File Sharing or Stealing

[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

 

[whois]

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?

i would say yes, if it was copyrighted it would be illegal to do this.

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.

this is where it gets complicated.
no, this wouldn't be illegal, BUT, it would be illegal for this person to show this movie at, say, a nursing home.
the question here is, just how many "friends" does it take to constitute a public showing?
would a backyard BBQ of around 25 or so friends be a public showing? i would say so.
another area would be songs.
you can't buy the latest music album, tape it, then use that tape as background music at a hospital or nursing home or any other public place.

one more area would be fair use.
copyrights allow a certain amount of material to be used for things like reviews in newspapers.
academic freedom laws allows entire works to be used for educational purposes

 

[Saricharity]

Along the same lines...what about using links online to download music from YouTube. So many people are pretty much stealing songs like that instead of legitimately buying the music from iTunes. I've heard people say that artists only get a few cents from iTunes anyways. Thoughts?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

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.

They aren't losing money from a person who wouldn't buy the product anyway. A tool is somebody who always goes the good ol' boy route- sorry, but complaining about piracy is like complaining about people sneaking into a movie theater. Big whoop. The more someone is bent up about it, the less I care, because their character tells all.

 

[whois]

Along the same lines...what about using links online to download music from YouTube. So many people are pretty much stealing songs like that instead of legitimately buying the music from iTunes. I've heard people say that artists only get a few cents from iTunes anyways. Thoughts?

i would say this is legal.
if there is a link that you can click on and download the song, then you can do so legally.
however, if you must do something other than clicking on a link on the you tube page then it might not be legal.
keep the following in mind, if it is less than 20 years old it could be copyrighted, if it is older it most likely isn't.
creative commons copyrighted material are freely available to everyone.
to be perfectly safe you need to review the copyright laws of your particular country.

 

[whois]

. . . complaining about piracy is like complaining about people sneaking into a movie theater. Big whoop.

would you tolerate someone walking up to your lemonade stand and drinking a cup of lemonade without paying for it?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

would you tolerate someone walking up to your lemonade stand and drinking a cup of lemonade without paying for it?

There's nothing being lost in copying media. This is why it isn't considered as wrong as stealing an actual product. It is not like someone coming up and jacking you.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, most of those people wouldn't buy it anyway, it's why they do what they do in the first place. So one isn't really losing out on anything, one is just being critical of the fallout. That's why I brought up 'greed'.

 

[whois]

There's nothing being lost in copying media. This is why it isn't considered as wrong as stealing an actual product. It is not like someone coming up and jacking you.

Whether you choose to accept it or not, most of those people wouldn't buy it anyway, it's why they do what they do in the first place. So one isn't really losing out on anything, one is just being critical of the fallout. That's why I brought up 'greed'.

i see.
so copying the spreadsheet program i spent months in developing isn't really stealing.
after all, the program is still there, right?
the harm doesn't come from copying, the harm comes from you giving that copy to someone else that didn't pay for it.
i set the price of the program based on how many copies i intend to sell.
what you are doing, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is basically ripping me off.
not only that, but due to a "lack of interest" (because of your copying) i decide not to improve the program.
so, not only have you ripped me off, you have dissuaded me from providing updates.
can't you see how this not only screws me, but you too.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

Really really dumb.
The shows cost a fortune to make, and thats regardless of Martins cut.

 

[bhsmte]

Sure it does.
When ad agencies realize no one is watching the dam ads, they will pay less to place them.
Youre just fooled by the lag time as paradigms shift.
Personally, I like the pay to watch model rather than free-with-ads.

The ad agencies know how many people are watching the programs, when they agree to the rates they are paying.

How do you think networks set the rates, it is based on viewership.

 

[Mex5150]

i see.
so copying the spreadsheet program i spent months in developing isn't really stealing.

By definition, correct.

the harm doesn't come from copying, the harm comes from you giving that copy to someone else that didn't pay for it.

ONLY if they would have paid for it, otherwise there is no loss.

Years ago I always had the latest version of photoshop on my computer because I pirated it, The licence fee was not lost, if I couldn't get it for free, I just would have used something else, Adobe didn't loose a single penny. Fast forward a decade or two I now have most of the latest Adobe applications on my computer, fully paid for, licenced and legal, the reason I can do this is because I learnt the software so well on the 'free' versions I could make enough money to afford the legal versions. It's interesting to note that if I had not pirated the software, I wouldn't have learnt how to use it, and therefore never bothered to buy it ever, which would have cost Adobe money ;^/

i set the price of the program based on how many copies i intend to sell.

