Is it legal to download out of print music?

[ewok20t3]

Does anyone know if it's legal to download music that's out of print? I googled the question and nothing really came up. I really don't want to pay a ridiculous amount of money to legally own some out of print albums.

[murlough23]

It's not, but I have yet to be prosecuted for downloading in-print music, and I've heard a lot of bands give their blessing to download their out-of-print stuff. Unreleased stuff that they may reserve the right to release in the future might be another story. But if they left a label and the label's no longer producing copies of the CD, you're highly unlikely to be hurting them by it. Be good and buy it if it ever does go back into print, I guess.

[ewok20t3]

It's not, but I have yet to be prosecuted for downloading in-print music, and I've heard a lot of bands give their blessing to download their out-of-print stuff. Unreleased stuff that they may reserve the right to release in the future might be another story. But if they left a label and the label's no longer producing copies of the CD, you're highly unlikely to be hurting them by it. Be good and buy it if it ever does go back into print, I guess.

Okay, thanks for the reply. 

[Vlad!]

murlough's answer is right...but to expand:
Speaking both technically and legally it could be considered copyright violation to download any media for which you have not paid and the copyright of which has not expired. However, the music industry rarely prosecutes anybody and have historically never prosecuted downloaders...it's always uploaders that they go after (why? because uploaders are probably doing more damage and because the case is more clear-cut).

My advice would be, first check the band's website. If it's not listed there (and the band are still together), I actually suggest writing to them. I'm sure they would be glad to hear from a fan, and they might be able to hook you up. If that avenue fails or if the band have broken up, and if the tracks are not available for digital download via legal avenues such as Amazon.com or even--pact with the devil notwithstanding--iTunes, grab the album over the web or using BitTorrent. Say away from filesharing services like KaZaa (are they even still around?), because those are the most rife with viruses, malware, and RIAA agents looking to book you.

It's also worth noting that buying out-of-print music will almost never net the record companies any money, because when buying used music the profits all go to the seller. Thus, the companies are not very motivated to go after people who pirate this stuff.

[ewok20t3]

I actually suggest writing to them.

Thanks, I actually have written to one band about this and have yet to get a response, so hopefully they'll get back to me soon.

If that avenue fails or if the band have broken up, and if the tracks are not available for digital download via legal avenues such as Amazon.com or even--pact with the devil notwithstanding--iTunes, grab the album over the web or using BitTorrent. Say away from filesharing services like KaZaa (are they even still around?), because those are the most rife with viruses, malware, and RIAA agents looking to book you.

Most of the out of print albums I'm wanting I already have illegally downloaded. I've been going through my library and buying everything I illegally downloaded and liked and deleting everything I illegally downloaded and didn't like. That's how I came across this issue. I was looking to buy some stuff I had downloaded and liked but people are selling the out of print stuff for up to 100 dollars. I checked the legal download sites and none of the ones I'm looking for are available for download.

It's also worth noting that buying out-of-print music will almost never net the record companies any money, because when buying used music the profits all go to the seller. Thus, the companies are not very motivated to go after people who pirate this stuff.

Yeah, I figured that was probably the case. If I don't hear back from the bands, I'll probably just keep the music. I doubt many bands would want their fans paying 100 dollars to get ahold of of their old music.

[murlough23]

My advice would be, first check the band's website. If it's not listed there (and the band are still together), I actually suggest writing to them. I'm sure they would be glad to hear from a fan, and they might be able to hook you up.

This is good advice. I was looking for an mp3 of a song by a fairly obscure band I had liked in college whose CD was out of print. The band was still together and I found their contact info on CDBaby. I contacted them, explained that I had this particular song on a mixtape that I was looking to remake as a CD and that it meant a lot to me at a particular time in college, and I offered to buy the mp3 direct from them as I would have through iTunes or something. They just sent it to me for free, and said they were glad the song had such a profound impact on me.

[Vlad!]

Yeah, I figured that was probably the case. If I don't hear back from the bands, I'll probably just keep the music. I doubt many bands would want their fans paying 100 dollars to get ahold of of their old music.

Especially when the band themselves won't see a penny of that

[murlough23]

Especially when the band themselves won't see a penny of that

Thinking about that always makes me wonder why there's such a crackdown on file sharing, but purchasing used CDs is perfectly legal. I know these are very different things, but a person who would have bought a brand new CD and caused the band to make money as a result could just hold out for a used copy and the band wouldn't see a penny of it. This was true before file sharing. I'm assuming the only reason the RIAA doesn't care is because it won't happen nearly as much. People are still spending money so they won't just grab hordes of used CDs willy-nilly. With downloads, the only limitation is their bandwidth.

I buy a lot of used CDs, but I do try to support my favorite artists by buying their stuff new as soon as it comes out. Anything I like, I'll support through word of mouth as well.

NP: "Bluish", Animal Collective

[ewok20t3]

Thinking about that always makes me wonder why there's such a crackdown on file sharing, but purchasing used CDs is perfectly legal. I know these are very different things, but a person who would have bought a brand new CD and caused the band to make money as a result could just hold out for a used copy and the band wouldn't see a penny of it. This was true before file sharing. I'm assuming the only reason the RIAA doesn't care is because it won't happen nearly as much. People are still spending money so they won't just grab hordes of used CDs willy-nilly. With downloads, the only limitation is their bandwidth.

Yeah, I've thought about that, too.

I buy a lot of used CDs, but I do try to support my favorite artists by buying their stuff new as soon as it comes out. Anything I like, I'll support through word of mouth as well.

Same here.


My thing is this, I've been convicted recently about obeying the laws of the land, whether I agree with them or not. I don't totally agree with the law in regards to file sharing, but I believe I should obey even if I disagree and even if I know I won't get caught. That's where my questions in the original post came from. I just want to acquire the music I love in a law abiding way. These are just my personal convictions.

[bloop]

I'm personally living as if the law has met sanity.

[murlough23]

I'm more of a "spirit of the law" guy myself. The law was presumably designed to protect the person providing the service that could otherwise be stolen. So I try not to do anything that would put them out of a job.

But if you want the letter of the law, then yeah, don't download anything unless the artist offers it free of charge on their own, or you're paying for it through a legal business.

[RedcoatJones]

Thinking about that always makes me wonder why there's such a crackdown on file sharing, but purchasing used CDs is perfectly legal. I know these are very different things, but a person who would have bought a brand new CD and caused the band to make money as a result could just hold out for a used copy and the band wouldn't see a penny of it. This was true before file sharing. I'm assuming the only reason the RIAA doesn't care is because it won't happen nearly as much. People are still spending money so they won't just grab hordes of used CDs willy-nilly. With downloads, the only limitation is their bandwidth.

The difference, from a technical point of view, from a used CD and sharing a digital file has to do with what happens to the original. If you buy a new CD, you have bought 1 copy of a media device which contains copyrighted material. If you sell that CD, you lose possession of the original product - the only physical embodiment of that CD is no longer in your possession (we're assuming they didn't rip the CD to their computer or otherwise keep copies of the disc).

With digital sharing, the crux is that someone is selling (or giving away) duplicate copies of a work while still retaining the original.

Copyright law is not concerned over if someone gets paid every time the physical CD changes hands but with ensuring that if 500,000 copies of a copyrighted piece are purchased, the number of copies in circulation remains at 500,000. I guess someone could make a case if they were to share or sell one copy of a digital album while erasing all copies they own of that digital album. Of course, the law is much more complex than this (why can software agreements limit the resale/reuse of a program, but book sellers cannot, etc.).

[murlough23]

If you sell that CD, you lose possession of the original product - the only physical embodiment of that CD is no longer in your possession (we're assuming they didn't rip the CD to their computer or otherwise keep copies of the disc).

That's kind of my point. I've got everything on my computer/iPod; I could sell all of the original CDs and still have all of the music. I don't do this because I think it would be dishonest, but I don't believe the "letter of the law" stops me from doing this, or at least, they have no practical means of enforcing it. "Spirit of the law" seems to indicate that I shouldn't do this even if I probably won't get caught.

NP: "Stay with Me", Wavorly

[Vlad!]

Companies hate the secondhand market. For video games, some publishers use downloadable content to alienate secondhand buyers by selling the game along with a unique key. That unique key can be used to download non-transferable content once and only once. This is, I think, one reason why record labels aren't just rejecting digital distribution out of hand: there is pretty much no digital secondhand market.

Consider the following thought experiment:
Bob loves music, but he's also very thrifty. He usually only gets into bands once they've become mainstream, and he generally purchases albums used online at a steep discount off the retail price. None of the money from Bob's purchases go to the record label or the artist. The seller keeps all the profits.

If Bob were to find a seller who was willing to give the albums away, or even sell them just for the price of shipping and handling, he would be all over that. This would be a completely legal transaction indistinguishable from a normal secondhand sale: the seller asked a price she thought was reasonable and the buyer agreed and paid that price. It just so happens that the price was zero. The amount of money made by the label and the artist is unaffected either way.

So the thought experiment is this: what is the difference between Bob getting this hypothetical free album from an online seller and Bob downloading the album digitally?

The main difference is obviously that the number of copies of this album has increased by one, which is why piracy is prosecuted under copyright law. Copyright law is what determines the circumstances under which it is legal to copy a creative work.

OK, so we understand what it means legally. How about morally or ethically? Economically? Socially?

Morally speaking, it's a big gray area. Piracy is not theft. Personally, I find piracy a morally complicated issue. I think that it's reasonable to pirate music for short-term use (evaluation, for instance), but there comes a point when I also think one is morally obligated to buy the album. This is for two reason. First, arguing from a Biblical perspective, the attitude of entitlement that says "I should be able to use this without paying for it" seems contrary to the attitude we are supposed to have. Second, arguing more from a categorical imperative perspective, the pirate is essentially mooching off the legitimate buyer. If there were no legitimate buyers, there would be no music.

I can't really speak to the ethics of the situation, since ethics are primarily defined by culture. At work, the attitude toward piracy is basically "no big deal, everyone does it, just be a responsible consumer and buy what you really like and it's all good". In the Christian culture, piracy is frowned upon but not harshly. Nobody's going to kick you out of church or consign your immortal soul to hell because you downloaded that Soulja Boy album.

Economically it's a bit interesting, because as with the Kantean perspective above, if everybody pirated music, there wouldn't be nearly as much music. However, obviously the market can tolerate a certain amount of piracy. Too much, and the house of cards that is the recording industry topples down, but obviously piracy is rampant and yet the industry survives. Part of this is because the cost of piracy is to some extent built in to the system. Some of it is explicit (for example, the extra tax Canadian buyers pay on blank media helps fund a payment from the government to the RIAA in exchange for clemency for pirates[1]), while some of it is implicit (albums are priced in such a way that the people associated with them can still buy food). In other words, economically speaking, you're in a Catch-22. If you pirate music, you're acting irresponsibly because you're relying on your fellow consumers to subsidize your behavior. But if you don't pirate music, you are in effect subsidizing piracy. It's sort of like how I felt stupid after allowing my vision insurance to roll over last year but never went in for an eye exam or a new pair of glasses. I essentially paid into the plan so that my cow-orkers can get cheaper frames for their kids' eyewear.

Socially, one notes that some bands actually want their music out there more than they want the money from the album sales. This mostly applies to up-and-coming bands for whom the music is still closer to the 'hobby' category. I remember reading a few weeks back an amusing anecdote where a band uploaded its own music video to YouTube and then had it taken down by a DMCA complaint.

Which brings me to my next (and hopefully final) point: the record labels are both a boon and a burden on the artists. The degree to which the good outranks the bad has been shifting. It will always be true that some of the best bands are terrible at self-promotion and will never get heard, but that's true now. It seems to me that if the labels had less influence, what we would actually not see as much of is mediocre music rising to the top less because of its quality and more because the labels push it so heavily.

[1] I'm not really savvy about the exact mechanics of this, so don't take this particular part as anything more than hearsay on the Internet.

[bloop]

Nobody's going to kick you out of church or consign your immortal soul to hell because you downloaded that Soulja Boy album.

I don't know.  If you used almost any other artist as an example, this is probably true.

[ewok20t3]

These responses have certainly given me a lot to think about. Thanks for all of the replies. You guys have obviously thought about this topic more than I have.

I don't know.  If you used almost any other artist as an example, this is probably true.

I was thinking the same thing. 

[murlough23]

there is pretty much no digital secondhand market.

That's sort of what file sharing is, though I guess it's not really a "market".

Bob loves music, but he's also very thrifty. He usually only gets into bands once they've become mainstream, and he generally purchases albums used online at a steep discount off the retail price. None of the money from Bob's purchases go to the record label or the artist. The seller keeps all the profits.

If Bob were to find a seller who was willing to give the albums away, or even sell them just for the price of shipping and handling, he would be all over that. This would be a completely legal transaction indistinguishable from a normal secondhand sale: the seller asked a price she thought was reasonable and the buyer agreed and paid that price. It just so happens that the price was zero. The amount of money made by the label and the artist is unaffected either way.

Very true. However, since those who bought physical CDs are not likely to just give them away on a regular basis, cases like the above would be extremely limited. Someone who gives away a digital copy of something does not lose their own copy. And it costs nothing to make that copy. I know you know this; just trying to sort it all out for myself.

The main difference is obviously that the number of copies of this album has increased by one, which is why piracy is prosecuted under copyright law. Copyright law is what determines the circumstances under which it is legal to copy a creative work.

