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 #51 Top
I am a musician and I don't think that downloading music is stealing; nor is copying CD's. The record industry needs to realize that times are changing and get with them. Also, if they stopped suing 8 year old girls and producing the same overproduced sh*t music maybe people would buy it more often.
Reply #52 Top
Geeez, ya'll... I thought we were done with this thread. I haven't even checked it since Saturday!
Reply #53 Top
All good points, but consider this. The band Metallica only became what they are due to bootleggers making copies of thier live shows, thrusting them into the mainstream. They came from deep underground, college radio shows at 2 am on Sat. night to being whatever it is they are today. From 100 person capacity bars to stadiums. Then when the Napster craze hits all of a sudden they are anti-bootlegging. Did they forget it was the same people/different technology that got them noticed in the first place? I fully understand the need and right to "get paid" and wouldn't want someone stealing what I invented. But, how long do I reserve the right to be "paid"? If I wrote a piece of music 15 years ago and you go purchase a used copy of the CD for 5 bucks, you have NOT contributed to the authors finances and in effect is stealing and the store you got it from is also to blame for selling an illegal copy. Do you really think a music creator gets any revenue from that sale? Or does the fact that it was already funneled through the comsumer buying machine, and purchased previously at full price make it legal? What about AAA bands playing local bars? If they get paid for playing that night and happen to perform a cover is that not copy infringement for profit? This topic is almost never ending, but will close by saying this, if i was a musician, and I made some million dollars last year, got laid+drunk and had a blast doing it, lived in a huge house, had tons of adoring fans and more cash than I knew what to do with, SHOULD I really be upset if a few, even a few hundred thousand people swap my tunes? Name one musician that is in financial straights and I'll never DL another MP3 again.... I'm waiting...poor mainstream musician...I thought so.


It's all about the benjamins
Corporate greed of a capatalist society

note: anyone can make music, it's not friggin' majik...
Reply #54 Top
note: anyone can make music, it's not friggin' majik...


I think what you meant to say was "anyone can't make specious statements".

If anyone can make music, then why aren't the downloaders out doing it for themselves? Why the "I'm entitled to it" mentality?

The music would not exist to download without the support of the society at large, and the supposed anti-capitalist downloaders are able to do it only because the majority pay. If you're so against the system as it is, create another one, don't just whine about it while you benefit from others input.

Oh, and it's "magic".
Reply #55 Top
If anyone can make music, then why aren't the downloaders out doing it for themselves? Why the "I'm entitled to it" mentality?


Because people, by nature, are lazy. Everyone has music inside of them, it's just easier to let someone else do it and then take it.
Reply #56 Top
No, copying music is not stealing...no more than it is robbing a bank...burglarising your neighbours house for their valuables.

Oh yes, the tangability factor!! So when a cyber-thief empties your bank account on line...and transfers all those intangible cyber/not paper money funds to his/her own account...that's not stealing?

I don't agree with the music industry standards...their percentage and profit margins, etc, but stealing from them is the same thing as stealing money from an impoverished, down on his luck guy in the street. Theft is theft...and it's about time we started calling a spade a spade.

Furthermore, stealing music and reducing industry profits deprives artists of the little percentage they would have received from legit sales
Reply #57 Top
Sorry, but downloading someone elses work is stealing. I don't see any grey area at all.
Did you pay for it or has the artist given you a free copy?
Help me understand how walking into a music store and getting a five fingered discount on a cd I've always wanted is stealing, but downloading the same cd on-line is not?
Contrary to popular belief, there is such a thing as right or wrong.
At least, that's what my mamma taught me.
IMHO
Reply #58 Top
In Technicality,

Anything here http://www.copyright.gov that shows as against copyright law is. This is the "stone word" regarding this entire situation.

Copying Music for someone else (Even if no profit was made).. Is ILLEGAL.

Copying Music for your OWN PERSONAL BACKUP... Is NOT ILLEGAL.

Inviting Someone over your house to listen to a CD you purchased.... Is NOT ILLEGAL.

This is the technicality..

However, everyone (regardless of who admits) is illegal of making a copy of a CD or accepting one at one time or another. EVERYONE. This includes Musical Artists, Attourneys, Judges and just every day people such as myself.

Hence, we're all currently or have in the past broken a copyright law. So how could anyone (including Judges) pass judgement onto someone for something themselves have also done at one time without being judged? Can't be done.

The Artists need to understand that copying can be used in a VERY Promoting way. That's how probably 90% of the artists got to where they are today.

Copying a song and/or CD and giving it to my friend is no more illegal than them copying the song from the radio IMO.

Technically, we shouldn't even have radios. Why should others be able to even listen to music that's protected and not purchased? Who knows, they could record a song one of those artists have made! What a trajedy that would be?!

In this day and age, we need to stop worrying about stupid things.. If I took let's say i.Robot for WindowBlinds for instance and altered it slightly and passed it as my own, I'd be banned. So that even cuts out the altering someones music slightly or backwards or whatever, and then distributing it.

If copying anything is this morally wrong and punishable. Imagine where we'd be.

No computers, no music, no nothing. Mideswell be back in the ice ages.
Reply #59 Top
On an additional note...

Only "proper" way to deal with the issue is this..

*Shut down all P2P Programs that have "music sharing" capabilities and not proper authority to distribute the content. Or require them to edit the code to "detect" such files as to block them no matter what file format. (To also include irc channels that having "sharing" capability. Afterall, does www.ircspy.com not list where you can find full album downloads on IRC Channels.)

*Burn such a code onto a CD that even the most advanced programs are unable to copy them. If you purchase a CD from a store you only listen to them in CD Players. Period. If you purchase music online (legally) they are to only be listened to on your computer or media device. Ripping would then be illegal in this aspect. Period. (Probably an impossible step.)

This is the reality. Like it or not. If you are 100% supportive of copyright law, I trust you haven't done ANY of this in your lifetime.. To include copying tapes, radio "songs", etc...

Main problem is, everyone will pick and choose what is proper and what is not.. To suit their own needs.

Right and Wrong have nothing to do with any of this. It's all personal conception of the situation.
I personally see nothing wrong with going to www.mp3search.ru and paying my $1.10 per album (on average) as russian law is a bit different and the labels aren't entitled to as much. The US Supreme Court can't convict them, so technically it's legal. (But, this is also probably viewed as wrong by someone. See?)

Again, to point to my first post on the matter. No one can judge this as EVERYONE is/or was guilty of copyright law infringement at one time or another. Severe or not.

Besides.. Imagine the anarchy on a worldwide scale if any or all of these were imposed. Ever seen Fight Club. Different scenerio I know and different target. But imagine that 10 fold if not more. Some things such as this are just better left alone. I'm sure the artists and everyone else can still sleep at night if someone gives their friend a copied CD.........
Reply #60 Top
Said it once and I'll say it again. Gotta love the "Holier than thou" attitude. People talk about how wrong it is to share music yet I know just about everyone has done it.
Reply #61 Top
People talk about how wrong it is to share music yet I know just about everyone has done it


Nope. I haven't. And like the saying goes, if all your friends go and jump off a bridge, does that make it something you should do too?

Stealing is wrong. If everyone does it? It's still wrong. Everyone dies too, but amazingly enough they still have doctors.

As a musician? I say hell yes it's stealing. I've known more than a few people that never saw a damned cent for the work they did, or far less than they earned.

How 'bout Rachmoninoff? One of my favorite pianists, but he got ripped off at an early age for his prelude in C sharp minor, and it haunted him until his death. He was forced by poverty to tour, and to perform the piece that was his downfall for forty years.

Yes, music is often expensive. Yes, they're bilking you when you buy that frickin' brittney spears album. But....you don't have to buy it. I don't go crying about how I should get to steal Ferraris because Ferraris are overpriced, and the maker is getting an unfair profit.
Reply #62 Top
Bet you have a least copied a CD for a friend. Maybe you haven't. My point is most the people here who claim P2P and coping is wrong have at one time or another copied or shared music in some form or another.
Reply #63 Top
stealing is stealing .. wether or not everybody else is doing it...what is popular is not always morally correct
Reply #64 Top
I base my personal morality on one's action's impact on other people. What I mean by that is that as long as what someone does has no negative impact on other people. For example, if someone wants to sit in his house and shoot heroin and masturbate for 16 hours a day, I have no problem with that. I personally wouldn't choose that lifestyle, but he's not hurting anyone, so let him be. If that person goes out and holds up a liquor store to support his heroin/porn habits, that's where he's done something wrong. Because he took money from the owner of the store, he has negatively impacted the life of the owner.

In regards to music piracy, there is a key difference between shoplifting a CD and burning a copy of one of your friend's CDs. The distinction lies in the fact that it cost money to manufacture, ship and stock the CD. When you steal it from a record store, you are taking the money that the owner of the store paid for the CD. The argument against copying/downloading music is the loss of the potential future revenue for the artist and everyone else involved in the process of making that CD. If you downloaded a CD for free, you're probably not going to go out and buy it. But if you would never buy the CD anyway, then the artist would never get any money from you, whether or not you obtain a copy of that CD some other way.

