Illegal downloading

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In the specific case were iTunes (or a similar on-line store) offers music for download only (meaning it is NOT issued on CD anywere) and you WANT to buy it, but you cannot because the option to purchase is limited only to certain countries. (for instance Lair, or the Casino Royale bonus tracks, that are only available to a few countries)

Is it morally excusable to seek a illegal download of it elsewhere?

Discuss!

[Elmo Lewis 6]

In those cases, I just commit myself to buying the music once it's available in my country.

Whether I end up doing it or not is my business.

[ChuckM 1]

If there is no alternative for you, I say go for it. Then, as Elmo said, do purchase it when/if it becomes available.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

In those cases, I just commit myself to buying the music once it's available in my country.

But a lot of these releases never actually because legally available in most countries. For instance I still cannot buy Lair.

[DigitalfreakNYC 59]

IMHO, Itunes is a waste. I'm not going to pay for something that's compressed.

Until they release things in lossless, they won't be getting my money.

I say, download away!

[Quintus 5,399]

Going to every effort to acquire a piece of music only to be blocked by region specific copyright law is a problem which could easily be overcome if the label in question quit the greedy stranglehold it had and made the music more readily available. My stance, in that case, is tough luck on the artist and tough shit to the label.

Yes it's morally acceptable.

Punching a granny in the face isn't.

[Morlock 11]

Not in the iTunes case- the argument of 'I have no legal way of purchasing it' is not an ethical one. So what if you'll never be able to hear the music? It's just as unethical. Stealing is stealing. People should live with compromising themselves ethically or not.

Morlock- who finds any weaseling around this topic to be terribly unimpressive, as it is wholly self-serving.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

Isn't this just the 21st.Century way of asking "is it o.k. to buy bootleg recordings?", and, if it is: who hasn't? It would be very nice to have complete versions of your favourite scores, but this is not possible without the employment of some electronic legerdemain, more's the pity. I wouldn't mind paying extra for the opportunity of purchasing a complete score, but certain parties (composers, publishing houses, record companies, etc.)for whatever reasons, do not want the complete scores released.

Over the years, more and more complete scores have become released on isolated DVD, and now Blu-ray, and, of course special edition purchases (when I read that "Star Trek V" was getting the complete treatment, there was, pretty soon afterward, a sticky, white mess in my underpants!).

Let's face it, folks, NO-ONE is EVER going to get the compete score to any film, whether they purchase it illegally, or not, so perhaps we should stop trying, and live with what we already have.

Doesn't the pursuing of complete scores, somehow de-value what is already out there?

[King Mark 3,631]

Answer to topic: it isn't an issue of any moral importance outside of internet message board discussions.

There's probably dozens of things the average person does in real every day that's a lot more reprehensible

(Also self righteous replies like Morlock's is a good way to get yourself ignored when something important materializes)

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I agree with Morlock.

[Marian Schedenig 8,199]

Not in the iTunes case- the argument of 'I have no legal way of purchasing it' is not an ethical one. So what if you'll never be able to hear the music? It's just as unethical. Stealing is stealing.

And again, "stealing" is taking something away from somebody. A digital copy is just that, a copy, it doesn't remove the original from the person who has it.

Morally, the situation seems to be quite simple to me: Why do we pay for music? Because a) it costs money to record, produce and distribute it and because b) the artists are making the music as a way of living. The only moral obligation, therefore, can be to honour that. Downloading something you'd never buy in the first place therefore doesn't seem to be a moral problem to me - nobody loses anything, after all. Downloading something you'd pay for if it weren't for the download is a different matter, but I still say that many of us pay a LOT of money for soundtracks, and probably pay as much as we are willing to spend, so downloading some stuff in addition to that probably doesn't mean we're spending less. Therefore I don't see a moral problem either. Legally, downloading isn't illegal in most countries, uploading is.

When it comes to sharing, I think the same rules apply. Passing along some music to a friend who wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hurt anyone - and keep in mind that at least in Austria (and Germany), we pay a regular fee for the right to make private copies and share selections of music with friends, so that's covered, too. I wouldn't normally give out copies of those limited releases the speciality labels depend on for survival, though, they need all the support they can get. And putting a leaked copy of something on the internet for everyone (as opposed to just some friends) to see, thus causing immediate widespread distribution, is also very likely harmful.

