How is downloading not stealing?

[Temis the Vorta]

It's stealing. Maybe not very important or harmful stealing on an individual bases but cumulatively, it can only hurt future production of stuff that people like to download vs the crap they don't bother with.

The corporations won't be hurt by downloading. If it becomes too much of an economic disincentive, they will move away from creating materials that people are prone to download. Only the consumer will be hurt in the end.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

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.

I think you'd have a hard time making that argument in court, and will probably still get convicted for other crimes (intimidation, trespassing, whatever) even if they do accept your argument, but technically yes, imo that's not stealing.

OK, well we will agree to disagree then.

For the record, I do download films and TV that I have no intention of buying, I recognise what I am doing is morally wrong in some respects, but I also don't believe that I am harming the industry since I spend all that I can afford on music and films anyway. I couldn't spend more money on it if I wanted to and I spend a LOT of money on it.

I do not however DL music, I buy everything that I want without fail, but that is not because I hold musicians in some higher regard than filmmakers, it is simply because I am a hypocrite and will only adhere to certain moral standards when it suits me to.

I more or less agree with you.
I buy pretty much everything I really enjoy on DVD/CD at some point. Most of the time it means waiting until it's affordable to me, but in the meantime I will download it and watch/listen to it.
I go to the cinema multiple times a week, so mostly what I end up downloading is TV shows, which I then buy on DVD when they're released, or go in a sale.
As for CDs, I'll download something I think I may be interested in, but I won't buy the album until I know I like a majority of what's on the CD. Unless it's an artist I already know I like, which I will then buy on release.
I take the attitude that if I like something, then I will give my money to it, in the hopes that similar things will be seen as profitable, and more things to my taste will be made.

So there's pretty much no way I could possibly spend more. And downloads actually get me interested in new stuff, which will then receive my money if I enjoy them. So I see nothing morally wrong with it. On the other hand people who constantly and consistently download without even considering purchasing it annoy the hell out of me.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The difference with TV is that by recording you did buy the product. The product being the advertisers ride along which funds the TV broadcast.

And what about TIVO? Why isn't that illegal then?

There is actually some debate on this.

TiVO has a self-correcting mechanism. It's "stealing" from the advertisers but TiVO can also tell the advertisers just how much they are losing, and the advertisers adjust the fees they pay to TV networks accordingly. The advertisers can actually use TiVO against TV networks and avoid paying for any value they are not getting. Don't cry for the advertisers, they are in a strong position and they know it. They are digging in their heels against paying a cent for TiVO viewing, and since they have the money, they are in the much stronger position to negotiate, especially in an economic downturn, when ad money is scarce.

Like downloading, TiVO will not hurt corporations. It will hurt consumers who like the stuff that gets TiVOed because there will be less of an incentive to make it.

Laws are to be obeyed only insofar as they contribute to individual or collective welfare.

Wow, there's a pie in the sky statement.

Laws are obeyed to the degree people know they will be punished for disobeying them. Nobody's welfare comes into play except the person who is breaking the law, or not, and that is all based on a individual's assessment of their own welfare: will I get caught for doing this? And what would the repercussions be?

Anything beyond this is pure rationalization. I personally don't give a flip if people here want to steal shit, but let's not be hypocrites about it. And since the corporations won't allow themselves to be harmed by any sort of "theft," be it downloading or TiVO, people are only harming themselves.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

And what about TIVO? Why isn't that illegal then?

There is actually some debate on this.

TiVO has a self-correcting mechanism. It's "stealing" from the advertisers but TiVO can also tell the advertisers just how much they are losing, and the advertisers adjust the fees they pay to TV networks accordingly. The advertisers can actually use TiVO against TV networks and avoid paying for any value they are not getting. Don't cry for the advertisers, they are in a strong position and they know it. They are digging in their heels against paying a cent for TiVO viewing, and since they have the money, they are in the much stronger position to negotiate, especially in an economic downturn, when ad money is scarce.

Like downloading, TiVO will not hurt corporations. It will hurt consumers who like the stuff that gets TiVOed because there will be less of an incentive to make it.

And the stupid thing is there has been research that shows using Tivo and similar devices may actually help imprint brands in advertising, because the speed at which you fastforward with DVRs means that you just get quick flashes, which means you have to concentrate more on the ads to notice when the break is coming to an end. Therefore you get flashes of logos, taglines, etc. that you're concentrating on, as opposed to a few minutes of space that you're just nattering through, or making a cup of coffee, or whatever.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And the stupid thing is there has been research that shows using Tivo and similar devices may actually help imprint brands in advertising,

The networks are definitely fighting back with research like that. TiVO is a mixed bag when it comes to advertising - it's not all negative. But advertisers have an incentive not to pay a dime for anything, and the extent to which they will be successful depends on their negotiations skills and ability to refute or just flat out ignore research that says that TiVO ads still work.

Advertisers would love to pay for no ads. Networks would love to make them pay for all ads, at as high a cost as possible. The actual price of ads is a result of negotiation, and networks are in a very poor negotiating position. Any economic downturn is going to have a severe effect on ad budgets and networks are losing their viewers to cable. There are fewer dollars chasing more inventory.

I would also wonder what the source of your research is. If it's funded by networks - not so sure how credible that might be. But the advertisers are capable of assessing credibility in cases like that, and they fund their own BS research, too. A lot of research out there is just one side or the other creating weapons to use in negotiating sessions.

As for the topic of music, if people want to see if a song "interests" them before buying, do what I do: listen to samples on iTunes. You can get a good enough sense of a song that way and you are stealing nothing before you buy. I rarely if ever find the snippet gave me a false sense of how good a song was.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^I can't say who commissioned the research. But I've seen multiple different stories on BBC News, Digital Spy, DTG, and various other places. Some claiming that ads can be more effective, some claiming that even with DVRs around 30% of ads are still watched on average, some claiming that 99% of ads are ignored with DVRs.
So I think it's safe to say that they're all picking and choosing their data to see who can get the best deal.

As for listening to the samples, a 30 second snippet from some songs is barely a musical intro, before you even get to the lyrics, and the singing. And there's plenty of songs where it's take me multiple times listening right through before it's grown on me, I can safely say I would never have purchased the last 5 or 6 albums I bought just listening to samples.

 

[Rii]

Laws are to be obeyed only insofar as they contribute to individual or collective welfare.

Wow, there's a pie in the sky statement.

Laws are obeyed to the degree people know they will be punished for disobeying them. Nobody's welfare comes into play except the person who is breaking the law, or not, and that is all based on a individual's assessment of their own welfare: will I get caught for doing this? And what would the repercussions be?

Yeah, "respected" would've been a better word to choose there, one can obey a law based purely upon rational self-interest without acknowledging its legitimacy.

 

[T'Baio]

When people illegally download bootlegged videos, they hurt the industry, because they aren't paying for the material they're watching.

Except when they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, which is usually the case.

This is such a specious argument, and one I see most often with "well, they're rich anyway." Thing is, the piece of music or art or movie or whatever you're downlaoding, was made with the intent to sell it as a commodity. It is copyrighted by law, and is on the internet illegally. If it weren't there, you would have to buy it, or physically steal it from the store. If it wasn't available on the internet, would you go to the store for the five finger discount? No. So you just wouldn't have it. So you just shouldn't have it. It is stealing.

With the prevalence of downloading for some people, which is downloading everything, could they not then make the argument that they never intend to buy anything? How many people who use this argument download only one song they like from a crappy album but go buy other things they like? Most will say they do, but I'm highly suspect of that claim. Most people I know who've gotten into downloading, download everything. Very few are in the middle.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

is on the internet illegally. If it weren't there, you would have to buy it, or physically steal it from the store. If it wasn't available on the internet, would you go to the store for the five finger discount? No. So you just wouldn't have it. So you just shouldn't have it. It is stealing.

That is not the least bit accurate. Pirated movies have been around since cine-projectors, and boot leg music has probably been around since they invented a way to write music down. The internet didn't make it happen, it simply popularised it.
I remember pirated cassettes (Betamax/VHS as well as audio) in the 80s.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

In the UK we have the TV licence, which funds BBC programming, and commercial television is paid for by adverts. Companies pay each other for the rights to broadcast stuff and try to recoup the costs and whatever...

People who videotaped TV, and taped music from the radio, had to pay the licences, watch the adverts, pay for the media they recorded the stuff to (Some countries charged a levy on recordable media that went to the artists and companies)

Who gets their Internet connection for free? Anyone defrauding the telecoms companies of their dosh? I doubt it.

I use a lot of streaming sites, all of them legal by the way, like Crunchyroll, Funimation, BBC iPlayer and so forth, a lot of them are subsidised by adverts (or indeed act as adverts for the content they host)

I think the problem could be solved if the companies wanted it to, by putting a small surcharge on Internet connections. Just a little levy, a slice of the pot that would go to broadcasters, producers artists. Let them go to court to sort out who gets what and how much, and stop penalising the little guy.

 

[Rii]

When people illegally download bootlegged videos, they hurt the industry, because they aren't paying for the material they're watching.

Except when they wouldn't have paid for it anyway, which is usually the case.

This is such a specious argument, and one I see most often with "well, they're rich anyway."

It really isn't.

 

[Tomato]

is on the internet illegally. If it weren't there, you would have to buy it, or physically steal it from the store. If it wasn't available on the internet, would you go to the store for the five finger discount? No. So you just wouldn't have it. So you just shouldn't have it. It is stealing.

That is not the least bit accurate. Pirated movies have been around since cine-projectors, and boot leg music has probably been around since they invented a way to write music down. The internet didn't make it happen, it simply popularised it.
I remember pirated cassettes (Betamax/VHS as well as audio) in the 80s.

May even go further. Gilbert and Sullivan had issues with people in the US performing pirated versions of their musicals see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pirates_of_Penzance

Regardless the industry only has themselves to shoot in the foot. Is it wrong, I'm going to say yes. But having an entire generation being brought up on downloading music/anything for free. The cat is already out of the bag. Online distribution is here to stay, no point in resisting it. Now do these content people spend another 10 years trying to turn back the hands of technology or start coming with innovative methods to get money out of their customers.

Isohunt has a pretty darn good breakout on people who download: http://isohunt.com/ and why they do it. I believe we can almost safely say the majority of people are "...use sharing networks as substitutes for purchasing content."

 

[T'Baio]

It is, because if you couldn't get it for free, you wouldn't have it. But you do have it. It doesn't matter to me what some judge says. That's not proof. That's an opinion, just like mine.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Funny how people who think downloading is stealing think just stating it is an argument in itself.

It's stealing. Maybe not very important or harmful stealing on an individual bases but cumulatively, it can only hurt future production of stuff that people like to download vs the crap they don't bother with.

The corporations won't be hurt by downloading. If it becomes too much of an economic disincentive, they will move away from creating materials that people are prone to download. Only the consumer will be hurt in the end.

There is very little, if any, discrepancy between stuff that's popular with "pirates" and the stuff that's popular in the regular market. The things that people don't bother downloading is the same that bombs in the market too and vice versa.

 

[Rii]

It is, because if you couldn't get it for free, you wouldn't have it. But you do have it. It doesn't matter to me what some judge says. That's not proof. That's an opinion, just like mine.

The claim doesn't require proof, it's self-evident. Your implicit counter-claim that the demand curve for media content is entirely flat is an extraordinary one requiring extraordinary proof. Just as sales of many products spike following a price cut, folks are willing to download things for free that they wouldn't otherwise be willing to pay for.

 

[Roger Wilco]

This is such a specious argument, and one I see most often with "well, they're rich anyway." Thing is, the piece of music or art or movie or whatever you're downlaoding, was made with the intent to sell it as a commodity. It is copyrighted by law, and is on the internet illegally. If it weren't there, you would have to buy it, or physically steal it from the store. If it wasn't available on the internet, would you go to the store for the five finger discount? No. So you just wouldn't have it. So you just shouldn't have it. It is stealing.

You know what? Fuck that. You can take my American television out of my cold dead hands.
They don't want me to watch it? I love that argument. Boo hoo. Make me stop. Or make me a customer, your choice.

 

[T'Baio]

It is, because if you couldn't get it for free, you wouldn't have it. But you do have it. It doesn't matter to me what some judge says. That's not proof. That's an opinion, just like mine.

The claim doesn't require proof, it's self-evident. Your implicit counter-claim that the demand curve for media content is entirely flat is an extraordinary one requiring extraordinary proof. Just as sales of many products spike following a price cut, folks are willing to download things for free that they wouldn't otherwise be willing to pay for.

Are you saying you only download music you wouldn't otherwise pay for? As in, if it wasn't available by any other means, you wouldn't own it? Just out of curiousity, how much music do you buy vs. how much do you download?

 

[Amaris]

Personally, I believe it is stealing.

If I write a novel and someone copies it and turns it in as their own, it doesn't matter if the physical book is left unharmed, my idea has been stolen. My intellectual property has been taken without my knowledge or consent. Whether for commercial use or not, ideas are the foundations of our society.

A musician who releases his own music on iTunes would be thrilled to find a million albums worldwide, and devastated to learn that most of it wasn't through iTunes, but through a file sharing service that simply copied his music and had it released for free to others. Someone just starting out can be destroyed like that. So to me, it is stealing.

J.

 

[TheArsenal]

The concept of having no physical CD or DVD is clouding the issue.

Trespass issues aside, it is illegal to sneak into a movie theater and watch a film you did not buy a ticket for. Most of us have the moral compass to understand why, even if we've done it. It does not matter if the theater is not full. It does not matter if you fully intend to come back and see the film later at full price or buy the DVD. You received entertainment intended for a paying audience without paying.

Theft.

 

[Professor Zoom]

[

Regardless the industry only has themselves to shoot in the foot. Is it wrong, I'm going to say yes. But having an entire generation being brought up on downloading music/anything for free. The cat is already out of the bag. Online distribution is here to stay, no point in resisting it. Now do these content people spend another 10 years trying to turn back the hands of technology or start coming with innovative methods to get money out of their customers.

An Entire Generation that has been brought up with immediate satisfaction. It's a Gimme Generation.

I agree that the cat is out of the bag--downloading distribution is the wave of the future...who cares about Blu-Ray, in 5 years I'll just download it. Hell, through my X-box I stream Netflix.

But, it doesn't change the fact that downloading illegal copies is stealing. You don't have a right, no matter HOW easy it is to steal something doesn't make it any less stealing.