Debating the issue of "copying" music...

[snowrs]

I just wanted it clarified, because I believe that giving it to another person is wrong, but I should be able to make as many copies as I want for personal use, which is why I oppose DRM

 

[Paco Bedejo]

You fundamentally misunderstand what theft is.

What is it that makes theft wrong? I say that theft is wrong because you're taking someone's property & making it your own, leaving them with nothing. If I could, with a few clicks on a computer, copy your land, house, cars, guns, etc... would you have been wronged?

Calling 01010101-copying "theft" really waters down the term. Nobody has a moral right to control what I do with the 0s & 1s in the RAM or ROM of my electronics. Nothing those 0s & 1s do can constitute an initiation of force against another person, nor can they deprive anyone of their property.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Mind elaborating a bit?

Part of copyright law involves "acceptable use" of copyrighted material.

Acceptable use would be for educational purposes, or a purpose other than the original intent which does not affect the market.

So, if you use AC/DC song lyrics to discuss the effects of Christianity on meat packing, then that would be acceptable use.

If burn your AC/DC MP3s to a CD and hand them out for christmas presents, that is distribution of the product within the original intent, and affects the market by reducing the demand for the product.

If you burn your AC/DC MP3s to a CD and then play them for an audience, that also infringes upon the original intent of the product. Not acceptable use.

Now, you can obviously stretch the definition of "acceptable use" but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things.


When books were first being digitized, there was a whole mess of copyright lawsuits aimed at google, and brought the whole issue of orpahned material to the fore-front further complicating digital copyright law.

With the advent of digital media, the whole system has been turned upside down, and people are scrambling to catch up.

Which is why we are having this debate. Do digital copies really affect the market? I belive that is the crux of the debate and neither side has satisfactorily proved one way or the other, which is why all cases will err to the side of the copyright owner.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Copyrights have also undergone various stages of legal evolution. At one point it had to be registered, at another it needed the C and date, and so on and so forth.

I predict we will continue to see it evolve as we experience changes in media and availability, and determine what affect that may or may not have on the targeted market.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Also, once something has been broadcast, to me, you are pretty much so giving up your copyright at that point. The courts disagree with me though.

I'm sure other people had the same argument when Marconi stole radio from Tesla as well, and began to broadcast.

 

[steveh_131]

Which is why we are having this debate. Do digital copies really affect the market? I belive that is the crux of the debate and neither side has satisfactorily proved one way or the other, which is why all cases will err to the side of the copyright owner.

Sure it affects the market. Not nearly as much as the RIAA would have us believe, but I'm sure there's at least a small effect.

That said, I don't care that it affects the market. You know what affected the labor market? The invention of robotics. You know what affected the horse market? The invention of the automobile.

Those markets became more and more obsolete. Nobody owed a horse farmer money because their product was no longer achieving the market value they thought they deserved.

Edit: Removing analogy as it delves more into patent law.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What is it that makes theft wrong? I say that theft is wrong because you're taking someone's property & making it your own, leaving them with nothing. If I could, with a few clicks on a computer, copy your land, house, cars, guns, etc... would you have been wronged?

Calling 01010101-copying "theft" really waters down the term. Nobody has a moral right to control what I do with the 0s & 1s in the RAM or ROM of my electronics. Nothing those 0s & 1s do can constitute an initiation of force against another person, nor can they deprive anyone of their property.

What makes theft wrong is not that you take property, but that you deprive the owner of the use, benefit, and potential value of their property when you steal it.

If you copy the design of my car and produce it you have deprived me of nothing. However you have deprived the original designer of the potential value of his design. Thus you have stolen from him.

There is no distinction between theft of an tangible item and theft by copying intellectual property. The both entail depriving the property owner of the value of their property.

 

[CarmelHP]

Copyrights have also undergone various stages of legal evolution. At one point it had to be registered, at another it needed the C and date, and so on and so forth.

Copyright is automatic upon creation, registration has never been required, but registration provides statutory damages for infringement.

 

[Prometheus]

Sure it affects the market. Not nearly as much as the RIAA would have us believe, but I'm sure there's at least a small effect.

That said, I don't care that it affects the market. You know what affected the labor market? The invention of robotics. You know what affected the horse market? The invention of the automobile.

Those markets became more and more obsolete. Nobody owed a horse farmer money because their product was no longer achieving the market value they thought they deserved.

One more analogy: If I buy a horse from someone who breeds specialized horses, am I allowed to breed that horse and sell the offspring? I don't own the intellectual property that went into raising the original healthy horse. I'm affecting the market of the original horse owner by doing this. I'm effectively creating "copies" of their horse and selling them as my own.

Is this wrong?

Oh snap... you are going way beyond "sound bytes". Keep in mind society as whole cannot think out side of sound bytes. They get angry because it makes their brains hurt.

Be prepared for this:

 

[ATOMonkey]

Sure it affects the market. Not nearly as much as the RIAA would have us believe, but I'm sure there's at least a small effect.

That said, I don't care that it affects the market. You know what affected the labor market? The invention of robotics. You know what affected the horse market? The invention of the automobile.

Those markets became more and more obsolete. Nobody owed a horse farmer money because their product was no longer achieving the market value they thought they deserved.

Edit: Removing analogy as it delves more into patent law.

Yes, but the music market isn't being replaced. CDs are being replaced by MP3 players, but the copyrights are still valid, within acceptable use policy.

It's how the infringement affects the market as it specifically applies to copyright, not the means in which it was delivered to the market.

 

[steveh_131]

What makes theft wrong is not that you take property, but that you deprive the owner of the use, benefit, and potential value of their property when you steal it.

The benefit and potential value of their property was deprived of them by the digital age.

 

[Yoder]

I just wanted it clarified, because I believe that giving it to another person is wrong, but I should be able to make as many copies as I want for personal use, which is why I oppose DRM

If by "it" you mean digital copies of media then yes it is wrong if the artist has asserted copy rights that reserve that for himself or his agents. If you don't like supporting a system built on top of government enforced artificial scarcity there is plenty of media available where the creators do not assert those rights, you can find a list (and a lot of good info on the topic) by googling "Ray Beckerman".

Those calling it "theft" are just trying to use the social connotations of being a thief to convince you not to share those copies, since "piracy" doesn't carry the same weight I suppose. It requires the same intellectual dishonesty as pretending the word "is" means something other than "is".

 

[CarmelHP]

Sure it affects the market. Not nearly as much as the RIAA would have us believe, but I'm sure there's at least a small effect.

That said, I don't care that it affects the market. You know what affected the labor market? The invention of robotics. You know what affected the horse market? The invention of the automobile.

Those markets became more and more obsolete. Nobody owed a horse farmer money because their product was no longer achieving the market value they thought they deserved.

Edit: Removing analogy as it delves more into patent law.

C'mon, are these comparable?

Scenario 1: I take someone's creation and produce their creation to crowd out their marketing of it.

Scenario 2: I make my own creation, and the market prefers my creation over someone else's creation or product.

You must see the difference?

 

[Yoder]

The benefit and potential value of their property was deprived of them by the digital age.

The digital age, and the increase in network bandwidth available to home users, provided the means by which it was possible to copy and distribute digital media en masse. That media still has value, as evidenced by the rise of iTunes and others. The fact that it is pirated at all shows that there is demand for it to be created.

What it did more than anything else was reduce the need for a traditional distribution system, which despite it's misleading name is who is doing most of the suing.

For copyright violation, not for theft.

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, but the music market isn't being replaced. CDs are being replaced by MP3 players, but the copyrights are still valid, within acceptable use policy.

It's how the infringement affects the market as it specifically applies to copyright, not the means in which it was delivered to the market.

