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

[pluralone]

Well said, Lavazza. All of it. *applause*

And, yes, I did watch the first season of "Lost" -- enjoyed it very much! -- but by the time the second season began, I'd lost (pun unintended) interest in the process of watching commercial TV. I just have an intolerance toward sitting through long stretches of commercials for the few minutes of programming in between, especially how it's set up now, with the last 20 minutes or so of an hour-long program broken into many small segments for the handy insertion of longer segments of commercials. Setting the end of the hour up like that pretty much guarantees that if the program itself is compelling, folks will sit through the excess of commercials in order to see how the program ends. I find myself being more annoyed by the commercials (and the tactics used by advertisers) than entertained by the programming. That's just me; I tend to hyperfocus on whatever entertainment I'm accessing, so it's really hard for me to disengage from the commercials. Give me a good book and you almost have to shake me to get my attention away from its pages. Same thing with work or play on the computer. Plenty of folks can simply take the whole commercial process in stride, and sometimes I wish I could do that, too, but then again I'm easily entertained so if something doesn't work for me it's not hard to find an alternative.

Which brings me back to the original topic, sort of: I have the same aversion to commercial radio that I have toward commercial television, so I don't often hear the new music that's available, so I don't develop a perceived 'need' to either buy or pirate it. While I think the way the music industry functions is truly ugly, I don't see piracy as an appropriate vehicle for change. Just as I would not sneak in to a sporting event on the basis that it's wrong to pay players such an exaggerated amount of money for, really, just playing a game - no matter how good they are or how entertaining it may be - I would not use the unethical practices of the music industry to justify unethical behavior on my part. Again, that's just me. I absolutely do not hold negative judgments toward those who view this differently.
plur

[Monica]

In the case of books, the difference is that they are a physical good that cannot be replicated with a few mouse clicks. Since you would have purchased the book from someone, the book itself becomes your property, just like anything else. So if you decide to give it to your friend for free, sell it at a garage sale, or even just loan it to someone, there is nothing wrong with that because you are the owner of that item. But what you don't own is the right to copy and distribute the content (via Xerox machine, PDF scanner, etc.) to others, which is where copyright laws come in. By and large it's not a problem with books because people generally speaking don't want to read a book that has been printed out of a Xerox machine or squint their eyes at the computer screen, and people also like the experience of opening and reading a book.

But the same cannot be said of digital music files, where you are making an identical copy. A MP3 I get from iTunes is identical to the one I download with bittorrent. Therein creates the problem- you are not loaning your music to someone so that you do not have it when they have it. You both have it at the same time. Same thing can apply to computer software, movies, stock photos, and most other digital assets that are bought and sold.

I respectfully disagree. I think the 'physical' aspect of a book is irrelevant. It is the content that is important. A book can be copied digitally. EBooks are now quite common. I don't see a book as a physical object, like a table or a car. I see the content of the book - the thoughts, the knowledge, the story - as its substance. And that substance can indeed be copied digitally...or partaken of by simply borrowing the hardcopy of the book. If I have read the book, have I not partaken of its substance? Its substance does not lie in its physical paper pages or beautifully illustrated cover. Hence, I think loaning a book, and its being read by another person, is indeed equivalent to sharing music digitally. Hearing a song is akin to reading a chapter of a book.

I agree that this is bad, and that reform is needed. But in the interim, should we use this as a right to pirate music from the bad guys? As 3D Sunset said earlier, is it alright to do bad things to bad people? How does that make us better? Forgive me if I am making the assumption that you feel this way as you did not explicitly state this- but it is a common theme in the pirate community (I of all people should know )

No, I don't think pirating is ok because it targets the bad guys. I don't think anything is 'ok' just because the 'bad guys' are targeted. Nor have I said that pirating is ok. I haven't said it's ok or not ok, actually. I'm just exploring the topic.

[Monica]

Which brings me back to the original topic, sort of: I have the same aversion to commercial radio that I have toward commercial television, so I don't often hear the new music that's available, so I don't develop a perceived 'need' to either buy or pirate it. While I think the way the music industry functions is truly ugly, I don't see piracy as an appropriate vehicle for change. Just as I would not sneak in to a sporting event on the basis that it's wrong to pay players such an exaggerated amount of money for, really, just playing a game - no matter how good they are or how entertaining it may be - I would not use the unethical practices of the music industry to justify unethical behavior on my part. Again, that's just me. I absolutely do not hold negative judgments toward those who view this differently.

Well said!

I'm the same way about commercials. I always mute the tv whenever there's a commercial! When tv went digital recently, we lost it since we don't have cable. So now we just watch stuff on hulu if we occasionally want to watch something. It's great - the commercials are only 5 seconds! (or maybe 15 seconds, I forgot - but they're a lot less than on tv.)

For the record, I have never pirated anything in my life. So if my comments have appeared to support pirating, I apologize for the misunderstanding! I definitely don't think it's a solution, and I'm not advocating pirating. But, as plural said, neither do I hold judgment towards it because I see a lot of gray area here, not the least of which is the issue of 'goods' vs 'intangibles.' And, neither do I refuse music offered by others until I've ascertained how they came by it. If I were financially wealthy, I'd probably buy every cd I liked, just to support the artist. As it is now, there are a few artists who can count on me to buy their new album.

To further clarify my previous post: Where do we draw the line? Is the value of a book in its paper? No, it's in the content. There are now EBooks, which have no material worth whatsoever, but are sold for their content. Ideas and concepts may be considered 'intellectual property.' How is music any different?

Yet, ideas are freely exchanged. What about EBooks (no material worth as a 'good') that contain useful knowledge or even marketable secrets? Is it stealing if someone shares that knowledge with others?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Technology has surpassed our ability to ethically utilize it.

I just saw part of the new Zeitgeist movie, which posits that the money system is the root of all evil. I think that's an oversimplification. But, it may be partially true. Perhaps putting a dollar value on goods and services does cheapen them, as well as open up a can of worms to deal with. If there is any truth to this idea, then it's doesn't look hopeful that the problem will be solved as long as we have a monetary system. I really don't know. I just know that it's not so simple, because we are dealing with intangibles, which is very different from selling material objects.

I envision our SMC in which knowledge, music, art, etc. are freely exchanged, and everyone is prospering.

[Richard]

Pirated music (or video or text) takes from another entity the fruits of their labors. That they use to feed, clothe and house themselves and the ones they love. It doesn’t matter how much window dressing one piles onto it…you are still using something that you did not ask (or pay) the owner for. Being of a spiritual bent…on a spiritual path does not absolve you of your responsibilities to the culture you choose to live in.

Within the realm of the LOO though…..its an inherently self serving act.

Richard

[pluralone]

I just saw part of the new Zeitgeist movie, which posits that the money system is the root of all evil. I think that's an oversimplification. But, it may be partially true.

I'm going to have to watch that movie again. That's a point I missed... or, more accurately, it's one I have to wonder if I really 'missed' it or just 'dismissed' it. I think it's partially true in that I believe the social mind-set from which money (and similar currencies) was developed was truly skewed. "Evil"? No. Imbalanced? Misguided? Definitely.

So why doesn't life work this way right now? One word. Greed.

I agree that greed is what took money (again, and similar currencies) to the unhealthy state of commerce in which it exits today, but I think greed is not the only reason it's perpetuated now. I think a great deal of all societal imbalances stem from learned helplessness, a state in which many, perhaps the majority, do not agree with social policy but do not believe they have the power to effect change. That's just not the same as wholesale greed.

Just thinkin'.
plur

[Lavazza]

For the record, I have never pirated anything in my life. So if my comments have appeared to support pirating, I apologize for the misunderstanding!

I also will apologize also as I do feel that I may have overstepped my bounds a bit and squashed some toes. I did not mean to make presumptions on your part but did so anyway. I would also state that I do think it's extremely beneficial to evaluate the situation from all angles as you are doing, and declining to judge only when you feel your mind is made up. Too often we jump to judgment first without thinking, so kudos for that!

I will cease my debate since I don't think I can add much to what I've already put down above, and as usual I am happy to let a discussion rest in agreeing to disagree. But before I do, I would add that I agree with Richard's post, it is exactly what I feel but more succinctly written:

Pirated music (or video or text) takes from another entity the fruits of their labors. That they use to feed, clothe and house themselves and the ones they love. It doesn’t matter how much window dressing one piles onto it…you are still using something that you did not ask (or pay) the owner for. Being of a spiritual bent…on a spiritual path does not absolve you of your responsibilities to the culture you choose to live in.

Within the realm of the LOO though…..its an inherently self serving act.

[Monica]

I just saw part of the new Zeitgeist movie, which posits that the money system is the root of all evil. I think that's an oversimplification. But, it may be partially true.

I'm going to have to watch that movie again.

I had seen the original Zeitgeist a couple of years ago, which had a lot of great info, but was of course very controversial. (There are now tons of websites attempting to refute it.) I just found out that there is a sequel called Zeitgeist Addendum. I haven't watched it yet, except for just a few minutes of it. I did see part of an interview with the guy who made the movie, and he was talking about the money aspect. He seemed to indicate that all the problems in the world are because of cultural programming and scarcity. A friend told me about it and said she was really blown away by it - very inspired, but after I heard part of that interview, I felt less interested in watching his movie. But I probably will anyway one of these days, because of my friend's recommendation. That's about all I can say, until I see it.

---

I also will apologize also as I do feel that I may have overstepped my bounds a bit and squashed some toes. I did not mean to make presumptions on your part but did so anyway. I would also state that I do think it's extremely beneficial to evaluate the situation from all angles as you are doing, and declining to judge only when you feel your mind is made up. Too often we jump to judgment first without thinking, so kudos for that!

OK and thanks!

[Monica]

Pirated music (or video or text) takes from another entity the fruits of their labors. That they use to feed, clothe and house themselves and the ones they love. It doesn’t matter how much window dressing one piles onto it…you are still using something that you did not ask (or pay) the owner for. Being of a spiritual bent…on a spiritual path does not absolve you of your responsibilities to the culture you choose to live in.

Within the realm of the LOO though…..its an inherently self serving act.

I definitely think anyone who pirates music and then resells it should be hung up by their toes. (just kidding.) Seriously, actually benefiting financially from someone else's work (without their permission) is in another league altogether.

I think maybe we need a better definition of 'pirating.' Is recording an artist at a concert, then posting the video on youtube considered pirating?

I assume that most of this discussion has been referring to illegally downloading songs that are for sale by conventional means (cds and legal paid downloads).

If I were already planning to buy a cd, but then illegally downloaded it instead (which, again, I have never done) then that is obviously robbing the artist because I would not be paying them $$ which I originally was going to do.

If, otoh, a friend copies a cd she had actually bought, or downloads an album (whether legally or illegally), by a band I had never heard of before, and gives it to me, is that robbing from the artist? I would never have bought their album anyway, since I had never heard of them, so what is being stolen here?

Although I've never downloaded music myself, I have a friend who regularly downloads and shares music. I confess that I have enjoyed the music of many bands whom I had never heard of before. Most are very obscure and not likely to ever hit the mainstream because of their genre. In these cases, I surely would never have bought their cds anyway, because I didn't know they existed! Folk metal, symphonic metal, jazz metal obscurities that I never knew existed...I never even knew the genres existed, much less the huge assortment of artists!

Case in point: Sonata Arctica is among the most commercially accessible out of those he's turned me onto, and they still play small clubs or as opening acts for bigger bands (like Nightwish) in slightly-bigger clubs here in the US (though they fill larger venues in Europe). I'd never heard of them before, but because my friend gave me a cd he'd downloaded, I liked them so much that I went out and bought all, yes, ALL of their cds, their live dvd, at least 3 t-shirts, and I've seen them live 2 times. Oh, and I plan to see them live every chance I get!

Does this excuse my friend's downloading activities? It's not my place to say. I just know that Sonata Arctica now has about $200 of my money that they otherwise wouldn't have had.

It can work both ways! My main point is that it's not a black-and-white issue.

PS. My friend has also seen them live, at least 3 times. I think he bought a couple of t-shirts too.

[Monica]

Just a random thought: When you worry about ripping someone off by copying a CD, did you take money from their big flash car payment, or from the wad of bills they handed over to their drug dealer..?

This gets back to the question of whether it's ok to steal from 'bad guys.'

I don't think it's ok to steal from bad guys.

I think the real question is whether it is stealing at all.

Whether rock stars deserve to be paid that much is a whole 'nother issue! It's an indication of the skewed values of society that rock stars, actors, sports stars, etc. are paid disproportionately high amounts of $$. But I don't think it's really their fault as it is just a reflection of society.

If incomes were proportionate to inherent values, then healers, teachers, counselors, social workers, etc. and, most of all, mothers! would be paid more than they are.

In all fairness to the rock stars, though, the vast majority of them struggle and never make it at all. It's only a very tiny % that hit the big time.

[Richard]

Taha wrote: Just a random thought: When you worry about ripping someone off by copying a CD, did you take money from their big flash car payment, or from the wad of bills they handed over to their drug dealer..?

Taha,

That's a stereotype. So much music is copied and re-sold from artists in all walks of life. You can't apply one stereotype to the entire gamut of entertainers. No doubt there are levels of "theft"...if you will. What matters in terms of STO / STS is the intent. If someone is not aware of that division, then come what may.

But if any of us...being fully aware of STO / STS....intentionally DL's copies of someone's music? If we analyze our actions honestly? How can you come to the conclusion that its harmless with regards to STO?

But hey...since only 51% is needed? Maybe we figure we've got enough pad in other areas of our lives to indulge in a little relatively harmless STS behavior? Play the odds?

For myself, my mind doesn't work that way. Perhaps its different for others.

Richard

[Ali Quadir]

I think the real question is whether it is stealing at all.

Exactly!!!

I've said it before, but according to law stealing means taking property, making it unavailable to the original owner. This is a crime. Copying music or works protected by copyrights is a violation of copyright... Not a crime but a civil offense. And this is in the worst case scenario. Because there is a whole load of exceptions to this being an offense.

The original copyright laws were formed in France. England and later the US copied these laws. They were built around books. And it was carefully balanced to make sure that intellectual property was in the hands of the producers of the works. And that there could be no monopoly ever on copyrighted works. The point was to allow culture to be profitable without restricting it.

Right now. The vast majority of recently produced human culture is owned by a handful of companies...

Since copying their intellectual property is not a criminal offense, they cannot sue for legal punishment. They can only sue for damages. Damages are directly proportional to what the owner lost by the action of the offender. At least they're supposed to be. Being forced to pay millions for copying 24 songs from the internet is in itself criminal, it is cruel and unusual punishment. However they would like people to believe that this is perfectly normal behavior. That their multibillion dollar industry is suffering greatly at the hands of pirates. Which isn't true. They want us to believe that we cannot put their music in our home movies. They want us to believe we cannot make funny remixes of movies, and they want us to believe basically that we're only allowed to watch the movie or listen to the music. A right incidentally that in some DRM schemes they can take away at any moment.

Whether rock stars deserve to be paid that much is a whole 'nother issue! It's an indication of the skewed values of society that rock stars, actors, sports stars, etc. are paid disproportionately high amounts of $$. But I don't think it's really their fault as it is just a reflection of society.

They should be paid, obviously. If we value their work they should receive the benefits for it. However, most of them don't get paid now. Most need full time day jobs to get access to their daily bread.

You buy albums from your favorite artist who happens to be a newbie but that you really like. So all your money goes to... The label's pet stars... Not to your artist. However we never hear about this part of the equation. It's always US that's stealing... Not them...

Human culture is free. It is a human birth right, it should not be owned by someone who just wants to extract money from it without adding any other benefit. We're not at that point yet but the last 10 years we've moved rapidly towards the point where singing a song you have no rights to can get you arrested... Even if it's just humming in an elevator full of colleagues.

Forgive my emotional outburst. It's like Rage against the Machine said "Believing all the lies that they're telling you, buying all the products that they're selling you." I'm bound by the laws of my country but not to just mindlessly believe that this is right or that it has more to do with justice than greed.

[Richard]

Um, that's why I said "Just a random thought"..? If I thought all entertainers (or whoever) were the same I'd consider myself pretty dumb. Like anyone, I can be dumb, but I try not to be much of the time. Then again, how dumb does someone have to think I am to define a stereotype for me..? Hmm... Maybe I need to add some very long words to my posts!

Random thoughts carry less weight than other thoughts?

Richard

[3D Sunset]

Human culture is free. It is a human birth right, it should not be owned by someone who just wants to extract money from it without adding any other benefit.

Unfortunately the nature of marketing and selling most anything involves paying the lion's share of the gross sale to those who appear to add no value. I really don't see that music is any different here. The world is also full of examples of people who created a novel invention (and even patented or otherwise protected their intellectual property) and then sold the rights to it for a pittance. How is the music industry any more or less culpable in this process than any other business? The only difference I see is that music can be easily and anonymously copied (taken without the permission of the rightful owners). As for the poor musician that is being taken advantage of, well he/she certainly could avoid the music industry entirely (as more and more are), but it is much harder to get mass exposure without their marketing channels. If he/she signed on with them, then he/she did so of their own free will, and they did so to make money, not to contribute to human culture. If their desire was to add to human culture, then they would simply make it available for free and hope for free publicity. Their goal is to make money from it (a goal that I certainly understand), so they make it available the best way that they can to accomplish that end. Today this is the music industry, tomorrow.... who knows.

We're not at that point yet but the last 10 years we've moved rapidly towards the point where singing a song you have no rights to can get you arrested... Even if it's just humming in an elevator full of colleagues.

For years in the US, most restaurant chains have prohibited their employees from singing the traditional "Happy Birthday to you" song to customers. Urban legend has it that Paul McCartney effectively created this ban by suing several large chains for copyright infringement after he bought rights to the song back in the 70's (the legend goes on to say that he later sold those rights to Michael Jackson who continued to enforce it). Regardless of whether or not this legend is true, I can attest to the fact that almost no US restaurants will have their employees sing "Happy Birthday" to you, and that restaurant managers will tell you that this is why. So maybe your future is already here.

3D Sunset

[Lavazza]

I think the real question is whether it is stealing at all.

Exactly!!!

I believe it is stealing. I believe the definition of stealing is taking without permission. Who is stealing from who or what is being taken becomes moot after the fact.

If my definition of stealing is in error, please help me understand. No sarcasm intended- I really mean it.

What I am hearing is justification for stealing. That is another matter and I am seeing that I am not well equipped to debate that part. Could be that stealing music is totally justified. Maybe it is not. It's a personal conclusion... I have mine, others will make their own.

But we should at least call it what it is, stealing.

[Ali Quadir]

Human culture is free. It is a human birth right, it should not be owned by someone who just wants to extract money from it without adding any other benefit.

Unfortunately the nature of marketing and selling most anything involves paying the lion's share of the gross sale to those who appear to add no value. I really don't see that music is any different here. The world is also full of examples of people who created a novel invention (and even patented or otherwise protected their intellectual property) and then sold the rights to it for a pittance. How is the music industry any more or less culpable in this process than any other business? The only difference I see is that music can be easily and anonymously copied (taken without the permission of the rightful owners). As for the poor musician that is being taken advantage of, well he/she certainly could avoid the music industry entirely (as more and more are), but it is much harder to get mass exposure without their marketing channels. If he/she signed on with them, then he/she did so of their own free will, and they did so to make money, not to contribute to human culture. If their desire was to add to human culture, then they would simply make it available for free and hope for free publicity. Their goal is to make money from it (a goal that I certainly understand), so they make it available the best way that they can to accomplish that end. Today this is the music industry, tomorrow.... who knows.

This is true today.. However for most of human evolution it wasn't... If someone had a brilliant idea then he'd either have to keep it a secret. Or accept that others are going to reproduce it.. Similarly. If he has a problem he can solve it by looking at others. Right now we're with the situation where some people hold all the cards and they can literally tell others to die rather than give up profits. Which is painfully clear in some medication.

This is exactly how it is. And the law is half heartedly behind it. But that does not make it right.

I said that those who do not add value to it receive a disproportionate amount of income from it. Let me clarify I'm not saying that those who SEEM not to add value to it cannot profit from it assuming they do actually add real value.. I'm okay with this. However when distribution and promotion of a handful of bands is the added value service delivered when I buy my favorite band's records I don't feel that this is a fair added value. I really don't care about Britney Spears. Don't get me wrong I wish her well but really she is where she is because she was picked and pimped.

This is not how the law was originally formed. This is adverse to how human nature works. We share music.

We're not at that point yet but the last 10 years we've moved rapidly towards the point where singing a song you have no rights to can get you arrested... Even if it's just humming in an elevator full of colleagues.

For years in the US, most restaurant chains have prohibited their employees from singing the traditional "Happy Birthday to you" song to customers. Urban legend has it that Paul McCartney effectively created this ban by suing several large chains for copyright infringement after he bought rights to the song back in the 70's (the legend goes on to say that he later sold those rights to Michael Jackson who continued to enforce it). Regardless of whether or not this legend is true, I can attest to the fact that almost no US restaurants will have their employees sing "Happy Birthday" to you, and that restaurant managers will tell you that this is why. So maybe your future is already here.

It would seem so.. I don't live stateside. Here people at mac donalds don't sing for us.... Ever.... Not even if we ask them real nicely. They don't sing. It's not in the contract and they're not nearly paid enough to do this, even if it is legal here for them to do so, now please stop making crazy suggestions and eat your burger.

Different world eh?

But the happy birthday song is a good example. I think most people consider it a folk song and would not be able to connect it to any specific artist. (I didn't until you told me) Why is it that a song that is known and sang by all... Can be owned by one?

I know it is exactly that way... But this is because corporate lobbying over centuries made the laws so now it is this way. This is not how the copyright laws were envisioned by the highly educated and thoughtful men that first drafted them. This was exactly one of the points they wanted to avoid.

Lets say you and me are standing in line at Mac Donalds. With people loudly *not* singing behind us.... I've read a book. I'm telling you about it. This means I'm reproducing the book. Therefore I am breaking copyright. Blam a few thousand dollars in fines. This is total nonsense. But exactly how it's going to be unless enough people figure that that's just not right.

How about teachers? They used to copy paste everything for class. Now they really can't do that. A Lovers typical gift.. A mix tape, will set you back a few hundred thousand if the wrong people hear it.

[Monica]

I believe it is stealing. I believe the definition of stealing is taking without permission. Who is stealing from who or what is being taken becomes moot after the fact.

If my definition of stealing is in error, please help me understand. No sarcasm intended- I really mean it.

What I am hearing is justification for stealing. That is another matter and I am seeing that I am not well equipped to debate that part. Could be that stealing music is totally justified. Maybe it is not. It's a personal conclusion... I have mine, others will make their own.

But we should at least call it what it is, stealing.

I am not attempting to justify stealing. I am attempting to point out that, if copying music is stealing, then so is loaning a book, because the contents, both of which are intangibles, are being shared with another without permission.

To show that the product is an intangible: If you copy the cd, you still have the original cd. The piece of plastic that stores the music is still intact, and in fact the music on the original cd is still there. But the music itself has been shared, like a candle flame lighting another candle. Therefore the music is an intangible.

Likewise, if you loan a book to someone and the person reads it, the story has been transferred to another mind. That person returns your book, so nothing was stolen. However, the story or info contained in that book has been shared, like a candle flame lighting another candle. Is there another copy of the story? Not precisely, but there might as well be, because the emotions evoked by the story, or the usefulness of the knowledge contained in that book, now dwells in the mind of another person who did not buy that book.

How are they any different?

Has anyone here ever loaned a book to someone?

The only difference I see, really, is in quantity. We don't usually loan a book to hundreds or thousands of people. But when someone puts music up for download, there's no telling how many people will download it.

Is it any more or less stealing based on how many people access the intangible item?

[Lavazza]

I am not attempting to justify stealing.

I'm sorry once again, as I'm not trying to single anyone out on this thread or witch hunt anyone- I'm just responding in a general sense. It's a bit touchy, I'm trying to tread lightly!

I am attempting to point out that, if copying music is stealing, then so is loaning a book, because the contents, both of which are intangibles, are being shared with another without permission.

I have to disagree with that. Loaning music is not the same as copying music, more below...

To show that the product is an intangible: If you copy the cd, you still have the original cd. The piece of plastic that stores the music is still intact, and in fact the music on the original cd is still there. But the music itself has been shared, like a candle flame lighting another candle. Therefore the music is an intangible.

Music, stories, spoken word, etc. are indeed intangible. But lets disband comparing it to a candle flame for the sole purpose of not comparing them in other ways. (fire not being an intellectual property, etc)

Likewise, if you loan a book to someone and the person reads it, the story has been transferred to another mind. That person returns your book, so nothing was stolen. However, the story or info contained in that book has been shared, like a candle flame lighting another candle. Is there another copy of the story? Not precisely, but there might as well be, because the emotions evoked by the story, or the usefulness of the knowledge contained in that book, now dwells in the mind of another person who did not buy that book.

How are they any different?

The difference is the keeping of the item that contains the content. The book comparison is a great one because it is very similar to a music CD. You loan a book to someone... they read it and give it back to you. You loan a music CD to someone, they listen to it and give it back to you. The key is- they give it back. It was loaned and returned. Not stealing.

With digital MP3 files, the container is not physical but electronic. The actual 1's and 0's that make up a digital MP3 file becomes the vehicle for the music. We can probably all agree that the MP3 file itself is not valuable unless you can play it with your favorite portable mp3 player or computer... Likewise a book is not valuable unless you can read it, or a music CD not valuable if you cannot play it (unless you need a cheap coaster!) So what I'm saying is- the MP3 has to be considered an 'item' in itself. Just because you can not hold it in your hands... does not mean it is not on the same playing field with books and cds.

So when you copy MP3 files, you are effectively making exact copies of the vehicle for the music therein. This is exactly the same as somehow making an exact copy of a book, or burning a music CD. When you copy and share or download copyrighted music in the format of MP3's it is indeed a theft.

Consider if we suddenly ran out of paper tomorrow, or plastic for making CDs, and we had no choice but to convert everything to digital files and it became the only vehicle for those types of content. Should we assume that at that point we never need to pay for any music, books, etc. ever again?

Is there another copy of the story? Not precisely, but there might as well be, because the emotions evoked by the story, or the usefulness of the knowledge contained in that book, now dwells in the mind of another person who did not buy that book.

The only case this is true is if that person had a 100% photographic memory. But since most people do not have this, people will tend to want to have a copy of music they like for themselves so they can listen to it more than once. Same thing with good books. (I'll be re-reading the Harry Potter books sometime this year I think!)

The only difference I see, really, is in quantity. We don't usually loan a book to hundreds or thousands of people. But when someone puts music up for download, there's no telling how many people will download it.

Exactly.

Is it any more or less stealing based on how many people access the intangible item?

I don't think so, personally.

[Monica]

I'm sorry once again, as I'm not trying to single anyone out on this thread or witch hunt anyone- I'm just responding in a general sense. It's a bit touchy, I'm trying to tread lightly!

No problem! We're cool! This is indeed a touchy subject. I think we're all doing a pretty good job of respectfully disagreeing on certain points.

The difference is the keeping of the item that contains the content. The book comparison is a great one because it is very similar to a music CD. You loan a book to someone... they read it and give it back to you. You loan a music CD to someone, they listen to it and give it back to you. The key is- they give it back. It was loaned and returned. Not stealing.

