A
ab75
Guest
Only if the stolen music was rock music and you have to listen to it.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
- Status
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
B
bingbang
Guest
To be honest I wasn’t even arguing that it was morally right to download music illegally. What I was trying to argue is that it is crazy to think that downloading music illegally would lead to other types of theft.
Downloading music could lead to downloading movies, software, and video games. I will give you that. But downloading music wouldn’t lead to shop lifting. It is a totally different act. Even the law sees it differently. You aren’t going to get charged with the same thing if you steal a CD from a store and if you download the same cd online.
If you are really so positive that downloading music leads to bigger crimes, maybe you can provide some sort of evidence other than your opinion.
L
logic_oriented
Guest
I’m sorry you misunderstood me. I am not arguing whether or not pirating music is legal, moral, justified, or what have you. I am arguing that if a person justifies it by saying that it is different from other forms of theft because it is making a copy, not depriving somebody of the original, that is not the beginning of your slippery slope leading to other forms of theft.
The justification that was presented for piracy does not apply to other forms of theft, and so, in answer to your question, it ends right there.
G
GerardMajella
Guest
Certainly, you can make an argument that stealing smaller amounts of money – whether online or in person – does not universally necessitate eventually progressively stealing larger amounts of money. Agreed.
However, if you study criminology, you will typically see that a criminal starts with smaller, petty thefts, until he gets enough courage to try a larger, more profitable crime.
My point: Not every petty online thief becomes the next Bernie Maddoff - Agreed. But every Bernie Maddoff started out as a petty thief. The potential is there.
Evidence? If you read the grisly and gruesome true stories of former FBI profiling expert Robert Ressler, he goes into a great bit of detail on how some of the most famous mass murderers started out doing small crimes as children, and eventually, as they grew into adulthood, became full-fledged criminals. Again, not every case, but the potential is certainly there.
L
logic_oriented
Guest
…It’s almost eerie how similar our two posts are. I hope you don’t mind that, in posting second, I might have violated your intellectual property in some way. We wouldn’t want that.
G
GerardMajella
Guest
Again, you can use any kind of justification that you want, but it’s still theft, and internationally recognized as theft. That’s why there are laws against illegally downloading music online. That’s why Napster was shut down.
You can make all kinds of rationalizations – The dog made me do it, I was just curious and wanted to steal the music for just this one song, etc. It doesn’t matter what the rationalization is. Criminals rationalize their crimes all the time. In fact, many criminals convince themselves of their innocence. That doesn’t negate the fact that a crime took place.
See above. Sometimes it ends there. Sometimes, a criminally-prone individual gets started doing petty online crimes, and doesn’t get caught. Then that same individual tries to do something even more criminal, such as identity theft, or hacking into computers. Criminal behavior tends to escalate, because it’s so easy to justify once you’ve committed the crime and didn’t get caught. Hence, the slippery slope.
B
bingbang
Guest
If what you are saying is true, then shoplifting rates would undoubtedly have multiplied over the past 10 years. Would you agree with this hypothesis? That if downloading music leads to other crime, and 10’s of millions of people are downloading music, wouldn’t other crime rates have gone WAY up since downloading music illegally became possible?
G
GerardMajella
Guest
Certainly, we have seen in recent years an unbelievable and rampant epidemic of online identity theft, which is one of the fastest growing crimes in this country. Online identity theft is not that dissimilar from using the computer to steal music, except in this case, you are stealing someone’s personal identity.
We also witnessed, in recent years, a deluge of mortgage fraud, which was, again, similar to downloading music online because the justification was similar: “I am only stealing from a big, monolithic bank, so no one really gets hurt, and banks, after all, are only trying to steal from consumers anyways.” It’s the same twisted logic.
Criminals are using computers more and more to commit theft. First, because it is less personal, and secondly, because it can be done remotely, even from another state or country. Why break into a house when you can break into someone’s computer remotely and steal their identity?
D
ddarko
Guest
I think the key words your argument hinges upon is fair compensation. Lots of people (even music artists) would debate whether the music business is about fair compensation.
Now in no way do I want to encourage piracy since I believe in putting away with the fairness of it all and paying for my music. I think the artists/music labels will have to answer to God about whether they were fair and just in charging the specific amount for the music. But someone else might not think the same way as I do and might take it as a way of making their stand. So I think its a debatable issue. Also, I think this is a legal issue more than a moral issue. As we all know, legal issues differ from country to country.
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
I think you are trying to incorrectly equivocate two different crimes. While I agree that piracy is bad, its not exactly in the way you put it. In all the example that you give of stealing, something is actually lost to the person stolen from (as someone already pointed out). In the case of piracy, the original is still left intact as far as I know. So your logic of stealing does not apply here that well. Only thing piracy shares in common with identity theft/ hacking banks is that they both use a computer. Otherwise they are worlds apart in complexity and process.
On the other hand, I do think piracy has something wrong with it because the model is inherently not sustainable. If everyone pirated, then artist get zero money. At the same time if artist charge the amount they do right now, they might be getting more than what some might call ‘‘fair compensation’’ (which some might also call stealing). So the business model certainly has to change since as you can see, both ends can be argued to be morally wrong.
God Bless
G
GerardMajella
Guest
Again, if the artist is not getting a fair shake from the record producer, that’s a separate matter altogether, and completely unrelated to whether or not one should illegally download music online.
If anything, knowing that the musician is possibly getting the short end of the stick should make people want to pay for their music legitimately, if only to keep the musician solvent.
Explain that one to the police officer or the judge! A crime is a crime. Stealing is stealing. The method – whether via piracy, illegally downloading music online or in person – does not matter. It’s still theft any way you look at it.
What’s being stolen is a copyrighted product – a musical song, if you would – from an artist that has devoted his or her entire life to the production of that material. It’s not thin air – It’s creative, productive, copyrighted material that took years to bring to the masses.
This is no different from stealing a copy of a book from a bookstore, except you are doing the stealing online. You can’t argue, “Well, it’s just a copy.” I don’t think the judge would buy that story!
If a musician gets rich by selling their copyrighted material to interested and loyal listeners, then that’s not “unjust compensation” – that’s simply the market reacting to the musician’s ability and capacity to entertain, and people’s willingness to pay for it.
D
ddarko
Guest
Actually I am not talking about just the artist or just the music company. I am talking about both. If both are earning unfairly, then its immoral. Do you not agree that selling something for more than what its worth is immoral just as much as stealing something for less?
Actually I am not the one that seems to be incompetent with the law in this case. Some countries do allow piracy. Maybe you are trying to generalize the law of the united states.
Also, those two are not considered equal crimes in any LAW including that of the U.S. So you are severely mistaken here.
Depends on the judge
. But yes, I agree with you that there is something wrong. I only disagree with your equivocation.It is unjust compensation if you are charging more than you should for a product. Products have certain prices. What if I started charging insane amounts for Gas? Would you not protest? You can’t just price things by just considering the gas company. And in this case you are only choosing to think about the artist/music company. The pirates are only thinking about their own. Those are both bad. So its clear that even you have something wrong about your view.
Also, an artist will record a song once and perform it and earn money out of it because it was recorded. Ask yourself this, if I programmed a script on my computer to automate my daily work, and did not go to work, do I deserve to be paid? My boss will surely disagree and most likely fire me if such a script existed. People loose their jobs when their work gets automated. So whats up with the case of an artist? Why should he be treated different than me? I think I can make a fair argument that he should only get paid for the hours he worked. Anything more is stealing
Once again, please note that I do not disagree with you that piracy is wrong. But if you are truly moral about this issue, I can’t see how you would disagree that the existing business model is clearly flawed either.
God Bless
M
Montalo
Guest
if doing this is immoral(not arguing either way), then woould listening to songs on sites such as pandora be wrong? how about the music videos and songs that get put up on youtube?
G
GerardMajella
Guest
If you set a price too high above the market rate, the product or service will not sell. It’s that simple.
Selling something for more than it’s true market value, therefore, is not even possible under normal market conditions, unless the sale is a fraudulent sale – meaning that the product is made to appear to be worth more than it really is, such as someone selling a fake Rolex watch yet stating it is a genuine Rolex.
Naturally, I am opposed to fraud, but I am not opposed to legitimate profit.
I am speaking in generalized terms. Theft, almost universally across all civilized societies, is illegal, whether it’s in the form of online piracy, petty theft, or grand larceny. It doesn’t matter.
The concept of societies opposing theft in all its forms is universally accepted in most parts of the world. Why? Because society cannot function effectively when stealing is commonplace.
It goes without saying that certain kinds of thefts carry heavier penalties than others. That’s a given. And, some countries certainly don’t have the resources to prosecute every petty theft, especially one done remotely from a computer. That doesn’t mean that it’s not a crime. It’s still a crime, but it’s not being enforced. Technology tends to move faster than the law.
I am, quite simply, opposed to stealing. This is a universal moral norm, and has been for thousands of centuries across many different civilizations. I am not just “looking out for the artist or musician”, I am stating that stealing from anyone, under any circumstances, artist or not, is morally reprehensible and unacceptable behavior.
You are defying market forces, and traditional business customs. Some businesses have repeat income, and residual income, that pays the business over a period of time. Music is no different. The final recorded song is performed perhaps only once, but paid in the form of royalties and residual income over time.
It took the musician oftentimes decades of practice, rehearsal, blood, sweat, and tears to record that one recorded song.
This is no different from countless other businesses. A writer writes a book, for example, and receives royalties from the sale of that book for years to come.
The point of sale is where people earn their money. The work was, in fact, actually done — which, in the case of an author, the writing of the book could have taken years to do, but has since passed decades ago. When this sale of intellectual property or copyrighted material occurs, the artist, author, or business is paid a fee, and justifiably so. It’s their intellectual property.
What about real estate? I work hard, save up enough money to purchase an apartment. I rent the apartment, earning residual income, less taxes, property insurance, and maintenance, for the next several decades. Am I not entitled, as an owner, to this residual rental income? Of course I am. I own the property.
The musician has legal rights and ownership – copyrights – over his music. When these ownership rights are infringed, and stolen, the musician is due compensation.
This is no different from me owning a piece of property, and someone stealing it from me. I own it, and my property rights have been infringed. I am owed due compensation for this infringement.
D
ddarko
Guest
I agree. Furthermore I would argue that the music does not “sell” anymore because it is over priced. People have resolved to obtaining it in other means.
Well theft is universally wrong and I agree. So is unjust compensation which you seem to disagree.
Of course I agree.
This is debatable. Some countries like Canada have different view on piracy than the U.S. I would in no way consider Canada as incapable any more than the US.
Well yes, but you are at the same time commending unjust compensation. I am simply asking you to be unbiased on this issue. Its not just the pirates that are wrong here. The music industry it-self is partly to blame.
Well true but apparently that model doesn’t work anymore. But its a lengthy debate and lets not go there.
Now assuming even if it does, you need to come up with a fair price. Right now people who pirate don’t agree that its a fair price. Now if you claim that your piracy problem is serious, this means a large portion of the listeners don’t agree that its fair. So… it seems like you have to fix issues on the side of music industry first.
Yep, I agree, but it has fair pricing as many would accept. Also, a single book can be read by many. There are no laws like they have with music.
Now ask yourself, why does a Book not get pirated? Why is it such that a book never gets reduced sales when its pdf version is available online? I would say its because the book has an inherent value in being it that form. People sometimes want it that way because they prefer to read an actual book etc. So they are willing to pay the price.
With music, it appears that people don’t care as much as a book when it comes down to it. Maybe that’s a sign that the music industry is outdated and aren’t catering properly to the needs of consumers
Of course, I am willing to concede this. But, I argue that the pricing is unjust.
Sure, but can you charge unfair amounts? NO. That is my point.
Ok lets get this debate under check here. I am telling you that its not due compensation. Even many artists agree. Do you agree or no? If you don’t you are supporting something immoral just as much as a pirate.
Yes, you are owed due compensation. But if you charge higher, the market will rebel. That is what you see today with the music industry.
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
I don’t think its wrong. Is listening to music on the radio wrong?
It just shows a problem with the business model of the music industry.
God Bless
G
GerardMajella
Guest
I never said that I believe in unjust compensation. When a writer writes a book, or a musician spends years developing his music, he remains unpaid throughout the entire time of his creative writing activities or music creation. It is only after the book is sold, or the music is sold, that the writer or musician is actually paid.
The residual income from the sale of published books or copyrighted music is just compensation for the years and years of work that the writer or musician did for free, without compensation.
I am not opposed to legitimate profit earned through one’s owns work efforts.
You seem to imply that residual income of any form is unjust. When someone owns real or intangible property, intellectual copyrights, or any other form of ownership, they are perfectly entitled to earn residual income from those ownership rights.
I am opposed to fraud, deceit, and theft, as I have made quite clear in my earlier posts.
I wasn’t specifically referring to piracy. I was referring to norms and mores regarding theft in general across civilizations and societies spanning thousands of years.
You can’t use the argument that there are problems of injustice within the music industry to justify theft.
No, the people who pirate are thieves.
In the case of music, a musician owns the copyrighted material. He or she owns the music. If you steal the music – regardless of whether you steal it in person or via computer — then the musician is entitled to compensation for this theft.
It does not matter if the musician receives residual income from the sale of the music. The musician owns the music – It is copyrighted.
If I own real estate, or a piece of income-producing equipment, I am entitled to earn income from that asset for as long as I own it. I am not required to only be paid “by the hour”. Instead, because I am an owner, I am entitled to earn income due to my ownership interest in the asset – be it real estate, copyrighted material, etc.
Again, in the case of a musician, he or she toils for decades creating their music, typically unpaid or earning a barely livable wage. The reward comes when the music is perfected, and copyrighted, and distributed and sold worldwide.
Your argument is implying or suggesting that the musician is not entitled to residual income from the sale of his intellectual property, because technically, the work is complete, and the musician should, instead, be paid only for the hours that he or she spent creating and recording the music itself.
You are negating, however, the decades of unpaid toil, not to mention the risk associated with the music business. Many musicians toil for decades in relative obscurity perfecting their craft, oftentimes at great peril to their financial welfare. It’s a feast or famine business, like many businesses. Regardless, a musician is perfectly entitled to residual income from the sale of copyrighted material.
S
Spirithound
Guest
I would echo Gerard for this question. Price is regulated by market forces. “Worth” is a relative term. A particular DVD might be worth $25 to me, but only $15 to you. Because it’s worth less to you, you’ll wait for a year or so for it to come down in price. But see, that is the key. There is no formula for determining the inherent worth of something. Movies may vary in price because of the actors involved, the director, the plot, and many other factors.
You mean $1.02 per litre? Sorry, bad example. The gas companies have us over a hump and they know it. The price raises just incrementally only to enact the boiling frog principle. [/bitter
]Are you a programmer by trade? If not, I would say it behooves you to be there to supervise the script. On the other hand, if you are a programmer by trade, you might just be able to get off of the factory assembly line with this script and get paid to install it everywhere, and get paid when someone else installs it!
S
Spirithound
Guest
Some would have.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I’m confused (I’m older, so bear with me ) I see threads like this often, regarding stolen music.
BUT…
When I was a teen, I could not afford to buy records, tapes and then CD’s (I was 24 when I got a CD player)
What I did was listen to the radio, and then when the DJ would announce a song I liked, I would run over and tape it onto the tape in the tape recorder. Then I’d play it back as often as I liked.
What is the difference?
) I see threads like this often, regarding stolen music.BUT…
When I was a teen, I could not afford to buy records, tapes and then CD’s (I was 24 when I got a CD player)
What I did was listen to the radio, and then when the DJ would announce a song I liked, I would run over and tape it onto the tape in the tape recorder. Then I’d play it back as often as I liked.
What is the difference?
- Status