You seem to only use the term (“audiophile”) because it makes you feel important or special to be referred to as such. But you actually just sound like pretentious fools.

Get over yourselves and stop wasting YOUR money and OUR time. ;)

I think if the argument is that you want to try before you buy music, then there are plenty of alternatives to downloading full copies of songs or albums – websites such as YouTube and Grooveshark provide a great way of listening to full songs.

I have thought of this too, and my question is this: If this is true, then what is the difference between downloading a track and streaming it?

If I want to listen to certain music, I can grab a torrent for it, or I can go to playlist.com or a similar site and stream it. Either way I’m getting the music for free, so what’s the distinction? The only one I can think of is that actually downloading the track creates a copy of the song that I can actually do something with… but in all practicality, since I can re-stream a song as many times as I want, there’s no real difference in that regard.

Downloading an unauthorized copy might technically violate copyright law, but is there an actual moral or ethical reason why this act should be condemned, in this context?

Personally I download music because it’s the easiest, most convenient and cheapest (free) way to get hold of it. Also it comes in the correct format for my iPod. I don’t think I’ve ever bought the same album on CD after I’ve downloaded it in digital format (although some of my first downloads were the same albums as I had previously purchased and later lost, sold, or lent to friends never to see again :-)) Come to think of it, I don’t actually own a CD player anymore. Furthermore, It would be highly unlikely for me to pay for a legal digital copy of an album or track once I have already acquired an illegal copy.

I think Jamie’s argument to justify or condone file sharing is invalid for the majority of file-sharers.

But this doesn’t mean that record companies are justified in suing the hell out of their customers, or websites offering services that they themselves are incapable or unwilling to offer.

We need to find a way of remunerating artists fairly for their music.

It’s obvious that millionaires like Simon Cowell, who rake in most of the profit from musical talent, will be unwilling to give up their massive cuts of profits obtained from traditional album sales. Imagine a thousand Simon Cowells running the music industry and willing to do anything to hold onto their lucrative positions – that image is probably pretty close to the truth.

Artists need to look into other ways of distributing their music – perhaps by BitTorrent? Then rely on merchandise or concert ticket sales to make a living.

Meanwhile court action is set to continue interminably…

Speak for yourself. At least you admit you are an… idiot.

@ 18 Dec 23, 2009 at 17:22 by DeathStalker

Wow, that’s what happened to me, a friend of mine sent me some songs from those groups and I went to the net to get more and ended up buying stuff from them and discovering many other groups while browsing the torrent sites. That’s what I love in P2P, it enables you to spend your money on good stuff only and introduces you to awesome artists you’d never know.

@ 21 Dec 23, 2009 at 18:20 by Eric G

Agreed. But I’d rather have the content without extras and with a shi**y cover for a better price in some cases. It’s about supporting the work or being addicted. If it’s the first you’ll want cheap stuff, if it’s the second you’ll pay whatever.

I’ve read the other comments and most are just what has been repeated ad nauseam here in TF. Offer stuff for sane prices and we’ll buy it – except for a small percentage. Drivers don’t usually drink and drive but there’s always the small irresponsible percentage that does.

Also, diarRIAA comment is interesting since it is true that there are the ones that will pay whatever for the content, either because they are audiophiles or because they are addicted fans. Maybe it is time MAFIAA and merry friends started doing business with that in mind offering cheap for the mainstream and exclusive for the fans.

I’m not arrogant enough to say I know how to do it or that it is simple to develop a model that is good for all ends but I will say that they are losing the evolution train refusing to adapt. It was said here and I will say it again: giving our money to ANY company is a privilege, not an obligation. The companies that doesn’t deserve our money are bound to die at some point.

Similarly, I can’t think of anyone I’ve hurt through downloads. If I like what I hear, I typically buy everything they have. If I don’t, I never would have bought their stuff anyway.

the alternative being mass censorship

concerts = money
CD’s = come to my concerts

this concept is quite obvious to all us musicians, but to the old folk who have just recieved their first laptop and government (one man in particular) this is still too difficult to comprehend -.-

despite this i pre-ordered an album a few weeks ago because i loved the pianist. i downloaded lilly allen because i didnt even know her
when the producers start shutting down is when we start to care and that just isnt going to happen.

Happy Christmas!

btw. look @ TBP avatar seeder:leecher ratio – gone crazy! :))