don't steal music... pay $6000?

[digital330]

well if i don't download from Kazaa err... steal music, then how does one fill up a 10-30GB iPod?

let's say i buy at $1/song from iTunes store (whenever it launches for Windows), and at 5MB/song, it will be $2000-$6000.

if in future it becomes 10 cents per mp3 song & almost complete collection of songs, then things might change. but for now, how can i not steal music?

[mongoos150]

Buy a whole bunch of cds, borrow a whold bunch of cds from friends, and check out a whole bunch of cds from your library.

[mike273]

And borrowing CDs from friends and ripping tracks from CDs hired from your library isn't 'stealing music', eh Nick?

You must have very liberal stealing laws over in Tucson... :D

[dean0]

i actually know some people that have more music than can fit on there 30gb ipods, before they even bought one.

i don't think the point of the ipod is to fill it right off the bat with new music, but to upload your music collection, and add or subtract as you see fit, as you would normaly buy CDs, or music.

[fruxo]

Originally posted by mike273
And borrowing CDs from friends and ripping tracks from CDs hired from your library isn't 'stealing music', eh Nick?

You must have very liberal stealing laws over in Tucson... :D
u are allowed to copy music from close friends and family tho, at least here in sweden.. but i do believe its like that in most places.

[noryen]

So you are looking for a *legal* way to get thousands of songs into your iPod?

Well that's easy, just look for "Public Domain" songs. Yeah I know most all of these songs are really old, but I'm sure some people like that kind of stuff.

Otherwise, you could simply rip your own collection of CDs at the highest bitrate, and fill up your iPod real fast.



(Do a Google search on "Public Domain" if you don't know what I'm refering to).

[Offline69]

I have a bank account that hold a lot of zeros. How am I going to fill it up? My job doesn't pay me that much.

[mike273]

Originally posted by fruxo
u are allowed to copy music from close friends and family tho, at least here in sweden.. but i do believe its like that in most places.

I'm only aware of the law in my home country (England) and that in France where I live now. The law though is identical: you are allowed to make one copy only of the medium strictly reserved for personal use.

While in practice this will apply to the 'one CD per family' ideal as you say, by the letter of the law I'd be surprised if this were the case. If it is, then good on Sweden for being less archaic than my countries.

However ripping rented music from a library is definitely not legit.

[AMG]

the ipod isn't meant to hold 30gig of music! you're supposed to load it with porn! :) :) ;)

[b_nightingale99]

I just borrow CD's from friends, family, and occasionally I buy one if I really like it. I consider borrowing from friends MUCH different than Kazaa. You don't even know these people. Also, about 1/3 songs I ever downloaded from Kazaa are horrible quality. Most won't play on my iPod cause they're corrupted. You also never know if you are getting the correct song. I tried to download a few songs from the Chili Pepper's new album By The Way to see if I'd like the album and they were all just loops of the chorus or some guitar solo. I just went out and bought the CD instead, and it was a good $15.

I've completely stopped using Kazaa now because of those frustrations and because the RIAA is starting to sue. Also, Kazaa is filled with WAY too many leeches and parasites that don't share what they have but will download tons of music from others. The whole point of p2p is to "share." I always shared, and I wouldn't use Kazaa to just download from others, but now sharing could mean getting sued. And I know I would get in trouble with 15+ GB of music. So the whole point of Kazaa is basically lost.

Anyway, that is my take.

[m.r.m.]

just a tip guys, search this forum and the old forum on this topic. there were a lot of highly informative discussions dealing with this subject (i?m feeling to lazy to post a link :D ). cheers lads.

[ech3]

Originally posted by digital330
well if i don't download from Kazaa err... steal music, then how does one fill up a 10-30GB iPod?

How can you 'not' steal? Oh, please. See of that one works
before the judge.

"but your honor, a Rolls Royce costs $250,000. How could I not
steal one?".

Over the years, I've purchased close to 2000 CDs. At $13 each,
that's $26,000. And I still have about 300-400 vinyl LPs. Quit
whining about the cost. If it's too much, go buy a radio.

[trippy]

Quit complaining. Music is a luxury.. :-)

I have 200 some odd cds from 13 years of buying them. If i had never sold any, i would have closer to 400. I am switching to itunes store only since i really only listen to music on the ipod/computer. No need for cds, although the covers are nice, but itunes is slowly fading that out.

Think of it this way. When you buy a cd at $14.99-$25, you could be saving a crap load at $9.99 per album through the itunes music store. Or even better, $.99 for that one song you want instead of the prices i mentioned. When looking at it this way, you save a crap load of money.

Oh yeah, screw the riaa.

[mongoos150]

Originally posted by mike273
And borrowing CDs from friends and ripping tracks from CDs hired from your library isn't 'stealing music', eh Nick?

You must have very liberal stealing laws over in Tucson... :D

Well as I understand borrowing cds from places like the library and friends for personal use and ripping them to your iPod is completely legal. Distributing those tunes however is illegal.

[IlIlIlIlIl]

In my opinion, RIAA is going way too far with this...instead of adapting to the technology we have, they are treating millions of P2P users as criminals...They don't realize how many songs you can't even find at record stores, and how much junk they have put on the shelves. Also, the reason why they are against P2P sharing is not the idea of stealing, but rather $$$$$ MONEY $$$$$. I have a sense that RIAA will fail sooner or later, and the music business will undergo drasatic changes.

