Ethical to download pirated music?

[Inquisitor]

Copying the music is immoral because it denies the musicians right to their property, which is their only means of sustaining their life.

Copying music does not deny musicians the right to their property, it denies musicians the right to reproductions of their ideas; reproductions that were never in their possession to begin with. Similarly, reproductions of inventions or ideas such as spears, fires, fishing hooks, etc. do not entail theft of any kind. Ideas cannot be stolen because they never leave the possession of their owners.

A caveman would only have a right to the fire that he produced not the right to all fire ever produced.

A fire involves a specific reorganization of materials, just as all inventions do. If someone who invents a particle accelerator, under the statutes of intellectual property, has the right to prevent others from reproducing his invention- then the caveman should have the right to do the same with his creation. But this is, of course, ridiculous. You've already agreed with me in the above statement- by admitting that the caveman has a right to the fire he builds but not other fires. Similarly, an inventor has a right to his invention but not to reproductions of his invention, and the musician has a right to his music but not to reproductions of his music.

[m0zart]

Copying music does not deny musicians the right to their property, it denies musicians the right to reproductions of their ideas; reproductions that were never in their possession to begin with. Similarly, reproductions of inventions or ideas such as spears, fires, fishing hooks, etc. do not entail theft of any kind. Ideas cannot be stolen because they never leave the possession of their owners.

This is so out there I feel I have to ask a very basic question of you:

What do you believe is the moral basis for property rights in general. For the sake of argument, you may answer only on those types of property you actually accept.

Where does the right to property have its root ethical foundations?

[AshRyan]

Why are you guys engaging in debate with this idiot? He can clearly read what has already been said on the subject, and continues to make the same arguments that have already been discussed (and rejected), and adding new bad arguments of his own (such as the context-dropping cave-man argument--cave-men are not advanced enough to grasp the concept of rights, so it is not an issue for them anyway).

My recommendation is to simply ignore this guy. He is a troll. If he keeps making posts like this, I'm going to ban him anyway.

[Inquisitor]

He can clearly read what has already been said on the subject, and continues to make the same arguments that have already been discussed (and rejected)...

There is a key difference between addressing an issue and resolving it. Your arguments thus far have been inadequate; it is not enough that you make them. Moreover, none of my objections resemble anything else written on the thread. Perhaps you should read the text more carefully.

Your initial complaint was erroneous. No one thinks that downloading music is justified because the format is digital. Hence your point that music on a CD is also digital remains irrelevant. Downloading music is justified because it involves a reproduction of digital information- whereas stealing a CD takes the original information out of the owner’s possession.

...and adding new bad arguments of his own (such as the context-dropping cave-man argument--cave-men are not advanced enough to grasp the concept of rights, so it is not an issue for them anyway).

Well, you’re in disagreement with several prominent anthropologists. In any case, whether or not cavemen could grasp rights is utterly inconsequential. My point was that if all inventions and ideas were actual property items of their owners- then inventions such as fire, when reproduced, entailed theft. If this confuses you think of another simple invention: such as log-houses. Did the first pilgrim to build a log-house have the right to deny other pilgrims from building similar houses out of wood because “the idea was his first”?

Why are you guys engaging in debate with this idiot?....If he keeps making posts like this, I'm going to ban him anyway.

It’s really unbecoming of you to respond so emotionally. But if you can’t help but make childish threats and insults in response to rational discourse, I’ll leave myself.

[AshRyan]

It’s really unbecoming of you to respond so emotionally.

Actually, it wasn't an emotional response. The strongest emotion I feel toward people like you anymore is boredom.

But if you can’t help but make childish threats and insults in response to rational discourse, I’ll leave myself.

Please do.

[Trey Givens]

If I may, the reason that it is stealing to download copies of songs is, as it's been established, because it's intellectual property theft.

This distinction that those who download music aren't stealing because it's just a reproduction are failing to understand that the reproduction IS the idea itself.

Let's pretend I write something brilliant and you quote me.

It doesn't matter if you quote me in red ink, blue ink, or ink of any color or consistency. You're still quoting me and my ideas. The reproduction of those ideas is my property.

Now, it is important to note that there are reasonable limitations on when a proper [edit: 'legal'] case on the theft thereof can be made. No, the use of salt does not count nor the sharpening of sticks, that would be absurd.

May I recommend a review of the US copyright and patent law? It does an adequate job of addressing those limitations.

[poohat]

Calling copyright infringement 'stealing' is not only factually incorrect, but it reduces the notion of 'stealing' to a non-concept. Nothing is being 'stolen' when copyright is violated, and only sloppy thinking could result in that conclusion.

