5 questions about MP3's
 |
| by Cosmo Lee |
- Aside from giving money to record stores, what economic difference is there between buying a CD used and downloading it illegally?
- If one buys and keeps a CD, is it OK to download it illegally?
- If one buys a CD but loses/sells it, is it OK to download it illegally?
- If one buys a CD and loses it, is one entitled to another copy of it from the store where one bought it?
- If one legally downloads an album (iTunes, etc.) but loses it (hard drive crash, etc.), is one entitled to re-download it from the digital store?
Labels: clee, features
22 Comments:
1/ Giving money to the store so they can continue to exist.
2/ In France, I think it is.
3/ Legally speaking, I don't it is but that would be understable naturally.
4/ No because the store can't be responsible for your actions.
5/ Same as 4.
this may be semantics, but its never ok to download illegally. cuz its, you know, illegal. i think the difference between buying used cds and downloading illegal mp3s is that with cds, the record company controls the supply. finite amount of cds made. assuming no one burns copies. HAHA. so when these things get rare and demand rises, ebay bids rise, record companies can reissue it and feed demand. but when people burn shit and trade it for free, demand for physical merchandise decreases. demand for legal downloads decreases too, when you can get the shit for free. so when you buy a used cd the company doesnt get the money but also you are not stepping in and manufacturing their product for them (illegal mp3s) and fucking up the supply/demand teeter totter. is that right?
1) Buying albums in the first week of release will help a band maintain good terms with their label.
2) Yes. although labels seem to be getting better about also providing mp3's for albums that are hard to rip (DVD-A, etc)
3*+) Meh. it's negligably more OK than illegal downloading generally
4*) Entitled? hell no. I would certainly burn a copy for a friend who'd lost a CD, though. Leading question = Fail.
5*) If you're downloading from iTunes, you're made of fail anyways. Yahoo! music used to (dunno, maybe they still do) automatically re-sync your collection on a new computer.
*) If there's no cost to replacing a lost copy, there's no reason it shouldn't be replaced. That's not to say that anyone's responsible for replacing your loss. Stores like iTunes that keep record of what you've purchased, without providing you any sort of means of recouping your loss (especially to those on apple hardware), I have issues with.
+) If you sell a CD, it's your obligation to replace it if you change your mind about its value. Used CD stores are a brokerage for IP insurance: Buying from them benefits no one.
Anonymous, illegal means "breaking the law," not necessarily "wrong (morally, etc.)" In the US, smoking weed and underage drinking aren't necessarily wrong but they are illegal. Your point about supply/demand for MP3's vs. used CD's is good. These days, though, perhaps the distinction is academic. All you need is one CD to get ripped and enter the Internet, and there go used CD AND legal download sales.
sunburntkamel, your + point answers your answer to 1 better than your answer to 1. It is dubious how, in its first week of release, buying a new album used will benefit relations between a band and label because neither sees money nor sales numbers from that purchase. Arguably, demand in the secondary market can stimulate demand in the primary market, but no one has made that argument yet.
4 and 5 are essentially the same question. Your distinction of "cost to the store to replace" is a good one. But how about IP "costs"? Question 2 and 3 are related. If one buys IP made for consumer consumption (CD/DVD/etc.), one acquires a license for individual use. If, as in 2, you still have the item, downloading it would, for all practical purposes, not violate that license. But if you lose the item, at what point in time are you obligated to pay for it if you want to have/use it again?
And would the proliferation of streaming media negate the need for "possession" of it (and thus IP arguments like this)?
4 and 5 are not the same question at all (see the comment about a leading question). 4 is at direct cost to the retailer. 5 is at direct cost to no one.
I don't expect retailers like bleep.com, amie.st, or downloadpunk.com to have any idea what I have and haven't downloaded. Retailers like iTunes who do their damnedest to blur the distinction between my library and theirs, or Amazon, who work so hard to fuck up the basic concept of downloading, I don't have a problem with expecting them to use their records of what I've downloaded for my benefit as well as theirs.
as far as 1, that's my understanding from what friends in bands have told me. the better their album does in first week sales, regardless of who gets the money, is the more leverage they get down the line.
2+3 are related in a sense, in that having paid your money, you still have the license. Personally, I keep my cd's in a big wallet, so for lost/stolen cd's I usually still have the artwork which is some form of proof of license.
However, selling, under the doctrine of first sale, immediately transfers any license you've acquired.
It seems that IP "costs" are a problem of margin. If you lose your physical media and license key for the 50 CAL's you have for Microsoft Server 2003, you can call them and get new physical media. It's not inconceivable that IP licenses exist outside of physical media. It's just rare that the exchange of power swings in the direction of the consumer.
i may respond more later. this comment box is very tiny.
right... illegal means breaking the law. which is not ok. cuz, you know, you might go to jail, or pay fines. which sucks. even if you think they are moral actions, you run the risk of these consequences. you cant tell the judge "well its ok according to me". thats just how the law works.
yeah, all you need is one cd to get burned and uploaded... a million downloads can be traded from that one disc. supply is now potentially infinite. demand adjusts accordingly. cd sales go in the toilet. i dont think the record companies see this as an academic distinction. thats why they are suing people.
1. None.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No.
5. Yes.
I could say much more, but if I ever do, it'll be on my own blog.
oof, i'm an idiot, i missed the word "used" in the first question. so the answer is "none" with the addition of my + footnote.
creating a secondary market is crap. if you're buying music on the premise that you can sell it later, you're artificially inflating the cost of the item. Same like with scalpers.
This post has been removed by the author.
[Deleted, edited and reposted to clarify my answer to #1 a bit]
1. The difference is that when you buy it used, someone else had to buy it new for it to get there. Someone had to pay full retail price to give you the option of buying it used. When they bought it new, the label got paid. The artist got paid.
When you download illegally, no one is getting paid for anything. The two scenarios aren't really equivalent.
2. This isn't really different than burning it yourself. Sometimes it's easier. Also convenient if you buy LPs. Much easier to find an illegal digital copy than it is to record vinyl and break it into tracks. Never pay to transfer between formats.
3. “Retroactive backup.” There’s nothing wrong with making backup copies for personal use as a cautionary measure. Used to be you had to do this before the original was lost or damaged. Now that “backup” copy can be obtained after the disaster in the form of an illegal download. Still seems fair to me.
Oh, but what if you sold it? Do you still have a right to possess what was on the disc when you sold the disc itself for money? I would ask in reply: who is harmed? If you bought it new, all the “right” people got paid. It’s not like the price you get when you sell it comes back out of the label’s/artist’s pocket. You could argue that the store buying it back gets harmed by the customer’s unfair bargaining leverage (customer having no real incentive to keep the CD if they can just have a digital copy), but what do they give you, like $1-$3 for a $15+ CD, and sell it back at $8? Even with falling demand for CDs, I don’t think they’re making out too bad. And they don’t have to buy everything you lay on the counter anyway.
Even if you bought it used, sold it back, then downloaded, well... you're giving the store a chance to sell it again. And you'll be taking a loss, because you won't get back what you paid for it. If you buy it for $8, and the used CD store gives you $3 when you sell it back, they make $5. If they sell it again for $8, they make $13.
4. Forget the discussion of what you’re really getting when you buy a CD (is it the music or the disc itself?): from a practical perspective, if you lose a CD, the store can’t give you a new copy because you can’t prove you lost something in the first place. It’s like trying to prove there are no WMDs in Iraq. How do they know it’s not sitting in the stereo at your house? Or that you didn’t bury it 50 miles underground in a place only you knew about to make it appear lost so you could get another copy? Or that you even had a copy in the first place? Why would anyone ever buy anything if you could just go into a store, say you lost it, and get a new one for free?
5. Apple is treating digital copies the same way we treat physical copies; that is, you bought the copy, not the music. If the copy is gone, you need to get another one to hear the music. This smells like bullshit. The reason manufacturers can rightly charge you twice for the same CD if you lost the first copy is because it actually costs something to make that copy available to you. That copy exists in physical form and therefore must be manufactured and transported to a place where you can buy it. Someone has to own and operate that place, and pay his staff of listless twentysomethings to make sure you don’t walk out with an armful of Morrisey albums under your jacket. All these costs are factored into the final price of one copy of a CD. But when you can directly download an exact copy of the content, without needing the physical medium and all the associated costs, you ought to be able to replace something you bought previously. A digital file takes virtually no resources to duplicate compared to the manufacturing and distribution of a CD. This is one reason I would never buy from iTunes.
