• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How is downloading not stealing?

T'Baio

Admiral
Admiral
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.
 
It is, for the most part, stealing. There are some users who honestly do use the music they've downloaded as a "trial" and buy what they like, discarding the rest, but there are a lot more who just download and that's it.
 
Easy. (1)You take the CD from the store, the CD is gone. (2)You download the CD, your don't take anything away from the rightful owner.

You might think (2) is just as bad as (1), but claiming it is not a different act is dishonest imo.

Also: (2) doesn't hurt anyone in itself, only imaginary profit that may or may not have materialised in reality, but that's only speculation. Shoplifting does hurt the owner of the shop directly, because he actually loses something.
 
Easy. (1)You take the CD from the store, the CD is gone. (2)You download the CD, your don't take anything away from the rightful owner.

You might think (2) is just as bad as (1), but claiming it is not a different act is dishonest imo.

That would be where 'intellectual' property rights come in.
 
Easy. (1)You take the CD from the store, the CD is gone. (2)You download the CD, your don't take anything away from the rightful owner.

You might think (2) is just as bad as (1), but claiming it is not a different act is dishonest imo.

It's a different act, but that doesn't mean it isn't stealing. If you steal someone's idea you don't literally remove the idea from their head.

I think it is fine to colloquially refer to it as theft.
 
It's a different act, but that doesn't mean it isn't stealing. If you steal someone's idea you don't literally remove the idea from their head.

I think it is fine to colloquially refer to it as theft.

I don't think so. Actually in my opinion it is completely inappropriate unless that "idea" is stolen for commercial purposes. And the vast majority of people who download copyright protected content have no commercial interest whatsoever.

Following up on your "stealing an idea" comment. If let's say you made a joke to your friend and a little later that friend tells the same joke to someone else claiming or implying he made it up - would you seriously say he's a thief?

On the other hand, if for example a writer plagiarised another writer's book, I think that's very close to theft.

eta: I mean, if you want to call bank robbers rapists, feel free to do so, but imo you're making a mistake.
 
I don't think so. Actually in my opinion it is completely inappropriate unless that "idea" is stolen for commercial purposes. And the vast majority of people who download copyright protected content have no commercial interest whatsoever.

Following up on your "stealing an idea" comment. If let's say you made a joke to your friend and a little later that friend tells the same joke to someone else claiming or implying he made it up - would you seriously say he's a thief?

Yes I would, although I am not embueing the word with overtly negative connotations if that is what you are getting at.

On the other hand, if for example a writer plagiarised another writer's book, I think that's very close to theft.

I don't see what commercial concerns have to do with it frankly. The word steal can simply mean to take or appropriate something without permission, doesn't have to involve commercial gain, nor does it require the original subject to be gone.
 
If a CD gets stolen, you can never, ever sell that particular CD again. Its value in resources and the wholesale price the store paid are lost. Ironically, the music industry doesn't lose out one bit, so they really don't care about this.

Downloading an album from the internet doesn't stop the copyright holder sell one single additional album to other people since it's merely a digital copy.

Now, for its own statistics, the industry naturally assumes that you would have otherwise legally purchase the album had you not had the opportunity to illegally download, hence leading to the IMHO skewed view that downloading is (automatically) the same as stealing a physical object. But that you would have purchased it otherwise is by no means certain.

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?

Had you stolen the CD, there would be an actual loss.

Also, what about somebody who downloads music, a movie or a tv show to check it out or see it before it airs in their own region, but plans on and actually DOES go out and buy the damn thing as soon as possible? Where is the damage to the industry?

Had you stolen a CD or a DVD, there would be an actual loss.

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.

Distributing basically means directly competing with the copyright holders on the market. You're taking market share from them, hence limiting the amount they will sell. Plus you have an unfair advantage since you're selling for free.

That, obviously, leads to a bit of a dilemma. Although I don't download illegally myself, I don't think it's such a big issue, as you can probably tell. I do think distribution is, however. And without illegal distribution, there would be no illegal downloading.

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).

The simple truth is this: The times have changed, the industry (or industries) have not or are only slowly doing so. Had they been quicker to see how things were developing, they could have avoided a lot of this, but they felt it was simply easier and probably more fun to rake in the cash the way they always have.

Remember how it was when there were tape decks and VHS recorders? Basically, not a single copyright holder gave a damn about this, and people got used to the fact that you could, legally (except in Australia, I take it) get music, films and TV shows.

From a consumer perspective, what has changed? It's just the matter of obtaining the material, that's it. You go onto the internet instead of firing up your VHS machine.

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?

I believe models like this are at least being tested (not quite up to date on this), but it's so incredibly late in the making, it hurts.

The obvious reason the industry isn't doing this is since it doesn't get them as much money as selling you the same thing over and over again. But, really, I think you just can't have it both ways.

Look at the amount of people who think nothing of illegally downloading or sharing files with friends (the latter of which existed even before the internet though it was using tapes and recording from LPs, tapes and later CDs).

It's ubiquitous. And it's simply something you have to deal with since, it would almost seem, we have a societal consensus here on what's right or at the very least not wrong.

I don't think criminalization is any help. Or certainly not in the way it's being implemented. What a slap in the face to actually go out and buy a DVD, for example, and then not being able to skip those horrible "you wouldn't steal a car.." videos that come at you EVERY SINGLE TIME you put in your DVD.

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.
 
I personally have no issues with downloading 1-2 songs from an album, or a couple of episodes of a TV show then going out and buying (or staying in and buying a digital copy) the whole album/series. That's how I've discovered most of the music in my collection and bought series' of shows I wouldnt've been exposed to otherwise. Downloading whole movies/albums/TV shows on the other hand I can't say I support. If you can substitute the "stolen" content for the real thing and never intend on purchasing the real thing, it's stealing. I wouldn't liken downloading 1-2 songs to stealing even though from a technical standpoint it is, as it usually results in buying a "real" copy anyway, and if it's something I end up disliking, I probably would've returned the "real" copy had I bought it in the first place and got my money back/exchanged it for something else.
 
I don't see what commercial concerns have to do with it frankly. The word steal can simply mean to take or appropriate something without permission, doesn't have to involve commercial gain, nor does it require the original subject to be gone.

Well, I disagree, and the law where I'm from does too.
 
I'm interested in how people rationalize it.

I don't think they do rationalize it. They know it is theft, but they don't feel guilty over it. Some people can live with themselves quite comfortably whilst being dishonest.
 
Last edited:
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.

I didn't download it or keep it, I watched a streaming video of it online. And as I said in the Wolverine thread, since I watched the workprint I'm going to make sure that I see the completed film in the theater to make up for that, both out of a desire to see the finished product, and because I would feel bad about watching the film online but not paying for it. So the studio is not going to lose any money from me.

In my experience most of the people I know who download or watch movies online do so out of great interest in seeing the film and generally go to see it in theaters anyway. Your mileage may vary of course.
 
I don't see what commercial concerns have to do with it frankly. The word steal can simply mean to take or appropriate something without permission, doesn't have to involve commercial gain, nor does it require the original subject to be gone.

Well, I disagree, and the law where I'm from does too.

I agree it should not fall under the same legal definition of theft as walking into a shop and stealing a CD, that is why I said "colloquially".

The fact remains that the word "steal" as defined by many dictionaries is an appropriate word to use.
 
I personally have no issues with downloading 1-2 songs from an album, or a couple of episodes of a TV show then going out and buying (or staying in and buying a digital copy) the whole album/series. That's how I've discovered most of the music in my collection and bought series' of shows I wouldnt've been exposed to otherwise. Downloading whole movies/albums/TV shows on the other hand I can't say I support. If you can substitute the "stolen" content for the real thing and never intend on purchasing the real thing, it's stealing. I wouldn't liken downloading 1-2 songs to stealing even though from a technical standpoint it is, as it usually results in buying a "real" copy anyway, and if it's something I end up disliking, I probably would've returned the "real" copy had I bought it in the first place and got my money back/exchanged it for something else.
I have to say I agree. Downloading 1-2 songs would really be no different that recording a song off the radio or taping an episode from TV that you weren't able to see first time around. You still end up owning them without purchasing them.
 
I agree it should not fall under the same legal definition of theft as walking into a shop and stealing a CD, that is why I said "colloquially".

The fact remains that the word "steal" as defined by many dictionaries is an appropriate word to use.

I think even colloquially it's incorrect. If a friend gives me book he bought and I read it, if I listen to radio song in a taxi, how is that not stealing then? When I download The Daily Show with bittorrent instead of watching it as a crappy, laggy stream on the official website in inferior quality what am I doing wrong, whom do I hurt? If I download a cam version of a movie that's not playing in my local cinemas yet because I don't want to wait another couple weeks, am I a thief?
 
I agree it should not fall under the same legal definition of theft as walking into a shop and stealing a CD, that is why I said "colloquially".

The fact remains that the word "steal" as defined by many dictionaries is an appropriate word to use.

I think even colloquially it's incorrect. If a friend gives me book he bought and I read it, if I listen to radio song in a taxi, how is that not stealing then?

No, listening to a song in a taxi isn't stealing, royalties have been paid to broadcast it by the radio station, that's entirely different. The book thing? Well it was technically illegal to lend it to you, but again it's completely different to you taking something without permission. But those are not really relevant examples in this case.

When I download The Daily Show with bittorrent instead of watching it as a crappy, laggy stream on the official website in inferior quality what am I doing wrong, whom do I hurt? If I download a cam version of a movie that's not playing in my local cinemas yet because I don't want to wait another couple weeks, am I a thief?

Yes you are, it's appropriating without permission. I wouldn't call it morally wrong if you plan to buy it or see it in the future, but it is certainly appropriating something without permission which is one definition of stealing.

Is robbing a bank not stealing if you plan to return the cash 2 weeks later? It would be pretty silly sure, but it would still be stealing.
 
When people illegally download bootlegged videos, they hurt the industry, because they aren't paying for the material they're watching. And that means the people who make that material get less money and are less able to make more material, not to mention less able to buy food and pay rent (contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of actors, writers, etc. are not rich by any means).

Besides, even if it "hurts" no one, stealing is still stealing. Hell, it's just plain rude. It's an insult to the people who created the work. People shouldn't be looking for excuses to justify breaking the law -- especially for such a flimsy, self-serving motive as impatience. The law is the system that holds society together, that protects all of our rights and freedoms. We have to respect the law, not treat it as an inconvenience to be subverted at every turn. Making sure the system works, respecting and supporting the system, is the only way to ensure that our own rights will be protected by that same system when we need it. If you don't like the law, petition your congressperson or run for office yourself. Get the law changed. Until you do, though, you follow the law. That's what being a citizen means. There was a time when Americans cared about their duty to their society rather than merely their own self-indulgence.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top