I think Roon can fill part of the void of the ownership element in that you can develop a library of your own amongst all the streaming alternatives. I really like all the information I can get from Roon. It is not a complete substitute to an album cover or a CD jewel case but it is close.
Agreed. I have a lifetime subscription to Roon and a yearly subscription to Qobuz. I do have a really nice CD player but it gets used very little.
I had not considered this, but a user defined library does have a sense of possession.
2 Likes
Thereās lots of grey in this topic. Is it ok to loan someone a book or CD? If they read the loaned book, doesnāt that deprive the author of revenue? Where does one draw the line, and why? And is there a universal right answer? And at what level does one plug in and ask the question?
And what about the billions of people in the world who cannot afford to buy a $15 CD? It seems easy for rich audiophiles to opine about proper CD purchasing protocol, images of a stuffy British country club arise with gentlemen smoking cigars, drinking whiskey and acting shocked that someone shared a copied CD with a friend. The same gentlemen who donāt pay a living wage to their workers. Can we question parts of the circle without questioning the entire circle?
The digitization of music has made music free, or costing virtually nothing (ie music services). We can quibble over what an artist deserves, but technology has run past that entire paradigm. I see no way to fix the current model, we need to come up with something entirely new to assure a healthy balance between consumer freedom, artist compensation and the vulture like middlemen.
There is no grey area.
You own one copy. You can listen to it, store it, loan, it toss it out. But you cannot copy it and give the copy to another. Simple. Same as a book.
No one is entitled to a copy based on their income. You do not get to steal merely because you cannot afford a luxury item. This also goes to cigars and whiskey. 
No, it has not. There are musicians to be paid, producers, engineers, pressing the CDs or producing the file for streaming, logistics, etc. Making a copy is cheap if you own a computer and a CD drive, but this is merely the end of a long chain of costs and people entitled to be paid.
I wish all art were free: dance, music, paintings, everything. This would be wonderful, but a fantasy.
6 Likes
I sure like smoking cigars and drinking whiskey with my buddies that are cops, principals, and electrical workers. They also like good music. This audiophile hobby does not need to be limited to the wealthy. My guess is there are probably a lot of cigar smoking, whiskey drinking, overweight 50-60 year old white males like myself that can share a Tidal subscription with their friends. 
Be grateful folks.
But this is just your opinion. You are not the grand cosmic arbiter of these issues. You have a particularly strict, and rigid view. You are entitled to that view. But itās not something you can impose upon others in any practical way. The RIAA tried suing teenagers, that didnāt go so well.
Music is now either free, or virtually free. $10 per month for access to 60 million songs is virtually free. Thatās how it is. Iām not advocating that reality, but it remains a reality. That reality is why music services came into existence, they saw the writing on the wall with file sharing.
My comments about income is that all of this is part of a larger issue, a much larger cycle. If weāre going to question one part of the cycle, we ought to question all of it. There are many players in our music scenario with varying degrees of greed endemic to all levels - consumer greed, artist greed, and middleman greed. It all must be questioned. Itās a trap to become focused on just the element that benefits us personally. This subject is a microcosm of the larger dynamics that effect the human race on many levels, about how we relate to one another in physical reality. I suggest the solution will never be found at this level of haggling principles, it must come from a deeper space entirely.
No, it is statutory. Stealing music by copying a CD and giving the copy to another is illegal.
Sadly, many people think stealing music is legal because it is easy.
2 Likes
Which is an incredibly cool offer from Tidal.
This has been long settled. Thereās no way to enforce those laws. They tried suing teens and college students, that didnāt work - at all. This is why music services have come about, because there was no legal way to realistically inhibit file sharing. The services provide all the music in existence for a nominal fee. Thatās their answer to file sharing. What else could they do? At some point it becomes about whatās practically possible. You are lamenting an issue that technology has thoroughly disrupted. And until there is a shift in technology allowing for a different model, this is simply how things are.
Iām not advocating for the present state of affairs, rather Iām simply observing it. Claiming that music sharing is āstatutoryā and āstealingā has almost no practical meaning.
The reality is that Octave will create their music and someone will post the files on torrent sites and it will be available to anyone who is so inclined, and thereās little Octave can do about it. This is where things are. Octaveās primary protection is that mostly only old folks will be interested in the music.
I totally agree, artists ought to be fairly compensated. My view is not as strict as yours when it comes to sharing a copy with a friend - on that weāll have to respectfully disagree. I do think you are behind the technological 8 ball, that train has left the station with you on the platform reviewing a book of laws. The train is gone my friend 
Whether a copyright holder enforces infringement or not does not change the illegality of the act.
I understand many prefer to steal the music through making and distributing copies, or uploading/downloading illegal torrents. These acts remain infringement even if common.
I prefer to honor and respect the rightful owners of recorded music and this will not copy a CD for others. I appreciate you are comfortable making an illegal copy for a friend and depriving artists and others of their rightful income.
What does this mean? I record and master CDs for production, know precisely how they are structured and how to copy them, aware of illegal file sharing, know of streaming services, understand copyright holders are not pursuing infringement cases.
What am I missing?
I may be summarizing your position incorrectly, but it appears to me you are saying since copying CDs is so easy, many use torrents to get copies of CDs, streaming is inexpensive, and it is difficult to pursue copyright infringers its is now OK to make copies and give them to others. Essentially since many think music as free it now belongs to everyone and they can do what the wish.
2 Likes
Iām saying it is what it is. Music has become essentially free. Iām not condoning that fact. But it remains a fact. Because of shifts in technology, recorded music has become an advertisement for other revenue streams like live shows or merchandising. Musicians must adapt or perish. Itās not all bad, TV was once free as well before the con of cable took over.
Lamenting that the 1980ās music business model no longer exists does not make it return. And statutory laws you quote are rendered largely meaningless because of technology. I appreciate your devotion to them, but itās really only something that has tangible meaning in your own head. For its only there that they can be enforced, and only enforced on yourself. I appreciate that the land of Elk has strict copyright laws 
I do have empathy for the small independent artist who are being squeezed between massive public and corporate forces. . I have little for the major music labels, they are reaping what theyāve sowed.
And I see the rare and harmless sharing of a cd with a friend as a way of creating a new cash paying fan. I see it as supporting a favored artist. I donāt see it as theft, but respect that the Republic of Elksylvania does, and when I visit your country I will honor all Elk laws!!
No, technology is not the issue. The problem is a moral. Many choose to ignore the ownership rights of others and steal music. Technology makes this simple, but merely because the theft is easy does not make this behavior acceptable.
Your argument appears to boil down to āIt is easy to steal, many do it, it is difficult to stop people from doing it, therefore it is acceptable.ā I do not accept this argument. If a thousand perform an illegal immoral act it remains an illegal immoral act.
Instead of making an illicit copy, loan him your copy. This is both ethical and will create the same new cash paying fan.
Edit:
What should they have done? When they adopted CDs they could not be copied or ripped. They were like any other purchase; if you wanted another you had to buy it. No one predicted the technology which followed and the consequent ease of theft.
3 Likes
This is a misinterpretation of my position. Iām in no way advocating for, nor condoning theft. Iām pointing out the practical reality that technology has changed the business paradigm of music, largely making music free, and thus rendering your position moot. I appreciate a moral position, and itās worth noting that whatās moral to some, may not be moral to others. This is found throughout society. Some think premarital sex is immoral, or being gay is immoral, while others do not. Thereās a long history of law not necessarily aligning with morality, look at slavery, voting rights, etc - these waters are not black and white.
Back to music, if you feel making a copy of a cd and giving it to a friend is immoral, you can only really say that about you. Your conclusion only has sway or meaning in Elksylvania. I do not see it as theft, but rather as supporting the artist. In my world, itās entirely moral, even a good thing., and not the same as massive music theft as found on torrent sites.
Itās ok to see things differently. Iām in no position to say you are wrong, or incorrect in your conclusions, only that we see it differently.
Setting aside the moral argument, the reality remains that your position is moot. Music is essentially free, or available for a nominal fee. Thatās simply what has happened, right, wrong, or in between. That fundamental reality has brought about the music services. Give them everything for a small price and thereās no need to bother stealing it. Most artists get paid very little, and must instead rely upon live concerts and merchandising. Thatās what is. No matter of moral crowing of your particular, personal interpretation is going to change that fundamental reality. Technology and public opinion has rendered your argument, and the corresponding statutes, largely irrelevant.
As I have stated many times, Iām not condoning that reality, but rather simply stating the obvious. The 1980s music business model is gone, and it aināt coming back.
Why the continuing demeaning comments? Asserting I am ignorant (ābehind the technological 8 ballā), engaging in āmoral crowing,ā living in a fantasy world, etc. These do not further your position or add anything constructive to the discussion. Rather they are petty personal attacks.
As I have noted, I appreciate you are comfortable making an illegal copy for a friend and depriving artists and others of their rightful income. I suggest a better way of making an additional fan for an artist is to buy a copy of the CD and present to your friend.
-
Again: I understand legality is of no concern to you. But why is it morally acceptable to steal a copy? Why not simply buy your friend a copy or loan him your copy?
-
And again, what should the labels have done?
3 Likes
Goodness, Iām sorry you have taken this personally. To my view, there has not been a single personal attack. āBeing behind the technology 8 ballā is not a comment on your technological acumen, but rather a statement of fact regarding changes in the music business. Your entire position, through no fault or ignorance of your own, is behind the technological 8 ball - meaning your position has been cornered and trumped by technology, rendering your point of view moot on the practical level.
The ācrowingā comment is not personal, but rather stating the obvious, that no amount repeating your point of view will change the practical reality of how the music business has changed. Itās pointing out the futility of your point of view beyond your own personal choices on the matter.
Morality is subjective. There is no cosmic arbiter of morality. Society creates laws, but once again, those are not given from on high like the 10 commandments, they are instead a creation by a group of people, who may or may not be moral (which is subjective to begin with). From there itās up to the individual to decide what is moral, what they ought to do, and whether or not they wish to endure the potential consequence of contradicting societyās laws. I could list hundreds of examples of these sorts of conundrums that humans have faced with laws. Because something is a law does not inherently make it right, vice versus, or all points in between.
You have stated a position that you feel is moral. That copying a CD for a friend is stealing and depriving an artist of income. I do not agree with your premise. I do not see it is either immoral, or depriving anyone of income, I see it as artist promotion and an act of kindness. I do not equate such an act with torrenting, which I do agree, ought to be illegal.
As for the nefarious labels, they were greedy and full of hubris. They engaged in price fixing for decades. Technology has rendered a type of justice upon them, putting them behind the 8 ball and forcing a change they did not seek. At this point, music services appear to be their only option. To put it in perspective, 15 years ago, it wouldāve cost an individual approximately $50M to have access to 50M songs. Now it costs $9.99 per month, or on a family plan, like $2.50 per month per person. The same thing that used to cost $50M, now costs $2.50 per month. Thatās a massive change forced by technology, public opinion, and yes, torrenting. $2.50 per month is virtually free.
And with a Spotify ad driven account, entirely free.
I fully honor your right to your opinion, and applaud your willingness to stick with it even though everything around it has changed. There is still money to be made in the music business, but how itās going to be made has been forever altered. Thatās not my opinion, that contains no endorsement by me, thatās simply what is.
Kind Regards
Respectfully, it is my observation that you and @Elk are ātalking pastā each other a bit.
I highlighted the snippet above to illustrate a very specific point. A point that I believe Elk is trying to make (that I agree with) that is inarguable. That is, violating U.S. (and other countryās) copyright protection laws IS illegal. Copying a protected work (like a CD recording) and distributing the copy to a friend IS a violation of copyright law. I am assuming you agree with this FACT, but you do not believe it is immoral to violate the law. Fair enough.
Your opinion (and Elkās) regarding the morality of such an act is irrelevant in terms of whether the act is legal.
For what its worth/carry on.
I have read differing points of view regarding the legality of copying a CD for a friend. But letās assume that it is illegal under US law. What Iām saying is that because such a thing is unenforceable legally, that itās legality has become moot, akin to passing a law that Martians, on Mars, can only come out at night. It simply doesnāt matter legally.
Whatās left is morality. And that is important. Yet thatās an individual decision, one that each person has the divine and cosmic right to reach on their own, free of any authority. And thatās thereās room to have vastly different moral conclusions, which is entirely ok.
Understood.
Cheers.