.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;} <$BlogRSDURL$>

Friday, May 19, 2006

A LICENSE TO STEAL?

Over at AVC there's a discussion going on about the legitimacy of illegitimate downloads. Some people have deluded themselves into believing that since they've purchased a CD, they have earned a 'license' to download the content of that CD from whatever source they see fit. By that line of reasoning the following scenario would also be true.

I bought the new Chili Peppers CD. I left it at home. Tonight, I'm going to Washington DC. I should be able to walk into any record store in the area and grab a new copy of the record without paying for it, because the first time I paid for it I received a license of ownership that entitles me to the content......forever.

In 1979 I lent two Ted Nugent LPs to a friend. The movers came and packed up his house, my Nugent records included. Could I then have gone to the PX and picked up another copy of 'Double Live Gonzo' and 'Cat Scratch Fever'?

I don't think so.

Comments:
I don't think I agree with this because you're talking about the physical product. I think the more logical thought would be I bought the CD but left it at home and a guy here at work has it so I'll make a copy of it for my trip.
 
I'm talking about music, but what's the difference? Certainly it feels more ethical, and I'd have no problem with that scenario, but we're talking about two different things.

Does the guy at work who bought the disc have the right to rip you a copy if you haven't bought it? Certainly if he has a liscence to do whatever he wants with it that includes distribution.

At the end of the day, all I'm saying is that whatever the RIAA and artists have to do to protect their product until the wild west of the internet get's sorted out, they have the right to do it, and I support it.
 
Unfortunately, artists and the RIAA have been forced to take a hardline stance on this, because the consumers are stealing content.

The guys who "left the CD at home" are the vast minority.

I have recently gotten incredibly dogmatic about this, because all I hear is consumers making excuses. I'm sick of it.

I support the most intrusive copy protection schemes there are. I believe the thieves have ruined it for everyone, and now I am fully behind the RIAA.

It's the only logical thing someone who creates content can believe. Because if they can steal it, they will.

Look at YouTube.

Anyone who tries to divert attention away from the real issue is, well, just diverting attention.
 
http://gadgets.qj.net/How-to-Pirate-a-Vinyl-Record/pg/49/aid/39381
 
link
 
I could create digital files of vinyl, and I have, very good quality 198 kbs mp3's, so I can listen to Ian Hunter Live/Welcome To The Club on my discman. Chryslais doesn't make that record anymore so I couldn't buy the CD, I would have if I could have because I belive in supporting artists with my dollar. I can't tell you how many CD copies of Exile On Main Street I have bought, at least three. I've bought Kiss Destroyer numreous times, and they certainly don't need the money.

I think Chris is right, and there is a rift of understanding between the artist and the gen pop. Most people have no idea about the creative process, and they take it for granted, and even worse, they feel entitled to a level of ownership that no artist could possibly endorse.
 
That link wasn't meant to be serious.

I have transferred plenty of my records to the computer so I could listen to them on my iPod. Do you think that's wrong?
 
Also, how do you feel now about the mixed tapes you've made me in the past?
 
"Home taping is killing the music industry".

"Home fucking is killing prostitution."
 
All good points. I wish more folks felt this way.

I can say with confidence that right, wrong, or indifferent, one of the major residual affects that digital has had on music is it cheapened it in the eyes of consumers and I think it's had a huge negative impact overall. Stealing a $14.00 LP or CD from a store is stealing, but a 99 cent song off the internet? Well, who'll miss it?

I've never been a big fan of parsing out songs from the album format for this reason and many others that I've been vocal about.

Jackson owns over a 1000 records that he's amassed over his life. Some kid can have the entire collection of everything ever recorded for $9.99 per month, or steal it at will from the digital domain. No wonder they attach such little value to it.
 
Stricly speaking I don't think digitizing your vinyl for your own personal iPod listening is wrong, as long as the buck stops there. If you are putting them up on Limewire, then it is wrong.

Mix tapes, good question. No, I don't think that making mix tapes, or mix cds is wrong, again, if it's for your own personal use.

The RIAA was in a huff about cassetes once upon a time, but who really made any money duping records onto tape and selling them? Not many is my guess, but as Tony aptly put it, the music has been cheapened by it's very lack of a package, songs are now files, and there's no way to curtail the trafficing of them, and I also agree with Tony when he says that the digital medium has had a huge negative impact on music.

Yes, digital has made it easy for me to record music at my studio, but is that for the better in the end - should it be so easy?

Why should a bass player bother to practice when he knows you can nudge his parts into place? Why should a vocalist do the work when there's auto tune>
 
But those tapes you made were for me. Do you think that's wrong now?

If so, how do you feel that I bought some of the albums those songs were on (and more than just those from the artists I ended up really liking), songs I never would have heard otherwise.

The whole Napster/Limewire thing is a double-edged sword, and I really don't know which side to take, if I even can. Yes, it's wrong and it's illegal. But, as others have said before me, hearing some of those songs can make you curious and cause you to go buy the album, where otherwise you may have never even heard those songs. I'm talking stuff you wouldn't hear on the radio or MTV or other mainstread sources. There are so many variables and I can't make one broad opinion on the whole deal.
 
You make a valid point. A mix tape, or a mix cd, as a gift to someone doesn't bother me, but it does edge even closer to the issue at hand. Technically I had no right to do it, but as you've said in the end it benefitted the artists because you went out and bought the records, also, I wasn't putting more than one song per artist on the tapes.

It's grey area, but definatley not as bad as "here's a burn of 'Ace Of Spades' for you"

I don't have the answers, I'm just asking the questions that I think need to be asked. As you are as well.
 
BTW... Yoda and I are out here in the pavillion and we did a little research that I find interesting.

RHCP new album on CD from Amazon 13.95 S&H incl. iTunes download $19.95.

I think A VC and Co. should be more pissed at iTunes than RIAA (see Chervokas last comment).
 
Post a Comment


Links to this post:

Create a Link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?