1

Actually this is quite a bit more complex then that. Back in the day when I would come home from chiseling clay tablets in school, I would put some of my vinyl albums on my turntable hook up my casstte recorder and copy the songs to a casstte. And horror of horrors sometimes I would give a copy to a friend. All prefectly legal, and legal to this day. So now lets say I do the same thing but do it via the web, it's illegal.
While I understand the intellectual property issue, I also know that no body in the record industries pays for thier music, it's all comp'ed.
In addition studies, possibly not very rigoriusly scientific one grant you, show that the people who do the most on line trading also BUY the most music.
This is confirmed by Glenn Reynolds experence with his wife's book where the Amazon price for a used copy went UP when she put it on line for free. Heck Baen books gives books away free on line all the time. The last two Baen books I got from the library even had CD's with the complete book, plus extras, in them and were labeled that you could copy just not SELL the disk. Baen is one of the few publishing houses making money. Thousands of musicians make money by putting their music up, in part, on line to build an audience.
I make 36500 a year, I read two books a week average. I get most from the library, am I robbing the authors?
I don't have an answer but I honesty have to question if file swapping on line is that much of a problem for the music industry. As opposed to boring formualstic manufactured music. I can't find a Webb Wilder or Austin Lounge Lizard CD at Best Buy, or some of those vinyl albums either. But I can find four feet of Brittney, or the latest boy group.
Just some thoughts

2

File sharing IS a problem for the music industry, which is fine with me. The idea of copyright laws are to prevent person B profiting from the intellectual property of person A. As long as people aren't downloading, burning and selling albums, I don't see a problem with sharing free music. What this will do in the long term is reduce the cultural influence of record companies and force artists to support themselves in different ways (more live shows, etc.). Hard to say for sure, but I think it'll be a good thing.

3

Shawn,

All perfectly legal, and legal to this day. So now lets say I do the same thing
but do it via the web, it's illegal.

Let’s first look at why copying to a blank tape is legal. In order to compensate the copyright owners from the inevitable piracy that will occur, a tax is placed on blank tapes which is then passed on to the copyright holder. It is only legal because there is a means to procure some of the monies lost through this form of “theft.”

Downloading music from the Internet, however, is different. Where before I could buy one vinyl record and copy it to tape, I still had to buy the tapes and therefore pay the tax. The cost of production also limited the number of copies that would be produced. But now I can buy a single CD, put in on my computer to be downloaded and send it to millions of people without any compensation being returned to the copyright holder.

While I understand the intellectual property issue, I also know that no body in
the record industries pays for their music, it's all comp'ed.

This is a weak argument against theft. Even if the record industry stole the music from the artist and put in on the Internet themselves it would still not make it right for others to do so.

In addition studies, possibly not very rigorously scientific one grant you,
show that the people who do the most on line trading also BUY the most music.

This is irrelevant to whether it is either illegal or moral to download music. If it could be shown that thieves or looters spend more money on consumer goods than the rest of us it would still not justify their crimes.

I make 36500 a year, I read two books a week average. I get most from the
library, am I robbing the authors?

No, because the library purchased the book and loaned it to you on a temporary basis. The library has a direct one-to-one correlation between the number of books they have purchased and the number of copies that they have to loan out. No library is taking the book, producing thousands of copies, and then making those illegal copies available to the public.

I don't have an answer but I honesty have to question if file swapping on line
is that much of a problem for the music industry.

Again, it isn’t a matter of whether it is a problem for the industry. If someone steals a case of Pepsi it isn’t going to affect the price of Pepsico stock. Yet it’s still theft. The problem isn’t so much an economic one as a moral issue. Is theft wrong or isn’t it? That, I believe, is what is at stake.

4

Andy,

I don't see a problem with sharing free music.

But the music isn't free. Someone had to write the lyrics, record the album, and distrute it. They produced the work by their own labor. I'm sure that you expect to be compensated for the fruits of your labor so why shouldn't the same apply to the holder of a copyright?

I'm disturbed by the socialist rationale that intellectual property should be free as long as you're not profiting from the piracy.

5

Shawn, I would like to respond to several of your contentions because I think that they are incorrect. Before I do, however, I would like to say that downloading a music file off the Internet is not stealing. It is a copyright violation. Although many people have equated the two, especially copyright owners, as an IP lawyer I feel that I need to make the distinction. I do not, however, do any work related to online music or video distribution.

Point 1: I used to make copies of my vinyl onto cassette and share it with my friends. How is that different?

The main difference is that the Internet allows lossless copying at a grand scale. With a cassette player, you make limited copies and give those copies to your friends. While that was probably a copyright violation as well, you could only give it to (at most) ten friends. With the Internet, you can share that song with thousands of people that you don't even know. Also, the quality of the copy does not degrade per each copy. Thus, you have the ability to spread many high quality copies to many people. That did not happen with your cassette copies of vinyl.

Point 2: No one in the music industry pays for their music so why should I?

People in the music industry do pay for their own music. Their is a large system of comps to promote artists. You cannot give away free copies to everyone, however. Thus, the music industry gives away a limited number of copies of music to people who they have some degree of control over. These are generally the people who are also in the best position to promote the music.

Point 3: People who do the most trading do the most buying.

The studies were not rigerous. The theoretical question is what happens when more than just computer hackers can trade music. Now, any 13-year old cheerleader can download music and avoid paying for it.

Point 4: Authors (such as Mrs. Reynolds) put their work online and increase their sales.

The book market is very different than the music market. People like to read bound books made out of paper. They do not like reading books on their computers. Thus, they will print out a book if they find it interesting from reading bits of it online. It is not economical for them to print the entire book on a printer, and then get the book bound. However, it is economical for them to download music that they like, and burn it to a CD. People, in general, do not buy music CDs for its packaging, but for the actual music contained on the CD. Also, Mrs. Reynold's book was not necessarily being bought entirely because of its content, but also because it was a collectors item.

The point about libraries follows. In general, people want to have their own copy of a book that they can read. Thus, libraries, in general, do not reduce the amount of money that an author makes.

Point 5: Current promoted music sucks.

I agree. Thus, you should do what you can to purchase the music from the musicians that you like, so that they can afford to continue to be musicians. If you are copying something from the Internet, you should buy it. If it is not any good, then you wouldn't download it and you shouldn't buy it.

6

Joe, I think that the inherent value of a musician's labor is bound to decline. I can copy a writer's article off the web, keep it on my computer and read it as many times as I want. If I like the author's work, I return to the site, thereby supporting his/her effort. This leads directly to profits for the author/publisher as they sell advertising, etc.

The question is whether a similar model in the music biz will cause a decline in the quality of music on a large scale. Initially it probably will, but in the long term it just means that musicians will have to work harder to earn their keep, ultimately improving the art form. On the flip side, if artists are forced to provide a continuous stream of new material to keep themselves afloat, the reverse could take effect.

I guess I'm just not ready to jump onto the 'downloading = stealing' wagon yet.

7

I guess I'm just not ready to jump onto the 'downloading = stealing' wagon yet.

With all due respect, Andy, its not exactly a matter of opinion. Stealing is when you take something that doesn’t belong to you without paying for it. What is taken -- whether its cash, a product, a service, or the fruits of a person’s labor -- makes no difference. If you download music that was not intended by the artist to be distributed freely, then you are stealing.

The question is whether a similar model in the music biz will cause a decline in the quality of music on a large scale.

That’s not the question at all. The business model is irrelevant. What it comes down to is an issue of morality. People will do just about anything to rationalize doing what they want to do. Downloading is stealing. When you look at the facts it isn’t hard to see that. But its easier to try to find a way to justify taking what isn’t ours than it is to do the right thing and simply pay for it.

8

Joe, the RIAA lobbies aggressively for restrictions on PC usage and ownership. Not to mention research. Read about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 which was signed into law by Clinton and was a bipartisan effort. The check out the industry's propsed Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act. Some hilights to let you know what the copyright industries think of your private property rights:

It would:
-Make it a felony to disable any content restriction system built into your PC. If you want to hack your own hardware, federal agents could bust down your door and arrest you for this "crime."
-Mandate an industry-wide content restriction standard, that if a hardware or software product didn't support could not be legally sold in the US.

No control over your own PC Joe. Think about that. That's how much principled support for private property they have. They're concerned with protecting their petty trash, not your right to modify your own PC.

9

More like you shoplift in a store and get a misdemeanor, but you download music and get sued $100 million. While I don't condone music piracy, I think you're looking for a problem where one doesn't exist.

10

Joe,

Violating the copyright law is not theft. That's not to say that it is not wrong. In many circumstances it is unjust enrichment, but it is not theft. Thus, the issue is more complex than you think.

"Stealing is when you take something that doesn’t belong to you without paying for it." This is simply inaccurate. It is both too broad and too narrow. For example, even if I were to pay you, it still would be stealing to take something of yours without your consent. Thus, your definition is too narrow.

This also directly applies to copyright law. Copyright law at times imposes compulsory licenses. This is when a copyright owner is required by law to sell licenses and the fees are sometimes set by statutes. Does copyright law condone stealing?

