Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Garb]

Bass players are overpaid. At least that was my takeaway.

Hey now. Us bass players need to support our families too.

 

[steveh_131]

Just like the 'FBI warnings" on old VHS types by purchasing the CD you are agreeing to not distribute the contents of the CD.

What if I record the song digitally from a radio station? I've agreed to no contracts, right?

So you don't believe in the protection of intellectual property?

Sure I do. It should be protected just like any other piece of property is protected. Nobody should be able to take it without your consent.

 

[Westside]

While I don't agree that a contract should be valid based on swiping a debit card, we can leave that one be.

This still leaves out anyone who didn't make the purchase, right? They are bound under no such contract.

They are guilty of theft and should be held responsible for such acts. And the person who gave them the music should be charged as an accomplice


I am not discussing the degree or intensity of the punishment I am only attempting to make a simple point.

 

[steveh_131]

If the material is copyrighted/patented, the contract already exists. Use implies agreement.

Why does use imply agreement?

 

[Garb]

What if I record the song digitally from a radio station? I've agreed to no contracts, right?



Sure I do. It should be protected just like any other piece of property is protected. Nobody should be able to take it without your consent.

A copyright means only the makers of the literature/music can copy it. You can't unless they allow you to. If they don't allow you to, and you do it anyway, you're breaking the copyright.

 

[steveh_131]

They are guilty of theft and should be held responsible for such acts. And the person who gave them the music should be charged as an accomplice

In your car, you play a CD for your two friends who are with you. They did not buy this CD themselves.

You are now all thieves.

Correct?

 

[steveh_131]

A copyright means only the makers of the literature/music can copy it. You can't unless they allow you to. If they don't allow you to, and you do it anyway, you're breaking the copyright.

So anyone who records a song from the radio is a thief in your eyes?

 

[Yoder]

I guess I'm not as big a fan of government enforced artificial scarcity as some of you. But the reality is that piracy is done mostly by people who would not have purchased the item anyway, which when combined with that fact that the owner doesn't actually lose the material that is copied, precludes the practice from qualifying as 'theft' in any way.

Traditional distribution companies resisted going digital until they had no other choice. Digital piracy started out as the only means to get digital music without first going through the inconvenience of buying the physical media. Enter Apple, and later Amazon, who showed these companies how digital music distribution is done. At first with DRM encumbered files, out of a fear that piracy would cannibalize sales. DRM of course didn't dent piracy at all since it is an economically impossible to keep the technology ahead of the pirates. All it did do was ensure that music distributors locked themselves out of the direct to consumer business, by entrenching Apple DRM sold exclusively through iTunes and played on Apple made devices.

Despite that lock in Apple lead the charge to remove DRM, which again didn't dent piracy on way or another. Regardless and in spite of piracy supposedly cannibalizing sales Apple has raked in so much money selling digital music they hardly know where to put it all. The industry of digital music as a whole has continued to expand, as has the number of music files traded peer to peer, which hurts the probability of there being an inverse correlation between the two.

Sadly this same scenario is being played out with movies, and now books. Dinosaurs died for a reason.

 

[Westside]

What if I record the song digitally from a radio station? I've agreed to no contracts, right?
This is theft, as the radio station pays a fee each time they play a song. That is why there are so many commercials on "free" radio and not on the paid satellite radio service.


Sure I do. It should be protected just like any other piece of property is protected. Nobody should be able to take it without your consent.
By copying the music from a friend or other unpaid download service that is exactly what you are doing. Taking peoples intellectually property without there consent.

See text in green.

 

[Garb]

Why does use imply agreement?

Every business transaction is an agreement. Does anyone study economics anymore?

 

[Westside]

In your car, you play a CD for your two friends who are with you. They did not buy this CD themselves.

You are now all thieves.

Correct?

No they are not thieves as they are not in possession of nor do they maintain an "intended permanent" possession.

You could also legally loan them the CD to listen too and as long as they do not make a copy of the CD for themselves they are not guilty of theft either.

 

[88GT]

Why does use imply agreement?

Because the material is released/disseminated with conditions. For music, one of those conditions is no copying without prior permission. Even if the copier isn't the one who entered into the implied contract with the owner, the possession of the material via methods prohibited under contractual use make it stolen property.

THe nature of copyright is such that use hinges on acceptance of the conditions, regardless of how far removed the user is from the parties to the contract.

Are you really trying to argue that pirating music from a friend who legally obtained it is okay? It sounds an awful lot like that and I just want to be sure.

 

[Garb]

So anyone who records a song from the radio is a thief in your eyes?

Technically yes. But that's a different situation than buying a cd and putting it online for anybody and their brother to copy it for free. One is not even close to being enforceable, the other is.

 

[88GT]

Does anyone study economics anymore?

That's rhetorical, right?

 

[Expat]

The RIAA/MPAA are lawless organizations. They have illegally hacked into computers. They have been admonished by courts in other countries. These law firms they hide behind, use intimidation and lies to coerce people into paying them off which is extortion if we did it. They have been caught trying to sue innocent people on many occasions.

If I buy a book, no one cares that I pass it along to someone else after I buy it. But not a CD or DVD. What's the difference?

 

[steveh_131]

No they are not thieves as they are not in possession of nor do they maintain an "intended permanent" possession.

You could also legally loan them the CD to listen too and as long as they do not make a copy of the CD for themselves they are not guilty of theft either.

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?

Because the material is released/disseminated with conditions. For music, one of those conditions is no copying without prior permission. Even if the copier isn't the one who entered into the implied contract with the owner, the possession of the material via methods prohibited under contractual use make it stolen property.

THe nature of copyright is such that use hinges on acceptance of the conditions, regardless of how far removed the user is from the parties to the contract.

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?

Are you really trying to argue that pirating music from a friend who legally obtained it is okay? It sounds an awful lot like that and I just want to be sure.

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

 

[steveh_131]

Technically yes. But that's a different situation than buying a cd and putting it online for anybody and their brother to copy it for free. One is not even close to being enforceable, the other is.

I'm not interested in enforceable or technicalities. I'm discussing right and wrong.

Is it theft or isn't it?

 

[Garb]

I'm not interested in enforceable or technicalities. I'm discussing right and wrong.

Is it theft or isn't it?

Yes. I don't do it, and I wouldn't advocate it.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes. I don't do it, and I wouldn't advocate it.

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?

 

[Westside]

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?

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.