The Music Piracy Poll!

[Alexander]

Just curious where people on the board fall in terms of this issue...

[medjuck]

Only if the cd is oop or very difficult to obtain. I'm aware that this is ethically a dubious distinction.

[Chuck Nessa]

Relax Al, and accept who/what you are.

Why look for approval?

[Big Al]

I'd like to know who the two liars are who answered the first question the way they did!

[Alexander]

Relax Al, and accept who/what you are.

Why look for approval?

Not looking for approval, Chuck. Just curious. I've always considered the kind of copying my friends and I do to be a fairly widespread practice. This is literally the first I've heard such strenuious objections, and I wanted to know how widespread such attitudes are...

[md655321]

I do not see any difference between borrowing a friends cd and copying it and making it available on the internet. Its still ilegal copying of copyrighted material.

That being said, I am very guilty of both practices.

[Soulstation1]

early leader for the biggest brown noser in 2006

THE only cd that i say "please DO NOT cdr this one"

[Jim Alfredson]

At least not until we pay it off, please.

[Rooster_Ties]

I've burned a few things, here and there, sure...

But the ratio of what I've bought legit : to what I've burned (but could or should have bought legit) -- is probably something like 300:1 (disc for disc). And most of what I've burned has been OOP and/or hard or very hard to find stuff.

For instance, I'll usually look for 6-months to even a full year for something on eBay (and from other sources) before I'll just go and burn something. (No, that's not always the rule for me, but is usually is.)

And when I think of the hundreds and hundreds of discs I've looked for for lengthy amounts of time (and then bought legit copies of only after a long search) -- when I could have easily burned copies of them from a buddy -- -- I ain't loosing any sleep over the incredibly small handful of times I've burned without doing such a search (and I can count those times on less than two hands).

I ain't perfect, but I'm sure I've spent well over $25,000 on music over the last 10 years, and "not spent" less than $200 on discs that I could or should have kept looking for (in order to buy them legit).

Edited January 19, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Jazzmoose]

Had to answer I don't know to the third, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about...

[RDK]

Rather than "I'm not sure," choice #3 should be "It depends."

[Claude]

Do you consider such copying to be criminal behavior (or ethically wrong)?

Hard to answer, since this question mixes the legal and the ethical aspects.

Most copyright legislations allow for private copying within certain limits, so there it is is clearly not criminal behaviour, but still you can consider it ethically wrong.

Edited January 19, 2006 by Claude

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I answered "yes" to the first question, although I've never done it with CDs - but I did do it a bit with LPs in the seventies. I've subsequently purchased almost all that I taped; though there are still a few things that, even after a couple of decades, I'm still looking for.

It's clearly illegal but I'm not convinced it's unethical to tape recordings that you can't buy legitimately.

Over the last fifteen/twenty years, I have bought illegal tapes of Senegalese music. It is common practice in Senegal for legitimate retailers to retain a copy of a K7 that is about to be deleted so that they can tape further copies for customers who want the recording. K7 runs have a fairly limited life there, partly because BSDA - the Senegalese copyright office - makes the producers pay royalties in advance on the numbers manufactured, not on sales. Consequently, deletions invariably occur before the market has been fully supplied, since the risk to the producers, which is thereby greater to Senegalese producers than to those in the US, mounts with every duplication run. If the industry in Senegal were not prepared to put up with this, they could pretty soon prosecute and close down all the legitimate retailers in the country.

I have to say that a market response to a deliberate commercial decision by producers not to sell their goods any more is not unethical. Indeed, I'd argue that ethics don't enter into it.

As to the third question, I don't undertand it; I don't know about these things.

MG

[AllenLowe]

aarrgh - musical piracy. I don't like CDRs, as they will not, ultimately, last, in all liklihood. If I want something and I think it's important I'll probably buy it. (though I do have a vast CDR collection of the Nessa label )

all seriousness aside, if I can't get it commercially I would think it's ok to copy - bootlegs are bootlegs, but the reality is that our understanding of jazz and its history would be about half of what it is without them -

[Rosco]

I make a point of never doing copies of albums for people. I will, however, happily make compilations (enjoy putting them together actually- one of my nerdier tendencies ) as I like to encourage my friends' curiousity about jazz but I figure if someone is interested in a particular artist from hearing a track that they should just go buy the CD and support the industry. No point us all bitching about how X album is long overdue to be reissued and then ripping (pun intended) the product off when it is.

