|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.49.135.42
Curious to know others' thoughts on this..Lately, I've been borrowing CD's from my township library and ripping them. While it is true that my local taxes pay for these, it is also true that the artist derives no incremental gain from this practice. Am I a thief or just an opportunist?
EDIT ADDED 5/2/12 2:53p.
alright already. point well taken. Sheesh. I hope all of you who wagged a finger are truly guiltless. ..So you never burned a copy of a sister's CD, or made a mix tape using some of your buddy's LP's???
..Though usually not one to succumb to peer pressure, I've decided to do the following.
All 6 CD's I took out yesterday (..just prior to my post) are going back without ripping; though I will probably listen to all of them first.
Of the 21 CD's I previously ripped, I have not listened to 8 of them; I will delete those now. That leaves 13 that I have listened to. ..Of those, 7 are not worth ever listening to again so I will delete those too but will nothing more to "right the wrong". ..They kinda suck, so too bad. ..This leaves 6 that I've listened to more than once. ..Over the next two weeks I will purchase each of these on iTunes (if available) or Amazon (if not..).
EDIT: Comment added 5/3/12 12:47p
Some of you here seem to be extrapolating what I have admitted to doing to mean that I also engaged in other forms of music pilfering.
So that there's no misunderstanding about the breadth of my transgressions let it be known that I have NEVER downloaded music off Napster or movies/TV shows, etc.. off of BitTorrent or any other such peer-to-peer service, etc. Never. Extracting songs from CDs I check out of the library struck me as different because these CDs were legally obtained by a library which I support with my local taxes (and book and cd donations). Moreover, it seemed clear that the artists compensation was unchanged whether I loaded the songs onto my HD or I returned time and again to the library check the CDs out.
Still, I recognize this was a mistake and will do as described above
Edits: 05/01/12 05/02/12 05/03/12Follow Ups:
In the past week I saw an SACD for sale featuring Louie Armstrong for $50 USD. Now Louie had no children and has been dead for 40 years. So exactly who is being stolen from if his music is ripped?
I suspect as has been previously stated that it is the recording company that feels that its intellectual property is being "stolen". I, personally, find it outlandish to think that the recording company is doing anything, but profiting from sales of Louis Armstrong.
In this specific case I think ripping Louis Armstrong is not theft from the artist, his agent, attorney, or recording personnel. Those persons either got paid at the time or are long gone.
In another deviation of the argument: Why doesn't the cost of CDs depreciate like other intellectual property? Electronics, computers, etc. cost less and less as the development cost are recouped. Why aren't recordings 60 years later many multiples more expensive when originally released?
Rip Louie Armstrong recordings from the library. He was one who had nothing growing up and would certainly understand one's appreciation of the music over the profit motive.
DaveT
"exactly who is being stolen from if his music is ripped?"
The copyright owner.
"Still, I recognize this was a mistake and will do as described above."
Congratulations. That makes you more honest than oh, about 101% of the population. Maybe you can bottle some of your integrity and ship it to the rest of us?
but the 20 somethings in my office have 1000's of songs on their PC's and iDevices, they never paid for a song and have never bought a CD. I guess they don't consider it stealing and I guess they will be running our cities, counties, states and country soon. Hmm?
It's ethically not stealing if you only ever rip (or download) music you would not otherwise buy. Under these strict circumstance you aren't stealing because nobody has lost anything. But can you honestly say this is always the case for you?
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
Jerry is trying to pass a lie detector test, so he asks George how he can pass the test. George says "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it."
Just like borrowing music, and coping it for your own use.
It's not stealing if you think of it as yours!
;-)
nt
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
If you have no moral objection to borrowing a library book to read, then you should have no moral objection to ripping a borrowed cd for PERSONAL use. In both cases, the artist loses out on potential revenue. Why should one make a distinction between these two types of media? The public library, as an institution, encourages citizens to borrow books. It is a perfectly legitimate practice. It would be absurd to return a book after reading only the first chapter because you find it compelling and want to compensate the author by running out and buying a copy. So why should you be expected to go out and buy a cd that you can borrow for free (whether you rip it or borrow it is a moot point)? Why the double standard? The result to the artist is identical. Understand that I’m only speaking relatively here. If one form of borrowing is legitimate and acceptable then so should the other. Fundamentally though, both cases seem unfair to the artists and many countries have taken steps to redress this situation by compensating authors of books available in public libraries by implementing a Public Lending Right program. I’m not sure if this includes music, but if it does not, it should. Then any moral issues would be resolved. Artists would be paid, a few people would get freebies and the taxpayer will absorb the cost. But that’s another can of worms.
When one borrows a library book, one doesn't get to keep a copy. Or is that too simple a concept for you? Eh?????
