Going Legit with Music: My Story [Archive]

Jason Dunn

06-20-2006, 03:00 PM

It's confession time: I haven't always had a completely legitimate music collection. I know, I know, shocking but true. Like many people back in the '90s, I got hooked on the Napster phenominon - I love music, and I love collecting, so those two things mean that I aquired music at a fast rate. When you combine those two things with a broadband connection, you end up with a whole lot of downloads. I used Napster, Kazza, Morpheus, and Limewire to track down singles I liked off the radio. In my mind I justifued it as time-shifting radio singles. I also took it a step further though - I connected with people that had private FTP servers full of complete albums. I somehow slipped into a pack-rat mentality, where I was downloading albums of music that I had no interest in listening to (<a>Dream Theater</a> anyone?) for the sole purpose of having the music "just in case" I needed it for some reason. Like a friend coming over and saying "Man, I've just gotta' hear some Dream Theater!".I've seen people who are really into <a>warez</a> follow the same pattern - they amass gigabytes of software they don't use, but keep it on the off chance that they might want to use it someday. I am a Christian, and consider myself a moral person, but somehow I had convinced myself that as long as I kept buying CDs, it didn't matter that I was downloading all this music. I'm admitting that I was wrong: no one should have downloaded music they didn't purchase.<h1>Time Passes...</h1>I grew older, and when Napster got shut down in 2000 it was a bit of a wake up call. I kept buying CDs, and only fired up Limewire when I needed a certain song. Back then, there were no online music services available to me in Canada. Slowly but surely, that changed, and I started to buy singles from Puretracks. But I still had all those MP3s I had downloaded in previous years. I wasn't sharing them online with anyone, but I still kept them. In fact, they were a bit of an annoyance because when I did a random playlist of all my music, I'd get music I had no desire to listen to. So I moved them into a folder outside my main music folder, again, just in case I needed that music.I've always been highly opposed to warez (illegal software), and even DVD ripping if you don't own the DVD, but it wasn't until I encountered a guy in 2005 that took IP theft to a whole new level that I got the moral wakeup call. In addition to having the usual thousands of songs he didn't own from peer to peer networks, he also had a mod-chipped Xbox that allowed him to play game ROM images, watch Divx movies, etc. He had hundreds of Xbox games he didn't own. He had hundreds of movies and TV shows downloaded that he didn't own. I was quite upset by his total lack of regard for the intellectual property of others, but I realized I was a hypocrite by having music that I hadn't paid for. Conviction set in.So my next step was to delete every song I didn't own. Nuke it all! I was happy to find out that only about 20% of my collection was music I didn't own, but that was 20% too much of course. As I deleted the music, I made a list of what music I liked and wanted to re-aquire legally. If it was one or two singles, I'd aquire them digitally from <a>MSN Music</a>. If it was a whole album or enough songs to warrant buying the album, I'd add it to my Amazon wishlist and purchase it later, or go to eBay and buy a used copy.<h1>Foiled by Geography</h1>One of the primary problems of course was that the best online music stores weren't available to me in Canada. MSN Music uses 160 kbps WMA tracks, which is great for quality, but MSN Music doesn't sell to Canadians. I've go around that by using gift certificates a friend in the USA would buy for me - once the gift certificates are activated in your account, anyone can use the credits to buy tracks. After I get the MSN Music tracks, I burn them to CD, and re-rip them as 256 kbps MP3s. I get DRM-free music that I can use anywhere I wish, and the quality still sounds great. I normally go to any lengths to avoid re-compressing an already compressed source, but I've been pleased (and surprised) at how good the tracks sound once they're in MP3 format.Now that I'm 100% legit, I can honestly say I feel better knowing that I no longer have any illegally-gained music tracks. I continue to buy CDs and music singles, and knowing that my money is going towards supporting the work of artists I enjoy is a great feeling. What about you? Have you gone legit, or do you still dabble in the murky shadows of having music you don't own sitting on your hard drive? Join me in the light brothers and sisters! ;-)Jason Dunn owns and operates <a>Thoughts Media Inc.</a>, a company dedicated to creating the best in online communities. He enjoys mobile devices, digital media content creation/editing, and pretty much all technology. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his lovely wife Ashley, his sometimes obedient dog, and he has a music metadata fetish.

otipoby

06-20-2006, 03:19 PM

Jason, I am glad to hear that I am not the only one the has "gotten legit". I am also a Christian and justified the stealing with several excuses. I make a Christmas CD every year for family, and last year I decided to do the right thing and buy the songs. I use MSN Music through WMP11 and I feel much better now.

ale_ers

06-20-2006, 04:10 PM

They do make it hard for us though, don't they. I don't have quite the problems that you Canadian users do. But I wish the music companies would go back through their catalogs and rip everything. I know the limitation is the agreements that were made, but wouldn't it be better to make money off a song in your catalog that would otherwise be collecting dust.

Back in the heyday of Napster, you could (with enough patience) find ANYTHING. Now it is so hard to find some older, obscure music. It almost makes me want to fire up one of the old programs again...but I resist.

Jason Dunn

06-20-2006, 04:30 PM

Back in the heyday of Napster, you could (with enough patience) find ANYTHING. Now it is so hard to find some older, obscure music. It almost makes me want to fire up one of the old programs again...but I resist.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I had my list of perhaps 400 songs that I wanted to buy singles of, and I bet 100 of those weren't available. Some of the songs were sold only if you bought the full digital album, some were completely unavailable (though listed in the MSN Music directory), and some of the artists didn't exist at all. Very frustrating!

bcries

06-20-2006, 05:11 PM

Interesting story, though the tie-in with Christian morality is questionable. Certainly "intellectual property" is a concept predated by scripture, so blanket application of the biblical imperatives to avoid theft means - for one thing - allowing corporation and government alike to redefine and extend the definitions of ancient words.

