Should copyright violations be considered "stealing" or "theft"?

[yosemite]

Indeed. Certainly nothing on this message board is worth fretting over. Take care and get some rest!

[jeevmon]

@Lamia

It arguably does Britney Spears little harm if someone rips one of her CDs and shares MP3s or burns an illegal copy to give or sell to a friend. At worst Ms. Spears & Co. lose a sale; at best someone who would never have bought the CD in the first place gets to hear her music and may decide they want to buy legitimate Britney Spears CDs in the future (provided, of course, they have no musical taste). A case can be made that it’s still immoral and should be illegal, but a case can also be made that loosening copyright restrictions would ultimately benefit artists, especially those without a huge marketing team behind them like Britney Spears. This is an issue where both sides have some good points to make.

Copyright doesn’t prevent the artist who chooses to give their work away for free to induce CD sales, or generate interest for live shows, etc., etc., from doing so, any more than it prevents me from opening my land for public use.

[1010011010]

@jeevmon

Copyright doesn’t prevent the artist who chooses to give their work away for free to induce CD sales, or generate interest for live shows, etc., etc., from doing so, any more than it prevents me from opening my land for public use.

Only if the artist controls the copyright… which generally isn’t the case, it gets signed over to the recording label somewhere in the fine print. Britney Spears could go on TV tomorrow and say we could all download MP3s of her songs, and it would have no effect because she doesn’t own the rights and thus can’t give that permission.

There are horror stories about bands signing the Standard Record Contract™, having the deal go sour after the first CD bombs, and then not being able to perform/record their own music… because they signed away the copyright.

[yosemite]

@1010011010

There are horror stories about bands signing the Standard Record Contract™, having the deal go sour after the first CD bombs, and then not being able to perform/record their own music… because they signed away the copyright.

In art school they kept on telling us to try to avoid work for hire, which is kind of similar to this. Whatever work you do “belongs” to the client, totally. Copyrighted by client. You did the work, but you have no hold over it.

Sometimes it can’t be avoided (and in some cases of work for hire, who cares? If an artist does a work for hire art job drawing hamburgers or machine parts for a client, they probably don’t care if they keep copyright). But other times, it sucks and should be avoided if at all possible.

[spingears]

@erislover

I’ve always thought used CD stores are “stealing” from artists if anyone was. But this is why I don’t own a big record company, dontcha know.

CD’s, 78’s, 45’s, 2-tracks, books from the library, used books.

It’s all the same. The originator got his reward the first time around.

Copying for resale is an entirely different matter.

[1010011010]

@spingears

The originator got his reward the first time around.

There’s something that I find really interesting.
Suppose the RIAA sues someone transferring MP3s, but it turns out all the people involved already paid for the tracks in question on CD/Tape/LP/etc.?

I’ve lost a couple CDs over the years, but I still have the case… and I’ve hunted down the tracks off the CD and burned a replacement copy of the disc. Am I “stealing”? I’ve already paid for them, after all.

What if I can’t figure out the copy protection on the CD, but I can figure out Kazaa?

[erislover]

@spingears

CD’s, 78’s, 45’s, 2-tracks, books from the library, used books.

It’s all the same. The originator got his reward the first time around.

Yet again I will point out that in order to make a copy, someone needed to have the original work as well.