How is downloading not stealing?

[Rii]

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.

The entire field of activities forming the subject of this thread, as evidenced by "this whole thing" and your subsequent delineation of certain factors serving to complicate a broader classification of such activities as "theft".

 

[Amaris]

Okay...

And? To what was I referring?

J.

The entire field of activities forming the subject of this thread, as evidenced by "this whole thing" and your subsequent delineation of certain factors serving to complicate a broader classification of such activities as "theft".

Point out where I said copyright infringement and equated it with theft.

What I did talk about was fair use, and how the market needs to change.
What I did talk about was the fact that downloading a product meant for purchase, without intending to pay, is stealing. You're barking up the wrong tree.

J.

 

[Rii]

And? To what was I referring?

J.

The entire field of activities forming the subject of this thread, as evidenced by "this whole thing" and your subsequent delineation of certain factors serving to complicate a broader classification of such activities as "theft".

Point out where I said copyright infringement and equated it with theft.

What I did talk about was fair use, and how the market needs to change.
What I did talk about was the fact that downloading a product meant for purchase, without intending to pay, is stealing. You're barking up the wrong tree.

J.

That is copyright infringement.

 

[Amaris]

The entire field of activities forming the subject of this thread, as evidenced by "this whole thing" and your subsequent delineation of certain factors serving to complicate a broader classification of such activities as "theft".

Point out where I said copyright infringement and equated it with theft.

What I did talk about was fair use, and how the market needs to change.
What I did talk about was the fact that downloading a product meant for purchase, without intending to pay, is stealing. You're barking up the wrong tree.

J.

That is copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is a blanket term. You're trying to define it enough to snare me as a hypocrite. Good luck with that. I made my points clear in this thread and I stand by them. If you want to pretend I meant something else, go ahead.

J.

 

[Rii]

I made my points clear in this thread and I stand by them.

Ok, we can skip the rest of the foreplay.

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.

This is inaccurate. Theft is a specific, defined, criminal offence, requiring (amongst other things) the owner to be deprived of their property. Downloading an album, for any reason, doesn't qualify. Its use in this context works as a colloquialism, but not when one is explicitly asserting, as several folks in this thread have done, a literal interpretation of the term.

 

[Amaris]

This is inaccurate. Theft is a specific, defined, criminal offence, requiring (amongst other things) the owner to be deprived of their property. Downloading an album, for any reason, doesn't qualify. Its use in this context works as a colloquialism, but not when one is explicitly asserting, as several folks in this thread have done, a literal interpretation of the term.

*sigh*

We've now officially ran around in a circle.

Look. Many people in this thread have convinced themselves that they're not stealing. There's nothing I can do to dissuade them from that. It is firmly ensconced in their heads that what they're doing is perfectly acceptable. Hell, some of them are proud of it. I guess all I can do is let you folks download those files in peace. So to those of you who happily download because it's easier and you don't feel like paying for something that's available for purchase, you have convinced yourselves it's not stealing, and so be my guest, take as many movies, software titles and music albums as you want, but if you get caught doing it, don't expect pity or compassion. I'll want them to throw the book at you as hard as they can.


J.

 

[Rii]

This is inaccurate. Theft is a specific, defined, criminal offence, requiring (amongst other things) the owner to be deprived of their property. Downloading an album, for any reason, doesn't qualify. Its use in this context works as a colloquialism, but not when one is explicitly asserting, as several folks in this thread have done, a literal interpretation of the term.

*sigh*

We've now officially ran around in a circle.

It's the safest way to travel.

Look. Many people in this thread have convinced themselves that they're not stealing. There's nothing I can do to dissuade them from that. It is firmly ensconced in their heads that what they're doing is perfectly acceptable.

One doesn't follow from the other. Objecting to the classification of copyright infringement as theft doesn't suggest that one believes the practice is legally or morally defensible, merely that it isn't theft. Would you describe a man who had raped a woman as a murderer or a rapist?

I'll want them to throw the book at you as hard as they can.

Do you realise how much that thing weighs? Dollhouse isn't worth that.

 

[Amaris]

It's the safest way to travel.

Believe me, we're as safe as it gets.

One doesn't follow from the other. Objecting to the classification of copyright infringement as theft doesn't suggest that one believes the practice is legally or morally defensible, merely that it isn't theft. Would you describe a man who had raped a woman as a murderer or a rapist?

A rapist. What do you call someone who steals a CD from a store shelf? A thief or a borrower? To whit, what do you call someone who steals that same CD, but does it by downloading the contents to their hard drive? A thief or a borrower?

Do you realise how much that thing weighs? Dollhouse isn't worth that.

See? Now Dollhouse would be a different story. It is played over the airwaves and available for viewing via Hulu. There's some leeway there, as it is difficult for some countries to receive U.S. broadcasts. The content has been made available freely. Once the DVDs come out and are available in your area, it would be a different story if you downloaded the ripped DVD images to your hard drive. See what I'm getting at? By the way, I don't know if you really do, but I happen to like Dollhouse.

J.

 

[Rii]

A rapist. What do you call someone who steals a CD from a store shelf? A thief or a borrower? To whit, what do you call someone who steals that same CD, but does it by downloading the contents to their hard drive? A thief or a borrower?

Colloquially "thief" is acceptable, as is "pirate", more formally I'd say they're guilty of copyright infringement, and indeed I do assert a meaningful (as opposed to merely legal) distinction between the two, one is a lesser crime than the other. There are two components to theft, one is the unlawful acquisition of property, the second is the deprivation of that property from its rightful owner. Only the first of those components is true of copyright infringement. If one is to assert that the two crimes are equivalent, the second component of theft must be held to be meaningless in assessing the severity of the crime....

Do you realise how much that thing weighs? Dollhouse isn't worth that.

See? Now Dollhouse would be a different story. It is played over the airwaves and available for viewing via Hulu. There's some leeway there, as it is difficult for some countries to receive U.S. broadcasts. The content has been made available freely.

.... which is something you implicitly disavow here; the severity of the crime apparently being lessened by my inability to legally recompense the studio, the studio thus suffering a lesser degree of harm than if it were able to benefit from my patronage.

Once the DVDs come out and are available in your area, it would be a different story if you downloaded the ripped DVD images to your hard drive. See what I'm getting at?

Frankly, I don't think this holds up. If I choose to download the episodes knowing that an eventual DVD release is likely, aren't I merely gratifying my own impatience at the cost of a studio's sovereign ownership of and control over their works? Aren't I at minimum obligated to purchase the DVD upon release? Couldn't I theoretically fly to the United States each week and watch the show from there?

It's an interesting utilitarian distinction, and I certainly don't feel one-tenth the guilt for downloading Dollhouse as I do for the fact that I'm in a position to watch television at all whilst millions around the world suffer from starvation, but it doesn't mesh well with the dogmatic "downloading is theft, theft is bad and you should feel bad" argument pushed to a greater (or in your case, lesser) extent by many in this thread.

By the way, I don't know if you really do, but I happen to like Dollhouse.

It's improving, I'll stick with it till the end.

 

[Amaris]

Colloquially "thief" is acceptable, as is "pirate", more formally I'd say they're guilty of copyright infringement, and indeed I do assert a meaningful (as opposed to merely legal) distinction between the two, one is a lesser crime than the other. There are two components to theft, one is the unlawful acquisition of property, the second is the deprivation of that property from its rightful owner. Only the first of those components is true of copyright infringement. If one is to assert that the two crimes are equivalent, the second component of theft must be held to be meaningless in assessing the severity of the crime....

Well, when I draw lines I tend to do so very starkly and clearly.
For example, what the RIAA/MPAA calls copyright infringement and what I call copyright infringement are two different things. I go by the more accepted legal definitions, where you can make copies of your own software/music/movies, where you can use a picture (as long as you give credit if it's required), where you can use clips of a show/music video, using a logo as long as it is credited to the actual owner, stuff that falls under fair use. Fair use was meant to be broad and general, so that people didn't get caught in legal matters for simply showing an image, quoting the paragraph of a novel or playing a clip of music to talk about their favorite hobby.

.... which is something you implicitly disavow here; the severity of the crime apparently being lessened by my inability to legally recompense the studio, the studio thus suffering a lesser degree of harm than if it were able to benefit from my patronage.

There's nothing yet for sale. It is legally and freely available via download and over the air broadcast. In this case, the commercials and advertisements have paid for your viewership. It's still a sticky wicket because they're still trying to get it all ironed out. Leave it up to the RIAA/MPAA and you'll pay for every time you want to watch it. I am wholly against that. I believe in a free market, but also a fair one, and I think you can have a balance of both.

Frankly, I don't think this holds up. If I choose to download the episodes knowing that an eventual DVD release is likely, aren't I merely gratifying my own impatience at the cost of a studio's sovereign ownership of and control over their works? Aren't I at minimum obligated to purchase the DVD upon release? Couldn't I theoretically fly to the United States each week and watch the show from there?

I believe reasonable exertion goes both ways. Flying thousands of miles each week to watch a U.S. TV series would be considered unreasonable by any court.

While you should pay for a movie that is available on DVD/VHS/whatever for sale if that movie is currently available, when something is broadcast on television or made available on Hulu but not available yet for sale, I have no problem if you record it onto your DVR/VCR/HTPC/PC. You still get commercials. Yes, you can fast forward through them, but you still get them. When you buy a DVD, you're paying for the medium and the loss of the ad revenue that made it possible to broadcast it on television.

It's an interesting utilitarian distinction, and I certainly don't feel one-tenth the guilt for downloading Dollhouse as I do for the fact that I'm in a position to watch television at all whilst millions around the world suffer from starvation, but it doesn't mesh well with the dogmatic "downloading is theft, theft is bad and you should feel bad" argument pushed to a greater (or in your case, lesser) extent by many in this thread.

Well, the only people I want to feel bad are the people who download it just because they don't want to buy it. "Thriller album? Wow. $8. Nah, I'll just get it for free off of Limewire." or "I wanted to see Star Trek: First Contact but I didn't want to buy it, so I got a torrent from The Pirate Bay."

Those are the people who I want to feel bad, who I want to feel ashamed of themselves. I am one who does believe in mitigating circumstances, but not for that. Those people want something for nothing, when the artist is only asking to be compensated for their work. The way we are currently setup makes that unlikely the artist will see revenue.

There are artists who sell their CDs out of car trunks. What would happen if one guy bought a CD, copied it and gave it to a friend, and that friend made it available to everyone online? That artist would be broke in no time.

It's improving, I'll stick with it till the end.

Oh yeah, it's getting much better.

J.

 

[TheArsenal]

Interesting thread to read through, and see some interesting psychology, and more than a bit of self delusion, at work.

Many - not all - people here are writing walls and walls of text saying "I am not stealing" when what they actually mean is "I feel it is right to steal in these limited circumstance, because ['CD prices are too high' or 'The Record Companies are the Big Bad' or 'I'll buy it later' or whatever]."

Because you are comfortable stealing something, or you feel there is no harm in it, or even feel it is justified, doesn't make it not stealing. That's a different argument entirely. But the stealing bit remains; the rest is an exercise in rationalization because the label "thief" doesn't match up with your self view.

I don't download personally, but am not bothered by those who do. I am bothered by people not being able to own up to their actions.

 

[Hanover Fiste]

I won't buy a car without a test drive, and I won't drop any coin on a CD until I've heard the whole thing and know I want to own at least some of the songs. And that's what these industry thugs fear the most. They know their products are 99% shite, and they expect us to pay for the privilege of finding out.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I won't buy a car without a test drive, and I won't drop any coin on a CD until I've heard the whole thing and know I want to own at least some of the songs. And that's what these industry thugs fear the most. They know their products are 99% shite, and they expect us to pay for the privilege of finding out.

On Amazon and iTunes, you can hear many of the tracks before you purchase, a test drive as it were.

So, if the illegal download is to test drive, there are alternatives that are legal, and one is still able to hear.

And I agree, most stuff is shit. And they know it.

 

[Hanover Fiste]

On Amazon and iTunes, you can hear many of the tracks before you purchase, a test drive as it were.

So, if the illegal download is to test drive, there are alternatives that are legal, and one is still able to hear.

Even if there is no monetary charge, the inconvenience of a software install or a subscription service is more than I'm willing to offer. For me, downloading songs is no different than hearing a more complete radio broadcast. If you want me to give your materials any purchasing consideration, make the "test drive" free and make it effortless, or fuck the hell off.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I won't buy a car without a test drive, and I won't drop any coin on a CD until I've heard the whole thing and know I want to own at least some of the songs. And that's what these industry thugs fear the most. They know their products are 99% shite, and they expect us to pay for the privilege of finding out.

On Amazon and iTunes, you can hear many of the tracks before you purchase, a test drive as it were.

So, if the illegal download is to test drive, there are alternatives that are legal, and one is still able to hear.

And I agree, most stuff is shit. And they know it.

Not really true, you can't hear or what the whole thing. Some songs aren't even through the intro by the end of the snippets, or you hear a part of the song but not you can't really get the full song.
There are some sites that will allow you to listen to the whole song now, so there is getting less reason to download albums, but a lot of the sites are fairly limited, but I have stopped 99% of my music downloading since those sites came about.

 

[Kelthaz]

Many - not all - people here are writing walls and walls of text saying "I am not stealing" when what they actually mean is "I feel it is right to steal in these limited circumstance, because ['CD prices are too high' or 'The Record Companies are the Big Bad' or 'I'll buy it later' or whatever]."

Because you are comfortable stealing something, or you feel there is no harm in it, or even feel it is justified, doesn't make it not stealing. That's a different argument entirely. But the stealing bit remains; the rest is an exercise in rationalization because the label "thief" doesn't match up with your self view.

As someone who does pirate I'll agree with this. I do impose rules on myself intended to minimize the harm I cause, but I won't deny that what I'm doing is stealing.

 

[Misfit Toy]

For me, downloading songs is no different than hearing a more complete radio broadcast.

That's fine, as long as you realize that the "for me" part is absolutely meaningless when it comes to how the law reads.

 

[amdmiami]

Just out of curiousity, how much of a dent is illegal downloading putting in the music inudustry? Significant? Insignificant?

 

[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.

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."

From the copyright holders it boils down to 'Obey! Do as I say, not as I do!'.

I don't think piracy is particularly good on principle, in fact most of the time it is an irritating boil on the ass of entertainment, I see people who download shows and movies illegally when you could buy them quite easily as selfish and lazy. Also why see Wolverine in shitty, fragmented quality on a small PC/Mac monitor and miss out on the full cinema experience?

But selfishness and laziness can go both ways and is even worse when it is institutional, especially when sanctioned by law (legal does not necessarily mean moral). The British Broadcasting Corporation was within its legal boundaries when it destroyed many original prints of 1960s Doctor Who and the majority of Not Only... But Also, but it was still unethical and culturally damaging, so the BBC learned from its mistakes and now has its shows available on I-Player only.

Having many TV shows either butchered on DVD or being kept perpetually in limbo is not a healthy situation, it could damage creativity and culture in the long term, and it is allowed to occur mainly due to the music industry, which has been proven time and time again to be a basket case that is divorced from reality and is sometimes not above seriously alienating the consumers for objectively innocuous reasons (including children and the elderly). Walt Disney was within its legal boundaries when it bullied a nursery for using Disney characters, however the Hannah-Barbera Cartoons took advantage of Disney’s vindictiveness and allowed the nursery to use their characters instead without any draconian copyright bullfuckery (which proved counterproductive in Disney's case).

Companies are not charities, but at the same time they’re playing right into the hands of the grubby bootleggers by acting all psychotically possessive over music content that should’ve mostly been left as it was if copyright holders had an atom of common sense and charged less for what would be good promotion of music featured dynamically in dramatic fiction (I mean they supposedly actually paid radio stations to play their music, once they couldn’t do much about the pirate radio stations on the high seas). My dad has VCR records of TV shows and movies lying about the house for many years, has that destroyed Hollywood and stopped me buying DVD box sets?

 

[JoeZhang]

Interesting thread to read through, and see some interesting psychology, and more than a bit of self delusion, at work.

Many - not all - people here are writing walls and walls of text saying "I am not stealing" when what they actually mean is "I feel it is right to steal in these limited circumstance, because ['CD prices are too high' or 'The Record Companies are the Big Bad' or 'I'll buy it later' or whatever]."

Because you are comfortable stealing something, or you feel there is no harm in it, or even feel it is justified, doesn't make it not stealing. That's a different argument entirely. But the stealing bit remains; the rest is an exercise in rationalization because the label "thief" doesn't match up with your self view.

I don't download personally, but am not bothered by those who do. I am bothered by people not being able to own up to their actions.

I call it stealing - I do it because nobody can stop me and the risk to me is somewhere between really really low and zero. I make no hokey justifications on the grounds of "difficult to get" or anything like that.