Ethical to download pirated music?

[miz astrid]

Wull you're not exactly being explicit about what you've done. So let me sum it up and see if I get the point: you've illegally copied music without paying the required license fee. If you do that knowingly, it's immoral and evil. If you do it accidentally, you can be forgiven but of course you should do whatever you can to make amends.

Arguments like "I'm not making a profit" or "I can't find a legal source for the CD" simply don't cut it. Your concern with locating the artist is misplaced -- you should be looking for the copyright holder, who I would bet is not the artist. The artist probably got a bunch of money for the transfer of rights, and if that's the case, the artist is now irrelevant.

I do wish more companies would get on board with the idea of electronic re-releases of older items, but their failure to accomodate my wants is not a justification of taking their property.

Well, I suppose I've been immoral and evil then, although that certainly wasn't my intent. I have thought about it a lot and discussed it with a few people, but was never able to determine if it was immoral or not. Which is difficult - I much prefer to judge something as right or wrong, but this has confounded me which is why I'm here asking your opinions. My line of thinking really has been that if the copyright holders, generally tiny record labels that went out of business [and often run by an artist that produces music for that label,] thought they could make money by re-releasing these tracks they certainly would. But then if they could make money in the underground dance music niche they wouldn't have gone out of business in the first place. But just because they went under doesn't mean they didn't release fantastic music, and to me the fact that they went under doesn't imply that they don't want that music to be heard and shared. I did try and explain the anomaly of this niche - a huge part of DJing is sharing the music you love with other people in an environment where they can dance, while combining different tracks to make completely new and different songs for brief moments in time [or not so brief if you happen to record it.] I am going to see if I can track down some people more in the know than myself who could enlighten me a bit. I honestly think that the dynamic of this particular niche of the music industry is very different from the rest, but perhaps I am wrong. Or perhaps ultimately it isn't relevant to the issue and y'all can make me realize that.

[ian]

The description you give of how DJs create their music (by taking bits of other tracks and mixing them) is I think analagous to the process of creativity in general. People take existing ideas and tweak them and hack around with them a bit until they come up with something new.

This is where lawmakers have to be careful. They put IP laws in place to ensure a reward for the creator and thus encourage creativity. But if they make them too strict, the laws make it too hard to hack around with existing ideas, and thus discourage creativity.

There needs to be a balance: one that identifies when someone has truly made something new. For example someone who makes something called the "ePod" which is just like an iPod except the wheel is on the top and the screen is on the bottom must be prosecuted. But a DJ who takes existing tracks and mixes them in such a way to make something sufficiently different from the starting product, needs to be able to do that.

I think once in the context of scientific discovery, someone asked Ayn Rand whether we can truly claim individual acheivement, when all our inventions are built on the work of the past. She said (paraphasing) that we can, because just because we don't start from zero, doesn't mean that the advances we do make are not real. I think if your DJ track is enough of step beyond what the starting tracks were, you can legitimately claim it is your individual achievement and property, even though you started with copyrighted stuff.

[DavidOdden]

Well, I suppose I've been immoral and evil then, although that certainly wasn't my intent.

So what I think you should focus on is the basic moral question, which is that "property is property, not contingent property". The guy who creates a tune has a right to that product of his mind. It doesn't matter if he is an evil swine, a struggling artist, doing this as a hobby, really rich or really poor. Property is property. As property, that means it's yourse to dispose of as you see fit -- you can give it away, not let anyone see it, start your own label and try to make a buck, or sell it to someone who can do the marketing for you. You can transfer your property rights to anyone else, because property is property. You can decide not to let anyone copy your tune, because property is property, and you don't need to justify your decisions.

I generally preach that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but in fact there are or have been reasonable excuses in the form of "knowing" untruths about the law because of misstatements and downright lies about copyright law. In fact I've encountered this problem more than once with very well educated people who don't or didn't know the law about "fair use", and having consulted with real IP attorneys on a couple of points in my professional life, those guys don't really know what the truth is. So maybe you've gotten sucked into a fair use myth spinning out of control (a popular myth is "if it's not for profit, it's okay").

[Groovenstein]

My line of thinking really has been that if the copyright holders, generally tiny record labels that went out of business [and often run by an artist that produces music for that label,] thought they could make money by re-releasing these tracks they certainly would. But then if they could make money in the underground dance music niche they wouldn't have gone out of business in the first place. But just because they went under doesn't mean they didn't release fantastic music, and to me the fact that they went under doesn't imply that they don't want that music to be heard and shared.

Remember, though, that just because a business goes under doesn't mean that its assets vanish. They'll go to creditors, partners, or someone else. Perhaps by now the artist exercised his statutory right to terminate the transfer, perhaps not. Unless it's public domain (not likely), someone owns it. If you want to find out who, start by seeing if it's registered with the Copyright Office, and then follow your nose.

[DavidOdden]

I think if your DJ track is enough of step beyond what the starting tracks were, you can legitimately claim it is your individual achievement and property, even though you started with copyrighted stuff.

The relevant consideration here is whether you have copied the original stuff without permission. If you have, you have violated copyright law and violated the copyright-owner’s property rights. It would not matter that you had added a lot of new stuff of your own: what matters is whether you’ve included any amount of somebody else’s property. As the French say, a teaspoon of sewage in a vat of wine gives you a vat of sewage. However, you may mentally extract “the idea” and give that idea a different specific expression: because, copyright protects the specific expression and not the underlying idea. This is well beyond remixing, and be cautious -- see Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton.

Matt know all about music law, so he should speak to the question of DJs; AFAIK, though, buying a CD does not automatically give you the right to use it in a public performance. See 17 USC 106 the gist of which is that the copyright owner retains control over the right to public performances (unlike playing a CD at home). I would say that a DJ who wants to take existing tracks and rearrange them for a public performance needs to get a performance license, no matter how different his final product is going to be. The fact of making a remix does not excuse the fact that it it copying the underlying music and messing with it. You can do that, as long as you have permission, so why not just get permission? That allows the DJ to be creative, and still respects the rights of the copyright owner. (Sidenote: I mistakenly bought a Huunhuurtu remix, and I cannot believe they allowed that butchery to take place. I consider that CD to be egregious initiation of force against me).

[Groovenstein]

. . . buying a CD does not automatically give you the right to use it in a public performance. See 17 USC 106 the gist of which is that the copyright owner retains control over the right to public performances (unlike playing a CD at home). I would say that a DJ who wants to take existing tracks and rearrange them for a public performance needs to get a performance license, no matter how different his final product is going to be.

You are right. Buying the CD gives you a possessory interest in the CD itself, and that's it. (Reselling the CD would be a violation of the copyright owner's right of distribution were it not for the first sale doctrine.)

The DJ who takes existing tracks and rearranges them has violated the copyright owner's 106(2) right to create derivative works, defined in 101 as follows:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

[Solid_Choke]

Many people ask the question: "Would you steal someone's car if it was as easy as downloading music?"

But a more correct version of the question would be: "Would you copy someone's car if it didn't destory or even effect the original car?"

I think downloading a song is probably immoral, but I don't for one second think it is the same thing as stealing a physical CD from Best Buy. What about lending your friend a CD? What if instead of lending him the physical CD you sent him a copy of a legally purchased song from iTunes via e-mail? Too me it seems slightly more complicated then simply being the same as stealing a CD from Best Buy. Just a few questions to think about...

Edited September 7, 2006 by Solid_Choke

[Lathanar]

Many people ask the question: "Would you steal someone's car if it was as easy as downloading music?"

But a more correct version of the question would be: "Would you copy someone's car if it didn't destory or even effect the original car?"

I think downloading a song is probably immoral, but I don't for one second think it is the same thing as stealing a physical CD from Best Buy. What about lending your friend a CD? What if instead of lending him the physical CD you sent him a copy of a legally purchased song from iTunes via e-mail? Too me it seems slightly more complicated then simply being the same as stealing a CD from Best Buy. Just a few questions to think about...

This has been asked an answered in here a couple times, but it's a long thread. Basically, no matter how you cut it, you are gaining value from the efforts of another without just compensation.

[Galt Aureus]

So awesome. You guys rock so hard. You have no idea how often this argument comes up and how mindless people usually are about it. It's just excellent to hear that at least some people get it. We just spent a couple thousand hours and a few thousand dollars in order to put out our album and it is frustrating to think that people will just steal it after all that work.

Anyway, you all are restoring my faith in the human's ability to use reason day by day. I'm so glad I found this place.

Cheers for setting those knuckle heads straight. ;]

Rock on!

[RationalBiker]

We just spent a couple thousand hours and a few thousand dollars in order to put out our album and it is frustrating to think that people will just steal it after all that work.

[sarcasm Mode: On] Careful now, people might think you're greedy if you want to profit from your labor. Don't you know you have a duty to produce music for them at a price they think is fair and if you don't then they have a right to take it without paying you at all? C'mon now, don't go placing your reason above their whim. [sarcasm Mode: Off]

Seriously though, this is such an uphill battle with some folks.

[softwareNerd]

I might be wrong, but I'd venture a guess that many who would steal from a big-time artist might be more hesitant to steal from a little band.

[Galt Aureus]

I might be wrong, but I'd venture a guess that many who would steal from a big-time artist might be more hesitant to steal from a little band.

But you do realize that it doesn't make a bit of difference, right? I fear the day that we begin paying for goods based on the seller's need rather that the quality of the product. I can see it now... the most popular item will be an alien detector made of paper clips and newspaper sold to us by our friendly neighborhood homeless people. Would you like one?

[sarcasm Mode: On] Careful now, people might think you're greedy if you want to profit from your labor. Don't you know you have a duty to produce music for them at a price they think is fair and if you don't then they have a right to take it without paying you at all? C'mon now, don't go placing your reason above their whim. [sarcasm Mode: Off]

Lol... nice. Yeah, I forgot all about that. And how I should be living my life strictly for others. Damn... I can never remember those two things. Silly me.

Cheers all!

Peace.

[softwareNerd]

But you do realize that it doesn't make a bit of difference, right?

Yes, I do.

I fear the day that we begin paying for goods based on the seller's need rather that the quality of the product.

I would fear such a day too, but I don't think we're headed there.

[Groovenstein]

I might be wrong, but I'd venture a guess that many who would steal from a big-time artist might be more hesitant to steal from a little band.

In my experience, you're right. I've sold our CDs to a chunk of people I know who say they have no problem downloading from the big bad major labels, but they don't mind paying us because we're "independent" and "small," and because our CDs "aren't too expensive."

The one that really amuses me is when they say that the major labels put out so much crap. They chastise the companies that want $20 for a CD with one or two good songs on it. Yeah, um, no. First of all, if it's such crap, why do you see the need to steal it? Second of all, if you only like one or two songs, why are you buying the CD for $20 instead of buying those one or two songs for $1 or $2? Oh, the lame rationalizations.