The profit was originally derived from the distribution. They still want to derive profit from the distribution. Time to start getting profit elsewhere. Endorsements, concerts, merchandise, whatever. We all know the bands themselves get almost nothing from CD sales anyways. The record labels are the ones that need to go extinct.

C'mon, are these comparable?

Scenario 1: I take someone's creation and produce their creation to crowd out their marketing of it.

Scenario 2: I make my own creation, and the market prefers my creation over someone else's creation or product.

You must see the difference?

I do, but the end result is the same. And if that's what defines theft then they are both theft.

Either way, if your good or service is of so little value that you can not find a way to profit from it in a free market then I say good riddance.

 

[snowrs]

It is not the digital age, I made a ton of mix tapes as a kid and gave them to friends, girlfriends etc. It was encouraged and embraced by artists hoping to get people to their concerts where they make the most money. It is the industry that sees me making copies for my own use and get uptight and make it so I can't do that. If I hear a song I liked back then I bought the album and so did my friends, so that copy actually made them a sale, my bet is it is the same way today.

 

[ATOMonkey]

A brief history of copyright law.

U.S. Copyright Office - Information Circular

 

[Prometheus]

Here is another thought and how a company is dealing with similar issues....

Disney World.

At Disney world they have hundreds of photographers all over their properties. For $99 (pre ordered) you buy their CD package and get a digital copy of every single picture they take of you as well as a full release to reprint them as many times as you'd like.

These same photographers will use YOUR camera, without any compensation and take the exact same photos for you. No charge. It's a courtesy. Keep in mind the camera we brought took the same quality photos as theirs did (except indoors as I didn't bring an external flash). Virtually every picture was an apples to apples comparison.

On our last trip in May we brought our camera but also bought the CD package as well. 6 days at the park and they took approx 800 photographs of us with their cameras.

It was their policy of going the extra mile that first day that convinced my wife and I to get the package.

This is one example of a company "keeping up with the times" and making mad cash because of it.

Contrast that with Six Flags great America, the picture nazi's. They are going broke. They aren't keeping up with the times and suffering because of it.

For the older folks who weren't following how this has unfolded, many people figured that if they were made or viewed as criminals for simply backing up their CD's or copying them to another device, why not go all the way?

What we have is customer backlash against an organization trying to criminalize what is now legal. In a sense, they empower and encouraged this by alienating a large customer base.

The general feeling was "You want to treat me like a criminal? Fine I'll be a real criminal and not give you jack."

The dinosaur analogy has come up and like the MSN, they are unable or unwilling to change with the times.

 

[Westside]

The benefit and potential value of their property was deprived of them by the digital age.

So because it became easy that makes it ok?

 

[Paco Bedejo]

C'mon, are these comparable?

Scenario 1: I take someone's creation and produce their creation to crowd out their marketing of it.

Scenario 2: I make my own creation, and the market prefers my creation over someone else's creation or product.

You must see the difference?

The point you're missing (which is tangential), is that if I want to play Super Mario Brothers on my phone, there is no strictly legal way for me to do so. Content owners are locking their products up into various formats, not permitting licensing for workarounds & flexibility. Heck, there isn't a legal way for me to watch new movies on my phone...though the technology & possibilities exist. If content owners wish to continue artificially limiting their products, they will see increases in piracy. A great example is Game of Thrones on HBO. The series has primary appeal among an audience which is more likely to have cut their cable/satellite subscriptions. If anyone in that demographic wishes to watch the series, they can either spend $100+ to subscribe to cable/satellite TV service including HBO, or they can illegally download each episode in about 6 minutes for free.

A parallel might be that you create a unique signature dish at your 5-star restaurant in Paris, then get butt-hurt when someone in Chicago begins to offer that same dish. Do you think Chicagoans would fly to Paris to enjoy your dish if a local option exists? Demand will always meet supply...regardless of the arcane firewalls some might attempt to erect.