That's where it gets tricky - "fair use" and that whole ball of wax. I've seen warnings on CDs and even cassettes back in the day asserting that you do not have the right to copy it or even loan it without permission. This strikes me as ridiculous, because how would such a rule ever be enforced? But even in the days before computers streamlined the process of making mass copies (you had to buy blank tapes back then), it seems record companies were trying to impose stricter rules than the law actually stated (or, if they were in agreement with the law, the law wasn't being enforced outside of extreme cases).

The fact that iPods and other such devices are legally sold and quite popular nowadays indicates to me that it's expected and acceptable to rip my CD to my computer and store it in mp3 format, and since there's no way to determine whether I've done this more than once from the CD or made multiple copies of those files, the law can only say "Never copy it" or "Copy it as often as you want". It can stipulate that the copies are only for your own personal use (e.g. backups and portability), but beyond that, it's hard to pin it down in a way that makes much sense. Because the law itself is dubious in its meaning, I try to look beyond that to the intent - which is basically, don't screw the guys who put in an honest day's work to make this product available for you.

I think that it's reasonable to pirate music for short-term use (evaluation, for instance), but there comes a point when I also think one is morally obligated to buy the album.

Yeah. That's why I regularly post about my Amazon or half.com hauls in the "Recent Music Acquired" thread. There are occasional albums that might be on my wishlist for years, but I will eventually purchase a physical copy if I liked it enough to keep the mp3s around. The irony is that waiting for the right price and buying used doesn't directly benefit the artist or the label. So I'm basically doing this out of some sense of posterity. (Well, that and I just like having the album art and lyrics and a reliable source to re-rip from, because sometimes you get a bad download or a non-album version of a track, etc.) I've thought about that a lot lately, especially now that I have the iPod and the actual CDs are just for archival purposes most of the time. I've cleaned a lot of old stuff out of my hard drive because I realized I was never gonna buy it and I never really listened to it anyway.

First, arguing from a Biblical perspective, the attitude of entitlement that says "I should be able to use this without paying for it" seems contrary to the attitude we are supposed to have.

Yeah. We're not entitled to anything. Music is entertainment, not a God-given right. the only thing I feel remotely "entitled" to is not getting ripped off. I want to know something's good quality before I purchase it. But that's not the same thing as getting all of the benefit of the product without ever buying it. I could easily get that benefit and just steal all of the music I wanted. But I don't. However, I suppose wanting that first-hand experience with the music before I buy it is not a guaranteed right, either. But I've noticed a lot of reputable artists streaming entire albums online and stuff like that - they must have some faith that folks will hear it in full and find it worth owning even though they could just mooch (even if the mooching is less convenient in this case than just downloading illegally shared mp3 files).

Second, arguing more from a categorical imperative perspective, the pirate is essentially mooching off the legitimate buyer. If there were no legitimate buyers, there would be no music.

There'd also be no one to share the music (because no one would have an original copy), except for promo copies given away for free, I guess.

I can't really speak to the ethics of the situation, since ethics are primarily defined by culture. At work, the attitude toward piracy is basically "no big deal, everyone does it, just be a responsible consumer and buy what you really like and it's all good".

I think there's a difference between common sense and common consensus. Common sense can see where an action done in excess can be harmful, and moderate it to a reasonable degree. Common consensus only gets us down to a level of acceptable guilt that your normal person is OK with. It might be technically wrong, but it's not that bad.

In the Christian culture, piracy is frowned upon but not harshly. Nobody's going to kick you out of church or consign your immortal soul to hell because you downloaded that Soulja Boy album.

Unless Soulja Boy said "shit" on his album.

obviously piracy is rampant and yet the industry survives.

That's debatable. I think it'll do fine, and piracy will just challenge the traditional structure of it. But some folks do believe the industry can't sustain piracy forever.

Socially, one notes that some bands actually want their music out there more than they want the money from the album sales. This mostly applies to up-and-coming bands for whom the music is still closer to the 'hobby' category.

Yeah, I've heard varying views on this from the mouths of the artists themselves, and that even includes the issue of "out-of-print" music. Some are very protective of their right to re-release it later on. I try to listen to the artists and honor their wishes when it comes to deciding whether I'll share freely with another person or just buy them a copy as a gift or something.

Which brings me to my next (and hopefully final) point: the record labels are both a boon and a burden on the artists. The degree to which the good outranks the bad has been shifting. It will always be true that some of the best bands are terrible at self-promotion and will never get heard, but that's true now. It seems to me that if the labels had less influence, what we would actually not see as much of is mediocre music rising to the top less because of its quality and more because the labels push it so heavily.

