Is copying/pirating music okay? (Trax In Space discussion)

[bvanoudtshoorn]

Fun times will be had by all!

This discussion on Trax In Space is quite an interesting one. I'd be interested in hearing people's opinions on it who are from here.

[Nahkranoth]

It doesn't bother me at all. I know for sure that I would have missed many interesting products if there were no piracy. There are some artists, man, you know, you can't get their records no matter how hard you try. But now when I have heard them (Ahoy, matey!!!) and I know that there are 40-90 page booklets and stuff, I would kill for one or two original packages. Pity it's still not possible because there is no access to them. There is no shipment of such stuff, here in Ukraine. Besides, everyone can go trigger happy listening to those frickin Ruslana and Verka Serdiuchka all day long

[PabloLuna]

In Costa Rica, RIAA companies pay radio stations to monopolize broadcasting with their music.  If an artist wants his music on the radio, instead of being paid royalties for his work, he has to pay about $2500 to the radio station.

This fraud scheme was denounced by Leonardo garnier, who is nowadays Minister of Education.

ACAM is the guild of music composers that defend the rights of music composers.  According to some off the record comments the National Radio Chamber threatened the director of ACAM of putting his work out of the air if he continued his efforts to protect the rights of musicians.

So if you have piracy in Costa Rica, so mall shops or sellers in the streets sell pirated material in the open, that's divine justice.

Costa Rica hasn't had any folklore in the last 30 years, no local pop culture, thanks to RIAA.

[älskling]

I pay for the music I think I would miss if it wasn't made anymore. If the music isn't all that good or made anymore, I'll copy it with little or no bad conscience.

[MisterX]

Seems a simple issue to me - if you didn't produce it, you have no right to use it or benefit from it unless the person who did produce it gives you permission to, or if you give that person a value that they will accept as payment, be it barter, money, exposure, whatever.

(By "produce" I mean "create", not "produce" as in the music industry definition.)

[rncekel]

In Spain we have to pay a fee (I think it's 20 cents of euro) for every blank CD we buy, because the SGAE (the society that distribute the money collected for copyrights) complained that they are used mainly to make pirate copies (and the goverment decided that we are all pirates, so we have to pay on advance!) So, if I want to make a CD with my music, composed and played by myself, to make a gift to my friends, I have to pay something to a society that doesn't represent me at all and doesn't give me anything. Since then, I consider that making pirate copies in Spain is a logical thing, because we have paid the copyrights on advance, and almost a duty for a decent person.

[Louigi Verona]

if you didn't produce it, you have no right to use it or benefit from it

why?

[MisterX]

if you didn't produce it, you have no right to use it or benefit from it

why?

Because the understanding and respect of private property is a foundation of civilized society?

If the producer loves his work so much that he wishes to share it with the world, there should be nothing to stop him/her, but if the main goal of the production was to generate wealth, that shouldn't be denied from them.  If it is, they would not be compelled to produce any more.

That's why I love the Last.fm model, where artists get royalties as you listen to your music as if the song was played on the radio.  That's more of a "use" model than a "purchase" model as I think was discussed on TiS.

[Louigi Verona]

So, in other words, it is okay to willfully give away your freedom so that someone gets a little more money? Because, once you got that cd, your inability to do something with it affects you directly and an artist only indirectly - he'll get a few more dollars.

Hm... don't know. I believe the whole problem with music nowadays is that it became a business. Encouraging people to continue doing that is not a worthy goal, the way I see it. If a person does music only when he gets paid - in my book this man is a salesman, not a musician.

The whole point of doing art is bringing something useful into this world - so that other people will use it and benefit from it. Taking that from art means taking away the most natural and necessary form of self expression and contribution each person can make to a society. At this rate the society become less civilized and more greedy. Soon they'll be selling license to breathe air in certain parts of the world. How can anyone encourage such things?

[MisterX]

Hm... don't know. I believe the whole problem with music nowadays is that it became a business. Encouraging people to continue doing that is not a worthy goal, the way I see it. If a person does music only when he gets paid - in my book this man is a salesman, not a musician.

If someone wishes to give away the fruits of their labors for others to enjoy, be it by creating a piece of art or volunteering their time to build a house, they should have the freedom to do so of their own choosing and not be compelled to do so.

If, on the other hand, they have managed to turn doing what they enjoy into a business, they have a blessing that few have (how many people really like their jobs?) and it should be respected and not taken advantage of because someone believes that their work does not have any objective value.

The whole point of doing art is bringing something useful into this world - so that other people will use it and benefit from it. Taking that from art means taking away the most natural and necessary form of self expression and contribution each person can make to a society. At this rate the society become less civilized and more greedy.

Are you saying that greed is "wrong"?  In another thread, you were saying that there is no right or wrong, correct?

