Illegal downloads

[Jadzia]

I see. So if I build a house I can keep it as long as I live and leave it to my descendants in perpetuity; but if I write a novel then it belongs to the collective.

Not under current law no.

Imagine if a famous 16th century artist had modern day descendants, who felt that their paintings were now their inherited intellectual property, and forbid them from being printed in books.

Pictures and stories from the past are historic. They should belong to everybody.

Like all Intellectual property, if it is reproducible without loss of any original material, then it is distinguishable from things tangible like houses or gold bullion, and so should be treated differently in law, particularly with regard to when things age.

I think that people who want to make a living off the creative labors of previous generations, but offering nothing of their own merit, are a liability to the state.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

The owner of the content you illegally downloaded a copy of still has the content and the copyright to the content though. The car's gone. Not the same thing.

The thing to keep in mind is some people create things for the purpose of making money. They might create beautiful, wondrous things, but their motivation is the profit they can make from it. If they discovery they can only make profit by keeping the circulation to a limited amount, they'll do that. Now if they find out that people make copies and give it to others simply because the circulation is limited, they'll be faced with only options involving losing a lot of money.

Next time they have the opportunity to make something really creative, they'll look back and find the benefits they expected really weren't there. Maybe they'll put in a lot less effort and make some mass produced crap. That way, they can make money by selling as much as possible, but the end result isn't as good as the first thing.

In other words, copyright laws exist for good reasons. It might seem unfair, but the alternative isn't always better either.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ The most basic reason for any ownership laws to exist is because if you make something, it's yours. And it's not just a matter of money; it's a matter of protecting the integrity of the work.

Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

The owner of the content you illegally downloaded a copy of still has the content and the copyright to the content though. The car's gone. Not the same thing.

It is the same thing. Just because a song is easier to steal than a Grand Maquis, that doesn't make it any more right.

Imagine if a famous 16th century artist had modern day descendants, who felt that their paintings were now their inherited intellectual property, and forbid them from being printed in books.

Imagine if they did. It would be their right. Just like somebody who owns their ancestor's 16th century castle has the right to keep you off their lawn.

Pictures and stories from the past are historic. They should belong to everybody.

Pictures and stories from the past are in the public domain because there was no protection for intellectual property in the past. This is the 21st century, not the 16th.

Like all Intellectual property, if it is reproducible without loss of any original material, then it is distinguishable from things tangible like houses or gold bullion, and so should be treated differently in law, particularly with regard to when things age.

That doesn't make it public property.

I think that people who want to make a living off the creative labors of previous generations, but offering nothing of their own merit, are a liability to the state.

Now you're contradicting yourself. People often make money off the creative labors of previous generations while offering nothing of their own merit, because the creative labors of previous generations are in the public domain. I have a store where I sell stuff based on my art and photography, but I could probably make more money if I used stuff by Bosch or van Gogh instead.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

^^ The most basic reason for any ownership laws to exist is because if you make something, it's yours. And it's not just a matter of money; it's a matter of protecting the integrity of the work.

While I agree, I was trying to keep it away from the philosophical because people have a hard time grasping this when it comes to intangible property.

That being said, I do think US copyright law is slowly becoming a mess. Essentially, because there is corporate interest in intellectual property, they continually petition the government to extend their copyrights long after the original owner died. While, in the past, intellectual work would transition from commercial property to a work of art after all the parties in interest had died (works by Twain and Poe can rightfully be said to belong to the masses these days), now there is a fight to keep things forever (essentially, no one wants Mickey Mouse to enter the Public Domain).

 

[Jadzia]

I think that people who want to make a living off the creative labors of previous generations, but offering nothing of their own merit, are a liability to the state.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Not at all. One is providing a service by selling things, such as prints of a painting, or a book of stories, even if the essence of those things is public domain.

You'd be making a living from the printing service you'd be providing, not for the poetic/pictorial content (which is historic), ie not living off the creative labours of past generations.

 

[cultcross]

When you're sitting in jail or paying a huge fine, you'll know that what you did was illegal.

An estimated 0.3% of rapes result in a successful prosecution in the UK.
The legality and morality of an act is not defined by how likely you are to get in trouble.

 

[trekkiedane]

Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

If I were to have legally acquired a copy of something at a time when it was possible to do so (say, tapes of The Rockford Files be it something I recorded myself (after all, I did pay for it once through TV-licence (or accepting commercial breaks) and twice by buying a blank tape(/CD/DVD)), there is no illegality in letting any of my friends borrow it -- and -if they feel like it- make copies for themselves.

What seems to be missing is artists getting a percentage of on-line money and/or giving them percentages of the money made from selling hard-disks...

 

[Roger Wilco]

In other words, copyright laws exist for good reasons. It might seem unfair, but the alternative isn't always better either.

Sure. But downloading a song isn't the same thing as stealing an actual object anyway. I'm not saying copyright infringement is necessarily ok (although I habitually do it and don't have a guilty conscience for it), but it's not theft. Fraud isn't theft either, and assault isn't rape. None of that is "ok" but I don't see the sense in calling something by a different name only to make it seem more sinister. If copyright infringement is so horrible, shouldn't the name "copyright infringement" be enough?

 

[Misfit Toy]

Taking something that doesn't belong to you isn't theft?

 

[Roger Wilco]

Not necessarily, no.

 

[JarodRussell]

Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

The owner of the content you illegally downloaded a copy of still has the content and the copyright to the content though. The car's gone. Not the same thing.

It's more like taking molds from that car and creating one yourself, i guess.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Downloading an illegal copy of something because it's out of print is like justifying auto theft by saying the owner refused to sell.

If I were to have legally acquired a copy of something at a time when it was possible to do so (say, tapes of The Rockford Files be it something I recorded myself (after all, I did pay for it once through TV-licence (or accepting commercial breaks) and twice by buying a blank tape(/CD/DVD)), there is no illegality in letting any of my friends borrow it -- and -if they feel like it- make copies for themselves.

None of this sentence is accurate. You did not legally acquire a copy to begin with and your friends can't legally make copies of your copy.

In other words, copyright laws exist for good reasons. It might seem unfair, but the alternative isn't always better either.

Sure. But downloading a song isn't the same thing as stealing an actual object anyway. I'm not saying copyright infringement is necessarily ok (although I habitually do it and don't have a guilty conscience for it), but it's not theft. Fraud isn't theft either, and assault isn't rape. None of that is "ok" but I don't see the sense in calling something by a different name only to make it seem more sinister. If copyright infringement is so horrible, shouldn't the name "copyright infringement" be enough?

Yeah, I don't call it theft, I call it infringement. It undermines the validity of their product, but it doesn't steal their product. It's closer to damaging something that someone else owns than taking something. Is it better to damage someone's car rather than steal it? I suppose so, but it doesn't make it right.

 

[Sector 7]

I have mixed opinions regarding intellectual property and copyright law. While I would not like to see my rare royalty checks disappear completely, I do not agree with artificially withholding (Disney) movies from the public in order to inflate the price when released.

Once I purchased a VHS movie, why should it be illegal to convert my purchased movie to DVD? Why should I be forced to pay for it again, when I already purchased it once? When my home was burglarized and most of my DVD collection stolen, should I be able to replace them without re-purchasing new ones? They were not insured, thus I received no payment for the stolen items. These are mitigating issues which are not currently addressed within copyright law. The law is weighted to corporate profits rather than moral issues.

 

[trekkiedane]

If I were to have legally acquired a copy of something at a time when it was possible to do so (say, tapes of The Rockford Files be it something I recorded myself (after all, I did pay for it once through TV-licence (or accepting commercial breaks) and twice by buying a blank tape(/CD/DVD)), there is no illegality in letting any of my friends borrow it -- and -if they feel like it- make copies for themselves.

None of this sentence is accurate. You did not legally acquire a copy to begin with and your friends can't legally make copies of your copy.

My copy is legal in the sense that it was made with a technology widely available and onto a medium where a part of the price was transferred directly to the copyright holders because the lawmakers knew that I'd record this stuff and therefore made sure the content-owners got their fair share of the money I paid.
Why would you think this isn't legal?

ETA: Whatever my friends do with it, of course, isn't my concern -I'm just saying what I'd do If I missed an episode.

 

[JarodRussell]

Yeah, I don't call it theft, I call it infringement. It undermines the validity of their product, but it doesn't steal their product. It's closer to damaging something that someone else owns than taking something. Is it better to damage someone's car rather than steal it? I suppose so, but it doesn't make it right.

Hm, but how are you damaging anything? It's not like the master copy of the song or movie gets somehow physically damaged.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

If I were to have legally acquired a copy of something at a time when it was possible to do so (say, tapes of The Rockford Files be it something I recorded myself (after all, I did pay for it once through TV-licence (or accepting commercial breaks) and twice by buying a blank tape(/CD/DVD)), there is no illegality in letting any of my friends borrow it -- and -if they feel like it- make copies for themselves.

None of this sentence is accurate. You did not legally acquire a copy to begin with and your friends can't legally make copies of your copy.

My copy is legal in the sense that it was made with a technology widely available and onto a medium where a part of the price was transferred directly to the copyright holders because the lawmakers knew that I'd record this stuff and therefore made sure the content-owners got their fair share of the money I paid.
Why would you think this isn't legal?

Recording of a broadcast without consent is a copyright violation. Making a copy of a sound recording without consent is a copyright violation. It might be widely tolerated, but it isn't legal.

Yeah, I don't call it theft, I call it infringement. It undermines the validity of their product, but it doesn't steal their product. It's closer to damaging something that someone else owns than taking something. Is it better to damage someone's car rather than steal it? I suppose so, but it doesn't make it right.

Hm, but how are you damaging anything? It's not like the master copy of the song or movie gets somehow physically damaged.

The value of the copyright is in its exclusive control. By failing to recognize that control, you are undermining its effectiveness. Nobody creates intellectual property for the sole purpose of possessing the original copy.

 

[Myasishchev]

I see. So if I build a house I can keep it as long as I live and leave it to my descendants in perpetuity; but if I write a novel then it belongs to the collective.

Depending on the state, you can't do that either. And as much as I hated learning the rule against perpetuities, and indeed as poorly as I learned it, the main idea is that it evolved for a reason; the current trend of abrogating it is stupid.

Regardless, for creative works the limit ought to be about ten years. That is, ten years for works, as opposed to concepts (e.g., the Death of Superman would revert to the public domain, but Time-Warner may still own Superman and Doomsday.)

That said, the idea that just because millions of people do something makes it legal is baffling. I'll let the traffic cop know that the next time I'm caught speeding, or the DEA agent, the next time I'm caught smuggling cocaine.

But it may be characterized fairly as civil disobedience, although this is definitely what they call a "First World problem."

 

[trekkiedane]

None of this sentence is accurate. You did not legally acquire a copy to begin with and your friends can't legally make copies of your copy.

My copy is legal in the sense that it was made with a technology widely available and onto a medium where a part of the price was transferred directly to the copyright holders because the lawmakers knew that I'd record this stuff and therefore made sure the content-owners got their fair share of the money I paid.
Why would you think this isn't legal?

Recording of a broadcast without consent is a copyright violation. Making a copy of a sound recording without consent is a copyright violation. It might be widely tolerated, but it isn't legal.

Not being a lawyer or in any other other way knowledgeable in this field I think what we're having right here is one of those new world/old world differences.
If, indeed, it were illegal to record broadcast material here I'm sure I would have heard about it at least once during my life.

 

[Jadzia]

Not being a lawyer or in any other other way knowledgeable in this field I think what we're having right here is one of those new world/old world differences.
If, indeed, it were illegal to record broadcast material here I'm sure I would have heard about it at least once during my life.

In England we have had a system called VideoPlus since the 1980s. Other countries have something similar. Ten digit numbers are printed alongside every programme in our television listings which makes it easy for users to programme their video recorder, just by entering the one code instead of the start time/stop time/date/channel number etc.

Why would these codes be given to the general public if we weren't permitted to record broadcast programmes? It would be nothing short of inciting copyright infringement. Is VideoPlus acting as an accomplice to crime, or is it just not a crime?

 

[cultcross]

^ In the UK it is legal to record broadcast TV (with a TV licence) for personal use. Sky Plus boxes would be illegal, otherwise.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you isn't theft?

At least under our definition of theft, copying something illegally isn't theft. The definition of theft is to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with intent to permanently deprive the other of it. Copyright infringement ticks:
dishonestly
appropriate
property
belonging to another
But it doesn't tick 'permanently deprive the other of it' because it doesn't harm the original. For the purposes of the criminal offence of 'theft', you can't steal intellectual property alone. It is still illegal, but it isn't theft. The offences here fall under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Certain offences can be tried on indictment (equivalent to a 'felony' in the US) and carry maximum punishments up to 10 years, which is actually greater than general theft (7 years).

Laws in your area may be different, however.