Shocking: 95 Percent Music Downloads Still Illegal

[captaincharisma]

The RIAA is too greedy and stupid. it will never happen.

 

[PATRONRECORDS]

CAN ANYBODY HELP ON THIS ! I'M LOOKING FOR A SERVICE TO SELL RINGTONES TO LATIN AND SOUTH AMERICA ETC. BUT HOW CAN I HOOK THE PEOPLE UP FROM NOT CALLING INTERNATIONAL, SHOULD I LOOK FOR SITES IN THEIR COUNTRIES OR DOES THE USA CELL PHONE PROVIDERS AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT INTO DIFF. LANGUAGES. NEED HELP

 

[heffeque]

Good thing that it's legal in my country (as it should be in all countries).

 

[resonance451]

[citation][nom]Intelligence[/nom]Hi, I'm the self-important personification of the greater good naming myself Intelligence and claiming I'm the final word on morality.[/citation]

Sorry to be so outwardly irritated with your stupidity, but you fail. Piracy in the music industry is entirely misunderstood, and it has nothing to do with the justification of my part in it. I don't pirate music anymore. In fact, I've bought over 10,000 songs on iTunes. In this industry, the actual effect of things very much does matter. If you ignore all positive and negative effects and exactly who is impacted and how, you ignore the facts and the truth in favor of your simplistic morals that don't take everything into account.

So, because I hate the record labels, I should stop listening to music? Way to make a sound argument. I'll tell you what: when I do release my debut album, it's not going to be on a record label. And I'm going to convince other artists to do the same. You simply don't seem to get it: I am becoming part of the industry, and I am one of those who would be stolen from in this case. Read: I don't care. Don't act all high and mighty, because you're certainly not standing up for anybody.

Not only is capitalism not perfect, it's as much of a failure as communism was. In today's society, we are no longer citizens in a country, we are consumers in a corporation, one giant market that is the land of instant gratification and zero-accountability. I don't want to hear your justification for how it's alright to let the vampiric labels drain the musicians of their livelihood simply because it's legal. Two hundred years ago, black people were property, kind of like an iPod or your couch. And they had no more rights than a couch or an iPod. And people thought that was okay. the law did. And so it was the right way to think. Your thinking is just as sound.

Most of the artist's income comes from touring. But you're not very educated on the subject, or you would know that. Some are even going so far as to say "steal my music, I don't fucking care anymore". Read: NIN. And when he released his Ghosts album, DRM-free and in high quality and easy to steal, 800,000 people bought it in the first week. And almost all of that went to him and the people he worked with.

Your staunch support of a broken system in which we've all sold our souls out doesn't make you morally sound. It makes you a pompous dickhead. Get your shit straight.

 

[resonance451]

[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]everyone knows this and sense the advent of napster illegal music downloading is still in full force and that it affects everything. new bands these days just have one good album "there first one" because the first album is always the best because they are innovative and at there best but with there next album there so scared because of the state the music industry is in so they will tone it down or go completely different and fall into the vortex thats called mainstream music[/citation]

Ummmmmmmmmmm no. Mainstream low-risk music has nothing to do with the musician. The independent artist doesn't have profiteering labels to pander to, so he will take the risks. It's the labels that are looking at turning a large profit and search for low-risk acquisitions. Read: pop stars. What the hell do you think American Idol is? But go ahead, use your false logic. It's not as if it matters what the truth is anymore, you can buy it for $0.99 on eBay and sell half of it back for a million dollars.

 

[Guest]

This article is pure B.S, they have no way to measure all of the downloads at once, let alone figure out they are music at all except under specific cases. Even then -you can't tell what song is being downloaded so, and even if you could, it would have to be matches up against a database of all music and that would take too long just for one song so how can you tell if it's legal or not. You can't.

 

[deltatux]

Not shocked at all, why is it even a shocker?

 

[Guest]

If songs were $0.05 people wouldn't mind paying and the music industry would make more money than it does now. It will happen soon unless they find a way to bust everyone that ever downloaded music illegaly...Which is more likely?..Until either of these things happens pirating will chip away at the industry until it falls apart. With more poor countries getting access to the internet and computers. Pirating will only get worse. I doubt the RIAA will travel to Africa to sue some kid for downloading a few tunes.

 

[t85us]

novadays music is CRAP !!! music is all about money. what are those rap and hip-hop songs ? is that music ? all is made on computer. to pay for that ? you got to be kidding. anyone who isn't deaf and has a sound card with a mouse can "create" music.

what about king crimson and pink floyd and shadows.. those are who made something. kraftwerk , bee gees, mike oldfield, and so on.

 

[resonance451]

[citation][nom]t85us[/nom]novadays music is CRAP !!! music is all about money. what are those rap and hip-hop songs ? is that music ? all is made on computer. to pay for that ? you got to be kidding. anyone who isn't deaf and has a sound card with a mouse can "create" music.what about king crimson and pink floyd and shadows.. those are who made something. kraftwerk , bee gees, mike oldfield, and so on.[/citation]

That's a miserable generalization. The mainstream music garbage has been around for many decades. Unless you're telling me there were not a thousand Pink Floyd clones a number of years ago that released an album and then suddenly died off.

How it's made is entirely irrelevant. I do music production on my computer, and my setup has cost me tens of thousands of dollars. It's every bit as professional as one of those deluxe-sized studios with the miles of patch cord and mixer bays.

In spite of the garbage cluttering the music industry, there is actually quite a bit of incredible music that has come out recently, including a couple of albums that came out within the past year that I think can easily rival anything even Pink Floyd put out. Sorry, only the jaded fools who have lost all passion for anything will come to the conclusion that music is dead. It most certainly is not. In certain small quarters, it is thriving. That's the way it's always going to be.

 

[Guest]

Sorry to be so outwardly irritated with your stupidity, but you fail. Piracy in the music industry is entirely misunderstood, and it has nothing to do with the justification of my part in it. I don't pirate music anymore. In fact, I've bought over 10,000 songs on iTunes. In this industry, the actual effect of things very much does matter. If you ignore all positive and negative effects and exactly who is impacted and how, you ignore the facts and the truth in favor of your simplistic morals that don't take everything into account.

So, because I hate the record labels, I should stop listening to music? Way to make a sound argument. I'll tell you what: when I do release my debut album, it's not going to be on a record label. And I'm going to convince other artists to do the same. You simply don't seem to get it: I am becoming part of the industry, and I am one of those who would be stolen from in this case. Read: I don't care. Don't act all high and mighty, because you're certainly not standing up for anybody.

Not only is capitalism not perfect, it's as much of a failure as communism was. In today's society, we are no longer citizens in a country, we are consumers in a corporation, one giant market that is the land of instant gratification and zero-accountability. I don't want to hear your justification for how it's alright to let the vampiric labels drain the musicians of their livelihood simply because it's legal. Two hundred years ago, black people were property, kind of like an iPod or your couch. And they had no more rights than a couch or an iPod. And people thought that was okay. the law did. And so it was the right way to think. Your thinking is just as sound.

Most of the artist's income comes from touring. But you're not very educated on the subject, or you would know that. Some are even going so far as to say "steal my music, I don't fucking care anymore". Read: NIN. And when he released his Ghosts album, DRM-free and in high quality and easy to steal, 800,000 people bought it in the first week. And almost all of that went to him and the people he worked with.

Your staunch support of a broken system in which we've all sold our souls out doesn't make you morally sound. It makes you a pompous dickhead. Get your shit straight.

Go ahead an be irritated; it simply shows your lack of maturity when you approach something you wish to debate.

Piracy might be misunderstood in the music industry; rather than being concerned over immoral acts of theft, executives are simply angry about figures. I'm sure many couldn't care less about the artists' cash flow, and I'm sure some do. I'm very glad that you've decided to legally build a large digital music collection; we need more people like you. Strangely though, I don't remember saying that "the actual effect of things doesn't matter".

I find it interesting, however, that you think morals have levels of complexity. Honestly, I find morals to be relatively easy - arriving at the moral conclusion, or accepting said conclusion, can be difficult. However, if you bothered to read several of the previous posts above my original comment, you'll notice a slew of idiots who have no moral qualms about stealing due to their ridiculous justifications.

Lets see - how many people basically said that "Music today is crap; therefore its moral for me to steal something because I don't think highly of it"? Not only is that completely contradictory and hypocritical, but its plainly ignorant.

For you to think capitalism is as much of a fail as communism was shows you ignorance to this world. My family comes from an island named "Cuba", and let me tell you my friend - you are sorely mistaken when you infer that capitalism has failed along with communism. You cannot possibly comprehend the stark contrasts between socialistic economic policies and capitalistic policies. If you truly need me to elaborate on this point, its not worth my time because you're obviously not thinking straight.

I can't argue that America has turn into a consumer society; this is true, but not quite directly relevant to our discussion. I already mentioned that the business model isn't perfect; but I have a surprise for you: nothing has changed even in 100 years. Everybody acts like the RIAA and their greed are a recent phenomenon. Try finding a vinyl record produced in 1900 - the label will clearly tell you, verbatim: "this record cannot be sold for less than $1".

It's true that the executives drain money greedily from funds that could be going directly to the artist; then again, if you'll check some of the previous posts, people mention how "artists have enough money, they don't deserve those millions because I said so, therefore STEALING is okay!". I stand by my point when I say "If you don't like the fact that the product costs that much money, simply don't buy it". I never said stop listening to music - I simply said avoid the issue altogether, as opposed to STEALING. If society decided to react solely on impulses, we'd be in a pretty big mess. Imagine America completely disregarding red lights, stop signs; there is such a thing as common sense, with common decency, and common OBVIOUS morals.

Since stealing isn't an alternative, apart from not purchasing a particular product (that's what music has been for over 100 years at this point, since the first phonograph: a product) there's nothing more you can do. Nobody is forcing you to purchase that product, and despite label/artists contracts, I highly doubt that musicians want you to steal their music, as opposed to pay for it. Regardless of where they make a majority of their money is irrelevant; I know that artists make a lot of money off of tours. Does that change the relevance or morality of "Stealing music is wrong"? Besides, I know that not every single artist agrees with his record label (read: Artist Formerly Known As Prince), but lately these musicians that have been jumping on the digital distribution bandwagon are more concerned about raking in a bigger profit from albums than what the RIAA does about piracy.

I don't "staunchly support a broken system". I simply support the undeniable moral that stealing is wrong, and sometimes it really saddens me to see people as ignorant as many of the previous posters. Stealing is wrong; but completely denying that fact shows that people are voluntarily ignoring their conscience, and possibly nullifying any sort of ethics they originally had with this mind state.

Being an up and coming musician - things like this should be your concern. There are several generations of kids who think that they have justifications for stealing music, and even if they had none they would still do it.

My post was about the immorality of stealing something, and the idiotic justifications people place behind them. It wasn't a debate on all these topics such as communism, the ethics of the music industry, or how musicians make their money. Now that I've answered your statements, perhaps you more clearly derive the purpose behind my original post.

Stealing, regardless of one's reasons, is wrong: undeniably so. People need to face this fact.

 

[pwjone1]

I am a bit surprised that the number is still 95%, that seems a bit too high to be really believable (probably we'll need some independent 3rd part to do some investigation to get the real number). I cold believe 95% at universities. I could even believe it's gone up a bit with recent hard times. I think people should still pay for the music, even though I do agree the current system has some reprehensible aspects (CDs cost the manufacturer something like 50 cents to make, but we end up paying 30 times that with the distribution chain, marketing overhead, the very low percentage that gets actual to the artists, etc.). So I am at 100% legal, it's a moral thing. Over the last few years, I've converted a fair amount of my purchases to iTunes and other digital formats, and I still buy CDs from Amazon or whomever, but I still pay for what I listen.

But clearly, the business model is broken, and the music industry is dieing, and to the extent that is blocking new artists (and my ability to find/buy ones that I like), we as a consumers and the industry must arrive at some reasonable middle ground. So I would suggest something along these lines:

1. Reduce the prices of CDs - if something is reasonably priced,
people won't rip it off, pretty simple really.

2. Make digital downloads/sharing easier (and better quality) -
iTunes and Amazon are pretty good, but DRM can be a pain, and
it would be nice to just buy a digital license, and have whatever
format available for download/update on some number of devices
(PCs, iPODs, MP3 players, Hi-Fis, etc.). I see the format wars
of MP3 vs AAC vs WAV vs etc. as just the same sort of thing as
VHS vs BETA, HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray, just getting in the way.

I think too, that there's a potential here, if the Music industry doesn't act quickly, for the Artists to just go direct with web companies that would essentially host their Artist Logo'd/TM'd web site, with a click-to-buy type capability, eliminating the middle-men. Kind of surprised that Go'Daddy or someone similar doesn't already offer a music commerce site, plug'n'play as it were. Kind of surprised the artists put up with what they do now, and don't sue the monopolistic practices (locked up venues, paty to play, contracts with such low return to the artist, etc., etc.) of the music industry, since it's apparently not even protecting their interests because of all the pirating going on.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]Thor[/nom]I'm so sad to see that soon Madonna will need to sell one of her 100 Castle.Oh Dear !I'm so sad for Nazi RIAA who continue spy everybody so Music Companies continue to make billion.I'm so sad to see Music Companies sell their song more than $1 each when we know their value is less than 1 cent.Poor Poor billionnaire.I'm so sad to see this year they will make just 10 billion of profit at least of 11.Poor poor them...Really they have no "Justice" (for that they have any millionnaire/billionnaire in prison)...[/citation]



you are indeed a sad individual , last i checked being rich was not a crime , nor does it make it right for the rest of the world (consumers or big buisness ) to eat away at an artist's money source.
Stealing is still stealing , the musican's aside , ther are plenty of OTHER peoepl that this hurts, not jsut the big fat cats , ther are peopel makign the cd's in the factories , ther are peopel who work under teh execs and there are peoepl who work directly under teh musician's them selves. these people are not the ones making the "big bank" but when money get's lost these are the first people who find them selves with out a job. The fact that you can rationize theft makes me sick. Theft is not only illeagal , but also moraly wrong and if you happen to get a lucky shot on say teh lotta or what ever , you'd not want every jerk out there trying to rob you.

jsut remeber when corperations get hurt , they don't lay off thier "big boys" they lay off all the little guys

 

[neiroatopelcc]

Faster internet connections, more of them, and bigger, cheaper, storage options..... no wonder download numbers increase. You no longer have to just download the album you were looking for on dc or bittorrent or whatever, but you can just download all 10 albums of a given artist at once.... thus inflating the amount of illigal downloads while not increasing the purchased amount equally.
Really simple, and hardly worth the news piece imo

 

[TwoDigital]

demonhorde665 - I agree with you about others being hurt. Remember, however, that in a market economy people are going to demand constant change in products toward what they view as a 'better deal.' Whether people download legally or illegally, the jobs for people involved in the music industry (like your example of the guy who presses the CDs and the people who work under the execs) are in jeopardy because of the demand for digital downloads. Getting rid of a physical delivery method moves jobs away from a record label and (perhaps) creates a few more jobs for people building networks and digital products to deliver the new medium. It's a requirement of your CD-pressing-guy to be able to change his skill set or risk becoming unemployable in a fluid market economy.

I do otherwise agree with you. Piracy is very BAD and it hurts the market (aside from a few pirates who make some money stealing.) There is no real justification for it, though people will invent things about "punishing" greedy people that they don't like.

 

[techtre2003]

I think when it comes down to it, people don't download illegally for the reasons they say; but because they are getting something for free. I honestly think even if they dropped songs to .01 each the people who pirate will still pirate.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]techtre2003[/nom]I think when it comes down to it, people don't download illegally for the reasons they say; but because they are getting something for free. I honestly think even if they dropped songs to .01 each the people who pirate will still pirate.[/citation]
'the people that pirate' would probably sum up over 80% of the danish population. So I don't think you can generalize like that.
There are people (particularily those in their 30-50s) who won't pay even a single cent if they can avoid it, and there are younger people who will pay if it makes stuff easier for them. Ie. if they could legally download mp3's for their favorite mp3 player without having to go thru stupid homepages or the like (and for a low enough price), then they would. Young people don't want to bother with stuff just to do the right thing. If doing the right thing isn't any more complicated than doing the wrong thing, then it's more likely they will.
Let me give you an example - u know those 'free songs' you can get at McD ? you get a code you have to enter on a homepage and stuff.... people would prefer to just use bittorrent instead of having to actually use the codes on the homepage. The whole process of getting the same stuff legally just takes too much time compared to getting it thru other means. Those people could become customers - if those who sit on the songs would just think a bit more about design (user interface) than they do about budgets.

anyway, I'm generalizing too here, so of course not everybody who is 35 is a pirate who would steal a game even if he could buy it for a dollar ....

 

[AndrewMD]

I am from the camp that most copyrighted material should be handled like patented material. After a set number of years, it should become domain free / royality free so that it can be used in any which way someone sees fit.

DRM Free music is a start which a lot of companies are starting to offer including iTunes, But if I purchase a music CD or video DVD I should be able to make backup copies for my own personal use.

If I want to copy my purchased DVD to my iPod or Windows Mobile Device I should be allowed under a fair use / fair play law.

Right now video game companies are fighting to end the sales of second hand games through retailers like GameStop and others becuase they do not get a cut of the resale. If this happens, I will no longer support phyiscal media games

We have become a world of too much greed. You will never stop people who want to pirate, but you can stop the people that will become pirates if you stop forcing people to adapt to daily changing rules....

With that, I want to see the RIAA. MPAA, and whatever the gaming industry's version legally dis-band.

 

[techtre2003]

OK neiroatopelcc, I admit my statements were generalizations. But let's be honest here, if I were to say here is x product - either you can pay for it, or you can have it for free. Don't you think MOST people are going to take it for free?

In a perfect world, I'd love to be able to say that people are honest and would pay for it. However, I think we all know the world isn't perfect and I don't think anyone is always 100% honest.

We can justify it with reasons like it was only 99 cents, or the artist/company is rich, or I'm just trying it out, or it's a hassle to download it legally, or my favorite - because music sucks now. But in the end I think it comes down to it was free. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but that's my thoughts on it anyway

 

[gm0n3y]

Meh, I'll continue with my economic model. First, download music to see if its any good. Next, if its good, when the band comes to town pick up a copy of their album(s). If they never tour anywhere close to me, then I will try to buy the album off of their website. If that fails and they are really fucking good, then maybe I'll go to a music store and pick up a copy. Also, I'm much more likely to buy music from smaller independent bands than from large bands on large labels.

I feel that there is no immorality in my method of purchasing music. I spend far more than the average person on music. Sure, probably 90% of the music that I listen to I don't pay for, but really, what is worth more to the industry: A) X number of songs listened to for Y amount of money or, B) 100X number of songs listened to for 10Y amount of money? Their per song rate goes down, but because the amount of music people listen to goes up 100 times, their overall profits still jump a staggering amount.