In any case, the point I was making is that, I believe it is up to the producer how the production is used, distributed, etc., and not up to how the user of the production thinks it should be used.  If all art is to be made only in the spare time of the artist, without the artist's full attention and devotion, since the artist needs to eat and a place to stay (and patronages are hard to come by), will we really get good art as a result?  Or, if by making money from their art they are able to devote their lives to it, do we get better art as a result?  Is it greedy of the artist to wish to make their living with their gift?

I think that we are talking about different types of musicians here, the professional vs. the hobby musician, but I believe that the topic of the thread dealt with copying music and didn't specify whose music is being copied.

And, as an aside:

it is okay to willfully give away your freedom so that someone gets a little more money

I don't recognize any freedom to use another person's property without their consent - what freedom are you speaking of?

[Louigi Verona]

I just cannot look at music as property. House is property, car is property. Music is not property. You can sell a data carrier - a tape, a compact disc, a vinyl. You cannot sell music itself. Intellectual property is a very generic term which mixes too many things together. I personally do not believe that intellectual property is a valid term in music.

Freedom issue?
If I am not allowed to give music I've bought to a friend - this is my freedom which is restricted. If my hands are tied at using a record to build something new upon it - it is my freedom which is restricted.
Shakespeare used a lot of plots from writers of his era. If the copyright law we have today would've been active then, his plays would've been called a cheap rip off.
Also, how come such an unfair situation? The person who is doing art HAS the freedom of choosing of whether he wants to give it away or not, why cannot the audience have the freedom of choosing - whether to build on it or not? Once more the shift of importance goes to the author. How come? Because the author is socially greater than everybody else? I am an author and I find such a position ridiculous.
Also, what do you mean by "benefit from someone's work"? Like how? did Shakespeare benefit from the plots he got from other writers? Or did we all benefit from his reworkings of these plots? How can society develop without building upon works of each other? All this benefit argument assumes that one creates art only to get some reward. This is hardly true.

As for the myth of a starving artist, I have not yet met a musician, and I know plenty of them, who could not make a living with music. I am friends with dozen of professional musicians, a lot of them from the classical world, a lot of them from the pop world. All of them are not super stars, quite a few of them are not selling records - and yet they have houses, cars, families, they travel and enjoy doing the work they love. And I am speaking about serious musicians, who are known all over Russia and some all over Europe.
Selling music records will go away, whether the RIAA wants it or not - the further we go, the more efficient copy and sharing techniques will go. The music industry appeared with the ability to make records. Before that most musicians in the history of our civilization were not exceptionally rich. And they are not exceptionally rich today either, the record companies are. But that short period of going into music for the mere reason to make a fortune is coming to an end - it's not my opinion, it's a mere factual observation.

Greed?
Greed is wrong relative to the health of spirit. To quote one person: greed is unrealized theft. There is a big fat difference between making a living and making money. Most people who defend copyright law because they cannot make a living, in reality mean that it would mean they'll have to actually do something to earn their bread, not just put together some cheap template record and get millions of dollars.

And another large myth is that if the artist won't get paid - he won't do music. This is not how it works. People who are in music only for money should go sell something else anyway. Music should be the art and craft of those who love it and are talented at it, not those who want to sell it. This, of course, is my personal opinion. However, I believe it is shared by millions and millions of people. Art should not be business - ever. As soon as money becomes the first priority - music is dead. Just turn on the radio and hear for yourself.

And as an endnote: creating a piece of art is a blessing. There is a significant reward in the whole process of creativity. Putting it as hard labor for which the whole Universe should be grateful to the author and reward him with complying with all of his wishes is, in my opinion, an absolutely perverted way to look at creativity.

[MisterX]

I just cannot look at music as property.

Therein lies the rub, as they say.  If you want to make your music available to everyone, do it.  However, other people making music are not automatically, by your opinion, required to release their rights to their music as a result.  If I decide that art in general is not property, I cannot walk into a museum and take whatever I like.

You can sell a data carrier - a tape, a compact disc, a vinyl. You cannot sell music itself.

When I sell music for films, I am not selling the AIF file format that the music is delivered through, and technically you are correct, I am not selling the music itself, I am selling the right to use the music.  In the contract it states exactly when where and how the music can be used, and the contract signer is not allowed to violate that.  The signer cannot release a soundtrack album from the film with the music on it without an additional contract, regardless of whether or not they feel that music is property and that their freedoms may be violated by not being able to release a soundtrack album.

Once more the shift of importance goes to the author. How come?

They are the original creators of the product which has value, value that needs to be paid in kind when it is used.  The right to determine the fair use of the product should go to the creator or owner of it.  If they want to make it available to everyone and anyone to do whatever they want with it, they can do so.  If they do not, however, that should be respected.

I don't want my neighborhood to determine what is "fair use" of my yard.

If my hands are tied at using a record to build something new upon it - it is my freedom which is restricted.

That statement is only possible if, as you say:

I just cannot look at music as property.

Since otherwise, the statement may as well read: "If my hands are tied at being able to take what I want from the store - it is my freedom which is restricted."

Shakespeare used a lot of plots from writers of his era. If the copyright law we have today would've been active then, his plays would've been called a cheap rip off.

There is a difference between working from a theme and outright copying.  I don't believe that Shakespeare was charged with copying an entire work verbatim, but for borrowing themes from previous works and expanding upon them.

It is one thing to create a song based on a progression from another, but taking an entire phrase verbatim, the way it was recorded (sampling) and using it in your song is another.  

Also, how come such an unfair situation?

I don't know, you mean like if I build a house that is property but if I write a song it's not?

The person who is doing art HAS the freedom of choosing of whether he wants to give it away or not, why cannot the audience have the freedom of choosing - whether to build on it or not?

For the same reason that someone cannot choose to build an addition to my house or tear down my shed, because it is mine and not theirs, unless I sell them the right to make those decisions about my property, but as you already said, you don't see music as property so the analogies to houses are probably moot.

And another large myth is that if the artist won't get paid - he won't do music. This is not how it works.

For hobby musicians who have other jobs and make music in their spare time, yes.  I don't think that this carries over into other professions - the plumber who fixed my pipes isn't going to do it without getting paid, the composer who writes pieces for film isn't going to spend hours in the studio with the orchestra for nothing either unless they became wealthy through other means and do not need any additional income.

Music should be the art and craft of those who love it and are talented at it, not those who want to sell it.

If you are talented at it, why would you not want to sell it?  If you can make a cabinet that people want, should you just give it to them, or put it on public display so that everyone can marvel at your talent, or should you sell the cabinets and not have to do any other labor in order to make your living?  

As soon as money becomes the first priority - music is dead. Just turn on the radio and hear for yourself.

I blame the blight of good music on the radio as a result of a decline in taste and in society in general, not in the pursuit of money.  You see, if no one paid for it, it wouldn't be there.  We vote for politicians in the voting booth and for everything else, we vote with our wallets.  SPAM mail is a problem because it works, people are falling for it again and again.  If no one bought anything from telemarketers or infomercials, there wouldn't be any.  There is crap on the radio because it sells, and people buy it, but the fact that it makes money is not the cause of the loss in quality, but why it is perpetuated.

I think that we both agree that piracy (copying and selling) is wrong - we just have different positions on whether or not an artist has the same rights to his music as a carpenter has to a cabinet or not.

[älskling]

I think Spotify is a nice idea.

[Louigi Verona]

Mister X: don't get me wrong. I am not saying that selling music shouldn't be. I am speaking about priorities. Musicians SHOULD get money for their music, but it should be a means of living, not the goal of why they do music. As I've said, I am in close touch with professional musicians whose priorities are not money and who don't sell records - and yet they live fine. Please, note this one more time - they are not hobby musicians, they are full time professionals.

However, other people making music are not automatically, by your opinion, required to release their rights to their music as a result. If I decide that art in general is not property, I cannot walk into a museum and take whatever I like.

Please, my friend, do not confuse once more material art with non-material. When you are taking someone's sandwich - they don't have it and can't eat it anymore. When you are taking a statue out of museum - this is theft.
When you are copying music, you are not taking anything away from anybody. The person from whom you copied it has the copy too. This is a very important thing about copying in general. And all your examples with house and yard draw an incorrect equal sign between non-material ideas and material objects. Those are simply very different situations.

Let's face it - the matter is quite simple. Copying is so prohibited with the record companies because it doesn't let them sell discs - how can you sell discs when everyone has the record on their computers?

But we forget that records as a common things are around for like 60-70 years. Before that there was no industry and no records at all! And yet musicians were able to make a living. They'll manage now too. Record companies won't. Have you read the open letter of Courtney Love to record companies? Says a lot.

Once more - musicians not only can, they always could make a living without selling records. If the emphasis is not on selling records, copying music is only a positive thing for any musician. Auto distribution. Record companies are not needed in that scheme at all. It is they who shout about intellectual property and such, not musicians.

As for authorship, claiming authorship of something not written by you is plagiarism and it is bad. We are not speaking about that. Shakespearian example is valid - by today's copyright law you can sue a man even for a similarity in plot - this is a fact. Literature copyrights are as harsh as music ones.

As for similarity in position towards piracy as in copying and selling - yep, we agree here. I would say this kind of activity - sell someone else's music is not good... and also not profitable these days anyway.