(07-09-2009, 03:32 PM)Ali Quadir Wrote: It's not stealing, stealing is defined by law as taking an article making it impossible for the original owner to make use of the article. A copy does not make this impossible. In fact nothing is missing therefore nothing is stolen... This is called a violation of copyright. Copyright is the law involved. It is not stealing and we should not allow ourselves to be guilt tripped into believing it is stealing. Also copyright law clearly includes the right for copies for personal use.
I think Ali offered a succinct distinction between stealing and violation of copyright law. The item is clearly not being stolen, but copyright law is clearly being violated.
What is arguably being stolen is potential profits. So let's explore that...
(07-22-2009, 04:22 PM)Lavazza Wrote: Suppose person A and person B both like a new album that just came out. Person A buys it online, and person B pirates it online. They both like it and keep their copies, listening again and again as the years go by. Are you saying, from yuor standpoint in our discussion, that person B did not commit a theft or steal something?
I'm not saying that at all. I don't care for labels because they can be misinterpreted. I'd rather explore the essence of what's happening than stick a convenient label on it.
Technically, the music itself is not being stolen (see previous post) but potential profits are being stolen. However, even that is not so simple.
Let's say I had planned to buy the new Harry Potter book. I fully intended for JK Rowling (and her publisher, the book store, and all the middlemen) to earn a profit from my purchase, and I was ok with that. Let's say JK Rowling's net profit from that single book was $2. (I have no idea how much she gets, but this is just for illustration purposes.)
But then you offered to loan me your copy. Now I don't need to buy the book. (Well I could if I wanted to display it on my bookshelf, but let's say I just wanted to know what happened to Lord Voldemort and didn't really care about owning the book.)
Did the action of you loaning the book to me rob JKR of $2? as well as $$ that would have gone to her publisher, Barnes&Noble, etc.?
Indeed it did!
How is this any different in the final result from you copying the latest Metallica cd for me, which I had planned to purchase but now no longer need to?
In terms of what I have in my possession, in the case of the cd, I have the music to enjoy over and over again, whereas in the case of the book, I only read it once. True enough. BUT, in terms of profits being denied the artist, they are exactly the same!
Now let's look at another scenario.
Let's say my son shares with me a band called Apocalyptica (which he really did). This band is cello metal, amazing stuff! and I had never heard of it before. If he had not shared his cd with me, they would never have gotten any profit from me. I would never have bought any of their cds because I didn't know they existed!
Now, it so happens that my son has indeed bought some of their albums. But guess how he learned about Apocalyptica? You got it.
If not for recommendations from others who download music, my son probably would never have heard of Apocalyptica either. The downloading subculture has essentially created their own referral system, and many obscure bands who might never get signed to a major label are getting exposure in this illicit underworld.
Interestingly, some of these bands are so obscure that they seem to actually rely on the download culture. They tour small clubs and in some cases their fans are rabid. They never make it on radio/tv but they earn a living.
No profit was stolen from this band because there wasn't any there to begin with. In contrast, both my son and I will surely see them live should they ever tour near us, and will undoubtedly be purchasing some of their albums...maybe all of them like we did with Sonata Arctica.
Do we do that with every band we happen to learn about from someone who has downloaded their music? No. Some artists' works are indeed being enjoyed by us with no compensation. But since we never knew about them before anyway, who is being harmed?
In a perfect world, I would gladly reciprocate for every bit of pleasure I ever experience. But I'm just not really set up to send a check to every single artist whose song I happen to hear at a friend's house or on a youtube video. (What about youtube videos, btw? You can listen to the entire album that way...quality isn't as good of course, so I'm not happy with that since I'm picky about sound quality, but some people aren't so picky and might just listen to stuff on youtube...which isn't paying any royalties to the artist like radio & cable tv do.)
I do try to support the artists I like the best whenever possible. And if a friend is depressed, I might put together a sampler cd of music to help her feel better. Is that a violation of copyright laws? You betcha! Is it stealing? Unless my friend was already planning to buy all those songs, I don't really think so. Is it being of service? Yes. Since my intention was to help her, then yes. Am I grateful to the artist for creating this music? Yes!!! I think on some level, the artist is well aware that s/he is being of service by offering his/her art, which may in turn ripple out and help so many.
I'm sorry if I seem evasive. I just don't think this issue can be reduced to a simple yes or no regarding the question of whether it's stealing.
Since we all must follow our own moral compass, I will share mine: I actually think me borrowing your HP book instead of buying it is closer to stealing than me listening to music I'd never heard of that someone downloaded.
This might sound strange to you, but that's how I see it. I would feel the same way if someone told me they were planning to buy the new Sonata Arctica cd and I offered to copy mine for them instead. This has happened before. In those cases, I keep my mouth shut and let them buy it. I don't want to be responsible for them not buying it by sharing mine. But if they've never heard of the artist before anyway, then why not share the music with them? Then, chances are that they will buy more of the artist's cds, and it's a win-win.
Incidentally, I won't buy cds used in some cases. I wouldn't dream of buying the new Peter Gabriel cd used, even if it were in mint condition and saved me $5. That's how strongly I feel about supporting his music. I feel that way about certain serious artists who I feel are making major contributions to the arts, but aren't commercially huge. It's a matter of principle to me. I know they rely on their fans to be able to continue their work, and their work is bigger than merely making a living.