|
"Morality" Question about p2p software
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Apeattack |
I had a conversation regarding the use of p2p software with someone the other day. I think I know what everyone will say, but here is the hypothetical situation anyways.
When John (made-up name) hears a song he likes (through radio shows, randomly on youtube, etc.), he uses p2p software to download the track. John doesn't listen to the illegally downloaded tracks much until he is ready to use them in a set. That is, John won't listen to the tracks over and over for pleasure. If John uses the track in a gig (paid or unpaid), then he will legally buy the track because he has profited (cash, exposure, etc.) from it.
Thoughts? |
|
|
| ken_lee |
| so he downloaded it illegal first and bought it after? lol sounds like lot of work to me. if anything he is wasting bandwidth and should be hung for that. oh and may i ask if u are this john and having a conversation with yourself? only a person who talks to himself can come up with something as retarded as this. |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by ken_lee
so he downloaded it illegal first and bought it after? lol sounds like lot of work to me. if anything he is wasting bandwidth and should be hung for that. oh and may i ask if u are this john and having a conversation with yourself? only a person who talks to himself can come up with something as retarded as this. |
Yes, downloads songs first then buys the songs IF he uses them in a live set.
Oh you... there is plenty of bandwidth to go around. Do you listen to songs on youtube? For shame... bandwidth waster!
The reason John downloads songs ahead of time is because it is easier to determine which songs mix well with other songs while practicing at home. At this point, he is not profiting from the songs. |
|
|
| Polt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Apeattack
Yes, downloads songs first then buys the songs IF he uses them in a live set.
The reason John downloads songs ahead of time is because it is easier to determine which songs mix well with other songs while practicing at home. At this point, he is not profiting from the songs. |
In a way, he is profiting from the downloaded songs. I would think that if he didn't practice, he wouldn't be in good enough shape to get gigs. Therefore getting gigs is directly related to his practicing with downloaded songs. If you look at the situation from a "If you illegally download, it is stealing" point of view, it doesn't matter if he buys a song after downloading it or profits from the song or not, John still downloaded it illegally.
One thing to consider, it only costs 99c to $2.50 to buy a track. That's really not much at all. Think about all the small things you buy that won't last as long as a song. So what if you buy a track and end up not liking it or not wanting to mix with it, it's not like you spent all that much for it anyways. |
|
|
| Quazar |
One method I'm ok with is using a youtube rip of the song in mp3 form to practice with, then buying the song in high quality for use at gigs or parties.
That way, your practice song is pretty crappy quality and unfit for public use. Sort of like back in the day when having a tape recording of a song from FM radio wasn't anywhere near like owning the CD. |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Apeattack
I had a conversation regarding the use of p2p software with someone the other day. I think I know what everyone will say, but here is the hypothetical situation anyways.
When John (made-up name) hears a song he likes (through radio shows, randomly on youtube, etc.), he uses p2p software to download the track. John doesn't listen to the illegally downloaded tracks much until he is ready to use them in a set. That is, John won't listen to the tracks over and over for pleasure. If John uses the track in a gig (paid or unpaid), then he will legally buy the track because he has profited (cash, exposure, etc.) from it.
Thoughts? |
This is a lot like the 'extended demo' argument for pirating software: you're basically saying that the clip of the track online is insufficient for 'John' to determine whether or not a track is worthy of his money (in your example because John wants to try mixing it).
While a single download is pretty cheap, you could argue that there's SO much music around that it would cost an excessive amount to buy enough music to appropriately judge what's good and what isn't... after all, why should the artist get John's money if their track turns out to be ?
But sites like DJ Download offer the ability to hear the whole track before buying, so one could argue that an experienced DJ should be able to judge from that whether the track will work in their sets. Plus there's the danger John might 'forget' to buy the track after pirating it, which would break the morally balancing part of his argument.
It's a moral grey area. I personally wouldn't look down on John for doing this, but ultimately it's up to him. Although it sounds to me like John actually wants an excuse for not paying for music, but sees this as a compromise his peers won't criticise him for. |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
| 2'5$ is way too much for a track, if you are having 3 figure number for your gigs then buy the tracks, you owe to them. If you are just having some beers for your gigs then pirate David Guetta, SHM , Laidback luke etc... they don't deserve money for their . |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
^^^
wonderful job of proving your idiocy, yet again. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| first it was the future of djing and now this? Piss oFF |
|
|
| Rodri Santos |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
^^^
wonderful job of proving your idiocy, yet again. |
Good to know Mary Poppins. |
|
|
| Scrittah |
| quote: | Originally posted by Quazar
One method I'm ok with is using a youtube rip of the song in mp3 form to practice with, then buying the song in high quality for use at gigs or parties.
That way, your practice song is pretty crappy quality and unfit for public use. Sort of like back in the day when having a tape recording of a song from FM radio wasn't anywhere near like owning the CD. |
I actually like this idea. I used to be all pro-piracy, but then I realized that if I was going to try to make a living off of music, then that was just not a feasible way of thinking of about it. I'm cool with using super lo-fi versions for free, though. Besides, if anyone tried to play a ty 64k mp3 in a live set, I would hope they would be derided as they should. |
|
|
| Christian Zade |
| Not really topic, but p2p vs purchase reminded me of this: I had a problem before with uploading a mix on soundcloud and having it rejected because one of the 20 songs was violating copyright. Anyone else have a problem with this before? Was this because a particular song I used (I still don't know which one was rejected) was obtained via p2p or what? |
|
|
|
|
