I am an 80's kid I love those old 'EP' Type singles that had instrumentals and several remixes. With the death of cassettes and LPs a lot of these moments are lost in time. However I have discovered some blog spots with music. What is the honest opinion of downloading music that CAN NOT be bought in stores? If I could buy it I would. BUT I can't so what is the law on that? Is downloading only illegal for music that has been released and available to be purchased?
For example there is a song by a Group called Groove Garden 'You're not coming home again' IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND but I found it on site. Am I wrong to down load it, when I have searched for years for this?

I guess it depends in which country you live.

Here in the Netherlands, because of a flaw in our laws it is not illegal to download music and video, no matter what source it is , on the other hand uploading is illegal.

and if you have a original it's another way to have a copy for own use.

.
[Edited 1/14/10 9:46am]

I would say in your example, no I don't find that morally wrong. Legally I am no expert.

I believe that officially released anything should be bought and never stolen.

I do however believe outtakes and live concerts that have not been officially released are ok, as long as you buy it when it is released.

But bit torrenting the whole Frank Zappa catalog imo is pissing on the artist. It took years for him to craft those works.... immed gratification for listeners who don't want to pay is not right.

Also I find subscription based Rhapsody to go allows 99% of what you would want to hear and legal at a moments notice.

DecaturStone said:

LPs aren't dead, and never were.

I don't feel guilty if I can't find an old single in a store and need to download it. A single used to be typically manufactured, released, and promoted for (roughly) a three month period. It's sometimes tough to find a single after it's initial shelf life. The only single I ever see of Prince's in the stores like Best Buy is "Te Amo Corazon", and sometimes "S.S.T." at Walmart.

If I own an album on vinyl only, I don't hesitate to download it from some source in order to have a digital copy. I don't want, or need, all my LPs on CD, or need to find LP versions of my CDs. I do try to support any artist I can, that I feel is worthy of my money. I'm also not above downloading a new CD to test it out. If I don't like it, I ain't keeping it. It saves me from buying crap. But if I do like it, I'm out there getting it. (Hell I bought an band's CD after hearing half of a song on MTV, and never downloading the album to check it out, and loved the whole thing.)

Doesn't seem like a big deal to me to dig up old 12" maxi's or anything. I was digging up old contemporary Christian albums recently that are near impossible to find elsewhere. I had a blast listening to them, and was glad to find them.

ernestsewell said:

I dig that and agree. I buy loads of music (albeit older stuff) and I have a Zune pass as well. It is just I want certain song and can't find in the old record stores or to purchase them online what do you do?

From a legal standpoint: It varies geographically, but in most cases downloading is legal while uploading is illegal. In most European countries there's usually a "fair use" clause, which basically means that nobody cares unless you're running something like piratebay.

Morally: Who the fuck cares. I don't feel obliged to support financially every millionaire that keeps griping about not being able to afford a second swimming pool for their third mansion. If you ask me, the current sales figures are just about appropriate for pop music and what type of success anyone entering a business like that should expect. On the other hand, I do tend to support independent artists and those who produce music in the marginal genres. If possible, I tend to order the record directly from their website as well, so they'll get more from it. When attending live gigs, always buy a recording from the band if they are selling them there at lower prices. I don't consider it morally questionable at all if you download albums by artists that are already dead.

I used to download new music all the time but now music is so poor i don't even bother. With the artists i really like i buy the albums as i know even if the material isn't so strong i'll go back to it and they deserve my support.

Most of the music i download today are live recordings. They're far more interesting.

I dont feel guilty for ANYTHING that a company doesnt even provide a service anymore. If it is out of print you are just going to HAVE to go about getting it illegally or used. If a company says it is out of print, that means they don't care what happens to it's sales anymore.

paisleypark4 said:

That's not true, that's conjecture on your part. You know, as do I, that the RIAA, record companies and anyone else in the business is tight-assed about what's put out, and how to make the most amount of money from it as possible. To "not care about what happens to its sales anymore" is an insane thought. Ask a record executive.

A single isn't manufactured over and over like an artist's regular album catalog. It usually is circulated and promoted for about 3-4 months, then it's gone. Back in 1997 when I worked at Record Town at the Mall of America, people were hankering for "Bitch" by Meredith Brooks, and "I'll Be Missing You" from Puff Daddy et al. We eventually ran out of them because the time for that single was over. There were a few strays around the store that we found and sold, but as popular as those songs were, once the next single came out, those weren't manufactured anymore, and if they weren't any left overs on the shelf, we had nothing to offer folks. That's why, if you REALLY want a single because of remixes or whatever, GET IT. It might not always be languishing on the shelf months later.

Albums are out of print for many reasons. Sometimes it was initial lack of sales, and perhaps after a few years, the record company saw no movement of that product at all, and it's safer financially to delete the printing of that, instead of spending money to print an album that no one is buying. Look at The Gold Experience. You can't find that for shit anywhere, and people want it to some extent. Is it enough for WB to put it back in print? Probably not, because despite there being a Prince-fan-based demand for it, it's not big enough of a demand to warrant the $$$ spent on reproducing it. The record company thinks "If the fans don't want to buy this...we aren't making it." I suspect that whatever of Prince's catalog not being in print has a bit to do with sales, but more to do with leftover angst between WB and Prince from him throwing a fit in the 90's.

However, having said that...if it's out of print, then I will find it where I can. I like a physical copy, so eBay is a start for me. Blogs, and the other usual sources are also ideas as a second resort when it comes down to a digital copy.

ernestsewell said:

You sir are wise beyond words

ernestsewell said:

Ok, To some extent I agree that they must care yes, however I think they know full and well once it goes out of print, they do not make a profit off of it from a used store or Ebay unless it is never bought before, because if I was to go find it in a used store that copy is not charged twice and that artist and comany is indeed NOT getting paid for that product, the store itself is. Right? I did not get a clear answer on your statement. It's rare to find a old copy never bought.

paisleypark4 said:

There is another good point. Why didnt the RIAA go after ebay? What would be the difference if I bought the CD second hand from Ebay or downloaded it?

I'll put it this way. I don't pay for anything I don't have to. I'll save my money for rent. And shoes.

Downloading is great for those hard to find or out of print jams that you aren't going to find anywhere unless you are lucky enough to find it in a used record store.

Also, by all means, downloading is great for people that like shit hop. Let them download away. Also, if you have friends or family members that like shit hop, be sure and download and make as many copies as you can for them and all their friends. All this decreases sales and anything that puts less money in the hands of shit hoppers and the labels and radio stations that promote it, I'm all for. If people don't have the good taste to let the shit go out of style, then let's help it go out of style by breaking them. Labels ran real music out of style with computers so it's only fair that computers turn around and break the labels. I'd love to see the record executives so broke that they have to live among the the type of thugs that they've promoted for the last 20 years.

DecaturStone said:

This was covered recently and I forget the exact way it was described, but it was partly the fair usage thing. The other part is that the artist and record company have made their money. It's the same thing w/ people reselling cars. I wish I knew keywords to search by. That thread was pretty good talking about used CDs.

vainandy said:

Off topic - all hip hop is not bad. The radio plays the BOTTOM OF THE TOWEL music for hip hop.
Back to the regular program

Did I say hip hop? No, I said shit hop. Yeah, hip hop from the early 1980s is great. There was still some good in the late 80s also. 90% of it in the entire 1990s and 2000s (that slow to midtempo "talking over a beat" stuff) is shit hop. In other words, if it ain't ass shakable or if it has anything thuggish about it whatsoever, it's shit hop.

vainandy said:

LOL Agreed