Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Garb]

That's rhetorical, right?

Maybe.

 

[Garb]

Ok. And what about allowing a friend to listen to your CD? He didn't pay the artist for the enjoyment of listening to it.

Also theft?

You're totally free to give a CD to your friend. It's yours. The music on the CD is not yours. It's the property of the artist and/or record label.

 

[steveh_131]

You are missing the point it is not about "listening to the music". It is about "possession of intellectual property" and distribution there off.


by inviting friends over you are not publicly distributing music.

If you opened a club and charged admission then that is considered distribution and you are required to pay a different fee/rate for the same music. They same basic principle also applies to radio stations.

Why is it distribution if I have charged them to be there?

They are not in possession of the intellectual property. I haven't distributed it. It is no different than if I didn't charge them to be there.

 

[steveh_131]

You're totally free to give a CD to your friend. It's yours. The music on the CD is not yours. It's the property of the artist and/or record label.

If it's mine, then why can't I copy it?

 

[88GT]

I don't understand. If they are listening to the music without paying for it, how is it not theft? I can make them a copy, they listen to it once, and they throw it away. Or I can loan them mine, they listen to it once, and give it back. The end result is the same, they have listened to the music without paying for it. How can you differentiate them ethically?

Strictly speaking, most copyright notices don't prohibit loaning. It's not listening to the music without paying for it that is theft. It is the illicit copying/dissemination of the material at a loss of profit to the owner that is prohibited. There's a point where even the theoretical has to meet reality and owners of widely-distributed intellectual property understand this. The "loss" incurred from loaning the material for private use is probably factored into the price up front. However, the loss incurred from copying/distributing is the price of CD or, in the case of things like radio, whatever it costs to obtain permission to use the song for a given period of time or uses.

The right to copy, not the right to use, is what is at issue. But use contractually obligates the user from copying without permission, regardless of the original user.

It's not unlike deed restrictions. Doesn't really matter who created them, all subsequent owners must abide by them because they attach to the land. Same with music. THe restrictions attach to the material and their use in all its forms is governed by those restrictions.

Let's say you write a short poem. You now own this poem. You tell your poem to someone, and explain that they may not tell anyone else the poem.

This person tells the poem to their friend. They are now both thieves?

Yes, strictly speaking.

If the friend agreed to a contract not to share it, then they should be punished according to that contract.

Strictly speaking, yes. Whether or not that's practical is another matter. But you said yourself you weren't concerned with the practical. Just the ethical.

 

[Garb]

If it's mine, then why can't I copy it?

As far as I understand, you can copy it and keep the copy for your own personal use. I know a lot of people that do this in order to preserve the original copy in case it's worth a lot of money later on, or just to keep it from getting scratched and dirty. I don't think copying one cd and giving it to a close friend is a huge deal. The real deal is when you're uploading it to the internet and thousands of people are getting music for free that they would either have to buy or borrow in any other case.

 

[Westside]

Ok lets try a different approach.

When you buy a CD you pay for a single copy of each song on the CD. By creating copies yourself AND distributing them or allowing other people to make copies you are breaking copyright law.

 

[steveh_131]

The right to copy, not the right to use, is what is at issue.

Every time you play the song for someone it has been copied. They now know the song and could sing it/recreate it for someone else.

This is all so arbitrary that it makes my brain hurt.

 

[Westside]

Why is it distribution if I have charged them to be there?

They are not in possession of the intellectual property. I haven't distributed it. It is no different than if I didn't charge them to be there.

because you are profiting off of someone Else's work and you are required by law to compensate the creator for there work. They same laws apply if you were to charge admission to a book reading.

 

[Garb]

Every time you play the song for someone it has been copied. They now know the song and could sing it/recreate it for someone else.

This is all so arbitrary that it makes my brain hurt.

 

[bigg cheese]

The legality of it is moot. There is a moral aspect to it and that is what really matters. Are you stealing (according to the law) or not. I will admit I have done it, and now that I have a wife and child, it has ceased. The RIAA has made a few "dog and pony shows" to highlight it and put fear into your heart about getting caught. By and large it doesn't work.

An interesting so-called "documentary" called "steal this movie" has a good long discussion about it with the PirateBay guys. I recommend it, if you can stomach their language.

 

[88GT]

Why is it distribution if I have charged them to be there?

They are not in possession of the intellectual property. I haven't distributed it. It is no different than if I didn't charge them to be there.

If it's mine, then why can't I copy it?

Are you being purposefully obtuse because this is beginning to border on the absurd.

The physical CD is yours to listen to or give away. The right to private enjoyment of the material on it has been licensed to the holder of the CD, whomever that may be.

The material on the CD is not yours. It is not yours to copy or sell. You are not selling the material when you sell a CD. You are selling the physical CD and the rights to the material. THe new owner, whether by gift or by purchase, agrees to abide by the copyright restrictions simply by possessing the material.

Do you understand the concept of licensing?

 

[steveh_131]

As far as I understand, you can copy it and keep the copy for your own personal use. I know a lot of people that do this in order to preserve the original copy in case it's worth a lot of money later on, or just to keep it from getting scratched and dirty. I don't think copying one cd and giving it to a close friend is a huge deal. The real deal is when you're uploading it to the internet and thousands of people are getting music for free that they would either have to buy or borrow in any other case.

I do understand why this is an issue economically. I can understand wanting to write laws in order to encourage the creation of intellectual property. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it.

I take issue more with the slinging around of the word "thief". It implies an ethical issue, and that is what I want to discuss. I think theft is a huge deal, whether it's a small theft or a big theft. Whether you're copying it for one friend or for a billion, it's either right or it's wrong.

Ok lets try a different approach.

When you buy a CD you pay for a single copy of each song on the CD. By creating copies yourself AND distributing them or allowing other people to make copies you are breaking copyright law.

See above regarding copyright law.

 

[88GT]

Every time you play the song for someone it has been copied. They now know the song and could sing it/recreate it for someone else.

This is all so arbitrary that it makes my brain hurt.

I'm gonna go with purposefully obtuse.

Or willful ignorance.

 

[Yoder]

Ok lets try a different approach.

When you buy a CD you pay for a single copy of each song

Not according to the RIAA, their claim is that you pay for a license to listen to it. Which is why you can't charge people to come listen to it, because the license terms do not allow it. You also can't play it over broadcast radio, because the license terms do not allow it.

It is also why downloading a copy of it is not theft and this not illegal. Making it available for download is illegal though, because it is a violation of copy rights. But it still isn't theft.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you being purposefully obtuse because this is beginning to border on the absurd.

The physical CD is yours to listen to or give away. The right to private enjoyment of the material on it has been licensed to the holder of the CD, whomever that may be.

The material on the CD is not yours. It is not yours to copy or sell. You are not selling the material when you sell a CD. You are selling the physical CD and the rights to the material. THe new owner, whether by gift or by purchase, agrees to abide by the copyright restrictions simply by possessing the material.

Do you understand the concept of licensing?

I'm not being obtuse. I want to understand the ethical reasoning behind these copyright laws.

Now by your definitions here, it should be ethically ok for me to copy it and give to someone else as long as I don't still own the rights to the material. If I don't listen to it ever again, then this is ethically ok?

 

[Westside]

here is a perfect example!!!

lets say a church pastor here's a song on the radio and wants to play it during the services that weekend. The church has to pay for the rights to play that song.

There are entire companies that do nothing but deal with this issues. Here is a link to ONE that I work with CCLI: Global . If I want to play a song I just check to make sure that it is in there approved list and I am good to go to the website make sure it is good then I can play the song.

The same also applies to images and video.

 

[Garb]

I do understand why this is an issue economically. I can understand wanting to write laws in order to encourage the creation of intellectual property. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it.

I take issue more with the slinging around of the word "thief". It implies an ethical issue, and that is what I want to discuss. I think theft is a huge deal, whether it's a small theft or a big theft. Whether you're copying it for one friend or for a billion, it's either right or it's wrong.

If you're asking is it wrong, the answer is yes. If you're asking is it legal, the answer is no.

 

[steveh_131]

If I watch a movie, I am now under copyright agreement with the movie owner, right?

If I tell someone the ending of the movie, I am a thief?

 

[88GT]

I'm not being obtuse. I want to understand the ethical reasoning behind these copyright laws.

Now by your definitions here, it should be ethically ok for me to copy it and give to someone else as long as I don't still own the rights to the material. If I don't listen to it ever again, then this is ethically ok?

No, because copying it is a violation of the terms of use. If the owner of the material has said that any copying without permission is prohibited, then ALL copying is theft because the user did not have permission to take the multiple copies.

In some cases, copyright prohibitions aren't so broad. Most simply prohibited the copying and distribution, and some even limit it farther to copy/distribution for profit.