I'm trying to work my way through college, and I simply don't have enough money to buy CDs. Call me crazy, but I would rather eat and not sleep outside than listen to music. So, no matter what, no artist will receive any money from me until I graduate and have money I can spend on entertainment. When I was living with my parents and had extra money, I bought CDs. When I can afford it, I plan to start buying them again. For now, I download music. I'm not costing the artists anything by listening to it; I'm just enjoying my life more than I would otherwise. In fact, friends have heard music that I've downloaded and wanted to know what it was so they could go buy it. So by illegally downloading music, I've actually made money for the artists.

To answer the question, yes. Copying music is stealing. You are making a copy of something you didn't pay for, and that's against the law. That said, I don't think it's wrong. It may be illegal, but in my situation, according to my ethical standards, it's not immoral. And that's all that matters.
Reply #65 Top

To answer the question, yes. Copying music is stealing. You are making a copy of something you didn't pay for, and that's against the law. That said, I don't think it's wrong. It may be illegal, but in my situation, according to my ethical standards, it's not immoral. And that's all that matters.


Rape is also against the law, for that is also taking something without consent....so is it acceptable because one cannot find/afford a consenting partner?

Same thing applies.....taking something/anything without consent/approval IS Immoral, Unethical, Wrong....as is trying to justify it for lack of funds/a willing partner, etc.
Reply #66 Top
I base my personal morality on one's action's impact on other people. What I mean by that is that as long as what someone does has no negative impact on other people. For example, if someone wants to sit in his house and shoot heroin and masturbate for 16 hours a day, I have no problem with that. I personally wouldn't choose that lifestyle, but he's not hurting anyone, so let him be.


It's exactly this type of attitude that causes so much of the grief in this world; the lack of caring. He's up in his room doing drugs, but as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Some people also call this tolerance. Big catch-phrase nowadays. But where is the compassion? Where is the understanding that what we all do DOES affect somebody else? Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't make it right!
Reply #67 Top
I believe I may just be reiterating what's already been said, but I think it needs to be enunciated.

Copying music is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

Now, obviously, they're both illegal. But the use of the word 'stealing' in the context of (illegal) music downloading makes it all too easy for the RIAA and their ilk to sell the 'one downloaded copy equals one lost sale' line... which is patently absurd, but has nevertheless gained some traction.

The use of the words 'theft' or 'stealing' in the context of illegal copying of music is almost invariably completely spurious.

With regard to the 'unauthorised electronic transfer of funds' analogy, IANAL, but I believe that would constitute fraud, not theft.
Reply #68 Top

Same argument...different perps.....and not worth the breath of 'debate'....it's all been said more times than 'honey, I'm not at the pub'....

But...referring to the lone person sitting in his room and shooting up....it can be unthinking to say 'tolerance means its ok'...but there's an even higher/lower [whatever] level....when the poor bastard tax-payer has to foot the bill to shovel him into the ground.  Unthinking, selfish bastard that he is.....

Though...

He may not have robbed a bank or knocked over a granny to get the dough...

Still gives Joe Public grief...somewhere down the line.... inquests...contacting relatives... mopping out the effluvia from a messy demise....whatever....

Reply #69 Top

Copying music is not stealing. It's copyright infringement.


Same shit, different stink!

Semantics...language manipulation...dictionary amendments; omissions; alterations; incomplete entries! Why the hell can't people call a spade a spade?

Copyright infringement is acquiring somebody's 'property' without consent.....AS IS STEALING.

Killing someone with a knife, spear or gun is murder and is tried that way..regardless of the weapon used.
So if no actual weapon is used and somebody deliberately scares someone to death....is is not still murder?

All these 'blind' semantics will create completely new and confusing terms.....like: Spearicide; knificide; bow and arrowicide; revolvericide. And for the poor person scared to death...frightenedtheshitoutof'emicide.

Judge: "How do you plead to the homicide of stabbing this man to death?'

Plaintiff: "Not Guilty yer Honor. It was more a case of: Hefellonmyknifeicide."

C'mon!

Reply #70 Top
Killing someone with a knife, spear or gun is murder and is tried that way..regardless of the weapon used.


Oddly enough, while this is logical, it's not necessarily true. Legally there are several degrees of murder, including manslaughter.

And often the differentiating factor? Who was killed, how many were killed, and what was the weapon, not to mention intent. Were there mitigating circumstances?

In my humble opinion should it all be the same? Sure. I say string 'em up. Is it a legal practicality in America? Nope.
Reply #71 Top
Hi. You guys STILL going on about this? I thought we settled this issue ages ago.
Reply #72 Top
Rape is also against the law, for that is also taking something without consent....so is it acceptable because one cannot find/afford a consenting partner?

Same thing applies.....taking something/anything without consent/approval IS Immoral, Unethical, Wrong....as is trying to justify it for lack of funds/a willing partner, etc.


Wow starkers... if you had bothered to read the post rather than merely scrolling down to the last paragraph because trying to read big words like "so" and "I" hurts your head, you wouldn't sound like such a moron. The whole point of my post was to say that as long as you don't harm anyone else, you're not doing anything wrong. I think rape would qualify as negatively impacting someone's life, which I believe (and said multiple times in my post) is wrong. All those creationist idiots should hold you up as proof that Darwin's theory of evolution is false... you apparently have found a way to circumvent "survival of the fittest," or in your case, "survival of the less retarded." I know a couple people who never read. I don't think very highly of them, but at least they have the common sense not to write an angry letter to the newspaper they didn't read because they disagreed with the three sentences they struggled through before giving up and going to watch TV. If you are going to come on to a forum and try to engage in a discussion with people who actually graduated junior high, I highly suggest you partake in the whole experience, and actually READ what someone says before getting pissed off at them about something they didn't say. F'ing troglodyte.

That said, now I'll respond to the people with multiple digits in their IQ.

It's exactly this type of attitude that causes so much of the grief in this world; the lack of caring. He's up in his room doing drugs, but as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. Some people also call this tolerance. Big catch-phrase nowadays. But where is the compassion? Where is the understanding that what we all do DOES affect somebody else? Just because it doesn't affect you personally doesn't make it right!


I was just citing an extreme example. Anyone who actually behaves like that has serious problems and should seek professional help immediately. If I knew someone in that situation, I would try to help them. I don't think what they're doing is immoral or wrong in any way, but I think it's stupid and self-destructive. What I'm trying to say is that I base my personal code of ethics on their real world impact on other people, not on some BS a bunch of idiots who got drunk and thought a bush was talking to them dictated to someone who could actually read and write. A majority of the hate, anger and wars throughout human history have been fought because of or were at least influenced by religion. Religion is the bane of humanity. If it's not causing hatred and violence between people who have different beliefs, it's making people do stupid things because they would rather wrap themselves in comforting layers self-deception rather than think logically. For example, people who literally interpret the Bible and actually believe in the creation story, exactly as it's written. To quote Jay Mohr: "Thinking that the world was created 5,000 years ago isn't a religious belief... it's just stupid."

I know I'm going WAY off topic and ranting about all sorts of stuff, but it's Christmas and I'm a little drunk, and starkers’ stupidity pissed me off. Anyways, I’m just trying to say that morality should be based on the real world, not on external guidelines. By that logic, if what you do has no negative effect on other people, you’re not a bad person for doing it. Forget whatever the Bible, Koran, Torah or anything else says. Just think about it for yourself.


P.S.

I’m sorry if I forgot to offend anyone in that post... if you feel left out, just let me know and I’ll throw a few ethnic slurs into the next one for you.

And this might help: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? A Good PR campaign.

Let the flaming begin.
Reply #73 Top
And this might help: What’s the difference between a cult and a religion? A Good PR campaign



No, by their actions are they know. And I do believe in the biblical account of creation. The timeline, I don't know, I wasn't there.
And, no, I'm not offended. The path to understanding and respect is through discusion.
Besides, if you're deluded enough to believe that some sludge on the side of the ocean is your long, lost auntie...
I won't hold it against you.
Peace, pal.
Reply #74 Top
Milkman....Hopefully the college you attend teaches whippersnappers like you some manners and respect, though given your attitude, it's unlikely you'd attend those classes. As you're just 16 yo know it all, one could only expect you to respond with a personal attack and a diatribe of insults when found wanting

And in keeping with the topic....my reply addressed your apparent propensity to steal without compunction or remorse. Irrespective of impact...regardless of how great or small, whether affecting many or just a few, only one even....a crime is crime. and there you were, boasting that you're morally and ethically okay with stealing music....whatever else you mightn't be able to afford, given your attitude and lack of social conscience.

If you want to be able to justify a lack of scruples and get an approval rating, go someplace else cos you won't get it here....and you call me a moron?
Reply #75 Top
I think a little less of the personal attacking would be nice.  We DO have rules.  All should try to respect them....  [references to 'moron' and Darwin's theory, etc]