[K2Grey]

Jahn, it may be _more_ moral to audition the CD, or check it out from the library, or listen to the radio, but I don't think it's _un_moral to audition a CD off filesharing, on the basis that if you didn't audition the music you wouldn't have brought it and thus the artist doesn't get paid either way. (Granted, I tend to only download music which I'm going to buy anyway, so...)

Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the sound samples on say amazon.com? Do artists get paid extra money for permitting amazon to post 50 second sound samples?

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by K2Grey Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on the sound samples on say amazon.com? Do artists get paid extra money for permitting amazon to post 50 second sound samples?

I'm pretty sure that Amazon licenses those samples from the record company--I'm not sure if they pay or if it's royalty free.

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade I'm pretty sure that Amazon licenses those samples from the record company--I'm not sure if they pay or if it's royalty free.

yes, both the low fi samples on amazon and the short clips on itunes are still licensed and those music services have the proper contracts in place to make sure everyone gets their cash for that service.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jahn yes, both the low fi samples on amazon and the short clips on itunes are still licensed and those music services have the proper contracts in place to make sure everyone gets their cash for that service.

Jahn, I'm curious, do you know whether Amazon pays for those sample or gets them for free?

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade Jahn, I'm curious, do you know whether Amazon pays for those sample or gets them for free?

amazon pays. TANSTAAFL - There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Any CDs that they sell, they license clips. If they don't personally sell them, but just list them for the used marketplace there, guess what - no clips. It's not worth it for them to host samples and pay for the license if they'll never see profit for the sale of that item.

Amazon doesn't get away without paying, period. If you ask me to go look up the actual licensing contract and show it to you, I'm sorry they don't have it online for me to pull. But yes they do.

BTW - if you say that the distributors may have given the ok to give clips away for free publicity for the albums, that's wrong too. That stuff is never given away for free - even "free" copies of albums going to the radio stations are actually Promotional Copies that still technically belong to the distributors, not the stations, and resale of them is illegal - plus it hurts the sale of newer albums because that promo is on ebay instead of spinning at the station and getting publicity time.

TANSTAAFL.

 

[trains are bad]

Sharing music with a friend: Legal.

Sharing music with a friend using a computer: Illegal.

 

[rextrade]

Jahn--thanks. I would have thought that Amazon would have been able to negotiate royalty-free agreement for this samples--it's pretty mutually beneficial to both parties to have these on Amazon's site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad Sharing music with a friend: Legal. Sharing music with a friend using a computer: Illegal.

It's not legal to copy a CD for a friend. You can lend a CD to a friend--but the difference is with a computer you are making a copy (hence the copyright violation) when you download it to your computer. The exact distinctions are sometimes not clear though and easily break down in the computer world. For example, if you lend a CD to a friend, but he plays it on his computer, that is technically a copyright violation (I think) because the computer may be loading part of the CD into RAM (copying it) to play it (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about how computers play CDs). But is he plays it on a CD player there is no violation.

What if you and your friend start a business, and that businees buys a CD (i.e., the business owns the CD)? Under the copyright law, you can make copies of CDs you own (for your own use, not to sell or something), so the business could make a copy, each of which would still be owned by the business. That way, each owner of the business (you and your friend) would have a copy of the CD.

 

[Bionic Gecko]

I'll start respecting morality and legality concerns from the RIAA when they concede that I SHOULD be allowed free use of music I PAID for and when they stop trying to charge $20 per CD. Say what you will about how its "black and white", sure in terms of legality its black and white(even that though could be argued) but legality does not dictate morality or ethical boundaries. Note that legislatures can be corrupt, morals stand alone. I dont think it is immoral to download music, I DO think it is immoral to try to ban downloading and enacting restrictions on CDs because they want to preserve profit margin

 

[Jahn]

Well we are all entitled to our own opinions, especially when it comes to morality of course. And I agree with your statement that what is legal and what is moral are separate. I believe they should be separate too, Go Separation of Church and State! But they aren't always mutually exclusive. Sometimes the laws get lucky and do something that I agree with on a moral level - and sometimes they don't hehe.

Well, back to the original discussion again (sorry about the threadcrapping!) I have to say that the best way to check out music before buying is always to hear it live! Some of my fave purchases came from checking out some names around campus when they came to perform - that's how I discovered the Indigo Girls, Shawn Colvin, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Michael Hedges, and Leo Kottke. And even the Monks of Doom and Spin Doctors lol. Ah, the early 90's were good to me! I miss not having to pay much or even walk far, and just going to the auditorium and grooving to some live tunes with then-unknown artists on the college circuit.

 

[kramer5150]

I guess Im in the minority... I delete downloaded MP3s from my HD if I don't like them, AND I purchase the CDs for those albums I do like.

IMHO its up to the musician to create music I want to pay for. If youre like Metallica and you release mindless crap after say 1987.. guess what... I for one am not going to pay for it. Or even listen to it for that matter. On the flip side, I DID purchase all their pre-black album CDs.

IMHO it goes both ways.... I always hear the "oh what about the poor starving musician.. sob-story". IMHO it goes both ways... What about the poor fans:?
A band/artist releases a crappy CD, Lures in loyal fans to spend their $$$, only to be disapointed with the purchase... How is that fair?

 

[adhoc]

i'll still keep downloading.

and buying if i enjoy it, deleting if i dont.

some albums that i have bought over the past month after 'auditioning' them via soulseek:

chad vangaalen - infiniheart
four tet - rounds
andrew bird - the mysterious production of eggs
rammstein - mutter
sfa - love kraft
idlewild - 100 broken windows
the new pornographers - twin cinema
the go-betweens - oceans apart
the national - alligator

i know that downloading is wrong. it is. to argue other would be foolish. i will not attempt to justify my downloading by offering up the lame reason that i was 'forced' into it by the evil music conglomerate. just because the law doesnt suit my fancy doesnt mean that i automatically disregard it and then attempt to justify the violation.

i do it in the full knowledge that it is illegal. all i can offer as a partial mitigation to my guilt is the fact that i unfailingly buy what i enjoy.