'Illegal' music sharing after an artists
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=36164
Printed Date: November 23 2024 at 14:03
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 'Illegal' music sharing after an artists
Posted By: Paradox
Subject: 'Illegal' music sharing after an artists
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:09
|
Hello.
I have been thinking about this recently and I thought I'd pose the question to you guys. I know many of you have a problem with/dislike the illegal/immoral sharing of copied cds and downloaded music because the artists do not benefit in any way.
I agree with this, although I will own up to taking part in this horrific practice. I have the means and the devotion to purchase all (decent) albums in the future, however long that may take.
However...
Would your opinion of this activity change after the death of an artist (as they will for obvious reasons no longer recieve anything from you buying their albums, and sales will only go to line the pockets of record companies and familes)?
Would it be right/ok to illegally distribute their music to people, spreading awareness of their work long after their death?
What do you think?
------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: progismylife
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:12
|
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. |
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:14
| Wouldn't it still break a copyright? |
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:17
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 
|
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:39
|
I agree with Ben and P-C. Artists have wives or sons, for starters. In the case of Jimi Hendrix, there's still the Hendrix Estate that gets money from sales.
-------------   
|
Posted By: darkmatter
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:44
| 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)? |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:45
Due to bad management the Hendrix estate never really saw any money from Jimi's music until recently.
Paul Allen(Seattle native and Hendrix freak)bought the rights to the Hendrix catalog and gave them to Jimi's father Al Hendrix. -------------  |
Geck0 wrote:Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:47
|
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. -------------
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:51
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. ------------- |
Posted By: Melomaniac
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:53
I hope so, selling them was a blasphemy in the first place !!!
I wonder what pushed him to sell them, if not greed...  ------------- "One likes to believe in the freedom of Music" - Neil Peart, The Spirit of Radio |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:55
|
He shouldn't need to buy his own music back though, he wrote it, it should be his by right! -------------
|
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:55
|
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. ------------- sig |
Posted By: Passionist
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 15:57
| 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. |
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 16:08
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. |
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 16:45
Paul didn't sell them.Like so many of the artists back then they were mismanaged and never owned the rights to their music.Paul was going to try to buy them when they came up at auction and MJ outbid him. ------------- |
Posted By: MusicForSpeedin
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 16:46
|
"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 |
Posted By: Wilcey
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 16:51
An artist is perfectly entitled to give his music away....... like wise he is perfectly entitled to sell it. If he choses the latter, then surely it is WRONG to take it on the grounds that you have differing ideals. There are many bands in the field of prog who are self managed or self published, and for those signed to a label, they are better informed these days. The "managers nick all the money" argument is lame. |
Posted By: Atkingani
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 18:50
|
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! ------------- Guigo ~~~~~~ |
Posted By: laplace
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 20:56
|
that coupled with your signature equals awesome you're about to be mauled by prog-chick I guess, and compared to hippies at the gates of that one festival but I'm with you in spirit ------------- FREEDOM OF SPEECH GO TO HELL |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: March 29 2007 at 22:52
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. |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: March 30 2007 at 04:05
|
I think this thread has run its course. We all know illegal downloading is illegal. |