File-Sharing Morality

[Tristan Thinks]

I've just finished a discussion/argument with a close friend over file-sharing, pirating, or more accurately, breach of copyright, and it made me angry to discover his moral position over other people's property.

 

We started out talking about the possibility of a levy being applied to all broadband connections in the U.K. so that every subscriber pays a small amount that goes into a fund that pays artists, composers, and publishers. That led to talking about the cause of the problem being that copying and breaking the Copyright laws is easy and there is little chance of being caught and prosecuted.

 

I mentioned that it was very much a question of personal morals - whether you believe that just because something is easy to do you can do it even if it is against the law, and deprives content creators of their livelihood.

 

I was very much interested to read an article on The Register this week, an interview with Feargal Sharkey about what piracy means to the average composer and artist. He points out some very important issues and I highly recommend reading it.

I'm aware a lot of people seem to think that when downloading something off the internet for free, there's a large, black, soulless, faceless, moneygrabbing multinational company there that will never miss the

[Tiff]

I'm a little confused. Are you referring to music downloaded, or stories? Or just in general?

 

I don't know how to answer that question. I know a lot of kids and even my sister and her friends, they download music illegally. The whole Napster case awhile back caused a big stir in the media. From one angle, it's the little people vs. the man (the big money making companies) and I can understand why your friend and others find ways to save themselves money. It's the thing to do, I guess.

 

I personally don't download music. I'm the iTunes buyer. One dollar per song.

 

As for writing on the internet or anything else, no I don't steal. I may print their story off the net and have a hard copy to read once in awhile, in case the file gets lost over time, but never to sell or distribute it. It's for my own enjoyment and that's it.

 

It's a shame that morals are going downhill. However, I realized, you can't really argue with others, if it's their personal opinion, and their own set of morals/values, even if in your opinion, are tainted. It's how they feel and what they believe. Just have to agree to disagree, otherwise, you'll drive yourselves crazy!

[rknapp]

I find it hilarious that the article mentioned their $10,000 income. Artists have never made a whole lot of money off of the sale of MP3s, CDs, Cassetes, or LPs. No, their millions come from tours, concerts, merchandise, etc. I remember there was a South Park episode that was centered on the topic of piracy, and a news reported showed artists feeling the weight of it. Britney Spears had to settle for a Leer 2 private jet, instead of the Leer 3 with cup holders. Another artist couldn't get a private island, or something to that effect.

 

Artists and musicians aren't affected much by piracy. It's the record labels who are affected because they're the ones who record the songs to be sold in brick and mortar stores as CDs or online at music e-stores as copyrighted MP3s. In fact, many artists actually LIKE piracy because it's just another form of exposure for their music that attracts people to their live performances where entrance tickets can exceed $100 per head at certain venues. I paid $60 this past summer to see TOOL live in Atlantic City. I forget which band it was, but they released an entire album online for free download just to get the exposure for live concerts and such.

 

Piracy is not wrong and doesn't make artists poor. It makes them richer and encourages them to continue making music. It's the record labels who have to learn that media is changing, and if they want to make money then have to start selling songs individually on e-stores, or has whole albums for less than the cost buying the songs separately.

 

EDIT: To add to the e-store thing, DRM-encoded MP3's must die. When I buy the music on a CD, I can rip it to my computer and put it on my MP3 player. Some places sell you the songs and prevent you from burning them to CD. It's good practice in theory to prevent people from turning around and selling the songs on blank discs, but it's annoying as shit when you have no MP3 player or MP3 capable home or car stereo and want to listen to the songs there.

Edited March 1, 2008 by rknapp

[Tristan Thinks]

I'm a little confused. Are you referring to music downloaded, or stories? Or just in general?

Well spotted! Although our discussion centered around music and video (TV shows) I'm on about the whole moral situation where someone rationalises that it is okay to break the law in this way, rather than campaign to change it. So yes, the morals apply just as readily to someone ripping off stories.

 

How would authors here feel if someone took their stories and published them on other web-sites without permission, for example? How would you feel if you asked them to remove your copyrighted work and they refused? What would happen if they edited it slightly and claimed it as their own?

 

It's a shame that morals are going downhill. However, I realized, you can't really argue with others, if it's their personal opinion, and their own set of morals/values, even if in your opinion, are tainted. It's how they feel and what they believe. Just have to agree to disagree, otherwise, you'll drive yourselves crazy!

