Arquonzo Arquonzo

Does Copying Music = Stealing?

Does Copying Music = Stealing?

My $.02

Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.

Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!
297,543 views 125 replies
Reply #26 Top
The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern.


How about this analogy:

I don't know what kind of work you may do, but suppose your job entails something which does not result in an object (like a computer, or a chair) that has a particular physical location (and thus can be "stolen" under your definition).

Let's say you write ad copy for some advertising agency. You get paid a salary based on your ongoing performance of the job. Your work consists of creating sequences of words, using a computer, that are stored and shared with the other parts of the job (graphics designers, printers, clients, etc.)

Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position. Would you stay in that job? Would it seem right to you that they did that?
Reply #27 Top
The book analogy is precisely on point


The book analogy isn't an analogy. It's precisely the same thing.

Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files.


Plagiarism is stealing credit for the idea. I can post whole articles by Thomas Jefferson on my website as long as I give him credit. If I try to pass it off as my own work, THAT is plagiarism.

Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position.


I understand that the creator of the bit patterns or soundwaves or whatnot feels that he has excusive right to his ideas in perpetuity. And I understand that if I wrote a song and only distributed it on the internet and never gave a concert I probably wouldn't get paid for it. However, ideas are not the same as physical objects.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Please see the rest of his article here:Link

Oh, and if they quit paying me, I'd find another job.
Reply #28 Top
The idea for a piece of music is NOT music. A whole lot more goes into it than an idea. Ideas are a dime a dozen. What makes ideas into property (works) is called implementation, or production, or composition.

Jefferson is talking about patents, not copyright, and while he brings up interesting points, there has obviously been much more said and done on that issue since he said what he said. I'm not really sure what your point is about this, but I don't think it really speaks to the points that I raised, specifically that a person's creative work should by rights belong to them, and not be subject to forfeiture on the basis of some criteria like "just a bunch of bits".

This tendency of people to view insubstantial objects (art, music, video, etc) as incapable of being claimed in ownership by the creators could have VERY far-reaching effects on the economics of our socety.
Reply #29 Top
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft?


You became a thief when you copied part of the work then made modifications. What's sad is far to many people have distorted the act of stealing to justify their own behavior.
Reply #30 Top

Never accept no-brainers. Always think.

Please define "stealing".

Reply #31 Top

Please define "stealing".

Let me help you:

Stealing definitions (Marriam-Webster Dictionary) -

1 - to take and carry away without right or permission

2 - to come or go secretly or gradually

3 - to get for oneself slyly or by skill and daring

Still confused?

Reply #32 Top
a person's creative work should by rights belong to them, and not be subject to forfeiture on the basis of some criteria like "just a bunch of bits".


I agree. When a painter creates a masterpiece, it is his to display or sell as he sees fit. When a song writer composes a song it is his to sell or license to a singer. When a singer rents a music hall and gives a concert it is his concert and he can charge admission. But when I go to the concert and hear the song, or go to the gallery and see the painting, the sounds and images are recorded in my brain. This does not constitute forfeiture. If I take a camera and record the image on film (or bits) how does that change things, unless I'm making that copy to sell, or trying to take credit for the work?

What if medical advances allow blind or deaf people to see or hear with mechanical/electronic devices? Will they be required to erase their ears when leaving the concert hall? What if we get to the point where we can get an electronic auditory implant to record everything we hear? Then I'd better not go to my friend's house when he's playing his CDs!

I guess my point in all this is that technology is antiquating copyright laws. We'll need to come up with new social conventions regarding intellectual property before my 'plastic pal who's fun to be with' comes with me to the theater.... (with apologies to Douglas Adams, RIP.)



Reply #33 Top

I can post whole articles by Thomas Jefferson on my website as long as I give him credit. If I try to pass it off as my own work, THAT is plagiarism.

You can probably do that only because he is dead and buried...and he and/or his estate no longer has copyright restrictions on its re-use.

ONLY accusations of plagiarism are quelled by credit-giving.

If there are specific restrictions on the works duplication then 'fair use' in terms of reference/example/teaching may be acceptable...but reproductions of its entirety may still NOT be.

 

The biggest reason these debates are ultimately bull-shit wasters of time and effort is...

There are two sides...only one is right...the other is through ignorance/indifference,

Those who think it's not stealing will never be convinced.....even IF they say they are....they'll keep on doing it.

Those who know it IS stealing will just bang heads and get nowhere....so you may as well do something else...more worthwhile....watching paint dry is good...

Reply #34 Top
There are two sides...only one is right...the other is through ignorance/indifference


Your logic is breathtaking!

Leauki said
The American constitution specifically gives government the power to introduce laws to create copyrights and patents in order to support innovation. Violating such a law is not stealing.


I would have to agree. Copyright infringement is not stealing, but it IS against current law. That is why we have this discussion... not to bore you, Jafo, but rather to bring these issues up in a public forum so that our laws can be refined to promote the greatest public good, striking a fair balance between artist and fanatic, with an eye toward enforceability.
Reply #35 Top
Arquonzo


You are going to lose this arguement. Most of the people at this site will agree with Admin Jafo. This is a touchy subject and has been adressed ad- nausem......Let it go......
Reply #36 Top
But when I go to the concert and hear the song, or go to the gallery and see the painting, the sounds and images are recorded in my brain. This does not constitute forfeiture. If I take a camera and record the image on film (or bits) how does that change things, unless I'm making that copy to sell, or trying to take credit for the work?


as of yet it is still not possible to extract the exact data from your brain.. much harder to make an exact copy from it .. a camera or recorder is a different story...,as the object was meant to be shared with you personally at the time of viewing/listening... but to then take it and reproduce it is going beyond enjoying something shared with you..get the key word reproduction.. if i write a song then play it for you and you listen to it .. thats all and fine .. but if you sneak a recorder in and record it without my consent.. thats theft and invasion...if you take that recording and copy it and hand out to friends or sell it.. thats copywrite infringement...these laws were passed to keep lazy and theiving people from stealing other peoples works..
Reply #37 Top
Copyright infringement is not stealing


??? so you are saying that its ok to take anothers works they have dedicated time and $$ to ?????
so artists like the people here should have no say in how their art/programs are used ???? many of these artists make their living from the stuff they build .....so you are saying they should work for free??.. ok the day you go up to your boss and tell him/her that you refuse to get paid for your work.. is the day il buy ur "promote the greatest public good" BS....
Reply #38 Top
??? so you are saying that its ok to take anothers works they have dedicated time and $$ to ?????


Of course not. It's illegal. You'll notice I mentioned that.

On the otherhand, does the expiration of a patent render your argument null and void?

You are going to lose this arguement. Most of the people at this site will agree with Admin Jafo. This is a touchy subject and has been adressed ad- nausem......Let it go......


I'd prefer to think of it as a discussion. And for me, this is the most popular blog I've had yet, so I'm stoked!!!
Reply #39 Top

'd prefer to think of it as a discussion. And for me, this is the most popular blog I've had yet, so I'm stoked!!!

That will be because it has also cross-posted to Wincustomize.com, which is a skinning site...an occupation which actively respects copyrights, being in the 'creative arts' world, just like Art, Literature and shock-gasp....Music...

Reply #40 Top
Jafo


Ah ha! That explains a bit. ... Windows users!!!

Well, thank you all very much for your thoughtful input. I really am trying to understand all the moral and legal facets of this issue, and you've all (well most of you) have given me interesting points to ponder.

Thanks again!
Reply #41 Top
All I know is that I laugh my head off everytime I hear some crook in the music industry say something like, "If pirates would just realize that it is their favorite artists they are hurting, they might not download songs".

Ok, Mr. Music Industry... considering the artists don't make $1 per CD sold, how is it hurting "my favorite artists" if I download songs.

From where I sit, nothing costs artists more than the thieves and other scum in the "music" industry.

Downloading songs without the right IS stealing, but when the little babies in the music industry whine about it, it sounds a whole lot like one street gang calling the other "punks!"

And don't even get me started on the infantile oafs in software! Nobody costs most software companies more than the vermin themselves!
Reply #42 Top
I love it. I really do. The whole WC "Holier Than Thou" attitute. Everytime we have a thread about stealing music everyone pops up and says how wrong it is. Yet I'll bet just about everyone here has either downloaded something they should not have or made one to many copies of a CD or copied a CD for a friend. Come on guys. He who live in glass houses shouldn't through stones.
Reply #43 Top
That will be 'throw'....Spell checker
Reply #44 Top
Interesting connection. Made me think a bit.

You know, I had an idea the other day. Since we all know that music CD's and DVDs output video and audio in industry standardized formats (or else you could never use media), how hard could it possible be run a high quality line-out cord to your computer, capture it as wave, and turn it into a non-restricted MP3?

Or has somebody already done that...

DAn
Reply #45 Top

Since we all know that music CD's and DVDs output video and audio in industry standardized formats (or else you could never use media), how hard could it possible be run a high quality line-out cord to your computer, capture it as wave, and turn it into a non-restricted MP3?

It isn't....the issue is it's by necessity done in real-time...so it's not an economical [time-wise] way of 'stealing' music...

Reply #46 Top
Someone nailed it on the head earlier. Stealing of music, and software off the Internet is so much easier for people to do because you really don't feel like your in possession of real property.

An example of when a lot of people get their first credit card, it doesn't feel like they are spending real cash so they spend a lot more, and generally get them selves into a lot of trouble.

So I think thats one reason a lot more people download music off the Internet. Yes downloading a CD from the Internet and walking into Best Buy and five fingering the same CD are akin to the same thing, for most people they feel very different. “If I can't touch it, does it really exist?”

I guess it boils down to everyones own definition of real property. I know music copying is not a new thing, people did it with tape decks back in the day, I bet in the same %'s as people who download music now, it was just not as easy to track.
Reply #47 Top
well i guess that would make sense... if u took every aspect of the music, built it from the ground up, and put it together to amke the song..

o but youre not doing that, are u?
Reply #48 Top
I pay for a satellite connection and use software to record my music, then I catalog the files and have my mp3s'. I wonder if I am covered under the Sony BetaMax case. I mean I think I am covered recording the music to VHS, so why wouldn't I be covered recording to a digital format?
Reply #49 Top
I've bought the same album on Vinyl, Cassette and CD... the vinyl and cassette I bought more than once each...

Tell me Mr. Music Industry Scum, HOW MANY TIMES MUST I PAY FOR FRAMPTON COMES ALIVE BEFORE I'M NO LONGER "COSTING" YOU MONEY BY DOWNLOADING IT ONCE?? ;~D

The big question is, how long has it been since Peter Frampton has seen a dime from sales of that album?
Reply #50 Top

The big question is, how long has it been since Peter Frampton has seen a dime from sales of that album?

The bigger question is how many 'dimes' does he get from the PIRACY of his music?

Oooooh now, let me see....geez that's a hard one...

Um....

SFA