About theft and piracy

Great Debates
41

theft has benefit so therefore it’s morally correct? well, I didn’t know we had Robin Hood here.

You admitted that at times you download then decide not to buy. Your theft in those cases did not have a ‘benefit’ for the owner.

I repeat, there are alternatives to theft. You can hear cuts in a number of different ways. Downloading is only one way and it is theft.

Cassettes are used for a large # of alternative reasons (other than to circumvent laws) - we tape our meetings for example.

The benefit to the owner can be obtained w/o a theft. The theft only “sometimes” leads to a benefit to the owner. That’s not a win/win, that’s a “win/sometimes win/sometimes loose” and inherently unfair to the property owner.

WHy own something at all? Well, 'cause it’s beneficial to you to be allowed to see it, listen to it when you wish instead of by some one else’s rules/timings (at the theater, at the library, on the radio etc). You wish to have the benefit of ownership w/o properly compensating the true owner of the material. That’s theft and is morally indefensible, especially when it’s merely something you want.

Stand on your head, it’s still theft. Cross you eyes and fingers, and it’s still theft.

42

Wring

Robin Hood is commonly considered noble for a reason, Sheriff.

I also said that in those cases I deleted the MP3’s. Consider those files ‘returned’. In those circumstances the download had no detrimental effect either.

That’s a fair point. Consider that particular argument withdrawn.

w/o? Oh, without. Well, I guess every tenth of a second counts when you’ve got so much copyright to protect :wink:

What about benefit to the consumer? That seems to have been forgotten in this rush to protect the interest of vast multinational conglomerates. Record shops do not, in the main, accept returned CD’s on the grounds that ‘I didn’t much like them’. While file sharing systems can be used for theft, they can also be used to allow the consumer some control over what he’s buying.

As I said in my previous post, the argument you seem to be using is this:

Man A, Man B and Man C should all be prohibited from using product X because Man D, Man E and Man F are not using it in the way it was intended.

There is a distinction between lawful gun owners and criminals and psycho’s who shoot up high schools. However, America is never seriously going to entertain the thought of banning product X because Men D, E & F are using them improperly if that product happens to be a beretta.

A distinction should be made between discerning customers who use file sharing systems to ensure they buy what they want and only what they want and freeloaders because the freeloaders are using the system properly.

This is only true if what you are buying is what you truly want. Without programs like Napster and Audiogalaxy, how can you really know what CD’s you’ll like and what CD’s you won’t?

No I don’t. As I’ve said twice now, if I like the music I will buy it and thus compensate the owner. It just makes sense to do it that way. If you’re using ‘You’ to directly address me then please explain exactly how, when I either buy the music I like and delete the music I don’t, I am not properly compensating the true owner of the material (which, I remind everyone, is not the record company). All I’m doing is giving the music a test drive first.

43

Bah! When I said

I meant "…because the freeloaders are not using the system properly"

44

Also, to Crusoe. I believe theft is only as immoral as its effects. If the positive effects outweight the negative effects then (within reason of course) the act was inherently positive. The way I use MP3 file sharing is a case in point.

45

Let me ask you Gomez - when you buy a CD at the store, get it home, open it and listen and decide you don’t really like it, do you get to return it to the store? No, right? You can exchange it for the same title if it’s defective, but not for another title.

when you download the piece and decide not to buy, it’s the same attempt at ‘trying on’ the music in the comfort of your own surroundings, without compensating the owners. (and I don’t care if it’s the record co - who pay royalties to the artist- or whoever owns the piece).

I repeat, since you dodged it several times now. There are legal alternatives to the theft. They may be less accomodating to you, the customer, but they’re not theft. If you wish to own (ie control the circumstances around which you listen to/view/use the merchandise), you have the moral obligation to compensate the owner.

you may decide that it’s too expensive, you don’t really like it (after listening to it/trying it out from a rental format), but in those ways, the owner has been compensated.

By circumventing these legal ways of ‘trying it out’, you’re harming the owner.

Your insistence about the benefits to the consumer is interesting - why should we care more about the potential benefit to the consumer at the expense of the owner? your position is inherently unfair to the legal owner of the merchandise.

when you own something, you have the right to determine how it’s used. You can decide to sell it at a profit, at an obscene profit, give it away, store it in a safe and let no one look at it, it’s your right. The fact that some one else may want it, doesn’t obligate you in the least.

And no matter how you turn it around and polish it up, there’s a theft involved, you have no right to commit theft and especially, especially for something you merely want.

One person’s wants do not ever supercede the other person’s rights and I continue to be astonished to see people attempt to justify it.

(The concept of Robin Hood - ‘stole from the rich to give to the poor’, except you see, that the poor had been supporting the rich by servitude, serfdom, taxation, to the point of near starvation, so the entire equation was the rich coerced from the poor, denying them things they needed to survive, and Robin confiscated it back from the rich to re-distribute to the poor. To make your situation analygous, The record company would have had to swipe the material from you first, deny your compensation, leave you starving, then you swipe it back. In your case, you want something w/o wanting to compensate the proper owner, just in case you decide at a later time that you don’t want it so much. Hardly a defensible/comparable situation)

46

and your ‘theft is only as immoral as it’s effects’??

so, since Bill Gates is a multibillionaire and would hardly miss a couple hundred tho, (so his effect would be a minor bad) and that couple hundred tho would make my life immeasurably better (great goodness), the ‘balance’ would be that it’d be more moral for me to take his $$???

Your analogy about test driving the car only works if the current owner wishes to allow it. IN this case, the current owner doesn’t wish to allow it. They have that right.

47

You want to nitpick? I’ll give you nitpicking :wink:

wring the arguments you are trying to use against gomez are truly weak. You do recognize that going to walmart, standing up for a certain time using one of those “headphone-jukeboxes” they have is perfectly OK and then you go affirming that doing the exact same thing in the comfort of your home is wrong?

These are all the things Gomez is doing:
1- He’s saving precious Oil because he doesn’t need to drive to get Mp3s thus he is a patriot.
2- He’s reducing the traffic on the roads which saves the time of the inhabitants of his town/city thus he is a valuable member of his community
3- He’s cutting down the risk of traffic accidents thus he is a responsible person.
4- He’s reducing the emission of CO2 in the atmosphere thus he’s helping to save our environment.

And i could go on and on about how he’s being courteous by giving other Walmart buyers use that same “Headphones-Jukebox” and this and that but i think you got my point:

Gomez is a saint :smiley:

48

And although it might not be moral to “borrow” a couple hundreds from our beloved Bill Gates, it sure as hell wouldn’t make me lose my sleep. Would it make you lose yours?

49

I agree with wring wholeheartedly. I wish to add that believing piracy is illegal and immoral is not the same as supporting the b-ass-ackwards RIAA and MPAA. They’re clueless, but stealing from them is not the answer. Boycotting them is a much better response. This is not Robin Hood, this is Al Capone less the Tommy guns.

And yes, reading a book at B&N is stealing from B&N. Depending on how the reader (not specifically the poster) treats the book, it may become unsalable. B&N does create an environment that promotes reading as an incentive to get people reading and hoping that they won’t spend hours in the store marring the books. Go to the library. (As an aside, the bookstores I frequent have removed the comfy chairs and either replaced them with hard chairs or not replaced them at all. Also, the B&N nearest my home cut off access to the bathroom. This is all due to people who camp out at the store all day and don’t spend money.)

50

Wring - I take it you supported the Dread Scott decision?

Is there ANY circumstance in which you would concede that ownership rights are not supreme?

How about the lawful owner of the Mona Lisa burning it? OK by you, right?

If the movie companies want to let the old nitrate negatives rot in the vault, then nobody can make new prints from existing ones - that movie just dies, right?

51

wring:

If owning intellectual property was exactly like owning a car then there wouldn’t be an issue. The fact that the two types of ownership are different is obvious. A copyright does not last forever, but your car does not become public property just because it is old. From your comments on this issue, I wonder if you think copyrights should last forever. The question is: what does it really mean to own intellectual property?

If you want to see a movie or read a book, there are legal ways to do so. It would be wrong to avoid paying by downloading whatever you want. But here is where the unique situation of “owning” intellectual property comes into play. It is possible that there will be no legal way to see or read something. If the owner is no longer interested in selling, then there should be laws that make it legal for people to use that property as long as they do not sell it. Again, copyrights do not last forever, and are fundamentally different than other types of ownership. It is also possible that the owner expressly forbids anyone from using their property. In this case, if you are able to see or read the legally unavailable, the thing that you are stealing is the right of the owner to prevent anyone from seeing their intellectual property. So the question is: how important is the right of someone to keep intellectual property private? I think it varies, but in general it is likely to be outweighed by other values.

When it comes to music, ownership is an even more complicated issue. In many ways, the RIAA does fit your description of “the rich” in the Robin Hood story, in regards to their dealings with artists. Why should record companies “own” the songs, while the artists are considered mere hired workers? File sharing may be bad for artists who are already well known, get lots of airplay, and get lots of advertising from the label. It is a very good thing for unknown artists, and those who get no advertising. I have bought literally hundreds of cds based on songs I have downloaded. I would not have heard these albums in any other way. There is no way you can tell me that I am hurting the actual artists by giving them a chance to be heard. It is the record company that is angry about it. Why? The record companies want complete control over the entire system of producing, advertising, and selling music. They create “artists” who know that their worth comes only from the company, and who have contracts which are very beneficial to the company. They advertise only these artists, and they give them preferred status when they are sold. They want to force everyone into buying this worthless music, and they want to stop people from finding out about other music from artists that are not stuck in an unfair contract. This whole system is very wrong, and the only way the average person can fight against it is to utilize other methods of music distribution, such as file sharing. I do not believe the music industry has the right to control all methods of distribution, or the right to coerce bands into unfair contracts using this monopoly, or the right to use their power to take away our rights to privacy and to use what we legally own. Apparently, wring, you think all these “rights” are the equivalent of owning a car.

52

one at a time Gozu the huge difference between Walmarts and the download that you declined to note is that the owner of the property allows the Walmart issue to happen and they can control (ie not allow) for the recording that’s listened to in the store to walk out w/o compensation. But nice try.
And yes, I’d loose sleep over (ie choose not to) committing a crime, an immoral act even if I didn’t think Bill Gates would notice or need the $$. YM obviously varies. One wonders where you would draw the line - your neighbor who has marginally more $$ than you?

HH well, nice strawman - Fortunately for us, human beings are not considered personal property. My position on that is that they never should have been. So, I see no discrepancy there.

and, although I would prefer that art such as Mona Lisa be available to all, the truth is, that whoever owns it, owns it. Ditto the movie in it’s case. There was a thread about a stage production that was historically bad, and that although an actual recording of the production was made, the rights have never been released to the public. And yes, it was in fact their right to choose to deny that piece of theater a wider audience.

Your rights regarding other people’s property are limited indeed. You may hate your neighbor’s tree, but unless it’s infringing on your property, you cannot demand that they cut it down. Or you may wish they plant a tree because it would afford your property much needed shade. lotsa luck.
and now, Nightshade another strawman. because I answered some one else’ poor analogy (driving the car), doesn’t mean at all that I consider intellectual property the same as an auto.

The owner of the intellectual property has the right to determine how, if, etc it is to be shared. If the muscian sold their right to some one else (Paul selling to Michael J. for example), they loose the right to complain about what the other does with it.

The fact that some time down the road it becomes public domain does not change that during the copyrighted time, the owner has the right to do w/it as they please, yes, including destroying it should they so desire.

Your ‘evil record companies’ may indeed be making $$ off the labor of others, but there was also compensation involved. So, if I sell you a picture for $5, and later you turn around and sell it for 5 Mil, you don’t owe me more than what I’ve already been paid.

It may make you feel ‘good’ by telling yourself that you’re really supporting that poor lonely song writer in his basement trying to make it big, however, in the short run the record co’s are hurt, the big name artists who do get a cut are hurt, when they calculate how many are sold they don’t get credit for all the free downloads (kept or destroyed); and, I would also argue that given sufficient damage, record companies will have less incentive to try out new artists, (since their profitability is more likely to be w/the major ones, and if they’re loosing $$ w/the downloads of the major artists, they have less overall to spend on developing new talents), which would mean in the longer run, it’d be even more difficult for the new artist to break in.

Sorry, I still have yet to hear anything other than “I really really want it, can’t afford it/don’t want to spend that kind of $$ for record co’s etc, so I’m justified in stealing it”.

53

Just to take issue with a couple of the specifics of your argument, wring:

Eh, that depends, and only then if you really stretch the definition of “compensation.” A great many artists end up never seeing a cent in profit, and at least as many end up owing the record company money. As recording artist Janis Ian mentioned in a recent article, " . . . in 37 years as a recording artist, I’ve created 25+ albums for major labels, and I’ve never once received a royalty check that didn’t show I owed them money." Music industry accounting is so unbalanced and corrupt, and takes the interests of the artists into so little account, that you honestly have to have a string of Tope Ten albums before you ever start seeing any cash flow. (Unless you’re the songwriter and have an interest in the publishing as well.)

It is my experience that the exact opposite is true. It used to be, probably up until the mid-80s, that labels would take an interest in an artist and develop them over the course of at least a few albums. If someone’s debut flopped, their A&R guy at the label might hook them up with a better producer and try to do something with them. Mid-list artists could count on a pretty lengthy career with the same label. That’s what the labels did then: Whatever else they did wrong, they nurtured talent.

Today, forget it. If your debut doesn’t chart at least above #75 in Billboard and you don’t get airplay in some big markets, you’re gone. The label will dump you faster than a hot rock, and you’ll probably owe them money to boot. That’s been the trend for at least ten years now. That’s why each new artist comes with tons of pre-release hype, and multi-media exposure. The label molds the artist quickly into something for the demographic they want to hit, gets a couple million-selling albums out of them, and sends them on their way.

And none of that has anything to do with file-sharing or downloading, I can assure you. It has to do with the conglomeration and distillation of the business down into a few very large recording and distribution interests (WEA, UMG, Sony, and a couple of others). If an artist isn’t a profit center, or doesn’t carry some other hint of prestige, the label isn’t going to keep them.

I would like to see you address the efforts of the industry to extend the copyright period for so long. The copyright extensions pursued by the industry effectively put all material out of the reach of the public domain for well over a hundred years. Is that really in the best interests of the culture, and in keeping with the spirit of the patent/trademark provisions mentioned in the Constitution?

54

wring:

You seem to be under the impression that all things defined as piracy are equally immoral - that there is no gray area here, and, say, installing a PC game onto two of your computers instead of one is morally equivalent to selling bootleg copies of that game on the black market. If this is the case, please examine the following scenarios, and tell me why one is immoral, and one is not:

  • Reading a book in the library, versus reading the same book in a B&N, making sure not to damage the pages.

  • Going to a music store that allows you to listen to a record before you buy it, versus downloading an MP3 to see if you like it before you buy it.

  • Recording a song you hear on the radio to listen to later, versus downloading the MP3 of that song.

In each of those cases, one scenario is illegal and one legal, yet the end result is the same. It could thus be inferred that one is moral, and one is immoral. I personally can’t see why, but I’m sure that you can clear this up for me.
Jeff

55

oh, yoo hoo!

just wish yo point out that you have heard, “illegal means are the only one available”.

this could lead to a discussion of the applicability of the ‘necessity’ defense in such case, but this group, so far, does not want to even discuss the parameters of a copyright (in the US, it used to be (IIRC, etc) 17 years, and renewable x times).

and, wring, humans were considered personal property in the US at one time.

So, to try a blunt-instrument approach:

Are the current US copyright lwas morally defensible, given:

a) in most basic form, extend 75 years after the creator’s death.

b) can, with little effort, last forever. What if churches have to pay royalities on the hymns? Had current US copyright law been in effect 500 years ago, this would be a reality.

c) make no substantive exceptions - in a media-saturated culture, we will be getting more and more of our 'touchstones" from the media (we all know Bambi, and Puff the Magic Dragon) - I expect mass media images and sounds to become more dominant in our culture. If a few media companies can manipulate these to the point of destroying them, what effect will that have on our culture (the rest of you - stop sniggering - the US culture may not be much, but it’s all we have - don’t make us nuke you :slight_smile: )

56

wring:

Nightshade?

You may not consider intellectual property the same as a car, but your current arguments are treating it the same. What I am saying is that there are differences that are relevant to this debate. Copyright law did not come straight from god. Have you considered that it could be changed to allow for the distribution of intellectual property that is no longer being sold? Have you considered that there are a great number of changes that could be made?

I don’t know what to say to this, except that I disagree. Imagine if Shakespeare was alive today, and his publishing company decided to burn all his manuscripts. Should we haul him off to jail if he tries to distribute his plays over the internet?

I think you are misunderstanding my point. I agree that the record companies get hurt, and that the big name artists who get a cut are hurt. They are hurt, in that people discover new bands that are not slaves to a record company. When people buy the cds of these bands (and, as I said, I have bought hundreds of them) the record companies will not make as much money as they would have if everyone bought the big name albums that are advertised everywhere. What I am saying is that the record companies never had the right to make that money in the first place. They do not have the right to a monopoly on the music industry. They do not have the right to control every aspect of production and distribution to such an extent that artists are forced to bow to their wishes. In fact it is very wrong for them to have that power. I do agree with you that it is also wrong to download songs from big name artists that you could hear in other ways.

You’re still missing the point. This is not just a matter of not wanting to spend too much money. If the record companies are able to control every method of distribution, there will be no way to even hear any band that does not sign all their future profits over to the record companies. Clearly this does not bother you, but I think this is less because of your principled stand on stealing and more because you just don’t care about music.

57

It is not your right to decide what does or does not benefit the owner of something unless they agree to let you.

You also pay a royalty whenever you purchase a blank tape or recording device:
http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm

Listen to a fiends CD, the radio, a listening station at Tower Records or a sample on CDNow.com.

“Robin Hoods” are only considered nobel in fairy tales. In the real world most people take issue with having their property stolen and distributed to homeless people. Once you are old enough to own your own property, you should understand that.

This is an important point. Companies like Disney spend a great deal of money on “branding”. Branding is really just a fancy way of refering to the reputation of a company. It’s important because when you see the Disney, Nike or Sony logo on a product, you expect a certain level of quality. That said, if Disney decides that what is essentially a Tom & Jerry or Road Runner cartoon with a rabbit, a bear, and racist charicteratures of a bunch of black slaves does not represent what Disney is about, they have every right to not market it.
At least when I download pirated mp3s or software, I don’t try to justify, rationalize or otherwise spin why I’m doing it. My rationale is “I don’t want to pay for it and the technology exists for me to copy and use it without getting in trouble.” Doesn’t mean I’m right.

58

wring:

pldennison (great post, btw) has already covered this, but I have one thing to add. A lot of artists no longer need to hand their lives over to a record company in order to produce an album, because of better and cheaper technology. The problem these artists have is that they will not be advertised and will not be given an “in” to methods of distribution. With file sharing these bands can build up a fan base such that stores will eventually stock their albums. Of course, this angers the record companies, because they only want stores to stock the albums of the record company’s own puppets.

59

pld - as you say, tis neither here nor there in terms of file sharing. (tho’ I have to ask - don’t the artists get advances on record sales? what do they live on prior to the sale of their stuff? )

anyhow. Nighttime - sorry - I’ve got vision problems- so I have my browser windows set at largest script, and rely on my memory of screen names (which is why I tend to abbrieviate them, see also HH, pld) no offense was intended. tho’ that snipe at me ‘not caring about music’ is not justified/justifiable.

Re: length of time for a copyright - how is this relevant to the current arguement - if it’s 25 years or 75 years, it sure ain’t 25 months. I have no position on that at all, and don’t see that it really lends credence to the arguement that you’re justified in stealing it now.

shades of grey: If I buy a book, I can read it at the beach or on my couch or wherever. If I buy a computer program and own a computer upstairs and downstairs, you still own the computer program. THe discussion was about downloading stuff you didn’t own, so I’m not sure why asking about installing a program on more than one computer is part of the gig. So, I’m not sure what you’re asking - are you saying that if you buy a program and install it on two computers that you personally own (say one upstairs and one downstairs) that’s a violation?

again, the issue is one of ownership you download it, you’ve got it. IF you throw it away 10 minutes/10 months from now, you still had it in your possession (holding on to something or listening to something in a store are not the same thing, since you don’t own it, you can’t walk out of the store w/it. library - you’re legally borrowing it)

the reading a book at the library vs. reading the book at B & N - The library is in the business of renting books. You’re allowed to rent them out and also to sit and read there. The owners of the copyright have been compensated. At B & N, the owners of the copyright have also been compensated. B & N may object to you taking up space there and reading vs. buying (and in my experience tho B & N have those comfy chairs if some one were to consistently sit and read all day w/o buying, they’d be shown the door), and certainly have the right to charge you should you damage them.

NOw, to make it a perfect analogy, of course what you’d have to consider is if B & N set up a copy machine and allowed people to b**make their own friggin’ copy to take home **. See any problem w/that?

Now for all of you claiming that what you’re really interested in is ‘helping those little bands out’, just exactly how is that happening when you download for free and A. don’t buy the cd? or b) buy the c/d but as you claim the evil record company has already signed them to promise all their future earnings to them?

HH, yes indeedy do, at one time in the US people were considered to be property. But, as I said, my stance is that it was wrong, and it’s not happening now. Has no relation to intellectual property laws. except in the whole generic ‘laws can be changed’ concept. But since I’m saying that the theft (while illegal) is also wrong, your strawman remains full of hay.

Re: the Shakespere thing. You know, when Paul McCartney sold the rights to his songs to Michael J, I thought at the time “Bad idea Paul”. And I’ve been sick at the commercial use many have them were subjected to. But you know what? it was his right to sell, and Michaels right to do what he did. And yes, after you sell your rights to something, you don’t get to do an end run around. Consider this: Billy Shakespere sells the rights to Romeo & Juliet. The movie company decides reissue the play in a leather bound edition only, costing $300 each. Billy objects, saying “but it really belongs to the masses”, and attempts to sell his own copies at $4 each. He’s in the wrong. He had the right to decide what would happen to the play before he sold it. Not after. I also applauded the person who wanted to buy Jeff Dahmer’s stuff so it could be destroyed vs. sold on ebay (whatever happened to that anyhow?)

(if I missed stuff, sorry, this pulling the browser window up and down is giving me a headache).

Bottom line - I see it as theft. I have still seen no justification for the theft. Stealing from a bad person/company is still theft.

60

Oh, they get advances, but they’re 100% recoupable by the record company. You don’t make money until they make money, and because of their accounting methods, they’ll claim they never made any money either. Much like Hollywood’s accounting, it’s house of cards.

The Ian article I linked to is worth reading, especially the last several paragraphs, for shedding light on how the labels are basically unethically controlling copyrights anyway. The artist can turn in an album towards fulfillment of their contract (which is usually seven albums with no expiration date, leaving it the equivalent of indentured servitude), and if the label doesn’t like it, they can shelve it forever. Not only has the artist now not “completed” an album towards their contract, they can’t just go record the songs for another label, either. It’s really obscene.

Point of order: Paul McCartney didn’t sell anything. Northern Songs Ltd., the publisher of Lennon/McCartney songs, sold it right out from under him. He was actively trying to buy the catalog from them at them time, in conjunction with Yoko, but (allegedly on her advice) they held out for a better price, and Jackson outbid them.