Is Sharing 'Free' Music wrong?

[Robert17]

I know this arguments probably come up on here before but is it right or wrong?

[Vincent]

It all depends.  It could be free for certain people/sites to distribute by permissions from the author, or it could just be free completely.

If it's by permission from certain places, then it is wrong.

[MAD]

Hoya!

Well, if it is FREE, like Modules for instance, there is no problem.

If tracks are part of a commercial album, for which the site has no licence, it is ILLEGAL.

Be funky

M A D

[KennyR]

For copyrighted material, it's wrong. Is people walking into your house and removing some of your wage money wrong? That's exactly what music sharing is. Taking something you didn't pay for.

Then again, if it's not copyrighted, then it belongs to everyone, so how can it be wrong?

[FluffyMcDeath]

KennyR wrote:
For copyrighted material, it's wrong. Is people walking into your house and removing some of your wage money wrong? That's exactly what music sharing is. Taking something you didn't pay for.

It's wrong like taking a snapshot of a painting. You didn't pay for the painting so why should you be allowed to look at it whenever you want?

Kenny, copying is not the same as taking. If I take your TV and stereo from your house, you will have no TV or stereo. If I take a copy of your TV and stereo, you still have your TV and stereo. If I take a copy of some of the money from your pay then you still have the money.

For copying to do harm it is necessary to show that the "loss" is real. If a person who cannot afford to buy a song instead copies a song, then there has been no loss from the act, only gain. The "owner" still has the original and would not have realised any profit from that person in any case.

The owners of these intellectual properties often complain that copying is stealing from artists, but there is not a one-to-one corrolation between copying and loss of income and the owners of these properties often aren't the artists any way. Hardly any band makes revenue from recorded music.

If you care about artists, go see their shows, that's what they make their money on.

[FluffyMcDeath]

MAD wrote:

If tracks are part of a commercial album, for which the site has no licence, it is ILLEGAL.

The question wasn't "Is it illegal?", but rather "Is it wrong?"

[that_punk_guy]

Hmmm...

I had a site for free mp3s which never got off the ground. Every artist I contacted was excited by the idea of spreading their work (selected, full hi-quality mp3s) further. Now of course, they were exclusively punk and indie (read: independant) bands, most of whom are very liberal and not so hung up on chasing the big $s anyway...

I've burnt a CDs of free mp3s and songs from label samplers in the past for friends of bands I know there's virtually no way of them hearing otherwise. (Californians exploring the Exeter underground? I think not :-)). I honestly don't see how anyone could find that a problem.

[macto]

If you watch a movie, listen to a piece of music, or read a book you are creating an (albeit imperfect) copy of that work in your mind.  Does that make you the property of the publisher?  I would hope not.

Similarly, copyright and patent law was intended to give a temporary monopoly to creators so that they can recover the cost of developing the work.  It probably was not intended to enforce this notion of intellectual property, which seems to be a twentieth century creation.

So, returning to the original question: is it wrong to copy 'free' music?  I would argue that the copyright holder is surrendering their temporary monopoly by giving it away, which is to say that they are not attempting to recover the costs of developing and recording the music.  All of this talk about licensing is nonsense too: when you buy a book, a recording, or a video, you are not entering into a contract.  A contract is a legal agreement, and there are certain things which it must fulfill.  For example: there must be an exchange (what this site calls "consideration": http://law.freeadvice.com/general_practice/contract_law/binding_contract.htm).  Many license agreements don't guarantee anything beyond an empty box.  So most licenses are probably invalid and the publisher/artist is circumventing the purpose of the monopoly: so what is wrong with copying a free work?  I have a hard time coming up with a reason.

[Vincent]

KennyR wrote:
For copyrighted material, it's wrong. Is people walking into your house and removing some of your wage money wrong? That's exactly what music sharing is. Taking something you didn't pay for.

Then again, if it's not copyrighted, then it belongs to everyone, so how can it be wrong?

Not strictly true, copyrighted means it was made by someone and owned by someone, but that person could copyright something then release it for everyone to get for nothing as long as the material is unaltered.