FFS it only took a day

[LouisVee]

I would like to read a serious sociology study about this. In a society, there are rules, laws, and "social norms" which should restrict someone to do something that would be qualified "deviant". Everything depends on the consequences that the society will inflict to that person for having a deviance. Thoses consequences can be "official" (judicial system) or maybe I can say "unofficial" (a condamnation by the society itself).

In our case, downloading illegal music is against the rules and laws of our society. But can we say it goes against a "social norm"? We would like to, but we can't respond by a strongly "YES"! Should It be considered like a deviance, since a LOT of people are doing it? If the majority of the people are doing it, it cannot be a deviance anymore...

So, in that point of view, it's not really a deviance, that may explain why there are small "unofficial" condamnation by the society. Also, there are none, or almost none, condamnation by the judicial system. There are no immediate consequences...

The idea is to reverse this process, to consider "illegal downloading" a deviance.

Or maybe i'm just doing some "mental masturbation"?

[lejockey]

@iainkerr7 Maybe I misunderstood you, it just sounded a lot like you were justifying it rather than explaining why it happend. My bad

[wax works]

@iainkerr7 Maybe I misunderstood you, it just sounded a lot like you were justifying it rather than explaining why it happend. My bad

Nah, just creating some discussion, no probs

[pafufta816]

it did only take a day. this is the goal of many of these websites, which are colloquially known as "0-Day". it used to be a software phenomenon, where people would create cracks so that people could trade a program without license keys/copy protection issues.

nowadays, given the copyright laws in the ukraine and russia, there are large groups of people where a handful of contributors will buy music releases, upload it to a hosting site (rapidfire, mediafire, etc.) and make a musical release available for downloading the same day of it's release.

the absurd thing, and i won't lie i've used such sites before, is that these people have the audacity to ask their visitors for donations so they can continue to host their websites. but hey, russia/ukraine are some pretty screwed up places!

[pafufta816]

In our case, downloading illegal music is against the rules and laws of our society. But can we say it goes against a "social norm"? We would like to, but we can't respond by a strongly "YES"! Should It be considered like a deviance, since a LOT of people are doing it? If the majority of the people are doing it, it cannot be a deviance anymore...

i think the glaring discrepancy in law/rules/norms and our society is that digital culture by it's very essence encourages the share of data/information. so to attach a market-drive to this process is secondary to it's intended use. i mean, music is available whether or not you are willing to pay for it, so the problem isn't stealing, it's the means of information exchange.

as the internet is of implicit design, the end-user/surfer both designs and structures their use of the internet to suit them. for me, spending money on the internet is something i avoid. i hate feeling coerced to purchase so i ignore ads and online market places. simple as that, you can't force me to shop at certain grocery stores, same as the internet. if beatport or itunes don't fit a given persons perception of the internet then they will probably download pirated music.

is this bad, is it good? the only solution is a compromise. plus the music industry never even paid out livable wages to it's contracted artists, so we are seeing the decay of the music industry in tandem with the rise in piracy. piracy is not the sole reason the industry is failing, but a symptom of it.

[patrick bateman]

plus the music industry never even paid out livable wages to it's contracted artists

oh, really?

[pafufta816]

plus the music industry never even paid out livable wages to it's contracted artists

oh, really?

to be more specific, when i say the music industry i am referring to those labels who are succesful enough to lobby the RIAA. big business, corporate labels. i didn't actually mean to refer to smaller labels. even with these smaller labels i seriously doubt artists are making that much. DJ's wouldn't be touring/gigging so much if they were making good money on beatport sales/contract royalties. every RA interview i've read has some part in it, "i am so blessed to make music, but i have a real job on the side. even though you worship my music i still don't get to live on it."

specifically i am referring to nine inch nails and devo. both of whom, in numerous interviews, talk about how the companies approached them with contracts that in the end lost them money, or did not return any form of profit. trent reznor was so fed up with it he refuses to sign a contract again for fear of being fucked over again. the larger end of music industry is backwards in it's dealings, victimizes it's artists.

i've never in all my years of music love read a n interview that said "i just signed a record contract and it is a really great deal. now i will make money and be in control of my creativity! YAYYY for corporate record labels."

[thefunnel]

Not condoning "piracy" but it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. Huge difference. One is a criminal matter, the other civil.

By taking a free copy of your song, I am not depriving you of anything but a *potential* sale. Therefore I'm *infringing* on your right to make and distribute copies as you see fit.

If I'm *stealing* from you, I am depriving you of not only a sale, but of a physical item that cost you time and money to produce and manufacture.

I know the Copyright Cops like to conflate the two terms, as its a great way to pull a fast one on the ignorant and uneducated public--but it's significantly different to infringe than it is to steal.