Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couw Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law. define "questionable" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 He said doo doo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law. define "questionable" is that really necessary? In this context, questionable: dubious legally, morally or ethically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law. You don't have any private tapes, Dan?? Or receive or distribute Blindfold Tests?? Your poll questions make no allowances - for anything. How about taping things in the past? I'm not claiming these exceptions are justified. I'm simply asking about behavior. I would be surprised if anyone on this board could answer #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Since you PAY for your music at yourmusic.com, it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the topic of this poll. I reject your questions and substitute my own. That way we can both be satisfied. But I agree with Rooster Ties that this poll is defined so narrowly that probably no one can honestly answer #1. I can't. I'm just saying that if yourmusic doesn't actually turn into royalties for the artists, then it's unfortunate and maybe we ought to be aware of it. How about when you pay but not enough for music, like at the dodgy AllofMp3 site or other Russian MP3 sites? They appear to be just barely legal under Russian law, and there are conflicting opinions on whether you can "import" these MP3s into other countries. Probably illegal under US or UK law. Probably legal under Canadian law. A lot of people go frothing off at the mouth about the EU PD labels, because the artists and original labels get ripped off. But they're perfectly legal in the EU and now that I live here, it's legal for me to own the stuff, and I certainly pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law. You don't have any private tapes, Dan?? Or receive or distribute Blindfold Tests?? Your poll questions make no allowances - for anything. How about taping things in the past? I'm not claiming these exceptions are justified. I'm simply asking about behavior. I would be surprised if anyone on this board could answer #1. I got private tapes that would blow your mind! And I voted accordingly - I don't think what I do/have done is right, but I do it and am at least somewhat conflicted. And I think 4 or 5 people have voted #1, presumably honestly. Maybe they should step forward and explain how it is that they are purer than the driven snow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 ] I reject your questions and substitute my own. That way we can both be satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Tapscott Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 OK. I have a few "burns" and never download music (I still like to have disc in hand so to speak - it's the collector in me, and it's not the same if it's just on my hard drive). But I will admit to giving and receiving CDR-s of a couple of out-of-print Mosaics. They were sets that I meant to buy but the money and the time frame just didn't match up. I suppose the people that's hurting are those who sell out of print Mosaics at inflated prices on e-bay. Not sure whether to lose much sleep over them or not. (As it is, I have bought 50 Mosaic box sets). Plus someone sent me CDR's of Disc 2 & 3 of the Sonny Stitt Mosaic, and because of what I heard it's my next planned Mosaic purchase. I really don't get that many CDR's from anyone (truthfully, I don't have that many jazz friends), and if I've received 20 CDr's of in-print material over the past 4 or 5 years, I've eventually purchased at least 15 of them. So yes, #2 for me, and yes I sleep well at night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
md655321 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 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. So if you PAY for bootlegged cds, that ok too then? Because it seems to me that price is the only determining factor in your criteria. Yourmusic.com being legal is also not a factor when discussing morality and ethics. Do the artists get royalties from those records? If they dont, how is it any better than downloading? Also, stop pretending your poll is about behavior. If you wanted a poll about behavior, you did an absolutely horrible job in wording it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I said it is AT BOTTOM about behavior. It surely has nothing to do with the artist impact of purchases from yourmusic.com or paying for bootlegs. The topic is burns and downloads and whether you accept them or not. PERIOD. Why this is such a problem for some people is completely beyond me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I disagree, Dan. You say that receiving/giving burned CDs and illegal downloading (getting something for nothing) is the issue here and not whether or not the artist receives royalties from the transaction. But I thought that "supporting the music" WAS the issue. If the issue is "getting something for nothing," then is it also "unethical" to give a CD (a real one, not a burn) to a friend? I've done it TONS of times. Sometimes I'll upgrade a Blue Note CD to an RVG edition and give away the old copy to a friend. Sometimes I'll just decide that I'm tired of a given disc and I'll decide to give it away rather than sell it. I've been on the receiving end of this type of transaction too. Now in this case, someone has gotten "something for nothing." Is that wrong too? I would argue that buying bootlegs is the same issue as burning CDs. In both cases the artist who created the music has not been compensated. And for the record, I own several boots (some of which I've bought, and some of which were lent to me for copying). And, yes, I sleep fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I said it is AT BOTTOM about behavior. It surely has nothing to do with the artist impact of purchases from yourmusic.com or paying for bootlegs. The topic is burns and downloads and whether you accept them or not. PERIOD. Why this is such a problem for some people is completely beyond me. OK, if the topic is burns and downloads, then I'll answer #1 with a clear conscience because I can't be bothered with the fucking technology! MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) I would argue that buying bootlegs is the same issue as burning CDs. In both cases the artist who created the music has not been compensated. They are not the same. A bootleg (assuming it is not a pirate) is rarely a perfect substitute for an artist's officially released works. There are cases when official releases later make bootlegs obsolete or use material that was bootlegged in some form, such as Coltrane's "One Down, One Up" or the various Dylan titles in the bootlegs series. But if for instance one has an interest in early '70s Van Morrison, the live boots "Wild Night" or outtake collections compliment more than replace "Tupelo Honey" and other studio works. A burn of an official release creates unauthorized supply that musically at least perfectly substitutes the legit product. And if you grab art at Wallmart.com then an additional step has been taken to replicate it. When you burn (example) "Kenny G Plays Ayler" for a friend, it means that your friend will not search out a copy of it at the CD General Store. What used to happen before burners was that your frugal friend would search for a used copy. If he couldn't find a used copy a decision had to be made. He could either keep searching for a used copy at another store or the same store for weeks-months-years, or if he got impatient he'd break down and buy a new copy. Burning CDRs of legitimate titles lessens the chance that someone will "break down" and buy the title new, thus lessening the chances of increased artist compensation. Furthermore, when people burn titles or shuffle tracks to an iPod and sell the disc back, it increases the supply of used discs, also lessening the chances that new sealed versions of the album will be bought because of frugal shoppers like myself. Edited January 31, 2006 by Quincy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) I would argue that buying bootlegs is the same issue as burning CDs. In both cases the artist who created the music has not been compensated. They are not the same. A bootleg (assuming it is not a pirate) is rarely a perfect substitute for an artist's officially released works... In both cases we're talking about a recording for which the artist has not been compensated. Dylan, for example, HATES bootlegs and has reportedly freaked out at the prospect of making rehearsal tapes that could be leaked (he once walked out of a rehearsal session with the Grateful Dead because the rehearsal space was full of recording equipment, even though Jerry Garcia assured him that none of it was on). Does this prevent me from owning a copy of "A Tree with Roots?" Hell, no! Dylan can hate boots all he wants, but the fact is that they are available and there are plenty of people out there (like me) who want to hear them. Artists (like Dylan and Zappa) are so often ofended by boots because they feel that people are making money off of their (inferior) product. As for your claim that owning burns makes people less likely to buy a commerical copy, I know that it's not true in my case. I recently LEGITIMATELY downloaded several Beck albums (I paid for them and everything). I loved them so much that I went out and bought commerical copies of the lot. Similarly, when a friend burned me a copy of "Down in the Basement: Joe Bussard's Treasure Trove of Vintage 78s" over the summer, I was on-line ordering a copy from CD Universe BEFORE THE DISC WAS FINISHED PLAYING. Edited January 31, 2006 by Alexander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Furthermore, everyone goes on about ethics when the fact of the matter is that this poll is at bottom about behavior: I don't do it. It may be questionable but I do do it. I do it and I am proud of it. Screw IP copyright law. You don't have any private tapes, Dan?? Or receive or distribute Blindfold Tests?? Your poll questions make no allowances - for anything. How about taping things in the past? I'm not claiming these exceptions are justified. I'm simply asking about behavior. I would be surprised if anyone on this board could answer #1. You're missing Dan's point entirely, RT. Of course he has private tapes, etc. As do I. We both had no problem voting for #2 and admitting that, while it may be wrong in one or more ways, we partake. What you want is the sin without the guilt, and to be told that you're doing nothing wrong when you steal. We prefer to be honest with ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejp626 Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 You're missing Dan's point entirely, RT. Of course he has private tapes, etc. As do I. We both had no problem voting for #2 and admitting that, while it may be wrong in one or more ways, we partake. What you want is the sin without the guilt, and to be told that you're doing nothing wrong when you steal. We prefer to be honest with ourselves. My only real problem with the poll is that I find it heavy-handed. Ok, there may be a handful of people in #1 and #3 but not too many. Almost all of us fall into #2 and rationalize it (or not) in various ways. I'd be more interested in finding out something about people's boundaries (yes to PD labels but no to Napster, yes to borrowing a copy from a friend, no to ripping every CD in the public library, yes to OOP material unless it is from Mosaic, etc.). Not interested enough however to set up one more poll about it. I'm almost interested enough to ask if people would still use yourmusic/BMG and/or emusic/iTunes if musicians (or estates) didn't get royalties. However, I think this topic is played out for another few months (for me at any rate). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tjazz Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Basically, there are only 2 groups: 1) Don't 2) Do As for the legality stuff. Why don't you apply it to drug usage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted February 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 Basically, there are only 2 groups: 1) Don't 2) Do True, but the prior discussion showed clearly that there is a subgroup within with "Do" who feel that they are in the vanguard of a revolution in the law of intellectual property rights, while another, larger group, "does" but they have at least some qualms about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.:.impossible Posted February 2, 2006 Report Share Posted February 2, 2006 The vanguard of a revolution? Ok, wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 A friend just sent me some funny examples of letters to the editor of a British newspaper. This one seems relevant in an offbeat way. "The record companies would have us believe that the money made by CD pirates goes to fund the drug industry. But the money rock stars make from legal record sales ends up in exactly the same place. When they stop breaking the law, so will I. P Boddington, Ringway" MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted February 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 The vanguard of a revolution? Ok, wow. Did you read some of the more militant defenses of burning/downloading? That's exactly where some of those people think there are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.