Music Piracy Poll Part Deux

[Uncle Skid]

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, and this is a good example of the real problem: a person in authority (you) has implicitly told your students that it is OK to do this. The students shouldn’t have to buy copies, but the school district sure as hell should.

Or maybe if the school district is poor, it can just copy it now and pay for it later when they have the money?

It seems to me that the problem in general has progressively become worse over the last 20 years. And it will continue to get worse unless we all stop kidding ourselves by rationalizing this type of behavior.

[Big Wheel]

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, and this is a good example of the real problem: a person in authority (you) has implicitly told your students that it is OK to do this. The students shouldn’t have to buy copies, but the school district sure as hell should.

Or maybe if the school district is poor, it can just copy it now and pay for it later when they have the money?

It seems to me that the problem in general has progressively become worse over the last 20 years. And it will continue to get worse unless we all stop kidding ourselves by rationalizing this type of behavior.

This seems problematic from a utilitarian perspective, though. To me, it's pretty obvious that the greater good is served best by just going ahead and copying, given these constraints. I'd much rather have kids learning literature than the alternative, even if it means that they have to take money out of some faraway rights-holder's pocket.

To put it somewhat differently: it's one thing to argue, as Jim does above, that just because some people are richer doesn't mean that we all have the right to the same cars or stereos or whatever. But it's quite another to argue that because some people are richer means that there are circumstances under which we don't all have the right to the same quality of education.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Big Wheel

[md655321]

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.

So what really is the difference between downloading and taking it out from the library, or borroing it from friends? Is downloading ok if I delete the files after two weeks? Can I renew them once on my computer if I really like them?

I think your response reiterates my point to some extent. A library provides access to great music the same way downloading or burning a copy might. The only difference is there is different technology involved.

I just think there are definite gray areas that depend on personal use, just like it was ridiculous to attack ALL tape copying back in the day, its just as dangerous to to dismiss all downloading and burning today. I purchase all of the cds I possibly can, and I go to live shows when I can. I support the music as much as I possibly can.

[Rooster_Ties]

OK, getting back to music (and the extremely limited choices in this poll)...

I'm minutes away from pulling the trigger on getting the new Charles Tolliver Select (plus a whole bunch more from Mosaic).

I already own legal/legit issues of both the Live at Sluggs and Live in Tokyo material. And I don't give a flip about any possible sonic upgrade to the material (the ones I have now sound just fine). I'm only buying the new set because I want the 3rd disc of previously unreleased material. (I'll probably just give away my two legit Strata East discs to a buddy of mine - an "underpaid"/"underemployed" jazz musician friend of mine to whom I owe a few favors.) And I want to support Mosaic.

I have another friend who already has the Tolliver Select, who I could have EASILY burned the 3rd unreleased disc from. He even offered to loan it to me if I wanted to. But I'm just about to shell out $39 for probably about 75 minutes of music that I don't already own -- plus about 140 minutes of music I already do own.

And when faced with these kind of decisions, 99 times out of 100 I choose to do the right thing and buy or "re-buy" the material.

And yet, my only choice in this poll is to vote that I am "weak" or otherwise "self-justified" in my "morally, ethically and/or legally questionable" behavior -- because I happen to own burns of probably a couple dozen OOP titles -- among something like 3,000+ legit and legally purchased CD's.

FYI, I'm moments away from dropping over $400 on a Mosaic order ($400 I really shouldn't be spending on music), when I could easily burn most of it from friends of mine.

You're damn right I sleep good at night.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Dan Gould]

Why do you think people are laying a guilt trip on you and you have to justify by telling us about your paying $39 for one disc and all the thousands of dollars you've spent on legit music purchases?

Its not about guilt, perceived or real.

its only about behavior: You accept burns. You've given burns. Good, join the club, cuz the vast majority of people do the same thing.

But for some reason, you think that your strong moral sense and 99% "pure" collection should give you a pass on the rest.

Too bad no one is handing out free passes. They're only asking you about your behavior.

[md655321]

Why do you think people are laying a guilt trip on you and you have to justify by telling us about your paying $39 for one disc and all the thousands of dollars you've spent on legit music purchases?

I'm guessing it is because the wording of the poll responses. The poll wasnt asking about behavior, but was in a way trying to take a poke at those who do download. Words like "weak" and phrases about whether one can sleep at night arent exactly neutral.

[Dan Gould]

Why do you think people are laying a guilt trip on you and you have to justify by telling us about your paying $39 for one disc and all the thousands of dollars you've spent on legit music purchases?

I'm guessing it is because the wording of the poll responses. The poll wasnt asking about behavior, but was in a way trying to take a poke at those who do download. Words like "weak" and phrases about whether one can sleep at night arent exactly neutral.

Why? I'm weak and I sleep fine.

Maybe that's a bit of projection on my part but I suspect that most people see trading or receiving burns as somehow "not quite right" but that doesn't stop them from doing it.

[Uncle Skid]

So what really is the difference between downloading and taking it out from the library, or borroing it from friends? Is downloading ok if I delete the files after two weeks? Can I renew them once on my computer if I really like them?

I think your response reiterates my point to some extent. A library provides access to great music the same way downloading or burning a copy might. The only difference is there is different technology involved.

I just think there are definite gray areas that depend on personal use, just like it was ridiculous to attack ALL tape copying back in the day, its just as dangerous to to dismiss all downloading and burning today. I purchase all of the cds I possibly can, and I go to live shows when I can. I support the music as much as I possibly can.

I agree with you completely -- there are grey areas, and I'm certainly not trying to imply that you (or anyone) on this board doesn't support the music.

But I'm surprised that you apparently don't see any difference between borrowing a bought and paid for CD, vs. downloading or ripping the files on to your computer. Back to the original comparision -- can you do that (easily) with a book?

Your response (and Rooster's to a certain extent) implies that spending X amount of dollars entitles you to Y amount of free music.

Again, there are certainly grey areas, but this troubles me. For instance, unless you can say directly to Jim, Joe, and Randy: "Hey guys, I copied your CD, but that's OK because I've already spent $100 this month", then what makes it acceptable to make a copy of something else?

Just curious.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Why do you think people are laying a guilt trip on you and you have to justify by telling us about your paying $39 for one disc and all the thousands of dollars you've spent on legit music purchases?

I'm guessing it is because the wording of the poll responses. The poll wasnt asking about behavior, but was in a way trying to take a poke at those who do download. Words like "weak" and phrases about whether one can sleep at night arent exactly neutral.

Quite right; normative language is not best calculated to secure honest responses, or any kind of responses.

MG

[DukeCity]

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."

OK, how about this: Let's say organissimo is doing a live show at a club in your town with, say, a $15 cover and no drink minimum (but the implicit understanding that most patrons would purchase something). In our hypothetical situation, let's also assume that you've somehow pissed off all three of the guys in the band so there's no way they're putting you on the guest list. Is it OK for you and your date to skirt the guy at the door, and stand by the bar and enjoy the show for free?

[Rooster_Ties]

It's the loaded language of the poll that bugs me, as does the grouping of all the different "gray areas" (some very dark, and some much lighter) into one big "gray area" -- implying that everything that isn't "pure" is all the same. It isn't.

And re: downloading ---> to the best of my knowledge, I've never downloaded any music that was otherwise in print. And when things I've downloaded get back in print, I almost always buy them. (The only exception is if I didn't care enough for it the first time to have even kept the downloaded copy.)

Edit: And I almost always buy at least a drink or two at jazz clubs (even when there isn't any minimum), and I almost always tip $1 per drink. You gotta vote with your dollars, doncha know.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Jazzmoose]

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??

An honest one.

[Dan Gould]

It's the loaded language of the poll that bugs me, as does the grouping of all the different "gray areas" (some very dark, and some much lighter) into one big "gray area" -- implying that everything that isn't "pure" is all the same. It isn't.

So in other words, you would prefer a choice which goes something like:

"I don't really think accepting burns is right, but I make exceptions, like if I've spent a vast sum of money on legitimate issues, or if the recording is OOP and impossible to find."

You're beginning to remind me of the scene in "Soul Man" when the white chick hits on C. Thomas Howell by telling him "I don't think there are black and white. Only shades of gray."

then later on when she's hitting on a Native American, she tells him "I don't think there's red and white. Only shades of pink."

[Rooster_Ties]

By the definitions in the poll choices, even someone like Chuck (who I'm sure is way closer to "pure" than all of us are - combined!!), is still defined as being "weak" and/or otherwise "self-justified" in his "morally, ethically and/or legally questionable" behavior.

And someone else who buys a bunch, but then doesn't give a flip if they burn a whole bunch more too (even if they realize and admit that it's wrong) -- is then somehow grouped into the same category as someone like Chuck? How could that make any sense??

I make no claim of sainthood in all this - just that my behavior is a hell of a lot closer to Chuck's. And yeah, I resent being classified the same as someone who burns stuff right and left, but then self-justifies their behavior because they're poor, or cuz they think they've given enough money to "the man" already, or cuz they wouldn't have bought it anyway even if they had the money - or whatever stupid-fuck crazy justification they can think of.

Edited January 30, 2006 by Rooster_Ties

[Quincy]

But there is no serious distinction between downloading from a site like Dime and happily receiving a copy from your friend, Alex.

Minor quibble here about the "a site like Dime" part. Dimeadozen bans torrents anytime a show includes one legally released song. The bootleg site Dime is anti-piracy.

Edited January 31, 2006 by Quincy

[Dan Gould]

But there is no serious distinction between downloading from a site like Dime and happily receiving a copy from your friend, Alex.

Minor quibble here about the "a site like Dime" part. Dimeadozen bans torrents anytime a show includes one legally released song. The bootleg site Dime is anti-piracy.

Except for the fact that they explicitly say that they don't host any files, just use a "tracker" and that questions of violating copyright depend on your local copyright laws.

You're right that they ban torrents of legally released material ... but are they really anti-piracy when they allow the sharing of audience or soundboard recordings, regardless of whether or not the artists approve? Seems to me they really want to have it both ways ... and God bless 'em for that!

[Quincy]

But there is no serious distinction between downloading from a site like Dime and happily receiving a copy from your friend, Alex.

Minor quibble here about the "a site like Dime" part. Dimeadozen bans torrents anytime a show includes one legally released song. The bootleg site Dime is anti-piracy.

Except for the fact that they explicitly say that they don't host any files, just use a "tracker" and that questions of violating copyright depend on your local copyright laws.

You're right that they ban torrents of legally released material ... but are they really anti-piracy when they allow the sharing of audience or soundboard recordings, regardless of whether or not the artists approve? Seems to me they really want to have it both ways ... and God bless 'em for that!

What you've described has nothing to with piracy. A pirate is an illegal copy of recordings that are available commercially. Whatever the ethical problems that exist at Dime, they do not condone piracy.

[.:.impossible]

How does a site like yourmusic.com work into your equation? Is it ok to buy an album six months after release at clearance prices, or should I buy everything I want to hear for $17.49 the day it comes out?

Maybe I should buy three copies of every album I purchase from yourmusic.com just to be sure that every musician I want to sample gets their due.

I knew this board was comprised of altruistic do-rights, but I am really not believing this one.

now playing: burnt copy of Ikue Mori MYRNINEREST

sounds great! I am going to order some Mephista next week. I thought they were fantastic live. Worth every penny. Drinks were overpriced, but I paid for them anyway.

[Aggie87]

How does a site like yourmusic.com work into your equation? Is it ok to buy an album six months after release at clearance prices, or should I buy everything I want to hear for $17.49 the day it comes out?

Maybe I should buy three copies of every album I purchase from yourmusic.com just to be sure that every musician I want to sample gets their due.

I knew this board was comprised of altruistic do-rights, but I am really not believing this one.

now playing: burnt copy of Ikue Mori MYRNINEREST

sounds great! I am going to order some Mephista next week. I thought they were fantastic live. Worth every penny. Drinks were overpriced, but I paid for them anyway.

I fail to understand your point re: yourmusic.com. They only sell legally produced CDs, with the explicit approval of the labels involved. How is it "wrong" to purchase legal, legimate recordings through them or BMG? If labels don't want their music sold throught BMG, I'm sure they have the right not to allow it.

In fact, certain titles are never available through yourmusic.com. And others are sold (at BMG) for full price, instead of their normal discounts. So it seems clear to me that the labels are in full concurrence with this operation.

[.:.impossible]

And that's ok with you? That the labels are in full concurrence? What about the musicians? Do they get any say regarding the sale price of the album, or is there a clause on page 52 that reads "Sale price may vary anywhere between $17.49 and $5.99 within the first 6 months of release."

What is this about? Musicians getting paid for their work or marketers getting paid for theirs?

yourmusic.com cuts the price of an album in half, sometimes by 2/3. Do you feel good about that? Do you feel good about the musicians receiving a fraction of the original profit? I bet you've taken that into account already when projecting your quarterly revenue, though. And I'm sure your algorithm also takes into account the fact that a percentage of the musicians' listening audience will not actually pay for the music at all. Which is why you've decided to market the product through yourmusic.com in the first place. It isn't cannabalism at all, now is it? It is survival. Otherwise, there'll be a lot of discs in the cut-out bin next month.

I don't know as much about the music business as you guys do, or put on to know. I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm a real live consumer, and I copy music, I sell used cds, I buy used cds, I give cds to my friends, I get cds from my friends. I download from emusic.com, itunes.com, dime. I buy from indie shops, I buy from online megas, I buy from online indies, I buy from labels, I buy from musicians, I buy from merch tables in the back of the club. I buy dusty lps, I still own dubbed cassettes. I am an insatiable consumer and I don't think I'm going to slow down anytime soon, regardless of some thin guilt trip.

You assume I am talking about myself. I am not that unique though. I am the target market.

BTW, my brother is a musician. He hasn't worked a "straight job" in his life. He sends me mp3s all the time. How else am I going to learn about Willie Rosario? OK, now I am talking about myself.

[Aggie87]

It's ok to me as a consumer. I haven't worked the ethics of it from the artist's viewpoint, which is not a bad idea. I don't enough of the ins and outs of the business to know what agreements are in place, what goes to who, etc. to know about this end of the business.

I'm a real live consumer like you. I shop around for the best prices I can find when buying music. I've bought music from the same types of places that you mention - indie shops, labels, artists directly, and so on. I also buy and sell (and trade) used cds, and don't have an ethical problem with that. I'm not creating new copies of music in doing so that the artists/producers aren't accounting for.

I don't believe in downloading music illegally. I see no upside to this. You can't account for the possibility that some kid somewhere down the line may eventually buy a legal copy of Clapton's "461 Ocean Blvd", so therefore it's ok for him to illegally download it or burn a copy from a friend today (since he doesn't have enough money today). That's bunk. That's theft that's being justified in someone's head to make themselves feel better.

Also, I'm differentiating illegal copying/sharing from legal downloading, such as emusic, itunes, and songs that artists (like Greg Osby for example) make available freely on their websites. Though personally, i don't really care for emusic and the like, because I'd much rather own an official CD with booklet etc. for my money.

I don't have any algorithms. I just do what feels right to me. Like you do, like Rooster & Alexander do.

[ejp626]

And that's ok with you? That the labels are in full concurrence? What about the musicians? Do they get any say regarding the sale price of the album, or is there a clause on page 52 that reads "Sale price may vary anywhere between $17.49 and $5.99 within the first 6 months of release."

What is this about? Musicians getting paid for their work or marketers getting paid for theirs?

yourmusic.com cuts the price of an album in half, sometimes by 2/3. Do you feel good about that? Do you feel good about the musicians receiving a fraction of the original profit? I bet you've taken that into account already when projecting your quarterly revenue, though. And I'm sure your algorithm also takes into account the fact that a percentage of the musicians' listening audience will not actually pay for the music at all. Which is why you've decided to market the product through yourmusic.com in the first place. It isn't cannabalism at all, now is it? It is survival. Otherwise, there'll be a lot of discs in the cut-out bin next month.

Maybe things have changed, but I remember reading that many musicians' contracts for the major labels from the 1980s and 1990s explicitly said that review and promo copies were to be excluded for the purposes of calculating royalties. Maybe reasonable, until the fine print said that all CDs sold through music clubs such as BMG and I would assume yourmusic were counted as promo copies. So that is a hefty chunk of change that wasn't going to the artists. Again, maybe things have improved, but I kind of doubt it. So impossible could very well be correct that musicians are getting screwed everytime we buy from yourmusic. What kind of royalties does the average musician in a typical contract with the majors get from iTunes or emusic downloads? I don't know. I don't even know that it would change my buying patterns, but it is something to consider before getting on one's high horse about how legal your own practices are. It's possible to be legal and still be contributing to unethical practices. Or conversely one might well believe that the current extensions of copyright in the US are unethical towards consumers, since they were retroactively imposed for the benefit of a very few. Personally, I see the world as a very grey place.

[Dan Gould]

Whatever the implications of the business practices of yourmusic.com, they are a legal avenue of distribution of music from label to consumer and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this poll.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Whatever the implications of the business practices of yourmusic.com, they are a legal avenue of distribution of music from label to consumer and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this poll.

That's not so; the questions on which we were polled are chock full of ethics.

MG

[Dan Gould]

Whatever the implications of the business practices of yourmusic.com, they are a legal avenue of distribution of music from label to consumer and therefore have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of this poll.

That's not so; the questions on which we were polled are chock full of ethics.

MG

Ethics, yes, ethics of receiving or giving free music via burns or downloads. Since you PAY for your music at yourmusic.com, it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic of this poll.