Does Copying Music = Stealing?
My $.02
Thursday, December 15, 2005 by Arquonzo | Discussion: Personal Computing
I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.
My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.
I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.
Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.
Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?
Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
 |
|
Page 1 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:38 PM
| I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. |
So, to answer the title's question, YES.
Reply #3 Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:13 PM
Theft of the idea...for starters.
The 'widget' will have intellectual copyright....if one person thought it up then it is HIS idea, not yours.
If you deliberately replicate it you are violating COPYright...you made a COPY.
See....that is why it is called 'copyright'...the right to copy.
The English explanation is so simple even a knuckle-dragger 'should' be able to comprehend in between drools.
Not every country actually has the concession included in their laws that it is legal to copy for personal use...in fact most cases it isn't....but it is simply not enforced or even practical.
Also....the act of reverse-engineering will have violated any use agreement....usually referred to as an EULA.
When the original sees a drop in sales...he can quite legitimately 'go you' in court...and you will lose. Lost potential income to the original creator will be the first moneys extracted from you.
Then there will be compensation for damage and injury/dilution of his trade name/reputation.
Then there can always be punitive damages imposed for any actual criminality.
'Synthetic reproductions'? Exactly what planet did you fall out of? The written word is also a 'synthetic reproduction' of the author's thoughts....yet it is the latter manifestation that has the copyright attached.
Sure, the music industry WILL change...but like most industries tripping into the 'now-generation' of Internet-speed-dissemination...it'll look like it's dragging its heels.
Rather than spend 2 cents on these debates...save them all up an by legal widgets....don't steal them....
Reply #4 Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:14 PM
This statement is incorrect - it is not ILLEGAL to make Copies (of things you have purchased) for your own personal use.
It's when you make a copy for distribution that makes it illegal.
Reply #5 Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:36 PM
| This statement is incorrect - it is not ILLEGAL to make Copies (of things you have purchased) for your own personal use. |
That statement is where the problem lies...the person made a copy of a widget/object of something that ANOTHER person bought. The only person that is allowed to have a copy of the item would be the original purchaser...not his friend who then decides to reverse engineer or copy a borrowed item. The theft occurred when he reverse engeineered the orginal widget. He then committed even more theft by borrowing widgets from those people that purchased them and made copies of them (even though he wasn't selling them), as he wasn't the original purchaser of the items in question that were being copied.
DD
Reply #6 Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:43 PM
I understand that these arguments are very weak in mine and others idea of "morality" but I believe that it is an interesting concpet, very much worth exploring.
Reply #7 Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:51 PM
Copyright is not and has never been considered a natural right. Both copyright and patents are government-granted monopolies.
The American constitution specifically gives government the power to introduce laws to create copyrights and patents in order to support innovation. Violating such a law is not stealing.
(And yes, in most countries a certain number of copies for certain purposes are completely legal. If copyright "owners" say something else, they are lying.)
Reply #8 Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:54 PM
I am confused on how "reverse engineering" could be anything other than using an idea designed by someone else. Pretty much a no-brainer on the widget bit.
Music generally falls into the "Intellectual Property" category.
Recent example:
Archive.org recently removed the download access to live Grateful Dead concert music, which had been previously available for download to all (source files of both audience and sound boards).
After some discussion, the remaining members of the Grateful Dead decided that it would be okay to allow downloads of source files from audience tapes (which is considered to be part of a scene that we - I can include myself as a Dead Head - were participating members), but that the sound board source files are to be available via streaming only - due to the "Intellectual Property" factor.
Though you can save the streamed files to the computer, they are around 220+ Kbps - so any effort to pass them off as professional content on disc would be a farce.
IMHO - this is one example of the artists' being in touch with the true spirit of correct use. 
Reply #9 Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:05 PM
| IMHO - this is one example of the artists' being in touch with the true spirit of correct use. |
I wholeheartedly agree. Indie bands freely send out there music in the knowledge that people will be very willing to download free music, and will draw people to their concerts. One recent example is Harvey Danger's new album. Not that I really like a lot of indie, but some is OK. The main hope is to make people buy concert tix, and really to appreciate the music instead of the corporatization.
Reply #10 Friday, December 16, 2005 12:12 AM
| Not every country actually has the concession included in their laws that it is legal to copy for personal use...in fact most cases it isn't....but it is simply not enforced or even practical. |
Nutshell ...read that. There is actually more than one country on this planet...
Reply #12 Friday, December 16, 2005 1:09 AM
About.com says that "patent infringement is a statutory wrong and is governed by federal law. 35 U.S.C. 271 defines infringement as 'whoever without authority makes, uses, or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.'" (emphasis added)
Learn something new every day.
Yes, this means my widget maker can only be used on items for which the patent has expired. *sigh*
Upon further reflection, I guess this means if I get a patent on a really cool device which is made from three rubberbands and a popsickle stick, you guys don't get to make one for yourselves without paying me first. Interesting law...
Reply #13 Friday, December 16, 2005 4:19 AM
Hey, I am deaf and never downloaded a music file.
Anyway, IMHO, you can copy whatever you want when object being copied is owned by you. You cannot loan this copy to your friends or even worse, sell it. That would be violating copyright law.
Reply #14 Friday, December 16, 2005 4:59 AM
I am confused on how "reverse engineering" could be anything other than using an idea designed by someone else. Pretty much a no-brainer on the widget bit. |
Never accept no-brainers. Always think.
The question was whether using an idea of somebody else's constitutes stealing. Merely showing how X is using an idea of somebody else's does NOT constitute proof that using an idea of somebody else's constitutes stealing.
Reply #15 Friday, December 16, 2005 9:37 AM
Reply #16 Friday, December 16, 2005 9:58 AM
| I not be able to recite the Star Spangled Banner without paying a duty to Key or the U.S.? |
Well, the words "public domain" spring to mind, but...
Reply #17 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:07 AM
here on WC artists/programmers give out plenty of free goodies... so i cant see the logic of cheating them of support when they post a "for sale theme".....so quit the gripin and shell out the $$$ for what you want... if what ever you want isnt worth parting with the $$$ then learn to live without it ...
Sad ....people all over the world are struggling to pay for meds to help keep them alive .. yet peeps think pissing over the price of a song/program is a great big friggin issue ...
Reply #18 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:15 AM
Reply #19 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:43 AM
So what if I took your pc? I mean, why should I buy one when I can have yours for nothing...
Obtaining something without paying for it is stealing, no matter what it is. The same applies to intellectual property as does physical items.
But there are people who just don't get the point that taking things which do not belong to you, whatever they are or however you do it, is wrong...
Reply #20 Friday, December 16, 2005 11:48 AM
| really someone downloading some softwere or a song has nothing to do with someone not being able to affrod meds |
many arguemnts of why peeps download "free/stolen" songs is the cost .. "if i had to pay for it, i wouldnt". ive seen these comments in other simular threads as well..
i remember a big blowout when napster was shut down.. peeps threw a fit " if those music labels think im going to pay for the music they are crazy"..." darn greedy music industry".... peeps act like the world is ending because they have to actually PAY for something they use ."blasphemy!!!"...and yes IMO it is sad to see people outraged because they have to pay for their music/programs..while many folks are struggling to afford life saving medication..
but i guess most people only care about what directly effects them...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:32 PM
1st? Here: