Copyright theft...

duffer

Sensible and not a complete jerk like most oppo's
Scout
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
53,110
Location
Chelsea (the saviours of football) fan.
Why is it deemed acceptable to steal music and films on the internet and yet if you told your mates that stole a load of DVDs or CDs from Tesco, they'd look at you like you were the biggest pikey in the world?

Geniune question, i've downloaded the odd thing online but would not dream of stealing from a shop. What's the difference morally?
 
duffer said:
Why is it deemed acceptable to steal music and films on the internet and yet if you told your mates that stole a load of DVDs or CDs from Tesco, they'd look at you like you were the biggest pikey in the world?

Geniune question, i've downloaded the odd thing online but would not dream of stealing from a shop. What's the difference morally?
Click to expand...

It's not illegal where I live. Yet.
 
duffer said:
Why is it deemed acceptable to steal music and films on the internet and yet if you told your mates that stole a load of DVDs or CDs from Tesco, they'd look at you like you were the biggest pikey in the world?

Geniune question, i've downloaded the odd thing online but would not dream of stealing from a shop. What's the difference morally?
Click to expand...

I'm guessing because its assumed that most of whats availible to download illegally or legally on the internet has to have at one point been legally purchased by the individual who originally uploaded it.

It then is that individuals choice to upload it to the internet free of charge and share with all and sundry.

If there is no theft involved in the original obtaining of the uploaded material then it should be morally fair for that individual to share with as many different parties as he or she likes even if the law says he or she is forbiden from doing so.
 
BAMSOLA said:
I'm guessing because its assumed that most of whats availible to download illegally or legally on the internet has to have at one point been legally purchased by the individual who originally uploaded it.

It then is that individuals choice to upload it to the internet free of charge and share with all and sundry.

If there is no theft involved in the original obtaining of the uploaded material then it should be morally fair for that individual to share with as many different parties as he or she likes even if the law says he or she is forbiden from doing so.
Click to expand...

I really don't think it is morally fair though. Just because someone else has paid for a cinema ticket it's not on that they take a camera with them and upload the film for everyone to see for free.
 
duffer said:
I really don't think it is morally fair though. Just because someone else has paid for a cinema ticket it's not on that they take a camera with them and upload the film for everyone to see for free.
Click to expand...

Thats hardly the same deal or arrangement though is it.

When you pay for a cinema ticket the ticket is your property and it just so happens that that ticket allows you admission to a room where they are showing a film that you want to watch but you don't own the room or the film.

When I buy a DVD it is my property, what I then do with my property is morally my own business.
 
I have never downloaded a cam version of a film. And I never would. Nothing to do with morals. I just don't understand why people are willing to ruin a potentially good movie, by watching a version with shitty sound, picture, and fat bastards walking back and forth in front of the screen.
 
The main issue I feel is the fact that software companies appear to be the most selfish companies around. When you buy a car, it's not "licensed" to you. You own the house - you pay for it. You are free to demolish it or deface it. You are free to sell it on to someone or rent it out.

Contrast with software - it's often licensed to you. You can't resell it. Yet you "own" the CD, the tangible asset, if you will. Could you imagine the housing industry if you weren't allowed to sell your houses without the builders' permission, or rent it out? Or modify it? Or take it apart to see the house's innards?

Then you have things like EA's Project Ten Dollar which is basically to claim money from second-hand sales.

You could argue that buying software doesn't always "degrade" it in the sense that buying a house and living in it depreciates its value not taking into account the housing market. But then you ask whether it is then "ethical" for software companies to continue to hold consumers to ransom for something which they essentially own an infinite number of copies of.
 
Because downloading something hurts nobody if you never had the intention of buying it. And even if you did have the intention but downloaded it anyway, tough tits.
 
duffer said:
Why is it deemed acceptable to steal music and films on the internet and yet if you told your mates that stole a load of DVDs or CDs from Tesco, they'd look at you like you were the biggest pikey in the world?

Geniune question, i've downloaded the odd thing online but would not dream of stealing from a shop. What's the difference morally?
Click to expand...

Everybody grew up taping their mates music and recording films off sky movies (even record and film company executives), it's been happening since the dawn of the real red button and the change in technology was never going to make sharing immoral.
 
esmufc10 said:
At the end of the day, lost sales due to downloading is factored into the price.
Click to expand...

