Is it stealing music if....?

[s8ntmark]

I was thinking about it and somthing occured to me. All these record companys are so upset about people downloading music (and other things) becuase, they say, That they are losing money and artist is getting screwed.

BUT, in the case of Disney Attraction audio, if someone where able to get their hands on that stuff would it really be screwing the company? They never had any intention of release it to begin with so they arent losing any money from it. And if they DID release it (such as in the case of Haunted Mansion Holiday) I would be first in line with my 30 (or 40) bucks to buy it (Disney's a little overpriced).

Obviously there are copyright laws to take into consideration, but Im really talking more about the loss of money on material that will never be released (but should).

What does eveyone think?

 

[The Trout]

I think attraction audio (or "out-of-print" recordings like DLF) fall into our warm, succulent grey area - where the law becomes... iffy. I certainly don't think we're stealing, per se, but that opinon varies with who you ask...

 

[X-S Tech]

It's still stealing but whether the company is really going to lose any money or not is debatable. But of course that's not the point. They have the right to release or not release something without the outside influence of whether someone is going to pirate it. Thing about it this way: Perhaps no decision has been made to release a piece of music, and the musicians involved have so far only been payed for the initial recording but no subsequent use. Disney is debating releasing it comercially but gets wind that it's already all over the internet, so they decide against it. The musician doesn't get that second payment even though we get our music.

 

[Dr. Know]

X-S is right -- it is really the musicians -- composers and performers -- who are hurt the most. In the best of all possible worlds, the Walt Disney Corporation would give us more of the music we want, and the musicians would get their percentages.

 

[The Trout]

Good point. But of course, a pretty fair sized chunk of Disney's music is all in-house, with composers on their payroll that just write music and get paid a steady wage for it. If said music is then released on an album, how much royalties do said musicians get anyway? Does Buddy Baker rake in the royalties for every album GGG is on? I doubt it. But I've been wrong before, so feel free to set me straight.

Point being, if this stuff were on an album, Disney themselves would be getting the cash, not the artists that actually created the music. Which is SLIGHTLY different than the eternal quandry surround the theft of other music.

 

[BLM07]

If they won't release the music on CD, then its the only way, sadly.

 

[Nightmare Tony]

Agreed. When a piece of music is not available through channels, one must resort to find it where they can. Still have several Disney CD and record soundtracks of the past. Some wonderful music of theirs simply never got released. So how can there be claimed harm on non-released music?

If record companies want to also check why they have falling revenues, it involves putting out a fairly substandard product in terms of musicianship. I still prefer buying sampoler CDs of no name bands who hold much more excitement than anything top 40 in the last decade combined.

 

[s8ntmark]

Well, what about a situation like the DL and WDW Forever released material. That stuff isnt available anymore. Is trading THAT stealing? The company isnt making and CANT make money on that stuff since they (stupidly IMHO) closed the kiosks down.

What a sticky wicket THIS is.

 

[X-S Tech]

I think according to the law, yes. A judge probably won't get philosophical with you, especially under the nose of a high priced music company lawyer.