frd1963
The post: http://www.virtualdj.com/forums/43104/General_Discussion/35_Songs_for__4_50_US.html by djej got me thinking about the ethics and loopholes of digital music, and I'm guessing some of you have had similar thoughts, so I will ask a couple of hypothetical questions and we'll see what kinds of answers we get. Feel free to also ask some of your own related questions.
I have my own opinions on each of these questions, but I thought it would be good to see what some of you say; you may even help change my opinion.
1) If I own a particular song on vinyl, is it ethical for me to copy a digitized version of that song from someone else? Or do I have to manually rip that record in order to earn my right to own and play a digital copy?
2) If I need a song for an upcoming gig, and I know that it is listed on the next Promo Only CD/DVD, but that disc doesn't ship in time for my gig, is it ethical to get a free copy of it from somewhere else, knowing that I will actually own the right to play the song in the near future and have already in fact paid for that right through my pre-paid subscription?
3) Is it ethical to rip Promo Only CD's and DVD's though this is apparently prohibited in our subscription contract, even if we do not plan to share these files with anyone else?
4) Is it ethical to sell an old commercially available CD that you have already ripped?
I have my own opinions on each of these questions, but I thought it would be good to see what some of you say; you may even help change my opinion.
1) If I own a particular song on vinyl, is it ethical for me to copy a digitized version of that song from someone else? Or do I have to manually rip that record in order to earn my right to own and play a digital copy?
2) If I need a song for an upcoming gig, and I know that it is listed on the next Promo Only CD/DVD, but that disc doesn't ship in time for my gig, is it ethical to get a free copy of it from somewhere else, knowing that I will actually own the right to play the song in the near future and have already in fact paid for that right through my pre-paid subscription?
3) Is it ethical to rip Promo Only CD's and DVD's though this is apparently prohibited in our subscription contract, even if we do not plan to share these files with anyone else?
4) Is it ethical to sell an old commercially available CD that you have already ripped?
Posted Mon 28 Nov 05 @ 5:46 pm
djbambi
IMHO:
1) YES
2) NO
3) YES (ie to use VDJ instead of CD/DVD hardware, and never distribute ripped files). promo-only are meant to expose people to the promoted material, so ethically it's not a breach of contract (even though contractually it is)
4) NO (well yes if you delete your ripped files, but that's probably not what you meant)
good thread.
1) YES
2) NO
3) YES (ie to use VDJ instead of CD/DVD hardware, and never distribute ripped files). promo-only are meant to expose people to the promoted material, so ethically it's not a breach of contract (even though contractually it is)
4) NO (well yes if you delete your ripped files, but that's probably not what you meant)
good thread.
Posted Mon 28 Nov 05 @ 6:24 pm
listen2
Just mt 2 cents and understanding of how it works.
1)I believe if you already own the rights then it's ok for you to have a copy but not for your friend to give it to you, even if they own an original also, but in theory I think sounds like it should work.
2)No, i guess it's like stealing a car from a dealership and telling them you'll have the money by monday, but maybe if you can prove your subscription then it's ok.
3)I don't see any reason why Promo only should tell you what to do with the music you bought but i'm sure the reason for the line to be in your subscription is to prevent/discourage this.
4)When you sell the original you are also selling your rights to the music, so it is understood that you would have to destroy you copies when doing so.
* I really dont think there are any loopholes...if you didnt buy it then you shouldn't have it! But where i bend on this is for rare out of prints and personal remixes, those are things you couldn't buy anyways.
1)I believe if you already own the rights then it's ok for you to have a copy but not for your friend to give it to you, even if they own an original also, but in theory I think sounds like it should work.
2)No, i guess it's like stealing a car from a dealership and telling them you'll have the money by monday, but maybe if you can prove your subscription then it's ok.
3)I don't see any reason why Promo only should tell you what to do with the music you bought but i'm sure the reason for the line to be in your subscription is to prevent/discourage this.
4)When you sell the original you are also selling your rights to the music, so it is understood that you would have to destroy you copies when doing so.
* I really dont think there are any loopholes...if you didnt buy it then you shouldn't have it! But where i bend on this is for rare out of prints and personal remixes, those are things you couldn't buy anyways.
Posted Mon 28 Nov 05 @ 6:30 pm
bagpuss
In the UK their is a license to use mp3's from a computer but their is NO license to allow you to play mp3 files from copied CD's, The license is around £250 (mp3 DJ license) and once purchased their is no further measures to see where your getting your mp3's from.
But it is seen outside the law if you don't own the music on some format, although mp3 downloads are allowed they are also hard to trace and prove purchase.
The law is quite confusing in most countries, and much is left to a persons freedom of choice, most people who are passionate about music like to own the CD, but DJ's are often different, having to buy a lot of music to please people and not himself, it is more tempting for the DJ to download files and this is probably why a license law is more likely to be enforced rather than worry about where those files come from.
Ethically it's down to what you believe, and just how many ways you look at those questions.
But it is seen outside the law if you don't own the music on some format, although mp3 downloads are allowed they are also hard to trace and prove purchase.
The law is quite confusing in most countries, and much is left to a persons freedom of choice, most people who are passionate about music like to own the CD, but DJ's are often different, having to buy a lot of music to please people and not himself, it is more tempting for the DJ to download files and this is probably why a license law is more likely to be enforced rather than worry about where those files come from.
Ethically it's down to what you believe, and just how many ways you look at those questions.
Posted Mon 28 Nov 05 @ 6:45 pm
frd1963
Good responses. I think we all basically have the same views on the ethics of those particular situations at least. Anyone want to throw in a monkey wrench and make the situations more ambiguous or come up with some other more difficult situations?
Posted Tue 29 Nov 05 @ 4:32 pm
djdanmcdermott
The problem is ridiculous laws by greedy record companies and a congress all to eager to cowtow to them. And they are stuck in the stone age.
I am sure that all of the scenarios are technically illegal. But I certainly have no problem ethically with the first three. The 4th is definitely illegal and unethical. (And probably unwise since better ripping/storage formats will come along in the future and you always want to have the source to make a 1st generation recording.)
In my opinion, if you buy a CD or DVD, you should have the rights to own however many backups are necessary in as many locations as you want as long as only one has the potential of being played at a time. And you should retain that right for life.
And I don't see how Promo Only has an issue with copyright since I don't think they pay the mechanical royalties on anything. They just get the rights to distribute to DJs and mark it up a lot to pay for a fancy magazine, fancy discs, and loads of profit for Jim.
I wish someone would start a non profit company that allowed legitimate DJs to download ripped videos and MP3s over the Internet this would be a non issue. The record companies make money from the BMI ASCAP license fees from the venues that we play at. And we help them sell records. There is no reason we should pay a dime for any of out music. With broadband Internet, the technology is there.
Remember when Metallica was foaming at the mouth over the former Napster, pleading poverty because kids were "sharing?" Obviously they had a point. But the last time I checked you had to download (buy) a whole Metallica album to get a single song off of it. Simple greed. They aren't happy with 20 million a year each and need 25????
And Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, recently said that the record companies wanted him to increase the price of downloads but he wouldn't budge. He pointed out that they are already making more money per song from downloads than they do from in-store sales. Go Steve!
I can't stand unions, but we sure could use one, lol...
I am sure that all of the scenarios are technically illegal. But I certainly have no problem ethically with the first three. The 4th is definitely illegal and unethical. (And probably unwise since better ripping/storage formats will come along in the future and you always want to have the source to make a 1st generation recording.)
In my opinion, if you buy a CD or DVD, you should have the rights to own however many backups are necessary in as many locations as you want as long as only one has the potential of being played at a time. And you should retain that right for life.
And I don't see how Promo Only has an issue with copyright since I don't think they pay the mechanical royalties on anything. They just get the rights to distribute to DJs and mark it up a lot to pay for a fancy magazine, fancy discs, and loads of profit for Jim.
I wish someone would start a non profit company that allowed legitimate DJs to download ripped videos and MP3s over the Internet this would be a non issue. The record companies make money from the BMI ASCAP license fees from the venues that we play at. And we help them sell records. There is no reason we should pay a dime for any of out music. With broadband Internet, the technology is there.
Remember when Metallica was foaming at the mouth over the former Napster, pleading poverty because kids were "sharing?" Obviously they had a point. But the last time I checked you had to download (buy) a whole Metallica album to get a single song off of it. Simple greed. They aren't happy with 20 million a year each and need 25????
And Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, recently said that the record companies wanted him to increase the price of downloads but he wouldn't budge. He pointed out that they are already making more money per song from downloads than they do from in-store sales. Go Steve!
I can't stand unions, but we sure could use one, lol...
Posted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 9:41 am
Raw-Bear
Well djdanmcdermott, I think you hit the nail on the head. Maybe it really is time for the DJ-CJ community to form a unoin of sorts. That thing in the U.K. where all the DJs pay a licence fee sounds great to me. Anyone doing more than 2 gigs a year should be able to pay the fee. In the mean time if all of the Atomix and VDJ users in North America formed a union, man, the record companys would HAVE to listen. Might be something worth looking at.
Posted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 11:15 am
dancefactor
I don't know about the ethics thing but let me give you my two cents regarding the legalities. Here in Canada and I think in the US if you own the cd/vinyl and you want to make a copy you need an AVLA license cost around $180.00. If you want to put your music on a hard drive you require another AVLA license cost $300.00. You stillmust have in your posession the cd/vinyl you copied from.
Posted Fri 02 Dec 05 @ 7:06 pm