Not for me finnie. Overrated and overplayed. But each to their own. Its hardly music with depth but I agree sometimes throwaway music is ok. Jamie T's new tracks not bad.
Interestingly Pete hasn't mentioned anything about how he manages his own consumption of music. The arguments seem to hinge upon how we chose to define theft and how the law defines theft. Talented musicians deserve to be able to make a living from their music but how they can do that is influenced by the technology that surrounds us, it is up to them to come up with the solutions. I think this is one area where the market knows best.
Pete probably has a collection of captured philharmonic orchestras locked up in his vast cellar. His idea of downloading is probably shoving a captured virtuoso down the coal chute.
a couple of drams and i will bogie to anything, even this. Frédéric Chopin – Funeral March – Listen and discover music at Last.fm
Actually, I don't think pete has any appreciation of music at all, which would explain his ramblings. The idea of pete throwing captured virtuoso down coal cellars evokes images Dante would be proud of. Good work, Sir.
No, that is not my view. I have never said anything remotely like that. Ethics do not derive from nations' laws. Consideration of what is and what is not ethical behaviour is very different from understanding what the laws of the UK actually say at this point in time. When one is considering whether certain laws are reasonable, justified, and sustainable, or whether they should be amended or repealed, ethical considerations are among the main issues to be considered. You have mentioned a variety of other circumstances in which behaviours which are (at least technically) illegal are difficult to restrain in practice. But analysis of the ethics of those behaviours does not depend on whether they are illegal or not, much less on whether the laws are enforceable or not.
Every musician, singer, dancer, and actor throughout human history up to about 1900 has earned their living from live performance alone. There was no question of copyright in performances, nor of performers gaining a living from recordings. Around one century ago technology was invented which made it possible, for the first time, for performances to be recorded. The entire ethical structure, such as it is, of copyright entitlements for performers could arise solely and exclusively as a consequence of that technology. How on earth can you say that technology does not determine ethics? Lots of people in all walks of life contribute things of value to society by their work, and are worthy of having their work paid for - musical performers are just as worthy as any others. The question is whether they should not merely be paid for their work at the time, but should go on being paid for it again and again for many years. Technology enabled them to secure exactly that privilege for a century, but now technology is taking away that same privilege. I feel much sympathy with anyone who finds their source of income evaporating due to change, whether they are musicians, coal miners, or candle-makers, but I don't think it is an ethical issue.
If I wanted any of the modern crap noise that purports to be music, I would still buy a CD. I just listen to the older noise called rock from the late 60s and 70s.
I consume music to the same extent that I consume wallpaper. Theft crucially involves permanently depriving an owner of their property. Fraud involves deception. I still cannot see how simply recording a music track (without paying for it) to play back later can possibly amount to either theft or fraud by any ordinary definition. Is there a market in laws? Criminal and civil laws are made by parliament and interpreted by the courts, following political and legal processes. Over time it becomes clear whether laws are good, bad, or unworkable, and I suppose you could call that a market of sorts.
Copyright and Music Rights still apply don't they? So to rip it off without payment means those laws have been broken.
I was thinking more that the market would sort out the relationship between the creators of music and the consumers of music
That may well be, but some posters have been tossing around words like "theft" with gay abandon. Those actions which are criminal offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (mainly selling or hiring or importing copies) specifically exclude personal use. So making a copy for your own use is not a criminal offence, and it certainly is not theft. At most it can only be a civil matter between the person making their own copy and the person who claims the copyright.
Interesting thread - I think most people have double standards (not saying that im wrong - im in there as well) its just a case of where your priorities lie. Personally im not a big listener of music (tend to have a small bit on my mp3 player while on the bike) - its always worth and extra few mph...! So, therefore if I can find it for free I will but if I cant ill pay for it....I tend to use amazon as I can download in individual track - I very rarely like a whole album so that works for me.
In many cases, a person who colludes with others in connection with a crime is guilty of breaking the law. Thus and for example, receiving stolen goods is against the law and is actually a specified offence. This is not the case where the crime is pirating copyrighted material. Those who illegally copy such material for onward transmission to third parties are breaking the law, whether or not they obtain pecuniary consideration from the third party. However, the third party in receipt of this material is not actually breaking any (criminal) law, as far as I can tell. I suspect the discrepancy between the two treatments is a matter of practicality, rather than ethics or " justice".
