Do you illegally download music/films/tv shows?

[Snufkin]

You don't have to answer yes or no in this thread, and the poll is anonymous. The thread is more to debate whether or not we should be entitled to music, films and television shows for free.

As a devout music fan, I like to keep up to date with as many releases as possible but there is just too much to possibly afford. I think the invention of Spotify has certainly helped out, and artists choosing to stream their albums online, but at the same time people want to own the tracks to put on to their iPods/mp3 players. The urge to download illegally, for free, is one that doesn't seem to go away for today's generation.

I'm definitely not preaching "save the music industry!" since most bands seem to make money out of touring anyway, and this thread isn't about whether the bands themselves get screwed over it. It's whether or not music should be something we get for free, regardless of how the musicians end up getting paid. Same goes for actors when it comes to TV/movies.

As for myself, I used to download a lot but quit last year. Which makes it sound like a drug addiction...

[ReluctantPegasister]

No, I don't. I do, however, rip CDs from the library to put the music on my iPod.

But I don't get music, movies, etc from the internet via pirating (my brother does, though).

[LostTeen011]

I've been downloading music illegally since I started middle school. I didn't even know it was illegal until like maybe two years ago. I just always figured since it was just there on the internet it was okay......I'm still gonna do it......

[Bubbles37]

Originally Posted by Maeve

No, I don't. I do, however, rip CDs from the library to put the music on my iPod.

I do this too. Whenever I can't find music at the library, I just buy it on iTunes (which, admittedly, isn't that much, so I don't have a problem paying for it).

I don't see a huge problem with pirating music if it's a super popular, rich music artist (the way I see it, they don't really need that extra dollar from you buying a song). If it's one of those artists that's struggling and that no one's heard of, then I say you should just suck it up and pay.

[Skeleton]

Yeah, I do.

Most of the time, it's shows/movies/music that isn't yet available in the UK and I'm too impatient so I download it so I can watch it now and then when it's out in the UK, I buy it.

[Dez]

I try not to and only do it SOMETIMES. For instance, there was a song I wanted but I didn't think iTunes had it so I downloaded it illegally. I got some songs from my brother in law and I don't know where he got them, maybe Limewire. As for movies a family member gets them illegally from someone he works with SOMETIMES. We try to go about buying stuff the right way, though.

[JKmadu619]

Honestly? A few times I download music, and only music if:

A) I cannot find it elsewhere at the time. (Very common with soundtracks, which I enjoy listening to.)
or
B) I want to demo a CD which I later purchase on iTunes or via CD.

I never pirate games, movies, televisions shows, etc. And like I said, I normally purchase whatever I pirate later, and I just pirate to demo crap.

Originally Posted by Bubbles37

I do this too. Whenever I can't find music at the library, I just buy it on iTunes (which, admittedly, isn't that much, so I don't have a problem paying for it).

I don't see a huge problem with pirating music if it's a super popular, rich music artist (the way I see it, they don't really need that extra dollar from you buying a song). If it's one of those artists that's struggling and that no one's heard of, then I say you should just suck it up and pay.

True, but if no one paid the dollar for the song, they won't ever be super popular/rich. And music artists make no money from concerts, because a concert is expensive to put on, often their money comes from either music sales, merchandising or promotional advertisements. I have no problem with pirating, but I just wanted to point out that we cannot rationalize it.

- Jusitn

[JKmadu619]

Please ignore this post.

- Justin

[Nicole!]

I'll admit it, I do. I have over 4,000 songs on my Zune. That would really add up if I payed a doller per song.

[Ghost On The Highway]

I don't use itunes and can't find any of my favorite artists on cd or vinyl. It's sad, because I want to support them. I do go to concerts though.

[Lugez]

I used to. Now I don't really care enough about that stuff to do so.

In my HS days I used to download games, but in time I've always ended up buying them anyway.

[Delivery]

The past few months I've been buying a lot more CD's than I ever had. I still can't afford to buy everything though. There are certain artists that I think are worth listening to, but I still don't like their music enough to buy their records. I would rather spend money on music I like even more.

[Le bonheur*]

Only music. My bf downloads music, movies, etc. It drives me nuts.

[TigerTank77]

I have approx 400GB of music, games, and movies on my external and internal HDDs.

Basically, if I really like or support a band, I buy swag, and I go see them on tour, because they make most of their money that way. If I really like a movie I've seen in theaters or on TV, I download it, because I just don't buy DVDs. Or I download an e-copy because it's simpler than digging for a DVD that I've forgotten the place of for 20 minutes.

