Downloading

Interesting debate going on here.

I will admit that I have been in every situation that has been brought up here so far (downloading music legally and illegally, buying the actual hard copies of CDs, giving people copies of CDs I own, etc etc) and I'm not condoning anything anyone has said, but.....well Pnoom! has pretty much addressed everything I wanted to say.

Regardless of how I acquire an artist's material, I am still more than willing to buy merchandise from that artist as well as go see them perform live. So no matter how you look at it, I try to give back to any artist I listen to. And Pnoom! is right. If you want to support an artist by buying a hard copy of their CD, get it from their website or their record label directly to give them the most benefit.

Again, excellent discussion point from all sides.

Click here for free music!!!!

NaturalScience wrote: The basic point with option 2 is (here assuming an album woefully OOP): a.)  If I buy a secondhand vinyl off of Ebay for $50, the artist receives nothing. b.)  If I download a rip of it, the artist receives nothing. The only difference between the two is me being out $50, and whatever moral/ethical implications you wish to ascribe to the two actions (such as, getting something without paying for it is wrong in all circumstances).

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 16 2009 at 17:21

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: NaturalScience wrote: The basic point with option 2 is (here assuming an album woefully OOP): a.)  If I buy a secondhand vinyl off of Ebay for $50, the artist receives nothing. b.)  If I download a rip of it, the artist receives nothing. The only difference between the two is me being out $50, and whatever moral/ethical implications you wish to ascribe to the two actions (such as, getting something without paying for it is wrong in all circumstances).   In option a, the artist got paid when released, even if it's a significative amount less, doesn't  matter, he made a contract accepting to receive X dollars for that vinyl and he received them, whatever happens with that album later, it's not his problem,

You can say the same about option b. The rip has its source. Someone must have bought the album to be able to rip it.

Pnoom! wrote: Dean wrote: An artist presses 200 copies of their CD - which they sell and get paid for. If 50 people then decide they don't like the album and sell it on ebay there are still only 200 copies in existance, and the artist has been paid for 200 of them. There are not 250 copies so the artist cannot be paid for 250 copies.  If one of those 200 CDs is copied illegally, burnt onto 200 CDR and sold on eBay there are now 400 copies in existance but the artist has only been paid for 200 of them. If one of those 400 CDs is now copied and uploaded to the internet and 400 people download it there are now 800 of copies and the artist still has only been paid for 200 of them. In one of these scenarios the artist gets paid, in the other three he doesn't; two of these are legal, two are not. Just because someone says that scenario-4 is wrong because the artist does not get paid it does not mean that scenario-2 is also wrong by the same virtue. On the contrary, if it's wrong because the artist isn't getting paid in one case, then it's wrong in all cases where that applies.

Edited by Dean - February 16 2009 at 18:31

Dean wrote: A stolen copy is a stolen copy regardless of whether it was shoplifted from Borders or copied onto a CDR - reselling it is effectively scenario-3, not scenario-2.

1. From a legal source (E-Bay is a legal source)
2. The Cd is original
3. The guy never tells you it's stolen.

You are acting legally, because you don't have to know if this guy has stolen it. As a fact the artist has already received  his payment when the album reached the store, because the stores get the album and pay the price to the distributuion company.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: NaturalScience wrote: The basic point with option 2 is (here assuming an album woefully OOP): a.)  If I buy a secondhand vinyl off of Ebay for $50, the artist receives nothing. b.)  If I download a rip of it, the artist receives nothing. The only difference between the two is me being out $50, and whatever moral/ethical implications you wish to ascribe to the two actions (such as, getting something without paying for it is wrong in all circumstances).   In option a, the artist got paid when released, even if it's a significative amount less, doesn't  matter, he made a contract accepting to receive X dollars for that vinyl and he received them, whatever happens with that album later, it's not his problem,   It's like buying a painting, the artist can sell it to you in 20 bucks, but if the artist gets famous, you can sell it in 1´000,000. The artist can say nothing, he was paid in his moment.   Option "a" is legal.   Iván

Another important distinction between the two options, to be sure.

It boils down to what one thinks the scope of copyright should be - should an artist have unconditional control over the work in perpetuity?

Basically take an album out of print - should the artist have the right not to make it available to anyone? 

Copyright, patent, and trademark law arose to encourage innovation and to protect intellectual property - but did it ever mean to come to this?

I'm fine with people that feel that downloading is wrong, no matter what.  I'm just saying my main concern is the artist.  If there's a way to acquire the album such that the artist gets compensated, I'll take that approach over an (illegal) download every time- if such a way does not exist, my conscience is clear about obtaining it in another way.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Dean wrote: A stolen copy is a stolen copy regardless of whether it was shoplifted from Borders or copied onto a CDR - reselling it is effectively scenario-3, not scenario-2.     Not exact Dean, if you buy any item:   From a legal source (E-Bay is a legal source) The Cd is original The guy never tells you it's stolen. You are acting legally, because you don't have to know if this guy has stolen it. As a fact the artist has already received  his payment when the album reached the store, because the stores get the album and pay the price to the distributuion company. Of course the seller is a crook, but you have no responsability.   Iván

You are correct Iván - if a CD is stolen from a retailer the retailer is out of pocket, not the label and therefore not the artist. Some smaller labels and retailers do work on a sale or return basis, but if a CD is stolen the retailer will probably re-imburse the supplier. Buying stolen goods is only illegal if you knew they are stolen at the time of buying, but even if you didn't know, you cannot keep it once caught, and you probably wont get your money back either.

NaturalScience wrote: It boils down to what one thinks the scope of copyright should be - should an artist have unconditional control over the work in perpetuity?

Jaywalking laws are to prevent young kids from copying a dangerous activity, "illegal" spaces are to allow access for disabled drivers or emergency services - those two particular examples are not one I would purposely flout, but I'm sure we can find some that I do. However, that isn't really the point. I also happen think that downloading copies of Out Of Print albums is both immoral and unethical because the solution is to campaign and petition for those albums to be released legally, but my stating that would never convince anyone to share my view.