Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

At this point though how hard is it for something to be profitable. I'm amazed more archival stuff has not showed up online for sale. I can understand you don't want to press a ton of CDs by some obscure jazz artist, but really how hard would it be to just throw the stuff online. It makes you realize that the music industry is so blinded by the illegal download wars and don't care about anyone who never hit a certain level of fame that they are sitting on a giant pile of cash and don't even know it.

 

Likewise for several of the Audio Fidelity gold CDs and SACDs that are now out-of-print. Okay to download them (just the redbook layers of the SACDs, of course), too, as soon as they are determined to be "out of print"?

I seem to recall, though, that a few Audio Fidelity discs were "out of print" for a while, then Audio Fidelity decided to press some more and reintroduce them to the marketplace.

Was it okay to download the music from those discs for free during the time they were not actively being printed and listed for sale online?

What about titles that are "out of print" (meaning the license holder chooses not to, or is contractually unable to, print more copies beyond what has already been printed) but for which new copies are still available for purchase somewhere in the world, perhaps only for what the consumer considers "too high" a price to afford? Okay to download those?

Craig.

 

Nope.

 

The lesson that should be learned is these things have a huge demand keep them in print.

 

If I can't buy a single disc album for under $20.00, I'll either have someone burn it for me, download it or forget about it.

 

This is the center of the problem. We have a gap between what we can do, because of technology (and IMO the technology here is digital sound recording, not the internet, not p2p, not 'hotfile' of any of it's ilk) and what keeps an industry afloat.

It's as well that most music consumers still buy stuff.

I'd be interested to see non-litigious solutions to downloading/sharing implemented.

If you couldn't download those desirable gold DCC bits and burn them to sexy MoFi CDRS, would the collector's price go up? (generating another round of profit-taking and selling through the collector/music store chain), and wouldn't that be a good thing?

Or would the big guys return to back-office burning towers and selling under the counters? I do note that the original question was about downloading, which is only one method of obtaining a copy.

 

Why would they be an exception? They fit the criteria (OOP.)

 

I would gladly shell out money to by a CD or even a legitimate FLAC download of Bob Seger's "Back in '72," but HE doesn't want it released. Do I respect his artistic wishes and deny myself the opportunity to hear it? Will he be upset if I buy it on Ebay? What's difference between that and downloading an illegal file? To me it kind of like trying to pull an embarrassing video down from the Internet. Once it's out there, it's out there.

 

I explained the difference between an illegal download and purchasing a used copy in Post 47.

 

I agree the industry is blinded by stupidity and greed. They are sitting on a pile of cash; if they were simply greedy and not also stupid they might realize the potential.
They should digitize the vaults and sell downloads online.
It's crystal clear that the music industry has failed to innovate in the internet age.
Even titles with minimal interest would be profitable.
Instead they're all hung up on DRM and ridiculous lawsuits.

 

You're assuming, as many do, that a workable 'online' site is easy to create and maintain. It's not. That's why owners sell their stuff on Amazon and iTunes, agreeing that those companies take a lot of their profit away. A&I win here, due to their past investment in their systems.

 

They just need to monetize one of the private trackers. Hell the work has already been in done for them in bit perfection with log files. But instead of seeing there new market place they just see thieves.

 

See post before this one, it's already been done and it was actually very easy. The sites and archives are out there being traded, all they need is a membership fee.

 

If that makes sense to you, it makes sense to you, there is certainly no coherent legal argument and it certainly makes no sense to me. About 99% of recorded music I might want has been available for me to purchase, the 1% that isn't is in that state as a result of one of three general reasons:

1) Legal issues.
2) Deliberately withheld.
3) The artists/rights owners are trying to get it available but so far haven't and may never be able to.

Of course recordings that are OOP fall in those categories just the same as recorded music that has never been released. I see nothing about any of the three that justify theft. I am thankful that so much of the music that has been recorded is available at reasonable prices and even then, I can't afford everything but the few instances of music or specific masterings I might want and don't own because it is unavailable for purchase or priced too high will have to wait or I will have to live without.

 

I have used download cards from tiny indie labels who had downloads available using codes. I don't think it's that tough.

 

Nothing grey about it...it's illegal

 

Not to mention everyone puts everything on iTunes anyway. There took me 2 seconds, store front problem solved.

 

Sorry, missed that when I was skimming when I should have been reading.

At this point, is it realistic to think anyone can stop people from sharing files? Is it fair to buy a used CD when it's still readilly available in print? Sure the CD was bought and sold already, but should I be able to buy one of the thousands of used copies of R.E.M.'s "Monster" when it is still in print? Yes, I understand why it's illegal to download music that you didn't pay for, but why is that worse than paying someone for used music versus buying it new and supporting the artist (and record label?) Of course, this has probably been covered and just need to read.

 

Some are monetized, it's just not music industry money.

Not everyone is comfortable getting their music that way.

Unfortunately, even the models for commercial digital non-physical product we have at the moment aren't the ones we need to make the system viable.

e.g. even if everything non-physical were bought through Amazon and iTunes the music industry cut still wouldn't keep it solvent. Apple and Amazon would be fine until the sales dropped as the flow of new content slowed.

 

That costs them the same as producing a physical release item. The split is similar to Amazon/itunes.

 

Maybe not exactly this, but something innovative. I get your point though; with the peer to peer tech. that exists they could do something to take advantage of it,
perhaps reduce server costs by giving customers a discount for seeding to other customers. The slightest bit of creativity could create a profitable business model.

 

I voted it is wrong. The DCC and MOFIs may be out of print, but the titles are usually available on other labels.

 

Court holdings are relevant only to legality not morality, unless one has a flexible enough moral code that it changes whenever a new court decision is issued anywhere in the world, or when one crosses state lines

 

There is no way the costs are similar.

 

If that were true, the indie labels would compete with the major ones.