I have made a conscious decision to stop "borrowing" music.

I've been thinking about it, and I can't really think of a good reason to continue doing it.

Spending money on music that you like is a vote confidence in the artist(s) that created it. It says, in monetary form, that you enjoy what they do and that you would like to support them to continue to do what they do.

Here is the one asterisk: If it is a artist that is on any kind of "major label" or some kind of legacy act, go right ahead. Basically, who gives a fuck if you download the new Metallica or Guns n' Roses? Nevermind the whole debate as to the legitimacy/quality of their continued works, it just doesn't matter to an artist on that scale. No matter how much they cry about it and try and show you pie charts to prove that "music stealing REALLY DOES hurt us you guyzes!" No, it fucking doesn't. At that level of the "music game" albums are less an album of music and more of just another product in a line of other products to cover the bottom line of the up-front investment of the record label.

Legacy acts don't matter as well. The estate of Led Zepplin surely isn't going to go under if you download the hell out of "Zoso."

So with those two things out of the way, yeah, pay for music you like. Buy merch too. It all helps.

One could argue that at some points of a band's career that it is important to just get exposure so if someone burns a CD of that band's for all their friends, that that is worth it's weight in money. Well, yes and no, but mostly no. Sure, exposure never hurts, and it is much better than no one buying the CD at all. But it is just basic mathematics/economics: 3 people giving you money is better/more helpful than just one person buying your CD. Again, your money supports the artist to continue doing shit. More money is never a bad thing.

I will use my band as an example (but not as a justification): Whatever money we get, we put right back into the band. Getting paid for shows, merch money, album sales...it all goes right back in. For example, we recently just hit a milestone in a financial sense in that we now have enough money to get tshirts made. That money will go right back in as well...maybe to a new recording, maybe to order more merch, maybe to eventually get a trailer to haul our shit in. It all helps us continue doing what we do.

I'm sure this is at least somewhat representative of the majority of bands who aren't already rich/on a major label. They live on every single dollar they receive.

You could spend your money on a lot worse. Even in these dire times, why not spend your money on something someone put love and creativity into (unless you happen to be patronizing a band who is in it to make a buck/cash in on the latest popular genre...but that is a whole other discussion and hopefully you are discriminating enough to smell bullshit where there is, indeed, bullshit). Support art instead of some electronics corporation or some over priced tag on your clothing. I suppose, in this sense, that this spreads over to any kind of art, really. But, shut up, I'm talking about music.

I used to be a "chivalrous downloader." I would be ok with downloading an album or two from an artist I liked, so long as I owned at least one other album of theirs and/or bought some merch from them at one point, and/or paid to see them live at some point. I don't really want to subscribe to that philosophy anymore. It is still stealing and disingenuous. They could certainly benefit off of having more money to do what they do...which is apparently something I enjoy, so I should continue to keep supporting them.

Now one could use the argument of "well I'm poor and don't have enough money and downloading is free." That is the definition of "having one's cake and eating it, too." Tough. Nothing else in your life works like that. There is no free gas, no free food, no free clothing, so why should something that someone actually put some passion into be the exception. It's too bad, you just have to do without...or shit, maybe switch your budget around to make room for the consumption of music.

This argument excludes all TV and the majority of films out there, I believe. TV is free to begin with so it is utterly retarded that you have to pay to download it. And most films are so over priced. It is the independent films that should get your attention. Basically, anything that there isn't money behind already; things that don't have a bottom line already figured out. A studio will turn out anything and then have a bunch of shitty strategies to recoop their shitty losses. It is the privately/self funded films that should be given your consideration. It is in those cases that the film world mirrors the music world that I am discussing. They count on your money in a very direct way.

I'm stopping here because I find myself delving deeper and deeper into this. It is a very complicated subject but I think I've said enough to give a good "cliff notes" argument.

Essentially, I have been pretty hypocritical in my ways as far as media consumption and I am looking to rectify that. By no means is what I am discussing here anything along the lines of what someone like a Lars Ulrich might whine at you. Downloading does hurt artists but by no means in a way like that cunt is talking about. The hip hop artists and the Lars Ulrichi (plural for drum troll) and the other major label artists that whine about this shit are just either out of touch, greedy, or both. ...or they realize how disposable their music really is. I'm talking about artists who actually depend on economic support to continue to do what they and, apparently you, love.