Originally Posted by KenB (Post 1172375)

As a longtime professional music journalist who has been out of work and job hunting, fruitlessly, for the last year, I need to point out that pretty much everything in this post sounds like self-justifying rationalizing of theft. As a FM fanatic, I'm as happy as anyone to have the contents of this magazine posted here so I can read it -- but I won't try to justify to myself that it is "right" to not pay for written content, or music, and I hope the rest of you don't either. Too many of my friends and colleagues -- incredibly knowledgable writers who dedicated their lives to music -- have lost most of their income, and in many cases has to change careers entirely, as I am on the verge of doing, because Internet sharing has led society over the last 15 years to believe stealing is okay.

I mean, I get it. I want things for free too. I guess what I'm saying is: do what you're gonna do, but don't try to pretend it's anything but theft.

Someone else commented that they're sure this magazine isn't near bankruptcy. Don't be so certain of that. A huge percentage of music publications have gone under thanks to the era of "sharing," including some of the biggest ones and many (probably MOST) of the smaller ones -- the niche magazines that are the most likely to feature bands like Fleetwood Mac. So share if you must, but please buy a copy as well, and please encourage others to do the same.

Originally Posted by MikeInNV (Post 1172377)

And even if they are financially fine, that's not really the point. No one in Fleetwood Mac will go to the poor house if we download their music for free, but it's generally accepted around here that it's wrong to do so.

Originally Posted by nicole21290 (Post 1172378)

I think the vast majority of the demographic who frequent this forum and even on my Tumblr (which does have less than 400 followers) WANT the physical copy. I did wonder whether it was right to upload the entire thing. At the moment, the benefits outweigh the guilt for me.

I'm clear and free on the 'stealing' bit, though (even though I could've waited and downloaded from a forum I use which uploads dozens of ebooks and magazines daily...). I paid over $10 for the digital copy, $30 for the print one to be delivered and will probably have to fork out another $15 for another print copy for my Mum when it gets to newsagencies here. I'm a collector; I love print magazines and have a nice stack of them from Mojo, Q, Word, and Uncut. I'm still bitter about Word going under. However, I like having digital copies as well. I think some people fall into that boat. Really, there are multiple reasons a person might download the PDF and only one of them means the publisher/author is losing out monetarily.

1. They can’t afford or access the magazine (in which case, they wouldn’t have bought it anyway)

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad (Post 1172393)

I'm the one that said the magazine isn't going broke, and even if I generally agree with all of you I must say that it's hypocritical to judge others for downloading this magazine if you did it yourself, even presuming that (unlike you, they think it's right).

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad (Post 1172393)

I am much more concerned about my and my family's economic condition than that of a big periodical, I am a student and I don't want to burden me and my family with unnecessary costs, because here the economic crisis is a bottomless pit.

Originally Posted by KenB (Post 1172399)

Well, naturally, every person on earth is more concerned about their own economic condition than anyone else's. That still doesn't make it right to go to your local clothing store and walk out with that hat you've had your eye on, without paying for it. As for that "big periodical" -- just be aware that there no longer is such a thing. Virtually every music magazine in existence is small these days, and hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Not because of the overall economic crisis, but because our culture has decided that we no longer feel guilty about stealing, as long as we do it on the Internet, where it's easy to do it anonymously.

Originally Posted by KenB (Post 1172399)

Well, naturally, every person on earth is more concerned about their own economic condition than anyone else's. That still doesn't make it right to go to your local clothing store and walk out with that hat you've had your eye on, without paying for it. As for that "big periodical" -- just be aware that there no longer is such a thing. Virtually every music magazine in existence is small these days, and hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Not because of the overall economic crisis, but because our culture has decided that we no longer feel guilty about stealing, as long as we do it on the Internet, where it's easy to do it anonymously.

Originally Posted by nicole21290 (Post 1172400)

I don't think there's a huge market for people illegally downloading music magazines online, to be honest. It's a much smaller market than, say, pop music records, and I think is more to do with the decline of print media rather than people 'stealing on the internet'.

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad (Post 1172401)

I searched for Uncut's circulation numbers and since it's a magazine and its circulation still exceeds the 50 thousands of copies it is considered a periodical with a strong circulation.

