1. To me that is a question of one's own personal ethic. One could easily make the case that stealing is wrong, plain and simple.End of story.

But then hasn't piracy enabled people who could not afford programs such as Photoshop to learn them and then get jobs demanding to use Photoshop? The extended 'try before you buy'. Is Abobe happy? Yes. Is the pirate/future buyer happy?. Yes. Piracy in this case is beneficial to the transaction. if looked at from a mlonger term perspecctive.

So in the same spirit d/ling a bit torrent file after you have made the purchase is simply like exercising you fair use to make a backup copy (just before the purchase it fully completed.)

Posted at 6:10PM on Aug 16th 2006 by Graham Walker

2. It's a very interesting question and something I've often wondered. With today's copy-protected CD's I often have to go to the absurd length of downloading an album I've previously purchased just so I can have a non-DRM version to play on my iPod, or keep on my PC at work. I have no problem with DRM in content, but at the moment it may as well stand for Digital Restrictions Management.

I would say that yes, it's legal. I believe it's questional whether downloading it would be illegal even if you did not own the recording. The person providing the recording is certainly breaking the law by infringing on the copyright of the owner but I'm not aware of any criminal offence you would be committing by downloading

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#p2p
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Of course, I'm sure the MPAA/RIAA would respond with a resounding "NO!", but I feel this is something that will remain a grey area until tested in an actual legal case.

Posted at 6:18PM on Aug 16th 2006 by Andrew

3. I posted a reframed-to-fit-a-different-demographic version of the question on the Outchurched blog. I wonder if this isn't a bigger ethical problem for Christians than it is for the non-churched, non-religious, average Joe.

Posted at 6:39PM on Aug 16th 2006 by Rev. Dan

4. I wish that one day iTunes will just allow unencrypted MP3s. That will make me drop hundreds into them. That is the only reason I don't use them. The DRM'ed music files are a pain and I personally just want them so I can play it in my car and on my hard drive.

'Till then I will gratefully use the works of Justin Frankel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Frankel ). I continue my use of Shareaza ( http://www.shareaza.com/ )

Posted at 6:52PM on Aug 16th 2006 by Joseph Manna

5. Purchasing the album ahead of time does not give you the right to download it now from another source you did not pay. The harm from you getting two albums when you only paid for one is to everyone involved, from the artist to seller. I suspect this practice would also result in a higher rate of returns, the costs of which the seller would have to reflect in higher prices (just like shoplifting).

Posted at 8:43PM on Aug 16th 2006 by Dick Rowan

6. I haven't posted on my blog in a couple of months, so I'll leave a comment here.

I'm of the opinion that if you have purchased something, you have the right to appropriate it through the internet as well. You've done your part and supported the artist, and are simply exercising the license negotiated in the purchase. An analogy is downloading an eBook in TXT format that you've already purchased in hardcopy - you've supported the author, why should you pay for it a second time?

Of course, this flies in the face of what the RIAA/MPAA believe, where they hope that you will happily replace all of your VCR tapes with DVDs, DVDs with BluRay/HD-DVDs, and CDs with iTunes/online music store songs. If you don't repurchase, they have to work to make the sale more compelling for you, which is also against what they believe.

Posted at 9:25PM on Aug 16th 2006 by adi

7. I say yes, no harm, no foul. Posted more at my site, citizenjake.com. As an aside, I think Dylan's new CD is going to be off the chain.

Posted at 10:25PM on Aug 16th 2006 by Jake

8. Any sane person would think you were within your rights given the fact that you've already pre-ordered the album. The RIAA on the other hand would almost certainly have a problem with this, if for no other reason because it sends the wrong message.

They might even argue, as Dick Rowan has above, that you've only paid for one copy, but then obtained a second copy at no extra cost. That would be a fallacious argument at best given the fact that the bittorrent copy is not a physical copy, and was never for sale. Using that same logic you wouldn't have the right to rip a CD for use on a portable player because then you'd have two copies, even though you only paid for one.

Posted at 1:36AM on Aug 17th 2006 by kirk

9. No.

Posted at 8:02AM on Aug 17th 2006 by Patrick

10. To quote something I heard at CES last year...(via this kid from Brooklyn to a TNT exec)

"How many times do you expect me to pay for your content?"

They should be glad that you are honest enough to pay for it once...

Posted at 8:53AM on Aug 17th 2006 by Sane Patrick

11. What about the artists' rights? While I grant that it may be ethically acceptable to download a copy of an album you already own, at what point do your own personal choices infringe on the right of the artist's statement? This is admittedly a stretch, as the artist likely had little control over the date of the album's release, but is it your right to redefine how an album was meant to be introduced to the public?

Posted at 11:16AM on Aug 17th 2006 by avec

12. First off its a question of copyright and not ethics in my opinion.

1) Does a pre-purchase afford you pre-sale downloading? No. Not unless you negotiated that as part of your transaction.

2) Is there any harm in me downloading it ahead of time? No. Not unless you decide to imprint millions of cds and start selling them on ebay. Your use of the work does not "harm" the artist or the record company.

Posted at 1:08PM on Aug 17th 2006 by Kevin

13. Ah, like all the great questions, depends. How are you going to pre-release download it? If you're going to use an ad-supported P2P/BitTorrent app that most folks use to download infringing content, then your doing so perpetuates that business model, no?

Posted at 4:56PM on Aug 17th 2006 by scola

14. what this poster does not seem to have taken into account is that by the very nature of the bittorrent protocol, if you download a copy of this album, you are, most likely also uploading a full copy of this album, most probably to someone who has not, in fact, paid for it, thusly rendering the point of whether or not he himself has paid for it, to a degree, moot.

Posted at 3:36AM on Aug 20th 2006 by Modulo

15. Nope, especially if you redistribute while downloading.

Posted at 12:38PM on Aug 21st 2006 by reyalp

16. Regarding Rev Dan's question about churched vs. non-churched people and how they would feel about it ...

It always angers me when I hear the assumption that churchgoing people are somehow more honest than non-churchgoing people. There are plenty of examples of dishonesty on both sides, with the main difference being that churchgoing people often put a lot more effort into concealing their sin.

-dm

Posted at 3:33PM on Aug 21st 2006 by Don M

17. I don't think there is any issue downloading it now but if you use P2P to download it then there is a problem. Because unless you are leeching you will also be uploading parts of that album while downloading and almost certainly you will be uploading it to people who haven't bought it thus helping the piracy and helping them download it. If you get it from a friend or private FTP, where you just download. I don't think it is a problem as long as you have bought it.

Posted at 7:33AM on Aug 23rd 2006 by Tahir

18. Personally, I find myself often going in reverse. Sometimes I download an album and I like it so much that I buy it on iTunes but keep the mp3 version. Or, I'll find a great song on iTunes and look for the mp3. If I find the mp3, I buy the song on iTunes but keep the mp3. My primary reason for keeping the mp3 is to have a higher bitrate version in an open format.

I wish Apple would increase the bitrate of their music. Openness is still an issue I don't see being solved anytime soon.

To answer the question, I think you're entitled to download the bittorrent version. On a microcosmic level, you could replicate his ripping setting, creating a virtually identical copy of your media. Bits don't discriminate, why should you?

Posted at 9:21PM on Aug 24th 2006 by Anonymous

19. Honestly, this isn't a matter of ethics. It's simply a matter of companies having too much leverage over what the customer can do with their purchase. It's exactly the same as DVD regions - an established "standard" that has very little basis in law or morality that Governments and Judges for some reason feel compelled to protect.

Posted at 6:27AM on Aug 26th 2006 by Conrad

20. If you're downloading on a peer-to-peer network, that means you're sharing it at the same time. Sharing it is the illegal part, from what I've seen of the RIAA lawsuits. Guess I'll write about this on my own blog...

Posted at 2:23AM on Aug 28th 2006 by Ken