But can it be considered a loss of money? I wouldn't have bought it even if I couldn't downloaded it. So did I beprive them of money?

i'm a musician myself and i think that with unsigned/independent artists you should buy whatever you can no matter what the price is. however with large bands on major labels it's a bit different because they've made their millions and like somebody said earlier, shirts and shows is how they get their real money.

When musicians make music, a company has to publish that music for them, and that company receives more money than the musician does. That's not fair either. The musician did all the work after all. By illegally downloading (not yet illegal in Canada ) you are mostly stealing money from the lazy *** publishing companies. Stealing a lot more from them than you are from the artists. Plus, the artists, while they do deserve to make money, they don't need to make $25 million a year. Should the common middle class people trying to make a living, those people who would be extremely happy to be receiving a $100,000 per year wage be helping someone else to get $25 million a year?

No.

It's because of us that all these movie stars and musicians are living in million dollar homes with 4 Ferrari's and more money than they know what to do with. They shouldn't blame us for causing them to make $25 million a year instead of $50 million a year. It's because of US that they make any money at all. They need to STFU. Nobody needs $25 million per year. There is no reason for them to have that much, and they seem to be getting on just fine considering the amount of piracy going on.

I say keep pirating. Keep downloading, and don't pay. I'd certainly NEVER pay for a song or a movie since everyone who is involved in them is making WAY more money than they deserve.

Here comes the RIAA to my door I'll bet...

Well... **** YOU RIAA, **** YOU.

(I feel the same way about sports players, although they can't be pirated )

Maybe MetalX is right. Maybe not. But eventually music is music and it speaks what cannot be expressed...Soothes the mind and gives it rest...Heals the heart and makes it whole..Flows from heaven to the soul....Music is the soul's food. Everybody should have access to it. And artists should make money from shows, concerts, T-shirts, original CDs and so on. I don't know. Its easy for us to say but I don't know what a musician have to say.

That was well worded MetalX.

"Way to go MetalX" Could not have said it better.

So it's just compensation for me to pay fifteen dollars to listen to a new album, while the geniuses that made it get fifteen cents a sale, and the labels that sell it get ten dollars?

Yes, I believe that downloading music, games, or movies illicitly is stealing. I know that if the artists that made it subsist off the royalties paid to them by the labels and publishers, I would feel like $#!+ if I downloaded one of their songs. But the sad reality is this: I toil two hours to buy a new album for the sole sake of treating my ears and supporting creative expression for the artists I love; the record labels that mediate grow slothful, greedy and gluttonous as they chew on the fruit of my labors and drink the sweat of my day's work and revel in it. Meanwhile, the artists that create that masterpiece are barely paid enough from it to eat. Is it "just compensation" yet? For anybody?

The RIAA grasps at straws to justify the thievery, the pure, green-eyed debauchery that they engage in from day to day. They fight to keep us from having any right to "own" the music that we pay for. Which is to say that if I went out and bought a hammer today, and my good friend borrowed it to shingle his roof, that not even the smith that made the hammer, but the merchant that sold it to me, could come and lock me up. Is it just yet?

I mean to insult no-one by posting this message: nobody's knowledge, nobody's opinion. I think that your point, Ted, is well justified. And I think anybody that has the gall to take money from another human being, no matter how extravagantly that person lives, is stealing. But neither we nor the bards that live richly on our money are the most lowly. It is those at the RIAA, and Columbia Records, and Atlantic, and Virgin, and Capitol who are most lowly- for claiming ownership of something when the only hands they have laid on it, the only effort they have distilled into that lump of plastic that's in my player as we speak, is to affix a price tag to it. It's wrong. And it's sure as hell we aren't the only ones who are stealing.

Praise be to whatever deity that independent music still survives, however subsidized.

So, tell me, do you have a permission to use your avatar? Or did you steal it from some hard-working artist?
You also have lots of photos, videos and artwork on your homepage. Do you have the rights to do that?

.

Right on, Nodsu!

The music and videos are all from either imeem, YouTube, or Google Videos. I'm sure that none of those sites, being in the corporate limelight, could escape justice if they offered users to option to illictly embed content. In fact, they wouldn't offer an embed code in the first place. However, they did, and made it readily accessible, so I assume it's legal.

The photos and artwork are all from google images. In my opinion, those who post without watermarking or disclaimers automatically open themselves to freedom of use by outsiders. But if any of them asked me to remove it, I would.

And while I hardly doubt that even the authors or creators would consider my use of their products stealing (and might even be glad I tried to be evangelical about my love of their work), I did take it from hard-working people, and always have the courtesy to respect their wishes, if they make them known.