In this circumstance, I'd say the reflective meanings of "property" and "steal" have achieved modern legal definitions that serve powerful interests all too well. This is no mere "rationalization" for downloading, but a thoughtful inquiry into the questionable use of religiosity to achieve capitalist goals.

For many, IP "theft" is merely mallum prohibitum - on the moral level of highway speeding or marijuana smoking. Certainly some modern evangelicals have constucted elaborate Paulian imperatives to obey thy modern government without question (again, a convenient subversion of faith for the purpose of population control). But many of us would say that living morally is not at the same to obeying the law.

As a follower of Christ, I'd personally suggest that the avoidance of factory farmed food products, advocacy for the homeless and direct protest against old-fasioned theft (in the form of global northern capital flows through profit repatriation and basic rape of the global south) are probably much higher on the list of moral priorities than how we acquire music files.

I like your desire to avoid hurting music companies. I'm just not sure where the faith part fits in - do you believe you are obeying a "do not steal" imperative, or just a (weaker) imperative to obey one's rulers?

Damion Chaplin

06-20-2006, 05:55 PM

do you believe you are obeying a "do not steal" imperative, or just a (weaker) imperative to obey one's rulers?

I'm not sure it's about 'obeying' anything but your own personal convictions. I think the christian reference was just a shortcut to tell us he believes stealing (in any form) is wrong, even if he at times side-stepped that belief.

Jason, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Jeremy Charette

06-20-2006, 06:04 PM

Great piece. I have to say, I downloaded URGE today, and I'm really impressed with the depth of the catalog. There's even obscure stuff on there that I can't purchase on CD, and can't download on "other" Music Stores. I think URGE is a great way to entice people to "go legal" for only $10 a month. You get better selection, a better service and interface, and don't have any of those pesky legal problems to worry about.

Jason Dunn

06-20-2006, 06:24 PM

You definitely win the prize for the most interesting post I've read in a long while...

In this circumstance, I'd say the reflective meanings of "property" and "steal" have achieved modern legal definitions that serve powerful interests all too well.

Not from where I'm sitting. I know many musicians, one of which has recently recorded an album and is signed to a major music label in the US for distribution. If I were to download her album from a P2P network, rather than buying it, I'm taking money directly out of her pocket. To me, that's theft. If someone takes 100% of the content from Digital Media Thoughts, puts it on their own server, and puts up their own banner ads, that's theft.

But many of us would say that living morally is not at the same to obeying the law.

I would be one of those people as well - I rip CDs I own, bypassing whatever DRM restrictions the publisher puts on them. I rip DVDs I own, which if I were living in the USA would be a violation of the DCMA and therefor illegal (thankfully I live in Canada). I believe that fair use of content that I paid for is moral, even if some might consider it illegal. And I also have strong feelings about things that are legal but immoral - I don't want to get into that though, for fear of turning this thread into a discussion about something other than music. ;-)

As a follower of Christ, I'd personally suggest that the avoidance of factory farmed food products, advocacy for the homeless and direct protest against old-fasioned theft (in the form of global northern capital flows through profit repatriation and basic rape of the global south) are probably much higher on the list of moral priorities than how we acquire music files.

My article was in no way meant to imply that music theft is somehow the most important issue of the day - it's certainly not. I'm merely one voice making my story known. Me mentioning my faith was to point out that I adhere to a moral code.

I like your desire to avoid hurting music companies. I'm just not sure where the faith part fits in - do you believe you are obeying a "do not steal" imperative, or just a (weaker) imperative to obey one's rulers?

It's less about "hurting" music companies and more about honouring the work that musicians put into their craft - I appreciate music deeply, and want to support the people making the music. Taking their work for free and not giving anything back is dishonest.

bcries

06-20-2006, 08:58 PM

Fair enough... I don't doubt your good intentions Jason, but am interested in thinking/discussing more about morality and intellectual property. Ethics, philosophy, politics, economics and theology are all at play here :)

Now, I certainly didn't mean to appeal to the old "music studios are fat cats so it is okay to steal from them" thinking. That certainly is a rationalization. I mean to suggest that intangibles like ideas, performances (visual and audible) and abstract icons may not be proper objects of ownership in the moral and/or biblical sense. Certainly biblical imperatives against stealing could only have been aimed at physical/tangible goods, which at the time were the only kinds of property that received economic exchange (certainly documents, such as the scriptures themselves, were considered public domain!).

Our technological capability has evolved much further; we are thus forced to extract basic principles if we wish to connect faith here. Now, your basic working principle of "theft" seems to be an act that deprives a person of some profit. Is that a fair statement? Because there is no finite supply of mp3s for a given song; you cannot deprive the producer of any original product by copying - you only deprive them of pure cash. Such is the nature of intellectual property.

The problem here is that you can't really have deprived someone of legitimate profit unless you've first decided that the profit would have been legitimate, if made at all. Starting from a moral/biblical baseline of physical-only property, one cannot say "well I could make money this way or that way" and then claim that you have done wrong by not playing along. Eg. refusing to fork over your wallet to a street thug may deprive that thug of income, but most would say that the right to walk across his 'turf' is not a legitimate object of ownership, so he cannot legitimately profit from its sale.

While I think we can agree that our society has deemed it necessary to construct an elaborate intellectual property scheme to drive production in certain areas of the economy (namely technology, art, etc.), this does not necessarily imply biblical agreement with all that is economically necessary. There are numerous examples in the Bible of God's prohibition and disapproval of certain kinds of exchange; sex-for-money being an obvious example. Indeed, while opportunities abound in nature for all kinds of profit between humans, certain things are not for sale and therefore not "protected" by a moral imperative to purchase them.

This is where I would suggest a dissonance between biblical moral imperatives and public legal imperatives - and in such cases, political ethicists have been hard at work to determine just how we can be compelled to obey the law. Contractarians would say that we have somehow agreed to obey the law (and observe intellectual property rights) by virtue of living here. Libertarians would say not. Most people speed on the highway because if it were up to them, they never would have made the speed limit so low - and so, feeling no moral compulsion to keep an agreement to drive slowly, they disobey the law and accept the consequences.

They have done nothing morally wrong. I suspect that neither have I, when I disagree with an artist's right to charge a fee for every set of electrons that happen to produce the same sounds that they once recorded. I also think that if you feel differently, it's great that you've found a way to sync your practice with your opinion :) I just wanted to throw in the idea that many Christians and other good, morally upstanding people can posess different yet reasonable convictions.

Macguy59

06-20-2006, 10:17 PM

That almost brought a tear to my eye. I'm glad your conscience feels better but at the end of the day laws are still being broken. It's like being "a little bit pregnant". (A) for effort though :wink:

Doug Johnson

06-21-2006, 01:49 AM

I wasn't going to contribute to this discussion but after reading it a nerve has been hit.

As someone who develops software for a living, I feel pretty strongly about IP theft. And that is what I do consider it. If someone chooses to use an illegitimate copy of my software instead of purchasing it, they have taken money out of my pocket. That that, to me, is theft. It is hard enough to earn a living without people trying to underhandedly steal my work.

How is IP different from anything else? If I was a carpenter, for example, I would spend time creating something out of wood, and sell it to earn my living. As a software developer I spend time creating software, and sell it to earn my living. The software I develop takes months or years of LONG days to create, so is it unfair for me to ask for some compensation for my time? I think not. For someone to use my software without my permission is a slap in the face and shows a great deal of disrespect to me and the time I have put into its creation. It would be akin to someone working for an employer for a year to find out that they aren't going to be paid. That certainly isn't in line with Christian values. I don't see how anyone can justify theft of software, music, etc and still feel they are a moral person.

Back to the original discussion.... Jason, I applaud your desire to make your collection legal. Thankfully, for the most part, we have options to do so.

bcries

06-21-2006, 04:47 AM

(Sigh).

I feel like maybe, somehow, you didn't fully read or understand my post. That's okay - let's all together now admit that a forum related to cool tech toys is likely populated by many people who have never traversed beyond the capitalist mindset.

My point is that you wouldn't BE a software developer or best-selling author or platinum pop artist in ancient times, because nobody would give you the right to patent or copyright your ideas. Ideas were, at one time, not considered property at all.

The question is, when we started to develop the idea of intellectual property, was it because of moral conscience or economic opportunity? I suspect the later, and you really needn't be offended by that. There is an entire branch of ethics devoted to the idea that we need to make certain societal deals and arrangements (such as IP law) in order to achieve greater common benefit. The moral imperative to respect IP, then, is derrived from the moral imperative to keep one's word.

Except some of us were born into this world without the chance to agree or disagree to such a deal. I, for one, have not yet decided that we/I are/am better off with IP in it's current manefestation. Ironically, digital art represents that which is fundamentally easiest to copy - and so the easier it gets for me to make unauthorized use of your software, the easier it gets for you to create something once and then copy it many times over, at no cost, and attempt to reap continued profit.

Hardly comparable to a carpenter, now is it? I'm willing to live with a carpenter selling furniture over and over, because he/she has produced an item over and over. You've produced something once.

This is really a silly argument that could go on and on, and depends entirely on one's assumptions about the nature of private property. I'm merely attempting to shed light on why millions of people feel no guilt when copying music, but would feel horrible guilt about shoplifting a candy bar. Experience and theory both suggest that if this really is such a weighty moral issue, there would be no trouble convincing most of the population to abstain.

Jason Dunn

06-21-2006, 05:24 AM

I mean to suggest that intangibles like ideas, performances (visual and audible) and abstract icons may not be proper objects of ownership in the moral and/or biblical sense.

You seem to be suggesting that moral imperatives against stealing only apply to the analog world, and that digital bits have no ownership. As someone who lives in the digital world, I couldn't disagree more. I view the value of online reviews in the same way I do the books I've authored: it's my work, my intellectual property, and therefore has value. Bits or atoms, it doesn't matter to me. You're right insofar as Joe Public not seeing it that way though - the #1 reason why Napster took off was because no one saw digital music as being the same as CD. Most people wouldn't put a CD in their pocket and walk out the door, yet they thought it was somehow OK to download 1000's of digital CDs. Hey, I was one of them. ;-)

The problem here is that you can't really have deprived someone of legitimate profit unless you've first decided that the profit would have been legitimate, if made at all...refusing to fork over your wallet to a street thug may deprive that thug of income, but most would say that the right to walk across his 'turf' is not a legitimate object of ownership, so he cannot legitimately profit from its sale.

That's a pretty bizarre way of thinking about this, and a ridiculous example. Your example would only hold true if I knew, in advance, that the thug owned that street - he had built it - and that by walking on it I really did owe him a toll. It's not like someone installs a P2P client and it downloads random music onto their computer, and I'm saying that person owes money to all those artists. People seek out the music they love to listen to - it's a conscious choice they make; they are consuming the product that musician created. If you consume something that isn't free - as in, it's something that was designated as "for sale" by it's creator - then you owe the creator payment for the user/consumption of that product. Atoms of bits, it matters not.

There are numerous examples in the Bible of God's prohibition and disapproval of certain kinds of exchange; sex-for-money being an obvious example.

You're looking at that backwards - the root problem of paying a prostitute for sex is the SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE not the PAYMENT.

Most people speed on the highway because if it were up to them, they never would have made the speed limit so low - and so, feeling no moral compulsion to keep an agreement to drive slowly, they disobey the law and accept the consequences.

Right - I would be one of the people that feel that reasonable speeding (moving with the pace of traffic, or 10-20km over the limit on an empty road) is acceptable and not immoral. Going so far that I put the lives of people around me in danger through reckless driving? That would be immoral.

They have done nothing morally wrong. I suspect that neither have I, when I disagree with an artist's right to charge a fee for every set of electrons that happen to produce the same sounds that they once recorded.

So tell me this then: what gives you the right to take ownership of those pre-recorded electrons without paying the creator for them? Just because you can? You of all people know that just because someone CAN do something, doesn't make it moral. Remember, we're not talking about sunshine or oxygen here - we're talking about unique creative efforts, just like a painting or writing a novel, that take effort and have real production costs. Why would you think you have a right to something that you did not create?

Doug Johnson

06-21-2006, 06:21 AM

My point is that you wouldn't BE a software developer or best-selling author or platinum pop artist in ancient times, because nobody would give you the right to patent or copyright your ideas. Ideas were, at one time, not considered property at all.
No, I wouldn't be. But new innovations bring about new ideas. Protecting someones intellectual efforts is something that has come about as the result of the development of technology allowing those ideas to be distributed. In ancient times someone probably wouldn't have been a carpenter if there wasn't some sort of reward for their effort. The difference is that the idea of intellectual property is new so people aren't quite used to the idea of fair compensation as they are for tangible goods.

If artists weren't compensated for their works, there wouldn't be artists, and you would therefore not have access to or benefit from their works.

The question is, when we started to develop the idea of intellectual property, was it because of moral conscience or economic opportunity?
Probably some of each, but certainly we would not be where we are technology-wise without protection for ideas. There would be no incentive to develop new ideas if there was no protection or compensation for them. Each idea or work that is developed advances the knowledge and capabilities of society, and has some sort of cost associated with it. Without protecting ideas/works nobody would be willing to make the required investment. Our society has deemed that intellectual property does have some sort of value.

Ironically, digital art represents that which is fundamentally easiest to copy - and so the easier it gets for me to make unauthorized use of your software, the easier it gets for you to create something once and then copy it many times over, at no cost, and attempt to reap continued profit.
It may be easier to copy, but does that make it fair or right? It doesn't take away from the fact that effort was put forth to create that property.

Hardly comparable to a carpenter, now is it? I'm willing to live with a carpenter selling furniture over and over, because he/she has produced an item over and over. You've produced something once.
I may have written the code once, but it certainly isn't zero effort to reproduce and keep the business going. Each time I sell a license I have support issues, I have to maintain a web site to design and support it and other time and financial resources to deal with. Just because I developed the code once (a flawed idea if you really understood how software development or music/movies/etc really worked) doesn't mean I can just sit back and do nothing to earn my living. The concept that it is a one-time effort is just wrong. I work just as hard as anyone else if not harder (how many people do you know that work 12-16 hours per day???). Some people who develop IP may have a higher payoff than I do, but the idea that I should not be compensated and have my work protected just seems wrong.

This is really a silly argument that could go on and on, and depends entirely on one's assumptions about the nature of private property. I'm merely attempting to shed light on why millions of people feel no guilt when copying music, but would feel horrible guilt about shoplifting a candy bar. Experience and theory both suggest that if this really is such a weighty moral issue, there would be no trouble convincing most of the population to abstain.
You may be attempting to shed light on this, but your comments clearly show your bias.

To me it boils down to this: are IP owners providing a valuable service? If so, it should be worth something, and worth protection. Does it really matter if someone puts forth intellectual effort vs physical effort? It shouldn't. Taking something that someone else has put their own time and effort while denying them what they ask for in exchange is in effect theft.

So what is the difference between intellectual property vs tangible goods? It is the type of investment that has to be made to create them. Intellectual property is just that -- property that is developed using intellect, whereas tangible goods are developed using tangible resources.

The message that I am getting from you is that the time and effort that I and others put forth does not have value, and that you (or others) just don't feel bad about cheating us out of compensation for the efforts that we have put forth. Would you like it if I went to your employer and arranged for them to not pay you for the work that you do?

sundown

06-21-2006, 03:05 PM

Thanks for the article, Jason. An interesting discussion. I just wanted to add myself to the bandwagon and say that I've felt a little guilty and have been going legit as well even though in DRM frustration with that stupid Ryan Shupe cd I almost swore off buying CD's entirely. It's refreshing hearing someone fess up.

rzanology

06-21-2006, 03:09 PM

ya know...had i read this a month ago i'd be saying you're all nuts. But i can actually relate to this. I'd say about 80 percent of my music collection was aquired from p2p networks. I never really had a problem with it at all. But along came urge...I never in my life thought i'd be paying for downloading music. Sure i'd buy a cd here or there....but paying to download music??? never. 2 hours into urge adn it wsa clear...this was the way to go. Now i find myself every few days downloading my music over and deleted the old music i had before. Not only does the urge files sound better for the most part, but they are very nicely integrated with wm11. As a long time user of pocket pc and music....i have no idea why i wasn't using wm to sync and make playlists before. I am so sold of this way right now. I still continue to use limewire for my reggae songs....im not sure if you guys listen to reggae or now, but alot of the stuff never really makes it into record stores on cd...so the only way to get it is online when some one from the country puts it up. But as far as all other music....i will continue to pay my $15.00.

craigf

06-21-2006, 06:26 PM

Me mentioning my faith was to point out that I adhere to a moral code.

Religion and morality aren't inherently linked. One can be quite moral without any particular religion guiding those decisions, and one can be quite religious without being consistently moral (e.g., Tom DeLay or the Bakkers or John Geoghan).

With that said, I applaud your efforts. My wife and I have about 12,000 MP3 tracks, all but about 100 of which are from our CD collection (those other 100 are impossible-to-find (or buy) tracks given to us by friends). We don't much non-owned content primarily because we believe artists should have a chance to earn a living from what we enjoy.

But the morality of file-sharing copyright material isn't exactly crystal clear. Having something that doesn't cost the originator anything or deny him its use is not the same as "stealing," which deprives the original owner of the thing's use against his wishes and without compensating him for it.

Would you say that reading a paper on your back porch by your neighbor's porchlight is "stealing" his light? Or is hearing a neighbor's radio "stealing" the sound from him? Of course not.

You might argue that by not buying the song, we're causing the artist to lose a dollar. But that's not quite true, for he never had the dollar to begin with. Moreover, if someone is unwilling to pay $1 for something and that something is not available for free, then the $1 isn't going to be spent regardless, so there can be no claim of lost income by the original owner. It is, at most, hypothetical income.

Consider two other scenarios: First, you sneak into a mostly full movie theater. The theater then has to turn away a customer willing to purchase a ticket because you are occupying a seat. This is clearly theft, as you have prevented the theater from collecting rents it otherwise could have. The second scenario, however, is different. Instead of sneaking into a mostly full theater, you go into a mostly empty one and watch a movie you otherwise would not have paid for. What does this cost the theater? Nothing, nor does it prevent the theater from providing the movie to its other patrons, nor does it miss your revenue because you wouldn't have provided it had sneaking in been impossible. So I have a hard time seeing this second situation called "stealing."

So I think we need a whole new term for this case where something is "inappropriately" acquired without denying the originator of its use or causing him loss. On the moral scale, it's above stealing but below purchasing. Maybe we should call it "shealing" -- part sharing, part stealing, but not quite either.

Mr. MacinTiger

06-21-2006, 07:25 PM

Of course it's stealing, but I find it hard to have any sympthay for the greedy fatcats with the RIAA who would gladly charge the public for a license for humming a tune if they could find a way.

Well anyways, if the song is available on iTunes now then I'll go there first to buy it. If not, I'll use the Usenet groups or Google to try and find it as a last resort- with some patience these two options can be amazingly productive.

cneufeld

06-21-2006, 07:49 PM

AFAIK, in Canada, the copyright laws allow private users to make copies of music for personal use. I've been through all the documentation I can find, and there's no mention of what sources I can use to copy. I can go to the library, sign out a CD, and copy it. I can download it off the net, and keep a copy of it. Also, from what I can tell, is that it's all right for me to download/acquire whatever I like, but I'm not supposed to upload it.

Artists are paid a portion of the funds collected from the sale of blank media. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.

Also, only musical works are covered in this agreement. Copying DVD's, software, etc is not included.

Here's a relatively old (2003) article that covers the basics:
http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5121479.html

For the legal version of the information, you can go here:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/index.html

The details on private copying can be found here:
http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33760

Just more food for thought.

Clint

Doug Johnson

06-21-2006, 07:55 PM

Jim Nieling

06-21-2006, 11:07 PM

This is a good discussion. Good points from many directions. A perspective that I haven't seen come up is the business model.

With "hard goods" and "labor" the recovery of the investment is almost on a transaction by transaction basis ... that is, on the chair -- the labor, the materials, etc. go into the first chair and the 100th chair so we are more willing to pay for the "asset". It turns out that the 100th chair costs less to produce because the design was done on the first chair, and by the 100th chair the process has been improved, the materials sourced at less cost, etc., so the while the 100th chair probably costs less to build, we don't feel too bad paying the same amount.

With digital media (music, software, etc), the invesment is mostly up front with very little cost in the reproduction. But the price of the offering needs to recover that up front invesment (and profits) over the projected sales volumes of the offering. That is, if "the artist" projects 100 units, the price will be x, while if "the artist" projects 10,000 units, the price will generally be less per unit. If they project 100 or 10,000 and half of them end up being free copies, they lose -- never recovering their expense or obtaining a profit. If they sell lots more, they are the ones that are accused of being the theives! There are a lot more unknowns in this equation than in the hard goods and labor business. You just can't have the first buyer of the item be forced to pay all the unfront expenses and everyone else get it for free or no one will buy it until someone else does ... that just doesn't work.

Just more food for thought.

bcries

06-22-2006, 02:24 AM

steal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stl)
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

By definition of the word "steal" downloading music sure sounds like stealing to me.

Okay I'll try this one more time. Doug, you're absolutely correct, that's what the dictionary says. My original post concerned the Christian scriptures, which were created before the English language was even developed. So there is a moral problem with downloading illegal music IF:
a) you accept that intangible things like ideas, thoughts, feelings, sensations etc. are proper objects of ownership - and therefore property
b) you accept that every copy of said intangible thing is owned by whoever owned the original
c) you let ((whoever wrote the dictionary)) define your morals

For a legitimate theoretical background on what is and is not private property, perhaps start with Locke's description of how private ownership is derived from self-ownership and a baseline commons (in the so-called state of nature). Are you familiar with this stuff? Very important Western philosophy. I'm interested to hear, for interest's sake, if anyone can make a good argument for IP satisfying the Lockean Proviso.

My subtle point here is that perhaps conversations about ethics, religion and morality require as much in the way of academic credentials, or respect thereof, as (say) a discussion about video compression technology. I'm not saying everybody here needs a degree in the humanities to engage the topic. I'm saying that there's no shame in admitting reasoned disagreement or even lack of conceptual understanding in such matters.

For instance, I'd respectfully disagree with Jason's earlier claim that the scriptural distaste for prostitution is drawn from the fact that it is pre-marital sex. Instead, I'd argue that the major harm of prostitution is its commodification of the female body, like, umm, slavery. Avoiding these kinds of conclusions is necessary, however, for the true capitalist suspicion that anything and everything can be commodified among consenting parties, as long as it doesn't violate supreme cosmic inflexibles.

In these matters, there's no agreeable right or wrong answer... it isn't a question like, "is the Q1 capable of higher average battery life than the upcoming Asus R2." But even in that case, we'd be wise to give extra credence to those with legitimate expertise in the matter. Then the conversation would rise above, say, red-faced salvos.

Doug Johnson

06-22-2006, 05:57 AM

So there is a moral problem with downloading illegal music IF:
a) you accept that intangible things like ideas, thoughts, feelings, sensations etc. are proper objects of ownership - and therefore property
b) you accept that every copy of said intangible thing is owned by whoever owned the original
c) you let ((whoever wrote the dictionary)) define your morals
(a) If they are not objects of ownership, what are they? Hasn't our society defined that ideas can be owned? Would you feel justified in being involved in stealing ideas from a competitor (corporate espionage)?
(b) Would making a copy of an idea change who created it?
(c) the dictionary doesn't define my morals; I was actually replying to a post other than yours with that comment.

For a legitimate theoretical background on what is and is not private property, perhaps start with Locke's description of how private ownership is derived from self-ownership and a baseline commons (in the so-called state of nature). Are you familiar with this stuff? Very important Western philosophy. I'm interested to hear, for interest's sake, if anyone can make a good argument for IP satisfying the Lockean Proviso.
I do not have the academic background that you do, but to me as soon as one takes something that should be as basic a concept as right and wrong and make it so academic you've moved into a world of justification. If, in order to feel okay with your actions, you have to come up with a long detailed explanation about why something is right or wrong it feels like there is something wrong with that. It has moved from black and white into a gray area, which is where you get into trouble. If such effort is put into making it seem right, it is probably wrong. Each time you take a step into a gray area it seems whiter and whiter, and another step further in no longer seems like a big deal.

For instance, I'd respectfully disagree with Jason's earlier claim that the scriptural distaste for prostitution is drawn from the fact that it is pre-marital sex. Instead, I'd argue that the major harm of prostitution is its commodification of the female body, like, umm, slavery.
I really have to agree with Jason on this one. One of the basic ten commandments is to not commit adultery. That's pretty close to prostitution if you ask me. The ten commandments don't quite so directly address financial transactions. Is it okay to cheat on your spouse if you aren't paying someone?

I really don't understand how someone could feel okay about making illegal copies of music, software, movies, or anything else. Whether or not our current legal system says it is okay or not really should not be relevant. You are taking someone else's creation -- something they have worked hard to create -- without their permission. Seems morally wrong no matter how you look at it.

Doug Johnson

06-22-2006, 06:25 AM

This is a good discussion. Good points from many directions. A perspective that I haven't seen come up is the business model.
The cost of creation of music/movies/software seems to be overlooked a lot.

Should I have had to pay someone else to write the backup utility that I am selling, for example, it would have cost northwards of $500,000 (at least 8000-10,000 hours). Each license that I sell does not cost me much to produce, but there sure was a lot of effort put forth into creating it before I could even earn a single dollar on it. Each sale helps to recoup my development costs. If I were to only sell 1000 licenses, I'd have to charge $500 for each one just to break even. Fortunately it sells better than that so I can charge a lot less.

stevehiner

06-22-2006, 06:43 AM

bcries,

It seems like your over rationalization of the issue is falling into the trap the Jews were in during Christ's time. When the commandments say you shouldn't murder they come up with all kinds of rules to determine what they will define as murder. When Christ came he pointed out to them that they had missed the point of the commandment. When the commandment says not to murder it goes far deeper than the act itself, even the act of hating another person is a violation of the commandment.

I'm sure you know this and I don't intend to lecture you on the scriptures, it's merely to point out that it's easy for us to intellectualize the scripture to the point where they have no more power in our life. I've often seen Christians happily deceive someone when they'd probably feel bad about telling a bald-faced lie. They justify it by telling themselves that everything they spoke is truthful and it's the other person's fault for thinking the wrong thing.

When you consider taking something that you haven't paid for you really should pray about it and ask the Lord to guide your heart in the matter rather than spend your time philosophizing about the nature of theft.

Apart from that issue how do you deal with the fact that in this country (assuming you're in the US) copyright violation is illegal and Chapter 13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.pl?book=Rom&chapter=13&version=nas&Go.x=27&Go.y=11) in the book of Romans clearly tells us that we are to follow the laws of our country (as long as they don't violate God's laws).

Oh, before you bother asking, I don't speed either.

Jason Dunn

06-23-2006, 03:58 PM

I had this really long and well-thought out post in response to yours, then I went to preview it and Firefox locked up, crashed, and I wasn't able to get it back. So below is the much shorter version...

My point is that you wouldn't BE a software developer or best-selling author or platinum pop artist in ancient times, because nobody would give you the right to patent or copyright your ideas. Ideas were, at one time, not considered property at all.

In the past, before the creation of recording/duplication equipment, people who made their living through creative expression (singing, painting, dancing, writing music) usually did so through the use of patrons: rich nobles/dukes/barons/kings/popes who valued their work and paid for the exclusive rights to it. It had nothing to do with copyright or intellectual property - there was ONE way to see/hear the creative artist do their thing, and that was to be in the presence of that person. My point is that the creative arts have always been valued to one degree or another, but now we have the ability to record and duplicate the output of creative people, so the rules have changed.

Ironically, digital art represents that which is fundamentally easiest to copy - and so the easier it gets for me to make unauthorized use of your software, the easier it gets for you to create something once and then copy it many times over, at no cost, and attempt to reap continued profit.

That makes no sense as an argument here. The labour that goes into coding software, or recording a song, is NOT the same technology that goes into uploading software onto a server or duplicating a CD. They are completely different technologies, and no technology has yet been invented to automatically code great software, or write a unique song complete with human vocals and words. That's where the real work is - you're confused about where most of the value is in this chain.

Hardly comparable to a carpenter, now is it? I'm willing to live with a carpenter selling furniture over and over, because he/she has produced an item over and over. You've produced something once.

A carpenter charges $3000 for a custom-crafted oak kitchen table because it takes him a month to make and there's only one of it. A software developer might charge $30 for software it took him six months to create, in the hopes of selling 600 copies of that software. Notice that the net output is the same: both products require the same amount of work, but the developer takes advantage of the fact that he can sell to a wider audience, and thus his price point is 90% lower than the carpenter. The concept here is that the price point of digital media/software is impacted by the ease of duplication and transmission.

If I pay a developer $3000 to developer some custom software for me, software that is only used by me and thus only created once, you would seem to be saying that the value is then equal to that of the carpenter. You're hung up on the concept of uniqueness of creation being the only valid guide as to the value of something - and that's just plain silly.

An opera singer holds a one-time concert and sells 1000 tickets for $50 each; he delivers a unique performance for $50,000. What if that same opera singer goes into a recording studio and spends $50,000 recording, mastering, producing and uploading his song to MSN Music, and prices it at $1? He gets 50,000 downloads and makes $50,000. How is there a moral difference between the two examples?

I'm merely attempting to shed light on why millions of people feel no guilt when copying music, but would feel horrible guilt about shoplifting a candy bar. Experience and theory both suggest that if this really is such a weighty moral issue, there would be no trouble convincing most of the population to abstain.

No, it's much simpler than that: the world of digital content is still too new and people don't know how to think of it. The vast majority of people out there assume that if something has no physical substance, it has no physical value, and is somehow "free". We're moving slowly but surely from a world of physical good to a world of digital goods - and two generations from now people will value digital goods just as much as physical ones.

RWC_Zippy

06-23-2006, 05:01 PM

well nevermind all that noise - good on you for taking a stand for what you believe in!

i've also purged my digital collection of all things i don't have the proper rights to! :scatter:

-R

Jason Dunn

06-23-2006, 08:56 PM

Religion and morality aren't inherently linked. One can be quite moral without any particular religion guiding those decisions, and one can be quite religious without being consistently moral (e.g., Tom DeLay or the Bakkers or John Geoghan).

Notice that I said "faith" and you said "religion" - they are very different things. I do understand and agree with you though that there are moral people without faith, and immoral people with "religion" - and that someone claiming to be a follower of a certain religion doesn't really mean squat if their actions don't match up with their faith. People are messed up, what can I tell you. ;-)

Would you say that reading a paper on your back porch by your neighbor's porchlight is "stealing" his light? Or is hearing a neighbor's radio "stealing" the sound from him? Of course not.

The neighbour paid for the electricity already - I'm just sharing it. I'm not going to ask someone to leave the room if they haven't "paid the DRM fee" or something silly like that. ;-) Perhaps something more akin would be me plugging my computer into my neighbours electrical socket, and the electricity from his house was generated by kids running on stationary bikes. ;-) Would that be moral? No. But even that's not a great comparison, because the electricity is a finite resource that costs him money. Digital content is a slightly different beast...

You might argue that by not buying the song, we're causing the artist to lose a dollar. But that's not quite true, for he never had the dollar to begin with. Moreover, if someone is unwilling to pay $1 for something and that something is not available for free, then the $1 isn't going to be spent regardless, so there can be no claim of lost income by the original owner.

True...sort of. See, if that person downloads it and never listens to it, you're right - the artist isn't losing any money. But if that person downloads the track and listens to it non-stop for a month...I think it's reasonable to say that the person is depriving the artist of a purchase. Sure, maybe that person has NO money and COULD never buy the song, in which case we're back to the scenario where the artist isn't technically being deprived of a purchase, but I think we can realistically state that if a person has a computer and high-speed Internet access (two things required for P2P) they're not living on food stamps and can afford 99 cents to buy a song.

Consider two other scenarios: First, you sneak into a mostly full movie theater. The theater then has to turn away a customer willing to purchase a ticket because you are occupying a seat. This is clearly theft, as you have prevented the theater from collecting rents it otherwise could have. The second scenario, however, is different. Instead of sneaking into a mostly full theater, you go into a mostly empty one and watch a movie you otherwise would not have paid for. What does this cost the theater?

An interesting example, and a decent parallel to our discussion here. You're right, in the second example it's difficult to say that the person is "stealing" anything. I think it comes down to a more pure form of morality - if you know something is for sale, and you take/consume that something without paying for it, even if by taking it you're not depriving someone else of that same thing, you're violating the intention of the creator to charge something for his work.

It comes down to believing that people who create deserve to earn a living and benefit from that. Some people have a 100% consumption mindset, taking everything they can get, and this concept is something they'll probably never understand. I financially support movies, music, books, etc. because I value what the creator of that content has done - and I believe that people who create things deserve to make a living at it.

Jason Dunn

06-23-2006, 09:02 PM

...I'll use the Usenet groups or Google to try and find it as a last resort- with some patience these two options can be amazingly productive.

So here's a question for you: if you can't find it for sale anywhere, on iTunes or another music store, or if you can't buy the CD, what makes you think it's somehow "ok" to download it? It's a legitimate question, because in my recent purchases of music from MSN Music, there were songs on my list of tracks I had deleted, and I wasn't able to buy those songs. I look on Amazon, and I wasn't able to buy the CDs. So I simply resigned myself to the fact that, for now, I simply wouldn't have those songs in my collection. Sometimes we can't get what we want. ;-)

It's an interesting phenomenon of modern culture that we (and I include myself here) think we have the RIGHT to ALWAYS get the content that we want, even if the creator of that content doesn't want us to. Can't find a song online for sale? Download it from a P2P network. A DVD boxed set isn't sold in your country? Download it from a P2P network. The "I want it and I want it now!" idea seems like a very weak justification to me...

Jason Dunn

06-23-2006, 09:08 PM

AFAIK, in Canada, the copyright laws allow private users to make copies of music for personal use. I've been through all the documentation I can find, and there's no mention of what sources I can use to copy. I can go to the library, sign out a CD, and copy it. I can download it off the net, and keep a copy of it.

Yes, you're right, our supreme court has ruled that it's ok for people to do the P2P mambo, but in this case I disagree with the court system as it pertains to online sharing - again getting back to the idea that even if something is legal, that doesn't make it moral. I think it's moral for me to rip a CD and use it on my MP3 player, my PC, etc. Putting that CD online where others can download it? Not moral.

Artists are paid a portion of the funds collected from the sale of blank media. At least, that's the way it's supposed to work.

Right, but only Canadian artists - and even then, I don't know that they're actually getting any of that money.

aroma

06-26-2006, 02:15 PM

My original post concerned the Christian scriptures, which were created before the English language was even developed.

(This will probably open another can of worms.) Then to your original post, from a biblical standpoint, we are commanded to obey the laws of the land. So if the courts have determined it's unlawfull to steal someone's intelectual property, then biblically speaking, it would be unjust.

bcries

06-30-2006, 02:11 PM

Then to your original post, from a biblical standpoint, we are commanded to obey the laws of the land. So if the courts have determined it's unlawfull to steal someone's intelectual property, then biblically speaking, it would be unjust.
Yes, thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. I was originally trying to sort out whether people should construct a Biblical moral imperative against IP infractions from either the "obey the laws of the land" stuff, or a more general prohibition on stealing. I agree with you that the logic is more bullet-proof using the former of these two principles.

Unfortunately, a general prohibition on stealing is more universally-accepted among people of faith than mandatory civil obedience :)

In any case, I appreciate the tone of your post. These can be really interesting and pleasant discussions, if we can go without emotional outbursts like accusing me of being a pharasee. Actually, I just wanna be a sheep (ba ba ba ba) :P

Something that we might also do well to consider is how intangible property rights are typically derrived from tangible, physical ownership. For instance, when I walk into a WalMart, my whole person and actions are recorded on video without my permission. They may then show this footage to all kinds of people - their security company, their staff, etc.

Steve Mann of MIT (and now of U. Toronto) is legendary for his investigation of this: he would enter these sorts of places with his own video camera, and record the whole experience with another well-hidden one. Typically business would demand that he stop recording things on "their" property, saying that only they have that right. They would go as far as to violently detain him and seize his decoy camera, vigilante-style (because let's face it, the police would hardly do such a thing without court orders).

If the commonly-accepted principle here is that people own the rights to record whatever takes place on their private property, I'm very intruiged by the idea that I can buy a CD, take it into my home, and not legally record anything it does. It is as though we think an invisible shield of protection surrounds the CD even as it travels onto my private property - yet we recognize no such shield around real people in real department stores.

Are not my actions, my "performances" in WalMart still my own IP? Can I not claim that video footage of myself could be sold to WalMart once, and then again every time a new person wishes to view it? By recording my performance for free and making copies at will, have they not stolen from me by depriving me of profit?

In contexts like these, it is difficult not to believe that IP law has been structured not along the lines of rational fairness or morality, but to protect certain interests and to create fiscal value where it previously did not exist.

But the law is the law, so if you're the kind of Christian that thinks you must always follow it, then stop downloading NOW.

Jason Dunn

06-30-2006, 06:23 PM

If the commonly-accepted principle here is that people own the rights to record whatever takes place on their private property, I'm very intruiged by the idea that I can buy a CD, take it into my home, and not legally record anything it does. It is as though we think an invisible shield of protection surrounds the CD even as it travels onto my private property - yet we recognize no such shield around real people in real department stores.

I'm one of those people that buy a CD, then use every means at my disposal to crack/remove the DRM so I can rip the CD and use it how I wish. I will never side with the parasitic music companies that try to force consumers to re-buy music if they want to put it on other devices. To me, that's an immoral business model, and violates the common sense (if not increasingly rare) model. But that doesn't mean I take that ripped CD and put it online for the world to download - because that's not fair personal use.

Are not my actions, my "performances" in WalMart still my own IP? Can I not claim that video footage of myself could be sold to WalMart once, and then again every time a new person wishes to view it? By recording my performance for free and making copies at will, have they not stolen from me by depriving me of profit? In contexts like these, it is difficult not to believe that IP law has been structured not along the lines of rational fairness or morality, but to protect certain interests and to create fiscal value where it previously did not exist.

Interesting intellectual juggling, but ultimately irrelevant unless you are a performer who earns income from some creative act, and you decide to put on a show in the middle of Wal-Mart, and then if Wal-Mart records your performance and sells it they are depriving you of income...but those are a series of highly unlikely "if's" and their relation to the topic at hand (paying for music) are tenuous at best.

I understand that you gain tremendous self-satisfaction from these mental gymnastics, but the more you write and (over)think this issue, the less and less relevant your words become. The premise of my article was extremely simple: I believe that it is morally right to pay for music that I enjoy and listen to, and it is morally incorrect to enjoy and listen to music that I did not pay for. Everything else is just fluff.