Is file sharing theft?

[Wanderer]

...let me add my recent example of such "composer dilemi dilemmas".

This situation you describe isn't particular to composers but also to teachers/professors who also happen to be published authors . Academically, I find it immoral to steer students to purchase one's books, if they are needed to conduct one's research or for other educational/academic purposes. The least one could do is to make it accessible through a university library. Incidentally, most of my graduate professors at law school gave us free copies of their published works (often from the free copies they were entitled to by their publishers) if they saw these books were needed for academic purposes.

[Mark]

On the subject of file sharing, I was rather rude last night (by PM) to a member here, who then sent me the following PM. I shan't name the individual, but what they wrote is thought provoking indeed. And to that person, my sincere apologies.

I'm not arguing that file-sharing is legal, nor that it is morally right. In most places it's probably illegal and if it's moral or not depends on your ethical viewpoint. Its status is still in flux since neither the legal nor the moral frameworks have concepts to deal with the near-zero cost of copying and distribution. Legally, the copyright laws are not adapted to the ease of distribution and the laws on stealing certainly aren't. Morally, the term 'theft' carries with it centuries of accreted connotations, from 'Thou shalt not steal' and onwards, that don't help with coming to terms with how this new technology should be regulated.

That is why the industry is so keen on the 'theft' meme, every one knows that theft harms "people's livelihood and the maintenance of social order" to quote (from memory) from the thread. It allows them to get enough unreflected popular support to pressure legislatures to prop up their obsolete business model (carting pieces of plastic around the globe) by letting them eavesdrop on internet traffic, install root-kits and so on.

The question of moral equivalence is, of course, highly subjective. Is file copying equivalent to stealing? You seem to think it is, I don't, but there is really no way of deciding. Is it equivalent to, better or worse than tax evasion, fraud, driving under the influence and grievous bodily harm? Who knows?

All I know is that, in my experience, it is better to consider a disputed issue for what it is rather than invoke moral imagery (BTW, this goes for the proponents of filesharing as well). Filesharing is to my mind a technology that has its advantages, e g the cost of distributing information has been radically decreased, and its disadvantages, e g there is today no good system for compensating the artists. All the holier-than-thou-shalt-not-steal attitude and the stick-it-to-the-man-cds-want-to-be-free attitude do are to make it more difficult to think of ways to keep the advantages and get rid of the disadvantages.

If you really are interested and want to know where I'm coming from, the Free Culture lecture (~45 min, flash with sound) by Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig is good (in fact it is one of the best presentations I've ever seen, worth watching just to study his presentation technique). It's about copyright and patent law in general and only tangentially about "file-sharing" but he menions both stealing and P2P-networks.

[johnQpublic]

This situation you describe isn't particular to composers but also to teachers/professors who also happen to be published authors . Academically, I find it immoral to steer students to purchase one's books,.

Actually I almost always never have a current student play something of mine for that kind of reasoning.

if they are needed to conduct one's research or for other educational/academic purposes. The least one could do is to make it accessible through a university library.

Yes that's a good option but in my case I'm in SC and he's in grad school in FL

Incidentally, most of my graduate professors at law school gave us free copies of their published works (often from the free copies they were entitled to by their publishers) if they saw these books were needed for academic purposes.

Ah, the copyright holder (ie the publisher) gives his blessing. Terrific. Almost always, the publisher gives me 3-12 complimentary copies and after that I'm on my own usually paying either a discount or even ... gasp... full price for further copies.

[Ephemerid]

Ah, the copyright holder (ie the publisher) gives his blessing. Terrific. Almost always, the publisher gives me 3-12 complimentary copies and after that I'm on my own usually paying either a discount or even ... gasp... full price for further copies.

Yep.  Signing a record deal or publishing deal usually means signing away your *baby*.  You may have created it, but it is property of the company.  As Robert Fripp would say (paraphrasing broadly), that's just plain criminal, though it passes itself as regular "business practise."   

[orbital]

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'?

Not to take anything from the composer or the performer, I feel they should have the lion's share of all sales if you ask me  0:) What I meant to say is, when a shoplifter is stealing a CD off the shelf of a music store, there is some very material economic loss there. The shop owner's inventory has just gone down without any rise in his revenues.

