Why are you stealing?

[Deep Dish]

I'm at work right now and have a mixed opinion on this issue, but I want to make one comment.

horaholic:
What if you buy a book, and let someone else read it? Did they just steal from the author?

Paradox:
Technically, yes, sharing a book or music is stealing.

Are you fvcking kidding me? Lending out a book (or giving it away) is not stealing. You are not multiplying the number of copies but rather transferring possession from one person to another. There is still the ratio of one copy per one purchased copy. When you buy a book, you acquire ownership of the physical copy, completely regardless of the fact you don't own the intellectual rights. As owner, you are free to lend out or sell the physical copy of the book. So, technically, you're categorically wrong.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Are you fvcking kidding me?

Geez, Deep Dish, you're making too much sense here.


Paradox;
I buy a CD. I play it on my car stereo and I pick some friends up. They listen to the song, but have not paid for it. Are they stealing?

I buy a CD. I lose the CD, then I download a copy off the internet. Am I stealing?

 

[Luthor Rex]

Lending out a book (or giving it away) is not stealing.

I think the Public Libraries here in the U.S. would have been shut down long ago if it were stealing.

 

[The Logical Player]

this thread was clearly started by a left wing nutjob who believes in laws that are meant to control the people as much as possible (aka fascist)

there is no reason to even talk about this kind of crap with a left winger like this, because they do not believe in freedom, they only believe in a lockdowned control - such as punishing people who commit VICTIMLESS acts such as sharing music.

 

[piranha45]

I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'victimless', as there is surely at least some loss of profit involved for one party. But yeah to the rest.

 

[ketostix]

I think it is a form of stealing, maybe minor. Copyright infringement is a form of stealing for all intents and purposes. I don't believe that you have to take a CD out of a store, for example, to consider it fully stealing. That's just a higher level of theft. You are taking a copy of someone else's work basically for free without their agreement for you to have it.

I will say that sometimes stealing is justifiable at least to some varying degree. For example, avoiding taxes is a form of stealing from the government. But oftentimes it's the government first stealing from you in taxation. You may see it rightly as them ripping you off and they see it as you cheating them. My point is, in any exchange there's varying degrees of, damn what's the word for voluntary and freely in this context..and who's getting a fair deal or not. Sometimes exchanges are win-win and freely decided, but a lot of times it's whoever has the advantage will take it. It just so happens that a person downloading files has an advantage to the copyright holder and is taking it.

 

[ketostix]

I don't want to get into debating people's points but some people are justifying copyright infringement with some twisted logic. You're the lucky poster I picked .

Read my mind.

But back to the whole stealing thing, Paradox. I was going to try to make this case about what's legal and what's really right, but something dawned on me. Nascar came into being because guys used to supe up their cars so they could get moonshine from point A to B without the cops being able to catch them. When people decided drinking wasn't wrong again, the guys kept fixing up their cars and racing them; from that Nascar came into being. Why am I saying this? Because morality changes when dollars come into play.

Well moonshine runners were never justified even after liquor became legal again. The liquor law or morality might have changed. And some good can come out of anything. But running moonshine never became moral in the process.

People used to tape movies from tv, but you never had the studios calling a witch-hunt because somebody taped Ghostbusters even though you could have bought it on tape. No one was crying when kids used to record music off of the radio and played their favorite musician on the streets. But, lo and behold, you copy a video from youtube or download a song from somebody, and it is a crime.

That's a different matter. That's more akin to using a library book or copying pages from it, than it is to downloading files. If you videotaped a movie off TV then that movie was paid for and royalties paid through advertising. Same thing with recording broadcast radio. That's not the case with everyone copying a likely pirated copy of something.

Want to know the real reason? Things are in a way cheaper now. Boomboxes and VCR's used to be expensive, but now you can get both for $5. Computers compared to the power they had then are really cheap. Along with it came cd and dvd burners and affordable internet. Since technology moved forward, the big companies had a harder time controlling where their stuff ended up. It was easier when a person would have to steal a film reel or master copies of a tape, but now hackers can find a digital copy in the company's computers. So really, the companies may now start saying they're being stole from, but the fire's been burning. he funny thing is they didn't care before, but now that they are losing money and are trying to blame people for them turning out an inferior product, it's wrong. The Golden Rule at work.

Well like was saying earlier it's an apples and oranges comparison. In this thread people keep saying "crappy product", but that's just a rationalization. The truth is a person is probably more likely to download something for free that they don't consider a crappy product.

 

[Deep Dish]

this thread was clearly started by a left wing nutjob who believes in laws that are meant to control the people as much as possible (aka fascist)

there is no reason to even talk about this kind of crap with a left winger like this, because they do not believe in freedom, they only believe in a lockdowned control - such as punishing people who commit VICTIMLESS acts such as sharing music.

