Music downloads, how legal is legal enough?

J_J_6

cowbutt wrote:

In other words, even if allofmp3.com is making infringing copies and the UK customer knew this might be the case, importing the same for private and domestic use would not seem to be itself infringing.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I wonder whether downloading an infringing copy from abroad would constitute importing? I suspect it might instead be considered to be making a copy and could potentially contravene section 17... I reckon it probably depends on how the russian licences are viewed here. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

Astaroth

I think that the major irony of this whole deal about file sharing and then the likes of allofmp3 is the bands that have come out to protest their music (and income) is being stolen. When Metallica first started they actively encouraged people to bootleg their concerts/ radio shows etc and give copies to friends. This is how they got to where they are now and yet now they take these same people to court for doing what they had been telling them to do.

It will be interesting to see what the ultimate result is for the music industry. Personally I like owning CDs/ vinyl and I will never stop buying them but never buy singles... the only things I have ever downloaded are either individual songs from albums that I would never buy or single songs from bands I dont know but then if I like the song then I will go out and purchase the album.

I know the scandle surrounding the above website but I know very little about the company itself - I was originally surprised that it is actually a russian company and not an American (or such) that is just using the relaxed laws of russia to host their company.

iwanttosave_2

I personally have been know to use these sites, and IMO it can help the industry as well. Nowerdays artists bring out 2 singles and then an album, now I am not about to go out a spend £10 on an album off the strength of two songs. I might download one or two more songs from them and if I like it I then go out and buy the album, whereas before I wouldnt have. Not only this but for artists I may have never looked twice at, I may type in title and it brings up a few artists, I download one and think its good, then I will go out and buy an album of that artist.

scheming_gypsy

i'm proud to say i download all my music illegally for free.. Just call me a money saving expert, pat me on my back and buy me a pint when you see me.

cowbutt

J_J wrote:

I'm not a lawyer either, but I wonder whether downloading an infringing copy from abroad would constitute importing? I suspect it might instead be considered to be making a copy and could potentially contravene section 17... I reckon it probably depends on how the russian licences are viewed here. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

Yup, that's a valid point, J J. My instinct tells me that non-physical goods should be regarded the same way as physical goods, but then you start getting into the mess of whether tax and duty should be payable. The bottom line is that the laws haven't really been written in ways to make them easily applicable to modern-day reality.

The general guideline for creation of new laws is that they should embody the moral code of the majority of society. By that standard, sites like aomp3 should probably be legal for UK citizens to use. Laws that are disregarded by the majority of society only serve to bring the entire body of law into disrepute.

Astaroth

Even if you were a lawyer there would only be an informed opinion and certainly no matter of fact.

The previous quote of the law stated that you cannot import copyrighted material without dues being paid etc. However with this there is the question of if the material is copyrighted as where you are purchasing it from it is not copyrighted but if the same setup had been done in the UK it would have.

NBegs

Hi all,

I've lurked on this website for a while now but this topic has finally forced me to register and post a message. I've used the aforementioned website for about a year now and while I accept that it is 'grey' morally I use the website for the simple reason that it provides me with uncrippled music in the format of my choice (ogg) which (to my knowledge) no other website does.

I also accept that the music is cheaper to buy but that is only part of the advantage for me - if anything it means that I download more 'experimental' music that i would never have bought from a store as a cd and find artists that I would never have listened to before - is this not a good thing for the artists themselves ? I would happily pay more to a website that did compensate the artists fairly if I could get music in the format that I want...

I certainly won't use an itunes style of store that provides poor quality, DRM encumbered music at a ridiculous price - I'd far rather just buy the physical CD from cdwow or suchlike (cheaper than from itunes !) and rip it myself which I still do as well.

I wonder how long it will take people to realise that they're being ripped off buying worse quality downloaded music for a higher price from the big websites in the uk (as well as having to buy and maintain a PC and broadband connection to do so). As soon as people encounter a failed hard drive, spyware infected PC etc and suddenly lose all their downloaded music tracks with no way of recovering them (unless they have a backup strategy in place - what's that ?) they will appreciate buying a physical cd to hold in their hand...

I also like the charging scheme for allofmp3 and in my opinion this is the way to go - charge for the size of file downloaded - if I want high quality lossless music i pay more than somebody who is only interested in low quality mp3's for going out running or whatever.

So come on music companies - follow the lead of a startup company and have the guts to sell music free of DRM and allow customers to choose what format they want the music in - you will make more money out of that in the long run and will mean a lot more happy customers.

I know I may be in the techie minority of music formats and sorry if this has turned into a rant ;-)

albus_2

It really is very simple, the download companies charge too much.

I'm intrigued to know how record companies can justify attempting to charge a similar price for downloading a file as for a disc, when the disc has to be manufactured, packaged, distributed and marked up for the retailer.

Illegal downloading would never have gotten such a strong foothold if the record companies hadn't put their heads in the sand and hoped that digital format music would go away. By the time they acknowledged it, the damage was done.

The figures that record companies quote about how much has been lost by illegal downloading is total eyewash, a lot of music is downloaded simply because it is available.

There is no doubt that if the music companies weren't so greedy, more 'legal' music would be purchased.

As the saying goes, you reap what you sow.

trigger_mike

dell wrote:

Is this poll going to be mentioned in the Money Tip E-mail? (as is the norm) - I hope not.

Too late!.....

Aliktren

I'm a D

AllofMP3 is an interesting site, and I'd be willing to pay several times the current price if I knew the profits were going to the artist (a bit like fair trade). What I am not prepared to do is have my music DRM'ed. I appreciate it's still notionally against current law to rip a CD or an LP, but hands up everyone over 30 on these boards who didnt used to tape the top 40 on a Sunday night, that excercise did not turn me into some sort of uber-criminal, it gave me a lifelong love of music and I now buy a lot of CDs, mixed in with some allofMP3 downloads, and some pay for downloads.

Not giving the consumer what they want doesnt work long term, DRM is not the answer, and DRM is not the solution to the record companies losing money (allegedly), improving the portfolio of artists is the answer to that.