Games on the other hand, if I think it's good, and I want to support the developers, I will buy it. Or it's the same with the DVDs, I keep an e-copy in case I lose or damage a disc. But mostly, I absolutely refuse to buy a $60 game, only to discover it's a piece of shit or is only 3 hours long, and that I can't return it because it's a PC game, or it's an e-copy, or I only get $20 for it at game-stop, so they can then turn it around as a used copy and reap massive profits on the dime of the developers... No-fucking way.

They are not losing money. If something is good, it will be in demand, and it will make money. If something is shit, then it wont and frankly, should not make money.

No band, movie studio, or game developer has ever gone out of business due to piracy. None. Ever. Every time one blames piracy for their money loss is because the shit they were putting out wasn't worth buying anyway, and they need a scapegoat.

"Oh but they worked on it, they deserve compensation."
This is not communist Russia. If you make something, take the time and effort to make it good, people will want it, and therefor will spend money on it. If you throw it together with some Elmer's glue and the toilet paper cling-ons from your asscrack and expect to make millions, you deserve nothing. This is how capitalism works.

[Pelios]

To be honest with you I have about 50 songs total in my ipod I'm not a music person if I really like the band I'll go to their shows but I don't download music not my thing. Movies I do download because sometimes I prefer to see them in my house lying in my bed but I don't want to wait till it's out on DVD.

[Fictional]

I illegally download music because i don't like iTunes and often I can't afford the physical copies of the albums I want. When I do find them at prices I can pay, though, I will buy the physical copies too. The downloads are sort of to tide me over until i can buy the physical copies :P I wouldn't download movies, but I do watch some on youtube :P

[BDF]

I'm not crazy about it. I do it when I feel like. I know people who download just to download and fill up as many external hard drives so they can just show off their huge collection. In many cases, an illegal download, or online streaming of some sort is pre-emptive of me eventually buying that CD/album in the future, assuming I like it enough.


HINT: It's actually becoming cheaper to buy entire albums on CDs in shops, rather than online. I do it abroad on holiday and it comes out even cheaper at £5 per CD, with 15-20 tracks on it for example. I also avoid buying albums that just came out, because then even abroad those can cost £15.

[Fictional]

Trouble is, I like a lot f Japanese music, which means CDs are often priced at about £40. It can take quite a while for them to pop up on e-bay for less than £15 (my limit on how much I'll spend).

[Boobies]

I love piracy, it's great.
In general it's the producers and shops that are missing out the most though.

[Gymnophoria]

In terms of movies, my dad calls it downloading because apparently it has an impact on our 40GB/month download limit, but I watch them online. If I like it, I'll go onto Amazon and buy it. I do that because there's no point buying a movie I'll hate. I bought one last month that I'd never heard of, it just looked good. It sucked and I've watched it once, it was a complete waste of money.

While people say things like "Oh the artist won't lose out, it's just one song." if you just think that, okay, the artist loses £1. Big deal for a multi millionaire superstar or whatever. But if 100,000,000 people thought like that, then that's £100,000,000 the artist is losing. Less money to tour. Less money to produce more music. Less money to create merch.

If you want to see if you like it before you buy it, go listen on youtube or on the artists' website. If it's just one or two songs out of the whole album, go buy them on iTunes or from Amazon. There really isn't much excuse for doing it illegally.

[Nostalgia]

I only download music, I use youtube converters.

[Marguerite]

I download music and TV shows but I basically have different reasoning for both.

With regards to mucic, I don't think it really hurts artists. The truth is, people like Lady Gaga or Bruno Mars aren't going to suffer because someone has downloaded a few of their songs, and smaller bands, particularly independent artists, have benefited so much from the internet and all it has brought with it.

I have quite a big CD collection. If I really love a band/artist I will buy a hard copy of their CD. I'll go to their concerts, I'll buy merchandise. Probably somewhere between 80-95% of these artists that I'm putting money towards I would never have heard of if I hadn't have downloaded their song first. If it wasn't for the internet we'd all probably just be listening to whatever was on our local radio station or playing at our local bar and most of the bands I listen too probably wouldn't have had a chance to get off the ground.