I don’t like streaming either, because I also don’t like the idea of a centralized service dictating what I can and can’t hear. Any CD or vinyl from any label will play in my stereo, but is the Corrupted – Nadie 12” reissue up on Rhapsody? I would never want to limit myself to a third party’s music library.
buying used cds indirectly helps the record industry and artists (by allowing stores to offer decent credit for used cds thereby reducing the real cost of new cds)
buying "used" major label promo cds has always helped the label and hurt the artist due to the way record contracts are structured.
the answer to the rest of your questions is that it's always okay to download whatever you want whenever you want it. save your money for going to shows, for buying artist-released cds, for supporting lablels who are motivated by a love of truth and beauty, and for buying something nice for your mom or girlfriend once in a while.
I think #1 is a really interesting question simply due to the fact that back in the day, didn't "the industry" have a VERY similar reaction to the increasing popularity of used CD sales as they eventually had to the growing trend of mp3's and downloading? THEY never made shit off of used CD sales (only the stores did), and that's ALL they cared about. Period. Few people bring up the topic of used CD sales anymore in this context, but I often think about the parallels between the two. They're very similar to me other than the fact that downloading is just far, far more rampant - especially nowadays - so I think it can do a little more damage in that regard.
Basically its all fucked. If you like underground music, you have to realize that most people that put it out are musicians themselves have day jobs and throw their money into a hole never to see a return but they do it anyway. Its sad to see some of the greatest labels go under because of thieves. I'm saying this because there always seems to be a unwritten separation between the musician and label, the labels are always sort of betrayed as the evil money grubbing bastard screwing the poor humble honest musician. That may be true for other kinds of music, but common, deathmetal, grindcore, noise, blackmetal, that shits made for a limited audience. So many labels are run by the bands themselves, or their friends, people that love the music and feel a connection so much they spend all their fucking money to try and get you to hear it, only hopping at the most to just get some of their money back. The "evil corporation" iTunes only takes 29 cents from every sale the musician or label takes the rest. The label/musician pays a yearly fee to have someone host their songs on iTunes or another pay download site. Labels/musicians paying/recording/buying equipment/mastering to make music available to you. Labels paying for distribution so you don't have to travel to fucking California if you live in Russia to get a Cattle Decapitation shirt you had to have. Labels sending out their releases for free so you can read about them on blogs. The fact is their is a lot of over head that people don't think about. What if a musician can't make it to your town for you to buy a t-shirt? People work hard on this shit to sell it to a limited audience. Don't get me wrong there is a validate me world syndrome to the artist and label but fuck they love the music too. Sorry for the rant, who knows, I run a label and play, people steal from me all the time, (Russia!) one side of me says great its free "word of mouth" so fuck it. I guess my point is, its kind of like stealing from the merch table, it fucks the band no matter how you twist it. Also, I think your picture is quite appropriate, the CD IS DEAD. Fuck em, its all about the vinyl! I decided a while ago (my site isn't updated) not to sell cds anymore. The packaging is limited and why wait to have one arrive in the mail when you can just get it right now. So, its all wax and free downloads with purchase of the wax from here on out. I put out fucked music like most of the bands on this site, I'm not rich.
I gotta tell you, I think that people are just going to have to accept that CDs are a medium in decline and music will eventually be predominantly free.
I think that record companies are going to have to do a few things:
1) Embrace digital distribution.
2) Embrace collectors by doing cool things like limited edition stuff, vinyl, DVD/CD sets, etc. (Metal Blade's Amon Amarth packages for the new record are a good example. There's like, 8 different special edition packages of it you can buy).
3) Get into things like artist management and booking, then take a cut from the bands tours. Touring and merchandise are how bands will have to make money. Labels will have to become more about a total experience which involves managing the band at every step of the way, rather than what most labels do now which is put out a CD, promote it a little, then let the band go on their merry way until the next CD. They just won't be able to make money doing that.
So in answer to your questions, I would say they are quickly becoming irrelevant. My personal thoughts on it is that questions like those will, within the relatively near future, become like asking "is it okay to make someone a mix tape?" Most people have moved beyond mix tapes on actual tapes (a lot of people don't even have tape decks) and those that haven't don't even think about the legality or morality of it anymore.
Really, it just is what it is.
Chris, you ask who gets harmed when a record store buys a used CD from someone. The answer is, potentially, the label/band. That used CD will replace one new CD purchase. Take this to an absurd extreme, and it becomes like illegal downloading. Theoretically, a store could sell the same disc 300 times, but the band/label gets paid only for the 1st purchase. Illegal downloading simply cuts out the sales to the store. However, used CD stores are hardly illegal, so perhaps as Andrew Aversionline suggests, the difference lies in scale. The record industry is more likely to complain about downloading, given its potentially infinite scope.
That's why, itmifpitw, these quesions are very much relevant. Yes, practically speaking, people are going to do what they're going to do - i.e., download with impunity. But the music comes from somewhere - an industry with very real costs to labels, bands, etc. You're talking about probably the major revenue stream for labels disappearing. They're not going to sit back and go, "It is just what it is." Neither are bands. If labels start trying to cover their losses by cutting into revenue streams traditionally exclusively reserved for artists - merchandising, tour revenue, etc. - the artists aren't going to be happy. And, if the only way that artists can make money is touring/merchandise, that renders obsolete artists who don't tour or make t-shirts. This would include one-person bands, many electronic music producers, artists in genres or locations where it's impractical to tour.
1. The band/label was paid for the CD in the first instance.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. No, because the CD still costs money and the record store/label/band will have to absorb that cost.
5. I don't know if I'd use the term 'entitled' because I don't think that it's the responsibility of the digital store to ensure that the user's hardware functions properly, but since the cost of an mp3 download is negligible, I'll provisionally answer 'yes'.
Mind you, the way the industry frames the debate--that an album downloaded is one not purchased--is, in my opinion, false. I don't really download albums but I do copy CDs that I borrow from the library (hey, I recently borrowed a Coffins CD from my local library, so who can blame me?) and while it has led to me purchasing less CDs, it's also allowed me to listen to music that I probably wouldn't buy.
The reason the music biz is breaking down is because they don't even have the answers to these questions, for the same reason all the answers here are (literally) globally wrong: The law is different everywhere you go. If the record industry had a vice grip on the world they would still be in control. They don't, they can't, they aren't going to, and at this point I think it's safe to say they never will. Good. Serves 'em well for 50 years of shafting their artists. Now it's their turn. ~stu
1. Well, somebody got a portion of their money back for their regretful purchase. I can't think of anything else pertinent.
2. Morally for me it certainly is.
3. Grayer area but I wouldn't sweat it.
4. No.
5. I should certainly hope so.
Graeme - your local library had a Coffins CD??? Coolest. Library. Ever.
this is way late, but i had to say my opinion on this one
hey Cosmo - downloading from the Internet has to be put in the same perspective as making a copy from LP to cassette.
It's the same to me.
Downloading is just more convinient.
I'm not against having a download and listening to the albums, but I'm all against people who re-sell the burned cd's - that's almost gone, but it still exists.
I know this might not be fair to labels or bands - but that's how it was, that's how it is and that's how it's going to be.
Don't forget that, despite industry's cries over leackage of albums, illegal download helped create the musical enviroment we're in today.
If there's weren't for illegal download there wouldn't be some bands or even trends for that matter.
but to answer the Q's.
1 - There is no economic difference there - you pay for CD's and you don't pay for illegal DL. well you do, but to the ISP - or not even that ;)
2 - of course not - legally speaking.
3 - same as 2.
4 - that's plain absurd, and you know it ;)
5 - don't know, actually.. i'd want to have that option - but that's like buying a new shirt and then getting a new one every week cause the old one is dirty.
But to be perfectly honest - I'd never pay for DL. don't know - maybe I got too comfy with free DL's - who knows.
I'd just conclude this by saying that I think there was more mutual respect between bands, fans and record labels before, especially in the 80's. I was just a teenager in very late 80's, and this may be subjective, but I think there was more mistyque around bands then.
And that's one of the main things why people bought music - plus don't forget that vinyl records were dominant media for music - they were held a complete art - cover, music, concept, everything. nowadays people usually get one or few songs and move on from some band's opus.
That's how it is.
ashas - I'm curious - you say you'd never pay for a download. Fair enough, as everybody prefers "free." But you're in a band yourself. Presumably you made some (although not much) money before from selling CD's. If everyone had your mindset, you would get no money from your recordings. Is that what you what?
want, that is?
Post a Comment
<< Home