Is Downloading Ever Justified?

[Ginnie]

And I'm talking about the 'illegal' downloading of music here. Not the visual arts.

I have a hard time with this. I really do.
On the surface, it seems that it is just plain wrong. Pure and simple. But is it?

I have a 'friend' who downloads music every now and then. Now, my 'friend' is around my age, and in his lifetime has bought about one thousand vinyl records and CD's. That's supporting a lot of artists. Some, he's bought four times - in this instance Bowie's 'Diamond Dogs' album : one record wore out, one melted, one replaced the melted one and then I - I mean he, bought the CD. And he bought every Bowie album up until 1988 - that's around twenty just for this particular artist. So Bowie made money on him. So, is it so bad if he downloaded some Bowie stuff that he doesn't have to hear what it sounds like? I mean, Bowie really needed the money back in '74 and my 'friend' helped him out.

Another point: My friend finds that by downloading music it gives him a better informed judgement on what to actually buy. And no, he doesn't download twenty albums and buys just one. The ratio is much closer than that. Perhaps five to one. And stuff he doesn't like eventually gets deleted.

Also, there is material that you can download that doesn't seem to be available anywhere else - mostly of concerts where another musician/artist made a guest appearance.
Example - Bruce Springsteen singing Helpless with Neil Young.

I do know some young people who have bigger music collections than me who've never, ever , bought a CD! That, I find is wrong. But is it?

And this isn't audio, but how do the Youtube clips not violate copyright laws?
e.g. The Beatles from the Let It Be move, which is available in multiple clips from YouTube.

[laurel]

Aug 12, 2008 20:06:33 GMT -4 Ginnie said:

Also, there is material that you can download that doesn't seem to be available anywhere else - mostly of concerts where another musician/artist made a guest appearance.
Example - Bruce Springsteen singing Helpless with Neil Young.

Sometimes you can download songs before the CD is released. Speaking of Bruce Springsteen, for example, he performed some songs from his "Magic" CD on the Today Show last fall, and I really wanted to get a copy of the songs but the CD hadn't been released yet, so I downloaded them. I can probably justify that ethically though, because I did buy the CD when it became available. Too bad I can't justify all my downloads this way.

The thing is, even before you could download music, there were still ways to get music for free. I'm old enough to remember when people would duplicate cassette tapes and/or tape songs off the radio. So this isn't necessarily a new moral dilemma.

[echnaton]

I download music torrents for albums I already own. I have paid the royalty but want to listen to it in an different format. Much like I used to make cassettes from my LPs. Only IPODs are much smaller and easier that hauling around a few hundred cassettes to carry all my music. Record companies I am sure would not agree, but I believe this to be ethical.

My biggest temptation to do something that I feel is wrong, is to copy CDs that are available at the library. Those Ken Burn Jazz collections are always there tempting me and mocking my ethical considerations.

[echnaton]

A second thing. I will copy music that is out of print. A friend came across a LP by local artists Shake Rustle and Dana Cooper. I made the digital transfer because my turntable has a new stylus and is hooked up to my computer. I even scanned the cover art to make a CD insert. No conflict for me there.

[Jason]

I think if you are doing more than just trying a one-time listen of a piece of music that you should buy it, not just download it.
In the rare instance where it's out of print and impossible to get legally I suppose I wouldn't be too concerned about owning an illegal copy, but I would buy it if it went into print again.
I have no problem with downloading something I already own in some other form (CD, Tape Casette, 8-track, etc.)

[gillianren]

I know someone who was in a band back in the '90s. The band had an album that sold pretty well given its limited appeal, but it's out of print now. I believe the official stance of every former member of the band is that, well, there's no other way to get it, so go ahead. That same person did a couple of albums for Firebird Music; that person no longer gets any residuals for them, probably because the contract really sucked. This is someone whose entire living is selling CDs and doing shows; there's actually a bardic curse on all the CDs, for those who believe in bardic curses. Since there's artist permission on some, I've downloaded those, as have several of my friends. (Including the ones who paid the artist $20.)

When you don't have the artist's express permission . . . .

I was an obsessive mix tape maker in high school. A lot of my tapes--including my copy of my own cousin's album--are pirated. However, I can see the difference between me copying an album from the Bostwicks while I babysit their kids and a couple thousand people, give or take ten thousand, downloading instead of buying. It does hurt some artists, and it does hurt some people who aren't artists, people who make their living in the industry in some small way. However, I think that's at least as much the fault of the music industry; they were too slow to hop on the bandwagon, and they're not being understanding to those of us who own the same album in three media already.

Anything I say will be justifying my actions. I know that. But I do think it's okay to pirate a song or two to decide if you want the album, and I do think it's okay to pirate if you already own the tape or vinyl. (If you own the CD, can't you just copy it onto your computer?)

[LunarOrbit]

I'm against piracy because I think it is freeloading. If you like an artist you should show them support by buying their music. But I agree that out of print music that is not available any other way is a different matter and I don't think downloading it is a big deal.

And for every honest downloader like Ginnie who will eventually buy the music they like, there are many more who never pay for it.

I don't mind people making copies of the music they have paid for already as long as it is for their own personal use. It's when they "share" it with others that I disapprove.

I also think that downloaders seem to be under the impression that it is only hurting rich people, but that is not the case. It affects everyone from the CEO of the record label all the way down to the teenager working part time in a music store who is trying to pay for college. Even legitimate downloading (from iTunes, for example) is hurting people, in my opinion, because they don't need to employ as many people (most of the work is done by computers in one central location).

I think it should be up to the artist and record label how their music is made available. If they want to give their hard work away for free they can, but it is their choice. Artists invest they time and a lot of effort into their music, and the labels invest money... I don't think it is unreasonable for them to want to make a profit from it.

[Data Cable]

Aug 12, 2008 23:22:15 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

Even legitimate downloading (from iTunes, for example) is hurting people, in my opinion, because they don't need to employ as many people (most of the work is done by computers in one central location).

Then you're in favor of inefficient business models, so long as they provide employment?

I don't think it is unreasonable for them to want to make a profit from it.

Even when the artist is dead for 50 years.

[echnaton]

Aug 13, 2008 1:33:57 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Aug 12, 2008 23:22:15 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

Even legitimate downloading (from iTunes, for example) is hurting people, in my opinion, because they don't need to employ as many people (most of the work is done by computers in one central location).

Then you're in favor of inefficient business models, so long as they provide employment?

Its the bulldozer versus a hundred men with shovels argument. The world become more efficient, that is produces more wealth, when capital replaces manual labor. Electronic distribution also eliminates the consumption of energy needed to run record stores, the trucks needed to make deliveries and consumers driving to the store. It also bring more product choices to people that are poorly served by physical distribution.

At least in my neighborhood there have been no loss of record stores anyway. There are three at the same intersection. A dedicated store, a Barnes and Noble book store with a large music selection and one that sells used CDs. A few blocks down there is another book store that sells records. ETA: Plus Target and Walmart stores. I would say that local distribution has improved my selection in the past 10 years.

[Jason]

Aug 13, 2008 1:33:57 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

I don't think it is unreasonable for them to want to make a profit from it.

Even when the artist is dead for 50 years.

So you prefer to take food out of the mouths of the artist's grandchildren?

[gillianren]

Aug 13, 2008 8:25:49 GMT -4 echnaton said:

At least in my neighborhood there have been no loss of record stores anyway. There are three at the same intersection. A dedicated store, a Barnes and Noble book store with a large music selection and one that sells used CDs. A few blocks down there is another book store that sells records. ETA: Plus Target and Walmart stores. I would say that local distribution has improved my selection in the past 10 years.

Oddly, for all Olympia has a big music culture (Sleater-Kinney was named after a local street), we've never had a big music store. There's Rainy Day Records, a section of a vintage clothing store that sells actual, by-Gods records, and whatever bits of other stores have music in them. And that's it. I don't know why that is; it seems kind of odd.

[LunarOrbit]

Aug 13, 2008 1:33:57 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

Aug 12, 2008 23:22:15 GMT -4 LunarOrbit said:

Even legitimate downloading (from iTunes, for example) is hurting people, in my opinion, because they don't need to employ as many people (most of the work is done by computers in one central location).

Then you're in favor of inefficient business models, so long as they provide employment?

I'm just saying there are negative consequences to convenience. Young people need a place to start out, and for a lot of people that is in retail.

I'm pretty sure there would be more outrage if Chinese automakers were selling cheap knockoffs of American cars. For some reason it is ok to make copies of music, but not something physical. Automakers are allowed to make profit, but record companies aren't?

I don't think it is unreasonable for them to want to make a profit from it.

Even when the artist is dead for 50 years.

I'm pretty sure copyrights expire at some point after the artist does.

Aug 13, 2008 8:25:49 GMT -4 echnaton said:

At least in my neighborhood there have been no loss of record stores anyway.

Canada has lost two major music retailers ("Sam the Record Man" and "Music World") over the last 8 years. Piracy isn't solely to blame (I'm sure competition from Wal-Mart had something to do with it), but it surely didn't help.

[echnaton]

Canada has lost two major music retailers
I am sure piracy has a lot to do with it. Piracy has caused a major change in the music business. For many artist concert tours were about supporting record sales. The record companies subsidies tours of emerging artists in the hopes of making up the cost in the very high margin sales business. That is much rarer these days and a factor in the escalating box office cost of concert tickets.

CDs, music videos and changes in radio have made a big difference in the music that gets distributed and particularly in what gets heavily promoted. [oldfogey]In terms of popular music, it seems to be for the worst.[/oldfogey] For serious music and fringe sounds, the opportunities to sell records have increased because artist are not reliant on big labels and record stores for distribution. As always though, the signal to noise ratio is pretty low for all music.

I'm pretty sure copyrights expire at some point after the artist does.

In the US the copyright does extend beyond the artists death by a length set by congress. They keep lengthening the time because Disney, primarily, keeps buying legislation to keep Mickey Mouse under copyright. By the Constitution, the copyright is there to promote creation and innovation, not to protect artists incomes. The difference is subtle but the idea has been used when arguing against earlier efforts to keep movie and TV companies from taxing the recording of TV programs on VCRs.

[Ginnie]

Lunar Orbit wroteL

I don't mind people making copies of the music they have paid for already as long as it is for their own personal use. It's when they "share" it with others that I disapprove.

Then it is okay for me to download all the albums I bought in the seventies and eighties? Great!
In the old days, when a vinyl record warped, or got too scratched, or got lost or melted, I would have to go out and buy a new one.

I think it should be up to the artist and record label how their music is made available

echnaton said:

At least in my neighborhood there have been no loss of record stores anyway. There are three at the same intersection. A dedicated store, a Barnes and Noble book store with a large music selection and one that sells used CDs. A few blocks down there is another book store that sells records. ETA: Plus Target and Walmart stores. I would say that local distribution has improved my selection in the past 10 years.

I really miss Sam the Man record stores. They had so many records there, especially the one in downtown Toronto - it had two floors.
We are basically left with HMV (exspensive) and Sunrise (I believe) plus of course the Walmarts which don't have a great selection. Oh, Future Shop and Best Buy also sell CD's. What I miss though is the record store environment. Its just different today, perhaps because half the store is DVD's and toys instead of records.
Actually there is one good record store in town - Encore Records, which started out strictly used but now sell both used and new. I can find material there that I can't get anywhere else.

Jason said:

So you prefer to take food out of the mouths of the artist's grandchildren?

Good point. The copyright is an inheritance of sorts. I think even Mozart 's offspring should be getting residuals.

Lunar Orbit said:

I'm pretty sure there would be more outrage if Chinese automakers were selling cheap knockoffs of American cars. For some reason it is ok to make copies of music, but not something physical. Automakers are allowed to make profit, but record companies aren't?

The problem is that record companies have been making the majority of the profits since the invention of the grammophone. That's why a group can sell a million CD's but still come out in the red at year's end. That why they have to tour so often, and when their career is finished they still don't have much money and have to get jobs at Q107.


The thing I miss the most about LP's is the extravagant packaging on some albums. I loved reading every square inch of the front and back, inside the double gate sleeve and if you were lucky, you got cutouts with your Sgt. Pepper album or a giant poster with your Beatles White Album.

Wasn't taping your friends album basically the same thing as downloading? Ever make a mixed tape for your friends? I don't remember an uproar over that, but my memory is foggy. Lately, I've been transferring a lot of my albums over the my 30GB mp3 player - it's very convenient to hook it up to the stereo and listen to. I've been lazy playing CD's and yesterday I fixed that. For the last two years I was using a five disc DVD player to play them, and I found it increasingly frustrating. It took so long to load them, and I couldn't find out what was in each disc slot easily. Last night I hooked up my older five disc tray CD player to my home theatre system, and set it up and about three feet off the floor, instead of the twelve inches my DVD player was set at. The CD player loads and changes CD's much quicker - especially useful if I'm playing five CDs in random order. I couldn't do that with the DVD player.

Is it my ears? In another thread I might have made some comments about the sound quality of LP's vs. CD's. On the weekend at my friends house we were listening to both, and I have to admit the CD's sounded better. More dynamic range.

[echnaton]

Then it is okay for me to download all the albums I bought in the seventies and eighties? Great!

Yes, I think it is.

The record companies might disagree but they used to hold that making cassettes of LPs was a violation of copyright. Fortunately they are not the exclusive arbiter of what we can do with music we have purchased. If you bought the disk, you have paid the royalty.

Is it my ears? In another thread I might have made some comments about the sound quality of LP's vs. CD's. On the weekend at my friends house we were listening to both, and I have to admit the CD's sounded better. More dynamic range.

Absolutely. And greater bass and treble.

I bought a new vehicle recently with a killer stereo. It has an input jack for my IPOD so I play that alot. While driving around listening to and FM station, an old favorite came on the radio, Layla. It instantly sounded more like I remembered it as a teen than it does from my IPOD. I figured that I had heard it so many times on FM radio over the years that my ears had come to expect the particular limitations of FM. It brought back the chills of hearing the opening licks from Clapton's guitar. So I guess, enjoyment is not always tied to the best sound but has a component of the familiar as well.

Still, I don't miss the pops and surface noise associated with LPs nor do I miss turning them over and using the Diskwasher every 20 minutes. Particularly for a 4 LP opera.