# Intellectual property and ethics



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

I started a thread about "what sets you off" not long ago....there is something that sets me off I neglected to mention in that thread, and I would like to mention it here because I would love to see some discussion about it.
I have had the misfortune recently of talking to someone who sees nothing wrong with watching movies/TV shows, listening to music or playing video games through illegal means, such as through pirating, illegal downloading, and the like. That is literally piracy, and it's against the law. Tremendous amounts of money are lost because of that, and countless artists suffer from these types of freeloaders. It is stealing, and nothing less.
My friend's excuse is that these movies he watches are from bigtime directors and producers in Hollywood, and it can't hurt them. After all, they probably make more in a few months than I'll make my whole life, so why worry about it? Simple math can give you the answer. Let's be generous and says an average ticket costs $8. Now take the most pirated film of 2014, Wolf of Wall Street. It was downloaded illegally about 30 million times that year. If everyone that pirated the film bought a ticket? That is $240,000,000 that the makers of that film will NOT get. And it's all because there are cheapskates unwilling to pay such a small amount of money to go see it. You can't tell me this won't hurt anyone, even big-name actors and directors.
"Boo-hoo," says my friend. "Now they can only afford one mansion instead of two." Yes, I know that people who work in Hollywood are often disgustingly rich. But does that make it any less wrong to steal from them? These films that people pirate are someone's intellectual property (of MANY people, actually). It is NOT yours to take; they create it and offer it to you for a VERY reasonable price given the amount of work that goes into it. Why do we teach our kids not to steal from Walmart? Stealing a pack of gum is not going to hurt a corporate giant like Walmart. But we teach our kids that it is wrong because stealing is wrong, no matter who you steal from. If I steal from the mom and pop store on the corner, it is wrong. If I steal from Walmart, it is wrong. Similarly, if I pirate a movie from an unknown, up and coming director, it is stealing, and wrong; if I pirate a movie from Steven Spielberg, it is still stealing, and still wrong. And it isn't just the director/producer/actors you're stealing from; the people who sweep the floors of the studio depend on the money that comes from the film's gross.

Allow me to step off my soapbox now. This is something I have strong feelings about. I don't like to see artists, especially musicians, suffer from monetary loss that comes from piracy. I just wish that people had more respect for people that provide them with their entertainment they so take for granted. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Gordontrek said:


> Thoughts?


I agree with you 100%. Any form of stealing is bad, and rationalisation of it is even worse. If I like and enjoy something, then it is worth paying for. And those folks (none here on TC, we are a classy bunch) who have CD collections of a thousand burnt CD-roms off Pirate Bay are reprehensible and a bit sad and pathetic. So yes, it sets me off.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

If we compare two situations

1) A person doesn't download any intellectual property but neither purchases it
2) A person downloads something that is intellectual property of somebody without paying

Nobody really "loses" anything in the case 2) compared to the case 1) while the downloader definitely gains something. But if we replace intellectual property with something material like a car or something, clearly the one who's car has been stolen loses something in the case 2) compared to the case 1). That's why I don't think illegal downloading is completely analogous to stealing in the conventional sense, *which is not to say that justifies it.*

I think illegal downloading is more properly called free riding, which, while not exactly stealing, can be problematic. Certainly it makes sense that if somebody deserves monetary compensation for his creative work, those who benefit from it (especially when they benefit from it from their own choice) are the ones who should pay for it. And clearly if nobody pays for something especially when it has significant costs involved we should expect to have less of it than with the monetary incentive.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Illegal downloads killed off the recording industry. That hurts everyone


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2017)

I don't think piracy is a good thing, but it's certainly interesting to think about each different perspective. Stephen Fry's own perspective is kinda interesting and rather thought provoking as well. Tbh I don't torrent files but I often use streaming services and find videos I can stream for free online to help me decide whether I want to buy something or not.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Gordontrek, your post is thought provoking!

