Why people still download music illegally

I went onto iTunes this evening to try to buy the song that was playing at the end of Six Feet Under last night while everyone was dying. To my chagrin, I discovered that that track was not for sale on its own. I had to buy the whole album to get it.

I didn't want to buy the album. I just wanted that one track. And I was prepared to pay for it. But for reasons best known to the record company I was not able to do so.

So I went and downloaded it for free from LimeWire instead.

This kind of retarded thinking is precisely why so many people still download music illegally. Artists such as Madonna, who has apparently refused to make her music available on iTunes because she wants people to buy albums not individual songs, are also missing the point.

Most folks are decent and law-abiding and don't mind paying for something they want, particularly when it's only 99 cents. But they want to decide what to buy. If you won't let them, they'll just download it for free.

Comments

[loki on 23.08.05 at 00:23]

Phil, might I be so bold as to recommend the following and, believe it or not, entirely legitimate and legal Russian sites:

http://www.mp3search.ru

http://musicmp3.ru

10 cents a track, or thereabouts, and entirely in conformity with Russian legislation. I've used both sites for over six months now and have no problems whatsover.

[J Galt on 23.08.05 at 08:32]

I couldn't agree more Phil, I went to store yesterday, wanting to buy a banana, I was more than willing to pay for it, but they would only sell me a bunch. I like you wouldn't allow then to rip me off, and I took a single banana and put it in my bag, and walked out. They could have gotten my money, but they had to be greedy.

I mean come on right? I'm decent and law-abiding and don't mind paying for something I want, But I want to decide what to buy. If you won't let me, I'll just take it for free.

[Somers on 23.08.05 at 08:48]

Why do the hot dog bun makers sell buns in packs of 8, while the hot dog makers only sell in packs of 6. Grrrr :)

[TJL on 23.08.05 at 08:50]

Fair point Galt, except your analogy misses a couple of things:

1) Bananas and songs are different in that the first is a competitive good while the second is not - i.e. the shopkeeper no longer has his banana after I steal it, while the artist still has his song. I'm not necessarily saying this is a crucial distinction, but it warrants some consideration.

2) I believe Phil's argument was not that he has a moral right to take what will not be sold, but rather that the music industry and its artists are morons for not offering a good which is both popular and easy to steal. If the shopkeeper was told that all of his customers would be more interested in buying individual bananas AND that there was precious little he could do to stop them stealing them AND they would still prefer to buy than steal the bananas given a choice, he would be an idiot to not offer such a service (though this would not legitimize his thieving customers if he refused to acquiese).

[Lord Palmerston on 23.08.05 at 09:19]

People download music "illegally" because they don't want to shell out $20 for an albums that only have 2 or 3 tracks that they want to listen to. I say screw the major record companies, thier're dinosaurs that are opposed to anytype of downloading technology. Go to almost any indy record label website and they have tons of free mp3's to download. You won't find that on many major label websites.

[Bandit on 23.08.05 at 09:47]

In that case why not just tape it off the radio?

[J Galt on 23.08.05 at 09:56]

Come on Trevor, we are talking about property here, the song is intellectual property, and Phil is stealing, and trying to justify it. I already know that you are willing to compromise your principles from previous smoking ban threads. And here is yet another example of you doing just that. If a mob walks into a store and proceeds to take all of the owners goods, or if they walk into the home of an artist and take copies of their books or songs, you are saying they (the owners) are fools for not bending to the will of the mob and accepting what the mob offers for what they are taking by force. (Stealing)

[TJL on 23.08.05 at 10:20]

Take two giant steps back please Galt...

1) I went to great pains wording my post to make it clear that I was not attempting to justify anything. I've never downloaded a song illegally in my life and have no intention of doing so. Don't mix me in with the anarchists just because I happen to find the behaviour of the music industry ludicrous from a fiscal point of view.

2) For the umpteenth (and hopefully last) time on this site: I do not compromise my principles simply by disagreeing with you. You are an intelligent and lucid writer most of the time, and I usually enjoy our discussions, but your Achilles' Heel is that you constantly fall back on this nebulous idea that anyone who thinks differently from you is guilty of internal inconsistency. I'm not sure whether I should be flattered that the best you can come up with is your usual catchphrase, or just give up on you entirely.

[ace on 23.08.05 at 10:22]

loki, are you serious? In conformity with Russian legislation? LOL.

I HIGHLY doubt the Russians have the artist's permission to sell songs at 10 cents each.

[on 23.08.05 at 10:33]

Then the artist can use the backing of their record company to fight the Russian download sites.

