[Skylark]

This question is aimed at those who do not already support illegally sharing music and other intellectual property.

What happens when you oppose people sharing music and wouldn't do it yourself, but you end up with an illegally copied CD anyway? A friend played a CD for me, I said I liked the music, and for my birthday, my friend gave me a copy of it. He didn't go out to a store and buy me a copy--he just copied his CD and gave me the copy. I never asked him to do that. I only appreciated the music. Now what do I do? If I listen to the CD, am I participating in the practice I oppose? Am I obligated to either get rid of it or go out and buy a "bought-and-paid-for" version of the CD "legally"? It was a gift--it wasn't supposed to cost ME anything.

Or, how about this scenario: You buy a box of random things at an auction. You're not sure all what's in it, but when you get it home, you find it has one or more "copied" CDs. If you listen to them, are you behaving unethically? You bought them legally, but when they were made, they were illegal.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Go out and buy the actual CDs or download the songs legally, destroy the CDs in questions, say 12 Hail Marys, and all will be forgiven.

Stolen goods is stolen goods no matter who done stole 'em.

 

[GhostUser]

I agree with the above answer.

Because it is stolen, I would not accept the gift just as I wouldn't accept a stolen CD player as a gift.

 

[remilard]

depending on the person I would either refuse the gift or accept it and replace it

 

[Eclipse]

If your friend bought the CD and gave you a copy I don't see this as wrong.

What companies don't want is you making loads of copies and selling them.

I bought a legal copy of a computer game once and gave my brother a copy of it. I doubt my brother would have even purchased the game so it was just an extra bonus and therefore no big loss to the company.

 

[remilard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclipse

If your friend bought the CD and gave you a copy I don't see this as wrong.

What companies don't want is you making loads of copies and selling them.

Thats funny that they write their licensing agreements such that they require things they don't want.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclipse

I bought a legal copy of a computer game once and gave my brother a copy of it. I doubt my brother would have even purchased the game so it was just an extra bonus and therefore no big loss to the company.

Well by this argument you're justifying a lot of illegal sharing. Someone has bought a legal copy at some point, and then they're just making copies of that item for others.

Not that I'm bothered by that argument. My criterion for whether downloading music (from a band that matters that is and which you want to support) is okay is precisely whether you could otherwise buy it.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eclipse

What companies don't want is you making loads of copies and selling them.

I think what they do want is for everyone to, you know, actually buy their stuff is what I think companies want.

Quote:

I bought a legal copy of a computer game once and gave my brother a copy of it. I doubt my brother would have even purchased the game so it was just an extra bonus and therefore no big loss to the company.

Cool. I doubt I would buy store brand hummus so would you be a dear and steal some for me? It would be a lovely bonus. Ta!

 

[Sevenseas]

Apples and oranges. Stealing the hummus jar could force the store owner to pay for a replacement jar, which would harm him financially.

However, if 1) you wouldn't buy the hummus jar in any case, and 2) I had bought one and had a replicator, I would see no problem in making a copy of it for you.

(Not that I would have the time, though - I would be replicating vegans for a vegan army. And some vegan cheese too.)

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

Apples and oranges.

I doubt I would buy those either so I would accept them in lieu of hummus.

What if I wrote a book or invented something? Can I make that analogy?

Golden Delicious and Granny Smith you'll no doubt say.

But remember: An analogy is never the "exact same thing" otherwise it wouldn't be an analogy.

Downloading songs is downloading someone's intellectual property. It may not be a tangible loss like hummus or some other imperfect analogy, but just because it is less tangible doesn't make it ethical.

 

[Sevenseas]

The thing I don't get in intellectual property is simply the idea that by creating or acquiring something (in a valid way) you gain rights to exclusive control over what happens to it.

But rejecting this idea also means that I don't see the basis for ordinary property rights in their current extent. That is, if someone borrows my bicycle from time to time when I'm away, without my permission, I don't know any argument against it.

This in turn is because everything comes down to basic interests: benefits and harms. And borrowing the bicycle won't go against any of my interests in anything. However, taking the bicycle when I would need to use it myself would prevent me from doing something and so go against my interests.

So I guess I see any property rights whatever only extending so far as to protect your interests in achieving something or avoiding harm etc.

 

[remilard]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

The thing I don't get in intellectual property is simply the idea that by creating or acquiring something (in a valid way) you gain rights to exclusive control over what happens to it.

But rejecting this idea also means that I don't see the basis for ordinary property rights in their current extent. That is, if someone borrows my bicycle from time to time when I'm away, without my permission, I don't know any argument against it.

This in turn is because everything comes down to basic interests: benefits and harms. And borrowing the bicycle won't go against any of my interests in anything. However, taking the bicycle when I would need to use it myself would prevent me from doing something and so go against my interests.

So I guess I see any property rights whatever only extending so far as to protect your interests in achieving something or avoiding harm etc.

can I have sex with your mom while she is sleeping?

 

[astro]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

A friend played a CD for me, I said I liked the music, and for my birthday, my friend gave me a copy of it. He didn't go out to a store and buy me a copy--he just copied his CD and gave me the copy.

Did your friend buy the CD?

If so, I can't see the problem with this. People have made copies of the music they brought and shared it with their friends since vinyl days. When I was a little kid, I remember record companies used to have "home taping is killing music" written on the inner sleeve of records

All of my friends used to make mix tapes for each other and there was no harm done because the music business is still thriving to this day.

 

[Sevenseas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by remilard

can I have sex with your mom while she is sleeping?

I showed her your picture and she said "with that?" and then went back to hosting Oprah.

 

[Nishani]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevenseas

I showed her your picture and she said "with that?" and then went back to hosting Oprah.

pmsl

 

[Skylark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro

Did your friend buy the CD?

I think so, but I can't guarantee that. The odd thing is, this is a band he absolutely loves and wants to support, so I don't understand why he wouldn't want to actually pay for their music.

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro

If so, I can't see the problem with this. People have made copies of the music they brought and shared it with their friends since vinyl days. When I was a little kid, I remember record companies used to have "home taping is killing music" written on the inner sleeve of records

All of my friends used to make mix tapes for each other and there was no harm done because the music business is still thriving to this day.

I made some mixed tapes of music off the radio back in the day. My player couldn't make tape-to-tape copies, but it could tape off the radio. A lot of the songs were the same ones I listened to on tapes I'd bought. I just wanted all my favorites on the same tape. I don't see anything unethical about making copies for yourself. There's something fishy about giving those copies to others, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by veggiejanie

Because it is stolen, I would not accept the gift just as I wouldn't accept a stolen CD player as a gift.

The trouble is, it's not the same. If I received a stolen CD player as a gift, I could return the CD player if I knew who legally owned it, and everyone would be squared up. If I try to give my illegally-copied CD to the record company who distributes the legal copies, what can they do with it? Nothing.

So, my options appear to be either keep it and listen to it, keep it and don't listen to it (and when the CD police come to my door, they surely won't believe I don't listen to it), or destroy it. Or, I suppose, give it to someone else and thus pass the buck.

And, while I say I oppose illegally copying/distributing someone else's work, I can understand some of the other side's argument. Copyrights and patents were put in place to keep creativity and innovation from dying out, by insuring profitability for products people like. If an artist already makes enough to live on and cover the production costs, it looks like illegally sharing their product does no harm there. But, these laws were likely put in place before these huge monstrocities of production companies sprang up, so we also have all those people to consider. Lots of people behind-the-scenes may go out of work if consumers only buy enough of the product to keep the artist afloat.

The only artists I've had tell me to my face, "Please, copy my CDs and give them to all of your friends" are little start-ups who aren't famous (yet). But then, I don't have personal contact with many multi-platinum artists. Ok, any multi-platinum artists. They might have said it's OK with them, but I bet their producers feel differently. Are they likely to say, "Thanks, we're rich enough already. Save your money, copy the CD, and maybe you can put your money toward becoming creative yourself"? Sounds unlikely.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

Copyrights and patents were put in place to keep creativity and innovation from dying out, by insuring profitability for products people like.

That is exactly why I take exception to piracy.

Quote:

If an artist already makes enough to live on and cover the production costs, it looks like illegally sharing their product does no harm there.

Why should someone who creates something not be entitled to milk every last drop of money out of it?

Stealing $5 from a hobo and stealing $5 from a millionaire doesn't change the fact that you are stealing.

 

[Skylark]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeezycreezy

That is exactly why I take exception to piracy.

The argument I'm hearing is these laws do not help insure creativity anymore. What once protected the little guy now protects the little guy and the big guy, and the big guy likes to raise prices as much as possible just because he can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeezycreezy

Why should someone who creates something not be entitled to milk every last drop of money out of it?

Stealing $5 from a hobo and stealing $5 from a millionaire doesn't change the fact that you are stealing.

Ignoring for the moment that I agree with you, the argument goes that a rock star buying several mega-mansions with his/her millions does not help him/her stay creative or get more creative. Although, one might legitimately claim the support staff that also contributes behind-the-scenes to the music helps keep the product fresh and innovative, which they cannot do unless they are paid at least a living wage.

I think more consumers would be sympathetic if conspicuous consumption from famous artists and record company execs, etc, were not as prevalent. The way it is, many pirates view themselves as Robin Hood characters, which, while the analogy is bad, I can sort of see.

If the money from all this creative music actually helped an artist stay creative instead of just giving him/her the means to send the pilot in the private plane across the country to get a PBJ, this would be more credible. At least get Pad Thai, for heaven's sake.

Or, if after the artists' death, the obligatory "Best Of" CDs were distributed freely. How does paying for the work of a dead artist help insure creativity? It gives the support staff compensation for their efforts? If so, why aren't the postmortum Best Of/memorial CDs less expensive than those released during the artists' life? Does the support staff make up the difference in the amount they work? Honestly, some of these postmortum CDs look to me like they just plugged together a bunch of already-recorded stuff, and that's a lot less work than production itself. Or so it appears to me.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skylark

The argument I'm hearing is these laws do not help insure creativity anymore. What once protected the little guy now protects the little guy and the big guy, and the big guy likes to raise prices as much as possible just because he can.

Why shouldn't they?

I'd love it if any company or manufacturer, once they made a return on their initial investment, they lowered the price. But companies have every right to charge what the market will bear. These are businesses, not charities, and they're out to make a profit.

As for the rest (still ignoring that you agree with me-I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing the point) if downloading music illegally is some sort of karmic revenge for the lavish lifestyles some rockstars lead then I don't want any part of that hooey. I respect anyone's right to make as much money as they are able to and to do with it as they please and to not have people steal their stuff. It'd be nice if they only took what they needed and gave the rest to charity. But it's not my place to tell other people what they should do with their money.

 

[Sevenseas]

Ensuring creativity is no argument against downloading if you wouldn't buy the music in any case.