Is Downloading OOP Music Wrong?

Surely it was in the original Constitution. Article I, Section 8. Signed by Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, James Madison, George Washington, and all the other appointed representatives of the original states.

Reproduction here (though not exactly readable at this maginfication):
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_2.html

Info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

On August 18, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was in the midst of a weeks-long stretch of entertaining proposals to establish what would become the enumerated powers of the United States Congress. Three such proposals made on that day addressed what are now lumped together under intellectual property rights. One, by Charles Pinckney was "to secure to authors exclusive rights for a limited time". The other two were made by James Madison, who had previously served on a committee of the Congress established under the Articles of Confederation which had encouraged the individual states to adopt copyright legislation. Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time", or, in the alternative, "to encourage, by proper premiums & Provisions, the advancement of useful knowledge and discoveries".[1] ...​

 

Yup. China is doing to us what we did to Europe in the first generations of our Republic. We were a pirate nation.

Are we becoming one again? There is nothing new under the sun.

 

Illegal yes..

They could make millions by re-releasing it.

 

Exactly

The sole purpose of copyright is to benefit society, not the artist

 

As a non-American, I stand corrected.


In other related news..

http://arstechnica.com/science/news...-cds-worse-than-downloading-music-via-p2p.ars

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...nt-new-zealand-rushes-ahead-with-p2p-bill.ars

 

So our argument is with Congress, not the music industry? I assume no-one wants to argue the Constitution...

 

Essentially yes, so call your congress person

The music industry has long lobbied for, and gotten extentions to their copyrights but no one was paying attention enough to stand up and say no.

Someone did take the case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost on a 7-2 decision...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

 

My Francais ain't perfect, but on a quick skim that seems not quite right. The music is mostly by modern acts, but the selection appears to be limited to select handfuls of songs for which an open license has been granted, not whole catalogues - kind of like rounding up downloads bands have made available on their home pages, and making them available from one point. Not a bad idea, really.

Almost half of what's available is electronic music too, which shows you who's really getting behind the idea!

 

Actually, people argue that provision all the time. The question of whether the "intentional" language of that section has legal meaning has been frequently debated.

 

So the poll seems to indicate a landside victory. Many are arguing certain points that hinge on some absolute morality. Personally, I like absolute moralities. Legally, they don't really exist so I have to check my personal preferences at the door.

Relating then strictly to the OP, given that there are titles that exist which are OOP and seem to have a demand, small or large, it does exist, what should the next move be?

If the title is digitally sourced and available now, freely online (no matter the liceity), should the artist prompt the label for a small run (in the instances where the artist is not fully in control) or should an artist simply let this go perhaps recognizing that a separate mastering may only be slightly profitable (in that something that our host helped release may sell to 500 but not 5000)?

For me, I like physical products. In one way, I like them because I feel they have some intrinsic value that is distinct from the music encoded within. If I fork over 20 bones for an HDTracks hi rez album, I have a neatly packaged set of 1's and 0's with no discernable merit beyond those 1's and 0'. If I own an SACD of the same music, I have plastic, and metal, and art and lyrics and liner notes and a disc which I may resell at my convenience if I so choose. Those 1's and 0's from HDTracks is blown money in a sense. Sell me something on vinyl and I'll be tickled pink. Do so as a hybrid SACD and I'll be quite pleased but not as happy as if it were vinyl, but happy nonetheless. Heck I'll be more than willing to throw money at a CD, but those files? No sir, those aren't for me, at least not as a common occurence (the rumor of Music Matters hi rez files is enticing to go along with all the 45 rpms I own).

Getting to the point, I'm of the type that prefers something in hand and knowingly invests in something that can perhaps turn a profit. Music as a pure download MUST stand 100% upon the merit of the music. As we all know, few albums are truly gems and fewer still are perfect. Thus, those 1's and 0's may leave a bitter taste in one's mouth over time. An ugly HD full of tunes isn't the same as shelves of records and cds.

But, the music is out in the wild. Folks have it. Legally or not. What to do?

Personally, I like the idea of small runs, perhaps based entirely around pre-orders so no one loses money. If possible, I think this may solve many problems. Those that want stuff for free and free alone will always find a way to get at a download. In essence there is no lost sale with these folks.

The mining then comes in with digging into the pockets of those who do want something beyond the possessed download. To get at that money, what needs to happen?

 

No.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0106v19/The_Report_14_04_2011/

UK program on their new legislation, the Digital Economy Bill.

 

Very informative. Thanks for posting.