Buying music

daredrummer

Gold Member
I have never supported pirated music, limewire and free downloads; things like that. I have always just paid the 99 cents per song on iTunes.

A few weeks ago, a friend recommend that I could get music by checking out CD's from the library, downloading the music on the comp, and then returning it. That certainly seems like a better option than limewire, since someone paid for the CD's, but I was still a little hesitant to do it.

Then just a few days ago, another friend called me out for using home sharing (the itunes feature) to download music of my brother's iTunes library. I have always used home sharing and have never thought of it in the same vicinity of limewire, but technically, I'm not paying for that music.

So where do we draw the line on buying music? I think almost all would agree that it's unethical to use limewire and things like that, but CD's from the library? Friends or relatives iTunes libraries?

Just wanted to hear some opinions on this.
 
I remember a few years ago Garth Brooks was upset that there were used record, CD, stores. He wanted everyone to buy new. So his logic, we would not have used book stores, used cars, Goodwill Industries, etc etc etc. You will never make everyone happy. I have mixed feelings on the library deal but I guess its no different than checking out a book and xeroxing a few pages to do a report or save for whatever reason. I'm not sure where the line is But Garth Brooks knows.
 
I remember a few years ago Garth Brooks was upset that there were used record, CD, stores. He wanted everyone to buy new. So his logic, we would not have used book stores, used cars, Goodwill Industries, etc etc etc.

Big difference between buying something used, and borrowing something to make a copy so that there are concurrent owners of one disc. The fact that a library or individual purchased a disc or song doesn't grant them the right to redistribute it.

The problem is, the folks who aren't in the business of making or selling music can't understand why music, movies, etc don't just belong to the world, as long as one person paid for it at some point along the way. It's a difficult concept to explain to those who feel everything on the net should be free.

When some of these kids begin to write and record music, and then can't figure out why nobody actually buys their work, then they'll start to understand.

Bermuda
 
So where do we draw the line on buying music?

There is no line. You buy music, period, unless you get a CD as a gift. And that probably won't even be possible within a few years when labels undoubtedly default to all-digital distribution.

Do the right thing, pay for what you get.

Bermuda
 
I dont believe in pirating music. But..... I get tired of these artist that wine when you know they use to tape stuff. I watched an interview with Lars who said "back in the day someone would get a tape and bring it over and we would tape it and bring it to someone else." That is piracy. Unless you have bought every piece of music you ever had then shut up. Me and my wife share a iTunes account. We have totally different taste in music. We have over 8000 songs on our account. Of the 8000 songs we may share about 10 songs on our iPhone. I see no problem with this. And i never taped anything. I always liked to have the album. But i am the minority.

Also yes coping a cd from the library is piracy and so is xeroxing a book. Just buy the songs you want. Music is not that expensive. And artist loosing up....me and my wife sharing a iTunes account is the same as us sharing cds. There is a line. We should not have to buy 2 of the same song.
 
Last edited:
me and my wife sharing a iTunes account is the same as us sharing cds. There is a line. We should not have to buy 2 of the same song.

Agreed, but that's never been a problem. If it was, the "public performance" laws would affect everyone who buys or rents or streams a movie, and watches it with their spouse.

The problem is with those who send out mp3s to people, post them in their entirety for free downloading, etc. And those same people defend themselves by saying "But I'm helping promote the band by spreading their music!"

I wonder if anything has any value to some of them. I hope they all write songs or software, and then try to sell them. Now that's Karma in action!

Bermuda
 
There is no line. You buy music, period, unless you get a CD as a gift. And that probably won't even be possible within a few years when labels undoubtedly default to all-digital distribution.

Do the right thing, pay for what you get.

Bermuda

But you would agree that simply sharing music with family members or spouses is not unethical correct?
Other than doing this, I always pay for my music on Itunes.
 
"Sharing" meaning what, letting everyone listen from a single device? And how extended is the family? Are you sharing music with 2nd cousins' spouses?

I would say immediate family is fine - spouse, children, siblings, parents (although the legal system differs.) The problem with you sharing music with them, is that some of them will 'share' it with someone else, who will 'share' it with someone else, etc etc. It goes way beyond family, and a single 'gift of music' can rob an artist and songwriter or dozens, maybe hunderds of sales. If one person posts it on a download site, that means several thousand sales lost.

If you were an artist, you'd understand. And no, the paltry handful of established artists who've come out and said they're giving away their music don't count. Consider how many albums Radiohead sold before pulling that stunt. And still they said pay what you want... and there was a minimum payment! Even their 'free' album wasn't free. Writers and musicians and singers don't do this for charity.

I'm not saying everyone can be a perfect angel about this, but people do get creative when it comes to rationalizing giving music away, or getting it without paying.

Sorry to rant, I realize that most people can't possibly understand. Artists and labels and music sellers are still trying to find exactly the right words.

Bermuda
 
I always buy music I want, I really like the option of buying a single song, as there hasn't been a c.d in many years that I liked more than 2 songs. 99 cents in more than reasonable for something you're going to listned to many times. I've seen some people go so far to get free music, it's like...just buy it dude seriouly.
 
They had a thread a couple days ago about a new RUSH song which led me to the RUSH website, which led me to the RUSH discography page, which led me to Amazon, which led me to the Retrospective II album that now resides in my computer. I don't have the nice disc and the artwork in the nice CD case, but the songs were only $10. That's pretty much the price for most albums.

Now what if I have a cassette that I purchased in the 80's. Would it be unethical to borrow this same album from the library and make a copy of it? I mean, I did buy the recording at one time.
 
Purchased tapes absolutely deserve a free upgrade to digital quality!
 
I've been having this conversation with a lot of people lately. I can't understand how some people don't understand this.

Music is art. Art should be valued. If everything is free then nothing has value. If people love music, then it should be valuable enough for them to pay for it.

That said, I haven't paid for every piece of music I own, but I can count the exceptions on one hand. They're all either:

A) Songs that are now out-of-print so there is no "legitimate" way to obtain them, or,
B) Songs that I already own but I can't put on my computer (This is the case for only two songs I have)

If music is worth enough to steal, then it's worth enough to pay for.

To answer the OP. Copying CDs from the library is exactly the same thing as torrenting.
 
To answer the OP. Copying CDs from the library is exactly the same thing as torrenting.

I don't think so, I'm pretty sure libraries have to pay for the right to lend out CDs. Not saying it's ethical to then copy them, but at least some money is heading to the artist.

In the libraries I go to you actually have to pay to borrow CDs, it's a couple of bucks
 
I don't think so, I'm pretty sure libraries have to pay for the right to lend out CDs. Not saying it's ethical to then copy them, but at least some money is heading to the artist.

How does copying a CD send money to the artist?

In the libraries I go to you actually have to pay to borrow CDs, it's a couple of bucks

Does that money go the artist?

I concur with DSCRAPRE: "If music is worth enough to steal, then it's worth enough to pay for."

Bermuda
 
All of us as musicians should see this discussion as something very easy to grasp. Music has to be paid for, period. If we want people to continue to create beautiful, musical works of art, then we need them to be able to make a living at it. Just like an Architect, Doctor, Carpenter, etc. We as musicians should want to pay for it. Paying for something puts more worth on it. Makes us appreciate it that much more. It all seems pretty straight forward to me.
 
All of us as musicians should see this discussion as something very easy to grasp.

At the core, yes. But there's a difference between those who play casually, and those who are in the business.

Musicians who do this for a living try to sell their music. What a nerve, eh? Doesn't matter what genre, they expect to get paid for creating music. Ultimately the listeners decide what they like and will pay for. But to like the music enough to steal it and not pay is just wrong. If the artist is making music that people want to hear, they should pay. If people don't want to hear it, then they shouldn't be downloading it.

Musicians who don't do this for a living often don't have a clue about it. They think there are a bunch of fatcat artists who can afford to lose thousands, maybe millions of sales. They think there's no harm downloading a song for free or getting the file from a friend, and then think nothing of passing it along to someone else or even posting it for public download. They somehow rationalize this as promoting the artist, to help them sell more music I suppose?

I'm probably beating a dead horse here... those who get it, get it. Those who don't will always find a way to rationalize their actions.

Bermuda
 
How does copying a CD send money to the artist?

It doesn't, that's not what I said. I said that when it gets borrowed, money goes to the artist. So it's not the same as downloading where NOTHING goes to the artist. Still not saying it's right to do so, so I'm not disagreeing here.

Does that money go the artist?

I'd assume part of the money does go towards paying the royalties for borrowing, hence why they charge for it. I don't know for sure, I've never worked for a library. But it does make sense. Otherwise what musician would be happy about libraries lending out their works without receiving any payment?
 
I'd assume part of the money does go towards paying the royalties for borrowing, hence why they charge for it. I don't know for sure, I've never worked for a library. But it does make sense. Otherwise what musician would be happy about libraries lending out their works without receiving any payment?

If the artists don't get a fee every time the CD is checked out, you can be sure they're not happy about it!

Do authors get anything when their books are checked out instead of being purchased new?

Bermuda
 
Back
Top