[J Galt on 23.08.05 at 11:01]

TLJ,

Of course you don't compromise you principles by disagreeing with me, its happens when you disagree with yourself. Take Phil for instance I'm willing to bet Phil thinks theft is wrong, like the time his car window was smashed for the pocket change on the dashboard at bulls head. Now I'm not saying that Phil would be willing to smash somebody's window to take a cd single of of thier dashboard, but its the same thing isn't it? Somebody using force to take what isn't theirs. (Perhaps if it was the car of the artist that made the song that Phil wants he would ;))

See thats a compromise stealing is wrong, but Phil attempts to justify it by saying if they offered the single, instead of the album, I would buy it, instead of stealing it.

You may not steal... I mean download songs, but you didn't attempt to distance yourself from ... what was the word you used anarchists, until I questioned your carefully worded post. In the end you still wish to lay the blame on the morons... I mean victims instead of the mob. And unless that is the value you apply to all victims (which I doubt) you my friend are compromising.

[jake on 23.08.05 at 11:19]

Galt is right. Downloading is theft. Phil is also right that in business you have to look at what people will do, not just what they should do (a point well made in Freakanomics - a good read).

I hate it when a song I want is not on iTunes, but then, the artist hates it when they get less revenue too.

Kanye West's album does the same thing - album only. I personally think it is arrogant.

If Usher's album which had mega hits can be available as either or, then why not everyone else?

Here's another idea that is CRAZY RADICAL: How about a volume discount. Right now it is normally 9.99 for 10 songs (so they can do math...) but what about 9.99 for 15 songs? That way you pay a premium for selection - we both win!

I know I am not so smart as to have seen the obvious, so do any others have any ideas as to why they are not doing this?

[loki on 23.08.05 at 11:28]

ace,

I hear you but, yes, it is apparently in comformity with Russian legislation. I daresay that the record companies aren't too pleased but, my understanding is the legislation in question mandates that music resellers must give to the record companies a certain percentage of gross sums paid by consumers. Look for this loophole to be closed in the foreseeable future ;-)

[SmokingGun on 23.08.05 at 11:41]

Jake, it is not as obvious when it appears you stand to lose the revenue share you have been reaping for many years. The music industry is so screwed up by greedy make money today types that your more common sense approach just doesn't cut it. Instead they would rather waste money with litigation chasing illegal downloaders.

If you were a musician wouldn't you want more exposure and access to at least partial royalties by doing it as you suggest rather than suffering zero royalty on illegal sharing? So the greedy people are alienating the customers and the clients.

Eventually musicians will not need all the greedy people and will make their music available directly over the internet.

[Ethiops on 23.08.05 at 11:58]

Many musicians don't wish to have their fans find themselves in trouble for downloading their music so they allow them to have it for free. This is the wave of the future for real musicians that gain money as well from playing music at shows. The fact that someone dl's their music is promo to them. And I can't agree more.

[anonimal on 23.08.05 at 12:32]

It's hard for people to accept that something with virtually *no* reproduction costs can be so highly priced. People are not stupid and they know that most of the money is directed into the pockets of distribution middlemen, marketers with big cocaine habits, and people with no talent and big estates.

In the past the middlemen were actually involved in the distribution of the product into music stores. And you'd buy something that actually cost something to make and deliver. It made sense. Taking something off the shelf meant depriving the store owner of something that he spent a lot of money on.

But intellectual property is a relatively recent thing and, to be honest, it feels very like a very artificial structure. I'd like to support the artist for having produced the music, but don't feel the need to reward the music industry's incredible waste.

I'll bet that the unit cost of an online e-commerce site like the iTunes store is tiny. That's why it feels like a rip-off...

[Josh on 23.08.05 at 12:46]

Is it technically illegal if you download the song in Bermuda?

Most of the record companies are US/British. Do they have jurisdiction here?

I am asking because I don't know.

[TJL on 23.08.05 at 13:23]

I agree with Galt in opposition to a number of points raised on this thread - if you don't feel like the cost of the music is fair, just don't buy it; you have no entitlement to a particular song, despite what you think about the ethics of the artist and the music industry in general.

Contrary to Galt, I don't feel that individuals who download music illegally are even remotely comparable to a mob which causes physical destruction and steals property. The excessively simplistic "A is theft, B is theft, therefore A = B" is the type of argument which I would expect from an individual who sees the world only as a black-and-white, good-and-evil polarisation.

[The Limey on 23.08.05 at 13:26]

Galt

You're right, downloading for free is wrong.

Unfortunately that isn't stopping people from doing it. I'd like to be able to stop downloading for free and buy all my music (rather than just 99%). The record companies would like me to stop downloading for free and buy all my music too. So why can't we find a mutually beneficial solution?

