Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Chips G · Aug 22, 2006, 08:11 PM

Hi everyone.

At some stores that sell CDs I see them for as much as $20 (Canadian) and I think to myself that I could save ten bucks and just download it off of iTunes.

The only problem is that I would like a higher bit rate then what the iTMS offers, so my question is this:

What moral/legal issues are there with purchasing a CD off of the iTMS, and then downloading a higher qualtiy version of the song off of a P2P network?

Who would not be getting a slice of the money pie if I did it this way?

Thanks in advance,

Chris

milhous · Aug 22, 2006, 08:16 PM

that's a very good question. unfortunately i have no clue. keep in mind that legality and morality is not the same.

invisibleX · Aug 22, 2006, 08:30 PM

You would still be breaking copyright law I believe but someone else will have to verify.

Morally you're still stealing. Its like buying a car and having it stolen (for this argument to be valid it was stolen by a dealership) then stealing the exact same car from said dealership.

Dino-Rider · Aug 22, 2006, 08:44 PM

It's fine. If the FCC comes a knocking you can just pull your pants down and show them your pasty white ass, and hand them some lipstick. You PAID for the rights to that music. Just because apple's quality wasn't up to par doesn't mean you can't get higher quality versions of what you paid for.

starman · Aug 22, 2006, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by invisibleX

You would still be breaking copyright law I believe but someone else will have to verify.

Morally you're still stealing. Its like buying a car and having it stolen (for this argument to be valid it was stolen by a dealership) then stealing the exact same car from said dealership.

No, it's not the same because the car is a physical object. He's downloading a higher quality version of the same thing he bought.

I say it's a gray area.

SirCastor · Aug 22, 2006, 09:03 PM

The car analysis is poor, but I'd argue that it's not legal. You paid to download and own the media that iTunes carries, not a different version. Additionally, when you download illegally, you are participating in a crime, regardless your (potentially) legal end of it.

olePigeon · Aug 23, 2006, 12:34 AM

I think it's illegal, but that's where I think the law is kinda stupid. You bought and paid for the music legally, what does it matter where you get it from?

Helmling · Aug 23, 2006, 12:48 AM

What bit rate are our iTunes songs?

icruise · Aug 23, 2006, 01:10 AM

When you download from the iTMS you are paying to download that particular song at a particular bitrate (128kbps AAC). Just because you already paid for it doesn't make it all right to download it in another form.

I don't have a huge problem with it personally (it's much better than not buying anything) but from a legal standpoint it wouldn't matter at all that you had already bought it in a different form. It's like claiming that because you bought a movie on VHS you should be entitled to pirate the DVD.

Peder Rice · Aug 23, 2006, 01:11 AM

The copyright holder has the right to determine the method by which his product is distributed. So, illegal. However, as an extension of Fair Use..... I say go for it. If you have a history of downloading music from the iTunes Music Store, I could not see the RIAA going after you. Just be warned, that it is, in fact, as illegal as downloading a song that you don't own.

Big Mac · Aug 23, 2006, 01:28 AM

That seems like a lot of trouble to go through.

iREZ · Aug 23, 2006, 02:05 AM

find a place that sells used cd's for half the cost and rip em yourself. no more issues.

Sage · Aug 23, 2006, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by Icruise

It's like claiming that because you bought a movie on VHS you should be entitled to pirate the DVD.

Good analogy.

Part of the deal when buying from iTunes is that you’re going to get a lower-quality bitrate than if you had bought the CD. Let’s say there was a company that offered the exact same song offered on iTunes, but for $0.33 instead of $0.99, and at 64 kbps instead of 128. You buy it. Does that mean it would be okay to steal the 128 kbps version from the iTMS? (For the sake of this argument, just pretend that you can steal music straight from the iTMS’s servers.) Of course it’s not okay. So it’s no more okay to buy from the iTMS, then “steal” a CD sale. The CD is more expensive because it’s of better quality.

Although I do agree that I’d rather see someone do that than outright steal the music without paying anybody anything.

wallinbl · Aug 23, 2006, 06:24 AM

No analogies needed - it's both illegal and wrong.

Salty · Aug 23, 2006, 06:33 AM

If you're Canadian you can DL the high bitrate stuff and still be legally fine. I buy my music on iTunes cause it's a great way to distribute. In Canada you'd be fine with what you'd want to do. You don't even need to pay for the music period... but you probably should.

Mithras · Aug 23, 2006, 06:41 AM

i wish it were commonplace for stores like Amazon to offer both digital + CD. i.e. order the CD, but get to download DRMd lower bitrate tracks right away. That way you'd have the best of both worlds.

Dino-Rider · Aug 23, 2006, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Icruise

It's like claiming that because you bought a movie on VHS you should be entitled to pirate the DVD.

DVDs have extra content. If you have the movie on VHS, and you transferred it to mp4..... what the heck is the difference between downloading 'just the movie' off the internet?

None.

icruise · Aug 23, 2006, 09:30 AM

Not all DVDs have extra content. The point is that what you paid for was something of inferior quality (like iTMS downloads). Just having bought that does not give you the right to then download something that is of better quality for free. You are not buying a "license" to that album, regardless of what media it comes on. You are buying one particular version of that album.

If the DVD analogy is confusing you, think of it this way. Let's say you find a bunch of cheap records or audio tapes. Would buying those make it OK to download the same songs in CD quality? No. If you want the extra quality, you have to pay for it.

Dino-Rider · Aug 23, 2006, 09:47 AM

Yes, it would.

icruise · Aug 23, 2006, 09:52 AM

Maybe in your world. Not in the American legal system.

Dino-Rider · Aug 23, 2006, 09:54 AM

Dude, vinyl offers better sound than CD. Wake up.

dialo · Aug 23, 2006, 10:36 AM

It's not a crime if you don't distribute it or claim it as your own work. However, you would still be open to a lawsuit.

The moral issue is separate. IMO, there is no moral issue.

Troll · Aug 23, 2006, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Peder Rice

The copyright holder has the right to determine the method by which his product is distributed.

Nope, that's a myth. The record companies would like you to believe this but it isn't true. Well ... I'll amend that slightly. The record companies can chose how they distribute their product but it's legal for you to shift it onto other media. In all of the jurisdictions I've ever looked at, it's fair use to copy CD's or records onto tape, for example.

In this case though, you're not transferring the music to a different media. I would think that the act of downloading the song the second time might in itself be a copyright infringement.

None of this constitutes legal advice of course.

OreoCookie · Aug 23, 2006, 10:52 AM

Legal? No, I don't think so.
Moral? Yes, you've paid your dues to the artist, so there's no reason to bill you twice for the same song.

starman · Aug 23, 2006, 10:58 AM

See, who's going to know? If he's DLing crap from the 'net and he can produce receipts for what he bought, is anyone REALLY going to go through the trouble of checking the files bit-for-bit?

Best suggestion I've seen is to buy the CDs used. I still think it's a gray area because you are paying for the rights to listen to the song.

Troll · Aug 23, 2006, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by starman

I still think it's a gray area because you are paying for the rights to listen to the song.

Nope, that's wrong. Again, that's what the record companies argue but that isn't what the law says. You own the CD and you can rip it and put it on your iPod, make a tape copy of it, back it up and do all of the other things that are recognised as fair use rights.

starman · Aug 23, 2006, 11:18 AM

Then what defines what you're paying for? If you can't discern the difference between a ripped CD and an MP4, then what's the problem? I'm not defending it, I'm just playing devil's advocate in this because nobody has really said that 1) There's a way to tell the difference and 2) There's a way to track you down.

It's like going 56 in a 55.

icruise · Aug 23, 2006, 01:16 PM

The question isn't whether anyone is going to track you down. The whole point of downloading another version is that the other version has better quality (higher bitrate) so of course it's possible to tell the difference between the two. So I have no doubt that it is possible, but I seriously doubt that it would ever happen.

If you want to download something, that's your choice and I'm not really trying to come off as "holier than thou" because we all do similar things. But you shouldn't fool yourself into thinking that you are in the right. Buying one version of an album does not entitle you to every version of that album on every medium in perpetuity. It's as simple as that. Just because it's a digital medium, doesn't make it any different.

icruise · Aug 23, 2006, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by Troll

Nope, that's wrong. Again, that's what the record companies argue but that isn't what the law says. You own the CD and you can rip it and put it on your iPod, make a tape copy of it, back it up and do all of the other things that are recognised as fair use rights.

Very true. However, fair use does not extend to making copies of other people's music (even if you happen to own a different version of the same album), which is what the original poster is suggesting.