That's rhetorical, right?
Maybe.
That's rhetorical, right?
Ok. And what about allowing a friend to listen to your CD? He didn't pay the artist for the enjoyment of listening to it.
Also theft?
You are missing the point it is not about "listening to the music". It is about "possession of intellectual property" and distribution there off.
by inviting friends over you are not publicly distributing music.
If you opened a club and charged admission then that is considered distribution and you are required to pay a different fee/rate for the same music. They same basic principle also applies to radio stations.
You're totally free to give a CD to your friend. It's yours. The music on the CD is not yours. It's the property of the artist and/or record label.
I don't understand. If they are listening to the music without paying for it, how is it not theft? I can make them a copy, they listen to it once, and they throw it away. Or I can loan them mine, they listen to it once, and give it back. The end result is the same, they have listened to the music without paying for it. How can you differentiate them ethically?
Yes, strictly speaking.Let's say you write a short poem. You now own this poem. You tell your poem to someone, and explain that they may not tell anyone else the poem.
This person tells the poem to their friend. They are now both thieves?
Strictly speaking, yes. Whether or not that's practical is another matter. But you said yourself you weren't concerned with the practical. Just the ethical.If the friend agreed to a contract not to share it, then they should be punished according to that contract.
If it's mine, then why can't I copy it?
The right to copy, not the right to use, is what is at issue.
Why is it distribution if I have charged them to be there?
They are not in possession of the intellectual property. I haven't distributed it. It is no different than if I didn't charge them to be there.
Every time you play the song for someone it has been copied. They now know the song and could sing it/recreate it for someone else.
This is all so arbitrary that it makes my brain hurt.
Why is it distribution if I have charged them to be there?
They are not in possession of the intellectual property. I haven't distributed it. It is no different than if I didn't charge them to be there.
If it's mine, then why can't I copy it?
As far as I understand, you can copy it and keep the copy for your own personal use. I know a lot of people that do this in order to preserve the original copy in case it's worth a lot of money later on, or just to keep it from getting scratched and dirty. I don't think copying one cd and giving it to a close friend is a huge deal. The real deal is when you're uploading it to the internet and thousands of people are getting music for free that they would either have to buy or borrow in any other case.
Ok lets try a different approach.
When you buy a CD you pay for a single copy of each song on the CD. By creating copies yourself AND distributing them or allowing other people to make copies you are breaking copyright law.
Every time you play the song for someone it has been copied. They now know the song and could sing it/recreate it for someone else.
This is all so arbitrary that it makes my brain hurt.
Ok lets try a different approach.
When you buy a CD you pay for a single copy of each song
Are you being purposefully obtuse because this is beginning to border on the absurd.
The physical CD is yours to listen to or give away. The right to private enjoyment of the material on it has been licensed to the holder of the CD, whomever that may be.
The material on the CD is not yours. It is not yours to copy or sell. You are not selling the material when you sell a CD. You are selling the physical CD and the rights to the material. THe new owner, whether by gift or by purchase, agrees to abide by the copyright restrictions simply by possessing the material.
Do you understand the concept of licensing?
I do understand why this is an issue economically. I can understand wanting to write laws in order to encourage the creation of intellectual property. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I understand it.
I take issue more with the slinging around of the word "thief". It implies an ethical issue, and that is what I want to discuss. I think theft is a huge deal, whether it's a small theft or a big theft. Whether you're copying it for one friend or for a billion, it's either right or it's wrong.
I'm not being obtuse. I want to understand the ethical reasoning behind these copyright laws.
Now by your definitions here, it should be ethically ok for me to copy it and give to someone else as long as I don't still own the rights to the material. If I don't listen to it ever again, then this is ethically ok?