Ethical to download pirated music?

[DavidOdden]

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.

There is a theory -- this is one of those things I've been told by The Suits -- that state educational institutions are not subject to copyright laws (I don't know if that would be relevant for you). This is not a theory that many universities are anxious to put to the test too overtly. What I find slightly surprising is how wildly many people in educational institutions over-interpret "fair use", as saying something like "as long as it's done by an academic institution, it's okay to give it away, you just can't make a profit". After all, it is okay for the library to lend copies for educational purposes and it is okay to make copies for educational purposes, so how could it be against the law to make educational copies of CDs as long as people can only use them personally, while they are at the educational institutuion? (Answer: that's why the lawyers make the big bucks).

[danielshrugged]

I attend a private college. I certainly don't think we over-interpret fair use. When we are recommended out-of-print translations, for example, my college pays the royalties for making the copies, even if it means our bookstore has to charge students 40 dollars for a 90 page photocopy.

[AshRyan]

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.

While I sort of agree with you in principle, I'm not sure exactly who you're talking about here. If you are talking about ex_banana-eater, he just asked a question, he didn't say that he downloads music and he didn't argue against the principles we have suggested. If you are talking about someone who participated in this thread nearly a year ago, well, they are probably not still around.

[nimble]

oh sorry. i didnt read the date, that the first post was made on. I have only been here for a week or so sorry.

[Spearmint]

What is the justification for having copyright remain intact after the death of the creator? I've never thought that this kind of copyright could be justified, and believe that work should enter the public domain around 10 years after the death of the original creator (ideally it would enter it as soon as they died, but I dont really want assassination to become a viable corporate policy).

[Praxus]

If you believe it is unjustified to have it last longer then their life time then why are you suggesting to have it last 10 years after their death?

Rather inconsistent. You are adressing a practicle concern instead of a philosophical one.

[nimble]

What is the justification for having copyright remain intact after the death of the creator? I've never thought that this kind of copyright could be justified, and believe that work should enter the public domain around 10 years after the death of the original creator (ideally it would enter it as soon as they died, but I dont really want assassination to become a viable corporate policy).

the justification is that that person owns it when they are alive. usually they will leave their copyrights to someone in their will. And if not, it goes to the company who helped produce it. It has to belong to someone. We are a country of property. Someone has to own it. And we should respect the creators right to choose who gets those rights after the creator is deceased. Alot of the times, the creator doesnt even have the rights you know. most of the time it is in the producing contract that the company holds all rights. Just thought i would help this out.

[John Galt]

I'm wondering if anyone can tell me what's wrong with downloading music that you haven't purchased? By what standard is it wrong?

(I hope I get the quote function to work correctly )

Maybe I'm being too simplistic, but the original question that started this post really worries me.

I'm assuming the unspoken statement that the music was not intended for free distribution by the owner of the copywrite.

What's wrong? Nothing... if taking your stuff out of your house when you are not there is not wrong. Or if you write the greatest book ever written (bet you can't wait for those royalty checks) - and then I scan each page at home and distribute your book on the internet free to anyone who wants it - if that's not wrong. Nothing's wrong... if hacking into a bank's computer and downloading other people's bank accounts into your account isn't wrong.

Am I too simple? Or does ease of theft make theft alright now?

[DavidOdden]

I'm assuming the unspoken statement that the music was not intended for free distribution by the owner of the copywrite.

...

Am I too simple? Or does ease of theft make theft alright now?

I have to say that the artists and record-sellers semi-witting contribute to the problem. I've encountered a number of tracks off of CDs which are legally downloadable (usually 1 per album), which is legitimate advertising. I assume that when Amazon posts a dowloadable sample, it is legal. But you don't see a lot of hoopla being made over how this is a special case, and this can easily lead the weak-of-morals to conclude that any free downloading of music is okay. It would be useful, IMO, if folks who post legal to download materials include some short statement that wards off the bad conclusion that music is intrinsically free for the stealing.

Your analysis is really dead on. Many people really do believe that what you pay for a book or CD is supposed to be based on the manufacturing costs of the physical object that you get from the manufacturer. So anything you download is necessarily free (minus your manufacturing costs in the form of a blank CD and an internet connection).

[argive99]

Also, Adam Mossoff recently posted an essay from a law review entitled "Is Copyright Property?" here.

I just finished reading Adam Mosoff's Law Review Article on private property rights. It is the most brilliant thing I have read on the subject. I highly reccommend it for anyone with a theoretical interest in the underpinnings of private property. Adam shows the development of a rational, individualistic approach to property starting way back in antiquity (Greece and Rome) and then progressing through the 17th, 18th, and 19th century European scholars (mostly British); Grotius, Pufendorf and Locke. He shows the influence these men had on the Founding Fathers and the general positive attitude of the legal and political culture towards private property. Adam then traces the debasement of private property starting in the late 19th and early 20th century with the "Progressive" legal theorists; Brandeis, Holmes, etc.. The individualist Lockean conception of property was replaced with the social relations "bundle theory" of property. Incursions into property rights have been increasing ever since.

Adam Mosoff's essay is a law review article so it is technical and it does not make specific referrence to Ayn Rand but her influence on it is everywhere. Of most interest will probably be Adam's discussion of intellectual property. He shows how it should be grounded in a rational theory of property rights and the modern reality that it is not.

This is a must read for any actual or aspiring law students.

[TheCerebro]

It seems many here are missing the issue, and simply responding to the concept of stealing with property rights.

The issue isn't "is stealing wrong?". We all agree that it is. The issue is "is copying stealing?"

When music is downloaded, no one suffers a direct loss to their current assests, but a potential loss to what might have benefited their future assests. No property is lost, but digital property is created in the form of a new file. Is this reproduction or robbery? Can it be robbery is their is no loss?

Doesn't a violation of someone's rights involve taking something from them, not independently creating a duplicate of what they have?

[nimble]

you are taking from them. Do you know what a copyright is? Well, if

theissue is copying wrong? then YES IT IS WRONG. YOU DO NOT HAVE

THECOPYRIGHT!!!!!! It is as simple as that. A copyright means that no

one but the one with the copyright has the RIGHT TO COPY in any way

shape or form without the copyright holder's permission. br

[Betsy]

A copyright means that noone but the one with the copyright has the RIGHT TO COPY in any way shape or form without the copyright holder's permission.

And more. It also means that the original author or performer is the owner of all physical embodiments of his ideas including bootleg copies made by others. A copy may only be sold with the owner's consent.

[xobject]

Listen guys, forget downloading...If one has a DVD-Recorder, one can download quality song-clips, or movies that are realyed on the tv.

Its a question of technology and what you can do with it. If someone doesn't earn much yet hears a soul-stirring song on mtv (highly-unlikely though) It would'n't be wrong for him to download a copy of it for personal use and relish it.

What is wrong is the delibration in the act i.e. intended hostility against the producer. Someone then would buy a original CD and then intentionaly put it to share with people on the internet.

Here comes the COPYRIGHT ISSUE...the moral one.

[MentzerLivesOn]

I would like to add that, as kind of a New Years resolution, I destroyed my collection of nearly 200 pirated CDs on Jan. 1. I used this as a final committment to reason and a formal statement of my full acceptance of Objectivism. I thank Mrs. Rand for all she has given me, including the ability to see the moral consequences of my extensive thievery.

[gadfly]

To download for free what most people have to pay for unless they steal the CD, should be enough to make someone stop, without first gaining the assurance of the companies involved that it is OK. I'm guessing downloaders have not secured that permission...? Yeah.

That should be as clear as that tapping into someone else's water service (which they pay for), or someone else's cable service (which the cable company has a right to be paid for), or somehow piping food out of their refrigerator or "beaming" away their furniture, or craftily siphoning off whatever else one may choose, are not all merely clever new technological methods of legitimately having fun or obtaining things one "needs" or "can't pay for right now" (rationalizations I have heard for why downloading copyrighted music is OK).

The issue here is property, and the terms on which it is exchanged. All these things, and music, are the property of a party, for example a music company, and does not belong to anyone else except by means that are voluntarily agreed upon by both parties. The distributor is allowed to sell the CD (which, ultimately, must be purchased from a record company) and the end-user has the right to listen to it. The mere fact that the music industry did not agree to pirate downloads is reason to stop; this alone makes it theft, because one is obtaining the item in a manner that circumvents the owner's rights.

The record companies (who bear the cost of producing the music) engage in a relationship with the artists and distributors to create and distribute the music and to provide it to the public by a means that allows them to operate as a business, and for all parties to make a living at it (which is the modern method of "survival"). To attempt to circumvent that is to undercut their means of making a living and surviving. This is the connection to life.

[gadfly]

What is wrong is the delibration in the act i.e. intended hostility against the producer. Someone then would buy a original CD and then intentionaly put it to share with people on the internet.

Here comes the COPYRIGHT ISSUE...the moral one.

So it's OK to steal a steak, as long as you are not being hostile to the grocery owner? Seems to me that theft is inherently hostile.

[gadfly]

I would like to add that, as kind of a New Years resolution, I destroyed my collection of nearly 200 pirated CDs on Jan. 1. I used this as a final committment to reason and a formal statement of my full acceptance of Objectivism. I thank Mrs. Rand for all she has given me, including the ability to see the moral consequences of my extensive thievery.

Good move - it's the right thing to do. And thank goodness some in the music industry finally got it through their incredibly thick skulls and started to partner with sombody to open legal download stores. Ever since Apple's site opened, I've been buying tunes one at a time and loving it.

[foofalah]

I laugh at "Objectivists" who try to rationalize stealing music on the basis that since they aren't taking a physical thing, it isn't stealing. See, they say that what they are taking is *nothing*. Yet it is still a value to them, a *something*. But if the value you are seeking doesn't exist, how can it still be a value?

In their minds, downloaded music both exists and doesn't. It exists because it is a value that will give them enjoyment. It doesn't exist because "it isn't physical".

You can't have it both ways.

But these people think you can. When it gives them pleasure, it's a value, an existent. When they defend their prerogative to take it for free, it's a nothing.

There's no valid philosophical argument that can justify that contradiction. Aristotle says: give it up.

If you want to be a materialist and a hedonist...fantastic, have a nice trip. Just don't pretend to be an Objectivist.

[Hangnail]

This makes me wonder then...

Does Objectivism support any limit to Intelectual Property? Our current copyright system limits the the owner's rights to 99 years (I believe), why 99? Why not 2 years or 1000 years? Or does Objectivism support an unlimited life for copyrighted works? What about patients? Is there a distinction between copyrighted property and a patent?

And I've also got another question on the subject, what about DRM technologies? For example, when I buy a song from iTunes, that song comes wraped in an encryption technology which prevents me from playing it on a device other than an Ipod. This means if I choose to purchase a device other than an Ipod in the future I will not retain the right to play these songs any longer. Or, in the unlikley event that Apple were to go out of buiness, no servers would exist to validate my right to use this music, therefore I would no longer be able to listen to this protected music. Do I have a right to circumvent this DRM process on songs I've purchased?

I apologize in advance if the answer to these questions are obviously stated somewhere else. I've read Objectivism, Atlas, Fountainhead, New Int., VoS, and Anthem and I've continued to struggle with answers to these questions.

Thus far, I've come to the following conclusions about IP without having other Objectivists to bounce these premises off. I'm curious if they will stand up to critisizm.

1. Copying music that is not paid for is wrong.

2. Lobbying the government to extend copyright laws every 10 years seems wrong, it seems to violate the terms of a contract we all agree to when we decided to protect copyrighted works.

3. DRM technology is wrong because it limits my ability to use and dispose of my property in any way I see fit, as long as I don't distribute copies of that property to others. Therefore I am within my rights to circumvent DRM for my own purposes. (ie. to take a song I've purchased in Itunes and convert it to MP3 so I can use it on a linux machine that I also own.)

[Bowzer]

This makes me wonder then...

Does Objectivism support any limit to Intelectual Property?  Our current copyright system limits the the owner's rights to 99 years (I believe), why 99?  Why not 2 years or 1000 years?  Or does Objectivism support an unlimited life for copyrighted works?  What about patients?  Is there a distinction between copyrighted property and a patent?

Objectivism is a philosophy. Those are legal issues. Of course, philosophy is the regulator of the special sciences and Objectivism supports intellectual property rights but that's about as much as philosophy says.

[Hangnail]

Objectivism is a philosophy. Those are legal issues. Of course, philosophy is the regulator of the special sciences and Objectivism supports intellectual property rights but that's about as much as philosophy says.

hmmm... it seems that there is a lot of gray here when it comes to concepts like DRM technology and copyright extensions. Personally, I fully support that there is no such thing as gray... so logic should lead to an aswer on this subject after carefully considering all the context, but eliminating the gray takes effort.

To me circumventing DRM is a question of right and wrong. Does the copyright owner retain a right to determine how I can dispose of property once I have purchased it from him/her? To be honest, I don't know. When I'm confronted with issues of right and wrong, I try to find those answers in my philosiphy. Is that not the right approach here?

[y_feldblum]

There is a vast difference between gray and complexity. There are no gray facts and there are no gray principles. But oftentimes, applying principles to facts becomes very complex. This is true, for example, in law.

[Zirjin]

This actually is my field since I work on DRM technology for a living.

The key to understanding DRM is understanding the nature of what you are purchasing.

You are not purchasing the physical medium that it comes on, a blank CD is useless if you want to listen to mozart for example.

What you are gaining access to, is the content or information on the CD. That information is not sold to you. What you are essentially buying, is permission to access that data to be able to listen to the song or watch the movie or whatever.

When you purchase that permission to access it, it is on the terms of the purchase contract that is made at the point of sale.

Breaking the DRM, violates those terms of the permission that you have, so it is a violation of the intellectual property rights of the reseller / author.

[Marc K.]

For everyone's edification there are two other good threads on intellectual property in the Political Philosophy Forum:

The Concept of Property

Intellectual Property