|
Re: "Morality" Question about p2p software
| quote: | Originally posted by Apeattack
I had a conversation regarding the use of p2p software with someone the other day. I think I know what everyone will say, but here is the hypothetical situation anyways.
When John (made-up name) hears a song he likes (through radio shows, randomly on youtube, etc.), he uses p2p software to download the track. John doesn't listen to the illegally downloaded tracks much until he is ready to use them in a set. That is, John won't listen to the tracks over and over for pleasure. If John uses the track in a gig (paid or unpaid), then he will legally buy the track because he has profited (cash, exposure, etc.) from it.
Thoughts? |
This is a lot like the 'extended demo' argument for pirating software: you're basically saying that the clip of the track online is insufficient for 'John' to determine whether or not a track is worthy of his money (in your example because John wants to try mixing it).
While a single download is pretty cheap, you could argue that there's SO much music around that it would cost an excessive amount to buy enough music to appropriately judge what's good and what isn't... after all, why should the artist get John's money if their track turns out to be shit?
But sites like DJ Download offer the ability to hear the whole track before buying, so one could argue that an experienced DJ should be able to judge from that whether the track will work in their sets. Plus there's the danger John might 'forget' to buy the track after pirating it, which would break the morally balancing part of his argument.
It's a moral grey area. I personally wouldn't look down on John for doing this, but ultimately it's up to him. Although it sounds to me like John actually wants an excuse for not paying for music, but sees this as a compromise his peers won't criticise him for.
___________________
Stu Cox |   
|
