Pirated music: good thing, bad thing or nothing?

[Fred]

On the piracy issue, there are lots of considerations:
1.  In my country, it's not "illegal" to download a copy, but it is illegal to "upload" (supply).   So if I don't do peer-to-peer I'm not committing an offence.
2.  Who's going to pay beethoven his royalty?
3.  Most classical music (except in the US) is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.  I'm a tax-payer.
4.  Copyright is a state-sanctioned monopoly which is particularly virulent in the US.  Why should the state stop people copying what they have brought?
5.There is

[Fred]

Oops - cut myself off mid-rant:

5.   Most artists only get a very small percentage of the total amount that major labels recover for CDs.
6.   Don't think the bread rolls analogy works because most downloading does not cost sales.
7.   If I download from somewhere like darkmp3 and like something, I will usually go and buy it in a richer format (despite my crap ears) because that's what I do.

[jlaurson]

On the piracy issue, there are lots of considerations:
1.  In my country, it's not "illegal" to download a copy, but it is illegal to "upload" (supply).   So if I don't do peer-to-peer I'm not committing an offence.
2.  Who's going to pay beethoven his royalty?
3.  Most classical music (except in the US) is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer.  I'm a tax-payer.
4.  Copyright is a state-sanctioned monopoly which is particularly virulent in the US.  Why should the state stop people copying what they have brought?
5.   Most artists only get a very small percentage of the total amount that major labels recover for CDs.
6.   Don't think the bread rolls analogy works because most downloading does not cost sales.
7.   If I download from somewhere like darkmp3 and like something, I will usually go and buy it in a richer format (despite my crap ears) because that's what I do.

The ignorance of these statements, possibly (but not certainly) excepting the first, is staggering. There's no way to not put it that bluntly.

Beethoven got his royalties which, however and obviously, were organized in a different manner back then.
Composers / Creators are entitled to royalties, but only for so many years; to speak of a lack of royalties for Beethoven now -- nevermind making this somehow part of an argument that it is OK to indulge in stealing newly created content -- isn't even an argument, it's just daft.

"Banks in many countries are propped up by tax-payers. I'm a tax payer (in some country). Ergo: It's OK to steal from a bank." I think I just heard  Aristotle vomit. One has *nothing* whatsoever to do with the other... and certainly recording projects are not (generally) subsidized and ... why am I even bothering to take this apart as if it could be taken seriously. As if subsidies made it either morally or factually OK to steal. "Wheat is subsidized by taxes. I pay taxes. I can steal all the bread I want."

Why should the state stop people copying what they have bought? The state does not do that; copies for personal use are not prohibited. Even copies (mixed-tapes) to hand to friends, when they were copied onto tapes whose price included a levy to go toward royalties, were not illegal. Online distribution is a whole other kettle of fish.

Most artists are lucky to get ANYTHING from their recordings, major or minor labels. Because making records is expensive and they don't sell many copies.

Stealing of any sort, including downloading, invariably hurts sales... and if only because it dampens the secondary market which in return is one argument for a re-issuing of a recording.

"If I steal a roll and like it, I usually go back and buy a strawberry tart, there."

Bravo. I really hope you aren't out of high-school yet, because with logic (and morals) like that, it'd be a shame to think you an adult, roaming about in society.

[amw]

2.  Who's going to pay beethoven his royalty?

I mean Andrea Lucchesini could use some income too. Maybe you could write to him and be like 'Hey Andrea, sorry if this is weird, but any idea where one could get a hold of your Beethoven sonatas since the record label deleted them? Love your hair btw!' or whatever it is you want to say. >.>

I do sometimes steal music because a) I'm poor, b) some labels refuse to allow streaming (Qobuz and Spotify subscriptions take up most of my monthly budget), c) no overseas library was willing to interloan the CD to New Zealand for me to listen to it and/or d) the thing is out of print and can't be bought anywhere for less than five times its value. Also e) I really don't care about record label executives and f) down with capitalism. I'm not going to pretend it's ethical though, particularly if the artists are alive.

[Madiel]

Digital storage changes everything.

Yes. One of the things it changes is the validity of your arguments, because the music we're talking about is not "out of print".

In fact, part of this conversation started with a statement that the music was available for sale from Amazon as an mp3. Followed by a statement that the same music was available for free somewhere else as an mp3.

If that's the choice - between legal mp3 and illegal mp3, rather than between second-hand CDs with no royalties and illegal mp3 - then huge chunks of what you're trying to say to justify the illegal mp3 are completely invalid. There is a legal method to get the mp3. Use it.

[Madiel]

On the piracy issue, there are lots of considerations:
1.  In my country, it's not "illegal" to download a copy, but it is illegal to "upload" (supply).   So if I don't do peer-to-peer I'm not committing an offence.

Your country is my country, and I am a lawyer.

Congratulations, you've not committed a crime. You have, however, exposed yourself to being sued by the copyright owner. That is still breaking the law.  Just because you've not committed an offence does not mean you have done nothing illegal.  If you're going to split hairs, split them properly.

[(poco) Sforzando]

Yes. One of the things it changes is the validity of your arguments, because the music we're talking about is not "out of print".

In fact, part of this conversation started with a statement that the music was available for sale from Amazon as an mp3. Followed by a statement that the same music was available for free somewhere else as an mp3.

If that's the choice - between legal mp3 and illegal mp3, rather than between second-hand CDs with no royalties and illegal mp3 - then huge chunks of what you're trying to say to justify the illegal mp3 are completely invalid. There is a legal method to get the mp3. Use it.

You say you're a lawyer. May I therefore suggest reading what I actually said, rather than what you'd like to think I said.

I in no way endorsed or activated piracy. Quite the contrary. As I made perfectly clear, my point was solely that there is nothing in practical terms "(other than your sense of legality and conscience) that would preclude you from ripping all those CDs to files . . . . . My point is just to illustrate that in practical terms, there is no limitation on the number of potential copies of the material." And in a previous post, what I actually advocated were legal downloads of digital files from the publisher at reasonable costs. I quote the relevant passage:

If the company produces only so many sets and won't make any more due to poor sales, wouldn't it be in the company's best interest to let me buy a set of downloaded files? I'm not saying such a step would eliminate piracy, because it's always fun for a pirate to try to get away with stealing, but I think if more companies would acknowledge the gap and just allowed a willing user to purchase the files for a reasonable price, your objection would largely be met.

If you're going to split hairs, split them properly.

[Madiel]

Um, no, the sentence doesn't work when you use it like that...

Nevertheless I apologise.

[Florestan]

Your country is my country, and I am a lawyer.

Congratulations, you've not committed a crime. You have, however, exposed yourself to being sued by the copyright owner. That is still breaking the law.  Just because you've not committed an offence does not mean you have done nothing illegal.  If you're going to split hairs, split them properly.

I am not a lawyer so I don't quite get your distinction. AFAIK if something is illegal, then it is either a misdemeanor or a felony. In both cases there is a penalty attached to it. If downloading unauthorized mp3 files is illegal, but it is not an offence, then what is it, and what is the penalty attached to it?

[Todd]

I'm not arguing for or against illegal downloads, but does anyone have any info on the financial impact it has in the niche realm of classical recordings?  It has had a massive impact on revenues for pop/rock, and less for country, whose fans are the most likely to buy physical media, but what about classical?  Are the woes of classical majors and major minors attributable to downloads, or to something else even harder to reverse, like increasing cultural irrelevance?

[mc ukrneal]

I wonder if the mods could move the non-Beethoven sonata discussion elsewhere. Thanks.

[Florestan]

I'm not arguing for or against illegal downloads, but does anyone have any info on the financial impact it has in the niche realm of classical recordings?  It has had a massive impact on revenues for pop/rock, and less for country, whose fans are the most likely to buy physical media, but what about classical?  Are the woes of classical majors and major minors attributable to downloads, or to something else even harder to reverse, like increasing cultural irrelevance?

Increasing cultural irrelevance of the music itself, or of the recording industry?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Um, no, the sentence doesn't work when you use it like that...

Nevertheless I apologise.

Can't admit you're wrong, can you?

[Madiel]

Can't admit you're wrong, can you?

I just did!

I can't admit to splitting hairs because I wasn't (if anything I was doing the exact opposite by being too broad and imprecise). I did apologise for what I actually did.

[Madiel]

I am not a lawyer so I don't quite get your distinction. AFAIK if something is illegal, then it is either a misdemeanor or a felony. In both cases there is a penalty attached to it. If downloading unauthorized mp3 files is illegal, but it is not an offence, then what is it, and what is the penalty attached to it?

Misdemeanors and felonies are classes of crimes. Committing them is not simply illegal but criminal.

Crimes are not the sum total of ways you can break the law, because criminal law is not the sum total of the law. You can breach a contract, injure your neighbour through a negligent act, defame someone. None of these are crimes. All of them are civil wrongs for which someone can take you to court.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I just did!

I can't admit to splitting hairs because I wasn't (if anything I was doing the exact opposite by being too broad and imprecise). I did apologise for what I actually did.

All right, we'll forget it.

[Florestan]

Misdemeanors and felonies are classes of crimes. Committing them is not simply illegal but criminal.

Crimes are not the sum total of ways you can break the law, because criminal law is not the sum total of the law. You can breach a contract, injure your neighbour through a negligent act, defame someone. None of these are crimes. All of them are civil wrongs for which someone can take you to court.

Okay, things are clear to me now, thanks for the explanation.

What is the penalty for illegal downloads in Australia?

[(poco) Sforzando]

I'm not arguing for or against illegal downloads, but does anyone have any info on the financial impact it has in the niche realm of classical recordings?  It has had a massive impact on revenues for pop/rock, and less for country, whose fans are the most likely to buy physical media, but what about classical?  Are the woes of classical majors and major minors attributable to downloads, or to something else even harder to reverse, like increasing cultural irrelevance?

I heard on a radio broadcast (from an author who has just written a new book on this subject) that just as pop downloads were peaking, at the same time the revenues for the recording companies had never been higher. But if there is more downloading of classical or any other type of music, that would argue for increasing cultural relevance rather than the reverse.

[Gurn Blanston]

Already done...

[Madiel]

What is the penalty for illegal downloads in Australia?

There's no such thing as a set penalty for a civil wrong. It's whatever damage you've caused the person you've wronged - in this case, the copyright owner.

I don't know what's happened in Australian cases, except that one attempt to force an ISP to hand over customer names failed, and the government is actually looking at changing the law to make sure it doesn't fail again.

I know that in the US, record companies have tried to go after people on the basis that by sharing, they've helped a LOT of other people also break the law. Some of the record company tactics have been questionable, and have relied on people being scared to fight the claims in court.