Originally Posted by KenB (Post 1172405)

But its precisely the attitude of shifting the blame elsewhere that is the problem. The decline of the sale of "pop music records" due to piracy has meant that record companies no longer have the money to advertise in music magazines, which means that music magazines don't survive. Those are just the facts. I know because I've seen it happen time after time. Yes, people can read blogs, the AV Club, etc. for free instead of reading a print magazine like Uncut. But you must think there's something of value in this issue of Uncut, otherwise you wouldn't be sharing it.

SisterNightroad wrote:


Uncut once had a circulation of over 100,000. Now it's half that. Maybe in a couple of years it'll be gone, too.

I promise you: A magazine with a circulation of 50,000 is a small magazine that needs every sale it can get. I spent almost 13 years employed at a music magazine with a circulation of a little less than 50,000. (This happened to be a magazine that, over the years, published interviews with several members of Fleetwood Mac.) That magazine is now gone, and so are many, many others. I can tell you with 100% certainty that a huge part of the reason why (not the ONLY reason, but the biggest) is the "give me stuff for free" attitude that has resulted from the ability to share things anonymously, whether it's music, writing, or whatever. Believe it or don't believe it, keep sharing content or don't, but the fact remains that music magazines are nearly extinct because the music and publishing industries haven't found a good way to battle theft. Sure, that's partly on them for not responding adequately to the new realities -- but why should they have to? If a clothing store is repeatedly robbed because people want hats or shirts for free and the store can't find a way to stop it, is it the store's fault, or the thieves'? Maybe both; I don't know. I don't have a solution.

Originally Posted by SisterNightroad (Post 1172407)

Today a magazine with more circulation than 30.000 copies is considered big for all the reasons that have enlisted.
You are right saying that it's because of internet but piracy is just a small aspect of it; this is because times are changing and times are changing because media are changing. The only medium negatively impacted is print, journals are fading while all the other media like TV keep existing alongside internet but with the web being the first source of information and entertainment. It's not only free-download we're in the middle of a transition period, some things we know will be lost and new others will take their place but is it right, is it wrong? In the past other forms of media have been subsided because of the development of new technologies, with the advent of the radio people lamented that noone would have bought journals or gone to concerts anymore because you could listen to news and music at home; with the coming of the television people lamented that news, music and cinema would have been cast aside. With the beginning of cinema people feared that theater would disappear. This is a story as ancient as the world.

Originally Posted by michelej1 (Post 1172410)

Most of the articles posted here are free online and even pasting them here like I do on an almost daily basis, rather than just posting the link, is depriving the original website of a "click". That's stealing too.

Originally Posted by sorcerer999 (Post 1172415)

Now is it cool if we stop arguing over rear window ethics here and get back to discussing what this thread is actually about?

Originally Posted by nicole21290 (Post 1172378)

I think the vast majority of the demographic who frequent this forum and even on my Tumblr (which does have less than 400 followers) WANT the physical copy. I did wonder whether it was right to upload the entire thing. At the moment, the benefits outweigh the guilt for me.

I'm clear and free on the 'stealing' bit, though (even though I could've waited and downloaded from a forum I use which uploads dozens of ebooks and magazines daily...). I paid over $10 for the digital copy, $30 for the print one to be delivered and will probably have to fork out another $15 for another print copy for my Mum when it gets to newsagencies here. I'm a collector; I love print magazines and have a nice stack of them from Mojo, Q, Word, and Uncut. I'm still bitter about Word going under. However, I like having digital copies as well. I think some people fall into that boat. Really, there are multiple reasons a person might download the PDF and only one of them means the publisher/author is losing out monetarily.

1. They can’t afford or access the magazine (in which case, they wouldn’t have bought it anyway)
2. They can afford the magazine and will buy or have bought it, but they want a digital copy for convenience or because they don’t want to wait (me)
3. They want to check the content out before buying it (in which case, most of those people wouldn’t have bought it anyway so it may actually INCREASE sales)
4. Cheapskates who don’t want to pay for anything

Really, though, I think the vast majority of people in this case still like having a physical copy of something, and that Category 4 is actually smaller than the others. Maybe that’s me being naive. It's not a 'casual buy' like a new popular record is or anything, though; it's a bit different, I think.

Originally Posted by johnnystorms (Post 1172435)

not a cheapskate but have NO idea how to obtain a UK publication.. any idea how I might read it? PM me if you can help

Originally Posted by jbrownsjr (Post 1172443)

Thanks Nicole... You're always very sharing with info!

Originally Posted by nicole21290 (Post 1172450)

Well, what does it accomplish, keeping anything and everything I buy to myself? Not much point in that. :D