"Unobtainable" Intellectual Property and Ethics

[Friend of Pandora]

Hopefully this will work as a poll...

The hypothetical situation is this:

You wish to read a book/listen to music/view artwork/watch a movie that is copyrighted, but which is not available for sale. This could be because it is no longer in print, or because the creator refuses to sell his/her work to the public.

For purposes of this debate, the intellectual property is not simply a "limited edition", where the intent was to limit the volume to drive the price up and/or make it more "exclusive".

In a situation like this, is it okay to receive the intellectual property without paying for it (e.g. download it, or copy it from someone else)?

[ViperWingLeader]

No.... I don;t make my painted models available to you. They are mine. I don;t make my dog available to you, he is mine. Just because I have something you want, and I don;t want to sell it, doesn't make it right for you to steal it.

[DietCokehead]

Short answer, Nope.

Will that stop someone if it is accessible and they want it? Certainly not.

[OMEGA]

I say yes because if the person wanted to make money they would have it for sale unless they didn't know it wasn't being sold then that's something different. I Say Yes!

[Human No More]

Yes, particularly in the case of abandonware (old software, often games, that have been officially abandoned by their developer and are completely freely available), but I also think that if something isn't available to buy, then the people who own it aren't losing out. If they come to their senses and rerelease it, then buy all means you should subsequently buy it though.

[Friend of Pandora]

Interesting responses, guys, and thanks for taking the time to do so!

I must confess, I based this question on a couple of real situations, and it's particularly interesting to read your justifications for why it is or is not okay in your opinions.

Thanks for sharing!

ViperWingLeader - I totally understand your point. Let me give you a real-world example though:

There's a CD you'd like to buy. It's long since out of print. Amazon, local stores, no one has it. It was created in the early 80's and has been out of print for at least twenty years. It appears there is absolutely no way to purchase it. But the music has been ripped and can be downloaded. It's not quite the same as taking your dog - so is it still not okay in your mind to download the music in this example?

[Scott]

Hopefully this will work as a poll...

The hypothetical situation is this:

You wish to read a book/listen to music/view artwork/watch a movie that is copyrighted, but which is not available for sale. This could be because it is no longer in print, or because the creator refuses to sell his/her work to the public.

For purposes of this debate, the intellectual property is not simply a "limited edition", where the intent was to limit the volume to drive the price up and/or make it more "exclusive".

In a situation like this, is it okay to receive the intellectual property without paying for it (e.g. download it, or copy it from someone else)?

I guess it boils down to what type of property this is. I voted no due to the fact that if there is a reason someone dose not want his work circulated we should respect his privacy.

That said, if this piece of work has life saving potential, let's say its the poster we see in nearly every restaurant-if you know what I am hinting at you know it can save lives-if that got pulled due to copyright protection I think it would be in the public's best interest to get it illegally.

[Woodsprite]

An excellent example would be David Arnold, the film composer. He composed such movies as the newer James Bond films, Independence Day, and the upcoming Narnia film "Voyage of the Dawn Treader."

Composers rarely own their own music. The producers do, however. There were many bad reviews for the regular "Independence Day" soundtrack, and many fans were completely disappointed in the lack of so many wonderful cues. A 2-disc bootleg was created in 2000, however, and you can download it most anywhere. It included almost the entire score and fans were appeased everywhere. Most of the music on the 2-disc bootleg is uncopyrighted, and comes directly from the studio, thus retaining wonderful quality sound and sounding like it was released this way.

Bootlegs of music from studios usually originate from people who have access who steal the music, make copies, and give the copies to their friends. David Arnold, who was close to his family, stole his own music for his "Independence Day" from the cutting room and gave copies to his family and friends. He was the actual composer, and he stole the music just because he wanted them to have what the public didn't. He also had no control over what was put on and left off the score CD. Since the unreleased material was never copyrighted, he could never make profit from it. I own this bootleg that originated from the composer himself, and I'm not ashamed because all cases of uncopyrighted material being bootlegged gets looked over. It's never reported because it's of no avail to the producers.

I also have bootlegs for soundtracks that include tons of unreleased music (most of them being two discs-long and including the entire score), such as "Lady in the Water" (James Newton Howard), "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" (James Horner), "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, 'The Recording Sessions" (Harry Gregson-Williams), "The Mummy Returns" (Alan Silvestri), and many many more. Some of them are promotional soundtracks that cannot be sold for profit, and can only be used for promotion only, so they technically aren't illegal to download either.

I voted "Yes," and rightly so. It isn't wrong.

[Theorist]

other: It depends on what the copy righted material is. If things can be copy righted, it encourages a smart person to work on them, and quickly so they don't pay for the copy right forever. No copyrighting encourages group work, but group work can be hard to come by.

But stealing it? that is totally circumstantial.

[ikranflyer]

I really dont know.
I mean if youre an author, and you write a book, why wouldnt you want it to be sold to the public? I guess thats where it confuses me.
For me, I feel like its one of those gray areas where I have no clear answer.

[Friend of Pandora]

I really dont know.
I mean if youre an author, and you write a book, why wouldnt you want it to be sold to the public? I guess thats where it confuses me.
For me, I feel like its one of those gray areas where I have no clear answer.

Here's another example that may help to explain that situation. There are two music companies that produce music used by Hollywood in the trailers for upcoming movies. They are audiomachine and X-Ray Dog. They do not sell their music to the public - it's only available (I assume) to film studios and the like.

I would love to buy their music, but they will not sell it to me. Is it wrong to then download it, as I am not depriving them of revenue?

[Arthur]

> Other: It only depends on the author...
> If the author copyrights his work denying public viewing, then it's his choice. It might be an intelectual property, but as the name suggests, it's a property.
> If the author copyrights it under "No to be resold, publicly casted, etc etc", then you can make a copy.
> Just because one thinks that what one has should be shared, our society is based on the concept of property, which gives their owners to decide what they want to do with it...

[Friend of Pandora]

> Other: It only depends on the author...
> If the author copyrights his work denying public viewing, then it's his choice. It might be an intelectual property, but as the name suggests, it's a property.
> If the author copyrights it under "No to be resold, publicly casted, etc etc", then you can make a copy.
> Just because one thinks that what one has should be shared, our society is based on the concept of property, which gives their owners to decide what they want to do with it...

Thank you, Arthur - a very reasonable explanation.

[tsteu tsamsiyu]

It depends on some things. If it is a picture for example which is in Internet many many times then there is no prob t odl it but if it is a Movie for example then you should not dl it illegaly

[Friend of Pandora]

It depends on some things. If it is a picture for example which is in Internet many many times then there is no prob t odl it but if it is a Movie for example then you should not dl it illegaly

I am curious why a picture is okay and a movie is not? If the movie is also available on the Internet (just as the picture), why is it not permissible to download in your view?