My $.02
Published on December 15, 2005 By Arquonzo In Personal Computing
Talk radio commentator Dennis Prager states often that downloading music is the same as stealing, and I'll grant that on the surface it does seem like it. Particularly to the artists who generated the original soundwaves. But consider the following:

I have a neighbor. He just went to the store and bought a brand new widget. It's a really cool widget, and it's manufacturer has the appropriate patent.

My neighbor invites me over admire his new widget. I bring my tape measure, my calipers, my camera, my scale, and my laptop for taking notes.

I reverse engineer the widget, and build one for myself in my shop, with my own material. I like my cool new widget, especially since I didn't have to pay for it.

Now I get even more clever. I build a machine that has the ability to copy widgets. Whatever widget you have, you pop it in, and a copy is made. I never sell the copies I make (that would be a violation of the patent), but I do borrow alot of my friends widgets to make myself a personal copy.

Having perfected my widget copying machine, I get a patent, and begin to sell widget copiers. They're a hit, and the manufacturer of the original widgets sees a decline in sales, and blames me!

At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft? If it is illegal to make copies for personal use, how exact does the copy have to be? In a world where nearly everything is available commercially, will it become illegal to make anything yourself if you got the idea from someone else?

Perhaps the real trouble is that the revenue generating paradigm for Musical Artists is antiquated. Maybe instead of trying to collect money from people listening to synthetic reproductions of their music, they should find another way to generate income from their work. More concerts, for example. Maybe the days of unbelievably wealthy music studios are over, and musicians are facing the inevitability of technological progress. Physical manufacturers may also one day face this scenario, like in the story above!

Comments (Page 2)
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Dec 16, 2005
I not be able to recite the Star Spangled Banner without paying a duty to Key or the U.S.?


Well, the words "public domain" spring to mind, but...
on Dec 16, 2005
you can copy most any thing as backups for "personal" use... to copy to hand out or sell... thats not allowed for most intelectual property..IMO if you know you should be paying for it and or know you are supposed to pay for it, but dont .. then you are stealing it .."Stolen/Free music Etc. arent free. the authors/owners spend grand amounts of time and cash to make the stuff. so somebody is paying for the "free" stuff you get...so i cant see why people gripe about paying for what they use..HELP SUPPORT THE ARTISTS..

here on WC artists/programmers give out plenty of free goodies... so i cant see the logic of cheating them of support when they post a "for sale theme".....so quit the gripin and shell out the $$$ for what you want... if what ever you want isnt worth parting with the $$$ then learn to live without it ...

Sad ....people all over the world are struggling to pay for meds to help keep them alive .. yet peeps think pissing over the price of a song/program is a great big friggin issue ...
on Dec 16, 2005
it not that people want to steel anything it just whats the point in buying anything if you can get it for free, for example i have 2 CDs i tell you that they are both identical but one is free and one is not, which are you going to choose i know what 99.9% of people would choose, and really someone downloading some softwere or a song has nothing to do with someone not being able to affrod meds
on Dec 16, 2005

So what if I took your pc? I mean, why should I buy one when I can have yours for nothing...

Obtaining something without paying for it is stealing, no matter what it is. The same applies to intellectual property as does physical items.

But there are people who just don't get the point that taking things which do not belong to you, whatever they are or however you do it, is wrong...

on Dec 16, 2005
really someone downloading some softwere or a song has nothing to do with someone not being able to affrod meds


many arguemnts of why peeps download "free/stolen" songs is the cost .. "if i had to pay for it, i wouldnt". ive seen these comments in other simular threads as well..
i remember a big blowout when napster was shut down.. peeps threw a fit " if those music labels think im going to pay for the music they are crazy"..." darn greedy music industry".... peeps act like the world is ending because they have to actually PAY for something they use ."blasphemy!!!"...and yes IMO it is sad to see people outraged because they have to pay for their music/programs..while many folks are struggling to afford life saving medication..

but i guess most people only care about what directly effects them...
on Dec 16, 2005
i know what 99.9% of people would choose


sorry but to me this is a copout... in all the people i know i think maybe 1% actually uses "borrowed" music/software" most of them are buisness oriented and cant afford to have "stolen stuff on their pc's...the majority of my friends have the mind set of paying for what they use.. "we all had a big debate about it" the consensus was the majority actually felt compelled to buy the producta rather than copy and steal. why? most are small buisness owners or programmers or both... they know how it feels to have cheap people try to "get one over" on them...the others that arent buisness owners. felt that stealing music/programs is tantamount to .. somebody grabbing your stuff out of your house.. and giving it away on e bay...'yes the folks who grab it off of ebay are happy .. but the guy who paid for it, suffers'.......
on Dec 16, 2005
After reading this thread and having a lively discussion with my 26 year old daughter on the subject, I have some thoughts:

First, I think the "widget" analogy is deceptive, because it places the problem in a fantasy realm, and obscures it somewhat.

A better analogy would be books, since they are (like music and software) governed by copyright law, and they can, if the effort is made, be copied. I could borrow my friends book and use a copy machine or scanner to duplicate it in it's entirety. This would save me the cost if the book, but would have it's own costs (time, equipment and/or fees for equipment use). The associated costs could make it less than worth it for me, unless I had a way to do it for free, like using my companies equipment and paper (thus stealing from them also). Now, if the book was already online, and all I had to do was download it to make a copy, how easy is that? The problem I would personally have with this is that the principle of ownership would keep me from doing it. I would not feel right about it.

When I listen to people advocating freely sharing of copyrighted or patented content, it seems that the principle of ownership doesn't even enter into the discussion. All we are left with then is whether it is convenient and practical to copy/share the work in question. This troubles me.

My daughter tells me she understands the principle of ownership issue, and does not disagree, but that for her, sharing/copying music/movies/software is more socially accepted. I take this to mean that for her age group it's assumed to be okay. My question to her (and others that think this way) is this: If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved?

There seems to be an attitude of "entitlement" involved with the justtification for the kind of stealing we are discussing. At one point my daughter said: "If I had to buy CDs for all the music I have then I wouldn't have any music, since I can't afford it." So, the subtext seems to be that she is entitled to the music and that justifies getting it any way she can. This is not a new attitude, but I think it is much more widespread in our youth than previously.
on Dec 16, 2005
If someone from another social group (computer thieves, say) were to take your laptop for themselves, because they could and their peer group thought that was okay, how would you feel? Would that be okay? Is there any issue of principle involved?


The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern. This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors. Stealing a laptop computer does deprive the owner. Perhaps a better analogy would be if the computer thief copied all the files on your laptop. But even then, the analogy suffers because songs are clearly not private files.

The point of my analogy about the widgets was to take the conversation out of the realm of copyrights, because everyone already has a pre-conceived notion about what's right and wrong in regards to copying music. And while my widget copier is fantasy for the present, lets have this discussion again in 50 years.

on Dec 16, 2005
This is why 'stealing' music doesn't feel wrong, and isn't considered immoral by most of the transgressors.


The point of the laptop analogy was to address the "principle of ownership" issue. Of course you do not feel wrong stealing from the person who has the music. They are NOT the owner/creator, merely someone who has purchased/licensed a copy of the work.

The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed.
on Dec 16, 2005
The book analogy is precisely on point because you do not deprive the owner of the book, you deprive the author. If you, an aspiring author, were to write, publish, and sell a book of your own thoughts and ideas, and someone else decided that they were entitled to have the book without paying you for it, would you have a problem with that? It does not matter much at that point whether they take a copy which you have in your shop, or simply make a copy from their friend's. The issue is the infringement of your right to determine where and how the fruits of your labors are distributed.


Bingo. Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files.

What I write is a portion of my labor. It is material that I should be free to shop out on the free market (and will, eventually, but that's another blog entirely). If someone steals the product of my labor without permission, it's NOT just "bits of data", it is, rather, MY PROPERTy. The same applies to music (well, SOME of it anyway!)
on Dec 16, 2005
The difference being, of course, that by 'stealing' bit patterns one does not deprive the singer/music industry of that bit pattern.


How about this analogy:

I don't know what kind of work you may do, but suppose your job entails something which does not result in an object (like a computer, or a chair) that has a particular physical location (and thus can be "stolen" under your definition).

Let's say you write ad copy for some advertising agency. You get paid a salary based on your ongoing performance of the job. Your work consists of creating sequences of words, using a computer, that are stored and shared with the other parts of the job (graphics designers, printers, clients, etc.)

Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position. Would you stay in that job? Would it seem right to you that they did that?
on Dec 16, 2005
The book analogy is precisely on point


The book analogy isn't an analogy. It's precisely the same thing.

Plagiarism isn't wrong because of a "government monopoly" as Leauki indicates, but because it is, in fact, STEALING. The same applies for copying movie/music files.


Plagiarism is stealing credit for the idea. I can post whole articles by Thomas Jefferson on my website as long as I give him credit. If I try to pass it off as my own work, THAT is plagiarism.

Now, suppose that your company sends a memo around, stating that since the ad copy writers work is only "bit patterns" in a computer, able to shared and copied without harm to the creator, you are no longer to be paid for that work. Your job just became a volunteer position.


I understand that the creator of the bit patterns or soundwaves or whatnot feels that he has excusive right to his ideas in perpetuity. And I understand that if I wrote a song and only distributed it on the internet and never gave a concert I probably wouldn't get paid for it. However, ideas are not the same as physical objects.

I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:

"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

Please see the rest of his article here:Link

Oh, and if they quit paying me, I'd find another job.
on Dec 16, 2005
The idea for a piece of music is NOT music. A whole lot more goes into it than an idea. Ideas are a dime a dozen. What makes ideas into property (works) is called implementation, or production, or composition.

Jefferson is talking about patents, not copyright, and while he brings up interesting points, there has obviously been much more said and done on that issue since he said what he said. I'm not really sure what your point is about this, but I don't think it really speaks to the points that I raised, specifically that a person's creative work should by rights belong to them, and not be subject to forfeiture on the basis of some criteria like "just a bunch of bits".

This tendency of people to view insubstantial objects (art, music, video, etc) as incapable of being claimed in ownership by the creators could have VERY far-reaching effects on the economics of our socety.
on Dec 16, 2005
At what point in this fairy tale have I committed theft?


You became a thief when you copied part of the work then made modifications. What's sad is far to many people have distorted the act of stealing to justify their own behavior.
on Dec 16, 2005

Never accept no-brainers. Always think.

Please define "stealing".

9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last