Is getting free Copyrighted material theft?

[lawrocket 3]

I say yes. I know a lot of people here don't like Metallica because Metallica opposes free distribution of their music. And others do not like the RIAA for enforcing copyrights. My thought is that it is theft, and even though these artists may have a lot of money, they made it through copyright.

What are your thoughts?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[n2skdvn 0]

i work in the music industry(radio) havent paid for a cd in so long it not funny. never really worried about downloading music.

if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site

[AndyMan 7]

The question is insufficient. I frequently legally download copyrighted music, because the artist and publishers have given permission.

That said, without permission it is stealing.

Sometimes, I have absolutely no moral issue stealing, especially from the mega-rich. Call me robin hood, but I have no issues downloading the latest Madonna track.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Kramer 0]

Is it theft? Yes.
Does it bother me that I do it? Not really. Sometimes I feel guilty for downloading music with all the propaganda out there, but in the end, I really just don't care. (Kinda wish I did).

The FAKE KRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMER!!!!!!!!!

[DShiznit 0]

No, it's not theft, if I only use it for my entertainment.

Yes, it is theft, if I use it for personal gain.

[Nightingale 0]

yes, its theft.

however... what about when its played over the radio and you tape it or record it to CD? I would say that's different from the whole MP3 thing because 1: you're not getting the same quality as an MP3, and 2: the artists have given permission for it to be played on the radio, but did not give permission for it to be placed on Kazaa or whatnot.

[indyz 1]

Quote

No, it's not theft, if I only use it for my entertainment.

So if you grabbed a CD and walked out of Sam Goody without paying, but only used it for your personal entertainment, it's not theft?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No, it's not theft, if I only use it for my entertainment.

Yes, it is theft, if I use it for personal gain.

"use it for my entertainment" = "personal gain."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DShiznit 0]

Personal gain = profit.

That is what I was inferring, my apologies.

The Sam Goody example is rediculous.

[Harksaw 0]

I consider it "Theft of service" like stealing cable TV.

Oh, and some of us don't like the RIAA because of pricefixing, and suing college students for all they're worth for doing nothing more than writing a search engine.

__________________________________________________
I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait.

[nathaniel 0]

to be persnickety, a whole lot of copyrighted material is free for the taking under reasonable terms. Lots of software, a few books, most of the stuff you see written on web pages. This stuff is definitely legal...but somehow I think I'm getting you on a technicality.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 3,108]

>1: you're not getting the same quality as an MP3 . .

It is if you're getting it off, say, XM radio.

[indyz 1]

Quote

The Sam Goody example is rediculous.

Why? The end result is the same.

[Michele 1]

Yes, in the same way taking someone's words (in an article, essay, book...) is theft.

If it's copywritten, then it's theft (unless used by permission). If it's not copywritten, then no...acourse, it's not that kind of black and white, but that's what I see.

And no, I've not downloaded music...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[bvsdjumper 0]

As AndyMan said, isn't it clearly illegal unless permission is given?

Perhaps you meant to have a discussion on 'should it be illegal' or 'should you feel bad about it'.

If people think that it's hard to feel bad about copying a song copyrighted by millionaires, then how much money does someone have to make before their song goes public domain?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not shedding any tears over Metallica missing out on a couple of bucks, but where does it end?

Art

Sky-div'ing (ski'div'ing) n. A modern sport that involves parties, bragging, sexual excesses, the imbibing of large quantities of beer, and, on rare occasions, parachuting from aircraft.

[Nightingale 0]

I would say that downloading the original sheet music of Beethoven's 9th Symphony is legal, since any copyrights have long since lapsed...

however, downloading a recording of someone's performance of that music (that has been released on CD and has not been released to 'common domain') would not be legal, since you are not stealing the music, you are stealing the artist's interpretation of the music.

[Zeemax 0]

Actually, certainly in this country, that is illegal. Although most people dont know it, recording from the radio is a breach of copyright law.

At my station we currently pay best part of $38 EVERY time we play a track. This fee is payable to PRS (the performing rights society) which is then broken down between the writer and the artist etc. The writer will actually get more than the artist, generally. Something not a lot of people know.


As for MP3 downloading being theft. Yes, yes it is.

People say its not a big deal, but look it this way, if everyone downloads the music. No one gets paid. If no one gets paid, there will be no more music. Of course people will argue that will give smaller bands a chance to come through, but i personally enjoy going to big concerts. They simply wont happen if no one is getting paid.

The rate that MP3 downloading is taking off is extremely alarming. Already we have companies in the UK taking CD singles off the shelves, because they simply aren't selling any more.

Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE
Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies

[lawrocket 3]

Wait. Are you telling me that downloading is taking away the livelihoods of music store owners and their employees? And taking the livelihoods of the truck drivers and distributors and others?

WHoa! Here everyone talks about taking money from millionaires.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,108]

>Why? The end result is the same.

There is a difference between stealing a physical item and one that does not physically exist. They are treated differently under the law.

[bmcd308 0]

Taking a CD from Sam Goody deprives Sam Goody of the ability to sell a piece of merchandise for which they have paid. So there is a true "victim" there - you have the benefit of having purchased the CD, but Sam Goody does not have the benefit of having sold it.

Downloading music may or may not deprive anyone of any benefit. What if I download and make a CD of songs I never would have purchased otherwise, and I know I never would have purchased those? I am better off, because I have the music, but no one is any worse off, because I would never have purchased it.

OK, now how about I download and burn a song from a CD I already own, but the CD is at my house and I want to hear the song while I drive home? I have already paid for the song once, but now I have the benefit of having two copies (one for home and one for car). Should I have to buy it twice to have the convenience of two copies that will never be played simultaneously?

How about I bought the CD, and because it was a low quality disc, the coating has gone bad and now it won't play. The record store won't exchange it because I have had it for two years, but I paid to hear the music. Should I be able to burn a new copy? What if I scratched the original CD by being careless?

These are just things to think about.

----------------------------------
www.jumpelvis.com

[Zeemax 0]

bingo

Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE
Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies

[Guest]

Quote

I say yes. I know a lot of people here don't like Metallica because Metallica opposes free distribution of their music. And others do not like the RIAA for enforcing copyrights. My thought is that it is theft, and even though these artists may have a lot of money, they made it through copyright.

What are your thoughts?

Law,

Please don't get me started.

As you know, Intellectual Property law has been seriously abused over the past ten years, to the point of ridiculousness (exempli gratia - where a line of software code is "patented", and a man is arrested and charged with a Federal crime just for TALKING about electronic copyright protection).

It has now gotten to the point where SCO CEO Daryl McBride has announced that he will seek to have the GPL declared "unconstitutional", as if giving away IP for free was somehow a crime or infringement on the rights of other IP holders not associated with the free product.

Metallica is a very poor example to use, because they encouraged bootlegging for years as a means of promoting themselves and their product, but now object to this practice. Where I come from, that's blatant hypocrisy.

John Perry Barlow, former lyricist for the Greatful Dead and a co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation has written an essay about this subject, called "The Economy of Ideas". Put succinctly, an idea can only go so far. A concrete product carries more weight. Example - the Grateful Dead ENCOURAGED bootlegging, because it was free promotion of their product, but nobody can "bootleg" a Grateful Dead CONCERT.

Every time a new recording technology has come out, the recording industry has done the Chicken-Little bit, run around and squawking that "artists will starve if this technology isn't controlled (meaning controlled by them, in order to keep their profits coming, even at the expense of the artists they supposedly represent)!".

The only difference between then and now is that there is now a technology that the recording cannot control, despite all their bluster and threats.

Is it stealing to make and pass along bootlegs of copyrighted material? UNQUESTIONABLY, since copyrights are protected by law.

But the term "copyright" means "COPY-RIGHT", or the right to copy a work. Granted, a copyright serves to protect the creator's intellectual property against infringement or misrepresentation, but it (IP laws and interpretation thereof) goes too far in favor of big bloated corporations over the interest of the public, whom the laws were created to serve in the first place.

Edit to add - the DMCA, as an example, neatly bypasses the doctrine of "Fair Use" as codified in law.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[skybytch 273]

Quote

OK, now how about I download and burn a song from a CD I already own, but the CD is at my house and I want to hear the song while I drive home? I have already paid for the song once, but now I have the benefit of having two copies (one for home and one for car). Should I have to buy it twice to have the convenience of two copies that will never be played simultaneously?

And how about if I already "own" the music in a format other than CD? As an example I've owned Pink Floyd "The Wall" in four different formats - album, 8 track, cassette and CD - over the years. If I hadn't bought the CD version pre-Napster I'd have had no problem downloading the tracks - I don't think that should be illegal. How many times should I have to pay for the same songs?

[Zeemax 0]

Quote

Downloading music may or may not deprive anyone of any benefit. What if I download and make a CD of songs I never would have purchased otherwise, and I know I never would have purchased those? I am better off, because I have the music, but no one is any worse off, because I would never have purchased it.

but if everyone did this, no one would be paying for the CD's. ALOT of people lose out if this becomes the case. The whole music industry (obviously worst case scenario) falls apart, right down to the guy whos makes the tea at the recording studio.

Quote

OK, now how about I download and burn a song from a CD I already own, but the CD is at my house and I want to hear the song while I drive home?

This, i believe, is OK. You bought the initial copyright when you purchased the song. As long as you dont go on to give it to people etc, or use it for public performance.

Phoenix Fly - High performance wingsuits for skydiving and BASE
Performance Designs - Simply brilliant canopies

[Thanatos340 1]

There was a Time when I believed that Theft was defined as taking something from some else then I now have it and they do not.
To steal something meant that some "THING" had been taken and someone was deprived of something. Copying something in no way deprived anyone of any "thing" and/or took anything away from anyone.

Now I work for a software company and have to deal with Licensing every day. My beliefs have changed. It is always amusing to try to explain to a customer that they did NOT buy the software; they just paid a fee for the right to use it.