How do you relate to downloading movies/music and such?

[TheRobin]

I'm currently a bit in a clinch regarding my occasional (unpaid for) download of movies. Not because I think IP is valid, but because clearly the producers didn't want to have the data being available and shared (and as I understand it have sort of agreement with the buyers that prohibits them for making it available for sharing/copying) , so at some point a breach in contract or theft must have taken place in order for the data to be downloadable for free.So how exactly do you reconcile this morally? Are you responsible for some knowlingly gaining the benefits of another persons immoral actions? Is it even immoral to share it in the first place? Have the producers gained so much illegitimate money through the enforcement of false IP laws, that it's basically like stealing from a thief at that point (with no moral responsibility for the people cvurrently downloading)?And if it's immoral how would you make up for any already downloaded stuff?I'd really appreciate to hear some thoughts on that.

 

[ribuck]

Under what moral theory could a contract between the creator and the licensee be expected to bind a third party such as yourself?

Your action (making a new copy) is not immoral. The licensee may be in breach of contract for making his copy available to others for copying, in which case any penalty will be specified in the contract between the creator and the licensee. That contract is between those two parties, and does not bind you as a third party.

 

[TheRobin]

Well if you know the goods you're gonna buy are stolen you're enabling the transfer of stolen goods and become complicit in that (not in the theft in that example), or not?Like, if you help some bankrobbers get away after the robbery by driving them in your car, then technically all you did was drive, which also isn't inherently immoral, but the context in which the driving took place (i.e. enabling the crime) makes you complicit in the crime, doesn't it?I'd say the principle would be that if the immoral action couldn't have taken place without your action, you become responsible to a degree. Which would also apply to the breach of contract, that wouldn't take place without a third party copying it.

[fingolfin]

Key word used there being 'stolen'.

Isn't data just being copied?

I'm fairly sure one can only steal objects, not concepts.

If I felt bad or guilty, I'd probably just donate some money (usually not possible!) or buy the product elsewhere, or perhaps a similar product from the same company or something.

[Wesley]

It is not theft. You are copying information which does not take the original copy from anyone.

I download tons of things and see no problem with it. Information is free. The original copier also did not steal anything.

However, when I find some information that I like or enjoy and want to support it, I will often but a copy after I have already watched it (I usually do not watch it again once I have bought this copy).

This feeling of reciprocity also lead me to become a subscriber to Freedomain Radio even though th ideas are free. I want to show my support in a more direct manner.

My personal approah is that ideas are free and infinitely reproducible data. However, if you want those ideas to continue, you need to show appreciation to the producer.

It is rare with movies and music that I feel this need to support it.

[ribuck]

Fingolfin and Snipes777 nailed it.

If someone stole the creator's original work, and you took possession of that, it would be different. Then, you would be morally in the wrong.

But

.

[TheRobin]

I never said anything about copying being stealing. I said when someone sells you a blueray they do so usually under the agreement that you don't allow copies to be made (the copyright stuff). So when I download things I know someone had to breach that contract at some point, thus commiting fraud at least.And it's not about the idea. A movie isn't an idea it's a work of visual/audio-data encoded in a specific way to make it watchable for others given the right tools. I completely accept that ideas aren't property, which means everyone can reproduce that movie by reenacting it and sell their own product of it. But that doesn't really play into it here.A better example might be if I someone composes a song and writes it down on a piece of paper. The piece of paper with the writing on it is property. While everyone who hears the song is free to record his own take on it (even if it's 100% the same).But if the person would want to lock the piece of paper in a safe and not have anyone have a look at it, yet somehow it appears on the internet, you know it was either stolen or someone didn't hold the their agreement of confidentiality when having a look at it. And data isn't "free". If arranging data counts as free, then what makes data special in regards to every other thing one can invest one's energy in?There are jobs that do nothing but collect and document data, and depending on the data/field that's quite an expensive thing to do, so why would that data then be freely available for everyone?And if it shouldn't be freely available then it's no different from any other property one has the right to exclude others from and/or impose condition on its use, prior to any trade.

[fingolfin]

I still think it's the issue of copy/theft? Sorry to be annoying!

Because if someone steals an object from the back of a truck, then I buy it, I now possess that stolen good.

But if someone steals a painting from the same truck, then I copy it once I've seen it, I do not possess that original painting (object).

[ribuck]

Sorry if we've missed the mark so far, TheRobin.

I think what you are asking is the following: If Person A has breached a contract they made with Person B, are you (an unconnected person) obliged to take steps to help person B?

My answer is "no". Under what moral theory could the answer to that be "yes"?

Person B was free to negotiate a damages clause in the contract, such that Person A would repay any losses incurred by B as a result of A's breach.

[fingolfin]

I think it's related to the idea that you are only involved in a "theft" or act of copying in so far as you have also made/obtained a copy, but you did not perform the original copying nor the alleged theft (e.g. theft of DVD object; copying DVD's IP – concept). That you knew of a potential or alleged crime (as defined by state law), does that make you a conspirator? If so, how much so?

It comes down, I would say, to a personal decision, morally neutral or depending on your own conception of morality/justice, about whether to watch goods that may or may not have been obtained "suspiciously" to begin with. There's no perfect absolute rule here so I think it's more emotional. Was the IP a "crime" in the first place? And so on, it's incredibly complex.

Also, and this is an open query really, wouldn't it only be technically fraud if a copy was being passed off as an original (i.e. pretending one is the author/originator of an idea/object, or passing one's self off as that author)? And if so wouldn't that fraud be plagiarism specifically?

[TheRobin]

Maybe I can explain it again and see if it makes more sense:The breach in contract in that case is the sharing. Sharing requires a third party. So the breach of contract can only happen with assistance of a willing third party. Hence why I would say there's responsibility for the breach of contract held by said third party.I'm not sure how I would respond to the stolen painting/copying scenario. But I think a relevant difference is that the theft is theft regardless of a third party copying the painting or not. But the sharing can't happen without any third party involvment.I also completely accept the notion of no unchosen obligation in regards to having help person A. But as I said, the breach of contract can't happen without a person C involved in that specific case, whcih is where I see the moral responsibility.

[ribuck]

The breach in contract in that case is the sharing. Sharing requires a third party. So the breach of contract can only happen with assistance of a willing third party. Hence why I would say there's responsibility for the breach of contract held by said third party.

I think even the word "sharing" is problematic, because it implies that the copy is the same thing as the original. The licensee is not "sharing" the creative work; he is "putting it where others can copy it". Neither are you "sharing" the work; you are "making a copy". You and the licensee are not "conspiring to share".

Now for my (possibly bad) analogy:

Suppose you buy a can of beans from the store. The store asks for $0.99, and that's what you pay. You and the store are both happy.

Now suppose it turns out that the store had a contract with its supplier stating that the store will never sell the beans for less than $1.49. Should you feel bad? No, the contract between the store and its supplier is none of your business. The contract will specify what the store is obliged to do if it has breached the contract.

[Libertus]

Is the person knowingly and willingly buying an unauthorized copy of a film somehow guilty of a crime? Our respective criminal systems say, yes! But is it immoral? It's an excellent question.

However, the contractual argument has a hole in it. We are not really talking about a real contract here. The state dictates, what kind of contracts are legal. If black market type video "make as many copies as you'd like" rental stores were allowed to exist, they would OWN the market, because nobody in their right mind would rather sign a contract that makes them risk serious jail time and millions of dollars of penalties.

So it's not a valid contract (meeting of the minds) to begin with. So what is the nature of the crime?

[ribuck]

Is the person knowingly and willingly buying an unauthorized copy of a film somehow guilty of a crime? Our respective criminal systems say, yes!

This is a very recent thing, by the way. Until about twenty years ago, most copyright infringement cases were civil suits rather than criminal cases. Since the 1990s, numerous specific acts (such as filming a movie in a theater) have been made into criminal acts.

[tasmlab]

Everyone is doing a lot of gymnastics about what is stealing or not here.  Obviously the maker of the content wishes you to pay to consume it, would stop you if they could, and base their livliehood and investments on people paying to consume it.

And, if you were to just outright pay for it on the terms from the manufacturer, you wouldn't have an elaborate conversation about theft vs. copying vs. IP vs. intended contracts, etc.,  You'd just be plain ole, unequivocally in the moral clear.

