'Illegal' music sharing after an artists

Passionist wrote: Didn't you know that music doesnt belong to those who compose it but to those who own the composers? I'm sorry, My ethics don't go along with the producers. when it comes to music, I don't really concern myself with it being legal or not. I pay my respects to the artist by listening to the music. As much as I could buy a copy of a painting, they're out there too, you know. Of course it's illegal to copy music but it's also illegal to spit on streets in places like Singapore.

That is the case with many major labels however, many independent labels do not take the ownership of the artists away. 

You do not pay your respects to the artist by listening to them because you are not paying them anything! You are enjoying music they wrote for free.  You are exploiting their work for your own enjoyment.  You may like it a lot, but that doesn't mean you are paying them respect. 

Comparing the legallity of stealing music to that of spitting on the streets of Singapore is completely absurd.  "Well its illegal to copy music, buts its also illegal to kill a man".  I can do what you did too.  Doesn't strengthen the arguement one bit.

Unless you plan on supporting a dead artist's family, dependents, or whomever in some other form, you should pay for the music you aquire.

Ok, we all know what happens when the artist dies... unless he gave up his rights while alive his/her sucessors will be the owners. Period!

"I don't want to sell my music. I'd like to give it away because where I got it, you didn't have to pay for it. " - Captain Beefheart

Passionist wrote: I pay my respects to the artist by listening to the music. .

Yup, and he in turn pays his respects to the builders and architects by stealing a home....... get real.

Discussions about illegal activity is not permitted on this forum.

Who cares! If you are seriously interested in music, search for it and obtain in any way possible, there are no limits. No need to spread around the works of geniuses to people who are too indifferent to find music on their own.

TheProgtologist wrote: Geck0 wrote: Oh I know, but they do get some now and rightly so.  It's shame when stuff like that happens. Other weird things are that artists likes Michael Jackson have rights to Paul McCartney's music, or something like that and both are still alive.   Paul admits he actually gave MJ the financial advice to buy music rights because it was very lucrative.MJ even told Paul he was going to buy his music and Paul thought he was joking.In the interview I saw with Sir Paul where he said that you could tell he was still pretty pissed about the whole deal.Using Revolution in a Nike shoe commercial is blasphemy.   When they come up for sale again,and they will,because MJ doesn't make the money he used to,I bet you McCartney snatches them up.

Oh I know, but they do get some now and rightly so.  It's shame when stuff like that happens.

Other weird things are that artists likes Michael Jackson have rights to Paul McCartney's music, or something like that and both are still alive.

I agree, an artist's music is always his/her property, even after death.  So, I guess that would make it the property of whomever he/she entrusts it (likely family)?

It would stil break copyright, and the inheritance of such funds is not for us to decide. The artist's on going earnings should be distributed however he or she saw fit. Look at it like a prog-widows pension

You would be denying the owners of the copyrights of the music the money they deserve or have gained (either through buying or through a will or contract). I do not think it is a good thing to download illegally anyway and not giving someone money who has lost a loved one or important person in their life, or paid for the copyright of such songs is wrong.

Just my two cents.