Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ethical to download pirated music?

Rate this topic


Guest Marshall Sontag

Recommended Posts

I don't believe in impending anything like that on anyone, I think its stupid that you wouldn't put it up for download, if the cd's don't sell after you do that, that would give you a pretty good idea of the sincerity of your fan base. I don't think I have an absolute right to music either, but I guess thats my vice. Some people violate the law by indulging in drugs,etc... I guess my flaw is downloading, oh well, so be it. I pay for the stuff I think deserves it and delete it afterwards thus after thinking about it, I did steal and do, but I give the product back after a while (I know, its still stealing, not trying to make my case any more just). I base my ethical argument on downloading from the standpoint of artists who have a true fan base and not a bunch mindless masses. The whole progressive genre has blossomed due to downloading, when my album comes out I will put it up for downloading everywhere, those who buy it, cool, those who don't, you don't like the stuff anyway and thats fine by me. Illegal downloading has helped an entire genre of music and will continue to do so and I can't see whats wrong with that.

I'm glad you've stop trying to justify the theft personally, but you're still trying to justify it ethicly in the context of what good it has brought. There are better and more productive ways to help an entire genre of music other than immorality. There are much more damaging effects I see in pirating that do not justify the helping of some bands.

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

. It's a metaphysical fact that if I borrow your CD, then in that time when I have it, you simply cannot enjoy your ownership of the CD. If you copy my CD, then I only have your word that you're not listening to it when I'm listening to it (plus during the period when you'd have to transport it back to my possession). The fact is that people who make copies of other people's CDs never even try to assure that there is no time-overlap in usage.
Its certainly a fact, I just dont get why it's relevant. My comment about time-lag was really meant to be more of a reductio ad absurdum than anything else - why would it make any difference if we were both listening to it at the same time? My friend loans me his CD, or I go to his house and listen to it with him in his bedroom, or I download it from his computer and delete it afterwards. I view all these things as being essentially the same - sure there are differences involving time-overlap and the like, but they seem minor and beside the point. In all these cases, I'm listening to the song without paying the artist anything, and I'm not getting permanent possession of it. Who cares whether my friend can listen to it at the same time - why is this even a remotely important thing to consider?

That fact, that the original owner cannot use the CD when it's out of his hands, is a highly significant fact not to be sniffled at.
Why? I'm sniffling I suppose.

As long as I dont end up with a permanent copy, why does is the artist affected in any tangible way by whether my friend was listening to it at the same time I was sampling it? I'm still going to buy it iff I like, and not if I dont.

The law is what it is because too many people are dishonest (as witnessed by the vast numbers of people who dishonestly download music illegally and even claim that it is okay to do so). Suppose I wrote a book and it were available electronically, and people could either buy a copy for a $25.00 or they could copy someone else's copy as long as they promise to not use the copy when the source is in use. Well what would happen is that honest people would buy their own copies, and dishonest people would make a copy off of some book-stealing website and claim "Hey, I'm not using it at the same time Joe is using it", which is just a lie.
Well I've been told multiple times on this forum that the free-rider problem isnt really a problem and deserves no consideration :/ But seriously, what youve described is what happens anyway, and what is almost certainly going to continue happening regardless of the law. Modern copyright laws are unenforcable - the government cannot, and will not, prosecute all X million people who download music illegally. At best, youre going to end up with a situation like we currently have with drugs - 90% of people ignore the law, with the occasional person getting a disproportionately harsh prison sentence when caught, in the deluded hope that this will act as a deterrant to others. Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you've stop trying to justify the theft personally, but you're still trying to justify it ethicly in the context of what good it has brought. There are better and more productive ways to help an entire genre of music other than immorality. There are much more damaging effects I see in pirating that do not justify the helping of some bands.

The thing is, you have to look at the types of artists it hurts. It hurts mainstream genres which has an audience the is made up of people who just like something because its popular. I'm not saying all mainstream bands suck and their not underground etc... but as I said, the people who normally don't purchase the music really aren't true fans. I've failed to meet any music fans who aren't buying cd's all the time (obviously I found an exception on this board). The way I look at it in simplest terms is this : It's hurt people who deserve it less as opposed to the help it has given to the people who deserve it more. Now I know this sounds like the people who deserve it more, do so because they are struggling but this is not what I mean. I'm talking about the music industry in relation to The Fountainhead basically. Most of the stuff that is helped by downloading, takes alot of work to perform, write, etc... They are helped by downloading because someone can stumble upon a band and check them out and say "These guys are amazing, how come i've never heard them before" then they go buy the album, these are the music fans that deserve credit, because they truly love music. Then you may ask what about the artists that get hurt from it, these are your Peter Keatings. MTV is the Ellsowrth Toohey of the music industry, they can bring someone up to stardom (deserving or not) and then crush them whenever they feel like it.