Not paying elicits a drawn out and dicey moral puzzle.  Paying for it is simply and unquestionably right.

Subjectively, I say the easy choice is probably right.

 

(disclosure: I download stuff too without paying) 

 

 

[MrCapitalism]

If we're trying to guess at the intentions and desires of the poducer of the work (who we have never met).

Then my logic would be: Since, at the time of release, we can guess that they had no desire for their work to be copied, then we can also guess that they knew that copying and sharing would take place anyways.WIth these assumed knowledge and desires, they still made the choice to release their work into that kind of environment. Since everybody agrees that no theft of any type has actually taken place...oh well []

And if they really had no idea that their work would be copied and distributed by consumers....well that's just silly.[]

[_LiveFree_]

 

I'm currently a bit in a clinch regarding my occasional (unpaid for) download of movies. Not because I think IP is valid, but because clearly the producers didn't want to have the data being available and shared (and as I understand it have sort of agreement with the buyers that prohibits them for making it available for sharing/copying) , so at some point a breach in contract or theft must have taken place in order for the data to be downloadable for free.

So how exactly do you reconcile this morally? Are you responsible for some knowlingly gaining the benefits of another persons immoral actions? Is it even immoral to share it in the first place? Have the producers gained so much illegitimate money through the enforcement of false IP laws, that it's basically like stealing from a thief at that point (with no moral responsibility for the people cvurrently downloading)?
And if it's immoral how would you make up for any already downloaded stuff?

I'd really appreciate to hear some thoughts on that.

 

 

 

You already know the answer. I think if you tried being more honest with yourself you wouldn't feel the need to wrestle with this silliness. Movies and music = a passing flippant experience. Are they awesome? Sure. Are they worth moral integrity? No. 

 

Pandora One account = $34/year  ($2.83 a month!)
Amazon Prime = $80/year ($6.66 a month!)
Netflix = $15/month

 

When you put the restriction of doing what's right on yourself, you get creative in how to satisfy your needs. Then you won't need to ask for philosophical explanations to justify your actions. 

And not to be rude at all (because I used to download gigs and gigs of media!), but if you can't afford to pay for it, shouldn't you be spending your time figuring out how to make more (or save more) money, rather than consuming more media? Just be honest with yourself and you'll find your answer. []

 

 

[Libertus]

Obviously the maker of the content wishes you to pay to consume it, would stop you if they could, and base their livliehood and investments on people paying to consume it.

So then, what right is being violated? There is no right to 'get what you wish for', you know.

 

[TheRobin]

ribuck: thanks for brining up the problem of using the word "sharing". It also made me quite aware of the fact, that I don't really know how copyright works (what it allows and prohibits) in the first place. Though from the wiki-entry it seems it includes a prohibition of "transmitting the data", which would be violated here, by the person who has his/her PC transmit the data to mine.The analogy would be more correct, if you would add, that the customer knows before buying that the shopkeep had a contract for seeling the stuff for more. How would the situation be then? Libertus: I don't quite undestand the claim that the government dictates the contracts in that regard. Surely no one is olbigated to have a copyright on his works, but if they do isn't that a contract between the one selling you the blueray and you. A contract that basically says that "I sell you this bluray, under the condition that you do not rip it and make it available for download" or something along those lines?I also don't quite udnerstand the video rental store example: Wouldn't they need someone to be willing to sell them the videos in the first place? and wouldn't that lead to almost no one wanting to give them anythign to rent in the first place?tasmlab:  If it was really that simple I wouldn't have made a thread about it But basically, every entrepreneur wishes for people to buy his products. But they can't force anyone. So their preference isn't really that relevant here. If it's not immoral to download those videos, then it's up to them to come up with a better businessmodel to make a profit. On the other hand (and also as a response to MrCapitalism) just because they're businessmodel is silly wouldn't give anyone the right to act immorally towards them. They're free to have an ineffcient and silly businessmodel and hang on to that for the rest of their lives, if that makes them happy. In the same way as if I'd open a rock-store on mount everst and then never sell anything, that wouldn't give people the right to take my rocks out of the store for free.nathandiehl: if your principle for helping other people is to call what they do silly and tell them they're not being honest about their motivation, then that's just silly and you're probably not really honest about your motivation, seeing that that  behaviour is not really helpful.

[ribuck]

The analogy would be more correct, if you would add, that the customer knows before buying that the shopkeep had a contract for seeling the stuff for more. How would the situation be then?

Even in that situation, I'm struggling to find a way that the customer would be somehow responsible for the behavior of the store employee.

Here's a related example: I know that the local parking patrol officer has a contract with his employer to ticket at least twenty mis-parked cars each working day. Despite my knowledge, I feel no compulsion to point out to him that I might be parked in an unauthorised place.

And here's a situation that I have in real life: My local coffee shop stamps a loyalty card with every drink purchased. After you accumulate nine stamps, you get a free drink. One of the baristas gives me a double stamp because I'm a valued customer (I return my newspaper to the rack, I clear my tray, I don't make a mess in the bathroom, I don't disturb the other patrons, etc). I'm sure this is unapproved (because she doesn't do the double stamp when the boss is around), yet I don't object. It's not because of the money (I'm happy to pay for all my drinks). It's just that I don't want to have to take on the burden of managing the coffee shop employees, in addition to running my own life.

[_LiveFree_]

 

nathandiehl: if your principle for helping other people is to call what they do silly and tell them they're not being honest about their motivation, then that's just silly and you're probably not really honest about your motivation, seeing that that  behaviour is not really helpful.

 

 

OK, well I hope you find the answer you're looking for. []

[TheRobin]

 

 

nathandiehl: if your principle for helping other people is to call what they do silly and tell them they're not being honest about their motivation, then that's just silly and you're probably not really honest about your motivation, seeing that that  behaviour is not really helpful.

 

 

OK, well I hope you find the answer you're looking for. /emoticons/emotion-1.gif

 

I'm sorry, in hindsight, my response was not at all helpful or productive either and by my own standard rather silly.

But in what situation is telling a person that they need to be (more) honest with themselves ever helpful?
Because even assuming there is dishonesty, then either it's intentional or not. If it's intentional, then the saying the person should be honest, won't change anything. And if it's unintentional, then the person is oblivious to his or her dishonesty in the first place, so telling them to be more honest would not help him or her see the dishonesty either.

Or am I missing something?

[Libertus]

Surely no one is olbigated to have a copyright on his works

That's absolutely not true. Whenever you write something, the state gives you copyright, whether you want it or not.

but if they do isn't that a contract between the one selling you the blueray and you.

Again, you're switching from copyright to contract. No person in their right mind would sign a contract with a rental store, when there is another one right next door that does not require you to sign such a contract. They "copy-as-much-as-you-like" stores would own the market.

I would like to know, which right do you think is being violated? Is it property, is it a contract, is there a 'right to copy', is it trademark? It's easy to become confused.

[PatrickC]

I share your ambiguity with this topic Robin. And I'm afraid I don't really have any answers either, merely observations.

On an aside these days I generally only downloaded material that is unavailable to me in my own country. Also that in every case, with a TV series or film that I have genuinely enjoyed watching, I have ended up buying the blu ray box set at the end of the shows run. This apparently is not an uncommon statistic amongst downloaders.

http://slashdot.org/topic/bi/file-sharing-doesnt-discourage-buying-study/

More interestingly is HBO's reaction to piracy.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/07/176338400/pirates-steal-game-of-thrones-why-hbo-doesnt-mind

 

On whether online piracy of Game of Thrones hurts HBO

"I'm
not sure it does. I think it really raises the profile of the show and
raises the profile of HBO in general. One of the HBO directors for Game of Thrones,
a guy called David Petrarca, actually said, 'No, it's great. It really
helps the show's cultural buzz, and it does not impact the bottom line
because HBO has more than enough money to keep making the show.'

"So
what this is, is, this makes HBO the center of a cultural conversation
about illegal downloading, about streaming content, about the production
of content and distribution of content, which is probably somewhere
they really want to be."

I appreciate none of the above necessarily justifies the means. But I think it underlines the disparity that many content providers have with their customers. And since they can apply a massive amount of force to what they see as the problem, they do. Unlike the rock seller, it does seem, given the huge demand they have for their products that they should be able to find a business model that could suit everyone's needs and desires. It seems many of them choose force and more force each time.

