PDA

View Full Version : Pirating Songs wrong w/ iTunes Match Service?




Todisco
May 8, 2012, 09:38 AM
What are everyone's thoughts on downloading songs through a torrent site if I pay for iTunes Match service - since the artist gets paid every time I play the song. Morally Wrong or not Morally Wrong ; Illegal or not Illegal???

Just seeing if I need to discuss my downloading habits next time I go to confession at church...:eek:



pdjudd
May 8, 2012, 11:45 AM
What are everyone's thoughts on downloading songs through a torrent site if I pay for iTunes Match service - since the artist gets paid every time I play the song. Morally Wrong or not Morally Wrong ; Illegal or not Illegal???

Just seeing if I need to discuss my downloading habits next time I go to confession at church...:eek:

Since you never obtained them legitimately in the first place, simply subscribing to iTunes match doesn't make the tracks any more legal than laundering stolen money and replacing it with non stolen money. There is nothing in Apple's terms that makes piracy legal in any way shape or form - it is purely for upgrading and re-downloading music that you legally own but purchased elsewhere.

GSPice
May 8, 2012, 12:04 PM
What are everyone's thoughts on downloading songs through a torrent site if I pay for iTunes Match service - since the artist gets paid every time I play the song. Morally Wrong or not Morally Wrong ; Illegal or not Illegal???

Just seeing if I need to discuss my downloading habits next time I go to confession at church...:eek:

If you're ok with someone stealing your car then legally registering it in their name without getting caught, then by all means, torrent away.

----------

Course, if you're asking this question in the first place, you probably couldn't appreciate the car ownership analogy - by assuming you own a car I assumed too much.

gwelmarten
May 8, 2012, 12:12 PM
Wrong for iTunes match to work with these songs. Don't download them to start with!

rbrian
May 8, 2012, 10:49 PM
Illegal and morally wrong. The annual fee is likely far less than the cost of buying the music, and it goes to apple to run their servers, not the artist.

barredfreak
May 9, 2012, 02:16 AM
As wrong as it can be.

NutsNGum
May 9, 2012, 05:07 AM
Just seeing if I need to discuss my downloading habits next time I go to confession at church...:eek:

Seriously? I think if there is a God, it has bigger fish to fry.

tkermit
May 9, 2012, 06:54 AM
Sometimes it helps to read the terms and conditions (http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html):

You hereby agree to use iTunes Match only for lawfully acquired content. Any use for illegitimate content infringes the rights of others and may subject you to civil and criminal penalties, including possible monetary damages, for copyright infringement.

sim667
May 9, 2012, 07:17 AM
If you're ok with someone stealing your car then legally registering it in their name without getting caught, then by all means, torrent away.

----------

Course, if you're asking this question in the first place, you probably couldn't appreciate the car ownership analogy - by assuming you own a car I assumed too much.

well hang on there, its a bit more like you building your own car, which you then give to someone else and they hire to other people. They make a profit of your hardwork, whilst you make a pittance. Then someone makes a carbon copy of the car for their own enjoyment whilst you carry on whoring yourself out to a third party to make them profit whilst you recieve f all.

It goes without saying I dont have an issue with true music fans swapping music.... What I disagree with is people downloading tripe just so they can compare itunes library size, which is a bit like comparing willies in the street, and unfortunately stuff like that is perpetuated by threads like 'how big is your itunes library' which can be found on forums such as this.

----------

Also itunes match swaps all your explicit lyric stuff for clean stuff,...... so its actually a bit rubbish.

Zumocast allows you to download your music to your iphone etc for free.

pdjudd
May 9, 2012, 07:29 AM
well hang on there, its a bit more like you building your own car, which you then give to someone else and they hire to other people. They make a profit of your hardwork, whilst you make a pittance. Then someone makes a carbon copy of the car for their own enjoyment whilst you carry on whoring yourself out to a third party to make them profit whilst you recieve f all.\

No that is not an apt analogy at all. The business mechanics of the recording industry have nothing to do with piracy - unless you are trying to justify the latter. Lets put it this way, if you are stealing music the artist who was screwed earlier is just more screwed now since he won’t make any more money.

vahnx
May 9, 2012, 10:52 AM
It's an "unintended consequence" to launder your music. Apple doesn't really care about this unintended consequence so +1 :apple:

pdjudd
May 9, 2012, 11:47 AM
It's an "unintended consequence" to launder your music. Apple doesn't really care about this unintended consequence so +1 :apple:
Yes they do - their terms indicate that they do care. Trouble is, there isn't any way for them to know what is legit and what is stolen if the two are identical. Besides, they aren't interested in prosecuting people - they leave that to the actual owners.

mlmwalt
May 9, 2012, 01:42 PM
I say... Spend a buck & get an iPod with enough storage that you won't need iTunes Match Service.... Go to confession... Say a few Hail Mary's and a few more Novina's.... Problem solved....

chris200x9
May 9, 2012, 02:26 PM
It's still *wrong*

(is piracy wrong in the first place?)

lilcosco08
May 9, 2012, 04:40 PM
If you're ok with someone stealing your car, leaving an identical copy of it, then legally registering it in their name without getting caught, then by all means, torrent away.

----------

Course, if you're asking this question in the first place, you probably couldn't appreciate the car ownership analogy - by assuming you own a car I assumed too much.

Fixed

I don't fully support piracy, I just hate that analogy

GSPice
May 10, 2012, 10:56 AM
Fixed

I don't fully support piracy, I just hate that analogy

Wow. What's the point of an analogy if it's gonna turn into a precise legal definition of the original statement?

Goodness.

http://candobetter.net/files/high-horse.jpg

sim667
May 17, 2012, 07:07 AM
No that is not an apt analogy at all. The business mechanics of the recording industry have nothing to do with piracy - unless you are trying to justify the latter. Lets put it this way, if you are stealing music the artist who was screwed earlier is just more screwed now since he won’t make any more money.

If I was a musician I'd rather get screwed by joe bloggs off the street then by a multi billion dollar corporation.

----------

Of course you could try listening to some other more inventive stuff which is on available netlabels for free rather than listening and buying what the tv and the papers tell you to listen to. :D

iEvolution
May 17, 2012, 08:18 AM
Itunes match sucks, it makes a mess of your library and gets songs wrong, specifically clean versions get downloaded instead of explicit. Apple really dropped the ball with what could have been a great service.

pdjudd
May 17, 2012, 09:19 AM
If I was a musician I'd rather get screwed by joe bloggs off the street then by a multi billion dollar corporation.

Good! When you are a musician that can publish their music, you can make that choice then. But you cannot make that choice for other musicians, many of which are not being screwed and run their businesses quite well.

sim667
May 29, 2012, 10:17 AM
Good! When you are a musician that can publish their music, you can make that choice then. But you cannot make that choice for other musicians, many of which are not being screwed and run their businesses quite well.

If by 'running their business quite well' you mean 'dominating music, destroying creativity and closing the door to newcomers' I completely agree with you.

In the music scene I listen to, actually 90% of the new releases are given away free, which means a good source of quality music at no expense, more of an inclination to go see the people live, an interest in more obscure and hard to find tunes as we can afford to.

In all honesty piracy has given the industry a bit of a wake up call in that it was taking the mickey greatly...... if you can explain how a record label could justify charging £20 for an album in 1999, and in 2009 the same labels were selling new albums for £4.99-£6.99 and still making a profit, I'd love to hear it.

pdjudd
May 29, 2012, 11:08 AM
If by 'running their business quite well' you mean 'dominating music, destroying creativity and closing the door to newcomers' I completely agree with you.
No, you are missing my argument to make some misguided point. I am talking about regular musicians who are trying to make a buck. Piracy is not moral I don't care who it's from. It isn't legal. Simply put you cannot decide the fate of something you do not own. Period. You aren't the rights holder to the music? Tough. If the artist wants to give away their music? That is their choice. You are not the decider as to the fate of other people's IP. I don't care what anybody did to another person. If a company screwed an artist, that is up to the courts to resolve it. You don't get to use that as a justification to do anything other than to not do business with them. It's still piracy to obtain the content without the owners consent.

Subscribing to iTunes Match changes nothing morality wise. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

In the music scene I listen to, actually 90% of the new releases are given away free, which means a good source of quality music at no expense, more of an inclination to go see the people live, an interest in more obscure and hard to find tunes as we can afford to.

And that decision is made by the legal owners and is their decision and I do not fault them one iota. But if somebody doesn't want to do that, doesn't mean that you can do what you want with it.

psingh01
May 29, 2012, 01:42 PM
I think that is the whole purpose of the matching service. It is a way for the publishers to recover income for songs that have been pirated in the past. They won't advertise it as such but IMO that's the only reason why the record companies signed off on such a deal. It really seems like the type of idea Jobs would have sold to the music execs.

*Calypso*
May 30, 2012, 06:41 AM
I think that is the whole purpose of the matching service. It is a way for the publishers to recover income for songs that have been pirated in the past. They won't advertise it as such but IMO that's the only reason why the record companies signed off on such a deal. It really seems like the type of idea Jobs would have sold to the music execs.

I think it's the whole purpose of cloud-based music services to allow the music industry to double-charge you. Explain to the average customer why he must pay again for songs he already bought.

pdjudd
May 30, 2012, 08:30 AM
I think it's the whole purpose of cloud-based music services to allow the music industry to double-charge you. Explain to the average customer why he must pay again for songs he already bought.
Licensed, not bought. Different things here folks.

*Calypso*
May 30, 2012, 12:09 PM
Licensed, not bought. Different things here folks.

Licensed for unlimited private use, hence not to be charged for another time. If this is not clear and still leaves the music industry in the position to charge you again every time you transfer your music to a new device, maybe it is time for a more customer-friendly legislation.

If it's a true license (to play and copy music privately), it should be independent from the source or medium.

How many people have to buy a digital download, because the CD they bought earlier is copy-protected? How many people have to buy a CD because the digital download is DRM-infected? How much of your yearly iTunes Match fee is going directly to the music industry to pay for music you licensed years ago by buying the CD?

It is time for the industry to give us an open and independent media licensing system, for instance run by a non-profit organisation representing the industry as well as consumer organisations such as the EFF. Maybe like UltraViolet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UltraViolet_%28system%29) without the DRM-crap. But I guess that is not in the industry's interest, because they want to charge us again when the first audio CDs chemically disolve in 20 years or when a large DRM-server is destroyed in a fire.

Imagine this for a moment: You buy a license for a song, a movie, a book. On average, you pay $0.79 for a song, $7.90 for a movie and $9.90 for a 300 page book. You get a key which allows you to obtain a digital copy in the highest available quality from a server. In addition you can purchase a hard-copy of a CD/Blu-ray or as a printed book for $1.50/$2.50/$7.50, just as you find them in regular stores. All major cloud services already host copies of all this media, so you only need your personal key to stream online. Improved versions of the media (remastered Audio, 4K-video, etc.) of course comes at a small upgrade fee. And of course you are allowed to resell all your obtained licences, but not separately from the CD/Blu-ray/Book.

Highly unlikely, I know. It is the double- and triple-charging that keeps a mostly dead industry alive.

pdjudd
May 30, 2012, 12:59 PM
Licensed for unlimited private use, hence not to be charged for another time.
Really? Can you say that with absolute iron clad certainty?

AdrianK
May 30, 2012, 02:01 PM
It goes without saying I dont have an issue with true music fans swapping music.... What I disagree with is people downloading tripe just so they can compare itunes library size, which is a bit like comparing willies in the street, and unfortunately stuff like that is perpetuated by threads like 'how big is your itunes library' which can be found on forums such as this.
So you'd rather people pirated content and consumed it, than people pirating and not consuming :confused:

Tarzanman
May 30, 2012, 02:39 PM
Copyright is a very complicated issue. Partially because of the march of technology and partially because of the lobbying efforts of copyright holders who abuse the system.

In a perfect world John Mayer would receive payment for performing and from sales of his songs that he wrote.

The issue is that even if John Mayer records the music himself, he still might want to hire middle-men to market, distribute and/or sell his music.

John could throw it up on a website and make money that way, but there are incentives for building a centralized access point for lots of different music versus going to half a dozen artists' websites to purchase a dozen songs.

Itunes is only marginally better than the record companies. Services that act as agreggators like spotify encumber the artist less... but also offer far less in the way of revenue.

The real issue is that the music industry giants lost their oligopoly on distribution. Piracy isn't helping, but piracy is only a symptom of the real issues they are facing. Their (record labels') productivity has not kept pace.

People stopped buying CDs for $10 because CD's were not offering them anything that a digital sound file did not.

It is an interesting problem.

sim667
May 31, 2012, 10:22 AM
So you'd rather people pirated content and consumed it, than people pirating and not consuming :confused:

Yes, a lot of people just download stuff for the sake of downloading. I know people with 100GB libraries, and they've literally got play counts on 10% of those.

It makes piracy seem much worse than it is, because actually a lot of the stuff being downloading isnt being used.

Jessica Lares
May 31, 2012, 12:12 PM
Yes, a lot of people just download stuff for the sake of downloading. I know people with 100GB libraries, and they've literally got play counts on 10% of those.

It makes piracy seem much worse than it is, because actually a lot of the stuff being downloading isnt being used.

100% agree with you. People are so obsessed with trying to fill their iPods to the brim with those "10,000 songs" just to have them when they need them. The truth is that the average person won't ever go through all those songs, ever. You listen to your favorites, the latest, and that's it. Why download full albums just to get the three songs you like anyway?

stevedun
May 31, 2012, 01:17 PM
I love iTunes Match. Makes my barebones home entertainment system shine! Also, it has saved a ton of space on my iPhone, and that of my wife's, which were filling to the brim with photos, etc.

The copyright holder gets paid every time a song is played. The $25 you pay to Apple, to some extent, goes to the record company/artist. Does that make torrents legal? No. Does it make them any less immoral? No.

Why are you pirating music? Is it because you can't afford to pay retail for the music? Is it because the music is not legally available where you live? This is the case for many pirates. These are not potential customers. For them to listen to the music for free is inconsequential to the copyright holder and therefore, in my opinion, totally ok. Enjoy the finer things in life fellas!

If, however, you pirate music because you'd rather spend the money on something harder to steal, to "screw the man", or because you're just too lazy to go buy a CD (or enter a credit card into a digital distribution service), then iTunes Match is not going to save you from the fires of hell.

If you have money for iTunes Match (and a computer / iOS device, and a broadband internet connection to use it), then you don't fit into the first group of pirate, and are therefore a bad person.

Starfighter
May 31, 2012, 01:47 PM
Wow. What's the point of an analogy if it's gonna turn into a precise legal definition of the original statement?

Goodness.

Image (http://candobetter.net/files/high-horse.jpg)

Well... For one, they kind of loose their value if they're nothing alike, no?

GSPice
May 31, 2012, 02:34 PM
Well... For one, they kind of loose their value if they're nothing alike, no?

If they're nothing alike, there's no value to lose in the first place. If you're implying that my analogy had absolutely nothing to do with the original idea, then have a happy day in your world.

Starfighter
May 31, 2012, 06:28 PM
If they're nothing alike, there's no value to lose in the first place. If you're implying that my analogy had absolutely nothing to do with the original idea, then have a happy day in your world.

I'll send you a postcard.

GSPice
Jun 1, 2012, 10:03 AM
I'll send you a postcard.

Postcards? Are those like the rectangular pieces of cardboard with pictures like here on earth? Lol

Starfighter
Jun 1, 2012, 01:54 PM
Postcards? Are those like the rectangular pieces of cardboard with pictures like here on earth? Lol

It's getting old, right? I know the feeling... Let's move on.

GSPice
Jun 1, 2012, 05:26 PM
It's getting old, right? I know the feeling... Let's move on.

Aww... ok. :rolleyes: