danyboy809

I figured it was stealing to download songs without the bands' consent. They have cds to buy and downloading mp3s steals an artist's work.

what do you guys think?
Am I stupid, right, or what?

how else can I be ethical? stop buying Nike shoes?

Daniel Greenspan

Writer@Large

I would call you neither stupid nor wrong, because to do either would mean that I had a better answer to the ethics of the situation than you do. I don't; but I do have an answer that works for me.

I, myself, have plenty of mp3s, and I have no intention of deleting them. Some of them are copies of songs I own in one form or another. If I have the CD, am I allowed to have the mp3? I also have some CDs that I purchased only after downloading an mp3. Can I keep those, since I gave the artist money? What about cassette? Because I admit that the reason I downloaded some somgs is because I own them on cassette, but I don't listen to them (I don't even own a cassette player right now) and I wasn't inclined to buy them again on CD.

So I've personally decided that I'm keeping my mp3s until someone gives me a better idea of what is, and is not, allowable.

--W@L

lisarea

Legally, I believe you're allowed to make backup copies of media for your own personal use. That is, in the event of damage to the original media.

As far as copying to another media for preference, or making, say, a copy of an existing CD to use in the car, or an MP3 version for a portable player, I'm not entirely sure what the law says, and I expect that whatever it does say is murky.

Ethically, I don't think there is a reasonable objection to this. And I download MP3s for personal use and I even burn CD samplers for my friends and family from CDs I already own. Technically, I may be 'stealing,' but I certainly don't think it's unethical. If I like the music enough, I will eventually buy the CD, and the samplers are intended for the same purposes.

Overall, there is nothing that has shown the the wide availability of downloaded music has done anything to hurt CD sales. The music industry moans and whines about it, but then they turn around and prohibit users' ability to copy their own media legally, through technical means. Many CDs now have copy protection, which can keep you from playing your CDs on older CD players, your computer, etc., similar to the Macrovision technology used for the same purposes on VHS and DVD movies.

The real intent, it could be argued, is to force users to purchase redundant media and technology. But the way I see it, I paid for personal use of the Brian Eno discography up to about the early 80s. The fact that I purchased these in 8-track format does not preclude my right to listen to them, and considering the lack of support for the 8-track format, I have no qualms about downloading these albums in MP3 format now.

In fact, my perspective on the whole copyright violation thing is that the music, software, and video industries have taken their pound of flesh from me multiple times already, and I honestly don't feel guilty about 'stealing' from them now and again. I still buy plenty of CDs, but if I just want one song from an album, I'll download it without guilt.

Yggdrasill

I have lots of mp3s and I see nothing wrong with that, because would not have bought the artists CDs in any case. So they have lost nothing. In fact, I would think the artists have gained from me downloading their songs, because I did not consider buying their CDs before I downloaded a few of their songs, and I do now.

It shouldn't be necessary to buy a CD to be able to enjoy some music, the music industry should just adapt to the changing conditions.

GeoTheo

I think you made the right decision. I think using pirated software is also unethical. It makes the price of software purchased legally go up for ethical people.
It is a hard thing to do though if you have a lot of friends that trade software. They will percieve you as being a bit of a weenie.

Pseudonymph

If I may...

I work here and there as a record producer...It isn't my main job but I deal with bands and record labels on a fairly regular basis. Let me ask you a question; How much money do you think an artist gets per cd? Think about it for a minute....CD's typically cost around 15-20 dollars. Where does that money go?

The artist sees anywhere from $.30 to $.60(not usual) a cd.

That's it. The rest of the money goes to various places...the label, the packaging company, the store that bought the CD to sell, the producer, on and on. But even before splitting all those costs, the label takes the VAST majority of the profit from a CD sale.

My point is, the labels are running scared because there profits are in "danger"(they think anyway) There has been no evidence to suggest that downloading mp3's has damaged the industry. What HAS contributed to a slide in cd sales is the simple fact that the vast majority of modern music is crap. You know it and so do I. I mean really, how many of you have bought a CD from a band that just surfaced this year? Very few.

The labels realize that their scheme of getting one good song to promote and put on the radio, while allowing the rest of the CD to be crap, is failing because people can now simply download the one good song. (I'm a producer...labels have this discussion with me all the time..."this one's the hit, we need you to really make this one shine, 70 percent of my studio time is spent on the fucking single and the rest of the time is rushed on other songs.)

This war against downloading music is as futile and as costly as the war on drugs, and even more pointless to try and win. The industry can either get on the p2p train or be run over by it.

