(07-08-2009, 08:52 PM)Lavazza Wrote: ...the manager was amazed that we returned to pay for them when we could easily not have. But it wasn't the 'good' type of amazement. He proceeded to explain how it never would have been noticed, and are we sure we want to pay for this (which we did), etc... All of his body language and choice of words non-verbally told us that he thought we were pretty stupid.
Evidently, that manager didn't care because it was just a job to him. If it had been a family-run business, the owner would have surely been most appreciative! But nowadays, since most businesses are corporate, there's very little sense of loyalty to the company.
(07-09-2009, 02:37 PM)Lavazza Wrote: ...However the base of the RIAA's complaint is still legitimate I think, that people should not get music without paying for it. Speaking simply (and of course it is complicated), a music artist signs on with a record label. The artist gets promotion and the label gets money when the artist does well. But if you download it for free, both the artist and label lose out financially.
I myself have mixed feelings on this. I think the whole system needs an overhaul. I know a lot of musicians have felt ripped off by the record companies for a very long time, and I'm not sure that it's any better with the downloading system. And, it's difficult to know where to draw the line. Think about it: We've all grown up listening to music on the radio for free, and watching music videos on tv for free, and we have always had the ability to record them. I still have my old collection of cassette tapes I recorded off the radio back in the 70s! So how is copying from the internet any different, really? I'm not saying it's ok; just that it's a difficult situation. I would like to see the artists benefit more and not be so dependent on the record companies, and that is happening, thankfully. There are lots of artists who sell their music on the internet without a record company. They're not mainstream, but then, most of the best music (imo) tends to not be mainstream.
(07-09-2009, 02:37 PM)Lavazza Wrote: I've heard that a lot of bands (like Nine Inch Nails) are going more in the direction of giving away free music and then charging money for live shows as a business model... But unless this is the intent of the musicians, aren't we going against the wishes?
Remember when Metallica made a big deal about it and alienated their fans? How ironic. Yet they did have the right to feel as they did.
(07-09-2009, 03:32 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: I don't feel guilty over copying the music I do like... I just feel angry at being called a criminal for it.
Wow, thanks Ali! I was hiding my head in shame. Now I feel better.
(07-09-2009, 03:33 PM)ayadew Wrote: And I feel strongly that money has only brought us separation, and it's my strongest motivation to why I pirate - to encourage the action of spreading freely, and find solutions that do not require money.
It's definitely not a black-and-white issue. What about when we copy a cd to give to friend who's depressed, and the music cheers them up?
I do try to support artists and buy music whenever possible. But I also loooooooove turning people on to music! So I create 'sampler' cds of music to give to people - it's truly a love of mine. Now, with youtube, I like to send links to live videos of great shows, that might otherwise have been forgotten. I see tremendous value in this and cannot fathom limiting myself to ONLY sharing cds I've actually bought.
Music is food for the soul...and, as has been pointed out, copying it does not diminish it. Sort of like the saying "A candle loses none of its light by lighting another candle."
Ideally, art, like knowledge, should be freely given and enjoyed by all!
And yet, I do think the artists should be compensated somehow...but I don't have a solution for that. The system needs an overhaul.