What do you think/do about downloading out of print vinyl or in print

[andybleaden]

So come on tell us what you think and do using the poll to keep it anon

Apologies if you think the poll is either wrong/biased/worded unclearly

I assume you can edit this afterwards

Mods please delete this if you think it may cause you any problems

Edited August 22, 2008 by andybleaden

[BeBop]

Just a note: the third question requires an answer, but presumes the respondent downloads. Ideally, there should be an "I don't download, period" option.

[RDK]

I'll add only a couple quick thoughts:

Choices lack "sometimes" and "it depends" options. For me it's also not so much a matter of in print or oop, but accessibility factors. I have been known to download a digital copy of something I already own on either LP just to have a convenient digital copy of it.

The percentages are gonna be hard to make sense out of since one can vote multiple choices or none at all.

[andybleaden]

Understood...only quick reactions are needed...'sometimes' are for when the feds ain't watching over your shoulder!!

It will not show much of a clear result but will show something more than ' i assume'

[7/4]

Hey Andy, could you take that footer down to a much smaller font size so it doesn't fill up half the screen?

thanks!

[RDK]

It will not show much of a clear result but will show something more than ' i assume'

Indeed. Trends are already apparent.

[BeBop]

I'm just trying to decide whether or not I'm surprised.

[Aggie87]

I assume the question is about illegally downloading material, right?

I don't have any problem with people legally downloading any music, regardless whether I do it personally or not.

[Dan Gould]

I assume the question is about illegally downloading material, right?

I don't have any problem with people legally downloading any music, regardless whether I do it personally or not.

Well Erik, I would certainly hope not.

I mean, its sort of like whether a teetotaler has a problem with people drinking, or a non-smoker with people smoking.

[blajay]

How is it that out of the votes so far, only one person thinks that downloading in print music is not wrong, but 4 people download anything, including in print music? If you think it's wrong, why do you do it?

[RDK]

How is it that out of the votes so far, only one person thinks that downloading in print music is not wrong, but 4 people download anything, including in print music? If you think it's wrong, why do you do it?

I think the discrepency comes from the way the questions are worded. The either/or seems to be CDs vs. oop LPs rather than in-print vs. oop "anything."

[Aggie87]

I assume the question is about illegally downloading material, right?

I don't have any problem with people legally downloading any music, regardless whether I do it personally or not.

Well Erik, I would certainly hope not.

I mean, its sort of like whether a teetotaler has a problem with people drinking, or a non-smoker with people smoking.

It depends on the intent behind the poll to me - it's not explicitly talking about filesharing etc.

[Neal Pomea]

I take into account how old the music is, whether the artist or the producer are still living, whether the music is out of stock-out of print-or orphaned, whether or not I am making a fair use, and other factors. Can't really respond to the poll as worded but I answered anyway so that I could view the results. Can the results eventually be seen without having to take the poll?

[JSngry]

What if you "illegally" download something in-print to see if you like it (with eyes, of course, to buy it if you do), never burn it or otherwise create new copies, just keep it on your hard drive, play it a few days, decide you don't like it, and then delete it off your hard drive? That's like driving over to your buddy's house, picking up his copy, driving back home, borrowing it & listening to it for a few days, and then driving back to return it, only more eco-friendly.

We keep trying to transfer analog ethics to digital media. I'm here to tell y'all that that's only gonna work up to a point, and frankly, I think it's a point long passed in the reality, if not yet in the perception. "Digital music" is indeed music, but it's digital media above and before it is anything else. That right there throws the old paradigms out the window, because wind is not water, if you know what I mean.

[Rosco]

Are we including podcasts?

[Aggie87]

What if you "illegally" download something in-print to see if you like it (with eyes, of course, to buy it if you do), never burn it or otherwise create new copies, just keep it on your hard drive, play it a few days, decide you don't like it, and then delete it off your hard drive? That's like driving over to your buddy's house, picking up his copy, driving back home, borrowing it & listening to it for a few days, and then driving back to return it, only more eco-friendly.

I wouldn't do that. Listening to samples somewhere is enough for me to make a decision, if I'm torn that much on whether I want to check something out or not.

If I'm interested enough in wanting to hear the whole thing, I'd prefer to just buy it. And if I end up not liking it after enough times spinning it(however many listens that is), it goes in the trade/sale pile.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Aggie87

[JSngry]

Well good, then. Go for that if it works for you.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I've downloaded a few out of print items, mostly stuff I already had but a bit scuffed. OK, so I paid for a legit copy and it's legit (well, not in Britain, but pretty well everywhere else) to make a copy of an LP you own... So I'm not clear.

You see, you can get a VG- copy of a record for half a quid and that gives you a legal right to listen to the music. The legal right is in respect of the copyright - ie the music itself as recorded. So if my VG- copy gives me the music accompanied by lots of hiss, crackles, skips etc, I'm not getting the music as recorded. So getting an improved version that's more like the music as recorded ought to be regarded by the law as a good thing. Because of the way the business was set up and the technology at the time, the legal right implies, but doesn't specify (except in Britain), that the thing you buy has to be the thing you listen to. But since it doesn't so specifiy, well, just do whatcha like, eh?

