Is "file-sharing" basically a nice way to say "stealing"?

I'm sure filesharing does help some somewhere.
Not really the point, though...
I personally think the industry is over egging their argument.
But their argument, imo, has some merit.
At the end of the day somebody is losing out somewhere and it isn't just the big hitters.

Downloading does, imo, affect some somewhere along the line.
As most direct their opinion to either the elite or the poor...lets direct the argument to the poor rather than the elite.

It's the same thing as saying if they made MJ legal nobody would die...and the drug industry would be 100% legite.

Clearly some peoples minds ignore the people they do not see because they are too far away.

 

Chronic'...I don't direct my argument to the the Stings of this world.
I direct it to the 10% that don't see it your way, and inevitably if you see my argument has some merit, that some are getting hurt...even if arguments, like yours, have some merit.

And yes, I do accept if there was no file-shaing people would get hurt even so...
Why increase the pain rather than reduce it by NOT file-sharing?

 

I think what we disagree on is WHO is being hurt.

 

Mos' Def'.

Edit: seems you think nobody is.

 

Why not.

Music should be free anyway, as should love, food, drugs and shelter.

They aren't because some people are really hungry.

But if it has proved to be a more effective way for the best music to reach the ears of those who might appreciate it the most then I think it is all round for the greater good, and anything that is for the greater good isn't stealing, it is giving.

Right, that's settled then.

 

Who was this aimed at?

If it was me, you should re-read what I've said... It does hurt people, it hurts the record companies and those who work for them... I just don't give a fuck about a bunch of people who are sponging off of artists talents...

 

In an ideal world, all your "shoulds" might be true. Or if the multiverse theory is true, then it is free in some verse other than this one.

Bottom line in *this* verse, on this planet, is that some is free and some is not. The main point is that it is not YOUR right to make that decision about someone elses creative works - it is THEIR right. If those that have that right have decided that some particular music is not free than it is STEALING to take it anyways.

I'm not ragging here on those that do "rip" shit off the net - I am against it but it is your business/problem, not mine. I am simply saying - quit bullshitting (yourselves mostly) that it is not stealing - it is - you are stealing.

 

Plenty of free music in this world... songbirds...the rustling of leaves in the wind... rain...
babbling brook...the whisper of a lover...

...No download necessary.

 

Drugs have diddled your mind, bro.

 

It hurts the grass-roots artists too. Tha's the point you keep failing to see. Some get hurt. End of story.

 

Show me how.

 

I dunno, one of the local artists here, just released his 7th album and decided to do it for free -- and I just heard of him today even though I'm somewhat familiar with he scene (and also forget his name)

 

People file-share and don't spend their money buying legitimate material.
The industry has lost millions if not billions of £$ etc...and have reduced their output...less output less jobs.
When profits are hit redundancies are made.

This is not rocket science.

 

But that explains how it hurts the industry, not people outside of the industry; aka grass roots artists.

Most of the grass-roots artists I know of love file-sharing; the only one I can think of that disagrees is a forumer that is very loud on the issue.

I would make the argument that the only people that are hurt by illegal downloads are the record execs and non-production record label employees. And any hurt that goes to the artists is caused by the record execs making it hurt.

 

The industry?

Buying legitimate material?

Millions if not billions??

Wow... sure sounds like grass root artists to me...

 

The artists are part of the industry.

 

Grassroot artists are not part of the industry.

Those that start out as grassroot artists and then get a label... are not grassroot artists... they are cogs in a machine.

 

:facepalm:

grass roots –noun ( used with a singular or plural verb ) 1. the common or ordinary people, esp. as contrasted with the leadership or elite of a political party, social organization, etc.; the rank and file.


Mainstream is a part of the industry.
Higher tier underground is a part of the industry.
Very few musicians fit in either category.

 

...and what machine would that be?
...you are just being elitist.

 

People just like to think of 'industry' as a dirty word. There are plenty of small, independent labels that actually try to release music for the good of the artist and the listener. Downloading will effect these people, much like the fat cats.

I think grassroots as a word is vastly ambiguous, anyways. That conversation would need it's own thread though.