The fact that it isnt stealing doesnt automatically mean that its OK though. Murder isnt stealing either, but it does happen to be wrong.

[RadCap]

Force is contact with the person or property of another without that other's consent. Theft is a particular form of force. Specifically, it is a specific form of contact - possession - of another's property without that other's consent. Whether that contact - that possession - is with intellectual or physical property does not change the nature of that possession. It is still theft.

[poohat]

Force is contact with the person or property of another without that other's consent.  Theft is a particular form of force.  Specifically, it is a specific form of contact - possession - of another's property without that other's consent.  Whether that contact - that possession - is with intellectual or physical property does not change the nature of that possession.  It is still theft.

How can you take 'possession' of another person's sole right to copy material? That doesnt even begin to make sense

[Trey Givens]

Intellectual property theft involves the theft of ideas. It doesn't make sense to you because you're trying to treat ideas like they're concrete things that you could stuff into your pockets and obviously they aren't.

But what does it mean to steal someone's idea? It means that you're applying those ideas (listen listening to their music, reading their book, building their superlaserbeams) without their permission. They thought of it, not you. But you're acting like you did.

Remember the axiom of Consciousness. 'Consciousness is that of which one is conscious' and that includes ideas. So, if you become conscious of someone's ideas and then you apply them to your own action, which is how ideas are concretized - through action, without their permission you have committed intellectual property theft.

If this separation between ideas and action is permitted to grow wider then the result is at best laziness (I thought about doing it) and at worst some kind of crazy existentialism (I thought about doing it and that means I did do it).

[RadCap]

I must disagree with poohat. My statement makes perfect sense.

A copyright is a specific form of contract. It is a permission to possess and use a particular form of property. It is a specific PERMISSION to have contact with that property. WITHOUT that permission, NO ONE has the right to the intellectual property of another person (anymore than he has the right to any other property without permission). Any violation of that contract - ie any possesssion of that property without the permission of its owner, creator or discoverer - is theft.

To put it simply, if a particular property is NOT your creation or discovery, you have NO right to possess it. PERIOD.

This is the thing that everyone overlooks. Everyone treats the intellectual creations of other as if they are non-property - ie that they are NOT man-made, but undiscovered and thus unclaimed property. This is as far from reality as one can get.

To claim the right to use ANYONE's intellectual property WITHOUT their permission is to treat that individual as a SLAVE - as a person with NO rights who is the mercy of YOUUR whim.

Definitely NOT a rational position.

[Trey Givens]

I'm with you on this, RedHat. The only clarification that I would offer about it is that "possession" of ideas really just means that you're aware of them in your brain.

Theft of ideas can only be claimed when a person actually uses those ideas without permission.

In the case of music, it's not the being aware of the tune that makes it stealing, it's replaying the tune that makes it stealing. In the case of written intellectual property, stealing is the reprinting of it.

For example: none of us are stealing from Ayn Rand right now even though we have TONS of her ideas in our heads. But if we were to go and copy Atlas Shrugged then, we'd be stealing.

There is a horrible Argentinian writer name Jorge Luis Borges who wrote a short story about a man who tries to rewrite Don Quixote by trying to live just like Cervantes. He isn't successful on the whole, but does succeed at recreating portions of the book word-for-word on his own. (Borges writes that this version, even though it's word-for-word the same, it's better some how.)

This is obviously an absurd idea. But the question it begs is if in such a situation would that constitute intellectual property theft? Yes, because we know that the character had actually read Don Quixote, so it's likely he was reciting it from memory. However, if the guy had not heard of Don Quixote, but wrote the same exact book, it can't be claimed that he stole something but that he came up with the same idea independently by the effort of his own mind.

JK Rawling, author of the Harry Potter Books, and that guy who wrote The DaVinci Code find themselves making such a claim due to cases filed against them due to striking similarities in pre-existing works.

All that just to say what I said up front: theft of ideas can only be claimed when a person actually uses those ideas without permission.

[poohat]

A copyright is a specific form of contract.  It is a permission to possess and use a particular form of property. It is a specific PERMISSION to have contact with that property.

No it isnt, its a permission to create copies of something. I can have permission to possess and use a form of property (a CD for instance), without possessing the copyright of it.

To put it simply, if a particular property is NOT your creation or discovery, you have NO right to possess it. 

This seems like a bizarre claim - did you mean something else? You seem to be saying that my friend cannot give me a book, and that I cant buy a video from a second hand shop.

To claim the right to use ANYONE's intellectual property WITHOUT their permission is to treat that individual as a SLAVE - as a person with NO rights who is the mercy of YOUUR whim.

Definitely NOT a rational position.

This isnt really relevant, my point was relating to whether its theft, not whether its wrong. There seems to be a false dichotomy surrounding copyright infringement, where people believe that either "it is theft, and therefore wrong", or "isnt theft, and is therefore permissable". However, its perfectly possible for it to be not theft, and also wrong.

On a tangential note (regarding patents, not copyright. For the record I believe that copyright is morally proper (although not in its current legal form), but patents are generally wrong in the vast majority of cases), consider Atlas Shrugged. Imagine if, after researching it for the 10 years mentioned in the book (I think), Rearden was a month away from pouring the first batch of Rearden Metal when he received a letter from the government informing him that another company had independently discovered his formula, had poured a batch 6 months ago, patented it, and therefore Rearden would be jailed for patent infringement if he were to continue with his plans of producing his metal. Would this be 'justice'? Almost the entirity of patent law is based on the false premises that only one person is ever going to invent one thing. However in practice, independent discoveries of the same thing arent that uncommon. Granting someone a patent on their work, when it is fairly likely that others would have discovered the same thing over the course of the next 20 or so years, seems to not only incredibly unjust, but an initiation of force agasint other inventors since the government is preventing them from using the products of their mind on the sole basis that "someone else thought of it first!". This doesnt really apply so much to ideas that are truly revolutionary and are very unlikely to have been independently duplicated, but probably less than 1 in 1000 of current patents come anywhere close to meeting this criteria. Some of the ridiculous patents that have been granted regarding certain internet 'inventions' (in truth, almost all of them) does a nice job of highlighting the irrationality and anti-intellectualism of the current system.

[poohat]

This is obviously an absurd idea.  But the question it begs is if in such a situation would that constitute intellectual property theft?  Yes, because we know that the character had actually read Don Quixote, so it's likely he was reciting it from memory.  However, if the guy had not heard of Don Quixote, but wrote the same exact book, it can't be claimed that he stole something but that he came up with the same idea independently by the effort of his own mind.

This is why I think its so important to seperate the concepts of 'copyright' and 'patents', instead of lumping them together in the package-dealing anti-concept of "intellectual property". Patents and copyright are radically different in many ways, and its a fallacy of the highest order to talk about them together as if they were the one thing.

The main difference that applies here is that in the case of copyrightable material, the chances of independent invention is so low that it can be considered impossible for all intents and purpose. Noone is going to sit down and independtly rewrite Ulysses, or compose Ride of the Valkyries without having heard original. However, there is a far greater chance of them independently discovering something that has been patented (in fact, even artifically intelligent computer programs have independently discovered formulae that are currently patented. Says a lot about the alleged unduplicability of the original invention huh?).

[isaac]

As a person who sells his intellect to put food on the table, this issue is very close to my heart.

Inquisitor, you say that "nothing physical is taken from the author."

Frankly, that's bullshit. Money is physical, and when you download mp3s that you do not have the right to, you are stealing MONEY from the author.

If you create something, whether it is a physical object, or a unique idea such as a song or a computer program, it is yours by right. That means: you set the terms of use and disposal. You may trade it or give it away, keep it to yourself, or destroy it forever. If someone violates that right in any way, they they have committed an act of force against you - they have stolen what was yours by right.

What has a Napster user stolen from the artist who produced the songs that he downloads? you ask. "The data was copied, not taken."

I create a song. I say, "This song is mine by right. If you watn to copy it onto a physical medium, or listen to it whenever you want, you have to pay me $20." It is my right to say that. If you then copy that song onto a physical medium, without paying me, then you have stolen $20 that was mine by right, from my pocket.

If money is not "physical," then you won't mind sending all of yours to me, now will you? Please go to http://isaac.beigetower.org, click on the PayPal button, and copy some of that nonphysical goodness right into my bank account. Thanks.

(And can someone please ban this communist hippie thief? Thanks.)

Isaac Z. Schlueter

[poohat]

Money is physical

No it isnt. Some representations of money are semi-physical (eg dollar bills), but money as a concept is purely abstract. Money (in its current form) is little more than an unbackable promise from the government.

when you download mp3s that you do not have the right to, you are stealing MONEY from the author.

That only applies if youre downloading it instead of buying it. I could go on some filesharing network right and randomly download 10 things that looked interesting. No 'money' would have been stolen from the creators since I had no intention of buying them anyway (and indeed probably hadn't even heard of most of them before. I'd wager that in most cases of copyright infringement, the perpetrator wouldnt have bought the original had he not been able to download it (Is anyone seriously going to go out and buy 10 gigabytes worth of music). Obviously this doesnt make copyright infringement permissable, but it does mean that you cant really say "downloading stuff automatically equals lost money"

[RadCap]

No it isnt, its a permission to create copies of something. I can have permission to possess and use a form of property (a CD for instance), without possessing the copyright of it.

The ONLY way a person can PROPERLY possess physical property which contains intellectual property is by right of BOTH the intellectual property iwner AND the physical property owner. BUT, since the physical property owner CANNOT validly possess the intellectual property without FIRST acquiring the PERMISSION to put that intellectual property ON (or in or whatever) his own physical property, it is the intellectual property owner who dictates how BOTH are used via his specific permission. To claim that one can possess a physical property which contains intellectual property WITHOUT the permission of the intellectual property owner, is to claim that STOLEN property is not one's concern, so long as you were not the ORIGINAL thief.

Hopefully poohat does not consider THAT a valid argument (though nothing would surprise me there).

The above ALSO explains why one can give a book to his friend or buy a video from a second hand shop. In general, an author or video producer provides others with the permission to pass on ownership of the specific physical property which contains the intellectual property. (I say 'in general' because that author or video producer, as owner of the intellectual property, MAY specifically DENY permission of such transfers in his permission statement to the physical property owner, who in turn must make that same stipulation to the purchaser of the physical property. I believe many software companies make such provisions in their permission statements. In such cases one may NOT loan a book or buy a video from a second hand shop.) This is also why one may loan a book to someone else. Unless specified otherwise, an individual is allowed to dispose of the physical property as he sees fit, so long as he does not violate the permisssions which were given as conditions of the trade.

--

Without going into poohat's use of the term discovery, his notion that the first person to actually create a thing should not have sole right to that thing is mere whim-sy. It is envy as morality. AR dealt with this quite specifically in her essay on the topic. Poohat and others can read it for themselves.

All of that is akin to saying "Two people were looking for this new property. One got to it first. It is UNFAIR that he should be the SOLE owner just because of luck or whatever other reason you want to ascribe to the reason one 'discovered' that land before the other. As such, BOTH should have right to the property. That is the only egali - I mean FAIR - thing to do. In fact, by DENYING the latecomer the same right of ownership to the property as the actual discoverer, the govt is really initiating force AGAINST that latecomer. This is irrational!!!"

There certainly IS irrationality involved. But it is on the part of those claiming all should have right of ownership regardless of who actually created or discovered it first. Again, if anyone disagrees, read ARs article on the subject. And if anyone wants to talk about it further, put it in a DIFFERENT thread.

--

"Some representations of money are semi-physical (eg dollar bills), but money as a concept is purely abstract. Money (in its current form) is little more than an unbackable promise from the government."

There is equivocation and misunderstanding of the concept money in poohat's statement. Properly, money is simply another commodity which is traded. It is the INTERMEDIATE commodity (usually, but not limited to, gold) in a TRIANGULAR *trade*.

Instead of having to go through the complicated process of finding someone who needs the exact commodity you produce, who in turn produces the exact commodity you need, an intermediate exchange is made for a commodity which everyone is willing to accept for their own product.

It is important to note that ANYTHING can be the intermediate commodity for transactions. However, there are reasons specific commodities are accepted by most people. Take gold for instance. It combines the qualities one needs as an intermediate commodity - or, as it is otherwise called, a medium of exchange - better than almost any other commodity.

It has a high measure of acceptability for its own sake.

It has a great value with small bulk, so it's easily carried in pockets or easily shipped from place to place.

It isn't perishable. It doesn't rot like eggs, evaporate like alcohol, or rust like iron. In other words, it keeps permanently.

It doesn't vary in quality, like wheat, potatoes, or meat. One part of it is as valuable, weight for weight, as any other part.

It's easily divisible. It can be cut into any desired size without losing it's value.

It's easily recognized, so it isn't easily imitated.

And - it has stability of value. Each year's production is usually small compared to the accumulated stock.

These are all reasons why gold makes an excellent intermediate commodity.

Now, as to 'paper money', properly it is simply a RECIEPT for a specific amount of this intermediate commodity. It can easily be traded between individuals without having to lug around a few pounds of the actual commodity. This is perfectly fine means of transaction. There is nothing "semi-physical" or semi ANYTHING about it.

As to govt usurpation from private individuals of the making of these receipts - and the subsequent refusal to print these receipts in the same quantity as the commodity those receipts are SUPPOSED to itemize - they are simply fraud and theft. They are not 'abstract' anythings

And of course this has absolutely NOTHING to do with copyrights or the legitimate claims that money is being denied to the producers of intellectual property when it is possessed by those who do not have permission to possess them.

If one possesses physical property without the owner's permission (ie steals it), among other things, one denies denies the owner the specific value he demands in trade for that physical property.

If one possesses intellectual property without the owner's permission (ie steals it), among other things, one denies denies the owner the specific value he demands in trade for that intellectual property.

And, if one possesses physical property which contains intellectual property without both owner's permission (ie steals it), among other things, one denies both owner the specific value they each demand in trade for the intellectual and physical properties.

Again, if this topic is deemed worthy of discussion, do so in ANOTHER thread.

Edited March 11, 2004 by RadCap

[ex_banana-eater]

I have a question about renting DVDs, barrowing library CDs, etc. Would it be immoral to copy them, for example, onto your harddrive? (or anywhere) for use later on. From what I understand, the morallity of posessing the intellectual property is only as long as the agreement you made, ie: with the library. Is this true?

Thanks AshRyan for the explanation before.

[Betsy]

I have a question about renting DVDs, barrowing library CDs, etc. Would it be immoral to copy them, for example, onto your harddrive? (or anywhere) for use later on.

It's not only immoral, it's illegal too.

From what I understand, the morallity of posessing the intellectual property is only as long as the agreement you made, ie: with the library. Is this true?

Not true. The library has the right to use and dispose of that particular book or DVD. It can sell it or lend it to anyone, destroy it, etc. The library doesn't have the right to make another copy and it can't give that right to you.

The reason is that the right to copy intellectual property belongs to the creator who is the true owner of all physical embodiments of his ideas, music, words, voice, performance, etc. He says who may copy, buy, sell, and lend his work.

[danielshrugged]

Betsy,

I think the law is more complicated than that. I found this in a FAQ on a website called Copyright for Music Librarians:

"Recent legislation (P.L. 102-563) has allowed for personal duplication of sound recordings for private, noncommercial use (see, for example, H.R. Rep. 102-780, pt. 1, p. 20)." ( http://www.lib.jmu.edu/org/mla/faq/fair%20...0Use.asp?node=9 )

See also http://www.lib.jmu.edu/org/mla/FAQ/Fair%20...%20Excerpts.asp

It is the policy of the music library at my own college to allow for copying of CDs; however, all copied material must be deleted at the end of the academic year. I do not know what the basis in law of this policy is.

As for the basis of this law in intellectual property rights, I'm not sure. I think one can make the argument that it is implicit in the contract, when the owner sells to a library, that some limited copying will happen.

[danielshrugged]

Just a note: I object to parts of the second link I gave above, as well as to many other parts of the MLA website. They want to ground copyright law in the promotion of the general welfare, which is obviously wrong. However, what they are pointing to in the law is actually there--and I think there is some rational basis for it.

[Betsy]

I think the law is more complicated than that.

While I stated the general principle, the actual statute is complicated. There are provisions for the owner making personal copies as backup, "fair use" when quoting in book reviews or scholarly research, "educational use" exceptions, and many other exceptions and restrictions.

Presumably, the author of the work agrees to this when he copyrights his work, but since he must agree if he wants his work protected at all, it may not always work out that way. For instance, the copyright law was revised during Ayn Rand's lifetime. While there were changes in the law that she liked, including the extension of the copyright period, one proposed part of the law really got her angry. They were thinking of putting something in the law to allow "public broadcasting" to use or adapt a work without the author's consent. Ayn Rand swore she would destroy all her work rather than see it used that way. Fortunately, that provision was not in the final law.

[nimble]

i know how to solve this problem. If he doesnt see anything wrong with downloading music, then he wouldnt mind the host of this site giving his IP address to the RIAA. The host should have it. I get all the IPs of those who visit my site. That should solve this little debate. I think you even get a cash reward for turning in IP addresses.

[AshRyan]

i know how to solve this problem. If he doesnt see anything wrong with downloading music, then he wouldnt mind the host of this site giving his IP address to the RIAA. The host should have it. I get all the IPs of those who visit my site. That should solve this little debate. I think you even get a cash reward for turning in IP addresses.

Well, that doesn't address the principles involved, it's just an argument from intimidation.

[nimble]

no but it shuts him up. why argue with someone who wont recognize the principles behind his own argument? Does it serve you to argue with someone who is irrational. you dont need him to agree with you, because you are right. He needs everyone to agree with him in order to let him "get away with it." So lets stop the pointless argument that has no rational basis, and lets not let him get away with it. Turn the kid in.