I cannot agree with this statement. I wonder how many here would actually agree with you on this. How many here would let me copy the CDs and SACDs in their library? I would hope not many…
1 Like
“Society” is 7.5 billion people. Within that vast number, there will be differing opinions. “Society” as defined by laws, and to a specific country, and to a specific topic is more narrow. On this one topic, in this one country - as I have stated the obvious for the 99th time - the law is unenforceable. It will never be enforced again, especially around the grey area of personal use. Because the law has zero intrinsic legal meaning, and because laws are how society loosely agrees about things, it stands to reason that society as a whole, has deemed the law meaningless. It remains on the books like so many other laws that have lost meaning.
That does not mean that then every member of society automatically agrees with the critical mass. As evidenced in this thread.
Because the law has no meaning - once again, repeating again - we are left to decide for ourselves how to address this issue. If you don’t want to share a SACD with someone, then don’t. If another wants to share, do it. The law no longer has any influence, its all down to personal morality.
Which is to say, its makes no difference if we agree or not. No difference legally or morally. I fully support your right to your view and encourage you to live by your convictions. We’re just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year. What difference does it make if we agree?
5 Likes
A precisely on point article that really should get our friend from Hawaii rethinking his position on this.
2 Likes
Dr Lowery is spot on. I have thousands of pieces of recorded music and a subscription to a service and am happy to support the artists by paying for them. Every one of them. Same for pieces of literature which number even higher. I have a friend who owns a bar restaurant who always tries to buy me dinner and I always refuse, I go there to support my friends business not to be a parasite upon it. Seems only right to me. Call me an elitist or an old man who’s out of touch but you’ll never be able to call me a thief.
1 Like
Excellent find/article - thanks for sharing.
Call me a “Boomer”, or accuse me of virtue signaling; but I did not have to read this to know that nothing is free and violating copyright laws was harmful to the economic interests of the owner of the Intellectual Property and therefore inarguably immoral* (as well as illegal).
*Is there a legitimate (intellectually defensible) philosophical or moral paradigm that rejects the concept of doing harm to others being the very definition of immorality? I may have to dust off some of my college logic and philosophy textbooks.
Thanks again for posting the link.
2 Likes
Good Day Gentlemen,
As I have stated, I am not a supporter of torrenting. I agree, if someone has 11K songs and only paid for 15 CDs, that is out of balance. It’s also wrong that the record industry fixed prices for years. There’s a lot of wrong in both directions. Multiple wrongs do not create rights.
There are so many nuances in this topic, I prefer to break them down into little pieces and weigh them individually, rather than rely upon a sweeping judgment about them all. But that’s just me.
My process here is not so much to say what should be, but rather observe how things actually are. Please do not confuse the weatherman with the weather. We can debate whether or not the sun ought to shine, but it will shine no matter what we think. Nothing we discuss here will have any bearing on the actual state of the music business. So really, this discussion is just entertainment.
I do feel sharing one theoretical CD falls morally under “personal use” and the practicality of the law supports my stance given it’s lack of power. Once again, no one I know is interested in me giving them a CD. Why? Because through forces far beyond us all, music has become free, or nearly free.
I truly welcome you guys to disagree with me. But the practicality of the law is on my side - whether you like it or not. And its not really “my” side, it’s just what is.
And above all, I celebrate the sacredness of independent thought, and the right for all of us to think for ourselves, to freely reach our own philosophy on this matter, free of any authority - no government, or individual has the right to determine our inner thoughts.
There are so many opinions in the world. I wonder what the truth is once you strip away all human desire and want? When we strip away the ego entirely, then how does all this look? If we assume there’s such a thing as a divine realm, however one wishes to term that, how do all of these issues appear from that space, a space totally free of earthy thought processes?
The level of earthly law is primarily caught up in the realm of competing desires. And even here on earth, different schemes have been developed to address that contentious level. We’re primarily looking through the capitalistic lens, but how does it look through a socialistic, or even communistic lens? And who, if anyone, is right? Or is it a mixture, or are all incorrect? And what ultimate influence do laws have over the state of the human heart? And how does it look once all of that is stripped away?
I think the answer is found in the capacity of the eyes doing the seeing, rather than the object of that sight. The object could remain exactly the same, but the capacity of the various eyes looking at that object can vary wildly. Perhaps we ought to spend more time questioning the eyes doing the seeing instead of debating the object of that sight?
A beautiful, warm sunny day in Hawaii. I’m going out to get some sun.
Your personal philosophy is disconcerting. I would not want to do business, personal or professional, with you because it appears you would be happy to steal from me if the law would do nothing about it.
I suspect your view would be different if people were picking your pocket…
2 Likes
Giving a copy of a CD to a friend or letting a friend copy a CD is the same thing as getting a CD from a Torrent site. That is what you are missing.
You are letting your opinion of whether or not a law is enforced and likelihood of getting caught form your opinion on the morality. That is what causes me pause. My morality causes me to think it is wrong regardless of my chances of being caught or prosecuted.