With TV, it's a bit different. Anybody who lives in Australia will know how awful free to air TV is. They will air shows a year after they've first aired in America/The UK (where most of them come from) and it will be so inconsistant. They'll show an episode 9pm on monday one week, 2am on a sunday the next, it'll be off air for two weeks, show three episodes at 6pm on a different channel on the same network (you have main channel then it has two digital channels) then for no reason they'll take it off air for a month and replace with something awful from decades ago like Murder She Wrote or Mork and Mindy or Maguiver. UGH.

[Marguerite]

Originally Posted by Gymnophoria

In terms of movies, my dad calls it downloading because apparently it has an impact on our 40GB/month download limit, but I watch them online. If I like it, I'll go onto Amazon and buy it. I do that because there's no point buying a movie I'll hate. I bought one last month that I'd never heard of, it just looked good. It sucked and I've watched it once, it was a complete waste of money.

While people say things like "Oh the artist won't lose out, it's just one song." if you just think that, okay, the artist loses £1. Big deal for a multi millionaire superstar or whatever. But if 100,000,000 people thought like that, then that's £100,000,000 the artist is losing. Less money to tour. Less money to produce more music. Less money to create merch.

If you want to see if you like it before you buy it, go listen on youtube or on the artists' website. If it's just one or two songs out of the whole album, go buy them on iTunes or from Amazon. There really isn't much excuse for doing it illegally.

How is downloading music worse than movies? This doesn't make any sense to me. If there isn't any excuse for downloading music illegally then their certainly isn't any excuse for downloading movies.

As for how it damages them, as I've already said, it can benefit them a lot. I also find it kind of rich how people play the 'Oh, poor musicians' card. If you're raking in a few mill a year and because of illegal downloading, you only make 75% of that, you're doing better than 99% of the rest of the world. If we're talking about smaller artists who are not making huge amounts in record sales and touring, then what chance would they really have without internet exposure?

[David]

I download games and music. I download games to test them, if they are good I'll go buy it. I don't want to waste $80-$120 on a horrible game. As for my music, I usually get all my music I download it illegally in .flac format if possible, I don't really want to spend $20+ to get a CD to rip it in .flac format and only listen to like 2 or 3 sounds. I do buy music on Amazon to help out artists tho.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Gymnophoria

While people say things like "Oh the artist won't lose out, it's just one song." if you just think that, okay, the artist loses £1. Big deal for a multi millionaire superstar or whatever. But if 100,000,000 people thought like that, then that's £100,000,000 the artist is losing. Less money to tour. Less money to produce more music. Less money to create merch.

That's flawed logic, because you're assuming everyone who has pirated the music would buy it if they didn't have the option to download, which is usually not the case. Like I said, if someone likes something enough that they feel that they HAVE to have it, and they have the money, then they bill buy it. But if they're too poor or don't like it enough to consider buying it, then they wont.

They might lose some POTENTIAL profit, but they don't actually lose physical money from pirating. And I challenge you to find me a law protecting potential profit.

[Cosmo]

Here's my flow chart

1. Learn of a band
2. Visit their last.fm and use Spotify to listen to their 5 most played tracks
3. If I like it, I'll download their discography.
4. I'll listen to all of it and buy the good ones and delete the bad ones. I don't do this instantly as that would be expensive but I do over time buy the albums I like.


Also worth noting that bands get almost nothing from song sales so you're really not depriving them of anything. You're depriving the record companies of money and whether you agree with that is up to you.

Also, it's not stealing. Stealing only applies when there is a finite supply of a product, for example clocks. It cost money to produce that copy of the clock, so there's value in that hence it being stealing if you take it but pay nothing for it. With MP3s it costs nothing to produce so no value is lost when a copy is downloaded for free. Just before anyone starts saying it's stealing.

[dr2005]

No - for the simple reason that theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up. It's generally accepted that stealing from a shop is wrong (hence shoplifting being an offence) so I fail to see why that should change simply because the Internet has come into the equation. With artists having YouTube and Myspace pages with their music on already, and a range of radio stations covering all kinds of music, there really isn't much excuse for piracy. Same goes for games and films/TV shows - with games you can usually get demos or look up reviews (which is what I do a lot of the time) and likewise with films and TV. The only reason for pirating rather than using the above is wanting to own the content without paying for it, and that is theft.

