An ethical question about music downloading.

My wife and I were discussing this earlier. I'm curious to hear some other opinions on this.

Just so you know, I consider downloading copyrighted music without the permission of the copyright holder to be a form of stealing, and I have never done it. For the purposes of this question, let's just assume that downloading music is generally not ethical behavior.

Here's the situation...

About four or five years ago we purchased a CD (Wyclef Jean "The Carnival") at a music store. We listened to it a lot, and we certainly got our money's worth.

But we didn't take very good care of the CD. Last week I found it tucked in a corner of our car without any protective case. Now it is covered with scratches, and when we try to play it there are many irritating skips.

So here's the ethical question:

Would it be ethical for me to download a new copy of Wyclef Jean "The Carnival" from the Internet for free and burn it to a CD?

Some things to think about:

When I purchase a CD, am I purchasing the physical item, for use as long as the physical item lasts? Or am I purchasing the right to listen to the music for as long as I want to, even if I don't take care of the physical item?

Does it matter that the poor condition of the physical item is our own fault?

If the Internet didn't exist and we did not have the capability to download music for free, my wife says that she would probably be willing to go out and pay money to purchase the CD again. Does this matter?

I think this may be a question for the New York Times Magazine ethicist...

nt

I have already purchased this album.

from that scratched up CD you own. If not, you need to buy a new copy, either a hard copy CD or via a *legal* downloading provider.

It doesn't matter that you already purchased the CD. If you bought a bicycle and left it out in the street to be run over by a bus, you're not entitled to another exact copy of that same bicycle. If you bought a DVD of a movie, are you allowed to get a free copy if you scratch up your copy? Nope.

No, your purchase of that particular CD is what it is.

If you really want the full picture, visit the US Copyright website: click here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
and then download the pdf for Chapter 11-Sound Recordings and Music Videos

I'll probably get flamed for this post, but you'll hear a lot of rationalizations for why people should be allowed to download music illegal. The salient point is that under current law, it's illegal - there is no gray area. Period. Anything stated to the contrary is wishful thinking or blatant ignorance.

I'm interested in the ethicality.

royalties, then copy away and feel you're acting ethically. That doesn't absolve you from the fact *in law* that you're engaging in an illegal activity.

Look, the law is what it is. The law can be changed. Maybe it even needs to be changed. But until it's changed, what you're proposing to do is simply illegal. It's cut and dried in the law.

Sorry, but I've been in the recording industry for two decades and have spent plenty of time in music licensing and distribution, so I know where-of I speak.

then it gets ruined, it is not the artists or music biz's fault, therefore, you should just buy a replacement. Rationalizations otherwise are kind of reaching IMHO. It IS just a CD. :shrug:

have never downloaded. Don't plan to.

When a car wears out, we don't demand that a new one be given to us. We are responsible for changing the oil, etc. All items purchased are one time purchases. I bought many cassettes, and replaced some with cd's. I didn't feel entitled to burn a copy since I had already purchased the music.

Green Microsoft certificate (with hologram) that permits you to use one copy of a MS program on one PC. Download away.

-- Allen

In this case you're simply obtaining a backup copy that you're entitled to.

Furthermore... if you don't "own" your copy (for purposes of public exhibition, or performance) then clearly you're LICENSING IT, yes?

Therefore, your CD (albeit ruined) and the original CD case should be considered to be your license.

-- Allen

very different products.

Please familiarize yourself with copyright law here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

and then we'll talk.

BTW - your opinion isn't the law and is, in fact, not in agreement with current law. So, unless you're an entertainment copyright lawyer, I'd advise Skinner to ignore your opinion on this one.

I can tell.

-- Allen

Member of NARAS, the whole nine yards.

Sorry if my insider view is offensive to you. I've been through this discussion on so many music boards that I know I'm wasting bandwidth, but since Skinner asked in a serious way, I felt obliged to offer the legal and industry take on his question.

use a little work. --- But then I'm not known for having a good delivery either. I can often come across as being unnecessarily confrontational and antagonistic... it's a "people-skill" I'm not very good at. That and having no sense of humor are two of my worst traits.

-- Allen

window about 4 years ago on a music board.

Again, sorry if the delivery is blunt. The law as it stands - and as it is administered and prosecuted - is even more blunt than my feeble postings here.

You've bought the album, and I'd say that is purchasing the right to listen to it.

ad infinitum. He can even make a fair use copy for himself to play in his car cassette or CD player. If he screws up that copy of the CD, he's out of luck. Period.

What he can't do is make copies of the CD to distribute to friends either free of charge or for charge. If he owns a restaurant, he can probably play the CD as background music as long as he is paying ASCAP the standard music play fee as established in law.

Again, read all about it here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

i think it's fine. You paid for the "license" to listen to the music when you bought the CD. Download away.

Purchasing a CD is no more purchasing a "license" than buying a stethoscope licenses you to act as a doctor. When you buy a box of Ritz crackers, you haven't purchased a license to reproduce those crackers. You've purchased a PRODUCT, and a CD - or any sound carrier media - is just that, a copy of a product.

You should also be aware that the music industry has carved out restrictions in law that are unique to their product. For instance, you can rent movies on DVD, but you can't rent music product on CD. Read the law where it is all explained in great detail.

