Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

I'm not picking on you or anything, but it's honestly kind of similar. A photographer took that photograph, and it's now readily available out on Google for anyone to use, for free. I'm sure he/she would love to get royalties every time someone used it.

 

Absolutely right. But the fact that someone is doing wrong doesn't undermine their argument if they say it is wrong. It isn't hypocritical.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough - I meant publishing rights.

I don't say that piracy have to be encouraged, and I am totally agree that because of the free downloads there is a danger in near future that there will be nothing new and valuable in the recording industry - it's a real plague, especially for the young artists, struggling to make a recording carreer.

I only say that if the owner of the publishing rights doesn't care for the product, and keep it unavailable for long period, I find it's absolutely acceptable to download it if it exist somewhere, or let say, if a friend of mine have it, to ask for a copy - I don't think I will do any harm to the rights owner if he is not interested to sell anyway.

And believe me, there are lot of people that really have certain cultural needs.

 

Public Domain was a fantastic thing until Mickey Mouse.

Just look at how many small companies are searching for and restoring old public domain films. Do you really think the movie studios would care enough to restore these films? The only reason these films get restored is because they are in the public domain.

 

If something is OOP I see no difference between buying it used and downloading it. If money does not go to the artist or record companies either way, why should a record store or individual profit from the sale?

That said, I like owning physical product so I buy used OOP discs almost every week. But in theory I see no moral difference between acquiring OOP materials through downloading or buying used.

 

If the recording in question is copyrighted and not deliberately being given away free by the coyright holder, yes it is wrong. As long as we as a society still believe in private property and have laws to protect it, that is. The fact that it is OOP doesn't change the fact that there is an owner who may at some point in time decide to sell and distribute said music for generating income. If, through the years, people have illegally downloaded the music in question, the owner will have fewer customers when and if he or she decides to reissue. It's the same with copying books, etc. Sometimes an individual can get permission from an author or publisher to make a copy for personal use of an OOP book, and I imagine the same might be true for recordings of music.

 

To be completely honest, I do whatever I want when it comes to downloading. I truly don't care whether or not it's legal. Interestingly, I actually do pay for about 99 percent of what I download, FWIW. Quality of the track(s) is paramount.

 

I agree with your first point, but I disagree that it isn't hypocritical. Or maybe we define "hypocritical" differently? I always believed that a person who does not practice what they preach is a hypocrite. Your use of the avatar image without compensating the artist would seem contrary to what you are preaching, yes?

 

But ....but.....but
Wer'e jabbering about ART here!
And a bunch of these posters have serious Cultural NEEDS!

 

It would be my guess that most people who "download music" are not particular whether something is OOP or not. I have never downloaded music, and would take the time, and spend the money to have an "original".

 

The issue has been muddied by the attachment of the music and the value of the recording product with the hard physical media. This had been reflected in the laws, for example regarding making personal backup copies, provision for taxes or surcharges on recordable media sales, etc. A different (and perhaps clarifying) perspective has emerged since digital music files have become completely separate from discs or tapes.

 

how is a recording that was made and released to the public "private property"?

 

In my opinion, if I bought a current, in-print copy of something and a there exists a superior copy of the same recording that is out-of-print, I don’t think it’s immoral to DL a digital copy of that unavailable, superior copy if I can’t buy it on the marketplace.

For example, Zappa cd’s. A lot of Zappa CD’s currently on the market sound horrible. If I own, say “Zoot Allures” on CD (which SQ is inferior to the original LP), or “Hot Rats” on CD (which is very different from the original out-of-print LP release) I don’t think it’s immoral to DL a digitized needledrop of said albums.

Illegal perhaps, but not immoral.

Also, if I have a copy of “Zoot Allures” on vinyl LP, I don’t believe it immoral to download a digitized needledrop of same. (Probably not illegal either, because Digital Rights Act allows you to own one digital copy of something you already have, but I’m no lawyer)

 

A better description would be "offered for sale" rather than "released to the public." Recordings that are not legally in the public domain are private property being shared for usage of a copy, for a price to whomever buys. The consumer owns the media or downloaded file, and the playable copy of the recording residing on the media (or downloaded) for personal use, but not the recording itself.

 

What if you DL'd it, find that you don’t like it, and you don't listen to it. If it became available in physical format, would you feel obligated to buy?

 

What's this "we/our" talk?
Unless you are an industry lobbyists, member of Congress, or a federal court judge "we/us" don’t have any say in this future you speak of.

 

+1 Agree 100%.

 

The poll results speak for themselves.

 

I'm glad that I wasn't the only one confused with that response!!

 

How is that different from borrowing the album from a friend and finding out you don't like it? Do I have to pay for every song my cousin plays from his iPod while we're driving downtown for the weekend?

Computers cost money, internet access costs money, electricity costs money, so if I download an album to check it out before buying, and find out I don't like it, I'm not going to keep it, nor did I get it for "free".

 

Cars cost money.
Gas costs money.
So if I drive to a new restaraunt to check out the food and hate it and run out the door without paying....hey....it really wasn't "free". After all , I didn't like it and will be evacuating it real soon.

 

That analogy doesn't work. You're still going to be getting nutrients from the food, your hunger is satiated, and you removed food from the restaurants inventory. If I cobble together an album out of videos on youtube, and find out I don't like it, I didn't benefit in any way. I wasted bandwidth, I wasted time, and I didn't remove a physical copy from a store that another person cannot walk in and buy.

This is why downloading cannot be compared to theft. We're talking about a new way of listening and experiencing music. It's more akin to test-driving a car. Do you have to pay Ford to walk onto a lot and take a car for a test drive? Does Atomic Records charge its customers for standing at their listening counter?

 

Opinion and legality is not always 1:1.

 

If it's locked in a vault and never going to be released (as far as can be ascertained) then to all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Most people who would download existing copies would likely be happy to pay for a CD or vinyl release but if the record companies figure it's uneconomical to release then it seems to it's open season and nothing morally wrong with obtaining copies however you can.

Record company's choice.

 

Not to sidestep your question, but I was asking the poster "Bill Camarata" from his post #10 if he still knows he will buy an official release when available when he DL'd a digital copy and it sucks. I wasn't making an argument here, I'm only curious what Bill has to say about this.

If I buy a crowbar from Home Depot, a bus ticket from Greyhound, and a black skull cap from a costume shop to break into Bill Gates's mansion his purloined stuff wasn't free? Is that your argument?

?