Debate: Music, Software: Downloading
 

Alright.. I was talking to this guy tonight and he said downloading music is not as bad as it is to download software and one of his statements he used to defend his statement was, artist don't get paid that much from there cd's sales as a programmer does when the software sells..

Well, does that mean it's not stealing if the artist it's self is not loosing that much? Besides, someone is still loosing money from you downloading music (record company). So in anycase you are stealing from some.

Also, when does a employee of IBM who programs gets part of the profit of the sale? My aunt who has worked there as a programmer for 30 years said she doesn't get paid presale, but per hour. Also, how many people program software to give them all a peice of the profit would be abusrd and a stupid choice on the company part.

So when it comes down to it, to download music is that anymore okay then downloading software?

Illegal is Illegal, however, the assumption that downloading any mp3 online is illegal is absurd, there is tons of legal music you can have such as ocremix and anything real people made that they released for free.

My ONLY thoughts:

A friend sends you a song, you listen to it 2-3 times, you trash it from your computer. You do this 4 times a year (not that quantity should matter necessarily). How is this different than radio, tv, or a service like launch.yahoo.com? You are not downloading it to steal, you are downloading it see if you like it in order to buy. End of story.

They have a license to play the song/

Did I say they didn't?

You didn't say they didn't, but that's how it's different. ;)

"Well, does that mean it's not stealing if the artist it's self is not loosing that much?"

It doesn't matter how much the artist is losing, theft is theft is theft anyway you spin it. ;)

That said, I'm a big fan of online acquiring, so *shrugs*

That's not my quote. I wouldn't say something so stupid.

And, I'm sure if you asked any artist they'd want me to listen to their song 1-2 times to see if I wanted to buy it. You can do that in the store, you should be able to do that at home. However, you shouldn't be able to keep it. That's the difference.

Isn't that why on Artist websites they provide you with that feature... to listen to there music, get an idea of what the album sounds like and if you like what you hear from the site you go to the mall and buy it.

You're breaking the law by downloading licensed music (which is what's on most of these networks) when you use torrents/p2p etc... It's as simple as that. The debate (for me) lies whether artists and record labels should charge as much as they do. I think you'll find if albums costed around $5 that a lot more people wouldn't resort to downloading them ;) As it stands you won't catch me going into a record store and paying ?12.99 (24.9343 USD) for an album.

Calm down, Spencer. ;) I didn't say it was your quote. It is quoted from the first post in this thread. Exasco stated it.