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

[.:.impossible]

What would you do if you could get an oop album as digital files for $5? $4? $3? $2? $1? $0.50? Are you still cool with that? Say the marketplace sets the price, and it is atrociously low. Folks like Chuck Nessa never get their investment back, but its not free, so you're not actually stealing right? Is that ok? Or are you just not ok with free because nobody makes out except the listener?

I mean, I wouldn't pick a penny up off the sidewalk. I wouldn't hurt a fly and my karma is completely balanced. I've never even thought an evil thought.

A friend of mine downloaded an album once. I found out, drove over to his house and deleted the files immediately. I then called the cable company and cancelled his service. His conscience didn't get the best of him, so I did it myself. I know what's right. For everybody.

What's the real issue here?

Isn't there an op/ed columnist we could write to to get the answer? Surely someone knows what to do!

Now listening: Sam Rivers Mosaic. Paid full price and tipped the website 20%.

[JSngry]

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. The issue is "trying before buying", not generating additional copies.

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. So, it's all about "following the law", nothing more? A slippery sl9ope to argue "situational ethics, I agree, but the notion that something such as downloading something for trial purposes, then deleting it = murdering somebody becuase they pissed you off is...stupid. So I hope we don't go there...

................................................................................

..............................

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. Because under most contracts, they are considered promotional items, and as such they do not return royalties to the artist. So if the purpose of the objection to illegal downloading is that it deprives artists of royalties (and how much in royalties legit sales for 99% of all jazz releases actually generate is going to have to come into this at some point. Most people get the advance, and that's that...), then buying BMG, etc. items runs counter to that purpose.

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? Manufactured by artist consent as part of a standard contract that you pretty much sign if you want to get a record released. Regulated by the record companies in theory, but never in reality.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. And if there's not, you go ahead and buy the promo, right? Instead of holding out for a "regular" copy, even if it might take a year or three to find one? Or...maybe going a few blocks down to another store... Don't blame you, I'd do the same myself. But - let's keep it real about who gets the money. It ain't the artist, and in this case, it ain't even the label. It's the store, period. Ok, that's a good thing, for sure, but it ain't any "cleaner" a deal than illegal downloading of in-print for audition purposes resulting in either legit sales or file deletions (which is different from going into a used store, pulling out a pile of discs, and listening to them all on the in-store headphoned units before deciding to buy them in what way?

I admit to possibly some hypocrisy with the promos, but I haven't resolved that one completely in my head. There's nothing to resolve, imo. Most of use the tools at hand to make the best decisions to do the right thing as often as possible. Digital changes the tools, but not the final decision, at least not for people of character. And character is neither digital nor analog.

[Neal Pomea]

Sorry Aggie, Lonson, Tenorman, and anybody else with the same old argument "but it's illegal!"

Never gave an ounce of weight to the argument "But it's against the law!" Some of YOUR greatest heroes broke the law themselves and you know it. You would have to put Rosa Parks at the back of the bus because what she did was against the law at the time.

Along the lines of your law argument, you would have had the squatters who illegally settled the western territories of the United States give themselves up for jail time. No, instead the law accommodated itself to thousands/millions of people who couldn't see themselves as lawbreakers. Eventually they weren't considered outlaws then with the way they treated land, and eventually thousands/millions who technically break your law will not be considered outlaws for their treatment of music.

Cheers! I meant that with a pretty good will!

Edited August 23, 2008 by It Should be You

[Aggie87]

I don't like using the Maltz Method, but I'm not sure how to really respond to you otherwise.

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. The issue is "trying before buying", not generating additional copies.

That may be your issue, but not mine.

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. So, it's all about "following the law", nothing more? A slippery sl9ope to argue "situational ethics, I agree, but the notion that something such as downloading something for trial purposes, then deleting it = murdering somebody becuase they pissed you off is...stupid. So I hope we don't go there...

I'm not making that comparison. I don't care to download music illegally. I'm not an evangelist about it, or at least I'm not trying to be (you asked me afterall).

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. Because under most contracts, they are considered promotional items, and as such they do not return royalties to the artist. So if the purpose of the objection to illegal downloading is that it deprives artists of royalties (and how much in royalties legit sales for 99% of all jazz releases actually generate is going to have to come into this at some point. Most people get the advance, and that's that...), then buying BMG, etc. items runs counter to that purpose.

Aside of the promo issue, my interest is in purchasing music legally. If artist's contracts are structured that way, as a consumer that's not my issue.

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? Manufactured by artist consent as part of a standard contract that you pretty much sign if you want to get a record released. Regulated by the record companies in theory, but never in reality.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. And if there's not, you go ahead and buy the promo, right? Instead of holding out for a "regular" copy, even if it might take a year or three to find one? Or...maybe going a few blocks down to another store... Don't blame you, I'd do the same myself. But - let's keep it real about who gets the money. It ain't the artist, and in this case, it ain't even the label. It's the store, period. Ok, that's a good thing, for sure, but it ain't any "cleaner" a deal than illegal downloading of in-print for audition purposes resulting in either legit sales or file deletions (which is different from going into a used store, pulling out a pile of discs, and listening to them all on the in-store headphoned units before deciding to buy them in what way?

Listening to music in the store is an option in many stores. I don't have any problems with people listening to music like that. Not sure I get the point again. Oh yeah, trying before you buy. I don't have a problem with anyone listening to their friend's copy of a cd either. Borrowing is an every day thing.

I admit to possibly some hypocrisy with the promos, but I haven't resolved that one completely in my head. There's nothing to resolve, imo. Most of use the tools at hand to make the best decisions to do the right thing as often as possible. Digital changes the tools, but not the final decision, at least not for people of character. And character is neither digital nor analog.

All I'm trying to do is what feels right to me. As are you and everyone else, I'm sure.

[jazzbo]

Sorry Aggie, Lonson, Tenorman, and anybody else with the same old argument "but it's illegal!"

Funny, I don't see "Lonson" or "Tenorman" posting in this thread! Cheers!

I'm not casting any stones.

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. Yeah, this stuff is probably legal in Andorra, but does every American outfit need to sell it?

And I still feel it's a grey area when I really examine it closely. I've given away my rock supply and have nothing to throw.

[andybleaden]

hi all sorry if question swere unclear. Jim nothing more in the poll than a quick show of hands. Do not allow links on this site or you will run into trouble I am sure.

Trends are interesting but what I love to see are the 'well if it was this then yes if that then no' exception type responses. We retionalise our behaviour in different but patterned ways I think...

Againit is only a snap shot from the other debate...please feel free to suggest changes...or do a different poll and Jim again if it compromises you ...delete it

[stuartjewkes]

I don't download illegally, or at least I try not to.

I do get quite annoyed at the collectors market, however, where it is seen as ethical to buy a second hand copy of something for an incredibly stupid and inflated price where nothing goes to the artist, and yet a download of the same thing is frowned upon.

At the end of the day, however, if I wanted to download music exclusively for free for the rest of my life, I would be able to find a new legal download every day without a problem. It's all about where your priorities lie really. Netlabels put out huge amounts of quality stuff every day, it's more about if you are open minded enough to try it.

Sounds a bit muddled in retrospect, but I think that's about right.

[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.

[jazzbo]

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.

Edited August 23, 2008 by jazzbo

[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!

Not kidding...

[andybleaden]

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

thanks!

Not kidding...

My pleasure

Sorry will sort next

[andybleaden]

tada!tada!

[7/4]

kill all the space in there and it would take up even less room!

.

Edited August 23, 2008 by 7/4

[andybleaden]

kill all the space in there and it would take up even less room!

.

ok

[andybleaden]

that better now?

can i go play out now?

[7/4]

that better now?

can i go play out now?

[JSngry]

Listening to music in the store is an option in many stores. I don't have any problems with people listening to music like that. Not sure I get the point again. Oh yeah, trying before you buy. I don't have a problem with anyone listening to their friend's copy of a cd either. Borrowing is an every day thing.

The technology now exists to this this same type of "borrowing" to take place online, which is exactly the point, as is that this same technology allows for outright theft as well as harmless borrowing. That the law/industry/establishment still has its head up its ass as to what to do about all this shows yet again how totally unprepared any of them were/are for the full implications of digital media. They simply saw it is an immediate sales boon. Well, hey, guess what. That ain't nowhere near all it is.