Autonemesis

This gets to the heart of the matter, as I see it. If in the 80s, what you bought was a license to Brian Eno's music, then you should have the expectation that your media would be replaced, for the cost of the media. If your 8-track tape cassette gets warped on the dash, you shouldn't have to buy the license to the music again. That's an ephemeral product not physically tied to the media the music was delivered upon at the time of purchase. If the license is what you bought, then you should even have an expectation that when CDs came out, you should have gotten a copy of Eno's music on the new format, under your old license.

If, on the other hand, you bought a piece of media with some music pre-recorded on it, then that item is your property to do with as you see fit. You can resell it to someone else, you can fold, spindle or mutilate it, and you can disable any copy-protection device included with it. It's your property, after all. This is the same "first sale" principle that prohibits Chevrolet from welding shut the hood of your car and telling you that you may not work on the engine, or take it to a mechanic of your choice.

The music industry wants to have it both ways. They want to sell you the shiny disk and say that this piece of hardware is the product. If you break it, you pay full price to replace it just as you would have to buy a new microwave if you damaged it out of the warranty. But they want to attach license terms to that physical product that limit what you can do with it, terms that no other seller of a material products has ever tried to do (excepting, perhaps, Segway).

So, did you buy a license to the music? Then your media ought to be replaced at cost, not for the price of another license. Did you buy a physical disk? Then the seller has no right to try and limit what you can do with that disk after first sale.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Lord Asriel

SirenSpeak- If I may... <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

IIRC, when Napster was first becoming popular, CD sales actually went up, as people had a much easier way of sampling a label's wares and deciding what they wanted. It was only when the industry started getting heavy that people stopped buying CD's in disgust.

At least I think that's what happened, please correct me if I am wrong.

The fact remains that the genie is out of the bottle now, and will not go back in.

galiel

I do not believe anyone has the right to impose their morality on anyone else. But I also believe that, as Oliver Wendel Holmes said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

Personally, I find life much simpler if I act consistently and uncompromisingly according to a consistent hierarchy of values. First of all, I don't have to try and remember which lie I told to whom. Second, I don't have to spend a lot of energy finding justifications for actions which conflict with my own core values. "it's only a little lie" "it's only a small theft" "everyone does it" "It's ok to steal from the rich" "they teased me first", etc.

I do my (imperfect) best to live by two simple principles, and I try to use, as consistently as I can, two simple strategies to achieve them:

Principle 1) "If it doesn't make a difference, what's the point?" (my personal motto)
In other words, live consciously; try to make sure every action you take helps the most people in the most places most of the time. It also means: don't focus on trivial things that are essentially meaningless or only provide self-gratification. Since one can't do everything all the time, this helps me make meaningful choices.

Principle 2)Apply the golden rule(modified): Ask yourself, if you were the person or persons most effected by your decision, what would be in your best interest? Note that it doesn't say: what will make them like you the most, or what will make them owe you the most, or what will earn you the most? It also doesn't judge whether the people affected by your actions are nice or not, are like you or not, are powerful or not. Not also that I changed the common wording from "Follow" to "Apply". I don't believe in following dogma or "isms". I believe in applying principles. There is a big difference: the former is focused on ends, the latter on means.

Notice, as significantly, that it doesn't say to do what the effected people would like the most. My 15-year-old daughter would like me not to ask here where she is going; but it would not be in her best interest for me to do so. I make this determination not based on what is best for me (which would be to avoid constant conflict and let her be), but what I would consider best for her if I were in her situation.

To live by these principles, I follow two simple strategies:

Strategy A) Always tell the truth. For one thing, it's a hell of a lot easier to remember. More importantly, I happen to believe that the better one understands objective reality, the better for oneself and for the world, since one can make rational decisions made on reality not fantasy. I also believe that a society functions better when it is based on open communication, rather than hidden agendas.

Strategy B) Take responsibility for your own actions.this help keep one honest in assessing situations and deciding on the optimal course of action.

I'm sorry if this seems simplistic to philosophers who make a living writing long tomes of complex situational ethics. I just don't think life is all that complicated, particularly if one adheres to principle and follows consistent strategy. I have never confronted a situation that was not amenable to this kind of analysis, and I have yet to confront or even imagine a realistic scenario where these principles and the strategies I use to follow them would not apply.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Pseudonymph

Exactly.


Heres what many people over look when they think about the record companies lawers going through the networks and seeing who's downloading what.

Let's say I own a backstreetboys CD



The disc gets scratched to where my favorite song, which is "I'll never stop dancing like a retard" or whatever, won't play anymore.

So I jump on KaAza and get the song so I can revel in it.

Now... Was what I did legal?

The answer is yes. Do the record companies know whether or not I own the song? No. This makes it illegal for them to go through and intentionally destroy data and files that they think have been pirated. They are seeking legislature to do just this. Does this scare you? It scares me.