Is copying a file still theft? Included propaganda

[j]

It's Illegal, there are no if's, and's or but's and no back and forth about it.

Don't think anybody would dispute that it's illegal.

The only exception to this is in a family home between family.

If you're gonna take the hardline, I'm not sure why you approve of this?  If my brother buys an album (digitally or otherwise), why should he be free to duplicate it for my dad, just because he happens to live there?

We're talking about if file sharing is ethically wrong. The damage currently done might be overblown because many people still feel wrong just taking things, but if file sharing is perfectly fine then why wouldn't everyone do it all the time? Why would anyone pay?

Even if illegal file sharing were clearly morally righteous, it's still illegal, and that will keep a lot of people paying.  I suspect that if it were "legalized" (not sure how this would work..."everything on the internet is now free!" ), the number of people who downloaded merchandise for free would skyrocket.  As poorly enforced as they are, just having some laws/regulations in place does something to deter people from doing it.  People get the shit scared out of them when they read something like about that single mom who was sued for millions by the RIAA or whoever.

-J

[ehra]

But that's dodging the issue. The argument is that file sharing doesn't actually harm the person trying to sell their product thanks to what's supposedly "free advertisement" and, as such, is morally ok. The argument seems to be that it's ok to download it if you can get other people to buy it in your place, but, ignoring legal repercussions, why would they pay for it?


Like you just said in that post, no one's arguing over if it's legal or not. The issue is if it's morally ok, and the argument for it being alright seems to hinge on the idea that it doesn't cost anyone any sales. And that argument hinges on the hope that everyone else doesn't just adopt that same philosophy of "it doesn't hurt anyone" and start doing the exact same thing you are.

[Perpetual Change]

Symphony X is a fine example.  I can assure you that spending $15 on one album to find out if there are a couple of songs on it that I like is never going to happen.  Ever.  The two songs I heard were alright.  Seems like something I might like.  Still, that's not something I can or would spend money on right now.  Do you think those guys would prefer that I shut myself off from their music?  If I were an Yngwie knock-off, I'd prefer that people exposed themselves to my music so they might support me somewhere else.  Finding 6 songs that I love across 4 of their albums is exactly the sort of thing that would compel me to blow $45 to see them at the HoB.  

Again, I've been pretty clear that filesharing is theft.  I'm just making the point that theft isn't always a bad thing.

Edit:  PT is a better example.  I can't think of one album that I like enough to spend money on.  However, I can think of 10 or so songs that I think are exceptional.  The fact that they were playing 2 of those songs on their last tour was enough for me to blow $45 to see them (and I was board shitless for the first set).  Frankly, I'd say they're much better off than had I just decided to buy their most recent album, said "awe, they suck!", and never given them another chance.

But I really think this is the exception and not the rule. And not really necessary, since most bands now make an abundance of their material available for streaming as soon as it comes out. Aside from that, though, I'm more just kinda curious about this whole thing. What's the point of listening to a record if you just want it to say you have it, even if that means it's just going to be sitting on a hard drive with thousands of others? If you're not going to actually listen to the record and put some time into figuring out what an artist is doing, then why bother? That's a whole different aspect of what's wrong with file sharing IMO. It allows people to treat music as completely disposable. Download something and didn't like it on the first few listens? Fine. You can just download something else, and never listen to it again.

When you actually buy a record, though, you make an investment. And you'll usually give it a few listens before completely giving up on it. Hell, if I'd have just downloaded Awake, I don't think I would have ever gotten into DT.

[ehra]

Something else I'm curious about is why these discussions always seem to focus on just music and/or videogames. The "they should be doing it for the art, and any musician would prefer that I hear their music than not" argument doesn't apply to someone downloading Photoshop or Windows 7.

[Perpetual Change]

Yeah. Or money. The libertarians love the consequences of rampant, federally sanctioned copying of money. 

Which brings up a good point. Printing money from nothing devalues money. Allowing music to be copied, uploaded, and downloaded everywhere for free devalues the music, simply because what the artists has put out should be worth more, but it's not because people are stealing it for free.

