 22:26 by with sssoul.

sssoul
my point is
everyone has to make a fair profit of his or her own work so the artist
where is the money for the artist?
i answer: ask the companies that make huge profits in the field of the art (that is media)
what kind of fair profit is that it needs to be protected against the progress of technology?...
so you (the company) want to make profit of a new technology but then you want technology to be framed by the Police State because you dont know how to make profit out of it still... Morever you ask this, imho, immoral anti-free market move, in the name of the pooor artist that is not getting his/her due...
well...


so the money for the artists is already there...
and if the artist is poooor is not for my use of technology - for which i pay a lot compared to the cost for the company - but for the greeed of the protectionist "anti-entrepeneur"'s company



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-03-27 22:00 by maumau.

I agree with ALL of you - yep.

...have some popcorn with the worms...