As a Classic American, it is my birthright and moral obligation to respect any & every law, but only to the extent which it respects me.

[JSngry]

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. Because under most contracts, they are considered promotional items, and as such they do not return royalties to the artist. So if the purpose of the objection to illegal downloading is that it deprives artists of royalties (and how much in royalties legit sales for 99% of all jazz releases actually generate is going to have to come into this at some point. Most people get the advance, and that's that...), then buying BMG, etc. items runs counter to that purpose.

Aside of the promo issue, my interest is in purchasing music legally. If artist's contracts are structured that way, as a consumer that's not my issue.

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that your concern for ethical behavior does not extend to artists' contracts.

[Aggie87]

Listening to music in the store is an option in many stores. I don't have any problems with people listening to music like that. Not sure I get the point again. Oh yeah, trying before you buy. I don't have a problem with anyone listening to their friend's copy of a cd either. Borrowing is an every day thing.

The technology now exists to this this same type of "borrowing" to take place online, which is exactly the point, as is that this same technology allows for outright theft as well as harmless borrowing. That the law/industry/establishment still has its head up its ass as to what to do about all this shows yet again how totally unprepared any of them were/are for the full implications of digital media. They simply saw it is an immediate sales boon. Well, hey, guess what. That ain't nowhere near all it is.

As a Classic American, it is my birthright and moral obligation to respect any & every law, but only to the extent which it respects me.

The difference is, it's not being controlled by anyone when it's done in an unlimited manner online, and by whomever desires to share or obtain those files. Also, when it's done online, people have the ability to simply take any and everything they want, for as long as they want. Effectively owning the content, without paying for it.

Try doing that in a record store. You won't get out the door with a copy of the music, unless you're ok with theft.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Aggie87

[Aggie87]

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. Because under most contracts, they are considered promotional items, and as such they do not return royalties to the artist. So if the purpose of the objection to illegal downloading is that it deprives artists of royalties (and how much in royalties legit sales for 99% of all jazz releases actually generate is going to have to come into this at some point. Most people get the advance, and that's that...), then buying BMG, etc. items runs counter to that purpose.

Aside of the promo issue, my interest is in purchasing music legally. If artist's contracts are structured that way, as a consumer that's not my issue.

Well, at least you're honest enough to admit that your concern for ethical behavior does not extend to artists' contracts.

I sympathise with artists having to do this, if they want to have a contract with a label that forces them to issue promos. Even if they are self produced, like Organissimo, they issue promos. Part of the game and landscape. But it's out of my sphere of influence, so there's not much I can do about it individually.

I know illegal downloading is part of the game and landscape too, I just don't care to participate in it, and think it's done far more harm on balance than good (at least for those of us who actually like to own physical copies of music). I think it's contributed to dwindling cd sales, which in turn reduces the number of artists that labels sign, promote, and issue recordings of, as well as reducing the demand for reissues of things I'd be interested in owning.

[JSngry]

Listening to music in the store is an option in many stores. I don't have any problems with people listening to music like that. Not sure I get the point again. Oh yeah, trying before you buy. I don't have a problem with anyone listening to their friend's copy of a cd either. Borrowing is an every day thing.

The technology now exists to this this same type of "borrowing" to take place online, which is exactly the point, as is that this same technology allows for outright theft as well as harmless borrowing. That the law/industry/establishment still has its head up its ass as to what to do about all this shows yet again how totally unprepared any of them were/are for the full implications of digital media. They simply saw it is an immediate sales boon. Well, hey, guess what. That ain't nowhere near all it is.

As a Classic American, it is my birthright and moral obligation to respect any & every law, but only to the extent which it respects me.

The difference is, it's not being controlled by anyone when it's done in an unlimited manner online, and by whomever desires to share or obtain those files. Also, when it's done online, people have the ability to simply take any and everything they want, for as long as they want. Effectively owning the content, without paying for it.

Try doing that in a record store. You won't get out the door with a copy of the music, unless you're ok with theft.

=======================================================================

I know illegal downloading is part of the game and landscape too, I just don't care to participate in it, and think it's done far more harm on balance than good (at least for those of us who actually like to own physical copies of music). I think it's contributed to dwindling cd sales, which in turn reduces the number of artists that labels sign, promote, and issue recordings of, as well as reducing the demand for reissues of things I'd be interested in owning.

Your points are valid ones (although I think the real reason - or, at least, the most mainstream one - for decreasing CD sales is a combination of A) the simple decline of stuff worth buying, of mainstream consumers of mainstream music getting burned by paying $17.00 or so for an album with just one good song on it - the hit - once too often & deciding to go for those individual songs rather than entire albums; & B) the failure of the commercial media delivery system to keep pace with the evolution of mainstream media players. When was the last time that you had media that was larger than the player? Never? Bingo! but here we are with CDs being bigger than iPods. Argue "quality" all you want, but if this is to be a discussion about the economics of the business, quality, at least as we know it, is at best a tangential factor)) but it's based on applying analog standards to digital media.

I can't stress this enough - digital is of a fundamentally different nature. The broader/broadest implications of this are something I've felt intuitively for years now but couldn't quite put a finger on. But as it unfolds, here it comes - for better, for worse, or for values yet determined - hard copies are now optional. Unquestionably & irrevocably. In fact, sometimes (often, for many), they are even less desirable. That means that the uses to which the content can legitimately be put are now different. If I download (legally or illegally, and really, is not the actual act identical either way, the only difference being the conduit?), listen a few times, and then delete, have I "created a new copy"? And even if I have done so by downloading, if I delete it after a few days, does not the net creation of new copies = 0? And if indeedier I use this audition to ultimately purchase music, hey - net gain of purchased copies = 1. If that's a problem caused by illegal downloading, I fail to see it.

So yeah, it's a wild & wooly new frontier. Indeed it is. But although one can turn back the hands of a clock, one cannot turn back time. The sooner everybody involved in this wakes up to the new, still unfolding reality of water (wood, really) now being wind, the sooner we can get on with protecting basic legitimate concerns & encouraging responsible, ethical, & productive behavior. As it is now, all we got is a bunch of people not getting it wondering why them not getting is stopping things from getting worse.

Good luck with that.

Edited August 23, 2008 by JSngry

[seeline]

The technology now exists to this this same type of "borrowing" to take place online, which is exactly the point, as is that this same technology allows for outright theft as well as harmless borrowing.

Yep - some libraries are doing it now; more will follow.

And FWIW, I've stood at photocopy machines in libraries for hours at a time, Xeroxing entire books that aren't in the public domain. At a lot of the big research/reference libraries (like the Library of Congress), it's one of the only ways to assure that you get ample time to read and study items in their collections. They provide the copiers, too! (and yet - the US's Copyright offices are right there on the premises... Go figure!)

Edited August 23, 2008 by seeline

[.:.impossible]

I'm serious. What is the minimum you would be willing to pay for a legit album? The minimum.

[1009]

Don't have time to scroll through every post here, so apologies if this repeats an earlier comment.

Has anyone looked into (or theorized, what-have-you) the nature of digital music as a product of (at least theoretically) infinite supply? (Just talking economics here, if it's possible to extricate the ethics & everything else.) Many have made the point that downloading a digital copy of an album (even if it's oop) without paying for it is theft. Whether it is or not is a (very interesting) question of ethics, but the difference of such an act from theft as it has been understood is striking.

It is NOT the case that an object that could have been sold for profit has been removed from circulation, preventing someone else who WOULD have paid to acquire the object from owning. In other words, Barack downloading a copy of Steve Lacy's *Stalks* in no way prevents Joe from buying a copy of his own (if he can find one!!!). Barack's "stolen" copy cannot be the "last" one, as it removes nothing from circulation. And of course there's no reliable way to tell if Barack would have gone ahead & purchased the album had he been given the option.

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?

[RDK]

It is NOT the case that an object that could have been sold for profit has been removed from circulation, preventing someone else who WOULD have paid to acquire the object from owning. In other words, Barack downloading a copy of Steve Lacy's *Stalks* in no way prevents Joe from buying a copy of his own (if he can find one!!!). Barack's "stolen" copy cannot be the "last" one, as it removes nothing from circulation. And of course there's no reliable way to tell if Barack would have gone ahead & purchased the album had he been given the option.

Please, let's not give McCain any ideas for his next commercial!