File Sharing or Stealing

[durangodawood]

Greed masquerading as victimization is something I point out, not defend the one's doing so. There's a phrase for doing otherwise- it's called being a 'tool'.

How did you come to be such a 'victim'?
If I can resist MS games, so can you! Stay strong, CrownL!

 

[Dave-W]

Pirating is defined as distributing someone else's work for profit without permission (such as bootlegging).

That is an old definition. It was changed a while back to cover people who downloaded software and music (and later videos) for their own consumption. They were sued for not paying the companies royalties on their copies.

https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later

On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans. Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals. These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors—a random selection from the millions of Americans who have used P2P networks. And there’s no end in sight; new lawsuits are filed monthly, and now they are supplemented by a flood of "pre-litigation" settlement letters designed to extract settlements without any need to enter a courtroom.

Those people who shared and downloaded were not paying anything or receiving anything from anyone. So it is not the sharer's or the downloader's profit - it is about the recording industry's "lost" profits compared with them buying all those tunes.

 

[Dave-W]

Sorry but I really don't care what the Supreme Court says. You see how well they go off of the Bible.

The Bible does not regulate copyright laws of the US. the Supreme Court does. And the Bible gives them that authority.

 

[AirPo]

Sorry but I really don't care what the Supreme Court says. You see how well they go off of the Bible.

What does the Bible have anything to do with the Supreme Court?

 

[bhsmte]

How about when you would record TV shows on a DVR? Is that wrong?

No, because the network already got their revenue from selling ads. Taping the show has no negative impact on them.

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry but I really don't care what the Supreme Court says. You see how well they go off of the Bible.

I would imagine the reality of US laws causes you great turmoil then, since our laws are not based on how you interpret the bible.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I'm just going to point out how ironic it is this topic is occurring when someone is literally spamming plagiarism in this subforum.

 

[Davian]

Pirating a movie is stealing in the same way that duplicating a car could be construed of as stealing.

Having dabbled in kit cars/replicars, it is my understanding that the duplication of the car (say, a Ferrari) is not considered the problem, it is when you attempt to pass it off as the real thing, or benefit from the association to the copyright holder.

If you were to put the Ferrari logo on the sign for your mechanic garage/repair shop without their permission, they would probably get after you.

I know the Olympics committee are rabid about this.

The U.S. Olympics Committee forced a 30-year-old Greek restaurant to change its name.

The Olympic Gyro restaurant in Philadelphia received a cease and desist notice in 2012 from the Olympic committee, the nonprofit corporation responsible for training and funding the U.S. athletes. In an email the organization demanded the deletion of the world Olympics from the shop’s name, stating it had copyright of the word under a 1978 law.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2756989

 

[High Fidelity]

Yes that is the big key For Profit. Just thinking the other day I would hope missionary would be able to hand out things about Jesus to other countries. I wonder if someone file sharing a copy (of a movie you purchased) of about Jesus might be the only way someone could hear about him in countries where Bibles are outlawed.

Imagine you invent something. Someone gives that design for someone, not for profit, though. Would you not be annoyed?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

This topic is a sticky topic with grey areas and many complications that make it hard to give a 100% yes or no answer too. For example on cable lets say you DVR Game of Thrones. Your not doing anything illegal. You paid for cable, you are recording the show to watch later. Now if someone else who does not have cable downloads that show from the net and watches it. They are doing it illegally. So you may say, see its illegal, case closed!

But heres the sticky/grey area. Lets look at the channel CBS. Now you don't need cable to get it. You can usually just pick it up using an HD antenna. For free. So in my case I don't watch Survivor since I am usually busy. So later on I will download it from the internet and watch it. So is that illegal or legal since the show is not from cable and comes across for free on an antenna? People are split on the legality of that. Just like most of my music on my Ipod is from video games. I download the music from online. Now people would say thats illegal. But how is it illegal if 99% of video games don't release sound tracks? Thus you have no way to access the music. I don't see it as illegal because if I own the game, its ok for me to download the music. And for the most part gaming companies don't care about the music thing. There are some things that are obviously wrong like when a new movie comes out at a theater and you download it from online to watch it. Illegal hands down. Granted I never seen the point since its recorded poorly from a hidden camera with bad audio and all.

As for sharing something. Well renting/borrowing something is fine. But if you make a copy of it then it turns into something bad. BUT yet again you get into a grey area. Lets say my friend from earlier who DVR'ed Game of Thrones sent me the episode to watch on my own computer. Is that illegal since he legally has cable and is allowed to watch it? Some would say yes. But what if he invites me over to watch it from his DVR? Is that still illegal since I am still technically watching something I did not pay for? Its all very complicated.

 

[SilverBlade]

Actually, you can't really consider piracy as a 'sin'.

Most people would say "Piracy is stealing!", because it's taking something that you haven't payed for.

BUT..here's the kicker: It isn't stealing. Digital material (such as movie rips or mp3/flac) is classified under Copyright law, not under Physical property law.

You should thank our friends at the MPAA and RIAA for lobbying the governments for this distinction. They use this to pretty much avoid paying taxes on the items, as 'legally', they are not considered physical goods.

The best term now is 'Copyright Infringement'. BUT, copyright infringement, in legal terms and in every single court case involving copyright infringement depends on on thing: distribution.

You downloading a song/movie from the net isn't copyright infringement. What is copyright infringement is re-distributing it through a protocol like bit torrent (or selling it on a burned disc)

If you simply download a song from a file locker (me.ga) or usenet, it's a one-way transfer and you're not uploading to anyone else, and therefore, NOT committing copyright infringement.

So, technically and legally, it's not a 'sin', thanks to how Copyright Infringement laws are worded.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

^Thats so true. People tend to confuse terminology. Pirates who have been busted in the past were actually being the definition of pirates. They were making copies of stuff and then selling them for money. So by legal definition downloading a movie for example is not piracy. But I do believe its still a crime. You didn't pay to see the movie. Again it turns into a grey area. In the end I'd rather be safe then sorry because if God sees my view as wrong then I am in big trouble when I am face to face with him.

 

[durangodawood]

Anytime someone works hard to make something, you should be cautious about demanding you get to use it for free.

 

[whois]

Is it wrong to borrow a book, CD or anything else that someone has purchased if they offer it to you? How is that any different than file sharing?

copyright laws are a complicated business, and aren't across the board transferable.
what may be legal in your country might be illegal in another.
basically, this boils down to an author has the right to his or her work, it belongs to them.
this pertains to all sorts of media, books, pictures, video, and music.
you can consider such things as public domain after 20 years, meaning that you can do whatever you want with it.

to insure the public gets the maximum benefit from your work, you can use what is known as "copyleft" or creative commons type of copyright.

googling copyright, copyleft, and creative commons licenses will give you more detail.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think people who produce media make more than they should really be entitled to, and complaining about 'digital theft' is just greed masquerading as victimization.

But that's just me

You're right. That is you. And you have no idea what you're talking about. I produce media. Everyone who works in my office produces media. Most of my friends produce media. Very, very few of the people on that list live anything remotely close to a lavish lifestyle. Most live very modest lifestyles and, by and large, many positions in media development pay less than comparable positions in other industries.

My thought is it is no different than me recording a TV show on a DVR.

You're wrong. You have a license to watch that television show and the law allows you to make a recording of it for certain purposes, including time-shifting (i.e. playing it later) for your own personal use.

Pirating a movie is stealing in the same way that duplicating a car could be construed of as stealing.

Unless the physical appearance and design of a car is copyrighted in the same way (it may be; I don't know), then no, it isn't.

Pirating is defined as distributing someone else's work for profit without permission (such as bootlegging).

Profit doesn't have much to do with it. Very few people actually profit off of piracy. Most just do it.

Moguls are the one's who complain. 'Starving artists' do not often get pirated and even still to a far lesser degree.

The way I see it, moguls are robbing other people sitting on that kind of profit.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Yes, smaller artists do get pirated and they complain about it. They don't have the muscle to do anything about it, so they find workarounds instead of devoting their limited resources to fighting a losing battle.

Greed masquerading as victimization is something I point out, not defend the one's doing so. There's a phrase for that- it's called being a 'tool'. Are you more concerned about a grand mogul than a financially limited person who just wants to have some entertainment?

Greed is you feeling entitled to the product of someone else's work without having to pay for it. THAT is being a tool. There are plenty of avenues through which to legitimately obtain free entertainment. That you prefer something that costs money doesn't give you license to just go and take it.

Actually, you can't really consider piracy as a 'sin'.

Most people would say "Piracy is stealing!", because it's taking something that you haven't payed for.

BUT..here's the kicker: It isn't stealing. Digital material (such as movie rips or mp3/flac) is classified under Copyright law, not under Physical property law.

You should thank our friends at the MPAA and RIAA for lobbying the governments for this distinction. They use this to pretty much avoid paying taxes on the items, as 'legally', they are not considered physical goods.

The best term now is 'Copyright Infringement'. BUT, copyright infringement, in legal terms and in every single court case involving copyright infringement depends on on thing: distribution.

You downloading a song/movie from the net isn't copyright infringement. What is copyright infringement is re-distributing it through a protocol like bit torrent (or selling it on a burned disc)

If you simply download a song from a file locker (me.ga) or usenet, it's a one-way transfer and you're not uploading to anyone else, and therefore, NOT committing copyright infringement.

So, technically and legally, it's not a 'sin', thanks to how Copyright Infringement laws are worded.

That's a pretty weak argument. Yes, the other person is making it available, but you're the one who initiates the duplication process by opting to download it.

 

[whois]

an interesting aspect of copyrights concerns locality.
for example, a movie that is licensed for viewing in the USA may be illegal in your country.
what does this mean for tourists that buy movies here then goes back to their country?
by all rights, this tourist paid for the movie, this gives them the right to view it privately in his house, no matter where they are.
thanks to such things DCMA (or whatever it's called, maybe it's DRM) they cannot do that, the player will refuse to decode the movie.
this is one situation where i find it perfectly acceptable to "pirate" a movie.
of course the copyright still remains in effect, they cannot put the movie up for public viewing, or sell it, or even give it away or lend it.

 

[High Fidelity]

Greed masquerading as victimization is something I point out, not defend the one's doing so. There's a phrase for that- it's called being a 'tool'. Are you more concerned about a grand mogul than a financially limited person who just wants to have some entertainment?

Curious -- Are you pro-welfare?

(This is relevant to the topic)

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Moguls are the one's who complain. 'Starving artists' do not often get pirated and even still to a far lesser degree.

The way I see it, moguls are robbing other people sitting on that kind of profit. It's like when Microsoft thought about making video games in which were digitally signed to your console so you couldn't even give it to someone else. 60 billion dollars just isn't enough.
But have fun with your paycheck to paycheck

It's not the moguls or the A-list stars who are personally impacted to a substantial extent but the workers with more ordinary jobs such as those working on set construction, in costume design, on the catering staff, or in typical office jobs on the lots who are acutely affected by the loss of revenue caused by pirating. You have no idea how many people whose livelihood is in the film industry are living paycheck to paycheck. It's not just the studio execs or the stars who make movies and music; thousands of people with unglamorous but necessary jobs are involved, and they are the ones who are hurt. The economical ramifications have a systemic effect on the film industry, and in turn communities with job markets dependent on them. As one example, there's been an exodus of filming from LA to more affordable areas, causing the loss of local jobs and revenue for the city.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

There are all sorts of things I feel guilty of, living in an economy wherein the only thing that one can possibly do in order to remain alive is to take advantage of another human being is one of them... Watching Game of Thrones without paying for it is not one of them. George RR Martin gets his money from my buying his books, I think that's quite enough.

 

[davedajobauk]

Is it wrong to borrow a book, CD or anything else that someone has purchased if they offer it to you? How is that any different than file sharing?

File sharing is making a copy, lending a book is not.

Just be-sure, that the only thing you share is a 'link' to the owner's / publisher's page