Thread: The Ethics of MP3's: Buy - Download - Sell?

Does anyone else see a problem with this trend?:

"FOR SALE: This CD album by this artist - used once"

I read that as "I bought the original CD, downloaded it onto my computer and am now selling the album for almost as much as I paid for it."

I think this is ethically wrong and possibly illegal as well. If a dancer buys a CD and doesn't like it, I think it's okay to sell it to someone else. HOWEVER, if a dancer buys a CD, downloads it onto their computer and uses the song (in class or performance or just for listening enjoyment) then it's not okay to no longer own the original.

We feel cheapened when we're asked to perform for free and demand more respect for our art. Don't music artists deserve the same respect?

In this day and age it can be difficult to find quality recordings of REAL music performed with REAL instruments (vs drum machines and keyboards!). REAL musicians can only survive on REAL money. The need the royalties from their work.

I was shocked to hear from Beata (in a personal email) that they have yet to recoup their investment for producing their Oriental Fantasy Volume 12: Talisman. What? That was produced a good 2-3 years ago and is very popular amongst dancers in North America. How can that be? I bet the "download and sell" issue is the cause. Who knows how many dancers across the globe are using that music off of only one purchased album. How shameful!

If we want new compositions and quality recordings to continue to be produced we must support eh artist directly. Treat yourself to an original of all your favourite albums, especially the ones you use in performance, class or practice. Whether you download it legitimately through itunes (etc) or buy a physical CD, it's worth it. It's our duty!

I am very passionate about this. Teachers, please discuss this with your students. Dancers, please rethink the contents (or lack of) your music library. Thank you!

And it's shocking to see how many famous teachers sell copied CDs in their workshops!
Without even a list of track names and artists attached.

Sounds familiar? "Oh, I don't know the name of that song, I have it from a CD I bought at a workshop..."

How are the students supposed to act right if even the big stars set a bad example?

MEISSOUN

I agree with both points above. However, I want to bring up another related issue. I recently
downloaded a bunch of mp3 music from Maqam. Most of the music is available only in mp3 format, not CD. Before you can download your music, you must agree to their terms of use.
Now
part of that agreement is that you can not use the music for public performance.

Now, I'm all for supporting the artists and musicians, but frankly, the majority of dancers
who purchase music purchase it with the intent of using it for performance. Not just for listening to while they drive to work. Very few dancers have the privilege of dancing to live bands anymore.

So we need taped music to perform to but we aren't legally allowed to perform to it. So, if I
can't use, why would I want to buy it?

A conundrum. Read their terms of use here:

MAQAM Arabic Music MP3 Information Center

Once you actually purchase an mp3 their terms of agreement is even more restrictive. If you don't agree to the terms of use, you aren't allowed to download.

Yep. And how many threads are on the swapmeet right now like this? I have to swallow my tongue every time.

Quite frankly, I've been working with computers long enough to know that they DO crash, and unless you're religious about backing up in a couple of places, you will lose files. Files may also become corrupted or just not work in a new system (e.g., switching from Linux to Mac to PC... you can't just copy your old media files over necessarily, and while converters are available for some, you lose quality and it's time-consuming).

CDs aren't perfect, but they're a more stable copy and contain higher-quality files.

For that reason alone, I like to buy cds and keep my cd back-ups even if I do most of my music listening via electronic files. I was also burned the only time I tried to download mp3s for a dance performance (wrong file name, bad download, terrible customer service). Enough to make me a Luddite.

Norma, I didn't know that about Maqam mp3 downloads. (I've never bought through them, and now not likely to... I don't expect to use music willy-nilly, but I'm also not going to spend $$ on something that is very clearly not something I can use if I need/want.)

Plus it just irks me. It's like "hey guys, I just spent money on this and used it and I will keep it, but you can spend money on my version too ok? Some don't even mark it down much.

And I've been (and am just now recovering from being) a poor student, for real. I did not have money for much music. That means that I don't have much music, not that I have a library full of bootlegs.

Giddy-up, high horse...

It is within fair use to buy a CD, listen to it once, think "This is the worst garbage I've ever heard," and resell the CD. Without knowing the details prompting the thread, I do know dancers who have bought pig-in-a-poke CDs or DVDs, and then genuinely never wanted to own that piece of media afterward. Personally keep I everything I buy, because I figure I may revisit it later and change my mind, but for now, wanting to pawn off something you hate or realize you'll never use on someone else for a couple of bucks is not illegal as long as you don't keep a copy. Keeping a copy and redistributing the material, whether you charge for it or not, has always been illegal.

Originally Posted by Hala Jamal

We feel cheapened when we're asked to perform for free and demand more respect for our art. Don't music artists deserve the same respect?

They do, but the people who tend to do this are either lying to themselves about the wonderful free advertising they're giving to the musicians, or they think they are "stickin' it to the man." There is a lot of hatred for the industry itself, and these people feel they're robbing record label executives of bloated revenue they don't deserve, not the musicians who made pennies off the purchase price. Never mind that in the case of dancer-produced media, there aren't layers of fat cats between the CD you own and Beata & Horacio and the guys in Egypt who played the instruments. There are also people who assume everybody who makes a record must be a millionaire who won't notice the loss, which is not only untrue, but it's like the saying about throwing a pebble in the Grand Canyon. It's hard to notice one pebble, but if everybody threw one in...

Originally Posted by meissoun

"Oh, I don't know the name of that song, I have it from a CD I bought at a workshop..."

Then again, I've seen dancers hold up legally purchased CDs with Arabic writing on them and say the same thing, too. Totally different (but more benign) problem than workshop teachers dabbling in music piracy...

Re: Maqam policy
Everybody else probably has the same details in their fine print. Personal enjoyment and performance are different legal uses. Considering the rigor with which copyright is enforced in the ME, I've just assumed that anybody who has a big catalog of ME MP3s is probably doing something illegal, unless they are a huge commercial entity like Amazon or iTunes. If they claim to be reputable and I purchased the MP3 (as opposed to free-rip sites), I figure I can claim good faith if someone tries to prosecute, just like I would for going into a mom-and-pop store and buying a physical CD that hopefully isn't bootlegged.

I personally prefer CD's as well. They often contain information that is useful. And I have had computers crash on me and had to reload my entire library from my CD collection. Whenever I download an mp3 album, if it's something that is only available on mp3 and something I really like, I make a cd copy right away. I'm a music junkie so I have a lot of music just for the sake of having it, LOL!

I know copyright rules vary in different countries, but honestly, how many dancers in the US rigght now today that are working gigs in restaurants, clubs, parties etc. are legally licensed to use their music?

Its seems the industry should make it easier on us. When you buy a CD or an mp3 download you should also have the option to purchase performance rights to it.

Thank you all for posting! I'm glad I'm not the only one who is irked by this.

Now, if I post a link to this thread as a reply to threads selling single use CD's is that a bit much? What if I opened with: "Sorry you didn't like this album. Please consider this: (link goes here)?

I don't want to go around making enemies but I do feel very strongly about this for all the reasons we've discussed.

Let me start by saying - I am very much in support of making sure that everybody involved in the production of the music we love is fairly compensated, and every attempt to prevent those people from getting ripped off is good.

As for your suggestion, if it were me, for single instances I would not post the note. Here is why (a bit of a subjective and irrational argument, I am aware of that) f I were on the receiving side of such a comment, chances are I would flip and interpret it as self-righteousness, which tends to make me react irrationally - and that would be counter-productive. If somebody sells large stacks of CDs, then my judgement would probably be tipped more towards posting "not sure you know, but if you keep the backups, you are in legal trouble. Do you know of emusic, which is economical and you can preview tracks?" (that's a lot less likely to upset even the most cranky people, like me). Makes sense?

I think the best solution is for CD producers to continue to speak up here and share their perspective - especially what their projects mean for the musicians.

Great thread. I keep all my CDs. In all honesty I still have my MED albums. I consider them part of my library, along with my MED magazines and DVDs. I agree, selling CDs after they have been downloaded is equivalent to stealing from the music producers and musicians. How many dancers would agree to have their art stolen and sold?

I definitely agree that musical performers should get proper compensation for their work.

I also dislike it when someone sells CDs of burned, copyrighted music to go along with a class or workshop. Around here, I've even noticed that they will refuse to give you artist name/music title and instruct you to buy their burned CD. They don't want to let out the "secret" of what the music is and have you legitimately pay for it instead of paying them for an illegal copy!

I don't mind when a teacher will burn one song (at no cost) for use in a class choreography, provided that the person brings their own CD, if they want to participate but can't get the song on their own. Maybe that's hypocritical of me, but I feel it is not harmful to anyone or denying an artist of something they would have otherwise received.

On the other hand, I am someone who samples DVDs and CDs, find them not to my liking, and then sends them along to someone else. Usually I sample music via my subscription service, then purchase if I want them permanently. But some things are not available on my service and they SEEM great, so I want to try them. Then I find it's not my thing.

In the case that I were selling music, I'd be really annoyed if someone jumped onto my thread to accuse me of music theft by pointing me toward a thread against said practice. Chastising potential miscreants (who probably wouldn't care) is not worth accusing people who are doing nothing wrong.

I use Emusic for a lot of my music, as well as buying CDs. I tend to be a hoarder of music, though, and keep CDs of things I don't exactly love on the off-chance that I will re-discover and fall in love with CDs.

When I see someone who posts "only listened to once", I tend to treat it like someone who buys an instructional DVD and only watches once; I assume it isn't their cup of tea not that they ripped it onto their computer and are retaining a digital copy and selling the hard copy. Retaining any copy is wrong, of course.

I think it's a fair thing if someone is selling a big stack of played once CDs to suggest that there are places to preview music or maybe use their teacher/Bhuz for suggestions so they don't repeat the same mistake. Keeping it non-assumptive as possible, as well; although it may be unlikely, there is a small chance that someone out there purchased a bunch of CDs and didn't like them.

The same issue applies to people who convert old VHS tapes to DVD (usually to save space on their shelves), and then want to resell the original VHS while keeping the DVD.

I think a lot of people who do this "rip and sell" of music and video have no idea that there's anything unethical about what they're doing. I think it's important to educate, to help people understand. While many might not care, I believe others will change their behavior once it has been explained.

If I'm not mistaken, there are huge numbers of people who look ONLY at Swap Meet forum sections, and never look at the rest of bhuz. So while having this thread here in the Music will reach SOME people, it probably would NOT reach the majority of people who do what the original post describes.

How about posting a diplomatic explanation of this issue in the Swap Meet section? Maybe Rosey would consider making it sticky to keep the issue in front of people and reach new sellers?

Okay, here's a different spin for you. I pretty much have no more space for CDs. All my racks are full and there are stacks of them sitting around. I manage my music electronically.

With CDs that I didn't much care for, but plan to keep in my electronic library, is it okay if I donate them somewhere? For example, a library? I'm not a pro, so I would not be using any of this music for class or paid performance.

Let me know what you think... is this a bad idea?

I agree with Steffib that posting might be seen as inflammatory and not get a good response.
I also agree with what some have posted, that sometimes people are legitimately passing things on.

I think I know what thread you're talking about, and I was tempted to respond too. Here's how I would do it:

"Hi, I noticed your introductory phrase and that it could be interpreted a few ways. The phrase you used made it sound like you copied the cds/dvd to your computer and are keeping the files but passing on the hard copy (which is a violation of copyright). Whether or not that is the case, that's not necessarily something that you want to leave on a publicly searchable record.

I obviously don't know what your case is, but there's a couple of things that you could do:
*) if you are re-selling what you're keeping, brush up on copyright law and rethink your decision.

and/or

*) Remove the text. We don't need to know why you're selling, or any back story at all. You can just list the items for sale.

That way, no matter what your stance on this issue is, nobody can hunt you down for copyright problems. :) "

End quote. Is that too inflammatory? to offer it as a sort of 'web safety' protection thing?

Originally Posted by SpicyThai

In the case that I were selling music, I'd be really annoyed if someone jumped onto my thread to accuse me of music theft by pointing me toward a thread against said practice. Chastising potential miscreants (who probably wouldn't care) is not worth accusing people who are doing nothing wrong.

I apologize if anyone thought I was referring to a particular person. In my mind I was thinking of dancers that are selling stacks of CDs at Haflas, seminars and other events, stating they had downloaded everything and no longer needed the CDs. I consider that a total disregard for the artistic value of the product. Well, I actually consider it theft.

Originally Posted by showtime

I apologize if anyone thought I was referring to a particular person. In my mind I was thinking of dancers that are selling stacks of CDs at Haflas, seminars and other events, stating they had downloaded everything and no longer needed the CDs. I consider that a total disregard for the artistic value of the product. Well, I actually consider it theft.

In that case, you actually have a nice hook to share your concern - "Oh my, you know that you just told me that you are doing something that can get you and the event organizer into serious trouble? Here is why <insert law class> I'd hate for you to unintentionally do something illegal, just because you want to do a service to other dancers and pass on these great CDs."

Originally Posted by showtime

I apologize if anyone thought I was referring to a particular person. In my mind I was thinking of dancers that are selling stacks of CDs at Haflas, seminars and other events, stating they had downloaded everything and no longer needed the CDs. I consider that a total disregard for the artistic value of the product. Well, I actually consider it theft.

Oh, I didn't feel you were singling anyone out at all! :) I've never seen anyone selling bunches of media while stating that they'd already ripped them. I'd be pretty stunned by that.

Originally Posted by SpicyThai

Oh, I didn't feel you were singling anyone out at all! :) I've never seen anyone selling bunches of media while stating that they'd already ripped them. I'd be pretty stunned by that.

Glad I was not thought to be pointing a finger at anyone. I was shocked when the dancers stated they were selling CDs they had downloaded. One time was during a charity hafla, vendor fees were donated to BCR. (The dancer was not vending, just walking around with CDs in a basket and offering to sell to anyone willing to purchase with cash.) Another was at a restaurant, the performer stacked her CDs on a table to sell them. Another was during a workshop - the dancer stacked them on two chairs and placed a scribbled sign on the chair. The paying vendors pointed her out to the sponsor, she was asked to remove the CDs since she was not a paying vendor. She proudly announced she was only selling all her downloaded CDs. To say we were speechless would be an understatement.

Originally Posted by showtime

The dancer was not vending, just walking around with CDs in a basket and offering to sell to anyone willing to purchase with cash.

This made me really sad to read! Not only was she selling stolen goods, but she was thwarting the venue (in this case, the charity) by not paying vendor fees.

And the other examples are terrible, as well.

Originally Posted by showtime

Another was during a workshop - the dancer stacked them on two chairs and placed a scribbled sign on the chair. The paying vendors pointed her out to the sponsor, she was asked to remove the CDs since she was not a paying vendor.

Whenever I go to a workshop at which I am not vending, 80% of the time someone will say, "No one here is selling veils" or "veils like yours -- you should have brought a bunch along to sell." To which I always reply that I didn't buy a vending table, and I often hear, "Well, I'm sure nobody would mind." Nobody would mind? Heck, I WOULD MIND! I've seen it done... people just going out to their cars and bringing in "a little something" to sell at a workshop. It sucks. Many vendors have only one good outlet to sell their wares, workshops, and you want to waltz in without paying a vendor fee and unload your crafty goodness? Everybody should mind, and be outraged!

As far as policing the threads, that is the administrator's job to deal with TOS violations and illegal activity. Not that I want to pile more work on poor Rosey, but if push comes to shove, she's the one who'll go down with the site. Did people sleep through last week's SOPA/PIPA blackout? This isn't over, and the Internet didn't win the war. If those kind of anti-piracy laws get passed, all you'll need is one ACCUSATION to shut down an entire site. All you'll need is one person, say someone hypothetically named "Kyles Mopeland," who says there's a suspicion of copyright infringement of his intellectual property going on here, and no more Bhuz. Not a warning to kindly desist. Not just closed Swap Meet boards. No. More. Bhuz. You can't stop someone from doing an illegal activity across the Internet or in person in another city, but there's no need to feel guilty about not letting them do illegal things out in the open here. I say flag the post. Maybe Rosey can come up with some boilerplate to tell people no more blatant copyright abuse will be tolerated.

Originally Posted by SpicyThai

I don't mind when a teacher will burn one song (at no cost) for use in a class choreography, provided that the person brings their own CD, if they want to participate but can't get the song on their own.

The teacher should not be using music in class that students cannot conveniently buy, preferably as either a physical CD (phone or mail order for the students who don't have computers) OR a digital download. How many teachers need music so special and rare that they couldn't substitute another song that's easier for students to get?

Maybe that's hypocritical of me, but I feel it is not harmful to anyone or denying an artist of something they would have otherwise received.

The problem is that this reasoning applies to the student who wasn't going to buy the music for class because she spent the money at Starbucks instead. You weren't denying the musician the sale because the student's priorities were warped. She chose "cup of coffee and illegal download" instead of "Maxwell House and legal music purchase."

Originally Posted by tigerb

With CDs that I didn't much care for, but plan to keep in my electronic library, is it okay if I donate them somewhere? For example, a library?

Is it okay if you shoplift canned goods but you donate them to a food pantry? Sorry, but no. Copyright doesn't care about the nobility of the motive. If you own a physical piece of media, you can keep it in one or more formats, or you can destroy the physical copy and keep the electronic copy, or you can destroy the electronic copy and transfer the physical copy to another person. You can have all of the copies or one copy all to yourself or none. If you have one copy and provide another copy to an independent party, that's considered illegal. Originally the recording industry wanted to make people pay to have both a physical copy and electronic rip of it for their own private use--irrational, stingy behavior brought to you by the same people who tried to lobby that a ringtone should require a public performance license because bystanders could hear your phone ring.

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

If you have one copy and provide another copy to an independent party, that's considered illegal.

There is even more to it then that. There is a different cost with the license to own music in a library. They couldn't keep it without purchasing the license so all they could do is sell it to try and raise a little money which brings it back to the original point.

If you sell the hard copy you must delete the electronic copy, it's not yours anymore.

Originally Posted by Hala Jamal

Now, if I post a link to this thread as a reply to threads selling single use CD's is that a bit much? What if I opened with: "Sorry you didn't like this album. Please consider this: (link goes here)?

I don't want to go around making enemies but I do feel very strongly about this for all the reasons we've discussed.

I think it beyond outrageous to assume 1) that everyone selling used CDs is keeping a copy to continue using and 2) that it is your job to go around and post in everyone's threads a snipey little comment that makes it clear that you have judged them guilty of such.

I have sold a number of CDs here on bhuz and guess what? I didn't keep any copies of them.

Originally Posted by showtime

I agree, selling CDs after they have been downloaded is equivalent to stealing from the music producers and musicians.

Do you mean downloaded or ripped?

If I buy a CD, and then later (for whatever reason), purchase and download the same album from iTunes or eMusic, then I have every right to sell the CD.

I have done that a few times. Lost a CD, repurchased album as mp3's, find the CD, sell the CD.

Or

Buy CD of long OOP album that has been transferred from vinyl to tape to digital, find remastered version on eMusic, purchase/download better quality version, sell CD.

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

Is it okay if you shoplift canned goods but you donate them to a food pantry? Sorry, but no. Copyright doesn't care about the nobility of the motive. If you own a physical piece of media, you can keep it in one or more formats, or you can destroy the physical copy and keep the electronic copy, or you can destroy the electronic copy and transfer the physical copy to another person.

Very well. Away with them. Though I think your simile is a bit off, you should be asking me whether it's okay to buy a box of chocolates, open it, eat one, decide you don't like them, then give them away...

@ ssipes: I agree that it is okay (ethically + legally) to sell a CD if you have a purchased virtual copy (mp3 from source such as itunes). Someone else in this thread worded it better than I just did.

After reading more posts, I do agree that posting on threads of people selling single use Cd's could be inflammatory and could only be reported and left up to Rosey. I chose my words carefully when I suggested "Please consider this. . ." but as we've seen many times, people can be pretty hot-tempered and easily offended.

Also, ssipes, I tried very hard not to come across as "snipey" and "beyond outrageous" which is why I chose my suggested words carefully ("Please consider this"). It seems I wasn't careful enough because I read your reply as defensive and angered ("assuming . . . job . . . judge . . . guilty) and that wasn't my intent. My intent is education and awareness (through discussion). I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt. I hope this is clear now.

So, ladies, what are some non-offensive ways to educate? How can we make people aware of the legal details without coming across as being accusatory? I know I am speaking to the converted. Are there positive methods of addressing this topic in the swap meet?

Cheers to all!

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

Did people sleep through last week's SOPA/PIPA blackout? This isn't over, and the Internet didn't win the war. If those kind of anti-piracy laws get passed, all you'll need is one ACCUSATION to shut down an entire site.

ACTA was signed by Obama and a some other world leaders (I don't have the full list and it is growing). This is why some YouTube videos are not available in all countries.

Currently there is a 3 strike law with this. Rosey would have 5 days from the notice to remove the violation or be shut down. Three separate violations and the person posting them is no longer allowed on the internet and can go to jail.

I am not clear on if three strike and the website is shut down at this point too or not. The law also hold the IP providers responsible and is setup to force the IP providers to police what comes in and out of computers using their IPs. Watch this video to understand it better.

I must say I enjoy the interaction on Bhuz. I am so appreciative of the education I glean from Bhuz-zers. I wish there was a way I could add PhD via Bhuz to my resume, or some type reference to the educational process available here. Whether or not I agree with the info I learn and grow via the process. Thank you Rosey and everyone that posts for sharing your time, knowledge and observations. Yay Bhuz!!