Journal Journal: Stealing, Sharing and Copyright
I've had a thought. The argument goes, "you can't steal an mp3 (of a song) because no-one is deprived of the mp3 or the song...a copy has been made."
However, one could argue that the right of the copyright holder to distribute and be compensated for their work has been stolen from them. We're talking about the difference between stealing and theft here. I'm not saying this is theft, as physical property is not taking, but it is the violation of someone's rights.
Now, I'm all for the sharing of music as promotion. Hell, I'm trying to do that now with my band The Michelson-Morley Experiment. It is our right, however, to choose how that song is shared or distributed. No-one owns mp3s (of course, that notion is problematic if you've purchased and mp3 online), but someone does own the rights to the song. Rights including the following:
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work
* to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
* to perform or display the work publicly
* to sell or assign these rights to others
* to transmit or display by radio or video
As a listener, I believe you should have the right to listen to the song, in the format of your choice, on the player of your choice, at the time and location of your choosing. That's what you are paying for. Such a purchase is an agreement between the copyright holder and the content user to just such an effect (or should be.)
The content user does not, however, have the rights reserved to the copyright holder above (unless those rights are granted by the copyright holder), including the right to import or export the work, to produce copies or reproductions of the work, or to assign such rights to others, including themselves.)
We would not (or at least should not) stand if someone's civil rights were violated, though those could be construed as defined in the United States Declaration of Independence as "unalienable Rights." That said, "the pursuit of happiness" would include the ability of an artist/copyright holder to be compensated for their work when it is used. Early judicial opinion proclaimed the following:
However, one could argue that the right of the copyright holder to distribute and be compensated for their work has been stolen from them. We're talking about the difference between stealing and theft here. I'm not saying this is theft, as physical property is not taking, but it is the violation of someone's rights.
Now, I'm all for the sharing of music as promotion. Hell, I'm trying to do that now with my band The Michelson-Morley Experiment. It is our right, however, to choose how that song is shared or distributed. No-one owns mp3s (of course, that notion is problematic if you've purchased and mp3 online), but someone does own the rights to the song. Rights including the following:
* to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell those copies (including, typically, electronic copies)
* to import or export the work
* to create derivative works (works that adapt the original work)
* to perform or display the work publicly
* to sell or assign these rights to others
* to transmit or display by radio or video
As a listener, I believe you should have the right to listen to the song, in the format of your choice, on the player of your choice, at the time and location of your choosing. That's what you are paying for. Such a purchase is an agreement between the copyright holder and the content user to just such an effect (or should be.)
The content user does not, however, have the rights reserved to the copyright holder above (unless those rights are granted by the copyright holder), including the right to import or export the work, to produce copies or reproductions of the work, or to assign such rights to others, including themselves.)
We would not (or at least should not) stand if someone's civil rights were violated, though those could be construed as defined in the United States Declaration of Independence as "unalienable Rights." That said, "the pursuit of happiness" would include the ability of an artist/copyright holder to be compensated for their work when it is used. Early judicial opinion proclaimed the following:
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.
