Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by J. R., Apr 6, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J. R.

    J. R. Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Do you think downloading music which is OOP is wrong/illegal? For example, all of the DCC titles and the older MFSL titles. These are for sale, many at high prices, on EBay and Amazon, etc., but they are no longer licensed and no fee goes to the company, artists, etc. if the physical disc is sold.

    I am not condoning anything - just thought it was an interesting question.
     
  2. bluesbro

    bluesbro Forum Hall of Shame

    Location:
    DC
    Its illegal no matter what you think
     
  3. audiomixer

    audiomixer As Bald As The Beatles

    Yes, it is...
     
  4. Doug Schiller

    Doug Schiller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Is it illegal, yes?
    Do I think it is wrong?, nope.

    Make it available for me to purchase, and I will.

    Me thinks this thread isn't long for this world.
     
  5. I say no - if it's otherwise unavailable, where's the harm?

    I say this with respect to the music proper, not the mastering though; in the sorts of instances you cite the music is still in print. And while I appreciate your point, this is certainly more sketchy for me. Also, I would think that illicitly downloading a DCC/MFSL master would compromise the SQ anyway, so it seems a bit pointless.
     
  6. PH416156

    PH416156 Alea Iacta Est

    Location:
    Europe
    not to nitpick, but the question should be "is downloading oop masterings of commonly available and in print music wrong"?

    by the way, it's illegal.

    IBTL
     
  7. yamfox

    yamfox Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    I think this is a situation where it is morally OK.
    The artist isn't making money from you buying copies for $100s off eBay.
    You don't want to make it available, you don't get my money.
     
  8. Turnaround

    Turnaround The Universe Smiles Upon You

    Location:
    New York
    You are confounding different ideas. Versions of music may be out of print, but the music itself is not out of print.

    For example, say in 2005, they issued Dan Brown's book, The Da Vinci Code, with a special gold-colored cover. Nowadays, the book is sold with a maroon-colored cover. The gold-colored version of the book is now long out of print, but the book itself is still in print -- just has a very different looking cover.

    Would you say that because the gold-colored version of the book is out of print, if you found a copy of that gold colored version, it would be legal or okay to photocopy, reproduce and distribute The Da Vinci Code?
     
  9. CraigVC

    CraigVC Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Focusing just on the poll question (the original poster brings up a different example in the first post of this thread, as others have pointed out), here's another way to approach the question:

    "Is it wrong for anyone in the world to download music that I created, released, and own the rights to, if I am not actively making new physical copies of the music available for sale at this time?"

    I wonder if the answer would be different in that case. It's really the same question, just from the perspective of the creator and/or license holder of the music, rather than the consumer's perspective.

    Craig.
     
  10. Bill Camarata

    Bill Camarata Listening When Possible

    Location:
    Cleveland, OH, USA
    If I DL'ed something and it becomes available, I know I'll buy it! If I can get it in another format, I'll buy that instead of DLing it. That was what I used the original Napster for back in the day.
    But DLing something to avoid the purchase? Illegal, immoral, and stupid.
     
  11. Turnaround

    Turnaround The Universe Smiles Upon You

    Location:
    New York
    You could also ask the same question of in-print CDs. If you buy a used, in-print CD at the used CD store (which is legal), no fee goes to the company, artist, etc.

    I think you also have to distinguish what OOP versus in-print really means to a question like this, if your answer hinges on whether or not the company, artist, etc. gets paid in your acquisition of the music.
     
  12. stenway

    stenway Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    is illegal but I dont care, but! I dont download why?

    I really hate all that "tricks" of music industry... "limited editions" reissued repacked etc... etc... but well thats the really so prices are toooooo high later.

    why I dont download? I hate bad rippings! ripping like a pro is so easy, why people rip bad your cds?

    just my opinion...
     
  13. Doug Schiller

    Doug Schiller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    To turn your analogy back on you...

    If that Gold-colored version of the Da Vinci Code had an extra paragraph, and extra chapter that better explains the plot, had the same chapters written slightly different that you may or may not find interesting as a fan of the work.

    And the owner of that work is refusing to offer it for sale and probably never will which means you will never lay your eyes on it...
     
  14. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Senior Member

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    probably illegal (unless it is covered by fair use), not immoral if either
    (a) the music is OOP completely, not just a specific mastering
    (b) you already purchased the music in a format in which it is legally available
     
  15. CraigVC

    CraigVC Senior Member

    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Well, the owner of that work certainly has acquired/purchased/earned that right to refuse to offer it for sale again, so. . . .

    Are you suggesting that morality (and/or legality) changes depending on the perspective of the interested parties?

    Craig.
     
  16. Turnaround

    Turnaround The Universe Smiles Upon You

    Location:
    New York
    What if the OP pays for the current version of the music at the store, THEN downloads the OOP DCC or MFSL version that he really prefers?

    Would that put the world into balance? :laugh:

    Seriously, legality is pretty much yes or no. But on morality, there's really three options: No, Yes, and Yes but I don't care.
     
  17. stenway

    stenway Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    A good CD price it would be $5. yes with that prices nobody download anything... everybody buy cds, but $25 and around is expensive for one CD
     
  18. Rfreeman

    Rfreeman Senior Member

    Location:
    Lawrenceville, NJ
    I think we really need an option for the grey areas being discussed, which is why I did not participate in the poll
     
  19. vinylsolution

    vinylsolution Forum Resident

    Location:
    Denver, CO, USA
    I feel it is equally as wrong as perpetually repackaging, remastering, and reissuing the same recordings over and over without full disclosure of what makes the newest one the best, and offering a trade-in policy.
     
  20. I'd like to think tht I'd be consistent - I wouldn't be suffering any loss, and no one else is profiting. If it bugged me, it would be in my interest to make it available again to prevent (to some degree, anyway) such things from happening. I may not want to - after all, some artists are embarassed by their early efforts or by work perceived to be compromised - but I would have been fine with it being released at one time, and shouldn't let my ego get in the way if there's demand for the work. If I did, well, tough nuts.
     
  21. Expectant One

    Expectant One Well-Known Member

    My short answer is NO. My long answer is not fit for this forum. ;)
     
  22. curbach

    curbach Some guy on the internet

    Location:
    The ATX
    This is an interesting twist on things. But realistically, how many artists not named Neil Young do not want their recorded works to be available? Isn't it generally a record company decision that certain titles are just not profitable enough to keep available? I guess if you are the artist you'd prefer if your fans would wait patiently until you found some other way to get the album back out there. But I think most fans would buy a legit copy when it became available even if they have already resorted to an illegal download in the meantime. . .
     
  23. Doug Schiller

    Doug Schiller Forum Resident

    Location:
    Tampa Bay
    Not sure what you mean.

    I'm not talking about taking said work and making photocopies and selling it out of my trunk after my book club meetings.

    I'm talking about something that
    a) isn't for sale
    b) easily available
    c) for my enjoyment

    If the book I used in my example is sitting out at a table, am I morally wrong to pick it up and leaf through it???
    I've read it 1,000 times, know it back and forth, and this is a unique version that I will never see.

    Even though it is not an OOP item, an example for me is one of my favorite albums, Blood on the Tracks by Bob Dylan.

    There was an early version that most know about that has 1/2 the songs acoustic.

    As a huge fan of the record, I should forgo any chance to listen to it in my life simply because the owner's don't want to release it?

    It's their right not to release it, but if I get the chance to hear it, I will.

    And you know what, if they release a super duper BOTT special edition with it on it, I'll happily buy it.
     
  24. sirmikael

    sirmikael Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Agreed on all counts.
     
  25. dbmay75

    dbmay75 Funk & Guitar Junkie

    The album is no longer in print. You cannot buy it via a source that would eventually deliver a royalty check to the artist or label. The artist and record company won't make a dime off the guy who sells it for $100+ on eBay. If you're personally curious about the sound and you want to hear how potentially amazing it is before you plunk down the big bucks and you have no intentions of exploiting or reselling the music on a CD-R in a Wal-Mart parking lot for $5 a pop, then no, I don't think it's wrong.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine