Music Piracy and MP3's, an ethical discussion (1 Viewer)

[KrisM]

I think a jazz club would be pretty cool. I don't know enough to be completly trusted with suggestions but I can offer suggestions on where to start if you know little about jazz. This is a person who heard the first jazz that he liked in Singles(Coltrane's Blue Train)a movie with a grunge soundtrack.
If anyone wants to start a blues thread, that would be cool too. I know alot more about blues than I do about jazz, and would be interested in learning of more cds worth picking up. I have thought about starting a blues cd thread but I didn't bother because I didn't want 20 responses saying I should pick up the latest Keb' Mo' or Eric Clapton cds.(this is not a shot either artist as I am a fan of both)

man, if you get this, more power to you

You have no idea how many times I have had this in my hands after receiving a tax return or a big paycheck. I'm Coltrane fan but I can't classify myself as a diehard.
Regards
KrisM

 

[Tom Ryan]

Jazz Club, Jazz Club! I'd be all over it.

-Tom

 

[Ed E Lee]

I'm pretty much in the listen to an mp3 first, and if you like it enough, buy the cd. I think my collection has hit a spike the past 3 years or so since I was exposed to alot more music than listening to the radio. For a time, I thought music was dead because nothing on the radio really wowed me. For the most part, I stopped listening, and just didn't care. But since the advent of the mp3 esp. on the internet, I can pretty much sample stuff that I'd never thought was out there. My collection has become a bit more eclectic since I got interested in music listening again.

 

[Jagan Seshadri]

Count me into the Jazz club. I can dig it.

-JNS

 

[Brian Edwards]

I have been downloading mp3's for several years now. Ever since the price of a cd reached $17.99, I stopped buying them. If the RIAA wants to encourage cd purchases, they need to lower prices and concentrate on making a better product. Much as I prefer a fully loaded DVD over the bare bones ones, the same applies to cd's. They could add more songs, lyrics, packaging, etc.

A good DVD costs $16.99- $19.99. That includes all the time and effort in the mastering, menus, content etc. I turn around and look at a new release CD that costs $17.99?

The recording industry has been giving us the shaft on the prices for years. Now that an alternative comes along, they can reap what they sow.

As far as the legality of downloading songs goes, the great majority of songs I download are ones that I previously owned on CD over the past 20 years or so, and have lost, or had stolen, or got scratched. Remember, when you buy a CD, you are buying the "right" to the song for your own use. If you lose the CD, you still own the "right" to the song. I can download any mp3 I have previously owned. I have already paid for it.

As for the other songs I download, they only encourage me to buy the albums I like. I buy more CD's now because of exposure, than I did before I started downloading MP3's. The recording industry needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Downloading of MP3's is good for business, it promotes exposure to more types of music, and encourages purchases.

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

Justifying music piracy based on the ethics and morals of the music industry is ludicrous. It's like hippies who used to shoplift because they thought they were "sticking it to the man."
Rich or poor, good contract or bad, the artist has a right to reimbursement for their intellectual properties. Period. That is the end of the discussion, from any reasonable legal or moral standpoint.
If you don't want to buy CDs because there are only 2 good songs on them, then don't buy any CDs. Tell your friends not to buy any CDs. Start a website that recommends people not buy any CDs. If you do a good job, it will hurt the business' revenues enough that they will have to change their practices. If not, you will have to do what every single music buyer has ever done: bite the bullet and take a chance that you may not like half of the CD.
Putting all moral and comparative issues aside, look at it this way: If you have 10 gigs of MP3s that you listen to constantly, have you paid the artist that created them or the studio that produced them any money for them? No. Is that theft? Yes. Is theft wrong? Yes. There you go: you have your answer.
EDIT: By the way, there are plenty of good ways to use mp3s to promote your album, and this is what internet music is best for. Check out the low-quality MP3s at www.JoeJackson.com. Dig the samples from Somewhere to Elsewhere at www.KansasBand.com. I do the same thing on my website (below) and my site at MP3.com.

 

[JonZ]

Isnt copying a LP,Casette or CD piracy as well.

Funny,thats how Metallica became the biggest band in the Bay area before they signed with Elektra. They released No Life Til Leather which was spread around and became huge by trading copies of the album - they werent complaining about piracy then were they?

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

The big difference between the No Life Til Leather days and now is that THE BAND CONDONED THE DISTRIBUTION as a promotional effort. They decided what would be released and how, not some kid in Omaha on his daddy's internet account.

This all gets lost in the froofahrah, but Metallica's beef with Napster was originally due to someone STEALING UNRELEASED MATERIAL from the studio and posting it before it was even finished. It is the control over what gets published and consent to distribution that is at issue here.

 

[Tom Ryan]

The big difference between the No Life Til Leather days and now is that THE BAND CONDONED THE DISTRIBUTION as a promotional effort. They decided what would be released and how, not some kid in Omaha on his daddy's internet account.

So if somebody condones breaking the law, that makes it alright? Metallica are a bunch of hypocrites, no matter what they condoned.

-Tom

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

So if somebody condones breaking the law, that makes it alright? Metallica are a bunch of hypocrites, no matter what they condoned.

The hypocricy of an arguer has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of thgeir argument. Piracy is theft. Theft is wrong.