Firstly, I do not buy CDs or download from illegal sources. I respect the performers and the producers that put so many hours of hard work to product something for my enjoyment. Consider how many hour of practice each member of an orchestra had including the musical education they been through before such orchestra put out a recording. Your contribution to buy such a recording is very little compared to the hard work these people been through. I have witness how serious a movie scene was put together for about 40 seconds of a whole movie. The price you pay for these production are small for your enjoyment. Yet, there are those who would buy or download a illegal version just to save a few dollars! This logic is beyond me....

Besides, we invested so much money in equipment to reproduce the music or movies. The copyrighted version of any piece is certainly cost the least if you compare the Hi Fi equipment/ home theatre you installed to reproduce them. 

Thirdly, if anyone buy CDs or download from illegal sources, you are telling the thieves to steal and you would buy what they have stolen. This is a demand and supply tension. If there is no demand, none would supply it. Which side are you on?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I recently had the self-same discussion recently with somebody who thinks similarly with regards to Cd's, that the likes of Beyonce is rich, so they lose "nothing", while the down-loader is just a working bloke (or even unemployed), so there's no moral issue with illegal downloading, according to this point of view.

"What about the drummer who plays on the disc? Are they rich?"

"They," the argument went, "can make money performing live."

"What about the producer, are they rich?"

"They," the argument went, "will get paid anyway from the huge corporation."

On and on, until I unraveled a huge illogic in their socialist scheme.

"What about the guy on the treadmill who packages the CD's? He's a working bloke/gal, and he'll lose his job. Isn't illegal downloading _actually _putting everybody down the farthest point of the line out of a job?"

Another argument he put forward was that there's no such thing as intellectual property, because "ideas are formed outside of our reality, and the artist only channels them, but isn't their creator."

I replied: "sounds like a scam to get outta paying royalties."

The fact is, illegally taking music, movies, books, is stealing. And it's having a terrible effect on all these industries, because even if Beyonce is rich, not everybody involved in the production and packaging of her product is rich - but they're affected by this. And of course, if artists cease creating, out of some frustrated spite, then the thieves will have nothing to steal. And of course, these heroic thieves would be utterly worthless at "channeling ideas" themselves.

What about the ticket seller in the cinema? Jobless, soon. Why should the drummer be forced to perform live? Why should pregnant or young mothers who sing be forced to go on the road to earn money? The action of making a record is totally unlike the experience of performing in stage. What if they suffer from stage fright, etc? It was a heated discussion. I'm still not sure I got through to him, though, because he's so habitual and complacent about the theft he makes, in his own bedroom...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

jms said:


> Tbh I don't torrent files but I often use streaming services and find videos I can stream for free online to help me decide whether I want to buy something or not.


I strongly agree with this. When I was young, I listened to the radio where I heard popular works that I later purchased. Now, although I do listen to classical radio, I generally don't hear the new (to me) works that people at TC (or elsewhere) recommend. I listen to these on the Naxos Music Library, which is legal, but sometimes I can't find the works there. I then try youtube, which presumably is sometimes not legal. My intent is not to listen over and over to these works but rather to hear them so I can make the decision whether to purchase them.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

mmsbls said:


> I strongly agree with this. When I was young, I listened to the radio where I heard popular works that I later purchased. Now, although I do listen to classical radio, I generally don't hear the new (to me) works that people at TC (or elsewhere) recommend. I listen to these on the Naxos Music Library, which is legal, but sometimes I can't find the works there. I then try youtube, which presumably is sometimes not legal. My intent is not to listen over and over to these works but rather to hear them so I can make the decision whether to purchase them.


To watch streaming is legal uploading not.
Can be different in other countries.


----------



## Krummhorn (Feb 18, 2007)

I have to ask those who obtain illegal recordings: "would you work for free?". Their answer is usually "no". 

Part of my church position responsibilities are to assure that we (the church) are always within copyright compliance. There were many churches years ago who were sued for millions of dollars for photo-copying copyrighted music to be used within their services. Those churches lost the suit and had to pay. It would have been far cheaper to have bought the necessary copies from the publisher. 

