Quantcast
To those who buy music: Why?

Forums - Music Discussion - To those who buy music: Why?

Don't listen to mainstream music, and even if I did, I would listen to it on Youtube or pirate it. Games and films on the other hand I always buy.



Around the Network
brendude13 said:
Don't listen to mainstream music, and even if I did, I would listen to it on Youtube or pirate it. Games and films on the other hand I always buy.

You really buy films?



riderz13371 said:
brendude13 said:
Don't listen to mainstream music, and even if I did, I would listen to it on Youtube or pirate it. Games and films on the other hand I always buy.

You really buy films?

Yes. I'll probably consider a Netflix subscription too. Film makers actually deserve the money in my opinion, and you can't beat Blu-Ray and even DVD quality.



brendude13 said:
riderz13371 said:
brendude13 said:
Don't listen to mainstream music, and even if I did, I would listen to it on Youtube or pirate it. Games and films on the other hand I always buy.

You really buy films?

Yes. I'll probably consider a Netflix subscription too. Film makers actually deserve the money in my opinion, and you can't beat Blu-Ray and even DVD quality.

No you can't beat Blu-Ray quality but you can match it if you know where to look =P



To the OP:

I was very much like you before I began to experiment with putting together a nice stereo/surround sound system. Once I began to hear the difference between a Lossy format vs a Lossless format, the mp3 format began to sound distasteful to me. Sure, I don't mind listening to an mp3 format; however, listening to anything below 320kbps makes me wonder how much sound I'm missing out on. FLAC is my new favorite music format, and paying for great music no longer seems absurd. I can get more stimulation from a song than many games I played today. Music has become sweet candy for my ears and soul; it can push my body better than an energy drink, it can bring forth nostalgia and past forgotten memories, and pretty much make my day at work. (Well worth the sticker price of $10-30 dollars to me).



Around the Network
timmah said:
Just because a person is rich doesn't make it morally ok to steal from them. That would be like saying a particular store is making big profits, so it's ok to walk in and shoplift from them.

And the term 'file sharing' does not make it better than stealing. You own something that somebody worked to produce, and you didn't pay for it. Pirating games - stealing, pirating movies - stealing, pirating software - stealing, pirating music - stealing.


I would argue that the term "stealing" doesn't entirely fit the situation. When a person pirates media, he is only costing the distributor a potential sale--even then, there's no guarantee that they would have made the money that his piracy "cost" them, or that he would have bought it at all, had piracy not been an option. When you steal a videogame, movie, or album from a store, you not only deprived them a sale, but you also deprived the shop of the physical, tangible worth of that disc. I don't know if I'm stating this correctly. Basically, if a store has a $10 album, and I steal that physical album, they've lost $10. It's gone. Whereas if I pirate a $10 album, the "source" for that revenue remains, and, technically, the distributor has lost nothing.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not trying to say that piracy is okay, just that the unique nature of digital media makes this a somewhat morally grey area. Personally, I do my fair share of pirating, but I also buy as much as I can afford, because if everyone pirated everything, no one would earn anything, and we can't have that.



Trunkin said:
timmah said:
Just because a person is rich doesn't make it morally ok to steal from them. That would be like saying a particular store is making big profits, so it's ok to walk in and shoplift from them.

And the term 'file sharing' does not make it better than stealing. You own something that somebody worked to produce, and you didn't pay for it. Pirating games - stealing, pirating movies - stealing, pirating software - stealing, pirating music - stealing.


I would argue that the term "stealing" doesn't entirely fit the situation. When a person pirates media, he is only costing the distributor a potential sale--even then, there's no guarantee that they would have made the money that his piracy "cost" them, or that he would have bought it at all, had piracy not been an option. When you steal a videogame, movie, or album from a store, you not only deprived them a sale, but you also deprived the shop of the physical, tangible worth of that disc. I don't know if I'm stating this correctly. Basically, if a store has a $10 album, and I steal that physical album, they've lost $10. It's gone. Whereas if I pirate a $10 album, the "source" for that revenue remains, and, technically, the distributor has lost nothing.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not trying to say that piracy is okay, just that the unique nature of digital media makes this a somewhat morally grey area. Personally, I do my fair share of pirating, but I also buy as much as I can afford, because if everyone pirated everything, no one would earn anything, and we can't have that.

Patent law would disagree with your reasoning. Stealing a copyrighted intangible that has value is legally still stealing. I would argue that the lost revenue attributed to sheer amount of theft by piracy trumps theft by taking related to media (movies, music).



DraconianAC said:
To the OP:

I was very much like you before I began to experiment with putting together a nice stereo/surround sound system. Once I began to hear the difference between a Lossy format vs a Lossless format, the mp3 format began to sound distasteful to me. Sure, I don't mind listening to an mp3 format; however, listening to anything below 320kbps makes me wonder how much sound I'm missing out on. FLAC is my new favorite music format, and paying for great music no longer seems absurd. I can get more stimulation from a song than many games I played today. Music has become sweet candy for my ears and soul; it can push my body better than an energy drink, it can bring forth nostalgia and past forgotten memories, and pretty much make my day at work. (Well worth the sticker price of $10-30 dollars to me).


Well, I only download good qualtiy music. Not sure I'm on your level, but if it sounds exactly likes the itunes sample songs, then the donwloads seem okay to me :D



Currently own:

 

  • Ps4

 

Currently playing: Witcher 3, Walking Dead S1/2, GTA5, Dying Light, Tomb Raider Remaster, MGS Ground Zeros

timmah said:
Trunkin said:
timmah said:
Just because a person is rich doesn't make it morally ok to steal from them. That would be like saying a particular store is making big profits, so it's ok to walk in and shoplift from them.

And the term 'file sharing' does not make it better than stealing. You own something that somebody worked to produce, and you didn't pay for it. Pirating games - stealing, pirating movies - stealing, pirating software - stealing, pirating music - stealing.


I would argue that the term "stealing" doesn't entirely fit the situation. When a person pirates media, he is only costing the distributor a potential sale--even then, there's no guarantee that they would have made the money that his piracy "cost" them, or that he would have bought it at all, had piracy not been an option. When you steal a videogame, movie, or album from a store, you not only deprived them a sale, but you also deprived the shop of the physical, tangible worth of that disc. I don't know if I'm stating this correctly. Basically, if a store has a $10 album, and I steal that physical album, they've lost $10. It's gone. Whereas if I pirate a $10 album, the "source" for that revenue remains, and, technically, the distributor has lost nothing.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not trying to say that piracy is okay, just that the unique nature of digital media makes this a somewhat morally grey area. Personally, I do my fair share of pirating, but I also buy as much as I can afford, because if everyone pirated everything, no one would earn anything, and we can't have that.

Patent law would disagree with your reasoning. Stealing a copyrighted intangible that has value is legally still stealing. I would argue that the lost revenue attributed to sheer amount of theft by piracy trumps theft by taking related to media (movies, music).

Oh, it is most certainly against the law, but laws don't stop many people from publically smoking weed, or speeding. If you can get away with a crime, while at the same time abiding by whatever moral code you live by, why not break the law? I think piracy is similar, in a way. It's easy to placate your conscience when you can tell yourself, "What are the chances that I'll get caught" or, "I'm not hurting anyone--at least, not directly, so is what I'm doing really wrong?" There's also the fact that losses associated with piracy are extremely difficult to estimate. The erroneous claims that 27,000 jobs and billions of dollars in the entertainment industry have been "lost to piracy" don't help either.



Trunkin said:
timmah said:
Trunkin said:
timmah said:
Just because a person is rich doesn't make it morally ok to steal from them. That would be like saying a particular store is making big profits, so it's ok to walk in and shoplift from them.

And the term 'file sharing' does not make it better than stealing. You own something that somebody worked to produce, and you didn't pay for it. Pirating games - stealing, pirating movies - stealing, pirating software - stealing, pirating music - stealing.


I would argue that the term "stealing" doesn't entirely fit the situation. When a person pirates media, he is only costing the distributor a potential sale--even then, there's no guarantee that they would have made the money that his piracy "cost" them, or that he would have bought it at all, had piracy not been an option. When you steal a videogame, movie, or album from a store, you not only deprived them a sale, but you also deprived the shop of the physical, tangible worth of that disc. I don't know if I'm stating this correctly. Basically, if a store has a $10 album, and I steal that physical album, they've lost $10. It's gone. Whereas if I pirate a $10 album, the "source" for that revenue remains, and, technically, the distributor has lost nothing.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not trying to say that piracy is okay, just that the unique nature of digital media makes this a somewhat morally grey area. Personally, I do my fair share of pirating, but I also buy as much as I can afford, because if everyone pirated everything, no one would earn anything, and we can't have that.

Patent law would disagree with your reasoning. Stealing a copyrighted intangible that has value is legally still stealing. I would argue that the lost revenue attributed to sheer amount of theft by piracy trumps theft by taking related to media (movies, music).

Oh, it is most certainly against the law, but laws don't stop many people from publically smoking weed, or speeding. If you can get away with a crime, while at the same time abiding by whatever moral code you live by, why not break the law? I think piracy is similar, in a way. It's easy to placate your conscience when you can tell yourself, "What are the chances that I'll get caught" or, "I'm not hurting anyone--at least, not directly, so is what I'm doing really wrong?" There's also the fact that losses associated with piracy are extremely difficult to estimate. The erroneous claims that 27,000 jobs and billions of dollars in the entertainment industry have been "lost to piracy" don't help either.

I'm sure it's not as bad as the record industry would say, but there's no doubt that jobs have been lost in the industry due to piracy. Placating one's conscience does not make something right, which is why I don't pirate music.