Visit the US copyright website here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
and read all about it.

but I believe you purchase the right to listen to the music, not the medium that it arrives on.


It's kind of like software, as long as you're not using both copies at the same time, you can make a backup.

Is it ethical behavior to use Kazaa as my backup?

Does the recording industry have an actual opinion on this situation? Presumably my purchase of the album is -- on some level -- an agreement with the recording industry. Their opinion should be relevant here.

perhaps not very clearly, ~I~ would consider downloading it a backup, the record company doesn't. So it's personal ethics vs. record biz profits.

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36

Who is a copyright owner:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

When have you infringed copyright?
§ 501. Infringement of copyright3

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.

Damages:

Can run up to $150,000 per offense.

Now, is it likely that a copyright holder will come after you? Until recently, I would have said no, but the RIAA is doing just that these days. Why risk it?

you've purchased a one time license.

had you made a backup and stashed it in an archive that would be ok in my mind.

I'm only familiar with the local laws, not the American ones (here it would be fine/you'd be allowed to copy your CDs as long as you don't circumvent copy protection mechanisms).

However it's possible to resurface CDs/DVDs; better music stores or video stores/rentals offer it as an service.

My Jackson Browne lives in the balance ,
I swear the next time I get it I'm not loaning
it to anyone .

You bought the original CD to use for its useful life, not into perpetuity.

And if you downloaded just that one song, you might plunge into the abyss of unethical behavior - kind of like heroin: "The first one's free, the rest is on the Devil."

It should be perfectly legal. Napster's lawyers just never figured this out.

The RIAA argued that what you are primarily purchasing, when you purchase a CD, is the content. The content is what is protected.

Therefore, you've already paid for the content. This is similar to downloading a piece of software for which you've purchased a license. I've had to download the same software several times due to hard drive issues, etc., but, because I have a license showing I've paid for it, I don't have to pay for it again.

So, downloading an album for which you've already paid is no more stealing than downloading a piece of software for which you hold the license.

The bigger issue for the RIAA, and the one that perplexes me, is why they haven't gone after used CD sales. They get no profit from that, and companies as big as Amazon make a tidy profit it.

So you could buy a used CD, and give profit to Amazon, and still no profit to the artist. Or you can simply download it, and save that money. Either way, the artist/RIAA is out, but they - by their own argument in the Napster case - should not expect any more from you than the physical cost of the CD. The content has been paid for.

BTW - it's perfectly legal to re-sell CDs through Amazon or whoever. Why? Because the artist royalty on that CD has already been paid, and that CD has become your property. The music industry can no more stop you from re-selling that CD than the auto industry could stop you from re-selling your car.

I won't go through your post point-by-point, but if you were to read the copyright law, you'll see where your errors in logic lie (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/). Suffice to say when you say " you've already paid for the content," you're correct - in that you've paid for the right listen to the content on that particular CD ad infinitum. That doesn't give you the right to use that content in any way that you wish. For instance, you couldn't use the content on that particular CD in a movie that you were making for commercial distribution. You'd need to pay a separate synchronization fee for such usage.

So, I'd advise that you familiarize yourself with the law first and conjecture after-wards.

I never claimed purchasing the CD was purchasing full rights to use the content in any way the purchaser wanted, so that's a strawman we can toss right off the bat.

I'm not conjecturing here, either. I'm using the RIAA's own arguments from the Napster case. Just because Napster's lawyers didn't see this doesn't mean the arguments weren't made.

The primary distinction is this: I have a CD I have purchased. I can back this up for my own personal use.

If the CD is damaged, I can then use the backup to replace it, and no money goes to the artist, the label, or the RIAA.

In Skinner's case, the CD was damaged, and he would replace it by downloading it, or getting a copy from a friend, or dipping into a backup file, and no money goes to the artist, the label, or the RIAA.

What, exactly, is the damage being done? Why is the method of replacement the issue? The results are exactly the same.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I've worked at the majors as well, and I can't advise you strongly enough to avoid illegal downloading. In fact, there are now legal download services available like the re-launched Napster and the Apple Music Store. Why not go there for the download? It may cost you $9 for an entire album, but at least it's legal.

And I like using it, I don't know how others feel but I like being able to buy songs off of albums that I only want 1 or maybe 2 songs off of. And it's only $1 a song so in this age of legal backlash from the industry, it's a small price to pay.

But for Skinner's issue, I don't know all of the legal issues that well, but I remember this coming up in a lesser debated issue, downloading ROM files of video games to use on emulators.

According to most disclaimers I've read on some ROM file webpages, you can legally download a ROM file if you own the physical copy of the game. Hell of a lot easier than trying to make a ROM file yourself.

So I would apply this same logic to Skinner's problem. If I own a CD or whether I own an old Coleco Vision game that doesn't work anymore (believe it or not, they still make a bid deal about download even Coleco or Atari games, even though they haven't been sold in years), I should be able to download an mp3 or ROM since I already paid for it. For this reason:

- What if I don't have the technical know how to make a backup or even the desire to? Whether I download it or take the time to do so shouldn't matter.

