Is file sharing theft?

[Mark]

Let's put this to the vote, and let's do it here in General Classical Music Discussion because it's absolutely pertinent to anyone who enjoys classical (or indeed, any other kind of) music. We seem to be dancing around the issue in some other threads, so here we can present our arguments and debate whether or not those of us who file share - and yes, I'm one of them - are thieves or just regular joes doing no harm to no one.

Despite my candid admission, I consider file sharing to be theft. That makes me a thief, so hide the silver. This article from Law.com adequately sums up my view:

File sharing is theft

And just for balance, here's an opposing view from the Washington Post:

File sharing isn't theft


So, the battle lines are drawn. On which side do you stand?

[orbital]

If you mean file sharing as a blanket, I'll have to say I'm undecided. If you mean files of music that are commercially available for sale, then my answer is , well still undecided  .
It is theft in the sense that you are obtaining something without paying for it when it is offered for sale, but unlike conventional theft you are not really deploring any produced stock, and if you were not going to purchase the CD anyway, it may even have some economic benefit in the end.
One thing I can say is it does not feel right unless you are downloading something that the copyright holder is hoarding from [re]release.

Count me in for 'undecided'.

[Robert Dahm]

It is absolutely theft.

Morally, however, I find it slightly more complex, and it really does come down to a personal attitude.

I will not download music that is currently available commercially. I think it's wrong. However, I will accept a burn of a CD that a friend owns (although, generally speaking, I will end up buying the actual CD anyway). I will not accept a burn of a burn, however. Weird how two things that are ostensibly the same can take on a different moral complexion.

[marvinbrown]

  I voted NO!  I am sick of excessive litigation!


  marvin   

[Sef]

I voted yes. Probably not theft by the strict definition, but it amounts to much the same thing. I understand the non-theft argument, and that would be fine if the distribution and royalty model took this into account, but right now it is illegal and is depriving someone of royalties. If artists were paid for their creative process some other way, and the number of downloads, CDs, whatever else, had no impact on the process then I'd say download as much as you want to. The counter argument of course is that by continuing to download we force a newer/better model to emerge that will not stifle the industry, and eventually lead to the freedom to listen to what we want when we want - and I'm all for that!

[Gurn Blanston]

I'm not really sure if Mark is looking for a legal or a moral answer. Legally, yes, it's theft. Morally, it is more in a grey area. There are plenty of things that are illegal which don't entail moral issues (at least for me) - e.g. - smoking marijuana or speeding in your car. Until record producers come up with some business model that is a bit more customer friendly, I haven't a great deal of pity for them. BTW, I don't now, nor have I ever, been part of a file sharing network, so this is really an academic argument for me. I have given away some files, and had some given to me, but those large "torrents" are simply a wholesale means of distributing which is what has brought down the wrath of the powers that be on everybody! 



----------------
Now playing:
Rachmaninov - Freddy Kempf - Piano Sonata No.2 in B flat minor/2: Non allegro 3: Allegro molto

[Mozart]

When you are stoned, it probably just feels like you are speeding Gurn

[Gurn Blanston]

When you are stoned, it probably just feels like you are speeding Gurn

If you're lucky.

[Mozart]

If you're lucky.

Ohh I don't think tractors go fast enough to break the law. 

[The new erato]

Definitely (with some exceptions - short clips, OOP records etc) yes and if everybody did it, nooen would bother producing new recordings.

[marvinbrown]

  Personally I believe society would be better served if law enforcement officials spent more time arresting murderers, rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers and what have you than harassing file sharing music lovers who want nothing more than to be exposed to new kinds of music. Off topic:  I feel the same way about parking violations!

  marvin

[eclassical]

Hi! A couple of thoughts:

File sharing is bi-directional. If downloading a coyrighted file is theft, what do you call uploading?

If depriving the artist or rights holder revenue, is the reason for calling this theft, how does one prove that revenue is being deprived? Hardly everyone agrees that is the case every time some piece is downloaded:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4718249.stm

(I'm sure there are other studies that are more recent)

And, to repeat myself from a different thread, what about selling used CDs? Doesn't that deprive the artist revenue? Where I live, Sweden, you don't pay any fees to artists at all if you have a store for selling used CDs and LPs. You actually make a living out of selling the artists works, without giving the artist a single penny.

I don't think selling used CDs is to be considered theft, nor piracy. But it shows how many nuances the gray scale of copyright has. If I purchase a used CD in mint condition, will I go and buy that CD full price so that the artist gets a cut? No, not very likely. If I download an album and like it, will I go and purchase that album so that the artist will get a cut? Maybe.

If I download an album that I really don't like so much, does that mean that I would have bought the album full price if there was no file sharing? No. No lost sale or depriving the artist revenue here. I would not have made the purchase anyway.

Another thing that bugs me, is that it's perfectly legal (at least in Sweden) to purchase a CD (used or new) and make digital copies of it, and later re-sell the CD and keep the copies. But I can't purchase a CD and instead of making my own MP3s, downloading the MP3s of the very same album that I own a copy of. That's considered violating copyright and by some even "theft". Doesn't make any sense to me.

My 25 Euro cent

Rikard

[Grazioso]

Until record producers come up with some business model that is a bit more customer friendly

I don't quite get that. Classical music companies are practically giving music away now with all those big box sets they sell for next to nothing, budget CD lines, etc. For a few bucks, you can hear the world's greatest musicians playing the world's greatest music in the comfort of your own home--and you can hear it again and again whenever you want for no added fee. Admittedly, there are companies like Hyperion that, at least in the US, charge 2 or 3 times what other companies do, but they're more the exception that proves the rule. (And they get very little of my business as a result.)

As to the thread question: yes, it's theft if it deals with copyrighted works that are taken without the copyright-holder's express permission or things that are normally sold through other channels with the clear expectation that the creator/producer will be paid in exchange for the item or service. In most cases, it's morally wrong, too, because it's a matter of someone taking what they're not entitled to, potentially depriving others of a part of their rightful livelihood, and debasing the taker by reinforcing the dangerous notion that desires are to be satisfied even at the expense of others.

[karlhenning]

. . . but unlike conventional theft you are not really deploring any produced stock

Not that you are necessarily saying this, exactly;  but to proceed to one possible construction upon this . . . .

I am a composer.  I do not produce material stock.  One way of interpreting your reasoning seems to be, that someone whose work results in a soft drink, or a electronic device, or a medical service, deserves to be compensated for his work (or, produces work which commands some recompense from the consumers who use the results of his work);  but a composer does not.

In my case, I scarcely ever receive material compensation for composition, so be assured that I address this question on a purely theoretical level :-) . . . in the new model, under what circumstances does a composer 'deserve' recompense?  Under what circumstances is a composer's work 'stolen'?

[karlhenning]

Hi! A couple of thoughts:

File sharing is bi-directional. If downloading a coyrighted file is theft, what do you call uploading?

Does it not depend on whether the uploader has rights to the item being uploaded, Rikard?

[Mark]

Okay, clarification time.

By file sharing, I'm not just talking about torrents and peer-to-peer operations. I mean ANY copying and passing on (for personal profit or not) of ANY digital, copyright-protected content, from music and films to written works. The word 'file' just refers to what the many formats are generically termed.

So, while I don't indulge in torrents or P2P, I have passed on DVDs of material - running into several hundred albums - to other people, though not for money. And I've received ripped content, in WAV, WMA and MP3 formats. We're hardly talking big-scale here, but surely, it's still theft, as I might well have bought in physical form at least some of the content I received digitally. And indeed, I still might. But I don't use that as an excuse for my wrong-doing.

[Sergeant Rock]

Under what circumstances is a composer's work 'stolen'?

As soon as a recording company gets a hold of it    Seriously, compared to the price of a CD, the composer and performers receive a pitiful amount of the profits. The recent screenwriters strike is another example: the writers create the product but receive very little reward and their studios would even refuse them the pennies they were asking for online rights.

Sarge

[johnQpublic]

In my case, I scarcely ever receive material compensation for composition, so be assured that I address this question on a purely theoretical level :-) . . . in the new model, under what circumstances does a composer 'deserve' recompense?  Under what circumstances is a composer's work 'stolen'?

I know I'm moving away from "file sharing" but since Karl started it, let me add my recent example of such "composer dilemi". Recently a former student asked me for a copy of one  of my pieces (a work that is published & available). I knew he was a "financially strapped" grad student but still when he asked I felt I had a moral obligation to steer him to actually buying it through the publisher instead of asking me for a freebee. I, like Karl, don't make much money off my music and I have a "day job", so not making much off my pieces is not a financial concern; but morally and legally for the publisher's sake I had to do it.

As for "file sharing" many mid-level artists need to be compensated through the sale of their artistic endeavors. They are trying to make a living through performances & recordings. Therefore, I do find it illegal to share what is commercially available.

[eclassical]

Does it not depend on whether the uploader has rights to the item being uploaded, Rikard?

I'm obviously talking of unauthorized downloading and uploading of copyrighted materials. Mark already clarified what he meant by file sharing, but I would like to hear what the general idea of file sharing, e.g. torrents or P2P, would mean - if downloading is theft, what is uploading under the same circumstances?

Assisting to theft?

Just curious.

Personally, I see no legal or moral reason for calling copyright infringement stealing. It's more like breaking a contract (between the society - who gives the monopoly of copyright to the creator - and the creator). Calling it stealing is probably a way of pedagogically winning over politicians who are not lawyers in the lobbying for stricter laws against the crime of digitally infringing of copyright.

Who is being protected here? Looking at who are doing the lobbying for stricter copyright laws should give a hint on who are feeling threatened by file sharing. Is it a mob of angry composers and artists? Or is it major record labels? (flame bait maybe)

Look at British violinist Tasmine Little:

http://www.tasminlittle.org.uk/free_cd/index.html Now, does she embrace file sharing (she's uploading and her fans are downloading), or does she lobby for stricter laws against what has been called theft?

As long as it's not legal one should be aware that one can be prosecuted for doing it. But I happen to think that the music industry should not be the ones hunting down those who do illegally file share copyrighted works - since that undermines the respect for the industry as such, and in the longer term might alienate the public (in particular the young generation growing up using P2P and torrents not thinking it's morally wrong) and thus also undermine the respect for copyright.

Crimes should be fought by authorities and not record labels or ISPs (internet service providers). The society should determine what crimes should be given the greatest focus.

My 2,50 Swedish kronor

[Ephemerid]

I put "yes" it is theft.  Which isn't to say I haven't done it before-- I have downloaded files illegally before and while I've not uploaded files, I have certainly made copies of CDs to give to other people as gifts (and usually with the intention of turning people on to music they've never heard before). 

For *myself*, usually downloading files on Limewire and such is a ways for my to listen to music I *think* I might want to get, but I'm not certain.  I would never SETTLE for some crappy 128 kbps file (or worse-- the sound quality grates on my nerves, that "pixellating" sound in the higher frequencies is simply unacceptable).  I listen to it, and I usually end up purchasing an MP3 at 192 or higher or buy the CD.  If I don't like it, well, I'm not going to listen to it anymore anyway, and eventually I throw it away.  If it wasn't for me able to do that, I could end up wasting a lot of money otherwise.

I listen to those downloaded MP3s with the intention of determining whether or not to purchase the music, which will be at a higher quality.  Sometimes 30 second samples ain't gonna cut it.  And sometimes what I'm looking for I can't even get a 30 second sample of!  So how am I going to be able to determine whether I am making the right choice for me or not?

One idea would be to have maybe free samples that are time-based-- you get 24 hours to listen to a song or piece of music and then it locks up.  Of course there will be hackers who will try to get around that-- but I'd be cool with something like that.

I'm a musician too, and I've offered free downloads of my band's stuff from time to time, which is helpful-- and getting other people to share your music with others is free advertising, after all.  What's worse for me is I don't do live shows and have no intention of doing live shows, so the recordings of those MP3s and CDs is the only money I *can* make from the music we do. 

But even if I could afford a lawyer and track down illegal file sharing/downloading I wouldn't.  It just comes with the territory.  As long as you're getting the free advertising, SOME people will bite & actually purchase it.  As for the others, oh well, you just cut your losses.  As long as it doesn't cross the point of diminishing returns, its potentially free advertising.

For me, I AM the musician and I AM the record company, and I think of what I have as a very small business I am starting.  I'm giving away free copies of music already and I wouldn't be dismayed if later down the trek people were sharing my band's music with others.  Your fans (whether they purchase anything or not) are the people who will spread the word round better than just another website or just another advertisement.  If someone loves your music, you want to encourage them to spread their enthusiasm, not stamp it out! 

In the meantime, the RIAA are only looking out for themselves, certainly not the endentured servants that are stuck with some tiny profit from sales anyway (that's why they are always TOURING all the damn time-- most musicians don't even OWN their own music, it is property of the company).  The music model needs to change and the internet is changing it.  These old dinosaurs are about to go the way of dinosaurs because they refuse to adapt to the new models of doing business & yes, they are alienating fans and potential fans with their draconian tactics.  And not only that, but there's a wider selection of music to choose from now which is not dependent on the major record companies 9and these musicians don't even WANT to sign with a major).  They don't call the shots anymore on what people "ought" to listen to-- I think that's a great thing.