Restitution for downloading music?

[Elizabeth502]

On the contrary…the whole argument is grounded on the issue of enjoying the use of something without paying for it.

Correct me if I misunderstand, but what I have always been told is that copyright laws themselves are not based on that, but on copying for commercial purposes – with the intent, without the author’s permission, to distribute his material, and do so in a commercial venture. In that sense one is “profiting” (truly) off of someone’s else work, which surely would be a violation of justice, both legally and in Catholic moral theology.

(Note that if something is out of print, copyright laws are not broken in any case.)

For example, you can record an athletic event (MLB, for example) for your private use at home. As long as it is in the public airwaves, it is recordable to enjoy at a later hour. (One not need physically go to the game and purchase a ticket.) The violation occurs if you invite a crowd into your home, sell “tickets” to the viewing of that game, etc., or make copies of that viewed game and sell the copies.

In the one case you are indeed enjoying something without paying for it. That is both legal and moral, as long as no deceit has occurred. In the other case you are profiting from a copyrighted and owned event that is not yours to appropriate to yourself.

 

[Timothysis]

Correct me if I misunderstand, but what I have always been told is that copyright laws themselves are not based on that, but on copying for commercial purposes – with the intent, without the author’s permission, to distribute his material, and do so in a commercial venture. In that sense one is “profiting” (truly) off of someone’s else work, which surely would be a violation of justice, both legally and in Catholic moral theology.

You are absolutely correct. The initial response to the “downloading is illegal” was that the fair-use clause applied since people were not “*copying for commercial purposes – with the intent, without the author’s permission, to distribute his material, and do so in a commercial venture.”
*

It is certainly immoral to copy something and sell it depriving the legitimate holder of his fair share.

 

[japhy]

On the contrary…the whole argument is grounded on the issue of enjoying the use of something without paying for it.

It is legal, in some circumstances, to enjoy the use of something without paying for it (when normally you would have to pay for it), and in other circumstances it is illegal to do so.

Many have argued that the downloading issue pertains to the ease and availability to distribute something.

The pirates who rip these movies, songs, and books are not permitted to do so. They have not been contracted to increase the ease and availability of distribution. They are breaking the law.

It has also been argued that while you may own the product that contains the music, you do not own the music or the rights to it. So, while you may be free to loan a cd, book or dvd to someone, you are still violating the “rights” of the holder by distributing their work without their permission.

Who argues this? Is it mere opinion, or is it actual intellectual property law? And why have you put the word rights in quotes?

Think of the horror that a woman who found a poem in a book that speaks to her should make a copy of it and put it on her refrigerator. Technically, she is violation the conditions of the publisher.

I would need to be informed about the actual copyright law to know if you are correct on this matter or not.

So it is ok if only three copies of Pride and Prejudice are “stolen” at a time.

Again you use quotes around the most important word of your argument. Why the quotes? Is the book being stolen or not? I say it is not: it is contractually loaned out.

Both allow individuals to access, use and enjoy items without cost of purchase. Neither pays publishing or copyright royalties.

Libraries do it legally, and with a limited supply of resources. Pirating web sites do it illegally and with an inexhaustible supply.

 

[AHapka]

that is an absurd comment,he loses income.

Even that depends. The OP stated he had $6,000 of music. If he had to pay, he simply wouldn’t have downloaded it (since I’m presuming he didn’t have the money), and the artitst wouldn’t have gotten any money.

So it’s not a true 1:1 ratio. You can’t say that because 1,000 copies were downloaded X number of dollars was lost because if those people had to pay for it, a large number probably wouldn’t have downloaded it.

I’m not saying illegal download is right at all, just trying to point out that the monetary factor is more complicated then it initially seems.

 

[Timothysis]

Even that depends. The OP stated he had $6,000 of music. If he had to pay, he simply wouldn’t have downloaded it (since I’m presuming he didn’t have the money), and the artitst wouldn’t have gotten any money.

So it’s not a true 1:1 ratio. You can’t say that because 1,000 copies were downloaded X number of dollars was lost because if those people had to pay for it, a large number probably wouldn’t have downloaded it.

I’m not saying illegal download is right at all, just trying to point out that the monetary factor is more complicated then it initially seems.

An excellent point.

 

[Timothysis]

The pirates who rip these movies, songs, and books are not permitted to do so. They have not been contracted to increase the ease and availability of distribution. They are breaking the law.

We are not talking about people pirating movies, songs or books (the illegal copying to sell for money). We are talking about peer to peer sharing where someone who has bought a CD can rip it to their computer and make it available to others.

To take it a step further, what if a person mentions a song and another says "I have that CD, I’ll send it to you in an email."

Is that “theft?” Is that “stealing?”

If I learn to play a musical piece from the sheet music that I purchased from a publisher, am I allowed to show someone else how to play it since they haven’t purchased the “rights” to it? Would my action cause the publisher to not be paid for their work? Would my copying it on my printer/scanner/copier for them be an illegal act?

 

[japhy]

We are not talking about people pirating movies, songs or books (the illegal copying to sell for money). We are talking about peer to peer sharing where someone who has bought a CD can rip it to their computer and make it available to others.

1. Pirating is not exclusively about making money. There are free torrent web sites out there.
2. A person who buys a CD of music does not receive the right to rip it and make it available to others.
3. The OP specifically said he downloaded these songs from illegal sources.

If I learn to play a musical piece from the sheet music that I purchased from a publisher, am I allowed to show someone else how to play it since they haven’t purchased the “rights” to it? Would my action cause the publisher to not be paid for their work? Would my copying it on my printer/scanner/copier for them be an illegal act?

I don’t know.

 

[Timothysis]

A person who buys a CD of music does not receive the right to rip it and make it available to others.

Perhaps in the mind of publishers, but in the real world if I want to loan a CD to someone or rip it to my computer and give it to them on a thumb drive, then I will. The concept of someone else’s “rights” seem rather abstract when I go to a store, spend money on a CD and have it sitting in my home or put it on my computer (actually, an external drive) that I have bought and paid for. It is mine and, unless I’m copying it and selling it for money, I can do whatever I want with it.

I don’t know.

I wish you would consider the point; it can open a whole other can of worms.

 

[april32010]

Perhaps in the mind of publishers, but in the real world if I want to loan a CD to someone or rip it to my computer and give it to them on a thumb drive, then I will. The concept of someone else’s “rights” seem rather abstract when I go to a store, spend money on a CD and have it sitting in my home or put it on my computer (actually, an external drive) that I have bought and paid for. It is mine and, unless I’m copying it and selling it for money, I can do whatever I want with it.

The concept of someone else’s “rights” seem rather abstract to thief’s.

 

[april32010]

“Without education, we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously.”
― G.K. Chesterton

 

[april32010]

“Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”
― G.K. Chesterton,

 

[Timothysis]

The concept of someone else’s “rights” seem rather abstract to thief’s.

I’m not talking about natural rights of an individual; I mean the “rights” that lobbyist manage to get enshrined by getting chummy with those who make the law. Or perhaps you never been sued for singing Happy Birthday in a commercial setting without paying rights to a publisher?

BTW, you never did respond to post #18.

 

[japhy]

Perhaps in the mind of publishers, but in the real world if I want to loan a CD to someone or rip it to my computer and give it to them on a thumb drive, then I will.

Oh, so it’s gonna be like that.

 

[Timothysis]

Oh, so it’s gonna be like that.

Yes, like that…just as much as if someone asked to borrow a book to read without compensating the author or the publisher.

Have you never loaned or borrowed a book, cd, or dvd?

 

[japhy]

Have you never loaned or borrowed a book, cd, or dvd?

I have, and I still don’t consider that to be comparable to duplicating the content and freely and widely distributing it.

 

[Timothysis]

I have, and I still don’t consider that to be comparable to duplicating the content and freely and widely distributing it.

Then it becomes a question of semantics.

Perhaps we should frame the question as being, is it ethical to share any copyrighted material without compensation to the artist/publisher, regardless as to how many or how few people participate?

 

[wcknight]

It sounds like most are saying that it id okay to download music as long as they do not redistribute it (or sell it). Not that I ever just go along with the majority (sometimes just about everyone is wrong).

There are a whole bunch of things on YouTube that probably should not be there. It can be heard (captured) by anyone. The authors should be compensated for their work. yet sometimes it is difficult if not impossible to pay them for it. (some of the original authors are no longer around.)

WHat is or is not fair game to copy and use for personal use ? It sounds like folks here are saying that anything available is okay as long as you don’t distribute it. I’m not sure I agree with that.

 

[Joe_5859]

It sounds like most are saying that it id okay to download music as long as they do not redistribute it (or sell it). Not that I ever just go along with the majority (sometimes just about everyone is wrong).

There are a whole bunch of things on YouTube that probably should not be there. It can be heard (captured) by anyone. The authors should be compensated for their work. yet sometimes it is difficult if not impossible to pay them for it. (some of the original authors are no longer around.)

WHat is or is not fair game to copy and use for personal use ? It sounds like folks here are saying that anything available is okay as long as you don’t distribute it. I’m not sure I agree with that.

I don’t think “most” are saying that. Just Timothysis.

I don’t really worry about YouTube. Most artists regularly scan YouTube and report anything they don’t want up there. If a video has been up there for a year or more and has thousands or millions of views, it seems likely that the artist is okay with it. Sometimes, rather than having the video removed, the artist gets YouTube to add links at the bottom of the video for people to buy the song from iTunes or Amazon.

If you’re going around ripping songs from YouTube, that’s something different, though. That would be problematic.