A look at piracy and this forum's outlook on it.

[D3ATHSTEP]

I have committed many crimes in my past and I'm no saint when it comes to modern media, I stream tv shows from the states and alike. But every single piece of music I own whether it be the thousands of vinyl, mp3, wav, aiff, whatever, is legally purchased or given to me directly.

I think some semblance of stability can be retained, everything evolves and progresses, it's up to the industry to find the right business model and educate (not punish ala the RIAA) their potential customers.

With all due respect, take a step back and look at what you just said and think about how that's fair of you to categorize certain things "okay" to steal but not others. I mean, I steal all those things as well, but I personally believe most of if not all of them are fine to steal, if not expected to be stolen in this day and age. Let's face it, sometimes(read: all the time) prices are ridiculously high and constantly getting higher. Sometimes you just plain don't agree with how much something is worth, so you designate your own price for it. And other times, there simply is no other way to get what you're looking for. I know I wouldn't even be into half the music I'm into nowadays if it weren't for people sending me youtube/grooveshark links of tracks they wanted me to hear. Piracy is, always has been, and always will be, a double-edged sword for the owners of the property being stolen.

[garethom]

I've started a netlabel to go alongside the website I run, and push the sounds that fit the vibe of the site. All releases are and will be a "pay-what-you-like" release, and it's worked well so far. Since I put them up for download on Bandcamp, I've come across so many places offering free downloads of the releases (even though they are entirely free anyway!) and to look at them is almost heartbreaking.

They are being offered at 192 kbps, when you can get them in almost any format you want for free from the bandcamp, there's no artwork for it, no option to donate to the artist/label that made these tunes happen (I pay to get the tracks mastered out of my own pocket, but I only ask for a donation if you want to give one), there's no links to the artists other work, no links to the other releases on the label. Sure, after downloading it, they might check out the artist based on the name, but how many are going to do that, compared to those people that have come to my site to download it in the first place? That doesn't do a lot for exposure.

It's alarming that for some people, it's hardwired into their brain to go to mediafire/rapidshare straight away when they hear of a release, even when they could have it for free in a higher quality format, with all the artwork that goes with it. I won't even go into the sites I've found that are charging for my net-labels releases, obviously without permission.

With regards to the limited-vinyl argument that will inevitably arise, and the argument that "music should be for everyone man!", I would ask simply that you respect the decision of the producer and label. If they have chose to make a release vinyl only, then respect that. They've put the effort in to make the tune, they've put the hours in getting the mix down right, the label has paid to have it mastered, in some cases made a loss to put out a few hundred vinyl. Just have a bit of respect.

As for posting youtube videos on this forum, the vast majority of times, the video will be posted in a thread about that track/artist/label, the promo is there for them, and there's no doubt going to be links to buy it, or info on forthcoming dates, plus I think it's safe to expect that many people on this forum know where to buy the release from.

[garethom]

I personally believe most of if not all of them are fine to steal, if not expected to be stolen in this day and age.

Poor attitude to have. Be the change you want to see.

[D3ATHSTEP]

I've started a netlabel to go alongside the website I run, and push the sounds that fit the vibe of the site. All releases are and will be a "pay-what-you-like" release, and it's worked well so far. Since I put them up for download on Bandcamp, I've come across so many places offering free downloads of the releases (even though they are entirely free anyway!) and to look at them is almost heartbreaking.

They are being offered at 192 kbps, when you can get them in almost any format you want for free from the bandcamp, there's no artwork for it, no option to donate to the artist/label that made these tunes happen (I pay to get the tracks mastered out of my own pocket, but I only ask for a donation if you want to give one), there's no links to the artists other work, no links to the other releases on the label. Sure, after downloading it, they might check out the artist based on the name, but how many are going to do that, compared to those people that have come to my site to download it in the first place? That doesn't do a lot for exposure.

It's alarming that for some people, it's hardwired into their brain to go to mediafire/rapidshare straight away when they hear of a release, even when they could have it for free in a higher quality format, with all the artwork that goes with it. I won't even go into the sites I've found that are charging for my net-labels releases, obviously without permission.

With regards to the limited-vinyl argument that will inevitably arise, and the argument that "music should be for everyone man!", I would ask simply that you respect the decision of the producer and label. If they have chose to make a release vinyl only, then respect that. They've put the effort in to make the tune, they've put the hours in getting the mix down right, the label has paid to have it mastered, in some cases made a loss to put out a few hundred vinyl. Just have a bit of respect.

As for posting youtube videos on this forum, the vast majority of times, the video will be posted in a thread about that track/artist/label, the promo is there for them, and there's no doubt going to be links to buy it, or info on forthcoming dates, plus I think it's safe to expect that many people on this forum know where to buy the release from.

They do have links promoting the artist and where to purchase the songs from, but that doesn't mean people will do it by any means. Why would they when it's free right in front of them? Posting links to how to support the artist doesn't make it "okay" to post illegal content in my opinion. So with that logic, I could upload every song I wanted to onto youtube and just post a link to the artists' facebook pages?

Also, with all due respect of course, it seems like you need to promote your website a bit more. I mean, you just convinced me why it's better to go with your site than mediafire, but now you need to think of a way to bring that news to the masses. As soon as people realize that you're getting better quality for the same price, they'll flock to it. It's how human beings work. If you want to buy a pair of shoes, but you find the same pair of shoes that are better quality with some extra features at a different store for the same price, you're going to get those, right? I think if you spent a bit of time actively trying to come up with creative ways to advertise your website, you would indeed solve your own problem with enough time.

[D3ATHSTEP]

I personally believe most of if not all of them are fine to steal, if not expected to be stolen in this day and age.

Poor attitude to have. Be the change you want to see.

To be totally honest, I think most music SHOULD be free of charge, and the money should be generated from live performances and getting your music used in film/television/video games/insert media platform here. For every day listening, however, I believe it should be free of charge. I know I'm probably alone in this belief, but that's okay, because it's exactly that: a belief. Not a fact. You can choose to respect it or not, it's out of my hands and I won't try to convince anyone otherwise unless provoked.

[pete_bubonic]

I have committed many crimes in my past and I'm no saint when it comes to modern media, I stream tv shows from the states and alike. But every single piece of music I own whether it be the thousands of vinyl, mp3, wav, aiff, whatever, is legally purchased or given to me directly.

I think some semblance of stability can be retained, everything evolves and progresses, it's up to the industry to find the right business model and educate (not punish ala the RIAA) their potential customers.

With all due respect, take a step back and look at what you just said and think about how that's fair of you to categorize certain things "okay" to steal but not others. I mean, I steal all those things as well, but I personally believe most of if not all of them are fine to steal, if not expected to be stolen in this day and age. Let's face it, sometimes(read: all the time) prices are ridiculously high and constantly getting higher. Sometimes you just plain don't agree with how much something is worth, so you designate your own price for it. And other times, there simply is no other way to get what you're looking for. I know I wouldn't even be into half the music I'm into nowadays if it weren't for people sending me youtube/grooveshark links of tracks they wanted me to hear. Piracy is, always has been, and always will be, a double-edged sword for the owners of the property being stolen.

Yeah it's a hard line to draw, it is an age of convenience and economic strain. I'd like to think my impact on the shows I stream is minimal. But I know I'm affecting Sky's income by watching shows on their channel whilst not being a subscriber. I don't think it's fine or justifiable, but alas, I'm not perfect. I'm also changing as I get older and have more disposable income, even now, I think TV shows is about as naughty as I get (apart from doing over my insurance company - but that's a whole different line of conversation and moral ambiguity right there). When I embarked on running a label (or even releasing my music on labels like Immerse or Punch Drunk) I quickly came to realise the effect piracy has on small independents. I honestly believe it's an educational thing and up to the industry to change that. (Perhaps a lack of patience in modern society's want now get now approach to music)

What was stopping your mates linking you to the label youtube or soundcloud or using an advertised service like Spotify? The only real reason I can see is that the labels hadn't set it up. I just don't see the justification for it otherwise especially when legal, but still free options exist out there.

And prices get higher because less people buy them, the more you audience buy your product, the sooner it becomes before you turn a profit, the less it costs to produce in larger numbers. Things rise in price BECAUSE of piracy.

[Pedro Sánchez]

The majority of file sharers don't give a fuck about music, probably don't even like music, they just wanna be the guy who gives shit away as an ego boosting exercise or to promote some file sharing site for ad profit (profit that probably generates more than the average artist on a label), thats why put their shitty little read-me text files in there. They are ultimately trolls feeding trolls.

Oh and Pete...I bought all the soul motive releases I have on wax.

[D3ATHSTEP]

I have committed many crimes in my past and I'm no saint when it comes to modern media, I stream tv shows from the states and alike. But every single piece of music I own whether it be the thousands of vinyl, mp3, wav, aiff, whatever, is legally purchased or given to me directly.

I think some semblance of stability can be retained, everything evolves and progresses, it's up to the industry to find the right business model and educate (not punish ala the RIAA) their potential customers.

Yeah it's a hard line to draw, it is an age of convenience and economic strain. I'd like to think my impact on the shows I stream is minimal. But I know I'm affecting Sky's income by watching shows on their channel whilst not being a subscriber. I don't think it's fine or justifiable, but alas, I'm not perfect. I'm also changing as I get older and have more disposable income, even now, I think TV shows is about as naughty as I get (apart from doing over my insurance company - but that's a whole different line of conversation and moral ambiguity right there). When I embarked on running a label (or even releasing my music on labels like Immerse or Punch Drunk) I quickly came to realise the effect piracy has on small independents. I honestly believe it's an educational thing and up to the industry to change that. (Perhaps a lack of patience in modern society's want now get now approach to music)

What was stopping your mates linking you to the label youtube or soundcloud or using an advertised service like Spotify? The only real reason I can see is that the labels hadn't set it up. I just don't see the justification for it otherwise especially when legal, but still free options exist out there.

And prices get higher because less people buy them, the more you audience buy your product, the sooner it becomes before you turn a profit, the less it costs to produce in larger numbers. Things rise in price BECAUSE of piracy.

Spotify came out in the states quite recently, I'm talking when I was like 17. Also, Spotify's selection is EXTREMELY lacking, especially in some of the more underground music.

[pete_bubonic]

, I think most music SHOULD be free of charge, and the money should be generated from live performances and getting your music used in film/television/video games/insert media platform here. For every day listening, however, I believe it should be free of charge.

This is the crux in the difference between your and my opinion.

i can't fathom how you can think this, it's a complete disregard for the time, effort and money spent learning how to produce, crafting a unique sound and honing your skills to the point where people want to actually listen to your music regularly.

And as I mentioned before, what of the music not suited to sync deals? Or the producers who don't want to / can't dj, but are geniuses in the studio? Should we disregard their music?

The flipside of your approach that music should be free to everyone, is that music should only be produced by those who can afford it. I don't want to live in that world.

[garethom]

They do have links promoting the artist and where to purchase the songs from, but that doesn't mean people will do it by any means. Why would they when it's free right in front of them? Posting links to how to support the artist doesn't make it "okay" to post illegal content in my opinion. So with that logic, I could upload every song I wanted to onto youtube and just post a link to the artists' facebook pages?

Also, with all due respect of course, it seems like you need to promote your website a bit more. I mean, you just convinced me why it's better to go with your site than mediafire, but now you need to think of a way to bring that news to the masses. As soon as people realize that you're getting better quality for the same price, they'll flock to it. It's how human beings work. If you want to buy a pair of shoes, but you find the same pair of shoes that are better quality with some extra features at a different store for the same price, you're going to get those, right? I think if you spent a bit of time actively trying to come up with creative ways to advertise your website, you would indeed solve your own problem with enough time.

I promote my site and label as much as time allows me, without me forcing it on everyone. It's getting a hell of a lot more views than I ever thought it would already, and a lot of people are grabbing the releases (and donating too). I'm not looking to be the next Sony or Warner. As for saying if I spent more time on promotion, it would solve all the problems, that again, isn't true. Looking at some of the search terms people have used to end up on my site, they're searching for, for example, "bhava immerse mediafire". They could've had this release, in whatever quality they want, FOR FREE, for just a few clicks onto the bandcamp page. Yet it seems it is hardwired into many people that they hear a release, or hear somebody talk about it, and it's straight to rapidshare/torrent sites/whatever.

I don't agree with your shoe analogy either. Perhaps look at it this way. If you saw a pair of shoes, that had been lovingly crafted by somebody who doesn't sell many pairs of shoes in a shop, and then you saw a copy of those shoes in another shop for free, but by taking the free shoes, you push the prices of the original shoes up for everybody that wants to show appreciation to person that came up with them because they can't sell as much.

"It's how human beings work" doesn't cut it with me. It only "works" that way because there isn't the stigma around stealing music that there should be.

[pete_bubonic]

Spotify came out in the states quite recently, I'm talking when I was like 17. Also, Spotify's selection is EXTREMELY lacking, especially in some of the more underground music.

I think the industry is in a state of flux, people are trying new things and no one has reached the right model yet, so although I don't approve of the aforementioned methods, I certainly wouldn't deny their use to anyone especially in the above circumstances. But things are changing (as they always do) Spotify is gaining ground, it's become INCREDIBLY easy for labels to setup the infrastructture to have youtube, spotify, intunes, bleep and so on accounts.

[robbiej]

so why dont I just got steal a car off a lot?. why should I be denied a nice brand new car?, I might not even like that car, why should I have to pay for it? i used to think like this, but realized eventually there is no other logical conclusion to reach other than it is stealing. if someone wants to learn guitar and doesnt have a job, why should they be denied their dream, they should be able to walk in guitar centre and take whatever they want, right?

so frankly, if youre downloading artists songs for free w/o their permission you are stealing.

as for youtube, it is absolutely piracy. 99% is a giant copyright violation. they just make it hard as hell for people to get their material off. imo it is a bit of a double standard for the forum. those links should be to sites where they can listen to a preview and purchase it, (if they still can) not to youtube.

just my 2 cents

steal (stiːl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— vb , steals , stealing , stole , stolen
1. to take (something) from someone, etc without permission or unlawfully, esp in a secret manner
2. ( tr ) to obtain surreptitiously

To be fair, a car is just a luxury one gets specifically for the reason of having something nice(not to mention the fact that it's significantly more expensive than music). I don't think it's really fair to compare stealing a car with stealing software you'd use to pursue your passion of creating/listening to music. I do believe there are moral grey areas in regards to stealing, it isn't simply as black and white as you're making it out to be. This is just my opinion, however. Although rarely, I do feel as though stealing can sometimes be justified.

it really is black n white. and if you really think thats the case, can you tell me the value limit of which its ok to steal things? if a car is too much how about a tv? how about speakers to pursue my passion of creating/listenign to music, can i steal those too? cant do mush listening w/o speakers.

Im not sure why people think intellectual property and digital files is any different from stealing something physical. you would never (i hope) say to yourself "music should be free" then walk into hmv and take a cd.

the real problem is people think theres some moral grey area in stealing. the internet has just made it easy to steal and people lacking morals have jumped at the opportunity.

Hobbes was right.

[Juice Terry]

I personally believe most of if not all of them are fine to steal, if not expected to be stolen in this day and age.

Poor attitude to have. Be the change you want to see.

To be totally honest, I think most music SHOULD be free of charge, and the money should be generated from live performances and getting your music used in film/television/video games/insert media platform here. For every day listening, however, I believe it should be free of charge. I know I'm probably alone in this belief, but that's okay, because it's exactly that: a belief. Not a fact. You can choose to respect it or not, it's out of my hands and I won't try to convince anyone otherwise unless provoked.

But it's not... So you're stealing. Stealing ultimately damages the industry, support the artists you like - it's up to them and their labels on what model they want to use for distribution, if you don't agree with it, don't buy it.

If you want free music there is plenty out there, check out Soundcloud, etc... loads of unknowns are giving their music away, but you shouldn't expect to have something just because you want it. To be honest, it's fucking pathetic.

[D3ATHSTEP]

, I think most music SHOULD be free of charge, and the money should be generated from live performances and getting your music used in film/television/video games/insert media platform here. For every day listening, however, I believe it should be free of charge.

This is the crux in the difference between your and my opinion.

i can't fathom how you can think this, it's a complete disregard for the time, effort and money spent learning how to produce, crafting a unique sound and honing your skills to the point where people want to actually listen to your music regularly.

And as I mentioned before, what of the music not suited to sync deals? Or the producers who don't want to / can't dj, but are geniuses in the studio? Should we disregard their music?

The flipside of your approach that music should be free to everyone, is that music should only be produced by those who can afford it. I don't want to live in that world.

I'm not understanding your comment, because I'm broke as hell and I can produce music. it doesn't really cost money to produce music if you learn your craft as you said. I make music for people to hear, not for the money. I'd put on a live performance for the money, however. Also because performing live is fun. If someone needs to see a profit for producing music, then they're not totally passionate about producing music. In my opinion, real musicians make music because it's fun, makes them feel good, and allows them to vent/express emotions via an art form.

[D3ATHSTEP]

so why dont I just got steal a car off a lot?. why should I be denied a nice brand new car?, I might not even like that car, why should I have to pay for it? i used to think like this, but realized eventually there is no other logical conclusion to reach other than it is stealing. if someone wants to learn guitar and doesnt have a job, why should they be denied their dream, they should be able to walk in guitar centre and take whatever they want, right?

so frankly, if youre downloading artists songs for free w/o their permission you are stealing.

as for youtube, it is absolutely piracy. 99% is a giant copyright violation. they just make it hard as hell for people to get their material off. imo it is a bit of a double standard for the forum. those links should be to sites where they can listen to a preview and purchase it, (if they still can) not to youtube.

just my 2 cents

steal (stiːl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— vb , steals , stealing , stole , stolen
1. to take (something) from someone, etc without permission or unlawfully, esp in a secret manner
2. ( tr ) to obtain surreptitiously

To be fair, a car is just a luxury one gets specifically for the reason of having something nice(not to mention the fact that it's significantly more expensive than music). I don't think it's really fair to compare stealing a car with stealing software you'd use to pursue your passion of creating/listening to music. I do believe there are moral grey areas in regards to stealing, it isn't simply as black and white as you're making it out to be. This is just my opinion, however. Although rarely, I do feel as though stealing can sometimes be justified.

it really is black n white. and if you really think thats the case, can you tell me the value limit of which its ok to steal things? if a car is too much how about a tv? how about speakers to pursue my passion of creating/listenign to music, can i steal those too? cant do mush listening w/o speakers.

Im not sure why people think intellectual property and digital files is any different from stealing something physical. you would never (i hope) say to yourself "music should be free" then walk into hmv and take a cd.

the real problem is people think theres some moral grey area in stealing. the internet has just made it easy to steal and people lacking morals have jumped at the opportunity.

Hobbes was right.

I don't decide what is and isn't worth stealing based on price, I think the price of some things are far beyond what they should be in order for the average person to enjoy the full extent of. This is all personal opinion and I won't sway yours, but in my eyes, there is most certainly grey area to be found within stealing; not based on how expensive something is. More of the principal of WHAT you're stealing is.

[D3ATHSTEP]

I personally believe most of if not all of them are fine to steal, if not expected to be stolen in this day and age.

Poor attitude to have. Be the change you want to see.

