Assuming, just for the sake of a theoretical discussion, that you download an album you would otherwise never, ever have considered shelling out even a few pence for and you don't pass it on to other people, where, please, is the damage to the industry?
The artist, studio, etc etc and all the people who worked to make that album don't get PAID for the work they did to create while you still get to reap the benefits of their WORK to create it. You are deriving GAIN from their WORK without paying for it. That is theft, plain pure and simple.
You’ve actually made me realize wherein the real difference between illegal downloading and stealing a CD lies. I could never quite pinpoint it, but it’s right there.
Theft requires there to be a GAIN and a LOSS. Here’s the different possibilities to look at:
- Stealing a CD: You GAIN a CD whereas the store owner LOSES part of his stock and his profits.
- Illegally downloading and never intending to buy any of it (even the stuff you like and would have purchase otherwise): You GAIN copyrighted materials, the creator LOSES revenue from you.
- Illegally downloading and purchasing everything later on: You GAIN copyrighted material, the creator GAINS revenue from you.
- Illegally downloading and purchasing only what you really like (hence none of the stuff you wouldn’t have bought anyway): You GAIN copyrighted material, the creators GAIN revenue from you on the stuff you really like. They suffer NO LOSS on what you would not have bought anyway.
So the distinction really isn’t that simple. And understanding that (or failing to) is one of the reasons the music industry, for example, is having such problems at the moment.
Here’s another point (based on something another poster pointed out) that illustrates why you’re definition is problematic at best:
If somebody gets the loan of a book from a friend, he GAINS a story (even if only for a brief time and later on stored in his memory) that he never paid for. By your definition, this would also be loss of compensation for the creators’ work (since only your friend compensated them, you didn’t) and hence theft.
Feel free to follow that route, but I promise it won’t help one bit.
HOWEVER, there are a few additional things I need to point out. For one, IMHO there is a huge difference between illegally downloading something for yourself or actually distributing contents that is not your own.
No, there is not. Doesn't matter whether you are stealing for yourself or for others, it is still theft.
You said it yourself: It’s about GAIN and LOSS. Somebody who distributes illegally clearly creates a LOSS for the creators of the copyrighted material. Plus he’s operating on a large scale and driving demand.
As I’ve pointed out above, somebody who downloads illegally can still be somebody who actually provides the industry with GAINS.
Here, again, is another good example of why the industry is in a fix. Even in drug dealing, you treat the consumer of drugs (which are illegal) in a different way than you treat the dealer. And rightly so IMHO.
I'm appalled at some of the drastic penalty inflicted upon illegal downloaders by the music industry in particular. I'm even more appalled by the fact that some courts have been willing to go along with this.
Punishment always has to be measured by how severe the offence was. And, I'm sorry, but downloading a few songs illegally does not warrant punishments in the thousands of Dollars or Euros or even imprisonment (though I don't know if the latter has ever happened yet).
I'm not. You steal, you pay the price. Simple as that.
But those people don’t pay the price – they pay way, way more. The industry is using different standards to punish people. What we’re talking about, essentially, is that the guy who steals the CD actually ends up being better off since he’s judged based on the value of the CD he stole.
Oddly, if somebody downloads a CD for private use, they don’t simply say, well, that’s one CD we lost so we have to punish them as though they nicked ONE CD. They’re treated as though they’ve caused much larger damage which they simply haven’t.
That’s shameful and wrong, no matter what way you look at it.
It's also very interesting to see how the film industry, for example, is now placing such a premium on the fact that you're not actually, well, not really, anyway, obtaining a DVD that is yours but rather a license that lets you view their film under certain conditions.
Well, if it's a license, why can't I go to the cinema where I pay for the license and showing and then legally download the film since I've paid for the license? Or get the DVD at a cheaper rate, paying only for materials and shipping?
Because you are paying that theater and the film company for THAT viewing only.
You need to distinguish between the film theater and the film company. The film theater needs to pay for the costs involved in showing the film.
The whole idea of purchasing a ‘license’ is not one that I came up with but the studios themselves. They like it because, if you argue it their way, it means lots more profits.
The other way around would be more beneficial to the consumer and would also be more in line with actually rewarding the creators for the work they’ve done rather than re-warding the copy & paste process.
If I pay to see a movie at a theater, haven’t I paid the creators of the film for their work? If I haven’t, then why was I allowed to see the movie in the first place? If I have, then why do I have to pay for the same work just because it’s on DVD (excepting the production costs for the DVD, of course)? Forgetting about extras, they didn’t have to any additional work to create it, now did they?
But the model I’m suggesting isn’t really that far fetched at all. As I mentioned, I do believe such schemes already where you pay to see the movie at the theater and get a better deal on the DVD. That’s fair, isn’t it?
And there’s another point I’ve wanted to make (but had forgotten). CDs, as we’ve come to know them, will run on CD players, computers and car hifi systems.
If a label slaps on a copy protection that prevents the CD from running on the computer and the hifi system (as I’m sure you’re aware of has happened) isn’t that theft on some level? They take the same money from you for a product that does less even though it should offer the same performance.
It's THEIR work and NOT YOURS. They are allowed to control it. Again, if you want to give your rights and work away for free, feel free to do so and no one will stop you.
I have to ask: Do you work in the film or music industry? You seem incredibly adamant about it.
And, yes, they should be able to control it. But I think you just can’t ignore two things:
- The consumer has rights as well (which neither the movie nor the music industry mind bashing)
- If you’re going to go out there with your material, you better be prepared for the world as it is. You can always wish for a better place and try to force it into place. But the people who succeed are those who manage to work with the world as it is.
All of which is an excuse to rationalize theft. Pure and simple. The lamest of defenses is the "but everyone else is doing it" defense. Just becuase someone else is a thief doent' give you license to be a thief. Guess the lesson of not giving in to peer presure idn't stick with you.
No, you’re missing the point I was making. We, as a society, define what is wrong or right.
Now, you can try to bend the people to make them fit the law. But that really misses the point of what laws or for, does it not? Aren’t the laws in some form there to represent the views and values of the country and the people they represent?
It’s the reason we, in the EU, don’t have a death penalty, for example. Too many of us believe it’s the wrong thing to do, and the law reflects this.
I don’t have any figures on illegal copying or downloading, but I believe it’s huge. And it’s being done by people who, otherwise, would never, ever be considered even remotely criminal.
Naturally, you can criminalize an entire nation or people if you like, but, honestly, it’s not going to get you anywhere.
What is right or wrong is determined, in the end, by the people – if it’s a democracy. We set the standards by which we live by.
You can work with the way the people are and try to find the best solutions. Or you can try to fight them with all you’ve got. Your pick. But be aware that you may end up on the losing side of the battle.
Oh, and then there's nonsense like region coding, DRM, rootkits, and what not. The problem is that, on many levels, you often get the better product if you go with the illegal version.
Another way to rationalize theft. Don't like your choices at the Sony store in Boston well steal from the Sony store in London instead. That's no excuse to steal.
It’s about the market. People tend to look for the best offer on the market. That’s another one of the many, many reasons the music and film industries are having such problems.
I buy the stuff I’m interested in because I want to support it. Sadly, I’ve not always been rewarded by doing that, but I do it anyway.
A lot of people don’t. And I’m really interested in looking at what a solution to that problem might be.
I certainly don’t think criminalization is. The scale of what’s going on ( as I indicated above) is just too large, really.
And, Othello, I truly believe your rigid, unforgiving and indiscriminate point of view is also hurtful to the cause you want to support. All it achieves is that it alienates a large percentage of people just the way the music and film industry tends to.
Laws will change, I don’t think people as a whole really do. Learn to work with what’s there, and you will be successful on the market place.
