Is my 'file sharing' ethical?
 

I've been buying music for over 30 years. Yes, I know I am old compared to most members here. I still value your opinions. Back in my college days I bought a lot of phonograph albums. When CDs arrived I grudgingly bought some music I already had because the quality was much better to me. (Let's not get started on the whole LP vs. CD argument here, that's not what this is about.) In purchasing those CDs I was paying the artist and RIAA double royalties on the music. I didn't buy a whole lot of them because it pissed me off that I had to pay twice. With the advent of Napster, et. al. I can now download almost everything I have on LP and listen to it in digital quality.
Is this wrong? I've already paid for the music. I just want to upgrade it to digital. If I purchase a computer software program and a newer, better version comes out most manufacturers offer and upgrade price. Since the recording industry has never seen fit to offer upgrade pricing and wants to gouge me full price for a different type of media I don't feel particularly guilty about getting a digital version free.

If you have purchased the LP of the album, than no, you should not feel guilty at ALL. This should not be even a question. If you already own the media in one format, get it in any format you chose. You have already purchased this media, it should matter not what format it may come. The bigger/better question is, should you feel guilty about downloading an album that you do not own, nor do not plan on purchasing. But you dont seem to fall into this category, so download what you wish and enjoy the better quality!

That's a good question.I used to tape off of records that I bought to listen in my car and I didn't think anything was wrong with that since I had already bought the record .

There is an interesting phenomenom happening in the music industry right now that not many people have touched on.We have recording artists who are not getting royalties because of file sharing(this may change with iTunes) yet at the same time,these very artists are getting tons of exposure they probably wouldn't have received if not for the internet.

I have changed my opinion to the point where as long as people don't profit from someone elses free music,then I don't see file sharing as such a bad thing.Times are a changin' and change is good.It doesn't mean that musicians should provide great music then not have money to feed their families,but by the same token,anytime someone is getting exposure,there are so many other avenues to make money because of that very exposure..

I don't think you have anything at all to feel guilty about. The music industry is in a very sorry state, artists need to wake up to themselves. The RIAA is the most hideous organization I can think of, and I only wish that p2p systems WOULD kill it. I listen to very little mainstream music, but when I do, I download it, and I'm guiltless 1.because I'd never buy it, and 2. Because I'm doing my part to rip off the RIAA. I'm ALL FOR artists getting paid for their work, being a musician myself - but it should go to them, not the RIAA. Sorry for rant, flame away :P

The RIAA was a necessary evil. Someone needed to produce the music for musicians. The way I see it the RIAA is full of itself. It still thinks it is the only way for a musician to become popular. With the Internet and file sharing RIAA is in big trouble. All these years it has been around it could have been working on customer loyalty, offering discounts and other incentives. Instead it chose to gouge the music consumer and pay very little to the artist. Case in point, the start of this post. If the RIAA had it's way you would fork over cash for each type of media they decide to release an artist on. I bet they were drooling when they realized CDs would be replaced much faster than LPs. I am sure someone at the top saw the technology trends back in the mid 80's and saw big old $$ floating everywhere. Fortunately for the consumer the advent of P2P is going to cut them off at the knees. When they are dead and gone the top cats are still going to be scratching their heads wondering what went wrong.

BTW, if you voted YES I should feel guilty, I'd like to hear why.

I say don't feel guilty if you're buying the music. I've been through the same thing, though I was kinda young when albums were popular. But I have bought CD's for many releases that I already had on cassette tape, for the same reasons as you.

Doc_34465 and I had a recent "discussion" about this here:
http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....threadid=10200

But I could go on forever on this subject, and I have in the past, but I won;t now.

I'll just say this; If you feel that it's wrong, don't do it. I mean, honestly. I know several people that agree that it is stealing, but still do it because they are too cheap to pay for the music they want.

I'll just leave it at that.

I'll keep this short and sweet. No. As a musician, I think whatever you can do to undermine the RIAA the better. The sooner they fall apart and artists stop being lured into their traps the better. Just go to concerts for your favorite artists when you get a chance and buy some merchandise there - t-shirts, whatever - that's where artists make the most profit.

Just a bit of advice: You should keep the threads name, the same as the poll's question:
Is file sharing ethical -> Should I feel guilty
as I actually voted immediately, without reading the question properly! Duh!

Anyway, I would say that there is no way to ethically justify stealing music, but since when has ethics had anything to do with the music industry?

Reverse the question...If they had an opportunity to make money at your expense, do you really think that they would pause for a second to consider whether or not it was "ethical" or not?

I've been d/l songs for a couple of years now and really have no guilt at all about it. My stance -- take it while you can because before you know it, it will not be free.

Gibber, you said 'That's a good question.I used to tape off of records that I bought to listen in my car and I didn't think anything was wrong with that since I had already bought the record .'

Technically it is considered time-shifting and that is a right afforded us under the Fair Use rights granted in 1984, I believe. Well, for Americans it is. I am sure us Canucks have something like it as well.

As for the rest of the argument, man.. where to start.

I am a musician and at one time was making a living from it. I am not any longer, but that's just because I wanted a change. Looking at it strictly from the royalties pov, then no it is not ethically right. However, many contract musicians will be more than willing to tell you how the record companies rip their asses off and if you want to steal from them then great; just go see one of their concerts.

As a consumer who has spent more than enough cash on CD's, I seriously dislike being branded a criminal by the very people stealing money from the artist. A quick look at the numbers shows the RIAA is blowing smoke.