music piracy... i need some opinions

[JUDE]

The library analogy is another one that comes to mind...

 

Oh, do tell.

 

 

BTW, I was always meaning to ask you to YSI some of those Drag the River albums for me but I found my self in a moral conundrum and just bought them. Thanks for the heads up on the sale, I may be an ethical sumbich, but I'm also pretty frugal.

[ction]

I have to pee, so I'll try to do this quickly. I've heard the argument before that people can read books for free by checking them out of the library...why can't people listen to music for free as well? Libraries don't put publishers out of business. Or something like that.

 

Someone else can feel free to elaborate if they've heard a similar argument.

[tongue-tied]

If you went out and bought the album, you would be paying money to the artist (yes, and the record company, i know). When you copy an album illegally, you deprive that artist (and record company, of course) of money. Yes, it is stealing. I download music, but I don't kid myself about what I'm doing. Just like when I'm exceeding the speed limit, I don't make up some euphemism to kid myself about the fact that I'm breaking the law. It's speeding. Just because I do it, doesn't mean it's not illegal.

 

I'm not arguing the legality of it, or the morality of it. I believe stealing implies the loss of property, not withholding due payment. Here's one good or bad analogy from me: If I bake a cake to the specifications that my local baker bakes his cakes, is that the same as breaking into the bakery and taking a cake? If I give the recipe to all my friends and nobody buys from the baker anymore, I have done that baker a disservice much worse than breaking in and robbing him, but it's not the same thing. That's how I distinguish stealing from copying. You could say I "robbed" him of customers, and then it would just come down to word choice. But I see copying and stealing as two separate offenses that can have two separate moral judgements and I dislike equating downloading to thievery just because they have the same result (a pissed off baker).

[owl]

What about making a (cassette) mixtape for someone? Is that as bad as burning a CD or sending files?

[caliber66]

I'm not arguing the legality of it, or the morality of it. I believe stealing implies the loss of property, not withholding due payment. Here's one good or bad analogy from me: If I bake a cake to the specifications that my local baker bakes his cakes, is that the same as breaking into the bakery and taking a cake? If I give the recipe to all my friends and nobody buys from the baker anymore, I have done that baker a disservice much worse than breaking in and robbing him, but it's not the same thing. That's how I distinguish stealing from copying. You could say I "robbed" him of customers, and then it would just come down to word choice. But I see copying and stealing as two separate offenses that can have two separate moral judgements and I dislike equating downloading to thievery just because they have the same result (a pissed off baker).

That analogy only works if you're going into the studio and recreating the music yourself.

 

What about making a (cassette) mixtape for someone? Is that as bad as burning a CD or sending files?

Not in my opinion, no.

[cryptique]

I have to pee, so I'll try to do this quickly. I've heard the argument before that people can read books for free by checking them out of the library...why can't people listen to music for free as well? Libraries don't put publishers out of business. Or something like that.

 

Someone else can feel free to elaborate if they've heard a similar argument.

It's an interesting argument. I think the most likely counterargument would point out that eventually you're supposed to return the book to the library -- you don't keep a copy for yourself.

[Calexico]

What about making a (cassette) mixtape for someone? Is that as bad as burning a CD or sending files?

 

 

Probably not, as been said before it's semantic. It is illegal though in the eyes of John Q. Lawman, which is what really matters if you get done for the offence. Being a good buddy and hooking your mates up with tunes wouldn't be a great defence strategy.

[owl]

It seems like most of the argument is centered around what the music industry says is appropriate, regardless of whether actual money is funneled away from those who own the rights.

 

The music industry says that making mixtapes is illegal. Should that then be considered stealing as well?

[MattZ]

I believe stealing implies the loss of property, not withholding due payment.

 

Intellectual property is still property that can be stolen. Just because something physical wasn't taken doesnt mean that something valuable wasn't taken.

 

Mixtapes are (arguably) fair use. They are a derivative work. Again, arguably. You created something new by creating a Wilco greatest hits. Or a best of 2007 CD.

[Calexico]

Remember when you used to get this on the innder bag/sleeve of yer actual vinyl records?

 

 

[owl]

Not in my opinion, no.

 

It seems like most of the argument is centered around what the music industry says is appropriate, regardless of whether actual money is funneled away from those who own the rights.

 

The music industry says that making mixtapes is illegal. Should that then be considered stealing as well?

 

Probably not, as been said before it's semantic.

 

Actually, it's not semantic. Semantic arguments try to exploit a loophole via wording. I'm asking whether one way is stealing and another isn't. Doesn't the music industry see any unauthorized distribution of its music as stealing?

[ction]

I think in a perfect world, the legality of downloading music should be determined by each artist. But in the real world, I'm guessing that would be a nightmare.

 

This discussion reminds me of a recent blog post by the guy who runs Suburban Home Records (a very small label). He's cut all the prices of his records to $8.99, but still has a hard time selling them...to paraphrase him, cheap is good but it's hard to compete with free.

[tongue-tied]

That analogy only works if you're going into the studio and recreating the music yourself.

 

That's unnecessary when you can recreate the music in code.

[caliber66]

It seems like most of the argument is centered around what the music industry says is appropriate, regardless of whether actual money is funneled away from those who own the rights.

 

The music industry says that making mixtapes is illegal. Should that then be considered stealing as well?

How is it that actual money is not funneled away from the people who own the rights to the music when one downloads a cd and doesn't pay for it? That, for me, is the crux of the issue. If you were going to buy the cd, and downloaded it instead, you took money from the artist. If you wouldn't have bought the cd, but downloaded it, you still got the benefit of the product without paying for it, and thereby deprived the owner of the music of his/its compensation.

 

That's unnecessary when you can recreate the music in code.

If you could recreate a cake in code, then you would have yourself a valid analogy.

[SarahC]

the way i view the whole file-sharing/downloading/mix tape making thing is this:

 

1. the record company makes more money off the cd's than the artists themselves do. therefore, you do the artist justice by going to see them in concert.

2. if you aren't buying the music illegally then i don't see what the problem is, because you aren't paying somebody else for something that is not theirs. and most people, i would hope, if they liked the album enough would go buy it at the store or go see the band's show.

3. i don't agree with the way the RIAA is handling the situation. instead of trying to find better ways to prevent the sale of the bootlegs, they persecute people for it.

 

i dunno, from an artistic standpoint i would think that the artist should be more like how wilco is, just being content with people bothering to give a shit at all to even listen... that's the important part of the whole thing.

[owl]

How is it that actual money is not funneled away from the people who own the rights to the music when one downloads a cd and doesn't pay for it?

 

Say I illegally share a song with you, and you go out and buy a CD or two by the artist.

[cryptique]

1. the record company makes more money off the cd's than the artists themselves do.

...except that, if I understand typical major label contracts correctly, the money from CD sales goes to pay back an artist's "debt" to its label for services rendered: recording costs, promotional costs, etc. So CD sales still benefit an artist even if they don't put money directly into that artist's pocket. If enough CDs are sold, the artist starts to see some money -- but these days that's getting rarer.

 

Someone who understands those contracts better than I -- feel free to correct me on this.

[tongue-tied]

It's also unfair to only care about the artist, a lot of people work in the making of a record, it's their livlihood and they don't benefit from more people going to shows.

[caliber66]

Say I illegally share a song with you, and you go out and buy a CD or two by the artist.

Quantify for me how often that happens, and I'll include that in my calculation of how "illegal" it is.

[Calexico]

Anyway, I am getting outta this thread before solace gives us all up to the Five Oh.

[tongue-tied]

If you could recreate a cake in code, then you would have yourself a valid analogy.

 

You recreate the cake by your own means too. We can scrap the analogy, though. I think the only thing I can prove is that downloading is literally not the same action as shoplifting. I believe 'copying', or if you need a judgement 'wrongful copying', is a better description of the offense.

[owl]

Quantify for me how often that happens, and I'll include that in my calculation of how "illegal" it is.

 

Yeah, I know, but it does happen.

I think that it depends on a lot of factors.

But anyway, you asked how money could not be funneled away from the rights-owners. That is one way.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

Doesn't really matter anyway, does it? I mean it is up to the copyright holder(s) to decide how to best market their product, no? Perhaps it would be wiser for them to welcome music sharing, but it is their right to make that decision and the laws that make music sharing illegal are the ones that are specifically meant to protect that right.

[deepseacatfish]

1. the record company makes more money off the cd's than the artists themselves do. therefore, you do the artist justice by going to see them in concert.

2. if you aren't buying the music illegally then i don't see what the problem is, because you aren't paying somebody else for something that is not theirs. and most people, i would hope, if they liked the album enough would go buy it at the store or go see the band's show.

3. i don't agree with the way the RIAA is handling the situation. instead of trying to find better ways to prevent the sale of the bootlegs, they persecute people for it.

 

i dunno, from an artistic standpoint i would think that the artist should be more like how wilco is, just being content with people bothering to give a shit at all to even listen... that's the important part of the whole thing.

I'll take this on.

 

1. Like Cryptique said, basically album sales are meant to cover label costs like producers/studio time/equipment/promotion/etc. That money is just basically forward to the artist and then they are expected to earn it back. I do think most labels take advantage of artists, but obviously they offer something otherwise no one would sign contracts anymore. Going to see a band live is good for the band and certainly they make money off of it, but it is not analogous or a substitution to buying a record (nor does it in my mind justify downloading music illegally). Even at concerts ticket brokers, venues etc. still cut into artistic profit so you inevitably end up paying an intermediary either way. That's just kind of the nature of a capitalist distribution system.

 

2. I hope that people would buy albums they liked when they heard them (and I certainly do this) but plenty of people don't or are perfectly content with illegal copies. The paradox of the whole situation is that while the profit loss hurts labels and execs, it also does really hurt small labels which just no longer pull in even the modest amounts of cd sales that they rely on. Certainly artists and labels are taking a hit if illegal downloading/copying is fully acceptable.

 

3. The RIAA is obviously protecting their own interests (ie. big labels). I don't agree with their direction in the whole thing.

 

While I agree with you about artists being happy just with people listening, its nice, and for a band like Wilco they can afford to talk like that, but they know they will still make something on sales, and will still live well off of touring. For a band with no recognition nationally or even locally yet there is no way they can expect to feel content with that situation when they know they will never be able to be full-time artists if they can't make enough to live like that. It's just hard to justify.

 

 

My take on the whole copyright/illegal downloading issue: Illegal downloading is illegal, same with music sharing/copying etc. There is no legal argument around that. Ethically I think it is very reasonable to make mix tapes for your friends/family members, it's not much of an extension of personal use (though it still does violate the word of the law). I would hope that bands and labels (like Wilco have) would realize that the internet and downloading is something that can be harnessed to your advantage to drill up excitement. Artists should continue to try and slow down the early leakage of albums, but by the same token it makes good sense for them to have previews of things like this, make video and extra audio bonuses to their fans and loyal consumers...it rewards the market cycle. Labels should similarly find ways to work with the new distribution system and encourage people to buy their product (either through the same means as the artist, or by reducing prices, or increasing other profitable media for sale like artist DVD's etc.). The RIAA certainly has a right to defend their interest, but I feel like lots of lawsuits aren't going to win them friends or really change the nature of people's habits. Obviously there is no easy solution for the labels, but I feel like they have to streamline somewhat, learn that they will not have the CD sale profits that they used to, and find new means of advertising promotion and distribution to make their system work. Inevitably quality music will find a market however small, but like it or not illegal downloads hurt everyone.

 

What if labels and artists streamed their entire catalogs online at all times allowing people to listen and find what they wanted to buy? Those who purchased albums in any format could also receive access to b-sides/demos/live work.

[JUDE]

I think that rather than trying to argue the legalities and ethics of the downloading issue, you