Stealing digital media is pervasive among people my age. Very few people have any ethical qualms with downloading mp3s or copying CDs that they don't own. Now that DVD copying technology is cheap, lots of people make illegal copies of movies too.
I refuse to take part in it. Sometimes it is awkward having to deny a request from a friend to copy a CD or DVD. When I say that I won't do it, people list reasons for doing it like:
- They can't really enforce those laws
- It is just so easy
- I wouldn't buy it anyway
- Those companies rip us off with high prices, they deserve it
- It doesn't hurt anyone
None of those justify the offense. Stealing is wrong, and if you do it, you should be ashamed of yourself.
19 comments:
So many people copy CDs and DVDs now-adays, including a good portion of my friends. I enjoy "collecting" the music, movies, and TV shows that I watch and the packaging is all part of the presentation. The people involved in making the copyrighted material get their skim, so I don't mind supporting a (hopefully) quality product. So I have never copied CDs or DVDs, I just save up the money and then buy them. And if something is overpriced, then I do without (i.e. many of the TV seasons).
I commend you for it
1) what is the basis for considering freely distributing music and art as stealing?
2) the rise of "indie" (independent) music was, is, and will continue to be necessarily dependent upon the easy and free distribution of mp3's. The variety, quality, popularity and accessibility of great bands has increased substantially thanks to this supposed crime.
1) violating copyright i think. its pretty clear when you're copying a CD or DVD. not always as clear when you stumble upon an mp3 file whether or not you have a legal right to it though.
2) well if the band releases their music freely on mp3s it isn't illegal. its nice that an artform is flourishing, but hopefully it isn't at the expense of a simple moral principle that stealing is wrong
1) For one so antagonistic to the coupling of morality and civil law I'm surprised that you think violating a copyright law immediately makes one a criminal. It's my understanding that the copyright law for music was originally intended to protect the artist from other artists stealing their work. Of course, once music became profitable not so long ago corporations took over this and employed lawyers to re-gauge the reach of copyright ownership.
2) Another point on electronic music. It's difficult to say the music industry, if anyone cares about it, is hurting from the free distribution of mp3's. First, it did not take a long time before Napster and most other sites were shut down. 5 years is a blink in terms of the federal judicial and bureaucratic processes. Second, for every free website or service in existence a few years ago there are probably 10 websites selling mp3's for varying prices. This ensures that the precious recording companies get their money as do the artists. In fact, considering how unregulated and unnoticeable the online music industry is, it's quite a compelling thought to wonder whether services such as iTunes are fixing prices and colluding with their competitors. For instance:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/03/03/online.music.probe.ap/index.html
-- In brief, the potential created by the initially illegal distribution of music has enabled a much greater medium for the artists, and much vaster pool of buyers to access for the recording industry.
1)
For one so antagonistic to the coupling of morality and civil law
I dont like it when the minority imposes its fringe morality on everyone else. I'm not sure that I know my precise stance on the entire issue (of morality and law), but certainly morality is an important basis of some civil law. Killing, stealing, etc are clearly morally wrong (usually) and should be illegal.
I'm surprised that you think violating a copyright law immediately makes one a criminal.
committing a crime makes one a criminal. pretty simple.
It's my understanding that the copyright law for music was originally intended to protect the artist from other artists stealing their work. Of course, once music became profitable not so long ago corporations took over this and employed lawyers to re-gauge the reach of copyright ownership.
I don't dispute that the current system is probably far away from the original intent. Also, it is easy to invoke the demon of evil corporations and blood-sucking lawyers. But no matter how you dress it up, stealing is wrong. Stealing from a fat bloated corporate lawyer is wrong.
In regards to your 2nd point, I don't disagree with anything you said. Maybe eventually electronic copyright law will change a lot, for various reasons including what you mention.
None of this changes the fact that someone who makes a copy of a CD or DVD is stealing, and most of them know it. Someone who downloads an illegal copy of an mp3 is stealing, and most of them know it.
I think there is a fine line for it. The indie music scene is a good example. They make their money from touring. Not CD sales. If you dont hear of them, since you can no longer find out about them for free... you never see their show, or get their CD. They go broke and their music is lost for good.
For electronica...same story goes. Plus most only play live shows at clubs rather than producing albums. There is no other way to hear them if they are not in your city other than DLing bootlegged shows.
If you want Britney Spears or Metallica. Suck up the embarrassment and buy it at Best Buy. Or just any popular artist in general. You know you want it. They took the time to make it. Pay for it. (even though their money is made touring too)
what's wrong with metallica?
They gripe about "stealing" the most of anyone. They are bitches. Everything after the black album sucked except Whiskey in the Jar, which Im pretty sure was a cover anyway.
Your second counterpoint to my italics-added comment is specious. It has everything to do with whether or not you consider violating a law a crime. By your entirely inclusive viewpoint, which I fully doubt is true, speeding is criminal, and therefore is wrong. This is a separate debate, although it does indeed have impact upon the main argument. Knowing that you're not as parochial as this, implying that you can apply a century-old law to a millenia-long tradition of artistry is naive and entirely faulty. Why should people not have access to artistry?
If someone sneaks into the Corcoran Art Museum to see a Picasso exhibit has he stolen from the private society that runs it?
If I download a copy of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for free, am I stealing?
Further, I think invariably classifying taking another's property as theft and immoral is imprecise and incorrect. Our entire society then is based upon theft in the rawest form by taxation - originally embodied as tributes (I'm sure you recognize my reference on this one) - and I can't imagine why you would bother to be a part of something you consider so inherently, insidiously, and obviously evil. Particularly the underground and illegal world of poker, for fuck's sake. After all, not only is it illegal (for whatever it's worth), but you are taking someone's money from under their nose. You don't earn that money you win at poker any more than I earn my right to download an mp3, by your reasoning.
sorry for all the ()'s, i don't feel like re-editing my post right now.
and i should add that any metallica fan would know that everything on Garage, Inc. is a cover. In fact, Whiskey in the Jar is a Thin Lizzy cover of a cover; it's an old Irish drinking song. Dumbass.
Your second counterpoint to my italics-added comment is specious. It has everything to do with whether or not you consider violating a law a crime. By your entirely inclusive viewpoint, which I fully doubt is true, speeding is criminal, and therefore is wrong.
I acknowledge a difference between an idealistic "right/wrong" and legal/illegal as defined by relevent laws imposed by local authority. So, speeding is criminal, yes, because it violates a law. Is it wrong? Well that isn't clear-cut, but I would say that violating the rules that society has agreed upon is generally not good although sometimes not clearly "wrong". In the case of speeding it is hard to say what society has agreed since the law says one thing and popular behavior and law enforcement certainly rarely follow the letter of that law. But wrecklessly endangering other's lives is wrong. Not sure if speeding qualifies.
Why should people not have access to artistry? If someone sneaks into the Corcoran Art Museum to see a Picasso exhibit has he stolen from the private society that runs it?
If I download a copy of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales for free, am I stealing?
I don't know where this idea that all art is somehow part of the public domain and that everyone on the planet has the unalienable right to experience it. People own property. Owners of property have the right to do with that property as they choose, within certain parameters of course.
If a museum is run by a private group, who have the own rules for admission, then someone who violates those rules has certainly done wrong. In the case of sneaking into a museum it sounds more like trespassing than stealing, but that is a fine line (trespassing/stealing) in some cases. Either is clearly wrong.
I don't know who owns the right to Canterbury Tales. If someone owns it, and doesn't allow free distribution of electronic copies, then yes you'd be stealing if you obtain such a copy. But maybe Canterbury Tales is in the public domain now and freely legally available.
Further, I think invariably classifying taking another's property as theft and immoral is imprecise and incorrect.
Perhaps there are situations where taking someone's property is not immoral, but I can't think of one. Can you?
In the case of art/music/creative work, I'm sure we both understand that the point of intellectual property laws in to foster innovation by rewarding the innovator with the rights to their work. Stealing intellectual property theoretically undermines that process. I don't know how strong that undermining effect is, but I think rewarding creativity the way we do is better than a free-for-all on brilliant new art/ideas.
If someone downloads mp3s with a thought process like "I think the way music is owned and distributed now is grossly unfair to the artists and I think it would be much more benefitial for artists and fans if all mp3s were freely available" and so they download illegal mp3s as part of a protest designed to make the system better, I have a lot less of a problem with them than people who just think "oh cool I can get all this shit without paying for it, awesome!!" Which camp do you think most illegal downloaders are in?
(and by the way I don't have a well-formed opinion on what the ideal music distribution system should be.)
Our entire society then is based upon theft in the rawest form by taxation - originally embodied as tributes (I'm sure you recognize my reference on this one) - and I can't imagine why you would bother to be a part of something you consider so inherently, insidiously, and obviously evil.
Taxation in its current form isn't theft. Taxation is adhering to the mutually agreed upon rules of our society. If you don't want to pay taxes, the only moral action is to find a place to live that doesn't have them (and doesn't provide the protection the taxes buy). I have no problem paying taxes.
and i don't get the reference...
Particularly the underground and illegal world of poker, for fuck's sake. After all, not only is it illegal (for whatever it's worth), but you are taking someone's money from under their nose.
You're opening another big argument here, but my first point is that the legality of playing poker isn't well established. It is clearly illegal to house a poker game in certain locations, hence all online casinos are based off-shore. However in many states playing online poker isn't specifically illegal, to the best of my knowledge. If it ever becomes clear that online poker is specifically illegal, I probably wont play.
However, I don't like legislation that makes "consenting adult" crimes illegal. Gambling, prostitution, drugs all fall under that group. I understand why speeding should be illegal - it endangers the public. But consenting adults betting on a card game or having sex doesn't endanger anyone (of course there are indirect ways it could). So I don't consider gambling immoral. But I don't want to live as a criminal, so I probably won't play if it is illegal.
You don't earn that money you win at poker any more than I earn my right to download an mp3, by your reasoning.
My reasoning in no way leads to that conclusion, except perhaps taken extremely out of context.
I guess the idea of "earning" money might mean different things to different people. But when my superior skill results in financial gain in an enterprise where all parties voluntarily take part and understand what is at stake, to me that is earning money. It is no different than earning money through an investment. Perhaps you wouldn't consider a gain on sale of stock as money "earned" though.
And you would "earn your right to download an mp3" by doing whatever is legally required by the rightful owner of that content. Often that means you have to pay for it.
The Monitors....
Your logic sucks in the longwinded comment you made. Seriously. It's one of the most invalid arguments I've ever read. The entire comment.
As for whether violating a law is a crime. Are you kidding? That's the definition of crime!
For example:
Crime: 1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a LAW forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. UnLAWful activity
If you want to know more about copyright issues, read 17 U.S.C § 101, or just look up the case against Google Print to figure out a generalized idea of the Fair Use Doctrine.
P.S. Obviously I'm not a Metallica fan.
Your first post deceived me. YOU are in fact a dumbass.
The Monitors isn't a dumbass. He might have some good points, he just hasn't yet taken the time/effort to express them clearly.
AdSpar...
Perhaps someone who has 'not taken the time/effort to express his points clearly' should not so capriciously call those who do a dumbass
I'm pretty sure that "dumbass" was meant in jest. I didn't notice his original dumbass when he was later called a dumbass. I guess that makes me a dumbass too.
First of all I would argue that just because something is legal or illegal does NOT equate to right or wrong. In fact, laws work much better when they follow, and not go against, social mores and norms.
That being said I don't think the issue of mp3s is as cut and dry as "stealing is wrong".
If copying CDs is illegal, why is it so rampant?
Links of interest:
http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/intellectual.pdf
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/29/12540/2722
okay, metallica=whiny, greedy bitches. but that's different from britney spears=whiny, greedy bitch. i think...
Post a Comment