[Cosmo]

Originally Posted by dr2005

No - for the simple reason that theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up. It's generally accepted that stealing from a shop is wrong (hence shoplifting being an offence) so I fail to see why that should change simply because the Internet has come into the equation. With artists having YouTube and Myspace pages with their music on already, and a range of radio stations covering all kinds of music, there really isn't much excuse for piracy. Same goes for games and films/TV shows - with games you can usually get demos or look up reviews (which is what I do a lot of the time) and likewise with films and TV. The only reason for pirating rather than using the above is wanting to own the content without paying for it, and that is theft.

Because when you steal from a shop, you remove an item that has actual value because of the cost to produce. When you download a copy of an MP3, that's not removing the original item, it's just a copy of it which cost nothing to produce. Nothing was taken, therefore no theft.

[PutYourHeartsUp]

I don't download things anymore. Partially because I now use the library (which, ripping CDs from a library is still technically illegal. Same goes for audiobooks which I do) and partially because if I got caught on the University internet pirating in any way I can be kicked out of my apartment and end up homeless so I'd rather not risk it. I buy everything else. If I can't afford it, then I wait until they have it at the library. I don't need things as soon as I want them, I can wait until I can either afford it or borrow it from the library.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by dr2005

No - for the simple reason that theft is theft, no matter how you dress it up. It's generally accepted that stealing from a shop is wrong (hence shoplifting being an offence) so I fail to see why that should change simply because the Internet has come into the equation. With artists having YouTube and Myspace pages with their music on already, and a range of radio stations covering all kinds of music, there really isn't much excuse for piracy. Same goes for games and films/TV shows - with games you can usually get demos or look up reviews (which is what I do a lot of the time) and likewise with films and TV. The only reason for pirating rather than using the above is wanting to own the content without paying for it, and that is theft.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Because when you steal from a shop, you remove an item that has actual value because of the cost to produce. When you download a copy of an MP3, that's not removing the original item, it's just a copy of it which cost nothing to produce. Nothing was taken, therefore no theft.

It is theft... because of copyright law. When you buy the CD, you don't strictly speaking pay for the CD, you pay for the right to listen to its contents. It's the way it is, and I fail to think of a better system which could globally replace this one, seeing that it's used for far more than just music.

But here we go. Law is law. So if someone makes a law to punch a Jew every time you see one, does it mean not doing so is wrong? No. Illegal? Yes. I got my own ideas of what I think's wrong, or right. Most do, and my train of thought on this topic is that I'm not stealing anything from anyone, because I'm not depriving any artist, or manager, or middleman of their profits by downloading pirate music, since I wouldn't buy it anyway in most cases.

Following the law like a bible is what allows people like Hitler to rise up. Just giving a radical example.

[Aletheia*]

I used to download music illegally to put onto my iPod. However, because of doing this, I put several viruses on my computer on more than one occasion, so I don't do that anymore. As for TV show's or movies, I don't do this either. I stream it live online, but I won't download anything onto the computer since I fear of putting more risks on my computer.

[BruceLeeDemarcus]

No, I don't. it just goes against me, I guess. My mom does it, but I don't think she should.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Because when you steal from a shop, you remove an item that has actual value because of the cost to produce. When you download a copy of an MP3, that's not removing the original item, it's just a copy of it which cost nothing to produce. Nothing was taken, therefore no theft.

Leaving aside the fact that producing an MP3 file has production costs of its own, as does hosting files on the Internet, the argument that it has no value is categorically false. When purchasing an MP3 off somewhere like iTunes, or software off a website, you are also purchasing a licence to use that media off the content owner. Without that valid licence, you are passing off that media as your own property and that, I am afraid, is theft. It may be a more technical kind of theft, but it is theft nonetheless. Also, your claim that something must have a production cost to have value is similarly false - value is ascribed to something based on whether someone is willing to pay for it. A share in a company, for example, has no actual value on its own nor associated costs comparable to its value, but if you hacked into the FTSE or NYSE and changed the shares so they were in your name you would be done for grand theft. So with respect, that argument doesn't quite work.

Originally Posted by BDF

But here we go. Law is law. So if someone makes a law to punch a Jew every time you see one, does it mean not doing so is wrong? No. Illegal? Yes. I got my own ideas of what I think's wrong, or right. Most do, and my train of thought on this topic is that I'm not stealing anything from anyone, because I'm not depriving any artist, or manager, or middleman of their profits by downloading pirate music, since I wouldn't buy it anyway in most cases.

Following the law like a bible is what allows people like Hitler to rise up. Just giving a radical example.