Instead, the recording industry just throw up roadblocks. They make songs "album only". They don't make their music available for download at all. They only accept credit cards issued in certain countries (see here for the reason why). And they use legal action to try to attack the file sharing networks and the people who use them.

This is insane. Where is the benefit to the record companies? They're just throwing away revenue.

In Bermuda the Complete Office is actually telling people to use LimeWire and Kazaa to download music because the recording industry does not allow iTunes to accept credit cards issued here (see same article linked above).

None of this changes the fact that downloading for free is wrong. But the artists and record companies will stop more illegal downloads by giving people what they want than they will through legal action and arbitrary restrictions on what music they can buy. Right now they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[J Galt on 23.08.05 at 14:31]

TLJ,

I think there is an error in your calculation: Allow me to propose the following:

A is theft, B is theft, theft is wrong, therefor A or B = wrong

We aren't talking about one individual downloader, we are talking about hundreds of thousands,I grant you the point that they aren't causing physical destruction per say, but they are stealing property. I supose if a hundred people showed up on your door and proceeded to loot your home, but not actually damage any property, you wouldn't define that as a mob?

[Two Cents on 23.08.05 at 15:18]

I've downloaded thousands of songs from various sites, I have also converted thousands of CD's to MP3's. (Mostly for free) My MP3 library is over 130,000 titles on 350+ gig.

But I have also spent thousand of dollars on crap CD's that only had one or two decent tracks (My CD library is over 1200 CD's).

I have given too much money to greedy record companies who put so much filler on albums with not a single thought of the consumer who spends his/her money to buy their products. Why shouldn't we be able to download tracks from these sites, I often download a track, like it and then purchase the CD.

Fight The Power !!!

Two Cents

[SmokingGun on 23.08.05 at 17:44]

Two Cents:

Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes
Marvin Gaye
Barry White
Isaac Hayes
U2
John Mayer
ELO
The Cure
Temptations
Louis Armstrong

Just for starters please. My address is ......

[VirtualChips on 23.08.05 at 21:40]

It's simply a matter of respect and copyright law. If you're looking for free, good music, from talented and enlightened musicians, try:

The Live Music Archive

http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php

There are literally thousands of hours of live recorded music here - offered freely to the public by the artists.

The quality of the recordings ranges from ragged to commercial/audiophile quality. Much of the music can be streamed live or downloaded in a variety of lossy and lossless formats.

If you like Blue Grass/New Grass, give a listen to Railroad Earth, or The Waybacks. Twang not your thang? There's a full spectrum of genres to choose from.

There's a lot to explore and discover. Hear!

The Live Music Archive is a subset of the Internet Archive. If you're not already familiar with the Internet Archive - do yourself a favor and check it out.

If the gripe is that a musician or group of musicians have chosen a business model that doesn't conform to your liking, there are at least two legal options readily available.

Buy the material in whatever fashion it's offered.

Find other artists with a more enlightened philosophy.

If you're waiting for Madonna, don't hold your breath.

[SmokingGun on 23.08.05 at 22:39]

Thank VirtualChips. I for one will check them out.
I'm actually enjoying the ability to purchase one song at a time from legal web sources and 99 cents is well worth it. I guess I got lucky as I never really collected a huge amount of CD's because, as others have mentioned, a lot of the albums are just filler. I hated having to buy one or two great songs and a bunch of throw aways. So therefore most of mine are "Greatest Hits" albums. Unfortunately some people have made large investments in CD's, tapes, albums etc. and are expected to purchase them again in digital format. I believe that's unfair and that if you've already paid for a song legitimately once, you shouldn't have to worry about being prosecuted if you have the where with-all to change the format. But me thinks that's not what the greedies have in mind.

[Two Cents on 23.08.05 at 23:31]

Smoking Gun

Absolutely great music/song choices. Had your email address worked, I would have sent you an email asking where could I drop off a couple of MP3 CD's (Alas it was kicked back)

Sorry,

Best Regards

Two Cents

[TJL on 24.08.05 at 05:52]

Galt,

To further extend the algebra, here is how I understand a lot of your posts:
"A is theft, B is theft, theft is always wrong, thefeore A and B are wrong AND we should feel about A just like we feel about B". If you agree with this, then our disagreements boil down to the following:

"theft is always wrong" - I assume the "always" is implied though you never said it - though your logic falls apart without it. As I've said in other posts, I disagree that theft is always wrong - progressive taxation is, according to the Libertarian code, an example of theft which I believe is totally justified. NOTE: I don't feel that illegally downloading music is an example of justified theft.