As far as iTunes, locally restricted availability and vendor-specific bonus tracks go, my principle is simply: Don't fuck with me. I'm happy to buy the music, if you let me, but if I can't get it by regular means, and it's something I really want, I can't help you. That's no reason for me not to listen to it (I couldn't get the money to you either way). If a CD eventually becomes available, I'll be happy to pick up a physical copy, but I have to admit, my motivation to buy a downloaded file a year after I acquired a copy is limited. And as far as bonus tracks go: Hey, I've bought the album, don't expect me to buy three different releases from three different countries and speciality stores just because you think it's cool to give those people something extra. I'll happily buy the deluxe edition if you make this stuff available and give me the choice, but if I preorder something and later discover that now the Japanese are getting cool extra content, I'll get it some other way, and I won't feel bad about it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Answer to topic: it isn't an issue of any moral importance outside of internet message board discussions.

There's probably dozens of things the average person does in real every day that's a lot more reprehensible

(Also self righteous replies like Morlock's is a good way to get yourself ignored when something important materializes)

Indeed. Morlock always takes the high ground with these issues (and every other) though, so his comments were to be expected. Doesn't make them anything more than worthless, of course. The main thing is he feels better about himself for reaffirming his stance, which is fine.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

Everyone has their exceptions.

I agree with Marian though. Especially on the bonus track issue, which has become a semi-controversial issue in the UK over the last few years.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

In those cases, I just commit myself to buying the music once it's available in my country.

But a lot of these releases never actually because legally available in most countries. For instance I still cannot buy Lair.

Wait, you can buy Lair? That's news to me.

Geographical restrictions are a pathetic excuse in a world with the Internet. If record companies are so money-centered that they won't make a deal until they get exactly the deal they want then that's their problem, not mine. I've downloaded plenty of stuff that no one wants to sell me.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Quint, no need to be so disrespectfull to someone who holds a different view.

[King Mark 3,631]

Film music collecting is a lifelong struggle of endless frustration to get the music you want released. It always has been, always will be.

I could never side on the strictly legal side of the issue.

[Marian Schedenig 8,199]

Isn't this just the 21st.Century way of asking "is it o.k. to buy bootleg recordings?"

A major problem is that copyright laws have never been adapted to fit the 21st century demands. And before that, they have been partially twisted beyond any sensible requirement. Sousa wanted to outlaw mechanical pianos (luckily he didn't succeed - I think it led to the first official fees for legal copies). The Disney company succeeded in extending copyright protection until 70 years after the death of a works author. Seriously, if you have a good idea, it's perfectly ok that you should be able to gain something from it (i.e. make some money). But getting paid huge sums for the rest of your life (perhaps 50+ years) for only one or two good ideas is absurd (after all, a construction worker won't get paid for the rest of his life for building a house, either) - but having others who didn't have anything to do with the original idea (which is exactly what copyright laws protect) profit from it for more than half a century is insane.

Copyright started out as a way to make sure artists don't lose their ways to profit from their ideas. But over the years, copyright laws have slowly morphed into a means of charging money mostly by themselves. And by now, most of that doesn't even go to the people whose income the original laws meant to protect.

[King Mark 3,631]

I remember this movie where some guy lives off the royalties from the tune of a TV commercial his father wrote (About a Boy?)

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I remember UK artists calling for an extension to copyright periods. The problem with the campaign was that it was fronted by guys such as Cliff Richard who frankly don't need any more money.

But...

Film music collecting is a lifelong struggle of endless frustration to get the music you want released. It always has been ,always will be.

Why would I EVER side on the strictly legal side of the issue?

The fanboy speaks the truth. Most companies couldn't give a crap about releasing film music to the same extent that our speciality labels do. And if the product is not offered for sale, the artist is not losing any money they would otherwise expect. If something leaks, I say we enjoy it.

[Quintus 5,399]

Quint, no need to be so disrespectfull to someone who holds a different view.

Disrespectful? Try honesty. I respect Morlock for his opinions on film, however his views, his preachy views, on this subject are worthless. Taking the high ground on the internet is inherently worthless.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

I'm going to side with Stefan on this one, Quint. No need to get your panties in a knot.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

...assuming, of course, he wears panties. <_<

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Never on sunday's!

[Quintus 5,399]

I'm going to side with Stefan on this one, Quint. No need to get your panties in a knot.

Then please excuse my apparent disposition, it's not intended to seem sharp, I assure you.

It's not uncommon for folk to confuse blunt honesty with possible annoyance, so no harm done.

[A24 4,338]

I propose that each time someone says he listened to this or that CD, he must post a photo of him holding the original CD in his hands. It's the only way to know for certain.

[Marian Schedenig 8,199]

I remember UK artists calling for an extension to copyright periods. The problem with the campaign was that it was fronted by guys such as Cliff Richard who frankly don't need any more money.

It's not so much a matter of needing money as it is of deserving it. Copyright already lasts ridiculously long, extending it even more would only benefit people who had no hand at all in creating the original work in question.

Coming to think about it, in a way, modern copyright law seems a bit like a form of feudalism. Content is owned not just by the artists who create, but often by big companies and by people who inherit copyright from the original creators. Consumers pay for the right to listen to the music, but they don't own the content they buy, they're now even expected to buy it again if they want to play it on different devices. With Blu-ray, they've even managed to introduce a new model where they sell us the same movie three times in one bundle, as a Blu-ray, as a DVD and as a so-called "digital copy", all "for the price of one" (yeah, sure, because the additional DVD is produced for free). Punishment for copyright violations often stands in no relation at all to serious violent crimes, and the industry has even openly tried to put copy protection enforcement before human lives. In large parts, copyright enforcement has become a part of anti terror regulations, and actions against supposed copyright violators are carried out without due legal process.

Very little of that benefits the actual creators of original works (i.e. those originally protected by copyright). And hardly anything applies to the function of copyright a merely ensuring that they are able to profit from their own original creations.

[BTR1701 59]

Not in the iTunes case- the argument of 'I have no legal way of purchasing it' is not an ethical one. So what if you'll never be able to hear the music? It's just as unethical. Stealing is stealing. People should live with compromising themselves ethically or not.

Morlock- who finds any weaseling around this topic to be terribly unimpressive, as it is wholly self-serving.

Except it's not stealing--at least in the USA it's not. The Supreme Court definitively ruled that copyright infringement is not theft or stealing and cannot be treated as such under the law.

Isn't this just the 21st.Century way of asking "is it o.k. to buy bootleg recordings?"

A major problem is that copyright laws have never been adapted to fit the 21st century demands. And before that, they have been partially twisted beyond any sensible requirement. Sousa wanted to outlaw mechanical pianos (luckily he didn't succeed - I think it led to the first official fees for legal copies). The Disney company succeeded in extending copyright protection until 70 years after the death of a works author. Seriously, if you have a good idea, it's perfectly ok that you should be able to gain something from it (i.e. make some money). But getting paid huge sums for the rest of your life (perhaps 50+ years) for only one or two good ideas is absurd (after all, a construction worker won't get paid for the rest of his life for building a house, either) - but having others who didn't have anything to do with the original idea (which is exactly what copyright laws protect) profit from it for more than half a century is insane.

Copyright started out as a way to make sure artists don't lose their ways to profit from their ideas. But over the years, copyright laws have slowly morphed into a means of charging money mostly by themselves. And by now, most of that doesn't even go to the people whose income the original laws meant to protect.

And now copyright is also being routinely used as a tool to censor speech that someone doesn't like.

[Jeff 10]

Whether it's legally right to download copyrighted material or not (depending on the country you live in), in principal, I think it's morally wrong to download something from anyone other than a licensed distributor (who is presumably paying the artist a negotiated royalty). If the artist chooses to distribute for free, that is their choice.

At least in the U.S., copyright law is based on the principal that artists should be compensated by those who are enjoying their work. Otherwise we wouldn't get some of the brilliant works of art that fill our libraries, museums, and playlists. (I get the feeling some of you disagree with this point and maybe you think art should be free as long as it is replicable, like music.)

However, I think all of us break our moral code sometimes, so the real question is not whether it's morally wrong but how wrong it is. Is it so reprehensible that you won't do it ever? Or will you only do it when you've exhausted other options? Or do you have no qualms whatsoever, either because you don't care that it's wrong or because you disagree with the premise above?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Whether it's legally right to download copyrighted material or not (depending on the country you live in), in principal, I think it's morally wrong to download something from anyone other than a licensed distributor (who is presumably paying the artist a negotiated royalty). If the artist chooses to distribute for free, that is their choice.

What if the artist would love for me to hear the music, but I can't because I'm not in the US or UK, because of some stupid digital copyrights deal?

[Jeff 10]

Whether it's legally right to download copyrighted material or not (depending on the country you live in), in principal, I think it's morally wrong to download something from anyone other than a licensed distributor (who is presumably paying the artist a negotiated royalty). If the artist chooses to distribute for free, that is their choice.

What if the artist would love for me to hear the music, but I can't because I'm not in the US or UK, because of some stupid digital copyrights deal?

The artist has signed a contract with their label or distributor that erases the distinction between the two entities. When the distributor rejects the terms of a copyright deal, the distributor is acting on behalf of the artist. If the artist disagrees, he's out of luck because he signed away that right.

[Trent B 337]

If I were Steef, living in another country and wanted a piece of music that was on iTunes but could not download it because it was blocked in my country. Well I'd give the recording artist and iTunes the finger and find a way to get it and would not feel guilty about it. Then of course if it ever became unblocked, I would download it the right way and delete the illegal version I downloaded.

Personally I do feel bad for people like Steef, Marian and others who live in another country and can't download certain pieces of material from iTunes because it's blocked in their country. It's asking yourself, "What the fuck is the point of having it on there?" if not EVERYONE can download it from iTunes?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Thank you Trent.

Though I really don't feel bad about not living in the USA. But that is a different discussion.

[MrJosh 892]

I agree with Trent's comment. Seems very reasonable to me.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

It's asking yourself, "What the fuck is the point of having it on there?" if not EVERYONE can download it from iTunes?

What he said.

Whether it's legally right to download copyrighted material or not (depending on the country you live in), in principal, I think it's morally wrong to download something from anyone other than a licensed distributor (who is presumably paying the artist a negotiated royalty). If the artist chooses to distribute for free, that is their choice.

If it were available to buy, plain and simple, then yes, I agree. But if the 'licensed distributor' will not let you give them any money for the product just because of where you live, why should someone else's lack of organisation prevent you from enjoying it.

[crocodile 8,017]

I propose that each time someone says he listened to this or that CD, he must post a photo of him holding the original CD in his hands. It's the only way to know for certain.

Thank you Trent.

Though I really don't feel bad about not living in the USA. But that is a different discussion.

Why would you? Don't you have like a higher standard of living? Or something?

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I would like to think so.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Let's not go there.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed, this thread is about illigal downloading!

[Richard Penna 3,694]

At least in the U.S., copyright law is based on the principal that artists should be compensated by those who are enjoying their work.

Yep, understood, but that's not the problem. You'll probably notice that most members here are falling over themselves to give the labels money for long lost scores.

Imagine if one of the speciality labels decided to only ship their releases to the US. Probably 1/4 (just a rough guess here) of the members here wouldn't legally be allowed to enjoy it, and you can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't just sit idle, and there's no reason they should.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Imagine having to book a trip to the USA every time Intrada releases there new batch!

[Morlock 11]

Answer to topic: it isn't an issue of any moral importance outside of internet message board discussions.

There's probably dozens of things the average person does in real every day that's a lot more reprehensible

(Also self righteous replies like Morlock's is a good way to get yourself ignored when something important materializes)

Indeed. Morlock always takes the high ground with these issues (and every other) though, so his comments were to be expected. Doesn't make them anything more than worthless, of course. The main thing is he feels better about himself for reaffirming his stance, which is fine.

I'm just saying that, as someone who regularly downloads stuff, every time I try to explain it to others it sounds an awful lot like rationalizing away a real dilemma. I have yet to be convinced that there's nothing wrong with downloading- getting stuff that is for sale for free without it being willingly offered sounds an awful lot like stealing for me. It's like a pyramid scheme- no matter how good the argument is, the person's trying to make a sale (of sorts). I have a very perverse egocentric philosophy- screw anything else that has to do with it- what is my role in it? Getting something that is generally paid for for free, without any particularly noble reasons beyond the fact that 'I wouldn't/couldn't purchase it anyway'. That's how I feel about it. I haven't found a good enough ethical argument to counterbalance my own selfishness.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Download whatever you want.

I personally have bought every JW CD released in the last ten years from retail (internet or, you know, real life) or the specialty labels. For various reasons, e.g. to own it, the booklets, lossless ripping and supporting the artist/cause type of thing. If it's OOP and not available for a reasonable price or not available at all, I'll download it. I guess I'm a criminal, but there are far worse crimes I could be committing and no one seems to care if I have a bunch of Hook mp3's that sound like pure shit and that I never listen to. All of the stuff I've downloaded that was eventually released, I delete and purchase the CDs.

[gkgyver 1,645]

And again, "stealing" is taking something away from somebody. A digital copy is just that, a copy, it doesn't remove the original from the person who has it.

Morally, the situation seems to be quite simple to me: Why do we pay for music? Because a) it costs money to record, produce and distribute it and because b) the artists are making the music as a way of living. The only moral obligation, therefore, can be to honour that. Downloading something you'd never buy in the first place therefore doesn't seem to be a moral problem to me - nobody loses anything, after all. Downloading something you'd pay for if it weren't for the download is a different matter, but I still say that many of us pay a LOT of money for soundtracks, and probably pay as much as we are willing to spend, so downloading some stuff in addition to that probably doesn't mean we're spending less. Therefore I don't see a moral problem either. Legally, downloading isn't illegal in most countries, uploading is.

When it comes to sharing, I think the same rules apply. Passing along some music to a friend who wouldn't buy it anyway doesn't hurt anyone - and keep in mind that at least in Austria (and Germany), we pay a regular fee for the right to make private copies and share selections of music with friends, so that's covered, too. I wouldn't normally give out copies of those limited releases the speciality labels depend on for survival, though, they need all the support they can get. And putting a leaked copy of something on the internet for everyone (as opposed to just some friends) to see, thus causing immediate widespread distribution, is also very likely harmful.

As far as iTunes, locally restricted availability and vendor-specific bonus tracks go, my principle is simply: Don't fuck with me. I'm happy to buy the music, if you let me, but if I can't get it by regular means, and it's something I really want, I can't help you. That's no reason for me not to listen to it (I couldn't get the money to you either way). If a CD eventually becomes available, I'll be happy to pick up a physical copy, but I have to admit, my motivation to buy a downloaded file a year after I acquired a copy is limited. And as far as bonus tracks go: Hey, I've bought the album, don't expect me to buy three different releases from three different countries and speciality stores just because you think it's cool to give those people something extra. I'll happily buy the deluxe edition if you make this stuff available and give me the choice, but if I preorder something and later discover that now the Japanese are getting cool extra content, I'll get it some other way, and I won't feel bad about it.

It's not so much a matter of needing money as it is of deserving it. Copyright already lasts ridiculously long, extending it even more would only benefit people who had no hand at all in creating the original work in question.

Coming to think about it, in a way, modern copyright law seems a bit like a form of feudalism. Content is owned not just by the artists who create, but often by big companies and by people who inherit copyright from the original creators. Consumers pay for the right to listen to the music, but they don't own the content they buy, they're now even expected to buy it again if they want to play it on different devices. With Blu-ray, they've even managed to introduce a new model where they sell us the same movie three times in one bundle, as a Blu-ray, as a DVD and as a so-called "digital copy", all "for the price of one" (yeah, sure, because the additional DVD is produced for free). Punishment for copyright violations often stands in no relation at all to serious violent crimes, and the industry has even openly tried to put copy protection enforcement before human lives. In large parts, copyright enforcement has become a part of anti terror regulations, and actions against supposed copyright violators are carried out without due legal process.

Very little of that benefits the actual creators of original works (i.e. those originally protected by copyright). And hardly anything applies to the function of copyright a merely ensuring that they are able to profit from their own original creations.

Sorry for quoting everything, but I agree with every word of it.

I have no problem purchasing the special edition for Deathly Hallows (well, it's a problem money-wise, but that's a different matter) for the bonus tracks, but I have no problem getting the itunes bonus tracks from someplace else either if I cannot get it for country restrictions.

It's a similar matter with sheet music; for instance, I can download any James Bond sheet music from Musicnotes, but for Moonraker, I can't even load the sample page.

There may, however, be a personal moral issue involved, when someone is downloading everything on principle, and buying nothing.

[Ollie 1,059]

In regards to downloading stuff available for everyone to buy, there was a time when people just did without if they couldn't afford something. Everyone now feels that they are entitled to own everything, regardless of whether they can afford it or not.

Sites, like the FFShrine are wrong and need to be stopped.

Now when it comes to iTunes BS, it is ridiculous that there are restrictions for countries outside the USA. I don't know why they do that. Has anyone ever found an explanation as to why things are restricted?

As far as I'm concerned, I see nothing wrong with a friend helping another friend. I will admit I've helped Steef in the past with an iTunes exclusive item he wanted to have but it was not available. I sent a copy to him that I purchased.

Didn't we all, especially most of us older members, ever make copies of our LPs to cassette tapes when we were younger for friends? A friend of mine made me a copy of the original Star Wars LP before I got mine back in 1977. Is that bootlegging and illegal?

As far as I'm concerned, if I want to make a copy for a friend or two then it's my business, I'm not selling it nor am I making it available for a bunch of people to download.

The reason I bring this up is because I make albums for my young nephew who is becoming a soundtrack fan and my sister isn't going to spend the money on film scores like I do. So I make him copies of some albums.

[crocodile 8,017]

I usually treat downloads as sampling of the product. If I like it I'm buying it immediately (or as soon as I can afford it). If I don't like it...well, I don't listen to it. Soundtrack medium is very wide so there is a need to be more "particular" when purchasing things. But the downloaded stuff is never treated as part of the collection.

Karol

[publicist 4,643]

The other question is if i should have problems with downloading the outsold PREDATOR or similar situations where for a lot of collectors there seemingly is an endless supply of $ to buy this on the secondary market for 400$.

As i see it, most of the stuff which gets downloaded wouldn't have generated a sale, anyway. Especially in our over-saturated media market, where younger folks have terrabytes of content they never actually watch or listen to (meaning zero emotional connection).

Last but not least the age old whining about artists getting royalties: i support FSM or Intrada, but surely not high-paid Hollywood composers or musicians who get reuse fees for doing nothing. You know what? Nobody pays me twice for graphic work or advertisement ideas i have, either.

[scallenger 483]

I agree with your comment above, Karol. That's how it pretty much is for me.

Also, what about the case of isolated scores on DVDs? Or, in my more recent case, the wonderful score to the silent film METROPOLIS on the new BluRay. I bought the BluRay and I hear this wonderful music in the film. There is no CD version of this score, in any form complete or not, released. But yet I own this movie that plays the music, and I simply want to listen to it on another device than by watching the BluRay itself. Is it wrong of me to rip the music and make it presentable on its own so I can listen to it while I drive or go elsewhere than to have to sit in front of my TV?

Edit: Also, what about scores that are LONG out of print? What is worse, the guy who let's you download it for free? Or the guy who sells it to you for an outrageous price that you could never hope to afford? I mean if it is out print doesn't that mean the company that made this product, and everyone associated with it, say "well that's it, we are done"?

Imo, like most controversial things out there, it seems like there are always those gray areas that support both sides on the issue. It's just hard to find the right middle ground. Especially with something like this. Both sides are right and wrong all at the same time.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I usually treat downloads as sampling of the product. If I like it I'm buying it immediately (or as soon as I can afford it). If I don't like it...well, I don't listen to it. Soundtrack medium is very wide so there is a need to be more "particular" when purchasing things. But the downloaded stuff is never treated as part of the collection.

Karol

I disagree with this. Even if you don't like it, you still listened to the score illegally. What you're saying would be like stealing a food product, eating it and saying "Well I didn't like that, won't be buying it." You can't undo the listening just like you can't undo the eating. There are samples for a reason. Take a small taste, you don't like it, don't buy it. Want to take a plunge even though it doesn't blow your mind? Then buy it.

[crocodile 8,017]

I usually treat downloads as sampling of the product. If I like it I'm buying it immediately (or as soon as I can afford it). If I don't like it...well, I don't listen to it. Soundtrack medium is very wide so there is a need to be more "particular" when purchasing things. But the downloaded stuff is never treated as part of the collection.

Karol

I disagree with this. Even if you don't like it, you still listened to the score illegally. What you're saying would be like stealing a food product, eating it and saying "Well I didn't like that, won't be buying it." You can't undo the listening just like you can't undo the eating. There are samples for a reason. Take a small taste, you don't like it, don't buy it. Want to take a plunge even though it doesn't blow your mind? Then buy it.

The problem is 30 second samples in the case of film scores just don't work. I would have never bought a score based just on that.

Karol - who doesn't download much anyway

[Naïve Old Fart 9,534]

I usually treat downloads as sampling of the product. If I like it I'm buying it immediately (or as soon as I can afford it). If I don't like it...well, I don't listen to it. Soundtrack medium is very wide so there is a need to be more "particular" when purchasing things. But the downloaded stuff is never treated as part of the collection.

Karol

I disagree with this. Even if you don't like it, you still listened to the score illegally. What you're saying would be like stealing a food product, eating it and saying "Well I didn't like that, won't be buying it." You can't undo the listening just like you can't undo the eating. There are samples for a reason. Take a small taste, you don't like it, don't buy it. Want to take a plunge even though it doesn't blow your mind? Then buy it.

The problem is 30 second samples in the case of film scores just don't work. I would have never bought a score based just on that.

Karol - who doesn't download much anyway

Too right they don't work, but, then again, I have purchased many a soundtrack without hearing nary a note from it...