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

[Dumbfish1]

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.

 

[LordFisheh]

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.

 

[DanDanikov]

Well, just because they're dead, doesn't mean that the money is sucked up by evil profiteering corporations. There may still be a family left behind for which the artist's proceeds are the closest thing to a pension/inheritance that they're ever going to get.

On the other hand, sometimes the rights are sold on (i.e. collect one big lump sum on an aging brand rather than letting things trickle in for years) so, if you only care about the original creator(s), in that case you're not contributing directly to them, but it's still shaky moral ground as it's conceivably indirectly connected. On top of that, without a fair bit of research on every purchase you make, there's no way to tell.

Rule of thumb is- getting something that normally costs money for free by copying or otherwise bypassing systems designed to prevent it is a big hint you're doing something illegal and potentially amoral. I don't think it's always that clear cut, but there are many other threads dedicated to that discussion.

 

[Trolldor]

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.

No it's not.

It's like saying it's okay to steal an infinitely replicable digital piece of data because those that produced it no longer benefit from sales.
It's not a limited resource.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

I don't want to get into it as I'm pretty tired atm, but the guys dead, so why the hell not and what does that actually change?

Illegal downloading of music kinda sucks overall though, but if its creator is dead it doesn't make it any worse.

 

[Dumbfish1]

I don't want to get into it as I'm pretty tired atm, but the guys dead, so why the hell not and what does that actually change?

Illegal downloading of music kinda sucks overall though, but if its creator is dead it doesn't make it any worse.

But does it make it any better though?

 

[rabidmidget]

I don't no whether it's right or wrong, but it didn't stop me from buying $40 worth of music today, of which all of the artists are long dead.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

I don't want to get into it as I'm pretty tired atm, but the guys dead, so why the hell not and what does that actually change?

Illegal downloading of music kinda sucks overall though, but if its creator is dead it doesn't make it any worse.

But does it make it any better though?

Thats a bit of an odd question.

Like I said, the guy's dead. Nothing really changes, the music has already been made.

 

[Matthewmagic]

Basic economics. When a product is made obsolete, it must either change with the times or die. The methods by which we distributed music in the past was made obsolete by file sharing. The distribution method has to find a way to both make people want to pay for music, and provide it to them more conveniently then downloading it. If I knew how this could be done I would be a millionaire.

Frankly I'm kind of happy this is happening to the entertainment industry. For a long, long time they have had the consumer bent over a chair with ridiculous mark ups on music and television. If people were happy with that system they would not have sought an alternative method.

EDIT: I would like to point out that despite the option to download all of my television I now stream all of it through netflix and my xbox 360 for 7.00 a month. They are adapting and prices are becoming more reasonable.

 

[thylasos]

I don't want to get into it as I'm pretty tired atm, but the guys dead, so why the hell not and what does that actually change?

Illegal downloading of music kinda sucks overall though, but if its creator is dead it doesn't make it any worse.

But does it make it any better though?

No, often the family/the musicians estate will still get royalties.

 

[smithy_2045]

It's no less wrong.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Is it morally wrong to cover "Happy Birthday"?

Patty Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hill] and Mildred J. Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_J._Hill] are dead musicians as well, you know.

 

[MindBullets]

No more or less wrong than with music from live musicians.

 

[Dumbfish1]

Is it morally wrong to cover "Happy Birthday"?

Patty Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hill] and Mildred J. Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_J._Hill] are dead musicians as well, you know.

But Happy Birthday is public domain, isn't it?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Is it morally wrong to cover "Happy Birthday"?

Patty Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patty_Hill] and Mildred J. Hill [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mildred_J._Hill] are dead musicians as well, you know.

But Happy Birthday is public domain, isn't it?

It's up for debate...

The Summy Company registered for copyright in 1935, crediting authors Preston Ware Orem and Mrs. R.R. Forman. In 1990, Warner Chappell purchased the company owning the copyright for $15 million, with the value of "Happy Birthday" estimated at $5 million.[5] Based on the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that the United States copyright will not expire until 2030, and that unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless royalties are paid to it. In one specific instance on February 2010, these royalties were said to amount to $700.[6] In the European Union, the copyright of the song will expire on December 31, 2016.[7] The actual American copyright status of "Happy Birthday to You" began to draw more attention with the passage of the Copyright Term Extension Act in 1998. When the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Act in Eldred v. Ashcroft in 2003, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer specifically mentioned "Happy Birthday to You" in his dissenting opinion.[8] An American law professor who heavily researched the song has expressed strong doubts that it is still under copyright.[2]

If you sing Happy Birthday to someone in Europe, "officially" you are engaged in a criminal activity until 2017. In America, 2031. And under American copyright law, unless they chase you - their copyright falls.

Although under legal definition, you're allowed to use up to a minute as a sampler.

Where it lasts for under a minute.

So...yeah...it's nowhere near as easy to follow the exact law.

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

My opinion is that it's perfectly justifiable. That's not an admission of anything, and frankly I'm uncomfortable casting myself in the role of the moral-arbiter of society.

But, morality is loose-weave at the best of times, in regards to copyright infringement, all absolute claims seem ridiculous.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

You shouldn't download any music.

As to the morality of downloading from dead artists, it shouldn't make that much of a difference. Of course, mostly what it means is that instead of stealing money directly from the musician themself you'll be stealing it from their grieving family you absolute bastard!

I kid, mostly. I don't think you should ever download any music illegally ever, but generally I think that it depends more on the musician than the music itself. If they're the sort of anti-establishment, break the rules grunge/punk rocker then whatever, let's see how long they can survive when no one actually legally purchases anything they put out so their record label drops them for not turning a profit.

 

[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).