Do you steal music???

[bigbeefdog]

Oh, I know. For me, the same thing could be done with a radio station-set up a couple recorders and you'd have a million songs in a week. But of that million songs you've recorded, you'll probably get maybe 2 or 3 tracks from each artist (maybe a few more if they've been around the block). And that's a lot of work to do that-that's why a lot of groups put out greatest hits albums-to cater to the folks who don't want to buy all the albums the songs were on and don't want to go to the effort of recording them piecemeal off of the radio.

Maybe it's a little clearer for me because I tend to get bored with radio singles pretty quickly and would much rather hear an entire album in context. I'd rather pay $14 for a CD I want than sift through 10,000 radio singles I got for free. You basically have to trust that the artists know what they're doing in putting out singles, how many of them they put out, and the formats that they allow they to play in. To me it sounds like you have extra concern for the artists who might not realize what they're doing when they distribute their music, which is a great thing. Ethics are a touchier subject than legality.

Hypothetically, if you did get a PC like that and followed through with that plan, would you feel like you did something unethical on the whole, or did something unethical towards the individual artists? If you look at the scene with a wide angle lens, you'd say "hey, I just got 10,000 songs without paying for them." I can see how that seems wrong, or unethical. For me, when you break it down and see the entire picture, that you're only getting a couple songs from each artist, and even then the songs you're getting are the radio singles that they put out for promotion on every radio station in the country, it puts it into perspective-that the quantity doesn't connote the quality or content. And that the songs you get from those artists are ones they gave you permission to copy, while downloaded one song illegally, while sounding far less than collecting 10,000 songs, is far more unethical to me. Would you feel worse if someone knowingly and willingly gave you $10,000, or if you stole $1 from them? For me, it's the $1. The ethical choices are up to us consumers to consider what we think is right and wrong. The legal issues are NOT up for consideration, and my problem with some of the folks in this thread has been because of their dismissal of the simple legal facts that it's not okay to take someone's music if they don't want you to.

That's the best I can explain it.

Actually, the legal issues *are* up for consideration, if only because I don't believe they've been litigated as of yet. Claims of copyright infringement have been brought, and cases have been settled out of court. I could be mistaken, but I'm unaware of any of these cases that have gone to trial.

However, the point is not quantity, nor is it personal preferences in content. If you're talking legalities, they can never turn on scope or preference - you can take a gumball or a sports car; both are theft. You can prefer to take the Ferrari over the Corvette parked next to it; it's still theft.

The point is the fine, fine lines that are drawn - and how confusing they can be.

We've agreed that I can record from the satellite. I can make a high-quality copy, and you've suggested (I agree) that the artist gave permission when allowing his/her/their song to be broadcast on a network from which copies can be legally made.

Does that imply that I can download that *same* song from the Internet legally? After all, I had permission to make a copy from the satellite. Permission to copy is permission to copy.... isn't it?

For that matter, can I download a song from the Internet while I'm at the office, knowing I have the CD in the cabinet at home? Seems odd that I could not, because we've all agreed that I own the intellectual property, have the right to make a copy, and *could* create the exact same MP3 by "ripping" it from my own CD.

The fine lines are everywhere, enough to flummox even the lawyers. And I've encountered many, many folks who *really want* to do the right thing..... but they just don't know what the heck that is.

 

[Marcus Willett]

Morning all!....ngh... I am NOT a morning person...

Anyway, no doubt the debate will rage later today. Bigbeefdog, Bryan R. Tyler, and even msquared (I say "even" to signify my disagreement, not an insult) all raising excellent points here...good stuff. I must say, I was growing a bit concerened that this thread with the passions it could arouse would degrade into "F*ck you man!" type stuff. I think with precious few exceptions, it has stayed remarkably civilized. Will join you guys later this aftn; have a good one...ngh...

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Actually, the legal issues *are* up for consideration, if only because I don't believe they've been litigated as of yet. Claims of copyright infringement have been brought, and cases have been settled out of court. I could be mistaken, but I'm unaware of any of these cases that have gone to trial.

