Why do you not download music illegally?

[crashtestdummy]

Simple reason: it's still stealing. Just because you think someone's business model is outdated, doesn't mean you get to take their stuff. If you think music costs too much, don't buy it.

I've asked people that I know download pirated music and movies if they would feel comfortable walking into the store and stealing a pile of CDs. I generally get a horrified response of "of course not! I'd never do that!" I then ask them why they feel OK downloading it off of bit torrent, and I get some story about how the system is broken. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

Also:

Spotify. Ten bucks a month.

+ 20 million songs
+ Pandora-style radio
+ Offline albums for DIY playlists
+ Good recommendations for finding new music

For less than the cost of one new CD per month, I get access to an entire library of millions of songs instantly, no hassle.

This (along with all the other, similar services). I've been using some form of this for a decade now (first "legit" Napster, then Rhapsody, now XBox Music). It's really hard to beat it as a bargain, and to me invalidates all claims that music is too expensive.

 

[Mayne]

I pirate everything. music/movies/books/games even pirate everything on the ipad thanks to jailbreak.

 

[mmntech]

I used to pirate music back when it was the cool thing to do. It was the only way to get DRM free files for the longest time. Not anymore.

Don't really buy a lot of music. I'm a classic rock fan so I just swipe my dad's old albums and rip them. I also still have SiriusXM, even though I hate their guts for firing Anthony Cumia. Unfortunately, it's the only way to get streaming commercial free music in my car. Mobile broadband is way too expensive.

 

[HOSED]

Why do they make it so easy to do (download from YT to hard drive) if it is illegal? When I had slow dsl I went to the local library & ripped to my HDD. They even delivered CD's to my local branch from other libraries in the county upon request.
~~~ Mayne I am reporting you! :awe:

 

[brianmanahan]

because i have money

 

[Imp]

Cause I can afford it... And I buy very little music, usually listen to the same dozen or so songs over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

 

[Ichinisan]

Why do they make it so easy to do (download from YT to hard drive) if it is illegal? When I had slow dsl I went to the local library & ripped to my HDD. They even delivered CD's to my local branch from other libraries in the county upon request.
~~~ Mayne I am reporting you! :awe:

I don't understand this argument.

Some people justify piracy by saying DRM makes it too difficult to do things the legit way.

Then you rip something off because it doesn't have DRM measures to prevent you from doing it and you say "It shouldn't be illegal because they make it so easy."

Anyway, the audio quality on most YT videos is awful.

 

[MrDudeMan]

the stuff that is free is generally 10x better than the stuff that is paid

What do you mean by this?

 

[Hacp]

What do you mean by this?

I think he means loss less quality.

 

[MrDudeMan]

I think he means loss less quality.

That's what I was thinking, but I don't really see how that could be true. What I get from iTunes and Amazon is generally perfect, at least for an mp3. If he's comparing that to lossless compression, well, that's stupid.

 

[lxskllr]

That's what I was thinking, but I don't really see how that could be true. What I get from iTunes and Amazon is generally perfect, at least for an mp3. If he's comparing that to lossless compression, well, that's stupid.

Why's that stupid? Lossless downloads are generally unavailable from the big players, and if one wants something from the big players, you get mp3. Whether or not you think mp3 has good enough sound isn't even the whole point. It's a non-free codec, and can't be legally used on a libre music player.

 

[akugami]

Cause I can afford it... And I buy very little music, usually listen to the same dozen or so songs over and over and over...

Same here. I barely buy music anymore, so no reason to pirate.

I'm not a fan of the dreck that is 99% of music nowadays. Most of the artists that I blindly follow are retired or dead (RIP 黃家駒, 梅艷芳, 張國&#27054. I buy discounted iTunes cards usually when they're at least 20% off face value and buy my songs that way. Since I mostly don't new songs worthy of purchase, I will only buy the occasional single. In fact, I'd say I average less than $10 per year, hell, probably lower than $5 per year over the last 5 years.

There's a couple of radio stations that stream online that I listen to (mostly Chinese) but I still find very few songs worthy of buying.

 

[phucheneh]

Because I'd rather pay $1 a song than risk getting sued by the RIAA?

Bahahahahahahaha.

That's so cute.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Why's that stupid? Lossless downloads are generally unavailable from the big players, and if one wants something from the big players, you get mp3. Whether or not you think mp3 has good enough sound isn't even the whole point. It's a non-free codec, and can't be legally used on a libre music player.

The comparison is fundamentally invalid. The vast majority of people want to buy the music they hear on the radio, tv, etc. and that music isn't free. It may be on youtube, but that's not going to be better quality than buying an mp3, so there's no difference from that perspective than buying it from Amazon, iTunes, or anywhere else that sells mp3 quality audio. Also,

I am willing to bet that very, very few people care about the codec and how free it is. I've never knowingly met anyone who cares about the codec on this level and I'm certainly no different. Audio quality and ease of acquisition are the main points for the vast majority of people, both of which are handled sufficiently well by the big players.

