Music Piracy Poll Part Deux

[Dan Gould]

This is the poll I wanted to start when the discussion in the other poll got interesting. I think this better captures the attitudes most people espouse. However, I couldn't get this poll to work but with Jim's instructions, I am trying again.

So, what say you?

[Rooster_Ties]

So what do I vote for if I believe that #1 is the correct answer, but I only follow it 98% of the time??

Edited January 30, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Claude]

Maybe we should have seperate polls about beliefs and acts

[md655321]

None of those is accurate for me.

How about, I believe downloading music and burning cds for the purpose of broadening my musical horizons and eventually purchasing said downloaded music is acceptable and often beneficial for the artist. I believe that downloading or burning cds is acceptable when one's financial situation is such that legally purchasing said CDs is fiscally untenable, with the caveat that all downloaded or burned cds will be legally purchased once the purchasing of said cds is fiscally tenable.

[Dan Gould]

None of those is accurate for me.

How about, I believe downloading music and burning cds for the purpose of broadening my musical horizons and eventually purchasing said downloaded music is acceptable and often beneficial for the artist. I believe that downloading or burning cds is acceptable when one's financial situation is such that legally purchasing said CDs is fiscally untenable, with the caveat that all downloaded or burned cds will be legally purchased once the purchasing of said cds is fiscally tenable.

I think you're covered in number 2. Remember, its "best describes you" - burns are OK for reasons of your own choosing.

[Dan Gould]

Maybe we should have seperate polls about beliefs and acts

But beliefs and acts are inextricably tied together in this issue (witness Rooster's comment).

[Dan Gould]

I basically put up 1 for Chuck and (presumably) a few others; 3 for the people vociferously arguing with Chuck, and 2 for the rest of us, who I imagine have some qualms about burning, trading burns or downloading but do it anyway.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think you've made a mistake by linking the law with morals and ethics. Music goes out of print because of commercial decisions by its owners. Copying such music is illegal. Copying such music is not immoral or unethical.

Chuck is right, but only to the extent that someone is actively trying to make money out of the product.

I haven't voted because my position is that it depends on the status of the music.

MG

[Rooster_Ties]

I haven't voted because my position is that it depends on the status of the music.

I haven't voted either. In this case, status is everything.

[Aggie87]

So what do I vote for if I believe that #1 is the correct answer, but I only follow it 98% of the time??

I'd suggest you don't REALLY believe in #1 then.

[Rooster_Ties]

The way the poll is worded -- someone could have spent $50,000 puchasing music through legit channels, and burned one OOP item that's impossible to find -- and they would still have to vote for option #2.

Heck, by the standards stated in the poll options -- I'm betting even Chuck would have to vote for #2 (since I'm betting he's followed the limitations in #1 only 99.99% of the time). What kind of a crazy poll is that??

[Alexander]

I couldn't vote either. I know a lot of people would put me under #3 (especially since it was a disagreement between me and Chuck that started this whole thing in the first place), but I still maintain that there is a big difference between downloading illegally and making the occasional copy. I do not illegally download music. Period. I won't say that I never have, but I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong (not to mention a major hassle). All of the downloading I do these days is through legitimate services (iTunes, eMusic, etc). Friends sharing music is very different, to my mind, from making music available to everyone in the world for free.

[Alexander]

I also don't like the implication in #2 to that I am "weak" because I have recieved burns from friends. Poor, maybe, but certainly not weak!

[Uncle Skid]

I fail to see how financial status has anything to do with this. Seems like a very slippery slope -- at what point is one obligated to purchase? Very weak rationalization, in my opinion. If it's wrong when you have money, it's still wrong when you don't.

[Jim Alfredson]

I fail to see how financial status has anything to do with this. Seems like a very slippery slope -- at what point is one obligated to purchase? Very weak rationalization, in my opinion. If it's wrong when you have money, it's still wrong when you don't.

Agreed. It's not like we're talking about something that is needed to sustain life (like food). If you are too poor to buy a CD, it's okay to copy it? That doesn't fly.

[Dan Gould]

Well it certainly is an Organissimo tradition that poll choices rarely capture everyone's feelings, but I think this one is actually pretty good. Its best fit, not perfect fit. Obviously I tossed in statements about "weak" and 'sleep fine at night' - you don't have to agree with everything in the statement. But there is no serious distinction between downloading from a site like Dime and happily receiving a copy from your friend, Alex. Maybe you think otherwise but its all the same - free music. You take it, with or without a qualm, you don't, or you think you're actions are going to revolutionize IP copyright laws and you're standing up "to the man."

As for OOP material, again, it all falls into #2. You burn CDs and trade them, regardless of your personal feeling about the ethics and the legality. So long as you don't fall over into the revolutionary third category, anyone who accepts burns or provides them to others ought to fit into #2.

[md655321]

So great music should only be available to those with the means to purchase it?

A son of a millionaire has a right to the complete John Coltrance discography, but I am only allowed an occasional cd?

My downloading of a CD does not do ANY damage to the artist if I didnt have the ability to purchase it anyways. In fact, it may only help because there is an additional person who might be able to say "thats a great album, you should pick it up."

And yes, we are talking about something that is necessary to sustain any semblance of quality of life.

[RDK]

If you're too poor to buy CDs, then stick to used LPs! It worked for me through college.

[Dan Gould]

The way the poll is worded -- someone could have spent $50,000 puchasing music through legit channels, and burned one OOP item that's impossible to find -- and they would still have to vote for option #2.

So what? Now there's a difference in how many times you do it? Tell me, this hypothetical person ... will there always be only one OOP item that they'll accept a burn for? And do they hold their nose while listening to this ghastly thing they've allowed into their homes?

[Jim Alfredson]

So great music should only be available to those with the means to purchase it?

A son of a millionaire has a right to the complete John Coltrance discography, but I am only allowed an occasional cd?

He doesn't have a "right" to it (whatever that means), but since he's the son of a millionaire, he can afford to buy it. He can also afford to buy a Lexus, which you probably can't. Does that mean you deserve one? Maybe. Does that mean you're going to go steal one since you can't pay for it?

[Jim Alfredson]

My downloading of a CD does not do ANY damage to the artist if I didnt have the ability to purchase it anyways. In fact, it may only help because there is an additional person who might be able to say "thats a great album, you should pick it up."

I can just see that conversation:

Friend: "That's a great album, you should pick it up."

Friend #2: "Just dub it for me. Your's is a burn anyway."

Friend: "Ok."

[Uncle Skid]

So great music should only be available to those with the means to purchase it?

Of course not! Are people with money the only ones allowed to read great literature? Libraries, friends, family, used bookstores, ....

Treat music like a book: lending it out is fine, copying it is not. Downloading it is not, unless the artist has been compensated.

Should musicians be treated any differently than writers? Just because technology has made it possible doesn't make it right.

[Alexander]

So great music should only be available to those with the means to purchase it?

Of course not! Are people with money the only ones allowed to read great literature? Libraries, friends, family, used bookstores, ....

Treat music like a book: lending it out is fine, copying it is not. Downloading it is not, unless the artist has been compensated.

Should musicians be treated any differently than writers? Just because technology has made it possible doesn't make it right.

I've photocopied entire articles I've wanted friends to read. Is that bad too?

Hell, I've even photocopied entire short stories (entire plays, even) for my classes because the school doesn't own any copies of the work in question and I don't want to make my students buy them. Is that wrong too?

[Aggie87]

I've photocopied entire articles I've wanted friends to read. Is that bad too?

Hell, I've even photocopied entire short stories (entire plays, even) for my classes because the school doesn't own any copies of the work in question and I don't want to make my students buy them. Is that wrong too?

Yes.

Illegal and unethical.

[Dan Gould]

I've photocopied entire articles I've wanted friends to read. Is that bad too?

Hell, I've even photocopied entire short stories (entire plays, even) for my classes because the school doesn't own any copies of the work in question and I don't want to make my students buy them. Is that wrong too?

Yes.

Illegal and unethical.

Not to mention a blatant disregard of the warning stickers they have on every Office Depot copier.