Have you ever bought, copied or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies?

© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

how can someone tell which is authorized and not?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Nice try, RIAA

6 ( +7 / -1 )

What is this? Entrapment? Nah man, never? Don't look at me. All my stuff is legit!!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Nope! Never have I downloaded any TV programs nor movies.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why dont the blood sucking lawyer point to a different place?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

What is "unauthorized music, TV shows or movies"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

when I was a student in my home country, yes. not anymore, cause I download (music) I like from iTunes, and that's the only way to thank the artist. and the price is reasonable enough nowadays

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

First observation - JT, which has the IP addresses and personal info (or whatever is requested upon signing up for JT), is asking its users to admit to criminal activity? Interesting. Second observation - if I lawfully purchase from iTunes a Beastie Boys album for $9.99, which includes a song containing a sample taken from another artist without proper authorization or licensing, then technically I am purchasing unauthorized music. Is this what the question means?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

As an independent artist we once support our music efforts on the sales of CDs. Live shows never really pay much after costs in most cities around the world. So the CD sales made it possible to maintain our kit, pay to produce shows and keep on making music. This was true for dozens of popular but small scale bands in the 90's.

Then along came downloading and it is no longer possible for most indies to make enough money to support their music efforts. And a lot of bands could not longer afford to continue.

Now keep in mind most of these artists also worked full time to pay rent and eat. Sales of their music made it possible for them to keep recording new albums and to pay for hosting great events now and then. And the tiny record lables that used to support these bands made sure that you and I could hear this music because of their distribution and promotion. But the small record companies are also gone. All victims of online theft.

So when you download and think you are hurting the RIAA, think again. Because who you are really hurting are the hard working independents who were the ones make all the wonderful and unique music out there.

Now you are stuck with the mainstream crap and very little else. Congratulations on winning your war with the RIAA. Now live with the dull lifeless music as it is all that is left over. If you want good quality music with depth and meaning, you had better start supporting bands by buying their music.

-2 ( +3 / -4 )

If it is on the net and not removed, doesn't that mean that it must be legal?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

bought no copied no downloaded no

streamed yes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't remember who said it but I think it might have been Bob Dylan. When he was asked to comment on the large number of young people downloading music these days he said something like,

"Sure, why not? It doesn't mean anything any way......" A little cynical, but I think he has a point.

However, having said that, I would never download an artist that I respect and especially one who has yet to make the 'big time'. Most of the money does go to the record companies, music publishing companies etc. but everyone has to make bread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the record I never download anything illegally at al :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

is that possible?? how is it done? i am broke from always paying for my media entertainments!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Question: How do the places that rent CDs fit in? They would be just as guilty as torrent sites, right?! They supply people with the CD so it can be illegally copied / duplicated. I don't get it!

Also, I wonder if Japanese commercials and TV shows actually pay for the rights to use the music in their shows. They use a LOT!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The internet is riddled with illegal copies of almost everything ... even in popular websites. There are many "video clips" in youtube that have been recorded or uploaded illegally, from TV series to full movies.

And, if one searches the internet, there are a lot of websites that offer "free downloads" ... software, manuals, application forms, etc. Some of these may be fake, or even riddled with viruses, but the sharing and downloads continue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i wonder if the ones who voted no are over 40 or 50 and just dont know how to copy??

-4 ( +2 / -5 )

Yes, but I never inha- er, I mean watched it.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

I'm probably one of the last dinosaurs who spends a lot of money on buying CDs. Nonetheless I admit that in certain cases I have no qualms downloading music from strictly speaking illegal sources. There is a simple reason: I can't buy it anywhere, I can't download it from any legal source. If nobody wants to sell it, how do I deprive the artists of their income?

For historical recordings, the artists often don't live any more. Due to ever more excessive periods of copyright protection somebody is still holding the rights, so downloading this music is illegal as well. But the right holders obviously don't have any interest in republishing the works. If somebody wants to sue me, so be it. I'll happily wait for their proof of damage.

@tkoind2: how about setting up your own site where people can buy and download your music? In terms of costs, it shouldn't be more expensive than pressing a batch of CDs and distributing them. People who are genuinely interested in your music will certainly buy it, because they know it is the only way to obtain more of it in future.

There are a lot of hunters and gatherers out there who download music to add it to their collection of tens or hundreds of thousands of songs. They listen to it once, if ever. They wouldn't buy the music anyway, so the damage is minimal to non-existent.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I agree with gonemad.

while tkoind2 may not be able to sell his CD's directly, the internet is no better or worse than, say the radio... remember that device? I do. I remember that those big companies like SONY sold me equipment like cassette recorders, and taught me how to record the music I heard on the radio... for free.... they sold me VCR's and taught me how to record movies and TV shows from regular and cable TV... for free. They sell computers with high-speed broadband internet connections and DVD/Blue-Ray recording ability and they have tutorials of how to use them...

Now, Sony is claiming that after following the same pattern for years and years, that its suddenly surprised to find that people are following the instructions and downloading things for free? Give me a break!!!

before the internet, tkoind2 and his fellow indie artists were still crushed down by the big companies who said join our mainstream or get thrown under the bus, because no one will find your music without big corporate backing. But those indies put their stuff on small radio stations for free, it got played... And during those years, people made "BOOTLEG" copies of just about every type of music that could be found out there. Those bootlegs went around and the big companies complained, but almost no one went to jail. And those bootlegs got copied and sold to eager fans who gobbled them up for big money. Those indies who had good music found that more people came to their concerts and snapped up their CD's thanks to hearing the music for free on the radio. Now YouTube replaces the radio station but does the same thing.

So, technology has blown away radio and the regular TV, but so long as the companies make and sell computers legally with the ability to download and record those music titles and movies, they can't complain that using their technology to copy what's out there.

For some people its enough just to see/hear them at any poor downloaded hand-camera quality, and for those who want nice quality, its better to buy the original. If I could watch my favorite tv shows in the states for free, why should I pay extra for them here in Japan? If I can listen to music on the radio for free and hit record on my ipod, then that isn't anymore illegal now than it was when I used cassettes and my stereo was tuned in to the alternative rock music stations back in my hometown.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I've never illegally dled music nor tv content since a lot of the shows I watch anyways are already being streamed or broadcast from the channel that broadcasts them. But then again thats from the US. Never had the hankering to DL any movies illegally because my local library usually gets a copy once its out as well. I always buy CDs that I know I like to listen too, and then I can copy the music to my laptop/desktop/PSP/Phone and even play the soundtracks in games that allow me to put in the soundtrack/BGM I want to hear.

The companies have to moniter their stuff on their own, and then use the laws that are provided them via copyright. They shouldn't be expecting some broad unclear method of monitering all websites at once to solve their problems, they need to actively search them out for themselves and respect everyone's privacy. I wonder how many of the individuals that own or work for those companies/producers haven't done anything illegal and copyright infringing on their own. Because whatever gets passed, will apply to them too when their on their own time.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Only unaware that I did it. I thought it was a legitimate site but when I grew suspicious, I deleted the file from my computer. Support your local musicians, friends. They deserve your attention.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

American Devil. I am sorry mate but you just don't know what you are writing about. Let me spell it out for you.

In 1996 we produced a CD on an indie record label. We sold about 12,000 copies. After the costs of production the company shared a very reasonable percentage with us. And we were able to fund our project for another year on that.

In 2010 I started and indie and released our new material. Within a week of the release over 10,000 copies were confirmed downloaded illegally off of just one site. With over 25,000 more found on other sites. Our total sales were less than 1,000 legitimate downloads with a loss of over 500,000 yen and not enough returned funding to help support our next effort.

Now I am lucky. I work in addition to making music so I don't depend on my music to eat or have a roof over my head. But my band mates do. They are talented people who have studied their music form. Not rocker kids, but professional masters of rare instruments. And yet they got nearly nothing for this album. While leeches out there stole and distributed our hard work. If only $1 had come from each lost copy we would have been able to continue the label in the black. But no, thieves took it all.

You like to rationalize that big labels repressed musicians. But the 90's proved that indies could support music and make artists a decent living. Thanks to downloading Indies have been the first to die off taking that income option away from countless musicians.

You don't want me to come to your house, take your money, take your TV and rob you of your ability to have house and home do you? Then stop robbing artists of our hard work and passion.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

tkoind: "In 1996 we produced a CD on an indie record label."

So why are you necessary? Cut out the middle-man, so to speak, and have people pay directly to the musician.

"You don't want me to come to your house, take your money, take your TV and rob you of your ability to have house and home do you? Then stop robbing artists of our hard work and passion."

Aren't most artists paid a contract fee? On top of that they of course get big money from concerts. If you want to whine about Indie artists not being given anything, give them something and remove your own profits. What did you do that they could not have done themselves? True, a lot of boy and girl bands could never be formed and/or become famous without companies like Johnny's pimping them out, but then they are talentless hacks anyway, right?

3 ( +4 / -1 )


By 'we' I believe tkoind is referring to himself as a member of the band that made the CD, not a money-grubbing producer. And, no, most indie artists are not on a contract fee. Like authors they Might be paid an advance, IF the producers think they can make money with CD sales. Most finance their own production, such as tkoind mentions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Smith? Why is the musician/producer necessary? Can you read my post again Smith and this time in English? I am clearly both the producer and musician as many many people are.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But, let's run with Smith's ingenious proposal. What is there are no self producing artists out there? Then what happens to music?

Once upon a time there are legions of artists out there who put life and soul into making music. Most worked bad part time jobs that were the only jobs allowing enough time to still practice and perform. But artists had the prospect of picking up a little income from selling their work on CD or tape.

So what did that mean for people like Smith? Well.... it meant that the world was filled with a lot of creative and wonderful music in every imaginable genere. And indie scenes thrived with communities of artists starting movements that sometimes became global epic chapters in music.

But now that Smith and other's rationalize the theft of music, a lot of that has died off. So what is your prize for that victory Smith? It is the domination of music now by commercial crap that neither represents communities or movements. It is "produced" music by big companies who tell you what they thing you should be listening to.

I am sick to death of people who know nothing about music trying to rationalize their continued theft of our art. Try being a working musician for a while and let's see how you feel then Smith!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

One more thing Smith. Very few producers out there are like "Johnnys". The vast VAST majority are people like me.

Musicians who pay for and produce their own work. Local Indies who believe in local artists enough to pay to produce their work when bands cannot on their own. Small labels who promote movements in music. Same as above, paying out of pocket to help promote people they believe in who cannot produce on their own. People who produce because they love an artist and pay out of pocket to help them.

What do most of these producers get?

Little to any return on their investment other than the support of music they believe in. A diminishing ability to continue doing so thanks to fools stealing the music instead of bying it. People like Smith trying to paint us as "big time producers" when we are really just ordinary people trying to help.

What does the public get thanks to all this theft?

Less diversity and quality of music. The loss of access to music that is never produced due to the lack of opportunity to make ends meet. More commercial crap from the likes of Johnnys because they are the only ones who can survive the losses from theft.

So congratulations downloaders for killing off creativity and music.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Please do not presume to tell other readers that they "know nothing about music." It is impolite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems like some people don't realize that the manner in which music is created has changed, and perhaps the old style of distribution has also begun changing. That and a supersaturated market of music (which doesn't seem all that innovative since the early 1990s, when punk and rap were "new") also factor in sales dropping. iTunes also contributes to the decline, by offerring "the one song I really want from that album"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

iraira. The changes to how music is created are not as extensive as you may imagine. Most traditional bands still require a studio to record in, with all the associated cost. We tend to think it is a lot easier because of electronic and DJ based music, which is easily made in your bedroom with the right kit. But normal music still requires skill to properly record, mix and produce. All of which comes with cost.

It is true that the market is saturated with noise. There is a lot of sub-par content out there. So it is a lot harder for potential fans to sift though. That is where the indies could be beneficial in representing genres in music as they did so well in the 90's.

If you go out into the world you will find there is just as much talent out there today as there was in the 80's or 90's. The difference is that it is a little harder to find because all those resources people used to find quality music in the past are dead. The local record shop. Dead. The local scene related promoters, gone. The indies, gone. The web has not managed to create the kind of trusted resources that were previously available to help sell music.

The "one song" thing is also an issue. It undermines the desire of artists to create cohesive pieces of music in the form of albums because that is no longer how people listen. Instead many artists now just think abou the tracks. Which is sad, because many of my most loved old songs were not the single from the album of my favorite artists. Usually it was just that one track that spoke out to me. Sadly not so many people experience that now.

There are a million excuses, but the bottom like is that as long as artists cannot survive on their music, the quality of music will decline.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tkoind2, have you never heard of fan-funding sites like Pledge Music? There's a new wave of artists (new and old) who now are completely free from record company dependence with their albums are funded up front gives them artistic freedom to make the album they want to make because of this new model.

On top of the album, there's a whole host of extras the band can throw in to the deal - check out the Pledge site and look through what some bands are offering. It fosters artist-fan relationships and rewards hard work, generosity and talent over a pretty face.

I thoroughly recommend you give this method of making music a shot before writing off independent music.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

the way you sell music has changed, you need to adapt to the times and find your own niche. I'm sure everyone said the radio would kill the LP records, or tapes would kill records, MD and CD-R's would kill CD's and so on. Youtube has been proven to be quite profitable for many people. Collaborating and tie ups with sponsors and advertisers is a good way. Itunes seems to be successful regardless of being able to download the same stuff from youtube or other websites.

I could say the same is true for software, games, photographers, journalists, book writers, people who used to sit in-between the enduser and the system like travel agents, financial advisor, libraries and book stores and just about anything sold on the internet. You just have to think about it in a different way and go about it unique to other people.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

yokomoc. Again are you a musician or a producer? If you are not, then you don't understand the costs associated with producing quality music.

I am aware of these sites and to some degree understand that they can be helpful. But you need to understand that you are still rationalizing theft of what should be a marketable commodity. It is intellectual property that no person has the right to steal.

Your plan suggests that we should be reduced to begging fans to support us through such sites rather than being able to rightly charge for our music. This is absurd.

cwhite. We think of very little else than finding new ways to market and sell our product. But the fact remains for every copy sold there are thousands of copies stolen.

The real solution is that more and more bands and producers will just stop making music. Which I have seen countless talented people put down their music career and opt for something sustainable.

So the next time you are wondering "why there isn't any new good music out there?" you can thank the kind of thinking that tried to rationalize theft over finding solutions to support and protect the rights of artists.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If it's there and not protected, it's going to get taken. But don't blame the downloader. That's like blaming a car for being able to go over the speed limit instead of the driver! You want it protecting? Protect it before you put it on the www.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

bookowls "But don't blame the downloader." What?!?

So let's look at this differently. Your car is just there. On the public street. Illuminated by the street lights. I bought the necessary tools to open it legally at the local hardware shop. So don't blame me if I use my legal tools to take your car. Afterall it is out there so "don't blame me".

This kind of idiocy is astounding. Don't blame people who steal for theft? I bet if it is your car you fell a lot differently than if it is some poor musician's hard work.

How daft does society have to be to not see this as theft?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I used to copy the Top 40 with Bruno brookes from the radio when I was a kid. Had to be pretty fast on the record button to cut out his jabber and get 80% of the song you wanted.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yokomoc. Again are you a musician or a producer? If you are not, then you don't understand the costs associated with producing quality music.

I've recorded my own music, have friends who do and am well aware of the costs involved though this is missing the point anyway. The new business model gives you the opportunity to know your budget up front - if you take an average of say 2,500yen per pledge. For arguments sake let's say recording, manufacturing and distribution costs of 1.5M yen though this can vary a lot - that's 600 pledges to cover the costs of production. Add in some high value extra options and you can bring that number down. If your band has a decent following and you use the internet well to spread interest then that should be attainable.

But you need to understand that you are still rationalizing theft of what should be a marketable commodity.

In what way? Having fan-funding is preempting illegal downloads before they can occur and in no way encourages it. You can be sure there a lot of people who would buy your records simply download it because it's there, possibly convince themselves they'll buy it in time but never do. Get them onboard early and give them something extra that a simple song download cannot. Everyone wins. Except the record companies.

Your plan suggests that we should be reduced to begging fans to support us through such sites rather than being able to rightly charge for our music. This is absurd.

This is only your perspective and doesn't tally with what I've seen. And how is asking fans for support 'reduced to begging'? Work with them, get them involved.

Example: my favourite artist of all time is a guy called Ginger, singer/songwriter/guitarist of the Wildhearts. After having their chance in the 90s and blowing it on drugs, he's been constantly touring making music pretty much under the radar for the last 10-15 years, and doing about well enough to get by and not much more. Unlike a lot of 'rock stars' he's quite happy to spend time every day communicating to his fanbase via Twitter. He's answered 20,000 questions on Formspring in last year alone on any subject you can think of, including counselling people for depression and other mental health issues.

Having tried and failed to get record company funding for a number of projects he was set to give up recording because he couldn't support his family. His pledge triple album project was the last throw of the dice. Recording costs would be about 30,000GBP. They thought they wouldn't make the target. It hit 100% in 6 hours.

You oppose downloading on a moral basis and that's fine (and I agree though it doesn't bother me, but it's not a war you're going to win. People are prepared to pay - you just have to get them on your side.

You sound like you're passionate about your music. From your band description you also seem to be offering something quite unique and I'd like to hear your band (though for anonymity reasons I'm sure you can't disclose their name). I just really hope you don't let cynicism become your downfall. This is 2012, not 1996.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I bought a bootleg tape of a live concert in Camden Market once - awful quality as you would expect. I didn't think the artist would ever release it on vinyl (it was before CD's were popular). I played it a few times, and found it again a few years back. I played it agan, and wondered if the artist had released it "officially". He had just released it, so I bought it and threw the bootleg away. I didn't feel particularly bad about it as the artist hadn't released ANY live material, and when he did, I bought it - I can think of a few similar examples, and have a long list of stuff I would like to buy if it ever got released. In the case I mention though, the quality was just too bad, and I think the issue now is that it is much easier to get higher quality stuff over electonic media, and that opens up abuse channels which I think are dangerous.

Heaven forbid that the only music left available is AKB48!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yokomoc. Your arguments are fine, but you are still missing a lot of the point here. The industry cannot survive if we do not find a way for people in the industry to make a living. And it isn't just musicians.

A friend built a wonderful and affordable recording studio a few years back. His expert talents and years of experience were then available to artists to make even better quality recordings. And for a while it was supporting him and his family.

But as more and more artists could no longer rationalize the cost of recording, thanks to the slim chance of making anything back from sales, his client base started to decline. He lowered prices, offered special deals and worked harder to gain other types of contracts. But in the end the decline was fatal. And the studio closed.

I can tell you a dozen other similar stories where the most talented recording experts, producers, designers and others have lost work because people steal music.

What makes people think that music should be free? This is absurd. It costs money to produce. It takes time to write, record and prepare. And it takes people who have to also eat and live while doing music.

You cannot fill that gap with fan funding from those sites. There just is not enough support there to make that a realistic alternative to sales.

There is only one solution. And that is to crush downloading. The alternative is the further degredation of the music industry and the loss of quality music.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

One more thing. Yes it is 2012. Do you know what one of our instruments cost to have made by a traditional master, shipped to Japan? Or the amount of money spent learning to play it properly? Or the cost of travel to go to these teachers? Then add that to the cost of our modest home studio to record and play. Or the added cost of practice spaces, transportation to get there and back regularly.

No it isn't 1996 and I am more aware of that. But theft in 2012 is still theft and the repercussions of that theft are still real. My opinions represent a very large range of musicians, producers and artists. We are all suffering significant financial hardship with little or no alternative.

Will I keep making music? Yes, but will I spend the thousands of dollars to make another top end recording or pay that for another project I believe in? No. I can no longer afford to take such losses. Which means this music will not be out there and is a real loss.

But what choice do we have? Keep giving charity to thieves?

You said we cannot win the war. Perhaps that is true. But think about what that means. It means more and more artists will do the same thing, stop spending money on music and stop producing as much quality music. Now who gets hurt in that scenario? Artists? Yes. Society? Yes!

So the loss of this war for us, is a loss of it for everyone. And that is the thing that people need to start to understand. Or they can just carry on with the commercial crap that dominates the market and give up on diverse quality in music. I guess that is the choice downloaders have to make.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I will gladly admit to downloading 1-2 files illegally as I was caught by ITSCOM and they told me to stop. Haven't done it since as their scare tactics work.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are sites one can legally download (and listen) to both indie and non-indie music in hundreds of genre. It is both fun and frustrating to search through the music to find a few gems you like.

It almost makes me nostalgic for the non-digital era when companies controlled what we could hear. It meant, among other things, that some poor schmo had to listen to all the crapola before finding the few gems that they then produced.

Almost nostalgic for it. I've found some great music and musicians on various sites that I'm pretty sure would be rejected by companies looking for big profits. If these musicians ever come out with pay-for-downloads or CDs or have a concert near me, I'll support them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Any copyright law out there is a clear form of fascism, where government is pushed into signing laws that not just favor corporations, but are created by them. Shame. Sharing of any kind should be legal. These laws are absurd!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That's a hard question!!! (that forces 40% to lie) good thing porn is free

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So let's look at this differently. Your car is just there. On the public street. Illuminated by the street lights. I bought the necessary tools to open it legally at the local hardware shop. So don't blame me if I use my legal tools to take your car. Afterall it is out there so "don't blame me".

That is a horrible analogy. This is more like a picture of a car hanging on the wall, and someone comes along and snaps a picture of that picture. Nothing is missing. You won't miss your picture. Its still there!

Your bellyache is that you did not make as much money off that picture than you hoped. Well, sorry Charlie, but if you were a better artist people would pay for your supposedly better copies of it.

So when you download and think you are hurting the RIAA, think again. Because who you are really hurting are the hard working independents who were the ones make all the wonderful and unique music out there.

So if I download Michael Jackson, I am actually hurting your indie band? If you want to make me feel guilty, it might help to not throw silly statements out there.

Try being a working musician for a while and let's see how you feel then Smith!

There is your biggest problem right there. You expect music to earn you a living. Its been a recipie for poverty since long before recording and file sharing, except for a lucky few. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

But what choice do we have? Keep giving charity to thieves?

Set up a website where people can pay for what they have downloaded whether legally or illegally, no questions asked. Accept charity money from fans. Try the honor system. Even if it means dollars in an envelope to a PO box. It might surprise you.

Earlier you claimed a high number of downloads of your music with a very round figure. If you could convince one quarter to pay you ten dollars, how much money is that?

You could hook them with site memberships, concert information, access to podcasts, etc. etc. By your own admission you have quite a fanbase. (not saying I believe it, but if its true, use it).

You loved technology when it seemed to be working in your favor. Well guess what? The only reason it ever worked in your favor was because someone got an idea of how to use it right. The idea to sell self-made CDs to make money did not just magically appear.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

entrapment ^

0 ( +1 / -1 )

tkoind2 I don't know what world you live in that has less music now than before, but I suspect it's not the same one the rest of us live in. I'm a regular guy, and I have quite a few old classmates who are now in their own bands. They're all over Facebook, SoundCloud, myspace and YouTube, and do local gigs. I suspect you're just out of touch with young talent today, and looking in the wrong places or looking for the wrong thing. We live in a world now where a kid with tourettes making mixes with FruityLoops and uploading them for free can chart #1 for months at a time (Basshunter). If anything, I'm sure there's far MORE music now than ever.

Perhaps music as a career is dead. Perhaps that's not a bad thing. There was a time before the CD before anyone bought recorded music, and somehow the world kept on spinning back then too. I know I prefer the music created as a labour of love over the music created for a paycheck.

All creative industries are seeing the pressure of people's decreasing purchasing power. In 1996, what were people spending their entertainment dollars on? CDs, maybe a VHS a year (they were expensive back then!), movie tickets, perhaps a cable subscription. In 2012 we have more stuff than ever to spend money on - we're all buying music, tons of DVDs, internet services (hulu, iTunes, Spotify), lots of iPhone apps, XBox games.. our dollars are being spread ever thinner, and of course that's pushing down the prices of everything, and people just aren't willing to spend the same amount for music as they used to.

For the poll, I've downloaded a lot of music, and only thanks to downloading did a find a ton of bands that I then bought CDs for. I also buy much more music (CDs and iTunes) than my average peer. Does my downloading make me a bad person if all my downloading is the reason I buy more music?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

And as for the major media conglomerates (can anyone spell "Sony"?), I have this quote:

«I don’t think content creators have any right to complain about a consumer culture, they created, they pushed and they continue to maintain. We’re hammered day and night to purchase and consume as fast as humanly possible. The problem is that they’ve trained us too well, you deserve that new shirt, you need that new car, you have to have that house. What you don’t have the money? You can’t afford to wait, use credit, have it now, need it now, take it now.

Then suddenly the ever evolving and changing human consciousness, which has been primed for consumption and hard wired to want it now, does exactly what they’ve been taught to do they find a new, cheap, easy and most important faster way to consume. Only problem is it’s outside the big business box, now their scrambling to beat people back into their cages, while at the same time looking for better and more efficient ways to drive that need to consume, to me it reeks of hypocrisy.»

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ever downloaded anything illegal. Who me? Oh no never, I'd never dream about doing such a thing..........

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

i buy my music and movies... i also download them. It comes down to who i think deserves my money. I'll happily buy a music album of an up and coming indie artist. Well paid pop stars on the other hand...no thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So when your 'up and coming' indie band become a wildly popular stadium filling megaband you will stop supporting them?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Little late to the party, but I, too, am an amateur musician and would love to sell my music, but I find the internet and piracy so discouraging that I am reluctant to do so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I bought bootleg VHS tapes of Strolling Bones and other groups' concerts at a shotengai shop in Yokohama years ago, does that count?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the only free music I download is from Starbucks "Recommends"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites