The days of illegal downloading coming to an end

[keif sweat]

Originally Posted by ninob1213

As a person pursuing a future endeavors in the music industry i'd like to let you all know all the artist make their money through clever marketing and touring. Album sales for major labe artist are doing nothing but enabling the 60 old ceos of these conglomerates to drive Ferraris. Free music has become the new standard.. Indie artist who sell like 5 records and give the rest away to gain a loyal following through word of mouth marketing. The next thing you know $ 10k a night for a tour of like 30 shows. Theres a few guys in the jewelry thread here on NT showing off their spoils from their hustle. I personally started to despise supporting big label artist via once i learned how the game worked like 6 years ago.

Also we can thank Steve Jobs (Itunes) and Sean Parker ( Involved with Spotify , Facebook and creator of Napster ) for changing the game for the better.

 

[sleaze jar omens]

Originally Posted by Method Man

Never underestimate the ability of human beings to rationalize their own selfishness. 
You've got people acting like stealing porn is an act of civil disobedience.  Please.

It's a shame that the people who really lose out in all of this are the reasonable ones who support the creative community and purchase media products legally.  We bear all of the costs, but share all of the consequences.  Without legitimate, paying customers, there's no one to subsidize the greedy companies or the greedy consumers.  Greedy companies can never have enough profit; greedy consumers can never have enough product.  Neither side cares about anyone but themselves.  In a way, they deserve each other - because neither side truly brings anything to the table.  They're just out to take.

To me, the best outcome in all of this would be for artists to go the Kickstarter route, bypass the RIAA/MPAA/ESA/etc., and simply tell consumers to puwt up or shut up.  

have you ever pirated anything?

 

[sreggie101]

you gotta be downloading a ton for you to get flagged tho right? when it comes to music i don't really DL that much. lotta what im bumping now is free mixtapes anyways. and a lotta movies are streamed. plus i got netflix on deck. i got got a private torrent connect, but it works via dl/ul ratios and i don't really need anything from there these days.

to hell with public torrenting, idk who still uses that +%#. ill use it for software, but otherwise im not about that public life anymore lol, too much heat these days.

unless you beast your internet connection and pirate movies and music left and right, you'll become suspect. but if you download a few albums a yr, whats to worry about? your data count will overall be too low to for them to suspect you unless they monitor your every click lol..

edit: who remembers going ham on napster for a few nights before it had to shut down? had me like..

 

[limitedretroog]

Originally Posted by MPLSdunk

Originally Posted by LimitedRetroOG

What's with you guys and DatPiff? Sure, their mixtapes are free, but the site also sucks and there are better options out there. Half the mixtapes I've downloaded from there are either missing tracks or are corrupt.

That's why you only get the official ones. That's what I use it for. Yo gotti isn't gonna drop cm89 on hulkshare

Even the official ones. I downloaded (I think it was) Dedication 1 or 2 and it had a couple of missing tracks.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by Method Man


To me, the best outcome in all of this would be for artists to go the Kickstarter route, bypass the RIAA/MPAA/ESA/etc., and simply tell consumers to put up or shut up.  

Your comment made me recall this article.  http://www.littlewhiteearbuds.com/f...-in-electronic-music-despite-democratization/

On the other hand, artists emerging now face the hardest times ever to establish themselves. The lifespan between breaking through and being laid off seems to have reached a historic low point of half a year. The reasons behind this “haircut

 

[Methodical Management]

have you ever pirated anything?

That wouldn't change the principle.  Whether I downloaded something during the Napster days or not, we all have the ability to mature and learn from our mistakes.  
Most people here (I would hope) are old enough to remember what life was like in the days before mp3s.  CDs routinely cost between $15 and $20, and $20 in 1998 was worth about as much as $33 today.  If you wanted a copy of that CD, you had to take it to a friend's house who had a boombox with a cd player and a tape deck, the dub was of inferior quality, and you couldn't listen to CDs if you went for a run because the disc would skip and possibly get scratched.  
Today, I can buy a new album on mp3 the day it comes out for $5 on amazon.  Not only do I get the mp3 files, which I can store on any device I want, but they also provide the music as a service, meaning I can access the files on their servers using their "cloud player" to listen to my music from any Internet-connected computer or device.   I think that's a pretty good value.  Music's cheaper than ever and it's more versatile than ever.  

