Explain how this is stealing

I try hard to avoid the topics here that get quickly devolve into the kind of behavior that have driven some away from this forum, I really hope this does not go there.
So, I was on a Mac forum the other day. A guy had purchased a used iPod and was asking how to get the music from the iPod onto his Mac. He was unable to do it because the music was associated with the apple ID of the previous owner of the iPod. Immediately the community was calling for his head on a platter because it was stealing and causing the fall of society as we know it.
His question, as well mine is simply, how is it stealing? He purchased the iPod. Then of course they called him names but never explained how him buying a used iPod with music on it is different than buying a book at a used book store, a CD at a garage sale, or the like.
The only thing I can think of is, when you buy a used CD, record, or book, that item represents an original recording of the media. That means the artist was paid for that copy of the book or album. An MP3 may or may not represent that. Seems like apple is assuming that the MP3 are copied files and not the originals that the artist was paid for.
Can anyone explain what I'm missing here?

This is one reason I refuse to use Itunes.

DRM is the spawn of the devil.

Has no one ever bought a record collection?

If it was up to the record companies you would have to pay every time you wanted to listen to a song.

iTunes is not like buying an CD, it is more of a personal juke box.
When you put your magic quarter (username & password) into the juke box, you can then choose from the songs you have loaded into it.

As for the allegations of stealing... So, you witnessed some outrage and over reaction on the internet. This may be the real news!

Let's get Taylor Swift to weigh in on this.

bentwrench wrote: This is one reason I refuse to use Itunes. DRM is the spawn of the devil. Has no one ever bought a record collection? If it was up to the record companies you would have to pay every time you wanted to listen to a song.

+1

It's "stealing" because dumb, crazy copyright laws say so. Sad that anyone but music studio lawyers agrees with them.

More "Theft of Services" than stealing.

I'm pretty sure that it falls into the "illegal but not immoral" file.

But by that logic it was illegal to make mix tapes back in the day or to sell/buy used cassettes and CDs at a yard sale.

So long as the person who has purchased the music isn't distributing it far and wide without paying royalties I see no problem with his action.

tuna55 wrote: I'm pretty sure that it falls into the "illegal but not immoral" file.

Seconded.

The income model for digital media is different from physical media. As stated earlier, you don't actually own rights to the media, you own rights to use the media. Same thing with buying an OS for a computer. The disk comes with a license that is good on usually 1 machine. You don't own the right to take that disk and install Windows on every desktop computer you come across. You buy the right to run Windows on a machine, using a disk provided. Or you're a business and pay a couple thousand for a special license that gives you unlimited installs on every machine on your network.

The big difference with digital music versus physical media is how easy it is to copy. Prior to the Napster days, if you bought a record, cassette, or even CD, you could take it from machine to machine. You could bring it over to a friend's house and loan it to them, and you could sell it if you got bored of it. But it was prohibitively difficult to copy that album. For every copy of an album purchased, there was only one out in the market. Digital music is stupid easy to copy. You can buy an mp3 and share it with 100 friends and still have your mp3. So, you get the DRM model to make it so that everyone who wants a song/album has to buy it themselves rather than 1 person buying it and giving it to 20 people. Sure, you can get around DRM and still share music, but now it's closer to the "making a mix tape" level of hassle.

914Driver wrote: More "Theft of Services" than stealing.

Pretty much this... you are not buying an MP3. You are licensing the right to listen to it and have a binary copy on your device. You cannot give or sell the binary because you do not own it according to the contract you signed when you clicked the little box at the end of that big, long EULA that presented right at the last second before charging your account $0.99.

It works the same way with all digital media... Kindle? You do not own a copy of 1984, or Fifty Shades of Ghey so you cannot sell them any more than you can sell your leased vehicle.

First of all, I'm not defending the record companies. In some ways, I think digital music has provided a much needed shakeup to the industry. With that, in this case, it could be viewed as stealing because the original owner of the iPod still owns the music. Explanation:

1) You buy a record/cassette/CD/book. You are free to sell that to anyone. When they take the media, you no longer have access to use it. (Unless you go through the effort of copying the music or photocopying the book). There is only "one" copy of it.
2) With iTunes, the "ownership" of that media is on the computer with iTunes. Putting it on an iPod makes a copy (which you are authorized to do) for you to use. When you sell that iPod and someone else gets the music off of it, there are now "two" copies of it. Just like above if you made a mix tape or photocopied the book, difference is, it's MUCH easier to do, so more likely to be done.

-Rob

In reply to DrBoost:

It's stealing because the iPod does NOT contain the digital rights to that music - the Apple ID of the previous owner does. Whether the music was bought online or in hard copy (assuming it was ripped from actual, physical, OEM CDs that the owner originally bought and paid for), the limited reproduction rights only extend to the original purchaser of the music.

When you buy a used CD or yard sale record collection, you also acquire the rights to the music because - THEORETICALLY - the original owner is selling you his ability to listen to that music. If I only have a CD player and I sell you my copy of Deep Purple's Machine Head, I can no longer listen to "Smoke On The Water" whenever I want to, because you have the CD. I sold you my rights to it, along with the physical media. There is no possibility of simultaneous use of that CD.

Digital piracy, of course, renders this theoretical example entirely meaningless. I can buy the complete Deep Purple catalog on CD, rip them to my computer, and sell the CDs to you - lather, rinse, repeat. We can all hear about Frank Zappa and the Mothers being in the best place in town at the same time, without any additional royalties going to the band (and the record company, but that's a whole different can of worms) for each COPY that is made and therefore not purchased legally. THAT is theft.

DRM is clunky at best, but creator rights and copyright are real things. Once the iPod is question leaves the original purchaser's hands, each and every song on it becomes a bootleg. That's why it's theft.

but the answer to the orinigal question of getting the music off the Ipod used to be Senuti. Not sure how new Ipod software and itunes and other stuff has changed the game, but it allowed me, many years ago, to get music from an ipod to my computer.

It's Civil Disobedience. The law in this case is an ass, an idiot.

Xceler8x wrote: It's Civil Disobedience. The law in this case is an ass, an idiot.

Not that either of us is going to change the other's mind, but WHY? The law protects ownership of intellectual property rights. AS IT SHOULD. Now, we can go on for days about how the recording industry treats creators, and that's the real story here. But the law is just doing its job by protecting the rights of ownership of the entity that (for better or worse) owns the reproduction rights to a given song.

Have you ever read the original first post of the hotlink thread? Is this thread just an attempt to get everyone to post their mp3 collections in protest?

When he bought the used iPod, shouldn't that include the access codes? Or did he just buy the hardware. Sounds like he just bought used hardware.

Duke wrote: I can buy the complete Deep Purple catalog on CD, rip them to my computer, and sell the CDs to you - lather, rinse, repeat.

I am pretty sure the ENTIRE used cd market revolves around this practice. How could it not? And of course none of the money from the used sale gets kicked back to the artists.

I sort of feel bad about that....but not bad enough to stop buying used cd's. You're pretty much forced to shop online for music anymore anyways, why am I going to buy this digital album (which as others pointed out, you dont really "own") for $12 when I can have a used CD shipped to me for $3.50 all in? I can have a pretty solid music shopping spree on Amazon for $40.

I never re-sell them, that seems like a hassle. And kind of a dick move.

Datsun1500 wrote: Just to go off topic a little. I've sold may leased cars. Why do people think you're not allowed to sell them?

Can you make a copy of the car to keep and then sell the original? Nope.

This is why I have no digital music. Cd's, tapes and vinyl for me. But I haven't bought any new music since the nineties so...

failboat wrote:

Duke wrote: I can buy the complete Deep Purple catalog on CD, rip them to my computer, and sell the CDs to you - lather, rinse, repeat.

I am pretty sure the ENTIRE used cd market revolves around this practice. How could it not?

That absolutely does not make it right.

failboat wrote: And of course none of the money from the used sale gets kicked back to the artists.

Well, as I said, and you noted in your response to Datsun1500, in theory, you are selling your ability (and rights, but that's immaterial compared to the physical ability) to play the music you are selling. Just like selling a used car - the manufacturer doesn't get a cut, but you also don't get to drive it any more. That's not the problem - it's that you can make a free (and just as usable) copy to keep, and still sell the music, that is the problem.

In reply to Duke:

Im not saying ripping CD's and selling them is right. Its definitely piracy. I dont KNOW that is what other people are doing, but its so darn easy you'd have to be delusional to think that it isn't happening when you buy a used CD.

Does that mean I am backhandedly supporting piracy by buying a used CD? I guess I truly dont know for sure. Maybe. Maybe not. All that I do know is that I am ripping the cds for personal use and then not selling them. I guess that might make me only half of an shiny happy person. haha.

KyAllroad wrote: But by that logic it was illegal to make mix tapes back in the day or to sell/buy used cassettes and CDs at a yard sale. So long as the person who has purchased the music isn't distributing it far and wide without paying royalties I see no problem with his action.

Back in the day, there was quite a bru ha about radios playing songs and people listening to them and even making recordings from those radio plays. Ultimately it was settled and as long as you're making mixed tapes for your own use, you're fine. Start selling those mixed tapes you make and you're illegal. Giving away those mixed takes is also illegal as I recall (been a while).

To the OP's question about an ipod. The original owner still has (presumably) an apple account and can go and re-download those songs. That's what makes it illegal. There is a replication and distribution of the songs without royalty payment.

If the original owner of the ipod in some fashion relinquished ownership and access to that music, such as turning over his apple account to the new owner of the ipod, that likely would be legal. I don't see that happening.

Not much different than burning copies of CDs to keep and selling the originals.

I understand it now. It's a slippery slope for sure. Up 'till now, the only argument from the 'it's wrong side' was that the person doing it is the devil. No explanation as to why.

What does Metallica say about this?

Duke wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: It's Civil Disobedience. The law in this case is an ass, an idiot.

Not that either of us is going to change the other's mind, but WHY? The law protects ownership of intellectual property rights. AS IT SHOULD. Now, we can go on for days about how the recording industry treats creators, and that's the *real* story here. But the law is just doing its job by protecting the rights of ownership of the entity that (for better or worse) owns the reproduction rights to a given song.

Because it is silly that something should be charged for basically on the concept of "thought". Its the epitome of the "thought police" ie: I already thought of that, you can't have it!

Also, it isn't stealing if the individual hasn't lost something. In the case of digital media, I wouldn't have paid for the media I have "stolen" if I could only get it via paying.

Additionally, the value of media is severely OVER-valued. The beauty of the digital age and the internet revolution is that it has allowed people to produce art for the sake of producing ART. I don't mind paying somebody for their hard work if I like it, but if I don't really care for it, I'm certainly not going to pay them for it.

I see no moral ambiguity in my thought processes. If something can be reproduced with zero cost, it has zero inherent value.