How is downloading not stealing?

[Amaris]

Common nomenclature calls them pirates. The actions are clearly separate in any case... people who copy things without permission are infringing, people who take physical goods are stealing.

So it has to be physical to be stolen. Does this mean it's acceptable for me to copy Microsoft's code for their various operating systems? I'm not taking anything physical. How about game code? What if I took the codes for, say, Sims 3 and compiled it on my own system and gave it away to friends via bitorrent or limewire, is that okay? Clearly by your definition I'm not a thief, so what am I?

Yes, pirates copy things, make duplicates, sell on for profit or use for their own ends. Thieves take things, possibly for the same reasons.

I don't know, is it the 2 best songs on the album, and the rest are shit and not really worth buying? You see that's why sometimes the only way to truely know how good something is is to see/hear it in it's entirety. So many albums have got 2 good songs, which are played endlessly on the radio/music channels, and then the rest of the cd is pointless shit. You hear those 2 and then spend £10 on a cd that turns out you already heard the best of anyway. Just as a lot of movies have their best bits in the trailer, then are rubbish when you see them in full.

So what you want is a guarantee. You want a sure thing.
So even me being very reasonable and offering two of my own songs for free as incentive, it's not enough for you, you want the whole thing, and after you've listened to all of it, just maybe you like it and you'll pay for it. I see.

J.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^Not necessarily. I'll buy CDs from people I already know I enjoy without hearing anything off their new CD. I'll buy CDs from new artists if I hear a couple of songs and like it, and their CD/MP3 download is cheap enough that I consider it worthwhile. But I generally don't pay full price on CDs from new artists that I've not heard in their entirety.

 

[Amaris]

^Not necessarily. I'll buy CDs from people I already know I enjoy without hearing anything off their new CD. I'll buy CDs from new artists if I hear a couple of songs and like it, and their CD/MP3 download is cheap enough that I consider it worthwhile. But I generally don't pay full price on CDs from new artists that I've not heard in their entirety.

See that presents a problem though. Most websites that sell music give you 30 second samples of every song. Now, maybe if they extended this to one minute that would be okay, but honestly, I think you ask too much as it is considering the media itself, or as Homer would say "Rent it?! Why? I just saw the best part!"


J.

 

[Arrqh]

So it has to be physical to be stolen. Does this mean it's acceptable for me to copy Microsoft's code for their various operating systems? I'm not taking anything physical. How about game code? What if I took the codes for, say, Sims 3 and compiled it on my own system and gave it away to friends via bitorrent or limewire, is that okay? Clearly by your definition I'm not a thief, so what am I?

When did I say that infringement was acceptable? I'll give you a hint: nowhere. What I did say is that many of the people who pirate things (though not 100%) would not have purchased the product in question regardless and therefore do not represent a lost sale.

Making a copy of Microsoft's code is equally infringement as is copying the code of your other examples. Stealing has to be physical because the definition of stealing is taking something from someone and thus depriving them of it. If you steal an object from someone they no longer have it anymore. If you steal a CD from someone, they no longer have it anymore. If you copy music without authorization the person who owns the rights to it has not lost anything and therefore it is not stealing. It is infringement.

These are the definitions of the terms. And the definition of a thief is someone who steals. Since infringement is not stealing, someone who is infringing is not a thief. The definition of a pirate in this context is someone who copies something illegally... which is infringement. So in that case, you would be a pirate.

 

[Amaris]

When did I say that infringement was acceptable? I'll give you a hint: nowhere. What I did say is that many of the people who pirate things (though not 100%) would not have purchased the product in question regardless and therefore do not represent a lost sale.

They do represent a lost sale, for me as the artist. Each one does. If you download an album of music that has to be purchased (and is not being given away), without purchasing it, that's a lost sale. Some sales are made when the person who likes the album goes back and buys it outright, but even then, all they've done is purchased two of the same album for the price of one. They stole the first one, and bought the second one. Just because it's not a physical medium doesn't mean it's not theft.

Making a copy of Microsoft's code is equally infringement as is copying the code of your other examples. Stealing has to be physical because the definition of stealing is taking something from someone and thus depriving them of it. If you steal an object from someone they no longer have it anymore. If you steal a CD from someone, they no longer have it anymore. If you copy music without authorization the person who owns the rights to it has not lost anything and therefore it is not stealing. It is infringement.

These are the definitions of the terms. And the definition of a thief is someone who steals. Since infringement is not stealing, someone who is infringing is not a thief. The definition of a pirate in this context is someone who copies something illegally... which is infringement. So in that case, you would be a pirate.

In general, pirates are unethical.


J.

 

[dkehler]

When did I say that infringement was acceptable? I'll give you a hint: nowhere. What I did say is that many of the people who pirate things (though not 100%) would not have purchased the product in question regardless and therefore do not represent a lost sale.

They do represent a lost sale, for me as the artist. Each one does. If you download an album of music that has to be purchased, without purchasing it, that's a lost sale. Some sales are made when the person who likes the album goes and buys it outright, but even then, all they've done is purchased two of the same album for the price of one.

What if the exposure from being available through pirate sites generated a lot more legitimate sales then you would have had if it were impossible to illegally acquire your songs? You might be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Making a copy of Microsoft's code is equally infringement as is copying the code of your other examples. Stealing has to be physical because the definition of stealing is taking something from someone and thus depriving them of it. If you steal an object from someone they no longer have it anymore. If you steal a CD from someone, they no longer have it anymore. If you copy music without authorization the person who owns the rights to it has not lost anything and therefore it is not stealing. It is infringement.

These are the definitions of the terms. And the definition of a thief is someone who steals. Since infringement is not stealing, someone who is infringing is not a thief. The definition of a pirate in this context is someone who copies something illegally... which is infringement. So in that case, you would be a pirate.

In general, pirates are unethical.


J.

It is possible to be unethical without being a "thief".

 

[Amaris]

What if the exposure from being available through pirate sites generated a lot more legitimate sales then you would have had if it were impossible to illegally acquire your songs? You might be cutting your nose off to spite your face.

I don't know. I get what you're saying and on that level it makes sense, but it feels almost like an "ends justify the means" type of situation. I'm not really comfortable with those.

It is possible to be unethical without being a "thief".

Very true. One doesn't necessarily make you the other.

I do want to step back a second and explain that I'm not calling you a thief, or Arrghman, or most the people in this thread. I am saying it to those who download with impunity, not to purchase or sample, but just to own without ever paying, because they can, because it's easy and free, regardless of what it does to artists who depend on it for a living. I am calling them thieves, and their actions disgust me just as much as a man stealing CDs and DVDs right from the rack. I just want to make that clear.

J.

 

[Arrqh]

They do represent a lost sale, for me as the artist. Each one does. If you download an album of music that has to be purchased (and is not being given away), without purchasing it, that's a lost sale. Some sales are made when the person who likes the album goes back and buys it outright, but even then, all they've done is purchased two of the same album for the price of one. They stole the first one, and bought the second one.

No. You cannot say with any sort of certainty that a person who downloaded something would have purchased it if they didn't have the option to download it. Because a lost sale is not anyone who uses a form of media without paying... if you loan a friend a DVD for a few days, are they a lost sale? If a family of four listens to a CD, is that three lost sales? Of course not but they didn't pay either. No, a lost sale is someone who would have bought the album under other circumstances but instead chose not to. Many of the people who pirate can not be described in this way.

I mentioned Stardock's position before, but here's the actual article posted by their CEO: Piracy & PC Gaming. And he says the important part right at the top: "People who never buy software aren't lost sales.". Similarly, people who don't buy music aren't lost sales. They were never going to buy.

You can see more on that here and also take a look at what Trent Reznor did last year here which was essentially the same thing: ignore the pirates and just make a product that you know there is a paying market for because those pirates are not lost sales... they're people who never would have paid regardless. And Reznor even went as far as releasing his music under a Creative Commons license which allows people to copy and distribute and he put the first part up on The Pirate Bay himself... and he still made $750k in a few days of sales.

Just because it's not a physical medium doesn't mean it's not theft.

Incorrect. As I said, theft is the act of stealing. And stealing is taking property away from someone which denies them access. Copying something is not stealing because you have not removed anything from the owner and therefore people who infringe are not thieves. These are the definitions of the words and while language is certainly flexible it aint that flexible. And there's no need to call pirates thieves... they have a whole word to themselves already.

In general, pirates are unethical.

Okay, but that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

 

[Amaris]

Ah, I see, then that was my mistake. I was looking at each album as a lost sale because the person who downloaded it would have had to buy it to hear the content. I guess at this point it gets sticky as hell if you start making each person pay to hear the album.

J.

 

[Arrqh]

Thing is that people who pirate out of convenience do frequently represent lost sales... but there's a lot of things that can be done to combat that when things are released without resorting to lawsuits or DRM schemes that harm paying customers.

Say you release an album in the US in May but it doesn't come out in Europe until July (including in any digital distribution systems). Some of your European fans, reading about the album online, will be impatient and want to listen to the album right away. So what do they do? They pirate. Not because they don't want to pay but because there is no other option available to them. In two months when it is released in Europe, some of those people simply will never get around to buying the album, some will have probably moved on and don't care anymore... and those definitely are lost sales. And you can combat that by having a worldwide release which helps you recover those sales. Same goes for movies, games, books and any other form of media.

That's what DRM on PC games is supposed to accomplish... it can't stop piracy and no one expects it to. What it does do, if successful, is stop pirates for a few days. Because for reasons beyond my understanding, games are typically released on a different day of the week in Europe from the US and the casual piracy that goes on in that small gap of a few days is where all the lost sales are. But instead of syncing up the releases, DRM that causes issues for paying customers is introduced and the impact to people who were never going to pay anyway is negligible.

 

[Amaris]

Thing is that people who pirate out of convenience do frequently represent lost sales... but there's a lot of things that can be done to combat that when things are released without resorting to lawsuits or DRM schemes that harm paying customers.

Say you release an album in the US in May but it doesn't come out in Europe until July (including in any digital distribution systems). Some of your European fans, reading about the album online, will be impatient and want to listen to the album right away. So what do they do? They pirate. Not because they don't want to pay but because there is no other option available to them. In two months when it is released in Europe, some of those people simply will never get around to buying the album, some will have probably moved on and don't care anymore... and those definitely are lost sales. And you can combat that by having a worldwide release which helps you recover those sales. Same goes for movies, games, books and any other form of media.

That's what DRM on PC games is supposed to accomplish... it can't stop piracy and no one expects it to. What it does do, if successful, is stop pirates for a few days. Because for reasons beyond my understanding, games are typically released on a different day of the week in Europe from the US and the casual piracy that goes on in that small gap of a few days is where all the lost sales are. But instead of syncing up the releases, DRM that causes issues for paying customers is introduced and the impact to people who were never going to pay anyway is negligible.

Yeah, staggered release dates make no sense when it comes to online distribution. I can see it with physical media, but digitally? There's no excuse for it. The only reason I'm concerned about all this is that within the next year or so I plan on self publishing my own music, and I'm worried that I'll sell 3 albums and have a thousand fans who didn't feel like buying it.

J.

 

[Roger Wilco]

So it's a question of the level of damages that makes it stealing?

If it's five dollars it's not, but if it's a 1,000 it is?

I'm not talking the law, I'm just talking strictly ethics.

No, you're still mixing up things that have no connection. Copyright infringement never is stealing regardless of the amount of damages.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Thing is that people who pirate out of convenience do frequently represent lost sales... but there's a lot of things that can be done to combat that when things are released without resorting to lawsuits or DRM schemes that harm paying customers.

Say you release an album in the US in May but it doesn't come out in Europe until July (including in any digital distribution systems). Some of your European fans, reading about the album online, will be impatient and want to listen to the album right away. So what do they do? They pirate. Not because they don't want to pay but because there is no other option available to them. In two months when it is released in Europe, some of those people simply will never get around to buying the album, some will have probably moved on and don't care anymore... and those definitely are lost sales. And you can combat that by having a worldwide release which helps you recover those sales. Same goes for movies, games, books and any other form of media.

That's what DRM on PC games is supposed to accomplish... it can't stop piracy and no one expects it to. What it does do, if successful, is stop pirates for a few days. Because for reasons beyond my understanding, games are typically released on a different day of the week in Europe from the US and the casual piracy that goes on in that small gap of a few days is where all the lost sales are. But instead of syncing up the releases, DRM that causes issues for paying customers is introduced and the impact to people who were never going to pay anyway is negligible.

Yeah, staggered release dates make no sense when it comes to online distribution. I can see it with physical media, but digitally? There's no excuse for it. The only reason I'm concerned about all this is that within the next year or so I plan on self publishing my own music, and I'm worried that I'll sell 3 albums and have a thousand fans who didn't feel like buying it.

J.

There are a lot of artist who release their music online at a small fee, say 25c a song, or $3 or $4 for the album and even if they sell a few hundred or thousand albums they're quids-in. Or others who release it for free, with a buy or donate button right next to it, so if someone downloads it for free, and likes it they can donate money to you afterwards, or if they're the "ethical" type who think that would be stealing regardless can give you your asking price upfront and then give any extra money they think it might be worth afterward.
There are a lot of honest and genuine people out there who will pay you for your music, even if they do pirate it.

As for samples, I've said again and again in this thread, samples give you 30 seconds which for a lot of songs is barely an intro, even if you up it to a minute some songs aren't even at a chorus by that point, and me, personally, I can't get a feel for songs until I hear it all, a lot of my favourite albums I haven't even liked until my 3rd of 4th go through them, so samples do nothing for me.
It may just be me, but I just can't get in to music, very often at least, in snippets.

 

[Bishbot]

So it has to be physical to be stolen. Does this mean it's acceptable for me to copy Microsoft's code for their various operating systems?

It sure is! The amount of money they charge when they have what is essentially a monopoly (unless you're a real computer afficianado) is absolutely criminal - especially as their product isn't that good, and doesn't have to be, because of the aforementioned monopoly.

 

[JoeZhang]

So even me being very reasonable and offering two of my own songs for free as incentive, it's not enough for you, you want the whole thing, and after you've listened to all of it, just maybe you like it and you'll pay for it. I see.

J.

Not me - I plan to take the whole lot for free, I never had any intention of paying you.

 

[Misfit Toy]

So it's a question of the level of damages that makes it stealing?

If it's five dollars it's not, but if it's a 1,000 it is?

I'm not talking the law, I'm just talking strictly ethics.

No, you're still mixing up things that have no connection. Copyright infringement never is stealing regardless of the amount of damages.

I just don't understand why taking something that doesn't belong to you isn't stealing.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

So it's a question of the level of damages that makes it stealing?

If it's five dollars it's not, but if it's a 1,000 it is?

I'm not talking the law, I'm just talking strictly ethics.

No, you're still mixing up things that have no connection. Copyright infringement never is stealing regardless of the amount of damages.

I just don't understand why taking something that doesn't belong to you isn't stealing.

Because theft is physical by definition, if we're being pedantic about it, and I believe calling copyright infringement theft is done to make it more emotive.
But the thing with media is that it is never yours anyway, even when you buy it, you simply buy a license to have access to it, which I think muddies the waters even more when you come to discuss these things.

 

[amdmiami]

You, more than likely, make more money than a lot of artists signed to major labels. Immortal Technique brags on his CDs about how he bootlegs his own stuff and makes more money than signed artists because of it.

You think so? So me, out of the trunk of my car, will more than likely make more than, say, Metallica or even Taylor Swift, because I sold one CD and the rest were copied from that one? Hey, I made $5 and now a thousand people have my album.

Are you sure you've got the economics right on this one?


J.

Well now since 1,000 people know about you they make like your music. Now they'll pay for concerts, memorabilia, shirts, and the next CD you release.

 

[Arrqh]

So it's a question of the level of damages that makes it stealing?

If it's five dollars it's not, but if it's a 1,000 it is?

I'm not talking the law, I'm just talking strictly ethics.

No, you're still mixing up things that have no connection. Copyright infringement never is stealing regardless of the amount of damages.

I just don't understand why taking something that doesn't belong to you isn't stealing.

Because it's not taking, it's copying. Taking implies that the original owner doesn't have it anymore.

Think of it this way... an artist produces an album but the songs only exist on a single, unique CD. If someone copies the album without the artist's permission, they have committed copyright infringement. If they actually take the CD, they have committed theft. They may both be crimes but they are different crimes.

 

[Amaris]

There are a lot of artist who release their music online at a small fee, say 25c a song, or $3 or $4 for the album and even if they sell a few hundred or thousand albums they're quids-in. Or others who release it for free, with a buy or donate button right next to it, so if someone downloads it for free, and likes it they can donate money to you afterwards, or if they're the "ethical" type who think that would be stealing regardless can give you your asking price upfront and then give any extra money they think it might be worth afterward.
There are a lot of honest and genuine people out there who will pay you for your music, even if they do pirate it.

As for samples, I've said again and again in this thread, samples give you 30 seconds which for a lot of songs is barely an intro, even if you up it to a minute some songs aren't even at a chorus by that point, and me, personally, I can't get a feel for songs until I hear it all, a lot of my favourite albums I haven't even liked until my 3rd of 4th go through them, so samples do nothing for me.
It may just be me, but I just can't get in to music, very often at least, in snippets.

That's a good idea. I'll have to keep that in mind.

It sure is! The amount of money they charge when they have what is essentially a monopoly (unless you're a real computer afficianado) is absolutely criminal - especially as their product isn't that good, and doesn't have to be, because of the aforementioned monopoly.

Well, don't take the code. Just don't buy Windows. Use Linux or buy Mac OS or dozens of other operating systems that are free or cheap instead.

Not me - I plan to take the whole lot for free, I never had any intention of paying you.

Well, you'll be laughing pretty easy until you eat the poison doughnut.

Well now since 1,000 people know about you they make like your music. Now they'll pay for concerts, memorabilia, shirts, and the next CD you release.

That would be an ideal situation. I've no problem with people listening to my music before buying, it's that whole "never buying and keeping my music" that bothers me a bit.

J.