Pirating Songs wrong w/ iTunes Match Service?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by Todisco, May 8, 2012.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #1
    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:
     
  2. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,008
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    GSPice

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,569
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    Messages:
    477
    Location:
    England!
    #4
    Wrong for iTunes match to work with these songs. Don't download them to start with!
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    #5
    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.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2012
    Messages:
    285
    #6
    As wrong as it can be.
     
  7. macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Messages:
    2,796
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #7
    Seriously? I think if there is a God, it has bigger fish to fry.
     
  8. macrumors 68030

    tkermit

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,651
    #8
    Sometimes it helps to read the terms and conditions:

     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,115
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,008
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Messages:
    48
    #11
    It's an "unintended consequence" to launder your music. Apple doesn't really care about this unintended consequence so +1 :apple:
     
  12. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,008
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2010
    Messages:
    541
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Pa, USA
    #13
    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....
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    905
    #14
    It's still *wrong*

    (is piracy wrong in the first place?)
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    lilcosco08

    Joined:
    May 27, 2010
    Messages:
    1,201
    Location:
    Dayton
    #15
    Fixed

    I don't fully support piracy, I just hate that analogy
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    GSPice

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,569
    #16
    Wow. What's the point of an analogy if it's gonna turn into a precise legal definition of the original statement?

    Goodness.

    [​IMG]
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,115
    #17
    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
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,432
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,008
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #19
    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.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,115
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,008
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #21
    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.

    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.
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    Messages:
    1,140
    #22
    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.
     
  23. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Location:
    Germany
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,008
    Location:
    Plymouth, MN
    #24
    Licensed, not bought. Different things here folks.
     
  25. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2011
    Messages:
    161
    Location:
    Germany
    #25
    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_(system)) 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.
     

Share This Page