Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

Illegal and wrong for copyrighted works. The owners have the right to release or not to release their work. They have the right to control it and make it available in the context / form they so choose.

You can try and justify / rationalize it six weeks from Sunday but it's still wrong. Just because you can do it does not make it right. Just because you want something does not make it right to take it.

 

I don't rationalize it, I don't think it's wrong and most of all, I don't let other people determine what is right or wrong for me. Just like I don't determine what is right or wrong for others.

We're all adults here, right?

(sorry, I tried to say that last part with a straight face and then I suddenly realized where I am.)

 

Wrong? Well...I would have to say "yes", but...c'mon! It's not a high crime or anything.

However, it is someones "work" -and this is important.

Because "they" chose not to make it available, does not give you ownership over their property. If you own a...car and chosen not to use it, does not give someone else the "right" to use it.

It's not an easy question and it is important if a copyright is going to mean anything in the future. Be very careful what you wish for...

 

Yes it is.

 

Nope.

 

I disdain illegal downloading. I do not think about trying to "hock" any of my cds for profit, and never have. I fail to see how you can make the leap of logic that you did in your argument.

You have the legal right to resell anything you rightfully own. The artist/producer has been rightfully paid for that copy of that recording (or whatever product).

I cans sleep at night knowing the recordings I have in my possession have been rightfully and legally acquired and the people who deserve compensation have been compensated. I don't think you can make that same claim.

 

I never said that someone DIDN'T have the legal right to resell anything they owned. I fail to see how you can make the leap of logic that you did in your argument.

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't have recordings in my possession that the artist has been compensated for. I'm pretty sure Best Buy, CD Warehouse, Streetside Records, Capital One, Empire Bank, Paypal, and private sellers on Amazon Marketplace would disagree with you heavily there.

 

So what is the difference between downloading and buying an album used, as it relates to money for the artist or their intentions on making a particular version of that album commercially available? The CD that was ripped and posted was originally purchased by someone, just as that used CD was.

There are a lot of great points being made that apply pretty equally to used CDs as they do downloads, yet most folks don't think twice about buying something used in a shop or on eBay but are so critical of downloading.

Just a thought...

 

Because they're hypocrites and they're trying to make some bucks on OOP discs online. Their used market goes away pretty quickly when others have access to cheaper copies of the same thing they're selling.

 

Somewhat related...is making mix tapes/CDs for friends wrong?

 

It is illegal. But legality wasn't the point of the thread.

This is a question of justice, not law.

I would support the action as illegal, but effective protest against the music industry's deceptive marketing and poor quality control.

To paraphrase Kill Bill 2, "the only thing you (companies) respect is f'ing with your cash".

Legality isn't the issue. It's a question of justice. The record companies made their beds, and if someone downloads a superior mastering than they can be bothered to produce, they deserve all they get.

At the same time, the people like Audio Fidelity and Mofi who DO work towards the production of a top quality product likewise deserve to have their product bought. This too is justice.

Once they have sold all of their production run and their mastering is OOP, the scales of justice return to the former condition, regardless of the position of the law.

Many great justice movements began with the breaking of laws. The position of law is not an excuse to avoid contemplating and considering justice.

Some laws, and I'm pretty sure most will agree, are pretty stupid. I am not citing copyright laws specifically here, just that laws are not automatically "right". They are merely punishable.

Think of all the great museum artifacts that are perfectly preserved and experienced broadly today because 100 years ago they were illegally smuggled out of their native country, who probably would not have been able to successfully preserve them.

ccm

 

X2 Agreed.

 

I believe this falls under fair use as long as you aren't profiting from it and no one else is at the expense of the copyright owner. It's the same situation that allows you to make CDR's of music you already own.

 

Suppose someone takes your wallet. If the person doesn't feel that it was wrong to do so does that make it moral? If it's OK with me that they did so does that make it right?

And, to answer you big question, even is we are we don't necessarily act like one ;-).

 

It is wrong, and the OPs example was a bad one.

 

Mixtapes for friends doesn't fall under fair use, as far as I can tell. Not a lawyer tho)

http://library.stanford.edu/cpyright.html

 

Illegal, duh!

Wrong? Well, I don't feel bad about it. If it was in print, I'd totally buy it. Thank goodness for the internet so I can still hear things like Opal, Rick Danko, Wall of Voodoo, etc.

 

As long as you're not planning on making bootlegs of it and selling it on ebay, it is not wrong.

 

And a very astute thought it was - well stated, imho.

 

I'm willing to purchase a legit copy of a vinyl box set of 45 rpm LPs of the artists discography. Unfortunately, the box set was sold out many many years ago. I've even looked into purchasing the box set from re-sellers who have upped the price 6 times what it initially was selling for. I was still interested, couldn't find one. Then, I was provided a link to a site that had hi-rez files of the said collectors box. I saved probably 3k, got the files and sleep like a baby at night.

My point is, if these albums were available, I'd purchase them, but since they no longer are in production and not for sale through the record label, then I see nothing wrong with me using a download service from someone I don't even know to get those files. What would be different if the guy down the street let me barrow his collection so I could make digital copies for my personal use?

 

I could care less if its illegal or not. if its OOP, how the hell else are you supposed to get if you cant afford to pay big $$ for it somewhere else. Look at it this way, if you like what you hear, I'd say you're more likely to go out an actually buy something else from the same artist. Just because it's illegal doesnt mean its morally wrong. In this case, I'd say it isnt wrong at all.

 

Or, forget the digital copies, what if he just had you over for a listen? Copyright extremists might interpret that as a "public performance". 2 not public enough for you? What if you played a cut off of it at a meeting of your local audio club?

This problem will all be solved when Orwell's vision is achieved and our televisions start monitoring our behavior in the home. Then we can all behave fully legally and everything will be right in the world.

ccm

 

48 people want you to buy their copies.

 

That's a concept of fair use unknown in law. And it is defined in law. See fl102 below.

There's nothing in any law about making copies, even of stuff you own, that excludes you from obeying copyright law. See digital faq below.

You can say it's fair, not wrong, or even accepted behavior but you can't say the copyright statutes allow it.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html

 

I understand how you feel, but...

If a store is closed and "we" still want what is in the store..."we" should just... take it? Smash the window and "take it". As long as a majority thinks it is ok...well, it ok. Is that what you are saying? I know that's not what you are saying, but it starts us down that path.

I'm sorry, but the music is not ours to take. Someone worked/produced to make it. They own it. Not "us". Without the worker/producer - no product, no music...nothing. If they want to sell it - we can buy it. Otherwise...

But hey, I certainly understand. Lots and lots of music that is OOP that I "want" or at least want to hear, but...

It's an interesting and important topic. The future of more then music will be decided in the outcome.