File Sharing or Stealing

AphroditeGoneAwry · Nov 22, 2015

It is only stealing if when someone takes something from you or someone else, those persons do not have it anymore.

Reproduction is not stealing, but giving.

God does not care about your images. It is a violation of the 2nd Commandment to even make an image. Reproducing that image is promulgating sin in this way, but not in the way of stealing.

Regarding intellectual property, what God whispers in your ear, you are to shout it from the rooftops for all to hear and know. To not do so is the actual sin.

SilverBlade · Nov 22, 2015

iluvatar5150 said:
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.

Christians are called to obey the laws of the land they live in or occupy at any given moment.

The law of the land (Copyright law, in this case) states that it's only illegal (Copyright Infringement) if you upload/distribute/sell music or movies that you download. It's completely legal to download it.

You may feel that it's 'not moral', but by only acquiring it, and not distributing it, you're within the laws of the land.

durangodawood · Nov 22, 2015

SilverBlade said:
Christians are called to obey the laws of the land they live in or occupy at any given moment.

The law of the land (Copyright law, in this case) states that it's only illegal (Copyright Infringement) if you upload/distribute/sell music or movies that you download. It's completely legal to download it.

You may feel that it's 'not moral', but by only acquiring it, and not distributing it, you're within the laws of the land.

The laws of the land permit many immoralities. So you may be safe from the law, but not from your creator, if you let only the law be your guide.

DogmaHunter · Nov 23, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
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

Wow.

You could take that exact argument and defend robbing a bank with it.

DogmaHunter · Nov 23, 2015

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

No. It is very much different.

Here's how it is different....
You actually paid for the TV show, because you paid for the cable wire. You are entitled to watch that show. When you record it, it's for your own use.

To be the same, you'ld have to then upload your recording and make it available to millions of people who did NOT pay to see it.

I'll also add that even the recording of TV shows is likely going to change within the decade (my estimation). Reason being that TV channels earn their money with broadcasting commercials. Commercials that you skip when recording a show and watching it later. imo, it's only a matter of time before setup-boxes are programmed in such a way that commercials can't be skipped anymore, without some tech-savy hacking.

Or, perhaps more likely, that during playback "unskippable" commercials will be injected into it, much like what happens on youtube these days.

I am not depriving anyone of their property because someone did purchase it and they are sharing it.

No. Not sharing. Reproducing by copying.
It's the equivalent of buying a cd and making thousands of copies and handing those out for free.

1 person pays and thousands (or millions) use it.

This is not like lending an xbox game to a friend. This is like making a copy of the game and giving it to a friend, while keeping a copy for yourself as well.

2 persons now play the game, but only one has paid for it.

How about (this dates me) when you use to record music off the radio on a cassette tape. Was that wrong?

Well, yes. The thing is though, in those days this practice didn't have any meaningfull impact on the larger industry. Today however, with the internet, you make a copy, post it online and it is instantly accessible to MILLIONS, even BILLIONS, around the world. And it's all digital as well, so you don't even need any "hardware" like cassettes, players and equipment to make those copies.

Today, a copied new album or movie can go around the world in literally less then 10 seconds. That's why it gets the attention it has today. It has become WAAAY to easy to "cheat" the system.

Just trying to get different input but of course I will be in prayer about it.

Errr... okay.

DogmaHunter · Nov 23, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
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

Actually, the microsoft plans for that digital signing was a result of pressure by game studios. Microsoft doesn't care if games are sold 2nd hand. All they care about is that the games run on an Xbox.

It's the game studios that don't want people to buy their games 2nd hand, since they only make money from selling new games.

DogmaHunter · Nov 23, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
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?

It doesn't matter if the motivation of the ones pursuing it is greed or need or what-have-you.

It is their work (or at least, they are the lawfull owner of the rights to the work) and they have every right to pursue illegal use and copying of their product.

With my company, we distribute a software program for a specific type of retail store to manage their shop and customer data. A lot of effort went into creating that product and bringing it to market. If tomorrow we find out that certain shops are illegally using copies of our software, you may be as sure as you can be that we'll go after them with the full force of our capabilities.

And it wouldn't matter one bit if the product already made us millions of dollars or only a few pennies or even nothing but losses.

Using it without a proper license is using without a proper license, period.
It doesn't matter at all if we are already rich or not.

DogmaHunter · Nov 23, 2015

Crowns&Laurels said:
There's nothing being lost in copying media.

This is so blatantly wrong that I even wonder how you can say it without blinking (not that I can see you blink or not on a forum).

Consider this then.... A license of our software is, let's say, 1000 dollars.
Shop A buys a license for our software product. Revenue: 1000.
So does shop B. Revenue: 2000

Shop C wants our software, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Show B copies the software and hands it over to C.

C now uses our product and WE LOST INCOME, because an installation of our product is "out there" and we didn't get any money for it.

Our revenue should be 3000. But it is only 2000. Because C decided to use a copy of the product without paying for it.

Yes, we lost because of this. We lost 1000 bucks of income, to be exact.