Another way to discuss this is if it takes you longer to listen to a CD than to read a book (given your "read only the first chapter" analogy) than you aren't much of a music lover.
Sorry for interrupting your music-pirating time, dude.
"When one borrows a library book, one doesn't get to keep a copy. Or is that too simple a concept for you? Eh?????"
One gets to keep a copy in his or her brain.
"Another way to discuss this is if it takes you longer to listen to a CD than to read a book (given your "read only the first chapter" analogy) than you aren't much of a music lover."
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.
As I mentioned to your brethren in my previous post: Try to digest what I am saying. Critical analysis as opposed to knee-jerk reaction will serve you better.
"If you have no moral objection to borrowing a library book to read, then you should have no moral objection to ripping a borrowed cd for PERSONAL use."
Are you on narcotics?
I am not making a value judgement here, I am merely pointing out that there exists a double standard between the two media with regard to library lending. It's perfectly legitimate to read a borrowed book and never buy it, but certain self-righteous types see anyone ripping a borrowed cd for PERSONAL use as one step beneath Hitler. The end result for either artist is completely identical. Please try to digest what I am trying to say before like, going all polemic on me man.
From a thread you started yesterday... re: why you contribute here at AA
"But in ALL cases, my intention is to add value to the thread. If I throw rocks at a person's post, it's because I think it will encourage people to think or that the poster is wrong."
Is it in that spirit that you offered this reply??
Yeppers! :)It is what it is.
I'm not a bad guy, and I love good humor, but I have little tolerance for BS and stupidity.
Edits: 05/03/12 05/03/12
..and little interest in actual discourse, it seems. -:)
Oh contrairy. ;)
Discourse is food for the brain, as is drivel.
Did I just say that? That was excellent! I gotta write that down.
:)
In a thread you started, "Thoughts on Participating on the Audio Asylum" you seem to endorse civility here at AA, yet.....Do these excerpts from your posts on the thread I started sound civil??
"Are you really a moron, or just playing one on the Internet?"
"So shut the pie hole"
"Go to your room, and think about how you can be a better person."
Let me ask, is this the way you converse with people in person? ..You come across as a wannabe bully, dude. ..So I've explained how I'm going to make amends for ripping a few CD's - how about you??
Edits: 05/04/12
Hey HFH...I read your post in the thread I started, and I'm happy to reply.
I think you're taking things too seriously. We all enjoy this forum for several reasons. Discourse ;) , questions, answers, comments, links, etc.
A person doesn't always get what they want on an Internet forum. Sometimes, they get what they need, and I try to do my part. ;)
"Let me ask, is this the way you converse with people in person?"
Not usually, unless they're being stupid. :)
Edits: 05/04/12
reading a book would be pretty much like listening to the CD; no harm no foul.
"XEROX'ING" the entire book and taking the copies home with you, well now that's a whole 'nutter story (no pun intended)
may the bridges I burn light the way....
""XEROX'ING" the entire book and taking the copies home with you, well now that's a whole 'nutter story (no pun intended)"
Provided that it's only for personal use, it makes not one iota of difference to the author.
*** it makes not one iota of difference to the author****Since when do you speak for the entire industry of authors??
Making a blanket statement such as that pretty much ruins your credibility IMO.
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Edits: 05/03/12
#1 I was not aware of the existence of the " industry of authors".
#2 Making a blanket statement about my credibility ruins your credibility. But then again,this re-ruins my credibility. Darn!
#3 I never claimed to speak for anyone, although I am guilty of oversimplifying in order to make a point. Apparently, I did not oversimplify enough. Mea maxima culpa.
you are a gentleman and a scholar; (I raise my glass).
may the bridges I burn light the way....
It would be OK to read the book and then drink the CIA memory erasing kool-aid. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I think I drank the wrong kool-aid. All I see is like, colors coming out of my speakers maaaan!
Some of you here seem to be extrapolating what I have admitted to doing to mean that I also engaged in other forms of music pilfering.So that there's no misunderstanding about the breadth of my transgressions let it be known that I have NEVER downloaded music off Napster or movies/TV shows, etc.. off of BitTorrent or any other such peer-to-peer service, etc. Never. Extracting songs from CDs I check out of the library struck me as different because these CDs were legally obtained by a library which I support with my local taxes (and book and cd donations). Moreover, it seemed clear that the artists compensation was unchanged whether I loaded the songs onto my HD or I returned time and again to the library check the CDs out.
Still, I recognize this was a mistake and will do as described above.
Edits: 05/03/12 05/03/12
EXACTLY! It's not like you made a boatload of copies and tried to sell them. I see no err in your way. You wanted to expose yourself to some music, AT YOUR LEISURE. The best way to do so was to make a copy before the cds were due back.
What most failed to realize is that your exposure to those cd's might lead to a ticket to a live show and the purchase of an overpriced t-shirt. But everyone was too caught up in accusing you of being a scumbag.
To judge someone's character based on a web blog entry is irresponsible. Making a copy of a cd that you may or may not like is not. I've got two in my car right now. My brother is a metal head. I'm more into prog rock. But I wanted to give metal a try. When I get off my lazy butt, the burned copies of Godsmack and Jusas Priest in the cd changer will be put to rest. Just not my thing.
You ought to turn yourself in to RIAA or whomever...or better yet send them the check of the amount you see it appropriate...those 'poor' music industry exec's would maybe change their mind, and decide not pursue the multimillion $ lawsuit...Just maybe.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
I'm not really following this thread but with regards to your comment:
"Over the next two weeks I will purchase each of these on iTunes (if available) or Amazon (if not..)."
If you care about sound quality, buy the CD then rip it yourself and if you use iTunes make sure to select AIFF or Apple Lossless as the file format. If you buy from the iTunes store, the best quality you will get is 256kbps AAC which is barely OK in terms of audio quality.
The Artist's should be complaining about the real thieves
Stop it with this nonsense.That pie chart is no more accurate than me saying I'm the best audio engineer in town.
And you call yourself a reviewer?
Before you post again about this topic, get in touch with some current musicians who have published works. Your thinking is myopic and outdated.
Back in the 1930s, '40s, 50s, musicians often were the flowers that the record companies sucked nectar from. But those days are long gone. Every professional musician I know is making a fine living, and getting their due share of the sales, and which they agreed to, per their attorney's advice.
Edits: 05/03/12 05/03/12
Sophie Milman has sales of individual albums sell over 100,000 copies which is a lot.She's barely making it - someone must be?
Audio Equipment reviewing isn't music reviewing or music industry reviewing.
Edits: 05/03/12
"Sophie Milman has sales of individual albums sell over 100,000 copies which is a lot.She's barely making it - someone must be?
Audio Equipment reviewing isn't music reviewing or music industry reviewing."
Sophie who?
100,000? That's barely enough to cover the cost of professional production and distribution. You know, little things like studio time, mixing, mastering, artwork, layout, jackets, distribution, etc.
My guess is that NOBODY is getting rich off of her. Try again.
Now, if you were to say "Cheap Trick", which was a bar band in 1975, then you might have a case. Or Eric Clapton, or Elton John, the Guess Who, Paul McCartney, Rod Stewart, Riba McIntyre, Conway Twitty, Chris Botti, etc., etc., you get the idea. Name ONE current well-known musician who you can hold up as a poster child for your position, and I'll lighten up on you.
:(
Edits: 05/03/12
What is my position?
That recording company makes more than artists? They do. Just like the movie companies make more than the actors (combined) making the movies.
I relax and enjoy the music, not ponder whether or not they're paying the owner of the music royalties....so I sure as hell don't worry about ripping a cd for safe guarding, convinience...but that's just me.
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Brother- some of the clubs I've been to, I seriously doubt the owners can even spell ''BMI much less pay them! lol..but good info ;)
may the bridges I burn light the way....
For YEARS here on Audio Asylum I've mentioned the local library as being a gold mine for music sources; perhaps even as far back as ten years.
NEVER ONCE did I mention -or even suggest- ripping, copying, or stealing those disc or albums.
For one, there's no need to; our libraries in San Diego allow up to ten disc check-out at a time for up to two weeks. That's MORE than enough time to enjoy them. And if I ended up liking any of them I would either order them online or better yet, extend the loan.
You my friend, have got an amazing pair to come straight out and (and the first to my knowledge) admit to outright stealing them; whew, God bless ya'...lawd have mercy-
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Just razzing you. As someone that is as serious about music as you are to post anything here at AA, I believe you already know that answer to that question yourself. While the high end audio equipment manufacturers need to feed their families, so do the musicians. And trust me, most don't do all that well. I see by your editing that you are already making amends. That is the first step to rehabilitation. Next step, log onto Cad Kassem's site and order some new music and further enrich him. ;-)
First time poster.
I'm amazed that no one has gone beyond the issue of making a copy of the library CD. Is the local library system where I live the only one that now allows people to skip the physical buildings themselves and simply download material, including CDs? At what point does the content, music in this case, go from borrowing to keeping? The music that is downloaded here is not streaming. It comes in an MP3 format that is saved to the hard drive and then opened to hear. So I suppose that everyone simply listens to it and then immediately deletes the file.
The reality is that technology is moving ever faster and that especially applies to media content and how it is presented. The recording companies have no one but themselves to blame for where they now find themselves. Their greed blinded them to the need in investing for future changes. They have had numerous opportunities to change their obviously antiquated business model and yet refused. The exact same thing can be seen with the movie industry, the cable and satellite companies, and the cellular business.
Is it on this board that someone recently posted the question asking how many people listen to an entire album in one setting. I couldn't believe that every single reply was yes. Talk about dating yourself. :) Very few people listen to LPs and CDs probably are on their last moments. This doesn't mean that users of older formats are somehow condemned to a special place but time does move on.
Clearly, many of these changes still do not deal with the question that the OP presented and I didn't mean to get into one of my favorite topics, that of the convergence of communication hardware and software. Ultimately, some sort of model will need to be created that effectively allows the artist to work directly with the consumer. Artists do not work for free and should be rewarded. But screw Hollywood et al and the parasites that add no value to the transaction.
For what it's worth, I am probably older than most of the people that post here and still have my old LPs purchased while in college. The reel to reel tapes were tossed out several decades ago and the cassettes followed somewhere in the 90s. Almost no CDs at all. Everything is on the hard drives now which will soon go from being mechanical platters to SSDs.
"The music that is downloaded here is not streaming. It comes in an MP3 format that is saved to the hard drive and then opened to hear."It would be useful for you to talk with the library director and see what sort of licensing agreement they have. It could be that they have an "unlimited" usage license and that the citizens of your town are unknowingly paying for it. That would be one thing which can be eliminated from the budget and keep your taxes under control. On the other hand, they may be setting themselves up for a major lawsuit from ASCAP or BMI or both.
Keep us posted!
Edits: 05/05/12
"I couldn't believe that every single reply was yes."
With good reason, because they weren't.
god help anyone judged by their peers.
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
alright already. point well taken. Sheesh… I hope all of you who wagged a finger are truly guiltless. ..So you never burned a copy of a sister's CD, or made a mix tape using some of your buddy's LP's???..Though usually not one to succumb to peer pressure, I've decided to do the following.
All 6 CD's I took out yesterday (..just prior to my post) are going back without ripping; though I will probably listen to all of them first.
Of the 21 CD's I previously ripped, I have not listened to 8 of them; I will delete those now. That leaves 13 that I have listened to. ..Of those, 7 are not worth ever listening to again so I will delete those too but will nothing more to "right the wrong". ..They kinda suck, so too bad. ..This leaves 6 that I've listened to more than once. ..Over the next two weeks I will purchase each of these on iTunes (if available) or Amazon (if not..).
Edits: 05/02/12
Seems like all too many people on the internet jump on the opportunity to point a finger and cop a holier than thou attitude, and there's no way to tell if they are being hypocrites or not.
Rule of thumb is that most people are hypocrits. Maybe they don't burn library CDs...maybe they commit more heinous crimes.
No, none of it justifies a wrong...that's not the point, is it?
"alright already. point well taken. Sheesh? I hope all of you who wagged a finger are truly guiltless. ..So you never burned a copy of a sister's CD, or made a mix tape using some of your buddy's LP's??? "You started off well enough with "alright already. point well taken." But then you descended into the old routine of justifying your bad behavior by pointing to other's bad behavior.
This is one of the common retorts that people have regarding their bad behavior. "You've done wrong things, too!" (Another is "I didn't know".)
Look, none of us are saints. Sure, I've driven 45 in a 40 mph zone. Sure, I've illegally recorded a couple of concerts. Sure, I've taken the occasional excess incorrect change at the cash register.
But I don't make a habit of ripping off other people, as you admittedly do. So don't try to lay the guilt trip on me. It ain't gonna fly.
You're a music rip-off theft pro, and you know it. You've got your theft routine figured out, and you use it regularly.
Your feeble attempt to justify your intentional and routine behavior of stealing by pointing out the saintlessness of others is just dumb, and an old argument that people use to justify their bad behavior.
By the way, of the four concerts I've illegally recorded, only ONE of them was ever released commercially - and I bought the product. The other three, I've not shared with anyone else. Oh, and, I gave one of the others to the artist's road manager, so they'd have it if they wanted to use it later.
So shut the pie hole and learn to play nice with others.
Go to your room, and think about how you can be a better person.
Edits: 05/02/12
You might consider joining this organization and find other ethically challenged individuals to hang out with. :-!
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
.
...
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.
--Zen Proverb
are you referring to me? b/c I have not really said much since posing this question...
`
Smile
Sox
.
Yes.
And you are either a youngin', or you're able to understand the concepts of copyright law and able read and comprehend the very short amount of fine print.
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum in MANY venues for YEARS. Yet, there always seems to be someone who still doesn't get it, or wants to finesse a way around it.
Are you really a moron, or just playing one on the Internet?
Eye-yie-yie.
:(
"... it is also true that the artist derives no incremental gain from this practice ..."Since it is coming from your public library, I assume you do not pay anything for your library card other than your taxes.
Being such, does checking it out (one or more times) and listening to it repeatedly put any profit into the artists pocket ???
If it is checked out 365 days/year, the artist doesn't see an extra dime.
Something to think about.
Edits: 05/01/12
"Being such, does checking it out (one or more times) and listening to it repeatedly put any profit into the artists pocket ???"
That's a whole nuther can of worms.
Checking it out over and over requires multiple trips to the library, or at least email or verbal communication with a library staffer so that you can more-or-less keep the item in your possession until you're willing to allow another member of the paying populace have a chance at it. In either case, that uses energy, either for your transportation (and maintaining your vehicle, which may be tax deductible) or for the electricity needed to run the networks and computers (not to forget paying the staffers who keep the hardware working, and their retirement benefits when they quit) to accommodate your selfish desires. So the question is: Are you paying your fair share to cover the costs of running the neccessary systems to accommodate your excessive demands on them, and for repairing the damage to the planet, brought on by your behavior?
Didn't know this was a GREEN issue.
If it is, copying it would be the greenest solution or the user could walk to the library. Also, others could be checking this thing out during the year causing the same overhead. My point was that should this be in the library in the first place if the artist is expecting royalties per listen ??? Probably not.
As for maintaining the equipment and paying the salaries and retirements, that is already being paid for. No additional costs are incurred to have the employees do their jobs for their salaries and benefits. They get paid if they check out everything or nothing. When I was in school, I worked front desk at a hotel. I got the same pay if I sold out all of the rooms or none of the rooms. Same scenario. The only difference is if not enough rooms were sold, the hotel will go out of business. The public library probably won't go out of business because it isn't required to cover its own overhead.
Out here in SoCal, a gal recently retired from the library with a $250,000/year retirement package. Not bad benefits on the backs of the taxpayers. Is being a clerk worth $250,000 per year (I sure it is to her)??? I think promising unrealistic benefits (for personal and party gain) is more of the green issue. It creates time-bombs for all that can't be fulfilled. Just think of how much consumption will be required to pay these types of retirement packages.
Hey EmailTim!I was just about to edit my earlier post, to make note that, regarding that whole resource usage/earth damage stuff, was tongue-in-cheek. I was just tweeking the noses of the environmentalist crowd. To them, EVERYTHING is a green issue. I feel sorry for the impressionable students who are subjected to the left's nonsense on a daily basis. :)
But you replied before I edited. Whoa, it's like we're thinking about the same thing at the same time, dude. Far out. ;)
However, I must disagree with you regarding: "As for maintaining the equipment and paying the salaries and retirements, that is already being paid for." I get this a lot in one of my lines of work. The reality is that, with less demand for services, there should be a commenserate (sp?) reduced need for the infrastructure and staff needed to provide it. If increased demand requires more infrastructure and more staff, then it follows that reduced demand requires less infrastructure and less staff.
But, we all know that the demand/supply/cost model doesn't apply to unionized government entities or politicians who seek to feather their nests.
On your other point: "The only difference is if not enough rooms were sold, the hotel will go out of business." Not true. If not enough rooms were sold - on an ongoing basis, the first thing that would happen is that staff would be reduced (probably starting with the room housekeeping folks), "free" breakfast costs would go down, etc. The hotel would NOT automatically go out of business.
Thankfully (?), government has the ability to simply demand more money from us, rather than having to make hard decisions.
Edits: 05/02/12 05/02/12
I borrow books from the Township library, read and remember a good portion of it for quite some time. It is not unethical to download the book into my memory.
Well, sometimes I make Xerox copies of some pages and I dont think thats unethical either.
I dont think you are doing anything unethical.
Cheer up
Bill
No dispute: ripping those CDs is illegal. We're told it's illegal because its theft , i.e. you're stealing the profit of the music publisher and the royalty of the artist.
But if you would not have paid for the disc, ripped library copy represents no loss for the publisher or artist. So is it, in reality, theft?
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
I understand your argument because I have made the exact same one.
A month later I argued myself by inserting and object such as a Porsche into the same argument.
"But if you would not have paid for the disc (PORSCHE), ripped (TAKEN) library copy (PORSCHE) represents no loss for the publisher (OWNER'S PORSCHE) or artist (PORSCHE. So is it, in reality, theft?"
Yes unfortunately it is.
Because if it was not worth taking then why did you take it? Obviously it had some value to the taker.
The argument has been that downloading music is kind of like the new radio. You listen to the song on the radio - is that theft? You bought a radio and you pay no fee to listen to the songs. You PAID for the technology to have the radio.
My argument on downloading and recording TV shows has always been "But you sold me the technology to do it - you sold me blank CD's and further in Canada you made me pay a coppyright fee for each blank CD I purchased.
You sold me a technology whose sole purpose for being is to "copy stuff" and then the government goes after the person who uses the technology but not after JVC or SONY.
That's like going after the drug users and letting the drug dealers walk free. The dealers have the pockets - FBI goes after the $3.50 an hour Walmart girl for ripping a Lady Gaga CD - spends millions in legal fees to "get her" but Sony or Harman or HP or apple who you could nail for billions don't even get looked at. Whaaaaaat?
The artists - most of them don't make very much money - even award winning well known artists like Sophie Milman can barely afford to go on tour and can only do so based on Canadian Government help.
I know she's Jazz but she is a pretty big artist and if she can barely make it then everyone smaller than her is making less.
So people just BUY the darn thing. If it's worth listening to and you get enjoyment from it then support the people bringing happiness into your life.
Sophie Milman wants to see a copyright levy added to MP3 players. I see no problem with that - that is a reasonable solution to combat downloads.
The Porsche argument is completely irrelevant because the Porsche is a physical object which, if stolen, is no long available for use by the original owner. That argument would pertain to shop-lifting CDs from the local emporium; it doesn't apply to CDs borrowed from the library or downloadable files.
That said, I agree, if you want to listen to the music, you ought to buy it.
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
People can play with the legalities all day butif "Porsche is a physical object which, if stolen, is no long available for use by the original owner."
But wait the original owner is Porsche - not the guy Porsche sells the car too.
So let's go back to Porsche and stale the car from them. What motivation would Porsche have to continue making cars if people stole their cars? None - they'd stop.
The argument that you're making is that Porsche sells one car to one guy who then let's 100 people drive the car - the comparison to CD is not the same because cars fall apart and sooner or later someone has to come back to Porsche.
The CD is a physical object as well. It's being copyable I don't see as the issue. Because at the heart of the thing is motivation. If you steal the CD's the motivation to go into business selling them will vanish - which in a very real way makes it "no longer available to the original owner" - at least the "next one" may not be available.
I agree with the notion that if a person would not buy it anyway and the original CD or movie is not physically stolen then it isn't "theft" in the same way as run of the mill regular theft.
As a teacher it is utterly painful at the things we can't photocopy or show to classes. The stupid thing is that some movies/TV we used to show actually generated interest and sales because you have a class of 25 all watching a show they've never seen now they love it run to money (I mean mummy) and get her to buy the series - that would not have happened had it not been shown to the class. And if it had not been shown to the class they never would have seen it and of course never would have bought it - so I've always thought that was dumb copyright. They should treat that as free advertising. (Example - in Mainland China I showed Dr. Who to classes - no copyright in China (or they don't care). All the kids come from millionaire and billionaire parents. Many of whom bought not just the season but 4 seasons of the TV show. Times maybe 1/4 of the class - they tell their friends = more sales.
I get photocopying readers and textbooks - they want the schools to buy those - fair enough. You could make the case for CD being advertising for the band as well.
A guy downloaded Dexter and gave me the series to watch - I loved it - bought all 5 seasons on DVD. If I didn't see the rip=off copy and as a non HBO subscriber that's five sales they never would have gotten - but here's the thing - I've told 4 friends about it - all 4 of those friends took my advice - bought the first season - they loved it all of them have purchased all 5 seasons.
The question then is - who did they tell? How far do the dominoes spread - and all those sales would have been ZERO if it had not been for a guy who downloaded the series.
I get the arguments against but like the drug trade - they're not going to stop - and perhaps look at the tertiary sales they get by letting people spread the word.
This is why the industry didn't care about people copying from the radio - mediocre quality - people will pay for quality if it's reasonable. Make the playback better - offer feature - do something to get the downloaders to buy the discs. If you buy the CD you get a 1 in 1000 chance to get Shania Twain's underwear - the internet geeks who invented the internet will be out buying in droves :-)
Just like putting the Golden Key in the chocolate bar - you have the chance to meet the artist. I mean there are people buying Tim Horton's coffee (yuck) because they can roll up the rim to win a free doughnut.
Edits: 05/05/12
"So is it, in reality, theft?"
Yes unfortunately it is."
The conflation of "copyright infringement" with "theft" is a political ploy pursued by the RIAA. The two misdeeds are not at all the same. They have different consequences. When your bicycle is stolen, you have to walk. When a copy of your music is made by a kid who has no money you have lost nothing.
The purpose of copyright is not to compensate "creators" for their work. It is to encourage creators to distribute their work so that society as a whole can benefit. At least this is the expressed reason for copyright, e.g. according to the Constitution of the United States. Historically, an argument could be made that copyright was motivated by desire for censorship.
For more about these issues, see the link below for a free douwnload, courtesy of the author. You can also purchase the book from Amazon.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
nt
~~~~~~~~~~~
... 99%'er
There are plenty of posts about inmates buying used CDs and no one ever bemoans that indignity for the publishers and artists.
It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense.
Mark Twain
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
and if the answer is you still harbor guilt feelings towards that; then therapy, not an asylum forum, is recommended IMO.
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Edits: 05/01/12
Which is the real reason not to illegally collect music. The fact you could become a permanent pauper if the RIAA cracks down on your little patch of the Universe.
hunting down little Johnny or Suzie recording their favorite Barney song off the TV and/or radio. Little Johnny and Suzie aren't worried, their parents aren't worried, and I sure as hell wasn't worried; not then, not now, not forever.Remember; we're talking about "taping off the radio" .. downloading well that's a little more complicated..I've had friends receive letters in the mail (via their ISP) informing them to cease downloading or face certain consequences.
Now there ARE scouts (doubtful it it's the RIAA) who frequent the 'big boys' like Walmart, Sears, K-Mart, etc., that pipe music through their stores illegally. However, these big chain outlets generally comply with services that require payment and authorization to broadcast music for a fee...they'd be foolish not to.
It's the Mom and Pop stores that get nailed the hardest since they're usually not familiar with music copyright laws...
But little Johnny and Suzie? I wouldn't worry about them being carted away in handcuffs anytime soon.
I firmly believe it's what you do with that recorded product that brings the most ill fated outcome; for example: practically everyone has video taped and/or divo'd a TV broadcast, and why not, these devices are designed for that purpose.. HOWEVER- the moment you stand on a corner, swap meet or parking lot trying to sell those items for a profit is when you'll most likely find yourself landing in jail quicker than you can say Martha Stewart.
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Edits: 05/03/12 05/03/12 05/03/12 05/03/12
In the past there were little old ladies who were sued for huge sums of money. This practice has stopped for the time being for various reasons, but it might resume in the future. The bloc has tried to get more draconian laws passed, including requiring ISPs to do the snooping for them and for customers to be disconnected from the Internet for repeated illegal copying.
This won't stop serious pirates, who will just go to the darknets.
It may take 100 years, but if anything approaching a free society still exists then there won't be copyright as we presently see it. If copyright laws on music were repealed tomorrow there would still be lots of recorded music made and distributed, IMO, but there wouldn't be super star pop musicians to the extent presently. Also no more block buster movies. On balance, this might be an improvement in the cultural situation.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
..never did that. ..But my friends and I, once we all owned decent cassette decks, would swap albums and tape them. ..Back then there was really no talk about how the practice ripped off the artist. Which of course isn't to say that it wasn't. ..It just didn't really occur to us as such.
every Xerox copy made from every book would be considered copyright infringement; if left unprotected-I'm sure they would have been sued out of existence by now...but I think the moment you try and make a profit is where you need to start sweating, losing sleep..(disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer; nor do I play one on Youtube)
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Edits: 05/02/12 05/02/12
-if it bothers you, audition the cd, then buy it or
-make a donation to the libraryI've donated dozens of my old cd's to my local library; they in turn usually sell them during their annual or semi-annual book sales...which raises the question "can they even do that? "...LoL...in any event, I sleep good at night..:)
v/r
GL
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Edits: 05/02/12
Libraries usually don't keep donated books are albums. That would require them to renumber their entire catalog (or parts of it). Instead, they just sell them for pennies on the dollar.
Jack
I can recall once checking out Elton John's greatest hits CD; after 10 days I returned it. Well the next time I went back a clerk informed me the EJ disc was overdue! Long story short, I ended up paying for the CD- $20! Needless to say I was quite pissed at first, but after tallying up all the disc I had checked out (I get print outs) and the only cost being gas and parking meters... I figured what the heck, I was way ahead on points and hey; such is life.Fast forward a couple weeks later (you guessed it) the Elton John disc is miraculously back on the shelf and most of the staff strangely developing amnesia over the whole matter.
Later that Summer they hold their semi-annual book drive and CDs were (as you mentioned) going for $2-$3, and books $0.50. But alas, no Elton John ;)
may the bridges I burn light the way....
Edits: 05/03/12 05/03/12
And Chinese and Russian pirates are doing great service to the poor - on contrary the rich are more inclined to: “Nearly all a poor bastard's desires are punishable by jail.”
― Louis-Ferdinand Céline, Journey to the End of the Night
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead"
― Charles Bukowski
You steal something that's not yours, what is that? If you're going to do it, do it. Ethical manipulation want change the fact.
-Wendell
I call it stealing, but you are going to need to talk to your own Jiminy Cricket and decide.
You don't sound to broken up about it so I'm guessing it isn't that big a problem for you.
.
Otherwise its stealing. One may not have a problem with the theft, but that doesn't change what it is.
A little known fact of the record industry is that the artist makes almost nothing from record sales. The greedy record company keeps most of the money. The recording industry calls downloading music theft and likes to point out that you are stealing from the person that made the music. Nothing could be farther from the truth. You are really just stealing from them and they are the ones that have been stealing from the artists all along.
If you really want to help artists that you like and feel deserve to be paid, go to their concert.
While a musician may get an 'advance' for making a recording, it is an advance of his own money. he advance, and the cost of the recording itself, are then charged against future earnings. And then the record companowns the recording that the artist has paid for--forever! And don't even get me started about record company accounting. So,getting back to the OP: If the music was stolen legally, it is illegal to re-steal it---but is it immoral?
I don't accept that the music was illegally taken from the artist in the first place. Not to mention all of the cost put into producing the music itself and putting it into some sort of media. Employee's livelihoods depend on this. I think the point in question is more complex. But the question posed is still interesting, especially if we simplify it. If your neighbor simply steals a garden gnome can you steal it and keep it. The answer is no, you should return it to its rightful owner. So if you download or rip music illegally at a bare minimum I could argue unless you send a check for $14.95 directly to the artist you are still stealing.
Just immorally. And, you may not be aware, all of the costs of 'producung the music itself' are changed to the artist. And, as I stated, it is certainly stealing to copy the content without permission. So I am not debating the law here. Just the ethics. (And note that I didn't come down on one side or the other--I am pondering it.) As Shakespeare said, 'To live outside the law you must be honest.'
Edits: 05/02/12
I get it, and I think we were both ultimately debating the morality of illegally downloading, not whether it was technically illegal which isn't the ultimate issue for us in this discussion. And just because something is illegal or legal, that isn't the last word on its morality. Which is why I went to the example of the garden gnome as a reality based and simplified thought, for what it was worth. So I get you. And I don't want to make this a nasty debate like power cords or tubes vs. solid state (tubes). ;) I have a definite opinion on the matter and I am sharing it and may come off as preaching it. I am a Latin / English teacher and I enjoy these debates as a matter of course. And whether downloading music is immoral is actually a discussion that has occurred in a class, so I find it interesting.
While I won't download myself, I guess I'm saying that while stealing is wrong, some stealing is worse than others. Or at least calls forth a milder rebuke from me. Like when the 'victims' don't have 'clean hands'. BTW I have restrospectively concluded that my most useful high school class was Latin, which taught me about the structure (and therefore meaning) of language.
Some stealing is worse than others: absolutely agree. I am very glad Latin has proven useful to you. Think these moral debates can get out of hand? Try telling someone who is convinced it is dead and should be buried that Latin has a place in a modern curriculum. Ah, well. What can you do?
or other necessary life sustaining products, like food. General dislike of the individual producing an item doesn't justify stealing from them, especially when we are talking about luxury items. Stealing is stealing. When can get into all sorts of side issues like how much artists make even if they willingly entered into a specific contract, record company's immoral practices, etc. My personal opinion is none of that justifies me stealing something in turn, especially when it is nothing that I have to have to survive.
But hey, I hear you. I do want to support the artists if I am able. I just don't want to go to concerts anymore.
rlindsa
nt
I had the same dilemma of conscience. I resolved it this way:1. I rarely play these ripped files. I keep them largely for archiving what I heard and what I was interested in.
2. If I find myself playing a few of them a LOT and really liking them, I will buy them -- although $21 import CDs need not apply here.[Note that I am not on Music Server mode yet, so the physical media still has importance to me.]
Edits: 05/01/12
I've not bought any that I already ripped, but it has lead me to buy other cd's of the artist. ..I guess this is some small recompense. :)
Ethics - moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
If you need to ask then you know the answer.
Did you know your computer tells the music companies what you are doing? Digital communication.
Tell Charlie Manson hello for me.
Arrrrrrg not Charlie ! ! !
By the time I get to library CD's they're scratched... I might listen to decide if I will buy or not.
Most of the time scratched CDs can be copied perfectly using a computer and software such as dBpoweramp or Exact Audio Copy. If a dog has played with them, however, the situation may be hopeless.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: