Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Downloading music
woods93
Explorer
I know downloading or pirating music is generally frowned upon and technically stealing. I was just wanting other members view on downloading music from a buddhist prespective. Is it really that bad to do?
0
Comments
It also is taking the work of an artist and giving them nothing in return. If at an arts and crafts festival you were to shoplift items that the artist worked hard for then that would obviously be breaking the second precept.
I'm not sure if there is a Buddhist perspective other than the five precepts saying not to steal.
I do differentiate between something (such as a book or music) that is out of print or no longer produced. But, that is rarely the case when it comes to downloading music.
OP...I think you already knew the answer...after all, you called it pirating.
If I can't find it available for download, then I will see if the CD is available (used or new)-- and sometimes costs a pretty penny (I don't regret purchasing a $70 import disc online of Machaut's Notre Dame mass), but is worth it.
But for a great deal of other music, its just a buck, so what's the problem? Just pay for it. The sound quality is generally better anyway.
I spent a few thousand dollars making the album, not to mention the time and effort that went into it all. It can be discouraging when I think about it in that way, but I try not to. I knew from the beginning that this is the way that music is these days. Anyone who expects to make money selling their music is deluding themselves. The great thing about the internet is that it is much easier to promote your music nowadays. The bad thing about the internet is that it is just too easy to download music for free, and since it seems that people have access to the internet 24/7 there isn't really even any need to download the music when it is available for streaming.
I have most of my music available for streaming and that is a personal choice. I could take it all down and insist that if people want to listen to my music they need to pay for it, but that seems contrary to the spirit of the music that I am making. Also, how can I expect anyone to pay for my music if they have never heard it before?
My attitude is basically that I will keep making music regardless if anyone pays me to do so, because I don't play music to get paid. I play music because I love to (and because I "need to" in the sense of having a creative outlet).
If everyone who listened to my music bought a copy of my album, it would allow me to have the funds to make another album. But that just isn't how it works anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party
I have never downloaded an iTunes paid music track.
Every Monday Apple release a free track.
That'll do me. Rest Youtube will do - not sure what the status is there . . .
I have not 'jailbreaked' my Ipad or IPod Touch.
I come from the freedom of free software with Puppy Linux on my hardly used desktop.
Creative Commons music or similar will do for me on the desktop.
http://creativecommons.org/
In many ways Apple is the antithesis of music freedom, unless you are able to pay, in which case it is easy to feel free of musical hassle . . . :rocker:
If the musicians and other artists are giving the fruits of their labour freely then there is no breach of the precept.
If they are not,.. there clearly is a breach of the precept.
As an indie, I've yet to recover my own costs for producing my CDs.
That said, for me, personally, I'd rather have my music listened to and obtained for free than ignored because it may cost too much (despite the 99 cents price).
Actually, that doesn't explain my view very clearly.
Let me illustrate my position with an example;
Someone acts in a play. You could say they are fulfilling a need for therapy because it uplifts peoples mood or what not.
Someone invents a video camera. Now the therapeutic need of the play can be more effectively distributed. The need is met better. The actor isn't needed to quite the extent he/she once was.
Whoever sells the video cameras is fulfilling a need. Whoever sells the empty video tapes is fulfilling a need etc. If the actor isn't working any more, then why should they be paid for something they did in the past?
If you can get something without X, then X is no longer needed. Its pointless to pay X when X isn't fulfilling a need.
It's ludicrous not to pay for things made in the past. My computer was made in the past, but it is wrong for someone to steal it from me.
As far as those musicians on record labels that operate on the traditional model, the MUSICIANS aren't the ones losing out much because musicians make very little from CD or MP3 sales. The majority of that money goes to the record companies, the engineer, the producer, etc. Being signed onto a record label is little more than indentured servitude.
A lot of bands don't have a problem with illegal downloads-- the record companies do. None of this makes it OK, but I hardly weep for the losses of record companies. It is a an old model and the internet is slowly undermining this system. A new approach to music distribution is still evolving, but the traditional model is going to go the way of the dinosaurs-- and the record execs know it.
