“Downloading music without paying for it is a crime largely devoid of social stigma” | iLounge News


“Downloading music without paying for it is a crime largely devoid of social stigma”

“I hope I

Related Stories




Posted by narco in Burbank on February 2, 2004 at 11:49 AM (CST)


Great article.

Posted by saycheese200 on February 2, 2004 at 12:03 PM (CST)


I’ll support artists who are, in fact, real artists and not just entertainers. 

The music industry throws at me an entertainer by the name of Britney Spears, and I spit back at them. 

Give me a real artist, and I’ll contribute my hard earned money to you, and them.

Give me a generic Britney Spears, and I’ll continue downloading music.

Posted by Schiano on February 2, 2004 at 12:05 PM (CST)


Good article but it also neglected to note the fact that downloading music is very much like listening to the radio. You hear something you like and you decided to buy the cd or you hate it and won’t bother with it. Of course, you could tape it off the radio, or burn the mp3 to disk, it’s personal choice.

I know quite a few people, including myself, that due to the internet and ‘illegal’ mp3’s have expanded their musical horizon and bought many more cd’s then they would have otherwise.

You can’t blame the ipod for it (not sayin she did), if people want to nick music they will. Remember they could just burn it onto cd.

I’m just gonna go and light my bong on fire!! :D

Posted by Jim on February 2, 2004 at 12:11 PM (CST)


Give me a generic Britney Spears, and I’ll continue downloading music.

Or you could always take the moral high-ground and simply not purchase the album without downloading it.  Which begs the question: if you find her music so repulsive, what possible motivation would you have for downloading it in the first place?

Posted by Mountain Man on February 2, 2004 at 12:14 PM (CST)


“...downloading music is very much like listening to the radio.”

Artists actually get paid when their song is played on the radio.  They don’t get a dime from illegal downloads.  In short, that’s a poor analogy.

Posted by Mountain on February 2, 2004 at 12:18 PM (CST)


Agreed with Jim (except for the “bong” ;-)

I have over 1200, but the chance of download music from the web expanded my horizon and my CD collection. I respect the work and creativity of an artist. BUT do not respect the way the Recording Industry ‘steal the money’ out them and our pockets. BTW, THEY are making more money now than ever… they didn’t care about the cassettes, VHS, or any other media before. And recording a song on a cassette from a CD is EXACTLY the same as what now they’re claiming as “illegal”. BS!

Posted by elWilly on February 2, 2004 at 12:21 PM (CST)


In Canada, there is a $25 levy on IPods that the Canadian Recording Industry has successfully lobbied.  Thus this levy read *license* allows Canadians unlimited downloading.

Posted by ringo john on February 2, 2004 at 12:30 PM (CST)


I’m sorry but this sentence really annoys me:

“But your parents wouldn’t approve of your underage drinking, nor would they be excited to know that you were speeding and they sure as hell wouldn’t buy you a bong

Posted by iPoddity on February 2, 2004 at 12:55 PM (CST)


And buying a bong and smoking an illegal substance are not synonymous.

You missed the point.

Posted by Max on February 2, 2004 at 1:02 PM (CST)


Not everybody lives where the author of the article does (assuming the US? Link was dead as of this writing). Where I live downloading music without paying is as legal as breathing. Probably not for long, but currently it is, as long as it is for private use.

What the recording industry is *finally* beginning to grasp (iTunes finally proving what everybody’s been saying since Napster arrived), is that people are perfectly willing to pay for downloading music. Assuming the selection is good, the price is right, and you can actually play it wherever you like as opposed to getting a piece of music so locked up with DRM you can barely get it to play without divine intervention. The bad news is the same industry that’s whining about downloads is also cluttering things up with red tape so badly that iTunes keeps getting delayed in other parts of the world.

Another reason people love iTunes, of course, is the ability to buy just the good songs on an album. How many times haven’t you bought an album only to find 3 out of the 10 tracks were worth listening to. Those are some expensive 3 tracks (a CD costs about USD30 where I live).

Posted by Frode on February 2, 2004 at 1:33 PM (CST)


The site won’t load for me, but the whole basis of this article seems to rest on the fact that file-sharing is illegal.

Sharing files is alot like sharing ideas.  If I have an idea and I share it with you, we now both have 2 ideas…created from one.  You can then pass that idea on without having to take my original idea away from me or causing me any harm. 

Am I entitled to compensation because I originally started the idea?  I don’t believe so, especially since you’re the one passing it along and doing the work for me. 

Now if I wrote a book based on my idea, pressed many copies while you gave the idea away for free by word of mouth…am I entitled to compensation from you spreading my idea?  I still don’t believe so because the purpose to publishing a book would be to get my idea out there, if you are doing it…for free…then isn’t my mission accomplished? 

The only problem is how am I supposed to make a quadruple profit, fly in a private jet and dry hump strippers?  It’s getting harder and harder in the information age…

Posted by Ryan on February 2, 2004 at 1:57 PM (CST)


Its weird everyone keeps saying they wont pay for crappy generic britney, but they will download it? Man so confusing so you want the britney song? but you dont want to pay for it. It seems like your just trying to rationalize your bad taste.

Posted by chris luby on February 2, 2004 at 2:15 PM (CST)


Let me make myself clear…

When I said, “Give me a generic Britney Spears, and I’ll continue downloading music,” I meant it more like, shoving “entertainers” down my throat gives me no motivation to purchase music whether its good, or not. 

What I typically download is music that I sample, and then purchase.  I downloaded some Postal Service music last night, loved it, and took a ride to Best Buy today to purchase the album.  Hell, if I didn’t like it, there was no way I’d be listening to it again.

Posted by Schiano on February 2, 2004 at 2:43 PM (CST)


I have no sympathy for the music industry when it comes to mp3s.  For the last decade or so they have been over charging the American public in CD and cassette sales.  I feel that downlaoding mp3s compensates me for all the money the stole from me.

Furthermore, I’d be perfectly willing to pay an artist or band money to download mp3s than the music industry, since they in turn continually rape the very people who make them their profits.

Posted by Bazooka Joe on February 2, 2004 at 3:02 PM (CST)


Perhaps we should download this silly woman’s articles wherever they appear and re-sell them, thereby infringing her copyright and depriving her of income.

I’m disgusted that iPodlounge should seem to validate and approve of illegal downloading. Bad show Dennis!

Posted by Jacko on February 2, 2004 at 3:14 PM (CST)


Perhaps that’s a good idea Jacko.  Due to the link being down, obviously the site has generated too many hits from the Lounge and is looking at some heavy bandwith fees. 

Posting the article on other sites would save her server costs along with getting greater exposure.  Is that stealing? The spin doctors at the RIAA would lead you to believe so.

The RIAA was involved in price-fixing before the whole MP3 craze took off.  They would penalize larger chain stores like Walmart or Best Buy if they sold certain CDs for less than $13.99.  Now this same organization is suddenly qualified to argue what is morally just?  I think not.

Posted by Ryan on February 2, 2004 at 3:29 PM (CST)


the best is “support the artist”
per cd they make roughly what, like $2.00 i belive.  and where is the rest of the $20.00 going toward? it most certainly isnt going towards the cost of the cd & presentation of the cd is it? because what it cost around 50cents per cd to be produced.  the rest of the money is lineing the pockets of everyone else (i.e the label & and the RIAA fees or however they get paid.)

If its just a matter of supporting the artist go to their concerts, im not going to say dont buy cds but at the outragouse prices they are now trying to sell them for, im sure as hell not going to buy 4/5 cds a week. maybe a couple a month but thats it tops.

Posted by Chris on February 2, 2004 at 3:44 PM (CST)


I wouldn’t download Britney Spears music if the RIAA paid me to.  I prefer music.

Posted by Fenn on February 2, 2004 at 3:58 PM (CST)


Actually, I believe the musician makes about .40-.45 per CD.  If that.

Posted by Bazooka Joe on February 2, 2004 at 4:01 PM (CST)

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy