The Ethics of Napster

Remove all ads!

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone or condemn any of the actions mentioned in this post or in the thread below.

For the backstory of this post: http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000276.html
I created this post largely as a response to Tal's post in the above thread, however, I'd appreciate other feedback, too.
Tal, you said you only downloaded songs:

That sounds like justification to me! I'm not sure if you were actually being sarcastic or not, but either way, downloading songs off Napster is a watered-down (but still potent) version of software piracy.

Well, people across the world also pay full price for a CD, cassete, single, etc.! How can you chastise one act yet perform the other?

 

I DL songs from sights like Napster.
Do you know that most of the Music artists really could care less about music sights like Napster, Morpheus or Kazaa?
And the ones that do 'care' about it only file lawsuits agaisnt sites like that because they think they need more money.
Its not about wether is 'right' or 'wrong' because face it, nothing is right with everyone, someone is always going to have to protest something. Its about who makes money off it. Sites like Napster and Kazaa dont make money off having 'pirated' songs on their sites, you dont pay money for the download program, or each song that you download. I fail to see why it is such a moral issue. If I were a big music artis(like most are) I would get the money from the CDs that cell, and everything else(i.e. promos, movies, ect. ect.). I really wouldnt care about someone that doesnt really have a lot of money, but still wanted to listen to music, downloading music that id probably already forgotten about with the new album coming up...(/me ends wishing about something like that)

 

Well, any way you slice it it's stealing. There are plenty of rationalizations for it -- that recording companies are evil, artists are greedy, artists don't care, etc.

The rationalization I use goes as follows: I only DL songs that I can not find anywhere else. It's very, very hard to get Was (Not Was)'s version of "Papa Was a Rolling Stone."

Actually, I guess that's not true. I'll DL songs on CDs that I plan to buy or that I have available in my house anyway.

 

I've never downloaded any music over the net, but I've recorded music to tapes before, which I suppose comes in a similar category.

I'm not sure about other countries, but in the UK a there is a levy on blank tapes which go to artists to make up for some of the estimated losses from people recording CD's etc.

Not sure if a similar charge is applied to blank CD's, but it would make sense.

Eventually, official download sites will be available where you pay for the songs / albums as you download I expect.

Personally, if you consider how long it takes to download an album for example, I would rather buy the CD if I wanted it. I can't get emotional about it for music, but unauthorised copying of anything copyrighted is theft by law.

 

I agree that amyway you slice it it is copyright infingement. We have copyright to encourage people to create; it grants them the assurance that they will be able to enjoy the benefits of their efforts. Music is copyrighted, meaning that ownership is granted to someone (I think it varies between artists and record companies.) When you take something, that belongs to another, and don't first receive permission, what else will you call it if not stealing?

It is interesting to note some polls on it. It turns out that when asked about 62% of rich kids felt that such downloading was not theft whereas 72% of poor kids thought that it WAS theft. What this tells me is that the likely reason many say it is not theft is because they like to steal the music in this way and are seeking justification. The poor kids that can't afford the equipment to steal music online and therefore have no vested interest feel differently.

At this point I can't remember who wrote about the way Europe deals with copyright infringement and I'm sorry. It is Europe though and not just England that charges extra money on blank tapes (and many other recording devices) that goes to the artist/creator to offset copyright infringement. The concept is they can charge everyone and offset the monetary losses caused by the theft of the few. The problem is that such a program hasn't lived up to its promise. The money taken in does not begin to approach the money stolen by others via copyright infringement. The program to work needs to be broadened in both amounts charged and items covered. I'm not sure which items are covered but the talk is that for VCR's, computers, DVD players, tape recorders, any blank recording device etc there will have to be a charge and one significantly larger than what they currently charge. There is another question with the European method of dealing with copyright theft: should everyone have to pay for the theft of a few? Is that a fundamentally fair way of dealing with theft?

In the US they've attempted to address these types of copryight problems with the DMCA combined with traditional copyright law. The DMCA is controversial in part because of a subpoena provision and also because it is not clear that it recognizes the judicially created doctrine of fair use which leave its constitutionality undetermined. It hasn't been extensively litigated yet so the answers are simply unknown at the moment. The US has made the conscious choice though with this legislation that it isn't fair to make everyone pay for the theft of a few and the DMCA targets not just individual violators which is difficult but the programs and creators/sites which make the theft possible -- like Napster.

Whether the European or American approach is preferrable is debatable, but there they are.

[This message has been edited by Laches (edited April 30, 2002).]

 

Technically, it's not Copyright Infringement, unless your making a profit off it by DLing the music, burning it to CD(or whatever), and then selling it.(in the USA anyway)
I do not burn music that I download to CD's and then sell them to friends. I do download songs and burn them to CDs for my own enjoyment. But I don't download the entire Album, I get a couple of songs that I like, or a couple songs that have been recommended to me by friends, and I want to hear them before I go and buy the CD to see if I like them, or if I'll be wasting my money.

 

DeBhaal, I certainly don't see that the law requires a profit for there to be a copyright violation. Here's the law:

"Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission."

These subsections are disjunctive of course, so, a violation of any of them means that there is a copyright infringement subject to section 107-121. Subsection 1 above says that a copyright holder has the exclusive right to reproduce the original; there is no mention of profit here.

As far as Section 107-121, only 107 looks to be of much use here and the courts have already determined that such downloading is not fair use so, I would conclude that it IS copyright infringement and that profit isn't necessary. This is all cursory of course though and copyright infingement isn't an area I feel knowledgable but if your information is different I'd enjoy seeing some support.

 

Tal Said:

But Tal, you said before that you used Napster, which at the time was not a pay service.

But that isn't my point. My point is that you criticized someone for purchasing pirated software, although you yourself pirated (music) software!

Tal said:

Just because everybody pirates software, it doesn't make it any more legal!

Tal said:

Who cares? All that matters is that some artists being offered by Napster, etc. were against it!

 

Do you honestly think that they were against it because of the ethical reasons behind 'pirating'? Honestly do you really believe that. The only reason the few that were against is because they werent getting any money from it, its not like they get enough for the CDs, Videos, etc. they sell.
If they would lower the prices of their CDs they would acctually make, get this, more money from sells. Know why? Because more people would by the CDs then there really would be no reason to download music off the internet.

------
Laches
No I didnt have an alternate source of information, that was just straight off the top of my head.
[edit]Obviously I was mistaken, but the base principal is: If the artist is not ok with it, for a justifyable(sp?) reason, then it is Infringement. But the only reason Ive heard the 'artists'(notice the dubious use of the word) are against downloading music off the net is because, and I repeat myself, they arent getting the money from it, and think they need even more.[/edit]
------

If your going to go off on Copyright Infringement, then why stop with downloading music off the internet. Why not go on to, and grip about, people who go to a rental store, rent a movie, take it home, and make a copy of it.

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited May 01, 2002).]

 

DeBhaal Stasion said:

The argument is not over whether or not the artists have strong ethics, the argument is that it is against the goddamn law to pirate music over the Internet. Once again, it doesn't matter what ethics the artists have, its still against the law.

DeBhaal Stasion said:

SO WHAT? It's against the law, and thats the end of it. Who are you to say the artists don't need the money? Do you have any idea how much of the music that is pirated is by little-known bands with no major record label behind them? THEY OBVIOUSLY DO NEED THE MONEY!

DeBhall Stasion said:

NEWS FLASH: That is also illegal. Why not just but a bootleg copy of a movie? Or just steal it from the store? Those bastards at the studios don't need the money, do they? And the rental store? They probably make enough as it is!

This is really starting to amaze me.

[This message has been edited by SlimShogun (edited May 01, 2002).]

 

Love how you qoute me SlimShogun, and then comepletly miss what I was saying. Did I ever once say that it was not against the law? No..if I recall correctly I never did say it was legal to do such things. If downloading music is as against the law as you say it is, then why is the sites that allow you to download the music still running?
------------
.

So Im guessing the VCRs that we have are also illegal? You record movies from T.V..or most people do. Thats illegal if I go by what you say. How about burning a copy of a game from a friends if yours breaks, if I go by what you say, then that is also illegal.

You are extremely animate about this, maybe you ought to chill and try to see where others are coming from, and maybe try to read behind the words. Try to find the meaning to what is said.

So the artits ethics have nothing to do with this? I find that hard to believe, because one of the reasons there are Copyright laws is because of the authors/artits/etc. ethics, if we didnt give a damn about their ethics, then there really would be no point in Copyright laws.

 

DeBhaal Sation said:

No, it becomes illegal when you sell that copy. However, renting a movie from a store and copying it is illegal in itself!

I really couldn't believe this one:

Oh, I'm a fu***** moron! You are definitely right! No illegal activities ever happen, right? I say: DeBhaal Stasion for President!

 

The artists are not the ones complaining (save a few of the richest, ironically) the most about piracy, it's almost solely the RIAA and MPAA (at least over here in America) despite the fact that thier sales have only gone up, drastically in fact, in the last few years, and I'd argue that having such a medium as Napster and Gnutella (not Kazaa, may thier spyware laden and bandwidth hyjacking software burn in hell!) is partially responsible, as it allows people to sample albums and artitsts they've never heard of without leaving thier computer. Despite technically being illegal such sampling of music is an integral part of music industry, and, in other forms, always has been.

 

:sigh:
Not going to get into a flame war...maybe...

Do you read the words, or do you actually look for some meaning?
Obviously you dont do that latter, because you missed my point by leagues.

I still never said it was legal. What I said was this: The web pages are illegal, as you say, or are doing illegal things. So, by default, they should be closed, the operators ran out of whatever town they are in, and what not.

Now what I ment about the VCRs. Its illegal to copy from a video rented from a store..but not to copy from a television program? I fail to see the logic in that...wait..I forgot there is no logic in this topic.

You wish to bash me for the words I say, but I havent noticed you actually understanding what the my posts were about.

 

Then Technically, you can copy songs and such from the internet as long as your not selling them, because you are in effect using "Time shifting" purposes.

[edit]grammatical check[/edit]

[This message has been edited by DeBhaal Stasion (edited May 01, 2002).]

 

No DeBhaal, it is not legal to download copyrighted material unless you have a copyright defense. Permission makes everything okay. Some of these sites charge monthly fees and have worked out arrangements with the copyright owners so there is no problem there.

BTA has the jist of it right though to be technically right the "fair use doctrine" is not a copyright restriction at all but rather a defense to a claim of copyright infringement(whic is what BTA means above but the wording might be a bit confusing if you aren't already familiar with it.) Fair use is the public's friend. Fair Use has been determined to be a defense to some uses of the VCR. It has been determined to not be a defense to downloading music. This was discussed in the Sony Corp cases, the Napster case, etc. So DeBhaal, downloading music off the internet through a site which has not made arrangements with the copyright holders is a copyright infringement.

Also, there was talk above about the artists' ethics as if they are somehow bad people for wishing to receive the benefit of their labors. The fact is, most artists do not support sites like the old Napster but a few did. Even the artists who don't publicly denounce it at the top of their voices feel it is theft. One prime example is Maynard Keenan of Tool who many thought might support Napster but when asked about it he denounced it as theft. Another example is Tom Morello (sp) formerly of Rage Against the Machine; artists you would think might support such sites. Are artists somehow ethically bankrupt if they do not support such piracy? (a strange assertion or at implication for someone who down the page asserts there is no truth) No, of course not. There is an attempt by some to make this seem a Robin Hoodesque story, robbing the rich artists to feed the poor. This simply is not the case. Statistics demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of people downloading this music are rich or middle class white kids. Not exactly feeding the poor. So, the better analogy is, is it okay to steal someone's work if that person is rich and you could afford it but don't want to spend the time/effort/money to get it yourself? Not such an appealing picture. This absolutely is not a case of stealing bread to feed your starving child.

DeBhaal, the reason we have copyright laws has nothing to do with individual ethics. The reason we have them is that it benefits society to have people innovating and inventing, creating and contemplating. The benefit to society is a tangible one when society has access to new music, literature, medicine etc. For this reason, society creates an incentive for individuals to create and invent. If someone creates something new we afford the creator a copyright so that she may enjoy the rewards of her labor. Society does this not because of individual ethics such as the idea that it is wrong to steal one persons work but for the selfish reason that creating such an incentive is a benefit to society.

Alex, it is true that most of the litigation is from the record companies. As I mentioned above though most artists do oppose this type of piracy when asked. They have no reason to seek damages in court though because they have the record companies to protect their interests. That does not mean though that they don't mind online piracy. It is akin to saying that because unions like the IBU bring most of the suits that it is the unions and not the individuals they represent that are upset. Of course the individuals are upset, they don't need to bring suit though because they have an organization that can protect their interests much more effectively by pooling resources and much more efficiently too.

[This message has been edited by Laches (edited May 01, 2002).]