Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Epistemologist · Nov 18, 2007, 08:34 pm

I return.

Student to settle out of court with RIAA - News

Quote:

Quote by: Article excerpt

Before she moved to campus, Stephanie had never used the file-sharing software Limewire.

Now the mass communications sophomore faces a $209,400 lawsuit for using the technology to share copyrighted materials on the USF network.

"They got me for 419 songs," said Stephanie, who spoke with the Oracle on the condition her last name be withheld. "My music was on a shared folder. I don't even think I had that many songs. When I got to college one of my friends installed (Limewire) for me."

Stephanie said she didn't realize her computer was sharing the music while she left it unattended. Targeting her while other students around her had much larger libraries was unfair, she said.

"There are so many people that use Limewire," Stephanie said. "I was so unlucky that I got caught. I was shocked; I had a feeling of utter dismay," she said.

A letter in July from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in July detailing the suit blindsided her, she said.

The lawsuit was one of thousands of letters sent to college students in RIAA's high-profile campaign to reduce illegal trafficking of copyrighted materials on university networks across the nation.

I'm going to break this down and establish a position a la a philosophy paper. I want to say that the fine is stiff because downloading* files is not necessarily wrong.

Stealing is wrong when a property of significant value is taken from the individual/group it belongs to by violating that value. That value is usually thought of as monetary, so violating monetary value entails not paying for that property. The crux of my argument, then, is that file downloaders do not necessarily steal because:

the files do not necessarily have significant value; that is, the downloaders' perceived value of the software (as I discussed in the previous post) is often correct, and,
they do not necessarily violate the real value of the files.

To make the files, work must be done and money is often spent by the recording artists and companies. One might think that this original work and money spent automatically and seamlessly transfer into real value of the files, because otherwise, there is an inequality in the production equation, and the file producers are not adequately compensated. However, that is not the case. The work and money spent are compensated. Often, yes, this compensation is cold hard cash when files are "legitimately" sold. This money is the compensation that the producers of the file want.

But as the facts of life go, we do not always get what we want. Adequate compensation does not necessarily entail what the file producers want on two levels:

they may produce very bad files, so adequate compensation means giving what is due; for producing something of negligible value, they get something negligible in return, or,
they may produce very good files, but that does not mean they have to receive only monetary compensation for it; they may receive critical applause, more fans, or some award.

The first case should be rather clear. If a file is bad, it has no real value, and even if it had to be expressed in monetary terms, compensation is not due because it is not deserved. In other words, compensatory adequacy is met without paying anything for the files. Therefore, people who download these files are not stealing because these files do not have significant value.

The problem in the second case is that the producers think they are entitled to all monetary compensation but do not get it because people are downloading their files for free; they do not necessarily have to get that monetary compensation. And so, the money (work can be quantified as money) they put into making files may actually be transferred into non-monetary file value. Thus, people who download the files without paying are not necessarily stealing, because they do not necessarily violate the real value of the file, which does not have to be monetary. That is, they may still praise a great song, for instance, without paying for it.

But there is the question of what are the criteria for good/bad files? Isn't it just a matter of user taste? Since user taste is bound to vary, as is evidenced by the countless weird musical genres and sub-genres (e.g., punk blackish metal techno-gothic uberrap). Since there is so much variance, the producers and law assumes that all the files are of good value. However, that is an irresponsible assumption. Asking the question of what constitute good/bad files does not have much impact on whether or not downloading the files is necessarily stealing because as long as there is a case of a file being determined really bad or a file determined good not having to be compensated with money, downloading is not necessarily stealing. Of course, there are many such cases.

Anyway, I hope I have established that downloading files is not necessarily stealing. I assume stealing is wrong, but it does not have to follow that downloading files is not wrong, because there may be other ways to downloading files may be wrong. Downloading files may contribute to global warming, for all I care, but that is not relevant here. Downloading files is not necessarily wrong, though, as I have negated the hefty assertion that it is tantamount to the necessary wrong of stealing.

Since it is not necessarily wrong, it does not warrant stiff fines. Say we view punishment as a social tool and assume that the stiffness of a fine corresponds to the "social extent" of wrongness of a particular action. For a higher social extent of wrong, more punishment should be administered for a social good in the utilitarian sense, such as deterrence; it does not seem to fit this scheme that harsh punishment follows an action that is not always wrong, i.e., its social extent of wrongness is rather low because when many people commit it, they do not commit a wrong. It follows, then, that the fine is too stiff.

Note this position does not address uploading and distributing files.

Also note that I'm addressing this in terms of ethics and not law, so what's wrong is wrong regardless of what the law says and what's right is right regardless of what the law says. Let's keep law and ethics independent in this discussion.

What do you all think? Is this too simplistic?

*n.b. it should be clear that I mean downloading as in not paying and taking the files, as in the context of the article

Epistemologist · Nov 18, 2007, 09:01 pm

Here are some possible rebuttals:

What about taking actual objects like a relatively worthless piece of candy? Is that the same as taking a file? Is it still stealing? If it is, then how can downloading files not be stealing? Where do I draw the line between downloading files and taking tangible things?

Now, this may seem like a blatant cop-out, but in attack of the stiff fines, I only say that downloading files is not necessarily the same as stealing. It may be the case that it is. It may also be the case that while one downloader may not be stealing, another downloader in slightly different circumstances may be stealing. There is still a possibility, then, that objects with little or no monetary value can be stolen, but I am still trying to assert that these files do not have to be stolen when downloaded.

What I seem to be missing then is that distinction between electronic files and what are more likely to be classified as "real" tangible things. The central reason for my saying that stealing is not always the same as downloading is that there is a value confusion concerning the files, whereas some files may have really low values or not have real values that correspond to what some perceive their values to be. Electronic files have a higher likelihood of undergoing value confusion than tangible things. I concede that I cannot explicitly differentiate between the two here, but it seems that because of value confusion, we are more likely to judge that taking the electronic files without paying is not the same as taking the tangible things without paying. Because we are more likely to make those judgments, we are thereby more likely to say that downloading those files is not stealing and thus not wrong.

At the same time, my post may shed light on the possibility that even some of those "real" tangible things may be taken without paying, and that perhaps looser regulation of property is in order. Indeed, for looser regulation of downloading to occur, it seems very likely that looser regulation of property in general must also occur.

What about the right of a person who creates an object to determine its value? Am I denying the producers' rights to determine the value of their files? Isn't this right important?

I am not saying that the producers necessarily lack that right. Rather, I am simply negating the prevailing assumption that only they have that right. Denying the absoluteness of their value determination leaves open the possibility that other people and factors can better judge the value of their products; some might say that this is even rather democratic. For the most part, though, I suppose that producers do determine the value of their product, mainly because in the dominant modern economic systems, no one else cares to do that for them.

Still, we must consider that no man is an island, so to speak, and that even though a creator made a product, that product has an impact on everyone, because it is publicly available; thus, it would seem the creator should not and could not be an exclusive arbiter on the fate of the product.

What about intellectual property rights? Aren't they important? Does compromising them here mean they will be always compromised, regardless of what seems to be taken?

My account denies intellectual property rights at least to some extent in some cases. You might argue that as long as the rights are denied in one instance, they become universally void. But I would like to say that a universal violation of these rights does not occur when they are violated in one single situation. The slippery slope does not have to happen.

What about the issue of distributing and trading songs?

Trading songs is a slightly different issue than downloading them. File traders seem to have a more explicit acknowledgment of a file's monetary value, and seem to have a higher propensity to violate that monetary value in their trading. I think we should deal with file traders differently than file downloaders, and perhaps I can deal with that in the posts to come.

The Bacon Guy · Nov 19, 2007, 05:24 am

On a moral level, I don't think downloading is necessarily equivalent to stealing. If I'm thinking of buying an album but am dubious about it, I usually download a couple of tracks from it, then decide based on that. It's free advertising for the producer of the album and could lead to me buying a product I wouldn't normally have done. However, downloading an entire album which you would otherwise have bought is stealing, both on a moral and a legal level.

However, I think the producer should still maintain the right to decide how his product is distributed. When one buys a CD, one enters into a contract with the producer stating that the material will not be copied, distributed, misrepresented etc. That's simply a condition of sale. If you breach these conditions, you are in breach of contract and therefore should be open to legal action.

Similarly, downloading the file from a sharing network is facilitating this breach of contract and should also be prosecutable. I see it as equivalent to handling stolen goods.

So in my opinion, it's not always wrong to download copyrighted files, nor is it always morally equivalent to stealing. However, my concept of morality shouldn't be the deciding factor in this. People should be free to set the conditions of a sale, and I don't claim the right to seize control of other's property. I'd like to see music freed up, but only at the maker's discretion.