[tasmlab]

 

ribuck: thanks for brining up the problem of using the word "sharing". It also made me quite aware of the fact, that I don't really know how copyright works (what it allows and prohibits) in the first place. Though from the wiki-entry it seems it includes a prohibition of "transmitting the data", which would be violated here, by the person who has his/her PC transmit the data to mine.

The analogy would be more correct, if you would add, that the customer knows before buying that the shopkeep had a contract for seeling the stuff for more. How would the situation be then?

Libertus: I don't quite undestand the claim that the government dictates the contracts in that regard. Surely no one is olbigated to have a copyright on his works, but if they do isn't that a contract between the one selling you the blueray and you. A contract that basically says that "I sell you this bluray, under the condition that you do not rip it and make it available for download" or something along those lines?
I also don't quite udnerstand the video rental store example: Wouldn't they need someone to be willing to sell them the videos in the first place? and wouldn't that lead to almost no one wanting to give them anythign to rent in the first place?

tasmlab:  If it was really that simple I wouldn't have made a thread about it But basically, every entrepreneur wishes for people to buy his products. But they can't force anyone. So their preference isn't really that relevant here. If it's not immoral to download those videos, then it's up to them to come up with a better businessmodel to make a profit.
On the other hand (and also as a response to MrCapitalism) just because they're businessmodel is silly wouldn't give anyone the right to act immorally towards them. They're free to have an ineffcient and silly businessmodel and hang on to that for the rest of their lives, if that makes them happy. In the same way as if I'd open a rock-store on mount everst and then never sell anything, that wouldn't give people the right to take my rocks out of the store for free.

nathandiehl: if your principle for helping other people is to call what they do silly and tell them they're not being honest about their motivation, then that's just silly and you're probably not really honest about your motivation, seeing that that  behaviour is not really helpful.

 

 

I don't think business model is really part of this analysis of whether the downloader is moral or not.  All businesses assume some cash loss/bad debt.  The existence of shoplifters doesn't invalidate having a store.  Or, in your Everest Rock store, the badness of the business model doesn't make it right for people to take your rocks.

And I do think the seller's intention and desire is probably worth considering in the 'is this moral?' mix.  If Mr. Hooper puts out produce in front of his store on the sidewalk, his intention isn't for people to pick it up without paying even though they can easily do so.  

To others' arguements about the product being copied and not stolen: that media has this feature of being easily copied unlike a physical good probably doesn't change the morality of taking it without paying.

Or let's get folksy and apply the golden rule.  If you produced a movie (or let's say "video tax accounting lessons" to take the romance out of the art) at great expense to yourself and wanted to charge people to watch it, would you mind if they skirted that intent and just took it?  What would you think if your neighbor downloaded from somebody who ripped it and tells you "Hey, I downloaded your tax lessons online for free and found them pretty valuable.  Sure glad I didn't have to pay you.  But don't get mad, I have this long philosophical justification for its morality I can share with you."

[tasmlab]

Just for fun/sake of this analysis, let's say that in the hollywood marketing boardroom that they really want a segment of hip, internet-savvy influencers to download their movies in hopes that they'll chat them up on discussion boards, knowing that these market-makers will help sell their product to paying masses.  They don't disclose this to the public though and make some perfunctory finger wagging against piracy.

Is downloading moral now?

There's a popular brand of design software that costs as much as a new Mac computer to buy.  A huge population of its users are college students and freelance designers who barely have two nickels to rub together.  It's extremely easy to pirate.  But, these college students become professionals later and insist that their corporate employers buy it for them at the super-premium price.  The freelancers using it also forces their corporate clients to buy the expensive liscenses for themselves for compatability.  

It's not too much of a stretch to say that piracy is how they secure their adoption, which later gets them their premium from cost-insensitive corporate clients.  (Compare with buying MS Office, which is hard to steal but cheap to buy.  Or a Iphone app for a $1 - nobody pirates these)

Is participating in the design software's business model immoral?  I.e., is it wrong for the college student to pirate in this case?  All official documentation says they are not too.

