a moral question

[andhow04]

if it is wrong to illegally download albums from the internet, is it also wrong to check out cds from the library, and burn the tracks onto your itunes?

[Bob]

Yeah, both break copyright laws.

[dapianokid]

So don't.

[dapianokid]

So don't.

EDIT:

I know you already did and were to dumb to ask first. So fix it. DESTROY THE CDS.

[littletune]

So don't.

EDIT:

I know you already did and were to dumb to ask first. So fix it. DESTROY THE CDS.

You really shouldn't call people dumb just for asking a question! (and specially not about something that almost eveyone does anyway without even worrying about it!!) 

[dapianokid]

8gasp*! Did I say dumb? I meant unwitting. ACK! Will ya look at that 8?

[prometheus]

Both may break the law, depending on which laws your country has, but neither are immoral. If something is immoral, then there's the burden of proof. I can't argue why it isn't immoral because for that I need to know why it could be considered immoral.

[john11inc]

If something is immoral, then there's the burden of proof.

Evaluating something doesn't require a burden of proof.  A positive proposition requires a burden of proof.  That's like saying, "if something is tasty, it requires evidence."  There are issues with the sentence structure, as well as the statement.  Unless one is a Humanist, questions of morality and ethics cannot be objectively determined, as there is a degree of contextual verisimilitude, nor can they be a priori logically analyzed.  Secondly, the sentence doesn't make sense, syntactically.  Instead, it should be reworded as:

To claim something is immoral would place the burden of proof on the person who claims such.

Even so, once the sentence is correctly parsed, I'm sure some of the problems with such a train of thought become apparent.  But given the issues with the sentence structure, perhaps you are trying to say something else entirely?  Your third sentence is equally cryptic, to me.

[fleetfingers]

Well...taking something that doesn't belong to you into your possession without permission and/or payment is stealing and, therefore, immoral. It's not complicated. I know some people who burn CDs and DVDs they borrow from the library and have come up with all sorts of justifications for it. Doesn't matter....it is what it is.

[prometheus]

It's not cryptic in any way. The only way I can argue why it isn't immoral is to try tｏ guess the arguments used to say it is immoral and then address those.

[prometheus]

Well...taking something that doesn't belong to you into your possession without permission and/or payment is stealing and, therefore, immoral. It's not complicated.

This is fallacious reasoning. Now it isn't theft under any law. But it would be against the law in some countries. You say it is immoral because it is against the law. But isn't it against the law because it is considered immoral?

You provide no argument. And if you think that anything that breaks the law is immoral then are you using your moral compass correctly? Do you also think that anything that doesn't break the law is moral? What if there are really strange laws in place? This will not do.


Anyway, it also seems that your concept of intellectual property needs some refinement. You do realize that if people come up with the same idea independently that they can't ever have ownership over that idea if someone else has claimed the right to that idea before they did?
You seem to try to hint at ordinary property and the arguments used to protect the rights to that property. Yet they are distinct.

[fleetfingers]

Actually, there was no mention in my post about the law.

Are you arguing that stealing isn't wrong? Or that taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission and/or payment isn't considered stealing?

About the intellectual property thing, I'm not sure how that applies here. I thought we were talking about CDs...

[prometheus]

You did appeal to the law by stating it was 'stealing'. Why else would you put it that way.

And no were aren't talking about stealing CDs. We are talking about loaning a CD and making a copy before returning.

[nystul]

You did appeal to the law by stating it was 'stealing'. Why else would you put it that way.

And no were aren't talking about stealing CDs. We are talking about loaning a CD and making a copy before returning.

It is no different.  The physical CD itself is incredibly cheap to produce and of little value.  The people who worked on the album invested their ideas, talents, time, money, etc. on the basis that they would be paid by people who wanted to listen to the album.  If everyone who wanted to listen to the album simply went to a library and copied the CD, there would be no market for the album and it would not be made in the first place.  The behavior of people who burn the CDs must be subsidized by those who actually pay for the music they would like to listen to regularly.

There are many types of stealing covered by different laws or sometimes overlooked by the laws, but they are all stealing.

[lostinidlewonder]

Personally, I copy copyright material (audio and sheet) but destroy them soon after. Often I would NEVER purchase the music in the first place but listening to it a few times sometimes encourages me to actually buy it. If I did not have this opportunity to listen to the music for nothing then I would probably never be interested in it. In that respect I have no qualms in downloading or copying music since if they really do interest me I always go out and buy the original copies and if i don't like it I delete it and never see it again.

I also make copies of originals that I have Cd or sheet music. I prefer not to use my originals and many Cds allow you to make a personal copy for yourself if you own the originals. 

[morningstar]

I download lots of albums solely for the purpose of checking them out to see if I want to invest my money in them. If I do, I delete it and buy the album. If not I just delete it. Don't think it's worth the trouble you can get into by violating the laws relating to copyrighting-I recall seeing a new story a while ago about a guy in America who was fined $130,000 for downloading an album. ONE album. Crazy stuff.

[prometheus]

It is no different.  

If you think so then there's no much more to talk about. If you can't even understand the difference then there is no hope for a debate. But I suspect you rather want to deny the difference because you feel otherwise your argument would be too weak. I bet you perfectly well understand the difference. I would even go to bet you probably infringe on copyrights but you would never steal a CD.

Calling it theft is pure propaganda trying to appeal to the moral authority of the law. "You wouldn't steal a CD right. So then be true to your morals and don't copy it." This is legally false. Don't tell me you are a victim to this propaganda.

[djealnla]

Calling it theft is pure propaganda trying to appeal to the moral authority of the law. "You wouldn't steal a CD right. So then be true to your morals and don't copy it." This is legally false. Don't tell me you are a victim to this propaganda.

 

[ingunite]

Oh, oh, I want a part of this can of worms, too...
How if I buy some sheet music, and photocopy it, and distribute it to my fellow church choir members of a practically destitute country church for Christmas cantata performance? The choir performs to collect donations, i.e. for profit. Eh? Does it make me a thief? or a thief under mitigating circumstances? are the recipients of the copies receivers of stolen goods and equally or fractionally guilty? how about the church under the roof of which the said crime was committed? den of thieves? or are we too small a fish for a big corporation to prosecute, but pretty shabby from ethical point of view?
There must be such a multitude of scenarios interpreting any situation regarding intellectual property rights and the violation of thereof, it is mindbogglingly titillating, or titillatingly mindboggling. Please do not let this thread die...

[ramseytheii]

Oh, oh, I want a part of this can of worms, too...
How if I buy some sheet music, and photocopy it, and distribute it to my fellow church choir members of a practically destitute country church for Christmas cantata performance? The choir performs to collect donations, i.e. for profit. Eh? Does it make me a thief? or a thief under mitigating circumstances? are the recipients of the copies receivers of stolen goods and equally or fractionally guilty? how about the church under the roof of which the said crime was committed? den of thieves? or are we too small a fish for a big corporation to prosecute, but pretty shabby from ethical point of view?
There must be such a multitude of scenarios interpreting any situation regarding intellectual property rights and the violation of thereof, it is mindbogglingly titillating, or titillatingly mindboggling. Please do not let this thread die...

I think you're right to question how far the theft goes, ie are the choir members also guilty of a crime?  I think that it is wrong to photocopy that music, and that someone should speak up and say so, but it seems to me that there are degrees of all crimes, and to say something is "theft" or "thieving" always requires nuance.  You won't give a country church choir the same sentence that you would give to Bernie Madoff. 

I genuinely wonder how far the law stretches in some cases, I mean I don't actually know.  For instance, once in a copy store, I was making a photocopy of some piece or other, maybe a Liszt etude, from a book that I owned.  It happened that a person who worked for Peters music publishing was in the store, and he immediately commented to me something along the lines of, "It's people like you who are putting us out of business."

But if I bought the book, is it really wrong for me to make a personal photocopy on which to write an analysis?  Am I ethically required to buy a second book if I don't want to mark up the first one? 

Walter Ramsey

[fleetfingers]

There are certainly degrees of immorality, and I agree that photocopying music that is copyrighted is low on the scale. But, however insignificant it is compared to other infractions, it is still not right. Even for a destitute choir. Again, the OP did not mention the law. The title of the thread is "a moral question". I doubt that a lowly church choir would be prosecuted for using 'stolen goods', but are they being honest with themselves and others?

ramseytheii, if you are making a second copy for yourself, that is different. You have already purchased the book. I make copies of my music, so I don't have to turn pages. I think that when someone decides to pass along the copy to someone else, so that that person won't have to purchase their own book, is when it crosses the line into dishonesty territory.

I am not perfect and cannot say that I've never made copies of music when i shouldn't have.  I really don't mean to come across as self-righteous or anything. But, I do believe in calling something what it is and not pretending that it is what it is not. 

[bigswifty]

Let's say that a piece of music is bought off the popular I-Tunes. A certain percentage of the profits are going to I-Tunes organisation, a percentage of the money is going to the record company, and the composers are going to get some royalties. However, the record company and I-Tunes are going to make relatively vast amounts of money in comparison to the composer who just receives what could be considered a little bit of something. Unfortunately for the composer, this is always going to be the case. The same situation applies with the purchase of physical products - the composer makes less than the record company. The composers and performers have to make their earnings from royalty fees and the money acquired at a live performance, unless the composer/performer runs his own record company, in which case he will have vast amounts of administrative work to do and will face other financial problems. Whichever way you look at it, the composer/performer is being deprived of his earnings if a piece is pirated. This would make the piracy of records wrong.

However, I believe that the listener has the right to sample music before he purchases it, and if the listener likes the music to a degree, if the work is not available as a single release, he should have the right to copy it. However, this presents us with more problems, most obviously the fraudulent use of such a right, which is why I feel digital distribution of records is necessary. So is it right for the composer to make money from a listener who has to pay the price of a whole record (if the piece is not otherwise available) if they only want one piece? That to me would feel as though they are exploiting the listener's support for them.

I am unable to think of a solution to the problem that isn't either impractical or just generally poor, but these are the ramblings of an undeveloped mind anyway, so perhaps it isn't worth me investing too much time into it at the moment.

[sashaco]

With many pieces it's possible the composer makes more profit than the i-tunes folks or CD makers, since the composer has fewer expenses in the production of his work.  (This contributes nothing, of course, to answering the moral question!)

Sasha

[bigswifty]

With many pieces it's possible the composer makes more profit than the i-tunes folks or CD makers, since the composer has fewer expenses in the production of his work.

I don't think so, because, unless a composer is capable of promoting his records himself, he is signed to a record company. The record company is going to promote his stuff, but it is going to own the copyright, and it is going to receive a large percentage of the profits made from the material. On top of this, the manager's going to recieve a percentage as will the accountant and the area's tax collection agency. It doesn't matter if the quantity of the composer's work increases - percentage is only relative to the quantity, so the percentage is going to stay the same.

[mrba1979]

if it is wrong to illegally download albums from the internet, is it also wrong to check out cds from the library, and burn the tracks onto your itunes?

Well seeing how the courts have shut down lime-wire, real-player, and other such programs I am sure the libraries are next on the list for being a medium in which copyright material can be illegally shared.