This sounds like an argument my grandfather would make because he can't get his head around the idea. I'm seriously surprised at you. Physical or digital, the sale is income from the asset. There is no difference, at the end of the day you possess something that you didn't pay for.
Copyright theft...
- Thread starter duffer
- Start date
This sounds like an argument my grandfather would make because he can't get his head around the idea. I'm seriously surprised at you. Physical or digital, the sale is income from the asset. There is no difference, at the end of the day you possess something that you didn't pay for.
I'm not sure we're gonna agree on this possibly because we have different ideas about the morality of this issue.
although legally illegally file sharing is definately wrong, morally I don't see how it could possibly be if you are sharing for free. However I do understand your point of view that morally it is not fair on the owner of the intellectual rights of the product.
Thats a fair enough point however whilst intellectual rights are a perfectly fair intitlement the idea of intellectual property is a legal construct based on a system of commerce it is not a moral construct and therefore in my opinion has no place in a debate about morality.
That last bit is completely irrelevant.
It's the dishonest appropriation bit that's the theft.
But the pirate does not deprive the asset holder of the asset. If you like, the pirate does not deprive the asset holder of the copyright of the asset - the pirate does not assert a material gain of the copyright of the asset, unlike in theft.
If you like, when you pirate, something is being "copied" - i.e. not "taken".
Piracy is wrong; theft is wrong; but this doesn't mean piracy is theft.
Since when does theft have to involve stealing assets?
If someone stole 50 quid from your wallet you'd be pretty pissed off and it would be cold comfort if someone told you "oh well, at least you didn't lose an asset"
Accounting 101: Cash at hand is an asset.
That's what theft is!
If you cannot prove all parts, then you can't be guilty of theft.
Accounting 102: Who gives a feck? They're still losing money.
Isn't that the definition of theft? The appropriation of an asset, tangible or no, through illegal means.
If someone stole 50 quid from me, I have lost the ability to use that 50 quid.
If I had the ability to make an infinite number of cars, and someone then made an exact replica of one of the cars which they then sell, they haven't stolen from me. They have deprived me from selling that car to that person.
If you like, I never owned that illegally replicated car. It wasn't mine. However, I have exclusive rights over my cars including the right not for someone to make copies of it and sell for material gain - such laws are present although I don't know the exact wording. So this thief hasn't stolen from me - he has simply violated my rights. He's deprived me of money but not an asset.
Pogue, the intention just means that you are aware that you are stealing.
Someone who picks up another person's bag by mistake, for instance, would not be intentionally depriving them of it, and thus would not be stealing.
Put it another way.
If someone hacked your Pc and cloned your hard-drive; copied all your music, your photos, your passwords for your online bank accounts, your log-in details for redcafe etc. etc. etc. would that bother you?
Or would you be ok with it, because they only copied it and left you with the original files?
When you spend a long time accumulating stuff of personal (not to mention financial) value it's morally wrong for someone to wade on in and copy it without permission.
If someone hacked your Pc and cloned your hard-drive; copied all your music, your photos, your passwords for your online bank accounts, your log-in details for redcafe etc. etc. etc. would that bother you?
Or would you be ok with it, because they only copied it and left you with the original files?
When you spend a long time accumulating stuff of personal (not to mention financial) value it's morally wrong for someone to wade on in and copy it without permission.
So I can use my copy of Inglorious Basterds to gain access into Tarantino's bank account and personal life?
You should read the small-print Elvis.
Generation Y kicking in again.
Not enough attention to detail
You're not too good with analogies, are you?
You are appropriating something of value, both personal and financial. Personal, because it is something into which a lot of people have invested a lot of time and creativity; and financial, because they can earn money from it.
Oh and if you think Tarantino is the only person losing money as a result of your theft you know as little about the film industry as Elvis knows about law.
Being the good Christian that you are, you shouldn't even have a pirate copy of Inglorious Basterd on your hard drive in the first place.
Better than your grasp of cash being an asset.
You should read the small-print Elvis.
Generation Y kicking in again.
Not enough attention to detail
Yeah I knew that, I was just playing devil's advocate.
I'd never in million years buy all the music I've on my computer. The ones that shared it with my may or may not have bought it, but they shared it willingly with me.
I, however, have not shared it with anyone.
So the question is who am I stealing from...
- All of those whose music is on my hard drive?
- Just those whose music I would've bought but didn't?*
- None of them?
* Can't really be proved which albums I would've bought (if any).
I, however, have not shared it with anyone.
So the question is who am I stealing from...
- All of those whose music is on my hard drive?
- Just those whose music I would've bought but didn't?*
- None of them?
* Can't really be proved which albums I would've bought (if any).
Yes I...no I...if you're going to be...I...of course you, you...just feck off!
Correct
This.
As mentioned earlier, to be guilty of theft you MUST complete all parts of the definition.
You must be acting dishonestly.. For instance, you may not be acting dishonestly if you believe by law you have a right to the property, you believe you have consent to take that property or you believe you dont need to take reasonable steps to discover the owner of the property
You must approrpriate property that belongs to another.. Property is anything tangible
And you must intend to permanently deprive them of it.. Destroy, sell, keep it, eat or drink it, change ID or keep untill has no further use
If you can't make it fit this critera then you can't have theft.
You must be acting dishonestly.. For instance, you may not be acting dishonestly if you believe by law you have a right to the property, you believe you have consent to take that property or you believe you dont need to take reasonable steps to discover the owner of the property
You must approrpriate property that belongs to another.. Property is anything tangible
And you must intend to permanently deprive them of it.. Destroy, sell, keep it, eat or drink it, change ID or keep untill has no further use
If you can't make it fit this critera then you can't have theft.
Let us bring another angle into this, by downloading music illegally is it not immoral to force the burden of keeping the music industry financially sound onto those who are law abiding and respect the notions of copyright and intelectual property?
As after all, those who copy music illegally wouldn't be getting it at all if law abiding people like myself were not buying it.
As after all, those who copy music illegally wouldn't be getting it at all if law abiding people like myself were not buying it.
No you weren't, you're Generation Y. Just remember that. Every time you make a mistake it's because you are Generation Y. Okay? You big Y motherfecker!
For every one person who copys music, the owners of the copyright are losing the royalties on a sale of said duplicated copy. There is your theft.
It's not really the same as theft in my eyes. It's the same as using witchcraft to create an identical duplicate of your neighbours delicious cherry pie. Which is not to say it's not morally dubious.
Personally I download quite a bit, but I don't feel bad about it since it definitely leads to me buying more music, not less.
Personally I download quite a bit, but I don't feel bad about it since it definitely leads to me buying more music, not less.
feck them, music has existed before the internets and will exist after it.
That's assuming the downloader would have paid if he hadn't downloaded illegally, which is by no means given.
Not having that.
You may have a case for fraud, making a gain for yourself whilst making a loss for another or exposing another to the risk of a loss, but there would have to be a false representation of some sorts involved in obtaining the copy..
Interesting though
So if you owned a company producing whatever good which is patented or copyrighted, and someone comes along and reverse engineers it and allows for the distribution of your product free of charge to whomever in your market, a good that you've spent your money, time and expertise planning, manufacturing, distributing and promoting, you wouldn't mind?
That is irrelevant, for anyone to legally own a unit of intellectual property in their possession they have to first attain it through normal channels, and secondly pay for it, otherwise it is against the law to have it.
How could they reverse engineer my music?
Infact, off the top of my head I would probably go with fraud by false representation but it really would deppend on the circumstances of what was going on.
If you had passed yourself off as a one time buyer of the music, then went on to release it to copy to make a gain for yourself and expose the other party to a loss, or put them at risk of a loss, then would fit that more appropriatly IMO.
If you had passed yourself off as a one time buyer of the music, then went on to release it to copy to make a gain for yourself and expose the other party to a loss, or put them at risk of a loss, then would fit that more appropriatly IMO.
You are "stealing" their royalties but the actual copied file itself is not theft.
The record companies/publishers/artists/whatever have rights to the files themselves - they are, after all, copyrighted - and this is why it is copyright infringement, not theft.
They are losing money but not the actual copied asset (after all, by definition, they are copying something - not moving it).
I had a chat with my friend about this the other day. I would never shoplift. Was brought up not to. I do download music though. My thinking is that, if you go to a shop and steal something, you have stolen something tangible. You have a product in your hands you paid for. With downloaded music though, there's no real tangible product. It's just 1's and 0's.
And you a film maker? Shocked and outraged right here.
I download music not movies.