What's your moral justification for illegally copying and downloading music?

2) Quite a lot of what I download is stuff I already have on tape, or stuff I had on CD and lost. So I've paid for it already.

3) Quite a lot of what I download is quite old and almost impossible to find commercially. Although the itunes store does negate this one a bit.

4) If an artist I really like releases an album I'll still buy it.

better that people hear art they might like/want to hear than to be denied hearing that at all (because it's over-priced or unavailable/hard to access) - as in, i've got 60gb of music on my PC at home and i don't think it's really practical OR feasible (or even possible) to spend what would be required to amass a collection that size (esp. if much of that you only listened to a few times out of curiosity, or loved for a few weeks but then never played again)

additionally, i don't really want to own songs as quantifable objects if i don't have to. i don't have to. so, how much is an individual song worth? 10p? £1? £100? does it depend on how much you like the song? if so, direct me to the artist or label's website and i will happily donate whatever amount i think the song is worth via Paypal, sometime within the next few years (they'll recoup eventually honest!)

I think that's a bit of a week argument, when Amazon can creditably be regarded as a "store near me". Not to get at you personally, since I download music and I don't feel particularly guilty about it, but I'm a bit puzzled as to why I don't.

Big corporations do screw musicians, but if you think music put out by those corporations is something worth having, it seems reasonable to pay for it, as much as you'd pay for a sweater or a cup of coffee. After all, it took money to record, distribute, and market it (so you actually got to hear it). And yes, even if it's minimal, you are also taking money from the artist.

But then you don't believe in any sort of copyright law at all? So bootlegging DVDs and selling them is ok too?

"i've got 60gb of music on my PC at home and i don't think it's really practical OR feasible (or even possible) to spend what would be required to amass a collection that size"

What makes you think it's your god-given right to have 60gb of music?

I've always bought more used cd's than new ones anyway, and the artist doesn't see any money from that either.

Also, a lot of stuff that I download is stuff that I can honestly say that I would never pay money for. I would probably just never hear it at all.

xxxpost

Isn't that like saying I'm opposed on principle to robbing people's houses, but it's OK if I deem that person to be rich?

labels, stores, radio and TV all have less power and influence now because of the internet - indisputably good thing no?

thing is when you buy a record from a shop you're technically supporting the shop, label and everyone inbetween MORE than the artist in terms of what you pay and what they receive. unless you're loving your cool local record stores and want them to stay alive that just seems a bit daft.

if i can download a song, without packaging, without a physical artefact/container, who's left to pay? if the song was produced and is being distributed online but the artist is releasing it on their own label, i just have to pay the artist. i want that to be more and more commonplace. and major label artists should be selling everything they've ever releases online, payable on a track per track basis - because it's a piece of piss and people like me want it. i'm perfectly happy to pay for that as i have a better idea of where the money is going - tho the valuation of the music now free of so many costly factors would need further discussion.

(plus, you know, i'm above such petty things as "copyright", "ownership" etc. because i'm a true nietchzean superman).

Well, it would be more justifiable than robbing someone who's poor. But, as was mentioned earlier, music isn't a commodity in the same way as a TV or a computer. Once you put it out there it should be expected that some people will pay for it and some people will hear it for free. It's always been like that since people have been taping songs off the radio.

What I'm saying is that if a band manages to make a decent (in some cases very decent) living, I've no sympathy for their petulant sniping about some people getting their music for free. It would be different for a struggling young artist, obviously.

it's very easy to promote yourself online - and very easy for critics, zines etc. to pick up on that and cover them. word of type reaches so much further than word of mouth. and if you really must have packaging, download that and print it out too (or make your own)...

of course all this is very idealistic but it is essentially logical and could/should happen. as for the artists whose music i've heard but not paid for, i'll pay them back once we work out how much i actually owe them for the song itself (NOT the CD it's on that i didn't buy because the other tracks were rub etc.)...

(pardon my deliberately arrogant/provocative stance here)

Not that I can download at the moment, but.

so i suppose i feel that the only way for artists to get paid is for people to act out of their own goodwill, and after acquiring files of artists music, support them by sending money via legitimate channels...hey it could happen!

Meursault, does this question apply to purchases of used CDs? Artists see no royalties there either

Before downloading, 90-95% of the music I used to purchase was used. Today, I buy *much* less, but 80-90% of what I do buy is purchased through Amazon. And, more often than not, something I would never have taken a risk on purchasing sounds unheard.

(and bands make their living from selling t-shirts anyway)

Haha the amount they send could be based on the song's merit, eg Girls Aloud become instant millionaires while Keane get inundated with slips of scrap paper saying "you owe me those three minutes I wasted on your turgid non-song, fuckers".

(How do we feel about the ethics/vulgarity of linking to your own writing offsite?

I want feedback on it, though, to develop it please, so I'm linking anyway.)

http://www.lnreview.co.uk/music/002656.php

don't forget the ringtones. do artists actually make money for every ringtone purchases? if so how much per sale?

Hah. It is NOT very easy to promote yourself on-line with no help. Critics, zines, etc. receive thousands upon thousands of recordings and can't listen to everything they get, so they often rely upon label reputation or other info. Sure, you can set up a website with MP3s, but how do you bring people to it? There are too many bands out there doing the same. If you want to advertise, you need money (hence a label).

re: ringtones

generally, yes. there was an article in the wall street journal a few weeks ago. it was interesting though, cuz it focused on one song (the name of which escapes me) that had to go through clearance of every writer (including all samples) for it to be released as a ringtone. consequently, it was weeks after its chart peak that the ringtone was available. revenues lost, executives pissed.

I find it so funny that, since downloading, everyone suddenly got SO CONCERNED about the practices of the recording industry (as a nice way to say, "Oh well they fuck the artists out of the money anyway so why should I support that)...I'm sure everyone has the same amount of concern for the people that, say, make the 26 inch color television that you wouldn't dream of having the balls to steal from a store, or the people that sewed the Gap jeans you bought for $15, cuz god knows those people are be well and fairly compensated for their work from the very noble textile industry....

The fact is that people like to download because it's easy and free, and will go through any amount of ethical gymnastics to justify it...*

*although I will say that I don't have a problem with people that use the Internet for a sort of "radio replacement", ie sampling a song off an artist's website and then choosing to buy it or not, or the mp3 blog thing...however, i know way too many people that claim to love music that simple do not buy any recorded music at all anymore...their entire collection is either burns or mp3s...i find this really irresponsible towards music and artists.

**also I do understand downloading live bootlegs and extremely rare stuff that's long out of print as well, but I'm talking about people that download any album that's readily available for purchase anywhere...

***i also realize that the record industry's pricing and practice of not developing legimate, long term album artists has done alot to bring this on themselves ($18.99 CDs,etc..)

Same here. Downloading isn't a substitute for having made a purchase for me. I download music to preview new things and for the convenience of being able to put it on my iPod without having to record and encode the vinyl I already own. I'm also more likely to go and check a show out if I've heard something by whoever is playing beforehand.

That said, I have a couple of friends who lost jobs (one worked for EMI and one designed cover art for a few indies) in the last two years and reckon online piracy might have had something to do with it. I'm not certain I agree with them, but really can't say for sure.

Anyone here know whether small record stores are hurting much?

have small record stores ever NOT been hurting much? they're hurt by huge chains like tower and virgin. they're hurt by even huger chains like wal-mart. they're hurt by people staying home and buying cd's from amazon. they're hurt by a slipping economy. they're hurt by record company pricing and promotional practices. they're hurt by that dvd and video game dealer around the corner.

As far as the impact of downloading, I think it remains to be seen. There are still plenty of people in their 20s and up right now who are used to buying CDs. As the younger generation takes over, I think something's going to give.

why should i have to buy a CD if i don't want one? it's a waste of money and non-environmentally friendly plastic

As it stands, these days I'm reducing my collection by just ripping a slew of stuff that I barely listen to at all. This is actually a substantial amount.

Meanwhile, I bought the new Hot Snakes CD the other day without having listened to a leak or mp3s at all, and I did so at my local independent store, even cooler. Similarly I ordered a lot of stuff from Timothy at Dark Holler which I would never download, largely because it's a pleasure and a joy to order his music directly from him. Context, I'd like to think, is a large part in our decisions.

actually, i do have a huge issue with buying a pair of jeans for $50 ($15? where do you shop?). the real cost (ie. accounting for inflation) of producing clothing has dropped something like 30% over the past 20 years or so. so paying $50 for a pair of jeans is, like, a total fucking rip off. thankfully, i can get great clothes at thrift stores and garage sales. i picked up a whole wardrobe of jeans and dress shirts for $30 last year. i'm set for next few years til i find the next fastitious gay man who's moving to new york and getting rid of last year's fashion statements.

fastitious = fastidious

why not? as record sales die and music becomes a free commodity (it's going to be that way, I'm convinced), musicians will find new (or new old) ways to make a living. Touring might be an option. There might be lots of other ways. This kind of things happen all the time. I didn't hear much crying when Gutenberg all of a sudden forced a lot of handwriting monks enlist at the unemployment office.

The monetary value of recorded music in the twentieth century stems from music recordings being cheap to produce and easy to distribute to a large number of people. Also, crucially, because it was reasonably practical to restrict distribution to people willing to pay a particular price.

Where it is not practical to control the circulation of a creative idea people normally accept that it has little or no monetary value. You may think of a brilliant joke, you tell your friends, it is circulated and entertains millions of people. No-one describes this as theft because it is not practical to prevent people from telling jokes. If someone found a way of economically exploiting the joke, eg by selling it to a comedian, then most people would accept that any fee should go to the person who thought up the joke in the first place. But if the joke is just being spread freely you won't receive any monetary reward. In other words, morality may determine ownership, but technology determines monetary value.

If(*)technology has changed and it is no longer practical to restrict the reproduction and exchange of recorded music, then the monetary value of recorded music has changed. People may feel entitled in the circumstances not to pay the "old" price demanded by record companies who still want to price their product as if its value had not changed.

(*)This is a big "if", of course, because the record companies are trying to invent technology which will reintroduce their ability to restrict the exchange of music.

several x-posts

Frankly artists producing music in order to make a living are not operating within a schema where "fairness" and "morals" are relevant concepts. They are working within a market economy in which producers (historically this meant the record companies) try and charge as much for the product (historically cds) as possible, and consumers try and pay as little as possible.

If a channel opens up that makes it possible for consumers to get music for free, of course they're going to fucking do it. And that's an occupational risk of the market economy schema.

If you have a problem with file sharing making recorded music into an obsolete revenue stream for musicians then you have a problem primarily with the market economy.

Because if it were about "fairness" then stevem's suggestion of voluntary donations based on musical merit would be a reasonable one. But in reality, we know it isn't...

(xpost)

great article in the wall street journal yesterday about how this past summer sucked for tours. one of the reasons carted out was high ticket prices brought on by -- yep -- lost royalties from downloading.

I shop at sales at Target or sometimes the closeout/discount racks of stores like the Gap, where i've frequently gotten jeans for 15 or less....How do you think that the cost of production of clothes has dropped 30 percent in the last 20 years (i'm curious where you get your info)...by paying people 30 fucking cents a day in sweatshops that's how...which was my point about people using the "record industry is corrupt and exploitive therefore I'm downloading" argument...it's just a pose...other industries are much worse and people don't claim their stealing from them as some kind of political statement because it's not as easy as clicking a mouse button...people are always going to do the easiest thing, whether it's justifiable or not...all this other stuff is a smokescreen.

Paranoid or what. I think the RIAA or BPI could safely assume that EVERY SINGLE PERSON on ILM has at least once downloaded something illegally. I was just generally interested in the fact that people seem to have a moral blind spot about downloading (including myself). I mean most arguments put forward here could just as easily apply to any other sort of stealing (i.e. I don't care because they're rich, or I'll pay it back when I can afford it, or if I like it I'll pay for it, or it's impossible to stop stealing therefore it's OK to do it, etc. etc.).

One story of many from The Economist:
Rag-trade deals
Aug 7th 2003

http://www.economist.com/images/20030809/CWB436.gif

"If clothing prices were denominated in end-1992 dollars, prices would have tumbled below many other products, such as food and drink (see chart). Deflation means that a jacket that cost $100 in 1992 would cost $68 today, according to a study by A.T. Kearney's consultants."

I only d/l stuff that is unavailable: live recordings, deadly rare b-sides, out of print stuff, and the like. I'd find it much easier to buy the fucking CDs (for a reasonable price - not $19, maybe $11 or $12, tops) if they existed.

Well, you have to pick and choose in an ethical manner, I think. I wouldn't give 2 cents to the likes of the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Beatles, Brian Wilson. Not that I want to d/l any of that, but if I did, I wouldn't feel guilty about it.

On the other hand, I DO believe in financially supporting the artists who really do need the support, who really could use the money. I'm happy to buy the new RTX or Robert Wyatt CD, for instance. These artists have never sold millions of records and never will. Those are the sort of people who have the most to lose from downloading, not the top-selling ones who whine about "loss of income".

Are they? I think Broken Social Scene, for instance, would argue that they gained far more from downloaders than lost.

This is exactly how the Canadian government views the issue, so this thread doesn't apply to me, yay!

You can share legally in Canada...

I will buy cds as gifts for others & occasionally for myself when the album as a whole is good enough to warrant purchasing.

2xpost Me too, Barry - horray!!

and do what with it? i mean, if i bought a VCR or a cassette recorder or a CD burner, etc. does that give the MPAA or the RIAA the right to come demand money from me because of what I *could* do with the technology? no. the RIAA needs to *download* from you a release by one of the companies they represent in order to sue you. that was part of the fall out of the grokster/morpheus case they lost.

xpost

replace MPAA/RIAA with Bush, 'demand money from me' with 'oust me from power' - not that i am equating downloaders with Saddam, they're much more evil than that

i just have some random comments to add:

whoever said upthread that technology changes monetary value is otm.

also, the ipod, p2p software and software like itunes has completely changed my relationship to music for the better. dj-ing with traktor is also a complete shift. cheap digital technology has made music malleable in an unprecendented way. downloading may be negative in the eyes of some, but there are so many possibilities with digital music that probably haven't been tapped yet.

isn't the concept of an album originally due to technology? i'm also reminded of bjork's comments on the making of vespertine - how she embraced the aesthetic of downloading and listening to music on laptops.

there is zero benefit to drm technology. it is a lazy solution and treating *all* of your customers like thieves is surely bad business. the technology to download and violate copyright will *never* go away.

i download all of the time, but i also buy a lot of music (bewtween 10-20 cds a month). i try to support the independent labels that i'm interested in. the system may be broken by the impact of p2p, but it's still a revenue model for them. also, i download a lot of vinyl from smaller labels, so i always try to buy the artist's cd whenever possible.

bleep.com keeps adding labels. i don't know if anyone has noticed. they now carry playhouse (for example) digitally. i can only hope that they keep adding labels....

but on the other hand one of my favourite labels (555) recently went under and if its true as they claim that that was basically down to illegal downloads, then i'm not so sure there is a moral justification for downloading. i mean i'm not agreeing with the premise of the thread, i'm just conflicted but i wondered if anyone shared that.

WHY YOU SHOULDN'T UPLOAD INDEPENDENTLY PRODUCED CDs

by Chris Cutler (Sept 2002)

In a month or two, I hope to have a new computer to allow me to download all the stuff I'm curious about...stuff that all of you have been telling me about over the last year or so. I see it as being the same thing.

Also, most of my CD collection (about 3000 or so) were bought used, and several are promos. How is that any different? In fact, its worse in some ways....someone not associated with the creation, manufacture and distribution of the music reaping profit from it.

i talked to a guy a few months ago that puts out local stuff in mpls (guilt ridden pop records) and he said he figures he's lost about 1000 in sales to downloading on the one of his artists last albums and is wondering how long he can keep the label going....

As far as moral justification, I'm a little cloudy on this to be honest. I guess it's the same as the difference between selling your used book and making thousands of bootleg copies of the book and selling them or giving them away.

Our intellectual property law is so abstract (in re: what you are actually "buying") that it's hard to sort out.

If ReR [Cutler's label] lost 15% of its sales to free downloaders, that would pretty much wipe us out.

I didn't want to suggest that they're the same thing, but that there are some similarities.

What about me buying promos for next to nothing? What about the "morality" of selling promos which are clearly mark as property of the record company?

my thinking has evolved some--now i only download stuff that's unavailable, stuff i own, or stuff i plan to pick up if it's worthwhile.

as a result of downloading music, i hear more stuff, buy more stuff, and go to more shows.

I think a key point i showing it is immoral would be to show that when I copy a cd the record company actually loses something, rather than my simply gaining something for free. As a copy doesn't destroy aything, it's hard to say that they have lost aything, unless it could be shown (again, unknowable) that I would have bought the album.

It's somethig of a paradox that the more an artist might need the revenue, it seems they would also be more in favour of downloading. A huge number of musicians support downloading, because it is going to increase an audience that they know will see them live and buy their records.

The music industry in one form or another has reacted this way to every technological development in music. Recordings of music were expected to stop people paying to see orchestras (indeed, the telephone was suggested as a means of broadcasting concerts, and orchestra owners etc. worried that no-one would go if they could listen at home), radio was percieved as a threat to record sales, TV shows immitating caberet were blamed fo the decline of vaudeville, taping was going to kill music, etc. In each case the new technology changed the way we experience music, but didn't kill music. If capitalists can find ways to sell rain, I'm sure they can make money in whatever form of industry music becomes next.

Ned,

I bought one from the band at the show I was talking about (one of his label's bands were playing) for $10...but I think the arrangement is that he pays for costs of pressing and half of recording and then they buy them from him for like 5 and sell them for 10...

I recently bought one of his other band's discs at the stores for 11 or 12? (some of this might be "consignment costs" from the local mom n pop - they usually charge smaller labels a fee for shelf space)

I certainly don't think he's gouging anyone or getting rich off this by any means...he spoke more in terms of "how long can i afford to do this" -- just like Jandek in Jandek on Corwood! (off topic: great movie by the way, just saw it at the Sound Unseen film fest in Mpls yo should check it out)

they are but NOT because of downloading. single sales have been down for several years because major record labels have all but stopped releasing them. and they stopped releasing them not because of downloading but because they thought the singles themselves were hurting album sales -- as evidenced by the curious yet common practice of deleting singles, i.e. putting them out of print, when they were at the top of the charts. record stores for years begged the labels to release more singles because they were, in fact, big moneymakers for the stores. just one more entry for the strange-record-company-practices file.

"...isn't it possible for making something new and great to be heard - even if it doesn't fit that pat hit-making formula?"

He answered: "Not unless there's a massive change of attitude at the distribution level, which includes the places where music is dispersed: radio, TV, jukeboxes, whatever, until current values disappear. Until then, there there is little hope that a person who is doing anything other than formula swill will have an opportunity to have his music recorded, let alone transmitted" ("Songwriters On Songwriting", Zollo, p324).

The Wikipedia article on Joni Mitchell has this to say:
"Recently, Joni Mitchell has voiced her discontent with the current state of the music industry, describing it as a "cesspool", and stating that she "hates music" and "would like to remember what [she] ever liked about it." She has expressed her dislike of the record industry's dominance, and her desire to control her own destiny, possibly through releasing her own music over the Internet." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joni_Mitchell).

Those are just the first two well-known and highly respected musicians that come to mind. Now don't get me wrong, neither of them are talking about justifying illegal downloading, but they certainly both support the notion that it is the recording industry that is at the root of the problem. Both of them clearly believe that the RIAA not only lines its pockets with the fruit of their labour, but it also squelches artistic freedom in the quest of producing formulaic hits. Neither is a good thing for true musicians.

Recently that same recording industry determined that the previously agreed upon price of $1 per song legally purchased over the Internet was too inexpensive. Seems a little silly in that we all know that MP3 compression is a lossy format, and we don't get a jewel case or any band-art, literature or lyrics packaged with our legal purchase. Even Steve Jobs from Apple (not a man who should be pointing fingers and calling others greedy) had to agree that the RIAA is driven by nothing but money.

It is my opinion that the current state of illegal downloading is a necessary catalyst in changing the status quo. When we are all able to purchase songs directly from the artist, as Joni Mitchell is talking about, I think most people will be happy to pay reasonable rates.

The times they are a changin'. I think it will be a better world when musicians, actors, athletes and pretty people aren't placed on pedestals and showered with more money than anyone can reasonably require.

As for my personal justifications, they are two-fold but both of them hinge on my being Canadian. First, it is currently still legal to download in Canada. Many people from other nations are pissed at this, and simply see it as hiding behind our flag. That is not true in the least. The Canadian government instituted a levy on all recording media on March 1998 (http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#is_it_a_tax). All proceeds from this levy are to go to the recording industry. If that money doesn't get to the correct people, that's an issue to be addressed by the Canadian government, not the people who have already paid the price.