A sociologic sort of question...

[MystyGlyttyr]

I came up with this question and have been debating it back and forth with a couple of friends...sort of a tree-falling-in-the-woods question, not an actual legal question...I know the legal answer (I figured a few people might get heated over the legal form of the question so I put it on Fratching, but that's not what I'm wanting to see, I'm interested in people's outlook on the philosophical part.)

Okay, there exists "Music CD A". Now we'll say that, somehow, it can be completely proven with no margin of error that never in your life you would ever buy this CD. Say it's a brain scan, Minority Report kinds of technology, something, and there is no exception, it IS proven you will never buy the CD in any way, shape or form. Therefore, "Record Company" will never and would never receive any money from you for "Music CD A".

Also, if the CD was never available online, you would never seek it out at all. If the Internet had no way of sharing music files, your only option was to buy the CD, you would never buy it.

But, the Internet does in fact exist, and you do find download "Music CD A" online for free.

Now, legally, you have broken the law. However, since it is 100% proven you would never have bought the CD, "Record Company" has taken no loss. Therefore, since there was no loss, you did not steal, since you can't steal nothing.

True or false?

I had thought up this hypothetical situation and thought I had the answer to it, but the more I debate it and think about it, the less certain I become, LOL. So, I want to see other people's thoughts. Abstract is always fascinating.

(Sidenote, this is just for amusement. Downloading stuff for free without permission is illegal whether you agree with it or not; and in reality, you can practically never prove anything 100%. I just thought this might be a fun brain exercise. Please don't take it too seriously, i.e. start flaming. Flames make Mysty sad.)

[Sylvia727]

Well, it's still theft, because one still took the music without permission. I think someone taking my creative property without permission is wrong, no matter whether or not they would ever buy it. If you don't want to pay for it, then you shouldn't be allowed to use it. Also, it would encourage people with a chance of buying the cd, be it 1% or 99%, to steal the music as well.

[Pedersen]

Now, legally, you have broken the law. However, since it is 100% proven you would never have bought the CD, "Record Company" has taken no loss. Therefore, since there was no loss, you did not steal, since you can't steal nothing.

True or false?

True, nothing has been stolen. Not one single little thing. If anything, it's been given (since bandwidth had to be used to download the music, and the bandwidth used was your own, plus that of the person who let you download from them).

Well, it's still theft, because one still took the music without permission.

Hmmm... What about taping from digital radio? Same result: I've got a copy of the song for which I paid nothing. The only difference is that I have to wait until somebody broadcasts it. Of course, to download the music, I have to wait until somebody puts a version of it online...

Yeah, this has the potential to muddy the waters even more. Sorry Mysty.

Please, somebody tell me the difference between recording digital radio and P2P? The only difference that I can find is that there's only a few sources for digital radio, as opposed to many more for P2P.

[Sylvia727]

True, nothing has been stolen. Not one single little thing.

Music's been stolen. Creative property has been stolen. The time, effort, and creative energy of the artists in question has been stolen. The things I make, be they songs, sculptures, or widgets, are mine. Nobody else has the right to use them without my permission.

Please, somebody tell me the difference between recording digital radio and P2P?

None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

[Pedersen]

Music's been stolen. Creative property has been stolen. The time, effort, and creative energy of the artists in question has been stolen.

Interesting assertions. So, let's see, per the original post (and since you're making it your personal compositions, we'll use you and me as an example), I would never have bought your music. Never ever ever. You would never have seen one dime from me. Period.

Now, you claim that I have stolen from you. Well, part of stealing is depriving the rightful owner of something. Let's check your list of things that have been stolen:

• Music. No, you have your copy. The person from whom I downloaded has theirs. No one has lost anything.
• Creative property. Unless you have a different definition (which, admittedly, I am unable to devise right now), this is another name for "music", which I just addressed.
• Time. Since time is the basis for my own morality code, I'll address this one more fully at the end of my post.
• Effort. I'm not sure how effort can be stolen, so let's ponder. Effort is another name for work. The way it is used here, effort is a noun (as would work be a noun then). The only relevant way to use these terms when discussing music is to say that effort/work was expended in producing the music.
  
  Now, that effort was expended to produce music. You still have your music. Your effort could only have been stolen while it was being expended. Once it's spent, it can no longer be stolen (this is similar to my time discussion, so see below).
  
  End result: Your effort can not be stolen by somebody making an unauthorized copy after the fact. Your effort was not stolen.
• Creative energy. Now this one is interesting. I'm not even sure how this could be defined in a way that could allow theft to occur. It's almost like saying "Man, that song I made was great. I wish I could make another. But that Pedersen, he made an unauthorized copy of it, and now I don't have the desire to make another song."
  
  If that's what you mean, I can see your point. Somehow, though, I don't think you were talking about future creative energy. Please clarify.

The things I make, be they songs, sculptures, or widgets, are mine. Nobody else has the right to use them without my permission.

Careful there, Sylvia727. You see, we are all the product of our environment, whether we like to admit it or not. In particular, with music, are you aware that, as far as the US is concerned, copyright law states that every song that can be written has been written?

I'm trying to find the case, but am unable to do so. Here's what happened, though: One musician sued another (they were famous names, and in the last 20 years), as the defendant had copied three notes out of the plaintiff's song and placed those three notes into his own.

The plaintiff won. The court agreed that those three notes constituted copyright infringement, and ordered the defendant to pay damages.

There's a limited number of three note combinations that can be written. In fact, that number turns out to be less than 47,000. Unfortunately, I don't remember how the math is done, but I do remember doing it to double-check. It really is less than 47,000 three note combinations that are possible.

Every single artist is infringing on everybody else's copyrights. Unless you're over 85 years old, chances are very good that everything you've ever written is copyrighted. Congratulations, you've just stolen the creative energies of millions of other musicians.

None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

Wow. That's the most militant stance I've ever seen. So, let me get this straight: I don't ask for radio. It's broadcast every where I go, whether I want it or not. If I decide to record it, I'm guilty of "stealing"?

Just... wow. That sort of argument is why the anti-copyright crowd wants to abolish copyright entirely, you know. Refusal to give any ground, calling everybody a thief.

Anyway, I promised to discuss the time thing with you, so here it goes. First, a link to provide explanation for what follows (I highly recommend reading it, as it will explain what comes after).

So, analyze the time being spent:
Artist: Spends time to compose music. Then spends time to get money to rent (or buy) equipment to produce music at an acceptable quality level.
Consumer: Spends time to get money to buy the disc (some of this money then goes back to the artist). Then spends time to listen to the music. Possibly spends time to format shift the music to be more convenient for himself.
Downloader: Spends time to find an already format shifted copy of the song. Spends time to download the song. Spends time to listen to it.

Given: Money can not buy more time, but it can allow the holder to make more effective use of their time.

By my definitions, not a single one of these people has committed an evil act. None of them has deprived any other of any amount of time. The worst thing you can say is that the downloader has not helped the artist make more effective use of the artist's time. While not an evil act, it's certainly not a nice one.

By my definitions, the worst I can say is that it's not nice. Since it's not something I want done to me, I make every effort to avoid doing it to others.

Now, let's change things a bit:
Artist: Adds restrictions (in the form of technological add-ons) that prevent the consumer from format shifting the music.
Consumer: Spends time to find a way to remove the technological restrictions to allow himself easier use of the item he bought.
Downloader: Has to search longer to find an already format shifted version of the music.

Suddenly, the artist is performing an evil act, as the artist is actively removing time from the other people in the equation. Furthermore, the artist is doing it for entirely selfish reasons: The desire to retain absolute control over something that is now in the possession of another.

From the perspective of time, no time has been stolen from the artist under any of these scenarios. The artist has either allowed things to progress as they will, or has actively spent time on selfish (and even evil) desires.

So, back to what I said earlier: Time hasn't been stolen either.

If I've downloaded a copy of your song, without your permission, what exactly has been stolen from you?

[ebonyknight]

Sounds like a high tech version of recording TV broadcasts or music from the radio.

If someone broadcasts TV (sports broadcast being a noted exception) or music over the air is it really illegal to record it if it's freely broad cast into mid air? (rhetorical question)

Everyone has their own morality and regardless of "intent", the law is the law. If I intend to run someone down, vs it being a negligent accident, am I not still held responsible? Now whether this law fulfils the social contract, is an ENTIRELY different matter and what this probably SHOULD be about.

Even a "minority report" type system had it's own flaws (using your example) and convicted an innocent man. There can never be a 100% way to prove you would have never bought the music in one medium vs another.

Therefore (in MY opinion only) the issue is quite moot.

Too me it's like discussing what do we do if the sun goes out tomorrow. And yes, I know you already gave your disclaimer.

This discussion is going to come down to two sides. Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets can be legally protected. Those who believe that intangible assest cannot are just that and cannot be in anyway regulated.

[Boozy]

If there's no loss, I can't see how there can be theft.

However, I have a problem with Mysty's scenario. In a Minority Report-type world where music downloads were legal as long as you could prove that you weren't going to purchase the album, no one would ever buy anything they could download.

Why would they pay for something if they can get it free with no repercussions? They could say in all honesty, "I was never going to buy it. I was always planning on downloading it for free."

So in that Minority Report world, illegal downloads would have to remain illegal until a better solution is reached to pay artists.

[rahmota]

I have to agree with Pederson in that there has been no theft if done by the rules of the scenario mysty proposed. His argument is quite solid and reasonable and beat me to most of it. So suffice to say yeah there is no stealing involved in the OP. And a lot of the stuff that the RIAA call stealign is not steal but them greedily wanting to suck as much money out of people as possible.

Remember when Sony(?) put a virus on their CDs so that if people even tried to play them in their computer it would mess thigns up? That sort of bad form misbehavior by companies is what causes some people to want to become pirates just to punish companies for being jerks like that.

Originally Posted by Sylvia727
None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

Wow thats an over the top intolerant view. Same as the one the RIAA makes indeed. So the only way people are to get music is to buy an overpriced cd that may only have 1 or 2 songs on it that are any good or do without? No other options whatsoever? Maybe if more companies or artists would let you do an alacarte option on the web (some do I know but its not as common as it could/should be) piracy would go down.

Right now I side with Pederson and the pirates.

[Pedersen]

This discussion is going to come down to two sides. Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets can be legally protected. Those who believe that intangible assest cannot are just that and cannot be in anyway regulated.

Interesting. Apparently, my side does not exist for you.

So in that Minority Report world, illegal downloads would have to remain illegal until a better solution is reached to pay artists.

And I'll have to disagree with you, as well.

My side hasn't been stated clearly enough, so I'll state it here:

I do not agree with current copyright law. I feel that it has gone way too far towards protecting the interests of copyright holders, and is now beginning to impact the general public negatively. Furthermore, if things continue in this vein, there will be no future new works, as people will be unable to create anything without infringing on other copyrights.

The balance needs to be restored. As such, I firmly believe in the original intent of copyright law. Artists and creators do things that benefit society, and need to have a way to make a living from what they do. They need to be compensated.

To that end, I buy what I can, rather than download it. I buy my CDs, and then convert them to MP3 for use within my home and my car. I buy my books. I prefer to buy them in e-book form when I can, since I now have a device that makes electronic reading a pleasure. I buy my movies. I buy my TV shows.

Actually, TV shows are a special case in their own right: I record my shows to start. I have my own PVR. I record them, and watch when it's convenient for me. I don't distribute my recordings, though. If the show is truly special/important to me, I will buy the series when it comes out on DVD.

The one show that I am unable to buy, though? Good Eats. It's not sold in the format I would buy. You see, I want the entire series, not just specialized sections. I can't buy it. So, I'm recording it from Food Network. When I finally have the entire series, I'll make my own DVDs of it. If they sold it, I'd buy it. They don't.

So, by Sylvia727's logic, I'm a thief for recording one of my favorite shows so that I can refer to it again later.

[ebonyknight]

Interesting. Apparently, my side does not exist for you.

I do not agree with current copyright law. I feel that it has gone way too far towards protecting the interests of copyright holders, and is now beginning to impact the general public negatively. Furthermore, if things continue in this vein, there will be no future new works, as people will be unable to create anything without infringing on other copyrights.

The balance needs to be restored. As such, I firmly believe in the original intent of copyright law. Artists and creators do things that benefit society, and need to have a way to make a living from what they do. They need to be compensated.

*This discussion is going to come down to two sides. Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets can be legally protected. Those who believe that intangible assets cannot are just that and cannot be in anyway regulated.*

So how does that differ? You want to follow the law...you just believe it should be an earlier form. How does this still not fit?

[Pedersen]

My apologies. I misread what you wrote, and instead read something similar to "Those who want to follow the law and believe intangible assets need more legal protection than they already have".

Obviously, that was a mistake on my part. Though I do think that side is showing its head already, and I tend more towards a moderate/compromise position.

[ebonyknight]

No offense given or intended, so there is no need for an apology. So I don't accept.

[AFPheonix]

Your tv show example is not a particularly good one, as it was already paid for by ad revenue. Dvd sales are just extra revenue on top of that.

Oh and Rahmota, there is a decent ala carte system out there: Amazon MP3.
I do agree that the record companies really do need to get with the times, though. It's pretty expensive to stay legal, not to mention less convenient, especially if you don't want to deal with DRM bullshit, and more time consuming. If record companies want to be more competitive, well, they'd better start actually COMPETING for business instead of just expecting it's always going to be there with DRM ridden expensive downloads, small catalogues, and $17 cd sales.

[protege]

None. Recording radio is the same as P2P is the same as returning a ripped cd to the store is stealing.

I disagree there. I don't think it's stealing if you're recording a song being played over the airwaves. (I mean on the FM band, folks!) There's really no way that can be prevented. We're talking about several hundred (thousand?) square miles to cover.

Also, none of this really became a problem until technology progressed, and the RIAA started having fits of it. 20 years ago, plenty of people recorded songs off the radio...and nobody said a thing. However, now that there's a wider distribution base, it's now a problem

What pisses me off, is that for every CD, there are one or two good songs...and the rest is just filler that sucks!

[AFPheonix]

Oh, the record companies had a huge kerfuffle over people making mix tapes off the radio, too. I think there's always a dust-up whenever new technology comes around. But rather than try to use a stick to get people to do what they want them, they need to figure out the whole carrot angle and make a product that people actually want to buy.