Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[WayBehind]

Some of these posts are hysterical. You think stealing a car and stealing music are identical? Guess what, if I steal a car from a dealership, the dealership no longer has that car. I've deprived them of their property. If I download a copy of a song, the original song is still there and I have not deprived the original owner of their property.

Let me ask you guys this: do you ever go to youtube and listen to a song you like? Isn't that stealing? You didn't pay for it, but you listen to it whenever you want. So now what's the difference between that and downloading that mp3 and putting it on your iPod? Or how about listening on the radio and changing stations when a commercial comes on? You haven't paid for anything, have you stolen the music? How about TiVo and DVR/VCRs? You may pay for the recording services, but the bands/movie companies get nothing. Illegal?

I don't want to get into a lengthy economic discussion, but there are situations where people download movies/music that they would never pay for. These people get some utility from this, but the artists lose nothing. This type of situation is called Pareto optimal: at least one party is better off without making any parties worse off. Now, would people who would otherwise pay for this stuff still pay or would they download for free if given the choice? We're kind of in that situation now, and obviously some people will still pay even if given a free alternative. This lends credibility to the donation model, which would also cut giant record labels out of the mix, causing all profit to go to the artists.

Intellectual property rights are tricky. There's an in-depth discussion on copyrights here: http://singaporeangle.blogspot.com/2005/04/still-on-copyrights.html.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

Keep in mind, the founders were not around in a digital age. But, their definition of property would extend completely to music and the like. To say property is not property simply because it is on a new, digital medium is completely foolish.

Congrats, guys. You're taking a page from the modern government you claim to despise for stifling our rights, even though they've diminished the right to property and you know it

 

[Matt Collins]

However, you seem to have forgotten to read the large print. PROPERTY RIGHTS is the name of the game. There IS law about possession. You do not have the right to possess someone else's property.

This isn't about property. We are not dealing with property. We are dealing with exclusive rights or more accurately "privileges" granted by the federal government.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Yeah, WayBehind, it's hysterical alright. It's hysterical that some are doing their best to twist reality such that theft of the product of someone's hard work and talent, is not exactly that --- THEFT.

 

[H Roark]

 

[Original_Intent]

Yeah this same argument could be used for pirated software.

"Oh, I wouldn't have paid for it anyways, so they are not out anything."

Bull Shit. Someone workedd to produce that software and unless they OFFER it as freeware/shareware you damned well ARE stealing from them, and I don't see how music is any different. Saying "Well some bands encourage you to copy their stuff." Fine copy those bands music all you want, but dosnloading free music against the artist or the record companies' wishes is theft.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

Some of these posts are hysterical. You think stealing a car and stealing music are identical? Guess what, if I steal a car from a dealership, the dealership no longer has that car. I've deprived them of their property. If I download a copy of a song, the original song is still there and I have not deprived the original owner of their property.

Let me ask you guys this: do you ever go to youtube and listen to a song you like? Isn't that stealing? You didn't pay for it, but you listen to it whenever you want. So now what's the difference between that and downloading that mp3 and putting it on your iPod? Or how about listening on the radio and changing stations when a commercial comes on? You haven't paid for anything, have you stolen the music? How about TiVo and DVR/VCRs? You may pay for the recording services, but the bands/movie companies get nothing. Illegal?

I don't want to get into a lengthy economic discussion, but there are situations where people download movies/music that they would never pay for. These people get some utility from this, but the artists lose nothing. This type of situation is called Pareto optimal: at least one party is better off without making any parties worse off. Now, would people who would otherwise pay for this stuff still pay or would they download for free if given the choice? We're kind of in that situation now, and obviously some people will still pay even if given a free alternative. This lends credibility to the donation model, which would also cut giant record labels out of the mix, causing all profit to go to the artists.

Intellectual property rights are tricky. There's an in-depth discussion on copyrights here: http://singaporeangle.blogspot.com/2005/04/still-on-copyrights.html.

You might not want to get into a lengthy economic discussion because I'll school you. Property is PROPERTY. Read the words of the founders, just like I've posted in my previous post. Just because something is on a digital medium and technology enables it to be copied does not make it any less property. You do not have the right to someone else's property. Did you create the product? No. Then you do not have a right to it unless the person that holds title to the property passes title.

Also, youtube prohibits some property from being posted on its site, and some property owners prohibit youtube from posting their property. I think your blanket statement is a bit misled.

And, believe it or not, it is illegal to TiVo some things. And, in my opinion, rightfully so. Simple property rights. That TV show being broadcast is not your property. You do not have the right to claim title to it. For the time being, during that broadcast, the owner of that property is giving you access to it.

Again, just because we are technologically advanced now and can stream property in various ways doesn't mean property is any less property.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Or how about listening on the radio and changing stations when a commercial comes on? You haven't paid for anything, have you stolen the music? How about TiVo and DVR/VCRs? You may pay for the recording services, but the bands/movie companies get nothing. Illegal?

You are talking about mediums that generate royalties for the copyright owners. It's not even close to stealing. You fail.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

This isn't about property. We are not dealing with property. We are dealing with exclusive rights or more accurately "privileges" granted by the federal government.

How is that music not property of the producer? If I produce crops, it is my property. Why, if I produce music or film, is it not my property? It has everything to do with property rights and nothing to do with privilege. Again, see the founders view on property and my previous post. Digital mediums and technological advancements do not change the nature of property.

Take my TV example. The owner of the property, the television show, is granting you access to their property for the time being. Just because they let you use the property doesn't mean you can claim title to it. If I lent you my guitar, and let you use it for a certain time, that doesn't mean you can claim title to it. The scenarios are identical....the medium of delivery doesn't change anything.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

And originalintent, you're spot on. It seems some of us grasp property rights better than others.

 

[Matt Collins]

I wish people would focus more on right vs wrong than legal vs illegal.

But this is not a moral / immoral issue. It's purely a legal issue because the exclusive right to copy is an artificial legal construct.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

How is that music not property of the producer? If I produce crops, it is my property. Why, if I produce music or film, is it not my property? It has everything to do with property rights and nothing to do with privilege. Again, see the founders view on property and my previous post. Digital mediums and technological advancements do not change the nature of property.

Take my TV example. The owner of the property, the television show, is granting you access to their property for the time being. Just because they let you use the property doesn't mean you can claim title to it. If I lent you my guitar, and let you use it for a certain time, that doesn't mean you can claim title to it. The scenarios are identical....the medium of delivery doesn't change anything.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

+1...As unfair as the current setup is, you're right.

 

[Matt Collins]

Property is PROPERTY.

You're right. But we are not discussing property.

Read the words of the founders, just like I've posted in my previous post. Just because something is on a digital medium and technology enables it to be copied does not make it any less property. You do not have the right to someone else's property.

We're discussing the right or the privilege to copy, not the property itself.

 

[powerofreason]

Creation does not equal ownership. Nor does producing something with a market price of zero entitle you to special privileges to increase the value of an intangible thing. If you don't want to people to benefit from your ideas don't share them. Intellectual property is not necessary to foster innovation and history bears this out. In fact, it hinders progress greatly and if you pro ip fools would do some reading you'd all realize it. Property boundaries must be visible. Ip can't give a person ownership rights over tangible property. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Zolah]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4

This video sums up the hysteria around piracy in my opinion.

To make this post a little less useless I will reiterate that my definition of theft is the deprivation of profit or physical goods for the owner or distributer. Downloading music does not deprive anyone of anything - and there is no way to enforce any laws against it, even if there was, as I said before, music would be recorded from the radio or from concerts. If there is no profit being made by downloading music, i.e by redistributing it, then there is no crime.

 

[LibertyEagle]

This reminds me of when some here thought it was just fine and dandy to download Ron's new book. The justification, as I recall it, was that they needed to, so they could spread the word. I'm sure not a one of you guys that did that would have bought a copy if you couldn't have downloaded it for free.

Why does the justification for stealing the product of someone's work, remind me of a bunch of socialist claptrap?

 

[Matt Collins]

How is that music not property of the producer?

Because ideas and information cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of those ideas. You are confusing the medium and the song itself. No one owns the song, but someone owns the rights (or the privileges to be more accurate) to copy, distribute, perform, transmit, etc that song.

If I produce crops, it is my property. Why, if I produce music or film, is it not my property?

Not according to the Founders and the Constitution. Once the copyright is up, it belongs to society and public at large. While still in copyright the rights to copy (or priviliges) belong to the owner.

The owner of the property, the television show, is granting you access to their property for the time being. Just because they let you use the property doesn't mean you can claim title to it. If I lent you my guitar, and let you use it for a certain time, that doesn't mean you can claim title to it. The scenarios are identical....the medium of delivery doesn't change anything./quote]Incorrect again. If I take your guitar you no longer have it. That's called theft. If I copy your guitar and build one of my own that is identical you still have your guitar. That is NOT theft.

 

[mstrmac1]

If you produce a product and someone takes it without paying for it, then why would you keep producing it?

 

[MGreen]

How is that music not property of the producer? If I produce crops, it is my property. Why, if I produce music or film, is it not my property?

The crops are yours. If I take them from you, I am stealing them. If I download a copy of your film, I am not taking your film from you. You need to distinguish between theft of physical things and copies of things in which there is no theft.

I'm a filmmaker, and I consider the films I make to be mine. But I don't believe I can* stop people from making copies of DVDs they may buy from me (or making copies of my youtube videos). If I sell a DVD, that DVD is no longer mine.

*I don't mean "can" in terms of practical application, I mean I cannot form a coherent argument that the information that constitutes the digital presentation of my film is always and forever belonging to me.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

You're right. But we are not discussing property.


We're discussing the right or the privilege to copy, not the property itself.

How is that music not property of the producer? If I produce crops, it is my property. Why, if I produce music or film, is it not my property? It has everything to do with property rights and nothing to do with privilege. Again, see the founders view on property and my previous post. Digital mediums and technological advancements do not change the nature of property.

Take my TV example. The owner of the property, the television show, is granting you access to their property for the time being. Just because they let you use the property doesn't mean you can claim title to it. If I lent you my guitar, and let you use it for a certain time, that doesn't mean you can claim title to it. The scenarios are identical....the medium of delivery doesn't change anything.

The fact of the matter is you're taking marching orders from the government, which is wrong. The medium of delivery on which property is placed does not change the nature of the property. You've been avoiding this left and right....I guess you can't disprove it.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...v1ch16s23.html

 

[LibertyEagle]

To make this post a little less useless I will reiterate that my definition of theft is the deprivation of profit or physical goods for the owner or distributer. Downloading music does not deprive anyone of anything - and there is no way to enforce any laws against it, even if there was, as I said before, music would be recorded from the radio or from concerts. If there is no profit being made by downloading music, i.e by redistributing it, then there is no crime.

Sure it does. It deprives them of the money you might have paid, had you not stolen their property from them by downloading it for free. Or, are you saying you've never bought a CD or paid to download an MP3?