[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by Billgamesh

How is downloading stealing? You take nothing from your neighbor. I mention this because there is a very big difference between taking something and copying it...

Simple: you now have something in your possession that you did not have previously that you did not pay for. Since you would normally have to pay in order to have said thing in your possession, it is stealing.

Just because the thing in question is digital information that can be endlessly copied and reproduced does not make it any less stealing. In this case, the neighbour is the musician and, yes, the record company. You are taking the money from them that you would otherwise have had to pay in order to have the music in your possession.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

Simple: you now have something in your possession that you did not have previously that you did not pay for. Since you would normally have to pay in order to have said thing in your possession, it is stealing.

Not really. Theft is as much the deprivation of an item from someone. In the case of a digital copy, you have not deprived anyone of anything. Thus, it really does bring an interesting dimension to the ethics.

Just because the thing in question is digital information that can be endlessly copied and reproduced does not make it any less stealing. In this case, the neighbour is the musician and, yes, the record company. You are taking the money from them that you would otherwise have had to pay in order to have the music in your possession.

I am just pointing this out because quite frequently record companies defraud artists. In such situations, it really does seem as if there is much more ethically going on. I have several times been asked by artists not to buy their cd, and they have given me burned copies, where their label has not fulfilled contractual obligations.

Now... say my brother gets signed by the label pursuing him. I have for years been his primary critic of his demos. He sends them to me, and routinely, I put them on my ipod, listen, critique, etc. I enjoy them. They are not currently copyrighted, but they could be shortly. Now, would I ethically go from consultant to thief if I kept them? I am asking because it is not always so cut and dry.

I realize I am throwing out some murkier areas... however, they are very real. And I do have several cds of burned music from artists I know.

[OiBoyz]

Most of those situations do not fit the typical "Cool! Now I can have all the Metallica I want, for FREEE!!" downloading scenarios. Those are selfish, petty people who want something for nothing and do not only not care about the artist's / recording companies interests, but bristle when you call them on it.

I am just pointing this out because quite frequently record companies defraud artists. In such situations, it really does seem as if there is much more ethically going on. I have several times been asked by artists not to buy their cd, and they have given me burned copies, where their label has not fulfilled contractual obligations.

Once they've signed a contract, they can't just go around disregarding the contract. How does that make them any better than the unethical record company? There are legal means to go after them. Why stoop to the same level?

Not really. Theft is as much the deprivation of an item from someone. In the case of a digital copy, you have not deprived anyone of anything.

Whether someone has been materially injured is a legal distinction, not a moral one. It may be true that the artist/company won't see any material harm since the music thieves likely wouldn't have bought their merchandise anyway, but it doesn't make it ethically or morally right. You've taken something that you could have and should have purchased. It's pretty simple to me.

[redbaron]

realistically, piracy only becomes theft when via downloading a copy of the media you don't buy it when you would have bought it before.

If you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, you're taking nothing from the artist, and if you buy it, they gain.

If you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, they're at least getting their product in front of you and perhaps planting a seed that will cause you to buy in the future.

I do agree that if you're just downloading albums instead of buying them it becomes much, much more questionable.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Billgamesh

Thus, it really does bring an interesting dimension to the ethics.

Yeah. If there were no laws prohibiting theft of property would it still be immoral to steal? Of course. Easy answer. But if there were no laws for infringing software copyright then would file sharing still be immoral? Dunno.

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by redbaron

realistically, piracy only becomes theft when via downloading a copy of the media you don't buy it when you would have bought it before.

If you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, you're taking nothing from the artist, and if you buy it, they gain.

If you wouldn't have bought it in the first place, they're at least getting their product in front of you and perhaps planting a seed that will cause you to buy in the future.

I do agree that if you're just downloading albums instead of buying them it becomes much, much more questionable.

I find this post almost as ridiculous as Ryans post earlier.

Because you downloaded something for free that you rightly should have paid for, you deprive the artist and the label of the money from the sale.

I dont see how its possible to justify this by saying it could possibly get them a sale later on. Pay for the music now, and if you are interested in their work later on, pay for those works aswell.

"Hey I stole this music... but ill pay for the rest of it" just sounds ridiculous. And it should, because it is.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by Billgamesh

Not really. Theft is as much the deprivation of an item from someone. In the case of a digital copy, you have not deprived anyone of anything. Thus, it really does bring an interesting dimension to the ethics.

You have deprived someone of income they would have received had you purchased the item rather than acquiring a digital copy.

While I would certainly love to live in a world where everything was free, that is not currently the case. The internet, however, makes people think they live in a world where everything is free.

I am just pointing this out because quite frequently record companies defraud artists. In such situations, it really does seem as if there is much more ethically going on. I have several times been asked by artists not to buy their cd, and they have given me burned copies, where their label has not fulfilled contractual obligations.

Now... say my brother gets signed by the label pursuing him. I have for years been his primary critic of his demos. He sends them to me, and routinely, I put them on my ipod, listen, critique, etc. I enjoy them. They are not currently copyrighted, but they could be shortly. Now, would I ethically go from consultant to thief if I kept them? I am asking because it is not always so cut and dry.

I realize I am throwing out some murkier areas... however, they are very real. And I do have several cds of burned music from artists I know.

Sure, there are certainly murky areas. I don't have any issue with someone getting a burnt CD from a musician. Heck, I don't see any issue with mix CDs. I don't mind at all when a musician provides mp3s of their songs available for download from their website. I love it, in fact. And I certainly have sympathy for artists who have been defrauded by a record company. I would want to check both sides of the story, of course, but there are certainly situations where a record company might be said to have given up their rights, ethically, to receive income from an artist's work. That's a sticky situation, though.

[MtlMom]

Suspicious person that I am, I wonder if the OP is an investigator looking for people who will confess to pirating music.

[Art]

Sorry, the title was just bugging me.

I still want CDs. I only download singles when I do not like the album as a whole. I purchase the right to download any items that I do download.

[Demon_Hunter]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

It's a worse witness for a youth leader to worry about youth downloading music than worrying about, for instance, whether or not they're loving their neighbor in their high school and in their daily lives instead of contributing to marginalizing of certain outcast peers of theirs - as I was at one point. As someone who's so 'Missions Minded' I'm surprised this didn't occur to you, legalist.

Your last sentence is an unfair attack on the OP.

Stop trying to justify stealing by deflecting the issue into unrelated, irrellevant to the discussion, areas.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

You have deprived someone of income they would have received had you purchased the item rather than acquiring a digital copy.

Not buying a record doesn't deprive anyone of a sale. And the piracy of that same record, in itself, doesn't deprive them of a sale either. And I don't really think that people illegally download music instead of buying it. It's not like the scenario is that they can't afford it and think, aw shucks, I might have to steal it. It's probably something they wouldn't have bought anyway...and probably something they wouldn't even have acquired illegally if file sharing weren't so easy and ubiquitous.

[OiBoyz]

Originally Posted by Art

I still want CDs.

Well, I still would like to have LP covers too. I love the cover artwork and liner notes, and even on CDs the microprint is painful to try to read. Or I'm getting old. Nah... that can't be it.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by redbaron

I haven't downloaded anything in forever because of the hassle. I won't use itunes/etc because you get crappy compressed audio, no album art, no physical media, crippled fair use rights, and it costs almost the same amount of money. fail.

Actually, iTunes Plus has awesome fair use rights and most publishers on iTunes now distribute in iTunes Plus format.

[Sean.thomson]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Not buying a record doesn't deprive anyone of a sale.

Yes it does. Record Shops.

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Well, I still would like to have LP covers too. I love the cover artwork and liner notes, and even on CDs the microprint is painful to try to read. Or I'm getting old. Nah... that can't be it.

There are still a lot of bands that put out LPs. Some will actually give you a code that will let you download a digital copy (legally). I personally prefer LPs due to the fact that you can't have it everywhere, so it becomes a treat to listen to the music (that's just one of many reasons, but that has nothing to do with the subject so I won't go into detail ).

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Sean.thomson

Yes it does. Record Shops.

I buy only from Wal-Mart.



Did it hurt?