How is downloading not stealing?

[Seven of Five]

Generally, I buy DVDs to get into a show. However, I have watched BSG, Heroes, Lost and Scrubs all on the internet, so I too am a dirty thief. Having watched these on the internet though has encouraged me to buy them on DVD, so the production companies *have* had some revenue off me. I realise that I technically stole the shows by watching illegal streams onlne, but I never would have sustained my interest in these shows without the internet, which would have led to me not buying DVDs.

So who is right? Everyone? No one? Downloading is technically stealing, but I think the market should change to reflect downloading habits. Places like hulu.com should be more commonplace to allow people to try a show (or indeed, keep up with one) before they eventually buy it. It's sustaining an interest that should be important, rather than arguing over semantics over theft. Same goes for music too.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^
That's very true. It automatically turns a downloader into a distributor which is an issue (if that distinction means anything to you, that is).

I wonder how many people who use filesharing services are actually aware of this.

Good question, I'd imagine it must be a good number though as you can physically see what the software is doing, very stupid people may not know

One thing that makes me laugh though is when they say that the people they are interested in are the big uploaders, and then proceed to mention how many files a person had available for sharing (relevant to programs like Kazaa which share everything you have in your folder more than Bittorrent which only shares the files you currently have active). What they should really be concerned with is the amount of information uploaded not the number of songs they are sharing. Somebody on a dialup connection isn't doing much uploading regardless of how many songs they have to share.

Personally, I think the people they should be concerned with are those who are burning hundreds if not thousands of copies, and selling them down the pub/at the local market/on eBay, etc. The people making a profit out of it. You can go down to the local market every week and see 2 or 3 stalls with thousands upon thousands of copied DVDs, no doubt making thousands of pounds off people.
They would still be there is file sharing didn't exist, they were there with VHS tapes back in the 80s and 90s, they're now with DVDs.

 

[MyCylon]

In the mid '90s I was a member of the Video Software Dealers Association. Our organization was involved in many, many "raids" of pirating operations and flea market distributions.

Interesting. What did those 'raids' look like? And what type of people did you normally come across?

The problem is now that technology has enabled just about anyone to have the capacity to do what it took much more $$ back then. The theft is the same. Only the scale has changed.

I think there's a general problem with the technology advancing much faster than politicians or law makers can keep up with. I think corporations can keep up if they want to (some of them do), but many just don't seem to have done their homework at all. It's only now that they're awakening to a situation they should have long since responded to with creativity and innovation.

I wonder how many people who use filesharing services are actually aware of this.

Good question, I'd imagine it must be a good number though as you can physically see what the software is doing, very stupid people may not know

Well, I'm sure those people won't notice it. But I also wonder about people who, in general, just aren't that much into technology.

Part of the problem is that you have kids and / or their parents, for example, downloading stuff nowadays. And I'm not sure how many of them really understand what exactly is happening when they use Bittorrent or the likes.

What they should really be concerned with is the amount of information uploaded not the number of songs they are sharing. Somebody on a dialup connection isn't doing much uploading regardless of how many songs they have to share.

I think that's very true.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I think places like Hulu.com are great. And a good solution to the illegal download.

And as I've said before, downloading is the future, it's the illegal download without the express permission (or payment) to the owner of the material--that's stealing.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Yes. Sorry if it's succinct.

Well, it isn't. Actually it's a very nice example of a non sequitur.

Perhaps the laws haven't caught up with the technology? I'm not a cop. The question was is it stealing? Yes. It is.

And people have been brought to court, civil court. And paid fines.

So, that's a "no", right?

The law hasn't caught up yet? I got my first broadband connection in 1999, some of my friends had them years earlier. Illegal downloading was ubiquitous back then already. And I would guess we were several years behind the US in that regard. It's 2009 now, not even the law is that slow.

 

[TGTheodore]

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.

Oh, please ...

Okay, so how long did it take to make 1000 illegal VHS/Beta copies and distribute them?

How long does it take to illegally distribute the same material electronically to hundreds of millions of people?

One makes a wee bit of a larger dent in the artists' livelihood.

And they're BOTH still theft.

--Ted

 

[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.

Oh, please ...

Okay, so how long did it take to make 1000 illegal VHS/Beta copies and distribute them?

How long does it take to illegally distribute the same material electronically to hundreds of millions of people?

One makes a wee bit of a larger dent in the artists' livelihood.

And they're BOTH still theft.

--Ted

Maybe, maybe not. I know plenty of people who buy pirated stuff or pirate it themselves off the internet, and never consider buying originals. Most of them wouldn't buy them even if they couldn't get copies. I know people who get copies, but go to the movies a minimum of twice a month, subscribe to movie and premium channels, etc. And I know people who would never consider downloading anything, I even know people who pirate stuff they don't even want simply because they can, and never even intend watching/listening to any of it.
It may be theft but just because piracy exists doesn't mean it makes a dent in the actual profit margin. (I'm not denying it does, but I wouldn't say you could ever estimate how large to an accurate degree). What I am saying is that piracy has always existed, and will always exist, and sometimes, just sometimes, can actually be a driving force in sales, and not a problem.

 

[mrcoaster]

People should be checking out the theft and stealing the record labels have been doing for years. http://www.amazon.com/Appetite-Self-Destruction-Spectacular-Industry-Digital/dp/1416552154
talks about the decline of the record industry and describes their bad decisions along the way.

I've d/l a bunch of stuff over the years. Nearly all of it stuff I already own. I have over 1500 LPs and over 1500 CDs. If I d/l Out-of-print Album X rather than just ripping it over a USB turntable, the artist and label will just have to live with the fact that I bought a ton of their product already and ripping it myself off the LP wouldn't actually earn them another dime. Pretty much everything else was something I previewed and either bought or didn't and deleted it.

 

[Goliath]

I think 'thief' is the wrong word to describe pirates and illegal downloaders.

The correct word is 'rent-seeker': a person who extracts uncompensated value from others, instead of engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction. They're the flip side of businessmen who capture and exploit monopoly privileges.

Basically, illegal downloaders are parasites who want something for nothing. And as we can see in this thread, they're quite good at inventing reasons why they should be able to take something, while giving nothing in return.

I see it as essentially childish behaviour. Grown-ups understand that the world doesn't owe them anything, and that if they want something, they have to offer something in exchange. But like spoiled children, illegal downloaders are accustomed to simply being given everything they want, and feel entitled to keep on taking, without giving anything back.

They're not even able or willing to play their own music and make their own movies. They would much rather that others do all the work for them, for free, just like mommy and daddy did.

The Italian economic historian Carlo Cipolla once classified people into four types. Intelligent people do things that benefit both themselves and others. Stupid people do things that harm themselves and others. Naive people do things that benefit others, but bring no benefit to themselves. And parasites--Cipolla called them "pillagers"--do things that benefit themselves, but bring no benefit to others.

Illegal downloaders definitely fall into that last category. And creative people would have to be pretty naive to keep working in an industry where their product has been essentially decommodified by parasites.

 

[BigFoot]

Honestly, I've got my own moral code when it comes to downloading. I download all the shows that I like as soon as they air in the US. I also download music and movies. But here's the thing, if I like something I always buy it afterwards. Which is why I've got over 80 Blu-rays, 300 DVDs, and a ton of CDs at home.

 

[Amaris]

I think 'thief' is the wrong word to describe pirates and illegal downloaders.

The correct word is 'rent-seeker': a person who extracts uncompensated value from others, instead of engaging in a mutually beneficial transaction. They're the flip side of businessmen who capture and exploit monopoly privileges.

Basically, illegal downloaders are parasites who want something for nothing. And as we can see in this thread, they're quite good at inventing reasons why they should be able to take something, while giving nothing in return.

I see it as essentially childish behaviour. Grown-ups understand that the world doesn't owe them anything, and that if they want something, they have to offer something in exchange. But like spoiled children, illegal downloaders are accustomed to simply being given everything they want, and feel entitled to keep on taking, without giving anything back.

They're not even able or willing to play their own music and make their own movies. They would much rather that others do all the work for them, for free, just like mommy and daddy did.

The Italian economic historian Carlo Cipolla once classified people into four types. Intelligent people do things that benefit both themselves and others. Stupid people do things that harm themselves and others. Naive people do things that benefit others, but bring no benefit to themselves. And parasites--Cipolla called them "pillagers"--do things that benefit themselves, but bring no benefit to others.

Illegal downloaders definitely fall into that last category. And creative people would have to be pretty naive to keep working in an industry where their product has been essentially decommodified by parasites.

My brother tells me that most teens and young adults at his church download a lot of gospel contemporary music, and that's it common.

Make sense out of that one. I dare you.

J.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I download stuff all the time, especially rare and out-of-print stuff, demos or bootlegs, and acapella/instrumental versions of songs so that I can make mash-ups and remixes. I listen to a lot of obscure music, so downloading is the only feasible way of getting my hands on certain things. Things that are still in print, I buy. If there's a new album coming out that I'm really excited about, I'll download it because I just can't help myself, and then buy it on cd or vinyl when it comes out.
Movies, on the other hand, I could care less about downloading. Even if it's some obscure horror film that's out of print, it's too much trouble to fuck around with.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Basically, illegal downloaders are parasites who want something for nothing. And as we can see in this thread, they're quite good at inventing reasons why they should be able to take something, while giving nothing in return.

I see it as essentially childish behaviour. Grown-ups understand that the world doesn't owe them anything, and that if they want something, they have to offer something in exchange. But like spoiled children, illegal downloaders are accustomed to simply being given everything they want, and feel entitled to keep on taking, without giving anything back.

They're not even able or willing to play their own music and make their own movies. They would much rather that others do all the work for them, for free, just like mommy and daddy did.

I think this thread has already shown this to be bullshit. There are plenty of people here who are illegal downloaders, who do it for other reasons than getting something for nothing, and who do pay for the product when it is available to them. They're not asking for it to be given to them for nothing, they're asking to know it's something they want it before they hand over their money, because you can't return a cd or dvd for not being to your taste, they're asking to get something they already paid for in a format they can use more readily, or they're hoping to enjoy something from their favourite artist that they can't get locally and would/will buy if it's release locally.
Sure there are people like you're describing, but to label everyone who downloads as the same type of person is obviously wrong.

 

[MyCylon]

Basically, illegal downloaders are parasites who want something for nothing. And as we can see in this thread, they're quite good at inventing reasons why they should be able to take something, while giving nothing in return.

I agree that those 'parasites' exist. But please point to one such example in this entire thread. People in here, whether they download or not, actually BUY STUFF.

Grown-ups understand that the world doesn't owe them anything, and that if they want something, they have to offer something in exchange.

Just like the posters in this thread, of course. Or were you implying that some people in here were not grown-ups like yourself?

They're not even able or willing to play their own music and make their own movies.

First thought to cross my mind if DVD's too expensive - I'll go and make my own movie.

The Italian economic historian Carlo Cipolla once classified people into four types.

And Adam Smith believed that pursuing one's self-interest was the best way to benefit society. So what?

What it boils down to is something I've said before: It's all about the market.

The suppliers of illegal downloads have established themselves as a competitor in the marketplace. They essentially have an offer that many find very attractive.
The way to beat that is not by sueing the hell out of mums or 'the small guy' but by going after distributors and being competitive.

Some companies have realized this and have responded accordingly (the irony is that these offers many people now enjoy probably wouldn't exist without illegal downloading - the market has spoken). Examples include Monty Python (making their works available for free on YouTube), South Park (all episodes available for free streaming on their website), many TV channels that let you view episodes online, as well as sites like Hulu or Joost.

The problem about the TV channels and sites like Hulu, in particular, is that they have regional restrictions. When you're from the US, for example, it's very easy to avoid illegal downloading of your favorite show because you have legal alternatives that are easy to access. When you're sitting across the pond, it gets a lot harder.

And here's the best part: Why do you think many people illegally download their favorite TV shows, for example? Because they can't wait to see them? No - because they can't wait to discuss them with their friends over the internet. Because it sucks not being able to discuss a show with people you really like for months. It's the social aspects that are the prime motivator. And this is something you can see all over the net these days.

And right there is one of the opportunities for the industry or industries to seek out: Get people to meet at your site. They will come for the content but they will stick around because of the other people. Look at WoW as an example from gaming.

Now you can go around calling people names, or you can actually seek a solution to a problem. The music and film industry still live in the 20th century, and they behave as such. They need to arrive in this day and age, and they will be able to actually find solutions to their problems that work for them and work for consumers.

 

[hyzmarca]

There is one important thing to remember, something that the IP industry has brainwashed us into forgetting. Copyright is an artificial right. It does not exist in nature. There is no moral right for the author to control their work. Rather, there is a legal right invented by the government for the purpose of serving the people as a whole, not the author specifically. It was always meant to exist for limited times, as little as 14 years by some statues. The original idea was to provide an alternative to the patronage system for an author to be able to gain profit from his work before it goes into the public domain. This would encourage authors to publish their works for the masses, rather than to jealously guard them in the hope of eventually selling them to rich nobels. But it was always intended to go into the public domain after a reasonable period of time.

More recent copyright law extends that to an insane degree, and serves as a form of corporate welfare that stifles creativity and free expression (I'm looking at you, Walt Disney Corporation).

Material goods are conserved. Information is not. Information wants to be free, it wants to spread, it wants to be coppied. This is it's nature. Information is life.It grows and changes and evolves, and information competes with other information, because there is only so much material to store it on. Information gets lost and overwritten. Information mutates.
Copyright, taken too far, limits and even damages the natural economy of information. We should tollerate it only as far as it benefits the public pool of information in general, by encouraging more information to be created.

Personally, I download things that copyright holders have allowed to die, or have actively tried to murder. Great shows that haven't seen any video or DVD release, and controversal shows that are swept under the rug in the name of political correctness.

 

[-Brett-]

This thread is making me inclined to pirate a movie just to piss off the self-righteous assholes here.

 

[bigdaddy]

There are some users who honestly do use the music they've downloaded as a "trial" and buy what they like

That's what I do. I downloaded a CD, that was never released in the USA anyways with only 5 songs on it. Now I want their new CD, which is released in the USA.

That's my rule, if the legal assholes won't release it on DVD/CD then it's not illegal. However what about if I own all these movies on VHS, what difference does it make if I download it and burn it to a disc? I have the right to do that now with VHR - DVD Burners, it's pretty much the same thing.

 

[ialfan]

Well one difference is when you download there is no cost to the company lost for the physical media, dvd case, cover, etc. Sure that's a minor quibble but it's something. Also I'd say 4/5 of people downloading stuff would not buy what they've downloaded anyways so as they say a penny not gained is not a penny lost.

On a side note there is NO difference between someone ripping a cd and burning it for a friend via WMP or whatnot (as many un-tech-savvy people here do) and downloading the .mp3's off of wherever.

 

[bigdaddy]

^ But that's when the laws are stupid. My dad backup some VHS tapes of something odd from the 70s, he taped it in the early 80s and redid it in the 90s. That could be considered illegal because he made copies of a copyright show. My grandparents have a Yule log, they made 10 copies of it to give out to people, and because they know I want to destroy them. They taped it of PBS, so does that mean they owe 2.5 million dollars in fines?

 

[TedShatner10]

I won't download anything which is available, that would be stealing, but what is wrong with downloading TV shows or movies which are not available in the first place because of bullshit copyright usually involving music? Obstinant copyright holders can't have it both ways.