Illegal downloads

[JarodRussell]

I am curious. I had a discussion with a friend about downloading stuff (films, music, books, you name it) when the original copy is no longer in production and has sold out.

I said it's illegal. He thinks it isn't and argued "Where is the financial damage if it's sold out anyway?" and that indeed got me thinking.

Anybody know the facts?

 

[cultcross]

You were correct, it is certainly as illegal as if it were available.
The best example would probably be Disney - their ridiculous policy of limiting which of their films are available to purchase to drag out their commercial usefulness. Just because something isn't out to purchase at the moment doesn't make it free for all for illegal downloading.
Basically, availability to purchase doesn't affect copyright - one of the rights of a copyright holder is not to sell the work. The only way distribution in the manner of an "illegal download" would be legal is if the copyright had expired or the right to copy in that manner had been ceded to the public by the holder.

 

[Jadzia]

I think it's illegal too. It is still somebody's intellectual property regardless of whether it is obsolete or not.

That's not to say I agree with those laws. I think that after 20-30 years -- approximately one generation -- things develop historical value, and in that sense I think they should belong to everybody, as a legacy of human achievement past.

I'd support changing the laws to something like this:

books ~ 50 years
film/television ~ 30 years
music ~ 25 years
software ~ 20 years

 

[Amaris]

The same thought processes exist in the concept of Abandonware. The idea being that since the software is 5-10+ years old, is no longer being published, has no support and the company is either defunct or consolidated, then the software should be made available freely to all. Now, on a certain level, I agree with that idea, but it's still illegal.

As for movies, music, books, etc., I like the idea of trying before you buy, but taking works without purchase or intent to purchase is stealing, according to the law.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Can 'fair use' be applied to downloads. It is quite legal to copy one chapter or 10% of a book if it isn't easily available. Could 'fair use' laws allow you to download one song from an album?

 

[MANT!]

How about taking those old programs and (with permission of the copyright holders) updating them to run on modern machines and redistributing them by legal download..at much reduced prices..

http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/


Kind of the best of both worlds...

 

[Canadave]

^ I was going to bring up the Abandonware example as well. Though with the rise of services like GOG.com, and older games being available on Steam and Impulse, it has lost some weight in recent years.

EDIT: This was in reply to J, and goldbug beat me to the example of GOG.

And while yes, it is illegal, I definitely have no problem with it in the case where it's not available anywhere else. How else can you get a hold of it, barring getting lucky with a used copy?

 

[cultcross]

I definitely have no problem with it in the case where it's not available anywhere else. How else can you get a hold of it, barring getting lucky with a used copy?

Well, as I said, the owner of copyright has the right to make a work not available. If you've created an intellectual property, you have as much right to make it unavailable as you do to sell it. Just because it doesn't exist in a licenced form doesn't make it OK to rip it off. If you can't get it, that's too bad, but that's the reality of copyright.

 

[Misfit Toy]

I had an interesting experience - a friend gave me several comics digitized onto a cd. Is the value of a comic book restricted to the printed form? I mean - the collectibility is in having the physical comic, as a back issue, etc.

Does that impact the 'morality' of downloading digitized comics?

 

[Marc]

I think it's illegal too. It is still somebody's intellectual property regardless of whether it is obsolete or not.

That's not to say I agree with those laws. I think that after 20-30 years -- approximately one generation -- things develop historical value, and in that sense I think they should belong to everybody, as a legacy of human achievement past.

I'd support changing the laws to something like this:

books ~ 50 years
film/television ~ 30 years
music ~ 25 years
software ~ 20 years

And the limits used to be along those lines until along comes Disney and their tame congress critter Sonny Bono. The last major piece of legislation he introduced before his death was a major extension for copyright.

Disney wanted this as their copyright on Mickey Mouse was nearing it's expiration at the time the bill was introduced.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I had an interesting experience - a friend gave me several comics digitized onto a cd. Is the value of a comic book restricted to the printed form? I mean - the collectibility is in having the physical comic, as a back issue, etc.

Does that impact the 'morality' of downloading digitized comics?

It might affect the morality, it doesn't affect the legality as far as I know. Now if he didn't retain any copy himself, that would be OK.

The morality isn't really all that different than making photocopies and giving them to someone else. The photocopies are nowhere as good as the originals, but they aren't technically legal.

 

[bigdaddy]

Copyright laws are so fucked up I don't care if it's legal or not.

If I can't buy something because they no longer print it then fuck them, I will find other ways to get it.

 

[Marie1]

I had an interesting experience - a friend gave me several comics digitized onto a cd. Is the value of a comic book restricted to the printed form? I mean - the collectibility is in having the physical comic, as a back issue, etc.

Does that impact the 'morality' of downloading digitized comics?

No, it's not limited to paper- as proved I'd think by the case of HTMLcomics.com or whatever it was called. The art, the story/words, the characters are all copy protected, the fact they're on paper has nothing to do with it.

Distributing that stuff seems to open you up to the authorities seizing your computers and hauling you off to court.

Which as someone who occasionally works in TV, film and comics... I'm not that sympathetic, as whoever is DL'ing whatever means I don't get my cut. Though I do agree that movies and comics are usually too expensive, and TV shows now have ads during the show! (WTH??) Overcharging the people who pay for the stuff isn't affecting the people who get the stuff for free. It just makes us angry.

Also- Marvel and IDW I know release digital versions of comics for cheaper than paper ones.

(Also, the new Disney DVDs I buy hardly ever work... they're crappy and the quality is bad, and that's enraging, because even on sale, those are over-priced!!)

 

[Joshua Howard]

I'm neither condoning or condemning anyone's decision regarding a topic like this, but I would make the motion that the market as a whole (as opposed to declared law alone) defines what is legal and not legal. In other words, if you can get away with it, it is legal inasmuch as you succeed unstopped.

If 99% of the population does something which is declared illegal by an obscure 1%, then one might rationally contest the legality of the law, as the law creators are in such a case likely unable to enforce their ordinance.

Is it illegal to download an old movie or game that you can't buy? Perhaps it is if you check the letter of the law; but is it really? If the chance of you getting in trouble for doing it is less than ten thousand or even a hundred thousand to one, can the ordinance in question truly be treated with full weight as a legal instrument?

The real question here is whether a law can exist and be defined as a law if there is no credible penalty associated with breaking it. Laws are defined as a system of power... so on that thought, if a law has no power, then it must not be a law.

When you're sitting in jail or paying a huge fine, you'll know that what you did was illegal.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ The ability to get away with something does not impact its legality or morality. People steal every day and get away with it, both by downloading Copyrighted material and by grabbing stuff and walking out of the store (or using other fraudulent means like counterfeiting). If you don't own something, you can't take it without the permission of the owner. Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

That's not to say I agree with those laws. I think that after 20-30 years -- approximately one generation -- things develop historical value, and in that sense I think they should belong to everybody, as a legacy of human achievement past.

I see. So if I build a house I can keep it as long as I live and leave it to my descendants in perpetuity; but if I write a novel then it belongs to the collective.

I had an interesting experience - a friend gave me several comics digitized onto a cd. Is the value of a comic book restricted to the printed form? I mean - the collectibility is in having the physical comic, as a back issue, etc.

Does that impact the 'morality' of downloading digitized comics?

No. The Copyright applies to the creative content-- the intellectual property-- not the physical object. Collectability has nothing to do with Copyright.

 

[Pingfah]

Can 'fair use' be applied to downloads. It is quite legal to copy one chapter or 10% of a book if it isn't easily available. Could 'fair use' laws allow you to download one song from an album?

Where did you read that? It is my understanding that "fair use" applies to what you are going to use a copyrighted work for, not how much of it you copy.

So to copy a chapter of a book (or even a whole book) for educational or critical purposes might be OK, but copying it for your own entertainment would not be.

The question in the OP reminds me of a conversation I had a while back where someone asserted that it would be legal to download a TV rip of a concert as long as it had never been officially released on DVD, which is completely wrong. In that case copyright would probably be held both by the TV station over its original broadcast, and the publishers of the music over the content too.

 

[Miss Chicken]

Can 'fair use' be applied to downloads. It is quite legal to copy one chapter or 10% of a book if it isn't easily available. Could 'fair use' laws allow you to download one song from an album?

Where did you read that? It is my understanding that "fair use" applies to what you are going to use a copyrighted work for, not how much of it you copy.

So to copy a chapter of a book (or even a whole book) for educational or critical purposes might be OK, but copying it for your own entertainment would not be.

Maybe I should have explained what I meant further.

When I was studying for my Diploma of Library and Information Services I actually did an assignment on Australian Copyright Law so I know for certain that 10% of a book, or one chapter of a book can be copied if it is being used for the purpose of research or study. However I believe that that research or study can be personal study (i.e. it doesn't have to be formal study) and if one is allowed to copy 10% of a book for "personal study" does this mean one is allowed to download 10% of music album for "personal study" purposes?

The relevant section of the Australian Copyright Law is here.

In Australia you certainly are not allowed to copy a whole book for study purposes.

Edited to add - it would seem that the law only covers formal study which sorts of goes against what we told clients at libraries that I worked in. We told clients they were allowed to copy 10% or one chapter of a book.

 

[Pingfah]

^ OK, but a song is a complete piece of work. You don't have copyright over an album, you have copyright over each piece of music contained therein, and often different people have different rights over each song as often different publishing companies have the rights to different songs on an album, depending on who exactly contributed to writing the song. So you might be able to copy 10% of a song for study reasons, but not 10% of an album in the form of one song.

 

[Miss Chicken]

OK, that makes sense.

Because I only studied copyright law as it applied to libraries, and as libraries don't generally copy music for clients I really hadn't given the copyright of music much thought.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

The owner of the content you illegally downloaded a copy of still has the content and the copyright to the content though. The car's gone. Not the same thing.