Just because the whole industry is built around the mp3 codec doesn't make it right, but it does mean that's what people want. It's easy, close enough to free, and pretty much every consumer device supports it. If you need completely free and lossless audio, you're free to do that obviously, but the original point that started this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with this. I want to listen to the song 3 by Britney... go find a version of that which I can get for free in a lossless format. It doesn't exist and neither does 99% of the music most people actually wish to acquire. If all music was available in all formats to all people, then you'd have a compelling point.

 

[lxskllr]

The comparison is fundamentally invalid. The vast majority of people want to buy the music they hear on the radio, tv, etc. and that music isn't free. It may be on youtube, but that's not going to be better quality than buying an mp3, so there's no difference from that perspective than buying it from Amazon, iTunes, or anywhere else that sells mp3 quality audio. Also,

I am willing to bet that very, very few people care about the codec and how free it is. I've never knowingly met anyone who cares about the codec on this level and I'm certainly no different. Audio quality and ease of acquisition are the main points for the vast majority of people, both of which are handled sufficiently well by the big players.

Just because the whole industry is built around the mp3 codec doesn't make it right, but it does mean that's what people want. It's easy, close enough to free, and pretty much every consumer device supports it. If you need completely free and lossless audio, you're free to do that obviously, but the original point that started this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with this. I want to listen to the song 3 by Britney... go find a version of that which I can get for free in a lossless format. It doesn't exist and neither does 99% of the music most people actually wish to acquire. If all music was available in all formats to all people, then you'd have a compelling point.

Plenty of people care about format quality, and a significant quantity of people care about software freedom. Whether you've heard of them or not is irrelevant. I guarantee I can find a flac version of Britney Spears, and her fans aren't even the target audience of people who favor lossless music.

 

[Brainonska511]

If I can get something in a lossless format, like flac, directly from the artist, I do that (eg: Five Iron Frenzy self-published their last album and I could get it in flac for a good price). If it's just a song or two that I want and I can't get it from the artist, an mp3 download from Amazon is fine.

If I want an entire CD, I'll usually just buy it on CD.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Plenty of people care about format quality, and a significant quantity of people care about software freedom. Whether you've heard of them or not is irrelevant. I guarantee I can find a flac version of Britney Spears, and her fans aren't even the target audience of people who favor lossless music.

The people who care about format quality in the sense that an mp3 isn't good enough are nowhere close to the majority. The big players are catering to the masses, thus my entire point. Most people want easy and quick with good enough quality and mp3s offer that. Audiophiles may care about quality, but, again, most people are listening to audio in their car using stock systems, earbuds, computer speakers, or some other equally as bad transducer, which is another huge reason lossless audio is only relevant to a small minority.

Simply put, if lossless audio was really as prevalent as you suggest, I would have knowingly come across a person who cares about it and I haven't. My individual opinion is of course irrelevant in a statistical matter such as this and I never claimed otherwise, but the frequency of which you encounter a person who subscribes to a particular ideology is indicative of it's adoption rate and I do have relevant data in that respect.

 

[Ichinisan]

That's what I was thinking, but I don't really see how that could be true. What I get from iTunes and Amazon is generally perfect, at least for an mp3. If he's comparing that to lossless compression, well, that's stupid.

It's not stupid to say he can download illegally in FLAC format. iTunes doesn't sell music in ALAC format - or they didn't the last time I checked.

 

[lxskllr]

The people who care about format quality in the sense that an mp3 isn't good enough are nowhere close to the majority.

What the majority wants doesn't matter. There's a significant minority that doesn't want mp3 for one reason or another, and if you insist on meeting someone that doesn't, congratulations, you just did.

The original question in the OP [paraphrased] "Why do you pirate?" The answer for some is "Because music doesn't come in the format I want".

 

[Ichinisan]

The comparison is fundamentally invalid. The vast majority of people want to buy the music they hear on the radio, tv, etc. and that music isn't free. It may be on youtube, but that's not going to be better quality than buying an mp3, so there's no difference from that perspective than buying it from Amazon, iTunes, or anywhere else that sells mp3 quality audio. Also,

I am willing to bet that very, very few people care about the codec and how free it is. I've never knowingly met anyone who cares about the codec on this level and I'm certainly no different. Audio quality and ease of acquisition are the main points for the vast majority of people, both of which are handled sufficiently well by the big players.

Just because the whole industry is built around the mp3 codec doesn't make it right, but it does mean that's what people want. It's easy, close enough to free, and pretty much every consumer device supports it. If you need completely free and lossless audio, you're free to do that obviously, but the original point that started this discussion doesn't really have anything to do with this. I want to listen to the song 3 by Britney... go find a version of that which I can get for free in a lossless format. It doesn't exist and neither does 99% of the music most people actually wish to acquire. If all music was available in all formats to all people, then you'd have a compelling point.

Almost everything can be found in FLAC format if you're a pirate. He's saying you can't legitimately purchase in a lossless format from almost anywhere. That's a valid point, but it's not enough to make me pirate. I do believe Apple will eventually allow most iTunes purchases to be upgraded to ALAC format and re-downloaded.

I hope...

 

[Ichinisan]

The people who care about format quality in the sense that an mp3 isn't good enough are nowhere close to the majority. The big players are catering to the masses, thus my entire point. Most people want easy and quick with good enough quality and mp3s offer that. Audiophiles may care about quality, but, again, most people are listening to audio in their car using stock systems, earbuds, computer speakers, or some other equally as bad transducer, which is another huge reason lossless audio is only relevant to a small minority.

Simply put, if lossless audio was really as prevalent as you suggest, I would have knowingly come across a person who cares about it and I haven't. My individual opinion is of course irrelevant in a statistical matter such as this and I never claimed otherwise, but the frequency of which you encounter a person who subscribes to a particular ideology is indicative of it's adoption rate and I do have relevant data in that respect.

You're in denial. You HAVE come across several people who care about it...in this thread!

I buy real CDs so I can rip them in lossless ALAC format. I care about the quality.

Also, this thread was asking why YOU would choose not to pirate music. Some folks said they choose to pirate for better quality that's not available for purchase. You're telling these individuals that they don't really care about lossless formats because, um, because most people don't care? That argument doesn't even make sense!

I'm no audiophile and my car speakers absolutely suck. On top of that, my hearing isn't so great...but I can tell the difference between a bad lossy encode and a better quality one. Most people can, they simply don't know what they're missing. That's what people mean when they say "ignorance is bliss."

 

[crashtestdummy]

Plenty of people care about format quality, and a significant quantity of people care about software freedom. Whether you've heard of them or not is irrelevant. I guarantee I can find a flac version of Britney Spears, and her fans aren't even the target audience of people who favor lossless music.

Ignoring for the moment that you can't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC in an ABX test, no matter how good your sound system is...

Just because you don't like the format a song is distributed in doesn't mean you're justified in stealing it. Your options are to buy it the way that they want to sell, or not have it at all.

An analogy: I think the way we sell cars in this country is broken. The fact that Toyota (for example) is required to sell me cars through independent dealers is not only inefficient, but costs me a lot of time and money every time I want to buy a new car. There's no good reason that I shouldn't be allowed to put together a model I like on their website, and go pick it up at a distribution center. I think most of the people in this forum would probably agree with me. However, I don't think anyone would say that gives me the right to walk into the lot of a dealership and steal the car I want.

 

[gorcorps]

Spotify. Ten bucks a month.

+ 20 million songs
+ Pandora-style radio
+ Offline albums for DIY playlists
+ Good recommendations for finding new music

For less than the cost of one new CD per month, I get access to an entire library of millions of songs instantly, no hassle.

I wouldn't call that no hassle. Don't you need a network connection at all times, which will cut into whatever data cap you may have? I'm very particular about sound quality, so not being able to properly EQ my music is an issue.

 

[lxskllr]

Ignoring for the moment that you can't tell the difference between 256kbps MP3 and FLAC in an ABX test, no matter how good your sound system is...

Just because you don't like the format a song is distributed in doesn't mean you're justified in stealing it. Your options are to buy it the way that they want to sell, or not have it at all.

An analogy: I think the way we sell cars in this country is broken. The fact that Toyota (for example) is required to sell me cars through independent dealers is not only inefficient, but costs me a lot of time and money every time I want to buy a new car. There's no good reason that I shouldn't be allowed to put together a model I like on their website, and go pick it up at a distribution center. I think most of the people in this forum would probably agree with me. However, I don't think anyone would say that gives me the right to walk into the lot of a dealership and steal the car I want.

You're confused. Copyright infringement isn't stealing. If I take a Toyota off a lot, I'm depriving the original owner of that car. If I make one copy, or 10b copies of a song, the original owner still has that song. The two concepts aren't the same legally, and they aren't the same philosophically, regardless of what the music industry wants to pretend.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I wouldn't call that no hassle. Don't you need a network connection at all times, which will cut into whatever data cap you may have? I'm very particular about sound quality, so not being able to properly EQ my music is an issue.

You can download the files onto your phone, so you don't need to use data after that.

The Android and iOS apps have equalizers, though you obviously have to use their software to play the files.