Money-troubled teens turn to P2P [Archive]

Windowlicker

Dec 5, 2004, 03:49 AM

Jupiter also found that younger adults are most likely to perform CD burning and file sharing. Among 18-24-year-olds, 41 per cent burn CDs, while just 14 per cent of over 25s do so. Similarly, 31 per cent of 18-24s use file sharing programs, but just 4 per cent of those over 25.

Isn't this quite obvious? In general people don't really use the P2P services thinking "I'm a thief, muahahaha!!!" Once they get enough money for putting it on music and such, they will most likely do so.

stoid

Dec 5, 2004, 04:19 AM

The article states that by 2009 there are expected to be 30 million households with mp3 players. With Apple carrying over 50% of the mp3 market, that's a lot of iPods. Especially considering that one household may have more than 1 mp3 player. :D

But I agree, barely scrapping by to cover rent and tuition (I don't even have a car, and am always having to bum rides) it doesn't make me too eager to drop money on music, or any entertainment for that matter. When a particularly interesting work is out, I'll pay to support it, but with file sharing being so easy, sometimes the temptation to steal is too great when it's just something I sorta like. And I think that if 'they' made it harder to steal music, it would become more enticing because of the challenge to get it. Right now it's nothing special to say that you pirate music/movies/applications because anyone with a computer and an internet connection can do it. Once it becomes something 'hacker-worthy' it might just become more appealing.

Sharewaredemon

Dec 5, 2004, 10:06 AM

I understand what you mean about not having huge disposable income, (oddly enough, teens have some of the highest disposable incomes) I tend to use file sharing programs, but not excessively, for the most part, bands who I have downloaded their cds, I will almost always buy their cds that come out in the future, as, now that I know I like them, I would rather a) support them, and b) not have to worry about downloading their music.
It's just a lot easier to buy. I think though, that the demographics this article mentions are a little older than "teens" in my opinion. As these people are most likely in university, they have to pay for that, whereas teenagers, who are still in high school usually have jobs, and nothing that HAVE to pay for (no tuition!!). Which is why I find it hard for them to justify not buying music, when they can afford to eat at fast food restaurants whenever they want.

musicpyrite

Dec 5, 2004, 10:48 AM

Sharewaredemon

Dec 5, 2004, 12:17 PM

Just because teens and young adults are on a tight budget it still doesn't warrant stealing music. I have older friends who think it's ridiculous to buy music, software, coke from a vending machine, etc. and shake their head when I buy the occasional CD.... kind of sad actually that they have no respect.

I can understand how people in college just barley getting by would download music though. If people want something bad enough, they'll get it.

Yeah, I agree, and another thing about in College, is the fact that you are around a HUGE number of people, so you can always get music from people without having to download it.
(Though that is still illegal)

dejo

Dec 5, 2004, 03:43 PM

Another article that makes the (erroneous, IMHO) distinction between digital music and CD music. The music on CDs is digital! To call it non-digital is a mistake. If you want non-digital music, look at cassettes, vinyl, 8-track, etc. The reporters need to do a better job of differentiating digital music received through online (non-physical) media and digital music recevied via physical media (i.e. CDs, SACDS, DVD-Audio, etc.)

sjk

Dec 5, 2004, 08:37 PM

(oddly enough, teens have some of the highest disposable incomes)To support their disposable lifestyles. ;)

harveypooka

Dec 5, 2004, 08:46 PM

Sharewaredemon

Dec 5, 2004, 09:25 PM

Does it make it ok if you wouldn't buy the CD anyway and download the music from the net? I mean, it's like skipping a train when it's not busy.
The train company aren't losing out on any profit...kind of.

We discussed this to death in the two days we spent waiting for the iTMS in Canada on Macrumors, if you feel like sifting through 1200 posts, you will find that, really, no, that is not an excuse. If you wouldn't buy the music, don't you think it isn't good enough to listen to?
If you weren't going to buy the chocolate bar, would you just take it? It's not like it is going to be sold...

(That having been said, I still do it, I'm just pointing out that it is wrong.)

harveypooka

Dec 5, 2004, 09:36 PM

Well, not really. I wouldn't buy a lot of things - but would still have them.
Perhaps because they're not really needed...maybe that's why. No, I wasn't
trying to come up with anything new - just thinking aloud. Downloading music is stealing, but it's a social thing - loads of people do it so it's seen
as being ok. Now, it's being seen as not ok. But I bet you most parents probably don't mind that their kids are downloading music, they'd rather that than their kids stealing chocolate bars.

Your choc bar analogy is a little different. If I download some music it's
not actually taking it from any shelves...a chocolate bar is. Many (like Public Enemy for instance) think that music corp. make enough money as
it is...music should be freely distributed. Perhaps me not taking it from
the shelves is good for me, but I should really be going to the shelves
to bloody buy something!

Downloading music is wrong. But I have done it, and still do. It's a bit
of a moral dilemma. But on a much lesser scale.

StarbucksSam

Dec 5, 2004, 09:43 PM

Is this.. news? LOL. Like, DUH. I have actually started to make a point of getting MOST of my music from iTMS. I also deleted a lot of old LimeWire songs, but that was b/c I didn't like them any more. I'm moving towards morality ... just... gradually.

harveypooka

Dec 5, 2004, 09:47 PM

Well, it's not news really. Just me rambling. Here I go, rambling again.

Song of the post: "Never Stop" Echo & The Bunnyment

musicpyrite

Dec 5, 2004, 09:55 PM

Your choc bar analogy is a little different. If I download some music it's
not actually taking it from any shelves...a chocolate bar is. Many (like Public Enemy for instance) think that music corp. make enough money as
it is...music should be freely distributed. Perhaps me not taking it from
the shelves is good for me, but I should really be going to the shelves
to bloody buy something!

It's interesting to think that some people think it's more of a crime to steal the physical CD out of a store, than it is to download it. (not saying that this is true of you, harveypooka) I guess people see the physical CD as something that they can hold and feel, while the downloaded music is just 0s and 1s.

Personally I do have a problem with walking into Block Buster and stealing a video, or Halo 2. I don't see as much of a problem doing it online though. And I don't like the fact that I think that way, stealing is stealing - there's no way around it.

harveypooka

Dec 5, 2004, 10:00 PM

Sharewaredemon

Dec 6, 2004, 08:44 AM

You're right. It is stealing, but in a very different way to actually stealing
something from a shop. Firstly, mp3's and mpeg's are more available. It
brings me onto the whole idea that in the next few years people won't
buy CD's, it'll all be online - the same with DVD's. For me, I don't think
this will happen. For instance, I don't download films. Or if I do and like it,
I'll buy it. To me, it's all about DVD's. My mate thinks it's all about CD's.
Not sure where the distinction lies, but it's nice to have something. You don't really own something if it's digital. It's weird. Terminology and
understanding has to be updated...it's weird. Bloody computers.

A agree with you 100%, I knew that my chocolate bar analagy wasn't the best, in fact, it's not even mine. But from your first post it seemed like you had thought less about it. I don't download movies, if I want then I buy them, (I don't though) I also agree with musicpyrite (what an ironic name) that people have trouble stealing something physical yet will do it online, (I being one of them) as you say, it has just become the norm, my parents don't mind me downloading music, I fact, most parents don't as soon as it becomes illegal, (punishable) then they will though. I really like supporting the artist, what would be ideal to me, is if there was a way to buy mp3's directly from the artist for the same price as say iTMS charges, because then they get more money.

Of course that philosophy is probably horribly flawed...

JLS

Dec 6, 2004, 08:52 AM

oddly enough, teens have some of the highest disposable incomes

I don't know what business school you went too.. Thats certainly not what I have learnt.

brap

Dec 6, 2004, 09:06 AM

I really like supporting the artist, what would be ideal to me, is if there was a way to buy mp3's directly from the artist for the same price as say iTMS charges, because then they get more money.

