Is music piracy stealing?

[FreedByte]

The purpose of the question was to determine if it would be acceptable practice for a Christian.

We can continue to debate the semantics, but the OP was to determine its morality.

Well if that is true, then I agree with you in regards to its immorality.

And I'd still call it "stealing" because it is still making an acquisition without making the required payment. There is nothing new about the fact that nothing tangible was taken--duplicating devices have been available for a century, and making an unauthorized duplicate in order to avoid paying the required price has always been considered stealing.

I guess the stealing/not stealing discussion is kind of over, but I'll reply anyways. Even though "making an unauthorized duplicate in order to avoid paying the required price has always been considered stealing" could be true (though I have my doubts), looking at what is happening at the computing level indicates that there is no stealing going on. In the same way that you could copy a music file between two of your own computers, you are simply copying a file from someone else's computer, and they retain their copy. Stealing is to "take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice", but no property is being taken, the other person retains their property; it is just a violation of copyright law.

 

[WolfGate]

The property being taken is the compensation owed the artist.

 

[FreedByte]

The property being taken is the compensation owed the artist.

But it isn't taken, it's just never given.

 

[Ian Ferrin]

SFA - In business and academia, ideas are often referred to as 'stolen'. That's similar to how I see music piracy as stolen. There is no physical artifact being stolen, but it's stealing nonetheless.

But I'm absolutely fine with the idea of an 'immoral copy'. I would have been happy if this thread asked 'Is music piracy immoral'? As far as I can tell, we're in 100% agreement and I personally am not worried about the semantics.

In Christ,

Ian

 

[FreedByte]

SFA - In business and academia, ideas are often referred to as 'stolen'.

Thomas Jefferson's words on this matter are quite good:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he wholights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813

 

[RDKirk]

Thomas Jefferson's words on this matter are quite good:

"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he wholights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices."

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, Monticello, August 13, 1813

Benjamin Frankliin and others disagreed, thus copyright is written directly into the Constitution.

I disagree with Jefferson on a heck of a lot of issues.

 

[FreedByte]

Benjamin Frankliin and others disagreed, thus copyright is written directly into the Constitution.

I know

I disagree with Jefferson on a heck of a lot of issues.

Well I agree with Jefferson on a heck of a lot of issues

 

[Ian Ferrin]

SFA - That's an interesting quote from TJ. He argues against intellectual property.

It's an argument he lost, noble as it might be. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Gnashville... even NYC would be much different places were there no intellectual property. Vastly less prosperous is my speculation, but I admit it's only speculation.

But I wonder if the 17-20 year moratorium on patents is directly related to his line of thought? (Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them). A copyright affords a much longer protection than a patent. Do you know the history of this distinction?

Anyway, that's a good quote. Thanks.

Peace,

Ian

 

[FreedByte]

SFA - That's an interesting quote from TJ. He argues against intellectual property.

Not many people know how small Jefferson really wanted his government

It's an argument he lost, noble as it might be. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Gnashville... even NYC would be much different places were there no intellectual property. Vastly less prosperous is my speculation, but I admit it's only speculation.

They would be less prosperous in all likelihood; that's what happens when an artificial monopoly has its protections removed

But I wonder if the 17-20 year moratorium on patents is directly related to his line of thought? (Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them). A copyright affords a much longer protection than a patent. Do you know the history of this distinction?

I think Jefferson wanted the interaction between society and the producer to be voluntary. It would be up to society to determine if they wanted to purchase from the creator.

I haven't studied the history of the distinction. I have read about the lobbying that happened in the late 20th century that essentially allows indefinite copyright so long as the bill is renewed every 20 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Anyway, that's a good quote. Thanks.

you're welcome

 

[cj31387]

I think it has messed up the music business bad. I personally don't want to tour, I want to sell recordings. But that's not really possible now

 

[Ian Ferrin]

I think it has messed up the music business bad. I personally don't want to tour, I want to sell recordings. But that's not really possible now

And worse than that, many artists and bands are relegated to being 'trinket salesmen'. A large part of any money made is off the t-shirts and coffee mugs. And worse than that, venues know the score and take a big chuck of the merchandise. Which often leaves many small bands 'paying to play'.

 

[RDKirk]

Not many people know how small Jefferson really wanted his government



They would be less prosperous in all likelihood; that's what happens when an artificial monopoly has its protections removed



I think Jefferson wanted the interaction between society and the producer to be voluntary. It would be up to society to determine if they wanted to purchase from the creator.

Of course, though, Jefferson had a plantation and slaves, so he wasn't depending on his intellectual output to pay the bills.

Wait...he had slaves, including a sex slave...which already says a lot for his real sense of morality.

I haven't studied the history of the distinction. I have read about the lobbying that happened in the late 20th century that essentially allows indefinite copyright so long as the bill is renewed every 20 years:

It's not quite that indefinite, but it is certainly longer than it needs to be, especially when applied to corporations.

 

[FreedByte]

Of course, though, Jefferson had a plantation and slaves, so he wasn't depending on his intellectual output to pay the bills.

Wait...he had slaves, including a sex slave...which already says a lot for his real sense of morality.

Yea, i know.. he wasn't even a Christian, he was a deist with sympathies to Christian morals.

Either way, this is an ad hominem fallacy against Jefferson

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#cite_note-2

It's not quite that indefinite, but it is certainly longer than it needs to be, especially when applied to corporations.

Yes, and you're right at the moment it's not indefinite but they only have to get the 20 year extension renewed every 20 years and it is essentially indefinite (and they have the lobbying strength to do that).

 

[RDKirk]

Yea, i know.. he wasn't even a Christian, he was a deist with sympathies to Christian morals.

Either way, this is an ad hominem fallacy against Jefferson

Ad hominem, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument.

Not really, in a case like this. Motivation counts.

A report of a "medical study" reveals that drinking milk is bad for you.
Another report of the same "medical study" reveals that drinking milk is good for you.

You check the fine print and discover that the first report of bad effects was gleaned out of the medical study by PETA while the second report of the good effects was gleaned out of the study by the National Milk Producers Federation.

Motivation counts. If it can be reasonably determined that Jefferson's arguments are influenced by personal interest, that is not an ad hominem response.

 

[FreedByte]

Not really, in a case like this. Motivation counts.

A report of a "medical study" reveals that drinking milk is bad for you.
Another report of the same "medical study" reveals that drinking milk is good for you.

You check the fine print and discover that the first report of bad effects was gleaned out of the medical study by PETA while the second report of the good effects was gleaned out of the study by the National Milk Producers Federation.

Motivation counts. If it can be reasonably determined that Jefferson's arguments are influenced by personal interest, that is not an ad hominem response.

That would be an acceptable point, but I don't understand how Jefferson's having slaves would have motivated him to oppose "intellectual property" rights, especially when it was a relatively new idea.

 

[RDKirk]

That would be an acceptable point, but I don't understand how Jefferson's having slaves would have motivated him to oppose "intellectual property" rights, especially when it was a relatively new idea.

Unlike, say, Franklin, he wasn't making a living through intellectual property. Moreover, it appears Jefferson also plagiarized Benjamin Banneker's almanac--or at least took credit for it--which casts a pall on any opinion he might have about copyright.

 

[FreedByte]

Unlike, say, Franklin, he wasn't making a living through intellectual property. Moreover, it appears Jefferson also plagiarized Benjamin Banneker's almanac--or at least took credit for it--which casts a pall on any opinion he might have about copyright.

I'd like to see more on that, and btw, President Jefferson invented tons of things:

University of Virginia

 

[djsciple]

I'm a Christian DJ, so for me there is no other way to honor God than by purchasing the music I play. I want the full blessing when I perform and others listen and dance and I want God to be glorified, even if just in spirit. Hey there is a spiritual war going on.

Do it the right way and stay blessed.

Also, the benefits are usually sound quality is usually better and you obtain the entire song the way the artist created them. For DJs this is important because it provides opening and closing phrases (beats, etc.) to loop into the next track.

I was in the position a LONG time that Christian music should be free, but then how else are you going to support the artist who created the music you are enjoying.

 

[three4rd]

Composers copyright their music for a reason. With the advent of digital streaming on the internet, piracy has become all too frequent. I just released an album of religious covers and made sure that I purchased mechanical licenses for each piece.

 

[jiminpa]

Hi jiminpa:
I am new to this forum. I am an independent musician. I have worked very hard on a ten song album that I just recently released for Christians first but also for non believers. I have also been complementing the music with slow motion and time lapse videos on youtube. For Christians, the music should reconfirm the amazing gentle grace and beauty of Christ. For the non believer it should reveal that Christ is actually really beautiful and something they may want to reconsider because of the amazing beauty and gentleness.
I do not consider myself the "music industry" nor do I want to sue people for stealing my work. However, i strongly believe that if I am selling songs on itunes or wherever...if they are for sale, that means I would like people to support my work and not take it. It's like what jesus said in Mathew 7:6...

" Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

When we give music away for free it erodes the worth of the product. People these days are used to getting art for free and therefore treat it as if it was a used tissue...they just toss it away.

If you do not want to buy music because you think it's junk then don't buy it. To download it for free off a pirate website if the artist is trying to sell it is not what Jesus would tell you to do. If someone is selling something either buy it or don't buy it...that is your choice...but don't take for free what has not been offered for free just because you have determined it's not worthy of paying for. If it's not worthy of paying for then it should not be worthy of taking for free. However, If the artist wants to give their music away then it's fine.

...and then here's the thing. I won't buy your disc. I don't have the spare money, and I won't download it for free either. It could be the greatest, most uplifting music ever written, and I won't know it. I won't tell my friends, some of whom may be able to afford to pay for it, about it, and you will keep right on blaming "piracy" for your unknown state.

The people who don't pay for music will just do without, and some don't have the spare money anyway. You are withholding your message from those who can't afford it for the sake of what?