So are lost sales due to shoplifting. Does not make it right.

As i've said before, i'm not getting on my high horse here. I've stolen films and albums via torrents and the likes. It's just interesting to me that people seem to genuinley believe copyright theft is not theft.
 
Because it doesn't deprive the seller of an asset! Just lost revenue.

"Piracy" of, say, a book, would be to go into a store with a camera to make a perfect copy of the book - then put the book back.

Calling it "theft" is wrong, but doesn't make it right, of course.
 
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
 
To be honest the only thing I really download is music and TV shows. And really I just download TV shows to see whether or not I will like them. I still buy a lot of box-sets.

If everybody turned to downloading films/TV shows/Games illegally, we'd have nothing to watch and nothing to play, so it does need stamping out.
 
esmufc10 said:
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Click to expand...

Which in the digital world, and with intellectual property, means gains in terms of revenue. By having a digital copy of something that someone created, you are permanently depriving the author of that work the revenue they have rights to for their toil whilst you enjoy the benefits of that work. It's exactly the same thing.
 
What if somebody makes me a copy of their DVD? I'm not downloading it. OK it's technically illegal, but as Bamsola said, it's my property, I've paid for it, I can damn well do what I like with it.
 
WeasteDevil said:
Which in the digital world, and with intellectual property, means gains in terms of revenue. By having a digital copy of something that someone created, you are permanently depriving the author of that work the revenue they have rights to for their toil whilst you enjoy the benefits of that work. It's exactly the same thing.
Click to expand...
But you are not depriving them of the tangible asset ("property"), only the money you make of it.
 
x42bn6 said:
But you are not depriving them of the tangible asset ("property"), only the money you make of it.
Click to expand...

You are depriving them of the intellectual property. Just because it's not physical doesn't change anything. How much do you think that the bit of plastic that is a CD costs? You are not paying for the plastic, you are paying for what the plastic contains.
 
I agree completely with Duffer, making clone copies of copyrighted intellectual property is illegal in the same manner as stealing. There is no argument to suggest it isn't immoral to do so.
 
esmufc10 said:
What if somebody makes me a copy of their DVD? I'm not downloading it. OK it's technically illegal, but as Bamsola said, it's my property, I've paid for it, I can damn well do what I like with it.
Click to expand...

You paid for one copy of it and not the rights to manufacture.

And what does 'technically illegal' mean? It is either illegal or it isn't, in this case it is.
 
This argument seems to be heading away from one of morality and onto one of legality.

I should stress I have no problem with illegal file sharing being classed as an illegal activity but under the circumstances I described it cannot really be classed as immoral in the same way that petty theft can.
 
Legality and morality are closely intertwined, and in this case they are one and the same, copying and passing on intellectual property that is somebody else's work (consider it along the lines of plagiarism) is always immoral.
 
Yes but for the music industry it actually helps the artist more than it hinders them, I would say.

For films/TV/Games, I'd agree, but for music, I would disagree.
 
Let's get daft here, just because it puts it into perspective. If we had a teleportation machine, and we changed it such that instead of moving the object in the source teleporter, it simply scanned it and recreated a perfect copy on the destination teleporter. If we placed a car into it, we would have a perfect copy. Is that theft?
 
esmufc10 said:
Yes but for the music industry it actually helps the artist more than it hinders them, I would say.

For films/TV/Games, I'd agree, but for music, I would disagree.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, album sales have fallen in half over the last generation.
 
esmufc10 said:
Yes but for the music industry it actually helps the artist more than it hinders them, I would say.

For films/TV/Games, I'd agree, but for music, I would disagree.
Click to expand...

Games you have to take out of the equation here, because games have one bite at the cherry. Film has theatre receipts, DVD receipts, and then TV royalties. Music has the CD receipts, live concert receipts, and radio royalties. Games are quite different - they only have that one go to make money.
 
downloadacar_thumb.jpg
 
WeasteDevil said:
You are depriving them of the intellectual property. Just because it's not physical doesn't change anything. How much do you think that the bit of plastic that is a CD costs? You are not paying for the plastic, you are paying for what the plastic contains.
Click to expand...
A pirate isn't "depriving" them of the software because the software can be still sold.

- If I nick your car you can't sell it.
- If I pirate your software you can still sell it.

A pirate doesn't deprive someone of the asset - they simply deprive them of the income from the asset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.