Music for free...from a dealer?

[esldude]

The combined wealth of members of Metallica is estimated at or just above $500,000,000. They have sold an estimated 110 million albums. So apparently they made $5/album or more (they must have spent money too you know). Except actually they made nothing close to that. Being extremely popular they may have made near a $1/album rather than the more common 50 cents. So how did they get rich, and all while spending lavishly too?

 

The answer according to them is touring. That is where the real money is made. Same is true of most of your wealthy and even more pedestrian musicians.

 

I think everyone can see that streaming revenues are not making anyone wealthy. Yet they pay more of the total take than was the case with LP and CD revenues.

 

So are a few copies of music seriously crimping the style of musicians? Probably not. Musicians make their real dough from concerts, from touring, from playing. Which doesn't seem too bad or unreasonable.

 

If you know a guy has a million bucks does that make it okay to steal a buck when he isn't looking? Of course not.

 

And for people who may be on the verge to making it and aren't quite there, even if recorded music revenues are maybe 10% of income, well that 10% might be awfully important getting over the hump or giving up on a career you love.

 

So for myself I am not sure where I stand on where things should be. It is reasonably clear what is legal. The dealer in the original post of this thread is doing something not legal. I also agree in some ways this IP thing on music is a bit much, a bit one sided. I don't think it would persist in this form if it were fully pursued to all possible legal conclusions at all times. It is the leaky net that keeps it from being more decried by consumers.

 

I am not for stealing whether those stolen from can afford it or not. But as I already mentioned I don't think it is right to have to keep paying for multiple copies of something either.

 

As a counter-point to Metallic, is the Grateful Dead. They are fairly wealthy, and even encourage you to tape their concerts. Yet it is the touring income that made them wealthy. It is also true at times they charged less than they could have for tickets. By some estimates they may have left as much money on the table as they earned.

 

Were the law to change and music become freely available to copy as you please I don't know it would make a huge difference to already popular groups. Maybe not to new groups either. One could even say with Tidal and similar services it almost already is the case. The revenues from streaming just don't add up to much. You don't need to copy it yourself, you are paying a fee for them to handle that for you. Which was why I asked earlier that if the dealer gave away Tidal subscriptions is there not something of an equivalence ethically. As far as the artist is concerned there is little difference vs him giving away a NAS with a bunch of tunes on it. Legally as things stand there is a big difference.

[esldude]

Music is not a promised road to riches and many other actors, painters, etc; have unfortunately learned.

 

Someone told me a couple different times at least, "you shouldn't try to make a living as an artist of any kind unless you simply don't think you can live without doing the art". That from people in a position of various arts to know. I think it was probably good advice.

[tranz]

You seem to have a issue with reading comprehension, don't know what gave you the idea I was a Dr? LOL

But as 17629v2 tried to insinuate at me while he was calling me a whining little girl, Maybe the artists should have chosen a better path to a lucrative living if that was the goal. Music is not a promised road to riches and many other actors, painters, etc; have unfortunately learned.

 

Perhaps when you wrote the following?

 

 

Do you have any idea how much effort is behind earning a medical degree after paying $250K for the "chance" you might graduate.

 

 

So now it is the fault of the musicians?

 

Wow.

 

Well, enjoy that music that just magically appeared from thin air.

[17629v2]

Yes I see the legal difference. So?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Computer Audiophile mobile app

 

So the legal difference is all that matters. The people who own the music willingly entered

into a legal agreement as to how its gets distributed. Just because we don't like the deal doesn't make it OK to steal it. Not only that, the main reason we're hear today dealing with services like Tidal, is because everyone is stealing music to begin with. The industry has to do something to help themselves before they go out.

 

Also, I know you that you understand the legal difference, but there is a real difference as well. Tidal is not the same as handing someone a hard drive full of music. With Tidal, you can only listen to 1 song at a time. You trade ownership of the physical album for selection. The subscription needs to be renewed periodically, so everyone gets paid. Giving a full HD to customers is stealing.

[master]

Should I have added more IFs to my post and highlighted them? I have no idea who this dealer is. The pitchfork is in your mind.

 

Do read the comments. Everybody's decided the guy is a thief and/or a pirate.

 

We get it but it just doesn't apply in this case. First, we're not in a courtroom. Second, we have the right to freely discuss the matter. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't override our right to free speech. Third, we don't know what store is doing this, so we couldn't help or hurt them even if we wanted to.

 

Theft, plain and simple!

 

There is tons (and I mean terrabytes) of royalty free music available online too. I've myself used them a lot in ads, jingles, videos, presentations, etc.

 

And you can buy a lot of stuff that you can do with as you wish... even give it away free or as an added bonus in a sale. Lots of audio and video is available as resale rights, giveway rights, etc.

[esldude]

So the legal difference is all that matters.

Apparently that is not true otherwise no discussion.

The people who own the music willingly entered

into a legal agreement as to how its gets distributed. Just because we don't like the deal doesn't make it OK to steal it.

Not only did I never say it did make it alright, but said the reverse

Not only that, the main reason we're hear today dealing with services like Tidal, is because everyone is stealing music to begin with. The industry has to do something to help themselves before they go out.

 

The industry perhaps. The musicians no. That was part of the point of my last posting. I agree musicians need a way to make a living. The industry I could care less about. They have been greedy enough and always put things to their advantage to the disadvantage of musicians and consumers. At one time they were in some sense needed to distribution and such. Now they are totally about as necessary as tonsils or an appendix. If the industry disappears no worries. I remember reading about Muddy Waters first contract. He was paid 1/2 cent for each 100 45's his music sold. That is far less than streaming pays now by about a factor of 100. And people thought Robert Johnson signed a deal with the devil. Even then Leonard Chess lied about sales and withheld royalties.

 

Also, I know you that you understand the legal difference, but there is a real difference as well. Tidal is not the same as handing someone a hard drive full of music. With Tidal, you can only listen to 1 song at a time.

 

With a HD you also can only listen to one song at a time.

 

You trade ownership of the physical album for selection. The subscription needs to be renewed periodically, so everyone gets paid. Giving a full HD to customers is stealing.

 

Yes legally, currently giving a HD is stealing. As I pointed out, subscription streaming results in very, very little income. So everyone gets paid an amount that becomes trivial. How about this from the manager of Metallica, AC/DC, Smashing Pumkins and Def Leppard. From just last year in fact.

 

"The paying-for-music horse has bolted. Money from touring is the way to make money now. Record sales now are about a tenth of tour income, whereas before, you could make enough money from the music to not need to tour."

 

So things change, WOW big surprise. Not only that, but in this case it probably has changed back closer to what the historical norm was. The ability to record and sell recordings resulted in an anomalous situation for musicians that may not ever repeat itself. Not only that, but IP, copyright and such will change more in the future. Streaming doesn't pay musicians a livable wage, but that doesn't mean the costs of streaming will increase. The streaming like any marketable item is worth what people will pay. It simply means musicians will play gigs more so than sell records for income.

[wgscott]

[mansr]

Just to clarify, do you believe it's okay to rip off all artists or only the rich ones?

Dead ones for sure.

[17629v2]

"Not only did I never say it did make it alright, but said the reverse "

 

Sorry, I meant that as a general comment and didn't mean to apply it to you specifically.

 

"Yes legally, currently giving a HD is stealing. As I pointed out, subscription streaming results in very, very little income. So everyone gets paid an amount that becomes trivial. How about this from the manager of Metallica, AC/DC, Smashing Pumkins and Def Leppard. From just last year in fact.

 

"The paying-for-music horse has bolted. Money from touring is the way to make money now. Record sales now are about a tenth of tour income, whereas before, you could make enough money from the music to not need to tour.""

 

That's certainly the new trend, but I don't see any way around it. I guess settling for a small amount is better than getting nothing at all.

[Hailey]

Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

[wgscott]

Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

 

Why do you assume that is legal?

[wgscott]

Dead ones for sure.

 

The Dead encouraged taping and trading bootlegs. The were, in fact, Grateful.

[Sal1950]

Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

I'm not sure I can see the legality in this any more than buying the CD (new or used) and then passing it on?

[wwaldmanfan]

Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

 

Good thing this is an anonymous forum. Although public libraries have a special dispensation to acquire and loan copyrighted material, you are not permitted by law to make duplicates of said materials. I'm sure many people do it, but that doesn't make it legal.

[esldude]

Given the fact that you can go to your local library, borrow CDs, SACDs, etc., and rip them at home, I'm not sure why anybody buys music one can secure, legally, for free.

 

I say this having spent thousands of dollars buying music. I just cancelled my Tidal subscription, opting instead to rip any of the eleventy zillion CDs available in the region's public library network.

 

Legally? I don't think so.

[Hailey]

Good thing this is an anonymous forum. Although public libraries have a special dispensation to acquire and loan copyrighted material, you are not permitted by law to make duplicates of said materials. I'm sure many people do it, but that doesn't make it legal.

 

Lol. Good thing this is an anonymous forum or what? Evidently, you don't know how easy it is to trace online identities. You could test it out yourself by, say, credibly threatening the life of the President. Just watch how quickly you'll get a knock on the door from the Secret Service. But I digress...

 

Well I haven't done it yet. And I won't if it is illegal. (How do you know, btw? Are you a copyright lawyer?)

 

That said, I am sick and tired of the crap shoot that is the classical music recording market. Of the 100+ downloads I've bought, I can bring myself to listen to only 10 of them...the rest are either blah performances or blah recordings or both. And there's no way to know what you're going to get until you've bought them.

 

Just stupid.

[Hailey]

Good thing this is an anonymous forum. Although public libraries have a special dispensation to acquire and loan copyrighted material, you are not permitted by law to make duplicates of said materials. I'm sure many people do it, but that doesn't make it legal.

 

Are you sure about this?

 

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/is99/RioSpaceShifter.htm

 

Another, more recent decision:

 

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/court-rules-book-scanning-is-fair-use-suggesting-google-books-victory/

 

This appears to be a no man's land legislatively, which means the courts have no choice but to err on the side of "Fair Use."

 

Until and unless the law is changed, it seems as if ripping of library source material for one's own personal use is protected under "Fair Use" conventions.

 

I would love to know if I'm wrong about this. But I've yet to find anything to suggest that I am.

[Hailey]

Back to the original post...my guess is that this dealer has researched the law and has found what he believes is a loophole since he is not charging for the music. But one could argue that he is profiting from this activity.

 

My guess is that it would make for an interesting court case, and one that might clear up some ambiguities in the application of "Fair Use."

 

The question is, might there be a reason labels would be reluctant to press such a case?

 

For example, might legal counsel have advised them that, absent legislative guidance, they're likely to lose?

[Sal1950]

That said, I am sick and tired of the crap shoot that is the classical music recording market. Of the 100+ downloads I've bought, I can bring myself to listen to only 10 of them...the rest are either blah performances or blah recordings or both. And there's no way to know what you're going to get until you've bought them.

Just stupid.

I feel your pain but the classic rock market is as bad or worse.

Once again with the coming of HDA the labels and artists saw a way to dip into the pockets of their fans with thousands of re-issues, many with very dubious SQ. Consumers are paying premium prices for 40+ yo recordings that are being shoved into big bit buckets and sold as something "special". Neil Young makes proclamations of "getting back to the soul", decrying Redbook CD's, digital being inferior to analog, etc; as horrid sounding, all the while selling a X-million 16/44 downloads mixed with a few thousand at better than redbook standards. HDTracks and like are receiving hoards of files of great classic rock albums from the major labels that along with being remasted into HDA have been dynamically crushed from the original 13-14dr to single digits. Most are no more than a digital copy of some master tape of unknown provenance, just recorded at some better then redbook spec. Only a very few have been thru a quality remastering by the likes of Steve Hoffman/Wilson and give the audiophile music lover any value for his $oney.

And then the labels/artists expect the continually ripped off consumer to respect some dubious idea of intellectual property?

[Hailey]

I feel your pain but the classic rock market is as bad or worse.

Once again with the coming of HDA the labels and artists saw a way to dip into the pockets of their fans with thousands of re-issues, many with very dubious SQ. Consumers are paying premium prices for 40+ yo recordings that are being shoved into big bit buckets and sold as something "special". Neil Young makes proclamations of "getting back to the soul", decrying Redbook CD's, digital being inferior to analog, etc; as horrid sounding, all the while selling a X-million 16/44 downloads mixed with a few thousand at better than redbook standards. HDTracks and like are receiving hoards of files of great classic rock albums from the major labels that along with being remasted into HDA have been dynamically crushed from the original 13-14dr to single digits. Most are no more than a digital copy of some master tape of unknown provenance, just recorded at some better then redbook spec. Only a very few have been thru a quality remastering by the likes of Steve Hoffman/Wilson and give the audiophile music lover any value for his $oney.

And then the labels/artists expect the continually ripped off consumer to respect some dubious idea of intellectual property?

 

Exactly. And a dubious idea of intellectual property at that, some aspects of which do not appear to be written into law...

[wgscott]

Lol. Good thing this is an anonymous forum or what? Evidently, you don't know how easy it is to trace online identities. You could test it out yourself by, say, credibly threatening the life of the President. Just watch how quickly you'll get a knock on the door from the Secret Service. But I digress...

 

Well I haven't done it yet. And I won't if it is illegal. (How do you know, btw? Are you a copyright lawyer?)

 

That said, I am sick and tired of the crap shoot that is the classical music recording market. Of the 100+ downloads I've bought, I can bring myself to listen to only 10 of them...the rest are either blah performances or blah recordings or both. And there's no way to know what you're going to get until you've bought them.

 

Just stupid.

 

I took a more pragmatic (but not strictly legal) approach with library stuff. I rip it. If I find I listen more than 2 or 3 times, I buy it if at all possible; otherwise I delete it. Lately however I find the trial memberships with streaming services more expedient.

 

I decided to atone for my sins by donating some classical music CDs that I don't think I will listen to again, but that are regarded as high-quality, to my local public library. Basically, they won't (or cannot) put them into circulation, but would sell them off at some nominal price to raise funds. About 15 years ago, this library, without warning, sent a collection agency after me for alleged failure to return a $4 child's library book. I went into the library and found it (returned) and on their shelves.

[Hailey]

I took a more pragmatic (but not strictly legal) approach with library stuff. I rip it. If I find I listen more than 2 or 3 times, I buy it if at all possible; otherwise I delete it.

 

To my way of thinking, this is Solomonic, fair to all.

 

But, again, insofar as I can determine, it is "strictly legal." What we're talking about here is traversing the DMZ between that which is legal and that which is ethical.

 

Although it appears that most (or all?) of the posters on this thread have jumped to an erroneous conclusion about the law (note, however, my use of the conditional), I can't tell you, as someone who made his living in the arts for a very long time, how gratifying it is to see people so concerned about doing the right thing.

 

I'm 100% with you there.

[PhilR]

Back to the original post...my guess is that this dealer has researched the law and has found what he believes is a loophole since he is not charging for the music. But one could argue that he is profiting from this activity.

 

My guess is that it would make for an interesting court case, and one that might clear up some ambiguities in the application of "Fair Use."

 

The question is, might there be a reason labels would be reluctant to press such a case?

 

For example, might legal counsel have advised them that, absent legislative guidance, they're likely to lose?

 

Doubtful. It's probably just a guy who is trying (illegally) to add value for his customers with a "wink-wink nudge-nudge don't-tell-anyone" collection of bonus tunes to play on the equipment he just sold them. Odds are good that these terabytes of material are NOT public domain royalty free sound effects and random music.

 

I would imagine that *most* of his customers would (and are) quietly enjoy this lifetime collection of multi-tens of thousands of dollars (at retail) music instead of running to the authorities and reporting the dealer for distributing pirated music.

[Hailey]

Doubtful. It's probably just a guy who is trying (illegally) to add value for his customers with a "wink-wink nudge-nudge don't-tell-anyone" collection of bonus tunes to play on the equipment he just sold them. Odds are good that these terabytes of material are NOT public domain royalty free sound effects and random music.

 

I would imagine that *most* of his customers would (and are) quietly enjoy this lifetime collection of multi-tens of thousands of dollars (at retail) music instead of running to the authorities and reporting the dealer for distributing pirated music.

 

Are you basing your conclusions on anything in particular? Can you cite legislation or legal precedent (as I have)?

 

Those terabytes of music MAY not have to be in the public domain for his action to be, technically, strictly legal. If you check out the links I've posted, you'll see why I've reached that conclusion.

 

That said, I would love to know if I am wrong. Instead of "going with our gut," can reach for some facts?

 

FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time dealing with "fair use" issues. It's a complex, murky area but what I've found so far does not surprise me.

[PhilR]

Are you basing your conclusions on anything in particular? Can you cite legislation or legal precedent (as I have)?

 

Those terabytes of music do not have to be in the public domain for his action to be, technically, strictly legal. If you check out the links I've posted, you'll see why I've reached that conclusion.

 

That said, I would love to know if I am wrong. Instead of "going with our gut," can reach for some facts?

 

FWIW, I'm not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time dealing with "fair use" issues. It's a complex, murky area but what I've found so far does not surprise me.

 

Nope, my "gut" conclusion is based 100% on what I think would be common sense in the scenario described by the original poster.

 

I would love to be proved wrong and know there is an awesome audio retailer out there giving away lots of free & legal music to his customers, but my own personal "Random Dude From The Internet" opinion is that ain't the case in this particular situation.

 

The OP or "Customer In Question" could easily answer the legality question by listing out some of the music contained in these terabytes of music..