Out of Print/Out of Production Music ~ What do you think about this?

[Orville]

I know downloading and sharing{pirating, as they call it} music without and even with buying the original is a big problem for the music industry, and they want to usually sue and burn folks at every turn that do it.    But this is something that I've been wondering and pondering about....Music that you can no longer purchase because they have taken it out of print or out of production.

 

I know the government sided with them when it came to sharing music they have the rights, but I think out of print or out of production music should not fall under that guise but instead, once the song/music is retired in such a manner, then instead of waiting 75-100 years {whatever the length of time is}, that music should fall immediately into the Public Domain and all rights removed from the music company that claims ownership, and then that music should be available for, and to anyone that wants to use it without repercussion of being sued because they didn't buy it, because IT'S NOT AVAILABLE!

 

I would think this would be fair compromise to everyone, after all, how many of us have searched out a song to purchase, but it's nowhere to be found, not unless you strip it from an on-line video that somebody posted?

 

I've got old 16rpm, 33-1/3rpm, 45rpm and 78rpm records, old cassette tapes{even some 8 tracks still}, along with CD's even that some of the songs are no longer available on any of those mediums or online, unless someone posted it on a video site.   So there is no way to buy it.

 

So what do you folks think, do you think the music industry and the gov't on such "out of print" or "out of production" music that can't be bought should be immediately released into the Public Domain and their rights relinquished for folks to download, listen to and use in displays like we do?

 

I know this is a hot and controversial topic, but just wonder what others thought about those songs we just can't purchase and own an original legal copy of because it's no longer available!     What do you think?

[EmmienLightFan]

I have never purchased music. I just download it from YouTube. I know that it is slightly bad, but they get plenty of money anyway. Every $1 less going to Drake or Justin Bieber is $1 less going towards drugs.

Edited December 10, 2015 by EmmienLightFan

[LOR Staff]

Theft is defined by the law.  If the law says it is theft, then no matter the dollar amount or lack of availability, theft is theft.  There is no moral ambiguity.

 

With that said, you may be surprised to hear me say:

 

I agree that current copyright laws are outrageous when it comes to duration.  A copyright should not exist on a work for Life +70 years or even 95/120 years.  Those are outrageous numbers.  The 1909 act was what it should have remained:  28 years + 1 extension (if applied for) of 28 years.  At that time it is PD and you do what you want.

 

On the other side, the ones who argued for these obnoxiously long limits are the same ones who are not releasing their back catalog.  There is no longer any reason for their huge back catalogs to not be published.  There is only a small cost of digitizing the masters and making them available.  We are not talking about making molds for pressing LPs or CDs.  We are talking a few pennies to hook the output of the master player into a $200 computer from Best Buy, and some intern making minimum wage to mount the tapes/originals!

 

I will admit - I am apt to be on the 'Release it so I can legally obtain it, or I find it' scale of things.  Canada used to have a very interesting law on it's books that pretty much said:  "You can't steal something unless you can buy it".  I like to fool myself with that rule

[kiplorenzo]

I know some of the music I have used is older and has been ripped from an Expensive USB Turntable that I have. I also bought a USB CD to rip the old cassettes if I can't find the MP3.

[Orville]

Good points DevMike and I agree!

[Orville]

I have never purchased music. I just download it from YouTube. I know that it is slightly bad, but they get plenty of money anyway. Every $1 less going to Drake or Justin Bieber is $1 less going towards drugs.

I do this too, but with one difference, I will still purchase the song/music providing it IS available for purchase, if not, then no way for me to buy, so I don't feel one iota of guilt about NOT purchasing it if the music/song isn't available.  

 

I also do this if I just don't have the extra fund$, and sometimes I just don't have that .99¢ for the music and I want to sequence the song, so I get it from YouTube, however, again, I *will* purchase the music/song if available as soon as I can.     

 

Because it's not fair to the artist or the copyright {music company} that holds ownership by not buying the music, whether that artist uses drugs or anything else they use the money for, that is not of my concern, my conscious wouldn't let me sleep at night if I just downloaded music and never bought a legal copy to put in my library to show I *did* purchase the song I used in my display, again, providing that song/music has not been taken out of print/production.

Edited December 11, 2015 by Orville

[Don]

I have never purchased music. I just download it from YouTube. I know that it is slightly bad, but they get plenty of money anyway. Every $1 less going to Drake or Justin Bieber is $1 less going towards drugs.

 

You should see how much the writers of some songs make. Answer? Not much.

[iresq]

You can now pay for YouTube subscription. Probably doesn't give you use rights beyond add free watching but it's a little less bad.

[iresq]

I have never purchased music. I just download it from YouTube. I know that it is slightly bad, but they get plenty of money anyway. Every $1 less going to Drake or Justin Bieber is $1 less going towards drugs.

So stealing is acceptable if the person/company has plenty of money?

[LOR Staff]

Good points DevMike and I agree!

 

And just think. This from a guy who has worked in the entertainment industry and who actually derives benefit from the longer copyright duration being a programmer!

[Old Sarge]

 

[EmmienLightFan]

I used a lot of remixes for Halloween, and a few for Christmas. These cannot be purchased in stores or on line. Some are on iTunes but I don't like iTunes.

 

Some were little sound bites created by people doing displays, and there are a few pieces of music made by Christmas lighters. I always send a YouTube message or contact by email or on here when downloading them.

 

 

What I am doing is illegal, no matter how I buy the music. In this country, you need a license to play music out loud in a public area. Nobody is going to notice that though, however an FM transmitter is too far and I would be broadcasting a pirate radio station. Also you guys have a fair use policy. We don't.

 

 

What we do does not stop people from buying the music though. If anything it gets it out there a little and people looking at the displays may hear a new song and like it.

 

Look at the house that did the party rock anthem. That went viral on YouTube and must have brought a few million views back to the original song. I have had a YouTube channel that is monetized and a million views will get you a minimum of $5000.