What bothers me is how they can justify breaking the current law (as it stands in most countries) and how they think it is okay to deprive songwriters, composers, and artists of their income.

 

I find it hilarious that the article mentioned their $10,000 income. Artists have never made a whole lot of money off of the sale of MP3s, CDs, Cassetes, or LPs. No, their millions come from tours, concerts, merchandise, etc. I remember there was a South Park episode that was centered on the topic of piracy, and a news reported showed artists feeling the weight of it. Britney Spears had to settle for a Leer 2 private jet, instead of the Leer 3 with cup holders. Another artist couldn't get a private island, or something to that effect.

For a small number of very successful artists or brands that may be true, but the vast majority of musicians, composers, songwriters and artists struggle to make an income and don't have vast touring or merchandise franchises.

 

Artists and musicians aren't affected much by piracy.

Do you have sources for that?

 

Piracy is not wrong and doesn't make artists poor.

Supporting evidence?

 

It makes them richer and encourages them to continue making music.

So by that argument if you worked for me and I paid you nothing it'd encourage you to continue working for nothing?

 

It's the record labels who have to learn that media is changing, and if they want to make money then have to start selling songs individually on e-stores, or has whole albums for less than the cost buying the songs separately.

My question wasn't about the commercial arrangements, distribution method, or the money, it was deliberately about the morals of individuals and how they justify breaking the current law and depriving the creators of the art of an important portion of their livelihood.

[JamesSavik]

Here are my guidelines-

 

1) for music, I only download music that I own, what I own in another format or is out of print.

 

2) for video I download whatever has been on the air (broadcast TV).

 

3) for ebooks, I download whatever I can get my hands on.

 

4) I don't download software or games

[FrenchCanadian]

Personally, I almost never download any music,, if I have done so, it was cause the album or the song was really unavailable to buy in a legal way. otherwise I either buy the CD or if there's not enough good song on the CD, I'll just buy the song on itunes.

 

for video, I've only downloaded one movie not legally, but it's cause I really wanted to see it and that I knew that I would buy the DVD as soon as it go out, which I did.

 

I don't download pirated games nor ebooks

[Drewbie]

Amazon has good mp3 downloads that are drm free.

 

Itunes have a seaction for drm free songs.

 

I personally only download drm free songs now.

 

if you have a drmed song. just burn it and then upload it back to your computer.

[YaP]

Artists and musicians aren't affected much by piracy. It's the record labels who are affected because they're the ones who record the songs to be sold in brick and mortar stores as CDs or online at music e-stores as copyrighted MP3s. In fact, many artists actually LIKE piracy because it's just another form of exposure for their music that attracts people to their live performances where entrance tickets can exceed $100 per head at certain venues. I paid $60 this past summer to see TOOL live in Atlantic City. I forget which band it was, but they released an entire album online for free download just to get the exposure for live concerts and such.

 

Piracy is not wrong and doesn't make artists poor. It makes them richer and encourages them to continue making music. It's the record labels who have to learn that media is changing, and if they want to make money then have to start selling songs individually on e-stores, or has whole albums for less than the cost buying the songs separately.

 

Sorry, i have to disagree. I know some professional musicians, and their income has been affected significantly since the mp3 boom (and the piracy) started. In the "pre-mp3" days, the income from selling records was the major source of income even for the "big" players (Beatles and Stones etc. made their fortune with selling records, not with concerts). That has changed due to the illegal copying/downloading. Thats why the "famous" musicians now try to make their money through concerts, charging a lot for the tickets (it was much more affortable to go to a concert 20 years ago...). Not-so-famous bands cannot charge that much, so they have a hard time making money with concerts at all (you have to pay for the hall and the equipment and travel expenses etc etc...).

 

I think its just fair to pay for music (or any other work of someone else that i use). A dollar (or Euro) for a song isn't really that much IMHO.

 

I voted "It's OK just to check if I like something before buying it", having in mind mainly computer programs. As i make my living with programming, i depend on being payed for my work. I think its ok to check something out before i decide to use it - if there is no time limited trial version available i do at times use a copy to check if i like it and it does what i expect. If i use software, i pay for it. As for music, its just a fair thing to do. Everybody deserves to be payed for his/her work.

 

As for drm protection: i agree, its annoying you can't copy the files that you payed for as you want to your own mp3 players and computers. If i payed for it, i think i should be allowed to use it (myself) in any way i want to.

Edited March 1, 2008 by YaP

[AFriendlyFace]

Well, I'd love to post a very long, thorough discussion of my thoughts on this, and I probably will later, but I don't have time now, so I'll just make a few quick points, all in this case regarding music.

 

If I like an artist I will support them. I will buy their CDs, I will speak positively about them whenever they come up, and if it's convenient or I really like them, I will go to their concerts. The way I discover artists I like is from the radio, word of mouth, youtube, and downloading songs.

 

Once I discover that I do indeed like an artist, even if I've already heard all the songs on the CD, and can easily hear them again, I'm still inclined to buy the CD. To me the "process" doesn't feel complete until I do. I also like the feeling of "owning" it, and not only that but usually I prefer the quality of the songs on CD, and I also admit that I simply like the fancy packaging, and inserts. Plus it does make me feel good to support an artist I like.

 

Thus, for me, downloading music, or otherwise being exposed to it for free first, makes me more likely to eventually support the artist. I'm unlikely to have bought the CD in the first place if I didn't have a good indication that I would like several of the songs, so the more I get to hear, the more likely I am to buy it.

 

Conversely, artists who make a big deal about piracy completely turn me off. Even if I do like them I refuse to listen to their music. I wouldn't think of buying their CDs or supporting them in any way, and every time they come up in conversation I'll make it clear that I don't like them. The perfect example is Metalica. I did like their music, but after they spearheaded the Napster thing they completely and permanently lost me. Whereas I'd have probably spoken positively about them and bought their CDs otherwise.

 

I'd be very likely to just go ahead and buy songs on iTunes or something if I had an iPod or other MP3 player, but I'm very very slow to embrace new electronics, and I'm still not really comfortable with owning an iPod/MP3 player just yet. I mean I guess if someone bought me one, loaded with a bunch of songs I liked, and spent some time slowly and thoroughly showing me all the features I might get on-board, but I like to live a "simple life" with regards to electronics, and I just don't see myself initiating introducing these things into my life on my own (not that I want or expect someone else to do it for me; that's just ridiculous).

 

As for whether or not it's legal, that's mostly irrelevant to me. My system of morality is tied to doing what I feel is morally correct, and making the best and fairest decisions I can make on a personal basis. Not hurting anyone is paramount in this system. So while my morals and code of ethics usually align with laws and conventions of society I'm not particularly concerned if they don't.

 

In this case, I have no doubt that my listening to the music first for free (be in on radio, illegally download, youtube, or a friend's CD) is actually better for the artists and for myself. So it's an obviously appropriate moral choice for me to make. I benefit, the artists benefit, and no one gets hurt.

 

I'll readily concede that this might not be the case for many if not most other people, and that is more complicated and troubling, but that would be beyond the scope that I intend to explore with this post.

 

-Kevin

[Razor]

I'm sorry, but if the people weren't so moneygrubbing to begin with, the world would be more hesitant to break copyright law. As it is, this is simply the inevitable backlash of greed.

 

And sorry again, but quite frankly it doesn't really register on my give-a-sh... I mean.... sympathy-meter. Welcome to life with the rest of the world.

[Tiff]

Well spotted! Although our discussion centered around music and video (TV shows) I'm on about the whole moral situation where someone rationalises that it is okay to break the law in this way, rather than campaign to change it. So yes, the morals apply just as readily to someone ripping off stories.

 

How would authors here feel if someone took their stories and published them on other web-sites without permission, for example? How would you feel if you asked them to remove your copyrighted work and they refused? What would happen if they edited it slightly and claimed it as their own?

Authors would feel extremely pissed if someone took their stories and published them elsewhere without permission. Who wouldn't? All your hard work and someone else is handling it without asking, or possibly passing it off as their own?

 

I would feel angry and then stressed, trying to figure out how to deal with it. If you contacted that person to remove the work and they refused, what else can be done? That's why writing on the net can be tricky. You can be easily ignored and brushed off. At least I can- I wouldn't know what to do! So I'd feel pretty darn helpless, too. But if it happens, well, I'll worry when the times comes.

[Jack Frost]

Technically it's not illegal to download files (though uploading is) in Canada.

 

But I rarely download files and I never share my files for people to download (I hate people taking up my bandwidth).

 

Personally I don't really care.

[Graeme]

(Preamble: I'm drunk, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt )

 

I don't download or copy copyrighted items to the best or my knowledge. However, I admit that I've had pirated computer games in the past. I was influenced by a friend of mine while we were going through University, who commented that computer games were so expensive that it was cost-prohibitive to buy a game that you found that you didn't like. He would 'acquire' a cracked version of the game, and then, if he liked it, he would buy a legal copy. So, if I like a game, I buy it.

 

I would also like to point out that pirating stories and passing them off as your own are two completely different situations. One is acquiring a copy illegally (ie. not paying the license fee associated with the story) and the other is fraud (passing off something as your own when it isn't). I would object strenuously if someone tried to pass of a story that I wrote as their own. Since I post my stories for free, I certainly have no objection to them acquiring a copy for their own use

 

Part of what we are looking at is the market economy in action. The market is saying that the prices being asked for are too high. For those who believe that a free market will determine an accurate price, then the free market is saying that they would prefer a free price to paying the current prices. That, in turn, is telling the producers (the artists) that their goods are not valued at the current price -- and the vast majority of artists can not live on their artistic income.

 

This is where I have to vary from the free market economy. I believe artistic endeavours are important, even if they are not financially viable (in general). I just don't know what the solution is....

 

PS: I haven't voted yet. I'll do that when I'm sober....

Edited March 2, 2008 by Graeme

[NickolasJames8]

Just out of curiousity, could a file sharing site like Limewire or Bear Share disable MP3 downloading through their software? If so, then I'd say that the record companies and artists should be targeting the sites instead of the individual. I mean, if someone was giving away free copies of a song on the street corner, would the people who took them up on the offer be charged with a crime?

[AFriendlyFace]

(Preamble: I'm drunk, so please take everything I say with a grain of salt )

 

I don't download or copy copyrighted items to the best or my knowledge. However, I admit that I've had pirated computer games in the past. I was influenced by a friend of mine while we were going through University, who commented that computer games were so expensive that it was cost-prohibitive to buy a game that you found that you didn't like. He would 'acquire' a cracked version of the game, and then, if he liked it, he would buy a legal copy. So, if I like a game, I buy it.

 

I would also like to point out that pirating stories and passing them off as your own are two completely different situations. One is acquiring a copy illegally (ie. not paying the license fee associated with the story) and the other is fraud (passing off something as your own when it isn't). I would object strenuously if someone tried to pass of a story that I wrote as their own. Since I post my stories for free, I certainly have no objection to them acquiring a copy for their own use

 

Part of what we are looking at is the market economy in action. The market is saying that the prices being asked for are too high. For those who believe that a free market will determine an accurate price, then the free market is saying that they would prefer a free price to paying the current prices. That, in turn, is telling the producers (the artists) that their goods are not valued at the current price -- and the vast majority of artists can not live on their artistic income.

 

This is where I have to vary from the free market economy. I believe artistic endeavours are important, even if they are not financially viable (in general). I just don't know what the solution is....

 

PS: I haven't voted yet. I'll do that when I'm sober....

I'm inclined to agree with Graeme! Right down to the "I'll vote when I'm sober" bit

 

Just out of curiousity, could a file sharing site like Limewire or Bear Share disable MP3 downloading through their software? If so, then I'd say that the record companies and artists should be targeting the sites instead of the individual. I mean, if someone was giving away free copies of a song on the street corner, would the people who took them up on the offer be charged with a crime?

I should think that indeed they might be, in much the same way that someone who is buying a prostitute might be charged if there were a raid or something. Also, there have been a few cases of individuals who downloaded music being charged.

[BeaStKid]

I am a go-between the first two options.

 

While I am not a big advocate of Piracy, I can understand why India has it. The duties levied by the government on VCD's DVD's and Games CD's are so high that you get a normal game CD for as high as Rs.1,000.

 

Same is the case with most copyright content. Therefore, the masses find it easier to resort to piracy. Even the softwares are priced at exuberant rates.

 

So, while I would like to buy wherever possible, it is not the case everytime.

 

BeaStKid

[Tristan Thinks]

Authors would feel extremely pissed if someone took their stories and published them elsewhere without permission. Who wouldn't? All your hard work and someone else is handling it without asking, or possibly passing it off as their own?

 

I would feel angry and then stressed, trying to figure out how to deal with it. If you contacted that person to remove the work and they refused, what else can be done? That's why writing on the net can be tricky. You can be easily ignored and brushed off. At least I can- I wouldn't know what to do! So I'd feel pretty darn helpless, too. But if it happens, well, I'll worry when the times comes.

This was what I hoped we'd get to.

 

As authors we'd be upset and stressed - so why is it some people think that composers, songwriters, artists and publishers shouldn't feel the same way and should forgo their earnings?

 

If it is thought okay for those creative people to be ripped off, then it follows the people advocating ripping them off don't care about the well-being of the creative people (who could be colleagues and friends), which takes us back to why I asked the question about morals rather than legality or economic issues.

 

Seems to me a lot of the moral justification comes from how some people like to create the impression that the people creating the material and depending on the income are 'faceless greedy corporations' - as if the creative geniuses behind the whole endeavour don't exist.

 

What really bothered me about what my mate Tim said was at the end of the conversation, where he said if he could take his laptop into a store and make an exact copy of a 'box' without paying he would. Think of that box as a CD or DVD, and him making a perfect copy and leaving the original on the shelf and not paying for the copy - the implications of what he said are astounding.

 

It seems like people really don't think through the implications of what they advocate or do, because I'm sure if the roles were reversed they'd be screaming blue murder about it.

[Tristan Thinks]

Part of what we are looking at is the market economy in action. The market is saying that the prices being asked for are too high. For those who believe that a free market will determine an accurate price, then the free market is saying that they would prefer a free price to paying the current prices. That, in turn, is telling the producers (the artists) that their goods are not valued at the current price -- and the vast majority of artists can not live on their artistic income.

Yes and No. I disagree this is about the market economy since this isn't a case of an equitable trade where the buyer and seller negotiate a price and if the buyer isn't happy they simply don't make the purchase, as happens in any other area of commerce. This is a case where a large number of people believe it is okay to simply take without any equitable return to the seller.

[Tarin]

Once I discover that I do indeed like an artist, even if I've already heard all the songs on the CD, and can easily hear them again, I'm still inclined to buy the CD. To me the "process" doesn't feel complete until I do. I also like the feeling of "owning" it, and not only that but usually I prefer the quality of the songs on CD, and I also admit that I simply like the fancy packaging, and inserts. Plus it does make me feel good to support an artist I like.

I'm not sure I could agree with you more.

There is a good feeling that comes with the piece of plastic and tin (or whatever metal it is...)

Plus the smell, oh my. New CD smell is so good.

Erm, yes, I am strange.

 

However, I do pirate. I download a song or two, even a whole CD. Then I try to find the CD. That is, however, difficult since I like many European artists and I'm stuck here in the States.

I search E-bay and Amazon weekly for artists that I have the illegal mp3s for. I actually just found one recently on Amazon, and I'm so glad I bought the CD. It sounds better legal.

 

Movies, I do not pirate movies.

 

TV shows, only one, and it was actually my dad that pirated it. I watched it though...

 

Software, I admit, I have pirated some graphics software, but I cannot afford to

[JamesSavik]

I'm sorry, but if the people weren't so moneygrubbing to begin with, the world would be more hesitant to break copyright law. As it is, this is simply the inevitable backlash of greed.

 

And sorry again, but quite frankly it doesn't really register on my give-a-sh... I mean.... sympathy-meter. Welcome to life with the rest of the world.

 

 

I agree Razor. I used to love Metallica (and still do) but since they became the poster children for the RIAA I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

 

There are too many mediocre artists crying crocidile tears over piracy who are clearly trying to position themselves for some sort of settlement.

 

Have you seen the numbers that they claim to have lost due to piracy? I have to call bullshitte on that. Those estimates are clearly based on drugs and/or wishful thinking and have nothing to do with their business model.

[Tiger]

I'm sorry, but if the people weren't so moneygrubbing to begin with, the world would be more hesitant to break copyright law. As it is, this is simply the inevitable backlash of greed.

 

And sorry again, but quite frankly it doesn't really register on my give-a-sh... I mean.... sympathy-meter. Welcome to life with the rest of the world.

You have a good point about that, especially for software that costs a lot of money. Still, there are legal issues involved should you decide to dl pirated software. Do so at your own risk.

[NickolasJames8]

I agree Razor. I used to love Metallica (and still do) but since they became the poster children for the RIAA I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire.

 

There are too many mediocre artists crying crocidile tears over piracy who are clearly trying to position themselves for some sort of settlement.

 

Have you seen the numbers that they claim to have lost due to piracy? I have to call bullshitte on that. Those estimates are clearly based on drugs and/or wishful thinking and have nothing to do with their business model.

 

I don't know, James..look at how many artists used to go platinum before downloading music off of the internet came along. I'd have to say that there's been a huge impact on a lot of artists. I mean, would you want to go to work if you weren't being paid? That's basically what people who illegally download music are asking artists to do.

[Hylas]

I agree with Graeme, the comparison with authors and stories isn't quite appropriate.

 

I pirate a lot of music and software.

 

It makes me cringe how easy it is for first world countries, of course, to judge piracy. As it is, it is the only reason we are keeping pace at all.

 

For example, the 3d modeling application I need for my profession (or soon to be profession) costs $4000. Where in the world would an island country boy like myself get $4000?! LOL

 

I mean come on. In a country where the average income is something like $100 MONTHLY where the heck would we find the money to buy the oh so gloriously inflated prices of the first world countries?

 

I wouldn't sell the work on the pirated copy I have of it, though. Of course, I've sworn I'll buy an original copy when I have the money to spare. For the moment, I practice on it, build my portfolio on it, and in the end will have to buy it for real. It's even a 'standard' practice in my profession anyhow. We start off with cracked versions then buy them when we go professional.

 

As for piracy of the entertainment media... LOL. The most affected by piracy aren't the struggling artists as you painted - it's the most popular and most filthy rich people who get the brunt of it. Records sales aren't even their only sources of income anyways. Movie soundtracks, concerts, royalties, etc. You name it. Even back in the cassette days, people were freely copying music.

 

And honestly, I wouldn't cry if Britney loses a few million dollars because of piracy.

 

You don't see indie bands complaining about piracy. They even ENCOURAGE downloading of their mp3's for free.

 

That said, I don't download music for resale. Even most of my mp3 collection is from copying from friends' collections. And I still do my best to stick to GPL software whenever I can.

 

Personally, I'm sick of seeing the people who drive around in limousines complain about having had to give that up because of piracy. As Razor said, it's the backlash of greed. The music is so goddamn overpriced for the global market, it's inevitable that piracy will come into being. I see it as wealth redistribution, an equalization of sorts, and I really could not care less.

[Drewbie]

I'm not sure I could agree with you more.

There is a good feeling that comes with the piece of plastic and tin (or whatever metal it is...)

Plus the smell, oh my. New CD smell is so good.

Erm, yes, I am strange.

 

However, I do pirate. I download a song or two, even a whole CD. Then I try to find the CD. That is, however, difficult since I like many European artists and I'm stuck here in the States.

I search E-bay and Amazon weekly for artists that I have the illegal mp3s for. I actually just found one recently on Amazon, and I'm so glad I bought the CD. It sounds better legal.

 

Movies, I do not pirate movies.

 

TV shows, only one, and it was actually my dad that pirated it. I watched it though...

 

Software, I admit, I have pirated some graphics software, but I cannot afford to pay $700 for a program that I won't make any money from.

I never have pirated a video game, between me and my friends we swap and borrow the games we like and we all own copies of the best ones.

 

Books, why pirate when there is project gutenberg? 17.000 books that I haven't read yet.

 

 

Enough about my personal habits.

I do think that the trend in piracy is horrific, people don't think it is wrong. I know it is wrong if abused, but I use it more like a library or netflix. Try it then buy it.

I blame some parents for not teaching these morals to children, but really how can a parent tell their child that their own culture is wrong?

It is an unfortunate mess that i don't know how to solve. This broad tax seems...a bit strong. It is a bit like socializing medicine, everyone has to pay. Only in this case not everyone will use the service paid for.

 

I think when I pmed a someone at amazon, you can buy it from that countries version of amazon's site. I still buy some cd's it has to be one that I like mostly every song. and Amazon's download service, their mp3 files are high quality, I don't feel like buying a cd that I may only like two or one song.

 

Anyone remeber tower records? Most of their cd's were about 19 bucks or maybe 17.95 that is overpriced, and most them have closed down now, no one really wants to pay that much for a cd or lp. I forget which band it is, but this one mostly all their songs are only available online thru a online mp3 store.

 

 

Have to praise kevin, for him knowing what packaging is when it comes to cd's

 

it's the graphic artist job too have you buy it if it's good or not.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Drewbie

[S.L. Lewis]

I originally voted that I won't touch it unless it's been licensed, but now that I think about it, I'm actually a mix. If a friend has a rare, and I mean rare, mix of a song or a song that I've been looking for, and they are willing to share, then yes, I'll keep the file. But only because it's a pain in the ass any other way to try to get it.

I still think piracy is wrong and shouldn't happen.