Ah, but what you are neglecting to consider is that, once the book has been read, its content has been transferred to the reader's mind. S/he now stores that content. The mind becomes the storage container.

the MP3 has to be considered an 'item' in itself. Just because you can not hold it in your hands... does not mean it is not on the same playing field with books and cds.

I am not disputing that. I agree completely that the digital version is the same as a hardcopy - both contain the data. My point is that so too is your mind.

The only case this is true is if that person had a 100% photographic memory. But since most people do not have this, people will tend to want to have a copy of music they like for themselves so they can listen to it more than once. Same thing with good books. (I'll be re-reading the Harry Potter books sometime this year I think!)

In some cases, yes. But not in the case of nonfiction. For example, suppose a friend loans me her fav veg. cookbook, and I write down a few recipes. I now have that knowledge and don't need to purchase the book. Even in the case of fiction, not everyone likes reading books more than once. I never read fiction books a 2nd time. That's just me, but once I know the story, I can't get interested in reading it again. So if I borrowed your HP books, am I stealing from JK Rowling?

Is it any more or less stealing based on how many people access the intangible item?

I don't think so, personally.

I don't think so either. That's why I don't think making the music from a cd you bought available for download by 1000s of people is any less or more stealing than loaning a book. It is, however, more serious because it's on a much grander scale. Sort of like stealing $1000 is not any more stealing than stealing $1, but it is, in any court of law, more serious. If a friend loaned you her jacket and you found a quarter in the pocket, and meant to return it to her but forgot, most of us would probably shrug it off and not give it a 2nd thought. After all, it was only a quarter! But if it were a wad of $100 bills, and we 'forgot' to return it, that friend would be justifiably angry! So quantity does play a role.

For the record, I am 100% against putting music on the internet for download. I think we need to differentiate between offering the music for download vs downloading it yourself. Like the difference between selling drugs and using drugs.

[pluralone]

If he/she signed on with them, then he/she did so of their own free will, and they did so to make money, not to contribute to human culture. If their desire was to add to human culture, then they would simply make it available for free and hope for free publicity.

I'd argue that the motive probably encompasses both -- the desire to add to human culture, and the desire to be paid for the effort.

It seems a whole lot of this thread contains discussion aimed at moving gray areas into either black or white boxes. Sometimes it just can't be done... but it can be edifying to discuss how it might be accomplished.

Here, remove the darker bits here and move them over there... No, no, no, that's not a dark bit, it's a light bit! Whattaya mean it's not light? I'm telling you it's light, it is light... Oh. I see. Ok then, yeah, it's dark... Well in that case, put it over here. Whattaya mean, 'not there'?....

[Lavazza]

We're getting close to settling our debate, however the outcome, I feel

Ah, but what you are neglecting to consider is that, once the book has been read, its content has been transferred to the reader's mind. S/he now stores that content. The mind becomes the storage container.

I am not disputing that. I agree completely that the digital version is the same as a hardcopy - both contain the data. My point is that so too is your mind.

I disagree that the mind then becomes the storage container. Now of course I will concede that we can remember what our favorite song sounds like, even sing it ourselves if we like. And in that way your point is well thought out- however practically speaking people want to listen to their favorite artists sing or play instruments to them again via recorded media (or live performance). To put it simply, it just ain't the same as hearing it again. Or reading the story again. That's why we bothered making records, tapes, cds and mp3's in the first place.

In some cases, yes. But not in the case of nonfiction. For example, suppose a friend loans me her fav veg. cookbook, and I write down a few recipes. I now have that knowledge and don't need to purchase the book. Even in the case of fiction, not everyone likes reading books more than once. I never read fiction books a 2nd time. That's just me, but once I know the story, I can't get interested in reading it again. So if I borrowed your HP books, am I stealing from JK Rowling?

I would say it is not theft since someone who did buy the book(s) made the conscious choice to make a loan to you- which is fair game. Libraries work in the same way. In your situation- buying books would have no advantage since once you owned them they would never be touched again. In the same way, if you only listened to a music cd once and never listened again, there would be no point for you to buy it unless you could not find someone to loan it to you. All the same- I do not believe this lends itself to making the next leap in to downloading music from the internet, because in that situation you really aren't being loaned anything so much as you finding and taking it for yourself. There also would be no way to verify that who you were downloading from had purchased it originally, and especially so since torrent files work with multiple seeders sending you files.

Because of what I just wrote- I may need to re-think my own policy of accepting pirated music from friends, listening once, and either purchasing or deleting. I will have to think more on this... because music is also played in the same way on the radio. Well, this thread is certainly forcing me to really evaluate all of my values on this topic. Very beneficial!

I don't think so either. That's why I don't think making the music from a cd you bought available for download by 1000s of people is any less or more stealing than loaning a book. It is, however, more serious because it's on a much grander scale. Sort of like stealing $1000 is not any more stealing than stealing $1, but it is, in any court of law, more serious. If a friend loaned you her jacket and you found a quarter in the pocket, and meant to return it to her but forgot, most of us would probably shrug it off and not give it a 2nd thought. After all, it was only a quarter! But if it were a wad of $100 bills, and we 'forgot' to return it, that friend would be justifiably angry! So quantity does play a role.

I agree, the difference in those situations is the severity. They would both be considered theft which is my main point- just that in the case of the quarter found in a pocket, it wouldn't be enough for anyone to care I guess the equal to that with our discussion would be Metallica finding out that one person had pirated 'Sandman' instead of 1,000,000 people.

[Monica]

I disagree that the mind then becomes the storage container.

I was referring to books, not music. And I made the distinction that this is less so with fiction, moreso with information.

---

We're getting close to settling our debate, however the outcome, I feel

Great!

I would say it is not theft since someone who did buy the book(s) made the conscious choice to make a loan to you- which is fair game.

Before you said that the creator of the work had to give permission. Now you are saying that only the person who purchased the work must give permission?

By that logic, then let's say 10 people purchased a Metallica album, and set it up for download. They are giving permission to loan that music, right?

So how is it any different?

In your situation- buying books would have no advantage since once you owned them they would never be touched again. In the same way, if you only listened to a music cd once and never listened again, there would be no point for you to buy it unless you could not find someone to loan it to you.

Then, by that logic, are you saying that downloading music is ok as long as I listen to it only once?

Why does the number of times I enjoy the item have any relevance to whether it's ok to steal it or not?

Earlier you said what made it stealing was whether the creator granted permission. But now we have new criteria entering the equation: how many times the consumer enjoys the item, and whether the purchaser chooses to share it with someone else. Neither of these has anything at all to do with permission from the artist. I am trying to understand your point, but this is getting confusing.

All the same- I do not believe this lends itself to making the next leap in to downloading music from the internet, because in that situation you really aren't being loaned anything so much as you finding and taking it for yourself.

But I wouldn't be able to 'find' it unless someone offered it! How is the person(s) offering it for download any different from people offering to loan a book to me?

If it's based on the purchaser granting permission (assuming that someone, somewhere, originally bought the music or book), then downloading surely has the permission of the person offering the item for download.

So, we're back to the question: Exactly which criteria makes it ok to share something we've bought?

There also would be no way to verify that who you were downloading from had purchased it originally, and especially so since torrent files work with multiple seeders sending you files.

This is true. Likewise, when we buy a used book, we have no way of knowing whether it was sold by its original owner, or has had multiple owners. Perhaps that book has already made the rounds. Or it might even have been stolen! (though less likely)

Because of what I just wrote- I may need to re-think my own policy of accepting pirated music from friends, listening once, and either purchasing or deleting. I will have to think more on this... because music is also played in the same way on the radio. Well, this thread is certainly forcing me to really evaluate all of my values on this topic. Very beneficial!

Awesome! Isn't this fun!?

I agree, the difference in those situations is the severity. They would both be considered theft which is my main point- just that in the case of the quarter found in a pocket, it wouldn't be enough for anyone to care I guess the equal to that with our discussion would be Metallica finding out that one person had pirated 'Sandman' instead of 1,000,000 people.

Glad we agree on this point!

[Richard]

It goes back to intent. Did you specifically download or manufacture a piece of software (or malware) so you could pirate music? If so…then the intent is theft and distribution. Did someone email you an mp3 recording telling you what a great band this is? Again, we are getting into variables…but the intent there is innocent, I believe. (i.e. the book theory)

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? 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.

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

Raf

[Lavazza]

Before you said that the creator of the work had to give permission. Now you are saying that only the person who purchased the work must give permission? By that logic, then let's say 10 people purchased a Metallica album, and set it up for download. They are giving permission to loan that music, right? So how is it any different?

No, I should have been more clear. 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.

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. 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.

By that logic, then let's say 10 people purchased a Metallica album, and set it up for download. They are giving permission to loan that music, right? So how is it any different?

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.

Then, by that logic, are you saying that downloading music is ok as long as I listen to it only once?

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.

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.

This is true. Likewise, when we buy a used book, we have no way of knowing whether it was sold by its original owner, or has had multiple owners. Perhaps that book has already made the rounds. Or it might even have been stolen! (though less likely)

I agree, there is no way to know for sure. When I go to a yard sale I operate on the good faith of the person I am buying from. If I could somehow discern if it was stolen at some point it would change my purchasing choices.

---

For the record, I am 100% against putting music on the internet for download. I think we need to differentiate between offering the music for download vs downloading it yourself. Like the difference between selling drugs and using drugs.

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.

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'.

---

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

Namaste, Richard

[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.

[3D Sunset]

Monica and Lavazza,

I would assert that when you buy a music LP or CD, you receive with it a defacto license to listen to it. The advent of software which is digital nature and hence easily copied made these licenses more evident and ubiquitous as the *&#! end user license agreement (EULA) that pops up and makes you accept it before it will continue with the install. Even though you just click "accept" and move on, you are still bound by the terms of that agreement. Although through the years some of those terms have been challenged in court and determined invalid, still the majority of the terms have held through the years and are generally accepted as both reasonable and necessary.

Now, back to music. With this in mind, I went through my CD music archives and chose three works to see what they said about my rights related to the music. The works were:

Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense © 1984 Sire Records Company
U2 - Boy © 1980 Island Records Ltd
Les Miserables © 1985 Exallshow Ltd. Licensed from First Night Records

Ignoring for a moment what this may say about my taste(s) in music, I then attempted to determine just what rights were granted me with the purchase of these fine works. Here is what I learned:

The Talking Heads CD states: "All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws."

The U2 CD states: "Warning: Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by Federal law and subject to criminal prosecution."

The Les Miserables CD (which is a live recording of a 1985 London production of this amazing musical) states no restrictions other than noting the copyright.

At this point I could (and actually did spend an hour or two) reading up on the applicable copyright laws in the US (I'm sure a similar site exists for Australia, Lavazza) , but instead I would suggest that the simple statements "All Rights Reserved" and "Unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited..." probably go far enough in defining the limits of the defacto license that I received when I purchased the works.

It seems to me that you both are spending a lot of effort defining the black, white and gray that the legal system has already triaged. It is clear to me that the artists and the record labels intend for customers to use their material within the framework of the law, since it is the law which defines the copyright and its associated vagaries and through which they would attempt to seek retribution from those that violate said laws.

In short, making unauthorized copies is not allowed. This would clearly include downloading music, but not lending the original purchased product, or playing the purchased product for any number of your friends, relatives or even strangers provided that you do not receive any compensation for the playing.

Increasingly, I think that music will be more clearly licensed as the propensity of download purchases continue. As I recall, when installing my iPod software it did include discussion of the license rights that I would have for all the songs I downloaded. Interestingly though, that same software does allow me to import copies of as many of my existing music CD-Roms as I like, thus it would seem, actually contributing to the issue of unauthorized duplication. I did read about "Fair Use" exclusions, but these did not seem to include copying the material in order to change its playing medium (e.g., iPod vs CD-Rom).

For what it's worth, I agree with Lavazza, when I find myself in a gray area, I follow my moral compass and try to act according to my understanding of the intent of the laws, where the word may be ambiguous.

Love and Light,

3D Sunset

[Lavazza]

Well, I think you're right when you say that we've taken it as far as we can, because to respond to your last post point by point will require me to restate my previous posts, and you yours, etc...

But before we conclude, lets zoom back out of our discussion and look at a simple example, and let know your opinion.

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?

[Monica]

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...

---

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.

[Monica]

Ignoring for a moment what this may say about my taste(s) in music

Hey Talking Heads and U2 are great stuff!

[Ali Quadir]

This is a long post please bear with me or accept this summary: I will first describe what the law actually says. Note that the labels still report strong profits. Then describe the behavior of the labels in spite of this. And finish of concluding that we should of course reimburse artists. But we should also firmly say No to this kind of predatory behavior.

In short, making unauthorized copies is not allowed.

I think this statement is a perfect example of the labels point of view. They can't actually say that you're not allowed to make copies they very much know they can't do this. So they say you cannot make unauthorized copies. Which is actually saying you're not allowed to make the copies you're not allowed to make. Without actually stating what it is you're not allowed to do.

It is a legalese sidestep of the fact that you actually ARE allowed to make copies. You ARE allowed to make copies for personal use. For educational use. You're allowed to study the product to figure out how it works. You're allowed to do everything with it as long as you do not jeopardize the owners ability to make money from the product.. This is basically what copyright and intellectual property meant and the core laws still reflect this.

If I sell you a sandwich but tell you that under no circumstances you're allowed to share it. Would you accept that as lawful behavior on my part? Of course not. Yet the law in this regard is very shallow it is a handful of "adjustments to law" that actually undermine and make irrelevant laws that have stood for centuries.

The product you buy is yours. It does not belong to the company it belongs to you because you bought it, this has been described in any property law since forever. This means you're authorized to make copies. In spite of what the distribution companies (not government) says... What is on the cd, the content they have exclusive rights to it, they have the copyright. This means you're not allowed to make copies freely available. And there is a number of other reasonable restrictions.

They've put technological restrictions in place and created a law, an act, that makes it a criminal offense if you circumvent these restrictions. For the first time in the history of mankind copying a song became a criminal offense. This is an extremely big deal.

And there is very little justification for this. With all the piracy in the world right now and it is at an all time high profits for the labels have never been higher. We apparently spend enormous amounts of money on entertainment even if we can get it for free.

In my country. I'm allowed within the law to download copyrighted works from the internet. I'm just not allowed to distribute them or make profits from them.

I agree that artists need to be reimbursed for their work. I put my money where my mouth is. I buy products that give it's users freedom I attempt where it is in my power to totally boycot these totalitarian copyright regimes.

Did you know that amazon has recently deleted books that customers bought straight from the customers harddrive? They actually removed purchased property from their customers harddrives without the customers permission. In many cases when they got round to reading it it was just gone. They were reimbursed. And it was done because amazon figured out after the sale that they were not allowed to actually sell that product. But still it's a very dangerous first step.

I think this an enormously big deal. Synchronistically by the way. One of the books that was removed was Orwell's 1984.. Can you believe the directness of the hint given to us?

You may or may not know the Jammie Thomas case. A young mother, convicted to a fine of 2.4 million for copyright infringement... She copied 24 songs and was made an example of. There's more like her. They actually threatened to sue girl scouts for singing pop songs around a fire! They sued an 80 year old lady for downloading the latest "gangster rap" album, she got off though, I think the judge had a bad feeling on the case...

You may or may not know the thousands of students who get sent letters letting them know that they broke copyright and will be sued in court. Something these students cannot afford since they're students. Lawyers cost a lot of money. But they're offered an escape. Just sign that you're guilty, hand us 2000 bucks (which hurts but is doable) and never do it again or we will sue you and your signature basically states you deserve the harshest punishment... Judges never see most of these cases. They are settled out of court. It's blackmail.. You did something wrong, I know about it, but if you give me money I'm not going to tell the sheriff about it.

A Harvard Law professor is actually using a couple of interns to organize a law suit against these practices to attempt to put a stop to them.

To summarize my position. I think it's right to reimburse creators of content. And this should be done without question in some way. I don't think it is right to abuse the law and deform it. I don't think it's right to sue random individuals for these ridiculous amounts of money. Basically peoples lives are ruined for copying a cd. Many of these are just normal people randomly picked and not threats to the labels. I think that's very wrong.

[Monica]

... we should of course reimburse artists. But we should also firmly say No to this kind of predatory behavior.[/b]

Yeah, I heard about those cases. Outrageous! They basically wanted to make an example of them. Definitely disproportionate!

I think the labels prey on consumers as well as their own artists.

I've never actually had to face the dilemma of "to download or not to download" because I'm too scared to do it anyway. Torrents or no.

I had not heard about the amazon.com deleting downloaded books. Wow!