However, this is entirely beside the point. I never accused any creator of music of fault, I accused the companies that distribute it. So before we jump to presumption that I'm disrespectful of those who take from their body and soul to make masterpieces like what I've posted on my homepage, and a pitfall of an ad hominem fallacy, let's clarify that no actions of mine were ever intended to harm those people. And then, maybe, the personal attacks can dissipate. After all, this is an ethical discussion, and any hypocrisy of mine shouldn't undermine my argument. Take it by word, guys.

I suppose you don't read computer news much.. Anyway, how do you think they would check every video whether it contains any copyrighted material? A million monkeys that have learned every copyrighted piece of work by heart watching through every clip uploaded by all the users?

Oh, and there's this really popular website called ****** Bay.. Surely they would be shut down if there was illegal content there


But how about all the tracks on all the CDs that are not marked in any way?
And I sure haven't seen any disclaimers next to all the music tracks I see available for download on the internet?
How would one know if the item she is downloading was posted there willingly by the author and whether it is allowed to download it?

Nodsu, we get your point, don't push it.
Yes, everything on the internet has a owner and a copyright but we can easily use those things for our purposes and it's almost impossible to control this because there are like billions of images, videos, articles and more and who can take care of every little avatar?
The same thing is about music. But all this story is not an excuse. Yes, we can download music but the law says that it's illegal. In the dictionary stealing means taking something without the permission of the owner. If the song isn't free or we don't have a permission, we steal it. My point is that even that it is illegally, nobody can stop all the people on the earth from downloading. It's too much.

I saw that people have different opinions about this case, but if we think rationally and we study the law, downloading music is stealing and stealing is illegally, even, maybe, it shouldn't, for the reasons from the posts written before mine.

OK. But i downloading music is "illegal", then downloading enything else is "illegal" too. There is no way to know whether anything you download is "illegal".

So why should we punish the people who "illegally" copy one specific artform and let all the others go free? Only because the music industry happens to have the funds and lobbying power to push decision makers?

Instead of blindly following the "holy" law, people should stop and think about some things like:
- Should we honour laws that are obviously broken? Think about all the humorous laws like being forbidden to eat ice cream on rollerskates or whatever. Sure, most of them are thought up, but you get the idea.
- Laws are written by old corrupt geezers mostly motivated by lobby and money from certain interest groups. Only some laws are universal and undisputable like the ones forbidding murder.
- When talking about "stealing" and "rights", think about who says what is stealing and what anyone is entitled to.
- Laws are supposed to be impartial. The same punishment goes to everyone. Yet we see those people who download music punished severely, but not the ones who download images. Does the law say that music is in any way superior to other arts?

BTW, in my country it is legal to download music. So it sort of depends on what law one decides to "study" or follow blindly

Yes, I just wrote that. Downloading anything is illegal too(not only music), only if its free or you have permission. But because its very difficult to control this huge internet traffic, all this story of illegality is resumed only official, on the law's paper. So it will take a looong of time until someone will really can do something about this. BUT, the law is supreme and all those thing you wrote about it is your opinion but if someone is accused of downloading illegally, you cannot defend with that. As I said, ain't gonna happen in the near future.
In your country is official legal to download music or you can download with no problem, cause nobody cares and make investigations? For example, in my country(Romania), normally, its illegal to do that but our download is working non-stop without any tiny obstacle, no one really cares. That's different.

It is officially legal. Basically, we are all filthy uncivilised thieves, according to some people

Remember Katrina ?

I know this is a little off topic but i am in desperate need of finding the cracked version of bearshare...can anyone send me a link to download it? I used to have it but i deleted it by accident and now i cant find it. I have limewire and i think it sucks compared to it (I only download legal stuff ) Thanks

Techspot does not condone such actions of piracy.

No, we do not. But we are allowed to express our opinions that we think downloading copyrighted material should be called "downloading free information" instead of "piracy".
(Or at least I think we are, and if we're not... I have some unexpected issues with being a member of Techspot. Although Techspot is extremely pwnage )

At the end of the day, downloading music is stealing. You hear it, you like it, you run to your PC and download it. then you burn it to listen to in the car or upload it to your iPod or mp3 player and listen to it walking around. Your friend hears it and likes it so you pass it on to him.

If you like the artist, support him so he will make more music. If you like the song so much, pay for it. Much easier and you can proudly say that you did not steal your music collection.

It's heaps cheap anyhow and as I said before the quality is much better than those you download (in some cases). I used to download alot of music but now I opt to buy it. Makes me feel like I'm doing something right for a change!