"intellectual Property" - Piracy

[judgeposer]

While enjoying the beautiful weekend weather (in NY), some family members and I had a discussion about music piracy. I wanted some thoughts on this . . .so, please, comment.

Putting aside the legal aspects and ramifications of illegally downloading music - is doing so morally wrong?

Put another way, do we do something morally wrong when we download or otherwise take music that we did not pay for?

If we acknowledge a private right to property, and that taking someone property is stealing, then, can we say we steal (in the same sense, which is to say with the same moral implications) when we take the recognized intellectual property of another, specifically some artist's or artists' music. Edited April 27, 2009 by judgeposer

[mustang_steve]

It's stealing in the way that a CD sale didn't happen...but it's actually more or less theft of service as opposed to physical theft.

Music is a performance....much like a plumber fixing your pipes...he performs the job...so he should be paid.

Now....if you were to make your own covers of their songs for personal use, that's dandy, since it was YOUR performance....but once it goes public, then royalties are due since they performed the songwriting for it.

There's many levels of work involved in making an album...it's not just the artists that get ripped...it's also the CD production facilities, the retailers, the shippers, the studio staff, even the label that loaned them the money to make the album (they in turn get a chunk of the monet frmo sales...parastitic contracts aside, they give the artist the ability to reach people farther from their home).

Now the RIAA...they can go to hell...but everyone below them, they deserve a chunk.

That said, all my MP3s are either from my own personally owned CDs, or are from albums no longer in production. If the album is unavailible I do not see any harm from that, as there is no revenue lost either way. I have been known to pay ridiculous prices to get an album that's across the world shipped to me...I figure if I like them enough to want to hear their music outside of radio, I may as well pay what it takes.

[Bye bye now have fun]

It's stealing in the way that a CD sale didn't happen...but it's actually more or less theft of service as opposed to physical theft.

untrue 99% of what i download id never buy if i didnt download it first. secondly about 75% of stuff i download i cant find in stores. and lastly 1 download != 1 lost sale

Music is a performance....much like a plumber fixing your pipes...he performs the job...so he should be paid.

well in almost all bands, he already got paid by the record label and will see nothing or close to it from the cd sale. they are nolonger the copyright holder. they make exponentially more money on tshirts and live shows.

Now the RIAA...they can go to hell...but everyone below them, they deserve a chunk.

That said, all my MP3s are either from my own personally owned CDs, or are from albums no longer in production.

Every time you rip a cd that you paid for and "own" you are commiting a felony under the DMCA and the PROIP act.

we live in a hypocritical society. in a case of turnitin a servce where professors submit your entire paper and this service checks for plagerism, the courts ruled its fair use to use an entire paper they didnt have the copyrights to commercially to make a profit. conversely, the DMCA makes its a felony to make backups of stuff you bought. if i switch the word "paper" with "song" all of a sudden you are a felon. i personal see nothing wrong with not paying for personal use.

[Tom1]

untrue 99% of what i download id never buy if i didnt download it first. secondly about 75% of stuff i download i cant find in stores.

This, I'm not a dj so I have no use buying tracks that are only available on vinyls.

[Bye bye now have fun]

untrue 99% of what i download id never buy if i didnt download it first. secondly about 75% of stuff i download i cant find in stores.

This, I'm not a dj so I have no use buying tracks that are only available on vinyls.

who said they were on vinyl? some of them are, some are live show bootlegs, leaked demo tapes, unreleased tracks or just not major record label.

[evilded777]

Yes, its morally wrong; period, no two ways about it. One can rationalize it away as long as one wants, that still does not make it right.

Not every band has the opportunity, or the clout to "make exponentially more on t shirts and live shows"; those still cost production money.

And saying that "the label has already paid the artist" shows a serious lack of understanding of how the record industry actually works.

No one gets paid by the label; well, maybe if your Metallica, but no one else. The record company makes an outlay of cash to get a product from someone, and THEY EXPECT THEIR MONEY BACK. Bands end up in debt to the recording company more often than they ever seen a profit from the recording company. And don't even get me started on "managers" or "agents".

Why do you think we are seeing more and more artists move away from the machinery of the recording industry (Radio Head, Nine Inch Nails, Marillion)? Because it is a corrupt system that only serves to make more money for itself, perhaps?

So, sure you can say you download to stick it to the record company; but in the end, then the artist doesn't make enough sales to pay the record company what they put out to make the CD... and the artist then ends up owing the record company, tour support is dropped due to poor album sales, etc, etc.

Starting to get the picture now?

[Charley]

That said, all my MP3s are either from my own personally owned CDs, or are from albums no longer in production.

Every time you rip a cd that you paid for and "own" you are commiting a felony under the DMCA and the PROIP act.

we live in a hypocritical society. in a case of turnitin a servce where professors submit your entire paper and this service checks for plagerism, the courts ruled its fair use to use an entire paper they didnt have the copyrights to commercially to make a profit. conversely, the DMCA makes its a felony to make backups of stuff you bought. if i switch the word "paper" with "song" all of a sudden you are a felon. i personal see nothing wrong with not paying for personal use.

they word there copy warnings to lead you to believe this but under the law you are allowed to make 1 backup copy of any software you legally obtain. video games dvd movies and music cds are all conciderd software and therefor are allowed to have that 1 backup copy made. however it is illigal to make more that one backup to give the backups away or to sell them. If you sell or give the cd away it is also illigal to keep the backup.

[Bye bye now have fun]

Yes, its morally wrong; period, no two ways about it. One can rationalize it away as long as one wants, that still does not make it right.

says who? people say the same thing for/against abortion. does that mean that both sides are wrong and right at the same time? im a strong believer of free noncommercial use. if you are using it commercially i think you should have to pay.

Not every band has the opportunity, or the clout to "make exponentially more on t shirts and live shows"; those still cost production money.

these guys do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomb_the_Music_Industry! they are probably my favorite band ever just because of what they believe. im not really "cultured" in music thats on the radio and in club but most punk and what not bands make their money/breakeven from touring.

And saying that "the label has already paid the artist" shows a serious lack of understanding of how the record industry actually works.

No one gets paid by the label; well, maybe if your Metallica, but no one else. The record company makes an outlay of cash to get a product from someone, and THEY EXPECT THEIR MONEY BACK. Bands end up in debt to the recording company more often than they ever seen a profit from the recording company. And don't even get me started on "managers" or "agents".

my understanding was that they front the band the money in return for the rights to the music and a massive chunk of royalities after getting repaid

Why do you think we are seeing more and more artists move away from the machinery of the recording industry (Radio Head, Nine Inch Nails, Marillion)? Because it is a corrupt system that only serves to make more money for itself, perhaps?

i really hate radiohead. when they did their thing everyone at my university was thinking they were innovators and masters of sticking it to the system, but bands have been doing it way before them.i hope the succed at it because in the day and age of the internet and p2p you dont need a label

So, sure you can say you download to stick it to the record company; but in the end, then the artist doesn't make enough sales to pay the record company what they put out to make the CD... and the artist then ends up owing the record company, tour support is dropped due to poor album sales, etc, etc.

that would only work if i was GOING TO BUY IT before i downloaded it. im constantly broke so i wouldnt be buying anything. ive gone up to 2 bands before they were on and gave them 10$ because i downloaded their album and neither band was pissed off. i told them how it was and that i couldnt pay for it because the shipping would have killed me. one said they rather get their message out the other said they wish i didnt download but appriciate that i gave them 10$.

Starting to get the picture now?

not really

[Bye bye now have fun]

That said, all my MP3s are either from my own personally owned CDs, or are from albums no longer in production.

Every time you rip a cd that you paid for and "own" you are commiting a felony under the DMCA and the PROIP act.

we live in a hypocritical society. in a case of turnitin a servce where professors submit your entire paper and this service checks for plagerism, the courts ruled its fair use to use an entire paper they didnt have the copyrights to commercially to make a profit. conversely, the DMCA makes its a felony to make backups of stuff you bought. if i switch the word "paper" with "song" all of a sudden you are a felon. i personal see nothing wrong with not paying for personal use.

they word there copy warnings to lead you to believe this but under the law you are allowed to make 1 backup copy of any software you legally obtain. video games dvd movies and music cds are all conciderd software and therefor are allowed to have that 1 backup copy made. however it is illigal to make more that one backup to give the backups away or to sell them. If you sell or give the cd away it is also illigal to keep the backup.

since i saw this as i was posting ill double post. under the DMCA you are NOT allowed to make a copy of anything that has DRM or "digital protection" all dvds have CSS which is digital protection. therefor under the law you cant make any backups of dvds. hell if i wanted to watch a dvd under linux im viotating the DMCA because im using deCSS. some cds are protected but im not sure the extent of it. i know the riaa got the anticircumvention clause in the dmca but im pretty sure they also made it that any backups arent fairuse. either way they are trying to make you buy multiple copies of the same thing in multiple noncompadible forms

[judgeposer]

My question was of the moral wrongness, perhaps, of pirating music - I asked whether we commit a moral wrong when we pirate music, which is to say take music with the intention of depriving the owner of the music's rights (say, to royalties?).

The legal aspect is relatively uninteresting to me, especially seeing how people can routinely disregard whatever the law says if they know they can't get caught, or that no punishment will follow from their alleged legal violation. Just a note about the legality of it all, we know that intentionally depriving someone of their legitimate copyrights is illegal - yes. Whether copying a CD one owns onto their HD for later listening probably does not constitute a violation of copyright law, no matter the industry's argument that it does. Under the DMCA, circumvention of industry controls is illegal if done with the primary intent of violating the rights of copyright holders. To my knowledge, the courts have not enforced (even given the opportunity) the DMCA to preclude a person who owns a CD from adding it to his digital database on his personal computer.

Again, though, whatever the legal aspects are, I'm not concerned. My question was about the moral status of taking music you didn't pay for.

[judgeposer]

It's stealing in the way that a CD sale didn't happen...but it's actually more or less theft of service as opposed to physical theft.

Music is a performance....much like a plumber fixing your pipes...he performs the job...so he should be paid.

Now....if you were to make your own covers of their songs for personal use, that's dandy, since it was YOUR performance....but once it goes public, then royalties are due since they performed the songwriting for it.
[...]
Now the RIAA...they can go to hell...but everyone below them, they deserve a chunk.

So, we should compensate musicians just as we do for anyone performing a service? From the rest of your reply, I gather that you believe that this compensation should continue past the extent of their performance though - such as when we listen to their music at home, in our free time, let's say. Put another way, I understand you saying that musicians have a moral (correct?) right to profit from their creative endeavor, period. For our enjoyment of their music, then, we should expect to compensate them?

I'm apt to agree with you. This is the standard (moral) argument against music piracy - though, I don't know that we have to consider the art of musicians a service necessarily; that's a novel understanding.

Yes, its morally wrong; period, no two ways about it. One can rationalize it away as long as one wants, that still does not make it right.

So, do you say that it's morally wrong for the reason/argument above?

Yes, its morally wrong; period, no two ways about it. One can rationalize it away as long as one wants, that still does not make it right.

says who? people say the same thing for/against abortion. does that mean that both sides are wrong and right at the same time? im a strong believer of free noncommercial use. if you are using it commercially i think you should have to pay.

Disagreement on the morality of an issue doesn't mean there isn't a correct answer - unless you believe in some sort of moral sceptisim like moral relativism. Disagreement on any issue, including morals, for that matter, doesn't mean an absence of a "right" answer. So, while debates about abortion continue without much progress, debates on the moral legitimacy of slavery once seemed without end. So the same with this issue. I would agree that simply saying somethig is wrong without an argument directed at that conclusion leaves something to be desired, so does pointing out a lack of moral consensus as evidence that there is no right or wrong about an issue.

[Bye bye now have fun]

the fact of the matter is that its illegal to copy cds and break protection on DRMed files.once you buy a book you can read it where ever, make backup copies and resell it. with movies and music you cant. whats the difference? oh ya they have lawyers

[evilded777]

Unless the artist places something in the public domain, or makes it freely available through some medium, obtaining said work of art through some other method is stealing. What is so hard to see about that? Just because one does not have the money to pay does not make it ok to take what you want.

I do not believe that artists are performing a service. True artists create from somewhere deep inside of them that many of us can never touch, and many of us would be afraid to face. The fact that these unique people have the drive to reach in there and pull out what they do, the courage to reveal that part of themselves to the world... that is a sacred act. Art brings us pleasure, it is not a service... it is a gift (metaphorically speaking). Does an artist deserve to be paid for their acts of creation? That is entirely up to the observer, but it does not excuse the observer from correct action.

This band that Gnu brings up: I applaud their efforts. But they are far from the first. Ever heard of Fugazi? Came along well before these fellows.

And I personally know enough bands and musicians, from the whole spectrum of big label to indie (and as a matter of fact, one of my best friends who is an indie artist of some small renown, has started to make an effort to ask people NOT to share his work -- because it is hurting him) to really know what it is like for these people. From trying to make it, to trying to get a record label to pay attention, to suffering through the BS of having a label stop production of your CD and stifle your touring because the label feels its not in there best interest.

[Tom1]

untrue 99% of what i download id never buy if i didnt download it first. secondly about 75% of stuff i download i cant find in stores.

This, I'm not a dj so I have no use buying tracks that are only available on vinyls.

who said they were on vinyl? some of them are, some are live show bootlegs, leaked demo tapes, unreleased tracks or just not major record label.

I did while talking about why I download music. Most underground dj's vinyls would be hard to find in any store locally, and even then I have no way of playing records.

[evilded777]

Y'know I should have prefaced any remark, before I opened my big fat mouth. I am not trying to attack anyone, or discredit anyone... I do have strong feelings on the matter because of personal experiences.

Please forgive me if I came on a little strong.

[Bye bye now have fun]

Unless the artist places something in the public domain, or makes it freely available through some medium, obtaining said work of art through some other method is stealing. What is so hard to see about that? Just because one does not have the money to pay does not make it ok to take what you want.

public domain is the WORST place for artist music. and by worst i mean for them. if it was in public domain anyone could sell it or use it without paying or asking. i think if copyrights should exist they should be shortened to a around 20 years before public domain. it seems to be a fair amount of time imo. in order to steal i have to deprive someone of their property. that is impossible with intangible property. if i take your ipod you dont have it anymore. if i copy all your bands songs off it you lose nothing. i will repeat this a download does not equal a lost sale.

I do not believe that artists are performing a service. True artists create from somewhere deep inside of them that many of us can never touch, and many of us would be afraid to face. The fact that these unique people have the drive to reach in there and pull out what they do, the courage to reveal that part of themselves to the world... that is a sacred act. Art brings us pleasure, it is not a service... it is a gift (metaphorically speaking). Does an artist deserve to be paid for their acts of creation? That is entirely up to the observer, but it does not excuse the observer from correct action.

so i guess you think open source is bad too. those damn commies undermining those captialistic microsofts. so i guess i should still have to pay mozart every time i hear or use anythign he made anything derived from him. i guess i should also pay van gogh and monet when i saw their stuff in the art mueseum.

This band that Gnu brings up: I applaud their efforts. But they are far from the first. Ever heard of Fugazi? Came along well before these fellows.

ya and ian mackaye sucks. they didnt give out albums for free either. also sst and AT were before discord record. the DKs, blackflag, circlejerks, adolecents, and the rest of 80s hardcore was way more important than fugazi

And I personally know enough bands and musicians, from the whole spectrum of big label to indie (and as a matter of fact, one of my best friends who is an indie artist of some small renown, has started to make an effort to ask people NOT to share his work -- because it is hurting him) to really know what it is like for these people. From trying to make it, to trying to get a record label to pay attention, to suffering through the BS of having a label stop production of your CD and stifle your touring because the label feels its not in there best interest.

so let me get this straigh he rather have noone listen to it over having people download it? sounds like its his fault for signing over his rights to a label. its not hard to make your own music now in days. bmti makes it with a builtin mac microphone. their last album they spent 50$ on which is the most to date.

i really dont see how any adult can seriously support and take the side of the current IP laws and record labels. all i can think of is the song pull my strings

[jeremyk]

i think thats its stealing. i used to do it alot when i was younger but now i realized that in order for the bands i love to stay around i need to support them money wise by buying their music

[gaia.plateau]

1. It's morally permissible. There is no loss for the author and owner of the IP, nor is any tangible gain for the person downloading.

2. It isn't hurting the music industry whatsoever. CD sales are being hurt by the digitalization of music, not file sharing, and the vast majority of revenues, which come from tours, have increased due to more people being familiar with the artist in question.

3. It's a basic human right, or at least it's arguably so. I've gone hungry more than once in my youth to afford a CD, and more recently I've trimmed down my grocery bill substantially for a year to afford my iPod. Music makes us smile, makes us laugh, makes us cry, it indulges our depressions and intensifies our joys. Is it morally permissible to deny that from someone because they are socioeconomically disadvantaged?

[Bye bye now have fun]

i think thats its stealing. i used to do it alot when i was younger but now i realized that in order for the bands i love to stay around i need to support them money wise by buying their music

in order for it to be theft you have to unlawfully deprive someone of their property. last time i checked they arent at a loss

[Rani]

It's stealing in the way that a CD sale didn't happen...but it's actually more or less theft of service as opposed to physical theft.

Music is a performance....much like a plumber fixing your pipes...he performs the job...so he should be paid. Acturally it is property, though it tends to vary from state to state if it's considered real property or simply intellectual property. Either way, the artist who created it owns it until such time as he or his heirs sell the rights to it. Production houses only have the right to reproduce and sell it as part of the contract between them and the artist. Generally that runs out when the contract does unless agreed to otherwise within the contract itself.

Now....if you were to make your own covers of their songs for personal use, that's dandy, since it was YOUR performance....but once it goes public, then royalties are due since they performed the songwriting for it. Actually performing covers is technically a violation of copyright because you're making money off performing something created by someone else. To do so legally, you're supposed to get a release and reimburse as agreed between you and the creating artist. It's somewhat accepted in the industry to allow up and coming bands to perform your covers, however, it's done strictly as a matter of courtesy and should they demand reimbursement, you're on the hook.

There's many levels of work involved in making an album...it's not just the artists that get ripped...it's also the CD production facilities, the retailers, the shippers, the studio staff, even the label that loaned them the money to make the album (they in turn get a chunk of the monet frmo sales...parastitic contracts aside, they give the artist the ability to reach people farther from their home). CD Production facilities are paid by the lot or number of "presses". 1,000 costs you so much, etc. They are paid for their direct delivery of the agreed upon number of presses, nothing else. Retailers purchase at a wholesale cost direct from the distribution house. Studio staff are paid in advance (union scale, etc.) and almost never have a piece of the final sale. Labels don't loan anything. They advance the costs to their own production division/department and then take it back at the point of sale to the retailer usually off the top before the artist can begin to collect their portion of the royalities.

Now the RIAA...they can go to hell...but everyone below them, they deserve a chunk.

That said, all my MP3s are either from my own personally owned CDs, or are from albums no longer in production. If the album is unavailible I do not see any harm from that, as there is no revenue lost either way. I have been known to pay ridiculous prices to get an album that's across the world shipped to me...I figure if I like them enough to want to hear their music outside of radio, I may as well pay what it takes. If you purchase a CD or MP3/4 dowload you are entitled to listen to it on any device. You own the listening of it. What you do not own is reproduction rights. So legally you can't reproduce it for someone else either free of charge or charging them to duplicate it. You can keep the original disc and listen only to copies to protect the original, but you can't legally give a copy to someone else. By the way, duplication and dispersement of licensed material without artist consent is a felony.

See above. Been there, done that, several times and have all the t-shirts to prove it. Still do studio work when pressured into it by my friends.

'Rani

[Bye bye now have fun]

actually with drm you ARENT allowed to listen to it on whatever. I forget who said it but hes some writer and he was criticizing drm because you arent limited to where, for how long, for many manytimes and in what manner you can read books. drm is an assault on fairuse and a shame big media use to make people purchase multiple copies of the same thing. you cant copy drmed material that you paid for, you cant transfer it and you cant back it up. when buying something you have the right to make backup and the seller only has the right of first sale. under current laws this is taken away.

[Sonthert]

This should sound Orwellian, but is unethical, but moral.

Where would the world be if the telescope was patented and protected from infringement by individuals and companies?

[Bye bye now have fun]

because its not like the Renascence happened with out copyrights and patents. oh wait they did copyrights came to be in 1710 with the statue of anne and "modern" patents came in 1600something, with the english modifying it in the 1700s. back then copyrights were something like 14 years and patents were 3 i think. its only recently when people like sonny and other greedy jerks made it lifetime plus 50 years and other absurdities. in addition ACTA is going to give even more power to them. its crap

[judgeposer]

1. It's morally permissible. There is no loss for the author and owner of the IP, nor is any tangible gain for the person downloading.

2. It isn't hurting the music industry whatsoever. CD sales are being hurt by the digitalization of music, not file sharing, and the vast majority of revenues, which come from tours, have increased due to more people being familiar with the artist in question.

3. It's a basic human right, or at least it's arguably so. I've gone hungry more than once in my youth to afford a CD, and more recently I've trimmed down my grocery bill substantially for a year to afford my iPod. Music makes us smile, makes us laugh, makes us cry, it indulges our depressions and intensifies our joys. Is it morally permissible to deny that from someone because they are socioeconomically disadvantaged?

It's morally permissible because, you say, the author/owner experiences no loss, nor does the person downloading the music gain anything tangible? - That seems to miss the point of intellectual property, property of intangible ideas or creations, doesn't it? I mean, sure we can say there's no tangible gain for the downloader, if we first don't consider intellectual property, well, property. Sure we can too say that the owner experiences no loss, but only if we first dispense with the notion of "rights" associated or birthed by intellectual property.

While we might be able to say that the music industry isn't hurting (which, I think is debatable, but nonetheless, for the sake of argument), why is this a consideration when considering the morality of pirating music?

Those things that make us smile, laugh, or cry, among other sentiments are human rights?

in order for it to be theft you have to unlawfully deprive someone of their property. last time i checked they arent at a loss

I think you're attacking a strawman here - denial of property is but ONE dimension of the moral calculus, especially since we're talking about the sort of property that's intangible. With physical property, denying or depriving someone of his property means they cannot in any way enjoy it, someone has taken both the property and the right that person has to control what's theirs. With intellectual property, the idea of a "taking" or deprivation requires us to consider specifically that second sort of taking: whether the person who birthed that idea/song, etc. has control over its distribution.

[Bye bye now have fun]

sounds to me like its a money and control issue here. point being that if music was fairly priced, drm free and you could do what you want within fairuse i would be taking your side. instead we have a few people fucking over society so they can have a strangle hold on IP inorder to make a few more bucks. music is non exhaustable good. so whats the gain of me not buying and not downloading anything? because i sure cant afford to buy any music. do you really thing Joey Shithead the owner of Sudden Death records is going to care that i downloaded the new DOA album when i wasnt going to buy it? if anything hed be happy that i did and trying to spread the message against people like you