So people who would not buy it if they could not get it free have no impact on this.

what you are doing, whether you want to acknowledge it or not, is basically ripping me off.

Only if they would have paid the full price to begin with, and this also ignores the possibility of of paying you BECAUSE of the piracy. I have been know to download films I'm unsure about to check them out, if I think they are worth it I'll happily go buy a copy, same goes for music. In fact I discovered the band 'Live' this way, and then went on to buy every album they released and went to see them live a few times too, none of this revenue would have reached them if it wasn't for that fist track I downloaded for free.

 

[Butterfly99]

Along the same lines...what about using links online to download music from YouTube. So many people are pretty much stealing songs like that instead of legitimately buying the music from iTunes. I've heard people say that artists only get a few cents from iTunes anyways. Thoughts?

Well even if it was true that they didn't get that much from itunes wouldn't it all add up? No I just buy what I want from itunes. Or listen to it on Spotify.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I know I download music from youtube ONLY if I can't find a way to get it through pay. Such as ITunes. Hence my gaming music is often from youtube or another place I often visit.

 

[whois]

By definition, correct.
ONLY if they would have paid for it, otherwise there is no loss.

Years ago I always had the latest version of photoshop on my computer because I pirated it, The licence fee was not lost, if I couldn't get it for free, I just would have used something else, Adobe didn't loose a single penny. Fast forward a decade or two I now have most of the latest Adobe applications on my computer, fully paid for, licenced and legal, the reason I can do this is because I learnt the software so well on the 'free' versions I could make enough money to afford the legal versions. It's interesting to note that if I had not pirated the software, I wouldn't have learnt how to use it, and therefore never bothered to buy it ever, which would have cost Adobe money ;^/
So people who would not buy it if they could not get it free have no impact on this.
Only if they would have paid the full price to begin with, and this also ignores the possibility of of paying you BECAUSE of the piracy. I have been know to download films I'm unsure about to check them out, if I think they are worth it I'll happily go buy a copy, same goes for music. In fact I discovered the band 'Live' this way, and then went on to buy every album they released and went to see them live a few times too, none of this revenue would have reached them if it wasn't for that fist track I downloaded for free.

a reasonably good argument, except that a lot of softwate has what is known as shareware.
this is basically the same software that you intend to purchase, but it's "crippled" in some way.
a lot of these programs will not allow you to save your work, otherwise it's fully functional.
this allows to to evaluate the program for your needs.
so, pirating a fully functional program isn't required to evaluate the program.

this shareware concept helped to spawn one of the most remarkable games in the industry and has become basically a standard approach to gaming.
the game i speak of is DOOM, launched around 1995, as shareware.
this game spawned the idea of user generated levels that can be played on the the real game.
almost every first person shooter since then has used this concept.
the makers of DOOM seen all of this and requested that user levels NOT work on the shareware game.
this was nowhere near to being a law, but the users followed it, every single level i have downloaded from the net WILL NOT work on the shareware game.
this proves one thing, you give the people what they want, and they will follow your requests against piracy.
these early users of the game had no idea what would become of the industry because of their actions.
but because of their willingness to follow anti piracy laws, we now have first person reality type games that defy description.
not only that, these games actively involve the user in developing user generated levels and improved game editors.
the makers of DOOM refused to release the editors to the public, so the public created their own editors.
the shareware concept and anti piracy made all of this possible.

 

[Mex5150]

a reasonably good argument, except that a lot of softwate has what is known as shareware.
this is basically the same software that you intend to purchase, but it's "crippled" in some way.

But most crippleware is of no actual use in learning that software (unless you are VERY determined).

a lot of these programs will not allow you to save your work, otherwise it's fully functional.

This is fine for seeing if an aplication will actually run on your set up, but that's about it. Going back to my example above, if I only had a version of photoshop that I could play with for a while but never save anything I could return to, I never would have bothered to learn how to use it, both then andd now I often save work and return to it day, weeks, or sometimes even months later, quite ofthen this is because I want to wait until I've found a better way of doing something. If my only option was to start completely from scratch every time I had an idea on how to do something I would not be using that software.

this allows to to evaluate the program for your needs.

only on the most superficial level.

so, pirating a fully functional program isn't required to evaluate the program.

Even if I agreed with this, there is still a huge difference between a quick evaluation, and investing enough time and effort to learn how to use it to a level where you will be more than happy to pay for it. As a side note I don't recall ever speaking to anybody who uses photoshop professionally about this who didn't learn how to use it via a pirated copy!

 

[SilverBlade]

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.

Actually, it's not a 'weak' argument if it's using copyright law

By actual copyright law of the United States, just 'downloading' a song or a movie isn't copyright infringement. And I already said how it's not 'stealing', as the laws in the U.S doesn't categorize it as 'stealing'.

The only person, by US copyright law, that IS committing copyright infringement is the person who is providing the file through bittorrent or uploading it to a file server.

Also, by US copyright law, "file servers" are under the protection of Safe Harbor - meaning that the servers, and companies which own those servers, are not legally responsible for any copyrighted material being hosted. (This is actually very important because it protects ISP's from being liable for copyrighted material coming across their networks and treats them as 'dumb pipes')

Only the person who uploads the file, or provides the file in a file sharing program, is committing copyright infringement.

The law doesn't state that the person who initiates the duplication is committing infringement, ONLY the person who provided the file. Look up Copyright law in the U.S, and look up any lawsuit that the RIAA has initiated - every single court case involved with file sharing has always been about the 'sharing' part, never the 'downloading' part.

 

[whois]

But most crippleware is of no actual use in learning that software (unless you are VERY determined).

i disagree.
the shareware version is identical to the real version except by the way it is crippled.
there are various ways to do this.
some only allow a certain number of runs.
some will forbid saving your work.
some ripping software will only rip a few tracks from a CD.
some are plastered with nagware.
in all of these cases, the programs are identical to the real version except on how it's crippled.
the only exception to full evaluation would be a limited number of runs, but most shareware i have evaluated has been adequate in this regard.

no, there aren't many real exceptions to anti piracy laws.
the only exception i can think of is a regional one, the purchase of a movie in one country when you live in another.
by law you can't view this movie in your country, but i believe if you purchased it legally then you are legally able to privately view it no matter where you are.

 

[whois]

Actually, it's not a 'weak' argument if it's using copyright law

By actual copyright law of the United States, just 'downloading' a song or a movie isn't copyright infringement. And I already said how it's not 'stealing', as the laws in the U.S doesn't categorize it as 'stealing'.

The only person, by US copyright law, that IS committing copyright infringement is the person who is providing the file through bittorrent or uploading it to a file server.

Also, by US copyright law, "file servers" are under the protection of Safe Harbor - meaning that the servers, and companies which own those servers, are not legally responsible for any copyrighted material being hosted. (This is actually very important because it protects ISP's from being liable for copyrighted material coming across their networks and treats them as 'dumb pipes')

Only the person who uploads the file, or provides the file in a file sharing program, is committing copyright infringement.

The law doesn't state that the person who initiates the duplication is committing infringement, ONLY the person who provided the file. Look up Copyright law in the U.S, and look up any lawsuit that the RIAA has initiated - every single court case involved with file sharing has always been about the 'sharing' part, never the 'downloading' part.

you are basing your argument on a technicality.
do you honestly believe you aren't stealing when getting copyrighted work without paying for it?

 

[durangodawood]

if youre so attached to using other peoples work without paying them, stick to the various open source / free stuff, for which people seem happy to give away their efforts. Works for me.

But I also pay an arm and a leg for other software.

 

[iluvatar5150]

They aren't losing money from a person who wouldn't buy the product anyway.

There's a measurable negative impact on sales due to piracy. No, it isn't 100% (i.e. all of the pirated copies don't represent lost sales), but neither is it 0%.

A tool is somebody who always goes the good ol' boy route- sorry, but complaining about piracy is like complaining about people sneaking into a movie theater. Big whoop. The more someone is bent up about it, the less I care, because their character tells all.

You're advocating violating the law and depriving people of the compensation they're due for the work they've done and you have the gall to comment on the character of others? Lol.

Actually, it's not a 'weak' argument if it's using copyright law

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was referring to the part where you said it wasn't sin. While you can definitely make the case that, legally, it's not wrong grab stuff illegally offered for download online, I think you have a hard time making a moral case that it's not wrong.