2 Likes
We simply see it differently. And that’s ok. I see the mass scale of torrenting as being fundamentally different. You see it as the same. I see that price fixed CDs ought to allow personal use leeway, you disagree. And the law no longer has any intrinsic meaning.
I’m very open to hearing different opinions. I’m not claiming my position is universally correct, nor ought it be. I do see little point in sweeping public slander just because we disagree.
Let’s simply agree to disagree with the underlying assumption that we are both moral, honest, ethical people who have a different interpretation of a minor point regarding the music business. We both agree that torrenting is stealing - which does not make either one of us correct, it’s simply how we both see it.
Ownership is viewed differently in a variety of political systems and cultures. In Hawaii, we have lots of wild chickens and roosters. Despite strong property ownership laws, the chickens refuse to recognize those laws. They have their own mysterious ways of dealing with territory that utterly denies the existence of Hawaii property law.
Are the chickens thieves because they have their own take on property? What about the birds? They are very territorial, but also do not acknowledge American laws.
Yes, this is partly said in jest, but it accurately alludes to the larger reality that there are many different ways to view earthly reality. Humans are only one among many. Capitalism is one amongst many systems. If we are a genuine seeker of truth, it’s worth taking a step back and drink in the larger view and realize that even our most tightly held convictions could prove one day to be complete folly. A genuine explorer ought to keep that attitude.
My only claim is that I’m honest. I have no earthy idea if I’m correct. And I encourage everyone to take an explorer’s mindset. Find out. Discover. And respect each other’s exploration. Feel free to disagree, but do so with respect.
Wow. You are actually going to use animal behavior to support your position on stealing?
Here is the definition of “personal” for the legal term “personal use”:
Personal - of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else
In other words, “personal use” applies to your use only and not to a personal friend of yours. When you give a copy of a CD to a friend, you have stepped beyond “personal use”.
I have not written anything libelous (slander is spoken). You have made it clear that you base at least some of your morality on potential outcome. That is what gives me pause. I know that when I sell a CD, no one will ever know if a keep a ripped copy of it on my music server. Yet my morals require me to delete the album once I drop it in the mail. I don’t make ethical or moral choices based on my chances of being exposed, caught, or prosecuted. Nor do I consider something that is morally wrong but will not actually hurt anyone okay. That is what people of questionable moral character do.
1 Like
Unfortunately, you’re having a difficult time keeping up with me. The Hawaii chicken comment is mostly a joke. It’s a humorous way of saying there are different ways of looking at things.
I continue to afford you the right to your own opinion. I applaud and support your exploration of these topics and the conclusions you’ve reached. Which only have jurisdiction over you.
I’m having my attorney file a lawsuit against roosters 
, you’re welcome to sign on if you wish, it’s time those noisy bastards felt the full force of law 
Earth is 4 billion years old. Humans have been around 100,000 years. The issue of copying a CD had a lifespan of about 20 years, and has been rendered an irrelevant issue by both the jaws of time, and the US court system. And in another 100,000 years it’s likely all of this will look entirely different to society. What happens when economies themselves no longer exist?
Thus I’d caution against getting too caught up in absolutes, especially over an issue that represent a minuscule snapshot of time in human history.
And in consideration of your cardiac health, you’ll be pleased to know that I do not copy CDs and give them away. I reserve the theoretical right to do so. I also reserve the theoretical right to personally own the entire solar system and will soon begin charging rent. Just sayin’
Our actions are actually the same. We both do not copy and give away cds. You don’t do it because of your interpretation of the law. I don’t do it because no one I know wants them. We have reached the identical behavior for different reasons. We are both in Rome, does it really matter which road we took to get there?
It’s for this reason that music services came about, they ultimately lead us both to the same place without regard for our interpretation of law 
Yes, it does matter which road we took. It makes all the difference in the world!
1 Like
Many years ago I flew into Calcutta, India. We collected our bags and proceeded down a long, winding, dimly lit corridor to customs, eventually reaching a lone desk from which a man asked if we had anything to declare? We said no.
He became indignant, admonishing us for having come down the “something to declare” hall. We were abruptly ordered to return to baggage claim and proceed down the correct corridor.
We did. And it turns out he was correct, we had come down the incorrect corridor.
Down we went along the “nothing to declare” corridor. Dimly lit and winding, eventually arriving at an official desk. The same desk. With the same man as before, who happily stamped our passports and warmly welcomed us to India.
This music discussion is really quite similar. Our actions are the same, the primary difference is we went down different halls to get there.
That’s a poor exemplum. Your story does not make your point. You arrived at the same place using two different halls but your intent was the same when you went down both halls.
1 Like
The story does not make your point, but it makes mine quite well. The point being none of
This really matters.
And one’s intent does not make them immune from prosecution.
Perhaps a new career is calling , you appear expertly qualified to work there. https://boi.gov.in/
And while this discussion is endlessly entertaining, for me, we’ve reached its natural end. Kudos to everyone’s opinions, and thank you for participating 