[caterinka]

Originally posted by mongoos150
Well as I understand borrowing cds from places like the library and friends for personal use and ripping them to your iPod is completely legal. Distributing those tunes however is illegal.

Sorry, no. Borrowing them and keeping them for your own use -- no matter how you finesse a way to keep them -- is illegal across the U.S. Not that I'm going to report you.

[bdrules]

there's services like emusic. $15 for 2000 songs a month. that will definitely fill up your ipod fast. great music too.

[Jackonicko]

I bought a stack of CDs last week from the Oxfam shop, Cancer Research, and another charity shop. I spent about $40, and netted some great CDs. Some were about $1.50, others nearer $7.50, but they included some great records. And in buying them I helped feed the starving, cure the sick, and shelter the homeless.

If my CD collection wasn't already huge, I could easily find loads of great music second hand at rock-bottom prices. In the shops I visited, I saw Annie Lennox's 'Diva' and 'Medusa', a Sheryl Crow CD and an Alanis CD, the first two Oasis CDs, Led Zep II, 'Big Ones' by Aerosmith, 'K' by Kula Shaker, 'Schubert Dip' by EMF, 'Harbor Lights' by Bruce Hornsby, and loads of good CD singles. And those (which I could have bought for about $35) are just the CDs I remember because I already owned them.

If you rip at 192 (about 7.5 MB per album track) you'll only fit 133 tracks (10-15 CDs) per GB, so you could fill an iPod with 100-150 CDs.

And as has been suggested, the cost of doing it legally does not excuse theft, and P2P file sharing is theft.

[an0therdumbsn]

Originally posted by IlIlIlIlIl
In my opinion, RIAA is going way too far with this...instead of adapting to the technology we have, they are treating millions of P2P users as criminals...They don't realize how many songs you can't even find at record stores, and how much junk they have put on the shelves. Also, the reason why they are against P2P sharing is not the idea of stealing, but rather $$$$$ MONEY $$$$$. I have a sense that RIAA will fail sooner or later, and the music business will undergo drasatic changes.
god i hope your right

[caterinka]

I'm inclined to think that the RIAA has enough lobbyists to keep wreaking havoc in the lives of downloaders for a long, long time.

[CentipedeX]

Well I for one have between 400-500 CD's, most of which are stored on my iPod. I have 20 gigs of music ripped from my CD's. Anything music that I like, I buy. I don't like using P2P software as its kind of like a garbage dump for music (some not so great quality rips, corrupt files, bad connections, headaches, etc.)

[IlIlIlIlIl]

Well, ultimately, the power is still in people's hands because the people elect who's in government. With millions of people supporting P2P, the people can make a difference, and the politicians will realize that fact. Also, the RIAA is gonna become less and less popular, with less people buying CDs if they simply use the threaten tactic. Why would anyone wanna buy something simply out of fear and hatred...it doesn't work that way. Eventually, secure networks will surface, and there is nothing that RIAA can do about it, but instead to cooperate with the consumers.

[mongoos150]

Originally posted by caterinka
Sorry, no. Borrowing them and keeping them for your own use -- no matter how you finesse a way to keep them -- is illegal across the U.S. Not that I'm going to report you.

Well I guess my kindly librarian lied to me! Oh well...

[trix]

hmm... i think all of u are too worried about getting fined for downloading music... uh i mean, 'stealing music'. Maybe I dont see the big reason because none of ur laws effect me. But if u cant even borrow a cd from a friend to rip a song off it, then i mean, thats getting too far. I have a 15 gig iPod and theres only approx. 700 mb left on it. 80% of the music is all mine, the other 20% is my friends cds and music that i've downloaded. I think the law against downloading music is wrong.... we should all go and protest... 'All iPod owners unite to bring the Evil Empire down!!'

[emfinite]

I have to admit, I was in the illegal music trading world for over 2 years (I'm out of the scene now after reading consequences of FTP servers, IRC, etc...). I have over 20,000 MP3s totaling over 55GB.

[emfinite]

But don't get me wrong at all, I buy over 10 CDs a month... Somtimes even 5 a week.

[SouthsideIrish]

Originally posted by caterinka
I'm inclined to think that the RIAA has enough lobbyists to keep wreaking havoc in the lives of downloaders for a long, long time.

Not really true. As the RIAA goes out to stop one program, more and more spring up. They are still trying to go after programs like Kazaa and Winmx, when the real pirates have moved on to other programs. The major lable will have to come to the realization that there is no way to stop the online sharing of music, and come up with a way to make money on it, or they will cease to exist.

BTW the major labels seem to be more interested in renting music as opposed to selling it online. They really think the subscription services are a great idea, whose time is just not quite here yet.

Bill McNair

[b_nightingale99]

Originally posted by IlIlIlIlIl
Well, ultimately, the power is still in people's hands because the people elect who's in government. With millions of people supporting P2P, the people can make a difference, and the politicians will realize that fact. Also, the RIAA is gonna become less and less popular, with less people buying CDs if they simply use the threaten tactic. Why would anyone wanna buy something simply out of fear and hatred...it doesn't work that way. Eventually, secure networks will surface, and there is nothing that RIAA can do about it, but instead to cooperate with the consumers.

HAHA! What a crack! Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. But I promise you the last thing on earth most of the high school/college age people out there ripping music will vote! And this is coming from an 18 y/o. The money that the RIAA has will catch politicians better than the supposed threat of people actually voting! Politicians also are against all the little punks stealing music, they see it as against big business. They are the ones with power, NOT some college drop out that some how can afford limitless supplies of alcohol but not a freaking CD.

I also seriously doubt there are many people out there who say "they are threatening people to stop others from stealing music so I won't buy music ever again."

I do agree however that these p2p networks will always exist. There are simply too many short cuts and holes in the internet to get around it. Same with hacking. No matter how good anti-virus/firewall/etc... work, there is always going to be someone who can get around it. After all, if someone built, someone else can take it down. So, it might seem futitle, but that isn't an excuse to keep stealing.

Anyway, this certainly is an interesting discussion. And I'm very interested to see what happens with these lawsuits. My guess is that the courts won't hold them up (there are just too many loop holes in the law).

[SouthsideIrish]

Ah, but the good senator from Utah had the idea on how to stop piracy. Just go out and reformat the harddrives of everyone with mp3's. One wonders how you'd be able to tell an mp3 you encoded from one taken off of kazaa. Still, I'm sure Microsoft with WMP10 and Apple with the next version of iTunes will figure out a way to delete illegal mp3's.

Bill McNair

[trix]

Do you know how many people out there have 'illegal' mp3s? it would take years to format everyones computers! the RIAA should focus on how to sell cds and stopping p2p program and people who download mp3s wont solve a thing.

[Lyonnais]

You are not really supposed to fill it up with music, guys. It serves as external HDD also, you know. You can easily fill it up with photos, personal files, videos etc.

[Nathan Adams]

good point about going to oxfam and getting 2nd hand cd's
I'm a creature of habit - every Sunday I go CD shopping at a lovely cd store down the road at the beach. They have a great 2nd hand section, and I fossick through the whole thing looking for some great, cheap cd's - and of course the rarity that someone sold off (I've picked up the odd radio promo for a couple of dollars)
Better yet, CD fairs! We had one a few weeks ago - blew $100 easy there. Especcially at 30mins to close, everyone was at half price... mmmmm.

So really, it isn't hard to build up a sizable collection.
I haven't got my iPod yet (15gb soon - just got my tax return today, and it's exactly enough for a 15 :D ), but come day1 - I'll have it filled nicely ;)

[Jackonicko]

Illegal sharing of music files via P2P networks is rightly illegal. It's theft, pure and simple, because you are not paying for what you are taking. There may be valid arguments that the record industry has been making excess profits, and that not every download would necessarily represent a lost sale, but those are entirely separate.

If you download music from (say) Kazaa, you are stealing just as surely as though you stole CDs from the local music store, or from your next door neighbour. The fact that millions of people break the law in this way does not diminish its illegality or its immorality.

[ToddW]

I agree that using P2P networks for downloading music is illegal. It clearly breaks intellictual property copyright laws. However, you have to see why people are doing this. I remeber when Napster hit, man I was extatic. I was one like many who did nothing but download, download, download. Then I woke up one morning and read about copyright infringment and intellictual copyrights. Guess what? I figured out I was breaking the law. Since then every single mp3 on my hard drive is legal! My CD collection has grown and I find myself buying used CD's ripping them and then selling them back. I would love to find a pay/subscription based site that I can go to and get an album where the songs are encoded at least 192kbps and buy them so I can have my own copy. I have looked extensively through emusic and have not really like the artists that they have and the bitrate is only 128kbps. iTunes music store is a great idea, but right now it caters to only a macintosh platform.

If the RIAA and other music companies where smart they would get on the band wagon and give folks what they want. You hear countless tells of people saying, "Hey I would definately pay 99 cents a song" The number of downloads through iTunes Music Store should be enough research that hey this isn't a fad this is the future of music.

I thing most artists would rather get what money they can off of their intellectual property rather than have a high school/college student rip them off. Eventhough the record companies are the devil the artist shouldn't be ripped off.

[Jackonicko]

Good for you Todd!

"Even though the record companies are the devil the artist shouldn't be ripped off."

Bloody well said!

[MidPack]

My CD collection has grown and I find myself buying used CD's ripping them and then selling them back. Isn't this illegal as well?

I have about 350 CD's and continue to buy more, although now mostly through a second hand CD store and half.com. I have (and have kept) every CD for every mp3 on my HD and iPod. Friends of mine offer to 'lend' me CD's all the time, tempting as it is, I decline. I am really looking forward to the day there is an XXX Music Store for Win users. There are lots of albums that I only want 1-3 songs from, for which I'd be more than happy to pay 99? for as opposed to $6.99 (used) to nearly $14 (new at BB) for the whole CD. I am going to do whatever is most cost effective - while still entirely legal. Disappointing to see so many posts from people who think nothing of stealing and rationalizing, but encouraging to see there are many who have refrained too.

And as so often happens, I'll bet the solution will not come from Wash DC. Apple for one is trying to do something to fix the situation and I applaud them for this bold step.

[SouthsideIrish]

"Even though the record companies are the devil the artist shouldn't be ripped off."

