p2p/file sharing

So, with the fairly recent news that Limewire losing a court case and being almost forced to shut down, I was wondering what you all think about file sharing/p2p sites.

(http://www.helium.com/items/1835334-limewire-likely-to-shut-down-in-summer-of-2010)

Personally I think the main reason people steal music is that it costs too much. Even if all mp3 songs were 50p each, to fill an 8GB iGarbage nano completely legally, it would cost £1000. For young people, that's almost impossible (It would be almost 1/4 of the wage for a 16-17 year old in the UK). For adults, it's a good portion of a years salary.

If music was less expensive, more people would buy it. The 'worst' affected artists (those who get music 'stolen' more than others) are those who already earn millions of pounds anyway, add on the extortionate price of band tickets and merchandise and they're already rolling in your money.


I buy a CD or two from each artist occationally to support them (I don't like the **** they put in the charts so most of the bands I listen to need the money) but I still listen to the mp3 I got illegally. For most people, if they literally could not get the music for free, they would not get it at all (or would either have very little music in their collections or would solely rely on YouTube etc for it) So the notion that illegal downloading is damaging the music industry is ignorant and largely false.


For those who disagree with file sharing, what about for artists that are dead? Surely they aren't paticularly in need of it when they're six feet under.


Discuss.

Lets face it, ever since itunes jacked up their prices Im pretty sure lots of people went to bootleg. Its almost what? 2 bucks per song? That`s ridiculous.

I think that P2P could actually be considered helpful to, not just the music industry, but to other things as well. You can download music, movies, books, etc. from these types of things.
Some people download things to "test out" how they think of it. Why spend money on a movie that you might not even like? Some people will download it and, if they like it, go out and buy the movie. By doing this, they learn more of what they like.
They like one movie by a certain director, they're more likely to by another movie by that same director. They like music from one artist, they're more likely to buy more music from that same artist.
I think P2P sharing doesn't do any harm to the economy. People that use it are, a lot of times, people that can't afford what they're downloading. So, without P2P, they wouldn't be getting what they want, and they still wouldn't be spending any money. But with P2P, they can get what they want, but still not spend money.
Either way, money isn't being spent. But why not maybe push the downloader more towards supporting the people behind what he or she is downloading?

We actually had this same discussion at the start of the year.
I can't remember what my stance was then, but I'm pretty sure it was similar to mine now.
I can't be arsed paying.
If I could convince my mom to let me join a free site, I would.
It's not like the musicians are gonna go bankrupt, they make money off other stuff, not just downloads.

I mostly Download my songs, however I only buy the CDs of Bands which I enjoy because it feels better knowing I own the hard copy.

Most of the cash from CD sales goes to producer anyway. Bands mainly get their revenue from Live shows.

CRAZY CHEATS said:

It's not like the musicians are gonna go bankrupt, they make money off other stuff, not just downloads.

Exactly. Artists make money off of so many other things, like their live shows, the clothing they sell, the 'collectibles' they sell, and, of course, the people that buy their albums.

Jirachi X said:

I mostly Download my songs, however I only buy the CDs of Bands which I enjoy because it feels better knowing I own the hard copy.

That's how I feel too. First of all, you can download to see if you enjoy what you're downloading, so you don't buy whatever it is, then find out later that it wasn't worth the money. And, a lot of people, like you, will still buy actual albums or movies because having the case it comes in and the booklet it comes with is worth it.

People will also still by actual albums/movies because they like it enough that they want to support the creators of it.

Kairos said:

CRAZY CHEATS said:

It's not like the musicians are gonna go bankrupt, they make money off other stuff, not just downloads.

Exactly. Artists make money off of so many other things, like their live shows, the clothing they sell, the 'collectibles' they sell, and, of course, the people that buy their albums.

So... these artists have lots of money. They can make a good living without the profits that you have just stolen from them. Do you think that this justifies what you have done?
I personally believe that theft is wrong. Period. So... regardless if the guy selling the song is a millionaire, or has no money at all, stealing from them is wrong.

No one can be bothered to pay for every song they want. I only listen to a song for a week before it bores my ear(unless its an extremely good song).

I think if they drop the prize down to 50p then more people will actually buy legally, even though it's still expensive it's not as bad. However soon everyone will be forced to buy music the right way anyway because of the law.

So pretty much you are saying that you do not care at all about morality? You do not care what is right or wrong? I doubt that we can really continue debating this topic... if no one cares to debate.

"I cannot be bothered to pay" is hardly a statement of opinion, it is just a fact that you will continue to commit crimes until you are stopped.

Patriot X said:

So pretty much you are saying that you do not care at all about morality? You do not care what is right or wrong? I doubt that we can really continue debating this topic... if no one cares to debate.

"I cannot be bothered to pay" is hardly a statement of opinion, it is just a fact that you will continue to commit crimes until you are stopped.

I agree with your last statement, but then there has been no one that decided to challenge anyone's opinions or statements. It takes two to debate.

Well I disagreed with many of the above statements, but it seems that no one is concerned with posting in return. They have just went back to downloading music and such against the law

I go two ways on this one.

I do use a file sharing program to download music and fonts, if they're popular enough to be available there. However, if I can't find a decent, working copy from file sharing, or if I have no access to a file sharing application, I just buy the song or font. However, I don't trust programs (such as desktop publishing or graphics programs) that are distributed through peer-to-peer networks, since (unlike a song or font file) there is a strong likelihood that the program could be a Trojan or the security key might not work. I've been able to pay for an academic version of Microsoft Office 2010 since I'm a student. I can afford an academic version of Adobe CS5 Design Premium, which is available at the local Staples, but it only gives you one licence, and considering that my laptop is three years old I don't feel comfortable installing it on an old computer that could die from too much abuse.

The way I see it, peer-to-peer networks aren't much more than receiving a song or font from a friend via IM, and I have sent and received songs via Windows Live Messenger. Moreover, once a person buys a song �?? which is where it usually begins �?? that file is technically their property and they have the right to disseminate it as they will. Immoral it is, but legally it's difficult to tell whether you're sending a song to a friend or knowingly disseminating it over a network.

Patriot X said:

Well I disagreed with many of the above statements, but it seems that no one is concerned with posting in return. They have just went back to downloading music and such against the law

There is a reason why this forum is called Debate and Discussion. People don't have to come in here & pound out arguments & rebuttles. This forum is soley for topics & conversation which is more formal than General Chat. If people wish to Debate, that's fine. But if people wish to Discuss, or even post their ideas in a manner fitting the forum (ie; more than just "yeah I do this!") and then leave then that's their right.

Cross Stinger said:

I go two ways on this one.

I do use a file sharing program to download music and fonts, if they're popular enough to be available there. However, if I can't find a decent, working copy from file sharing, or if I have no access to a file sharing application, I just buy the song or font. However, I don't trust programs (such as desktop publishing or graphics programs) that are distributed through peer-to-peer networks, since (unlike a song or font file) there is a strong likelihood that the program could be a Trojan or the security key might not work. I've been able to pay for an academic version of Microsoft Office 2010 since I'm a student. I can afford an academic version of Adobe CS5 Design Premium, which is available at the local Staples, but it only gives you one licence, and considering that my laptop is three years old I don't feel comfortable installing it on an old computer that could die from too much abuse.

The way I see it, peer-to-peer networks aren't much more than receiving a song or font from a friend via IM, and I have sent and received songs via Windows Live Messenger. Moreover, once a person buys a song �?? which is where it usually begins �?? that file is technically their property and they have the right to disseminate it as they will. Immoral it is, but legally it's difficult to tell whether you're sending a song to a friend or knowingly disseminating it over a network.

I agree. I used to use LimeWire before it got closed down, and Kazaa before that. I'm not someone that will sit on my computer for 16+ hours a day downloading 10,000 songs without paying. Wholesale downloading such as that is something I do disagree with.

However not all music is readily available to me. There are a multitude of bands that I cannot get here in New Zealand, and I simply cannot afford to pay 5x or more the regular price for an album and then pay shipping just so I can listen to one song. That's where I used P2P Networks.

However I also buy hardcopies of music I am able to get my hands on.


« Last edited by sphynxx on Dec 9th 2010 »

I always buy albums when I can and have enough money, but I'm a 15 year old with no job and my mum doesn't have the best paid job, and my dad doesn't work. So if I do get money it's usually spent on clothes or days out.. More important than music in my eyes, but I still buy albums when I can and I love having a CD rather than a file on a computer. When I do get a job (which should be soon (: ) I'll definitely lower my use of downloading, but I won't force it out completely, seen as it obviously won't be a well paid job xD

I dislike it when people just download illegally constantly with no interest with buying any music at all, though. ._.

It does come across as bad karma, but what do you expect people to do. It's human nature to do things which are wrong.

If they want to make it illegal then they should put the effort to make it difficult for people to download it.

But it won't change the overall sales that much because if people can afford to buy, they buy and if they can't, they don't.

If you really want a better discussion than this one, there is one that is in this forum from earlier.

That being said, most of the responses here I summarize thusly, "I have a sense of entitlement. If these people wouldn't charge so much, then maybe I'd buy it. They make so much money anyway. Who am I hurting? If it wasn't so easy, maybe I wouldn't do it so much."

Just because something is digital, doesn't mean it's not someone else's property. Music, programs, movies, fonts, etc. are goods that are for sale and you are stealing them. You wouldn't steal money out of your grandmother's purse just because it was easy, would you?