Music Ethics question. What do you think?

[NORTHCOAST]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend the other day.  I am steadfastly against illegal downloading of music.  I feel it is against my "inner musician" :) to violate a songwriter's copyright.   Whenever this friend would recommend that I download something (illegally) my answer was always that I couldn't steal from the musican like that.  And how would the musician continue to be able to support him or herself if I didn't purchase the CD.  Well, recently I've found another source of music - resale shops.  When I mentioned I had bought a CD at a resale shop she suggested that I had a double standard.  That the musician wasn't making money on that purchase so it is the same as illegally downloading it.  She has a point.  What a quandry.  What do you think?

[pkwi]

Yes, but originally the artist made money off of the album that is being resold, so therefore it was not stolen, it was paid for, and by buying it you're supporting the store that you bought it from. Your friend is flat out stealing, you are honestly and legally paying for it, therefore there is nothing wrong with it. I buy a lot of my music from resale shops, its not stealing, the artist has once made money off of that album that your buying.

[Devil Marlena Nylund]

I think it is an interesting point though. I could wait a few weeks for a CD to appear in a used CD store and pay a few dollars cheaper for that CD instead of getting it in a new-CD store and save me a bit of money but get the artist nothing. Even if I was a huge fan. You aren't really supporting the artist by buying their CD used. A lot of new CDs that pop up in used CD stores just days after release are often promo CDs that radio stations receive and use as prizes and stuff anyways.

[Ragin]

Used CDs are a great way of getting exposed to new music, but I'll always buy my favorite artists new.

I don't have as much against that however. You can make the same argument against libraries can't you? You are reading the book for free.

Downloading, I don't like though. You pay nothing, and you end up with music you can play anywhere just as if you had bought it.

[JCMF3]

Downloading music off of an album is no different than making a copy of an article out of the newspaper or a book at a library. If you don't believe in downloading music, then I hope you are not in the business of copying things at a library or office, etc.

And yes, at the library you do have to pay for the copies, but that money is for the library, not to pay the authors of the book or article.

[Ragin]

JCMF3 said:

Downloading music off of an album is no different than making a copy of an article out of the newspaper or a book at a library.  If you don't believe in downloading music, then I hope you are not in the business of copying things at a library or office, etc.

And yes, at the library you do have to pay for the copies, but that money is for the library, not to pay the authors of the book or article.

You can't copy the whole book or newspaper though. It's against copyright laws and would be no better than downloading. You are comparing apples and oranges. Downloading samples of songs is not a big deal to me either.

[Slinky]

Ragin said:

You can't copy the whole book or newspaper though.  It's against copyright laws and would be no better than downloading.  You are comparing apples and oranges.  Downloading samples of songs is not a big deal to me either.

But where do you draw the line?  Since a song is part of a larger work, the album, is downloading one song morally equivalent to copying a chapter of a book (legal) or the entire book (illegal)?  I've always downloaded single songs, but if I have 3 or more songs from the same CD, I'll buy the CD.

[Slinky]

I agree with pkwi. Buying used music is still supporting the artist, because the artist has made money off of the copy you are buying. The artist doesn't make any money when you download, unless the download spurs you to purchase the CD.

Also, by buying used, you're driving demand for the artist's work. When demand for a certain used CD goes up, it will become harder to find used, and a higher price will be charged for it. That, in turn, will make more people buy the CD new, which benefits the artist.

[j]

JCMF3 said:

Downloading music off of an album is no different than making a copy of an article out of the newspaper or a book at a library.  If you don't believe in downloading music, then I hope you are not in the business of copying things at a library or office, etc.

And yes, at the library you do have to pay for the copies, but that money is for the library, not to pay the authors of the book or article.

Please tell me you're simply playing devil's advocate or being sarcastic because as the responses below yours indicate, your point is nonsense.

The legal limit for copying books is 10% or 2 chapters, whichever is smaller, if I'm not mistaken.

[pkwi]

Again, with a used album from a store, it was originally bought by someone else, and the artist got their royalty fee, and the record label got their fee, etc. Don't you all think the RIAA would do something about the sale of used albums if they thought they were getting ripped off? (Remember, the RIAA tried to sue a grandfather for downloading "Happy Birthday").

[Ragin]

pkwi said:

Again, with a used album from a store, it was originally bought by someone else, and the artist got their royalty fee, and the record label got their fee, etc. Don't you all think the RIAA would do something about the sale of used albums if they thought they were getting ripped off? (Remember, the RIAA tried to sue a grandfather for downloading "Happy Birthday").

Actually the RIAA is trying to do something about it. I can't remember the details but they have targeted used CDs in the past.

None the less it's like a store or designer wanting a cut from clothes sold at a garage sale in a lot of ways. When you buy a used CD, it's used. It may have scratches etc. Yes, maybe you own the record now without the artist getting a fee, but the main point is that the previous owner, no longer owns it, the ownership has been transferred. No one in their right mind would think that everytime ownership is transferred that the artist or original manufacturer of a product should get a cut.

Downloading music isn't transferring ownership, it is obtaining ownership without giving the proper fee. Far more akin to stealing than buying a used CD is.

[strong4PMB!]

About 90% of CDs I've bought since August 2003 have been used. Since January of this year, I've saved $932.86 on CD purchases. (Amazon's prices)