Forum Home | Login

Arquonzo

Join Date 04/2004

Does Copying Music = Stealing?

My $.02

Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.

Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft?

1st? Here:

I reverse engineer the widget

Successfully updated karma reason!

And here:

I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made.

So, to answer the title's question, YES.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1839

Theft of the idea...for starters.

The 'widget' will have intellectual copyright....if one person thought it up then it is HIS idea, not yours.

If you deliberately replicate it you are violating COPYright...you made a COPY.

See....that is why it is called 'copyright'...the right to copy.

The English explanation is so simple even a knuckle-dragger 'should' be able to comprehend in between drools.

Not every country actually has the concession included in their laws that it is legal to copy for personal use...in fact most cases it isn't....but it is simply not enforced or even practical.

Also....the act of reverse-engineering will have violated any use agreement....usually referred to as an EULA.

When the original sees a drop in sales...he can quite legitimately 'go you' in court...and you will lose. Lost potential income to the original creator will be the first moneys extracted from you.

Then there will be compensation for damage and injury/dilution of his trade name/reputation.

Then there can always be punitive damages imposed for any actual criminality.

'Synthetic reproductions'? Exactly what planet did you fall out of? The written word is also a 'synthetic reproduction' of the author's thoughts....yet it is the latter manifestation that has the copyright attached.

Sure, the music industry WILL change...but like most industries tripping into the 'now-generation' of Internet-speed-dissemination...it'll look like it's dragging its heels.

Rather than spend 2 cents on these debates...save them all up an by legal widgets....don't steal them....

Successfully updated karma reason!

'If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, '

This statement is incorrect - it is not ILLEGAL to make Copies (of things you have purchased) for your own personal use.

It's when you make a copy for distribution that makes it illegal.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This statement is incorrect - it is not ILLEGAL to make Copies (of things you have purchased) for your own personal use.

That statement is where the problem lies...the person made a copy of a widget/object of something that ANOTHER person bought. The only person that is allowed to have a copy of the item would be the original purchaser...not his friend who then decides to reverse engineer or copy a borrowed item. The theft occurred when he reverse engeineered the orginal widget. He then committed even more theft by borrowing widgets from those people that purchased them and made copies of them (even though he wasn't selling them), as he wasn't the original purchaser of the items in question that were being copied.
DD

Posted via WinCustomize Browser/Stardock Central

Successfully updated karma reason!

As for the music goes, I personally have downloaded music, so I will definitely have an extreme bias. I understand that it most likely is stealing, and understand the logic behind it. But, as I often do, I frequently become my own Devil's Advocate, asking myself from other sides the questions I would ask others. Where does copyrighting sound end? Will I not be able to recite the Star Spangled Banner without paying a duty to Key or the U.S.? Can I copywright words that I have said? Who owns sound?

I understand that these arguments are very weak in mine and others idea of "morality" but I believe that it is an interesting concpet, very much worth exploring.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Widgets are not copyrighted. Patents are not copyrights.

Copyright is not and has never been considered a natural right. Both copyright and patents are government-granted monopolies.

The American constitution specifically gives government the power to introduce laws to create copyrights and patents in order to support innovation. Violating such a law is not stealing.

(And yes, in most countries a certain number of copies for certain purposes are completely legal. If copyright "owners" say something else, they are lying.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am confused on how "reverse engineering" could be anything other than using an idea designed by someone else. Pretty much a no-brainer on the widget bit.

Music generally falls into the "Intellectual Property" category.

Recent example:

Archive.org recently removed the download access to live Grateful Dead concert music, which had been previously available for download to all (source files of both audience and sound boards).

After some discussion, the remaining members of the Grateful Dead decided that it would be okay to allow downloads of source files from audience tapes (which is considered to be part of a scene that we - I can include myself as a Dead Head - were participating members), but that the sound board source files are to be available via streaming only - due to the "Intellectual Property" factor.

Though you can save the streamed files to the computer, they are around 220+ Kbps - so any effort to pass them off as professional content on disc would be a farce.

IMHO - this is one example of the artists' being in touch with the true spirit of correct use.

Successfully updated karma reason!

IMHO - this is one example of the artists' being in touch with the true spirit of correct use.

I wholeheartedly agree. Indie bands freely send out there music in the knowledge that people will be very willing to download free music, and will draw people to their concerts. One recent example is Harvey Danger's new album. Not that I really like a lot of indie, but some is OK. The main hope is to make people buy concert tix, and really to appreciate the music instead of the corporatization.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1839

Not every country actually has the concession included in their laws that it is legal to copy for personal use...in fact most cases it isn't....but it is simply not enforced or even practical.

Nutshell ...read that. There is actually more than one country on this planet...

Successfully updated karma reason!

kona0197

Join Date 02/2003

+86

Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Well crap. After a lifetime of only hearing the term 'patent infringement' in relation to the sale of said items, I actually did a bit of research this evening to see if things were not all as they seemed. They were not.

About.com says that "patent infringement is a statutory wrong and is governed by federal law. 35 U.S.C. 271 defines infringement as 'whoever without authority makes, uses, or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.'" (emphasis added)

Learn something new every day.

Yes, this means my widget maker can only be used on items for which the patent has expired. *sigh*

Upon further reflection, I guess this means if I get a patent on a really cool device which is made from three rubberbands and a popsickle stick, you guys don't get to make one for yourselves without paying me first. Interesting law...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Join Date 03/2001

+23

XX casts the first stone.

Hey, I am deaf and never downloaded a music file.

Anyway, IMHO, you can copy whatever you want when object being copied is owned by you. You cannot loan this copy to your friends or even worse, sell it. That would be violating copyright law.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I am confused on how "reverse engineering" could be anything other than using an idea designed by someone else. Pretty much a no-brainer on the widget bit.

Never accept no-brainers. Always think.

The question was whether using an idea of somebody else's constitutes stealing. Merely showing how X is using an idea of somebody else's does NOT constitute proof that using an idea of somebody else's constitutes stealing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

i dont care what anyone says i see it like this if i can download a full album in 9 mins do the record companys really think im gonna get of my sorry ass, go into town and then spend £15 on buying a cd, hmmmm i think not

Successfully updated karma reason!

I not be able to recite the Star Spangled Banner without paying a duty to Key or the U.S.?

Well, the words "public domain" spring to mind, but...

Successfully updated karma reason!

HG_Eliminator

Join Date 07/2002

+354

you can copy most any thing as backups for "personal" use... to copy to hand out or sell... thats not allowed for most intelectual property..IMO if you know you should be paying for it and or know you are supposed to pay for it, but dont .. then you are stealing it .."Stolen/Free music Etc. arent free. the authors/owners spend grand amounts of time and cash to make the stuff. so somebody is paying for the "free" stuff you get...so i cant see why people gripe about paying for what they use..HELP SUPPORT THE ARTISTS..

here on WC artists/programmers give out plenty of free goodies... so i cant see the logic of cheating them of support when they post a "for sale theme".....so quit the gripin and shell out the $$$ for what you want... if what ever you want isnt worth parting with the $$$ then learn to live without it ...

Sad ....people all over the world are struggling to pay for meds to help keep them alive .. yet peeps think pissing over the price of a song/program is a great big friggin issue ...

Successfully updated karma reason!

it not that people want to steel anything it just whats the point in buying anything if you can get it for free, for example i have 2 CDs i tell you that they are both identical but one is free and one is not, which are you going to choose i know what 99.9% of people would choose, and really someone downloading some softwere or a song has nothing to do with someone not being able to affrod meds

Successfully updated karma reason!

Fuzzy Logic

Join Date 05/2002

+493

So what if I took your pc? I mean, why should I buy one when I can have yours for nothing...

Obtaining something without paying for it is stealing, no matter what it is. The same applies to intellectual property as does physical items.

But there are people who just don't get the point that taking things which do not belong to you, whatever they are or however you do it, is wrong...

Successfully updated karma reason!

HG_Eliminator

Join Date 07/2002

+354

really someone downloading some softwere or a song has nothing to do with someone not being able to affrod meds

many arguemnts of why peeps download "free/stolen" songs is the cost .. "if i had to pay for it, i wouldnt". ive seen these comments in other simular threads as well..
i remember a big blowout when napster was shut down.. peeps threw a fit " if those music labels think im going to pay for the music they are crazy"..." darn greedy music industry".... peeps act like the world is ending because they have to actually PAY for something they use ."blasphemy!!!"...and yes IMO it is sad to see people outraged because they have to pay for their music/programs..while many folks are struggling to afford life saving medication..

but i guess most people only care about what directly effects them...

Successfully updated karma reason!

HG_Eliminator

Join Date 07/2002

+354

i know what 99.9% of people would choose

sorry but to me this is a copout... in all the people i know i think maybe 1% actually uses "borrowed" music/software" most of them are buisness oriented and cant afford to have "stolen stuff on their pc's...the majority of my friends have the mind set of paying for what they use.. "we all had a big debate about it" the consensus was the majority actually felt compelled to buy the producta rather than copy and steal. why? most are small buisness owners or programmers or both... they know how it feels to have cheap people try to "get one over" on them...the others that arent buisness owners. felt that stealing music/programs is tantamount to .. somebody grabbing your stuff out of your house.. and giving it away on e bay...'yes the folks who grab it off of ebay are happy .. but the guy who paid for it, suffers'.......

Successfully updated karma reason!

After reading this thread and having a lively discussion with my 26 year old daughter on the subject, I have some thoughts:

First, I think the "widget" analogy is deceptive, because it places the problem in a fantasy realm, and obscures it somewhat.

A better analogy would be books, since they are (like music and software) governed by copyright law, and they can, if the effort is made, be copied. I could borrow my friends book and use a copy machine or scanner to duplicate it in it's entirety. This would save me the cost if the book, but would have it's own costs (time, equipment and/or fees for equipment use). The associated costs could make it less than worth it for me, unless I had a way to do it for free, like using my companies equipment and paper (thus stealing from them also). Now, if the book was already online, and all I had to do was download it to make a copy, how easy is that? The problem I would personally have with this is that the principle of ownership would keep me from doing it. I would not feel right about it.

When I listen to people advocating freely sharing of copyrighted or patented content, it seems that the principle of ownership doesn't even enter into the discussion. All we are left with then is whether it is convenient and practical to copy/share the work in question. This troubles me.

My daughter tells me she understands the principle of ownership issue, and does not disagree, but that for her, sharing/copying music/movies/software is more socially accepted. I take this to mean that for her age group it's assumed to be okay. My question to her (and others that think this way) is this: If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved?

There seems to be an attitude of "entitlement" involved with the justtification for the kind of stealing we are discussing. At one point my daughter said: "If I had to buy CDs for all the music I have then I wouldn't have any music, since I can't afford it." So, the subtext seems to be that she is entitled to the music and that justifies getting it any way she can. This is not a new attitude, but I think it is much more widespread in our youth than previously.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved?

The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern. This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors. Stealing a laptop computer does deprive the owner. Perhaps a better analogy would be if the computer thief copied all the files on your laptop. But even then, the analogy suffers because songs are clearly not private files.

The point of my analogy about the widgets was to take the conversation out of the realm of copyrights, because everyone already has a pre-conceived notion about what's right and wrong in regards to copying music. And while my widget copier is fantasy for the present, lets have this discussion again in 50 years.

Successfully updated karma reason!

This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors.

The point of the laptop analogy was to address the "principle of ownership" issue. Of course you do not feel wrong stealing from the person who has the music. They are NOT the owner/creator, merely someone who has purchased/licensed a copy of the work.

The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed.

Bingo. Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files.

What I write is a portion of my labor. It is material that I should be free to shop out on the free market (and will, eventually, but that's another blog entirely). If someone steals the product of my labor without permission, it's NOT just "bits of data", it is, rather, MY PROPERTy. The same applies to music (well, SOME of it anyway!)

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: