How is downloading not stealing?

[Amaris]

I'm interested in how people rationalize it.

It's quick, easy, and cheap with little risk of getting caught. That simple.

Exactly!

So since it's easy to steal because it's not physical media, that makes it okay?

I didn't say that.

You did:

Stuff that can be copied just is different, since it isn't tangible and the commodity mountain doesn't shrink as it's taken from. And as such, the items forming that mountain have no tangible value.

Because it has no physical media (and therefore no commodity value), it harms no one to take it.

The attitude the creator has to their creation should ideally be in terms of their effort. It's just artificial that in modern times it is toward the creation, even if that is infinite. But that's just how the world is at the present time.

The cumulative reward should be being appropriate for the singular effort, and then conditionally on whether the users find it beneficial.

I see you're using the word stealing a lot to stress your feelings.

I use the term steal because that's what it is. Stealing.
If it were borrowing, I'd say 'borrowing'. If it were browsing, I'd say 'browsing'. It is stealing, so I use the term 'stealing'.

Who the fuck cares?!

A CD shouldn't cost more than $10 for 12 songs. If CDs were cheaper no one would odwnlaod them, so it's time to finally lower the damn price down.

Are you kidding me? There are whole albums you can get from Amazon.com for $4, and yet downloading continues. iTunes frequently discounts bulk orders and whole albums. Yet downloading continues. There are people who will steal it because it's easy, harder to get caught than in a department store, and requires no actual effort to get what they want. I think Clintg nailed it in one.


J.

 

[J.T.B.]

Just something that I was thinking about, and I'm curious to see how people would respond to this question:

Why doesn't an architect get paid everytime somebody walks into his building? Just like a musician composing and then recording a CD, he's worked once but he's only been paid once rather then everytime somebody makes use of his building.

The CD buyer is comparable to the building owner, not the person entering the building. The architect is free to sell as many building designs as he/she can, just as the musician is free to sell as many CDs as possible. Obviously the two items are of much different scale.

If the building owner wants to charge people for entering the building, they're free to do so, it's their property, but that's beside the point.

--Justin

 

[Bishbot]

I don't have a big hard drive, and I don't usually burn things to disc, so I usually only have the current seasons of whatever show actually on my computer. The only show I have at the moment that I never intend to buy is "House" and I'm in the UK, so I get that for free on Channel 5. I never actually watch it on Channel 5 - but in theory I could - so I've got no problem with downloading it. Is that a bad thing?

(music is a thornier problem, but CDs are really overpriced, and I only download classic rock anyway, where everyone has made their money dozens of times over - I always buy new albums from bands I like, or bands that are still current)

 

[Canadave]

Wading into this thread for the first time, here. I'm a downloader, though like many of the people here I make an effort to buy things I really enjoy, and in the case of music, I buy tickets to concerts when artists I like are in town. So, in short, I do my best to support the things I like.

Now, my question is, is buying something second-hand stealing? I mean, the other day I picked up Star Trek: The Voyage Home and First Contact for $12 combined at a local second-hand store. That transaction occurred entirely between myself and the store, with none of the money going to the original creators of the movie. Now aside from the obvious fact that money did change hands at some point, how is this that different from downloading?

 

[DaleC76]

^^ A single hard copy will only pass through a few hands that way. An uploaded one will pass through thousands of hands. That's the biggest difference.

 

[Amaris]

Wading into this thread for the first time, here. I'm a downloader, though like many of the people here I make an effort to buy things I really enjoy, and in the case of music, I buy tickets to concerts when artists I like are in town. So, in short, I do my best to support the things I like.

Now, my question is, is buying something second-hand stealing? I mean, the other day I picked up Star Trek: The Voyage Home and First Contact for $12 combined at a local second-hand store. That transaction occurred entirely between myself and the store, with none of the money going to the original creators of the movie. Now aside from the obvious fact that money did change hands at some point, how is this that different from downloading?

It is stealing because you are taking someone's livelihood. The artist was originally compensated for that sale of the tape. It eventually wound up in a second hand store. You purchased the tape from the vendor who had purchased it initially from another seller. All along the chain people were compensated for the product in question. When you exchanged money for that tape, you completed that part of the chain and compensated the vendor. Now, if you were to take that tape home, copy it and then return the tape citing some kind of defect, you would be stealing, because you took the work without giving compensation for it.

Sweet mother of goodness, there's a bunch of straining to legitimize this whole thing. It's stealing. It's theft. You may have your own reasons and rationalizations, and yes there are some gray areas, but when it comes right down to it, when you take a product that is for sale without intending to pay for it, you're stealing.

J.

 

[Rob Grant]

The recent Wolverine leak has got me thinking about this more lately.

For all the people who download music and movies for free, how is this any different than walking into a store and stealing a CD or DVD? Outside how easy it is, it's exactly the same thing. I suspect most people who do this would look down on and frown upon actually shoplifting, so why is it okay otherwise? Because you're not hurting a retailer, only the major producer? Where's the logic in that?

I'm interested in how people rationalize it.

Not stopping anyone else from going out and buying it, if i went and stole a dvd from the shop.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLZpxVI7Pa8

Click this link.. its Adam Buxton's Piracy Song.. he is a Genius.. his basically says it all..

if you disagree with him and me.. you are wrong..


(can a mod please embed this video, i couldnt work out how to do it (if this board does not have video embedding please change it so it does as otherwise it sucks))

 

[TedShatner10]

J. Allen, how could downloading a television show or obscure movie which is unavailable for one reason or another be stealing? That is often the fault of companies short-sightedly allowing intellectual property to be taken to a counterproductive extreme. It is not helping anybody.

 

[Amaris]

J. Allen, how could downloading a television show or obscure movie which is unavailable for one reason or another be stealing? That is often the fault of companies short-sightedly allowing intellectual property to be taken to a counterproductive extreme. It is not helping anybody.

I do say that there are gray areas, and I mentioned that before.
I'm talking about the "I download it because I don't want to buy it" people or the "I download it because it's easier than paying for it" people. I consider that outright theft.


J.

 

[TedShatner10]

I do say that there are gray areas, and I mentioned that before.
I'm talking about the "I download it because I don't want to buy it" people or the "I download it because it's easier than paying for it" people. I consider that outright theft.

In that case I agree with you. I often go to the cinema and buy legitimate copies of products, but greedy copyright holders can often leave a huge vacuum to be exploited by the bootleggers and torrenters if they charge too much money for a music track on a TV show, so copyright holders self-fulfill their own prophecy in exacebating piracy. Intellectual property seems to be a double edged sword, you can't keep paying the plumber for everytime you flush the toilet for 95 years, that is completely bonkers.

 

[Amaris]

I do say that there are gray areas, and I mentioned that before.
I'm talking about the "I download it because I don't want to buy it" people or the "I download it because it's easier than paying for it" people. I consider that outright theft.

In that case I agree with you. I often go to the cinema and buy legitimate copies of products, but greedy copyright holders can often leave a huge vacuum to be exploited by the bootleggers and torrenters if they charge too much money for a music track on a TV show, so copyright holders self-fulfill their own prophecy in exacebating piracy. Intellectual property seems to be a double edged sword, you can't keep paying the plumber for everytime you flush the toilet for 95 years, that is completely bonkers.

I do agree the system needs overhauled. Recording companies tend to multi-quadruple triple dip as much as possible. That has to be stopped. To me it's a form of usury. On the other hand, we're seeing a change in the market as artists publish their own music on iTunes, Napster and so on. This results in them getting greater profit from the deal and directly benefiting. Of course, this won't stop a number of downloaders, as it's just way too easy to steal music instead of buying it, but for those who want a better, more efficient way (and I hope that's what most people want), this is it. This is how I plan to distribute my music when it's ready. I read up on becoming my own publisher, getting iTunes distribution and just letting people enjoy my music and make good money doing it.

I realize it probably sounds silly, but I am more flexible on issues where a company will regionalize movies so that USA and Canada gets the movie on DVD, but Europe's market sees nothing. There are ways to get around that, and they're considered gray area, but I've no problem with it. If you can get a non-region encoded Fawlty Towers in the U.S., more power to you, as long as you pay for it.

I also have no problem with sampling music before buying. 30 second samples hardly do a 4-7 minute song justice. One of the best samples I heard was "Common People" from William Shatner's "Has Been" album. The sample was 2 minutes long from a 4 minute song. Beautiful. I played the two minutes and had to have the song. In this case, it generated a sale. 30 seconds? I probably wouldn't have bought it (who am I kidding?!). So that needs revamped also.

I despise the copy protection protocols always put into place on DVDs and CDs. They don't work. Moreso, they make legitimate buyers like me angry because I can't exercise my fair use rights and make an archival copy of my DVD. When one law conflicts with another, I always opt for the one with more freedom. I.E., the fair use rights win out. Although the MPAA keeps winning court cases and I don't know why.

So believe me, I'm not getting on people who really want the media and are more than willing to pay for it, I'm upset with the people who just like to steal and try to justify it and rationalize it away.

J.

 

[Rii]

J. Allen, how could downloading a television show or obscure movie which is unavailable for one reason or another be stealing?

I do say that there are gray areas, and I mentioned that before.

Why is this a gray area? If you're equating copyright infringement with theft, how does the commercial availability of the product come into play? Many museums host unique or rare artifacts that are not commercially available, would the theft of such an artifact constitute a "gray area"?

 

[Amaris]

J. Allen, how could downloading a television show or obscure movie which is unavailable for one reason or another be stealing?

I do say that there are gray areas, and I mentioned that before.

Why is this a gray area? If you're equating copyright infringement with theft, how does the commercial availability of the product come into play? Many museums host unique or rare artifacts that are not commercially available, would the theft of such an artifact constitute a "gray area"?

I didn't equate copyright infringement with theft.


J.

 

[Rii]

I do say that there are gray areas, and I mentioned that before.

Why is this a gray area? If you're equating copyright infringement with theft, how does the commercial availability of the product come into play? Many museums host unique or rare artifacts that are not commercially available, would the theft of such an artifact constitute a "gray area"?

I didn't equate copyright infringement with theft.

J.

Okay...

Sweet mother of goodness, there's a bunch of straining to legitimize this whole thing. It's stealing. It's theft.

 

[TedShatner10]

Bad analogy, once a museam piece is stolen it cannot be replaced, downloading shows or movies still leaves a surplus (but it is clearly unethical if it harms legitimate sales and is leechning off profits that should've gone to the people who made them, including the lowly set crew).

However it is stupid and short-sighted for the music industry to not only often pass up on the promotion of their music, because they still think it is 1979 instead of 2009, but they also nobble the producers, writers and actors of "buried" TV shows, and ultimately innocent consumers (forcing their hand to get unavailable products somewhere else).

It is ironic that the less restrictive you are with intellectual property, the more legtimate control you have over it and the more you erode illegitimate piracy.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

It is ironic that the less restrictive you are with intellectual property, the more legtimate control you have over it and the more you erode illegitimate piracy.

Exactly, Crunchyroll starts streaming Naruto for free to all and sundry, completely legally on the day of broadcast in Japan, and all of a sudden, a big wodge of fansubbers have to find something else to do.

 

[Misfit Toy]

J. Allen, how could downloading a television show or obscure movie which is unavailable for one reason or another be stealing? That is often the fault of companies short-sightedly allowing intellectual property to be taken to a counterproductive extreme. It is not helping anybody.

True - it's not helping anyone, but that's not your call to make. A company that has the rights to a particular movie or TV show can do want they want with that item. If they want to withhold it from release, it's their call. A consumer doesn't have the legal right to download something just because they want to see it.

A lot of the justification that is being used seems to boil down to "Because I want to."

 

[OmahaStar]

Where did you get your information?

While I don't think it ever actually happened, it is true that there was a Sony music exec who wanted to sue people for ripping their own music collection, he said people should buy legal downloads of their entire collection again if they wanted them on your MP3 player. And had previously said that listening to music on the radio was theft if you never bought any music.

Maybe that's it. It was years ago and I didn't really care. I just remember music assholes sayign stupid things.

Weren't you also the one who claimed in Misc that 99.9% of all people had had a gay sexual experience? It does seem as though you might want to check your facts before posting them.

 

[Amaris]

Why is this a gray area? If you're equating copyright infringement with theft, how does the commercial availability of the product come into play? Many museums host unique or rare artifacts that are not commercially available, would the theft of such an artifact constitute a "gray area"?

I didn't equate copyright infringement with theft.

J.

Okay...

Sweet mother of goodness, there's a bunch of straining to legitimize this whole thing. It's stealing. It's theft.

And? To what was I referring?

J.

 

[doubleohfive]

I downloaded Wolverine and felt bad as the credits started to roll and I saw the names of all the people who worked on it so I am planning to buy a ticket the day it comes out whether I actually go into the theater or not, I'll throw them 12 bucks.

Did you buy X-Men: The Last Stand? Because if you did, you shouldn't feel bad. The credits on Wolverine were actually the credits from X3.