Who actually pays for music downloads?

esuhl

unsure wrote: »

Theft is theft whether it is likely to be prosecuted or not.

But what about downloading music in breach of copyright terms? You'll never be prosecuted for theft even if you're caught, so does that make it okay?

almillar

jayme1 - there's an Apple Lossless format, based on the same stuff that AAC is based on, and I had though that the launch of it mean that some of the store content was in that format. I don't use it so I don't know! 256k AAC is pretty good (my library is in 192k) but I'd rather have the CD.

richto

WMA lossless is better imo as many amplifiers will play it back from bitstream.

In terms of paying for Downloads, I use MP3Sparks.com (used to be known as allofmp3.com) because none of the money goes to the music cartels, and you can download in many different formats including lossless.

richto

esuhl wrote: »

But what about downloading music in breach of copyright terms? You'll never be prosecuted for theft even if you're caught, so does that make it okay?

You will never be prosecuted solely for downloading music full stop. It is not illegal to just download pirate copies of music, or to download pirate copies of anything else for that matter.

janey183

always pay and download from iTunes

richto

unsure wrote: »

" Who actually pays for music downloads" -- honest people who believe artists are entitled to earn a living from their creativity, I count myself among that number. Theft is theft whether it is likely to be prosecuted or not.

Have you seen how much they charge for a concert or music festival ticket these days?

And all creative works are in fact derivative: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY


As you say theft is theft. Copyright infringement is not theft.

johnnyreggae

richto wrote: »

I use MP3Sparks.com (used to be known as allofmp3.com) because none of the money goes to the music cartels

You might be a saint but it seems to me none of the money actually goes to the artists either........

parky0607

I half torrent and half pay. Even with the prices for music going down, I still think some prices are unreasonable. If its an album I really want or an artist I am passionate about or its what I would call a reasonable price (albums £5 or under, songs 50p or under) I will pay.

People saying that not paying is taking money of the artist are not necessarily correct. For mainstream artists, the monopolised record labels take all record profits and simply pays the artist an agreed figure for being on their record label. So you are effectively taking money from a business who are raking in millions of pounds per day anyway.

Artists make the bulk of their money through tours, appearances on TV etc. The solution to this would be to charge reasonable prices for records, making it not worthwhile for people to torrent, but record labels are greedy, which shoots them in the foot.

richto

johnnyreggae wrote: »

You might be a saint but it seems to me none of the money actually goes to the artists either........

But it does. ROMS pay out to all artists that register with them. And none of it goes to the cartels...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Organization_for_Multimedia_and_Digital_Systems

johnnyreggae

From the page you cite as justification :

^ "Russia's Brand of iTunes". Time. Retrieved 2011-02-25. "The site declares that it is authorized to sell downloads by an organization called the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society (ROMS) and FAIR, another copyright licensing agency....Not so, says the Recording Industry Association of America and its international affiliate, the IFPI, which insist that Western record labels haven't received a dime in license fees. Nor have those copyright protectors authorized ROMS or FAIR to collect payments."