Which am I? In another section of BS, some posters insisted that I'm a thief when I mentioned that I've downloaded some cracked game software (eyes stray to the advertisement on the left) from a peer to peer network rather than paying actual currency for it. Although I admit to breaking intelectual property laws and violating copyrights, I don't think I'm a thief. The difference is kind of important to me, because I don't want to be a thief, but I think it's ok to violate laws I don't agree with. Morally ok, that is. A thief might run into a store and steal a physical copy of the software, depriving the store of that object. A bootlegger like me just copies the software. The store has a copy and I have a copy. No deprivation. That's not stealing, it's sharing. Also, I make no attempt to profit of my copy, such as trying to sell it to other people. I do offer to let other people copy my copy, but I don't charge money for it. Most of the people I meet on p2p networks file share because they want free stuff. However there are a few like me who are very interested in the politics and morality of intelectual property rights. Most of us share without guilt for one or more reasons: We want to destroy the record, publishing, software and motion picture industries. We have good reasons for this, but I don't want to rant so I won't go into the details. We don't think copyright laws are viable in the digital age. A popular analagy is the horse manure laws extant in the horse and buggy era. Using copyright laws to regulate file sharing is kind of like using horse manure laws to regulate car exhaust. Just doesn't work. Copyright laws violate free speech ideals, are detrimental to art and culture and infringe on the smooth working of a free market economy. I could cover a lot more ground, but I'll stop there for now. I know my ideas are in the minority, but I've put some thought into the issue and am pretty confident that I'm on solid ground. I'm curious to hear other and opposing ideas, though. Are intelectual property right laws logically valid? Are they enforceable? What's the future of industries that rely on them (very bleak I think)? and of course...Am I a thief?
You are a thief. Anybody who ever downloaded a song or a movie or a game is a thief. We are a nation of thieves. PS: If you are planning to destroy the motion picture industry, at least have the decency to wait until after 'Return of the King' comes out.
You have a lot of contradictory ideas, so it is a little hard to tell your moral status. > We want to destroy the record, publishing, > software and motion picture industries This makes you a revolutionary. This can be a morally valid position, but you must accept that the people in power will attempt to destroy you. You cannot use the defense "my actions are not hurting anyone". And to be a true revolutionary, you must act in ways that further your goal, not in ways that justify your petty whims. Downloading one game you like is not revolutionary. Spreading all games and music (even ones you don't like) everywhere is. > We don't think copyright laws are viable in the > digital age. This is not a moral statement. Because a crime is now easy to commit does not make it more morally correct than before. > A bootlegger like me just copies the software. > The store has a copy and I have a copy. No > deprivation. That's not stealing, it's sharing. This is not revolutionary. It is a weak justification for petty whims. Will the store be able to sell its copy now that potential customers have free copies? What are the people that worked hard to make the game supposed to live on? You are having a detrimental impact on people that are innocent or even beneficial to your standard of living. > Copyright laws violate free speech ideals, are > detrimental to art and culture and infringe on the > smooth working of a free market economy. How? How? How? In what way? There are people who say all property rights do those things you listed. Do you agree with them or do you only feel this way about intelectual property? Why?
How so? Copyright infringement is not the same as stealing a CD from a store. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32004.html It's not theft. Nothing was taken - the copyright holder was not deprived of anything of value.
I tried to outline how a group of people justify violating the law. It's a large group with various positions, some of which I personally agree with more strongly than others. I don't think it does. We just recognize that those particular industries are ones that we are better off without. I think that if a law is bad, I'm not morally obligated to obey it. Like any other business, the store and the industry who made the game will have to figure out a reliable way to make money off their product without relying on consumers to make irrational decisions. Violate free speech ideal--this is a no-brainer. Detrimental to art and culture--Let me give you one quick example. There was a rare book collector who wanted to make some of his favorite books more available to readers. The books were out of print and almost impossible to find. He scanned them and offered them for free in pdf format from his website. Eventhough the publishing companies had no intention of re-issueing the books, they used copyright laws to force him to stop. Those particular works of art are now denied to almost everyone. Detrimental to a free market--Using the game software as an example; If I get the game by sharing, I save let's say 50$. Now, I don't burn that 50$, and I don't bury it in the garden. I spend it somewhere else or I put it in the bank and they lend it to someone who spends it on someone else. Maybe I take my wife to a nice restaurant. Instead of giving my money to an industry with a bad business plan (see point above) I've given it to a company with a good business plan. The market is operating smoothly. If I spend my money on the game, I'm propping up a flawed industry for non-logical reasons. The market is being interfered with. That's another interesting line of thought. If I spend my money on the game rather than the restaurant, is the restaurant being robbed of that 50$? I guess you're talking about Prudhon's line "Property is theft"? If so, I believe he defined property as the ownership of the means of production or some other specific way. He wasn't talking about personal property like game software or radios or such. If you want to talk about whether capital itself is theft that's fine, it's an interesting topic. But you should start another thread, because it's not really relevant here.
I'm actually Sealand's official representatilve to Fifa, but for the sake of you're arguement/analgy you can assume I do whatever fits best. I'll go along. And by the way, if you called me Manko on purpose, I'm not. (check a japanese/english dictionary that lists extreme vulgarities)
Actually, when I saw your name, I think it was yesterday, I was thinking you might be Peruvian, and I got Manco Capac stuck in my head. He was an Incan ruler. Sorry for the mistake. Anyway, you should know where my logic on what you do for a living is headed, right? You are a thief.
My whole problem with this issue is this: Because the item being stolen is music or software or movies it doesn't seem to be as big of a deal. But let me propose a hypothetical situation: Say somebody invents a device that can allow a person to download and replicate PERFECTLY works of art, The Mona Lisa in the blink of an eye. This wouldn't even be an issue. The first person to download a Venus de Milo would be hung from the nearest lamp post. But for some reason because it's music or movies its not important. It's all art and somebody put effort into that. When you don't buy the product and just steal the art is cheapened. You may say that it is intellectual property, but it is SOMEONES intellectual property. They get to do what they want with it. You want to put on the veil of a revolutionary but you're just a petty theif. You're even worse than that, at least a real theif has to show up to take what he wants.
gee, i dunno, did you happen to go into the restaurant and "Share" someone else's paid for chicken parmesan? According to you, the economy is better off because you have spent your money somewhere else (besides giving it to the company who created it)...do you not see why this reasoning is completely simplistic?
Come one... the biggest thieves in the world are the record and software companies. They screw us... internet comes along and they get screwed back. Any artists who live on the street now because of it? Get real...
NOTHING IS BEING STOLEN! Nothing is being taken from the original owner. Let's use your example... Why? The original is still there, uneffected. No one has been deprived of anything. NOTHING WAS STOLEN. In fact, I just downloaded a high-res copy of the Venus de Milo. Come and get me. If you want to argue that the potential value of what was copied has been decreased - well then let's play ball. But copyright infringement is NOT theft - never has been, never will be.
Something of value is being taken. It is the right to control copies of the intellectual property. It hurts the owner of the copyright, it is illegal, and it is immoral in almost any sense of the word.
But it's not theft. Copyright infringement - yes. But not theft. Illegal? Yes. Immoral? Virtually always. (Exceptions for fair use and civil disobedience - because 100 year copyrights are not just.) Is it illegal for me to copy part of a book out of a library? Immoral? Am I stealing the book by photocopying part of it?
And you don't think destroying entire industries is a revolutionary act? They already have one. What do you suggest can replace it? And don't even try the joke response of "they can sell tickets to live showings". It cannot work for the majority of acts I like, which often consist of sinlge people playing multiple instruments or creating music directly on a computer. These would make lousy live acts. First, this argues for time limits to the copyright, which is something I very much support. But it does not support the idea of getting rid of copyright in the first place. If it didn't exist, why would the person write the book at all? He wouldn't be getting any money from it. He would just have gone into accounting or something. Besides, if the person who owns the right to the book does not want you to read it, how is that any different than a person who built a very comfortable chair who does not let you sit in it? Or are you going to deny the chairmaker the right to control his property as well? Well, why don't you just skip out on the dinner check and then have the chance to spend the $50 somewhere else? This is an incredibly lame argument. I understand it is better for you if you can be efficient with your money (that is, spend less to get more), but it is hardly better for the economy. The economy is driven by friction - more people spending more money on more things. Then the money is spread to lots of different peope, who cna then do the same. If the industry is flawed, don't play the game. You are taking the enjoyment in the game and the people who gave you that enjoyment get squat. No, because then you are not getting the benefit of the restaurant's labor. No, I was asking why you feel differently about intelectual property versus real property.
Theft is when you take something of value without paying for it against the owner's wishes. Quit kidding yourselves.
Then what are copyright infringement laws? Look, I'm just trying to bust the nonsensical "copyright infringement = theft" crapola. I'm not trying to excuse copyright infringement. When you infringe on someone's copyright, you are NOT depriving them of that item. You are depriving them of something else (their copyright to the work), but not that item, and certainly not permanently. Look up the definition of larceny.
What is the result you want from this distinction? The logical impact of copyright infringement is that you are civilly liable to the owner of the copyright for the damage caused by your infringement, which could be far more than the FMV of the item you downloaded, especially if you share it with others. Are you just trying to avoid some kind of criminal liability? If so, try this analogy: Does the fact that O.J. Simpson avoided a criminal verdict but lost a civil verdict make him any less of a murderer?
Why would you want to take down the entertainment industry? Was Matrix Revolutions that bad? Seriously, who would make awesome movies if THE INDUSTRY were destroyed? What would you do if you wrote a book or a song or a screenplay that everyone wanted to read/hear? Would you just upload it onto the internet and "share" it with the world, for free? The recording, film and software industries probably do need to seriously restructure their business model in order to survive in the digital age. But let's face it: you're not doing much to bring them closer to that, nor to bring them down. If the latter were truly your goal, you'd be actively distributing the pirated software. Sure, you might get caught and go to jail - but isn't that how we protest unjust laws? What is the point of civil disobedience if you don't get caught? EDITED TO ADD: If copyright laws were eliminated, about 80% of my friends and I would be out of jobs. These evil giant corporations employ thousands and thousands of people - not to mention people who make money collaterally, like agents, managers, producers, advertising firms, theater owners, distributors, blah blah blah blah blah.
Now that you mentioned it... I figure that I'm helping the CD-R industry: Do you have any idea how much 500 packs of CD-Rs cost?
Well, the Supreme Court has also ruled that the young pretender is a legitimate president, so I think we can discount anything they have to say. Interesting article, though.
When I first started hangig out on p2p boards chatting with folks, I was surprised how many people feel like this. And there I was thinking it was just me.... There is a very deep anger against a lot of these companies, and mostly it's their own doing. Most rants against entertainment companies use one or more of these... Movie and record companies are *#*#*#*# King Midas. Everything they touch turns to *#*#*#*# (my own personal vendetta against record companies began when they ruined Devo....unforgivable). Music CDs are overpriced and the profits go to the wrong people. Mostly to the executives, who are just leeches, not enough to the artists or the ordinary workers. And for older cds, a lot of the time the royalty checks are going to the wrong person...eg everytime you buy a beatles cd, Micheal Jackson gets another nose job. Software companies continually release over-hyped buggy products that take up too much memory and perform poorly. People are so sick of downloading patches for the first 6 months after buying software, they have very little sympathy when the companies ask them to respect copyrights. I suppose I could go on, but everyone probably knows what I'm talking about. I don't think that anyone fileshares because they don't like the entertainment business, but I think the pent up anger at these companies explains why millions of people who normally wouldn't break any law feel absolutly no remorse about infringing copyrights.