If you want to get really technical about it, if you go to YouTube to view or listen to most things uploaded on it, you are doing just as much as downloading the file illegally.
Click on this and you are....
Breakin' the law, breakin' the law!
If an artist is ok with it to get his name out, then terrific, more power to him to place his work available in such places. But those who don't want their material out there, have the legal right to resist that. I realize that a lot of that is the record companies, and I think most of them have some horrible policies. However, that doesn't make taking something online, just because it's available, ok. I don't want movies online on youtube, either, for the same reason. or music videos put out by anyone other than the artist/studio. My friend I mentioned, they have a band, they do tours in the midwest, and so on. To him, it's really important that his work not be stolen, and I respect his (and other's wishes) and realize that just because I want something, doesn't make it ok to take if the person who made it is hoping to get paid. I try to be careful even in what photos and videos I share online, because my husband and a few friends of ours who are photographers who have had their work used for free by the media and other sources. They work hard to produce what they do.
I don't think you can literally own intellectual property. Its a convention made for modern society.
No form of words no matter how confused, obfuscates that.
Its actually black and white.
It is taking the not freely given. If someone decides to take the not freely given then they have made their choice. But thats what it is. And the Buddha is reported to have said that this will have an impact on their ability to see things as they are.
radiohead recently released an album called In Rainbows (2007) where you could pay any amount you found reasonable. I really like stuff like that.
if I were a big-shot guitarist I would give all my music out for free. Concerts and shows is where you make all the big money anyway
When I lived in Thailand, most Thais considered me rich. Therefore, it was all right to steal from me.
In most of the third world almost all of us on this forum would be considered rich. Therefore, it would be all right to steal from us.
Most corporations are "rich". Therefore it would be all right to steal almost anything produced.
There are rich Buddhist temples and poor Buddhist temples. So it would be all right for the poor temples to steal from the rich temples.
Artists such as Ani DiFranco would not be famous if it was not for bootlegs and people copying cds and tapes. Ani got famous and grew a large fan-base because people would trade tapes. When music is available like it is now it is easier for artists to promote their music, in the end downloading is not really new. Like I said people would copy cds and tapes before too.
Obviously it is not good, but at the same time it is not entirely bad.
I think it is interesting to see how soft people were on people actually fishing and killing fish, when someone writes about downloading some music people are like: "IT IS BAAAAD". While fishing etc... it is just uuuhmmm, depends on your intent. Come on people, it is not all white and black with downloading.
For what it's worth, the problem is more in uploading/sharing than it is in downloading, though you can still find yourself in hot water with your ISP and lose your service for downloading, too. If you like the music, why not pay for it so the artist can continue to produce more? If you can't pay for it, then wait until you can. Where else in the world can you decide you deserve something for free because you can't afford it (or just don't want to pay for it)? No where. I can't decide to walk into B&N and take a book because I'm not sure I'll like it or not. I can't walk into the grocery store and steal food because I think we shouldn't have to pay for food. As much work goes into creating an album as it does for someone to create a book or grow and harvest lettuce.
from the library when you could instead pay the creators for those things? Millions of
people do this.
Is it wrong to buy a used CD rather than pay for a new one?
Is it wrong to buy a CD and use it to DJ with?
Is it wrong to buy a CD and take samples off of it to make ones own music with?
Who should get to decide how much rights someone has over a product they buy?
The first one, you bought the CD so you can sell it.
For DJing you bought the CD so you can play it to your 'friends' at the party.
Just for the sake of intellectual discussion, is it wrong to rent books, music, or movies
from the library when you could instead pay the creators for those things? Millions of
people do this.
The libraries and other places pay for the material LEGALLY with the understanding people will borrow it. That is how they work. It is completely legal. But it is still one copy of something the library purchases and owns. They can lend it out, and get it back, and lend it out again. You can do the same with things you own. However, it would NOT be legal to rent a book from the library, and copy the book to have your own free copy. It would not be ok for you to make a million copies of the book and dole it out to friends. Even if you own the book, you own the one book that contains the information. You do not own the information within it.