Part of me wants to see the "big label" system topple, because I think it would have an interesting effect on radio and on the popularity of artists in general. On the other hand, I don't want people who are just trying to do an honest day's work to be out of a job. (I know "record label" and "honest" don't go together in a lot of people's minds, but just because the PR department is overhyping bad music doesn't mean that there aren't good people working on the packaging and photoshoots and recruitment and finance and every other little aspect that goes into the industry machine.)

All the same, that doesn't give me the right to be Robin Hood. All I really want here is for folks to not get cheated by one or two catchy singles or disingenuous image manipulation into buying something they're going to hate and never listen to. That's why my approach is to buy what's proven and delete the rest. It can only work as an honor system, so I don't go around advertising this system to anyone and everyone. That's a big part of my reasoning for spending so much time spreading the word of mouth (positive or negative) about the music that I consider to be worth (or not worth) buying. I think the artists who are committed to making consistent albums (or at the very least, sticking to singles and EP releases if they can't populate a full-length album with worthwhile material) are generally less afraid of their full albums being heard before they are paid for, because they know it'll be solid enough to bring a listener back for several more rounds.

NP: "Harbor", Vienna Teng

[bloop]

Ideally, I'd want to be a "try before you buy" person, and I do that as far as I can.  But there is a lot of music out there that I find worthwhile, and I honestly can't afford all or even most of it.

[murlough23]

Ideally, I'd want to be a "try before you buy" person, and I do that as far as I can.  But there is a lot of music out there that I find worthwhile, and I honestly can't afford all or even most of it.

That's an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, if music is a luxury, is it wrong to "test drive" more of it than you could ever actually afford to purchase? On the other hand, if you never would have bought it either way and you're not sharing it with the world at large (just us trusted Phorum folks who you know will go out and buy stuff usually), does it make any difference to the artist either way? (You might be more likely to get someone else into the band you sampled, or attend a concert, or whatever.)

That's one aspect I think the labels often don't consider: File sharing is free advertising. Either that, or they do consider it, and just realize that the full naked truth of the actual content of most albums isn't very good advertising. In that sense, this could help to keep them honest. Unfortunately so many people are jaded now that they'll steal even the worthwhile stuff without a second thought.

(I was at a Something Like Silas concert back in the day at which Eric Owyoung said with tongue slightly in cheek of their then-new album: "Don't download it from the Internet. It hurts my feelings.")

[Vlad!]

Ideally, I'd want to be a "try before you buy" person, and I do that as far as I can.  But there is a lot of music out there that I find worthwhile, and I honestly can't afford all or even most of it.

OK...that is a true statement, but how do you get from there to "I can't afford it; therefore, I'm entitled to get it for free"? What you're basically saying here is that this music is something you want to listen to, but somehow the people who created it and brought it to you don't deserve anything for that?

I understand what you're saying. For example, I love the show Mythbusters, but I don't get the Discovery channel. I download every episode through bittorrent. I try to buy the boxed sets when they come out, but they're pretty expensive so even though I have seven seasons on my hard drive I have three on my shelf (I believe there are five out on DVD). So believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be all high-'n'-mighty here. I'm just saying, "I can't afford it" is not very compelling justification, it seems like to me.

[bloop]

I think they do get something for it, even if it isn't direct compensation.  On a large scale, they generate buzz from internet downloaders that would tend to drive up record sales.  If it's really great, I'll do my best to get to it.  If it's a FOM that just gets me going for a little while, I might not.

However, what I mean by "worthwhile" is that the music is good, and I would like to own it, but that doesn't mean that it would get the repeated listens it would take to justify an immediate purchase.  So, I prioritize and pick the best albums up new (and often as LPs, which I confess is about the most expensive way one can purchase music), get others used, on clearance, as gifts from family, or on yourmusic months later.

I know that you aren't trying to be self-righteous here, and I'm not really trying to justify anything.  It's just reality, coupled with my OCD desire to have a year-end list free of glaring omissions.  

[bloop]

I'm thinking that perhaps the reason there is little stigma on copyright infringement when it comes to music is that the consumer isn't really feeling it.  As far as I can tell, CD prices have remained pretty level, ignoring inflation.  If you look at it with the effect inflation generally has, the music consumer is making out pretty well now next to how a similar consumer would, pre-Napster.  If the consumer isn't picky about having a physical product, he may make out even better.  Makes me wonder how new artists' contracts have changed in that time.

Also, with some out-of-print music, all involved in the recording are now dead.  In this case, I don't even see a potential moral issue, but OP is probably talking about something a little more recent.

[Vlad!]