You meant "right wing." But listen, I've been around here much longer than you and I wouldn't charactertize Paradox by anything you just said. Pirating music also is not a victimless act—ultimately, you're talking about musicians' retirement checks—and we all wish to retire someday.

 

[azanon]

Another kind of stealing going on that probably amounts to billions of dollars now is folks that don't pay use tax. Do you pay use tax to your state, Paradox?

In short, if you buy something over the internet, and they don't charge sales tax, but your state does have sales tax, then you owe the state exactly whatever your state sales tax is. You're supposed to report this on a use tax form during tax season. Now how many of you don't pay that tax?

I'm sure in short time, they'll eventually crack down on this major money loss.

 

[Luthor Rex]

You meant "right wing."

If you think for one second that the left is not as much about control as the right, then you haven't been paying attention. Both parties agree that the American people need to be controlled, they just disagree over which issues we have to be controlled.

:rockon:

 

[Desdinova]

So once again, if I want something and I think it's too expensive should I steal it?

I think my point here is that high prices will lead to more theft. If milk suddenly went up to $45 per carton, would you still buy it? I sure as hell wouldn't.

I buy a CD. I lose the CD, then I download a copy off the internet. Am I stealing?

And here's another issue. You bought a copy of Alice Cooper's 'Hey Stoopid' album on cassette when it came out in the 1980s. You've been playing the 5hit out of it ever since. Now, cassette decks are going the way of the dodo, and your copy of 'Hey Stoopid' finally got eaten by the machine, is it wrong to go and download the album to replace your worn out cassette even though you still own the album?

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Scenario Number One:

You buy a copy of a CD, burn a copy of one song, and send it to one hundred of your friends. Twenty of them like the song so much they go and buy the CD that they never would have known about had it not been for your generous file sharing. File sharing causes increase of revenue for singer.

Stealing?

Scenario Number Two:

Same scenario as above, but they DON'T buy a copy of the CD, which they wouldn't have bought anyways, because they think it sucks.
File Sharing causes no net change in revenue for singer.

Stealing?

Scenario Number Three:

You and your buddies go downtown to buy the new snoop CD. The line is about ten miles long. You go home, and download the CD. You tell yourselves you'll eventually get around to buying the CD, but you never do.
File sharing causes LOSS of revenue for singer.

Stealing?

Scenario Number four.

New band is starting out, but they are getting ZERO radio play. So the actively encourage people to file share their music, even though technically it's illegal, since people are downloading copies they didn't buy. This results in a HUGE increase in revenue for the band, the label, the concert promoters, everbody, as they are now world famous and play to packed houses around the world due to their exploitation of the illegal file sharing environment.

Stealing?

Scenario Number Five.

You write a widely read newsletter which reviews new CD's. You go to check out the new one, and ask for a free copy. They refuse, so you go and download it, and it sucks. You don't write a review because they are just starting out, and you realize that reviews are subjective, and you don't want to hurt their business.

Stealing?


Is stealing every morally justified if it enhances the property rights of those that the law is trying to protect? Or is stealing always stealing, regardless?

 

[Paradox]

when it comes to music & movies;

because i can't put my finger on the victims
because i don't see any imediate consequences for me.
because it doesn't feel like stealing.

it's wrong, but in this case i'm ok with it.

The victims are as follows:
a) Recording & Movie industries--whether you care or not they are losing income/potential income.
b) The Artists--they are losing income/potential income on sales
c) Stock shareholders
d) Recording & Movie industry office support staff--administrators, A&R...ect
e) New Artists--money that would have gone to develop and promote new artists is lost
f) Recording & Movie industry employees and their families
g) movie theater owners
h) movie theatre employees
i) various vendors that survive from the income of the Recording & Movie industries

These are just some of the people losing money. Since the whole economy is connected when you have a loss in one industry it often affects 6 or more other industries. Spider you are killing the American economy!

 

[Paradox]

That analogy doesn't hold up. What is actually happening with movies and music would go something like this:

I come into your home, build a copy of your couch with materials I brought, and take the copy home with me. What exactly did I just steal?

People do it because in the traditional sense, it doesn't "feel" like stealing.

It doesn't feel like stealing but it is stealing

 

[Paradox]

Paradox;
I buy a CD. I play it on my car stereo and I pick some friends up. They listen to the song, but have not paid for it. Are they stealing?

Playing a CD for a friend is not the same as downloading it or posting it up so that millions of people can download it

Paradox;
I buy a CD. I lose the CD, then I download a copy off the internet. Am I stealing?

