Now my policy is to only buy records, because I like the way they sound, and because they are somehow past being obsolete and are back in demand (unlike cds, which are getting harder to play and rip onto new computers). I know that I can do what i want with these too, and they usually come with a digital code so that I don't have to be sitting in my kitchen staring at a turntable to enjoy them. But I suppose I've come across a bit of an ethical dilemma when it comes to all the other music that I once paid for and no longer own. My partner is pretty convinced that if I paid for a CD in 2003 or a record in 2016 I should be able to shamelessly torrent it all. Sometimes I'm still caught up in the physical idea of ownership though, and I don't go out of my way to get digital copies of things I technically own/have owned. If I left a CD at someone's house out East, should I expect to be able to have it for free in Toronto? But if I sold it or donated it to the library, should I still feel entitled to a digital copy for free?
A few months ago, I went on a Rotate This shopping spree and bought four or five items, including Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp A Butterfly. As I was putting everything in plastic sleeves and collecting digital codes to get mp3 files, I discovered that Kendrick didn't have a code. "Why Kendrick?" I asked, "I want to listen to this on my phone!"
 |
| The Culprit. |
I haven't tried to download a digital version of it and I don't know why there was no digital code attached - was it accidentally left out of my copy, does this label not provide digital content, or does Kendrick himself only want me to listen to this on vinyl because I only paid for it on vinyl? I suppose it does bring up questions about ownership across platforms. In the case of music, I think that codes are usually provided because there is an assumption that while records are collected items that we listen to at home, it is unrealistic to assume that we only listen to music in this way. Other industries seem to be trying to offer multiple formats for fans to enjoy the same content. Cineplex not only projects films in theatre, they also offer special tickets that include a digital copy to watch at home. With books, there seems to be an assumption of starker preferences: you bought either a print, audio, or digital copy of a title because that's how you wanted to experience it and if you want another format you'll have to buy it again. When it comes to physical and digital ownership, I think the line remains blurry although it is interesting that if you bought something digitally (or you paid for a streaming service), you probably wouldn't feel you were also entitled to a physical copy.
I never even realized that this was necessary now, getting access codes to transfer music from one device to another. Though it does make me think of our Copyright Reform presentation from our Policy class about how the TPP could mean that even doing so will become illegal. Because I think we automatically assume, "I paid for this. I own it now, I should be able to have it on any device I please!" Well at least that is what I would say as I stomp my feet. But in all seriousness, the line between physical ownership and digital ownership is quite complex and gets even more so with the increasing ease of access to books, movies, music and so forth. On a side note, I feel like I need to go out and buy myself a CD, for old time's sake!
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of with Angelique on the feet-stomping entitlement when it comes to digital ownership. I definitely assume that every record I buy will come with a download code, and have been known to say some bratty and profane things when that doesn't happen. In a world where we CAN have it both ways - a digital and a physical version for different listening situations - I think many of us tend to believe that we SHOULD and WILL, at all times.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to me that it's the music industry that has acknowledged the distinct difference between formats and their use value. It's almost as if with books, there is the assumption that your access to and enjoyment of the book is independent of form. This clearly isn't the case - as many in our class and blog have attested to when they talk about ebooks (I think this is even more obvious when you look at audiobooks, which serve a very different purpose). I wonder if it will ever be the case that when you buy a print book you are also given an ebook version?
ReplyDelete