Circumstances where it is morally acceptable to illegally download music
Because I worry about it.
a) When you have paid for it but have lost/deleted your copy.
b) When it was, at some point, available for free (eg a radio show after the listen-again period.)
c) When it is impossible to buy (or at least you’ve put a satisfactory amount of effort into trying to buy it.)
Agree? Disagree?
- Artists:
- None
From the archive
-
Iron & Wine: "I don’t really do things to rub people the wrong way"
-
“Reissue! Repackage! Repackage!”
-
In photos: British Sea Power at Paris La Danse
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
I'd say C is the only acceptable occasion
How is it not acceptable to download something you've already paid for?
...
If you write off your car, is it acceptable to steal a new one?
yeah
but you can't burn off a copy of a car why you still own one.
...
If you buy the parts and the plans, there's no reason you can't make a copy of your car - exactly like how you have to have a functioning PC, blank disks and CD-burning software to make a copy of a record.
If you're listening to it
and planning to buy it if it's good?
...
No-one has ever done this.
recently i have done exactly this for
explosions in the sky, flying saucer attack and shalabi effect.
...
Suuuuuure you did...
yes sir!
was especially impressed after seeing explosions, decided they could have some of my hard earned cash.
...
Ah, the remorseful burglar effect. I'm on to you!
3 albums,
out of how many downloads?
as i've previously stated
the vast majority of what i download is stuff that cannot be bought.
stop stating silly assumptions as if they're fact
He is stating the truth.
I know from experience,way back in the Napster days. It becomes like an addiction - every time you hear about an artist/album you just download it - cos you can.
Maybe some folk might buy a vinyl or cd of something they have dl'ed, but nobody goes and gives Itunes money for something that they have already downloaded for free.
no...
but you might buy the cd or vinyl. does anyone ever buy a whole album off iTunes? it's way, way too expensive which is why people download illegally.
Even if it was 10p a track,
some people would download illegally.
that's not the same thing
...
Yes it is.
It really isn't
because in the case of the music you've paid for the right to reasonable personal use, and whether or not that use arises from copying your CD or downloading a copy from the internet makes no difference. Unless you think that if I lost my copy of Murmur I should delete it from iTunes because I used the CD to rip it.
...
...okay... here in the real world if you buy a CD, you've bought a CD - not the right to do what you like with the music represented on the CD. If you break the CD, then you're supposed to buy another CD.
If you download the files from the internet and they're copyrighted - sure, no-one in their right mind would say you're doing wrong - but legally, you're still as culpable as someone who never owned the disk in the first place. Someone out there has still illegally copied copyrighted material and distributed it to you. Moreover, you've received these copies without explicit permission from the copyright owner.
comparing it to stealing a car is still absolutely ridiculous.
and you know it too
...
No.
I know it's illegal
but the discussion is whether or not it's morally acceptable, which you've pretty much said it is by saying "no-one in their right mind would say you're doing wrong". Downloading music illegally is always illegal...I think we all get that!
...
Hey, I don't make the law. And law = morals. Especially since we're talking about theft - one of the Big 10.
"no-one in their right mind would say you're doing wrong"
'law = morals'.
why can't you just admit when you've lost an argument?
I'd say C is the least defensible
because they might be planning to sell it in future. You could have downloaded a load of Radiohead b-sides that were unavailable and it would have made you less likely to buy the collector's editions when they were subsequently released. Artists have the right to control when their material is available.
That's in theory, anyway. In practice, morals can do one. I'll download what I like!
All of the above
plus D) when the music is unreleased leaked demos or recordings of live shows (unauthorised or otherwise)
D.
When you go to a gig, and the artists says "download our shit! Or buy it if you want."
Green light.
E
having it on vinyl, but downloading the mp3s.
no?
I do that sometimes
cos I am too lazy to hook the computer up to the record player. Whether this will get me into shit with the popo remains to be seen.
This only applies to new releases though surely.
If you have a David Bowie LP from the 70s I wouldn't say your entitled to download the remastered versions.
Otherwise then yeah vinyl + mp3 downloads is probably the best format as I only listen to music on computer and ipod these days but do like owning a nice product. The favours for sailors album was pretty perfect format wise considering it was 12", CD and mp3s all for around £6.
what about having it on Cassette and taking the MP3s?
F
It's the 21st century maaan, morals can GTF
Morally?
Any time.
When you live in Guatemala
and earn just over 3 pounds an hour and half the shit you want can't be delivered here anyway.
but you can afford a broadband connection?
I've been to Guatemala,
the cost of living is extremely low campared to UK. If you are on three ponds an hour you are pretty well off. An mp3 costs 80p.
G
When copyright law has become so bastardised through repeated lobbying that it seems doubtful that anything will ever reach the public domain again.
I will add a d then
d) When the band in question, or a mandated representative, says you can.
H)
if you want to spend your money on something else
You're all forgetting the obvious one:
I) When a madman with a gun and lots of explosives is holding your family and loved ones hostage, pointing the gun at you and shouting "GET THE NEW MOUNTAIN GOATS ALBUM OFF MEDIAFIRE OR I WILL WADE IN YOUR BLOOD".
THen it'd be ok.
Life over morals FTW!
new mountain goats?
fuck that — you can take out the family!
J) When you're agoraphobic
K
etamine
L
aziness
r(ent)
when the band is broken up or the artist is dead
when the album is genuinely really really hard to find/deleted
when the band say it's okay
Z.
Whenever you think music as a whole isn't doing enough to convince you to part with your beans rather than get it for nowt.
It costs less than a pound to download a track.
If the music isn't even worth that to you it doesn't say much for the music you are listening to.
Fucking sickening.
if its a rap mixtape
I guess you could..
.. actually get into a serious debate whether music, and other culture, should just be more widely to available to those in the privileged position to afford it.
Is it morally better for someone who is say born into wealth to spend as much as they want on music whether they really want it or not end up listening to it compared to someone who is very poor who downloads lots of music but repeatedly listens and loves to everything he gets. I know they are obviously extreme opposing examples mind...
We live in a capitalist society.
Unless you are advocating that we would be better off under a communist regime it seems a silly thing to say.
Is it fair that poor people can't afford luxury goods?
I'm not saying I agree with this statement..
.. or even that this type of thinking has any bearing in the real world. Just the morals of it. Is it morally ok that lots of art and culture is only available to those who can afford it.
Musicians and bands have always bent the rules e.g. claiming benefits to fund their band when they have no intention of finding work.
Also their was recently for a petition for a pirate radio station to get an FM license. Is that ok? Just because it is popular and provides a good service? seeing as it has been acting illegally for years seems hardly fair to all the other radio stations who have done things legally to then give them an FM license?
Some fair points,
but let's get one thing clear - this is not really about affordability. I doubt there is anyone who uses this forum who can't afford to buy a 'reasonable' amount of music. I realise everyone has their own idea of what is reasonable, but I'm sure most would agree that nobody 'needs' to have an entire hard-drive full of music.
When people use the excuse that they are skint to justify dl'ing music it reminds me of Primark customers trying to justify buying clothes that they know have been made in a swearshop - nobody needs to own that many clothes. It's just want, want, want. Me, me, me.
yeah, I do agree with your points there..
.. the examples I was using doesn't really apply to the real world, as the vast majority of people who download is because they just want more. Just at the moment there is not really anyway of knowing how downloads effect the industry as a whole, and maybe there never will be.
^sweatshop
not swearshop lol
Swearshop!
Customer - Hello Twat
Assistant - How can I fucking help you
Customer -I want a pair of those fuckers over there
Assistant - Here you fucking go
Customer - Thanks a fuckin bunch
Assistant - Fuck you very much!
I'm tempted to say
d) When the record label involved is one of the big four.
But that would open up a whole new can of worms!
And just to add..
.. I actually don't download anything, apart from on emusic where I have an account.
but music isn't really analagous to luxury goods or clothes
i know we're living in a world where art is a commodity like everything else, but surely in an ideal world it wouldn't be. in an ideal world, maybe music would be funded by people choosing how much to pay for it (a la radiohead), based on a combination of how much they can afford and how much they think it's worth. if art has to be a commodity, it should be a value-based commodity, and the value of art is subjective. if people have a choice between paying £12 for an album or getting it for free, and they don't really think an album is worth £12 when balanced against all the other things they want to spend money on, they're going to take it for free. but if they think it's worth, say, £4, and they have the option of choosing how much to pay, maybe they'd take that option instead. in an ideal world, maybe people would willingly pay for music they actually care about. idealism, idealism, idealism
If it's under a creative commons licence
or you already own a copy then it's fine.
Otherwise, when the BPI send you a court summons, you'll be charged a stupidly large amount per individual mp3 in damages to the increasingly impoverished recording industry.
sorry, that's legally alright.
fucking website. hadn't finished.
morally alright = when you have so little respect for the artist's in question, when you have better things to spend cash on, when the album is 90% filler, when its out of print and a physical copy would cost stupid money, when the record isnt really that good but you're a completist wank who simply must have it anyway, when you're bored and there's nothing on telly and you have the notion to listen to boney m or something.
what is the likelehood of getting caught?
I actually downloaded 3 things for the first time last night.
Two I will buy (actually bidding on one on ebay now) and I've never seen The Wipers for sale anywhere.
people seem to be talking about court summmons a lot more lately
as if it's actually a serious threat now. i don't think it is. it's unenforcable. it'll never take off
DISCLAIMER - i do not download illegally, but i can see why some people do
Also..
.. haven't he BPI or whoever said they are going to stop going after individuals? Isn't that the whole point of the government getting involved and the whole 3 strikes being introduced.
I never thought that it would be an issue
but the BPI trying to get isps and the government involved due to being incompetent, not being taken seriously by anyone at all and not offering a viable alternative means that getting a nasty letter in the post is more likely than it used to be. Or as soon as the hastily cobbled together legislation is swiftly passed by the commons, anyway.
<rant>
All due to that cunt mandelson ignoring the digital britain report because he had a nice meal with his best new mate on his best new mates boat in the med. Tory fuckmonger. Should have left the cunt to rot in europe.
</rant>
Don't they generally...
...go for the uploaders? because its a much worse crime to upload/share music then it is to just download it? I'm not really up to date wit how people download music these days.
if you use torrents
then you are an uploader.
Same
with p2p
Are these still popular then?
I know they were a while ago but thought they were less popular these days?
I think there are still a few around.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39854663,00.htm
whoa...
didn't realise they were still used so much!
not as much as before
I used to use EMule and soulseek. Emule seemed to go to shit about a year ago, after a long decline in network strength and file availability. Mainly due to the centralised servers in Denmark and Germany being targeted.
Soulseek is still alright, but nowhere as good as it used to be.
Between soulseek, torrent sites and googling rapidshare, I tend to be able to get most of the things that interest me, and most of the rest as well when I get bored of quality and want to see what everyone else thinks is good.
Don't they..
... end up offering you a settlement? Pretty sure every time I've read anything about it going to court (admittedly mainly in the US) people generally settle for a much lower amount. Iv'e only read once when some women didn't settle she had to pay the full huge amount.
morality's subjective, man
D) When a band re-releases old albums that you already own but with 'bonus tracks' added
E) If everyone involved is dead.
EXAMPLE:
Nick Cave compiles and releases a 3-CD album of B-sides, rarities etc, charges £15 for it. FAIR ENOUGH.
Pulp compile three CDs worth of B-sides, rarities etc, and rerelease three of their old albums with one extra CD on each, charging £15 quid per 'deluxe album'. GTF.
X) When you just don't give a fuck.
When the only thing stopping you raiding Sainsbury's is the chance of you getting physically caught.
"You wouldn't steal a handbag... you wouldn't steal a car..."
Well, yes I fucking would if it belonged to Ashley Cole...
Ashley Cole's handbag. I'm sure it exists.
When the artist in question is already a multi millionaire.
I don't think The Beatles estate will miss my 20 quid.
morally acceptable?
From the back of Ninja Tune's records:
Before you copy, burn or upload these recordings, please take a moment to think about what you’re doing and what you’re not doing. You are not “sticking it to the man.” You are not “sticking a blow against outdated copyright laws.” You are not “liberating content from the corporations”. Nor are you “promoting our records for us.” You are making it much harder for the musicians on our label to make anything like a living wage for creating the music which you think is good enough to give to friends and associates. You are making it harder for an independent label like Ninja Tune to stay in business (we’re not trying to rip anyone off, so don’t pretend we are – we split all profits 50/50 with our artists and we put out music we believe in rather than music which we just think will make us the most money). By all means pirate the latest corporate spew from Major Central. But don’t pretend it’s the same thing as copying this. Because, one day, when we’re all gone and all that’s left is two or three giant multinational conglomerates putting out lowest-common-denominator bollocks, you’ll wish you hadn’t – no clicking…
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it's a totally
great bit of writing, maybe a little forceful in tone (major label spew is also a bit over the top, I don't condone this at all either), but the sentiment is there. This was just bashed out by an intern or something, now they pop it on all their records.
"when we’re all gone and all that’s left is two or three giant multinational conglomerates putting out lowest-common-denominator bollocks, you’ll wish you hadn’t "
Who honestly thinks this will happen? There could scarcely be a more overabundant supply of music (unless my granny and her buddies start up a power trio). Teenagers don't pick up guitars thinking "Good career option this". The argument that downloading will eliminate all people who like making music apart from Coldplay is such fallacious rubbish.
It is always morally acceptable to download music unless the artist expressly wishes to prevent its public availability.
Well if everyone takes your attitude,
we are really doomed. Unbelievable.
but the majors will be gone way before the indies....
coz the majors are literally only 'in it for the money'. when they know they can't make huge money from music anymore they'll go off and do something else like run a supermarket chain, leaving the labels/bands who genuinely love music with less competition. is that such a bad thing? the major labels have far lower morals than any downloader out there.
regardless of downloading, who the fuck still listens to anything on ninja tunes in 2009?
Just... wrong
The majors aren't going to just disappear. They're going to carry on in the direction they've been going over the course of the last decade - more risk adverse, more 360 deals, more co-branding and licensing, more focussed on a diminishing roster, less development.
The idea that indies can survive on a love of music is laughable. At some point dropping stupid sums of cash into a large hole stops being fun, especially if, y'know, you actually fancied making your way in the world by doing it. Though of course they can always try the well worn route of going to work for one of those bigger companies, but only if they can persuade them that they have no love for music whatsoever.
wrong again!
Of course there will still be the majors chucking out beyonce and shit synced up with a coke commercial. All the majors do is sell products, they have very, very little interest in the music, they could be selling toothpaste and they clearly do not give a shit about the artist or the music, hence 99+% of people who sign a record deal never get paid. the a&r man and his boss always takes a good wage though (or did before Napster came along). Complaining about the majors though is like complaining about the winter being cold, pointless.
"especially if, y'know, you actually fancied making your way in the world by doing it."
Well, maybe some peoples expectations are unrealistic. The good indies will carry on and evolve, the crap lazy ones will fade away. Bands will also release their own material, the technology is there now which is wasn't before.
What the fuck is a 360 deal?
...
I only do it if the Vinyl I have bought doesn't have an MP3 code
when you pre-ordered and paid for it
but it hasn't been delivered by the release date.
tempted to agree with this one.
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4205443