People have done me burns/ minidiscs/ cassettes of albums and I rarely listen to them- maybe once or twice at the most. If I like the music, I buy the CD.

File sharing is more complex and/ or ethically ambiguous (in the case of OOP titles at least). Again, if I like the music, I'll buy it but I have downloaded some unavailable music from some shady sourses. Unethical, probably; illegal, almost certainly. But, if the music was reissued legitimately I would buy it so no one's really getting shafted. So, as RDK said, quest 3 really depends...

[rostasi]

early leader for the biggest brown noser in 2006

THE only cd that i say "please DO NOT cdr this one"

Gosh, even if it helps sell more copies?

(which 9 times out of 10 it does).

[JSngry]

Function, scale, intent, and discretion.

[Jim Alfredson]

early leader for the biggest brown noser in 2006

THE only cd that i say "please DO NOT cdr this one"

Gosh, even if it helps sell more copies?

(which 9 times out of 10 it does).

How's that?

[WD45]

People have done me burns/ minidiscs/ cassettes of albums and I rarely listen to them- maybe once or twice at the most. If I like the music, I buy the CD.

I do the same. I have spindles of discs people have showered me with. One or two spins, and then they go to the recycler. There is something nice about having the real deal.

I have brought it up in the past, and I will bring it up here - what about promo-marked discs?

[spinlps]

Yes, I think we're mixing practices in question #3.

In regards to currently copyrighted material:

In my mind, Home Copying = making private backup copies for the owner's personal use (backup CD, car CD, MP3, etc...)

Peer to Peer = Making copies for other's use... or making them available. The question has emphasis on today's technology of P2P Networking, but manually making copies of CD's for others seems to be a distinction only in degree... the snail mail version of P2P file sharing networks.

Had to answer I don't know to the third, because I don't know what the hell you're talking about...

Edited January 19, 2006 by spinlps

[Soulstation1]

nowadays, when you let someone borrow a cd you should expect that it might get copied in some way or another

especially when you tell them "you gotta hear this new cd"

i remember in the mid 80's making cassettes from KLOS in LA, when they played 6 full lps on sunday night

i wonder if they still do that?

Edited January 19, 2006 by Soulstation1

[rostasi]

There seems to be this weird idea that

when people make copies of things for other folks

that that's always the end of the line

and in my experience, it's been totally the opposite.

People usually go buy the real thing afterwards -

if it's available...and that's the crux.

I can't tell you how many times people have

said to me something like,

"Man, this is great! Do they have this at Tower?"

...and then the discussion moves on to how they can get it

(even tho, in some ways, they already have it).

I have overseas friends that tell me to buy and bring

(or send) stuff after they've heard something I've made for them.

I'm actually helping CD sales. One CD made can

provide years of musical explorations -

either of the same artist's work or a boost to whole genres of music

that heretofore didn't exist in that person's musical vocabulary.

Is the introduction of music only supposed to be the purview of

a few A&R guys at the major labels? Are we supposed to rely on

the big corporate owned radio networks to tell us what's really good for us?

How about critics at the identically-owned newspapers?

So, that leaves out label dirtbags, radio, TV, and newspapers...so, what else is there?

The obvious: I think it's up to us - the people who love and understand

the music - to spread the word (and sound!) I would much rather

have someone that I know and/or respect come up to me with a burned disc

and introduce me to something new. It has and will always continue to be

my favorite entryway into new artist territory.

(I also favor the idea of everyone having their own little mini radio station,

so as to share what you're not getting from the hot-shot media barons).

Q: How many people here now have the Cellar Door sessions

after they made or had perfectly good pre-release copies?

(and we're not even talking about an up-and-coming artist!)

If you're a performer, your CD is your audio business card -

it makes an impression as well as encourages people to come see you perform.

If they can't see you live they try to find out more about you

and they spread word after they have. I can tell you stories!

In an era when the "thing" is more important than the "event,"

it's pretty hard to shake this attachment.

For myself, I try to use these "things" - CDs, scores, visuals, texts -

as a way to encourage performance and the spreading of interest.

I have full pieces making the rounds "out there"

and've had instances where someone would like to

incorporate a work of mine into their's -

no prob...a mention that it was derived from a work of mine would be nice...

...and so if I can introduce someone in Sweden to my work and, in turn,

he makes a copy for someone else who writes me and says,

"Hey, I heard some of your work. Would you be willing to...",

then I'm not only helping my career, but I'm adding something

to the creative community itself (and the guy wasn't out money

on someone he hadn't previously heard). When it comes to other people's work:

would I buy something that I haven't heard?

Would I buy something of which I've only heard a 30 second snippet?

In most cases, no.

This idea that artists should have exclusive rights to the distribution of their work

is actually a career hampering idea that has not only financial drawbacks,

but sociological ones as well - especially if you're not well-known.

Arguably, one of the most important composers of our generation -

Karlheinz Stockhausen - has an incredibly tight control over his CD output

and because of that close-to-the-chest control, one of the most often heard

complaints from potential new listeners is that they can't find any of his music

except for a few second-rate recordings (which is an artistic disservice itself).

So, some people are making copies and sharing the "approved" recordings.

If they like what they hear, they order it from the Verlag in Kürten,

but if they don't like it, they haven't felt that they've pissed their money away

(and, in turn, scaring away any chances of purchasing anything else by him in the future).

People who speak of the "illegality" (of which there's some

grey areas that cause disagreements and uncertainties)

of something as amorphous and benign as music "piracy"

(gotta hand it to those corporate spinmeisters!) strike me as a gullible bunch -

as if the illegality of something came from outer space or is some genetic inheritance that we,

as a culture, are born with. It may be shocking to some,

but we're not and as soon as we stop sniffin' RIAA butt (amongst others)

and demand from our leaders (new ones that'll actually listen)

forward thinking ideas that are in service of the people

and not the Thuglicans that they're so wedded -

ideas that can include sensible commerce -

then we can kiss those slowly eroding ideals away.

...and this statement about if every owner of 10,000 copies

making 10,000 copies to share is sheer lunacy -

might as well ask what would happen if all of the air molecules

started moving into one corner of the room -

BUT if thru some cosmic warp this did happen:

yes, there would be 20,000 copies in existence

AND more knowledge of your work!

I think smart performers who see the future of the arts

already recognize this and I think that our current discussion

will become pretty quaint in the years to come. The silver lining

is that more artists are recognizing this (Creative Commons

initiatives taking hold in over 50 countries are one alternative).

Just recently, Gilberto Gil (famous singer/songwriter and Brazilian Minister of Culture)

wanted to freely share some of his songs online

and was promptly rebuked by his "owners" - Warner Music -

so much for artistic freedom when you have corporate greed dictating your pathway.

So, he (and, increasingly, others) are taking their music "back"

and learning that education thru freely accessible worldwide distribution is the best method.

Again, the compact disc should not to be seen as the career maker or breaker -

it is a vehicle of promotion - no matter what the media conglomerates want you to believe.

[Brad]

I'm sure all of us are guilty of CDRing. I'd like to think I'm receiving or giving rare OOP material or CDRs of LPs that may not see the light of day. In that case, I don't see that it's ethically wrong although technically it may be illegal. The third question: huh?

[Chuck Nessa]

There seems to be this weird idea that

when people make copies of things for other folks

that that's always the end of the line

and in my experience, it's been totally the opposite.

People usually go buy the real thing afterwards -

if it's available...and that's the crux.

I can't tell you how many times people have

said to me something like,

"Man, this is great! Do they have this at Tower?"

...and then the discussion moves on to how they can get it

(even tho, in some ways, they already have it).

I have overseas friends that tell me to buy and bring

(or send) stuff after they've heard something I've made for them.

I'm actually helping CD sales. One CD made can

provide years of musical explorations -

either of the same artist's work or a boost to whole genres of music

that heretofore didn't exist in that person's musical vocabulary.

Is the introduction of music only supposed to be the purview of

a few A&R guys at the major labels? Are we supposed to rely on

the big corporate owned radio networks to tell us what's really good for us?

How about critics at the identically-owned newspapers?

So, that leaves out label dirtbags, radio, TV, and newspapers...so, what else is there?

The obvious: I think it's up to us - the people who love and understand

the music - to spread the word (and sound!) I would much rather

have someone that I know and/or respect come up to me with a burned disc

and introduce me to something new. It has and will always continue to be

my favorite entryway into new artist territory.

(I also favor the idea of everyone having their own little mini radio station,

so as to share what you're not getting from the hot-shot media barons).

Q: How many people here now have the Cellar Door sessions

after they made or had perfectly good pre-release copies?

(and we're not even talking about an up-and-coming artist!)

If you're a performer, your CD is your audio business card -

it makes an impression as well as encourages people to come see you perform.

If they can't see you live they try to find out more about you

and they spread word after they have. I can tell you stories!

In an era when the "thing" is more important than the "event,"

it's pretty hard to shake this attachment.

For myself, I try to use these "things" - CDs, scores, visuals, texts -

as a way to encourage performance and the spreading of interest.

I have full pieces making the rounds "out there"

and've had instances where someone would like to

incorporate a work of mine into their's -

no prob...a mention that it was derived from a work of mine would be nice...

...and so if I can introduce someone in Sweden to my work and, in turn,

he makes a copy for someone else who writes me and says,

"Hey, I heard some of your work. Would you be willing to...",

then I'm not only helping my career, but I'm adding something

to the creative community itself (and the guy wasn't out money

on someone he hadn't previously heard). When it comes to other people's work:

would I buy something that I haven't heard?

Would I buy something of which I've only heard a 30 second snippet?

In most cases, no.

This idea that artists should have exclusive rights to the distribution of their work

is actually a career hampering idea that has not only financial drawbacks,

but sociological ones as well - especially if you're not well-known.

Arguably, one of the most important composers of our generation -

Karlheinz Stockhausen - has an incredibly tight control over his CD output

and because of that close-to-the-chest control, one of the most often heard

complaints from potential new listeners is that they can't find any of his music

except for a few second-rate recordings (which is an artistic disservice itself).

So, some people are making copies and sharing the "approved" recordings.

If they like what they hear, they order it from the Verlag in Kürten,

but if they don't like it, they haven't felt that they've pissed their money away

(and, in turn, scaring away any chances of purchasing anything else by him in the future).

People who speak of the "illegality" (of which there's some

grey areas that cause disagreements and uncertainties)

of something as amorphous and benign as music "piracy"

(gotta hand it to those corporate spinmeisters!) strike me as a gullible bunch -

as if the illegality of something came from outer space or is some genetic inheritance that we,

as a culture, are born with. It may be shocking to some,

but we're not and as soon as we stop sniffin' RIAA butt (amongst others)

and demand from our leaders (new ones that'll actually listen)

forward thinking ideas that are in service of the people

and not the Thuglicans that they're so wedded -

ideas that can include sensible commerce -

then we can kiss those slowly eroding ideals away.

...and this statement about if every owner of 10,000 copies

making 10,000 copies to share is sheer lunacy -

might as well ask what would happen if all of the air molecules

started moving into one corner of the room -

BUT if thru some cosmic warp this did happen:

yes, there would be 20,000 copies in existence

AND more knowledge of your work!

I think smart performers who see the future of the arts

already recognize this and I think that our current discussion

will become pretty quaint in the years to come. The silver lining

is that more artists are recognizing this (Creative Commons

initiatives taking hold in over 50 countries are one alternative).

Just recently, Gilberto Gil (famous singer/songwriter and Brazilian Minister of Culture)

wanted to freely share some of his songs online

and was promptly rebuked by his "owners" - Warner Music -

so much for artistic freedom when you have corporate greed dictating your pathway.

So, he (and, increasingly, others) are taking their music "back"

and learning that education thru freely accessible worldwide distribution is the best method.

Again, the compact disc should not to be seen as the career maker or breaker -

it is a vehicle of promotion - no matter what the media conglomerates want you to believe.

Much of this seems to be rationalization and cheap politics. One can find examples of anything and everything to excuse anything and everything. I'm sorry Rod but if stealing from Elmo Hope is bad and stealing from someone who pays money to Elmo Hope is (maybe) ok, where do you draw the friggin' line and who gave you that power?

I'm much more interested in what is "right" than what's "legal" but under the current system the only chance to get what is "right" is to use the legal system. Sadly that costs more than most of the "victims" can afford and they just lose. As Alexander has demonstrated, this does seem to be a "generational thing" and that scares the shit out of me. It is bad enough the world is in creative doldrums but to have the potential audience think the product is their "right" is really scary.

[md655321]

And it continues ad nauseum.

My biggest problem continues to be that people who are against copying refuse to admit that there are significant benefits to it. That is why we draw the line in a different spot, and that is why it is a gray area. you simply cant say "downloading is wrong" or "copying cds is wrong." Its incredibly out of touch with the realities of technology today, and out of touch with how music is consumed today. I download an incredible amount of music. I also buy an incredible amount of music because of that. Until you can admit the vast benefits of downloading and burning, we cant have an honest discussion about the negative implications either.