"we should feel about A just like we feel about B" I've voiced my opposition in the past to this tenet of yours, and while I respect your commitment to this ideal I find it completely impractical both as a workable code for society and as a moral tenet. I simply do not feel the same anger towards a vigilante who kills a local paedophile as I do towards the BTK killer; I forgive the woman who steals millions from her billionaire boss much faster than I do the street punk who ransacks the house of an old lady on state support. They're all wrong, but not all equally wrong. You think this is a sign of a compromised principle - I just think my principles are more complex, and therefore more in keeping with the complex world we live in, than your binary code.

[Curried Goat on 24.08.05 at 06:01]

If you want a BMW you will pay for a BMW. If you think a BMW is too expensive then buy a Kia Limey or something else cheap. I mean they are both cars and do the same thing. They will both get you from "A" to "B". The BMW will do so with the best possible quality and comfort, the Subaru will with rough edges and little comfort.

However, don't steal my BMW because you think you should be allowed to have it but BMW want too much for it.

[Tim on 24.08.05 at 23:17]

As long as we are stealing, I found a great remix version of that song. Here's the link...
http://www.stereogum.com/Sia%20-%20Breathe%20Me%20(Mylo%20Remix).mp3

[SmokingGun on 25.08.05 at 12:24]

Two Cents,

Thanks for the offer. I'll take you up on it as soon as I get out jail. ;)

[J Galt on 26.08.05 at 10:47]

TLJ,

Your principles are not more complex, they are useless and highlight your lack of integrity. You seek to provide excuses on why you compromise your values. You renege on your own system of beliefs. Theft is wrong but some thefts are more wrong than others? You cannot compromise between right and wrong, just as you can not compromise between honesty and dishonesty, any compromise on honesty makes it dishonest. Its a complex world so you'll compromise on justice, can't do it, its justice or injustice. When you attempt to compromise between the rational and irrational, the result will all ways be irrational.

Murder is wrong but you are so blind to the compromises you make you actually said that you believe thats some murders are right.

That my friend is sad. In short if you steal (download music) you are a thief, and no amount of white wash by TLJ will change that.

[on 26.08.05 at 10:58]

Galt

If murder is wrong do you beleive in war?

[ruby tuesday on 26.08.05 at 11:18]

Galty my dear

Your fumbling attempts at logic do as much to amuse as well as provoke - I fear you are winding up some of the more gullible posters on this mongboard.

When does music or art become public domain as opposed to private property - are these not the sort of arbitrary laws that smack of horrific state intervention in our lives? If you're cruising in the park humming your favourite show tunes and torch songs would you expect a tap on the shoulder from a lawyer from the estate of Judy Garland demanding royalties? It all seems a little inconsistent with your normal frothing proto-libertarian rants.

Much love mon chere.

Ruby

[Two Cents on 26.08.05 at 11:28]

Perhaps the "theft" should over shadowed by the false advertising by the record labels.

I was told by Capitol Records that Coldplay's new CD was "full of songs that are destined to become instant fan favorites" in the "Pre-CD blurb". Speaking as a longtime Coldplay fan I thought the CD was average with two good songs (maybe three). In my opinion Capitol should be praying that someone downloads it because it won't have the staying power of their other works and will disappear off the charts soon.

[Curried Goat on 26.08.05 at 11:50]

I totally disagree with you 2cents. X&Y is a very good album and is better than the previous by some measure. The difference is in the quality of the song writing not it's immediate appeal. X&Y will be listened to in years to come, the other is here today and gone.... actually, no it's already gone.

If you want to hear why it is so much better you will have to get either an extremely good CD player or a turntable.

[Two Cents on 26.08.05 at 12:32]

Curried,

X&Y is a good CD, lyrically probally their best work, however musically I feel it's just more of the same.

p.s I don't have a turntable, but the rest of my components are great.

You are right however, on a good system the music can sound day & night compared to an average system

[Point on 27.08.05 at 07:23]

Galt

Given your presumed adherence to a strict personal code where integrity, honesty and personal discipline provide a strong underpinning for your rational and objectivist life style, I can only assume that you must work for yourself.

Given your multitude of postings and apparent consistency of thought and applied ethics, only a self-employed person would have sufficient time to dedicate attention to this blog. I mean, if you don’t work for yourself than you too are guilty of theft….aren’t you? At a minimum you could be accused of:

- Theft of time (contributing to this thread on your employer’s dime when you sold be doing what you’re paid for); and
- Theft of resources & property (by utilizing and redirecting energy and capital paid for and subsidized by our employer to access his blog).

So Galt….who is your lucky employer? Or do I have it all wrong and you do in fact work by and for yourself?

[SmokingGun on 27.08.05 at 14:44]

It's an ugly looking url but it's on an article about the record companies wanting to raise the price for downloads. Short memories with greedy souls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/27/technology/27apple.html?ex=1282795200&en=e1f491cd950a0133&ei=5089&partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss