Poll: Is it morally wrong to download music from dead musicians?

[Granny Smith 07]

If you believe that music is an intellectual property owned solely by the ones who made it up then no it's not immoral. If you believe that contracts dictate ownership then yes it is.

Personally I believe that music is an intellectual property owned by the people who created it and if people want money for something they didn't create then too bad for them, regardless of contracts. I don't see the contract, so I don't care. I'll download it forever.

My opinion on this seems to differ massively from everyone else who's posting so far, which surprised me. But I'll stick by it.

 

[thublihnk]

No just because the musician is dead does not mean his estate is. His estate still profits from the sales (which is most likely his family).

Yeah, and all that hard work he, oh, shit, I mean his estate put into that music still deserves to be rewarded!

They deserve compensation for having talented family members!!! Why should they have to work! They were birthed by artists!

 

[OliverTwist72]

No just because the musician is dead does not mean his estate is. His estate still profits from the sales (which is most likely his family).

Yeah, and all that hard work he, oh, shit, I mean his estate put into that music still deserves to be rewarded!

They deserve compensation for having talented family members!!! Why should they have to work! They were birthed by artists!

So a wife has no right to her husband's pension or 401k when he passes away? She did nothing to earn that money and yet she is entitled to it. You may not like it, but they now own the rights to the music.

 

[Mouse_Crouse]

They deserve compensation for having talented family members!!! Why should they have to work! They were birthed by artists!

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say by this. Should all your rights to your work go away when you die. Why should his family NOT gain from his life's work. When Elvis died should his family now become poor because no one should have to pay for his music? If his earnings went to his family when he was alive... why should that change? I'm not following the logic here.

 

[fenrizz]

No, I don't think it is morally wrong.

But I also think that copyright and the like should have a span of maximum 15 years.

 

[I Hate Consoles and Mondays]

Assuming you have followed the proper rules (50 years, I think), it's fine

 

[targren]

Nope. If they want leave their families a legacy, they should have left them the money they made while they were still alive, just like everyone else.

 

[JoJo]

Nope. If they want leave their families a legacy, they should have left them the money they made while they were still alive, just like everyone else.

You can leave a business to family, same with the profits from a media until it's copyright runs out.

 

[Luthir Fontaine]

Still gettin something you didnt pay for

 

[Ralphfromdk]

That's like saying it's OK to steal a vase a man inherited from his dead father. But the owner is dead! If the musician signed a deal with a record company, the deal stands. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have signed it. I don't get why stealing is wrong unless it's from 'the Man', at which point you become a glorious revolutionary in a world that's not ready for you.

I could live with that *puts on Guy Fawkes mask*

 

[Nooners]

I believe that music becomes public domain 70 years after the recording artist's death. Don't take that as gospel truth, I may be wrong.

EXAMPLE: Mozart's been long dead, and if he had made any recordings during his lifetime, those would be public domain. BUT if an orchestra's recording of his music was released in (let's say the 1950s), then that music is still protected until all members of that orchestra have been dead for 70 years.

Again, I may be wrong, but I think that's how I remembered it.

 

[Bocaj2000]

I've been arguing with my friends recently about morality and illegally downloading music. The usual arguments came up, but one topic none of us could decide upon was music created by deceased musicians.

If everyone who had a hand in producing a song or album is dead, is it morally wrong to download their music? Who even profits from such transactions? If you buy a song on Itunes, do they keep all the profit or is some donated to the family?

Personally I think it's wrong, but I don't really know enough about the subject to tell either way.

Let me put it this way:

If it is public domain, it is perfectly legal.



Seriously, I support the artist. If the artist is making no money off of the transaction, then it is fine. If I were to print a picture that a dead artist painted of the internet, is that piracy? I don't have the brushstrokes to look at, so it's not the real thing. Is it still stealing?

If I have the music of the artist whom has passed, but not the CD case, the artistically done lyric sheet, nor the art on the front nor back, is that piracy? I have the music, but I don't have the physical copy unless i scribble on a blank CD. As a fan of music, I will tell you that it is not the same. [by this logic, iTunes might be pirated music that you payed for ]

 

[Ranorak]

It's still owned by record labels so, it's wrong.

Unless it has become public domain.

 

[linwolf]

That's like saying it's OK to steal a vase a man inherited from his dead father. But the owner is dead! If the musician signed a deal with a record company, the deal stands. If he didn't like it, he shouldn't have signed it. I don't get why stealing is wrong unless it's from 'the Man', at which point you become a glorious revolutionary in a world that's not ready for you.

Books becomes public domine 70 after the autors dead, I don't see why the grandchildren of musician should get a better deal.

 

[Nerfherder17]

Of course it's fine. no one else has the right to the money, not the next of kin, not the record company, no one, cause they didn't write it. they had no input, so why give them credit?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

If you believe that music is an intellectual property owned solely by the ones who made it up then no it's not immoral. If you believe that contracts dictate ownership then yes it is.

Personally I believe that music is an intellectual property owned by the people who created it and if people want money for something they didn't create then too bad for them, regardless of contracts. I don't see the contract, so I don't care. I'll download it forever.

My opinion on this seems to differ massively from everyone else who's posting so far, which surprised me. But I'll stick by it.

Pretty much everyone has just regurgitated the law so far, missing the point of the thread.

 

[targren]

Nope. If they want leave their families a legacy, they should have left them the money they made while they were still alive, just like everyone else.

You can leave a business to family, same with the profits from a media until it's copyright runs out.

I'm aware of this legality, and I consider it symptomatic of the problem. At least when one inherits a business, they need to work for it, and it doesn't go against the very concept of copyright (which is actually SUPPOSED to run out, but likely never will again).

I reject any moral imperative to play by the rules in a rigged game.