MG

[JSngry]

If I'm interested enough in wanting to hear the whole thing, I'd prefer to just buy it. And if I end up not liking it after enough times spinning it(however many listens that is), it goes in the trade/sale pile.

Just curious, are you like this with everything? "If I'm curious enough to be curious, then I'm curious enough to buy"? Do you refuse to go over to a friend's house to check out a movie? Ever use a public library? Ever read a magazine in a doctor's office?

It seems that there's not too many "real life" items where there's such a prickly resistance to the "try before you buy, borrow first if you can" idea as there is with recorded music. Hell, you can even get a car for a day or two if you know the right people at the dealership. And dig - places like Wal-Mart will let you return damn near everything you buy, no questions asked, which pretty much is the same as "borrow it, and if you don't like it, bring it back", with the sales price essentially serving as a security deposit. Fraud is rife there, I'm sure, and nobody's talking fraud here.

Even when there was no small good reason for buying into the "always buy, no matter what" mindset, there were always circumstances where it was also kind of a brain-dead, Pavlovian tool-of-the-industry type thing to do as well. Things have changed a lot lately, but not in that regard. I mean, if that's your own code, cool, I mean, hey, to thine own self, etc. Just don't go thinking you're "playing by the rules", because truth is, you're not. You're playing by what a few vested interests are wanting you to think are the rules.

Remember that the next time you find a promo copy in the used bins or hear about albums for "name" labels being pressed in incredibly small quantity & then going OOP in a year or two because they haven't sold or anything industry-generated that willingly and knowingly disrupts the pure linearity of the "I want, I buy" paradigm for all but the diehard (and financially able) few.

Hell, even think about it if you buy from those clubs like BMG or whoever (are any of those outfits still around?) where the albums they sell you are ones that are specifically set aside so as to not return sales royalties to the artist. Ask yourself, if maybe, just maybe, you're not being played for a chump every once in a while, and then ask yourself why that is.

Edited August 22, 2008 by JSngry

[Jim Alfredson]

If the point of this poll is purely informative, that's great. If it is to somehow prove that the majority of people do it and therefor I should allow discussion of various sites, then it's a waste of time. Regardless of how I or anyone here may personally feel about it, it is way more trouble legally than I want to bother to deal with.

[RDK]

I think it's just to get a rise out of Chuck.

[papsrus]

I'm agnostic on the whole thing. I don't DL from blogs. Don't really care if others do or don't. Artists do need to get paid somehow, though, so as a personal choice, I try and stay legit, as best I can determine how to do that.

[Shawn]

Been down this particular discussion road a few too many times, so for the most part I'll abstain. However, I don't know about most people but 30 second samples per track isn't nearly enough for me to decide if I want an album or not.

[ejp626]

Been down this particular discussion road a few too many times, so for the most part I'll abstain. However, I don't know about most people but 30 second samples per track isn't nearly enough for me to decide if I want an album or not.

Don't know if it is just the set-up at work, but I can't get a single track past the first one to play (at Amazon), so I'm not even able to evaluate the album myself and am relying on AMG reviews and my past experience with the artists. Pretty unsatisfying to say the least.

[Aggie87]

Just curious, are you like this with everything? "If I'm curious enough to be curious, then I'm curious enough to buy"? Do you refuse to go over to a friend's house to check out a movie? Ever use a public library? Ever read a magazine in a doctor's office?

...

I don't burn copies of DVDs or download them, if that's what you're sort of getting at. And sure I've watched movies at friend's houses, but doing that doesn't create extra copies of the DVD like downloading would. I'm not sure I get the point about reading a magazine in a doctor's office or somewhere - you're not generating additional copies of something for which nobody is paid.

Are you suggesting that the "rules" by which I'm playing aren't really rules? They aren't the law? It *IS* ok to download whatever you want, from wherever you can get it, artists/producers/record companies be damned? I'm not sure I get that.

And I'm playing by what I'm comfortable with, which works for me. If others want to download things, that's their choice. I don't think simply being capable of doing something gives you the right to do it, though.

Promos and BMG are different issues to me. BMG items are legally offered and sold, so I'm not sure why I should feel wrong about buying them.

Promos are murkier for me, but I own a number of them. I buy them in used shops, and they've obviously been sold to the shop by radio stations, reviewers, etc. But aren't they manufactured with the artist's consent? That being the case, once they are "out there" in the world, in whatever quantity, there's no way to control whether they are sold and repurchased. If there was a promo and a regular used copy of a title in a bin, I'd buy the regular copy every time.

I admit to possibly some hypocrisy with the promos, but I haven't resolved that one completely in my head.