Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ridernyc

    ridernyc Forum Resident

    Location:
    Florida, USA

    False analogy. If I take something physically from a store I'm taking the real object. If I download a digital copy of something The original object is still there.

    Not saying I disagree with you, just pointing out that you can not boil this issue down to simple theft like you want to.
     
  2. subatomic09

    subatomic09 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    That's a relatively recent way to view art, and one that is not universally held. For the great majority of human history, music and stories (two sides of the same coin) belonged to everyone, and were passed freely. We arguably would not have music and literature as we know it if ancient songs and tales were always under some form of copyright. Cross-pollination, the free sharing and remixing of music and fables across cultures and time periods, was crucial to the development of the arts. Have you ever heard of Greek Mystery religions? They kept their stories and teachings closely guarded in vaults, and consequently, they are irrevocably lost. I know I'm opening a whole can of political worms by saying such things, but it's worth noting that the current paradigm of "it's MINE, not YOURS unless you make a sacrifice" has not always been universally de facto.
     
  3. Goratrix

    Goratrix Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Slovakia
    Fixed that for you :cool: You should realize that this is an international forum, and most civilized countries, as opposed to the USA, do have fair use clauses in their laws and allow the creation of copies for personal purposes.
     
  4. Feisal K

    Feisal K Forum Resident

    Location:
    Malaysia
    Goratrix, how do the Slovak courts view this - does Slovak Copyright law apply to American music, or does American law apply?
     
  5. Emberglow

    Emberglow Senior Member

    Location:
    Waterford, Ireland
    If it's OOP then it's unavailable for a legitimate sale. If I really want it the I'll have to beg, steal or borrow. Downloading is way to go.
     
  6. Cymbaline

    Cymbaline Shiny Dog

    Location:
    Buda, TX
    The labels don't like people downloading OOP music? Fine, release it so it can be bought legitimately.
    This doesn't move my guilt meter one iota.
     
  7. Feisal K

    Feisal K Forum Resident

    Location:
    Malaysia
    (again)

    Or put it online somewhere and let people to pay to download it.

    sounds like a no brainer.
     
  8. Cymbaline

    Cymbaline Shiny Dog

    Location:
    Buda, TX
    I would love it if they did that, and probably most of us would too. They're sitting on such huge piles of music in their vaults, most of which will never see the light of day. It wouldn't be that hard to start putting that stuff out there in flac format and sell it online.
     
  9. Aggie87

    Aggie87 Gig 'Em!

    Location:
    Medford, NJ
    You said: "I'm going to automatically assume that anyone who looks down on people who download OOP discs are currently or have in the past or are thinking of in the future trying to hock OOP titles online for a substantial profit."

    Your words, right there. You're saying people that look down on illegal downloading are have, will, or are thinking of trying to sell OOPS discs for profit.

    I replied that I don't do that. No leap of logic required.


    You have STATED that you illegally download music, on this website. It doesn't take a leap of logic for me to believe that you illegally download when you YOURSELF state that you do.
     
  10. Paul H

    Paul H The fool on the hill

    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    Legally, it's wrong. Morally, it's also wrong. Although it doesn't necessarily deprive artist/label of direct royalties it potentially reducing earnings on future releases.

    Say, some DCC titles got reissued: one might be less inclined to buy a genuine copy if one has already "acquired" a download. Of course, the counter argument is that one could buy an OOP title on the second hand market and it would have the same effect...

    It doesn't even have to be the same mastering: how many have downloaded DCC masterings of McCartney's catalogue and are therefore passing on the remasters?
     
  11. Goratrix

    Goratrix Well-Known Member

    Location:
    Slovakia
    Well, that's what you get when you f*** up your customers by creating purely artificial scarcity. The DCC, MFSL, whatever, remasters exist, and they are just 0s and 1s on a hard-drive somewhere. Pressing them on a CD costs a few cents. If the record companies are not willing to do this, to create a product in the best possible quality, and instead offer inferior alternatives, they have no right to complain.
     
  12. sirmikael

    sirmikael Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Let's be real here...the typical music fan doesn't even know what the hell DCC stands for, and they pretty much download whatever has the most seeds.

    Only hardcore fans will seek out a specific release, and I'm sure they're also the type that needs a physical copy as well.
     
  13. ShawnX

    ShawnX Forum Resident

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    So theft requires a physical lose? So no copyright on ideas? If it's not an object - we can't own it?

    This is a bigger issue then just downloading pop songs. We need to be careful moving forward. These are big important issues we are talking about and discarding copyright law becasue we want to hear oop songs seems...drastic.

    We need to think about what this will do in the long-term. Let's be very careful before we start deciding who "stuff" we have the right to take. Your/Our "stuff" may be next.
     
  14. Paul H

    Paul H The fool on the hill

    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    My point was that many of the arguments justifying DLing are based on the argument that they can't buy the item legally and therefore aren't denying the artist of royalties. I'm suggesting that (as with unreleased material) one needs to consider the implications for FUTURE royalties.

    What I've found interesting here is that, across all of the discussion, there seems to be - among those supporting DLing - a view that they have the right to acquire something. And this trumps a) the wishes of the copyright holder, and b) the "laws" of economics.

    The fact that I like something doesn't make it right to acquire a clone of it. Whether this be CDs, shoes, handbags, paintings. If you can't afford a CD/pair of shoes/handbag, its disappointing but, frankly, tough. I find it hard to understand the logic that not being able to afford something justifies taking a copy of it.

    Where I do have sympathy for the argument in favour of DLing is that taking a copy from the internet has no greater impact on an artist's potential revenue than buying a second hand copy. The only difference is that the vendor doesn't get any recompense.

    In some cases, a vendor should get recompense. Say, for example, if he/she has put a lot of effort into sourcing a copy of a disc. However, there are many retailers, for example, who will be given unique promo material and will then sell it on for small fortunes. They haven't earned the right to recompense. But then again, that's market forces for you.
     
  15. ellaguru

    ellaguru Forum Resident

    Location:
    Milan
    im too busy at the green one to comment on this
     
  16. ShawnX

    ShawnX Forum Resident

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    :righton: Just because we want something or it's cost is high, does not give "us" the right to take it.
     
  17. Paul H

    Paul H The fool on the hill

    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    Exactly. It's a very selfish/self-centred view of life. "What I want I should be able to have regardless of the implications this may have for others."
     
  18. sirmikael

    sirmikael Forum Resident

    Location:
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Did you pay for the rights to use your avatar picture?
     
  19. delmonaco

    delmonaco Forum Resident

    Location:
    Sofia, Bulgaria
    Recorded music is not only a comercial product, but it is also art, and once published, it is a significant part of the human culture, and if one needs to have a certain piece of this culture, and there's no way to have it legally and to pay for it, to me it is absolutely acceptable to download it if he can find it somewhere. To my understanding, if someone own the rights for some popular artistic product, and for some reason keep it unavailable for long period, he shows lack of responsibility and respect to the product itself and to the public.
     
  20. chriss71

    chriss71 Active Member

    Location:
    Austria
    Is it wrong? YES
    Can I understand it? YES

    I am the opinion that music is ART! So, the record companies or the artists have the obligation that I can buy their products. If not, it is NOT legal to download but I understand it.
     
  21. jupiter8

    jupiter8 Forum Resident

    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Some day hopefully almost every thing will be available as high quality downloads you can purchase. As cool as it can be, I really don't care about packaging, limited editions, etc-I just want the music. And for some artists I like, it can be nearly impossible to find. For example, I love Lee Hazlewood. I have nearly all of his US pressings, but his reissues were treated poorly about 10 years ago, have gone out of print, he's dead, and who knows what the state of his masters are and who owns them and if they even have any interest in marketing them. I don't have the time or cash to go out and get a bunch of 40 year old Swedish pressings if I want something I don't have, but would buy downloads in a heartbeat!
     
  22. Raf

    Raf Senior Member

    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    Easy on him. He's only eleven years old.
     
  23. ShawnX

    ShawnX Forum Resident

    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan
    Yep:sigh::angel:
     
  24. Pavol Stromcek

    Pavol Stromcek Senior Member

    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    The great Brazilian bossa nova legend Carlos Lyra once said in an interview that while he's opposed to illegal downloading, he has no problem with people downloading OOP music as a way to put pressure on labels to keep OOP albums in print. But once they're back in circulation, people need to buy them. From an artist's perspective, this makes tons of sense to me.

    On the topic of Brazilian music blog Loronix, Carlos Lyra said this:

    "Loronix, as far as I know, is a site that offers only discs which are no longer sold and, therefore, cannot be purchased by anybody. It is an incentive to record labels which, now, can identify the ones which are being downloaded more frequently and release them again. There are some albums which are not available in Brazil but are sold in the US or Japan and, therefore, can be acquired though the internet; in my opinion, they should not be offered for free. It is important to understand that composers live off their work."
     
  25. Paul H

    Paul H The fool on the hill

    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    I think you're mistaking "need" for "want". I can't think of a single circumstance in my life where I've needed any single piece of music. I'm sure there are occasions where music has literally saved lives but I don't think anyone here has had a need to download vast catalogues of material.

    So what "rights" exactly, does this person retain? I mean, if he "owns" the rights, what rights does he own? Because it seems to me that what you're suggesting is that he has NO rights at all; that he has defaulted on his rights because he didn't actually give them up for your benefit anyway.

    This can't actually work in any real way. This model is, actually, the complete abolition of copyright: it says that once a work has been made/published it ceases to be owned by it's maker in any real way and that the maker gives up the right to earn a living from it.

    In this world, how would any artist make any money? Why would anyone make anything?

    For your suggestion to work, it would require every work of art and every version/mastering/edition of it to stay in print for ever. Which, of course, is what we all want :) but it's also utterly unsustainable.

    I think people have to accept that there are things in life that they just can't have (for whatever reason) and the simple fact of them not being able to have it is not a valid excuse for just taking it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine