Stealing in the Digital Age

[Genius of the Restoration]

Disclaimer: I do not advocate illegal activity, and am posting this for abstract discussion.



Stealing used to necessitate a victim, but I don't think that is always the case any more. Downloading copyrighted software, music, videos etc. can be a crime, but it is a crime that doesn't necessarily have a victim. A record company produces 30,000 CDs. One of those CDs is uploaded and downloaded by 5000 people. The company doesn't spend any more money producing copies than they would if nobody downloaded it. This sets digital piracy apart from conventional stealing. While stealing a car or can of Coke sets the producer back for the possibility of a robbed sale, a digital download doesn't necessarily have to.

A friend of mine told me a couple of days ago he'd downloaded an artist's entire discography because he'd heard a song she did and liked it. It was Dido's White Flag. He was disappointed with the rest of her work.

10-15 years ago, he probably would have remembered her name, maybe gone to a record store and asked to listen to a CD/tape of her and decided if it was worth spending money on. Nowadays, the internet allows for less effort. Easily accessible downloads mean that digital copies of the songs are available in a few clicks with an hour or two of downloading straight to your home computer. Once it is sampled in this way, some people decide that they like the artist enough to buy their actual product. It can be a case of accessibility more than stealing. Downloading can be a taster of things to come.


My friend downloaded many Dido albums. This cost the producers nothing to manufacture. He also decided he didn't like the artist enough to buy any of her work.


I'm not saying all piracy operates like this, but some of it does. Should this relatively new form of 'stealing' be classified as something different? It is certainly not harmful to society as a whole, so cannot be a criminal offence. It could only be tried as a civil case if there was a negative interaction between the individuals involved, but without any harm or victim would this be possible?


Is this an acceptable use of downloading material?

[CobraStallone]

Disclaimer: I do not advocate illegal activity, and am posting this for abstract discussion.



Stealing used to necessitate a victim, but I don't think that is always the case any more. Downloading copyrighted software, music, videos etc. can be a crime, but it is a crime that doesn't necessarily have a victim. A record company produces 30,000 CDs. One of those CDs is uploaded and downloaded by 5000 people. The company doesn't spend any more money producing copies than they would if nobody downloaded it. This sets digital piracy apart from conventional stealing. While stealing a car or can of Coke sets the producer back for the possibility of a robbed sale, a digital download doesn't necessarily have to.

Yeah but it is indirectly affecting the company, because people that downloaded the cd didn't buy one

A friend of mine told me a couple of days ago he'd downloaded an artist's entire discography because he'd heard a song she did and liked it. It was Dido's White Flag. He was disappointed with the rest of her work.

10-15 years ago, he probably would have remembered her name, maybe gone to a record store and asked to listen to a CD/tape of her and decided if it was worth spending money on. Nowadays, the internet allows for less effort. Easily accessible downloads mean that digital copies of the songs are available in a few clicks with an hour or two of downloading straight to your home computer. Once it is sampled in this way, some people decide that they like the artist enough to buy their actual product. It can be a case of accessibility more than stealing. Downloading can be a taster of things to come.

Yeah that is an advantage, but is still wrong in principle because you can't tell if he is sampling or just getting all the music he wants for free

My friend downloaded many Dido albums. This cost the producers nothing to manufacture. He also decided he didn't like the artist enough to buy any of her work.

Again it affects them indirectly

I'm not saying all piracy operates like this, but some of it does. Should this relatively new form of 'stealing' be classified as something different? It is certainly not harmful to society as a whole, so cannot be a criminal offence. It could only be tried as a civil case if there was a negative interaction between the individuals involved, but without any harm or victim would this be possible?

Is this an acceptable use of downloading material?

I am actually in favor of free music downloads, so I would support that idea. On the topic I say labels should reduce cd prices and enhance the product, so people would rather buy the cool cd box for $5 instead of getting them for free on their computer.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Yeah but it is indirectly affecting the company, because people that downloaded the cd didn't buy one

Not all the time though. It doesn't necessarily have to. Some people wouldn't buy the cd anyway.