If I am asked if I would be willing to make copies of works in my library that are out of print I will always refuse if they are still protected by copyright. People will say "but the publisher has gone out of business and this piece isn't available anywhere for any price." Well, that's tough ... there are many pieces that I would love to learn that have been out of print for ages and there is not change that they will ever be reprinted until they fall into public domain some 95 years after the composers death.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Krummhorn said:


> *If I am asked if I would be willing to make copies of works in my library that are out of print I will always refuse if they are still protected by copyright. * People will say "but the publisher has gone out of business and this piece isn't available anywhere for any price." Well, that's tough ... there are many pieces that I would love to learn that have been out of print for ages and there is not change that they will ever be reprinted until they fall into public domain some 95 years after the composers death.


A shame there is no way to pay a royalty to make a copy. But you would have to find the person/entity that has the rights and request permission.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Here is a case I would like some clarification on. I was told by someone that it is illegal for me to buy a DVD and then rip the sound track to play separately. However, could I not load the DVD in the form of MP4 and play it on my MP3 player that will run videos and just listen? Or I could play the video on my computer and not watch but just listen? 

Now if there is a sound track commercially available, then I buy it, but in the case of the Bernstein Fidelio DVD there is no commercial release sound track. Well there is but it is not the sound track but a studio version done about the same time as the live performance was filmed. So, I bought the DVD and I bought the studio CD set (actually bought two of them for different covers). But I prefer the DVD sound track (live performance) to the CD and so ripped the DVD to MP3 and listen to it instead of the CD set. Am I illegal? Perhaps technically, but having purchased the CD set, I can't imagine the producer would have anything to complain about.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2017)

Florestan said:


> Here is a case I would like some clarification on. I was told by someone that it is illegal for me to buy a DVD and then rip the sound track to play separately. However, could I not load the DVD in the form of MP4 and play it on my MP3 player that will run videos and just listen? Or I could play the video on my computer and not watch but just listen?
> 
> Now if there is a sound track commercially available, then I buy it, but in the case of the Bernstein Fidelio DVD there is no commercial release sound track. Well there is but it is not the sound track but a studio version done about the same time as the live performance was filmed. So, I bought the DVD and I bought the studio CD set (actually bought two of them for different covers). But I prefer the DVD sound track (live performance) to the CD and so ripped the DVD to MP3 and listen to it instead of the CD set. Am I illegal? Perhaps technically, but having purchased the CD set, I can't imagine the producer would have anything to complain about.


Considering it's for your own use and your own enjoymeny and that you don't sell it or share with others, I don't see how anything bad could come from what you are doing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2017)

One thing which is probably waaaaay more helpful to musicians and composers is actually going to live performances or making donations to music ensembles. I do this more often than buying CDs and MP3s. The only way to actually 'steal' a live concert is if you sneak in when no one is watching you....and that is really just a stupid idea anyway.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

jms said:


> One thing which is probably waaaaay more helpful to musicians and composers is actually going to live performances or making donations to music ensembles. I do this more often than buying CDs and MP3s. The only way to actually 'steal' a live concert is if you sneak in when no one is watching you....and that is really just a stupid idea anyway.


But if you are employed to work at the event you get to hear the concert for free as a job perk, albeit with some distraction from job duties.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I am completely against theft of intellectual property. Another cost of such theft not yet tallied is that the losses due to pirated copies have to be made up by those willing to pay — or by jacking up the price of movie popcorn more likely. There is no such thing as a free snack.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

"Stealing is wrong, but I do demand healthy discounts."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Its stealing/ copying a form a flattery.................. or is it just stealing........


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Triplets said:


> Illegal downloads killed off the recording industry. That hurts everyone


So did the legal.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

I'm delighted to see that this post is sparking some more conversation.



jms said:


> Tbh I don't torrent files but I often use streaming services and find videos I can stream for free online to help me decide whether I want to buy something or not.





mmsbls said:


> I strongly agree with this. When I was young, I listened to the radio where I heard popular works that I later purchased. Now, although I do listen to classical radio, I generally don't hear the new (to me) works that people at TC (or elsewhere) recommend. I listen to these on the Naxos Music Library, which is legal, but sometimes I can't find the works there. I then try youtube, which presumably is sometimes not legal. My intent is not to listen over and over to these works but rather to hear them so I can make the decision whether to purchase them.


I understand this, but I'm still iffy on it. The fellow I originally argued with had a similar perspective that he used to justify his use of illegal downloads. In his case, he was defending his use of torrents for films and TV shows. He argued that he shouldn't have to pay to see a film he doesn't like, and watching it for free will help him gauge whether he should buy a ticket to see it or watch it in a theater. My response was that the artists who work on films have no obligation to please him and him alone; they already go to tremendous lengths to please everyone they can. If every filmmaker let people watch their films for free so that people would know whether or not they like them, they wouldn't make any money. Besides, there is _zero_ guarantee that he will buy a theater ticket or a DVD/Bluray copy of a film he's already seen for free. He already has it for free; why pay for it? Not to mention, by pirating a film, he has already proven that it is worth something to him, even if he ends up not liking it and won't buy it.

In the case of streaming services like Naxos and Amazon Music, as well as radio services like Sirius, Pandora and the classic AM/FM radio, the proper licensing fees are payed to the record companies, as well as the artists themselves. YouTube is a bit more of a grey area. Its overseers obviously don't like people uploading things in violation of copyright, but they do tolerate it up to a point. This is because they have ads that play before videos that make up for the potential loss in revenue of whoever owns the copyrighted material that's been uploaded. There is also music that record companies provide to YouTube; you've probably seen them with "Provided to YouTube by x record company" and "Auto-Generated by YouTube" in the description. I'm not sure how much compensation artists receive for the use of their work on YouTube, but it seems that they receive at least something.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Gordontrek said:


> The fellow I originally argued with had a similar perspective that he used to justify his use of illegal downloads.


People always to try to find a reason to justify things they do even if it is illegal. That is human nature!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

pcnog11 said:


> People always to try to find a reason to justify things they do even if it is illegal. That is human nature!


Like paying tax hey!


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Disclosure: I did torrent a lot of music files when I was younger, as well as rip CDs from my college radio station. I have no justification for this.

I don't think it's that helpful to say intellectual property is just like physical property and stealing it is wrong just as stealing physical property is wrong. As some people have pointed out, when you copy a file you're not actually taking anything. Intellectual property is a different kind of thing than a car, and stealing it is a different kind of act than stealing a car.

It comes down to the fact that artists need to get paid for their work, and intellectual property law is the system we've come up with to ensure they do.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

pcnog11 said:


> People always to try to find a reason to justify things they do even if it is illegal. That is human nature!


Or being plain rude.


----------



## Guest (Feb 5, 2017)

I just remembered that I listen to music for free on the radio all the time..........


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Kieran said:


> I recently had the self-same discussion recently with somebody who thinks similarly with regards to Cd's, that the likes of Beyonce is rich, so they lose "nothing", while the down-loader is just a working bloke (or even unemployed), so there's no moral issue with illegal downloading, according to this point of view.
> 
> ...
> 
> On and on, until I unraveled a huge illogic *in their socialist scheme.*


May I point out that this is not a "socialist" perspective, but theft (if anything it's a rogue 'entrepreneurial" scheme).

A socialist perspective on monopoly providers / employers would be to argue for fair wages for honest work, and fair (and adequate) taxation of wealth for the common good.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

jms said:


> I just remembered that I listen to music for free on the radio all the time..........


I wonder how they do it. All the music I buy on CD says for private performance. They must have special rights. It is to give the music exposure to the public so they will buy it I guess.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

TurnaboutVox said:


> May I point out that this is not a "socialist" perspective, but theft (if anything it's a rogue 'entrepreneurial" scheme).
> 
> A socialist perspective on monopoly providers / employers would be to argue for fair wages for honest work, and fair (and adequate) taxation of wealth for the common good.