To be totally honest, I think most music SHOULD be free of charge, and the money should be generated from live performances and getting your music used in film/television/video games/insert media platform here. For every day listening, however, I believe it should be free of charge. I know I'm probably alone in this belief, but that's okay, because it's exactly that: a belief. Not a fact. You can choose to respect it or not, it's out of my hands and I won't try to convince anyone otherwise unless provoked.

But it's not... So you're stealing. Stealing ultimately damages the industry, support the artists you like - it's up to them and their labels on what model they want to use for distribution, if you don't agree with it, don't buy it.

If you want free music there is plenty out there, check out Soundcloud, etc... loads of unknowns are giving their music away, but you shouldn't expect to have something just because you want it. To be honest, it's fucking pathetic.

I would argue that the price of music is "fucking pathetic". Sometimes it seems more like record companies are more in it for the money than for the sole purpose of promoting good music, which is what music is all about. I know that sounds like a bunch of hippy bullshit, and I'm far and away from a hippy, but it's actually true. Music should NOT be outrageously priced. I shouldn't have to spend a thousand dollars for a thousand songs. That's just fucking ridiculously overkill. There are FANTASTIC artists giving their stuff away for free, but the majority of what I listen to isn't officially free. I'm not about to drop hundreds of dollars on the music just so I can listen to it a few times a day for 3-8 minutes at a time. If you think that's a good deal, then I'd say you've got a distorted view on the subject. I have bills to pay, food to buy, etc. Why should I have to spend thousands of dollars on music I enjoy? It just isn't logical or fair. I don't care if it's the law or not, the law isn't always right. Marijuana is illegal, but I can find a lot of people who would disagree with that law.

TL;DR - Not all laws are good laws.

[Juice Terry]

Why do you need to buy 1,000 songs at once, no wonder you place so little value on music, you can't be taking it in properly...

I buy two or three albums a month and pay £10 a month for Spotify as well as a handful of singles, so spend about £50 a month on music and feel it's totally worth it. I can see the value in the music that I buy because I spend the time to get to know it, yeah, sometimes things are disappointing, but it's part of it.

[garethom]

Dude, you can still enjoying making music and getting paid for it. That's like saying it's wrong for McDonald's to charge people for burgers, because they should be doing it for the pleasure of cooking, just because the average person enjoys burgers.

Do you think that 20 years ago, people would be moaning that all music should be free? No. The massive availability of illegally free music has massively skewed perceptions.

And sorry, are you saying that $1 is outrageously priced? You say you shouldn't have to spend a thousand dollars for a thousand songs. Think about that man, A THOUSAND SONGS. Think at how much effort in terms of production, mix down, mastering, artwork design and distribution has gone into each of those tracks, and you aren't even willing to chip in $1 on it and you say it isn't logical or fair? I think it's you that isn't being logical or fair man. If you think spending $1 on a track is too much, I'm guessing you don't buy vinyl then, when inc. postage, it might cost me £10 to get 2 tracks. I happily do it because I get huge pleasure from the music, I like to support the artist and label that have gone to a lot of hard work to get the music to me, and I pay bills for cars, rent, petrol, etc. etc. but I make room to spend money on music. You can't have everything in life dude. Last night I worked out how much I've spent on vinyl since I started buying it. It was A LOT, but I'm not bothered, because it's something I get immense enjoyment out of.

If you can't see how silly you look by claiming that $1 per track is too much, then I don't think I can carry on this conversation with you.

