Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[Yoder]

You didn't create a new piece of property. You copied an existing piece of property without consent from the supplier, and made a profit from it, and/or potentially detracted from their profit.

You fundamentally misunderstand what copying is.

 

[Westside]

how about, since we're discussing ethics and morality, we just tackle it right now? I don't need the government to define morality for me.

I said I wasn't talking ethics and morality I am only arguing legality and prison terms.

 

[steveh_131]

I said I wasn't talking ethics and morality I am only arguing legality and prison terms.

Ok then. I think everyone is in agreement on that particular issue.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

You fundamentally misunderstand what copying is.

You fundamentally misunderstand what theft is.

 

[Prometheus]

It's not theft. Doesn't even begin to meet the definition. The Constitution delegates Congress the power to secure exclusive uses to creators of works:

Art. 1, Sec. 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
---

The concept of intellectual property is a total creature of law.

Most people don't realize the difference between these two-

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2] Conduct that was so clearly violative of society's standards for allowable conduct that it was illegal under English common law is usually regarded as "malum in se". An offense that is malum prohibitum, for example, may not appear on the face to directly violate moral standards. The distinction between these two cases is discussed in State of Washington v. Thaddius X. Anderson [3]

Muder: malum in se

Speeding: malum prohibitum

 

[snowrs]

I read most of this, what are your feeling of me buying a song, and putting it on my computer, my media server, my phone, and my 2 iPods ?

 

[Yoder]

You fundamentally misunderstand what theft is.

Nope.

Feel free to link us to successful prosecutions of folks for downloading or copying music for personal use, under that IC.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I read most of this, what are your feeling of me buying a song, and putting it on my computer, my media server, my phone, and my 2 iPods ?

If you give your 2 ipods to 2 of your friends afterwards it's theft. Otherwise it's fine.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Nope.

Feel free to link us to successful prosecutions of folks for downloading or copying music for personal use, under that IC.

So a law is enforcable only if it has been enforced? Guess that ends the chicken and egg debate.

 

[snowrs]

If you give your 2 ipods to 2 of your friends afterwards it's theft. Otherwise it's fine.

What about letting my wife use one of the iPods, or letting one of my friends borrow my car, which is where one of my iPods is attached to my head unit so they have access to all of my music, while I have it on my phone?

 

[Yoder]

Oh that IC has been enforced plenty of time.

What I'm asking for is evidence your particular perversion of it holds any water.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I believe acceptable use ends where distribution or broadcasting begins.

 

[steveh_131]

If you give your 2 ipods to 2 of your friends afterwards it's theft. Otherwise it's fine.

Can my wife listen to it at my house while I'm listening to it on my ipod on the road?

Or am I now a criminal (like a rapist)?

 

[jsharmon7]

If you bought it and want to copy it to YOUR other devices, I have no issue with that. If you want to let a friend borrow your Ipod to listen to the song, I have no problem with that. If you give your friend a copy of the song so that they don't have to buy it, that's where I draw the line. If you rebroadcast it for financial gain that wasn't authorized by the artist, that's wrong too. Regardless of what I think of the RIAA, theft is theft. You're depriving the artists and labels of financial gain for their work. I think it's the same deal with computer software. Putting it on somebody else's computer to save them from having to buy it is wrong. Like so many things here on INGO, people can rationalize it because it benefits them or because they're guilty of it. "Thieves should be dealt with harshly, unless I'm the thief and I can rationalize my behavior."

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What about letting my wife use one of the iPods, or letting one of my friends borrow my car, which is where one of my iPods is attached to my head unit so they have access to all of my music, while I have it on my phone?

Can my wife listen to it at my house while I'm listening to it on my ipod on the road?

Or am I now a criminal (like a rapist)?

The statue is for transferring, not copying. You would be in violation of the IC.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Part of successful prosecution of copyright infringement requires that the plantiff demonstrate that the infringement has affected the market.

This was one of the take aways from the Righthaven lawsuits.

 

[steveh_131]

I believe acceptable use ends where distribution or broadcasting begins.

Mind elaborating a bit?

 

[Yoder]

No, because you've not transferred a piece of property without the owner's consent.

The copy is a distinct piece of property, by the very definition of a copy, which is the basis for the need for copy rights.

 

[CarmelHP]

OK, I am admittedly sticking my face out to get punched, but I disagree. Under IC (copied below) theft is defined as exerting unauthorized control of property which has as an element transferring or reproducing recorded sounds. How is transferring recorded music without the authorization and concent of the owner not theft, and how is recieving the transferred music not receiving stolen property?

I'm referring to the common law definition, what is usually considered "black letter law" that isn't encumbered by later legal fictions grafted to it. I'm not commenting on the Indiana statutory definition.

The black letter law definition of theft is: taking http://legaldefinition.us/taking.htmlproperty belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner http://legaldefinition.us/owner.htmlof the property.

It's a definition that cuts across jurisdictions and time. I think you're missing the mark by demanding it be called "theft." It doesn't need to be called "theft" in order to be illegal and wrong. Society has decided to support composers and inventors by guaranteeing to protect their opportunity to profit from their creations in order to promote creativity and the sharing of ideas. If there is no profit in it, people are less likely to try to create anything of value. It's not the same as taking physical property. It is an encroachment on another's means of making a living and denying everyone the benefit of new ideas. That's why it is wrong.

 

[Yoder]

Prepare for incoming hurt feelings rep, for declining to bend the definition of words to your favor.