This is why it isn't considered as wrong as stealing an actual product

Just because the "product" here isn't a physical thing, doesn't mean that it is not a product.

When you buy a DVD movie for 50 bucks, you are not paying 50 bucks for just the disc and the plastic case. Those are only a couple pennies at most.
The other 49.99 bucks are for the digital content on the disk.
The same digital content that you are downloading from wherever on the internet.

It is not like someone coming up and jacking you.

Indeed, it's not. It's more like someone taking your stream of income, or part of it, and setting it on fire.

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.

Imagine owning a 3-star restaurant and a group of people walking in saying "we are not going to pay for the food, because we would normally never eat here anyway".

So one isn't really losing out on anything, one is just being critical of the fallout. That's why I brought up 'greed'.

This is a ridiculous argument.

If people don't wish to pay for a certain movie, then they should accept the fact that they won't be owning a copy of said movie.

You are more then welcome and free to believe that 50 bucks for a DVD is too much. But if you are unwilling to fork over the money, you'll have to live without owning the movie.

If I don't want to pay for a Ferarri, then I won't be owning a Ferarri as a direct result.

Dave-W · Nov 23, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
This is so blatantly wrong that I even wonder how you can say it without blinking (not that I can see you blink or not on a forum).

Consider this then.... A license of our software is, let's say, 1000 dollars.
Shop A buys a license for our software product. Revenue: 1000.
So does shop B. Revenue: 2000

Shop C wants our software, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Show B copies the software and hands it over to C.

C now uses our product and WE LOST INCOME, because an installation of our product is "out there" and we didn't get any money for it.

Our revenue should be 3000. But it is only 2000. Because C decided to use a copy of the product without paying for it.

Yes, we lost because of this. We lost 1000 bucks of income, to be exact.

This is the dubious assumption that the RIAA used in prosecuting downloaded music.

I see a HUGE problem with it. If company C is not able to afford your product, there is no way they are going to pump out the $1000 to buy it outright. If they cannot get a pirated copy, they will find something else to use. So where is that $1000 you "lost" then?

OTOH, if company C finds your product profitable and better than the lesser priced competition, they will have incentive and revenue to eventually buy a legit copy of your product. That is lost if you deny them the product up front.

durangodawood · Nov 23, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
This is the dubious assumption that the RIAA used in prosecuting downloaded music.

I see a HUGE problem with it. If company C is not able to afford your product, there is no way they are going to pump out the $1000 to buy it outright. If they cannot get a pirated copy, they will find something else to use. So where is that $1000 you "lost" then?

OTOH, if company C finds your product profitable and better than the lesser priced competition, they will have incentive and revenue to eventually buy a legit copy of your product. That is lost if you deny them the product up front.

If pirating software is considered morally OK, you will lose the revenue from company A and B as well.
May as well go into a different business.

NothingIsImpossible · Nov 23, 2015

In the end piracy will never go away. For every counter measure put in the way, hackers find a way around it quickly. Even if they made laws specifically target the stuff we are talking about, hackers would still find a way to do what they do untouched. One example is proxy servers. Or the dark/deep web where for the most part you cannot be traced.

Dave-W · Nov 23, 2015

durangodawood said:
If pirating software is considered morally OK, you will lose the revenue from company A and B as well.
May as well go into a different business.

I am not saying that pirating is morally ok.

What I am saying is that trying to claim a loss on a sale that never happened is a flawed way of looking at the situation.

Dave-W · Nov 23, 2015

Autodesk is one of the most aggressive companies out there in terms of prosecuting those who have illegal copies of their software. They had an ad once (back in the 90s) that showed 2 floppy discs. One was the legit first installation disc from Autocad R14 and the other was a generic floppy with Acad R14 disc 1 on it. The caption asked "Which disc is more expensive?"

Now if I had wanted to put Acad on my home system, there would be no way I could afford the $3500.00 price for R14. So if I pirated it and they prosecuted on the basis that I would have paid that price, that would be crazy. It was not a sale they would EVER have.

durangodawood · Nov 23, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
Autodesk is one of the most aggressive companies out there in terms of prosecuting those who have illegal copies of their software. They had an ad once (back in the 90s) that showed 2 floppy discs. One was the legit first installation disc from Autocad R14 and the other was a generic floppy with Acad R14 disc 1 on it. The caption asked "Which disc is more expensive?"

Now if I had wanted to put Acad on my home system, there would be no way I could afford the $3500.00 price for R14. So if I pirated it and they prosecuted on the basis that I would have paid that price, that would be crazy. It was not a sale they would EVER have.

And I'm saying that if pirating is morally OK or legally OK, then almost every sale would be a sale that never happened.

Dave-W · Nov 23, 2015

durangodawood said:
And I'm saying that if pirating is morally OK or legally OK, then almost every sale would be a sale that never happened.

Yes - I get that. And I agree.

But I am saying there has to be a different/better way of framing the problem.

Mex5150 · Nov 23, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
Consider this then.... A license of our software is, let's say, 1000 dollars.
Shop A buys a license for our software product. Revenue: 1000.
So does shop B. Revenue: 2000

Shop C wants our software, but doesn't want to pay for it.
Show B copies the software and hands it over to C.

