Argh! Is this stealing? Piracy, Ethics, etc.

[Monica]

What I referred to earlier was that permission was needed from the artist when copying music on a grand scale, or in the case of music piracy making available to many people for downloading.

What I referred to in my last post was the everyday experience of lending a friend something you own.

How is 'a grand scale' defined? 5 people? 10 people? 100? 1000? Should this be defined at all?

But in both cases permission is needed. I need permission from the original artist to distribute the content via making copies, and I need permission from a friend to borrow the CD he purchased with the content on it.

Well, maybe we've taken this as far as we can. My response to this would just be a repetition of what I've already said: If I borrow your HP books, JK Rowling didn't give permission for you to loan them to me, and I am robbing her of income by borrowing the books rather than buying them. Maybe this is implicitly assumed because we are accustomed to borrowing books, and isn't assumed in the case of music because, until recently, the technology didn't exist. I don't even feel strongly about this issue, since I've never pirated, but I'm just trying to show that a lot of the opinions about this might have more to do with what we're accustomed to, rather than actual ethics.

We applaud Ben Franklin for thinking of the idea of public book libraries. In his time, books were expensive and by making them available in libraries, more people could become educated. But times have changed. Now, there is a huge market for recreational books as well as information. We live in the information age! If we didn't already have libraries, and books were just beginning to get disseminated, as is music - In other words if they were at exactly the same phase in terms of distribution, copying, etc. - then would we see them any differently?

I think not. I think the only reason we find loaning intellectual property (which just happens to be stored on paper) to others acceptable is because it's just been done so long that we're used to it. Books are just much further along than music.

Ben Franklin was and still is considered a hero for his library idea. But those who do the same thing with music are considered criminals.

I think there's some incongruency here.

Lets also bear in mind before we compare them too much further, the difference between copying and lending- one results in an extra copy of the material and the other does not.

Respectfully, I think that's an arbitrary distinction. I think the use of the intangible (in the case of books, the enjoyment of the story or the use of the information) has more weight and substance than the media upon which it is stored. Whether there is another physical copy is, imo, irrelevant. I could make 100 copies of a cd and toss them in the trash, and it would affect no one, because no one would ever access the contents of that cd. Or I could make a single copy of it, and play it for 1000 people. Let's use a movie as the example in this case, since people usually play music more than once, but they don't always see a movie more than once. Let's say I owned a theater and showed a movie to a large audience for free. Now they don't have to pay for the movie, and the actors lose money. Is it ok since I didn't copy the physical movie?

I'd venture to say that making music available for download to strangers is an extreme stretch of the concept of lending! I can't agree with that idea.

I am intentionally stretching ideas in this discussion, not because I have any vested interest in it because I don't, but just to show that, imho, a lot of the reasons given for why some things are ok and others not, are subjective and even arbitrary.

I think this is very hard to say in a definite sense. On the one hand, yes it technically is stealing. But on the other, if you really did delete it if you did not like it, or pay for it if you did like it, then you get very close to a situation where you're sort of listening to the radio. Consequently this has made me rethink my own policies.

Radio stations pay royalties to the artist each time their song is played. Libraries don't pay anything to the authors when their books are loaned. I always check the library first before I buy a book. If the library has it, I don't buy it, thus robbing the author of income s/he would have received if the library had not had the book. This is just so arbitrary!

If I had to chose right now one way or the other for the sake of our discussion, I would side with it being stealing. Because this is not the way the artists, record labels, music stores, etc. envisioned how their business would operate. Essentially permission is not granted.

I contend that this entire subject is a very gray area and there is no easy answer. If it were an issue easily answered by universal principles, then it would not be so subject to what society finds acceptable.

I think some things are universally unacceptable (from an STO perspective, of course) - harming another person, controlling them, infringing upon their free will, etc. Those principles transcend societal norms. Those things cause loss of polarity, regardless of what society deems acceptable (though the person's intention does of course come into play).

Conversely, this whole subject of the difference between sharing books & sharing music seems to be based more on what is culturally acceptable, rather than universal principles. At least that's how I'm perceiving most of the reasons & explanations given. I'm trying to get past that and question the essence of what's really happening.

This is another good point you raise. If someone is selling drugs illegally and you purchase them knowing they are illegal, are you equally at fault in the legal sense? And with music downloading, are you equally in the wrong for downloading it as the person is for making it available?

I would argue yes. For the same reason we don't buy DVD players out of someone's car trunk, or for that matter sell something at a yard sale to someone who you know is paying with stolen money.

The law sees it differently. There are stiffer penalties for drug dealers than drug users.

I realize I am beginning to sounds pretty self righteous! I'm actually a pretty chill guy in real life. I just love a good debate, and this topic interests me to no end since I was so close to the 'scene'.

---

We're cool! I love a good, respectful debate also!

My inner voice tells me its innately wrong. I try to live my life according to that voice… as best I can.

Right on, Richard! That is a good way to live!

---

Are you profiting from stolen music? Again…a negative intent. Or are you simply downloading music because you know that you can and no one will ever catch you? What is the intent?

I think we're all in agreement that someone profiting from pirated music is definitely in the wrong.

To my knowledge, those who make music available for download are not profiting. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong! But no $$ is exchanged, so I don't see how they could profit. What's in it for them? Nothing as far as I can see, except that they all pool their resources and share.

There are so many variations of why we can and why we shouldn’t. You can say one thing, you can tell yourself something else….but your higher self knows your intent when you do it. Technically…you are your own judge.

Agreed.