Most artists make nothing or next to nothing on the sale of a CD. Artists like Shania Twain or the Dixie Chicks do, but the Dixies Chicks had to sue Sony to get a new contract before they started seeing some nice royality checks. Mid-Level artist are lucky to break even, and really for the most part all artists use records to advertise their concerts.

Interesting articles at

The Ballad of the Mid-Level Artist http://www.mercenary.com/balofmidarby.html

Dixie Chicks Not Whistling Dixie
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/23/60II/main243501.shtml

BTW, the artists that do make money, do it only by touring. CD sales, and the money that comes from them are used to pay the costs of making the CD, and there is hardly anything left over at the end, although this is starting to change because of the P.C.

Illegal sharing of music files via P2P networks is rightly illegal. It's theft, pure and simple, because you are not paying for what you are taking. There may be valid arguments that the record industry has been making excess profits, and that not every download would necessarily represent a lost sale, but those are entirely separate.

Totally true, but sometimes you have no other choice but to break the law. The record industry has made the decision that music subscription services are much better to their bottom line, which it true, than actually selling the songs. The consumer on the other hand is, for the most part, rejecting the online subscription services, since you have to pay a monthly fee to listen to the music. Someone has to win sooner or later.

I don't believe the record industry is having the problems they are having because of online piracy. I believe they are having problems because the music they are releasing is crap. Let me tell you a story about a band of three women who were making records and doing cattlemen's balls all over the state of Texas. They were signed to a development deal by Sony Nashville, and while they were making their 4th CD, first for Sony, Blake Chancey, the Producer, was told to get rid of the two instrumentalist's as Sony felt that the music wouldn't sell. The band told Chancey and Sony to go to hell, and released the CD as is. The same thing happened for the fourth CD, second for Sony Nashville. The Dixie Chicks so far has sold over 24 million CD's, only because they had the courage to tell Sony Nashville to go to hell.

For the most part there and no only a few A&R people working for the major labels and someone like Blake Chancey is out looking for the next Shania Twain, and I heard the the A&R man for Blue Note jazz is looking for the next Norah Jones.

Personally, I think the internet and online music sales is going to be a blessing to the artists we want to see make a living, but it will come at the expense of the music industry. It's now very easy to setup a home studio and cut a CD, now the only thing an artist needs is a way to sell the music. Record companies are, IMO, a thing of the past.

Bill McNair

[ToddW]

I know what you mean. I know a lot of local bands who make their own CD's and cell them at concerts. The quality isn't all that bad and they do a great job recording. They have made a nice little bit of cash, that is allowing them to go on small tours, buy equipment, etc... They are not even signed yet, and they pack several clubs each time they play. A downloading service like iTunes Music Store for all platforms would be the way to go. What interests the record companies is that there is some sort of copyright protection being used. Granted that sucks, because you have to stick to one format and one format only (ex: AAC)

What a hate most is the way congress has gotten involved. The RIAA have thrown so much money at congress and are pretty much putting this movement to control the future of digital media. The tactics they used, just makes matters worse. They pretty much tell people, "Hey if you have mp3s your the devil!" Well, RIAA I've got something to say to you:

Todd 3:16 says,

(Insert profanity here!!!)

And that's the bottom line cause Todd said so!

[Zimmerman]

I hate to be the one to tell you this, ToddW, but ripping CDs, selling them, and keeping the riped files is still illegal.

Mostly, I use KaZaA and such to find music that I have never seen in a single record store. Stuff like Statemachine (from Sweden, IIRC) and various Depeche Mode mixes are not sold in any record store that I've ever been to. I challenge you to find Rammstein singles anywhere in the United States. Their version of Stripped is only on a compilation CD that I have never been able to find entitled For The Masses, a single that I have yet to even find cover art of, and on a fairly rare (in the States, anyway) version of Sensucht.

Try finding a single store that sells Dada. I was actually able to get one of their CDs a few years ago, but it was the only one that the store had and they never got any others. Karmacoda is similarly hard to find. I realize that most people have never heard of these bands, but I really like them, especially when I compare them to most of the 'mainstream' stuff out there now.

Oh, well. Most of the music that I listen to now is free as in beer anyway.

[Snowflake]

Hey I love For the Masses..... is it hard to find? I think I've owned two copies... because I scratched one up. Which by the way happens to my sloppy self all the time. I've probably bought my CD collection two times over...in some cases at least 3. The iPod will save me a lot of money (and in turn lose the RIAA a little). I can now Rip and store new cds in perfect condition.

I have a question about used CDs.... are they or aren't they illegal. So many large retailers like Tower sell used Cds, or Streetlight here in the San Francisco Bay Area. It can't be illegal. They must pay the recording industry somehow or have some deal, or loophole in the law but I am not sure... anybody know?

I don't use file swapping programs, and I disagree with stealing and cringe when people rationalize and try to justify it by pointing to the RIAA as if because they suck it means you must.... That said though I must admit I have put a songs on my computer and iPod that were bought by my roommate/ex-girlfriend. I don't even feel guilty about it really. We share all sorts of things... we share a DVD library... which I mostly bought, and the CD music which she mostly bought.