The problem is, many people have developed this looter mentality and say to themselves, "well, why pay $5 when I can just take it for free?"  You can rationalize it all you want, but it's selfish and short-sighted.  This stuff doesn't just materialize from the ether.  It costs money to produce and artists deserve to make a living from their creative works.  

If you're against the exploitative practices of the recording industry, great, but stealing ≠ boycotting.  You have to give artists a way to earn a living through digital distribution.  Right now, piracy just gives the RIAA a reason to exist - because they can claim to "protect" artists' IP rights.  If it weren't for piracy, and artists could easily and effectively sell their work direct to consumers online, the RIAA would have no purpose.  There'd be no need for them to pay somebody "protection money" to lobby for policies that would destroy the open Internet.  

The "message" pirates send to the industry is that the only way to make money in this economy is to a) sell tangible products or b) try to rule the Internet with an iron fist.  

As a society, we should be transitioning away from materialism and minimizing the resource-intensive production of tangible goods.  We've already moved from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy, and if we're to continue to progress as a country and as a species we'll need to figure out some way to survive within a content-based economy driven by creativity and innovation, in which people aren't reduced to servants or tools in an assembly line.  

 

[uhavenosole]

yeah most of the major downloading sites are Deas but they still are a few out ther SOPA sucks

 

[Nike Jordan]

People will "get theirs" regardless.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[sleaze jar omens]

just wanted an honest answer on whether or not you have or currently pirate any media or software? fine if youre not comfortable answering.

 

[snuks5]

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

Nothing like turning millions of piraters into 'Challenge Accepted' mode 

 

[ninob1213]

Originally Posted by Method Man

have you ever pirated anything?

That wouldn't change the principle.  Whether I downloaded something during the Napster days or not, we all have the ability to mature and learn from our mistakes.  
Most people here (I would hope) are old enough to remember what life was like in the days before mp3s.  CDs routinely cost between $15 and $20, and $20 in 1998 was worth about as much as $33 today.  If you wanted a copy of that CD, you had to take it to a friend's house who had a boombox with a cd player and a tape deck, the dub was of inferior quality, and you couldn't listen to CDs if you went for a run because the disc would skip and possibly get scratched.  
Today, I can buy a new album on mp3 the day it comes out for $5 on amazon.  Not only do I get the mp3 files, which I can store on any device I want, but they also provide the music as a service, meaning I can access the files on their servers using their "cloud player" to listen to my music from any Internet-connected computer or device.   I think that's a pretty good value.  Music's cheaper than ever and it's more versatile than ever.  

The problem is, many people have developed this looter mentality and say to themselves, "well, why pay $5 when I can just take it for free?"  You can rationalize it all you want, but it's selfish and short-sighted.  This stuff doesn't just materialize from the ether.  It costs money to produce and artists deserve to make a living from their creative works.  

If you're against the exploitative practices of the recording industry, great, but stealing ≠ boycotting.  You have to give artists a way to earn a living through digital distribution.  Right now, piracy just gives the RIAA a reason to exist - because they can claim to "protect" artists' IP rights.  If it weren't for piracy, and artists could easily and effectively sell their work direct to consumers online, the RIAA would have no purpose.  There'd be no need for them to pay somebody "protection money" to lobby for policies that would destroy the open Internet.  

The "message" pirates send to the industry is that the only way to make money in this economy is to a) sell tangible products or b) try to rule the Internet with an iron fist.  

As a society, we should be transitioning away from materialism and minimizing the resource-intensive production of tangible goods.  We've already moved from a manufacturing-based economy to a service-based economy, and if we're to continue to progress as a country and as a species we'll need to figure out some way to survive within a content-based economy driven by creativity and innovation, in which people aren't reduced to servants or tools in an assembly line.  

I agree with your views of the artist needing to be compensated. I just feel society will not be willing to revert to the old model once the've "tasted blood" of pirated music. In a way, publishing of any content is in a state of darwinism: adapt to the digital era or die if . It will be interesting to see how things play out as im sure Hollywood is relentlessly scheming as I write.  

 

[juiceesquire]

Meth does no wrong.

MIRC is so primitive man, I remember using that back in '04

-The Juice

 

[Methodical Management]

I agree with your views of the artist needing to be compensated. I just feel society will not be willing to revert to the old model once the've "tasted blood" of pirated music. In a way, publishing of any content is in a state of darwinism: adapt to the digital era or die if . It will be interesting to see how things play out as im sure Hollywood is relentlessly scheming as I write.  
Therein lies the problem:  you can't have a market-based economy for everything but digital content.  Something has to compel people to pay for it.  
At the moment, the industry's still operating under the rules of the old model:  something is manufactured, then distributed and sold.  The back end is theoretically unlimited:  you can sell as many copies as people are willing to buy.  Some investments make a return, others won't.  Someone who takes the product without paying for it is, at minimum, costing you the potential profits associated with the lost sale.  

If that holds, and people insist on pirating digital works, then tighter control on the Internet is the inevitable result.  In other words, you have to treat the Internet like the real world.  Most of the problems associated with the Internet revolve around the perception of anonymity - and users prove as much on forums like ours day in and day out.  If these abuses prove pervasive, then what you're going to find yourself with is a push for government issued Internet IDs.  The Internet becomes a surveillance state, and such is the consequence of treating it as an escapist fantasy world in which you can pretend to live consequence-free.  When people harass others online, that has real-world ramifications.  When people steal content online, that has real-world ramifications.  Swing the pendulum too fast and it's going to move just that hard in the opposite direction.  You reap what you sow.  

We're much better served by trying to figure out a way to allow artists to make a living through digital distribution.  If it's assumed that, once the files hit, nobody's going to pay for it - then, logically, artists will need to charge up front or else the work won't be produced.  It can't be a leap of faith for the artist if nobody will ever support them.  

If you go with the Kickstarter model, then you're returning, in a sense, to entrusting "patrons of the arts" with fostering the production of artistic work.  If you're willing to pay, then the work you enjoy experiencing will come to fruition.  You get to choose.  If not, then you're at the mercy of those who actually support the artists.  That's really the way it works now, in a sense, but because the record companies front the money, people act like there's just this magical never-ending pipeline that will always supply them with new art for free.  That mentality has to go if digital distribution is to survive.  

If A Tribe Called Quest says, "hey, we'll do a new studio album if you raise $2 million on Kickstarter.  If you pay $1,000, we'll send you two VIP passes to an upcoming show, and you can attend a meet and greet with us afterwards.  If you pay $500, we'll include your name in the digital booklet and send you a signed disc.  If you pay $50, we'll send you an autographed poster.  When the target's raised, we'll record the album, then release it to the world for free." would you support it, or would you just count on everyone else to raise the money FOR you?  If too many people opt for the latter, then the music doesn't get made and there's nothing to "steal."  Either it's a profitable venture or it isn't.  It won't be MADE unprofitable by people's unwillingness to pay for a product that they can easily steal.  

If you want to get rid of the record companies, then you have to replace their functionality.  You have to make sure that individuals, or alternative entities, have the ability to 1) finance projects and 2) help connect artists to an audience.  

If that can't work, and the only way artists can survive is by throwing their lot in with an industry group that will fight piracy tooth and nail, then enjoy your government issued Internet ID - because that's exactly where we're headed.  

Go ahead.  Accept the "challenge."  Fight fire with fire.

Personally, I'd rather fight fire with water and avoid getting burned. 

 

[pricankid9]

Originally Posted by cap1229

Originally Posted by Sleaze Jar Omens

Originally Posted by odog24


enlighten us pleighboii

whachu wan know, junya?

pm's gentlemen.

word

 

[noskey]

Meth, or anyone else who refuses to pirate, what are your thoughts on people who try before they buy? Like say I want to hear an album in full before I decide if it's worth paying for, so I pirate the music or movie. Is it unethical or illegal to really want to know if you'll enjoy the product?

FTR, I'm still in the minority of people that buy hard copies of media when I think it's worth paying for.

 

[voodoo]

I guess I'm too old because I just don't get the sense of entitlment to get music, movies, software, etc, for free. All of the digital music I have I purchased off of iTunes or amazon... it's not like the stuff is expensive. Back when I was a teen, you had to buy the entire album even if only 1 or 2 songs were good. These days you can preview and pick the songs you want (if you don't want the album) and it only cost about 99 cents a song. So to me, these are the good days because everything is so convenient and cheap... but this new generation rebels against having to pay for anything digital.

 

[doubled productions]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I guess I'm too old because I just don't get the sense of entitlment to get music, movies, software, etc, for free. All of the digital music I have I purchased off of iTunes or amazon... it's not like the stuff is expensive. Back when I was a teen, you had to buy the entire album even if only 1 or 2 songs were good. These days you can preview and pick the songs you want (if you don't want the album) and it only cost about 99 cents a song. So to me, these are the good days because everything is so convenient and cheap... but this new generation rebels against having to pay for anything digital.

I buy the artists music that I support and I don't buy from iTunes or Amazon, I want the physical cd. People don't understand 
that a lot of times when people download a cd or song illegally they most likely were never going to purchase that artists' music

anyway. They are taking a chance on an artist and listening to something that they otherwise wouldn't have. There are plenty of

artists that I'm now a fan of that I would have overlooked if I HAD to drop $15 on their cd just to initially hear it. Now that I've 

heard the music and I like it, I'm a fan. I follow them on Twitter, talk positively about them to the people I know and ultimately

put people around me on to a new artist.

In todays industry, the popular consensus of an artist is way more important than their sales numbers (although I cannot deny 

that sales numbers do have an impact on their label situation) in my opinion. Most artists are not eating off of album sales, they

are eating off of tour money, merchandise, spins etc. After I hear some music that I downloaded and I like it I'm an advertisement 

for the artist, and if I don't like it, I wouldn't have bought it or been exposed to this artist anyway.  

 

[DCAllAfrican]

So can I be tracked (of course I can) if I only use MegaUpload type sites that people post links of on other messageboards?

 

[nocomment6]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by cartune

pretty sure they dont care about random people in there basements using private ftp sites.

They just dont want millions of people sharing files on public sites

They know about yall they just dont care...yet

Pretty much. Things like Ultraviolet, Spotify, etc. 

Originally Posted by nocomment6

but you guys or more importantly the industry is forgetting, that even with piracy at large, music, movie and porn industries are all booming and will keep doing so. 

Booming? Evidence? 

I'm all for these measures. 

This is the sales of iTunes alone:

And yeah studies say that income has gone down by 3 percent in the box offices, not a too big deal, compared to other forms of income.

Look at stock prices, Walt Disney has gone from 18 to over 40 dollars in the past 3 years.

Universal is over 50, starting at around 30 three years ago. Warners have had a low of nearly 5 dollars, but are at 35 currently, I know these only display income and so on slightly, but they do portray it to some extent. And regardless of album sales, all major companies have been able to expand.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with buying material, but maybe there are places some can't simply afford it or I don't know, I think it's just something they should adjust to in some extent. Because online sales are going up, even though the sad truth is that the artist we wish to support most likely only gets about 50 cents after each album sold.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

Originally Posted by voodoo

I guess I'm too old because I just don't get the sense of entitlment to get music, movies, software, etc, for free. All of the digital music I have I purchased off of iTunes or amazon... it's not like the stuff is expensive. Back when I was a teen, you had to buy the entire album even if only 1 or 2 songs were good. These days you can preview and pick the songs you want (if you don't want the album) and it only cost about 99 cents a song. So to me, these are the good days because everything is so convenient and cheap... but this new generation rebels against having to pay for anything digital.

I buy the artists music that I support and I don't buy from iTunes or Amazon, I want the physical cd. People don't understand 
that a lot of times when people download a cd or song illegally they most likely were never going to purchase that artists' music

anyway. They are taking a chance on an artist and listening to something that they otherwise wouldn't have. There are plenty of

artists that I'm now a fan of that I would have overlooked if I HAD to drop $15 on their cd just to initially hear it. Now that I've 

heard the music and I like it, I'm a fan. I follow them on Twitter, talk positively about them to the people I know and ultimately

put people around me on to a new artist.

In todays industry, the popular consensus of an artist is way more important than their sales numbers (although I cannot deny 

that sales numbers do have an impact on their label situation) in my opinion. Most artists are not eating off of album sales, they

are eating off of tour money, merchandise, spins etc. After I hear some music that I downloaded and I like it I'm an advertisement 

for the artist, and if I don't like it, I wouldn't have bought it or been exposed to this artist anyway.  

Why do you feel like that logic is ok for music, but not for anything else?  When you go to a restaurant, do you expect them to allow you to eat for free?  If you like the food then they'll get their money from you "adversising" for them telling everyone you know their food is good.  They'll just print up some t-shirts and souvenirs to sell while they let everybody eat for free.

These days you don't have to pay $15 for an album just to hear it, you can preview all the songs for free and you can get individual songs for about a dollar each. 

The excuse that "people that downloaded the pirated album weren't going to purchase the album anyway" isn't a good justification for stealing.

 

[doubled productions]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

Originally Posted by voodoo

I guess I'm too old because I just don't get the sense of entitlment to get music, movies, software, etc, for free. All of the digital music I have I purchased off of iTunes or amazon... it's not like the stuff is expensive. Back when I was a teen, you had to buy the entire album even if only 1 or 2 songs were good. These days you can preview and pick the songs you want (if you don't want the album) and it only cost about 99 cents a song. So to me, these are the good days because everything is so convenient and cheap... but this new generation rebels against having to pay for anything digital.

I buy the artists music that I support and I don't buy from iTunes or Amazon, I want the physical cd. People don't understand 
that a lot of times when people download a cd or song illegally they most likely were never going to purchase that artists' music

anyway. They are taking a chance on an artist and listening to something that they otherwise wouldn't have. There are plenty of

artists that I'm now a fan of that I would have overlooked if I HAD to drop $15 on their cd just to initially hear it. Now that I've 

heard the music and I like it, I'm a fan. I follow them on Twitter, talk positively about them to the people I know and ultimately

put people around me on to a new artist.

In todays industry, the popular consensus of an artist is way more important than their sales numbers (although I cannot deny 

that sales numbers do have an impact on their label situation) in my opinion. Most artists are not eating off of album sales, they

are eating off of tour money, merchandise, spins etc. After I hear some music that I downloaded and I like it I'm an advertisement 

for the artist, and if I don't like it, I wouldn't have bought it or been exposed to this artist anyway.  

Why do you feel like that logic is ok for music, but not for anything else?  When you go to a restaurant, do you expect them to allow you to eat for free?  If you like the food then they'll get their money from you "adversising" for them telling everyone you know their food is good.  They'll just print up some t-shirts and souvenirs to sell while they let everybody eat for free.

These days you don't have to pay $15 for an album just to hear it, you can preview all the songs for free and you can get individual songs for about a dollar each. 

The excuse that "people that downloaded the pirated album weren't going to purchase the album anyway" isn't a good justification for stealing.

You sound frustrated. Do I expect to walk into a restaurant and eat for free? Your analogy doesn't mesh well, but I'll bite. 
Did you ever hear of coupons? Entertainment book? Groupon? These places want to get you in the door so you can try
the food at a good price and hopefully come back while also influencing others to eat there. Have you ever been to Sam's

Club or walked through the mall food court? Why are they handing out free samples? That's advertising, or "adversising" as 

you put it.  

I'm not one to judge someone based on their age, but just reading your response you do seem a little old. The music industry

has changed, and the artists that have been able to adapt are the ones that are successful. If initially hearing an artist's music

for free wasn't a solid business model, then why would so many artists release entire projects for free? They're establishing

loyalty, the same way that the restaurants are trying to. 

Don't get me wrong, I buy music. In the past year I've bought 20+ physical cds, which is more than most of the people that I

know - even those who regurgitate the same argument that you're making. So, as a consumer, I do feel entitled to download

music. If you don't like it then that is fine because we each have an opinion and have to be held accountable for our actions, but

please don't try to condescend to the younger generation just because things have changed.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

I buy the artists music that I support and I don't buy from iTunes or Amazon, I want the physical cd. People don't understand 
that a lot of times when people download a cd or song illegally they most likely were never going to purchase that artists' music

anyway. They are taking a chance on an artist and listening to something that they otherwise wouldn't have. There are plenty of

artists that I'm now a fan of that I would have overlooked if I HAD to drop $15 on their cd just to initially hear it. Now that I've 

heard the music and I like it, I'm a fan. I follow them on Twitter, talk positively about them to the people I know and ultimately

put people around me on to a new artist.

In todays industry, the popular consensus of an artist is way more important than their sales numbers (although I cannot deny 

that sales numbers do have an impact on their label situation) in my opinion. Most artists are not eating off of album sales, they

are eating off of tour money, merchandise, spins etc. After I hear some music that I downloaded and I like it I'm an advertisement 

for the artist, and if I don't like it, I wouldn't have bought it or been exposed to this artist anyway.  

Why do you feel like that logic is ok for music, but not for anything else?  When you go to a restaurant, do you expect them to allow you to eat for free?  If you like the food then they'll get their money from you "adversising" for them telling everyone you know their food is good.  They'll just print up some t-shirts and souvenirs to sell while they let everybody eat for free.

These days you don't have to pay $15 for an album just to hear it, you can preview all the songs for free and you can get individual songs for about a dollar each. 

The excuse that "people that downloaded the pirated album weren't going to purchase the album anyway" isn't a good justification for stealing.

You sound frustrated. Do I expect to walk into a restaurant and eat for free? Your analogy doesn't mesh well, but I'll bite. 
Did you ever hear of coupons? Entertainment book? Groupon? These places want to get you in the door so you can try
the food at a good price and hopefully come back while also influencing others to eat there. Have you ever been to Sam's

Club or walked through the mall food court? Why are they handing out free samples? That's advertising, or "adversising" as 

you put it.  

I'm not one to judge someone based on their age, but just reading your response you do seem a little old. The music industry

has changed, and the artists that have been able to adapt are the ones that are successful. If initially hearing an artist's music

for free wasn't a solid business model, then why would so many artists release entire projects for free? They're establishing

loyalty, the same way that the restaurants are trying to. 

Don't get me wrong, I buy music. In the past year I've bought 20+ physical cds, which is more than most of the people that I

know - even those who regurgitate the same argument that you're making. So, as a consumer, I do feel entitled to download

music. If you don't like it then that is fine because we each have an opinion and have to be held accountable for our actions, but

please don't try to condescend to the younger generation just because things have changed.

That's the thing, just like with coupons for stores and restaurants... some music content is put out at a discounted price or even free samples just to get it out there.  We know that's not the same as downloading pirated albums while trying to justify it with "it's advertising". 

More has changed and is changing than just the music industry.  The sense of entitlement to get digital content for free is resulting in more laws and more restrictions on the internet.  You can't just steal content then say "well the good artist better know how to adapt".  You only apply this logic to music (and digital content) because you know it's currently easier to get away with it.  I doubt you're an advocate of shoplifting while using the justification "the good retail chains better adapt and just learn to deal with getting ripped off",  "they shouldn't seek to decrease or prevent shoplifting because hey this a new generation and we don't expect to pay for &*^$."

 

[doubled productions]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

Originally Posted by voodoo



Why do you feel like that logic is ok for music, but not for anything else?  When you go to a restaurant, do you expect them to allow you to eat for free?  If you like the food then they'll get their money from you "adversising" for them telling everyone you know their food is good.  They'll just print up some t-shirts and souvenirs to sell while they let everybody eat for free.

These days you don't have to pay $15 for an album just to hear it, you can preview all the songs for free and you can get individual songs for about a dollar each. 

The excuse that "people that downloaded the pirated album weren't going to purchase the album anyway" isn't a good justification for stealing.

You sound frustrated. Do I expect to walk into a restaurant and eat for free? Your analogy doesn't mesh well, but I'll bite. 
Did you ever hear of coupons? Entertainment book? Groupon? These places want to get you in the door so you can try
the food at a good price and hopefully come back while also influencing others to eat there. Have you ever been to Sam's

Club or walked through the mall food court? Why are they handing out free samples? That's advertising, or "adversising" as 

you put it.  

I'm not one to judge someone based on their age, but just reading your response you do seem a little old. The music industry

has changed, and the artists that have been able to adapt are the ones that are successful. If initially hearing an artist's music

for free wasn't a solid business model, then why would so many artists release entire projects for free? They're establishing

loyalty, the same way that the restaurants are trying to. 

Don't get me wrong, I buy music. In the past year I've bought 20+ physical cds, which is more than most of the people that I

know - even those who regurgitate the same argument that you're making. So, as a consumer, I do feel entitled to download

music. If you don't like it then that is fine because we each have an opinion and have to be held accountable for our actions, but

please don't try to condescend to the younger generation just because things have changed.

That's the thing, just like with coupons for stores and restaurants... some music content is put out at a discounted price or even free samples just to get it out there.  We know that's not the same as downloading pirated albums while trying to justify it with "it's advertising". 

More has changed and is changing than just the music industry.  The sense of entitlement to get digital content for free is resulting in more laws and more restrictions on the internet.  You can't just steal content then say "well the good artist better know how to adapt".  You only apply this logic to music (and digital content) because you know it's currently easier to get away with it.  I doubt you're an advocate of shoplifting while using the justification "the good retail chains better adapt and just learn to deal with getting ripped off",  "they shouldn't seek to decrease or prevent shoplifting because hey this a new generation and we don't expect to pay for &*^$."

Yeah, you don't make much sense. But I'll agree to disagree. Have a good day.

 

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

Originally Posted by voodoo

Originally Posted by DoubleD Productions

You sound frustrated. Do I expect to walk into a restaurant and eat for free? Your analogy doesn't mesh well, but I'll bite. 
Did you ever hear of coupons? Entertainment book? Groupon? These places want to get you in the door so you can try
the food at a good price and hopefully come back while also influencing others to eat there. Have you ever been to Sam's

Club or walked through the mall food court? Why are they handing out free samples? That's advertising, or "adversising" as 

you put it.  

I'm not one to judge someone based on their age, but just reading your response you do seem a little old. The music industry

has changed, and the artists that have been able to adapt are the ones that are successful. If initially hearing an artist's music

for free wasn't a solid business model, then why would so many artists release entire projects for free? They're establishing

loyalty, the same way that the restaurants are trying to. 

Don't get me wrong, I buy music. In the past year I've bought 20+ physical cds, which is more than most of the people that I

know - even those who regurgitate the same argument that you're making. So, as a consumer, I do feel entitled to download

music. If you don't like it then that is fine because we each have an opinion and have to be held accountable for our actions, but

please don't try to condescend to the younger generation just because things have changed.

That's the thing, just like with coupons for stores and restaurants... some music content is put out at a discounted price or even free samples just to get it out there.  We know that's not the same as downloading pirated albums while trying to justify it with "it's advertising". 

More has changed and is changing than just the music industry.  The sense of entitlement to get digital content for free is resulting in more laws and more restrictions on the internet.  You can't just steal content then say "well the good artist better know how to adapt".  You only apply this logic to music (and digital content) because you know it's currently easier to get away with it.  I doubt you're an advocate of shoplifting while using the justification "the good retail chains better adapt and just learn to deal with getting ripped off",  "they shouldn't seek to decrease or prevent shoplifting because hey this a new generation and we don't expect to pay for &*^$."

Yeah, you don't make much sense. But I'll agree to disagree. Have a good day.

   I guess I shouldn't expect to make sense to someone who defines & justifies downloading pirated content as "advertising".  I'll agree to disagree as well.

 

[pharelfor3]

As long as I can still find my pron