Of course that philosophy is probably horribly flawed...
The moment an artist sells their soul to a major they deserve the poor rate of return. Me, I buy direct from http://www.ant-zen.com/ and http://www.adnoiseam.net/... not to mention http://www.kompressormusic.com/. I've also given http://www.frontalot.com/ my support by joining the 'VSP'. In this, you give MC Frontalot money just because. I think that's as close to your ideal it gets, Sharewaredemon, since he only ever puts out MP3 tunes.

Though I guess if your musical taste is limited to Britney and N-Sync, you're going to steal, because there's no inbuilt 'shareware' nature, as with AdNoiseam; they give free MP3s away as a matter of course.

harveypooka

Dec 6, 2004, 09:09 AM

They deserve a poor rate of return? How's that then? I'm not sure artists
sell their souls - and I'm not sure that only Britney Spears and N-Sync
fans download music. Seems you've got other things to talk about here.

brap

Dec 6, 2004, 09:18 AM

They deserve a poor rate of return? How's that then? I'm not sure artists
sell their soulsThey accept the terms of the contract; by hoping to push millions of copies (after all - it's all about money) they're aiming for a higher payout. And all the millions of advertising and publicity which follows. Sure, on rare occasions it's purely a distribution issue, but any time an artist gets into bed with Sony they run the risk of losing out. Big time, if they don't sell enough. And it's tough titties when they don't.
and I'm not sure that only Britney Spears and N-Sync fans download music.
Wow, that one came out of nowhere, didn't it? Fans of hugely publicised stuff, I find, often don't have goodwill incentives like free tracks and such; therefore, more downloading will probably take place.
Seems you've got other things to talk about here.
...I'm afraid you're going to have to spell that one out, too. Call me slow.

wordmunger

Dec 6, 2004, 09:30 AM

It's interesting to think that some people think it's more of a crime to steal the physical CD out of a store, than it is to download it. (not saying that this is true of you, harveypooka) I guess people see the physical CD as something that they can hold and feel, while the downloaded music is just 0s and 1s.

It is more of a crime to steal a CD from a store than to download a song on P2P. In fact, P2P is not a crime at all. It is a copyright violation -- a civil issue, not a criminal one. When you steal a CD from the store, you are stealing the physical property of the store owner. When you download using P2P, you are making an unauthorized copy of a work, and it is the responsibility of the rightsholder, not the police, to pursue the matter in civil courts, not criminal courts.

harveypooka

Dec 6, 2004, 09:47 AM

It seems that there are a few ideas of music floating around. Some think that music is somehow a magical thing, that artists stand for what
is true and good. And I suppose that's right, but remember that artists are
also people - they to have to make a living. People that sign for corp's like
Sony also make a living. Pink Floyd are on EMI, one of the largest, but I don't consider that to taint their music at all. I might be getting the wrong
end of the stick, but commercial music isn't all bad. It brings good music
to a lot of people, and yes, it involves money, just like everything we do
does.

Sharewaredemon

Dec 6, 2004, 09:49 AM

I don't know what business school you went too.. Thats certainly not what I have learnt.

Unfourtunalty (or maybe fourtunatly) I have never gone to buisness school, but from what I experienced with my friends in high school, and from what I thought I said, it makes sense, (of course you might think that the unmarried working class (24-30) has a higher disposable income, which I guess they do) but maybe what I meant, was that there is a huge industry which gears their products to teens, teens who have part time jobs, and no overhead. Teens, don't pay taxes, they don't have mortgages, they don't have to pay rent, and they are not in debt (except maybe to their parents).

Perhaps you could part with what you have learned and explain it to me?

It is more of a crime to steal a CD from a store than to download a song on P2P. In fact, P2P is not a crime at all. It is a copyright violation -- a civil issue, not a criminal one. When you steal a CD from the store, you are stealing the physical property of the store owner. When you download using P2P, you are making an unauthorized copy of a work, and it is the responsibility of the rightsholder, not the police, to pursue the matter in civil courts, not criminal courts.

That's a good point.

Sharewaredemon

Dec 6, 2004, 09:52 AM

The moment an artist sells their soul to a major they deserve the poor rate of return. Me, I buy direct from http://www.ant-zen.com/ and http://www.adnoiseam.net/... not to mention http://www.kompressormusic.com/. I've also given http://www.frontalot.com/ my support by joining the 'VSP'. In this, you give MC Frontalot money just because. I think that's as close to your ideal it gets, Sharewaredemon, since he only ever puts out MP3 tunes.

Though I guess if your musical taste is limited to Britney and N-Sync, you're going to steal, because there's no inbuilt 'shareware' nature, as with AdNoiseam; they give free MP3s away as a matter of course.

This is partly true, but what about all of the "independent" record labels, for the most part, cds i buy are the ones that are rarely in stores, as the bands I want to support are the ones who are not usually very well known (this is not though, how I decide what to buy) so I would like to be able to give a larger amount of money specifically to them.

harveypooka

Dec 6, 2004, 10:02 AM

Yeah, you're right about the copyright thing. Once again there's a variety
of different terms you can use. I consider it stealing or theft, but it's actually copyright violation. Hmm. Just interesting that's all!

wrldwzrd89

Dec 6, 2004, 02:05 PM

My wealth puts me squarely in the middle class - yet I never got into the whole P2P thing. I guess it's because my interest in so-called "mainstream music" (the kind you find on CDs and in the iTMS) has faded over time - I've simply diverted my musical interests to the world of video games and the world of oddball music formats.

applebum

Dec 6, 2004, 05:40 PM

This issue is just not as black and white as many people want to make it. There are times that I have downloaded music and I am almost 40. I think there are plenty of times when it is acceptable, maybe even necessary (music that is out of print that can't be acquired through "legal" means).

I was reading an article today that makes me wonder - in what other case can you "steal" something and the "owner" benefit from it? (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1804&ncid=1804&e=2&u=/washpost/20041206/tc_washpost/a39155_2004dec6)
And, if only half of the artists think it is illegal, who are we really trying to protect?

JLS

Dec 6, 2004, 08:06 PM

Unfourtunalty (or maybe fourtunatly) I have never gone to buisness school, but from what I experienced with my friends in high school, and from what I thought I said, it makes sense, (of course you might think that the unmarried working class (24-30) has a higher disposable income, which I guess they do) but maybe what I meant, was that there is a huge industry which gears their products to teens, teens who have part time jobs, and no overhead. Teens, don't pay taxes, they don't have mortgages, they don't have to pay rent, and they are not in debt (except maybe to their parents).

Perhaps you could part with what you have learned and explain it to me?

That's a good point.

Well I could explain it too you, but it would take a while. If you really are intersted, read a book by Tom Peters (www.tompeters.com) or look at some of his powerpoint slides (free and quick).

OryHara

Dec 6, 2004, 11:58 PM

I steal music because im not goting to pay more than $10 for a cd. period end.
the only CD ive bought in the last 6 months was "Rock against Bush vol. 2", and one of the only reasons i bought that was because i wanted the DVD that came with it. (oh, and i wanted to do anything to get rid of the president)

JeDiBoYTJ

Dec 7, 2004, 01:27 AM

for a freshman year college student who needs to pay tuition, $20 for a CD is just too much, no matter how many tracks are on it, or how great the band is.

I'd rather support the artist(s), and not the RIAA/Record Label. which most of the $20 goes straight to the RIAA's executives pockets. I spent my money on the merch and I go to concerts. the artists make more money touring than they will ever make through CD sales, so going to your favorate bands concert, and buying a shirt is the best way to support an artist.

I download nearly everything, but dont get me wrong, I still buy the occational album that I feel is worth 'owning', or the album I can't find online.