Praxius · Nov 19, 2007, 08:18 am

I'm not going through another "Chris Gaines" incident again..... therefore I tend to download the albums I plan on buying, to see that I'm not paying to be stuck with a crap CD, like the said above.

Also, the internet is a new method which many new bands are realizing is a great way to reach a broader audience. If they remained advertising just in their local, then that's all that is going to know of them.... with the internet, you will have everyone around the world able to hear their art and their message.

We all know that album sales were never the main bread and butter for artists, as the main load of money is in touring and concerts..... it's always been this way, unless you lucked out..... therefore this revenue they're bitching about that they are loosing out on, is only the money for the record stores and very little for the artist in most cases.

Heck two of Canada's longest running record stores just shut down this year "Sam the Record Man" and "Music World" and they blame internet downloading.

Well I got news for ya.... times change... and most people who do buy albums, usually buy them online anyways, because it's still cheaper then going to the store to pay for their mark ups which are required to keep them running.

If nobody listens to 8-track anymore, then why fight for it's survival? If nobody buys things at the record store anymore (repeat: RECORD) then why should we continue to fight to keep them alive? People loosing jobs? Other's who are with the times will take their place.

Overall I see no major losses in the internet or downloading, because whatever money they would loose out on albums not sold, they get in return from a larger/broader audience at concerts/touring.

And if they're too slack to tour of perform concerts and they want to hide in the studio all their lives, they won't make it..... the internet is about interaction, and thus so artists require to interact as well.

Cephus · Nov 19, 2007, 01:43 pm

There are no demonstrable losses due to downloading but the RIAA simply demands, without a shred of support, that anyone who downloads a song would have otherwise went out and bought the entire album if they couldn't have gotten it for free online.

That's complete crap. They're playing with numbers and making unsubstantiated claims, simply because they want to pretend that the facts support their particular point.

grandpa · Nov 20, 2007, 12:32 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Cephus

There are no demonstrable losses due to downloading but the
RIAA simply demands, without a shred of support, that anyone
who downloads a song would have otherwise went out and
bought the entire album if they couldn't have gotten it
for free online.
That's complete crap.

The RIAA itself is crap. If they and other organizations have there way, there'd be tons more unheard stuff out there.

Grandpa h.

View Poll Results: Is downloading files necessarily wrong?
Yes	0	0%
No	5	100.00%
Voters: 5. You may not vote

Nov 18, 2007, 09:01 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Epistemologist God is good Location: Down by the river, stealing your water Posts: 1,518	Rebuttals to rebuttals Here are some possible rebuttals: What about taking actual objects like a relatively worthless piece of candy? Is that the same as taking a file? Is it still stealing? If it is, then how can downloading files not be stealing? Where do I draw the line between downloading files and taking tangible things? Now, this may seem like a blatant cop-out, but in attack of the stiff fines, I only say that downloading files is not necessarily the same as stealing. It may be the case that it is. It may also be the case that while one downloader may not be stealing, another downloader in slightly different circumstances may be stealing. There is still a possibility, then, that objects with little or no monetary value can be stolen, but I am still trying to assert that these files do not have to be stolen when downloaded. What I seem to be missing then is that distinction between electronic files and what are more likely to be classified as "real" tangible things. The central reason for my saying that stealing is not always the same as downloading is that there is a value confusion concerning the files, whereas some files may have really low values or not have real values that correspond to what some perceive their values to be. Electronic files have a higher likelihood of undergoing value confusion than tangible things. I concede that I cannot explicitly differentiate between the two here, but it seems that because of value confusion, we are more likely to judge that taking the electronic files without paying is not the same as taking the tangible things without paying. Because we are more likely to make those judgments, we are thereby more likely to say that downloading those files is not stealing and thus not wrong. At the same time, my post may shed light on the possibility that even some of those "real" tangible things may be taken without paying, and that perhaps looser regulation of property is in order. Indeed, for looser regulation of downloading to occur, it seems very likely that looser regulation of property in general must also occur. What about the right of a person who creates an object to determine its value? Am I denying the producers' rights to determine the value of their files? Isn't this right important? I am not saying that the producers necessarily lack that right. Rather, I am simply negating the prevailing assumption that only they have that right. Denying the absoluteness of their value determination leaves open the possibility that other people and factors can better judge the value of their products; some might say that this is even rather democratic. For the most part, though, I suppose that producers do determine the value of their product, mainly because in the dominant modern economic systems, no one else cares to do that for them. Still, we must consider that no man is an island, so to speak, and that even though a creator made a product, that product has an impact on everyone, because it is publicly available; thus, it would seem the creator should not and could not be an exclusive arbiter on the fate of the product. What about intellectual property rights? Aren't they important? Does compromising them here mean they will be always compromised, regardless of what seems to be taken? My account denies intellectual property rights at least to some extent in some cases. You might argue that as long as the rights are denied in one instance, they become universally void. But I would like to say that a universal violation of these rights does not occur when they are violated in one single situation. The slippery slope does not have to happen. What about the issue of distributing and trading songs? Trading songs is a slightly different issue than downloading them. File traders seem to have a more explicit acknowledgment of a file's monetary value, and seem to have a higher propensity to violate that monetary value in their trading. I think we should deal with file traders differently than file downloaders, and perhaps I can deal with that in the posts to come. But what's to stop the manic tide, The suicide of our own pride? The Complex

Nov 19, 2007, 01:43 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Cephus Hot Lava Location: Redlands, CA Posts: 2,264	There are no demonstrable losses due to downloading but the RIAA simply demands, without a shred of support, that anyone who downloads a song would have otherwise went out and bought the entire album if they couldn't have gotten it for free online. That's complete crap. They're playing with numbers and making unsubstantiated claims, simply because they want to pretend that the facts support their particular point. Jesus loves me? No thanks, I don't swing that way. Blog Me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

Nov 19, 2007, 05:24 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
The Bacon Guy Away Location: Scotland, Central Lowlands Posts: 3,190	On a moral level, I don't think downloading is necessarily equivalent to stealing. If I'm thinking of buying an album but am dubious about it, I usually download a couple of tracks from it, then decide based on that. It's free advertising for the producer of the album and could lead to me buying a product I wouldn't normally have done. However, downloading an entire album which you would otherwise have bought is stealing, both on a moral and a legal level. However, I think the producer should still maintain the right to decide how his product is distributed. When one buys a CD, one enters into a contract with the producer stating that the material will not be copied, distributed, misrepresented etc. That's simply a condition of sale. If you breach these conditions, you are in breach of contract and therefore should be open to legal action. Similarly, downloading the file from a sharing network is facilitating this breach of contract and should also be prosecutable. I see it as equivalent to handling stolen goods. So in my opinion, it's not always wrong to download copyrighted files, nor is it always morally equivalent to stealing. However, my concept of morality shouldn't be the deciding factor in this. People should be free to set the conditions of a sale, and I don't claim the right to seize control of other's property. I'd like to see music freed up, but only at the maker's discretion.

Nov 19, 2007, 08:18 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Praxius Mass'Debator Posts: 4,724	I'm not going through another "Chris Gaines" incident again..... therefore I tend to download the albums I plan on buying, to see that I'm not paying to be stuck with a crap CD, like the said above. Also, the internet is a new method which many new bands are realizing is a great way to reach a broader audience. If they remained advertising just in their local, then that's all that is going to know of them.... with the internet, you will have everyone around the world able to hear their art and their message. We all know that album sales were never the main bread and butter for artists, as the main load of money is in touring and concerts..... it's always been this way, unless you lucked out..... therefore this revenue they're bitching about that they are loosing out on, is only the money for the record stores and very little for the artist in most cases. Heck two of Canada's longest running record stores just shut down this year "Sam the Record Man" and "Music World" and they blame internet downloading. Well I got news for ya.... times change... and most people who do buy albums, usually buy them online anyways, because it's still cheaper then going to the store to pay for their mark ups which are required to keep them running. If nobody listens to 8-track anymore, then why fight for it's survival? If nobody buys things at the record store anymore (repeat: RECORD) then why should we continue to fight to keep them alive? People loosing jobs? Other's who are with the times will take their place. Overall I see no major losses in the internet or downloading, because whatever money they would loose out on albums not sold, they get in return from a larger/broader audience at concerts/touring. And if they're too slack to tour of perform concerts and they want to hide in the studio all their lives, they won't make it..... the internet is about interaction, and thus so artists require to interact as well.