[tasmlab]

One more (a digression)

If you ever bother to read the notice at the beginning of the DVD, it states that the punishment for showing it to a group of people, even without charging, is like $250,000.  Meaning that if I invite a few of my neighbor's kids over and show "Wall-E" in my back yard it could cost me a quarter of a million dollars. The average American would have to work about 8 years (after taxes) to pay that fee.

Isn't that just insanity?  What psychopath in the government negotiated that penalty for showing a DVD?

and how many people does my rental or say Netflix sub allow me to share it with?  It's understood that all five members of my family can watch it while just paying once, but at what point is my circle of sharing too large?

[PatrickC]

There's a popular brand of design software that costs as much as a new Mac computer to buy.  A huge population of its users are college students and freelance designers who barely have two nickels to rub together.  It's extremely easy to pirate.  But, these college students become professionals later and insist that their corporate employers buy it for them at the super-premium price.  The freelancers using it also forces their corporate clients to buy the expensive liscenses for themselves for compatability.

Ha ha, I've long suspected this myself too and it does put a rather interesting slant on the question. However, I'm assuming you know the obvious problem with this of course. That it's mere speculation and just an assertion. It's not something one can particularly hang their moral hat on.

[tasmlab]

 

Obviously the maker of the content wishes you to pay to consume it, would stop you if they could, and base their livliehood and investments on people paying to consume it.

So then, what right is being violated? There is no right to 'get what you wish for', you know.

 

 

 

I'm not sure I follow your point.  I'm merely saying that the company is offering the content with the intent of a commercial relationship, no differently than a hot dog vendor would say "I wish you to pay if you'd like to consume this hot dog."  It's not the wishing that produces the right, but the ownership of the saleable good. I'm not sure 'right' is the correct word either.  I'm more trying to call this stealing.

[tasmlab]

 

There's a popular brand of design software that costs as much as a new Mac computer to buy.  A huge population of its users are college students and freelance designers who barely have two nickels to rub together.  It's extremely easy to pirate.  But, these college students become professionals later and insist that their corporate employers buy it for them at the super-premium price.  The freelancers using it also forces their corporate clients to buy the expensive liscenses for themselves for compatability.

Ha ha, I've long suspected this myself too and it does put a rather interesting slant on the question. However, I'm assuming you know the obvious problem with this of course. That it's mere speculation and just an assertion. It's not something one can particularly hang their moral hat on.

 

 

Agreed!

[TheRobin]

First of all thanks everyone for the participiation and your thoughts on the topic. Before I try and go to answer more detailed (can't garantuee that I will do that today at all actually, sorry), I just had a thought that I wanted to share and see if someone can make something of it.I just thought, that there seems to be a fundamental difference between art and other consumption goods (like say, food or cars). Because what is actually being sold isn't really the art, but the ability of being exposed to the art (like seeing a painting and experience the visuals of it, is what people value. Or listening to the music and experience the sound of it). And exposure is really only limited by arbitrary technical means (like, not enough space for more people in the same concert, or not enough room for more than x people in front of a painting/movie).While with other goods, one is sold the exclusive right of usage or consumption, like being able to drive one's own car makes everyone else not being able to drive the same car at the same time or eating a sandwich makes it impossible for everyone else to eat the same sandwich.So while exposure can be enhanced almost with no limit, exclusive usage of a good can't, so the goods sold seem to be already fundamentally different from that point. Not sure how that would or wouldn't change the morals behind the principles though. Just a thought that I just had and wanted to share at this point.So selling exposure is already a lot more tricky than selling apples for instance. But there's also no inherent right to not have people look at you (or your stuff) either. And if one can sell exposure to his painting, why can't another one sell exposure to a copy of the same painting? And if the one with the copy can make the exposure more cost-effective, why wouldn't he get the business over the first man? Isn't that just the generally accepted free market method anyway?

[Libertus]

I'm not sure I follow your point.

My point is, I'm asking a question. What right is being violated?

I'm merely saying that the company is offering the content with the intent of a commercial relationship, no differently than a hot dog vendor would say "I wish you to pay if you'd like to consume this hot dog."

Yes, but 'acting against someone's wishes' is not a crime, nor is it immoral. There has to be a rights violation.

It's not the wishing that produces the right, but the ownership of the saleable good. I'm not sure 'right' is the correct word either.  I'm more trying to call this stealing.

If it were 'stealing' you could easily answer my question and point to the right that is being violated: the owner's property right. However, copying is not stealing, so if there is a rights violation, show me which one.

 

If it's not a rights violation, then it's not immoral. If it IS a rights violation, show me which one.

[Libertus]

I just thought, that there seems to be a fundamental difference between art and other consumption goods (like say, food or cars). Because what is actually being sold isn't really the art, but the ability of being exposed to the art (like seeing a painting and experience the visuals of it, is what people value. Or listening to the music and experience the sound of it). And exposure is really only limited by arbitrary technical means (like, not enough space for more people in the same concert, or not enough room for more than x people in front of a painting/movie).

TheRobin, I think the term you're looking for is 'rivalrous resource', or 'rivalrous good', which is a scarce good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers.
A car is a rivalrous resouce, because if you're using it, I can't use
it (well, we could car pool, but, side issue). The purpose of property
rights are to determine who gets to use a rivalrous good. A song / film / idea is not
such a thing, the fact that you're listening to it takes away nothing
from my experience of the same thing. Therefore, you don't have property rights in songs / films / ideas.

[ribuck]

I'm merely saying that the company is offering the content with the intent of a commercial relationship, no differently than a hot dog vendor would say "I wish you to pay if you'd like to consume this hot dog."

No. It's actually as if the hot dog vendor said "I wish you to pay me, if you make your own hot dog to the same recipe."

For sure, the hot dog company wishes to have me as a customer. As does the music creator. And so does the hairdresser, yet I don't feel that I've cheated them if I cut my own hair, even if it's to the same design that they would have used.

Today I drove into town, and I followed the same route that the cab drivers take. I'm sure the cab company wishes to have me as a customer and would prefer that I don't copy their route. But I don't feel bad about doing so.

Last year, I built a chair with four legs. I don't know who first decided to build a chair with four legs, but I'm sure that person would have liked to collect a payment every time someone else built a chair with four legs. But I don't feel bad that I built a four-legged chair.

...
but the ownership of the saleable good ... I'm more trying to call this stealing.

When it comes to digital music/movies, there's no a saleable good. The fine print, and the law, make it quite clear that you don't own music that you've "bought". For example, you're not even allowed to play "your" music (that you "bought") in a public park. And how could there be stealing, when the creator of the work still has their copy, undamaged. If I steal your bicycle, you have to take the bus. But if I just copy it, there's one for each of us.

Anyway, this discussion seems to have turned into "Is Intellectual Property legitimate?". The original poster started with an assumption that IP is not legitimate, then asked about a situation where someone else was breaking a contract by making digital goods available for copying.

[ribuck]

 

I'm merely saying that the company is offering the content with the intent of a commercial relationship, no differently than a hot dog vendor would say "I wish you to pay if you'd like to consume this hot dog."

No. It's actually as if the hot dog vendor said "I wish you to pay me, if you make your own hot dog to the same recipe."

For sure, the hot dog company wishes to have me as a customer. But I don't feel bad about making hot dogs at home.

And the hairdresser also wishes to have me as a customer, yet I don't feel that I've cheated them if I cut my own hair, even if it's to the same design that they would have used.

Today I drove into town, and I followed the same route that the cab drivers take. I'm sure the cab company wishes to have me as a customer and would prefer that I don't copy their route. But I don't feel bad about doing so.

Last year, I built a chair with four legs. I don't know who first decided to build a chair with four legs, but I'm sure that person would have liked to collect a payment every time someone else built a chair with four legs. But I don't feel bad that I built a four-legged chair.

...
but the ownership of the saleable good ... I'm more trying to call this stealing.

When it comes to digital music/movies, there is no saleable good. The fine print, and the law, make it quite clear that you don't own music that you've "bought". For example, you're not even allowed to play "your" music (that you "bought") in a public park. And how could there be stealing, when the creator of the work still has their copy, undamaged. If I steal your bicycle, you have to take the bus. But if I just copy it, there's one for each of us.

Anyway, this discussion seems to have turned into "Is Intellectual Property legitimate?". The original poster started with an assumption that IP is not legitimate, then asked about a situation where someone else was breaking a contract by making digital goods available for copying.