Is copying a file still theft? Included propaganda

[ehra]

Mostly. There's also a built-in morality that tells me that stealing is wrong. But that comparison doesn't make much sense to me since copying and theft are so different.

Is there much difference between the two for the person who's product you're taking if everyone does it?

No, not really. Just as there's not much difference (in terms of outcome) between a music business person losing his/her source of income due to the advance of technology and a translator losing his/her source of income due to advance of technology of translation. Just because the outcomes are similar doesn't mean it's something worth making a comparison. There's too many thoughtless comparisons in this thread.

There is a difference in outcome; there's less demand for the translator's product because something better and/or more convenient has come around. The musician's product is still in demand, it's just everyone's decided ok to take it without paying. Your comparison will work when/if procedurally generated music comes to the point where no one is interested in hearing what music a human makes. The point of bringing up the outcomes was to show that differentiating between copying and stealing doesn't make much sense in this case. There's no difference between the two in the outcome.

And, again, it's easy to say a musician should put out their work regardless of the money they make (as terrible as that argument is), but does that mean Microsoft isn't allowed to make money off of their software either?

[ack44]

NO!

You're not working for free. The musicians are.


Your decrease in money is due to a decrease in work. Our decrease in money is to an increase in theft. I know you want to somehow make it about your profession, but it just doesn't apply now matter how many times you repeat it.

I'm a musician as well. I play guitar, record music, upload it etc. I don't need an income to be a musician. Am I "working for free"? Hell no. How is that work? Is it only work when you can get away with making money in the process?

The decrease is of income of musicians is NOT due to theft. It's due to a change in the environment. The actions of people didn't change the environment, the environment changed the actions of people.

[Adami]

Yes and the change has caused theft to rise.


Music isn't a hobby by definition and shouldn't be restricted to being so.

[ack44]

I need to stop posting - am @ work

[Perpetual Change]

NO!

You're not working for free. The musicians are.


Your decrease in money is due to a decrease in work. Our decrease in money is to an increase in theft. I know you want to somehow make it about your profession, but it just doesn't apply now matter how many times you repeat it.

I'm a musician as well. I play guitar, record music, upload it etc. I don't need an income to be a musician. Am I "working for free"? Hell no. How is that work? Is it only work when you can get away with making money in the process?

The decrease is of income of musicians is NOT due to theft. It's due to a change in the environment. The actions of people didn't change the environment, the environment changed the actions of people.

Just because you don't think people deserve the right to charge for their art doesn't mean everyone shouldn't be able to. The environment made it easier for people to steal. That's all.

[ack44]

Just because you don't think people deserve the right to charge for their art

 Holy shit PC

[Perpetual Change]

Well then what are you saying? "Musicians deserve the right to charge for their art: they just don't deserve the right to stop people from easily copying it and sharing it without paying?" I'm sorry, but statements like this make it seem like you just don't put any value on music at all:

I'm a musician as well. I play guitar, record music, upload it etc. I don't need an income to be a musician. Am I "working for free"? Hell no. How is that work? Is it only work when you can get away with making money in the process?

Oddly, this thread inspired me to delete about 1000 records from my hard drive. Usually I just download to listen to something and see if I'll like it, but I realized there was a lot of stuff I really, really like which I still haven't paid for. Again, not trying to get on a high horse, but threads like this sometimes do cause one to reflect on certain things...

[ack44]

There is a difference in outcome; there's less demand for the translator's product because something better and/or more convenient has come around. The musician's product is still in demand, it's just everyone's decided ok to take it without paying.

You say there's a difference in outcome and then go on to explain the differences in what caused the outcome, not the outcome itself. The outcome (resulting effect on musician or translator) is very similar - a source of revenue becomes/became less relevant. You're arguing that there is a change in demand, and I agree. There is less demand for physical CDs because of the change of environment. Some of you keep arguing that there's less demand because there is more theft, but that just takes the focus off what the center of change is. In this case it's technology. Technology changes human behavior and simultaneously, human conventions.

[Perpetual Change]

There is a difference in outcome; there's less demand for the translator's product because something better and/or more convenient has come around. The musician's product is still in demand, it's just everyone's decided ok to take it without paying.

You say there's a difference in outcome and then go on to explain the differences in what caused the outcome, not the outcome itself. The outcome (resulting effect on musician or translator) is very similar - a source of revenue becomes/became less relevant.

Dude, what don't you get? It's become less relevant because stealing is becoming easier. Your logic is becoming really circular. "You can download music and thanks to new technology you have the right and ability to copy files. Because you have the right and ability to copy files thanks to new technology, you can download music." The point here is that not every instance of downloading and copying music is legal and or ethical, especially when, say, the rights to that music belong to someone else.

[ehra]

You say there's a difference in outcome and then go on to explain the differences in what caused the outcome, not the outcome itself. The outcome (resulting effect on musician or translator) is very similar - a source of revenue becomes/became less relevant. You're arguing that there is a change in demand, and I agree. There is less demand for physical CDs because of the change of environment. Some of you keep arguing that there's less demand because there is more theft, but that just takes the focus off what the center of change is. In this case it's technology. Technology changes human behavior and simultaneously, human conventions.

Who's talking about physical CDs? Where did I say there was any difference in the demand for the musician's product? What are you talking about?

[Perpetual Change]

Also, just for shits and giggles, I'd like to point out the consequences for art in a society that almost unilaterally refuses to pay for music and movies:

Gentlemen, I present high-quality PRC entertainment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3CMFqzKVbc

[ack44]

You say there's a difference in outcome and then go on to explain the differences in what caused the outcome, not the outcome itself. The outcome (resulting effect on musician or translator) is very similar - a source of revenue becomes/became less relevant. You're arguing that there is a change in demand, and I agree. There is less demand for physical CDs because of the change of environment. Some of you keep arguing that there's less demand because there is more theft, but that just takes the focus off what the center of change is. In this case it's technology. Technology changes human behavior and simultaneously, human conventions.

Who's talking about physical CDs? Where did I say there was any difference in the demand for the musician's product? What are you talking about?

The musician's product is still in demand, it's just everyone's decided ok to take it without paying.

My bad, I guess you are saying that "musician's products" are still in demand. I brought up CDs (include with it every medium before it) because for years that's what was being sold. It wasn't the audio information included that was being sold, it was the physical CDs. Copy right was to prevent people from making money off of duplicating that audio information. People were free to duplicate that information and do whatever they wanted with it as long as they weren't making a profit.

Now with iTunes and such, it's the actual information that they're marketing. It's a ridiculous idea and won't last long. Why? Because there's no incentive pay for a non-physical thing that's available for free. In fact, you can be handicapped with shitty or incomplete downloads and copy restrictions by paying for your files. So far, downloading music is the only alternative that makes sense. There may be others, but nobody is proposing any in this thread. You guys' responses are largely emotional and depend on the negative connotations of words like "steal".

[Adami]

So in the end, your entire argument is "I don't pay money for music because I don't feel like it".

[ehra]

When you were buying a CD you were never just paying for the physical CD itself and not the "information on it." If that were a case, music CDs wouldn't be more expensive than blank CDs.

[Perpetual Change]

Did I piss ack44 off, or does he just not want to respond to anything I say to him now?

[ack44]

When you were buying a CD you were never just paying for the physical CD itself and not the "information on it." If that were a case, music CDs wouldn't be more expensive than blank CDs.

I would disagree. Consider two plates for sale. One has an original poem painted on it and the other has a random arrangement of letters painted on it (One has information painted on it and the other doesn't). The one with the poem is $3 and the other is $1. You might see somebody pay for the 3$ plate and say "You payed $2 for information." Or you could say "You payed $2 because you thought it was more pretty," or "You payed $2 extra because you accidentally thought it was the more durable plate." The intent of the purchase can be worded differently, but the only objective fact is that they made the purchase. The most accurate observation is, then, that "You payed $2 extra for that plate," because "that plate" includes the painted letters and captures the intent of the buyer without having to specifying it.

You can't separate the information on a CD from the actual CD while it's being purchased, because the information is the physical etches on the CD. The difference is not the "information" (although you could word it that way and get away with it) but the physical features.

