Maybe slightly more ethical, but not much. If by that you mean that downloading the album illegally will have fewer negative consequences, sure. But really, I wouldn't say either is particularly ethical.
Yeah, I would say it's more ethical. I'm still divided on the ethics of downloading music and movies, though I'll admit that I'm a hypocrite and I do download them all the time.
But, like, musicians don't actually get most of their money from album/single sales - they get the majority of their paychecks from live shows, tours, and merchandise. So, cutting out the middle man of the music industry, could you say that by downloading their music for free, and exposing them to more people, gaining them more fans and therefore more money from merchandise and concerts, it all evens out?
Also, I wanna state that I don't download recent music from starting-out bands. Like, if it's some band from the 80s or Adam Lambert or something, then I'll download it, but if it's some band from Melbourne that just put out an album last year, I'll probably try and buy it. Make of that what you will.
Musicians/record labels usually allow their music to be on Youtube, or on the radio, or on MTV. That's a good method of offering your music free of charge to listen to. However when it comes to being able to own singles or albums, it costs money for a reason. If you think that music sales aren't important, why don't you just steal the CD from a store? It's not ethical to steal something the artist intends for you to pay for.
Well, yes, I suppose. Since that way you aren't stealing money from the manufacturer, the mucisian, and the store all at the same time. But I wouldn't do either, so whatever.
When you download something, you're just making a copy of it. The original is still on the internet. You're not actually taking anything away from the artist or producers or manufacturers. If you steal a hard copy cd, you're taking away something that would have made a profit otherwise. Plus, more money goes into making hard copy cd because of the case, shipping, etc. Does that make more sense? Neither are really ethical, but you can at least say the former is closer to it.
That makes no sense. A physical CD is just a copy of the music, too. And if you download a copy online, you're stealing something that could have made a profit if you'd paid for it. And it does cost money for a company to offer music downloads on a website, granted not as much as the cost of a physical CD and case, but usually albums on iTunes are a few dollars cheaper than the price of the physical CD.
You'll have to explain your reasoning; don't just link me to the Wikipedia page on compact discs. The way I see it, CDs are copies because they all contain identical copies of the same music recordings.
The manager had to invest in those CD's. When you steal it, he doesn't get any profit back. He rather loses the 10$ he used to buy the CD. The author still gets money therefore... When you download illegally you cut out the middle man, and save his grief.
Now which is better: Denying the author 15$, or stealing 10$ from a store manager?
In essence, nobody loses anything from downloading illegally. There were no variable costs for having the album online for purchase. However, with the store, there's the material the CD is made of, the workers who helped make it and the workers in the store. The store loses money if they give 10 things away for free, but nobody really loses anything if I download illegally.
the artists ratings still go down on itunes, billboard, etc. Its unfair to everyone who spent time and effort making the music when you just take it, whether physically or digitally.
Well it does cost money to sell through iTunes. Though the artist probably did make their money back in sales already, it does cost to sell in most online stores.
Variable cost is a cost per unit. There is no variable cost to selling music on itunes because selling 50 copies of a song on itunes and selling 500 copies of a song cost the same amount. This is not true for CDs because you have to spend money for every CD you make. The cost of making the song is called a fixed cost because it does not depend on the number of items produced.
not at all. it's the same action, just different means of doing it. regardless if you download it online or steal it, you're still stealing from the artist.
I say they're both unethical. It feels worse to steal a physical CD because it has the physical representation to remind you. Stealing music is wrong because it's not paying for what you're using, it's like sneaking onto a subway/underground system. It takes a lot of time and money to make a CD and those involved need to be compensated or they won't be able to make more.
Maybe slightly more ethical, but not much. If by that you mean that downloading the album illegally will have fewer negative consequences, sure. But really, I wouldn't say either is particularly ethical.
There's no law that says downloading an album online is illegal. Physically stealing, however, there is.
Exactly. It's illegal if you sell it or make some sort of money out of it.
Yeah, I would say it's more ethical. I'm still divided on the ethics of downloading music and movies, though I'll admit that I'm a hypocrite and I do download them all the time.
But, like, musicians don't actually get most of their money from album/single sales - they get the majority of their paychecks from live shows, tours, and merchandise. So, cutting out the middle man of the music industry, could you say that by downloading their music for free, and exposing them to more people, gaining them more fans and therefore more money from merchandise and concerts, it all evens out?
Also, I wanna state that I don't download recent music from starting-out bands. Like, if it's some band from the 80s or Adam Lambert or something, then I'll download it, but if it's some band from Melbourne that just put out an album last year, I'll probably try and buy it. Make of that what you will.
Musicians/record labels usually allow their music to be on Youtube, or on the radio, or on MTV. That's a good method of offering your music free of charge to listen to. However when it comes to being able to own singles or albums, it costs money for a reason. If you think that music sales aren't important, why don't you just steal the CD from a store? It's not ethical to steal something the artist intends for you to pay for.
Musicians used to make a lot more money from regular sales. But when downloading got popular, the ratio has changed and ticket prices went way up.
Well I would say yes because the CD itself and its case cost money to manufacture, which aren't needed if you're downloading it.
Well, yes, I suppose. Since that way you aren't stealing money from the manufacturer, the mucisian, and the store all at the same time. But I wouldn't do either, so whatever.
Unless you copy DRM protected libraries, in which case actually buying the music can still be illegal.
When you download something, you're just making a copy of it. The original is still on the internet. You're not actually taking anything away from the artist or producers or manufacturers. If you steal a hard copy cd, you're taking away something that would have made a profit otherwise. Plus, more money goes into making hard copy cd because of the case, shipping, etc. Does that make more sense? Neither are really ethical, but you can at least say the former is closer to it.
I don't think s/he was saying that one is stealing and the either isn't, just that one can be argued to be more ethical than the other.
That makes no sense. A physical CD is just a copy of the music, too. And if you download a copy online, you're stealing something that could have made a profit if you'd paid for it. And it does cost money for a company to offer music downloads on a website, granted not as much as the cost of a physical CD and case, but usually albums on iTunes are a few dollars cheaper than the price of the physical CD.
Neither one is ethical.
You'll have to explain your reasoning; don't just link me to the Wikipedia page on compact discs. The way I see it, CDs are copies because they all contain identical copies of the same music recordings.
How expensive? Usually physical CDs are more expensive than digitial albums, so that probably helps offset the cost.
The manager had to invest in those CD's. When you steal it, he doesn't get any profit back. He rather loses the 10$ he used to buy the CD. The author still gets money therefore... When you download illegally you cut out the middle man, and save his grief.
Now which is better: Denying the author 15$, or stealing 10$ from a store manager?
lol however we look at it, it's still illegal and breaking the law is unethical
I wouldn't say it's more ethical, but it's definitely of a lesser expense to the people who produced it.
They're both the same thing...
In essence, nobody loses anything from downloading illegally. There were no variable costs for having the album online for purchase. However, with the store, there's the material the CD is made of, the workers who helped make it and the workers in the store. The store loses money if they give 10 things away for free, but nobody really loses anything if I download illegally.
the artists ratings still go down on itunes, billboard, etc. Its unfair to everyone who spent time and effort making the music when you just take it, whether physically or digitally.
Plus, the store paid for the CD in the first place and they're charging 15 dollars to make a profit.
The artist loses out if you download illegaly. If everyone downloaded illegally, there wold be no music industry and there'd be nothing to download.
Well it does cost money to sell through iTunes. Though the artist probably did make their money back in sales already, it does cost to sell in most online stores.
Variable cost is a cost per unit. There is no variable cost to selling music on itunes because selling 50 copies of a song on itunes and selling 500 copies of a song cost the same amount. This is not true for CDs because you have to spend money for every CD you make. The cost of making the song is called a fixed cost because it does not depend on the number of items produced.
plus, like if i download something online, it's not like it'll run out. but there are a limited amount on cds in a store
But the point still stands that it's STEALING and ILLEGAL.
not at all. it's the same action, just different means of doing it. regardless if you download it online or steal it, you're still stealing from the artist.
I know right you can just use your five-finger discount and use the grab-and-go register and it's yours.
I say they're both unethical. It feels worse to steal a physical CD because it has the physical representation to remind you. Stealing music is wrong because it's not paying for what you're using, it's like sneaking onto a subway/underground system. It takes a lot of time and money to make a CD and those involved need to be compensated or they won't be able to make more.