No one disputes that theft is wrong. So whether we regard music sharing as wrong has only to do with whether or not we define it as theft, right?

An MP3 file may be different in substance from a solid piece of material in a store.

But entertain this scenario -- you walk into the music section at Barnes and Noble, steal a CD of Death Magnetic, then copy it on your computer and give it out to whoever asks.

How is that different?

I say it's in the most cases not morally wrong. Because theft requires taking something away.
I almost never buy pay for music, and I'm not going to pay for less because I can download it.

Since copyright law establishes ownership and defines what the product is, you are taking away profits from illegally obtaining something that does not belong to you.

What I'm saying is that I don't take anything away unless downloading is an alternative to buying for me. Since digital property can just be cpoied, I don't take, I only get.

And the companies that sell digital music are licensed by law to be the legal distributors of said digital product. So when you "get" without paying a legal distributor, you have committed theft under law, however you try to rationalize it to make yourself feel like you haven't done anything wrong.

You're right, it is illegal under the law, but I thought the question was about the morale aspect of it.
I don't download music btw.

Well, let's consider the basic scenario, so to speak: Artist X records music, then they create physical copies (cd's, records, tapes, etc.) and/or digital copies (wav's, mp3's, or whatever) of that music. Then they release a number of physical and/or digital copies of that music. Consumer Y buys one of X's cd's. So far, Y has done nothing wrong. But let us suppose consumer Y burns his copy of Artist X's cd or rips an mp3 from that copy and then gives person Z that cd or mp3. It is not obvious (at least not to me) that Y has done something wrong in this case. He has paid for a product and he has managed to virtually reproduce the product (if it's a cd, he hasn't really reproduced what he bought unless he reproduces the case, the booklet, the cd art, etc; but, in the case of a digital sound file, which many artists release, he can easily reproduce an identical product), and he gives that reproduction to somebody else. Those actions in themselves do not seem obviously wrong. Now, if he uses deception to sell the reproduction for more than it's worth or if he tells people that he has created that music, then maybe the case is different, but let's focus on the actions per se that I have described.

A few questions, related to my above observations, that might produce further discussion: Is there a difference between, say, letting my friend listen to the cd I bought from X and giving him a burnt copy of the cd for him to keep? What about if I set up a website where he can access the music (however he pleases obviously, via phone or computer or whatever else he can use to access a website) whenver he pleases and he accesses it whenever he pleases, but he never actually obtains a copy of the music? What if I build a chair, give it to you, and you are able to (either, e.g., from your own ingenuity or because you have a machine that will do it or you learn how to from a book or someone else) reproduce the chair identically, i.e., you use the same type of wood, you create the same design, color it the same way, make sure it feels the same, etc... would it be wrong for you to give that reproduced chair to somebody?

I think theft in most cases is wrong, however, I have absolutely no qualms about downloading music. This is not to say I don't consider what I do wrong, but it is to say I have justified my wrongdoing. I have approximately 573 personal justifications which allow me to comfortably click the download button. None of them are sufficient, all-encompassing, or credible (in regards to any authority) to construct a solid legal argument at this point.

However, I will say this: I'm very unsure about many intellectual property, patent, and licensing laws, and I don't think many of them should exist. The fact one can patent forms of life still revolts me to this day. But this is another discussion entirely...

I have my own viewpoint on this that falls into line with many indie artists. Music is an artists advertisements to attract fans some fans buy the album, some buy a couple of songs, and others download the entire album for no charge. Musicians then have more fans come to concerts because more people know about their music. Most of these musicians do not care if you download their music, because they do not expect you to buy something that you have never heard, pay for something that you ultimately do no not like, or not be able to listen to their music due to not having the means to purchase it (is there really a major difference between streaming music for free,downloading it for free, burning cd's for friends or for those old school enough to remember, putting music on blank tapes?). Not to mention, indie musicians have always made their money on touring and other merchandise like t-shirts. They do not have the backing of massive record labels to push their music. Their advertising is their music and their fans.

But that is the indie world of music. The music world that is predicated on superstardom and spending ridiculous amounts of money to record, produce, and sell products, is a different beast that requires high album sales to pay for the production of the album, and the marketing of the artists. Many of the musicians and performers become burdened with debt to their record label, due to making the album, so they do see it as stealing when you download their work, because they must pay back their label. Not to mention, the money they borrow to go on tour, lavish travel expenses, and all that other stuff that they require because they are stars. Many are also not very good musicians so they couldn't make a living on touring alone, because people would quit showing up to their concerts.

Indie music is something that I will always support with legit downloads. Paying for a good song or album is a vote that you want that artist to exist.

I go to a lot of indie music concerts and I promote their music to all of my friends, which are also votes that you want the artist to exist. Of course, the main point is to support independent artists in whatever way possible so they can continue to do what they do.

I don't go to concerts, but it's because between baby and work I don't do much of anything else these days... but Toubab Krewe is a relatively local band so I hope to see them at some point. At any rate I totally agree, a big artist will be unfazed by illegal downloads, but the Indie groups need all the support their fans can offer.

After you get a certain age you become the creepy old guy at concerts. It sort of sucks being stared down like you were a pedophile.

Rousseau?



That's strange - when I see people at concerts who are well over the average age I think "Wow, that old cat must be pretty cool".

yeah, you might want to go to fewer Justin Timberlake concerts...

I saw Peter Gabriel back in 2002, I was 28 at the time, and I was probably the youngest person there... I'm going to try and see Bob Dylan in July and I'm sure that will remain true

Yeah Peter Gabriel isn't so young, and Indie, I went to a Modest Mouse Concert @35 a few years back, people as always when i go to a concert the younguns like, thught I was Security or Venue staff.

Downloading music
It is legal to burn a CD, and then give it to a friend.
It is for some reason not legal to skip the CD process and give it to a friend, or a stranger.
...and is the pirating of independent musicians a big deal? I mean, most pirates go after the big names anyway.

You might be surprised. Peter Gabriel is not exactly well known in my age group (a shame, if you ask me) but Dylan is still a legend. We kids know the name, and some of us know the music, too.

I would expect you to see at least a small contingent of college-age folks. Red eyes and all.

I know Dylan is well known by your generation, but he has been well known for nearly 50 years and I'd imagine that people in their early 20s are a very small minority of his concertgoers (and in the concert I'm hoping to see he's paired with Willie Nelson and John Mellencamp, so that will further raise the age...)