CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Buy or illegal download?
When talking about music, movies and stuff you buy or download online, what do you prefer?
In your argument I want you to consider the quality of the music you buy compared to illegal downloads.
Is the quality of buyed music worth the money? Or would you rather listen to something with less quality but free?
I use the itunes library and over 50% of my music on there is buyed from iTunes. The rest is from cd's I own.
I never download stuff, one reason is because I want to avoid virus - the other reason it that I hate the sound of low quality music. I know that when I buy it, I get the best I can get.
How is it stealing? So, in the 80's when someone recorded something on the tape recorder, was that stealing or when someone records an movie on a VHS tape in the 90's, is that stealing?
It is a just the free market allowing free flowing information and sharing into a new light.
Movie and music studios survived the pirating of tape recorders and VHS recorders.
So, in the 80's when someone recorded something on the tape recorder, was that stealing or when someone records an movie on a VHS tape in the 90's, is that stealing?
that is stealing to.
What I meant by illegal download, I meant illegal copy. A record of a music is also considered illegal if you didn't pay for it.
I suppose its illegal if the put my blocks in a certain pattern but someone else put their blocks in it first eh?
Intellectual property is not property of a thing, it is property of everything, including everyone else thing. It is ownership of a pattern and is thus in fact one of the greatest violations of property rights.
The quality of the product is really irrelevant because each time period relative to technology is really different. The greatest quality of technology is only in the present. Probably with the next ten or less years, the torrent piracy will be forgotten, and something else will emerge, and the studios will freak again. In the 80's and 90's, the quality was all relative compared to now. When tape and VHS recording was happening, the quality was great for that time period. It is more third parties complaining like yourself along with studios. Studios complained then and they do now. They survived because of the free flowing of information and knowledge and the infinite number of substitutes.
The internet provides numerous examples where people post videos or information on the internet for free, just like this message that I am giving to you as well as Createdebate. Information and knowledge is freely flowing on CD without me making a dime.
For example, mises.org provides Man, Economy, and State for free download in pdf, it is free flowing information, but if you want it in paper, it costs money.
Everything is not free on the internet, just bought a book from Mises.org, let me guess, it must have been free, right!
Downloading is not stealing. Neither does anyone lose money by it (if they couldn't download you think they would definitely buy it?). Making a new copy is simple - click copy, then paste, and there you have it. Truth is it all begins with one that is copied over and over.
How can it be stealing if there is no harm caused by it?
Downloading for free when the artist didn't authorize the free download is stealing.
Neither does anyone lose money by it
Uhhh... the artist and the legit downloading sites do lose money.
(if they couldn't download you think they would definitely buy it?)
What? That doesn't even make any sense? Many people believe in an artist so much that they will pay for a download without even hearing the new music... not me, but many. Ever heard of the radio??? You hear a song you like on the radio and you go and pay for the download. Plus the legit downloading sites such as iTunes, lets you sample before you pay the very small amount for the download.
How can it be stealing if there is no harm caused by it?
Ridiculous! Are you suggesting that a song doesn't have monetary value in the same way something physical does??? Well, in that case I'm going to open a coffee house next week and call it Starbucks... but not give Starbucks a dime. I'm sure they won't mind.
Downloading for free when the artist didn't authorize the free download is stealing.
That's copyright infringement, not stealing. You can steal only if the original owner loses it, or something, and in this case no one loses anything.
Uhhh... the artist and the legit downloading sites do lose money.
And how do they lose it?
They might as well make it illegal to not buy the product. So every potential buyer who does not buy it would be considered a pirate.
What? That doesn't even make any sense?
It makes perfect sense. The reason it is considered illegal is because the downloaded products are considered as loss of profits. Profits they wouldn't have either way.
Many people believe in an artist so much that they will pay for a download without even hearing the new music... not me, but many. Ever heard of the radio???
And those people will buy it, no matter what. If they had no money for it they would most probably not disrespect the musician by downloading, or download and then buy once they have the money.
You hear a song you like on the radio and you go and pay for the download. Plus the legit downloading sites such as iTunes, lets you sample before you pay the very small amount for the download.
Sample? Hear a small part of the entire thing, or all of it? And what quality is it, the best or something inferior?
Ridiculous! Are you suggesting that a song doesn't have monetary value in the same way something physical does??? Well, in that case I'm going to open a coffee house next week and call it Starbucks... but not give Starbucks a dime. I'm sure they won't mind.
Making a new copy is simple, simply ctrl+c then ctrl+v. Thinking that everyone who downloaded it would buy if they could not pirate is moronic. They look at it as loss of profits even though they have never lost anything. And aren't they swimming in money either way?
If something physical was stolen, that thing would be gone, that would be a real loss.
What do you think about this, if a person copied the bought albums and gave them to a friend, would that be illegal also? What if the same person gave something physical that was also bought to the same friend, would that be also wrong?
The Starbuck thing... you'll be ordered to change the name, that's all.
Oh good lord! I'm very disappointed in you... I thought I liked you but that's all complete bullshit that I'm not even interested in replying to... If it makes you happy I'll say you won the argument even though I know even you know you didn't.
Seems we see it differently 'cause I know I won it.
I'm not for piracy myself, I'm for "if you like it buy it", but not all have enough money for everything they'd like... What I don't like is how it is regarded, as if it sets companies and people who made the product back, while in reality it doesn't, at all. The notion comes mainly from the publishers who have a desire for excessive amounts of money.
Musicians mostly do what they do 'cause they like it and they like the attention they get, the want to be known and listened to, am I wrong?
I'm not for piracy myself, I'm for "if you like it buy it", but not all have enough money for everything they'd like...
Oh no, they can't afford to pay $9.99 for an album that took musicians a ton of time and effort to write, poor them...
What I don't like is how it is regarded, as if it sets companies and people who made the product back, while in reality it doesn't, at all.
Really? Go tell that to all the bankrupt record companies and starving musicians.
The notion comes mainly from the publishers who have a desire for excessive amounts of money.
Your stuck in the 60's where everyone would get signed to a label and then get screwed over.
Musicians mostly do what they do 'cause they like it and they like the attention they get, the want to be known and listened to, am I wrong?
As a musician, no, most (most real musicians that is) do NOT do what they do for attention, they do it because they love it, people listening is just nice. However, a good amount musicians make a living out of it, so your cutting into what little money they have because you couldn't spare 99 cents for a song your friend posted on facebook.
So what you're saying is, that just because musicians don't create material things, they're work is considered charity?
I have to agree with HellNo here.
If I made a unique t-shirt, and started selling it, I would lose profit if someone copied my clothes and sold it for free.
Then no one would buy my t-shirt.
Of course, if you get something for free, that is exactly like something that is not, you pick the one that is free. Musicians lose profit buy pirating, no matter what you say.
So what you're saying is, that just because musicians don't create material things, they're work is considered charity?
I'm not saying that.
I'm just saying piracy is not the bad thing it is considered as by most people.
If I made a unique t-shirt, and started selling it, I would lose profit if someone copied my clothes and sold it for free.
And the one copying you would lose even more as none of that work would be compensated. With downloading things there is no real work done, simply copy-paste and you've got another one. Those who would buy it buy it either way, whether it can be obtained as free or not. Most people who only pirate it would not buy it anyway.
What would be the point of copying your idea of a t-shirt if they could simply hand out any version as free? Creating something that physically exists is usually made as profits in mind... Uploaders lose nothing, yet hand out stuff as free, for anyone. And yet, publishers and musicians are not bankrupt, not even close to it.
Musicians lose profit buy pirating, no matter what you say.
They do not lose anything. Most of those who pirate would not buy it anyway. Some first heard about them by pirating. They are known by more people than they would otherwise.
Musicians' profits have gone up... did a little googling.
They do not lose anything. Most of those who pirate would not buy it anyway. Some first heard about them by pirating. They are known by more people than they would otherwise.
if free music was deleted for good, people would buy their music.
If starbucks was free, everyone would drink it, but it is not, so people buy it instead.
Downloading is not stealing. Neither does anyone lose money by it
Really? So when the musicians who spent lots of time acquiring their musical skills plus the recording time and studio money aren't loosing anything when someone just downloads there product for free?
if they couldn't download you think they would definitely buy it?
What, you think the only way people get music is by stealing it? Ever hear of the radio?
How can it be stealing if there is no harm caused by it?
Some jerkoff is cheating musicians out of their money, how is that not harm?
Most games tend to have those DRM things that make it a pain for actual buyers. But pirates have it easy - download, install, copy-paste and overwrite the right files and you can play without any further fussing.
Since piracy won't change then might as well remove those DRM and similar "protections" from games as games can be obtained as free anyway, yet very many people buy them instead and companies aren't bankrupt.
But Steam... That's a good service... And they have free games, and more are coming.
To be fair, piracy of games is quite tough. Simply because, to amateurs, a lot of the steps required are off putting. Cracking, mounting, etc. Some games (5th gen pokemon springs to mind) now have anti piracy measures to the point where I actually had to fracking manually hack the game). Even I can't be bothered with it most of the time (although I still do it).
I'm such a snob, I don't do either. When I want to listen to music, I record an album. When I want to see a movie, I make it myself. And since I'm the only good actor on the planet, I play every role. Well, any girl I'm dating at the time can co-star in the sex scenes, but that's it!!!
It is not illegal download, it is sharing on an different level, this is no different than the scare tactics the studios stirred up in the 80's with tape recorders and early 90's with VHS players.
I wouldn't call it illegal, though I find youtube videos of the music I want and download those. I'm not going to pay for music, not because I'm a cheapskate, but because I don't like taking part in virtual transactions.
Anyway, the composers of the sort of music I enjoy tend to be dead, so I can't see anybody suing me.
Yes, but you should pay for your music, any music that was written took awhile to write, not to mention the musicians effort to become skilled in music. Even if its a recording, the people who recorded had to work hard to become skilled in music, learn the song and record it.
Usually the profits are more than enough to pay everyone involved, and typically good artists prefer for their songs to be downloaded for free rather than have a distribution system take most of their profit in a world where they are increasingly unnecessary but still want rights to someone elses work despite it.
To clarify, you believe that artists would rather you download their music illegally, rather than pay for a legal download through a distribution system like iTunes?
If so, then why do artists even bother selling their music and not distribute it for free? Besides that, the argument you stated is based on a generalization ("typically good artists prefer for their songs to be downloaded for free rather than have a distribution system") without showing any evidence to back it up (did an artist openly state this?).
Ever heard of FLAC format (music)? Lossless, high quality. When it comes to quality it doesn't matter if you buy them or download, it's all the same (someone has to first obtain it to make downloading possible). Downloading is free, if you leave aside the internet monthly fee.
If I buy something I want to get ALL OF IT. Not something lacking a view pieces. I've noticed that about music, in some regions they have more than in others.
Also, some download first to see if it is worth their money and if is they buy it. Honestly now, you need to know exactly what you buy. Would you willingly accept something you knew nothing about?
Then there are those who need money for other things first and then lack for music, or anything similar. Would you make their lives that much more miserable by not allowing music to them?
The only reason downloading them is considered illegal is because of money.
Then there are those who need money for other things first and then lack for music, or anything similar. Would you make their lives that much more miserable by not allowing music to them?
If you can afford a computer, internet and music player you can afford to buy music. What about the musicians, you know, the guys who work their asses off to make the music, do they not deserve payment?
The only reason downloading them is considered illegal is because of money.
Do you have to bring your utopian ideology into every debate?
If you can afford a computer, internet and music player you can afford to buy music.
Not necessarily. A computer is in present society a necessity and so is the internet (you could do without but not as well, you'd be behind in many things). Music player? If you have a computer you don't need that, you buy speakers that work with all audio (speakers vary from cheap to very expensive).
Do you have to bring your utopian ideology into every debate?
Really? I didn't bring it up here, neither would it be utopian, as there would still be issues, only far less than currently.
If there was no money, how could downloading them be considered illegal? The only reason why it is considered illegal is because the publishers and musicians are supposedly being harmed. But really they are not. You think all those people who download them would buy them instead if they couldn't download? It makes very little difference. In truth, downloading them is positive for musicians and publishers, as their music spreads to all kinds of people and everywhere, if they truly like it and have money to spare they will buy it. You think all people would buy just anything without knowing what it exactly is? Some actually have brains and want to try it out first to see if it is worth anything.
Not necessarily. A computer is in present society a necessity and so is the internet (you could do without but not as well, you'd be behind in many things). Music player? If you have a computer you don't need that, you buy speakers that work with all audio (speakers vary from cheap to very expensive).
Cost of average computer: $500
Cost of average internet service: $40 a month
Cost of average album: $10
If you can afford a computer and internet then you can afford to buy music. If you can afford music then you should buy it and if you can't, buy a radio and tune into local stations.
Really? I didn't bring it up here, neither would it be utopian, as there would still be issues, only far less than currently.
You said that the issue with this is money, now inevitably, this is going to turn into "should we abolish money" or not.
The only reason why it is considered illegal is because the publishers and musicians are supposedly being harmed. But really they are not.
What the fuck are you talking about? Most musicians (not all) but most work their asses off to make music, and you think them not getting anything in return isn't harm? You try playing 6 hours a day for years, investing a ton of time and money into music and then having some loser download your stuff for free, lets see who got harmed.
Some actually have brains and want to try it out first to see if it is worth anything.
If your in a record shop, ask them to play a track from the CD, look it up on youtube, itunes provides demos of the songs, you don't need to steal it. And most people don't download it to see what they are getting, they download it cause there cheap.
If you can afford a computer and internet then you can afford to buy music. If you can afford music then you should buy it and if you can't, buy a radio and tune into local stations.
You can get simple speakers with that money.
Computer is a necessity. If you have money for that it does not always mean you can spare money for music.
People don't usually buy just one album, they buy far more.
If someone can afford a computer that does not mean they can afford music. It's exactly the same as saying if they can afford a computer they can also afford a program costing tens of thousands of dollars.
We're not talking about radios. And not all like listening to random music, and you also cannot hear all music you'd like listening to a radio.
You said that the issue with this is money, now inevitably, this is going to turn into "should we abolish money" or not.
If there was no money would it be an issue? Yes or no?
What the fuck are you talking about? Most musicians (not all) but most work their asses off to make music, and you think them not getting anything in return isn't harm?
Are you saying they aren't getting anything at all? People buy their music whether there is piracy or not. That is a fact. No one is harmed, they look at the pirated amount as loss of profits, profits they would not have either way.
You try playing 6 hours a day for years, investing a ton of time and money into music and then having some loser download your stuff for free, lets see who got harmed.
They get paid for their work, people buy their music. And some pirate their music. Some had never heard about them before pirating, they liked it and then bought it. Some pirate, like it and don't buy it, they would not buy even if they could not pirate.
Pirating acts as free advertisement for them, are you saying that is a bad thing?
No one, literally no one, is harmed by it.
How do they get harmed if someone downloads their music?
If your in a record shop, ask them to play a track from the CD, look it up on youtube, itunes provides demos of the songs, you don't need to steal it. And most people don't download it to see what they are getting, they download it cause there cheap.
Not everyone goes to record shops. Youtube has lower quality. Demo is not the same as the actual thing. It's not stealing, the only thing it can be regarded as is copyright infringement.
Some who download it buy it later, some don't have money for buying it, some wouldn't buy either way, some would never even had heard about it if not for piracy.
Piracy, no piracy, makes almost no difference. Other than the musicians wouldn't be as known, as thus would have less sells.
What about copying a bought album and giving it to a friend?
Do you even know what the pirating community promotes? If you like it buy it. And very many do.
Computer is a necessity. If you have money for that it does not always mean you can spare money for music.
In most cases it does, and if you don't have any money for music, buy a radio and tune in or try an internet radio.
If someone can afford a computer that does not mean they can afford music. It's exactly the same as saying if they can afford a computer they can also afford a program costing tens of thousands of dollars.
Theres a difference between buying a few albums and buying a program that costs tens of thousands of dollars...
If there was no money would it be an issue? Yes or no?
No, because in Nummi land there are rainbows and happy faces everywhere and there are no issues.
Are you saying they aren't getting anything at all? People buy their music whether there is piracy or not. That is a fact. No one is harmed, they look at the pirated amount as loss of profits, profits they would not have either way.
They still buy it but not as many people, that is a fact. Are you saying that everyone who pirates it is someone who was never going to buy it? That the only reason people download music for free is because they can't afford it? Most people who pirate music can afford it, they are just cheap, if they weren't going to have these sales in the first place then why is it hurting profits so much?
Not everyone goes to record shops. Youtube has lower quality. Demo is not the same as the actual thing.
So? Your still knowing what your getting, I hate mp3's just as much as the next guy but you can get a jist of what your gonna buy from a youtube video.
It's not stealing, the only thing it can be regarded as is copyright infringement.
You are taking/distributing a product that you do not own, you never paid for and is copy righted, its stealing from the musicians who work their asses off.
Some who download it buy it later
I think most don't describes it better.
some don't have money for buying it
Then again get an internet radio or regular radio, your not entitle to steal some thing just because you can't afford it. What about the musicians, its not fair to them at all.
some would never even had heard about it if not for piracy.
Most people don't go to the pirate bay or napster and say "lets find some music" most people get their music from friends, radio, youtube, internet radio, clubs, parties ect.
the amount of people hearing their stuff wouldn't change.
Piracy, no piracy, makes almost no difference. Other than the musicians wouldn't be as known, as thus would have less sells.
You seem to think piracy makes bands well known, it doesn't. 99% of people who pirate music have heard it before.
What about copying a bought album and giving it to a friend?
Letting your friend borrow the original copy, sure. Selling your friend the original copy, sure. Giving them the original copy, sure. Making a copy of it and giving it to them, no.
Do you even know what the pirating community promotes? If you like it buy it. And very many do.
Thats not what pirating promotes, most of the time when people buy something that they pirated its a game because they wanted to play online, get an update or a new DLC.
Ever heard of FLAC format (music)? Lossless, high quality. When it comes to quality it doesn't matter if you buy them or download, it's all the same (someone has to first obtain it to make downloading possible). Downloading is free, if you leave aside the internet monthly fee.
I tried several music pirates. The only thing I got was a broken computer. I will rather pay 10 dollars$, than 1000$ for a new computer.
Also the music I buy on itunes can't be compared to the low quality music I've pirated.
I download almost all of my music for two reasons:
1: It's easier. Torrenting means that I can see a film trailer, or hear a song, and I can have it within 30 minutes. It's fast and easy, and good quality, and there is no legal way of having unrestricted rights to most parts of media.
It was even estimated that were the large media companies of the world to create an online, relatively cheap, but fast and effective method of streaming films, music, and tv shows, or downloading even, they could make 7 billion USD a year. That's more than the 6 billion that they estimate to lose from pirating every year (an estimate that's largely viewed as unreliable). If media companies were serious about stopping piracy, they could largely reduce it. It appears they are not.
2: I don't have the money to buy music or films. I'm 17 and I have no job. If I don't download something, then I don't get it. The company loses nothing here. I'm happy to go to the cinema, or to buy a film, but these are far and few between, and largely due to me especially wanting to see something - a reward for such a good film, for example. While pirating is claimed to be a loss of potential buyers, I am not a potential buyer. The company makes no loss here, I simply benefit, therefore I feel it is a perfectly moral action.
Meh. Most of my music is old as hell, and tends to come from artists who are fucking loaded anyway, so I don't care.
I only buy music in two cases. The first is if I just want a more complete experience. For example, I preordered the 2nd Law (Muse), because I want the whole sensation of unwrapping it, having something physical, and knowing I'm a part of it. It's not particularly rational, but I don't care.
The second is if it's an artist I feel needs the support. If I find some small, underground band making high quality music, then sure, I'll give them the money to continue it. And when they're big enough, they won't require my donations, so I'll download it.
PS: If you lost whole computers to do downloading music, you either have really bad security, or you're technologically inept.
Either way, that's no fault of piracy.
PPS: Another reason I download: I get to put "Pirate" on my CV ;)
illegal downloads still have respects to legalized music. Copyrights do expire. When I download sherlock holmes novels from a pirate site, I look up when the copyright is invalid. Take this in perspective as not all people just download illegal stuff from pirate websites.
Illegal download is good way for those who don't have an opportunity to buy lisense products, in other words for poor preople. As we know, price of CD or DVD disks of movies and games are increased day by day..Not all of us let theirselves to buy expensive legal products, since our salaries don't fit to their cost. I'd like to say that we have to buy legal production if we want, also we have rightes to share that with others - throught internet.
According to your reasoning, it would be legal for me to walk into a store and steal a television, if I am unable to buy the product legitimately because I am too poor (my income/salary is not high enough to afford buying the expensive product). This logic is ethically flawed and does not justify downloading music illegally.
I will consider three basis on which to buy a CD instead of downloading it illegally: merit, entitlement and need.
In 1998 William Sethares wrote argueably the most important book on music theory written in human history. Microtonalist Ben Johnston worked ten years to produce a method for notating just intervals. Even in the context of music there is merit - especially academic - that is more worthy of your money than any corporation.
If someone provides you a service otherwise unattainable he is entitled to the payment of his choice. This however is not always the case, as the chance of getting caught downloading music illegaly is negligible and few collectors give value to a physical copy of the album. Unless this law can be enforced it is only a sign of misinformation, self-hatred or fear that one would act against ones own self-interest and - as I claim - the developement of music itself. On the other hand, if the need of the artists is a basis for your purchase I propose forming a charity to feed the starving musicians of the 21st century.
Buying a song on iTunes that is ultimately tied to your untradeable virtual account might show that your conscience has been manipulated for the purpose of profit.
I sometimes download songs from the youtube converter and I download it because some of the songs on the album is probably not good so you would want one song instead of wasting money and all the other songs are trash.
I vote illegal because, let's face it. Back when you bought Cd's, you loaned them to your friend and he downloaded them to whatever he/she was using anyway. The difference between uploading them to YouTube and downloading them, downloading a whole CD from a pirating website, and loaning your friend the Cd? None, either way somebody bought it and somebody didn't. There's just no form of knowing who uploaded it in the first place. Strangers sharing a common like
Discover Music Nirvana on Tubidy! Your go-to destination for downloading tunes that speak to your soul. Tubidy hosts an incredible array of tracks that cater to your diverse tastes. Get lost in the world of melody and rhythm. Visit Tubidy now and experience the symphony of choice.