Does Copying Music = Stealing?
My $.02
Thursday, December 15, 2005 by Arquonzo | Discussion: Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:
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!
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 6 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Draginol
Reply #102 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:08 PM
Reply #102 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:08 PM
I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft.
sushiK
Reply #103 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:15 PM
Reply #103 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:15 PM
I'll be honest.
I did until they started coming after people, now I use iTunes and pay a buck a pop which I still think is too high but what the hey.
I did until they started coming after people, now I use iTunes and pay a buck a pop which I still think is too high but what the hey.
Jafo
Reply #104 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:35 PM
Reply #104 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 6:35 PM
| Stealing from him nevers filters down to the tenants since they have been squeezed to death already. |
Once the landlord cannot afford to maintain the building...he dumps it on someone else...who promptly evicts the tenants and turns it into a multi-storey carpark.
Nah....the tenants aren't being robbed blind anymore...they're now homeless....
Beautiful analogy....couldn't have thought up a better one myself....
dudeman
Reply #105 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:04 PM
Reply #105 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:04 PM
Except whoever heard of multi-millionaire landlords not being able to afford to maintain their buildings? And what if these landlords were blatantly stealing from their tenants as well and when these tenants tried to move someplace else they found all the landlords were the same? And there was nothing that could be done because it was in their contract which was even worse because it made the landlord's theft absolutely legal. Stealing is stealing, and while the community may be taking the pennies out of the tenant's jars the landlord has got the combination to each and every tenant's safe. Which is the bigger problem?
Iben
Reply #106 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:34 PM
Reply #106 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:34 PM
~
In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain.
He will only have to listen to any song once,the copy will be in his own brain.
He then will simply use a form of telepathy to play the song on his stereo for his friends.
He will also be able to send a copy of the song directly into other peoples brains if they would like.
Question:
Will we be able to stop this behavior with law suits?
~
In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain.
He will only have to listen to any song once,the copy will be in his own brain.
He then will simply use a form of telepathy to play the song on his stereo for his friends.
He will also be able to send a copy of the song directly into other peoples brains if they would like.
Question:
Will we be able to stop this behavior with law suits?
~
Jafo
Reply #107 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:26 PM
Reply #107 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 11:26 PM
| In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain. |
....hopefully he'll be able to distinguish between bullshit attempts to justify property theft as existentialistic....can't see any hurt ergo there IS no hurt....
Lord Shitzu
Reply #108 Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:46 AM
Reply #108 Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:46 AM
You guys should actually read that Courtney Love thing someone posted. I was surprised by how articulate and interesting it is considering the source. I was never very fond of her.
And for all the comments of "it's funny how so many people can rationalize theft" from the anti-downloading people, I have to say it's funny how many are willing to accept artists getting raped in favor of black-and-white morality like:
Downloading songs is bad.
Buying CDs is good.
When the latter perpetuates the status quo of artists getting next to nothing for their efforts.
"Well at least they get something" you say, like that makes it any better. Like it doesn't encourage things to stay the same.
I'll support artists selling their music directly, and gladly pay to go to concerts or get their music directly from them, but I go out of my way to not support the music industry, because it is run by scum.
Lastly, there was talk of "you'd have to prove you wouldn't buy it if you had no choice" to make such a statement valid, and it's interesting to me to see Draginol's input only be something as black and white as:
| I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft. |
Aren't you one of the biggest proponents of abolishing copy protection on games, Draginol? And isn't one of the reasons your belief that many of the people who pirate a game wouldn't have bought it anyway if they couldn't get it illegally? This is based on articles of yours I read probably over a year ago, so if your position has changed, I apologize.
Arquonzo
Reply #109 Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:53 AM
I might actually read your post if you had a more intelligent user ID.
If this had actually been a POEM, it would have been a pretty cool reply.
Oh, great... don't encourage them!
Is this supposed to be justification?
There are only two sides to this debate amongst those debating because they want something for free, or they want to get paid for something that others want for free. There IS another side, that of the person who debates for the joy of the intellectual challenge of navigating the legal tentacles, moral implications, and emotional hooplah of the issue.
Reply #109 Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:53 AM
| Reply By: Suk It |
I might actually read your post if you had a more intelligent user ID.
| Reply By: Iben |
If this had actually been a POEM, it would have been a pretty cool reply.
| I did until they started coming after people, now I use iTunes and pay a buck a pop |
Oh, great... don't encourage them!
| It is stealing, but it is stealing from Sony not the bands. |
Is this supposed to be justification?
| There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'. |
There are only two sides to this debate amongst those debating because they want something for free, or they want to get paid for something that others want for free. There IS another side, that of the person who debates for the joy of the intellectual challenge of navigating the legal tentacles, moral implications, and emotional hooplah of the issue.
Jafo
Reply #110 Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:14 AM
Reply #110 Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:14 AM
| There IS another side, that of the person who debates for the joy of the intellectual challenge of navigating the legal tentacles, moral implications, and emotional hooplah of the issue |
Intellectual brain-farting is really pointless....other than for the ego-tripper hell-bent on feeling superior, like his life has a meaning.
It is NOT a 'side to a debate' it is the REASON for the debate....and when people realise debating only wears out brain cells.....and won't change the tiniest opinion of the protagonists...they'll find something better to do....
Arquonzo
Reply #111 Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:10 AM
Reply #111 Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:10 AM
Oh, come on, Jafo... at least my flowery prose should be worth SOMETHING!!! 
XX
Reply #112 Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:46 PM
I don't actually care much about hearing. I do care more about smell, which I can't do either.
Anyway...
That is a annoying myth.. I'm been trying to kill this for a long time.
The answer: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html and many more if you look for a little.
Never underestimate mankind's best and worse abilities. I have seen worse.
Reply #112 Thursday, December 29, 2005 2:46 PM
| I'm pretty sure Rolf would rather NOT have those 'advantages'. |
I don't actually care much about hearing. I do care more about smell, which I can't do either.
Anyway...
| In the future when man learns to use more than 10% of his brain. He will only have to listen to any song once,the copy will be in his own brain. He then will simply use a form of telepathy to play the song on his stereo for his friends. He will also be able to send a copy of the song directly into other peoples brains if they would like. Question: Will we be able to stop this behavior with law suits? |
That is a annoying myth.. I'm been trying to kill this for a long time.
The answer: http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html and many more if you look for a little.
| I'm impressed at how good some people are at rationalizing theft. |
Never underestimate mankind's best and worse abilities. I have seen worse.
dudeman
Reply #113 Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:27 PM
It's ok if you don't wanna read my post, but I find it dumb that you would think a a short user id name has any bearing on the content of someone's opinion. Also laziness, I mean, you can't look down a few centimeters below my name to read a couple sentences?? And who here is an example of someone with an "intelligent" user id? But since you're probably not going to read this anyways...
Reply #113 Thursday, December 29, 2005 5:27 PM
| I might actually read your post if you had a more intelligent user ID. |
It's ok if you don't wanna read my post, but I find it dumb that you would think a a short user id name has any bearing on the content of someone's opinion. Also laziness, I mean, you can't look down a few centimeters below my name to read a couple sentences?? And who here is an example of someone with an "intelligent" user id? But since you're probably not going to read this anyways...
HG_Eliminator
Reply #114 Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:53 PM
Reply #114 Thursday, December 29, 2005 10:53 PM
debating is pointless .. those who want to will rationalize it until it becomes "non theft" and morally correct... (in their mind).. others simply dont care if it is..they will still do it if they want.. so this is much like a MACvsPC debate where neither side will win...
Weatherwax
Reply #115 Friday, December 30, 2005 2:06 PM
Reply #115 Friday, December 30, 2005 2:06 PM
Here's my 2 cents. To copy a book, a movie, or an album for your sole use is legal. It is intended for preservation of the original copy. When someone is online and gives copies away to whoever ask or just whoever then it is an infringement on the copyright. That is you happen to own the original. Cut and dry simple to understand.
Here is the problem of this whole thing. Downloading via P2P was known to be a legal issue in the music industry for awhile. The industry didn't view it as a threat until two things started to occur. One is slow sells. This is due to several factors. Downloading is not one of them. The shift in sales started before the mass P2P craze. The industry was ready to launch their version of download and equipment to use the downloads. Portable units where on the market and everyone was downloading. When a large enough population enjoyed the idea then why you should stop downloading for it is against the law and you should come to this site and pay for it. A dollar a song is still a huge profit for them. Which is what it is about.
If it was not intended to happen the the programs would not have been created and allowed to evolve. This whole thing is a form of advertisement. Get people used to the idea of downloading the music. Then you start putting in the tools to listen to them. Then you move in and take control of an existing market. People are going to grumble about it but they will pay for it.
One more note. Sony's little Trojan they made to protect thier music is just that a Trojan which by the way is illegal. Do you think the makers of the program are going to be arrested or the company owners(who would own the copyright) be punished for creating such a program. Now think if you or I created such a program. What would happen in the courts to us? This is about money and control of the market.
Here is the problem of this whole thing. Downloading via P2P was known to be a legal issue in the music industry for awhile. The industry didn't view it as a threat until two things started to occur. One is slow sells. This is due to several factors. Downloading is not one of them. The shift in sales started before the mass P2P craze. The industry was ready to launch their version of download and equipment to use the downloads. Portable units where on the market and everyone was downloading. When a large enough population enjoyed the idea then why you should stop downloading for it is against the law and you should come to this site and pay for it. A dollar a song is still a huge profit for them. Which is what it is about.
If it was not intended to happen the the programs would not have been created and allowed to evolve. This whole thing is a form of advertisement. Get people used to the idea of downloading the music. Then you start putting in the tools to listen to them. Then you move in and take control of an existing market. People are going to grumble about it but they will pay for it.
One more note. Sony's little Trojan they made to protect thier music is just that a Trojan which by the way is illegal. Do you think the makers of the program are going to be arrested or the company owners(who would own the copyright) be punished for creating such a program. Now think if you or I created such a program. What would happen in the courts to us? This is about money and control of the market.
tameddragon
Reply #116 Sunday, January 1, 2006 9:02 PM
Reply #116 Sunday, January 1, 2006 9:02 PM
Since the issue seems to revolve around music, and not "widgets", I'm going to stick with the music issue.
1) I haven't bought any music CD's in years. Why? they tend to be over-priced for the one or two songs on the album that I would actually listen too.
2) Those few songs that I do find worth exposing my damaged ears to generally can be heard on the radio (for free) or downloaded using software (paid-for). Since I don't usually burn them to CD's myself, I see no foul there.
3) As I wouldn't have bought the CD in the 1st place, the music industry hasn't lost any theoretical profits. The artist still has the potential to benefit because I have heard their music and may choose to attend a concert at some future time (remember damaged ears?).
So IMO, the artist (loosely speaking where the popular "bad poetry set to loud percussive rhythms" is concerned) has lost nothing. BUT, if I were to copy those selected songs to a permanent portable medium AND distribute them to others then, yes, those artists copyrights have been violated. That's the way the law reads.
Consider this though. I've seen and heard many fantastic renderings from relatively unknown individuals who ply their craft for no other reason than they love what they do. We, the members of this community, spend hours upon hours of our spare time creating skins to share with all the rest. We don't get paid, nor do we ask for compensation. The corporate entities at large simply have no relevant concept of this thing called sharing. Sharing doesnt equal profit. What if doctors only became doctors because caring for and healing people was what they loved, and not the potential income that it carries? Possibly I'm digressing, but the point remains. Were music labels more concerned with distributing good music and less concerned with how much dosh it puts in their pockets the entire issue would become moot.
..the music would be better too
1) I haven't bought any music CD's in years. Why? they tend to be over-priced for the one or two songs on the album that I would actually listen too.
2) Those few songs that I do find worth exposing my damaged ears to generally can be heard on the radio (for free) or downloaded using software (paid-for). Since I don't usually burn them to CD's myself, I see no foul there.
3) As I wouldn't have bought the CD in the 1st place, the music industry hasn't lost any theoretical profits. The artist still has the potential to benefit because I have heard their music and may choose to attend a concert at some future time (remember damaged ears?).
So IMO, the artist (loosely speaking where the popular "bad poetry set to loud percussive rhythms" is concerned) has lost nothing. BUT, if I were to copy those selected songs to a permanent portable medium AND distribute them to others then, yes, those artists copyrights have been violated. That's the way the law reads.
Consider this though. I've seen and heard many fantastic renderings from relatively unknown individuals who ply their craft for no other reason than they love what they do. We, the members of this community, spend hours upon hours of our spare time creating skins to share with all the rest. We don't get paid, nor do we ask for compensation. The corporate entities at large simply have no relevant concept of this thing called sharing. Sharing doesnt equal profit. What if doctors only became doctors because caring for and healing people was what they loved, and not the potential income that it carries? Possibly I'm digressing, but the point remains. Were music labels more concerned with distributing good music and less concerned with how much dosh it puts in their pockets the entire issue would become moot.
..the music would be better too
Jafo
Reply #117 Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:34 PM
Reply #117 Sunday, January 1, 2006 11:34 PM
| We, the members of this community, spend hours upon hours of our spare time creating skins to share with all the rest. We don't get paid, nor do we ask for compensation. The corporate entities at large simply have no relevant concept of this thing called sharing. Sharing doesnt equal profit. |
Stardock is a 'corporate entity' which not only understands the concept of 'sharing' but even goes as far as to facilitate that 'sharing' which 'we, the members of this community' benefit from....
tameddragon
Reply #118 Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:20 PM
Reply #118 Wednesday, January 4, 2006 12:20 PM
As with all things, there are exceptions... 
starkers
Reply #119 Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:47 PM
Reply #119 Wednesday, January 4, 2006 11:47 PM
Only one thing worse than a thief.....a thief who refuses to admit he/she is one.
And oh, yeah...a thief who makes piss weak excuses and calls it something else.
Pathetically weak at best
Utterly disgraceful at worst
And oh, yeah...a thief who makes piss weak excuses and calls it something else.
Pathetically weak at best
Utterly disgraceful at worst
Morpheous416
Reply #120 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:30 PM
This is argumentative. I see your point in this comment, but as your name "Fuzzy Logic" suggests, you might be able to see the hole in it as well.
One who reaches out to take something that is not theirs, must be defined in action, to be presented as 'stealing'. Walking into someone else's house and taking something that is not offered to you to take, is stealing...the other is not. Coming here to 'take' themes and whatnot that are not yours, is called 'sharing' as it was meant to be, not stealing as the comment could suggest. But, from what viewpoint are we talking here, are the artist's work here given, or being taken? See where I am coming from?
Now, seeing as I have read alot of your comments, you are a highly intelligent individual who shouldn't be prone to making definitive comments.
My take:
As an artist myself, there are many viewpoints. I have spent the last 20 years of my life developing art, music so that others can enjoy it. Sharing is what I promote, and if you wish to donate money to the cause, that is welcome too. I however, am not like the others in that I require the music industry to support my cause, therefore my expenses are nothing but time. Time I've chosen to share, but don't require compensation for it, because I do the things I do, because I want too. I would be thrilled to know that my music is being scattered all around on a P2P network because people want to hear it. Others have different opinions as they use that as a source of income, and should therefore be compensated. How they are compensated is up to them and their managers/recording outfits.
If you like the art, no matter what form it is in:
If it's for sale, buy it. Sample it if you must, but support them anyway you can. Shirts, record sales, concerts....you name it.
Backup and protect your investment.
Letting someone borrow your purchased CD to listen to, fine, no problems...burning a copy and giving it to them because they are to lazy too buy it themselves, not a good idea.
There are many grey areas surrounding this issue. You can discuss until you are blue in the face about how much the recording industries are stealing from the artists, but that's an artist's choice to sign up under those conditions. The offer is set in front of them, and they negotiate..they are under no legal commitments to any agreement until they sign. A choice.
You can also discuss about how artists only create a few good songs, and put 12 songs on a $18.00 CD that you don't like, and that's why you download only the songs you want...well, suggest your ideas to the artists!! 9/10 they have websites in which you can leave your comments there...trust me, they are there, and they do listen.
Keep an open mind people, and support your cause.
Reply #120 Thursday, January 5, 2006 3:30 PM
| Obtaining something without paying for it is stealing, no matter what it is. The same applies to intellectual property as does physical items. |
This is argumentative. I see your point in this comment, but as your name "Fuzzy Logic" suggests, you might be able to see the hole in it as well.
One who reaches out to take something that is not theirs, must be defined in action, to be presented as 'stealing'. Walking into someone else's house and taking something that is not offered to you to take, is stealing...the other is not. Coming here to 'take' themes and whatnot that are not yours, is called 'sharing' as it was meant to be, not stealing as the comment could suggest. But, from what viewpoint are we talking here, are the artist's work here given, or being taken? See where I am coming from?
Now, seeing as I have read alot of your comments, you are a highly intelligent individual who shouldn't be prone to making definitive comments.
My take:
As an artist myself, there are many viewpoints. I have spent the last 20 years of my life developing art, music so that others can enjoy it. Sharing is what I promote, and if you wish to donate money to the cause, that is welcome too. I however, am not like the others in that I require the music industry to support my cause, therefore my expenses are nothing but time. Time I've chosen to share, but don't require compensation for it, because I do the things I do, because I want too. I would be thrilled to know that my music is being scattered all around on a P2P network because people want to hear it. Others have different opinions as they use that as a source of income, and should therefore be compensated. How they are compensated is up to them and their managers/recording outfits.
If you like the art, no matter what form it is in:
If it's for sale, buy it. Sample it if you must, but support them anyway you can. Shirts, record sales, concerts....you name it.
Backup and protect your investment.
Letting someone borrow your purchased CD to listen to, fine, no problems...burning a copy and giving it to them because they are to lazy too buy it themselves, not a good idea.
There are many grey areas surrounding this issue. You can discuss until you are blue in the face about how much the recording industries are stealing from the artists, but that's an artist's choice to sign up under those conditions. The offer is set in front of them, and they negotiate..they are under no legal commitments to any agreement until they sign. A choice.
You can also discuss about how artists only create a few good songs, and put 12 songs on a $18.00 CD that you don't like, and that's why you download only the songs you want...well, suggest your ideas to the artists!! 9/10 they have websites in which you can leave your comments there...trust me, they are there, and they do listen.
Keep an open mind people, and support your cause.
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 6 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #101 Wednesday, December 28, 2005 5:55 PM
When enough purses have been stolen from Sony, because there's a multitude of morons who think it's okay to rob the rich, their contracted musicians/artists slice of the pie becomes even smaller...if there's any left for the smaller guys.
More like there is an evil landlord squeezing the cents out of his tenants and making for a miserable life especially for the lowest of the tenants.
Stealing from him nevers filters down to the tenants since they have been squeezed to death already.