I understand, but the view of the man I argued with was that "wealthy" artists shouldn't complain, that somehow the less well-off have a right to these properties and that it was somehow immoral to exclude them from access to this music/films etc, on the basis of money. To this I replied, "whatever happened to waiting until you could afford something before you get it?"

Anyhow, I agree with you that it's theft.

Re radio stations, publishing companies collect royalties from radio stations and distribute them to writers/performers. The copyright law shouldn't be broken, in this scenario. I imagine that radio stations have copies of the music that has a different licencing spiel on the sleeve...


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Gordontrek said:


> I started a thread about "what sets you off" not long ago....there is something that sets me off I neglected to mention in that thread, and I would like to mention it here because I would love to see some discussion about it.
> I have had the misfortune recently of talking to someone who sees nothing wrong with watching movies/TV shows, listening to music or playing video games through illegal means, such as through pirating, illegal downloading, and the like. That is literally piracy, and it's against the law. Tremendous amounts of money are lost because of that, and countless artists suffer from these types of freeloaders. It is stealing, and nothing less.
> My friend's excuse is that these movies he watches are from bigtime directors and producers in Hollywood, and it can't hurt them. After all, they probably make more in a few months than I'll make my whole life, so why worry about it? Simple math can give you the answer. Let's be generous and says an average ticket costs $8. Now take the most pirated film of 2014, Wolf of Wall Street. It was downloaded illegally about 30 million times that year. If everyone that pirated the film bought a ticket? That is $240,000,000 that the makers of that film will NOT get. And it's all because there are cheapskates unwilling to pay such a small amount of money to go see it. You can't tell me this won't hurt anyone, even big-name actors and directors.
> "Boo-hoo," says my friend. "Now they can only afford one mansion instead of two." *Yes, I know that people who work in Hollywood are often disgustingly rich. But does that make it any less wrong to steal from them? These films that people pirate are someone's intellectual property (of MANY people, actually). It is NOT yours to take*; they create it and offer it to you for a VERY reasonable price given the amount of work that goes into it. Why do we teach our kids not to steal from Walmart? Stealing a pack of gum is not going to hurt a corporate giant like Walmart. *But we teach our kids that it is wrong because stealing is wrong, no matter who you steal from. If I steal from the mom and pop store on the corner, it is wrong. If I steal from Walmart, it is wrong.* Similarly, if I pirate a movie from an unknown, up and coming director, it is stealing, and wrong; if I pirate a movie from Steven Spielberg, it is still stealing, and still wrong. And it isn't just the director/producer/actors you're stealing from; the people who sweep the floors of the studio depend on the money that comes from the film's gross.
> ...


 You are 100% correct. Many people don't view it as "stealing" because a song or a movie isn't a tangible thing. You can't hold it in your hands. So where as most of those same people will say taking a pair of gloves off the shelf, putting it in your pocket and walking out the store without paying IS stealing, they don't view something intangible like a song, movie, or other types of intellectual property as stealing.

I have seen numerous times how many teenagers when asked, think that stealing from Walmart isn't wrong but stealing the same item from a mom and pop store is. It's values, and when children are taught that all stealing is wrong, they have a better chance of understanding the full concept. It's a shame.



Kieran said:


> I recently had the self-same discussion recently with somebody who thinks similarly with regards to Cd's, that the likes of Beyonce is rich, so they lose "nothing", while the down-loader is just a working bloke (or even unemployed), so there's no moral issue with illegal downloading, according to this point of view.
> 
> "What about the drummer who plays on the disc? Are they rich?"
> 
> ...


What I bolded is such an idiotic statement. ALL property must be respected, whether it be physical or intellectual. The right to own property is the basis of all lawful earthly rights. Once property rights go, all other rights soon follow. Too many people aren't taught this and too many people don't even realize this.

V


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Florestan said:


> I wonder how they do it. All the music I buy on CD says for private performance. They must have special rights. It is to give the music exposure to the public so they will buy it I guess.


Not special rights. They pay licensing fees through ASCAP and BMI which go to the artists.


----------

