Why Sharing Music Doesn't Feel Like Theft
from the because-it-isn't... dept
Someone who prefers to remain anonymous submitted the latest Larry Magid column who points out that, despite what the music industry keeps claiming, sharing music still doesn't feel like theft. He suggests it isn't an "educational issue" as the music industry seems to think, but something much more fundamental to the nature of digital goods. He compares this to the "phone phreaking" culture of the 60s and 70s, where people were trying to make free long distance calls because they didn't want to pay the ridiculous rates set by the monopoly phone company. In both cases, it didn't feel like "theft" because no one was actually missing anything at the end. In the case of phone phreakers, it was a sign that it was time for a fundamental change in the long distance industry - culminating in the break-up of AT&T. As Magid points out, phone phreaking is no longer an issue because of the structure of the telecom industry today. There are plenty of competitive choices, and there's little reason to try to break into the phone system any more. Thus, he suggests, perhaps it's time to "rethink the nature of the music industry".
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong
Sorry, Anonymous, but you are wrong too.
Control and voice are still very much hooked together. Ever heard of a modem? It is a device, which when hooked up to a phone line, allows you to make data phone calls. The phone companies (as well as many private interests,) have phone lines hooked up to modems, which in turn are hooked up to the very control systems necessary to make a free phone call. While there most likely a chance that a 2600 hz signal will allow free phone calls from pay phones (this capability was dropped fairly early on,) it is still possible to break into a PBX or phone company control system and gain access to what you need to make your phone line do anything you want it to do.
Not that I've ever done this sort of thing (at least not illegally,) but it is still quite possible, and some would say quite easy to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wrong
Should have been a "not" in there... it should have read: "While there most likely not a chance that a 2600 hz signal will allow free phone calls from pay phones (this capability was dropped fairly early on,)..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You're not stealing when you "listen to the radio" because the station advertising is paying for you to have the priviledge of listening to the music. If you want to "listen to the computer" then stick your PURCHASED CD into the drive and go ahead and listen.
Simple fact: downloading is theft. Pure and simple.
All this blathering is nothing more than a lame attempt at rationalizing an immoral action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Do I have the right to download a copy of a song I already purchased on CD ?
Do I have the right to copy my CD I bought to my computer to listen to through the device of my choosing ?
Do you own or use in any way a VCR ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
just to get their attention.
>Do I have the right to download a copy of a song >I already purchased on CD ?
Sure, but you DON'T have the right to upload it or
share it in the first place.
>Do I have the right to copy my CD I bought to my >computer to listen to through the device of my >choosing ?
Sure - thats fair use, not P2P downloading.
>Do you own or use in any way a VCR ?
Irrelevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Your thinking is flawed.
Do you think classic artists of the past would not want use to revel in their masterpieces because of the profit of the RIAA ?
I find it ironic its irrelevant that you use a VCR to copy copyrighted material because you have rationalized that for your needs it is an ethical form of media transportation as opposed to P2P networks.
If I purchase a book I have every right to share without charge, that book with anyone I choose. ( This is the basis of our free public library system ... perhaps you could refer to it as the " sneaker net " of the golden printed age )
Just because the technology is being used in a method that the RIAA has been too bullheaded to embrace does not make the technology wrong. I have no moral or ethical qualm with using downloading & P2P networks until such time that the RIAA embraces the technology that people have chosen and build a distribution method that allows me to purchase songs as easily as I purchase ring tones for my phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Well, except that it isn't.
I steal something from you, then you're missing it. I copy the song you have, then it's (potentially) copyright infringement, but not necessarily.
It's the people who eat up this argument that it's "theft" who distort the argument. I'm not trying to "rationalize" anything. I don't share music. My argument is that this is going to keep happening, and if you're livelihood depends on it, then you had better adjust.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
A car is not a weapon unless I choose to run you over and abuse the technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
>
>A car is not a weapon unless I choose to run you >over and abuse the technology.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Abusing the technology (music piracy/downloading)is exactly why there is a social problem now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
>I steal something from you, then you're < br>>missing it.
Oh please, not that (discredited) argument again.
Just cause it doesn't have a physical presence doesn't mean it can't be stolen/missed/unvaluable.
>I copy the song you have, then it's
>(potentially) copyright infringement, but
>not necessarily.
If you copy the song legally, good for you.
But illegal copying is copyright infringement,
which is depriving the author/copyriteholder of
their intellectual property, which is usually theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I haven't seen it discredited any where. You certainly didn't discredit it. You just said it wasn't true.
Look, in the case where someone makes a copy of something the amount of that product in the world has increased and no one has lost anything. That isn't theft. Theft is someone taking something away from someone else. If nothing is missing, nothing has been taken away. It's not theft.
Just cause it doesn't have a physical presence doesn't mean it can't be stolen/missed/unvaluable
Er. Nope, it can't be stolen. But, I never said it can't be invaluable. There's a difference you realize.
In fact, I think intangible goods have a tremendous amount of value. I just think that you should recognize the nature of how they work.
depriving the author/copyriteholder of
their intellectual property, which is usually theft.
But, as we were just saying, it's not theft, and saying it is doesn't make it so.
Anyway, no one is being "deprived" of their intellectual property. The author/copyright holder still has it. That's what we've been saying all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
When something has been ILLEGALY downloaded the ability of the owner to profit from the payment for that has not been paid for has in fact been taken away. They have lost (been deprived of) the enjoyment of the unpaid revenue.
I do understand the points being made by the pro-sharing folks. I don't agree with them however.
What I don't understand is why has the primary concept of "getting something for free that you would otherwise compensate for" been lost. Why the complication of tangible vs. intangible, rival vs. non-rival? Isn't it still wrong to get something for nothing when that something normally is paid for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Whoops. Logical fallacy here. You're assuming a right to profit which simply doesn't exist. The "ability to profit" is dependent on the person selling the good to successfully market their product to the consumer, such that the consumer buys it. Look, I'd like everyone to pay me $1,000/day to read Techdirt and according to you, I've been "deprived of the right" to enjoy that revenue. Nope. It's just that I recognize that no one would pay that.
What I don't understand is why has the primary concept of "getting something for free that you would otherwise compensate for" been lost. Why the complication of tangible vs. intangible, rival vs. non-rival? Isn't it still wrong to get something for nothing when that something normally is paid for?
Ah. Well, here you're missing the point. None of us has said it isn't illegal. I certainly haven't. The POINT is that it is happening and it's going to continue to happen and all the whining and lawsuits aren't going to stop that. SO, if you were a GOOD BUSINESS PERSON wouldn't you look for a way to take that fact and use it to offer something better?
Simply complaining that it's illegal does nothing to change things. Offering a solution that embraces file sharing does.
The question of tangible/intangible is hugely important, because we're no longer talking about scarce resources. Your economics is based on scarce resources, and what you're trying to do is impose artificial barriers on non-scarce resources just to make your economics work. Doesn't it make more sense to, instead, embrace the nature of non-scarce resources to expand your market? That way, everone's happy. Your way, lots of people are getting pissed off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
There is an implicit right to profit which derives from our concepts of property rights. This is well enshrined in legal precedents and judgements which are NOT going to be overturned just so you (and the pro-file-copying people) can
get cheap music. Your "ability or profit" stuff is bunk. That is NOT the point of the matter. Just because no one will pay you $1k to read techdirt does not mean you cannot make it a pay site and charge whatever you want. Now, if you were to make techdirt a pay site and charge users, would'nt you be upset if someone disseminated their login/passwd to the internet so thousands could view for free? According to your logic, only one person would ever need to buy a login to techdirt, then all the other thousands can simply use that login. Thus you lose your revenue and go out of business eventually, depending on the depth of your pockets and good will.
You admit this usage of downloading is illegal.
Just because its happening, everyone does it, it will continue to happen, and whining/lawsuits won't prevent it, - does not mean it should not be illegal . Or "right" for that matter.
Just because you don't like some law does NOT give
you the priviledge of violating it with impunity.
As for the intangible/tangible issue, wrong again. Your scarcity issue is bunk. How do you feel about this: publish your credit card number, you moms maiden name, your birthdate and address, on the internet.
Its all simple nontangible, non-scarce information. So why not let the public have it?
Oh, because you'll probably get identity-thefted and someone will buy thousands of dollars worth of stuff on your account. Gee, seems even intangible zero-cost information has some value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You didn't prove anything I said incorrect. I'd suggest that your knowledge of economics is the one that needs more work.
There is an implicit right to profit which derives from our concepts of property rights
No. There is a right to ownership and to try to profit. but that doesn't mean you're guaranteed profit. Why do so many businesses fail? Because they can't figure out a working business model.
By your logic, we should still be supporting buggy makers because they built their buggies and they have a right to profit, dammit. That's ridiculous.
Your "ability or profit" stuff is bunk. That is NOT the point of the matter. Just because no one will pay you $1k to read techdirt does not mean you cannot make it a pay site and charge whatever you want. Now, if you were to make techdirt a pay site and charge users, would'nt you be upset if someone disseminated their login/passwd to the internet so thousands could view for free? According to your logic, only one person would ever need to buy a login to techdirt, then all the other thousands can simply use that login. Thus you lose your revenue and go out of business eventually, depending on the depth of your pockets and good will.
Ha! You really don't understand what I'm saying, do you? Of course, I *could* do that. I'm saying it would be a stupid business decision, because it's very damn likely that the password would get out there whether I liked it or not. So, I'm smart enough to know NOT TO EVEN OFFER IT. It's a poor business decision and I'm not going to make it, so I don't have to deal with the inevitability of what you suggest.
Just because you don't like some law does NOT give
you the priviledge of violating it with impunity.
Okay. Now you're simply being stupid. I said over and over again I DO NOT VIOLATE THAT LAW. I know enough not to. However, if I were in the music business I'd be looking for opportunities that involved giving out music free. Just becuase you're so clueless and uncreative that you can't create such a business model doesn't mean others won't.
That's okay, though, you'll have your "right to profit" to fall back on. Just like the buggy makers.
Good luck to you!
As for the intangible/tangible issue, wrong again. Your scarcity issue is bunk. How do you feel about this: publish your credit card number, you moms maiden name, your birthdate and address, on the internet.
Its all simple nontangible, non-scarce information. So why not let the public have it?
There's a difference between private information and a product you're trying to get into the market. If you can't see the difference between the two, I have no time for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
>the world has increased and no one has lost
> anything. That isn't theft.
Sure it is. Can you just copy a US $20 bill on a home printer? OK, maybe thats not theft until you spend it, but its counterfeting and you will still end up in jail.
>Theft is someone taking something away from
> someone else. >
Exactly. An illegal downloader is taking away a sales opportunity (and sales revenue)from the author/publisher.
>If nothing is missing, nothing
> has been taken away. It's not theft.
Mot correct. Ask a cop about "theft of services" or a lawyer about trademark infringement, copyrite violations, or patent violations.
>Anyway, no one is being "deprived" of their
> intellectual property. The author/copyright
>holder still has it.
Yes they still do. And one of their "rights" is the ability to control the dissemination of their works. If they do not want it available thru file-sharing then you must respect their right to choose so. THat means not uploading or downloading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
That's a completely different situation. Copying currency is not the same as copying an idea.
Exactly. An illegal downloader is taking away a sales opportunity (and sales revenue)from the author/publisher.
Er. No. See, "taking away a sales opportunity" isn't a crime. If I open up a book store across the street from Barnes and Noble and people buy my books I've "taken away a sales opportunity" from them. That's not a crime. That's business.
Mot correct. Ask a cop about "theft of services" or a lawyer about trademark infringement, copyrite violations, or patent violations.
Right, and as we've been saying, all of those are being used incorrectly. Theft of service is quite different than theft of product and shouldn't be considered the same thing. It's those of you who insist on saying they're the same that are screwing up our economy.
Yes they still do. And one of their "rights" is the ability to control the dissemination of their works. If they do not want it available thru file-sharing then you must respect their right to choose so. THat means not uploading or downloading.
See, but that's simply not true. The nature of an intangible good is that you can't control it. How do you control an idea? Sure, the law says you can, but you have to realize that it's simply not possible and build a business around that idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Let's start over by defining stealing (and theft).
First, let's recognize that there are two kinds of property. "Non-Rival" property and "Rival" property.
Rival property may only be held by one person at a time. My car, for example, is in my posession and not yours. If you take it from me, I do not have it. I may lend it to you, but then while you have it, it is not in my hands.
Non-rival property may be held by many people simultaneously. Knowledge/Information/Ideas are examples of non-rival properties. If I have an idea or know something, you may have the *exact* same idea or knowledge at the same time. You do not prevent me from knowing something by knowing it yourself. You can keep it secret, but if I find out, I am not depriving you of the knowledge.
Stealing only applies to rival property.
The term for non-rival property is "sharing". Non-rival property "sharing" may be illegal under certain laws, but it is distinctly different from rival property stealing. It should be given a different term. copyright infringement or something. infringement? plagiarism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sharing illegal? rip streams instead...
...almost as much as I used to love taping my LPs/radio.
And when I get a nice big fat disc of jams that rule, I burn 10 copies for friends... just like I used to do with tapes.
analog file sharing... the return of the hole that couldn't be plugged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why? Because it isn't.
Because it isn't?
Doesn't walk like a duck, doesn't talk like a duck, doesn't smell like a duck... hey! It's not a duck!
Beyond that:
If it feels good, just do it, baby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why? Because it isn't.
I think I just came.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]