Once again, I'm not justifying illegal downloading, I've come to realize its wrong. But, when I see a struggling artist who hasn't got what he deserves because of MTV and Clear Channel (the little puppet masters) saying he's not hip, when his music is made more accesible to music enthusiasts and they can discover it, its amazing. Most of the time when I meet a band i'm a fan of I ask them they're stance on it, and they always tell me it has helped them. Like I said, I know it will be the main source of exposure once my album comes out and I would not want the illegal sites to go down.

I will point out one thing though, it might not be a problem is they cracked down harder, because myspace.com has helped alot too. Bands can put up songs to download regardless of popularity or what their record label says. I know Rush had some problems making one but Alex Lifeson found a way around it. So myspace might end up being the #1 source of exposure for music, depending on how long that fad goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If posting free music is the best way for those bands to get heard and discovered, let them. If they find they derive more sales of CD's through that avenue, they can do so as they wish. It will not be theft, so I do not see how you can use this line of argument to say pirating has helped those bands. Pirating is specifically downloading and copying music without and against the artists or distribution companies wishes. If they would be better served by posting it for free, then that is simply bad business pratice and the market will correct itself. If the bands desire to post the music for free and find that they can't because of a contract with their record label, that is for them to duke out within the confines of the contract. Pirating helps no one here.

Compare what good you percieve of coming from pirating to the damage that it has caused. Public education may be teaching children in our country how to read, add, and subtract, but that good is nothing compared to the evil the system has brought forth. The ends does not justify the means, there are moral avenues to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does a "struggling artist" deserve?

Not any struggling artist, I'm speaking of those who do deserve more for their efforts but simply dont, that being the reason they are stuggling. Not all struggling artists deserve something, just because their struggling doesn't mean that they are struggling for that reason. They could just be struggling because they have no talent. I'm referring to those who do and don't get what they deserve. Just like many successful artists havn't deserved any of it.

Now, I do realize that is the gamble any artist takes, be it musician, writer, painter, or any other form of art. The doesn't mean that the artists who work hard and have talent (be it your taste or not) don't deserve recognition, fame, or money in return.

Edited by Dargormudshark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm speaking of those who do deserve more for their efforts

Okay, I'll rephrase the question.

What does a "struggling artist" deserve that puts out what you deem is a certain type of "effort"?

Does he "deserve" this at someone elses expense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If posting free music is the best way for those bands to get heard and discovered, let them...

Well technically it would still be piracy, The bands may condone illagal downloading but the website that is providing the music havn't asked the bands permission in a legal sense. For an example though, I met the drummer from King Crimson and asked him his opinion on the subject and he even said it has done more for them and gotten them more exposure then they've had since they formed in 1969. It's also really hard to find new music not counting the internet. The radio stations aren't A&R based anymore so its not like a dj can play whetever he wants when he/she hears something good. The radio only plays something if its popular, well how does it get exposure for people to buy if the radio doesn't play it. It's a Catch 22, if it wasn't for the internet medium, be it illegal downloading, webzines, amazon.com there would be a huge lapse in the non mainstream side of the industry. Referring back to the catch 22 you would ask, "How does an artist gain popularity", that would be MTV or a major label's control. MTV or any major label and pick up any person off the street and make them look cool, have them lipsink, or in the cases of those who do sing, have someone write music for them to sing over (doesn't take much effort, just money). Once said artist is on billboards, tv, magazines, radio after the album comes out it will sell immensley. Mainstream music is all about the "cool" factor.

Now for the stuff that's deserving of recognition, fame, and money; most of these people who deserve it are struggling. The musician who practices 8 hours a day from a young age and who is still constantly perfecting his craft has to either settle on some lame record deal or realease an album themselves. If it wasn't for the internet how would this person gain exposure. Using me as an example as the music enthusiast, I am aware of how many bands out there who are deserving but can't catch a break, so I look for them. I go to webzines that advertise to my certain tastes in music, I look on myspace, I find bands when I'm downloading stuff. Not all them are deserving of the afformentioned regarldless of the genre, but there are many who are.

Okay, I'll rephrase the question.

What does a "struggling artist" deserve that puts out what you deem is a certain type of "effort"?

Does he "deserve" this at someone elses expense?

Ofcourse they wouldn't deserve this out of someone elses expense. By that, do you mean it would be ok for him to take money from soneone so he could fund his own stuff, or something like that?

The most basic thing he deserves is someone to recognize its existence. By that I mean, someone can say "I heard them". After that it becomes a matter of taste and whether or not they acknowledge it as a just effort, it could be either "I heard them, they have potential" or "I heard them and they were great". After that would come more recognition and if people buy the album, which they will if they truly like it, would come some money. The artist might not make profit on the album, if it was self released.

Let me also clarify this is the first external/social credit they deserve. As opposed to the first thing they could experiance no matter what is the sense of achievemant, which they should feel anyway. If you're not proud of your work why should anybody else think that way of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its certainly a fact, I just dont get why it's relevant. My comment about time-lag was really meant to be more of a reductio ad absurdum than anything else - why would it make any difference if we were both listening to it at the same time?
I thought it was a serious (and flawed) suggestion.
In all these cases, I'm listening to the song without paying the artist anything, and I'm not getting permanent possession of it.
It isn't at all important whether you buy a CD and never let anyone else hear it, or you play it for your friends. For that matter, it isn't important if you buy the thing and then stick it in a drawer, unopened, for the rest of your life. The point is, you have purchased one and only one copy, and you have not purchased the right to make any copies of the CD.
As long as I dont end up with a permanent copy, why does is the artist affected in any tangible way by whether my friend was listening to it at the same time I was sampling it? I'm still going to buy it iff I like, and not if I dont.
Whatever. Still, you don't have the right to make a copy, even one that lasts for just 5 minutes. Where did you get the right to make the copy?
But seriously, what youve described is what happens anyway, and what is almost certainly going to continue happening regardless of the law. Modern copyright laws are unenforcable - the government cannot, and will not, prosecute all X million people who download music illegally.
This may well be the bitter truth, especially in this modern era when youngsters have no respect for property and it is expected that "information" is to be given away for free. I'm just saying that I will do anything and everything in my power to stop those thieves who are stealing from me, limited though that power may be. Maybe there is no hope for society, and modern youth are so morally corrupt that they really think that they have the "right" to whatever they wish for, at no expense to themselves. I continue to be optimistic, especially since I think at some point these punks will come face to face with the reality that their own lives can be stolen from them. I'm betting that most of these IP-thieves are hypocrits -- the minute they have something they want protected by law, they will be the first to call a cop.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically it would still be piracy, The bands may condone illagal downloading but the website that is providing the music havn't asked the bands permission in a legal sense.

If the bands state they are putting it out for free, it is free. There is no pirating involved.

If it wasn't for the internet how would this person gain exposure. Using me as an example as the music enthusiast, I am aware of how many bands out there who are deserving but can't catch a break, so I look for them. I go to webzines that advertise to my certain tastes in music, I look on myspace, I find bands when I'm downloading stuff.

Music has been around looooong before the internet, so the excuse that music can not be found without the internet is no excuse at all. It looks like since this is the main way you find music and think otheres find music it is the only viable option, but it is not.

The radio stations aren't A&R based anymore so its not like a dj can play whetever he wants when he/she hears something good. The radio only plays something if its popular, well how does it get exposure for people to buy if the radio doesn't play it.

It sounds like your beef is with how the music industry has defined itself now with the stranglehold that record labels and music stations have created. If you don't sign with the right record label, your stuff won't be played on air. If that is where you see the trouble for the artists, go after it, find immorality in it, but don't promote stealing to combat it. You can not fight immorality with immorality.

Now for the stuff that's deserving of recognition, fame, and money; most of these people who deserve it are struggling. The musician who practices 8 hours a day from a young age and who is still constantly perfecting his craft has to either settle on some lame record deal or realease an album themselves.

Who says they are deserving of others money or that others will find value in their work? If they don't churn out music that the market wants, they won't get the sales they desire. A really really great polka band that has perfected their form of music isn't likely to break the charts.

You alluded to equating the music industry to the situation faced by Roarke in the Fountain Head. Do you really think that Roarke, if he was a musician, would condone stealing so that he could get record sales and reach a wider audience?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the bands state they are putting it out for free, it is free. There is no pirating involved.
Objection: the band doesn't necessarily have that right. It kind of depends on whose dime they did the recording / development etc. on. Matt could no doubt clue us in to the technical details; the point is that Snaggletooth Records may have an equal interest, because of the tens of thousands of bucks that they pounded down a rathole on the hopes of making a profit. As long as you're only talking about self-producers / promoters....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ofcourse they wouldn't deserve this out of someone elses expense.

I asked that question because I'm trying to make the link between this statement;

But, when I see a struggling artist who hasn't got what he deserves because of MTV and Clear Channel (the little puppet masters) saying he's not hip, when his music is made more accesible to music enthusiasts and they can discover it, its amazing.
and your position on piracy, which I grant that you now recognize is wrong, even if you will continue doing it. What does what a "struggling artist deserves" have to do with pirating music, particularly other people's music?

The most basic thing he deserves is someone to recognize its existence.

Suppose no one wants to recognize the existence of a particular artist's music? What force would you use to ensure that the artist gets what he deserves? When you speak of "deserve", I have to assume that it is your position that the artist has some "right", which if violated should be righted by force. Are you using "deserve" in a different sense?

I think the struggling artist only "deserves" the opportunity to pursue his livelihood free of the initiation of physical force from other people. Anything he gets beyond that is based on a willing interaction with other people based on his ability to get his product out there, his ability to produce something that people will value (which goes beyond merely exerting effort), and the value they want to give him back to him for what he produces. "Deserving" recognition from other people goes beyond that, as implies imposing an unearned obligation on the part of other people to listen to his music whether they want to or not.

There is no legitimate ethical connection between what the what the "little puppetmasters" do, and what a "struggling artist deserves". The "little puppetmasters" produce something that many folks want, regardless of your agreement to the quality of their product", and they have NO obligation to help any particular person get what they "deserve" beyond those terms to which they come to some mutual, voluntary agreement. It doesn't matter how much you personally like someone's music, unless you are going to foot the bill to help them get what they "deserve".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection: the band doesn't necessarily have that right. It kind of depends on whose dime they did the recording / development etc. on. Matt could no doubt clue us in to the technical details; the point is that Snaggletooth Records may have an equal interest, because of the tens of thousands of bucks that they pounded down a rathole on the hopes of making a profit. As long as you're only talking about self-producers / promoters....

I agree with that. If the label put the money up for the recording they have more of a say then the musician does. The label gets more money from the cd sales anyway, thus when someone downloads and doesn't buy the cd they lose more money than the artist would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked that question because I'm trying to make the link between this statement;

and your position on piracy, which I grant that you now recognize is wrong, even if you will continue doing it. What does what a "struggling artist deserves" have to do with pirating music, particularly other people's music?...

I gave my definition of deserving something, being worthy, in no way would it ever constitute force against someone for not giving them wht they are worthy of. How could I talk about only caring about people who sincerely like my music and be so adament about that but also say those who don't give me what I deserve should have punishment.

Now if I understand what you are going to ask next is how does an artist who does deserve something achieve it through the illegal downloading of his music? When people download, or to be safe I'll say music enthusiasts, they explore. They look for stuff similar to their own tastes,etc.. thus finding new music. Let's say they stumble upon me, they download it and they love it. My music is reaching people and that is the second most important thing to me. Now as far as what you said about what is they don't want to recognize its existence, simple they don't have to. I would never condone physical force for thinking differently or not wanting to do something I want them to do. If I thought like that I wouldn't be on this forum, I'd be on I <3 Stalin.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection: the band doesn't necessarily have that right. It kind of depends on whose dime they did the recording / development etc. on. Matt could no doubt clue us in to the technical details; the point is that Snaggletooth Records may have an equal interest, because of the tens of thousands of bucks that they pounded down a rathole on the hopes of making a profit. As long as you're only talking about self-producers / promoters....

I addressed that early with this statement:

If the bands desire to post the music for free and find that they can't because of a contract with their record label, that is for them to duke out within the confines of the contract.

If a band wishes to post their music for free and it goes outside their contract to do so, this is where that 'honest mistake' line goes. The person downloading would not be necessarily pirating if they are going off information from the band that it is free. The band may be in breech of contract, but that is for those parties to sort out.

[edit] Just a quick thought, this is much like the line of discussion on the wireless internet thread where if someone puts out wireless service for free (stating it is for free) and they go in breech of contract with their ISP, it is between them, not the people using the connection.

Edited by Lathanar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a band wishes to post their music for free and it goes outside their contract to do so, this is where that 'honest mistake' line goes. The person downloading would not be necessarily pirating if they are going off information from the band that it is free.
Point taken: I was thinking of this from the perspective of the band who should know better, not the innocent downloader who can't know the nature of such contracts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagormudshark, A theme that I see from your posts is this: downloading music often helps the owner of the music; to the extent that it helps them rather than hurts them, you can't see why it's wrong.

Is that a correct summary?

If it is, then how is it different from "helping" people against their will in other ways?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objection: the band doesn't necessarily have that right. It kind of depends on whose dime they did the recording / development etc. on. Matt could no doubt clue us in to the technical details; the point is that Snaggletooth Records may have an equal interest, because of the tens of thousands of bucks that they pounded down a rathole on the hopes of making a profit.

Snaggletooth Records is probably going to have much more than an equal interest. To my knowledge, generally the artist assigns its copyright in its entirety to the record company subject in varying degrees to a right to receive royalties. Less commonly, there are partial assignments of the copyright. To help get our contexts set:

1. Remember to distinguish between "artist" and "copyright owner."

2. Remember to distinguish between an artist who writes its own songs and one who doesn't. Where you're talking about a song the artist didn't write, then it never owned the copyright to begin with.

3. Remember to distinguish between a copyright in a sound recording and a copyright in the underlying musical work. Take Diane Warren's "How Do I Live." Diane wrote the song itself (melody and lyrics), so she owns the copyright in the musical work to start. When Trisha Yearwood and LeAnn Rimes recorded the song, they would have had to license the musical work to record it, and then the resulting recordings would be a "sound recording" in which they would own the copyrights in their respective recordings (which they probably assigned to the record company, or the record company may outright own it from the beginning).

Many of these absolutes are not accurate in all circumstances. I'm just trying like hell to keep this relatively simple. If you have further questions or wish to clarify, have at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Remember to distinguish between "artist" and "copyright owner."
This, in my experience, is the main source of confusion that ordinary people have about IP law. I hold the copyright to my book but have granted the publisher an exclusive license to reproduce. With my own journal we get a time-limited license to reproduce; but some editors think that their journal holds the copyright to the contents (none of these are "works for hire"). I think the key to the confusion is that you can partially copyright a work -- like the copyright to a sound recording and the copyright to the underlying work. When you see "copyright by X", people often misinterpret that as meaning "X actually hold the copyright to everything herein".

This causes problems for the would-be legal copier. Since copyright can be transfered, but is not a prerequisite for publication by another party, then a would-be copier cannot easily know whether the right to the material is held by the creator or the publisher (except when the publisher explicitly notes that the creator retains copyright, which is not common in my experience). So who grants permission to reproduce, especially when (1) the author is dead or (2) the publisher is defunct? Or to put it more pragmatically, who has standing to sue you for infringement if you include technically protected materials, when the rights-holder is an unknown quantity? I think this is a non-negligible flaw in copyright law (unless it isn't, i.e. if it has been addresed already), that material can essentially go into a black box which nobody gets rewards from, unless you're willing to knowingly violate the law on the grounds that nobody is likely to take you to court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hmm, some additional things I thought of... I don't think it would be wrong for me to put the songs from a cd I own on my computer, and normally I think you can do anything you want with your cd (unless it breaks the rights of the real copyright owner, but I do not think that is the case here), so it would also be legal to lend it to my friend. Do you guys think that this would be a proper usage of the cd, or would it be wrong? This could not repeat ad infinitum, because my friend doesn't own the cd, so he has no right to put it on his computer. Do you think it's okay if you limit it to just one step away from the main owner of the license to use?

Edited for clarification.

Edited by Maarten
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be wrong for me to put the songs from a cd I own on my computer, and normally I think you can do anything you want with your cd (unless it breaks the rights of the real copyright owner, but I do not think that is the case here), so it would also be legal to lend it to my friend.

To my knowledge, putting songs from a legally acquired CD on to your computer is an infringement under U.S. law. That's making a copy, and I am unaware of any exception for copies made for personal use. The only question I see is whether such use is a statutory "fair use." I don't know what courts have said about this.

From a moral standpoint, I think this question exceeds my philosophical understanding of intellectual property rights. One point you can not get around is that you could be costing the copyright owner a sale that way. He could say, "Sure, you bought the CD, but if you want to buy an mp3, you'll have to pay for that, too." Are any copyright owners going to actually say this? Very few, if any. Our band's policy is to allow people to make copies of legally acquired songs for their personal use. But the question is not how many would actually assert such a right, it's whether they have one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only question I see is whether such use is a statutory "fair use." I don't know what courts have said about this.
This is a significant lacuna, from my POV, because the fair use law is so stunningly open-ended. I have reservations about statutes that use expressions like "such as"; however, based on a rational analysis of what "such as" would mean, I can't see how any rational court could think that there is such a thing as a personal-use exception. However, we have to deal with the courts we have, not the courts we wish we had. One thing that is striking to me is how the fair use exception was invoked in the Betamax case. Now, first off, it's clear that some version of a fair use exception would be necessary (without which this forum might as well shut down), so that we can argue "But Rand argued ..." without violating the law by quoting her. That kind of "mention" copying is covered in the law by the law in the clause that states the purpose: "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research...". I find it somewhat surprising that the courts would even entertain an argument base on fair use when you're talking about people recording football games and reruns of Mr. Ed, since such copying does not remotely bear on the seeming purpose of 107. The District Court decision that video-recording is fair use 'because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for plaintiff's original work.' (emphasis added) indicates what is really behind fair use, namely that intellectual property is not considered to be property which the owner may have exclusive control over. This leads me to conclude that if I were to write a book but deliberately not market it (pearls before swine and all), then anyone could freely copy it because there is no effect on the market.

I have some horror stories about "fair use" assumptions made by people in the education business, but I think for the sake of being discrete, I won't post them here. Of course, the massive conceptual chaos that is out there regarding "fair use" is really the cause of these misunderstandings.

From a moral standpoint, I think this question exceeds my philosophical understanding of intellectual property rights. One point you can not get around is that you could be costing the copyright owner a sale that way.
Maarten has correctly pointed to the moral problem, namely the "and lend it" add-on. Just concentrating on the purpose behind the law, copying your CD collection to your hard drive is reasonably analogous to "time-shifting", and may be necessary for technical reasons (e.g. if you want to listen to some music that you bought while working on some database that's on a CD, and you have only one drive). That is reasonable copying, and perfectly moral if not prohibited by law or license. But the minute you lend the original to a friend, you've stepped towards immoral infringement. I think the only moral thing to do when you lend the CD to a friend is to refrain from playing your copied copy while he has the disk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I had accidently posted a thread regarding this subject, without noticing this one was on the same page (sorry about that, Groovenstein :lol: ) I did do a search before and found some older threads, but did not notice this one.

Basically, my problem was that I had downloaded movies, games, music, and software in the past, but do not any longer, and I was wishing to remedy my ways.

I can easily grasp that the illegal files should be deleted, if I am to be true to myself.

I figured most of it out, but one thing that I'm still debating with myself over is the intellectual property of a dead person.

This was addressed very briefly on page 3 in this thread, but not to much extent.

I used Jimi Hendrix as an example in the thread I had posted, but it can be applied to anyone.

Do one's heirs have a right to the deceased's intellectual property? I know legally they do, but the law isn't always correct. Should (intellectual) property rights be transferrable upon death? What if no heir was named and the money is now, years later, going to somebody who had no hand in the creation of the music in question?

The responses I got in the other thread consisted of the fact that it is legally someones property, therefore they are entitled to payment, but I want to know if they are rationally entitled to the property in the first place. (Mainly, im concerned whether it's wrong morally and rationally, rather than under the law.) Currently I'm thinking that if someone didn't create it, and the artist is dead, it should be fair game to obtain a copy of the music for free, although I even have counter-arguments to this brewing in my head right now.

Edited by RI1138
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one argument for rationally passing on intellectual property to another person is realizing that it is still property. Do you agree or disagree that a person should be able to dispense of their physical property in whatever manner they choose in the event of their death? If person X wills their physical property to person Y doesn't that physical property rightfully belong to Y upon X's death? Or should anybody who wishes just be able to come along and take X's property once he dies? If you accept the concept property in Intellectual Property, I think that should answer your question.

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...