Why should we be able to illegally download music??

[Matt Collins]

You should be able to, for now. Replicating something diminishes the value of product (that is, distribution [uploading;"sharing"]), and perhaps it's an injustice, but there is no way to measure losses or enforce IP rights laws without violating privacy privileges. If producers want to protect their intellectual property, they need to think up new methods to protect themselves.

You touched on something important. As supply of a product increases, which direction does price go?

 

[Matt Collins]

You can record music off the radio, and spread it around, no one tends to have a problem with that. If you download high quality music off the internet, and spread it around, people tend to have a problem.

Distributing copyrighted material of any sort is considered copyright infringement.

 

[rpfan2008]

It's not an ethics issue. It's a legal issue pure and simple. The RIAA marketing department wants you to think its somehow a moral / ethical issue when it is not.

Of course it is. You bought something from me and filled the market with a cheaper or $0.00 'copy', when I gave it to you on the exact condition of not doing so..
Laws are a bunch of rules written on a paper, something can be legal today and illegal tomorrow all based on that writing. But the "piracy" is and will be unethical always in humanity. It's betrayal, fraud can be illegal law wise but betrayal is unethical.

Not that I am a big fan of the music industry, but I do agree they have the right to deprive us of theircreations.

 

[Matt Collins]

It's sad that the music industry has become all about the $$$ nowadays.

The music industry has ALWAYS been about money; it has to be. Why? Because it's a business. Businesses are in business to make a profit!


The problem comes in when the chase for the profit trumps customer service, quality of product, or stifling of liberties as the result of lobbying Congress.

If i pay for my music, i should be allowed to spread it and play it wherever the hell i want. I download "illegal' content, because that is where the real "supply" is for my "demand". No restrictions on my files please!

Exactly. The industry still hasn't figured this out yet which is very pathetic.

 

[Matt Collins]

On principle, downloading music shouldn't be free-this is bypassing the market price that the artist has placed on it.

But ask yourself this economics question... as supply approaches infinity, what happens to price?

 

[Matt Collins]

Of course it is. You bought something from me and filled the market with a cheaper or $0.00 'copy', when I gave it to you on the exact condition of not doing so..

You are implying a contract. But there is no contract when buying music.

But the "piracy" is and will be unethical always in humanity. It's betrayal, fraud can be illegal law wise but betrayal is unethical.

Again there is no contract involved. When I buy music I don't agree to anything. And I am subject to copyright law whether I buy music or not. And it isn't fraud or piracy, it's copyright infringement. Please learn the vocabulary.

 

[Number19]

As long as I'm not taking any of their property or profiting from their creation, then they don't have any decision in the matter.

But you are profiting - by experiencing enjoyment and pleasure, and by experiencing these, your mental health is impacted positively.

 

[powerofreason]

Copyrights and patents are absolutely not compatible with liberty and free market economics. Read Against Intellectual Property and Against Intellectual Monopoly. You'll never see IP in the same light again.

 

[rpfan2008]

You are implying a contract. But there is no contract when buying music.



Again there is no contract involved. When I buy music I don't agree to anything. And I am subject to copyright law whether I buy music or not. And it isn't fraud or piracy, it's copyright infringement. Please learn the vocabulary.

Yes there is no contract for you to sign, but it's mentioned in the fineprint that you are not allowed to copy, broadcast, distribute etc. without permission.

I was saying from a common-law standpoint. Common laws are result of human conscience and I believe 'laws' should bow down to become compatible with basic humanity, and not otherwise. But you seem to be very much of a 'legal' person, a small change in the 'laws' might make you to change your vocabulary...but not human conscience.

As the OP says "Why should we be able to illegally download music??" he's asking about the ethical side, atleast that's what I thought.

 

[hypnagogue]

patents and copyrights are legal concepts created for the purpose of incentivizing creative work. It's a shame that they've managed to work their way into people's fundamentals of morality.

Imagine a man making a shovel. It's shape is such that it works better than other shovels. That shape is something which that man created from his own intellect. He uses this shovel on his farm and his neighbor sees how well it works. His neighbor decides to go into his barn and hammer out a shovel like his neighbor's, the inventor. Has the inventor's neighbor wronged the inventor? I think you'd have a hard time making such a case.

In order to encourage people to make new and better shovels, governments enact laws which give inventors the privilege of controlling how their new shovel designs can be used. In most cases, in exchange for a fee.

This system works fairly well so long as the costs of production are non-negligible, because as a result, the opportunity for profits exist.

With the invention of computer processing and internet connectivity, the costs of production for music is negligible. I have the capacity to produce and listen to an infinite number of musical pieces, humming under my desk. There can be no profit for a commodity whose supply is infinite. The fact of the matter is, technology has torn the bottom out of the music distribution business. Music labels are trying to peddle a product which no longer has an economic value. Their solution is to use the law to create artificial scarcity. I see no way for such an endeavor to succeed.

 

[Number19]

Intellectual property laws are unlibertarian because they are protect intelectual monopolies.

As a libertarian, I support competition. When a patent is used, that patent destroys any potential competition for that product.

Piracy has a history of stimulating markets. Specifically, the American economy was able to establish a manufacturing industry after smuggling machine tool plans out of Britain.

Materialistic property can be owned. However, intellectual property cannot be owned. Knowledge cannot be owned.

Intellectual property is irrational. No one would ever claim they could sue me if I memorized a recipe out of a copyrighted cook book and then told the recipe word for word to a friend.

I've thought about this in relation to drug research and development. What I've imagined is that I discover a cure for cancer. But instead of marketing this to the masses, I open a small treatment center and will charge $1M for the cure. If I treat one person a year, that's not a bad income. This could become a family secret, until it's independently discovered.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Copyrights and patents are absolutely not compatible with liberty and free market economics. Read Against Intellectual Property and Against Intellectual Monopoly. You'll never see IP in the same light again.

I'm really interested in getting that book... Which one is better? Anyone willing to write a mini-review?

 

[Matt Collins]

Yes there is no contract for you to sign, but it's mentioned in the fineprint that you are not allowed to copy, broadcast, distribute etc. without permission.

They don't have to mention it. It's copyright law.

As the OP says "Why should we be able to illegally download music??" he's asking about the ethical side, atleast that's what I thought.

Well the question itself is irrelevant. Again morality and legality ARE NOT one in the same

 

[TruckinMike]

If I owned and operated yahoo, MSN, Google and a few other mega giants and I reproduced and offered a free download of YOUR one and only Hit song (Your one hit wonder song). Would you be upset?

What if you spent 20 years of your life perfecting that song? Is it still ok for me to reproduce it, and offer it as a free download?


Theft is theft... no matter how big or how small the theft is. Taking music or any other intellectual property without paying for it (or receiving permission for use) is WRONG!

If you want it -- do the honorable thing --- and pay for it.

TMike

Note: I would sell in a format that would not restrict reproduction - mp3, ogg etc. thus allowing easy reproduction for multiple listening devices. But that just me, other artists may not agree with me. They should choose what is best for them. And YOU should not pirate just because you can.

 

[rpfan2008]

They don't have to mention it. It's copyright law.

Well the question itself is irrelevant. Again morality and legality ARE NOT one in the same

OP doesn't seem to be asking for a legal opinion.

"Why should we be .." probably for an moral/ethical argument in for or against current laws.

I and most of the other posters were discussing it from a moral perspective, but you pushed law into it. There is no confusion that it's illegal in law, so only the moral realm remains to be explored.

 

[Matt Collins]

If I owned and operated yahoo, MSN, Google and a few other mega giants and I reproduced and offered a free download of YOUR one and only Hit song (Your one hit wonder song). Would you be upset?

What if you spent 20 years of your life perfecting that song? Is it still ok for me to reproduce it, and offer it as a free download?

That has nothing to do with anything. The law says that the copyright holder is able to have exclusive right to copy, distribute, transmit, etc the material in question.

Theft is theft... no matter how big or how small the theft is.

You're right. But this isn't theft, it's copyright infringement.

Taking music or any other intellectual property without paying for it (or receiving permission for use) is WRONG!

Morally wrong or legally wrong?

And if you say "legally wrong" then you are ignorant of the fact that downloading copyrighted material is not against the law; uploading/sharing it is.

If you say "morally wrong" then ask yourself whose morals you are referring to? I know many an Oriental who doesn't see any moral problem with ripping off someone else's work because they don't think like western civ does.

If you want it -- do the honorable thing --- and pay for it.

Again, you are confusing morality and legality; the two are NOT one in the same.

 

[dannno]

If I owned and operated yahoo, MSN, Google and a few other mega giants and I reproduced and offered a free download of YOUR one and only Hit song (Your one hit wonder song). Would you be upset?

What if you spent 20 years of your life perfecting that song? Is it still ok for me to reproduce it, and offer it as a free download?


Theft is theft... no matter how big or how small the theft is. Taking music or any other intellectual property without paying for it (or receiving permission for use) is WRONG!

If you want it -- do the honorable thing --- and pay for it.

TMike

Note: I would sell in a format that would not restrict reproduction - mp3, ogg etc. thus allowing easy reproduction for multiple listening devices. But that just me, other artists may not agree with me. They should choose what is best for them. And YOU should not pirate just because you can.

Uhhh, I know you're probably not going to come back, but you don't seem to get it. YES. I would LOVE for yahoo, MSN or google to advertise and distribute my song so that I became more popular as a musician!!

You seem to think that musicians make money off record sales. They don't. Maybe a few cents for each album. The record companies make money off record sales. Bands make their real money from touring. So if I pirate 30 Bob Dylan albums and go see his show, he will be more wealthy than if I bought the 30 albums. The 30 albums cost me over $400, almost all of it going to the record company, and but the artist gets a large percentage of the money I spent on the concert ticket.

In other words, if you want to give an artist money, go see them live, don't buy their stupid albums because all the money is going to the record label!! Save your money and go see shows.. Support the artist, not the record label!

 

[Matt Collins]

I and most of the other posters were discussing it from a moral perspective, but you pushed law into it.

That's because it's ONLY a legal argument.

Trying to make it into a moral argument is a logical fallacy and plays into the hands of the marketers at the RIAA/MPAA/Big Content.

There is no confusion that it's illegal in law

Again incorrect because downloading is not unlawful. Uploading / distributing / transmitting / sharing is.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

That's because it's ONLY a legal argument.

Trying to make it into a moral argument is a logical fallacy and plays into the hands of the marketers at the RIAA/MPAA/Big Content.

.

Just because you say it is? No.

Regardless of who's hands it may play into, it can be discussed from a moral perspective.

That, or other issues like drug usage can't be discussed from a moral perspective either.

"I think drugs should be legal, but I still find drug usage immoral."

"I think pirating music should be legal, but I still find it to be immoral."

 

[rpfan2008]

That's because it's ONLY a legal argument.

Trying to make it into a moral argument is a logical fallacy and plays into the hands of the marketers at the RIAA/MPAA/Big Content.


Again incorrect because downloading is not unlawful. Uploading / distributing / transmitting / sharing is.

Don't you think it would be nice for every law to be mirroring morality?

To download music you need someone to upload it first, I find it hard to imagine when OP mentioned 'download' he meant only downloaders and not the entire illegal music distribution scenario.