Ethics and Piracy

[Firelad]

Ned, you said something about trade secrets: Just FYI, and I think it's quite importnat: The difference between a trade secret and a patent is that if you register a patent, you must publish the plans or whatever for what you're making, but nobody else is allowed to duplicate the product, while with a trade secret you don't publish the plans but anyone can reverse engineer and duplicate your product. It's a neat arrangement actually.

Anyway, it just seems to me that the way the "art industry" has gone is quite disgusting... I'm all for art providing livelyhood, but:
1) The copyright laws seem to be better at protecting the publisher than the artist,
2) It just seems ridiculous to be illegal for me to memorise a passage from a book and, say, teach it to other people - which is analogous to sharing files from CDs,
3) Transferring and selling copyright, provided that we define copyright by the affirmation of authorship and the author's right over his work to corporations or even other people is just plain weird and,
4) Art has survived through millenia without copyright laws and media corp and quite frankly has been a lot more, well, artish than the stuff that's coming out today and in general art will bloody well survive my downloading some music. Quite frankly, I don't really think that the artists whose music I'm downloading would mind the least. Hey, I just sent an email to a musician a few days ago asking for permission to play a composition of hers I found and liked on a CD. I got back an email saying go ahead It was so nice.
Anyway, as a musician (at least aspiring) I can tell you right now that despite the fact that I'd be happy to sell CDs, I wouldn't mind the least that you rip and share and record and whatever every damn bloody thing on that hypothetical CD. And quite frankly, any artist who doesn't think so isn't doing it for the art but for the money, and I'm of the firm opinion that that's not art and the bastard can go **** himself for all I care. Nobody has a natural right to earn money for being a talented person and artists will do their art anyway whether they have a day job or no. I know that I'm not planning on living off my music despite the fact that it's the most important thing in my life. If I'm lucky, I'll be able to earn some money from concerts (I already have, but it was frankly pitiful ). I'm with those who think that concerts, merchandising, charity are the best ways for musicians to earn money.


In short:

*Despite the fact that in a perfect world every artist would get rewarded for his efforts, I don't think that draconian laws enforced by media corporations is exactly the best way to create a perfect world.
*A true artist's aim is not to be a millionaire. And those who view THAT as their aim have enough venues in the world of entertainment despite all of us filesharers determined efforts.
*Kill the leeching media corporations. They have no right to exist, they're interfering. They aren't even needed anymore to spread the work of the artist, something that really was a working justification before the advent of file-sharing and the internet in general.

If I've forgotten anything I assure you that I'll remember it and post it later.

Oh, and if this is an argument about ethics, then why is 95% of it argument about legal fiction?

[Firelad]

Oh, I forgot to add about my hypothetical CD - If people would actually go to the trouble of copying it, I think I'd be very happy for them to let me know, I'd be quite flattered

[Imran Siddiqui]

In fact there is no such thing as intellectual property, it is a legal fiction.

Um... ALL property is a legal fiction! If someone stronger can come up and take something from you at any time (ie, no laws against theft), you don't really 'own' anything do you? It's the law which says you do.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

In fact there is no such thing as intellectual property, it is a legal fiction.

Um... ALL property is a legal fiction! If someone stronger can come up and take something from you at any time (ie, no laws against theft), you don't really 'own' anything do you? It's the law which says you do.

Not if you believe in natural rights or some other form of moral realism.

The difference between "intellectual" property and the regular sort is that you can't take the latter without depriving someone else of it. But in the case of the former someone who gives me an idea does not lose his own copy.

Everyone can understand the notion of regular property in moral terms (stealing is wrong), but it's a stretch to say that ideas can be property in this sense.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

The artist signed the contract in the first place... and in exchange, he got the money he wanted. Sony is within their rights as assigned by the contract. What's your problem. The artist can whine all he wants, but guess what... he agreed to it.

Sure, but that doesn't make it right. If you agree that people can agree to unfair contracts (for whatever reason) then your argument collapses, completely.

Why? Again... McCartney signed and agreed to the original contract. He signed away the rights to his songs for money. The fact that Michael Jackson bought them and now owns them because he paid for them is just business.

Because the legal framework at the time meant that you had to publish a piece of music before you could receive royalties on recordings of it. IIRC Lennon and McCartney didn't actually control the company that published their own songs. There was no alternative and it simply enriched a bunch of people who did nothing.

Hence the objection above applies again.

In both cases the artists agreed to the contracts, and got paid money. At least they got something... you are arguing that they shouldn't get anything for their efforts... that anything they produce should be free for you to steal as you so desire... an argument that should suffice that some type of copyright laws are needed.

Of course your use of the term "steal" assumes these songs are a kind of property. If you want to make sense of this in some moral sense of ownership (not a legal one) you will find yourself floundering to justify it.

[Agathon]

I don't know if you read the whole thread, Ming, but the argument has been largely over whether intellectual property laws are based on the notion that ideas are property in the sense that they are covered by some sort of natural right or whether IP law is utilitarian in nature (e.g. we establish some means to pay people for "creating" new ideas as an incentive, not because there is a special moral relationship between a person and an idea).

The latter was the original justification for copyright law and in my view the only reasonable one. However, it is subject to revision such that if the laws are not working properly to compensate the creators of new ideas then some revision of the law is needed. In other words, the law needs changing because muscians get stiffed.

But some people want to say that ideas are really property in the natural rights sense of the term. That would mean that utilitarian arguments do not apply to IP law just as they don't apply to other rights based claims. Of course this is the typically self-serving position of record companies, who profit from this conception of IP.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't know if you read the whole thread, Ming,

Yes... I had... but I was responding to your attempts to show how the current laws were "screwing" somebody.

Sure, but that doesn't make it right. If you agree that people can agree to unfair contracts (for whatever reason) then your argument collapses, completely.

You are assuming that it was an unfair contract. Back then, it took a lot of captal to get a record published... you needed a recording studio, you had to promote, and distribute the record... a costly proposition. Record companies took their chances by signing up bands. Some made them money, others didn't.
Bands didn't have the resources to produce their own records, so they signed with record companies, getting money up front. It was a two way street. The contracts made both parties money... fair services were being earned by both parties. Record companies and the Bands made a lot of money. So your argument collapses completely.

Because the legal framework at the time meant that you had to publish a piece of music before you could receive royalties on recordings of it. IIRC Lennon and McCartney didn't actually control the company that published their own songs. There was no alternative and it simply enriched a bunch of people who did nothing.

Did nothing? excuse me... as I stated above, getting music published was a two step process... the artists had their jobs and the record companies had their jobs... both took risks...
You point to the legal frameworkas the problem. The real "problem" was the proscess of recording and then distributing the music... a costly proposition. Now the system is different. A band can produce their own music, and distribute it in a different fashion via the internet or other methods... Bands that dont' want to sign away their right have an option. Back then, the option was to rent time in a studio... pay somebody to cut the albums, go around the country to radio stations to promote air time, and actually go to the record stores and try to get them to sell it... an impossible task... so the record companies and artists needed each other. So it wasn't the legal framework, it was just the nature of the business. Both parties benifited from the contract they signed.... and the artists were happy to sign those contracts... they even threw parties when they were lucky enough to be signed by an important record label company. You make it sound like somebody put a gun to their head to sign these contracts... It was the exact opposite.

Of course your use of the term "steal" assumes these songs are a kind of property. If you want to make sense of this in some moral sense of ownership (not a legal one) you will find yourself floundering to justify it.

I do feel the songs are property. Just like a book is property, like art work is property... The people that create them own the rights to them. So stealing them is theft. I do not flounder at all trying to justify it... They created the material... It was their hard work... they own the rights... just as a company that builds something tangiable. Your line about how if you steal a car, the person losses the car, but if you steal inforamtion the person losses nothing is flawed. They do lose something... They lose the profit they should have made. That is a loss... you have stolen that from them.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Ming
They do lose something... They lose the profit they should have made. That is a loss... you have stolen that from them.

That's the industry line. The reality is there's no clear consensus on whether P2P filesharing actually impacts sales, and if so, in what fashion. A recent study by a pair of economics professors (one from Harvard) concluded that filesharing's impact was neutral, overall. Realistically, downloads fall into one of three categories:

1) Person downloads, listens, decides he doesn't like it, deletes. No lost sale here because the person determined it was worth no money to him. Same result would have occurred if the person simply heard the song in some other fashion (radio, TV, friend, etc).

2) Person downloads, listens, decides he likes it, keeps it, buys CD. Gained sale here. Perhaps a "pure" gained sale if the song was not available any other way, thus no way for the person to determine if it would be worth buying or not in the first place -- in which case you would expect the person to lean towards not spending money on an unknown.

3) Person downloads, listens, decides he likes, keeps it, doesn't buy CD. Here's the only case you can argue a lost sale.

And just for semantics, let's throw in category 4:

4) Song downloaded is public domain. No copyright infringement in the first place.

The majority of downloads may be category #3, but that doesn't make all downloads "lost sales".

[Ming]

Originally posted by optimus2861
That's the industry line. The reality is there's no clear consensus on whether P2P filesharing actually impacts sales, and if so, in what fashion. A recent study by a pair of economics professors (one from Harvard) concluded that filesharing's impact was neutral, overall.

If there is just "one" lost sale, profit is lost.

The argument that it could "enhance" sales may be a legitimate point... however, there are already other methods for people to sample music... most music stores allow you to sample, or you can hear it on legitmate sources like the radio. You don't have to "steal" the music to sample it

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming

Yes... I had... but I was responding to your attempts to show how the current laws were "screwing" somebody.

They are.

You are assuming that it was an unfair contract. Back then, it took a lot of captal to get a record published... you needed a recording studio, you had to promote, and distribute the record... a costly proposition. Record companies took their chances by signing up bands. Some made them money, others didn't.
Bands didn't have the resources to produce their own records, so they signed with record companies, getting money up front. It was a two way street. The contracts made both parties money... fair services were being earned by both parties. Record companies and the Bands made a lot of money. So your argument collapses completely.

No. In fact it doesn't. For your argument to go through you need to assert that all contracts are fair. If they aren't then you need to supplement your argument. The fact that some contracts are fair is neither here nor there.

What we are talking about in this case is the publishing of the music itself, not its recording or distribution. That in my view was an unecessary legal step which removed control of the music to the artist. The background to this is the monopolistic nature of the recording industry at the time and its laws which prevented people from releasing their music on their own terms. Lennon and McCartney had little choice in this matter.

But that's not much of an issue with regard to the main point of this thread.

Did nothing? excuse me... as I stated above, getting music published was a two step process... the artists had their jobs and the record companies had their jobs... both took risks...

The publisher of the song (not the record company or the distributor) took very little in the way of risk. Publishers had composers over a barrel.

You point to the legal frameworkas the problem. The real "problem" was the proscess of recording and then distributing the music... a costly proposition. Now the system is different. A band can produce their own music, and distribute it in a different fashion via the internet or other methods... Bands that dont' want to sign away their right have an option. Back then, the option was to rent time in a studio... pay somebody to cut the albums, go around the country to radio stations to promote air time, and actually go to the record stores and try to get them to sell it... an impossible task... so the record companies and artists needed each other. So it wasn't the legal framework, it was just the nature of the business. Both parties benifited from the contract they signed.... and the artists were happy to sign those contracts... they even threw parties when they were lucky enough to be signed by an important record label company. You make it sound like somebody put a gun to their head to sign these contracts... It was the exact opposite.

But the nature of the business was such that artists were held over a barrel. The Beatles received a royalty of one farthing (a coin then no longer in general use) per double sided record when they signed with Parlophone.

If you want a good history of the way that artists have been screwed, you should read Norman LeBrecht's When the Music Stops which is a history of the music industry.

I do feel the songs are property. Just like a book is property, like art work is property... The people that create them own the rights to them.

This is the real issue. You can't just assert that ideas are property, you need an argument.

Normally we understand theft as a zero sum game. If I take your car, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your idea, your possession of it is not diminished by my copying it - you still have it.

So stealing them is theft. I do not flounder at all trying to justify it... They created the material... It was their hard work... they own the rights... just as a company that builds something tangiable. Your line about how if you steal a car, the person losses the car, but if you steal inforamtion the person losses nothing is flawed. They do lose something... They lose the profit they should have made. That is a loss... you have stolen that from them.

I figured you would say this. They don't lose the idea. They lose the ability to make money from it. That is different. So to use the car example again - I take your car, and (say you deliver pizzas with it) you lose the ability to make money from the car. But, while the car is, the ability to make money from the car is not a piece of property. Property crimes involve taking or appropriating something so that the original person doesn't have it. The potential to earn money from something is not a thing - it's a potentiality.

Now AFAIK courts do allow people to sue for loss of earnings due to other crimes but these are not property crimes. You still haven't shown that an idea is a piece of property. Nor have you shown what the special relationship is between a person and an idea that makes it wholly theirs.

[DinoDoc]

Have any of you dealt with piracy in videogames? Because I'd like to read that conversation. Focusing on music bores me.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Agathon

You still haven't shown that an idea is a piece of property. Nor have you shown what the special relationship is between a person and an idea that makes it wholly theirs.

Well... you haven't shown that an individuals creation is not property... or proven that there isn't a special relationship between a person and an idea... so your point?

Are you really claiming that a book or song created by an author isn't theirs? And that there is no special relationship between the two... you are the one that needs to start proving something. Songs or books don't create themselves... somebody does creates them... and works hard to do so... just as hard if not harder than the efforts you extend in teaching... which you get paid for.

[debeest]

Originally posted by Aeson
Some questions for those claiming that piracy is ok because the product may or may not be valuable, and so a 'free trial' is in order to determine it's worth.

Do you apply the same logic in reverse, that you will compensate the author(s) of the product according to it's value even if that exceeds the original price? Have you ever paid more than the asking price for a cd, game, book, or movie because you enjoyed it a lot? Do you seek out the owners of web sites you enjoy, paying them for their service, or make sure to follow all the links to advertisers/sponsers who allow them to run their site? Your favorite game, how many hours of enjoyment did you derive from it? Hundreds? Thousands? And yet what compensation did you offer the author. $30-$60?

Asleep, thank you. This is perhaps the first intelligent question I've seen regarding my own position on the issue.

I download some stuff in order to determine whether it's worth buying. I consider this perfectly comparable to borrowing a CD from a friend for the same purpose.

If I like the music enough that I would have bought it if I'd heard it on the radio, then I buy it. If not, I don't.

It's important to note that I don't buy stuff without hearing it first. I don't buy a pig in a poke. And of course, by the same token, I don't pay extra for the CDs I do buy. They offer music at a price; I hear the music first, decide whether or not to buy, and pay the price they ask if I do buy.

I believe that I am not costing the artists or industry anything this way, including lost sales profits.

Does that answer your question?

[-Jrabbit]

I confess to writing before back-reading the full thread... butcan't believe this is still being debated.

Originally posted by Agathon
The background to this is the monopolistic nature of the recording industry at the time and its laws which prevented people from releasing their music on their own terms.

Excuse me, but please quote me a US law that ever prevented people from releasing their music on their own terms.

But the nature of the business was such that artists were held over a barrel. The Beatles received a royalty of one farthing (a coin then no longer in general use) per double sided record when they signed with Parlophone.

True dat. But not germane to this.

You can't just assert that ideas are property, you need an argument.

Puh-lease. The idea of intellectual property is an old one, with both patent law and copyright law as preludes to what is now called "intellectual property" law. These concepts have been well established for many decades.

Normally we understand theft as a zero sum game. If I take your car, you can no longer use it. But if I copy your idea, your possession of it is not diminished by my copying it - you still have it.

This is mere rationalization, Agathon. The key point is that ideas cannot be capitalized upon without being dispensed. The fact that hard goods cannot be cloned but must be stolen is not germane. "Zero sum game"???? To make this logic leap (that the zero-sum proposition must apply equally to both physical and ephemeral property) is naive at best.

They don't lose the idea. They lose the ability to make money from it. That is different.

But just as wrong - both morally and legally.

People who rationalize their actions through illogical notions are engaging in the merest of sophistry -- in essence, just because they don't feel guilty, like they did when they snarfed a candy bar from the store, it must be morally/ethically OK.

Trying to further justify this because someone did a study claiming that "filesharing" (love that guilt-free nomenclature!) carries no net effect on sales is equally erroneous. Proving the economic neutrality of an action has NO BEARING on its legality or morality.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by debeest
Asleep, thank you. This is perhaps the first intelligent question I've seen regarding my own position on the issue.

you quoted Aeson, not me, he is far more eloquent than I.