buy $5 of tracks and steal the rest - why not? (not a rhetorical question)
Hypothetically, if someone were to say that he planned to continue to pay ~$5-6 (or whatever price he was used to) per album by buying enough tracks on emusic to add up to that amount and then completing the album at one of those illegal Russian sites, how would you argue against it?
What if he planned to look up how much we would have to pay for a used CD, including shipping, and used this trick to pay that much? In this scenario, the illegal and arrogant method would be causing royalty payments whereas the cheapest legal method would not. Plus it would be better for the environment.
I have to say I'm tempted to do things this way.
What if he planned to look up how much we would have to pay for a used CD, including shipping, and used this trick to pay that much? In this scenario, the illegal and arrogant method would be causing royalty payments whereas the cheapest legal method would not. Plus it would be better for the environment.
I have to say I'm tempted to do things this way.
Comments
- Why pay for something illegally if you can get it for free?
- If you're interested in still making sure they get some royalties, why not buy a single track from a place like Amazon (which I believe has a higher payout) instead of eMusic?
- A used CD has already made most of its impact on the environment, you're not really helping out by not buying it.
I'm not one to scold. It's actually a somewhat clever take on that Internet story where the guy tries to give money to a band after downloading their album for free. Then again, I am probably the most liberal around here when it comes to copyright law.
Hypothetically I would tell that person to download whatever they wanted via P2P. When he or she found something they really liked, buy something from the band - whether it be the CD, a couple tracks, a t-shirt, etc.
Well my argument would be that the site, as you said, is illegal, and I try not to break the law.
Craig
Fear of God, infections, and the RIAA keeps me off the p2p networks.
Confession, I lived in Moscow for 2 years and certainly helped myself to my fair share of 80 ruble (about $2.5 USD at that time) pirati discs at Garbushka so don't have much of a high moral ground here, but that was 10 yrs ago and I've since thought better of it.
Illegal? Illegal where? Show me a statute or law that says I can't buy from them while residing in the USA, state of Kansas.
Yeah, the RIAA lawyered up on USA websites, but they haven't lawyered up on the international ones.
I say yet again, pfffbt on the lawyers.
You know what, it is actually credit card companies that seem to be policing this kind of activity (in the arena of money laundering, I suppose). They are afraid of getting lawsuited.
Carry on!
While US copyright law too heavily favors corporations, Russian copyright law favors the resellers. Neither favors the artist.
Did I mention, I'm unemployed? Bwahaha. Ethics are always circumstancial.
No>>>>
I thought not.
See, it's illegal in your minds but not due to law, it's due to media befuddlement. These college kids sharing in the dorms, on limewire and what not, now that's illegal - in the USA, bit not Romania. And risky of malware everywhere.
I'm an adult with a credit card, and I know where to use it.
I haven't refilled my account in a while, but I think Mastercard and Discover don't work, and only vertain Visa numbers do.
Regarding the original question, I'd say it's clear that NankerP's right, better to spend no money than support unethical enterprises, which would enhance their ability to steal (I mean that in an ethical, not legal, sense).
I'd say ethics broadly favors following rule-of-law to reduce moral hazard in general - going around the constraints set up by the market participants (the artists, labels, distribution companies, + customers) makes it statistically harder for them to do legitimate business. But individual violations are small wrongs, not large. You could assuage some of that by downloading P2P then directly sending the artist and label money. But overall, I consider that a pursuit of deliberately fuzzy ethics, and wouldn't expect much support from the producers.
Also remember there's no such thing as a "fair price" - if you think an album is worth $5, and you can't acquire it for $5 anywhere ethically, too bad so sad - your value is no better than someone who wants it for $0 and "steals" it.
"- If you're interested in still making sure they get some royalties, why not buy a single track from a place like Amazon (which I believe has a higher payout) instead of eMusic?"
If it's true that Amazon pays higher royalties on a $5 sale album than eMusic does on a similarly priced album, that would be interesting to know. This interview with an indie A&R guy confirms that Amazon's royalty payout doesn't depend on whether they put the album on sale: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2010/10/asthmatic_kitty.php
I'm hoping that the album pricing at eMusic will continue to be fair. I don't mind waiting until an album is no longer a new release, and if a few artists I'm unfamiliar with keep their prices high indefinitely, I just won't get around to checking them out. I guess this whole idea is really just a contingency plan I'd like to have so I can feel more comfortable committing to a subscription at eMusic.
The reason I mentioned Russian sites is that I have some credit at one of them because I had second thoughts about acquiring music that way. I actually have a Rhapsody subscription and software that can re-encode downloaded Rhapsody tracks without the DRM, so I could do things that way, but the Russian site already has my money.
"Also remember there's no such thing as a "fair price" - if you think an album is worth $5, and you can't acquire it for $5 anywhere ethically, too bad so sad - your value is no better than someone who wants it for $0 and "steals" it."
The above is unsupported opinion. US copyright law is too corrupt to provide ethical guidance, and I have no duty to respect free market valuation. Free market valuation is what resulted in me legally acquiring several hundred CDs without causing any royalty payments (used and record club purchases). I know there is theoretically an indirect connection between such purchases and label decisions about investing in future productions, but when I consider that those "investments" take the form of loans that the future artists will need to pay back, and that the loans are steered into overpriced services provided by label subsidiaries, the whole thing stinks.
I acknowledge that it is disrespectful to compare albums to each other and say that one is overpriced, but I don't see how disrespect is unethical, especially if it happens in private.
If I pay $6 for an album, resulting in $2 in royalties, that is better for the creators than not buying the album, regardless of anyone's opinion. Any decision making schema that doesn't take that into account is out of touch with reality.
Thought I'd never go there, but KC has got a Russian community too, and after talking with them, I was curious, looked at the prices, and decided to fill my empty spots.
I tried for years to get some of the tracks I got at ~secret Russian site~
lastfm users have asked me to email (sell?) some of them. That is how jacked up the whole music industry is, if someone in Argentina is asking some gal in Kansas for some song recorded 20 years ago.
Not my fault they can't pay attention to business.
And sadly, none of the Russian sites, either.
How stupid. They have a willing customer, yet nothing.