Illegal Downloading?

[Joe_5859]

I get what dskysmine is saying. I have a hard time calling illegal downloading “stealing” as it does not constitute stealing in the traditional sense. I still think it’s wrong to do it, but I question whether “stealing” is the most accurate term. It’s still all sort of new, so maybe it will take a bit longer to get the language down to something more precise.

I think it would make an interesting topic for a dissertation in moral theology. The entire concept of “intellectual property” as it is articulated today – particularly through copyright law – seems to me to be a historically novel concept. I do think we ought to follow the copyright law as it exists (as it would be a hard sell to say that following the law as it exists is immoral and thus the law needs to be disobeyed). But I do sometimes wonder if it doesn’t need some reform.

The fact that “intellectual property” can be bought and sold as anything else – and even handed down for years after the originator has died – seems a bit off to me. I mean, the guy who created a certain fictional mouse died 45 years ago, and yet some billion dollar corporation currently has 100% control over how that character is used? Can we imagine if Shakespeare’s descendants still had 100% control over his intellectual property? No more “West Side Story” or “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, that is, unless Arthur Laurents and Tom Stoppard shelled out massive amounts of money for licensing fees.

 

[StTommyMore]

I get what dskysmine is saying. I have a hard time calling illegal downloading “stealing” as it does not constitute stealing in the traditional sense. I still think it’s wrong to do it, but I question whether “stealing” is the most accurate term. It’s still all sort of new, so maybe it will take a bit longer to get the language down to something more precise.

I think it would make an interesting topic for a dissertation in moral theology. The entire concept of “intellectual property” as it is articulated today – particularly through copyright law – seems to me to be a historically novel concept. I do think we ought to follow the copyright law as it exists (as it would be a hard sell to say that following the law as it exists is immoral and thus the law needs to be disobeyed). But I do sometimes wonder if it doesn’t need some reform.

The fact that “intellectual property” can be bought and sold as anything else – and even handed down for years after the originator has died – seems a bit off to me. I mean, the guy who created a certain fictional mouse died 45 years ago, and yet some billion dollar corporation currently has 100% control over how that character is used? Can we imagine if Shakespeare’s descendants still had 100% control over his intellectual property? No more “West Side Story” or “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, that is, unless Arthur Laurents and Tom Stoppard shelled out massive amounts of money for licensing fees.

This is not quite an accurate comparison, as Mickey Mouse is not only copyrighted, but is also a trademark. Trademarks do not expire, copyrights do expire after a certain period of disuse. This was established in a case between DC and Marvel Comics back in the late 1960’s. It seems that technically DC owned the copyright of the name “Captain Marvel,” a character which they had won in a suit against Fawcett Comics in the 1930’s as being a copyright infringement, but I digress. Anyways Marvel brought out a comic book titled “Captain Marvel” which was a completely different character DC brought out their own “Captain Marvel” book, featuring the original character and the legal battles began. The case was decided in a somewhat interesting way. Marvel and DC would own a joint copyright on the name, but only Marvel could publish a book with that title, DC’s book was retitled “The Power of Shazam!” I went through all of this to show how copyrights, if not kept up with, can expire. Trademarks are different. Even if Marvel would stop publishing Spiderman comic books, no one could ever publish a book with that title, or with a character that looked like Spiderman, because of this statement:

The Amazing Spider-Man (including all prominent characters featured in this publication and the distinctive likenesses thereof) is a trademark of Marvel Enterprises, Inc.

Copyrights rally only apply to completed works, but titles, characters, etc are fall under trademarks. Copyrights, if not maintained, do expire, and the completed wark falls to the public domain. Another category of intellectual property rights is patents, but that is another issue all together.

 

[mdrummer5]

I get what dskysmine is saying. I have a hard time calling illegal downloading “stealing” as it does not constitute stealing in the traditional sense. I still think it’s wrong to do it, but I question whether “stealing” is the most accurate term. It’s still all sort of new, so maybe it will take a bit longer to get the language down to something more precise.

I think it would make an interesting topic for a dissertation in moral theology. The entire concept of “intellectual property” as it is articulated today – particularly through copyright law – seems to me to be a historically novel concept. I do think we ought to follow the copyright law as it exists (as it would be a hard sell to say that following the law as it exists is immoral and thus the law needs to be disobeyed). But I do sometimes wonder if it doesn’t need some reform.

The fact that “intellectual property” can be bought and sold as anything else – and even handed down for years after the originator has died – seems a bit off to me. I mean, the guy who created a certain fictional mouse died 45 years ago, and yet some billion dollar corporation currently has 100% control over how that character is used? Can we imagine if Shakespeare’s descendants still had 100% control over his intellectual property? No more “West Side Story” or “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead”, that is, unless Arthur Laurents and Tom Stoppard shelled out massive amounts of money for licensing fees.

I hate doing this as it can seem insulting but just for the sake of clarity…

Stealing: 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I agree that it can be a difficult concept to grasp since you’re not physically taking something that doesn’t belong to you but look at it this way…

When you buy a cd you’re not really paying for the packaging, yes it will be more expensive because of the packaging but what you’re really buying is the license to own a copy of that music, much like computer software. If you illegally download a song you’re getting the song without paying for the license to own it so you’ve stolen it. If you pay for and download a copy of Windows 7, you now own the license to it and have the right to install it on your pc. If you download it without paying for it… you just stole it. Just because you didn’t walk into Best Buy and stuff a cd or a copy of Windows into your jacket and run out with it doesn’t mean it’s not stealing.

As far as your comments on intellectual property… here’s the thing to remember there. The reason why some literary classics do not fall under this is because, frankly there’s no demand for them. As a book, song or whatever gets reproduced over and over again it’s value lessens… supply and demand. Comic books can be worth a fortune because of limited edition prints. However, I can download (and have) a copy of Bram Stoker’s Dracula to my Kindle for free.

 

[Joe_5859]

This is not quite an accurate comparison, as Mickey Mouse is not only copyrighted, but is also a trademark. Trademarks do not expire, copyrights do expire after a certain period of disuse. This was established in a case between DC and Marvel Comics back in the late 1960’s. It seems that technically DC owned the copyright of the name “Captain Marvel,” a character which they had won in a suit against Fawcett Comics in the 1930’s as being a copyright infringement, but I digress. Anyways Marvel brought out a comic book titled “Captain Marvel” which was a completely different character DC brought out their own “Captain Marvel” book, featuring the original character and the legal battles began. The case was decided in a somewhat interesting way. Marvel and DC would own a joint copyright on the name, but only Marvel could publish a book with that title, DC’s book was retitled “The Power of Shazam!” I went through all of this to show how copyrights, if not kept up with, can expire. Trademarks are different. Even if Marvel would stop publishing Spiderman comic books, no one could ever publish a book with that title, or with a character that looked like Spiderman, because of this statement:

Copyrights rally only apply to completed works, but titles, characters, etc are fall under trademarks. Copyrights, if not maintained, do expire, and the completed wark falls to the public domain. Another category of intellectual property rights is patents, but that is another issue all together.

Thanks for the clarification.

Indeed, I am far from a copyright/trademark/patent expert. I find the subject interesting to think about on occasion, but evidently not interesting enough to do that much independent research. Maybe someday…

 

[Joe_5859]

I hate doing this as it can seem insulting but just for the sake of clarity…

Stealing: 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I agree that it can be a difficult concept to grasp since you’re not physically taking something that doesn’t belong to you but look at it this way…

When you buy a cd you’re not really paying for the packaging, yes it will be more expensive because of the packaging but what you’re really buying is the license to own a copy of that music, much like computer software. If you illegally download a song you’re getting the song without paying for the license to own it so you’ve stolen it. If you pay for and download a copy of Windows 7, you now own the license to it and have the right to install it on your pc. If you download it without paying for it… you just stole it. Just because you didn’t walk into Best Buy and stuff a cd or a copy of Windows into your jacket and run out with it doesn’t mean it’s not stealing.

You could be right. In fact, you probably are. I may be trying to draw out nuances that simply aren’t there. I guess I just wonder if there’s a distinction between stealing tangible objects and intangible ones.

As far as your comments on intellectual property… here’s the thing to remember there. The reason why some literary classics do not fall under this is because, frankly there’s no demand for them. As a book, song or whatever gets reproduced over and over again it’s value lessens… supply and demand. Comic books can be worth a fortune because of limited edition prints. However, I can download (and have) a copy of Bram Stoker’s Dracula to my Kindle for free.

My understanding was that copyright expired 70 years after the death of the author (and that it used to be less than that). After that, it goes into public domain regardless of the demand.

 

[styrgwillidar]

The problem of downloading is that we live in a egotistic society in which people do not want to share anything and want to get money from whatever they can. The recording companies don’t need to make digital recordings they make them because it cheapens their costs to record but the prices of CDs nowadays are almost the same as an LP was back in the old days. They are also “stealing” from us in the same way we steal from them.

No, the problem is that we live in an egotistic society where people feel entitled to take the works of others without paying for them. They believe they have a claim on the fruits of others labor with no corresponding obligation to the persons providing it. And then rationalize their theft.

An artist supports themselves by creating works. He makes those available to other people in exchange for money to support himself, his family, and if so inclined his community including his Church. He enters into agreements with other folks who have expertise in marketing, legalities of copyright protection, business management, production design, lighting, costuming, choreagrohpy, audio production etc. etc. in order to maximize his ability create the best product he can and to make money and therefore fulfill his moral obligation to support himself. These folks are also exchanging their best efforts to assist the artist in exchange for money, to again enable themselves to support their families (and communities like their Churches).

If you don’t like the amount they charge, you don’t have to buy it. Wait for it to go on-sale, for the price to drop. But your not liking the price of music doesn’t justify theft any more than not liking the price of a Cadillac CTS-V justifies stealing one, even for a joyride.

The creator has offered it for sale by the method of their choice, in cooperation with intermediaries assisting him, all of whom are morally justified in expecting wages for their efforts in bringing that creation to market. You have the right to not buy it, you don’t have the right to take it.

Now, there are conditions where it is recognized that an artist has chosen to put a work in the public domain, transferring some limited rights for personal use to the public. Recording music broadcasted over the air for personal use was legal when I was younger, and I assume it still is. Used to be a radio station in LA which broadcast entire albums on a show late sunday evenings. There may be some similar rulings about the internet where the owner of the material has intentionally placed works on websites. I don’t know.

But I do not begrudge the artist and those supporting him compensation for his work. He gets to decide what he wants, I get to decide what I’m willing to pay.

 

[mdrummer5]

My understanding was that copyright expired 70 years after the death of the author (and that it used to be less than that). After that, it goes into public domain regardless of the demand.

I’m not sure on this but it makes perfect sense. Especially since while I got a free digital copy of Dracula you can still pay for a print copy and I’ve seen so many different ones so I wonder… if I go buy a physical copy… who gets the money? lol

 

[StTommyMore]

Thanks for the clarification.

Indeed, I am far from a copyright/trademark/patent expert. I find the subject interesting to think about on occasion, but evidently not interesting enough to do that much independent research. Maybe someday…

Neiter am I a expert on trademark/copyright/patent law, but I am a comic book geek

 

[Brannock]

Question: Is recording songs from the radio on a cassette tape sinful? In that case you don’t have the same quality of recording that you would if it was bought, it automatically is of worse quality.

Then in the same vein, if you use a recording program (audacity or something of the sort) and record a song off of youtube or pandora, you similarily lose quality and song identification tags etc… I would equate this to making a mix tape. so…Illegal? Sinful?

 

[KarenElissa]

I’m not sure on this but it makes perfect sense. Especially since while I got a free digital copy of Dracula you can still pay for a print copy and I’ve seen so many different ones so I wonder… if I go buy a physical copy… who gets the money? lol

In that case, the money goes to the publisher.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Brannock,
Used to be that because the radio used the public airwaves- that is, theory is the United States taxpayers own the radio spectrum-- artists, by making their songs available for radio stations to play, were utilizing a public resource to market their product. Legally one could record over the air programs for their personal use because the owners of the songs knowingly put them in an environment utilizing a public resource. I’m not sure if that’s still the case. I know you couldn’t record stuff over the air and then sell it to someone else.

I don’t know if there’s any similar case law regarding downloading things from the internet in general.

 

[KarenElissa]

Since this topic has expanded at bit, I’ll throw a couple of people out there. There are some people who will willing give away their stuff and allowing people to freely use and remix them. And they are making money anyway.

Jonathan Coulton is a singer who licenses his music with a creative commons license. He says “I give lots of music away because I believe it helps my cause, and I love it when people use my music to create other stuff – music videos, pictures, remixes, etc.”

Cory Doctorow licenses his books under creative commons and you can get many for free.

I think what both of these guys are trying to say is that having your stuff available on the internet for free doesn’t mean you won’t make money. In fact, especially for smaller artists, it can mean you make more money since it is easier for people to discover you. They also have shown that many people are willing to pay for things, even when they are free, simply because they want to support the artists.

 

[mdrummer5]

Since this topic has expanded at bit, I’ll throw a couple of people out there. There are some people who will willing give away their stuff and allowing people to freely use and remix them. And they are making money anyway.

Jonathan Coulton is a singer who licenses his music with a creative commons license. He says “I give lots of music away because I believe it helps my cause, and I love it when people use my music to create other stuff – music videos, pictures, remixes, etc.”

Cory Doctorow licenses his books under creative commons and you can get many for free.

I think what both of these guys are trying to say is that having your stuff available on the internet for free doesn’t mean you won’t make money. In fact, especially for smaller artists, it can mean you make more money since it is easier for people to discover you. They also have shown that many people are willing to pay for things, even when they are free, simply because they want to support the artists.

This is kind of irrelevant but… for them that’s perfectly fine they’re choosing to give away their product… good for them. However for those artists that choose not to do this, downloading their songs, books or whatever for free and without consent is stealing.

I’m not sure if this is the case but it seems as though you’re trying to make a case for stealing by saying that because of the examples you noted it should be justifiable to steal another artists music with the “logic” that they’ll make money anyway.

On the other hand if you’re simply suggesting that maybe artists/record labels should consider this route… good luck! lol

 

[KarenElissa]

I’m not sure if this is the case but it seems as though you’re trying to make a case for stealing by saying that because of the examples you noted it should be justifiable to steal another artists music with the “logic” that they’ll make money anyway.

Whoa! Not at all! 100% of my music (and the like 3 e-books I have) is legally downloaded either from places like Amazon or from people like these. I don’t at all think illegally downloading is acceptable. I think it is understandable in some circumstances, but not acceptable.

On the other hand if you’re simply suggesting that maybe artists/record labels should consider this route… good luck! lol

This isn’t exactly my point either, although it is closer than the last one. I don’t think that big names need to totally go this route, but I do think they need to rethink some of their strategies. The easier they make it to get music/movies/whatever legally, the more likely people are to use it instead of downloading things from other sources. The various industries still need to figure this out. If they spent more time figuring out how to do this instead of suing little kids, the better off they would be.

 

[mdrummer5]

Whoa! Not at all!

I didn’t think so was just hard to tell… yay for the inconsistencies in saying something via text!!!

This isn’t exactly my point either, although it is closer than the last one. I don’t think that big names need to totally go this route, but I do think they need to rethink some of their strategies. The easier they make it to get music/movies/whatever legally, the more likely people are to use it instead of downloading things from other sources. The various industries still need to figure this out. If they spent more time figuring out how to do this instead of suing little kids, the better off they would be

I agree to a point but as an artist that wouldn’t mind “making it” (though I have no delusions of that happening and have a real job) I don’t know if I’d just be giving all my stuff away. Honestly though I think the only problem with it is that most artists leave these things up to labels because well… they can. It’s almost like someone who owns a restaurant hiring a manager to actually run it for them.

I’d love to play drums for a living… but I’d hate to have to do any of the business portion of it.

 

[havana1]

Since this topic has expanded at bit, I’ll throw a couple of people out there. There are some people who will willing give away their stuff and allowing people to freely use and remix them. And they are making money anyway.

There’s also the (very, very comprehensive) Free Music Archive, which offers free downloads under Creative Commons licensing. Their curators include NY/NJ’s WFMU, Seattle’s KEXP, and the Canadian Broadcasting System. There is quite literally something for everyone: blues, country, international, jazz, classical, etc. Essential web site for anyone who downloads stuff.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Then in the same vein, if you use a recording program (audacity or something of the sort) and record a song off of youtube or pandora, you similarily lose quality and song identification tags etc… I would equate this to making a mix tape. so…Illegal? Sinful?

Please read the terms of service for Youtube and Pandora. Your license to use either of those services terminates the moment you start using them to download or copy music.

 

[KaneKatholic]

personally i dont see it as stealing IM BROKE
as a priest told me in confession “the gravity of the sin depends on the situation” for instance if a you steal a dollar from a poor woman for your own personal gain then it is more grave than if you steal a dollar from a multi-millionare
but stealing is still stealing
however mp3 downloads I never even batted an eye lash at mp3 downloads
heck my ipod is full of mp3 that i downloaded In fact my parents dont even mind
Iam not bothered by it and Im scrupulous most of the time
so no i dont count it as stealing but I will ask my priest about it for definitive advice but, stealing (as I always understood it) is physically taking something from someone else for your own personal gain making them suffer loss how is it that there are billionare music artists and if it does make am affect then i shudder to think at the riches they would have
so stealing from bank=BAD stealing from poor widow=BAD stealing from any person anything that would make them suffer loss=BAD downloading music (public art mind you that is meant for others to listen to) for the sake of listening= really?
basically I dont define it under stealing
ya’ know it’s easier for people to frown on something when it’s something unfamilliar
and honestly if i had to pay money for every single song then I probably wouldnt have use for my ipod
so no… technically i dont see it as stealing

 

[Cat_Herder]

personally i dont see it as stealing IM BROKE

Music is not a necessity and so poverty is not an excuse. Why not use Pandora and buy the songs you like from a used CD store? Amazon’s used CD department has albums for two or three bucks.

 

[StTommyMore]

The problem is that in this society we base our existence on avarice. We have completely lost sight of the difference between what it is to truly need something and what it is to have a desire for something. Stealing music vial illegal downloading never fulfills a need.