"It's nothing short of a catastrophe for most indies. Many friends and business partners and their artists have been put out of business. When a product is free, it's hard to eek out a living selling it."

In reality the dissemination of music in such fashion is the performers personal radio station reaching out and touching new people. Nothing is more valuable to a performer than a fan who wants to share their music or a listener who wants to hear it.

Real purchases are made because you want to own the official release of the product. Real fans like to look at the artwork, read the lyrics and production notes, etc.

A temporal fad sucker purchase of getting $18 for one hook repeated on the radio is a ripoff.

Plus the majority of what is being downloaded is heard on the radio every hour.

I feel free to download whatever I want. My interest in itself is enough reward for the artist.

You already paid the artist for their work. To me this would be the same as making a backup copy on your CD burner in case you lose the CD or scratch it up. In the old days we would make copies of LP's on cassette tape to play in the car.

As long as you paid for it once and you are not giving it or selling it to others, no big deal.

Download your copy of "The Carnival" and then go buy another one of his Albums.

I have bought four of his albums (I think). So I have certainly provided him with some compensation for his work. Is this relevant?

and reading interviews with him, I would be willing to bet the farm that he would want you to spend them money on something new so that you could enjoy even more of his music. The man is all about the music, not the hardware.

On Edit: post 21 has me convinced. I still don't think he would care, but perhaps you should.

Even though you've never stolen music, you've paid that tax...download the disk.

First and foremost - I have NO moral issues with downloading music, whatsoever. That's not to say I do it - I'm a music junkie, and I like the whole package. Liner notes, etc. I have probably downloaded 20 songs total - EVER. It's how I discovered CAKE - and I now own all of their cds. The record industry pisses me off with this "stealing" talk - I find the arguement ridiculous, and one thing joe-public doesn't seem to realize is that WE PAY THE RIAA MONEY ON EVERY BLANK CD WE BUY. For real - buying blanks for software backups? Digital home movies? To use as frisbees? The RIAA gets a cut - cuz you MIGHT use one to burn music onto.

That said- while I have no "ethical" problem with you downloading the cd, I don't think the fact that you bought one copy that got scratched (because of your own neglect) means you are "owed" a replacement copy. If you bought a book and dropped it in a lake, you'd have to go purchase another copy of the book if you wanted to read it. Is there ANY product you can replace freely, if you break the original?

I think that for yourself, to remain consistant you have to go buy a new Wyclef cd.

My personal opinion - download the cd if you want! It's not hurting anyone, and the RIAA can STFU!


on edit: I just did a guick google for a link describing the RIAA cdr tax and wasn't able to come up with anything I would consider irrefutable. I'm willing to concede at the moment that that point may/may not be accurate. Any other DUers more "in the know" on that issue than myself - feel free to weigh in.

A lot of my friends are in bands and I have a couple in music promotion and one who runs an indie label and they're divided on the "music theft" issue, the one that runs the label actually see's it as beneficial - the sort of stuff they represent isn't ever going to get radio play (atleast here in Oz) and giving people one or two full length free tracks gives them the chance to decide if it's something they want to fork out $30 for or trot out to a 'burb's pub to watch the band.

I know for a fact that a large number of (legal) CD's in my collection wouldn't be there if I hadn't been able to try before buying.

On the royalties for blank tapes/CD's - The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (US) sets out the royalty payment that is made by blank CD/tape manufacturers in case a copy is made:

Section 1004. Royalty payments

(1) Amount of payment.
The royalty payment due under section 1003 for each digital audio recording device imported into and
distributed in the United States, or manufactured and distributed in the United States, shall be 2 percent
of the transfer price. Only the first person to manufacture and distribute or import and distribute such
device shall be required to pay the royalty with respect to such device.
(2) Calculation for devices distributed with other devices.

You are highly visible. Your real name is well known by TPTB. You run a very high profile liberal website that the RW would love to take down right along with you. You have now broadcast the possibility that you are considering breaking this stupid law.

Do you think you won't be watched? Do you think your traffic won't be tracked? Do you really think you're a nonentity in terms of something like this? Don't be foolish.

This is a no brainer. If you care about your family, your career, your freedom and DU, for heaven's sake borrow or buy a new copy of the CD.

I like this type of question. I was curious what people would think.

I sure would be flattered if people thought I was important enough to track my music consumption patterns.

But I would probably not download it anyway.

I have a lot of records, both 33 1/3 and 45s. I haven't listened to them in ages. I have a few that I truly cherish, though, and would love to hear again.

I bought every one of those records in their time. If I had done it correctly, I should have made cassette tapes of them for my own use. But even tapes don't last forever, while records, with some care, WILL last.

I have downloaded some of those songs in the past year or so. I don't believe I am stealing anything, as I have bought the originals, but have no capacity to play them right now.

I rarely download songs that I don't know, unless it's an artist I've never heard of before or want to know a little better. Once I hear their stuff, I make the decision to either buy their CDs or not bother. It's the same concept to me as shareware--use my buying power to get what I really enjoy, and make decisions based on the samples that I hear.

The unequivocal answer is it is stealing copyrighted material.

It doesn't matter whether the poor condition is your fault or their fault.

If the poor condition were their fault, the dealer most likely has a remedy.

People let the ethics on stolen music be shady only because it is easy to do so.

NOW...on the other SIDE of this argument, the RIAA has been in the dark ages on technology for a while. They have made similar arguments for cassette tapes.

The ONE thing the public CANNOT be responsible for is the fact that an industry association SAW the technology coming and did nothing. If my boat were taking on water, I would fix the leak. The RIAA may have asserted a KNOWN right in claiming it is theft but has not fixed the leak due to their own resistance.

Now they are out to BREAK the law in order to enforce it.

...is that the car without the car is completely useless. A car's very reason for being, it's very car-ness, is in its physical form. I purchased a car for the car.

But a plastic CD and a plastic case are not the essence of album-ness. I didn't purchase the album for the plastic disc. I purchased it for the music it contained.

You purchased the cd to listen to it.

They both have a function. The plastic case and liner notes can be compared to the cars nice paint job and impact resistant fenders/bumpers.

A car is just a car to look at unless it performs it's given function.
A cd is just a cd unless you can listen to it.

There is a warranty on a car for a limited time. Not one on cd's.

Another example would be:
If I bought a book at the store.. read it and enjoyed it. Later I caught the book on fire went back to the bookstore and took another copy walked out. I'd be arrested.

It is very tempting though, and sounds good :).

He's not actually taking a physical CD, he's simply replacing the content that the RIAA argued was the integral part of the purchase in the first place.

If they're going to separate content and physical CD when it suits their purpose, well, I think some consistency should be required.

It would be like if it caught on fire so you downloaded an e-book of it from Kazaa or something. It costs the industry nothing to let you have another one when its downloaded except the money you MAY have otherwise spent on it.

I still oppose this, but I feel this is a flawed example. No offense.

You could be sued if the RIAA finds out about it. But, I doubt you would get caught unless you were sharing, and the RIAA does see the sharer in a worse light than the downloader. Sharing is really where the copyright infrigement occurs; whereas downloading without permission is not ethical but not necessarily stealing directly IMO. Public opinion should matter when it comes to the laws, and many people don't have a problem with downloading.

<snicker>

its piracy .Copyright laws are locking our culture in ca closet.that is how music formed like the old blues people would play each others songs and tweak it people swapped sheet music check out http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=03/12/08/2109123 for a good article

Unless it is permitted, so since the public opinion isn't bad like it is with shoplifting (I think downloading is more like an "illegal receipt,") maybe we can compromise between the conflicting interests - possibly with an internet tax. That's my favorite idea.

Something else Skinner should know: if they do find music on your computer somehow, lawsuits are even more random than before since the RIAA can't get names right away. And the RIAA has no way of knowing that you bought the albums already, so by the time you made your excuse it would be too late. It all comes down to morals, since the odds of being caught are very low if you are not sharing. They are already low if you share.

off the rack?

When I drop my book in a mud puddle or my 3-year old tears a few pages out, doese that entitle me to go get another one free?

Did your CD come with some kind of lifetime warranty?

Already discounted this line of reasoning in the Napster case when they argued that content is what is being purchased, and that the CD and case are simply a means of transporting that content.

But how is dowloading and burning onto a CD any different from taping music off of the radio?

and industry has had a prob with that in the past also - hence the royalties on blank tapes and CD's. It's also illegal to copy movies from the video library or to tape a friends CD or as mentioned above to tape a program from the TV (atleast it is in Aust and I'm assuming the US laws are similar given the royalties that must be paid on blanks)

fee that covers the artist and mechanical royalties for any piece of music they broadcast. Ergo, the artists etc have received a royalty, though that royalty fee is most likely not the same as that which they receive when you purchase a hard copy CD. You - as a home listener - are allowed to make a copy of that radio broadcast for your own fair use.

If you purchase a track at the Apple Music Store, the artist and publisher also gets a royalty, though it's a reduced royalty when compared to a retail CD purchase. Same thing with the re-launched Napster. Every single track that is sold hundreds and hundreds of times carries within that 99¢ charge a small royalty for both artist and music publisher.

When you use a program that illegally swaps music files, none of that happens. No one gets paid anything, via either the radio model or the legal download model I've outlined above.

Hope that clears it up.

music downloading. An audience member asked about the difference between recording on the radio versus downloading from the Internet and twice the record industry people said it has to do with quality. The stuff from the radio is not pure digital quality for the most part.
They said nothing about the radio station paying ASCAP fees or anything like that.

any copyright protection will be quickly overcome by bright technophiles.

But 99% of the .mp3s out there are way below CD quality, as well. Just being digital doesn't make it perfect. There's a huge difference between 96 and 320 kbs.

Of course quality is in the ear of the listener. My musican friend swears by the 96khz audio standard.

with it?Or would that be stealing and you should just buy the show series or movie on dvd

It was all covered in the Beta Max case years ago. You are allowed to make a single, legal fair-use copy of anything that comes across your TV.

then it surely wouldn't have been possible to enforce a royalty on the sale of ALL blanks? otherwise people would be paying superflous royalties?

An excise tax was added to the sale of all blank recording media to compensate the copyright holders.

ergo it can not be entirely legit to tape from TV otherwise people buying the blanks could argue they are paying a royalty where there is no legal obligation for them to do so.

In the 60's I had the "Luck" to be part of a band that had a hit record. (NO,,,sorry...don't ask...don't want to go into it. :) )
Anyway, I could not care less if people download the song that I wrote or was a part of.

Why?...because bands don't make beans from the albums, cd's or whatever. It's amazing how the studio time, publicity, fees and taxes always seem to equal the profit on the buy-able source. There are absolute horror stories and "screw jobs" that would turn your stomach. (Remember the song "spooky" by the Classics Four that sold around 2 million copies? ) The record label "accounting" made it so the poor bastards (the band) wound up OWING money to the producer.

Now ...The band does make some dough on personal appearances and other stuff.

When you buy the cd, you're helping the Record label and producers...
When you buy a ticket to see the band, then you're helping the group.

I will admit that the situation is improving (from what I hear) but
you can bet that the Record companies are not about to give much away...

On Edit: Sorry, if I sound like a hard-ass about the recording industry but if you think Republicans are pricks, baby, you ain't seen nothing until you've had to deal with the scum that controls the music industry....

Wow, you not only hit that one out of the park, but knocked it damn near off the planet!!!

What you're saying is TOTALLY true. My band and I have self-produced and distributed everything we've done. Of course, we aren't on heavy rotation on any ClearChannel stations, don't have big-budget videos on MTV, and don't make a living doing what we love, but we DO have complete control over our catalog and publishing rights-- which NOBODY can take away from us unless we choose to give them away.

The music business is one of the last bastions of slavery in the world. Most "dumb musicians" don't have half the sense to know that they're getting robbed by not only the recording companies, but by the producers and managers too. Most musicians don't make squat off their CDs-- they pay the bills by touring and merchandizing, AND by working a day job that lets them do what they love in their "off" hours.

IIRC, even a "big" act like REM was still in hock to their record company by their 3rd record, and all still had day jobs up until then, too.

So don't feel too bad about downloading "illegal" stuff. The only people that get hurt are the likes of BMG, Sony and the other three label owners left on the planet.

I half expected somebody to say something like "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about"

Yep...Unknowing bands sign their life away and the Record (CD) companies just smile while they're stabbing them in the back.

It sounds like your group has it's shit together, though!

Thanks again.

I've never been a working musician, but I spent several years as a serious fan of "alternative" music -- about 1984 to 1992. I met hundreds of groups, many of them which are now considered to be important in the history of music, not just popular music.

And I've never met one that made diddly in less than five years. Even the bands that hung on for more than five years, usually had to cut it close to the bone just to survive.

Even after gold and platinum breakthrough hits.

The Smithereens. The Replacements. The Go-Gos. The dBs.

Are you familiar with Ben Vaughn of the Ben Vaughn Combo? He couldn't even afford health insurance until he was hired to write the incidental music for 3rd Rock from the Sun.

Even in the 1960s, it was bad. Read how White Whale took The Turtles into the abyss of bankruptcy.

The future belongs to the indies and the self-produced. With an adequately developed on-line marketplace, the artists will soon bypass The Industry entirely.

Some have already. In the not-so-distant future, Ani Defranco will have a lot of company.

--bkl

...just reading it made my blood boil.

Yea...I had a friend that told me about Ben Vaughn. More boiling blood.

You know, that is one of the great things about the Internet (in a subject such as this). Young Bands can hear about all the injustice (s) of the past and maybe, just maybe, take another route to achieve their dreams without having to endure a pile of heartache along the same road. :)

If you want to be totally strict about it, the very act of logging into the Kazza network is unethical. In all likelihood you would be receiving the file from someone that had no right to it in the first place.

On the other hand you would not even be getting a full replacement of your CD seeing that it is an Mp3 and lower quality than your original.

But, if I were in your situation I would do it anyway, on the big scale of unethical behavior this doesn't even register.

and copy it...you paid for this music once, have bought 4 other works from this artist, so just do it IMO.

Our library here has a music department where you can borrow, and copy CDs.....for a small fee.

I tape music from the radio and films/programs from my tv all the time - guiltless too!

Indiscriminately downloading music without buying from artists is unethical, but it does not seem so to me in the case you are talking about.

DemEx

the same question in the same way you did here....i think you might be pleasently surprised...perhaps a new CD :7 with an admonishment to take better care next time :7....


skinner listen to your wife! :7

I'm not totally sure of the legality, but if memory serves correctly you would be entirely within your rights to download another copy of the CD, since you have ALREADY paid the licensing fees for the content.

Also, under "fair use" guidelines, you are allowed to make a backup copy of any copyrighted materials you have LEGALLY licensed. IMHO, downloading another copy of this CD would be a PERFECT case of "fair use".

I'm not a lawyer, but I am a musician and this issue impacts me directly, as I have some copyrighted work that has been passed around on various fileshare services. I personally don't have any problem with people sharing what I've put out there, because the more who hear my music, the better.

File-sharing CAN hurt creators eventually, but considering that your favorite artist is lucky if s/he even sees $1 from that $18 CD you purchase, I think it's okay to do it. The only "people" that get hurt are the middle-men and record company parasites who own the plantations.

N/T

You wrote:
"I'm not totally sure of the legality, but if memory serves correctly you would be entirely within your rights to download another copy of the CD, since you have ALREADY paid the licensing fees for the content."

He has NOT paid a licensing fee for that content. He has purchased that content as it is encased in that sound carrier media. Let me ask you this, if I buy a burger at McDonalds, have I purchased a license that allows me to sell McDonalds hamburgers or to reproduce them at my leisure? No.

Also, under "fair use" guidelines, you are allowed to make a backup copy of any copyrighted materials you have LEGALLY licensed. IMHO, downloading another copy of this CD would be a PERFECT case of "fair use".

Again, you write "legally licensed" when the correct description is that the CD has been "legally purchased." Downloading is emphatically NOT fair use because fair use ONLY APPLIES to the CD that you have "legally purchased."

Licensing and purchasing are not the same thing. You need go no further than Webster's to know that. Please don't confuse them...especially when the RIAA goons are out and about.

Skinner does not "own" the recorded content of the CD-- he only owns a license to it. Just like Microsoft software-- you NEVER "own" it, you merely "license" it from MS.

Skinner only "purchased" the content of the CD (case, inserts, physical disk), NOT the music on the CD, which he "licensed". The music itself is not "his", it is still retained by the music publisher. He owns a copy of it, the "license".

apply to the Licensing Division of the Copyright Office for said "license?"

When you can answer that, we'll talk. Try Webster's first, then, look here: http://www.copyright.gov/carp/

I really don't know why nobody here seems interested in actually taking a look at the regulations before offering their opinions.

"Skinner only "purchased" the content of the CD (case, inserts, physical disk), NOT the music on the CD, which he "licensed". The music itself is not "his", it is still retained by the music publisher. He owns a copy of it, the "license",

you're betraying that fact that you don't understand the basic difference between Artist Royalties (ie: the sound recording) and Mechanical Royalties (ie: the printed music from which the recording was made). BOTH entities are paid a royalty on every recording sold. Mechanical royalties don't apply to works in the public domain, like Beethoven Symphonies. Neither one of them - ie: music publisher or music performer - has "licensed" any consumer anything.

Buying the CD no more entitles you to make additional royalty-free copies of the artists' contribution to the CD than that it allows you to print up illegal copies of the sheet music from which it was recorded.

I understand the basic difference between Artist and Mechanicals, as I own both, and have been paid for them too, btw, FREE AND CLEAR OF any of the jackals that are present in today's "music industry". So please don't go around insulting my intelligence with such tripe like "I don't know the difference" between royalties.

You may want to take your pisspoor attitude to GD-2004 if you plan on acting like such an arsehole-- they could certainly use another condescending participant in their slugfest.

copy and distribute the materials, when and to what extent.

In many ways Kazaa removes that right by enabling the copying and distributing of materials without the input of those who hold the copyright.

As a published writer, a poet and an individual who instructs college-age students I have a high interest in the ethics of copyright, not merely the legalities.

I see this issue as differing significantly from the backup copies of software. Artistic product is not product without which your work and information will be lost. It makes sense to allow a grace copy for text editor, for example. Inadvertent harm to the original would render my documents unreadable and make worthless my time, possibly causing great loss of monies. A demand to repurchase would add costly insult to injury.

But with regard to artistic work product, I don't believe, personally, that one purchases the right to lifetime enjoyment. One does not purchase the right to copy artistic materials, distribute them and keep them for a lifetime. One purchases a copy of the artistic materials. If my favourite book, or paiting, or photographic masterpiece is lost, missing or destroyed, I do not expect that my original purchase entitles me to free replacement.

...for giving us *something* else to talk about tonight besides potential presidents and football.

I have actually thought about this a bit myself. I have concluded that when it happens to me (by the way, you didn't find a Les McCann CD lurking in your car too, did you?) I feel obliged to re-purchase the CD either new or used.

Now in my dreamworld of organization and techno-home I would copy every CD we own to a hard drive at the time of purchase. In this dreamworld we would listen to our music via our iMac and never have to mess with CD cases (we would have iPods or XM in the car). Alas, as it's a dreamworld, it remains such. But, in this dreamworld your predicament would not occur because IF you needed an additional hardcopy you could copy it from the hard drive.

Besides, who wants to be a part of the club that steals music from musicians? Ethical or not...

for six to eight dollars. I've got to believe that DC has at least as good used record stores as Cola SC. As you've said that you believe downloading music is unethical, it would still be unethical even in the circumstances you've described, as others have mentioned above.

Instead of parsing the ins and outs of music downloading and all the ethics - which I grant can be quite complicated - take the word of a sucker, I mean, an addict, who has purchased my favorite artists on CD, remastered CD's, anniversary remastered CD's, and everything in-between. I am so loyal to the artists whose CD's I have listened to time and time again, that if a newer and better version of the CD I love comes out, I will buy it.

The key point of your post to me was that the Wyclef Jean CD will have longevity. I am a believer in longevity. I still have vinyl from the 70's I listen to. I have a feeling that 10 years from now, you and your wife can still find enjoyment in the Wyclef Jean.

So just buy a new one. From an ethical standpoint, you are helping him get back some small portion of the money taken from him by fans who have NEVER purchased an official CD, yet bootleg online indiscriminately. Just as you would not want someone stealing DU's intellectual and creative property for gain, you would not want someone stealing Wyclef's. Take your lumps for the wear and tear on the original CD you bought, and get a sparkling new one. This is advice from someone who has damaged a CD or two in his day by complete accident, only to make amends with a new one. :-)

You've purchased the album. You supported the musician. If your neighbor had a copy, and youw anted to make a copy of it to supplant the one that was damaged, I'd think that was a fair-use copy - especially given that you still have the original in your possession. Downloading the music is essentially the same. Just my two cents.

though it wouldn't be legal.

friends used to make for each other, comp tapes, if you will. What bothers me about this question is the controlling nature of it and the privacy issues. I don't think it would be such a big deal if it weren't happening on such a large scale and putting music stores out of business. There are also questions about how much the industry charges and the low amount of money that the artists actually get. From a legal standpoint, downloading does not seem right to me. However, the tactics of the industry, the way that they treat artists, and the way that they treat their customers, does not give them any moral high ground, either. Better to buy the product direct from the artist him or herself, and for the industry to accept the changes in the way that the "product" itself can be accessed. Ironically the MP3 player people seem to be thinking farther ahead than the RIAA people.

there was a tendency to look the other way back when music had to be taped in real time. After all, if one was making an hour-long tape of an album on a cassette, it took you over an hour to do so...and you probably had a copy whose sound quality wasn't great. No one was going to spend money on their legal department going after some teeny bopper who copied one of The Monkees albums.

With downloading, it's almost instantaneous, and the sound doesn't really degrade. The dynamics of copying have increased significantly, as has the problem. New problem, new solutions...and...new problems!!

Legal? No.

The recording industry has written the laws the way it wants them. The only option is the highest-priced option. It will always be that way.

Ethical?

If your ethics are based entirely on law, no. But given the massive abuses of the legal system and the world's musical culture and heritage by the recording industry, that may have to be modified a bit.

The "Artists" over whom the legalists wring their hands are treated like slave labor. The Go-Gos broke up largely over money issues, since they were still broke after Talk Show, by which time they had had four hit records. Nearly every "alternative" act I've ever come across also has had money problems for years even after commercial success -- the Replacements, for instance. And the time I got to meet Alex Chilton when he did a gig in Philadelphia, he was still struggling to make ends meet, and several of us fans helped him dig his not-very-fancy car out of the snow -- AC couldn't even afford business class air travel.

If you want to stay legally squeaky-clean, then buy a new copy. If it's ethical considerations that are more important, then downloading should count as no more than a venial sin -- and maybe not even a sin at all. Let your conscience be your guide.

--bkl
Patty and Mildred Hill died broke.

The lousy record companies have made sure that the laws are written that you have a license for the work, not ownership. If you buy the CD you purchased the license and as long as its for your own use and you don't transfer ownership of the CD it looks ok.

If not, screw the record companies and thier cousins the software publishers.

supporting big label record companies that in turn support the GOP is immoral because to do so is indirectly killing American troops and Iraqi civilians. Against such arguments right to profit viewpoints seem meaningless.

major record labels and thousands of independent record labels worldwide? Add to that the fact that copyright laws for the same recording vary from country to country. So, on the face of it, you're wrong - there is no monopoly waiting to be *ethically* destroyed via illegal downloading.

Your problem isn't really with the music companies, but with US copyright laws. Those laws cover everything from music to plays to books to movies to whatever. If that's where your problem lies, then work to change the law.

Consider this - the same law that protects the music industry from illegal piracy is the same law that provides the only guarantee that musical artists receive compensation for the sale of their recorded work. Is that what you're espousing? Denying the artists you claim to enjoy the just payment for their efforts? At least, when and if your favorite artist gets screwed on his royalty payments, he's entitled under the law to seek redress from the bastards at his record label. When YOU steal from him via illegal downloads, he's basically shit out of luck and chasing phantoms.

If I take your premise and extend it to the automobile industry, I'd claim that there was a monopoly - forget the fact that there are a few major and any number of minor auto manufacturers worldwide. I could also claim that the law shouldn't be uniform across the industry. Ergo if I buy a Ford, I don't need to stop at red lights. And, even with all the traffic and trade laws currently in place, I could claim that by supporting the auto industry through my purchase of a vehicle, I'm actually contributing to not only political points of view I disagree with, but to the direct death of tens of thousands of Americans a year. None of the above is any more true for the auto industry than your post is true for the music industry.

I know I'm wasting my time on this, but what the hey...

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42054,00.html
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/2003_Sept_2/106909409/p2/article.jhtml?term=



http://www.boycott-riaa.com/education/contributions


(And Yes I know "new dems" are just as much to blame as repukes)

The industry is going after supppliers, not downloaders, much less the folks who only do it casually. The other option you have is you could find someone online, maybe here, who could e-mail the tracks on the album to you. That would be a private transaction between consenting adults. I have done this myself before.

I lost sympathy for them when those greedy punks tried to strong-arm internet radio stations into paying ridiculous royalties that over-the-air broadcasters don't have to. This resulted in many great stations going off the air or switching to subscription mode.

And consider that these very stations were (egads!) promoting the RIAA's product! Actually playing obscure and up-and-coming artists, instead of all that N'SUCK drivel!

Oh, and feeling sorry for huge concerns that think it's O.K. to sue 13-year olds? Sorry, but FUCK THE RIAA!!!

I download mostly oldies and obscure stuff anyway, as I have little need for the garbage that the recording industry tries to shove down our throats via horrible Clear Channel stations and MTV (when they actually play music). I also use Kazaa to download radio airchecks and obscure sound bytes. Are they gonna sue me for that? Puh-leeze!

If downloading will lead to the downfall of the corrupt RIAA, then I'll even download stuff I hate! Flame me if you want, but I honestly think the RIAA is evil. So there!

If you had just bought the CD then you would've paid 10 cents for the CD. I believe that 15 bucks gives you the right to listen to that music and make backup copies.

You might be able to burn a workable copy unless the disc is totally beyond recovery.

:evilgrin:

But only because those are your ethics, not mine. My own ethics wouldn't bar me from it, I don't *think.*

OTOH, if you have any friends who you'd like to turn onto the album, why not buy them a copy and duplicate it for yourself?

It may be equally dodgey, but, this is coming from the point of view of someone who freaks out at people she sees mishandling CDs almost as much as she used to freak out at people who let their fingers touch the grooves on her vinyl records.

you can rip a CD into any format you want and keep as many copies as you want because you paid for the music. Yeah I know you're not entitled to a new bicycle but digital data is entirely different.

For you Skinner, I'll burn you a copy and send it to you if you want.

...and take another one because you trashed the first one?

The RIAA steals enough money from us. Why cater to them and hand them more money? I have over 6,000 songs downloaded for free from the Internet, and I don't feel guilty about it one bit. Hell, I haven't bought a CD in over six years.

Go ahead and download the cd, and then burn away. Tell the RIAA to stick it.

But destroy the original. That's fair.

I just downloaded all 24 songs of it in like 10 seconds (RIT has an OC3 connection) I'll mail the CD to you but if you don't want to give me your address, I'll send it to DU at:
Democratic Underground
P.O. Box 53350
Washington, DC 20009

anything for you Skinner :toast:

I've never met him, but I'm pretty sure he'd be cool about it. The only people who could have an "ethical" problem with it would be the record executives, but those people make lawyers look like Mother Teresa.

So in some dusty corner of my mom's attic I've got a bunch of old NES games. I have no intention of driving six hundred miles to get them, but I play the ROMs with an emulater. The deal with ROMs is, you're only supposed to play them if you actually own the cartridge. Which I think is perfectly fair. Since you still actually own the song, it's still there on your cd, it's just got too many scratches for your cd player to read it well. I see no ethical problem with downloading a backup copy of a song you already own. And don't Wyclef would either.

One love.

-D.W.

:smoke:

I don't know what the deal is in the US, but in Canada, there's a federal tax on blank media, which is supposedly to compensate artists (in reality, protecting the corporations which own the artists' work), to offset the effects ofd people, say, burning CD-Rs or taping LPs onto cassette.

Now... you pay the blank media tax, even if you're buying cassettes or CD-Rs to record your own work, or your kids' third-grade spring pageant, or a lecture or something. So you are expected to pay for someone else's criminal intent.

Is that fair?

Also, the CD was marketed as a 'perfect' copy of the original recording. They supposedly would not scratch or wear out, and that was part of the sales pitch used to push the format on the public. I remember audiophile magazines in the late 70s and early 80s with photos of trade show models standing on CDs and then slipping them into a player and enjoying perfect playback. But of course, CDs are quite succeptable to scratching, etc., and I personally have a couple of old (purchased in '84 or so) CDs which have simply deteriorated to the point that they don't play, despite being in flawless cosmetic condition. I've heard several other cases of the same phenomenon, and I've read that now it's widely believed that CDs have a maximum shelf-life of around fifty years. That's nice for us, isn't it? So, basically, the public has been swizzed.

Is that fair?

So, in answer to your question, Skinner, I think the occasional replacement of something you've already paid to own is fine. When you think of it, as your original copy is not playable, you will still only have one copy. I've done it several times, and I'm in the process of buring several hundred out of print LPs and 12" singles onto my hard-drive, for my own personal use. I've already paid for the works of the artist, and the owners of the copyright haven't seen fit to re-release the works on a currently-supported format. Plus, the technological limitations of vinyl make the music recorded on it subject to wear and other damage. How many copies of "London Calling" did I buy in highschool? Three. Because vinyl requires an undue amount of care.

I see your point about not purchasing a replacement copy, but I don't think that's necesary.

If you were downloading the music to resell or something, or to enjoy while never paying the artist, that's a whole other batch of steamed hams.

edit: so many typos...

so much as to agonize this much over buying a new CD - then it makes sense to me to go buy another.

What is the nature of ethics, anyway? To see that people get a fair shake, more or less....

It seems like one reason to download would be the idea that "other people" are getting free music or some other rationalization.

I think it makes sense to listen to stopbush. If people considered what they did for a living and what would happen if everyone wanted to get out of compensating them for what they did, where would they be?

And I know - you feel like you have paid, already -

:)