Peer Downloading Ethics

[sodascouts]

This was something that was mentioned in a thread that was closed recently. Well, I see that the folks involved in that dispute have taken the personal stuff to the moderator thread, so maybe we can talk about the non-personal issue here, because it IS something I have thought about.

Magazines like Rolling Stone, Newsweek, Time, and many others have had stories on the ethics of places like Napster, AudioGalaxy, etc. The record companies certainly believe it's stealing, and I can see their point. If songs which they would otherwise derive profit from are downloaded from a peer sharing site, that's one bit of revenue that just went down the drain - that we've stolen.

With the unreleased/live stuff, however, I feel the line is a little more blurry. Bootlegs have never been "legal", have they, regardless of whether they're peer-shared or not. All the peer-sharing changes is that, instead of paying someone to get a pirated bootleg recording, you're getting it free. I see that as no harm, no foul. We get to pretend we were at the concert, the artist has lost no potential revenue, and no one is profiteering off of it.

Peer-sharing technology brings up a whole set of ethical questions that not only people on this board, but fans/musicians/music executives everywhere, have been struggling with. I've tried to find a justifiable position in the gray area but I understand that a lot of people won't agree with me.

I think this also ties into another thread about the problem with Tusk being recorded on tapes by people off of the radio instead of those people buying it. Were they stealing, too? What if I tool my friend's CD and then made a cassette tape of it instead of buying that CD? Ah! So many questions!

SO, I thought it would be interesting to hear others' views on this, and thought I might when the topic came up in the infamous "other thread." Unfortunately, the speedy degeneration of that thread took it far away from this topic. I hope that, instead of stirring up another hornet's nest, that this thread could bring it back to that....if anyone wants to talk about this besides me, that is! lol

[seteca]

I'd love to talk about this Nancy!

Here's my view on downloading mp3s from the net, bootleg or not.

I love the idea, in all ways!

If it wasn't for mp3s of bootleg recordings, I wouldn't have heard 90% of the literally countless Fleetwood Mac concerts that I have. Some of my favourite live recordings are not Live-album or Dance versions, and I would not have heard these without the ability to download bootleg mp3s. I'd say 80% of the mp3s that I've ever downloaded are files which you can't buy in the shops anyway. But is it still wrong? Well maybe it is illegal - but I definitely don't think it's wrong! The brilliance of, say, Sin City '77 could be lost forever, or it could be preserved via us on our mp3s - which it has been, and has meant people who weren't even born then (like me!) can enjoy it, and like you say, just for that 5 minutes, pretend I was actually standing at the front witnessing The Chain being performed the year it was born! In a way, even the atmosphere of the show is preserved, if the audience are recorded well.

As for the other 20% that I could have bought from shops...well I simply find the prices of CDs and singles way too high, I just can't afford it at the moment, so if there's a song that I hear and I really really like I download it. I personally think that "stealing" is too harsh a word to use, but if someone called it that, I couldn't really object. Guilty as charged. However, if I payed £20 for a 12 track CD, I feel that the record company/record shop is stealing from me !! I know they're technically not, because it's their price and I have the choice not to buy it, but the artist has made a piece of music which I have "connected" with, why should greedy record companies or record shops stop me from enjoying that artist's music?

I guess it's like saying I'd love to own a 1958 Les Paul guitar but I don't have $50,000 spare so is it right that i should steal it just because I want it soooo bad? Obviously, no. It's not right. So everyone draws the line somewhere. I draw it immediately after downloading mp3s.

Having said all of that, I have bought all the Fleetwood Mac albums and anything else that was commercially available from shops. I have never downloaded a FM mp3 that I could have bought. I don't know what that makes me...?? A hypocrite?.....loyal fan.....?.....hahaha...! I don't know...don't care! It's too late, anyway, you decide!

Just my views!

[BellaDonnaGypsy]

Originally posted by seteca
I guess it's like saying I'd love to own a 1958 Les Paul guitar but I don't have $50,000 spare so is it right that i should steal it just because I want it soooo bad? Obviously, no. It's not right. So everyone draws the line somewhere. I draw it immediately after downloading mp3s.

I think that pretty much sums it up!

Here's my thoughts... I don't really like downloading commercially available music from the internet. I always feel a little guilty that I am, in some way, cheating the artist of some of the meagre amount they receive from sales anyways. But as a student, I simply can't afford to be buying new albums every week. Singles are also expensive for what they are. Having said that, if I like what I've downloaded, I will usually buy the actual album in the end, and I think that rings true for a lot of people who simply can't afford to spend money on a CD they might not even give a second listen. The internet is a wonderful promotional tool in that way.

Laura.

[bjk3047]

Originally posted by sodascouts
With the unreleased/live stuff, however, I feel the line is a little more blurry. Bootlegs have never been "legal", have they, regardless of whether they're peer-shared or not.

Well technically, no they are not legal. However, the unwritten code of conduct is that the RIAA will stay off your back if you're trading straight up. If there's no money involved, they don't care (those greedy bastards). However, as a friend of mine tried to sell a bootleg on Ebay, the RIAA sicked him with this:
> Dear Sir or Madam:
>
> I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording
> Industry Association of
> America, Inc. (RIAA) and its recording company
> members. Our members are
> extremely concerned with the unauthorized
> duplication and sale of
> copyrighted sound recordings as well as the
> unauthorized fixation and
> distribution of live musical performances of
> recording artists, also known
> as "bootleg" recordings. It has come to our
> attention that you are selling
> and/or distributing various unauthorized CD-Rs and
> videos which contain
> either unauthorized copies of copyrighted sound
> recordings belonging to our
> member companies or unauthorized recordings of
> artists' live performances.
>
> These activities constitutes a violation of federal
> and state law and must
> cease immediately.
And it went on to cite the law and violations thereof. But bottom line, unless you're selling it, they don't care.

I think this also ties into another thread about the problem with Tusk being recorded on tapes by people off of the radio instead of those people buying it. Were they stealing, too? What if I tool my friend's CD and then made a cassette tape of it instead of buying that CD?

As for as that goes, what the RIAA is really concerned about is a perfect digital duplicate of the source. When you lose quality on a generation such as cassette tape, it is no longer of their concern. But once the masses can make *perfect* copies of copyrighted materials for free, greedy greedy hungry hungry RIAA hippos will get pissed off.

I hope I could share some more factual light on the debate.
As for my opinion, the RIAA went about the situation completely wrong and they must suffer for their mistake. Old foagies said, "MAKE IT STOP" like they were going to part the Red Sea or something. But as all of us have amassed giant MP3 collections, one can gather that it's not that easy. Trying to kill off file sharing services is not going to make MP3s go away. And since they are not doing a proper job of enforcing their rule, the rule (IMO) is null and void.
-Brian

[Mike B]

I don't think twice about sharing bootleg material. Live shows have been a concert tradition for decades now and I feel like they truly are about the music. Casual listeners wouldn't sit through a show from 1975, straining to hear the different nuances of "I'm So Afraid" in between audience chatter. (Guess what I did earlier tonight...) Sure, they're illegal, but there's no money to be made or lost. I share them because people have a desire to hear more from their favorite band. It made me a bigger fan than I already was and that does nothing but help the band - and in effect, whatever entity they are working for. Hell, I think taping should be encouraged at every venue for every artist.

Has anyone ever heard the band's opinion of this? I know alot of bands encourage taping at shows and spreading them around. While I know FM isn't that casual about it, I do wonder what they think. I like to think that they would be cool about it.

As for downloading officially released tracks...well, I certainly do it. Alot, actually. To me it's the equivalent of taping a song off the radio as it is being played. (I'm not the only one that used to do that, am I? ) It's just much better quality. Usually, I wouldn't buy the whole CD anyway, not for just 1 song, so they're not losing anything off of me. I used to buy singles alot, but they are virtually non-existent in record stores today. So that's the industry's own fault for not offering them.

Like Seteca, I feel different when it's my favorite artists. I bought Sheryl Crow's CD, even though the whole thing was out there, and even though I had downloaded all of Trouble in Shangri-La (before it was released), I still bought it. It's my own twisted value system, I guess. Support the band you love, you know?

Mike B.

Edited to add: Brian, I was typing my post up as you put in your message. So bootlegs aren't illegal, huh? That is pretty cool. I had no idea...

[bjk3047]

Actually Mike, they are illegal, it's just a gentleman's agreement that, provided they're not being sold, they're allowable. To cite the silly law:
> The Unauthorized Manufacture, Distribution and Sale
> of Bootleg Recordings
>
> Bootleg recordings are phonorecords or videos
> containing live musical
> performances of recording artists that have been
> recorded without the
> artists authorization. The sale and/or offering for
> sale of bootleg
> phonorecords and/or videos may constitute a
> violation of federal law. The
> reproduction, sale and/or distribution of recordings
> containing unlicensed
> mechanical reproductions of musical compositions
> without authorization from
> the copyright proprietor constitutes copyright
> infringement as delineated
> in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 501. Title 17 et seq. of the
> United States Code provides
> for civil redress by copyright proprietors of the
> musical compositions and
> for criminal penalties in cases of willful
> infringement for commercial
> advantage.
HOWEVER, who finds it odd that Metallica (Money good, Napster bad) said that they encourage their fans to tape their live shows? This is pretty much the epitome of contradiction in terms. You can't accept one part of a law as defense and throw away another. Obviously, no one in the public is going to say "Hey, you have to enforce illegal bootlegs too!" It just proves the uneducated nature and pure idiocy of the band.
-Brian

[CarneVaca]

Great topic, but let me tell you what I really think about you guys!! Just kidding.

Since so many songs are so readily available for downloading, it has become practicable for individuals to decide where to draw the line. That of course does not make it legal, and I would hazard to guess we all probably agree on that.