I'm thinking that perhaps the reason there is little stigma on copyright infringement when it comes to music is that the consumer isn't really feeling it.  As far as I can tell, CD prices have remained pretty level, ignoring inflation.  If you look at it with the effect inflation generally has, the music consumer is making out pretty well now next to how a similar consumer would, pre-Napster.  If the consumer isn't picky about having a physical product, he may make out even better.  Makes me wonder how new artists' contracts have changed in that time.

I'm having trouble following your argument from your opening sentence through the rest of the paragraph. You say there's little stigma on pirating music because music is so cheap? Doesn't this contradict your earlier point that your biggest reason for pirating music is that it's expensive?

It's just reality, coupled with my OCD desire to have a year-end list free of glaring omissions.   

If you just want to listen to something but don't think you're going to want to own it for the long term, there are services like Grooveshark who pay royalties to the record companies to use the music.

[bloop]

I'm having trouble following your argument from your opening sentence through the rest of the paragraph. You say there's little stigma on pirating music because music is so cheap? Doesn't this contradict your earlier point that your biggest reason for pirating music is that it's expensive?

No, it doesn't.  Things can be cheap relative to other times, or to other people, but expensive for my situation.  Then, I was a college student with no money and growing student debt.  Now, I'm a teacher with little money, obligated to those student debts and other absolutely necessary expenses.  Music gets a pretty low priority at both stages.  It'll get better, though.

(Then, there's yet another moral issue with supporting unscrupulous fat cats who go after the dead and grandma, and screw artists for a living, but that's not my reasoning anyway.)

If you just want to listen to something but don't think you're going to want to own it for the long term, there are services like Grooveshark who pay royalties to the record companies to use the music.

I didn't know about that site, so that's good to know.  Lala's not bad either, but obviously limited.  How's the quality?

*edit*  Found it.  Up to 192 kbps.  Not bad, although I'd rather it say "a minimum of".

[Vlad!]

I don't know how sustainable the Grooveshark model is...the RIAA have historically been bleeding Internet radio dry, and the royalty model is bordering on draconian. I listen to "traditional" streaming radio as well as Pandora, and both of these services have been slammed because those same fat cats have been snuggling up to Congress. I think their best hope is for someone like Google to buy them out.

No, it doesn't.  Things can be cheap relative to other times, or to other people, but expensive for my situation.

I don't think your situation is unique, actually. I suspect there's little stigma simply because it's so easy to pirate music and it's harder to see who it's hurting. There's still a tremendous ethical backlash against stealing, even if it's need-based stealing, simply because the cultural taboo on stealing is burned into our social consciousness and because it's trivially easy to see who's being hurt by it. I dare say more people would condemn a man for stealing from a grocery store to feed himself than for downloading a song with the dubious rationalization that he wants to listen to it and doesn't have the money to buy it legally.

[bloop]

I don't think your situation is unique, actually.

I never said it was.  I was just showing that there was no contradiction in what I wrote contrasted with what I wrote previously.

I dare say more people would condemn a man for stealing from a grocery store to feed himself than for downloading a song with the dubious rationalization that he wants to listen to it and doesn't have the money to buy it legally.

Indeed.  Jean Valjean goes to jail.  I risk losing my ISP, and even that is rather unlikely.

I daresay, though, that there are many who download rather than buy partially because they know who it hurts...

[ewok20t3]

Also, with some out-of-print music, all involved in the recording are now dead.  In this case, I don't even see a potential moral issue, but OP is probably talking about something a little more recent.

One of the things I did find online in my search about this topic is that a copyright lasts until 70 years after the copyright holder dies. That seems a bit extreme to me, but I guess that's good for those owning the copyrights. This may not be totally factual, but that's what one website said.

[bloop]

I'm talking about a moral issue, not a legal one.  I'm not a legal positivist.

[Vlad!]

I daresay, though, that there are many who download rather than buy partially because they know who it hurts...

Which is sort of like setting off a bomb in a Wal*Mart because you disagree with their corporate policies. You might get a few higher-ups, but the collateral damage will be high. I'm sure the recording techs and the studios and the artists will feel the squeeze before the RIAA goons do.

One of the things I did find online in my search about this topic is that a copyright lasts until 70 years after the copyright holder dies. That seems a bit extreme to me, but I guess that's good for those owning the copyrights. This may not be totally factual, but that's what one website said.

One of the prime drivers of copyright extensions is actually the Disney corporation, who are afraid that their brand will be severely diluted if the copyright on Mickey Mouse and Co expires. Bloop's claim that the original artist's death allows you to wash your hands of the deed is certainly debatable on ethical grounds as well, since it's reasonable that the artists' loved ones, deprived prematurely of their breadwinner through the vicissitudes of the music industry, are depending on those royalty checks. Whether you consider this to be acceptable or you'd just as gladly keep that money for yourself is something that you have to decide on your own.

[bloop]

Which is sort of like setting off a bomb in a Wal*Mart because you disagree with their corporate policies. You might get a few higher-ups, but the collateral damage will be high. I'm sure the recording techs and the studios and the artists will feel the squeeze before the RIAA goons do.

Yes, what we need is a way to pay artists directly, but we have that in concerts.  As for producers, mixers, visual artists and so forth, well, that would be complicated without actually buying their product.  If there was a way to leave executives and lawyers out of your CD purchase, they'd probably cost about $3.

I struggle a little with the analogy to setting off a bomb, though.

Bloop's claim that the original artist's death allows you to wash your hands of the deed is certainly debatable on ethical grounds as well, since it's reasonable that the artists' loved ones, deprived prematurely of their breadwinner through the vicissitudes of the music industry, are depending on those royalty checks.

Seems to me that people should work for a living, as a general rule - that it's a bad idea to depend on the dead guy for your bread in perpetuity.  But, you're right that it gets more complicated in the case of a person who died prematurely, leaving dependents in the lurch.  Not all artists are so unfortunate (or irresponsible in many cases) to die in that way, though.  I was thinking more along the lines of an artist like Leonard Bernstein.

[murlough23]

As far as I can tell, CD prices have remained pretty level, ignoring inflation.

I've actually seen CD prices going down lately. Maybe I'm just good at finding sales, but it used to be that a new CD by a big name artist could run you upwards of 20 bucks once you figured in tax. Now a lot of places seem to be slashing prices to try to move the product, so they're hovering closer to 10 or 12 bucks, which I think is perfectly fair if the artist is only gonna put 10 or 12 songs on the CD. Digital copies can often be had even more cheaply (the full album on iTunes often being a better deal than $1 per track if you bought them individually, and some artists offering downloads for as cheap as $5 or so per album).

I think this has dropped the prices back to something a little closer to fair. The price should reflect the amount of content (and ideally quality, but that's obviously subjective). I think they used to feel like they could gouge us and we'd put up with it to get that trendy CD into our collection. Now they realize they'd better at least have the appearance of playing fair, or we're gonna cheat the system. Some of us still will cheat the system. But a cheaper price means fewer of us will go to the trouble, I think.

Also, with some out-of-print music, all involved in the recording are now dead.  In this case, I don't even see a potential moral issue, but OP is probably talking about something a little more recent.

There's probably still an estate that would collect royalties in the event of an artist being dead and the label having folded, but I can't be sure of that. It's definitely a lot less likely that an out-of-print album by a dead artist would be re-released, unless it was John Lennon or Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson or something like that. When the topic first came up, I was honestly thinking it had to do with more obscure artists who had only released a limited run independently, or who had a short tenure on a label that stopped producing the album because it didn't appear to be profitable.

If you just want to listen to something but don't think you're going to want to own it for the long term, there are services like Grooveshark who pay royalties to the record companies to use the music.

Seems like a good idea; though one problem with services like that is availability. Especially when you're into the obscure crap that bloop gets into. 

NP: "In My Arms", Plumb

[bloop]

Seems like a good idea; though one problem with services like that is availability. Especially when you're into the obscure crap that bloop gets into.

Yeah, I asked about the quality of the files, but not about the selection.  I take exception to your use of the word "crap" in this context, though.   

One thing it does not and cannot offer are leaks.  This is a small matter, but I do like picking up on things early to know if I want it on the release date.  Also if a critic friend (we'll call him Hosh Jurst) comes in bragging about his new acquisition from the record label, it takes the wind out of that sail to be able to say "I've had that for 2 weeks".  Love Mr. Jurst, though.

[murlough23]

I take exception to your use of the word "crap" in this context, though.  

I meant it in the sense of "stuff". You know, like getting your shit together.

One thing it does not and cannot offer are leaks.  This is a small matter, but I do like picking up on things early to know if I want it on the release date.  Also if a critic friend (we'll call him Hosh Jurst) comes in bragging about his new acquisition from the record label, it takes the wind out of that sail to be able to say "I've had that for 2 weeks".

It's always fun to be able to do this whenever I'm lucky enough to be made aware of a leak. However, I'd never make any serious arguments for my continued ability to be able to do this - it is cheating and there's really no way around it. I'd have no grounds to complain if records labels/artists found a way to clamp down on leaks before the release date. There are sometimes last-minute changes made that could affect how the audience will perceive the music, and occasionally this stuff gets out before it's even fully mastered, or the quality is low, etc. Since I write reviews, I've tried to be responsible about that and not judge something until I know it's truly "done" (which is actually a big part of my wanting to own the CD even if I downloaded the mp3s after the album released - you never know when you'll get an early/incorrect version of a song).

I figure if you want pre-releases that bad, you might want to consider becoming a professional critic.

I just ran across this article, which might be relevant:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news/companies/napster_music_industry/

Makes me wonder how "the industry" is measured, and whether there's a nexus of independent artists/companies outside of it who are collecting some of the runoff here.

[RedcoatJones]

Ideally, I'd want to be a "try before you buy" person, and I do that as far as I can.  But there is a lot of music out there that I find worthwhile, and I honestly can't afford all or even most of it.

I think this is where subscription-based services may find their niche. For some folks, they will always want to have a song forever and ever. But there are services that provide lower-cost ways of listening to music on demand without flat-out buying a track. You trade convenience for price, most of the time, but smart companies will find the niches they serve.

For example, I listen to 90% of my music in one of two places - at work over my computer or in my car through my mp3 player. My mp3 player holds a lot less music than my computer, so I tend to only load up a limited selection (and by limited I mean @300) of songs that fit what I want to listen to when driving. At work, though, I usually stream music so I don't have to clutter up a work computer with personal files (and our company is ok with streaming media). The best fit for me? Lala. I can upload any songs I already own for free to be listened to from any computer (home or work) and I can sample anything once for free. If I want to add it to my permanent streaming list, it's only 10 cents a song. I'll purchase the songs I want in my car as needed.

[bloop]

Yeah, we could have that, and another titled some variation on "Format Flame War".

*edit* ah, I see he split it.  Not quite as colorful as the title I suggested, but ok

[murlough23]

Yeah, we could have that, and another titled some variation on "Format Flame War".

Ninja thread split! Looks like we already do.

[Vlad!]

I think this is where subscription-based services may find their niche.

I think part of the problem with subscription-based services is that in order for them to work with the RIAA, I believe they all require either a) seriously restrictive DRM or b) lock-in with one particular proprietary system. I haven't used one of these services, but it seems like that's what would be necessary in order to assure the corporate overlords that people aren't just getting the music and then keeping it.

Actually, I think subscription services highlight the problem that's at the root of this entire discussion. For the majority of human history, when you buy something it's really obvious what it is that you've bought, and your rights vis a vis your purchase are pretty intuitively obvious as well. However, once people started buying things that were valuable not as a physical artifact but as a vessel of something intangible, it became necessary to separate content from medium.

The software industry has had this problem for the last thirty years, spawned mainly by the legal machinations of Bill Gates, the popularizer of the software license. It's pretty clear-cut with software: when you go to the store and pay money for a box that says Microsoft Windows on it, what you are buying is a license to use the program on one computer. Federal law protects your right to transfer (and sell) this license. Federal law also allows you to make a backup copy of the physical medium (the DVD containing the program). However, Federal law also prohibits you from copying the data for any purpose other than your own personal use. While this model is in many ways sub-optimal, it shows a fundamental understanding that this thing you paid money for isn't a shiny frisbee, it's actually the rights to use something.

The music industry, as typical for business and legal types rather than engineers and scientists, play a lot more coy. What exactly have you purchased? You haven't purchased the rights to a song, because if you lose your CD or if you have a song on cassette, they won't give you another CD if you don't pay for it. But you haven't just purchased a shiny frisbee, because they try to tell you what you can and can't do with this frisbee. Federal law still protects your rights to fair use, but the ephemeral nature of the music purchase is still baffling.

Even more counter-intuitive is the purchase of digital music. You've purchased a file, but you've also been given a very severe set of restrictions on what you may and may not do with this file. DRM is an attempt to actually make it impossible to do things you are not supposed to do with a file, but it has several problems, the main two being that it doesn't work, and it does make it more difficult to do things you are supposed to be able to do with the file.

Now all of a sudden it's completely non-obvious and non-intuitive what your rights are regarding this intangible thing you have just purchased. I think this is where a lot of the confusion comes from. I'm not sure whether the solution is to completely revamp the laws around digital property to make them match our intuitive understanding, or to wait a couple generations until digital property is fairly well-understood and try to enforce a subset of the physical property laws.

[Vlad!]

I realize that this thread has pretty much reached its conclusion, but I wanted to add this news item that I saw yesterday and which has been rankling over the past few hours with me.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/2897

If the industry themselves can't even figure out what they're OK with, why do they expect us to have a chance?

[murlough23]

Left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing, much?

[bloop]

Plugged-In takes the overly simplistic approach.  Surprise, surprise.