|
"Morality" Question about p2p software (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christian Zade
Not really topic, but p2p vs purchase reminded me of this: I had a problem before with uploading a mix on soundcloud and having it rejected because one of the 20 songs was violating copyright. Anyone else have a problem with this before? Was this because a particular song I used (I still don't know which one was rejected) was obtained via p2p or what? |
No, that would have been because uploading mix is technically a form of piracy: you're essentially making a copy of all of the tracks, albeit in mixed form, and distributing it. One of the labels must have got a bit above their station and decided to be a dick about it. It doesn't matter if you got the tunes legally or from P2P in the first place, althought the label's likely to be extra pissed off if they find you didn't even pay for it in the first place. |
|
|
| Christian Zade |
| Isn't copyright a problem with live mixing as well? |
|
|
| Stu Cox |
| quote: | Originally posted by Christian Zade
Isn't copyright a problem with live mixing as well? |
Venues should have a licence allowing recorded music to be played. Registered artists get paid royalties for the music played out of this licence fee, if the DJ provides a tracklist... if the DJ doesn't provide a tracklist, the licence fee is essentially shared between the big commercial labels (Universal, EMI, etc) |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stu Cox
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 ?
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.
|
It is easy to listen to full songs on youtube, but knowing how a song mixes with other songs often requires trial and error, which requires the song to be in one's library. There are certain tracks that sound great but are difficult to mix well with other tracks.
| quote: |
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.
|
A very good, practical point. For the sake of the discussion, let's assume John is very diligent about paying for tracks he uses in a set.
| quote: | | 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. |
We all find a level of morality that we are comfortable with. I think there is a lot more moral grey area in all music than people want to admit. Is it OK to borrow a friend's vinyl record to play at a club once? How about twice? How about 10 times?
Is it OK to borrow a friend's CD to play at a club once, twice, 10 times? Is it OK to borrow a friend of a friend's CD to play at a club? How about a friend of a friend of a friend's CD? And so on. Is downloading music illegally similar to borrowing a CD from a friend of a friend of a friend ... ? Perhaps there is a legal distinction, but I don't know if there really is much difference. |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Quazar
One method I'm ok with is using a youtube rip of the song in mp3 form to practice with, then buying the song in high quality for use at gigs or parties.
That way, your practice song is pretty crappy quality and unfit for public use. Sort of like back in the day when having a tape recording of a song from FM radio wasn't anywhere near like owning the CD. |
This sounds like a good idea to deal with Stu Cox's point that John may not be diligent about buying the tracks he uses in a set. |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
first it was the future of djing and now this? Piss oFF |
Oh you and your wacky suggestions.
(I'm honored you remember me from another post ;)) |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Rodri Santos
2'5$ is way too much for a track, if you are having 3 figure number for your gigs then buy the tracks, you owe to them. If you are just having some beers for your gigs then pirate David Guetta, SHM , Laidback luke etc... they don't deserve money for their . |
If you are joking, ignore this post.
If you aren't joking, your opinion of the artist should have no bearing on whether it is wrong to illegally download their music. |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Polt
In a way, he is profiting from the downloaded songs. I would think that if he didn't practice, he wouldn't be in good enough shape to get gigs. Therefore getting gigs is directly related to his practicing with downloaded songs. If you look at the situation from a "If you illegally download, it is stealing" point of view, it doesn't matter if he buys a song after downloading it or profits from the song or not, John still downloaded it illegally.
|
Very good point.
| quote: | | One thing to consider, it only costs 99c to $2.50 to buy a track. That's really not much at all. Think about all the small things you buy that won't last as long as a song. So what if you buy a track and end up not liking it or not wanting to mix with it, it's not like you spent all that much for it anyways. |
I'm trying to leave the price of tracks out of the discussion. Does the morality of John's actions depend on whether tracks are $1 or $10 each? |
|
|
| Polt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Apeattack
I'm trying to leave the price of tracks out of the discussion. Does the morality of John's actions depend on whether tracks are $1 or $10 each? |
Well, its not so much the price, but the accessibility of the product. My point wasn't so much that price is a factor, but it should be considered in the discussion. Why do so many people pirate Phoroshop? Because they can't afford it. Why do people illegally download music? Not because it is expensive, but because they can. |
|
|
| Apeattack |
| quote: | Originally posted by Polt
Well, its not so much the price, but the accessibility of the product. My point wasn't so much that price is a factor, but it should be considered in the discussion. Why do so many people pirate Phoroshop? Because they can't afford it. Why do people illegally download music? Not because it is expensive, but because they can. |
The cost of music plays a factor in people's decision to pirate.
However, the morality of John's actions should not be based on the absolute price of the songs being (initially) pirated. Otherwise, there would be a price range (say, $5+ per song) where his actions would be morally fine and a price range ($0-5 per song) where his actions would be morally wrong. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Apeattack
Oh you and your wacky suggestions.
(I'm honored you remember me from another post ;)) |
no i dont remember u, idk who you are, ur just some random newb |
|
|
| Zyklon_Jay |
| you look like an anal log all right. |
|
|
|
|
