Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Paco Bedejo]

The legality of it is moot. There is a moral aspect to it and that is what really matters.

Gun owners learned in the mid-90s that legality = morality. Right guys? The AWB was great while it was a law, right?

Sarcasm aside...my friend's order of operations for acquisition of digital materials is as follows:

1. Is the material conveniently available via one of his online subscriptions? (Netflix/Hulu/Audible)
2. Is the material conveniently available on ad-supported websites?
3. Is the material conveniently available for purchase at a reasonable price? ($0.50/song, $2/movie, $3/eBook, $5/audio book)
4. Is the material only legally-available in a cumbersome and/or overpriced method?
5. Is thepiratebay.org currently up & running?

If someone chooses to disperse their thoughts, stories, pictures, music, games, or videos into the world, but then limit legal access to such products with an overpriced and/or cumbersome paywall...my friend does not feel morally obligated to financially support them. Digital copying doesn't deny anybody of any property & is not an initiation of force by any sane definition.

My friend's

That said, my friend is preparing to pre-purchase two copies of Battlefield 3 in order to "vote" for future games of similar/better quality & properties.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Meeting the legal definition for theft aside ...

Music can be distributed in many forms - vinyl, CD, DVD, Internet, etc.

Music is sold in one form - the physical medium it is contained on.

Music is licensed in one form - the content contained on the physical medium.

Music can be licensed for many uses - personal use, public display, inclusion into another work, etc).

When you but a CD you are purchasing the CD and licensing the content on it. Most of the time your license is for non-commercial use only. Commercial licensing terms are generally negotiated by the RIAA. When you buy the CD and crack the wrapper you are agreeing to the contract. If you don't agree with the contract you are free to return the CD.

There can be criminal prosecution of copyright law. It's described in the part where the movie starts and you are still getting popcord together.

 

[steveh_131]

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?

This depends on who you consider the "owner". Someone is the creator of the very words you're using to communicate with me. Are you stealing from these people by using them without their consent?

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?

Again, comes down to ownership.

I don't necessarily agree with you that you can own an idea once you've given it to someone else.

 

[Garb]

I'm not sure I agree with that either.

It doesn't really matter if you agree with it. It's a basic law of both economics and morality.

 

[Expat]

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 think the point they are trying to make is that there is no lost profit because the person would never have paid for it anyway. As CarmelHP has pointed out this whole area of the law is a legal construct unrelated to the traditional theft laws. So-called music pirates have gigs and gigs of music that they downloaded and quite possibly never listened to. They just download it because it was there. Some people download it, even though they have the CD because they want it in their digital music and it is easier to download it than try to rip it to their hard drive. Of course the RIAA takes the position that even if you own the CD you have no right to rip it to your own collection of digital music. It is this sort of position that makes many people feel they are lacking in any moral authority on the subject and disregard them.

 

[CarmelHP]

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

Theft requires that you take something with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it's use. It's not theft, it's a breach of a duty owed to an IP creator, nothing more. It may be criminal depending on how and how much. Society, through elected legislators, has decided to protect IP.

 

[Yoder]

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

I agree with 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 not agree that the owner or his agent's exclusive right to distribute has been taken in that scenario. He still has it, which is the basis for his standing to sue for...copyright violation.

Not theft.

He can't sue for theft.

And his profit cannot be taken because he never had it to begin with. His opportunity to earn a profit in that particular instance could be taken, but you'd first have to show that the copyer would have otherwise bought the thing, which the numbers don't show. Our also be opening a whole can of worms with the taking of opportunities by one person from another.

If it soothes your hurt feelings any, I think copyright violation is ethically wrong. Theft too, but it is an entirely different thing.

 

[steveh_131]

It doesn't really matter if you agree with it. It's a basic law of both economics and morality.

I'm not sure how phantom contracts regarding the sharing of ideas became a basic law of morality. We may have to just disagree on that one.

It is this sort of position that makes many people feel they are lacking in any moral authority on the subject and disregard them.

Quoted for truth.

The lines between stealing and not stealing are so blurry and absurd that it's intellectually insulting to throw around words like "theft" and "stealing". If I make a copy of my cd and loan it to a friend, I'm a dirty rotten thief. But if I loan him the original, I'm not a thief? People are expected to subscribe to this type of morality?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Theft requires that you take something with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of it's use. It's not theft, it's a breach of a duty owed to an IP creator, nothing more. It may be criminal depending on how and how much. Society, through elected legislators, has decided to protect IP.

OK, I am admittedly sticking my face out to get punched, but I disagree. Under IC (copied below) theft is defined as exerting unauthorized control of property which has as an element transferring or reproducing recorded sounds. How is transferring recorded music without the authorization and concent of the owner not theft, and how is recieving the transferred music not receiving stolen property?

IC 35-43-4-1

Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "exert control over property" means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property.
(b) Under this chapter, a person's control over property of another person is "unauthorized" if it is exerted:
(1) without the other person's consent;
(2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented;
(3) by transferring or encumbering other property while failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of that other property;
(4) by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person;
(5) by failing to correct a false impression that the person knows is influencing the other person, if the person stands in a relationship of special trust to the other person;
(6) by promising performance that the person knows will not be performed;
(7) by expressing an intention to damage the property or impair the rights of any other person; or
(8) by transferring or reproducing:
(A) recorded sounds; or
(B) a live performance;

IC 35-43-4-2
Theft; receiving stolen property
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if:
(1) the fair market value of the property is at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000); or
(2) the property that is the subject of the theft is a valuable metal (as defined in IC 25-37.5-1-1) and:
(A) relates to transportation safety;
(B) relates to public safety; or
(C) is taken from a:
(i) hospital or other health care facility;
(ii) telecommunications provider;
(iii) public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)); or
(iv) key facility;
and the absence of the property creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to a person.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another person that has been the subject of theft commits receiving stolen property, a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class C felony if:
(1) the fair market value of the property is at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000); or
(2) the property that is the subject of the theft is a valuable metal (as defined in IC 25-37.5-1-1) and:
(A) relates to transportation safety;
(B) relates to public safety; or
(C) is taken from a:
(i) hospital or other health care facility;
(ii) telecommunications provider;
(iii) public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)); or
(iv) key facility;
and the absence of the property creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to a person.

 

[steveh_131]

Can I call you a thief for fast forwarding through commercials on your DVR? You're depriving the creators of their potential profits, are you not? I think there was an implied contract when you received that TV signal through the air that you are to watch any and all commercials while viewing that particular episode of Glee.

Does this make any sense?

 

[Garb]

Can I call you a thief for fast forwarding through commercials on your DVR? You're depriving the creators of their potential profits, are you not? I think there was an implied contract when you received that TV signal through the air that you are to watch any and all commercials while viewing that particular episode of Glee.

Does this make any sense?

No. Their contract is with the tv channel, not with the viewer. If the viewer gets up to take a poop during the commercial, are they stealing from the company? I don't think so lol.

 

[Yoder]

The IC doesn't apply because we aren't talking about affecting with a single piece of property, we are talking a out making a copy of it so that there are now two distinct pieces of property. One or both of which remain in the possession of the original possessor.

If creator of the content has asserted the exclusive right to distribute copies of his work though, copies is key here, and you make copies available for distribution, you will have violated his copy rights. But since copy rights are not property you'll not have committed theft because your actions will have resulted in the creation of an entirely new, distinct piece of property.

 

[steveh_131]

No. Their contract is with the tv channel, not with the viewer. If the viewer gets up to take a poop during the commercial, are they stealing from the company? I don't think so lol.

According to the "lost profit" theory presented so far, yes it is stealing to get up and pinch a loaf during the commercials.

So, let me clarify this. I am under no contract for these tv shows? I can record and copy and do as I please with them?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The IC doesn't apply because we aren't talking about affecting with a single piece of property, we are talking a out making a copy of it so that there are now two distinct pieces of property. One or both of which remain in the possession of the original possessor.

If creator of the content has asserted the exclusive right to distribute copies of his work though, copies is key here, and you make copies available for distribution, you will have violated his copy rights. But since copy rights are not property you'll not have committed theft because your actions will have resulted in the creation of an entirely new, distinct piece of property.

Wrong. Just wrong.

 

[Garb]

According to the "lost profit" theory presented so far, yes it is stealing to get up and pinch a loaf during the commercials.

So, let me clarify this. I am under no contract for these tv shows? I can record and copy and do as I please with them?

No. You can't record them and use them to make a profit. You can't invite people over to your house to watch the Superbowl and charge them for it. I don't necessarily agree with the lost profit thing, but I do agree that copyrights should be respected. That is my issue with the whole ordeal.

 

[Garb]

The IC doesn't apply because we aren't talking about affecting with a single piece of property, we are talking a out making a copy of it so that there are now two distinct pieces of property. One or both of which remain in the possession of the original possessor.

If creator of the content has asserted the exclusive right to distribute copies of his work though, copies is key here, and you make copies available for distribution, you will have violated his copy rights. But since copy rights are not property you'll not have committed theft because your actions will have resulted in the creation of an entirely new, distinct piece of property.

You didn't create a new piece of property. You copied an existing piece of property without consent from the supplier, and made a profit from it, and/or potentially detracted from their profit.

 

[Westside]

Can I call you a thief for fast forwarding through commercials on your DVR? You're depriving the creators of their potential profits, are you not? I think there was an implied contract when you received that TV signal through the air that you are to watch any and all commercials while viewing that particular episode of Glee.

Does this make any sense?

Not sure yet that one is actually being debated right now.

1) ABC Still Excited About DVRs That Disable Fast Forward | Techdirt

2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14935685/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/fox-tries-thwart-dvr-fast-forwarding/#.TnoRB83DBNQ

So give it another year or two and then we can tackle this topic.

 

[steveh_131]

No. You can't record them and use them to make a profit. You can't invite people over to your house to watch the Superbowl and charge them for it. I don't necessarily agree with the lost profit thing, but I do agree that copyrights should be respected. That is my issue with the whole ordeal.

So I agreed to a contract simply by having signals penetrating my home without my consent?



I see where you're coming from, overall. I suppose I just don't have the same belief that ideas can remain one person's property even when shared with others.

 

[steveh_131]

Not sure yet that one is actually being debated right now.

1) ABC Still Excited About DVRs That Disable Fast Forward | Techdirt

2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14935685/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/fox-tries-thwart-dvr-fast-forwarding/#.TnoRB83DBNQ

So give it another year or two and then we can tackle this topic.

how about, since we're discussing ethics and morality, we just tackle it right now? I don't need the government to define morality for me.

 

[Yoder]

Wrong. Just wrong.

Nope.