Anything that is currently copyrighted and is disseminated without the author's consent is of course illegal. We should accept that.

But what about the Gift of Screws tracks? We all copied them. Maybe we felt a fleeting pang of guilt, but the desire to own the music overrode that. I did it, fully intending to buy the stuff if it were ever released. Does that make it right? Of course not.

So where do I draw the line? I really have no excuse for downloading the stolen Lindsey tracks. Even if he hadn't gotten around to registering their copyrights, the law states the songs are automatically copyrighted as soon as they are committed to paper (or a computer screen as it may be).

Usually I have no problem downloading a Rolling Stones song or a track by any other artist that is already beyond rich. Does that make it right? Of course not.

With less popular bands, such as Mulehead and Cracker, I have downloaded tracks before deciding whether to buy the CD. In both these cases, the bands made the MP3s available on their own sites. And there are countless examples of this. Nothing illegal here.

I would be willing to pay 25 cents per track, or whatever, as a workable solution for downloading copyrighted material. In the meantime, as I said before, the line is up to the individual to draw. And of course that doesn't mean your conscience will be perfectly clear with wherever you draw it.

[Ghosty]

Guilty as charged...

I have never downloaded songs, but only because my computer seems to act up too much, and I also don't have a way of getting them onto cd's. But I have some great friends that send me cd's of Stevie and FM songs - demos and live concerts. I used to tape live concerts off the radio. And my first cassette of Stevie demos, well, I was younger and didn't even think of how they got out there. The guy supposedly knew Herbert Worthington III, and it seemed to me like he was a "legit" Stevie person. As if these songs were willingly out there. Ya, I was naive! But now I realize someone stole Steive's demos, and that does irk me. If someone did that to me, I'd be really pissed. Not even so much about if anyone was making money off it, but because my privacy had been invaded. But...I already have a bunch of demos. And I am guilty of loving them too much to throw them out over guilt. But - I know it is technically wrong. What to do, what to do?! LOL!

I don't think we are "entitled" to download things just because they are not available in stores. It's not legal, either way. And we are fooling ourselves if we try and justify it. But if I can get my hands on some rare music, I do it. What can I say?

I do buy cd's of my favorite artists. I want the music, and I also want the pictures, and the liner notes, and all that. I have even bought FM and SN cd's, and also the cassettes before. Not these days because money is so tight. But I've done that before. I have been given some promo posters from record stores and would never sell them. I love them. And if the record companies would put out more posters for fans to buy, I'd be all over it. I do like to support my favorite groups. After all, if the record companies don't make money, they won't bother putting albums out. And then we are screwed. So I know I have demos and live concerts that are not legal, but it's already done. I feel bad, but... I don't try selling them. But I *love* listening to them.

I do have a question though. One post mentioned that bands make more money touring than in albums. I actually thought the opposite. Well, maybe the ones who just play the music (like Stevie's band, etc.), but as for the songwriters, I would think they'd make the most of their money on the albums and royalties. No? I thought they didn't exactly make a ton on tour. I thought the venues got a big chunk out of the ticket price. And then there is a whole lot of crew to pay as well. Not that they would lose money, but I really didn't think they got super rich off it. But I really have no idea.

[sodascouts]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
the line is up to the individual to draw. And of course that doesn't mean your conscience will be perfectly clear with wherever you draw it.

True. The consensus seems to be: Wrong or right, I'm doing it anyway! lol

[tommer]

oh... that's MY subject... i'm pro downloading mp3 in any possible way, copyrighted or not, yes, it may be illigal to some extent, but the justifications are countless, i'll state just a few-

*record companies rip off costumers, when i was a kid i could afford music easily, my younger brother couldn't, music prices went up the roof during the last 15 years.

*i (and so SHOULD the record companies) consider music to be a highly basic commodity, i have the money for all the food i may want, for all the tv i may want, all the electicity or internet access i may use, but NO WAY i can afford half the music i want, something's not fair here.

*music prices are a resulted by both music makers and music companies, in 1979 fleetwood mac were considered extravagant for recording Tusk in a one million $ budget. the last michael jackson album cost 30 million $ to record!!! mr. jackson will never sell 38mil. copies off an album, why? coz there aren't 38 million people who can AFFORD it.

*music companies in most countries do their best to kill the single format, expecting to sell more (profitable) albums, where should the fans find those rarties and remixes? only online. would they stop there? get real....

*before mp3s any replication of a record used to be in an inferior quality (a tape is inferior in quality to vinyl and so on) for their inflated prices, one would expect cd's to contain something better than the replica (dvd videos for example) but no. they won't.

generally speaking, the more the 5 music conglomerates shrink down, the more MUSIC shall benefit, once the people who's there for the immense amount of money flowing there find out this stream is getting dryer, they will go elsewhere to make their buck.
those who WILL stay will be those who were in it for the music itself in the first place.