Since you no longer own the CD then yes you are stealing a copy. If I lose my bluetooth earpiece and then steal the same model bluetooth earpiece is it stealing?

 

[STR8UP]

Some people are using the fact that with digital downloads there is no "product cost" and no actual physical item to justify the theft.

It's not about that- it's about opportunity cost. The entire chain loses the opportunity they would have had to make money off of their intellectual property. This is true in most cases, but of course sometimes it actually benefits the chain such as in the case of a new band. If exposure makes the band take off, everyone makes money. Still doesn't negate the fact that it IS stealing though.

 

[Paradox]

Scenario Number One:

You buy a copy of a CD, burn a copy of one song, and send it to one hundred of your friends. Twenty of them like the song so much they go and buy the CD that they never would have known about had it not been for your generous file sharing. File sharing causes increase of revenue for singer.

Stealing?

Yes, no matter what the result of your theft was. The initial action was one of theft.

Scenario Number Two:

Same scenario as above, but they DON'T buy a copy of the CD, which they wouldn't have bought anyways, because they think it sucks.
File Sharing causes no net change in revenue for singer.

Stealing?

File sharing costs money in potential revenue. Just because you justify to yourself that you wouldn't have paid for it doesn't mean you are not stealing it when you do steal it.

Scenario Number Three:

You and your buddies go downtown to buy the new snoop CD. The line is about ten miles long. You go home, and download the CD. You tell yourselves you'll eventually get around to buying the CD, but you never do.
File sharing causes LOSS of revenue for singer.

Stealing?

Of course it is. No matter what your excuse is. Stealing is stealing

Scenario Number four.

New band is starting out, but they are getting ZERO radio play. So the actively encourage people to file share their music, even though technically it's illegal, since people are downloading copies they didn't buy. This results in a HUGE increase in revenue for the band, the label, the concert promoters, everbody, as they are now world famous and play to packed houses around the world due to their exploitation of the illegal file sharing environment.

Stealing?

If the band has publishing rights to the music can do whatever they want. If they don't have the rights then they are asking the public to steal their music from the record label. No matter what the final result if they do not own the song then it is not within their rights to promote theft.

Most bands sell the publishing rights to a publishing company. They don't own the songs that they sing. They just sing them.

Scenario Number Five.

You write a widely read newsletter which reviews new CD's. You go to check out the new one, and ask for a free copy. They refuse, so you go and download it, and it sucks. You don't write a review because they are just starting out, and you realize that reviews are subjective, and you don't want to hurt their business.

Stealing?

Huh? If you stole the music then you stole it. Why not just go out and buy a copy and review that one..???

Is stealing every morally justified if it enhances the property rights of those that the law is trying to protect? Or is stealing always stealing, regardless?

Stealing is stealing no matter the final outcome. If I steal a diamond and give it away to someone else am I still a thief?

 

[Paradox]

Some people are using the fact that with digital downloads there is no "product cost" and no actual physical item to justify the theft.

Oh but there are production costs.

1. Payment to the artist
2. Payment to the writer for publishing rights.
3. Studio time
4. Production costs (engineering)
5. Marketing costs (TV ads, newspaper ads, magazine ads.)

There are also Internet costs

1. Website hosting costs (server)
2. Website security
3. Website technical support
4. Customer support for downloaded music

 

[Alle_Gory]

Since you no longer own the CD then yes you are stealing a copy. If I lose my bluetooth earpiece and then steal the same model bluetooth earpiece is it stealing?

It's not a physical item.


Now is it the copy I am paying for or is it a licensing agreement? If its a licensing agreement, then how is it theft if I have already bought a license to listen to the music previously?

If its a physical item, what happens when you buy music off iTunes and their servers mess up and you can't access it. Its theft, right?

 

[Paradox]

It's not a physical item.


Now is it the copy I am paying for or is it a licensing agreement? If its a licensing agreement, then how is it theft if I have already bought a license to listen to the music previously?

If its a physical item, what happens when you buy music off iTunes and their servers mess up and you can't access it. Its theft, right?

So many people here feel that when they download music they are not stealing a physical item. What is data? Binary Data is a series of 1's and 0's that can be decoded by software.

If you download an e-book and read it then what did you just read...Nothing?

If you download music and listen to it then what did you just listen to....Nothing?

If you download/stream a bootleg cam video of a movie and watch to it then what did you just watch....Nothing?

Your copy (CD) comes with an agreement that you will not distribute the item and will only use it for personal use.

If I buy a CD does it mean that I have purchased lifetime personal ownership rights to use that CD for personal use. Yes it does. For the life of that CD I can listen to it for 40, 50 or more years.

When you lose that CD you lose personal ownership of the material and the rights that came with the ownership.