The compensation method for artists were probably established before the time of recordings. You would sell your manuscript to the publisher and be done with it. Or if you were a performer you would get paid by the hour, in most cases. Recording is a very different phenomenon, and particularly the digital one. I think the technology arrived before the laws were ready to cope with the potential problem and there still is no consensus on how it should be worked out probably because it is hard to pinpoint the economic loss. I mean how can one predict whether the downloader would buy the CD or not anyway? There is no economic gain as in the case of material goods being stolen (meaning you can't download a file and sell it), so most people IMO are downloading stuff simply because it is there to download.

ps - Classical music, in particular, with hundreds of worthwhile concerts taking place around the world everyday is not tapping one source which could be pretty big actually. I know that at least some of the live concerts/recitals are being taped. Why don't the artists/performers/venues offer those performances for download? Carnegie Hall must be recording most of the concerts taking place there, if it is a particularly good performance I would definitely go ahead and pay for downloads of these files, knowing that it would benefit the artists and the venues above the recording companies.

[Sef]

ps - Classical music, in particular, with hundreds of worthwhile concerts taking place around the world everyday is not tapping one source which could be pretty big actually. I know that at least some of the live concerts/recitals are being taped. Why don't the artists/performers/venues offer those performances for download? Carnegie Hall must be recording most of the concerts taking place there, if it is a particularly good performance I would definitely go ahead and pay for downloads of these files, knowing that it would benefit the artists and the venues above the recording companies.

The CSO does to a certain extent: http://www.cso.org/main.taf?p=15,2 although the cost doesn't seem economically worthwhile compared to a CD. I often think that a value add to concert goers would be to receive some kind of digital recording of the concert that they attended. Nice touch, and not overwhelmingly expensive to produce. I'd pay an extra 3 or 4 bucks for that.

[orbital]

The CSO does to a certain extent: http://www.cso.org/main.taf?p=15,2 although the cost doesn't seem economically worthwhile compared to a CD. I often think that a value add to concert goers would be to receive some kind of digital recording of the concert that they attended. Nice touch, and not overwhelmingly expensive to produce. I'd pay an extra 3 or 4 bucks for that.

That would be really cool.

If they manufacture CDs the costs become many times over I guess. But the only associated cost if they simply put the tracks for download would be some additional engineering work I guess.

[Sef]

That would be really cool.

If they manufacture CDs the costs become many times over I guess. But the only associated cost if they simply put the tracks for download would be some additional engineering work I guess.

What about if they had the concert for download and that anyone who attended got a code to download that concert for free? Actually I know (or my wife knows) a violinist in the orchestra - maybe I could mention it to her! You never know....

[orbital]

What about if they had the concert for download and that anyone who attended got a code to download that concert for free? Actually I know (or my wife knows) a violinist in the orchestra - maybe I could mention it to her! You never know....

yes yes! Free for those who attended, and still available to others who could not be there, for a fee 

[Robert Dahm]

On the label 'theft' vs the label 'copyright infringement':
Copyright infringement and theft boil down to the same thing.
Copyright laws provide a mechanism whereby ownership can be assigned to something. Yes, ownership. Therefore, the taking upon yourself of possession without the express permission of the copyright owner (be that through sale, written consent, etc) is theft.

The reason the term 'theft' is used is presumably because it is so loaded with connotation. I think the bodies bandying these terms around are right to do so.

In an industry that is still dominated by record labels, if the profits of a given year are down, there is a direct impact on the adventurousness of their signing of new artists. This is to be seen very clearly in the US 'pop' scene. It's much cheaper to manufacture a blonde one-hit-wonder, with the knowledge that one hit is all you'll get, than to invest in the development of artists that could be great, but are as yet unproven.

While composers and artists get a miniscule percentage of the sale-price of CD, I don't think this is really a valid argument for not paying for things. There isn't much of a mechanism to provide composers (particularly) with money to do what they do. Most are working full-time to support their composition 'habit'. I know I am. A dozen performances on four continents and the royalty cheque was AU$2.48.

In an ideal world, all music would cost materials only. You'd buy a CD, and all you'd be paying for would be the cost of manufacturing the CD. You'd download music and it would be free. But for this to be possible, society/government/companies/I-don't-know-who would need to step up and provide the money required for artists to be able to pay the rent. Unfortunately, I don't think that's happening under any kind of capitalist social structure.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

I'm undecided. But the simple fact is, the MI needs to think about their business models, simply because digital data are fluent and bandwidth is affordable. File sharing cannot be stopped by lawyers. Ask google/ the www with specific search terms and you would find out (I'm sure you would never try to ), people share not only the finest lossless audio, but also complete booklets etc.

[eclassical]

There's a very interesting article to be found here:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml

discussing the term "intellectual property" as used for something that's "neither intellectual, nor property".

Happy reading!

Rikard

[loudav]

Not theft but trespassing. That may sound strange, but the nearest low-tech equivalent to file-sharing is sneaking into a movie theater without paying. Nothing is taken except the opportunity to charge money for experiencing something. Both copyright infringement through file sharing and trespassing are against the law, and justifiably so, but neither is theft.

Recognizing this rough equivalence sheds light on the moral status of file-sharing in our culture. It's shady, like sneaking into a movie theater without paying, but it's not considered as shameful as actual theft. And like sneaking into a movie theater, it's indulged in more by the young, who have fewer resources and wouldn't be as embarrassed to be caught doing it.

[Grazioso]

Recognizing this rough equivalence sheds light on the moral status of file-sharing in our culture. It's shady, like sneaking into a movie theater without paying, but it's not considered as shameful as actual theft. And like sneaking into a movie theater, it's indulged in more by the young, who have fewer resources and wouldn't be as embarrassed to be caught doing it.

A useful analogy.

I can't count the number of times I've heard "fewer resources" put forward as the justification for taking music files without authorization or payment to the creators/producers//copyright-holders. E.g., "I'm a poor college student, so I have to get my music that way." Sorry, but that's childish, selfish BS. The fact that you don't possess what you view to be sufficient money doesn't justify you in taking what's not yours--and potentially or actually depriving others of their rightful money.

And I'm sure a lot of these middle-class kids who plead poverty just spent a bunch of their (or Mommy's) money on new clothes, beer, gas for a Spring Break trip, or a bigger hard drive for storing more stolen files If you just have to have all that music right now but are unwilling to wait and do the right thing, quit college, start working at McDonald's, and go buy your CD's. Or maybe the really poor people of the world, who could never dream of luxuries like sitting around and listening to music on their own computer or CD player, should just march into your apartment and take your stove, groceries, and bicycle since they actually need food and transportation.

[menmarch]

Or maybe the really poor people of the world, who could never dream of luxuries like sitting around and listening to music on their own computer or CD player, should just march into your apartment and take your stove, groceries, and bicycle since they actually need food and transportation.

sorry if i seem rude butting in like this, but isn't that quite a broken analogy?
i mean sure you might have a problem with 20 or so people barging into your home and cleaning you out, but what if you could just let them  have a look on weekends?
Then they could go back with their own oven, fridge, washing machine, table, chairs or whatever and be better off for it?
the problem is the definition of stealing implies someone lost the use of whatever you stole, and you can talk about "potential lost profits" all you want music publishers can still sell that piece of music, and if someone 'stole' it in the first place what would the odds be that they would buy it legaly deprived of other options?
and while we're debating the legality and morality of depriving atrists their due it might good to point out that of the money the music industry has obtained from their legal crusade against internet music sharing websites, artists have received...
...
almost nothing?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272008/business/infringement__99428.htm

[Robert Dahm]

sorry if i seem rude butting in like this, but isn't that quite a broken analogy?
i mean sure you might have a problem with 20 or so people barging into your home and cleaning you out, but what if you could just let them  have a look on weekends?
Then they could go back with their own oven, fridge, washing machine, table, chairs or whatever and be better off for it?
the problem is the definition of stealing implies someone lost the use of whatever you stole, and you can talk about "potential lost profits" all you want music publishers can still sell that piece of music, and if someone 'stole' it in the first place what would the odds be that they would buy it legaly deprived of other options?
and while we're debating the legality and morality of depriving atrists their due it might good to point out that of the money the music industry has obtained from their legal crusade against internet music sharing websites, artists have received...
...
almost nothing?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272008/business/infringement__99428.htm

Perhaps it's a little broken, but your 'correction' is just as broken.

A better analogy might be that of a baker:

A baker spends his own time and resources on producing a whole bunch of baked goods. If somebody (starving or otherwise) steals his bread, they are not depriving him of the use of that bread. They are depriving him of the money he should have earned for it. And, let's face it, the money he should be earning is the reason he's a baker in the first place. Similarly, stealing a download deprives the artist/record company/etc of the money they should be earning for having made the initial investment of their time and resources. Paying for music is the mechanism by which artists are paid.

