Minor ethical question

[samsonite2100]

Let's start from the premise that downloading music off the internet without paying for it is theft. I'm sure some of you would argue that initial premise, but for the sake of argument, let's agree that is. Now, let's say that there's an album that you have already bought a copy of at a record store. You lose that album. You then download the album off the intrawebs. Is this still stealing? If it is, is there a substantive difference between this scenario and downloading an album you've never paid for?

[livin_a_lie]

It's the exact same thing. When you purchased the album you payed for the medium that the music is on but you dont own the music itself.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the exact same thing. When you purchased the album you payed for the medium that the music is on but you dont own the music itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why can I legally backup my own music/software?

[vhawk01]

Yeah, I think its just the same as stealing an album you don't own, and the only reason it seems any different is the 'sunk costs fallacy.'

[kerowo]

Still stealing. Because you didn't excercise your right to back up the albumn before you lost it doesn't give you the right to do so afterwards by downloading it from the web.

[Arp220]

Hmmm...

I would argue that, in this day of DRM and DMCA and other assorted crap, that when you bought the album you bought a 'license' to that music. The medium is irrelevant (apart from the fact that you paid for it /images/graemlins/wink.gif). Therefore, as long as you have proof that you paid money for that album, the RIAA might have qa hard time winning a court judgment against you. But then again I'm not a lawyer, know nothing about anything, and so am hardly trustworthy...

[Jimmy Afternoon]

No.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
Still stealing. Because you didn't excercise your right to back up the albumn before you lost it doesn't give you the right to do so afterwards by downloading it from the web.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that you're right in a legal sense. I'm wondering about this purely in ethical/moral terms.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...

I would argue that, in this day of DRM and DMCA and other assorted crap, that when you bought the album you bought a 'license' to that music. The medium is irrelevant (apart from the fact that you paid for it /images/graemlins/wink.gif). Therefore, as long as you have proof that you paid money for that album, the RIAA might have qa hard time winning a court judgment against you. But then again I'm not a lawyer, know nothing about anything, and so am hardly trustworthy...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my thinking approximately, minus the legal analysis. If, as aforementioned, it's considered ethical/legal to backup or download music when you buy a cd, clearly you're not just buying the physical product--there's at least an implication that the money you pay is also paying for some kind of license for the music on the cd.

[RevAgain]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still stealing. Because you didn't excercise your right to back up the albumn before you lost it doesn't give you the right to do so afterwards by downloading it from the web.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that you're right in a legal sense. I'm wondering about this purely in ethical/moral terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is he wrong in a moral sense, he is also totally wrong in a legal sense, at least in the UK. I'm not sure what US laws say. When I buy a CD I am buying a licence to use the data on the CD, I am not paying for a piece of plastic that magically transforms into sound or a piece of software when put into my drive.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Still stealing. Because you didn't excercise your right to back up the albumn before you lost it doesn't give you the right to do so afterwards by downloading it from the web.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't doubt that you're right in a legal sense. I'm wondering about this purely in ethical/moral terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only is he wrong in a moral sense, he is also totally wrong in a legal sense, at least in the UK. I'm not sure what US laws say. When I buy a CD I am buying a licence to use the data on the CD, I am not paying for a piece of plastic that magically transforms into sound or a piece of software when put into my drive.

[/ QUOTE ]

If stealing is morally wrong then you can't really claim the moral high ground by downloading music without paying the folks with the distribution rights to that music.

The way I know this wouldn't fly in the states (and I don't live in the UK so I don't really care what the laws are over there) is because the music industry is full of greedy bastards who weren't taking tade-ins on 8-tracks when casettes came out or casettes when CDs came out. They would love to sell you another copy of the music you accidentally destroyed.

Bits are bits and short of bandwidth costs there is no marginal cost to give you unlimited access to your album, but under the current model no major lable is going to do this. Since there isn't much loss to the labels if do pirate the music instead of buying a legal copy the ethical stakes aren't very high, but unless you have permission to download it again it's getting something that doesn't belong to you for nothing, which is pretty close to stealing, and is rarely very ethical.

[borisp]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's start from the premise that downloading music off the internet without paying for it is theft...You then download the album off the intrawebs. Is this still stealing?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, the real life stuff is unrelated. The physical storage or presentation of an idea is a different entity from the content of the idea.

To back up your own music is to take steps to recreate a physical item which you value. Doing this requires some amount of physical capital, as does storing the music, in any case. The fact that modern technology has enabled these two types of capital to coincide simply means that those in the business of selling physical CD's either need to innovate or give up.