[robbiej]

so why dont I just got steal a car off a lot?. why should I be denied a nice brand new car?, I might not even like that car, why should I have to pay for it? i used to think like this, but realized eventually there is no other logical conclusion to reach other than it is stealing. if someone wants to learn guitar and doesnt have a job, why should they be denied their dream, they should be able to walk in guitar centre and take whatever they want, right?

so frankly, if youre downloading artists songs for free w/o their permission you are stealing.

as for youtube, it is absolutely piracy. 99% is a giant copyright violation. they just make it hard as hell for people to get their material off. imo it is a bit of a double standard for the forum. those links should be to sites where they can listen to a preview and purchase it, (if they still can) not to youtube.

just my 2 cents

steal (stiːl) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— vb , steals , stealing , stole , stolen
1. to take (something) from someone, etc without permission or unlawfully, esp in a secret manner
2. ( tr ) to obtain surreptitiously

To be fair, a car is just a luxury one gets specifically for the reason of having something nice(not to mention the fact that it's significantly more expensive than music). I don't think it's really fair to compare stealing a car with stealing software you'd use to pursue your passion of creating/listening to music. I do believe there are moral grey areas in regards to stealing, it isn't simply as black and white as you're making it out to be. This is just my opinion, however. Although rarely, I do feel as though stealing can sometimes be justified.

it really is black n white. and if you really think thats the case, can you tell me the value limit of which its ok to steal things? if a car is too much how about a tv? how about speakers to pursue my passion of creating/listenign to music, can i steal those too? cant do mush listening w/o speakers.

Im not sure why people think intellectual property and digital files is any different from stealing something physical. you would never (i hope) say to yourself "music should be free" then walk into hmv and take a cd.

the real problem is people think theres some moral grey area in stealing. the internet has just made it easy to steal and people lacking morals have jumped at the opportunity.

Hobbes was right.

I don't decide what is and isn't worth stealing based on price, I think the price of some things are far beyond what they should be in order for the average person to enjoy the full extent of. This is all personal opinion and I won't sway yours, but in my eyes, there is most certainly grey area to be found within stealing; not based on how expensive something is. More of the principal of WHAT you're stealing is.

So you decide whats worth stealing based on your own personal set of moral boundries? what if everyone did that? but what if their moral boundries werent as robust as yours? and they decided that all your stuff should be free to them? if you steal why should i not steal from you?

this is why weve created a legal framework to make these decisions collectively as a society, beacuse if everyone just decided for themsleves, the world would be a much worse place. and the courts have decided and the result is YES IT IS STEALING.

can you let us all know whats ok to steal or do i , like you, just decide for myself?

[pete_bubonic]

I'm going to break down your statement, not to be picky, just to clarify my point.

I'm not understanding your comment, because I'm broke as hell and I can produce music.

Presumably as a hobby, and no offence intended and this is assumption, I guess that your music probably sounds like it's at hobby/amatuer level. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, if it works for you then more power to you. But that's an incredibly individual thing. And certainly does not and should not apply to everyone.

it doesn't really cost money to produce music if you learn your craft as you said.

Of course it does, the instruments, the software, the hardware (unless you steal these as well - therefore screwing over untold levels of the music industry and further). The years spent on getting your sound to a good level. Paying for space to produce in or practice if you're a band. Soundproofing. Monitoring systems. The office chair you sit on. All cost money.

I make music for people to hear, not for the money.

ALL good musicians do. this does not negate the need to make money from it if you're putting hours , days, months and years into it.

I'd put on a live performance for the money, however. Also because performing live is fun.

Again, an incredibly narrow view and relative only to you as an individual, plenty of people may not want to perform ala Burial or Toasty.

If someone needs to see a profit for producing music, then they're not totally passionate about producing music.

Sorry man, but that's a ridiculous statement to make. A good artist who spends full time working days in the studio, creating an album that they are happy with on an integral creative level is due a wage, they have the basic right to sell thier music and see not PROFIT but a LIVING from the fruits of thier labour. Otherwise who would they be able to produce that album in the first place?!

In my opinion, real musicians make music because it's fun, makes them feel good, and allows them to vent/express emotions via an art form.

No one in their right mind would say otherwise, but this is not exclusive from having the right to earn a living from your work, irrespective of how much you enjoy it. Just because an electronic engineer fucking LOVES more than anything in the world, soldering transistors into TVs, making the best TVs his little hands can; is he denied the right expect a wage and the right to sell his product because it's his for of artistic expression?