Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

No.
It is YOUR choice.
You control your own actions.

 

If someone leaves a stack of CD's on a park bench that they've burned and told people take whatever they want for free, how many would decline do you think? And how many would feel they were committing a crime?

 

I personally don't know a single music fan that doesn't download at least some music for free and/or share music with cds burns and mixes. That's how you spread the word.

And as far as artists are concerned, they should be more worried if people are not downloading their music.

 

That's not the question being asked, now is it?

 

No, because like I said in my response to rene smallridge, downloading an album does not remove a physical copy from circulation, which is why the average filesharer can only be sued and not criminally prosecuted (note: average filesharer, not content distributor who rips and uploads copyrighted works onto a private server for distribution). Your example of breaking into Bill Gates' house involves destruction and removal of property. I really dislike these analogies because they muddy the issue by making inaccurate comparisons and pretending that they are the same thing.

My point is that there is a spectrum at play here, and blanketing that spectrum with one comparison doesn't work. I do not think that test-driving an album before purchase is as immoral as leeching hundreds of albums from private torrenting sites. The same as I don't think test-driving a car is the same as stealing one off the lot.

 

Now this was funny!

 

Now if someone home taped a rare, long OOP album - THAT would be a real crime.

 

I think your right - Thankfully, it just a picture of some friends (unless I'm mistaken).

 

Of course I do and I would choose to grab a copy if one was made available to me. If the record company wants to sell me one then fine. If they don't then I'll happily take a download copy. I have no qualms about that.

 

I may be wrong here (I ain't no walking dictionary) but I think that acknowledging I'm doing wrong isn't hypocritical. I occasionally break the speed limit. I know it's wrong. Acknowledging that it is wrong doesn't make me a hypocrit.

I'd be a hypocrit if I told you not to break the speed limit, or criticised or punished you for breaking the speed limit.

Let me be clear: I'm not criticising anyone for illegal downloading and, as much as anyone here, I feel the frustration. But the question was a simple one: is it "right?" That's all I'm commenting on.

And let's be clear: the internet has given us all the opportunity to carry out acts we wouldn't do outside of it. I can be as rude and abusive as I like about anyone without having to make eye contact or fear any form of reprisal. I'm not at risk of being hit and the chances of me being arrested or fined are pretty slim too.

The internet is the wild west, a place where our actions have few if any negative consequences. It has engendered a perception that we can take what we want, when we want.

Remember the days when the only illegal material existed on vinyl and CD? We were slightly more circumspect. We had to undertake our shady deals in public and we were a tad more careful. We knew we risked being caught. Put bluntly, we knew it was wrong but we still did it because we couldn't resist.

But the key phrase there is that we knew it was wrong. The privacy and lack of risk has allowed us to relax, to carry out the act more freely. And that increased activity brings about two human responses: either we accept our guilt and, well, feel guilty. Or we do the easier thing, which is invent excuses and justifications to persuade ourselves that we aren't, in fact, doing wrong. But, when all is said and done, we are breaking the laws of copyright. End of.

 

I've purchased more versions of Who's Next, Tommy, Live At Leeds and Dark Side Of The Moon, that I feel I get a pass when a new version appears. Before buying yet another version of the physical media, I want to verify that it's money well spent. If I like it, I'm buying it.

 

So if you bought a current model of a car that was inferior (in your opinion) to a previously available model, you think it morally acceptable to acquire FOR FREE that earlier model?

You see, I think a record company, like any other company, should reserve the right to alter the product available however they see fit. If you wish to change models, that's your prerogative but, clearly, only if you're prepared to pay for it. Otherwise, there'd be no innovation as there'd be no incentive to manufacture improved product. We'd still be driving Model T Fords Or listening to shellac 78s...

 

It can. It is reducing potential future revenue.

Clearly, it isn't the same as stealing because that is taking physical product without paying and, as clearly pointed out - nothing gets removed. Waters are muddied further because many who download may well ultimately go on to legally purchase the material they have downloaded. But that's merely making good on an injury caused.

Sure, this is more subtle than mere theft but that doesn't make it right nor justifiable.

It would be enlightening to carry out a poll of the following question:

How many people - if they downloaded an OOP album - would buy it if it was reissued?

Any response less than 100% would confirm that, in any real sense, theft - in terms of lost income and the acquisition of a good without paying - had taken place.

 

If the company that updated or improved the product no longer carries the old one?

Then the only option is the used or secondary aftermarket. If so, whether the person acquired that 'original' for free - or purchased it - isn't relevant from the companies perspective. They only offer the new product. The old one was abandoned. They don't gain or lose; the purchaser never wanted their current product.

 

You're a troll. You're saying I can't claim the same as you (that I have recordings that the artists have been compensated for) when you know full well that I do and that everyone on this board has massive music collections that they've paid for.

Either that or you're ignorant of the fact that bank accounts have nothing to do with free music online. But I'm going with the troll aspect.

 

The outlandish comparisons in this thread are great! Keep 'em coming!

 

Well, in my case: if I liked the album and kept the download, absolutely I would. As far as I'm concerned a free download of an album is a stopgap measure in the absence of a new or non-collector-priced used legal product to acquire (which would in all liklihood sound better too).

 

Fair point but, again, you're ignoring the fact that the company may wish to make that old model available again in future. This is a clumsy analogy, so lets make a little closer to the issue at hand.

Lets say you invested in a garage and started turning out exact replicas of that obsolete model. You have removed any of the original stock. Agreed. You haven't deprived the car company of income because they're not selling the old model. Agreed.

But you are encouraging buyers to drive off your copy and not buy the latest model. And you're also reducing the likelihood that, if the car company put that old model back on the market, that buyers would pay for it. After all, they've got your knock-off on their drives.

 

That's fine. It's the right thing to do in the circumstance. It's the equivalent of returning stolen goods and opologising. Possibly with a bunch of flowers or box of chocolates by way of recompense. But neither the act of returning, nor the chocolates or flowers make the original act right.

 

In the example of stealing the car, no it's not morally acceptable. But I wasn't writing about cars.

What I wrote was "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. Illegal perhaps, but not immoral."

Now, who's pocket am I picking if I've already legitamately puchased the music and download another version that can't be bought?


?

 

The difference between our analogies is: the re-selling part. Its one thing to personally acquire an obsolete or abandoned product, another to copy it and re-sell it.

However - we should remember that from the copyright aspect, as viewed by the copyright holder - the 'content' really never was abandoned. I doubt a remastered product is a seen as a completely new one. The company sees it as an improved-but-same product.

Although amongst hard core fans they might as well be completely different products.

 

It may be illegal, but I don't think it's wrong. If artists or record company want to make money with their releases they should make sure they remain in print.

 

great comment! I AGREE!!!!

for record companies:

"Re-issue ! Re-package ! Re-package !
Re-evaluate the songs
Double-pack with a photograph
Extra Track (and a tacky badge)

sadly, THIS was your life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

-The Smiths, PAINT A VULGAR PICTURE

 

Also for record companies, or rather budding artists:

"Some men here, they have a special interest, in your career
they wanna help you to grow
and then siphon all your dough
why don't you find out for yourself."

I say if you feel bad for your favorite artists getting ripped off by downloaders (when they really are being ripped off to a far greater extent by their own label), go see them in concert and buy a tee shirt. They'll see far more of that money than if you buy their CD.