The actual definition of theft is "intentionally and permanently depriving a person of his property without consent." Copyright law is not the law of theft but the law of government granted monopoly. For example, copyright law grants someone the right to control public performances of copyrighted material. Therefore, if copyright law is theft, then singing a popular song while you take the train to work is technically a violation of the copyright law. Another example, singing a hymn written less than 80 years ago in church "without paying for it" would be a technical copyright violation. Is that theft?

Despite the copyright owner's public campaign to convince people that a copyright violation is theft, it is not. In the law, there is the concept of malum prohibitum and malum in se. This idea is that some things are wrong in and of themselves, malum in se, and some are wrong because they are illegal, malum prohibitum. Copyright law is malum prohibitum.

Copyright law is a public policy not a moral principle. Interestingly, the public policy of copyright is set in the constitution of the US: "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" Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Many of your points are based upon the assumption that copyright law is malum prohibitum. Copyright law is not that simple morally.

11

JBP,

I'll concede that my definition of theft is lacking. In fact, I'll go even further and claim that from a legal standpoint there may be nothing at all wrong about downloading music.

But I'm more concerned with the moral rather than the legal aspects. You are right when you claim that "Copyright law is malum prohibitum." But the action of taking music when it has been made clear that the copyright holder does not want it in the public domain is "malum in se."

Copyright law may not be morally simple but the moral actions in question are: you don't take what you don't have a right to possess.

12

Joe,

As your point moves toward the idea of unjust enrichment, I agree. Nevertheless, this is a different moral principle than stealing.

Stealing is a fairly black and white moral issue. Unjust enrichment is not so black and white. In addition, stealing is one of the top ten sins according to exodus. An example will hopefully help. In Exodus 22:16, we learn the penalty for pre marital sex: "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her his wife." The penalty is a shotgun wedding and a fine. In Leviticus 20:10 we learn the penalty for adultery: "If {there is} a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Death! This is a big difference.

When you state that "you don't take what you don't have a right to possess." Would not this statement apply to both adultery and fornication? That statement while true misses some pretty important moral distinctions. Distinctions so important that the Bible thinks they are a matter of life and death.

First, copying songs does not deprive the owner of the ability to sell it to another person.

Second, copyright is a government granted monopoly. Copyright laws are more concerned with ensuring that the owner receive compensations where compensation is to be had than with any specific act of copying. From fair use to satire, there are lots of exceptions. For example, copyright law grants one the right to make derivative works. When a person wants to make fun of a work, however, the law allows the person to make such derivative work without paying a cent. Weird Al does not have to pay a cent to the authors he is parodying. Why? Because without such a rule, satires would almost never be made and the policy of Copyright is to encourage the making of art. Another example is fair use, while this is a bit simplistic, so long as one does not copy too much, it is frequently not even illegal to copy. The definition of "too much" is left to a judge.

What about if a person has bought a CD, lost it, and downloaded the songs to make another copy? It might be a technical violation, but it is not exactly unjust enrichment. The artist already received compensation.

This issue is not black and white, it is grey. Sure, some act, like making and selling copies of a work, are blatantly wrong, but copyright violations are not equivalent to theft.

13

I do have a problem with online piracy. I've said as much.

RIAA, however, are the classic modern day robber barons - using their monopoly on the business and their political connections to cheat artists wholesale. The existence and wrongness of piracy doesn't forgive RIAA's truly immense theft over the years.

So yeah, I was willing to suspend my distaste for piracy long enough to admire the idea of the Pepsi spot - especially one in support of a licensed service that will both pay royalties to artists AND contribute to the eventual decline of RIAA.

14

I would like to posit a few questions:

1. I recorded last year's Super Bowl when the Bucs played, in contravention of the statement that we have all memorized by now. (This broadcast is the property of the National Football League blah blah blah). Years on, I plan to replay it for family and fans. Where does the law stand here?

2. Engineers can hold a patent on a process or invention for something like nine years (that might not be quite right), whereas musicians' copyrights go out fifty. Why is this disparity OK?

3. One of my favorite CD's was ruined by the mechanical seat in my car. I attempted to download most of the songs to a blank CD, but didn't find many of them available. Is this a crime?

4. Most public libraries offer movies and music. Is it legal to make a cassette copy of a CD, or a VHS copy of a movie I've rented?

5. I wasn't aware that there is a special tax on blank VHS tapes, as Joe Carter asserts. Who gets the money from the tax? How does Wal Mart know what I'm going to copy, and how is it able to send the artist his money? I'd like some links that I can check this out.