However, the point is not quantity, nor is it personal preferences in content. If you're talking legalities, they can never turn on scope or preference - you can take a gumball or a sports car; both are theft. You can prefer to take the Ferrari over the Corvette parked next to it; it's still theft.

The point is the fine, fine lines that are drawn - and how confusing they can be.

We've agreed that I can record from the satellite. I can make a high-quality copy, and you've suggested (I agree) that the artist gave permission when allowing his/her/their song to be broadcast on a network from which copies can be legally made.

Does that imply that I can download that *same* song from the Internet legally? After all, I had permission to make a copy from the satellite. Permission to copy is permission to copy.... isn't it?

For that matter, can I download a song from the Internet while I'm at the office, knowing I have the CD in the cabinet at home? Seems odd that I could not, because we've all agreed that I own the intellectual property, have the right to make a copy, and *could* create the exact same MP3 by "ripping" it from my own CD.

The fine lines are everywhere, enough to flummox even the lawyers. And I've encountered many, many folks who *really want* to do the right thing..... but they just don't know what the heck that is.

Permission to copy is permission to copy what they say you can. If an artist puts a song on satellite radio that you can copy, and then puts it on the internet that you can copy, go ahead. If they put a song on satellite but NOT on the internet, then you don't have the permission to copy it, although I've yet to hear of a satellite radio station that is allowed to play tunes that aren't allowed play on internet radio stations. It's the artist's choice, because they hold the copyright.

Your second analogy can be seen like this. You bought a painting that you like a lot. You are allowed to make prints of it for yourself. You could take one of the prints to the office to hang on your wall. Would it be okay to just steal a print from the artist's gallery and hang it on your wall at work, since you own the painting and could have just as easily made a print of it for yourself? Of course not. This is because while you own the product, you don't own the copyright. Owning one form of something doesn't give you permission to take any available form of it. You wouldn't buy a Mercedes and then expect to stop at the Mercedes shop and take an identical one out for a ride whenever simply because you bought one. The lines are only blurry to people because illegally downloading music has become so commonplace that they take it for granted.

The laws do have to catch up with technology-they're unclear in a lot of respects. Copyright laws do give the artists these rights though, to distribute their goods wherever they choose, and any unwanted copying is illegal. I sell my paintings and I'm fine with people making photos or prints of them for themselves. But I still own the copyright, even though the painting has sold, so if someone makes a copy of their purchased painting for a friend, I have every right to sue. These are pretty basic copyright laws that have been around for a while, but as I said, the prevalence of illegally downloading music has skewered people's perceptions.

The one issue that I think can be very blurry to some, particularly kids and teens, is the origin of the music they're downloading. For all they know, the mp3s they're getting from P2P file sharing are legal and the person they got them from simply obtained them from the artist's websites. The fact that the mp3s are out there on a program to be freely downloaded may give kids the message "if it was illegal, these wouldn't be here for me to take. They are here, and the law hasn't taken them away, so it must be okay." Again, the law really needs to catch up with technology.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

Damn, this thread is growing faster than a Nickthebassist thread

 

[Norwegianwood]

Hey man, your words, not mine. (emphasis mine)


Perhaps YOU didn't understand what I was trying to say.

Taking something and keeping it without permission is theft where I come from. Plain and simple. I don't buy situational ethics. Money may be invloved, as in this issue, or it may not. It doesn't matter. If it's wrong to take something without permission, then it's wrong...period. That's why I used the comic book analogy. Common thread? The theft of something of value.

Oh, right. It's just a COPY. Well, I won't deny that the ability to make more-or-less exact duplicates of things can make the issue SEEM complex, but it just SEEMS that way. Did you have the permission of the creator to copy it for your own pleasure? If yes, enjoy. If no, you stole it. Some things really are black and white if you step back and really think about it.

Well, I certainly see your point here, and it is indeed valid. But are you so sure the artists really care about loosing their "intellectual property"? Are you sure all they care about isn't the money?

 

[Marcus Willett]

Would it be okay to just steal a print from the artist's gallery and hang it on your wall at work, since you own the painting and could have just as easily made a print of it for yourself? Of course not. This is because while you own the product, you don't own the copyright.

This is an excellent point I hadn't gotten to. Indeed, when you buy a CD, you are buying and only own the physical disc. The information on there is intellectual property, and you do not own it; you are paying for a license to use it...it is not yours to do with as you wish.

Well, I certainly see your point here, and it is indeed valid. But are you so sure the artists really care about loosing their "intellectual property"? Are you sure all they care about isn't the money?

Well, maybe they are and maybe they aren't, but that is not my call. I don't think I have the right to decide for them what their motivation may be; it's not my creation.

Can we pick up the pace guys, I gotta go do a show in an hour?

 

[Mike Flynn]

Hey Brendan,

I'm not saying I disagree with you, nor am I saying that I agree, but the one argument I have about the big bad corporation would be:

Do you drink Pepsi? Own Levi's? Shop at Walmart/Target? Use Microsoft software? Been to the Gap? Eat at McDonald's? Visited a Starbucks? Shopped on Amazon.com?

I am against supporting large corporations that do business in highly unethical ways. So, I shop at local book stores, have a latte from the mom and pop cafe, buy my clothes from individually owned stores.

I understand it's impossible to avoid all "big corporations," but if you're only avoiding the one, (record companies), and not making any effort to avoid the others, is that hypocritical?

Just asking.

I like your style Jazzbo - couldn't agree more.


A short essay on music at the moment...

Do I doanload music for free - yes absolutely - but I also still buy a lot of music.

As for 'stealing' music - believe me when the intellectual property copywright software finally catches up with the downloadable content then the big corporartions might get a grip on all of this - but that's a way off yet.

I have thought and said for a long time now that the future of music is in live performance - it just makes sense and will (hopefully) mean that band and artists who can actually perform - i.e. sing and play - not MIME... will actually be the ones making money - whether that will help jazz musicians - who knows The figures for downloading vs CD sales still put CDs way out in front - and it's no surprise that the way music is distributed and paid for will change - it's just a consequence of the techno evolution - not revolution. Kids - i.e. people under the age of 13 or 14 - don't normally buy albums - hence they will be the ones who are the earliest adopters of MP3s as their main source of music - the fact they all download the likes of Justin and Beyonce and Britney is no loss to the great and good in music...and like others say you won't usually find all or any of the music you - album buying adults - really want from Limewire etc etc. But those clever record bosses now have ring tones as a huge new money making way to fleece kids of their pocket money - and the big labels only start moaning and getting all bent out of shape about stuff when they find that their old musical propaganda no longer works on a new generation NOT raised on the Beatles or even Nirvana - genuinely good music - but conditioned into listening to disposable pop, that by its very nature is only sold to be cynically replaced months later with a new, trendier, group or singer.

As a footnote to this - I had a conversation with a guy here in London who runs a download and streaming company that actually records entire gigs and then sells them immediately after the concert as a download - in complete cooporation with the band obviously - and he told me the demand for this stuff is huge and only getting bigger. Some really loyal fans have even pre-ordered the entire tour's worth of recordings - which come to about $500 - who says there's no money in downloads?

Like many other musicians and music fans I think the majority of people here, on TB, want to support the artists they love by buying their CDs, MP3s, and merchandise as well as concert tickets - I think that getting a few free MP3s is a great way to promote yourselves for free - if you think about it the radio stations now look at what people download to gauge what's genuinely popular - as once again for far too long record companies have also controlled radio as well - people power is winning once again. Many, many times have I downloaded some music and then thought "I really want the full album" - and it's often when I have bought something without hearing something first that I'm dissapointed.

As for the musicians - if you're good you'll go far - end of story. People love great musicians, hearing and seeing them live and often want to own at least something - be it a CD, T-shirt or DVD - to hear and see them again and again. And through cheaper technology you can now produce your albums from home - the only thing the big labels really do now that you can't do yourself is market you to the entire world - so the question then becomes one of finding the right label to back you - one that will support you and not try and exploit you. Music will always win in the end because let's face it - the human race can't live without it and that means somehow supporting the people who create it.

Just my thoughts

Mike

 

[Marcus Willett]

...the future of music is in live performance - it just makes sense and will (hopefully) mean that band and artists who can actually perform - i.e. sing and play - not MIME... will actually be the ones making money

I don't disagree; that would be a good thing. But not all musicians are performers. Some are songwriters and composers. I think James Horner is a brilliant musician and I love his work, but I'm never gonna be able to support him by buying tickets to his concerts or shirts with his name on it. I agree there's way too much mime/lipsync garbage out there, but a great musician who needs to be supported if you enjoy his/her work may not be a performer. So......?

Gotta run and perform...later.

 

[Muzique Fann]

I have thought and said for a long time now that the future of music is in live performance - it just makes sense and will (hopefully) mean that band and artists who can actually perform - i.e. sing and play - not MIME... will actually be the ones making money - whether that will help jazz musicians - who knows

Bingo, Urb.
Like it or not, the best example I can think of is Phish. For such a popular band they didn't sell studio albums for ****. The majority of their money was made from live performances/merch. Many, many, many live performances.

 

[Nadav]

Bingo, Urb.
Like it or not, the best example I can think of is Phish. For such a popular band they didn't sell studio albums for ****. The majority of their money was made from live performances/merch. Many, many, many live performances.

Sure, Phish also happens to have *many* CDs of live recordings that they sell, so they may not be the best example.

 

[Muzique Fann]

Sure, Phish also happens to have *many* CDs of live recordings that they sell, so they may not be the best example.

This is true, but I don't think they started putting those out until after they first stopped touring in '02? Ala Dick's Picks from the Grateful Dead.

 

[fallon]

Short and sweet,I buy the C.D.and usually from Amazon.

 

[msquared]

I have thought and said for a long time now that the future of music is in live performance - it just makes sense and will (hopefully) mean that band and artists who can actually perform - i.e. sing and play - not MIME... will actually be the ones making money

I've been saying the same thing (to the voices in my head, not here). It's one of my most sincere hopes. People have been playing and making a living from music for centuries before the record company mafia came along, and with any luck it'll be "back to normal" again sometime in my lifetime.

As far as the musicians who aren't live performers.. there will still be a market for live DJs, and there will still be a market for songwriters. Not everyone is a good songwriting musician. Hell, in any given band at least one or two of the members are just along for the ride. Look at how many songs Ringo and George wrote. There are plenty of people who would be happy to enter into a situation where someone writes songs and a band buys them somehow and plays them.

For this reason, if I thought for a minute that downloading music would cause the downfall of the companies, I would be doing it nonstop.

 

[Marcus Willett]

As far as the musicians who aren't live performers...there will still be a market for songwriters. Not everyone is a good songwriting musician.

Well.....kinda but. OK here's a real situation for me. I think Nik Kershaw is a brilliant songwriter; I love his work and have all his CD's. He performs live too, but not in the US. He's not popular enough here and can't sell enough product to be commercially viable outside Europe (says a lot about the US market, but that's a differnt issue). So, I can't go see him live, though I'd love to. There isn't any Nik merchandise I can buy.

I very much want this guy to continue to make records (he's very disenchanted with the biz and often talks of retiring), but unless I actually buy his CD's I have no real way to support him, so...what? Too bad? Oh well? Unacceptable. I will not be a person who does nothing to support an artist I believe in and whose work I thoroughly enjoy.

 

[bigbeefdog]

You wouldn't buy a Mercedes and then expect to stop at the Mercedes shop and take an identical one out for a ride whenever simply because you bought one.

Would it be okay to just steal a print from the artist's gallery and hang it on your wall at work, since you own the painting and could have just as easily made a print of it for yourself? Of course not. This is because while you own the product, you don't own the copyright..

This is an excellent point I hadn't gotten to. Indeed, when you buy a CD, you are buying and only own the physical disc. The information on there is intellectual property, and you do not own it; you are paying for a license to use it...it is not yours to do with as you wish.

Errrrrr........ no, not exactly.

If the laws were as you guys describe, the issues would probably be clearer.

However, the courts have upheld one's right to make a copy (of purchased music) for personal use (known as the "fair use" doctrine). This was upheld when the first Rio player hit the market, and copyright issues were raised and litigated.

So, obviously, when you buy that physical disc, you are granted some copying permissions with that license. For *personal* use, you do have the right to copy - copy to CD-R for your car, copy to your Ipod, etc.

And it isn't quite the same as "stealing the gallery's" copy, because you're not taking someone else's copy. You've bought the CD, and with it, you acquired some limited rights to *create* a copy.

Does it matter how you go about creating that copy? Legally, yes...... logically,

Complex, indeed......

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

And it isn't quite the same as "stealing the gallery's" copy, because you're not taking someone else's copy. You've bought the CD, and with it, you acquired some limited rights to *create* a copy.

Does it matter how you go about creating that copy? Legally, yes...... logically,

Complex, indeed......

I think the gallery analogy is pretty fitting. You are allowed to make copies only for yourself, and only from the material you have purchased-copyright laws are pretty specific about it. If you obtain a copy from any other source other than your own product, then you are indeed taking someone else's copy. Again, it's the ease of obtaining these copies from the internet that have blinded people to what they're doing.

There's a guy on the street. He's got a CD burner with him on his table, and he's burning CD copies for people and is giving them away for free to passersby. Do you feel comfortable taking a copy from the guy if it's one you already own at home? That is the exact situation you're describing-the ease of the internet doesn't change the action. And it doesn't change the fact that the CDs the guy on the street is handing out are illegal copies, and taking one is taking an illegally made product, whether you own your own legally purchased copy of it or not.

 

[c-ba55]

Well.....kinda but. OK here's a real situation for me. I think Nik Kershaw is a brilliant songwriter; I love his work and have all his CD's. He performs live too, but not in the US. He's not popular enough here and can't sell enough product to be commercially viable outside Europe (says a lot about the US market, but that's a differnt issue). So, I can't go see him live, though I'd love to. There isn't any Nik merchandise I can buy.

I very much want this guy to continue to make records (he's very disenchanted with the biz and often talks of retiring), but unless I actually buy his CD's I have no real way to support him, so...what? Too bad? Oh well? Unacceptable. I will not be a person who does nothing to support an artist I believe in and whose work I thoroughly enjoy.

My mom thinks I'm a brilliant bassist. That doesn't give me a right to make a living off music if I don't put out a product that works within the economic framework of the times.

Whenever there's a shakeup, some people benefit and some people get hurt. Typically, society as a whole benefits (often in a 3 steps forward, 2 steps back kind of way)

And really, anybody that's driven out of the music-making business because they're not making enough money, their music can't be that good. That's what I mean by the amount of quality music in the world not being endangered.

 

[Zirc]

Something about the music industry all you businessmen (that's what you as a musician are called once you enter the industry) are forgetting...

Whether most of the money goes to the label or not is irrelevant. Labels measure a band's success based on album sales. If a band's music is getting stolen all the time, the label will pull the funding and throw the band in the garbage or drop the band from the label, even if they're making millions at live shows and merch.

So you buying a $1000 in merch without buying a single album will greatly hurt the chances of your favorite band coming out with another album. Of course it could go a bunch of different ways. Personally, I'd use all that merch money and self-produce / self-distribute / self-advertise my business, but a lot of bands aren't that smart. They think their band is a band, a work of musical art, and not a business.

Also to those ignorant about the quality of mp3s, there is a bit rate option called VBR (variable bit rate) which is identical to CD quality to the human ear of course. Also, the 192kpbs bit rate is statistically identical to CD quality to the human ear.

As for the question, I buy CDs that deserve to be bought. Downloaded CDs that don't deserve to be bought either never get listened to or get deleted. However, every single CD I own is on my computer and I only keep burned copies in the car incase the cds get scratched (just burn another).


PS - Just something to think about, Less than Jake got big by giving away all of their cds for free. Just something to think about haha.

 

[Bryan R. Tyler]

And really, anybody that's driven out of the music-making business because they're not making enough money, their music can't be that good.

Are you serious? That's one of the most laughably ignorant statements I've ever heard regarding music. I'm not trying to be insulting either-it really is.

 

[Marlat]

Are you serious? That's one of the most laughably ignorant statements I've ever heard regarding music. I'm not trying to be insulting either-it really is.

+1 - although there are about 100 others in this thread alone that show how far detached from reality those that justify their own "stealing" of music really are.