[El Barto]

Symphony X is a fine example.  I can assure you that spending $15 on one album to find out if there are a couple of songs on it that I like is never going to happen.  Ever.  The two songs I heard were alright.  Seems like something I might like.  Still, that's not something I can or would spend money on right now.  Do you think those guys would prefer that I shut myself off from their music?  If I were an Yngwie knock-off, I'd prefer that people exposed themselves to my music so they might support me somewhere else.  Finding 6 songs that I love across 4 of their albums is exactly the sort of thing that would compel me to blow $45 to see them at the HoB. 

Again, I've been pretty clear that filesharing is theft.  I'm just making the point that theft isn't always a bad thing.

Edit:  PT is a better example.  I can't think of one album that I like enough to spend money on.  However, I can think of 10 or so songs that I think are exceptional.  The fact that they were playing 2 of those songs on their last tour was enough for me to blow $45 to see them (and I was board shitless for the first set).  Frankly, I'd say they're much better off than had I just decided to buy their most recent album, said "awe, they suck!", and never given them another chance.

But I really think this is the exception and not the rule. And not really necessary, since most bands now make an abundance of their material available for streaming as soon as it comes out. Aside from that, though, I'm more just kinda curious about this whole thing. What's the point of listening to a record if you just want it to say you have it, even if that means it's just going to be sitting on a hard drive with thousands of others? If you're not going to actually listen to the record and put some time into figuring out what an artist is doing, then why bother? That's a whole different aspect of what's wrong with file sharing IMO. It allows people to treat music as completely disposable. Download something and didn't like it on the first few listens? Fine. You can just download something else, and never listen to it again.

When you actually buy a record, though, you make an investment. And you'll usually give it a few listens before completely giving up on it. Hell, if I'd have just downloaded Awake, I don't think I would have ever gotten into DT.

As opposed to spending $15 on an album with 1 good song and a bunch of filler?  Buying an album is a gamble.  Lemme ask you this.  The technology is out there that would allow for a limited number of listenings.  Do you think record labels would support a model where you can get the album for free, listen to it 4 times, and then if you want to keep it you have to pay $15? 

And I see your point about PT.  The songs that I think are great still took multiple listenings to get into.  However, if Steven Wilson has his way, it'd be all or nothing with their albums.  I can appreciate his fondness for album integrity, but if my only option was to listen to every Goddamned second of Lightbulb Sun instead of just Hatesong and RoI, then I'd listen to Hemisphers instead.  (Ironically, SW is one of the few people that would tell me quite honestly to please listen to Rush instead--I actually do admire the man's devotion to his art).

Something else I'm curious about is why these discussions always seem to focus on just music and/or videogames. The "they should be doing it for the art, and any musician would prefer that I hear their music than not" argument doesn't apply to someone downloading Photoshop or Windows 7.

Software is something I will spend money on.  It's also an are where I'm even more willing to steel it under certain circumstances.  My ethical wrangling is even more convoluted there. 

[Perpetual Change]

As opposed to spending $15 on an album with 1 good song and a bunch of filler?  Buying an album is a gamble.  Lemme ask you this.  The technology is out there that would allow for a limited number of listenings.  Do you think record labels would support a model where you can get the album for free, listen to it 4 times, and then if you want to keep it you have to pay $15? 

There's a couple of services out there now that let you listen to like 30 albums per month for pretty modest monthly fees. Seems to be where things are going. I think that's a pretty good deal.

[ehra]

Right. If the issue is that musicians can't get their music out to people then there are plenty of potential solutions out there, some that even currently exist and are just waiting to be taken advantage of. If you go to a dealership and they refuse to let you take a car out for a test drive then you don't get to decide to do it anyway, you instead decide if you still want to buy it and/or go somewhere else if not. If a musician doesn't make it easy/possible for someone to sample their music, for whatever reason, (or someone who makes a particular piece of software you want to test out doesn't provide a trial version) then us just taking it anyway is not actually a solution to the problem.

[j]

But that's dodging the issue. The argument is that file sharing doesn't actually harm the person trying to sell their product thanks to what's supposedly "free advertisement" and, as such, is morally ok. The argument seems to be that it's ok to download it if you can get other people to buy it in your place, but, ignoring legal repercussions, why would they pay for it?


Like you just said in that post, no one's arguing over if it's legal or not. The issue is if it's morally ok, and the argument for it being alright seems to hinge on the idea that it doesn't cost anyone any sales. And that argument hinges on the hope that everyone else doesn't just adopt that same philosophy of "it doesn't hurt anyone" and start doing the exact same thing you are.

   I wasn't arguing one way or the other.  Just making an observation.

For the record, I think illegal file sharing is usually unethical.

But I really think this is the exception and not the rule. And not really necessary, since most bands now make an abundance of their material available for streaming as soon as it comes out. Aside from that, though, I'm more just kinda curious about this whole thing. What's the point of listening to a record if you just want it to say you have it, even if that means it's just going to be sitting on a hard drive with thousands of others? If you're not going to actually listen to the record and put some time into figuring out what an artist is doing, then why bother? That's a whole different aspect of what's wrong with file sharing IMO. It allows people to treat music as completely disposable. Download something and didn't like it on the first few listens? Fine. You can just download something else, and never listen to it again.

When you actually buy a record, though, you make an investment. And you'll usually give it a few listens before completely giving up on it. Hell, if I'd have just downloaded Awake, I don't think I would have ever gotten into DT.

I'm under no delusions of absolute moral purity, but I do download music at times for one reason: to listen to it before I make the purchase.  The way the medium has been set up is ridiculous.  If you're lucky, you can hear a tenth of an album you're supposed to shell out 10-20 bucks for (assuming there's not a legal way to listen before buying).  The rest of it may be shit, it's a gamble.  EDIT: I'd be all for a solution like the ones Barto and PC mentioned.

I don't have time to give everything I listen to a bunch of chances.  If I hate something on first listen, I'm probably not gonna grow to like it, and that's perfectly fine.  If I think it's okay, I'll usually give it another shot or two, while doing my best to be attentive and appreciate what's there.  But that's about all I have time for, and with so much music out there, it's pointless to waste hours and hours on something that's probably just not my cup of tea.  It's not treating music as "disposable", and I certainly couldn't care less about owning a bunch of albums just for the sake of it.

I enjoy music, but I literally wouldn't have bought more than one or two of the few hundred albums I own if there weren't a way for me to sample it first.  Making blind purchases is not something I make a habit of.

If you go to a dealership and they refuse to let you take a car out for a test drive then you don't get to decide to do it anyway, you instead decide if you still want to buy it and/or go somewhere else if not.

Bad analogy.  You can learn all about a car without test driving it.  You can read people's descriptions of music, but the whole thing is far too subjective for it to mean much of anything.  Furthermore, if I thought test driving a car was *crucial*, I'd find a way to do it before signing the papers.

It's more like, if you go to a car dealership and all the cars are covered up with just the price tags visible, and the dealer refuses to show you what you're about to buy.

If a musician doesn't make it easy/possible for someone to sample their music, for whatever reason, (or someone who makes a particular piece of software you want to test out doesn't provide a trial version) then us just taking it anyway is not actually a solution to the problem.

It solves my problem.  I get to know what I'm buying beforehand and decide whether or not I like it.  If I do, I'll buy it.  If not, I delete it.  Period.

-J

[ehra]

But that's dodging the issue. The argument is that file sharing doesn't actually harm the person trying to sell their product thanks to what's supposedly "free advertisement" and, as such, is morally ok. The argument seems to be that it's ok to download it if you can get other people to buy it in your place, but, ignoring legal repercussions, why would they pay for it?


Like you just said in that post, no one's arguing over if it's legal or not. The issue is if it's morally ok, and the argument for it being alright seems to hinge on the idea that it doesn't cost anyone any sales. And that argument hinges on the hope that everyone else doesn't just adopt that same philosophy of "it doesn't hurt anyone" and start doing the exact same thing you are.

   I wasn't arguing one way or the other.  Just making an observation.

I know, I was explaining why that observation really doesn't really apply to the discussion When I said "and start doing the same thing you are" it was a general usage of the word, not targeted you specifically.

[William Wallace]

It's interesting to see that the "but without a law, the world will end!" argument pervades the IP debate, too. People can't even fathom the possibility that musicians and writers can make money without copyrights in place.

Why bother jumping into the discussion just to make some general hyperbolic statement that's off topic and probably not even true?

It's hyperbolic, yes. But why is it not true? Creators make money absent copyrights all the time.

The part that is not true is the part about people in this thread being too stupid to know that artists can't make money other ways.

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.

[XJDenton]

So do you not support property rights then? Or at least not class a design as property?

[El Barto]

As opposed to spending $15 on an album with 1 good song and a bunch of filler?  Buying an album is a gamble.  Lemme ask you this.  The technology is out there that would allow for a limited number of listenings.  Do you think record labels would support a model where you can get the album for free, listen to it 4 times, and then if you want to keep it you have to pay $15? 

There's a couple of services out there now that let you listen to like 30 albums per month for pretty modest monthly fees. Seems to be where things are going. I think that's a pretty good deal.

That's an interesting approach.  However, are they portable?

[XJDenton]

The uk has this service called spotify which I subscribe to which allows you to listen to any amount of music you like for a fiver a month. Streaming and additional purchases for mp3 downloads. It's hardly a perfect solution because the returns for small labels are so minimal, but on the other hand its money they wouldnt have seen if the users went to P2P sites instead.

[William Wallace]

So do you not support property rights then? Or at least not class a design as property?

The latter.

[XJDenton]

Can I ask why not?

[rumborak]

I must say I'm rather blown away that the two die-hard Libertarians here subscribe to the (essentially) 19th century concept of only physical objects being subject to property laws.

rumborak

[ehra]

If you go to a dealership and they refuse to let you take a car out for a test drive then you don't get to decide to do it anyway, you instead decide if you still want to buy it and/or go somewhere else if not.

Bad analogy.  You can learn all about a car without test driving it.  You can read people's descriptions of music, but the whole thing is far too subjective for it to mean much of anything.  Furthermore, if I thought test driving a car was *crucial*, I'd find a way to do it before signing the papers.

Lots of people prefer a car to feel a certain way, which is the subjective part. And the "way to do it" before signing the papers is to go to a place that lets you 

If a musician doesn't make it easy/possible for someone to sample their music, for whatever reason, (or someone who makes a particular piece of software you want to test out doesn't provide a trial version) then us just taking it anyway is not actually a solution to the problem.

It solves my problem.  I get to know what I'm buying beforehand and decide whether or not I like it.  If I do, I'll buy it.  If not, I delete it.  Period.

-J

Yes, that solves your problem but not the bigger one. The primary problem is that people don't have decent ways to try certain products before buying them, once that's taken care of there's no reason to download it.

[ack44]

Yes, that solves your problem but not the bigger one. The primary problem is that people don't have decent ways to try certain products before buying them, once that's taken care of there's no reason to download it.

 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?

　I don't get the attitude of blaming the file sharers. Isn't it pretty clear that this whole dilemma is a result of technology? Isn't it obvious that taking action against downloaderrs won't do any good because the technology will still be there?

 Things have changed and there's no going back to the "good 'ol days". Deal with it 

[ehra]

Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Because, as I've mentioned multiple times before now, there's more to this whole issue than just music.

[emindead]

See I always viewed copyright as an extention of protections of property rights, which is why I'm quite confused why the libertarians seem to be against it. As the economy goes increasingly digital by not protecting copyright you are essentially condemning a large amount of products to be thrown out of a free market enviroment. Which I thought you guys like.

Hey, this is a huge debate in the Libertarian arena. It's not like EVERYONE accepts this.

[ack44]

Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Because, as I've mentioned multiple times before now, there's more to this whole issue than just music.

 I'm sure there's more to this issue than music, but that doesn't answer my question. What incentive is there for an individual to pay for audio information? There doesn't seem to be much at all.

[Adami]

Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Because, as I've mentioned multiple times before now, there's more to this whole issue than just music.

 I'm sure there's more to this issue than music, but that doesn't answer my question. What incentive is there for an individual to pay for audio information? There doesn't seem to be much at all.

Is your incenstive for paying for anything else simply the fact that if you don't you get in trouble?

[ehra]

Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Because, as I've mentioned multiple times before now, there's more to this whole issue than just music.

 I'm sure there's more to this issue than music, but that doesn't answer my question. What incentive is there for an individual to pay for audio information? There doesn't seem to be much at all.

The same incentive there is to not take anything else in the world you could take without being punished, I guess.

[Adami]

Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Because, as I've mentioned multiple times before now, there's more to this whole issue than just music.

 I'm sure there's more to this issue than music, but that doesn't answer my question. What incentive is there for an individual to pay for audio information? There doesn't seem to be much at all.

The same incentive there is to not take anything else in the world you could take without being punished, I guess.

I'm starting to think a lot of people don't have that incentive.

[El Barto]

Something else I'm curious about is why these discussions always seem to focus on just music and/or videogames. The "they should be doing it for the art, and any musician would prefer that I hear their music than not" argument doesn't apply to someone downloading Photoshop or Windows 7.

There's a different thing at work, there.  As I understand it, M$ makes the bulk of their dough through business licenses and OEMs.  Same with Adobe products.  Casual users can use any number of photoshop clones without dropping a couple of grand on CS14, or whatever.  Unlike us civvies, businesses have a much larger exposure and therefore a much greater need to buy authentic software.  Bill Gates isn't going to hunt me down and sue me for using a hot version of XP, but he'd come down on my boss like freaking Odin if we were to use illegal copies of his software at the shop.  We have authentic versions of a variety of enterprise software.  Granted, both M$ and Adobe loose money to piracy, but to a throw-away market stream.  If their software became copy-proof, more people would switch to Linux and Gimp.  The business market will still pay for Windows and CS, and anybody who buys a computer will still get stuck with W7.  

And as an aside, I think XP is a dandy OS.  M$ deserves the $100 it costs.  However, I wouldn't install a legal version on it on my PC if they paid me to.  An oddball aspect of software as it relates to piracy is that the anti-piracy components that they include render their products grossly inferior to the illegal ones with those components removed.  Go figure.  

[ack44]

Seriously, why would I want to pay for audio information?

Because, as I've mentioned multiple times before now, there's more to this whole issue than just music.

 I'm sure there's more to this issue than music, but that doesn't answer my question. What incentive is there for an individual to pay for audio information? There doesn't seem to be much at all.

Is your incenstive for paying for anything else simply the fact that if you don't you get in trouble?

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.

I went ahead and blotted out that downloading isn't illegal but I'm surprised nobody is challenging that.

[Adami]

Well I guess I operate on a different morality beyond "I only refrain from doing bad things because of fear of punishment"

But I guess good for you.

[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?

[ack44]

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.

[ack44]

Well I guess I operate on a different morality beyond "I only refrain from doing bad things because of fear of punishment"

But I guess good for you.

 Why is downloading audio information a bad thing?

[Adami]

There is a difference.

The translator is no longer working due to technology. The musicians continue to work.

I don't see why you ignored when I said that before.

[Perpetual Change]

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.

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.

See I always viewed copyright as an extention of protections of property rights, which is why I'm quite confused why the libertarians seem to be against it. As the economy goes increasingly digital by not protecting copyright you are essentially condemning a large amount of products to be thrown out of a free market enviroment. Which I thought you guys like.

Hey, this is a huge debate in the Libertarian arena. It's not like EVERYONE accepts this.

Well, that's why the libertarians in the 70's split. Some of them grew out of it and became Republicans, some of them became the liberals we know now, and the last portion were basically stoned hippies who didn't really care, man, and just wanted to be allowed to do whatever they wanted, man  

[ack44]

There is a difference.

The translator is no longer working due to technology. The musicians continue to work.

I don't see why you ignored when I said that before.

My point was that comparing things just because the results are similar is pointless. But your conclusion is wrong too. The translator doesn't stop working; he/she works with less pay because there is less demand. Same for musicians.

[Adami]

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.