 

[Eve T]

Hi everyone, I am new to HTF and just thought I would add how I feel about this topic. I myself dl mp3's and purchase cd's pretty much equally. I view mp3's just as I would the radio except for the fact that I have the oppurtunity to listen to a vast sea of songs that the radio gives no play time to. If I like the song's I've downloaded I'll go buy the persons cd most of the time. Sometimes I justify it like this:
I purchase cd's, I'll upload them on my computer and give some guy who has never had the oppurtunity to listen to it to give it a go, and in return he lets me listen to song's he has that I have never heard, kind of like sharing a sandwich, his artist wins because he bought their cd, my artist win's because I purchased their cd, they both win, but I do purchase many cd's when I have the money, I justify it kind of like this also: when that artist is in town...regardless if I own their cd, if I like them I will go see them in concert and shell out the big bucks for doing so. I think we all give a little and take a little too. Many artist were actually for the napster movement, their sales had not gone down and thousands of people that had never had the oppurtunity to listen to their music now were able to do so which only made the artist popularity grow, hence, more ticket sales at concerts. I also figure with all the money I've spent over the years on cd's and such that I almost deserve a little break from the music industry who still does and has made a killing off of me
Peace out
Eve

 

[RicP]

Quote:

Sigh. Here's a newsflash...if the band condones the copying and distribution of their tapes...it's not illegal. See: Dave Matthews Band and Grateful Dead.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Sigh. Here's a newsflash...if the band condones the copying and distribution of their tapes...it's not illegal. See: Dave Matthews Band and Grateful Dead.

Since when? Do you have any copyright laws to back this up? The bands you're referring to allow taping of their live material, and I know DMB released the single from their most recent album for free on the internet, but I've never heard of either band condoning the pirating of their studio material.

-Tom

 

[Tom Ryan]

CD's on the other hand are the single and only source of income for the record company and the artist -- concerts notwithstanding -- and therefore have no relevance to your analogy.

That's a pretty big "notwithstanding". Concerts bring in a TON of money all year round. You're also ignoring endorsements for music and other products, film soundtracks and commercials, etc.

-Tom

 

[JonZ]

" So if somebody condones breaking the law, that makes it alright? Metallica are a bunch of hypocrites, no matter what they condoned. "

I see we agree here.

Whether they thought it was ok becuase they had "control over the material" or not isnt the point.

NO ONE can convince me otherwise - it was about money and only money out of their pockets.

As far as Napster taking music that was yet to be completed and releasing it, to be honest, this is the first Ive heard of that - but releasing incomplete music is nothing new.WAY before Napster was ever invented people were getting their hands on rare outtakes,demo tracks or whatever and getting them out there.

My point is your gonna say "We want control over who releases our music" be consistant. Metallica at one time had no problem with "piracy",another example would be Cliff Em All release,as some of that footage was made by bootleggers.

 

[RicP]

Tom,
Metallica's tape that is being bandied about here was not "record label" property. Metallica weren't officially signed yet at that point and as such encouraged the distribution of the tape in order to get them more exposure so that they could be signed and make records that nobody would be allowed to copy.

 

[Tom Ryan]

Metallica's tape that is being bandied about here was not "record label" property. Metallica weren't officially signed yet at that point and as such encouraged the distribution of the tape in order to get them more exposure so that they could be signed and make records that nobody would be allowed to copy.

If that is true, the situation then and now isn't quite the same. However, I still believe Metallica are hypocrites. They aren't losing any money on the albums being downloaded, only gaining popularity, the same as with the original bootleg (though their stance on the issue may counteract any favor they would gain) .
-Tom

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

That's a pretty big "notwithstanding". Concerts bring in a TON of money all year round

Oh really... then why is it most tours are financial failures? This is a wild assumption with no basis in fact. Yes, tour grosses may be high, but they also have to cover a lot of expenses, which can, and usually do, net out to nothing for the artist. Touring acts as promotion for the sale of records and widening artist exposure, and while merchandising can help out on the expenses, there are even more fingers in the pie for a major artist on the road. The promoters are the ones making the cash on the tours, not the bands.

Also, why should artists have to tour to expect an income when they have a product that should be generating income from its sales? This is exactly the same as someone who holds down a day job, but is expected to take on another day job if they want to get paid.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I don't know about copyright law, but with trademarks, if you do not make a visible effort to protect your trademarks, then they effectively become public domain, since any future prosecution can be appealed for biased prosecution (or something like that)

 

[Tom Ryan]

Oh really... then why is it most tours are financial failures? This is a wild assumption with no basis in fact. Yes, tour grosses may be high, but they also have to cover a lot of expenses, which can, and usually do, net out to nothing for the artist. Touring acts as promotion for the sale of records and widening artist exposure, and while merchandising can help out on the expenses, there are even more fingers in the pie for a major artist on the road. The promoters are the ones making the cash on the tours, not the bands.

Also, why should artists have to tour to expect an income when they have a product that should be generating income from its sales? This is exactly the same as someone who holds down a day job, but is expected to take on another day job if they want to get paid.

Most tours financial failures? Not that I've heard. Maybe for the guys who are in their vans, yes, but then they don't get any money from their record labels anyways. You've got to realize that the majority of artists don't get screwed at all by piracy, because the record companies give them squat anyway. It's the big name artists that already have millions and millions that complain about it. The same big names that can make up to and over a million dollars per stop on a tour.

-Tom