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

[RDK]

One disturbing implication of the limitless supply idea (which has been brought up a number of times) is the idea that, again speaking economically, it makes music "worthless," or at least approaching a state of almost no value. Here it's pretty much impossible for me to continue separating the ethical element -- the lived experience of music cannot be voided of value, can it?

Now this is an interesting point and one that I've been thinking about a lot lately. It does seem that the music itself has less and less intrinsic value, and the true value is (or maybe it's always been that way) in the medium itself: the vinyl record, the compact disc, the stuff that, especially when rare or oop, people pay big bucks for. Now that medium is the digital file, which, infinitely duplicatable, has no "real" value like a physical object.

[Van Basten II]

Maybe it is a good thing , since the worth is more into the music by itself than the media, the first reason you should acquire a piece of recorded music is the music itself not whether it's an out of print pressing that makes speculators salivate.

[Chas]

What chaps my hide most is the Lonehills etc. putting out stuff that is not even allowable in the 50 year European law. And as a result? We're not likely to see legitimate issues of some material in the best possible sound and the best possible notes and hopefully artist compensation.

Counterfactual reasoning in this context is fallacious reasoning* . Moreover , even if the reasoning were sound , it wouldn't establish the desirability , let alone the necessity , of keeping decades-old music out of the public domain and in the hands of statutory monopolists . Historically , such statutory protection was intended to serve the interests of the public , not the copyright holders . Such is no longer the case , and we are poorer for it .

*To understand the nature of the fallacy involved , see here.

Chas, thanks. I just feel what I feel, that's the reality for me. I disagree with at least one of the conclusions above. I'm not preaching about it, just wish things were otherwise.

You disagree with a least one of my conclusions , but feel it would be "preaching" to point out which one and why it's erroneous ? Is this , along with your , "I just feel what I feel" , evidence of misology , or am I just being eristic ?

[Chalupa]

Man arrested for posting Guns N' Roses songs on Web

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080828/music_...7g7hmNUeiGYExkF

[Jim Alfredson]

One disturbing implication of the limitless supply idea (which has been brought up a number of times) is the idea that, again speaking economically, it makes music "worthless," or at least approaching a state of almost no value. Here it's pretty much impossible for me to continue separating the ethical element -- the lived experience of music cannot be voided of value, can it?

Now this is an interesting point and one that I've been thinking about a lot lately. It does seem that the music itself has less and less intrinsic value, and the true value is (or maybe it's always been that way) in the medium itself: the vinyl record, the compact disc, the stuff that, especially when rare or oop, people pay big bucks for. Now that medium is the digital file, which, infinitely duplicatable, has no "real" value like a physical object.

I can see the upside to this, which is that music may again take on a communal nature where the performance is more important than the recording. In other words, it will get people to want to experience live music rather than horde the millionth re-issue of Kind Of Blue.

[.:.impossible]

So many venues are becoming non-smoking. That can only help. Now, if bands would come on at a reasonable hour, you might actually see some people at the gig. Most people have to function at 8AM the next day. Going on at 11PM makes no sense to me, but what do I know?

[Chalupa]

Interesting.....

Study shows music pirates buy more music

People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ll-1812776.html

[RDK]

Interesting.....

Study shows music pirates buy more music

People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ll-1812776.html

Hell, I must spend 77 (can't do that pounds thing here) per month - and even more lately! But yeah, per the study, that's been my experience as well.

[seeline]

I spend more precisely because I get to hear more... and have become aware of more than I'd ever known existed. That said, the "awareness" and (often) the hearing comes in multiple ways, most of them fully legit.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Interesting.....

Study shows music pirates buy more music

People who illegally download music from the internet also spend more money on music than anyone else, according to a new study. The survey, published today, found that those who admit illegally downloading music spent an average of £77 a year on music – £33 more than those who claim that they never download music dishonestly.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...ll-1812776.html

It's always been the case - they did surveys in the seventies which established that people who taped LPs off their friends or from a library spent a lot more on records than people who didn't. Surely this can't be a surprise to anyone? People who do this stuff are MUSIC fans. Them's the ones who fill their homes beyond capacity with records.

MG

[seeline]

I hear you, MG - it's the RIAA and other industry types who keep painting all downloaders as thieves. (Without even bothering to mention the many fully legal ways material can be downloaded, at that.)

The best music blogs are invariably run by people who are huge fans of whatever it is they're blogging about. Most of them have access to a lot of rare material only because they've made an effort to collect it.

[RDK]

I'm still snickering over 77 pounds/yr.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I'm still snickering over 77 pounds/yr.

See Ray, they didn't ask Sidewinder, BillF, Andy Bleaden, Bev, Clunky, me or anyone else from Britain on this board. And if they had...

What do you think the average for the US is? (£77 = $130 approx)

MG

[Guy Berger]

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that (aside from supporting indie labels), it's much more ethical to spend $100 on music and download another $100-worth for free than to spent $10 and not download anything at all.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The more I think about it, the more I conclude that (aside from supporting indie labels), it's much more ethical to spend $100 on music and download another $100-worth for free than to spent $10 and not download anything at all.

I'm not sure that's right - that ethics come into it. The person who spends $10 spends it the way he/she wants to in the light of circumstances. Same as the one who spends $100. And also the one who spends $1,000 and downloads $1,000; is that more ethical than spending $100?

MG