The argument that 'it's not really theft' is, fundamentally, equivalent to saying that 'people working in the arts are priveleged to be able to do so, and they don't/shouldn't deserve to earn money for their work. That, I think, is just bullsh*t. I recently completed an orchestral commission, for which I was paid $1500. That may seem like quite a healthy earning, but by the time the piece is done, parts prepared, etc, my hourly rate is hitting the 80c mark. Nobody would think this kind of approach to payment is acceptable in any other sphere of human endeavour.

Not paying for downloads that are otherwise commercially available is just another way of stiffing hard-working artists who already earn bugger-all for the hard work they put in.

As a side-note, it's worth pointing out that the hit in revenue taken by record companies as a result of illegal distribution of music is felt much more keenly at the other end of the process: much fewer artists are signed, and those that are never represent exciting or risky ventures. In this sense, illegal distribution has an adverse effect on what actually ends up being available.

[Grazioso]

sorry if i seem rude butting in like this, but isn't that quite a broken analogy?

Not from its focal standpoint of justification, the idea that perceived or actual economic necessity justifies taking what you're not entitled to or haven't paid for.

As for the assertion that record labels take advantage of their artists or don't adequately remunerate them: true or false, does that justify you in taking from either of them what's not yours?

[eclassical]

Is UK violinist Tasmin Little stealing from herself, or is it possible that downloading music for free doesn't deprive the artist any revenue, but rather steers the market to paying for things other than the actual file being downloaded, like a service of letting people download and the service of indexing files, and the service of tagging music etc, or going to concerts, or even purchasing the physical CD?

http://www.tasminlittle.org.uk/free_cd/index.html

If file sharing is theft, then letting people do it, like Tasmin does, could be considered assisting to theft. If it's not theft if the artist welcomes the downloading of her work, because it is good for her revenue in other models, doesn't that make some of the theft-arguments moot?

Rikard

[DavidW]

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

I agree with your post Gurn.  Most of the royalties are passing to the companies and not to the artist.  In this new era the service that the record companies provide is too small to warrant them taking the lionshare of the profit.  The artists need to be more directly linked to their audience, in the age of the internet the middle man is not needed as much as before. 

The pricing is also terrible.  Even now the prices are inflated beyond their worth.  Every mp3 regardless of it's worth is sold for at least $.99 on itunes.  Is every song actually worth that much?  The model is slowly changing though.  I think that amazon's pricing is reasonable.  There are many albums that are a 1/3-1/2 of the price of the cd(s), are high bitrate and drm free.

[Robert Dahm]

Is UK violinist Tasmin Little stealing from herself, or is it possible that downloading music for free doesn't deprive the artist any revenue, but rather steers the market to paying for things other than the actual file being downloaded, like a service of letting people download and the service of indexing files, and the service of tagging music etc, or going to concerts, or even purchasing the physical CD?

http://www.tasminlittle.org.uk/free_cd/index.html

If file sharing is theft, then letting people do it, like Tasmin does, could be considered assisting to theft. If it's not theft if the artist welcomes the downloading of her work, because it is good for her revenue in other models, doesn't that make some of the theft-arguments moot?

Rikard

Of course it's not theft if the copyright owner welcomes it. But note that the copyright owner is not necessarily the artist. Often it is a combination of artist and record company.
I think the issue under discussion is not whether file sharing is always theft, but rather whether file sharing as a method of circumventing copyright owners is theft.

Most of the royalties are passing to the companies and not to the artist.  In this new era the service that the record companies provide is too small to warrant them taking the lionshare of the profit.  The artists need to be more directly linked to their audience, in the age of the internet the middle man is not needed as much as before.

That's true, but the decision to avoid the middle man is one to be made by the artist, not by the public potentially ripping him/her off. Certainly one of the reasons the 'big labels' (particularly in the classical music industry) carry very little heft these days is because they have abused the public confidence.
It's a fallacy, though, to draw the conclusion that just because the middle-man is no longer required (or the evil avatar of the capitalist machine) that it's correct to avoid paying for their products if their product is something you wish to own. Even though only a tiny portion of the profit goes to the artist, some of it still does. You are still ripping off the artist.