Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ethical to download pirated music?

Rate this topic


Guest Marshall Sontag

Recommended Posts

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?

No, you do not have a right to circumvent the DRM process on songs you have purchased. When you buy a product it is offered to you on the terms of whomever is providing it and you have the choice to accept those terms and buy the product, or reject them and go elsewhere. If you believe that Apple is likely to go out of business or that you will purchases a device other than an Ipod in the future then those considerations should be weighed into the equation of whether or not to buy Itunes (or other DRM processed songs for other devices) before you make the purchase.

...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.)

Again I would ask, by what standard is DRM technology wrong?

You said to use and dispose of my property in any way I see fit but you are forgetting that by buying that property you are agreeing to contractual terms it is provided under (for example that a DRM processed product can only be used on specific devices). Purchasing something is conditional upon the terms of the seller and whether or not the buyer is willing to accept those terms. Caveat emptor.

Edit: I just read the rest of this thread and Michael pretty much said what I said. And also, hi Michael, I didn't know you were on OO.net - I'm happy to see you here! B)

Edited by Elle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I accept the fact that downloading music is wrong.

But I am allowed to make copies of my CDs (whether ripped onto my computer or burnt onto a blank CD) for myself only, correct?

Therefore, if my friend asked for me to burn him something, I would simply lend him the actual paid copy of the CD, and not a burnt copy, ever?

And the same would go for my sister, who happens to live in the same house as I do?

And what about rare songs and music videos and TV shows that were recorded or taped, things that you aren't able to buy?

Isn't the basic principle is that you can only use what you have bought? (with that phrasing, how could I disagree? :thumbsup: )

What about TIVO? How does that work? Isn't it a stealing machine?

If one has illegal mp3’s, one should destroy them immediately, even if one wants to listen to them to see if one wants to purchase them, correct?

If you stole something from someone, you would return it to him or her or pay him or her the value you stole from him or her, correct? So should everyone that has illegally downloaded music attempt to pay back every artist he or she stole from? This would make sense with actual physical CDs, and aren’t mp3’s as good as CDs?

This seems unrealistic to do and like a big hassle, but 50 years ago, the idea of downloading music must have seemed unrealistic.

Another point: it may be impossible to pay some artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are copyright laws even necessary? Why don't the record companies make a EULA for their CD's like software companies do? Stating that by purchasing this CD, you agree to not do X (i.e. transferring it on the internet).

Because when someone downloads the music off the internet, they are still stealing, yet not breaking that specific contract you mentioned. That was done by the person who uploaded the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

I was wondering whether it would be possible to argue that by downloading music for free, it is not you who are commiting the crime, rather it is the person who uploaded the music who is the thief.

An analogy would be if you buy a second hand TV that you know was stolen. Is it possible to argue that you have committed no wrong by purchasing this TV?

Also, is this not similar to the argument that when you use a governement service that was funded by immoral taxation, you are not acting unethically as you are simply taking advantage of a service that is being offered for free (eg studying at a public university)?

I would be glad if someone could clear this up for me. Cheers.

Edited by brit2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because when someone downloads the music off the internet, they are still stealing

Copyright infringement isnt theft. This doesnt imply that it should be legal, but we should be more precise in our terminology. Pirating music/software does not necessarily result in tangible loss, and in many cases it results in gain for the creators (many indie bands only become widely-known because of illegal distribution of their music, and piracy has certainly helped companies like Microsoft and Adobe).

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to Dave's comments, it's my understanding that Objectivism recognizes the concept of "intellectual property". Even though it's not tangible property, it can still be "stolen", taken without permission and without just compensation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright infringement is theft: when you claim the right of property (by the use, enjoyment or disposal) of something which you did not create or somehow earn a right to, you are stealing. You can earn a limited right to property simply by asking the owner for the gift of permission to use their property without payment, but you cannot just take it. When you buy a CD, you do not buy the music. You buy the disc, and you buy a limited license to the music; specifically one which allows only private performances and prohibits duplication. When music is duplicated and transferred to a third party, one who has not purchased any license to it, the third party is stealing it by listening to it. The license can (usually) however be transferred from one person to another along with the physical medium in which the music is stored (giving the original CD to a friend). But the license is non-duplicable, and stays with the original copy, since the original medium was part of the license. A tangible loss to the owner does exist every time you steal music or software: someone is using their product who has no right to use it. Just because money isn't ripped from the musician or software programmer's hand doesn't mean there isn't a real loss of real property. And the (unsupported) assertation that piracy helps software companies makes no sense - they lose customers, they lose money suing infringers, they lose their property and they lose the ability to sell it in the manner of their choosing.

Also, is this not similar to the argument that when you use a governement service that was funded by immoral taxation, you are not acting unethically as you are simply taking advantage of a service that is being offered for free (eg studying at a public university)?

Rand wrote on this very subject. I can't remember where, and I don't have my library handy (out of town), but I do remember that her point was that taking advantage of public education funded by immoral taxation was perfectly moral, since you are the victim of the taxation - it's your money, you have a right to get it back by any (legal) means neccessary. It's not the same as receiving stolen goods. Also, the person who gives you the copy may have a license to listen to his copy of the music - the CD may not be stolen. But he and you both violate the rights of the music company: him by violating the terms of his license, and you by using the music without any license.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Qwertz.

Now, if the act of downloading music is definitely immoral, the question becomes why should I care if its immoral?

Ie, why must I do what is moral (forego enjoyment of free music that would have otherwise enhanced my life)?

I can think of two answers. The first is that I might be caught by the police (but this is unlikely with music downloading) and the second is some idea of "duty": because I don't want to live in a society where stealing is prevalent I do my "duty" and forego enjoyment.

There must be another reason I cannot think of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*joins the school of nitpickery*

Copyright infringement isnt theft.
I have to agree with Hal on this part of his point.

When you buy a CD, you do not buy the music. You buy the disc, and you buy a limited license to the music.
Why do you say such a buyer does not his copy of the music?

Ie, why must I do what is moral (forego enjoyment of free music that would have otherwise enhanced my life)?
*brit2006 opens the floodgates*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Hal on this part of his point.

Why?

Why do you say such a buyer does not his copy of the music?
Because that's not how it's done. The buyer does not buy the music - he does not own it after his purchase. He only owns very limited and specific rights: he cannot, for example, by virtue of having bought the CD, use a piece of music in a movie: that's a different right, and has a different price, and must be purchased separately from the owner of the music. If he owned the copy, he could use or dispose of it in whatever way he liked. He is not allowed to do that: he is only allowed to use it in accordance with the terms of his transaction with the owner. The owner hasn't sold him the music. The owner has only sold him a specific and limited right to use the music. Sort of like an easement.

-Q

Edit: forgot to respond to brit2006:

why must I do what is moral?

This is the principle of rational self-interest. When you violate the rights of another by committing an immoral act against them, you are saying that rights do not apply equally to all individuals: that you are somehow 'special' in that you can enjoy the same rights which you violate. This is clearly untenable in a world where things are what they are - rights don't arbitrarily vary from person to person. So when you violate a right, you destroy it and can no longer claim it. It is in your best interest to have a right to property. Since violating another's right to property endangers your own, it is not in your self-interest to violate the property rights of others.

-Q

Edited by Qwertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why?
Well, I haven't fully thought it out :worry: but, for example, if a renter violates his housing agreement, that's not an example of theft. It seems similarly for music, to me. Copyright infringements are crimes (natch,) but not crimes of theft, I think.

The buyer does not buy the music - he does not own it after his purchase. He only owns very limited and specific rights: he cannot, for example, by virtue of having bought the CD, use a piece of music in a movie.
But that would only mean that he doesn't own the music unconditionally, which I agree with. If I buy a share of General Electric, I am an owner of GE - just not the sole owner. I wouldn't have veto power over company decisions, but that fact wouldn't mean that I was renting, licensing, or simply allowed to act as an owner.

Even with respect to the copyright owner, he doesn't own the material unconditionally once he's "licensed" it. If he did, he'd (presumably?) have the capacity to buy back his license and a legal basis for demanding it in exchange for compensation. I don't know for sure, but I doubt a copyright owner can do such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I haven't fully thought it out :worry: but, for example, if a renter violates his housing agreement, that's not an example of theft. It seems similarly for music, to me. Copyright infringements are crimes (natch,) but not crimes of theft, I think.
I'm really puzzled at this. Theft is taking something from an owner, without permission, with the intent to keep. Copyright infringement is exactly this: taking, no permission, and keeping.

You unconditionally own the physical medium, when you buy a book or a CD, and you may dispose of it in any way you want including resale, giving it away, burning, or feeding to the dog. When you buy a book or CD, you buy the object itself, and not the abstract content lodged on/in the medium. Copyright specifically addresses copying, not using, meaning that you can listen or read if you'd like, i.e. you can use the ideas represented on the disk or page; by copying, you are laying claim to the ideas represented on the disk, and you have not bought those ideas. You may of course negotiate to buy those ideas, if you would like to pay the money.

Even with respect to the copyright owner, he doesn't own the material unconditionally once he's "licensed" it. If he did, he'd (presumably?) have the capacity to buy back his license and a legal basis for demanding it in exchange for compensation. I don't know for sure, but I doubt a copyright owner can do such.
The copyright owner (usually) gives unconditional license to use, ignoring software where there are reams of conditions. Because of that license, he can't rescind the right to use. In addition, he has unconditionally and totally transferred ownership of the physical medium.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Not to disrupt the flow of the thread, but how about a simple answer.

Any time you take something which was not freely given to you by its rightful owner (whether it's the band or the record company they sold the songs to), you're stealing.

Am I missing something? Is not the action of gaining a value with nothing offered as a trade in question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with respect to the copyright owner, he doesn't own the material unconditionally once he's "licensed" it. If he did, he'd (presumably?) have the capacity to buy back his license and a legal basis for demanding it in exchange for compensation. I don't know for sure, but I doubt a copyright owner can do such.

See section 203 of the Copyright Act, which begins: "In the case of any work other than a work made for hire, the exclusive or nonexclusive grant of a transfer or license of copyright or of any right under a copyright, executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978, otherwise than by will, is subject to termination under the following conditions: [lists the conditions]." If you wish to investigate further by Google or something, you might find it helpful to know that these are called "reversionary rights."

By the way, I forgot to point out a hugely important little section tucked away in there. Check out section (a)(5): "Termination of the grant may be effected notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary, including an agreement to make a will or to make any future grant." In other words, reversionary rights can not be waived. Even if you and I wanted to agree to waive them, it would have zero legal effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the principle of rational self-interest. When you violate the rights of another by committing an immoral act against them, you are saying that rights do not apply equally to all individuals: that you are somehow 'special' in that you can enjoy the same rights which you violate. This is clearly untenable in a world where things are what they are - rights don't arbitrarily vary from person to person. So when you violate a right, you destroy it and can no longer claim it. It is in your best interest to have a right to property. Since violating another's right to property endangers your own, it is not in your self-interest to violate the property rights of others.

I accept property rights. However why does someone have the right to property that they do not wish to defend?

The record companies could employ better technology to make it impossible to copy a song from a CD. Yet they don't. They are in effect leaving their property out on the road for anyone to rob.

If I were to leave property out on the road and watch people one by one stealing it and did nothing, then how can I expect to keep my property? Why should I feel guilt in "stealing" that "property"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's unfair to say the record companies have not tried various copy-protection schemes. There's an essential problem with all these schemes: Someone has to make a device that will play the protected music. This means that breaking the copyright requires knowing how the legal device works, and making your own, or (more typical) modifying the device. Disney experimented with a DVD that would disable itself after a while. If I remember right, that was hacked pretty quick.

Recently, Sony tried to make copying a little less easy by taking more control of computers on which their music was being played. Firstly, people didn't like that idea. Secondly, in replacing the OS with components of one's own, they also opened a route for viruses to attack the computer.

It is also not true to say that the industry is watching people steal and not doing anything about it. The music companies realize that this is extremely prevalent. A scheme that tried to prosecute a majority of college kids is doomed to failure. So, they have tried advertisements telling people that what they are doing is both wrong and illegal. They have also selectively prosecuted people, including some college students. Also, regardless of what you think about the specific cases: look at the legal proceedings related to Napster, Kaaza and Grokster. This is the music industry taking legal action against the facilitators.

What else would you have them do to show that they are laying claim to their property and are trying -- to the extent practical -- to mark it and protect it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I accept property rights. However why does someone have the right to property that they do not wish to defend?
When was the last time you saw a record or book that does not make clear that the law may be used to defend against theft of that piece of property? What you are saying is tantamount to declaring that if a person fails to protect their property against theft, no matter how clever the thief and no matter what the cost of protecting the right, they they have no interest in the property, and it can be considered to be free for the taking. The point of a civilized society is to not live with that kind of siege mentality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a law is unenforceable, then is the law pointless and stupid?

Specifically, if downloading is legally wrong, but reality dictates that the law is unenforceable and therefore a pointless law, then shouldn't a moral code reflect reality no matter what the law says? If this is true, an Objectivist should feel no guilt in downloading illegal music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a law is unenforceable, then is the law pointless and stupid?

Specifically, if downloading is legally wrong, but reality dictates that the law is unenforceable and therefore a pointless law, then shouldn't a moral code reflect reality no matter what the law says? If this is true, an Objectivist should feel no guilt in downloading illegal music.

It's extremely easy to vandalize, make grafitti, and shoplift too. Legalize them, since the laws against them are "unenforcable". Did you know that car thieves usually get away with stealing at least 20 cars for every one they're caught for?

Reality is not "dictating" anything, you are.

Anyway, you asked:

then shouldn't a moral code reflect reality no matter what the law says?

Yes, a moral code SHOULD effect reality. Man's morality is based on a fundamental FACT of reality: His life is the standard of all of his values. To grasp why one should not steal, you must first understand what rational virtues that promote man's life by FACT and on PRINCIPLE would be violated if you became a thief. To do this, pick up Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, and read the section on the initiation of force.

Edited by ex_banana-eater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's extremely easy to vandalize, make grafitti, and shoplift too. Legalize them, since the laws against them are "unenforcable". Did you know that car thieves usually get away with stealing at least 20 cars for every one they're caught for?

Laws against theft relating to cars are enforceable. As you said one in twenty chance of getting caught.

For downloading music the chances of getting caught are perhaps one in ten million?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For downloading music the chances of getting caught are perhaps one in ten million?

But enforceable nonetheless!

Intellectual property as a concept only really came into its own (outside of academia) with the advent of technologies making it possible to duplicate the content of a work - photocopiers, cameras, scanners, tape recorders and of course computers. Works were originally protected by their inability to be copied. Even VHS, for all its suckitude, still had a little bit of this kind of protection - two generations down the line and the loss of fidelity is so severe as to be physically irritating. The problem with VHS (aside from being crap to begin with) was that the original would also degrade over time. The solution to protecting content nowadays will be to create a durable, accurate medium which degrades sharply on duplication. CSS (the DVD encryption schema) was supposed to do this for DVDs - it is designed to garble the stream of data as it comes off the disc onto an unapproved player. The problem is that it's either perfect fidelity or no fidelity, with no in-between. A good medium would be one which provides high (but partial) fidelity on the first generation and very low fidelity on subsequent generations, so that there exists no way to obtain a perfect copy, even when playing the medium as intended.

This country basically invented copyright in it's modern form of applying to content and not just the physical media. It goes to our credit that we recognize the actual source of the value of a work - the ideas it contains.

-Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...