Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Yoder]

If your retelling of it too closely resembles the ending, you are in violation of copy rights. How close is too close? You can find out only by doing it and seeing if you are sued.

You are not and cannot be reasonably called a thief, except by ninnies who want to scare you.

 

[steveh_131]

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.

Breaking terms of use is not the same as theft, in an ethical sense. Is it?

 

[88GT]

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?

I'm going to ask you again: are you familiar with the concept of licensing?

 

[steveh_131]

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

I appreciate your consistency.

I would like to know how you feel about allowing a friend to listen to a CD in your car that he did not purchase.

Wrong or not wrong?

 

[steveh_131]

I'm going to ask you again: are you familiar with the concept of licensing?

I am familiar with the concept.

 

[Yoder]

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.

How is it theft? Leaving aside Fair Use, a violation of copy rights I'll give you, but no one is without their copy of the material and nothing can be stolen from the owner if he did not have it in the first place.

 

[88GT]

Breaking terms of use is not the same as theft, in an ethical sense. Is it?

In the case of property, yeah, I think it would be.

 

[CarmelHP]

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?

It's not theft. Doesn't even begin to meet the definition. The Constitution delegates Congress the power to secure exclusive uses to creators of works:

Art. 1, Sec. 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
---

The concept of intellectual property is a total creature of law.

 

[88GT]

How is it theft? Leaving aside Fair Use, a violation of copy rights I'll give you, but no one is without their copy of the material and nothing can be stolen from the owner if he did not have it in the first place.

Because one must pay for the privilege of possessing the rights to the material, any copying denies the owner of that material the profit from selling those rights. Two copies, one permission slip. Owner is out some money. I call that theft because they took without permission.

 

[steveh_131]

It's not theft. Doesn't even begin to meet the definition. The Constitution delegates Congress the power to secure exclusive uses to creators of works:

Art. 1, Sec. 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
---

The concept of intellectual property is a total creature of law.

Ok, this is making a lot more sense to me. I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what most of you are saying. Someone creates something and distributes it. Distribution comes with an implied contract, and anyone breaking this contract is ethically wrong.

I can see where you're coming from here, I just am not sure that I would use the word "theft" or "stealing" to describe the breach of a contract.

I'm also not sure that everyone on the planet should be bound by a contract made between a buyer and a seller.

 

[Westside]

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?

We are talking about .gov laws and rules!! you have to throw ethics, morality, and logic out the window. And I wish I was joking.

 

[88GT]

I'm also not sure that everyone on the planet should be bound by a contract made between a buyer and a seller.

It's not a contract created by purchase. It's a contract created by possession.

 

[steveh_131]

It's not a contract created by purchase. It's a contract created by possession.

I'm not sure I agree with that either.

 

[CarmelHP]

Ok, this is making a lot more sense to me. I think I'm starting to get a clearer picture of what most of you are saying. Someone creates something and distributes it. Distribution comes with an implied contract, and anyone breaking this contract is ethically wrong.

I can see where you're coming from here, I just am not sure that I would use the word "theft" or "stealing" to describe the breach of a contract.

I'm also not sure that everyone on the planet should be bound by a contract made between a buyer and a seller.

I wouldn't term it a contract. Congress promises to creators of useful science and art that they will punish anyone who uses their creation without paying for it. It's a legal mandate or imposed duty to refrain from non-permitted use.

 

[88GT]

I'm not sure I agree with that either.

What is it you don't agree with? For the third time: do you understand the idea of licensing?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

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?

No, it drove past ubsurd miles ago.

 

[Yoder]

Because one must pay for the privilege of possessing the rights to the material, any copying denies the owner of that material the profit from selling those rights. Two copies, one permission slip. Owner is out some money. I call that theft because they took without permission.

The owner is not out money, because you can't how that he would have ever had it in the first place. In fact the concurrent rise in digital media sales and piracy argue the opposite of your claim.

As for the theft of the right to distribute copies, that is a violation of copy rights and not theft. If it were theft copyright law would call it that, but it doesn't because it isn't.

All you are trying to do is use the emotional power of the word by redefining it to mean something it is not, which is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

 

[steveh_131]

I wouldn't term it a contract. Congress promises to creators of useful science and art that they will punish anyone who uses their creation without paying for it. It's a legal mandate or imposed duty to refrain from non-permitted use.

I do understand that in a legal sense. I understand why it's in place and what they hoped to achieve with it. I was more summing up the arguments put in place by most of the people here regarding the ethical obligations they attach to it.

What is it you don't agree with? For the third time: do you understand the idea of licensing?

I do understand the idea. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

 

[88GT]

It's not theft. Doesn't even begin to meet the definition. The Constitution delegates Congress the power to secure exclusive uses to creators of works:

Art. 1, Sec. 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
---

The concept of intellectual property is a total creature of law.

No, the formalized protection of it is.

 

[88GT]

The owner is not out money, because you can't how that he would have ever had it in the first place. In fact the concurrent rise in digital media sales and piracy argue the opposite of your claim.

As for the theft of the right to distribute copies, that is a violation of copy rights and not theft. If it were theft copyright law would call it that, but it doesn't because it isn't.

All you are trying to do is use the emotional power of the word by redefining it to mean something it is not, which is the oldest liberalist trick in the book.

Theft: taking what rightfully belongs to someone without his permission. Would you agree to that?

So if the right to copy and distribute for profit belongs to someone, would not the illegal copier be taking the profit that belongs to the owner for distributing and copyrighting?

I do understand the idea. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

So you don't think that owners of intellectual property should be able to control who uses it or profits from it? Property owners shouldn't be able to control who uses/accesses their land?