C now uses our product and WE LOST INCOME, because an installation of our product is "out there" and we didn't get any money for it.

Our revenue should be 3000. But it is only 2000. Because C decided to use a copy of the product without paying for it.

Yes, we lost because of this. We lost 1000 bucks of income, to be exact.

This is only true if shop C would have paid the full price if they couldn't get it free (something you can't guarantee), so you may have lost $1000, but equally so, you may have lost $0!

Let's take your over simplified scenario further, lets say shop C closes for what ever reason and the employees move on and get jobs at shops D, E, F, and G. None of these shops has ever heard of your software, but due to the rave reviews of the software from the new staff, they all buy full versions, that alleged cost of possibly maybe $1000 loss has suddenly turned into an undeniable $4000 profit. Hell even if half of them get pirated copies, you are still $2000 up on the deal, all because shop C had a free copy.

Imagine owning a 3-star restaurant and a group of people walking in saying "we are not going to pay for the food, because we would normally never eat here anyway".

That's a clear category error, and is stealing NOT copyright infringement, them eating physical food deprives somebody else from doing so, I like most of your posts and honestly thought you were better than trying to pull a bait and switch like this ;^/

NOTE: I am not saying everybody should go out and pirate everything they can, I'm simply pointing out it's far from as black and white as some people would like everyone to believe.

DogmaHunter · Nov 23, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
This is the dubious assumption that the RIAA used in prosecuting downloaded music.

I see a HUGE problem with it. If company C is not able to afford your product, there is no way they are going to pump out the $1000 to buy it outright. If they cannot get a pirated copy, they will find something else to use. So where is that $1000 you "lost" then?

If the company isn't using my software, then I am not owed any money.
The problem only arises once the company uses my product and refuses to pay for it.

OTOH, if company C finds your product profitable and better than the lesser priced competition, they will have incentive and revenue to eventually buy a legit copy of your product.

"eventually" I will get paid?

Why would I allow people to use my hard work, hoping to "eventually" get paid?
Business doesn't work like that.

If you can't afford something, or don't wish to pay for something for other reasons, then you're gonna have to do without it.

Why would you defend the practice of using things for free, that aren't free?

That is lost if you deny them the product up front.

In other words: you are a bad business man if you dare to demand people to pay for using your products and / or services. Great.

Dave-W · Nov 23, 2015

Mex5150 said:
Let's take your over simplified scenario further, lets say shop C closes for what ever reason and the employees move on and get jobs at shops D, E, F, and G. None of these shops has ever heard of your software, but due to the rave reviews of the software from the new staff, they all buy full versions, that alleged cost of possibly maybe $1000 loss has suddenly turned into an undeniable $4000 profit. Hell even if half of them get pirated copies, you are still $2000 up on the deal, all because shop C had a free copy.

And based on that tact, many musicians have started giving free downloads of some of their music to whet the appetite for more.

My record company (CD Baby) recently put all of my tracks up on YouTube. the audio quality is not that great, but it may inspire a few do buy a download.

durangodawood · Nov 23, 2015

Mex5150 said:
This is only true if shop C would have paid the full price if they couldn't get it free (something you can't guarantee), so you may have lost $1000, but equally so, you may have lost $0!

Let's take your over simplified scenario further, lets say shop C closes for what ever reason and the employees move on and get jobs at shops D, E, F, and G. None of these shops has ever heard of your software, but due to the rave reviews of the software from the new staff, they all buy full versions, that alleged cost of possibly maybe $1000 loss has suddenly turned into an undeniable $4000 profit. Hell even if half of them get pirated copies, you are still $2000 up on the deal, all because shop C had a free copy.

That's a clear category error, and is stealing NOT copyright infringement, them eating physical food deprives somebody else from doing so, I like most of your posts and honestly thought you were better than trying to pull a bait and switch like this ;^/

NOTE: I am not saying everybody should go out and pirate everything they can, I'm simply pointing out it's far from as black and white as some people would like everyone to believe.

I agree, it can be smart to give away a certain amount of your product. But that should be at the discretion of the person who built/produced it.

Mex5150 · Nov 23, 2015

DaveW-Ohev said:
And based on that tact, many musicians have started giving free downloads of some of their music to whet the appetite for more.

My record company (CD Baby) recently put all of my tracks up on YouTube. the audio quality is not that great, but it may inspire a few do buy a download.

As I already said somewhere above, I discovered one of my favourite bands purely because I downloaded a couple of tracks to see what they were like, I've since gone on to buy everything they have released, I've gone to see them live a couple of times, and have a few of their official t-Shirts, none of the revenue from this would have reached them if it wasn't for that initial pirate download, it's VERY unlikely I would have discovered them without this.

File Sharing or Stealing

Well-Known Member

Newbie

re Member

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

re Member

Well-Known Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

re Member

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

Member

Code Monkey

Welcoming grandchild #7, Arturus Waggoner!

re Member

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency