Is downloading of music wrong?

[Morn 8]

You find surprising that someone who can't afford CDs can get bootleg CD-Rs via trades?

Can't they just trade again?

By saying that you're implying that you've heard original versions (not CD-Rs, not MP3s) of ALL the existing bootlegs in the world, all kinds of genres. Which is practically impossible.

Of course, obviously I am judging from the ones I do have. And original versions? A CD-R or a high bit rate mp3 will not have a large difference in quality from the original.

Anyway, I don't care you don't really know what you're talking about. All I can say is that I own dozens of bootlegs with good to excellent sound. And I have a pretty good ear.

Like what?

Sure, your MP3 collection speaks by itself

Amp3 above 192kbit has extremely good quality, while not quite at the level of an original cd, it is quite close. However 128kbit is awful.

[tharpdevenport 4]

Speaking of downloads, anyone now of agood site to download stuff? Napster is dead and has been forever, audiogalaxy is bitting or bitten the dust.

Any other large score site for unreleased stuff?

[WLW 0]

No, downloading is not wrong. Copying is.

I think a case can be made that they are the same thing. Once you download you have just made a copy of the one on the server...Granted, it isn't a copy of the original necessarily (probably a copy of a copy of a copy - you get the idea), but it IS a copy. So therefore, applying this to your statement, downloading is also wrong, since it IS copying.

[Morn 8]

The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992

Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

[BigKenLittle 6]

I know that I am jumping into the pool a little late, but here goes...

I have never downloaded a music sample, a CD, a song or an MP3. This really is a simple issue. To my way of thinking this is something like forgery. A CD of a score is like a painting, in that it is the creation of an artist, who struggled hard and put forth a work that only he (or she) could create. Whether or not it is a Masterpiece doesn't matter, the work was still the artists creation and they deserve compensation for it. The cost is not the issue, I doubt that any of us will ever be able to afford an original Cezanne or Van Gogh, but we want them none the less. If you buy a reproduction of the masterpiece from a reputable dealer (read: a professional CD from a reputable company) , chances are at some point the artist received some remuneration for it. If you buy a forgery (read: A CD-R or bootleg) chances are the only person making money from it is the guy who forged it. This is not just a monetary issue, although that seems to be a recurring theme, there is also a moral issue involved. When do we say that Grey areas become a crime and who decides? To Morn and all the others that think this is purely a choice, it is fine as it is, but to some of us this becomes an issue of right vs wrong. Early on in the life of DVD's the Isolated score was on it's way to becoming a standard feature, now it is practically non-exsistant and that is because of the actions of a few people who were too cheap to buy the CD and the DVD or these "collectors" who think that a score is not complete unless it has every single note that was written, plus all the alternate tracks and the sounds of the third violinist on the left sneezing during the fifteenth take of the second bar of the... I mean come on, that has nothing to do with the music, that is hoarding for the sake of hoarding!

To put this in perspective, I recently purchased a CD burner for my stereo, for the sole purpose of transferring some of my Lp's to CD. Is this legal? I say yes for two reasons... First; I only make transfers of LPs that are not available on CD (eg; Monsignor or Yes, Giorgio). I make these transfers for my own use, to preserve the LP, which deteriorates faster than CD's will... and I will NOT trade my CD-Rs, period. Secondly; I purchased the LP's legally originally, and they are now MY property. Because I own them outright, I know that I have returned, at least some small portion to the composer whose work this is... I never will trade or sell dubs of complete LP's, never have... I fully believe that if I can afford to buy them, most everyone can... I have gone for long periods, not being able to buy a single CD, because I just simply did not have the disposable cash and I am sorry for that, because I missed out on a more than a few LP's and CD's that I really wanted, but HEY THAT'S LIFE!!!! Would I download them now that I have a computer, no... I just live without them. Rumour has it that Monsignor might be coming out on CD later this year, if it does I will buy it... Guaranteed!!!! Regardless of having burned a copy of it . Downloading is wrong, plain and simple. It is wrong because it deprives the composer of just due royalties and frankly it deprives them of control of their work... it is no different than George Lucas saying that he owns John Williams' music in AOTC and can make any changes he sees fit. Doing that deprived JW of the chance to present his music in the best possible light in the film. Downloading CD's does the same thing, it deprives JW of the opportunity to provide his music with the best possible presentation... Sorry people its cheating, no matter how much gloss you pour on it...

Big Ken: who will respond further from home...

[Morn 8]

Williams doesn't even own the copyright for his music, the music is the property of the studio, not of Williams. A disadvantage of being a film composer.

these "collectors" who think that a score is not complete unless it has every single note that was written

If the record companies didn't want people to bootleg a DVD, they would release every note of the score. I don't think it's fair that the record company denies us access to the complete score. And nor is it fair to Williams.

[Morn 8]

But it was completely related to the on topic topic....

[WLW 0]

I don't think it's fair that the record company denies us access to the complete score. And nor is it fair to Williams.

There's nothing "unfair" about it. We, as colllectors, simply prefer it were different. The owner of the copyright can do whatever they want with it, including not release anything. Suppose JW were the ultimate copyright owner of say AOTC. If he felt that a score should not be released that's his decision. No one else's. We can all beg and complain, but that's the crux of the matter. That is why bootlegs exist at all, because people want something (not deserve it, just want it) that they can't obtain thru any other method, or for less money.

I would LOVE more music to be available by JW and others, and my choices are to 1) hope 2) complain, then hope 3) find a bootleg. Technically, the bootleg on one level shows a high regard for the music, when created by those of us who REALLY WANT and APPRECIATE the art - not the money from the sale of it. On another level bootlegging shows little regard for the creator of the music. Basically it's a selfish act. And some may say the if JW doesn't want to release a score, that too is selfish. To that I say, it's his - not yours.

One good thing (for us selfish score desirers) is that digital bootlegging may end up creating a system where digital copies of ANYTHING will simply be free. After a while, there will be so many copies easily accessible, that earning money from distribution or royalties just won't be worth it. Not to mention the cost to produce copies. Why do that when a network like Napster can do it better faster and cheaper, and free. Artists will then need to realize that in the near future, their compensation will only come from the original work itself. Then their prices will go way up.

For now, the system is trying to hang on to an outdated method of dealing with intellectual property rights. :roll: In the future, I do believe that if art is made available - copies of it should be free and accessible to everyone, not just to those who can afford to own it. It will take time to reinvent the system, but I'm sure it will happen.