Let's Agree, Illegal Downloads Suck - Part 2

Correct. So in both cases the artist got paid for one copy.

And let's not forget that the guy who bought the original disc (or maybe it was also a second hand copy? Maybe he was the 99th person to get his hands on that copy) and then sold it back to the store (where you later picked it up, you are now owner #100 of that copy) first made a cd-r copy of it for himself, or simply copied it to his computer. Just like the previous 98 owners had done.

 

Yep. It stands to reason that people who buy used CDs are more likely to sell or trade used CDs. Furthermore, if you ever have traded or sold a CD, now you have actually profited monetarily from the same artist's work without paying a cent to the artist you're pretending to defend.

I wish the people who are "anti-piracy" would tell the truth and say that they don't download because; they don't know how, are afraid of viruses or like having a physical product, instead of standing on hypocritical moral highground. Someone who really cares about artists getting paid, would be physically repulsed to even consider buying a used copy of something.

 

Selling a cd and keeping a copy of it is illegal. Just like illegal downloading.

 

When was the first CD recorder/copier made available? What did they think was going to happen?
(Not aimed at anyone, but this digital copying/downloading was inevitable IMO, maybe not for much longer unless it moves to the dark web whatever that is.)

 

I worked in a recording studio in '93-'94, and the CD burner there cost $8,000 and the blanks were over $10 each. I remember we all had to tip-toe if a CD was burning, in fear that the write would fail as was prone to happen.

 

And to think- now you can 3D scan an LP & then use a 3D printer to produce a copy- they're not great at this point, but as the technology advances, I'm sure this will be done more & more. Music piracy has now come full circle.

 

You can also make the argument that if a person "sells" music to another individual, it frees up money for one to go out and purchase new and additional music and therefore adding royalties to the third party.

When you sell your used music to another party, you give up your right to play the piece of music unless you repurchase it again at a later date.

Unlike like that of a piece of computer software which does not let you transfer those rights because they have the ability to link it to a specific machine, digital music does not have the same ability and it does not serve their business model in the same way.

 

You can also make the argument that if a person "sells" LSD to a 4-year old girl, it frees up money for one to go out and purchase new and additional music and therefore adding royalties to the third party.

 

Again I'll ask: in what country is it illegal to download? I might be more inclined to listen to your arguments against what might be better termed "unauthorized downloading" if you folks laid off the hyperbole.

Downloading is not illegal, it's not a criminal act, therefore this "illegal downloading" business is frankly BS and insulting to those who do it.

As many have stated repeatedly they find they BUY more music now because they can download it for a listen, so it's not as clear cut an issue as some of you make it out to be. There's a lot of gray area here.

 

...at the very same moment you were doing this, I was doing the exact same thing - recording the top songs of '71. And I still have the cassette too, somewhere in a box. In between songs, I said "Happy New Year, it just became 1972 and there's lots of firecrackers going off outside" along with some other mumblings. I had to talk quietly, as everyone in the house was already asleep. There I was, alone in my bedroom in Bradenton, FL listening to AM 930 (WKXY, Sarasota) with my cheap Craig cassette recorder with mic and a 6 Transistor AM radio (no patch cord or line in on that cheap unit). And for years, I used to play that tape along with all the others I made during the early 70s, I certainly never thought of it as bootlegging/pirating anything.

 

I like the Library analogy, or maybe a museum. Providing access to knowledge, information and culture without respect for the economic ability to buy/own it. If you want the physical item (book, print, cd, vinyl) you can buy it, but if you just want the exposure to the culture/knowledge, access is open to all.

I think to discuss the issues in uncompensated downloading, you need to separate the arguments against it and discuss them separately.
The immoral/ethical argument ( It's wrong.)
Economic (It hurts artists/industry)
Legal (It's a crime)
Etc.

Otherwise so much is just assumed. For example, people talk as if the capitalistic production/distribution system is somehow eternal, not historical and just a given, but what about the patronage system of kings etc. That went away and was replaced.
I believe when radio and phonographs came out, musicians lamented the end of live music and the end/reduction of that form of economic lively hood, but again, time moved forward.

For me, it is a historical process of change, not some fixed, natural, moral, eternal system.
Or as someone else put it ..."Natural's Not In It".