Nice to see you again, Godwin's Law.
Leaving that aside, and the fact that such a law would be struck down in the vast majority of jurisdictions anyway, your individual belief as to whether it is theft or not doesn't really come into the equation. If something of value is taken without consent, that is theft. It's probably one of the simplest legal maxims on the book, and predates the existence of the book. Circumstances may mitigate how seriously the theft is regarded, but it does not change the basic conceptual nature of the act. Given the above points I made in response to Matthew, pirating remains an act of theft whether you agree with it or not. As far as your last remark goes, I would say only that claiming a link between the rise of right-wing extremists and applying the law is frankly laughable, particularly given that the application of laws such as those concerning equality and anti-discrimination prevent such persons rising to power in the first place. As such, I would strongly recommend justifying that remark with some supporting evidence if you wish it to be taken seriously.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Without that valid license, you are passing off that media as your own property and that, I am afraid, is theft.
.

Except that that's not the intent of people who are downloading music? No one is going to believe anyone who says they made "Enter the Sandman." Thats not really a copyright issue, that's plagiarism.

However, ready for the kicker? If you download said song, re-mix it, and re-upload it, that is 100% completely legal under copyright law.

Copyright law, in that case, has NOTHING to do with stealing content, it just has to do with Record Labels trying to remain relevant by forcing people to give them money by something they didn't make.

Honestly, thats all it is. The internet has made labels obsolete, and they're pitching fits and putting up bullshit like this, trying to make people believe that it's stealing, when essentially, its the same thing they do.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Except that that's not the intent of people who are downloading music? No one is going to believe anyone who says they made "Enter the Sandman." Thats not really a copyright issue, that's plagiarism.

It's not a question of them claiming to be the originator - it's a question of claiming ownership, even in part, of something that is not theirs. Whether that is their intent or not is beside the point - by asserting they can download content created by someone else without permission and use it as they like, they are asserting a proprietary claim. Hence, it is a copyright issue.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

However, ready for the kicker? If you download said song, re-mix it, and re-upload it, that is 100% completely legal under copyright law.

I believe that is actually incorrect - this came up in a case involving The Rolling Stones and The Verve, and saw Keith Richards and Mick Jagger awarded the copyright. Source. If you sample a song in a recognisable form without permission, even if it's a remix as you suggest, and don't give the appropriate credit, you are in breach of copyright law as far as I am aware. That was certainly the outcome in that case, but I will look into it again. On a basic level, this would suggest I am correct.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Copyright law, in that case, has NOTHING to do with stealing content, it just has to do with Record Labels trying to remain relevant by forcing people to give them money by something they didn't make.

Honestly, thats all it is. The internet has made labels obsolete, and they're pitching fits and putting up bullshit like this, trying to make people believe that it's stealing, when essentially, its the same thing they do.

With respect, asserting your opinion as fact does not make it thus - much as you may feel it is a case of labels trying to assert themselves, the example I gave above was actually one artist against another. That rather holes your argument below the waterline. I also find it amusing that you view the record labels as "stealing" as well despite the fact that they bankroll the entire enterprise in most cases - I presume you take the same view with film and television studios, and theatres and concert promoters? If not, why not? The role performed by all of them is the same, merely in different settings. None of them are comparable to someone ripping a file off a torrent site because they don't want to pay for it.

[BDF]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Nice to see you again, Godwin's Law.
Leaving that aside, and the fact that such a law would be struck down in the vast majority of jurisdictions anyway, your individual belief as to whether it is theft or not doesn't really come into the equation. If something of value is taken without consent, that is theft. It's probably one of the simplest legal maxims on the book, and predates the existence of the book. Circumstances may mitigate how seriously the theft is regarded, but it does not change the basic conceptual nature of the act. Given the above points I made in response to Matthew, pirating remains an act of theft whether you agree with it or not. As far as your last remark goes, I would say only that claiming a link between the rise of right-wing extremists and applying the law is frankly laughable, particularly given that the application of laws such as those concerning equality and anti-discrimination prevent such persons rising to power in the first place. As such, I would strongly recommend justifying that remark with some supporting evidence if you wish it to be taken seriously.

I still don't see it as theft. I'm downloading it from someone else who owns it, who in most cases would have naturally given consent for me to download it since they'd be the ones uploading it in the first place. I assume the know and accept that others will download their uploads, otherwise why do it? Whether I download it, or copy it off a friend onto a hard drive, I fail to see how I'm "stealing" from them. The only thing that makes it theft is the copyright law, which in a lot of cases I don't respect since it has really twisted the definition of theft. Essentially, by copyright law, I am thieving when I go to a friend's house and listen to some music he plays through his speakers. That's the way I understand it. I don't respect something like that. NO way.

Ima make a law that everyone has to pay to breathe, due to increasing pollution (or whatever) so anyone not doing so is thieving. There's no way to police something like that, maybe by putting air in plastic bags or something.

Also feel the need to mention that a lot of music artists even support their music being downloaded for free, or if not have at least come to terms with it. Most of the people throwing the tantrums are the big recording companies, managers, and other middlemen. And although I have no exact source anymore for the statistic, I pretty sure the artist very frequently may get less than 50% of the profits. Might even get as little as 10%, or even less. It also depends how they manage it themselves, are they a pushover, or do they fight back and throw the contract in the bin when their cut sucks?


And I need to move away from my Hitler analogies, lol.

[Peppermint Tea.♥]

I answered yes because I occasionally illegally download. Very rarely though and only for bands where I can't find the CDs. This is because I'm unable to buy anything online because I don't have an account. If I like the song, I'll search for the album in the shops. I've never downloaded a whole album.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by BDF

I still don't see it as theft.

No surprises there then.

Originally Posted by BDF

I'm downloading it from someone else who owns it, who in most cases would have naturally given consent for me to download it since they'd be the ones uploading it in the first place. I assume the know and accept that others will download their uploads, otherwise why do it? Whether I download it, or copy it off a friend onto a hard drive, I fail to see how I'm "stealing" from them.

I put those two words in bold because they underpin your entire comment, and as it's a false analysis it leads to that argument collapsing in on itself. At no point do you actually own the legal title in any form of digital media, be it music, video, a game or other software - if you actually read something like an EULA, you'll realise you are being granted a licence to use a copy, and that licence is only valid for as long as you obey its terms. Break them, and by law you have to remove the software from your computer if you don't want to be taken to court. The actual legal owner of the software, or music to bring this back on topic, will be the content creator or their publisher, so to claim that any other person can express ownership is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by BDF

The only thing that makes it theft is the copyright law, which in a lot of cases I don't respect since it has really twisted the definition of theft. Essentially, by copyright law, I am thieving when I go to a friend's house and listen to some music he plays through his speakers. That's the way I understand it. I don't respect something like that. NO way.

Forgive my candour, but that's bullshit. Copyright law does not say that in any way, shape or form - if your friend is playing the music in his house, that is covered by his EULA (or equivalent thereof) and copyright doesn't even come into the equation. The only time when copyright becomes an issue is if it's used at public events, and that's only because it's being used as a promotional tool (implicitly or explicitly) so it's a case of use of content.

Originally Posted by BDF

Ima make a law that everyone has to pay to breathe, due to increasing pollution (or whatever) so anyone not doing so is thieving. There's no way to police something like that, maybe by putting air in plastic bags or something.

This really doesn't help your argument in light of the above.

Originally Posted by BDF

Also feel the need to mention that a lot of music artists even support their music being downloaded for free, or if not have at least come to terms with it. Most of the people throwing the tantrums are the big recording companies, managers, and other middlemen. And although I have no exact source anymore for the statistic, I pretty sure the artist very frequently may get less than 50% of the profits. Might even get as little as 10%, or even less. It also depends how they manage it themselves, are they a pushover, or do they fight back and throw the contract in the bin when their cut sucks?

The percentage an artist gets will depend on the terms of their individual agreement. In any event, that is overlooking the fact that they won't have to pay for the use of any recording equipment, for the promotion of their music or for associated costs like security, transport etc. while under that contract, by and large. The record companies may do well out of the deal prima facie, but they invest a lot into it in the first place and it's no different to any other promoter or backer such as film/TV studios or concert promoters - and as I said before, I have yet to see anyone criticise them in such terms. The fact is, all of these groups exist for a reason besides making money - were it so easy to do without them, the vast majority of artists would have done so by now. They haven't.

Originally Posted by BDF

And I need to move away from my Hitler analogies, lol.

There is a time and a place for Hitler analogies to be fair, but that really wasn't it.

[Megan1]

No I dont, simply because I don't belive in breaking the law. I do listen to and watch things on Youtube sometimes though (I don't post or download them, only watch what is already there).

[Boobies]

It's funny how people see no problem with borrowing a CD then ripping it onto their computer, but downloading it from the internet is entirely different.
Because it's just the same...