Yeah that is an advantage, but is still wrong in principle because you can't tell if he is sampling or just getting all the music he wants for free

Just because you can't tell makes it wrong? I can see how you'd argue it from a legal perspective to try to close the gaps in the system, but from an ethical viewpoint not knowing what someone is doing can't make it bad in principle as you can't judge their actions. You could regard them as suspicious yes, but not immoral.


What do you think punishment for it should be? Some of the touted punishments seem slightly disproportionate.

[SigniferOne]

Not all the time though. It doesn't necessarily have to. Some people wouldn't buy the cd anyway.

It's very simple. Are you or are you not deriving value from the CD in question?

If you are, then that value is due to the investment and creativity of the company which produced it. You are deriving your value from somebody else's effort. If you have not reimbursed them the amount that they ask for it, you are stealing.

[Yosemite]

I got a question, what if i download a music from dead artists?

[chilon]

Here is the difference and the problem with basing digital laws on very old property laws.

Before products, commodities were pretty much all rival goods. That means if someone buys a physical CD from the store, that CD cannot be sold to anyone else.

The digital age makes many information products non-rival goods. Access to one copy of a non-rival good in no way inhibits another's access to a non-rival good.

As far as RIAA type arguments go, lets not forget that for millenia musicians made a living on the live performance business model. It was only with the recent advent of the mass production and the mass market media that allowed certain institutions to implement a regime of rent-seeking control on the musicians performance.

The networked digital economy is a window of opportunity to de-centralize the inefficient control over certain markets that outdated institutions (RIAA) maintain and make them more competitive and vibrant.

You don't get it. The lost money, and lower sales are going to make it less likely for record companies to take risks on small artists.

This is an unsupported statement. There is very little actual evidence supporting the proposition that "Illegal downloading of music is the CAUSE of lower sales".

That comment ignores many factors:

1. The major record labels began losing business in the early 1990s with the rise of all of the electronica music genres and the ability of electronic musicians to professional produce music in their own home completely outside of the Big Studio business model. Smaller artists have been making their own music for decades now outside the RIAA model and have been doing it successfully.

2. Video games are just as easily pirated as music or movies. Yet, the video game industry just keeps increasing profits and profit margin even with 'illegal downloading'. Therefore, it is suspect to infer any sort of causation. Many factors that relate to the de-centralization of production in the music industry have every bit as much effect on the RIAA's decreased sales, not to mention the obvious- bad product.

3. There are powerful economic incentives for NOT codifying the RIAA style business models into law. In short, see Yochai Benkler's The Wealth of Networks, whose arguments I can sum up later when I return,

[sephodwyrm]

I got a question, what if i download a music from dead artists?

Dead for how long?

[Yosemite]

Dead for how long?

from 10 to 600 years dead
for the latter it would be paying the performers mostly

[Irishman]

Stealing used to necessitate a victim, but I don't think that is always the case any more. Downloading copyrighted software, music, videos etc. can be a crime, but it is a crime that doesn't necessarily have a victim. A record company produces 30,000 CDs. One of those CDs is uploaded and downloaded by 5000 people. The company doesn't spend any more money producing copies than they would if nobody downloaded it. This sets digital piracy apart from conventional stealing. While stealing a car or can of Coke sets the producer back for the possibility of a robbed sale, a digital download doesn't necessarily have to.

It takes profits from the record company, especially in the age of digital sales services. Now you may say that this is victim-less, as they make so much anyway, but it is not the major artists, or the record company who is going to be hurt, it is the small, undeveloped artist who won't get the record deal because they aren't profitable anymore.

That is why I (as a musician) do not download music, it only hurts the little bands trying to make it big.

A friend of mine told me a couple of days ago he'd downloaded an artist's entire discography because he'd heard a song she did and liked it. It was Dido's White Flag. He was disappointed with the rest of her work.

Listen to samples online. But when you take the property that they created (the digital copy of the song), he stole from that company.

10-15 years ago, he probably would have remembered her name, maybe gone to a record store and asked to listen to a CD/tape of her and decided if it was worth spending money on. Nowadays, the internet allows for less effort. Easily accessible downloads mean that digital copies of the songs are available in a few clicks with an hour or two of downloading straight to your home computer. Once it is sampled in this way, some people decide that they like the artist enough to buy their actual product. It can be a case of accessibility more than stealing. Downloading can be a taster of things to come.

That is not sampling. He owns the music copy. Sampling is on itunes, youtube. Illegal downloading is not 'sampling'.

My friend downloaded many Dido albums. This cost the producers nothing to manufacture. He also decided he didn't like the artist enough to buy any of her work.

Those digital copies actually cost a lot to make, it is a finite cost though. And the argument that people then go out and buy the work if it is good is absurd. Maybe one in a thousand do that, not enough to justify the practice.

Is this an acceptable use of downloading material?

There are many other forms of legal sampling, so no.

[D.B. Cooper]

Most of the profits from CDs go to record companies, so you could say it make more sense to download albums to prevent them from getting more money. Instead we should spend our money at the concerts, where the artist takes home almost all of the profits for himself.

[Genius of the Restoration]

It takes profits from the record company, especially in the age of digital sales services. Now you may say that this is victim-less, as they make so much anyway, but it is not the major artists, or the record company who is going to be hurt, it is the small, undeveloped artist who won't get the record deal because they aren't profitable anymore.

I see what you mean, but I'd wager that it's mostly the artists that have made it big that are downloaded. I'm not sure the ones really struggling to get up there would have a serious problem with illegal downloads.

But once again, it does not have take profit. In the example I gave in the OP the record company is in no worse position for the file being downloaded and listened to than if my friend had listened to it in a music store.

That is not sampling. He owns the music copy. Sampling is on itunes, youtube. Illegal downloading is not 'sampling'.

Yet he downloaded it because he wanted to listen to some more songs. If he liked it, he might have bought it.
The fact that he owned it was due more to convienience than a sense of wanting to own it. Download them all and put them on iTunes and you could skip through them like any other song in your collection. No need to learn how to do anything else.
The only way this isn't technically sampling is, as you pointed out, because he owns the music. But it's not really a full ownership. If he liked it he would have bought it. People don't usually do that with things they own, buy it again. While he owned the copies, the way they were treated were more akin to sampling.

Those digital copies actually cost a lot to make, it is a finite cost though. And the argument that people then go out and buy the work if it is good is absurd. Maybe one in a thousand do that, not enough to justify the practice.

The digital copy he downloaded cost nothing. The original might have, but when he downloaded a copy of the original (that is, a copy that the record company didn't produce), it cost them nothing in production cost for that item.
Nevertheless that is what my friend stated. He's done it before. I'm not trying to legalise it, just saying that from an ethical viewpoint I'm not sure if his particular actions are immoral.

There are many other forms of legal sampling, so no.

Legality doesn't equal morality. If it's a form of sampling, surely it should be seen as the same ethically.

So intellectual theft is ok too?

Good question. Are you sampling their ideas?

It's very simple. Are you or are you not deriving value from the CD in question?

If you are, then that value is due to the investment and creativity of the company which produced it. You are deriving your value from somebody else's effort. If you have not reimbursed them the amount that they ask for it, you are stealing.

Like I'd derive value from listening to it in a record store. You could listen to the whole record if you wanted and get plenty (or none, depending whether you like Dido) of value from it. That is not really the point I'm trying to make though. While you are not doing what the company intended you to do with the information and are in that sense stealing, it doesn't necessarily hurt anyone.

1. A company produces a product and says only to use it or obtain it in a specific way.
2. The company does let you use it before owning it however to sample what you will buy.
3. You then obtain it in a different way, without paying, and use it as a sample.

I think (and I may be wrong) that the only difference is that you used it in a way that the company didn't want you to. Does this make it an immoral use though?

[SigniferOne]

Like I'd derive value from listening to it in a record store. You could listen to the whole record if you wanted

You are deriving value from it because the record store has brokered a deal with the artist's company, and is making sure that the artist is properly compensated. The record store, then, makes sure that it too gets properly compensated by surrounding you with enticements and deals which encourage you purchase while you're in the store anyway. Thus everybody is proportionally rewarded, and everyone is happy.

While you are not doing what the company intended you to do with the information and are in that sense stealing, it doesn't necessarily hurt anyone.

The point is not intentionality. That's not from where the copyright law, and the moral principle, is derived. You could go to a record store and plug your ears so that all of their enticements are unreachable to you -- this goes contrary to their intention but you would not be breaking any moral principle by it. The principle you break by copying a digital download is that you are deriving value from what somebody else has created. Music does not grow on trees. Somebody has to put in sweat, and money, and the blood of their life, to turn it from a non-entity to something that then exists. You then seize this thing that they now have created, and are perfectly non-chalantly deriving value from it.

[Genius of the Restoration]

I think I understand what you mean now SigniferOne, but could you clarify some points? I don't want to misrepresent you, but I'll take a stab at what you mean.

The principle you break by copying a digital download is that you are deriving value from what somebody else has created.

You are deriving value from it because the record store has brokered a deal with the artist's company, and is making sure that the artist is properly compensated.

If I can summarise, your argument is that downloading does take from the companies involved because they pay for it through residual costs that are apart from the shelf price. Deriving value from the music playing in the store on the other hand is okay because they paid for the right to play it.

So following this logic, it is morally acceptable to sample using a record store or YouTube (I'm guessing they pay companies too), but downloading music and for exactly the same ends is immoral, even though the final result for all involved is still the same.

[SigniferOne]

So following this logic, it is morally acceptable to sample using a record store or YouTube (I'm guessing they pay companies too), but downloading music and for exactly the same ends is immoral, even though the final result for all involved is still the same.

Yes.

It is also moral to sample the music by downloading it and afterwards purchasing (or deleting) it. However most people don't have the will power or the moral convictions to actually delete something once they have it in their full possession. As a result, companies make it illegal and leave the sampling to record stores and youtube.

[Katsumoto]

It's a complicated subject, but I definetly don't think it should be treated the same as conventional theft, since your not actually stealing anything, your just copying something.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

So intellectual theft is ok too?

[Lord of Lost Socks]

I also think that TV series could be available for download on the internet, WITH INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIALS, this way they recieve money for people downloading it, but people still get it for free. I wouldn't mind having to watch some stupid commercials (within reason) when watching a show. They could be released a month later than when it's released on TV.
I hate that Americans get to see all the series for free, and I have to spend 300 euros to get all seasons of Stargate, only because they only bothered to show the first few season in Finland getting me hooked and the stopped airing it. And also, getting the season like 1-2 years later in Finnish TV sucks balls aswell... Sometime you don't feel like tipping due to bad customer service. If they ever release a box with all the seasons, without too many discs, and with a reasonable price 100-200 euros, I'll probably buy it. EDIT: No, I'll definately buy it.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Record companies will have to accomodate the theft of intellectual property rather than act outraged at its existence. Though they can do both, with some effort.

[Subuatai de Bodemloze]

It's funny how things change... in rome a musician, actor was distained and now these individuals that contribute nothing more than entertainment have been risen to icons...
I like music and movies as much as the next man but you don't see the writer of mary had a little lamb getting heaps of cash sent to his/her children everytime a mother sings it to her child.

[Del Valle]

Its just as bad as ordinary theft.