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 7 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Morpheous416
Reply #122 Friday, January 6, 2006 4:51 PM
Now, that's both a 'black and white' and 'grey' comment.
Sharing stolen ideas shouldn't be acceptable, but reproduced on the other hand has grey areas such as the defintion of how much an idea was reproduced, replicated, or just in fact a similar looking copy. However, if copyrights are to be looked at with 'black and white' vision, should it not all be viewed as copyrighting a name? If a 'name' suggests similarity to two given products (even if they are totally different), one must give way (by law in the US that is) to the original first copyright.
Hence Microsoft taking action against a person named Mike Rowe for naming his site: MikeRoweSoft.com. Two different names, but in sound they are the same, and confusing.
It is funny how the pendulum swings on matters of this kind. Artwork in itself being of particular interest for me to watch, as many here have done so much new work into their themes, icons and other art...just to see download counts skyrocket when a copy of a standard Window theme hits the site. Theming engines were designed to take people to new areas of GUI design, but when the standard comes out, such as Luna, or the new Aero Glass...people that have made copies of those tend to get some of the biggest hits! I am guilty myself of downloading a theme or two, not simply because it's a copy of the original (which by default we have the original already), but because I am a fan of the artist's work.
Reply #122 Friday, January 6, 2006 4:51 PM
| the facilitation of sharing stolen or reproduced ideas |
Now, that's both a 'black and white' and 'grey' comment.
Sharing stolen ideas shouldn't be acceptable, but reproduced on the other hand has grey areas such as the defintion of how much an idea was reproduced, replicated, or just in fact a similar looking copy. However, if copyrights are to be looked at with 'black and white' vision, should it not all be viewed as copyrighting a name? If a 'name' suggests similarity to two given products (even if they are totally different), one must give way (by law in the US that is) to the original first copyright.
Hence Microsoft taking action against a person named Mike Rowe for naming his site: MikeRoweSoft.com. Two different names, but in sound they are the same, and confusing.
It is funny how the pendulum swings on matters of this kind. Artwork in itself being of particular interest for me to watch, as many here have done so much new work into their themes, icons and other art...just to see download counts skyrocket when a copy of a standard Window theme hits the site. Theming engines were designed to take people to new areas of GUI design, but when the standard comes out, such as Luna, or the new Aero Glass...people that have made copies of those tend to get some of the biggest hits! I am guilty myself of downloading a theme or two, not simply because it's a copy of the original (which by default we have the original already), but because I am a fan of the artist's work.
Jafo
Reply #123 Friday, January 6, 2006 7:37 PM
Reply #123 Friday, January 6, 2006 7:37 PM
cybermessiah ...your 'hypothesis' was clearly Vista/MS/Wincustomize/Stardock and Kol.
You could not have spelled it out any more clearly.
If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'.
Till now.
And only [it seems] Kol's version.
Wincustomize.com's [and other skinning sites] policy is that the whole concept of GUI skinning creates instances where 'some' OEM graphics may be utilised in a skin...eg via porting from one OS to another, etc....and that is OK....UNTIL the OS copyright holder declares otherwise.
Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to].
However...
MS failed to make this a universal request to ALL skinning outlets...which was blatant discrimination against WC [through oversight], and, until there was a 'level playing field' the skin was restored public.
That forced MS's hand to be fair and equitable....and request directly that ALL public accesses to that skin be removed....best way was to request action directly of Kol.
Situation was resolved.
Anyone whose intellectual property rights are seen to be abused/misused can request resolution and it will be promptly dealt....be you MS or Joe Average...
cybermessiah
Reply #124 Saturday, January 7, 2006 3:02 AM
Reply #124 Saturday, January 7, 2006 3:02 AM
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."
QUOTE:
"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."
QUOTE:
"...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft."
QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."
Is this, or is this not, the general concensus of the majority of people's standing on this topic?
I accept that they are the standards to which we are being suggested to accept....logically, morally and existentially.
It is all being explained in pretty much black and white terms here...just to make it clear.
QUOTE:
"If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'."
QUOTE:
"Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to]."
Some people, trying to just
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."
QUOTE:
"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."
QUOTE:
"...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft."
QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."
Is this, or is this not, the general concensus of the majority of people's standing on this topic?
I accept that they are the standards to which we are being suggested to accept....logically, morally and existentially.
It is all being explained in pretty much black and white terms here...just to make it clear.
QUOTE:
"If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'."
QUOTE:
"Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to]."
Some people, trying to just
cybermessiah
Reply #125 Saturday, January 7, 2006 3:06 AM
Reply #125 Saturday, January 7, 2006 3:06 AM
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."
QUOTE:
"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."
QUOTE:
"...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft."
QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."
Is this, or is this not, the general concensus of the majority of people's standing on this topic?
I accept that they are the standards to which we are being suggested to accept....logically, morally and existentially.
It is all being explained in pretty much black and white terms here...just to make it clear.
QUOTE:
"If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'."
QUOTE:
"Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to]."
Some people, trying to justify their 'piracy', 'theft', 'copyright violation', indeed say that... "Well..it was never made clear by the party that I 'stole','borrowed' 'utilised' from, that my actions were in anyway piracy, theft or copyright violation. Indeed 'they' (the other party or original owner of the material in question) have created the so called 'grey area'"
...or could it be perhaps, that one 'chooses' to define this area as 'grey' in order to justify its violation.
Am I therefore able to interpret this as, just because in the past an artist hasnt spoken out againt the 'unathorised'utilisation of their intillectual property, I have the right to utilise it to my own advantage: until they state otherwise? Where is the moral standpoint that I should be able to discern for myself, that what I have done is comit and act of piracy, theft or copyright violation?
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."
QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."
Why not priorly act on the above moral principles, with preconcieved hindsight? ... rather than actively approving and facilitating the sharing/'world-wide distribution' of something so blatently obvious as "violating COPYright..." That is after all the job of moderators who decide what is or isnt able to be shared (based apparently on these high standards of infringement on anothers 'intillectal property').
Is it right for me to, with the all above moral standpoints fundamental to my nature,to approve such material,(as it will only benefit my own self interets..$$$), then wait till I am asked either politely or forceably to remove the indicated material by the apriorically known 'not alway clear and obvious' 'affected parties'?
There seems to me a juxtoposition here at play.
QUOTE:
"There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'.
Those who admit is is wrong, but 'possibly' do it a bit, or not at all.
and those who claim it is NOT wrong, so they have no reservations about 'doing it'.
One 'may' be hypocritical, but the other is definitely fancifully delusional."
From the above it would seem thate there is also a third type of people. Those who both admit it is wrong and yet have no reservations about doing it.
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com's [and other skinning sites] policy is that the whole concept of GUI skinning creates instances where 'some' OEM graphics may be utilised in a skin...eg via porting from one OS to another, etc....and that is OK....UNTIL the OS copyright holder declares otherwise."
How should I interpret the above?...perhaps lets take out the specifics and generalise the rationalisation:
...I hold the policy, like many of the people I assosciate with, that in certain instances material/data from someone elses material/data ('intillectal property"?), may be utilised within my own 'authentic'work....that is UNTIL the original copyright holder of the material I have used, realises what I have done and, demands retribution....
This attitude seems to be the general attitude of many companies today who gain to profit from file-sharing with the debates over property rights and legal ramifacations filling the internet and is intersting reading indeed.
Perhaps we should consider an eloquent response from within this 'debate/discussion':
"stealing is stealing .. wether or not everybody else is doing it...what is popular is not always morally correct"
Regardless of 'who' creates the 'grey areas', when u have a moral stance on theft that is purely 'black' and 'white', where is the justification of exploiting the 'grey areas' created for you....Are those grey areas created for your benefit?
As previously stated, my own standpoint on 'theft' falls a little below the guidlines that we are all here being encouraged to follow.
But the reason I raise these interesting questions and interpretations (which are by the way purely subjective )is because I remember something that my old granny once told me:
"In setting and voicing the standards to which you believe other people should follow, you must be prepared to be analysed and judged by those same standards".
P.S. Once again somewhat long-winded, but just couldn't help myself!
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."
QUOTE:
"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."
QUOTE:
"...world-wide distribution rights are NOT in the Terms Of Use of a purchased CD so it is unlawful, ergo it is theft."
QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."
Is this, or is this not, the general concensus of the majority of people's standing on this topic?
I accept that they are the standards to which we are being suggested to accept....logically, morally and existentially.
It is all being explained in pretty much black and white terms here...just to make it clear.
QUOTE:
"If you 'want' clarification of the 'grey area'...then it is down to Microsoft themselves, who, in the past have NOT indicated they have an issue with 'unauthorised use' of their GUI 'appearance'."
QUOTE:
"Now, in your 'hypothesis'...all was fine....then MS requested Kol's skin removal....Wincustomize.com immediately complied [as you would expect us to]."
Some people, trying to justify their 'piracy', 'theft', 'copyright violation', indeed say that... "Well..it was never made clear by the party that I 'stole','borrowed' 'utilised' from, that my actions were in anyway piracy, theft or copyright violation. Indeed 'they' (the other party or original owner of the material in question) have created the so called 'grey area'"
...or could it be perhaps, that one 'chooses' to define this area as 'grey' in order to justify its violation.
Am I therefore able to interpret this as, just because in the past an artist hasnt spoken out againt the 'unathorised'utilisation of their intillectual property, I have the right to utilise it to my own advantage: until they state otherwise? Where is the moral standpoint that I should be able to discern for myself, that what I have done is comit and act of piracy, theft or copyright violation?
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music."
QUOTE:
"The problem is, that like drugs, and warez use, and downloading music....the affected parties are not always clear and obvious...but they DO exist."
Why not priorly act on the above moral principles, with preconcieved hindsight?
... rather than actively approving and facilitating the sharing/'world-wide distribution' of something so blatently obvious as "violating COPYright..." That is after all the job of moderators who decide what is or isnt able to be shared (based apparently on these high standards of infringement on anothers 'intillectal property'). Is it right for me to, with the all above moral standpoints fundamental to my nature,to approve such material,(as it will only benefit my own self interets..$$$), then wait till I am asked either politely or forceably to remove the indicated material by the apriorically known 'not alway clear and obvious' 'affected parties'?
There seems to me a juxtoposition here at play.
QUOTE:
"There is ONLY two sides to this 'debate'.
Those who admit is is wrong, but 'possibly' do it a bit, or not at all.
and those who claim it is NOT wrong, so they have no reservations about 'doing it'.
One 'may' be hypocritical, but the other is definitely fancifully delusional."
From the above it would seem thate there is also a third type of people. Those who both admit it is wrong and yet have no reservations about doing it.
QUOTE:
"Wincustomize.com's [and other skinning sites] policy is that the whole concept of GUI skinning creates instances where 'some' OEM graphics may be utilised in a skin...eg via porting from one OS to another, etc....and that is OK....UNTIL the OS copyright holder declares otherwise."
How should I interpret the above?...perhaps lets take out the specifics and generalise the rationalisation:
...I hold the policy, like many of the people I assosciate with, that in certain instances material/data from someone elses material/data ('intillectal property"?), may be utilised within my own 'authentic'work....that is UNTIL the original copyright holder of the material I have used, realises what I have done and, demands retribution....
This attitude seems to be the general attitude of many companies today who gain to profit from file-sharing with the debates over property rights and legal ramifacations filling the internet and is intersting reading indeed.
Perhaps we should consider an eloquent response from within this 'debate/discussion':
"stealing is stealing .. wether or not everybody else is doing it...what is popular is not always morally correct"
Regardless of 'who' creates the 'grey areas', when u have a moral stance on theft that is purely 'black' and 'white', where is the justification of exploiting the 'grey areas' created for you....Are those grey areas created for your benefit?
As previously stated, my own standpoint on 'theft' falls a little below the guidlines that we are all here being encouraged to follow.
But the reason I raise these interesting questions and interpretations (which are by the way purely subjective
)is because I remember something that my old granny once told me:"In setting and voicing the standards to which you believe other people should follow, you must be prepared to be analysed and judged by those same standards".
P.S. Once again somewhat long-winded, but just couldn't help myself!
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 7 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Friday, January 6, 2006 2:24 PM
Perhaps we can consider this HYPOTHESIS:
I own a company that has a product which, by its design, is able to skin the GUI of a popular operating system. I work very hard at improving this product and it is imensly popular.
The major O/S of which my program has the ability to skin is, in the near future, going to release a new version of their GUI that has the ability of per-pixel shading. I work extremely hard on my own original product and, in its next release, it too will have the ability to perform much the same function.
Next, the major O/S company previews its newly intended product interface to the public and many people are geuinely interested and/or impressed by its new upcoming look (which is rumored to be perhaps the most innovative thing in the upcoming product
My product, (which is able to skin the previous version of this upcoming release), is widely supported by various creative people who upload their 'original' designs to 'share' with those people who have my product on their existing O/S.
One of these artists, no way affiliated with my company, 'copies' the look of the previewed GUI , so successfully in fact,that it could be said to be a 'geuine representation' of the real thing
Well here's my thinking...
An extremely 'similar' design from a renound O/S (as yet unreleased) has generated huge amounts of interest and I know that a vast majority of people are eagerly awaiting its availability. If I accept this design it could only benefit the sales and interest of my own product (which is solely required to impliment this genuine representation.) $$$ for me.
The O/S company, after seeing the subsequent popularity of this 'genuine representation'
Now, surely I must ask some questions of myself and my actions:
1. In complying to this request at the very least, shouldnt I accept that I, with regards to my own self interests, have supported the 'theft' (that word again!
2. Should I admit to myself, that in approving this 'genuine representation', I have possibly..(I stress possibly) affected the sales for that company that originally designed the interface and hence the so called 'livelyhood' of those hardworking people?!
3. Could the fact that some people, after using this 'genuine representation' in conjuction with my neccessarily required software, feel satisfied enough not to pay the ten times extra cash required to purchase the original visual effect?!!( I may have to guess that the original desiners of the 'similar'interface may feel so).
OR, are there 'shades of grey' to this situation??? Apparently, from the moral standpoint of a majority of people within this discussion...there are NO 'shades of grey' when it comes to issues regarding this...only 'black' and 'white'....that 'theft' is 'theft'...the facilitation of sharing stolen or reproduced ideas, artwork, and written or digital material,in any way, is morally forbidden in an acceptable society!!
Personally, I think that there ARE 'shades of grey". I know that I have participated in recieving stolen intillectual property and design (even though it be in a different digital format to the original)....and I personally give more credence to the person who admits this than to the person who yells "'black' and 'white' only!", while at the same time operating within the 'shades of grey'....for that may be interpreted, by some people, as pious hypocracy.
P.S Excuse the length of this reply...I got carried away being the devils advocate!