[William Wallace]

I'm talking about direct sales of their music or books, not concerts tickets or t-shirt sales. For example, there are thousands of classic books whose copyrights have expired. Despite being in the public domain, they sell incredibly well and dozens of editions of most of the books are available.

The authors of this book did an experiment with  Edgar Rice Burroughs' books and found something interesting. All of the books out of copyright are widely available on Amazon and from most booksellers, yet the works "protected" by the IP laws you hold so dear are out of print, locked in the vault of the publisher. This has been the case over and over again, so don't fool yourself into thinking this is the exception.

I'm also curious why none of you have mentioned the very obvious downside of copyright protection, which, ironically, often robs authors and musicians of creative control of their works and prevents the public from enjoying it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to illustrate here. Whether the works of long-dead publishers are better of in the public domain or in the hands of greedy publishers/estates seems irrelevant to the question of whether it's right to copy and distribute materials you don't have the right to distribute. If James Joyce's grandson wants to squeeze every last penny out of his grandfather's legacy at the expense of his granfather's legacy, that's on him.

I'm pointing out that copyrights aren't necessary for creators to profit from their efforts. Piracy is supposedly wrong because it deprives artists of this right. That's nonsense. Now the question of whether piracy is wrong because it is illegal is a separate question.

As for the 2nd question-- I acknowledge that authors and musicians can lose some creative controls over their works, aka Dream Theater with When Dream And Day Unite. This is unfortunate, but it's still not fair to steal these materials simply because they don't belong to the artist anymore. The evil record companies themselves make the investment in these artists to produce their records. It's not "OK" to steal from them just because you don't know how they are.

I'm not suggesting that piracy is acceptable because "the man," as El Barto would say, owns the content. My point is that efforts meant to foster creativity and consumption of the results (good music, literature, etc.) often destroy them. Not only do IP regulations not encourage more output, they reduce it - hence the need to eliminate them.

And here's a brief overview of IP and Libertarianism. Folks are split between the view the libertarian bloc is defending here and the utilitarian view espoused by the Ayn Rand zombies that ideas are property. This article provides a good overview, but here's the gist if you're feeling lazy:

Another reason why many libertarians favor IP is their confusion about the origin of property and property rights. They accept the careless observation that you can come to own things in three ways: through homesteading an unowned thing, by contractual exchange, and by creation.

The mistake is the notion that creation is an independent source of ownership, independent from homesteading and contracting. Yet it is easy to see that it is not, that "creation" is neither necessary nor sufficient as a source of ownership. If you carve a statue using your own hunk of marble, you own the resulting creation because you already owned the marble. You owned it before, and you own it now. And if you homestead an unowned resource, such as a field, by using it and thereby establishing publicly visible borders, you own it because this first use and embordering gives you a better claim than latecomers. So creation is not necessary.

But suppose you carve a statue in someone else's marble, either without permission, or with permission, such as when an employee works with his employer's marble by contract. You do not own the resulting statue, even though you "created" it. If you are using marble stolen from another person, your vandalizing it does not take away the owner's claims to it. And if you are working on your employer's marble, he owns the resulting statue. So creation is not sufficient.

This is not to deny the importance of knowledge, or creation and innovation. Action, in addition to employing scarce owned means, may also be informed by technical knowledge of causal laws or other practical information. To be sure, creation is an important means of increasing wealth.

[ehra]

When you were buying a CD you were never just paying for the physical CD itself and not the "information on it." If that were a case, music CDs wouldn't be more expensive than blank CDs.

I would disagree. Consider two plates for sale. One has an original poem painted on it and the other has a random arrangement of letters painted on it (One has information painted on it and the other doesn't). The one with the poem is $3 and the other is $1. You might see somebody pay for the 3$ plate and say "You payed $2 for information." Or you could say "You payed $2 because you thought it was more pretty," or "You payed $2 extra because you accidentally thought it was the more durable plate." The intent of the purchase can be worded differently, but the only objective fact is that they made the purchase. The most accurate observation is, then, that "You payed $2 extra for that plate," because "that plate" includes the painted letters and captures the intent of the buyer without having to specifying it.

You can't separate the information on a CD from the actual CD while it's being purchased, because the information is the physical etches on the CD. The difference is not the "information" (although you could word it that way and get away with it) but the physical features.

Wait, are you trying to say that the reason a music CD is more expensive than a blank CD is because of the paper it's packaged with and the design stamped on the top and not because of the music on the CD? Are you serious?

[ack44]

Are you serious?

[Perpetual Change]

I'm pointing out that copyrights aren't necessary for creators to profit from their efforts. Piracy is supposedly wrong because it deprives artists of this right. That's nonsense. Now the question of whether piracy is wrong because it is illegal is a separate question.

No one says it "deprives artists of the right" to profit. It just illegally and unethically limits that right because it allows people to get their products for free.

It seems to me we shouldn't be focusing on the marble, but the actual carving. The energy spent during that period is worth something. You shoudn't be able to enjoy the result if the artist wants to charge for it. If artists or their labels think it's more profitable in the long run to release their music for free, then they have the right to opt-in as Radiohead did with their latest album. They can even put their music up on torrent sites themselves. No-one is arguing against the filesharing itself. But artists shouldn't be collectively forced to accept such a system.

If artists really thought illegal file-sharing was good for them, I'd guess they'd do that. It just seems weird to me, that people in this thread are saying "Stealing music files is okay, because artists will see it's best for them and music in the long run!" And yeah, I do find that especially bizarre coming from the libertarian bloc, though I guess I shouldn't because of all it's affiliation with the techno-libertarian bloc.

And still:

Did I piss ack44 off, or does he just not want to respond to anything I say to him now?

[ehra]

Are you serious?

Yes, that is what I said. Thanks for reminding me.


Why are music CDs more expensive than blank CDs if not because of the music that's on them? Because of its "physical features?" As in the designs printed on the CD? That's the reason they're more expensive and why people decide to buy them, because of their "physical features" and not that "information" on them?

[ack44]

Did I piss ack44 off, or does he just not want to respond to anything I say to him now?

I'm at work right now and can't respond to everything so I decided to stop responding to your stuff after you accused me of saying people shouldn't have the right to sell music, or something like that.

[Perpetual Change]

I'm at work right now and can't respond to everything so I decided to stop responding to your stuff after you accused me of saying people shouldn't have the right to sell music, or something like that.

I explained why I thought you meant that, but I guess it wasn't worth your time.

[ehra]

You didn't say they don't have the "right" to, but this post suggests that you feel they "shouldn't" be making money.

I don't understand the premise that musicians should be making money.

[ack44]

Well then what are you saying? "Musicians deserve the right to charge for their art: they just don't deserve the right to stop people from easily copying it and sharing it without paying?" I'm sorry, but statements like this make it seem like you just don't put any value on music at all:

I'm a musician as well. I play guitar, record music, upload it etc. I don't need an income to be a musician. Am I "working for free"? Hell no. How is that work? Is it only work when you can get away with making money in the process?

 Yes, I don't think people should have the right to prosecute people for downloading information. Prosecuting people who run sites like thepiratebay is a entirely different issue, as they could be making money off of hosting torrents and whatnot. But prosecuting individual downloaders makes no sense and it should stop.

　And I don't think I've indicated anything that would cause anybody to think that people don't have the right to sell information. They do, and information will always be something that people will pay for.

[ehra]

They do, and information will always be something that people will pay for.

Actually, there's no reason not to download it. As far as I know, downloading isn't illegal as long as you're not uploading it at the same time. Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Now with iTunes and such, it's the actual information that they're marketing. It's a ridiculous idea and won't last long. Why? Because there's no incentive pay for a non-physical thing that's available for free. In fact, you can be handicapped with shitty or incomplete downloads and copy restrictions by paying for your files. So far, downloading music is the only alternative that makes sense.

 

[Perpetual Change]

Yes, I don't think people should have the right to prosecute people for downloading information. Prosecuting people who run sites like thepiratebay is a entirely different issue, as they could be making money off of hosting torrents and whatnot. But prosecuting individual downloaders makes no sense and it should stop.

And I don't think I've indicated anything that would cause anybody to think that people don't have the right to sell information. They do, and information will always be something that people will pay for.

You can't download from a torrent site without uploading. Aren't the programs designed so that everyone's constantly upload while they're downloading- without even knowing it?

Also, I use iTunes and Amazon all the time. So do plenty of people I know. Other people in the thread have already pointed up actual sales of digital material are on the rise. I don't see that going away.

[ack44]

They do, and information will always be something that people will pay for.

What I had in mind here was economic information, like what people pay Bloomberg for (of course that could be interpreted as service, not information). I didn't contradict myself.

[ehra]

Why are you suddenly talking about that type of information/service when for the whole rest of the thread the word is being used to describe files stored on a hard drive or disk? What does it have to do with what we're talking about?

[ack44]

Why are you suddenly talking about that type of information/service when for the whole rest of the thread the word is being used to describe files stored on a hard drive or disk? What does it have to do with what we're talking about?

Don't worry about it bro, it was only a statement saying that information will always be sold and bought in some form or another.

[ack44]

My posts deserve more interesting replies.

[Fiery Winds]

Just to throw a wrench in the mix, what do you think about buying used CD's?  Even if we assume that no one copies it before selling it to a store or individual, aren't you essentially "robbing" the artist of potential earnings on a new album purchase? 

[5]

Now, I still buy CDs and hardly ever download music illegally, but people arguing about how piracy reduces artists' income need to realise one simple thing: today, because of piracy, music IS free. It's going to STAY free. Artists' and labels can either lament and continue to lose money - or take advantage of that fact. A succesful example? Trent Reznor. Check out this little presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njuo1puB1lg&playnext=1&list=PL41E310EB673B2A9A&index=17

[William Wallace]

No one says it "deprives artists of the right" to profit. It just illegally and unethically limits that right because it allows people to get their products for free.

But it doesn't even do that. There's been plenty of examples provided in this thread to demonstrate that the arts are growing without the protection of IP laws.

It seems to me we shouldn't be focusing on the marble, but the actual carving. The energy spent during that period is worth something. You shoudn't be able to enjoy the result if the artist wants to charge for it. If artists or their labels think it's more profitable in the long run to release their music for free, then they have the right to opt-in as Radiohead did with their latest album. They can even put their music up on torrent sites themselves. No-one is arguing against the filesharing itself. But artists shouldn't be collectively forced to accept such a system.

I'm not debating that works of art have monetary value. The issue is whether or not that value justifies Apple or EMI dictating to me what I can listen to on my mp3 player and how I can listen to it. And the answer is clearly no, in my opinion. Protecting ideas by imposing restrictions on consumers' tangible property is absurd if followed to its logical conclusion; you couldn't ethically share new information with others, as some college professors have argued. 

If artists really thought illegal file-sharing was good for them, I'd guess they'd do that. It just seems weird to me, that people in this thread are saying "Stealing music files is okay, because artists will see it's best for them and music in the long run!" And yeah, I do find that especially bizarre coming from the libertarian bloc, though I guess I shouldn't because of all it's affiliation with the techno-libertarian bloc.

You're completely misstating the argument - again. I'm not looking to justify my theft of people's ideas. I shell out money to netflix and my local bookstore every month. I also earn a living in part as a writer. Still, I genuinely think IP is a flawed concept. So stop insinuating that I think stealing is acceptable and answer the arguments.

[Perpetual Change]

But it doesn't even do that. There's been plenty of examples provided in this thread to demonstrate that the arts are growing without the protection of IP laws.

Sorry, but why are we still pretending that "the arts are growing" has anything to do with whether it's ethical to pirate music?

So stop insinuating that I think stealing is acceptable and answer the arguments.

Downloading music that you didn't buy IS stealing. If you support it, you think stealing is OK, or at least not a big enough to deal to care about trying to stop. Maybe you and other people here should stop trying to shut down the discussion by pretending to be personally insulted every time someone makes that claim, which has been pretty well defended here and everywhere else in the world.