I've also made cassette tapes when I was a teen and then later burned CDs for friends in playlists that I spent a lot of time thinking through and planning....and they have for me. Of course that type of activity as shamelessly promoted in the John Cussac film "High Fidelity" is totally illegal. I'm sure nobody here who is standing up against such horrid things as Kazaa and Napster would ever make a playlist of music and give it to a loved one. Or accept one from a loved one, right? I'm curious because for me I think it is a little closer to the truth that the real reason I don't use those programs is that they are a pain in the ###, yield crappy music, are frustrating and just plain not worth the trouble? The fact they are illegal on top of it all makes me feel better about myself for 'refraining', or it least it did until I started thinking about the fact that I wouldn't file swap if it was perfectly legal. I'm not sure I would even if they paid me. I suppose it'd depend on how much.

Anyway... just babbling and throwing out some questions and thoughts on the subject.

One thing that DOES bother me is the idea that in the future I may not be able to buy and rip my music to my iPod because of Copy protection preventing a CD from even playing on my computer and therefore iPod. I heard the recent Radiohead albumn which I bought and ONLY used once to put on my iPod has copy protection on it in other parts of the world making this not a viable option.

I understand the RIAA trying to use technology to fight technology but they need to realize that they aren't selling or licensing us the CDs but the music ON the Cds.... right? Or else what's all the hoopla about. If I buy or license that cd for $20 I don't think they should be allowed to sabotage how I listen to it.

[cordevax]

Seems the RIAA is doing a pretty good propaganda job:

Originally posted by Jackonicko
Illegal sharing of music files via P2P networks is rightly illegal. It's theft, pure and simple, because you are not paying for what you are taking. (...)

If you download music from (say) Kazaa, you are stealing just as surely as though you stole CDs from the local music store, or from your next door neighbour. The fact that millions of people break the law in this way does not diminish its illegality or its immorality.

Ripping, downloading and sharing music is not theft. (In most countries, it isn't even illegal.) At worst, it's a violation of copyright.

I don't understand why people believe it's theft. Take a different example. If you go to a museum and copy a Rembrandt, it's not theft. If you make a thousand copies of the Rembrandt, it's still not theft. If you sell your copies, it's still not theft...

or take this example:

Originally posted by ech3

How can you 'not' steal? Oh, please. See of that one works
before the judge.

"but your honor, a Rolls Royce costs $250,000. How could I not
steal one?".

Suppose you know someone who lets you borrow his Rolls. If you buy all the parts and build a copy of that Rolls, you're not stealing your friends Rolls. You may be liable for all kinds of patent violations and whatnot. But it's not theft.

The RIAA needs to make people believe that sharing MP3s is theft because if of the reactions of Regular Joe towards theft/copyright infrigement:
What do you think of theft? It's bad; thieves are criminals; thieves should be shot...
What do you think about copyright infrigement? WTF is copyright infrigement?; Well... I guess it's bad for the artists; CDs are too expensive, so it's normal...

It's easy to see how, if you're the RIAA, the first state of mind is better for your cause than the second.
Pls don't believe the propaganda

---

On a different note, I hv a question that's been bugging my mind the last couple of days: is it even technically possible to steal something without value?
- Say you hack into Apple's iStore and download all their songs without paying a cent for them. Can that be called theft?
- Suppose you get cable, but don't pay for it. Can that be called theft?

[eustacescrubb]

cordevax,

Those are interesting analogies, but I'm afraid they're both false analogies. With both, you compare the data on a CD with someting in physical world. In your first analogy, data on a CD is compared with a unique artwork. You therefore don't take mass production into account. It takes a certain amount of talent to make the kind of copy you're talking about - you have to be a painter, and you have to have the museum's permission to set up and paint. Strictly, in your analogy, the equivalent to a painter copying a Rembrandy would be a musician learnig to play the song. This is, last time checked, perfectly legal. It is illegal to make digital copies of a Rembrandt, and if you don't believe me, try to take a photo of one the next time you're in a museum. ;)

Your second alanogy has the same flaw, but in an extended way. It is not illegal for me to gather together some musicians, hire a recording studio, and record an exact duplicate of, say, the last Radiohead album.

On a different note, I hv a question that's been bugging my mind the last couple of days: is it even technically possible to steal something without value?

Yes. All that is required for theft to occur is for you to take either someone else's property without their permission, or for you to benefit from the fruits of someone else's labor without either paying them or their permission.

In response t the OP, I have over 9000 songs in my iTunes Library, all legally acquired. But I've been collecting music for 15 years. No one expects anyone to have a massive music collection overnight. An iPod's size has nothing to do with how much music you should own. If you buy a mansion, it does not follow that society owes you the furniture to put inside it. Personally, I can't imagine getting even 5GB worth of music right away; it's taken me 15 years to find this much music I really enjoy, and if I had gotten it all at once, I'd have enjoyed it less.

[cordevax]

@eustacescrubb
hey, you're right, my analogies are flawed :).
(Isn't the fact you're not supposed to take pictures of paintings in museum due to the fact it may hurt the artwork?)

but i still stand by my point. mp3 sharing is not theft.

All that is required for theft to occur is for you to take either someone else's property without their permission
I agree with that. But I'm not sure you can own something that has no value.

or for you to benefit from the fruits of someone else's labor without either paying them or their permission.
This isn't theft. Benefitting from someone's labor without permission is usually illegal in some manner, but no way is it theft.

To me, theft implies that the victim looses something. If you go to a bookstore, read a book, and put it back on the shelf, it's not the same thing as walking out with it.

[cordevax]

wait a second.

suppose, as you said, you get a couple of musicians together, get some time at a recording studio, and are able to perfectly mimic what another artist has done. suppose you manage to make your copy completely indistiguishable from the original. at no time in this process have you stolen anything.

and the result is the same as a digital copy of the original...

hmm. maybe the analogy can hold :)

[eustacescrubb]

and the result is the same as a digital copy of the original...

No; it's different. If I get together a band and pay all the money to record the album and pay the musicians, I've put my own time and work and money into making the end product. If I make a digiatal copy, I've likely used freeware and put not time, work or money into it at all. That's the difference. Copying music illegally is theft not because it's physically taking someone's property, but because it's benefitting from the fruit of somone else's labor without their consent or without paying them.

I agree with that. But I'm not sure you can own something that has no value.

Do you mean money value? Value is arbitrarily set by the owner and, if it's going to be sold, the buyer. My wife made me a Valentine's card this year; it's worth pretty much no money, but if you took it from me, it'd be theft, and I'd be more than a little upset.

This isn't theft. Benefitting from someone's labor without permission is usually illegal in some manner, but no way is it theft.

Yes, it is. What you steal from them is their work. It'd be the same as if the plumber fixed your toilet and you refused to pay him.

To me, theft implies that the victim looses something.

They do loe something: the work they put into it, or thier right to adminster that work, or their payment for the work.

If you go to a bookstore, read a book, and put it back on the shelf, it's not the same thing as walking out with it.

Well, if you go to the music store, listen to an an entire CD, and then walk out, it's not the same as making a digital copy of it. Try taking a handheld scanner into a bookstore.

[neo]

eustacescrubb:

Copying music illegally is theft not because it's physically taking someone's property, but because it's benefitting from the fruit of somone else's labor without their consent or without paying them.

Playing devil's advocate . . .

Yes, but the use of the language of "property" is a bit misplaced. Inherent in the language of "theft" and "property" is that when you steal something, you deprive the owner of the real use of that item. When talking about a MP3 file, this is clearly not the case. The owner can still sell it to others, and others can still purchase and enjoy the music. The RIAA et al. are trying to focre the public conscience to accept the "real property" = "ideas" analogy, because it is easy to understand and enforce, but the reality of the situation is (or at least should be) much more complex.

Well, if you go to the music store, listen to an an entire CD, and then walk out, it's not the same as making a digital copy of it. Try taking a handheld scanner into a bookstore.

Actually, bookstores in Japan are having that problem now with cell phones with cameras. LOL!

n

[eustacescrubb]

neo,

I actually didn't try to draw a connection between property and ideas. Nor did I say that the music on the CD was "property". Again, the theft in this case is of the artist's work.

The reason the RIAA doesn't use this more accurate construct (benefitting unfairly from someone else's work is theft) is because if they did, they'd be gored by their own horns, since the music industry unfairly benefits from the labor of artists more than any song-swapper does. That's why they use the flawed "intellectual property" argument. I agree with you that there's no such animal as intellectual property; ideas can't owned.
But the fruits of work can be; and that's what I'm saying song swappers (and the music industry) steals.

[neo]

e:

I agree that you (unlike most) seem to differentiate well between the physical and conceptual worlds. My point was just that the use of the language of the "real property" world just does not work very well when discussing these notions.

You say that copying a song "illegally" is stealing. Speaking morally, yes, an artist should absolutely get paid for his/her work. Speaking legally, what does it mean to copy a song "illegally" when the laws are so badly messed up? Given the state of the laws in the US right now, you can not legally even make a backup of a DVD for archival purposes, or watch a DVD on linux. I think the equation between what is legal and what is moral is, in this situation, shaky at best.

n

[eustacescrubb]

neo,

I'm right there with you that the laws are bady-designed and wieghted in favor of the very corporations who exploit the artists. But I suppose that I don't see this as a justification for illegal/immoral activity of my own. I find the philosophies of Henry David Thoreau and Matin Luther King, Jr. to be informative here. Bad laws should not be obeyed. But those who choose to commit acts of civil disobediance should accept the punishement meted out by the state.

In the case of the record industry though, I think that the best action to take is to stop buying music, which is what many song-swappers have done, but also to stop dwnloading music. If everyone who was upset at high prices of music and exploitation of artists stopped purchasing music altogether, and also did not download songs, they'd hold the moral and legal high ground and use market forces to discipline corrupt corporations.
As things stand now, many people don't buy so much music any more, but because they've chosen the moral and legal "low road", the RIAA can seek legal damages and still make money, and most importantly, continue in their state of protracted denial about the real reasons why music sales are in a slump. Song-swappers are actually enabling the record companies to avoid the truth about the effects of their corruption.

[bdrules]

just to chime in...

the Rembrandt can't be copywrited. they didn't have copywrite laws neccesarily 400 years ago. the museums dont want pictures because the flash can damage old painting.

;)

[neo]

eustacescrubb,

Bad laws should not be obeyed. But those who choose to commit acts of civil disobediance should accept the punishement meted out by the state.

Well, that is absolutely correct. Actually, many people who are into that kind of philosophical lawbreaking seem to wear the punishment as a badge of honor (e.g., medical marijuana, globalization protestors, etc.). I should think that downloaders would want the same thing, as the publicity might eventually turn public opinion against the record companies.

If everyone who was upset at high prices of music and exploitation of artists stopped purchasing music altogether, and also did not download songs, they'd hold the moral and legal high ground and use market forces to discipline corrupt corporations.

Generally, I agree regarding the cause/effect relationships involved. Personally, I have curtailed my CD buying (and movie watching) due to philosophical reasons, and I have not really downloaded any since Napster. But sadly, I seem to be the only one . . . :(

n

[Aries73]

I tried LimeWire and Gnutella. Trust me, the music you find there is not worth the time and trouble you go through.

[SouthsideIrish]

Originally posted by Aries73
I tried LimeWire and Gnutella. Trust me, the music you find there is not worth the time and trouble you go through.

I agree, because the real p2p people have moved on to other programs. You will find them on programs that are under the radar of the riaa, and they are now looking at ways to do secure servers. I haven't gone near the two programs you just mentioned in over a year and I'm perfectly happy.

Bill McNair

[scabmettler]

<b>
If everyone who was upset at high prices of music and exploitation of artists stopped purchasing music altogether, and also did not download songs, they'd hold the moral and legal high ground and use market forces to discipline corrupt corporations. /<b>

It's funny, but I just encountered a similar situation with someone who had been railing against a certain company for not delivering their product on time. They were furious and yet, they hadn't cancelled their order and demanded their money back. But taking a stand against something usually means making some kind of sacrifice for some length of time.

I can sympathize with younger people especially, who are at an age where music can be extremely important. Kids usually don't have money. When I was in high school (I'm 26 now), I saved my $2/day lunch money for three weeks until I could afford a boxed CD set I'd been wanting. There wasn't music-sharing then and if there had been, I probably would have downloaded too. Giving affordable access to youth (such as educational discounts currently given on computers) is a part of the solution to illegal file-sharing. I realize this would lead to debates about the "educational value" of artists like 50 cent, but that's still better than nothing.

[gooer]

I like to buy lots of about 400 cds on ebay, rip them all to my ipod, then resell them at a little bit of profit. I guess it's not legal, but then again, what is these days? It's far more moral then downloading with out ever shelling out cash for the cds. As for integrity of the artists or whatever this crap is that I'm reading, Mariah Carey, the reincarnation of satan on the face of this earth makes 100 million dollars a cd. Maybe with this peer to peer thing, she'll be down to 20 million a cd.

I see what you guys are saying about it being immoral regardless, but it's just too good to pass up and I don't think anyone will be arresting be any time soon for it (famous last words). I'll probably get busted for making this post. :D

[Jackonicko]

If you copy a CD without permission, and without paying the copyright owner, you are stealing. The theft is of the fee that is legally and morally due to that copyright owner.

[loGan]

I'm going to do a bit of copyright theft myself and copy paste these words form the Register. They dispell a few myths about downloading music.


"The RIAA, MPAA and copyright holders describe P2P users as "pirates" - invoking images of swashbuckling pre-teens hauling up the Jolly Roger and stealing intellectual property in the dead of night. New ads announced by MPAA President Jack Valente impress the idea that "copying is stealing" and that someone who burns MP3s is no different from those who slip a CD under their shirt at the local Tower Records.

But technically, file sharing is not theft.

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

Complicated matters further, copying is not always infringing. If the work is not copyrighted, if you have a license to make the copy, or if the work is in the public domain, you can copy at will. Also, not all "copies" are the same. Say you buy a CD and play it on your computer -- technically, you have already made a "copy" onto the PC in the process of playing it, but that's not an infringement.

Making an archive copy is okay too, as long as your retain the original. What about a transformative copy -- say, making an MP3 out of a CD? You can do that, so long as you retain the original work. If the original CD get scratched, damaged or lost, you can probably burn the MP3 back to a CD (sans the really "sucky" titles), but this is not entirely clear.

So the RIAA and MPAA's claims that all "copying" is "stealing" are much overhyped.

But so too are the claims some swappers make that, simply because I bought a particular CD at some time in the past (or really, really thought about buying it), I now have the inherent right to share it with all my friends (even the ones I have never met in Singapore, Malaysia and Eastern Europe).

Fair and Unfair Use

The RIAA and MPAA also claim that if I download a song that I don't own, it's an infringement. This too is not always the case. The law recognizes that many uses of copyrighted works -- even without the permission of the copyright holder -- are not an infringement. While there is no "right" as such to make a fair use, the making of such a use is not an infringement.

Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so.

This isn't black and white, of course. In deciding whether a use is fair or not, courts will consider a number of factors: Did you make the copies for commercial purposes? Does the copy deprive the copyright holder of revenues? Did you copy all, or substantially all, of the work, or just a small portion? The less of the work copied, the less commercial and the less impact on the copyrighted work, the more likely it is to be considered "fair."

So when you sing "Happy Birthday" to your mom, you don't owe a royalty to Mildred and Patty Smith Hill (they own the copyright), but when it is performed in a movie, you do see a credit roll.

The problem for the RIAA and MPAA is that all they can see is that someone is copying a work -- they cannot tell the purposes for which the work is being copied. Therefore, when they sign an affidavit to get a subpoena alleging a copyright "infringement," all they really know is that a copy has been made, not that an infringement has occurred.

Infringe Groups

So your geeky brother uses your Mac Powerbook to download his songs. Are you liable? Maybe.

The law imposes four kinds of liability for infringement. The simplest is direct infringement -- meaning you or somebody under your direct control (your agent) actually infringes. A second type of infringement is contributory infringement or vicarious infringement -- you aid someone else's infringing activities, or you profit from their infringement and have the ability to control them. It is this theory that makes owners of P2P networks potentially liable.

A third category of infringement is implicated if you provide the technology to aid the infringement (e.g., the Sony Betamax case.) In that case, you are liable for the infringement others do with your technology, unless there is a "substantial non-infringing use" for your technology (e.g., time shifting TV shows.) Finally and most recently, the DMCA creates a new "circumvention" liability" -- creating or disseminating technologies that are designed to circumvent a technological measure protecting a copyrighted work.

The last type does not even require that there be an infringement -- just the dissemination of technology that could permit access to the work, even if the access is for a non-infringing purpose.

For P2P networks themselves, the law is not clear whether their activities are infringing. A Federal Circuit Court in Illinois held Aimster liable as contributing to the infringing uses of their subscribers or users, while a Federal Court in California came to the contrary conclusion with respect to Kazaa and others."

Written by
SecurityFocus columnist Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the Justice Department's computer crime unit, and now serves as Senior Vice President and Chief Security Counsel at Solutionary Inc.

[Jackonicko]

Fair Use is interesting, and usually requires that any copies be partial extracts, and not the whole object - in book terms that means extracts of a few paragraphs, in music terms less than a whole track.

It would be hard to prove that illegal copying or downloading does not deprive the legitimate copyright owner of income. The argument is that if you couldn't get it illegally, you'd have to buy it legitimately.

[Jackonicko]

And I'm sorry, but if you take something that I own, and especially if you take something that I'm trying to sell to earn my living, without my permission and without paying me, then it's theft. Copyright theft is theft, and whether the US justice system (ha ha) recognises it as such, or classifies it as breaking some other statute is irrelevant to the moral argument.

[loGan]

It is an interesting argument and one that even the artists themselves seem to differ in opinion on.

Some, Radiohead for example seem to take the view that the more people that listen to their music the better. Ultimately it will be in their interest as the more fans they have the more likely that they are to purchase their music, dvds, go to concerts and actually appreciate the music.

When it comes to the deprivation of income this is one argument that thoroughly frustrates me and is one of the reasons why I do not believe that file sharing is a bad thing. What is really depriving artists of income is the way that retailers will only stock what is dictated to them as the "Hit music" of the month. Very few retailers actually stock large libraries of older music. I have a large collection of music that I have downloaded because it is just not available in the shops. When I first discovered Morpheus many years ago it was an absolute joy to find music that I hadn't heard for 10 to 15 years, it reawakened my interest in music to a large extent.

From a personal point of view there are a couple of points that I think are appropriate whatever the outcome of the legal shananigans.

First up, music sharing will never go away. It has occurred since the first blank cassettes came out, since tape to tape machines were released though blank CDs to mp3s. The music industry is still standing and had a record year with regard to album sales in this country at least. Kazaa may disapear but something else will appear to take it's place.

I have downloaded many songs over the years, most unavailable in the shops. The songs that I have wanted that are available in the shops I have mostly bought already. Some in both Vinyl and Cd copies over the years.

I do also download new music to check it out, if I like it I am more than likely to buy it. If I hadn't downloaded it I most definitely wouldn't have bought it.

The music industry needs to grow up and give the customers what they want. ITunes is a good start, the Rolling Stones have just put their entire back catalogue up on the web. The BBC is considering shifting its entire library of content onto a free web site. This is the future of digital media and this is what broadband is all about.

The Riaa should stop ####ing about wasting money suing school kids and should spend the money instead on creating huge online libraries of the music that people want to buy and that doesn't just mean Justin Timberlake and Britney. The film companies should post Divx copies of their movies online in an online Blockbusters formula.

Some people will never buy music if they can download it but they would probably never buy music even if they couldn't download it.

Just my opinion.

[Offline69]

It's true that many artists benefit more from touring and merchandise than from record sales, so they don't care whether their fans download. But the truth is, the only reason we heard about most of these bands is because a label took a chance and promoted them in the first place. The labels pushed songs to radio, got the cds to the stores, advertised in magazines, and arranged tv appearances. All those examples of abandoned artists who got new life from mp3s got their first life as a result of their record labels.

Now you might disagree with how much the labels are taking, but you must admit that they do provide a function.

MP3s and the Internet have been around for a while, but most times when we (the general public) hear about new artists, it is due to the efforts of the record labels, not because we happened to hear about an unsigned band or downloaded random mp3s from the Internet.

What happens if there are no record labels? Do we just listen to old bands? Sites like Epitonic have done a good job of introducing new music, but the reality is, we're more likely to check out new artists if we've heard it on the radio, seen them on TV, or driven by their billboard.

That said, I'm not a big fan of labels and their business practices, but I think we have to get real about what function they serve, and the effect downloading has on the promotion and discovery of new artists.