Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[kaa]

Drinking alcohol is wrong. Let's just admit that. Its terribly unhealthy for you. Among the bad things are that you can get killed and/or kill others by driving drunk. You can become overweight. You can wreck your liver.

As a rational society, alcohol should be banned.

But it won't happen. Its been tried. People ultimately just subvert the law. And I think thanks to modern technology, file sharing is now in the same category with alcohol. It is something that some people consider stealing, but the general public will never, ever accept that. They will revolt against that.

So, ultimately, it will become socially acceptable. It will no longer be considered stealing. The industries affected will just adjust.

 

[Christo]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Are you talking about a situation where a person buys a gift for someone else? If so, no.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What people like you lose track of is that when someone who DL's a torrent that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, it's not costing them a sale. If anything, it just might get them a sale.

What you lose track of is that if free distribution of these movies was acceptable, there would be no incentive to create the movies anymore. There would be no movies to download.So your argument is basically that it's ok for you to download the movie for free off the internet, because a sufficient number of others will pay for the movie such that the moviemakers can stay in business and keep making movies for you to download.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But aren't you mixing in business models with whether something is stealing?

I don't see how efficiency factors into whether it's right or wrong.

There are several issues here that may be getting mixed up. Whether something is stealing and whether it is wrong might themselves be separate issues.Suppose I copy your hairstyle.

Some people might say that I haven't stolen anything from you, because even after I've copied your hairstyle, you still have it. Nothing has been taken from you. Copying isn't stealing.

Others might say that I have indeed stolen your haircut, but that doing so wasn't morally wrong.

However you would answer those questions, can you explain how haircuts are different from songs in principle? Obviously, they're different because copyright laws protect songs but not haircuts. But that's a legal difference, not an inherent moral difference.

Suppose copyright laws didn't protect songs. Under that scenario, would copying a CD be immoral? In other words, to the extent that you think copying CDs is immoral, do you think so simply because it's illegal, or does the immorality of it have some independent basis?

 

[Jason Bourne]

If the music industry changes their pricing structure fewer people will steal the product. Why does an album still cost $12-20 when production & distribution costs have decreased significantly since the heydey of CDs?Musicians need to embrace the Radiohead distribution model.

The cost of an item should have no bearing on the value it provides to you. Pay for the value you receive - don't worry about how much someone else is making.If a song is worth $0.50 to you - don't pay $0.99 - that is your choice as a consumer. But just because you think a product is over-valued, you do not have the right to steal it from somewhere else.

 

[bostonfred]

Fine the say your place of employment (professor at college, office worker, etc) you get the daily newspaper. Interesting article in it that pertains to your job, make copies and distribute. Stealing in your eyes, right? Could get it for free off internet, even from the newspaper's site but in your eyes, that's stealing. Correct?

That's hard to answer because I don't know how your hypothetical newspaper provider has chosen to license its product. I know more about how some producers of DVDs and CDs have defined the terms and conditions of their sales, which seems more relevant to this discussion.

 

[Walton Goggins]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Are you talking about a situation where a person buys a gift for someone else? If so, no.

Not buying a gift. Your friend already purchased a book/magazine/newspaper that you are interested in and said friend simply gives it to you.You're a lawyer and your friend makes a copy of an article and sends it to you that pertains to the law you are in.

 

[[icon]]

Grunching here but I love the Radiohead model for In Rainbows. Download the album from their website and pay whatever you think it's worth. Be that $0.01 or $20. They made a LOT more per unit than they EVER did selling CDs via a Record Label.

I agree for sure, icon. I love that marketing style. But my point is that its only ok when Radiohead decides that's what they want to do with their content. Does that make sense?J

Totally and I agree. Using your buddies as an example. I have passed around compies of their double live album to friends because they provide it for free to download on their website. They intended it for that purpose. I'd be less inclined to pass around copies of a CD of theirs I purchased off iTunes. I would feel like I was taking money out of their pockets.

 

[Walton Goggins]

Fine the say your place of employment (professor at college, office worker, etc) you get the daily newspaper. Interesting article in it that pertains to your job, make copies and distribute. Stealing in your eyes, right? Could get it for free off internet, even from the newspaper's site but in your eyes, that's stealing. Correct?

That's hard to answer because I don't know how your hypothetical newspaper provider has chosen to license its product. I know more about how some producers of DVDs and CDs have defined the terms and conditions of their sales, which seems more relevant to this discussion.

Pretty sure it's the same. Friend copies an article out of a magazine or newspaper and shoots it to you.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Is there a difference between content downloaded from a file sharing site, and a pirated DVD*?

*Exact replica made in China but sell for $3.99 at a flea market instead of $12.99 at a store.

 

[Christo]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Are you talking about a situation where a person buys a gift for someone else? If so, no.

Not buying a gift. Your friend already purchased a book/magazine/newspaper that you are interested in and said friend simply gives it to you.You're a lawyer and your friend makes a copy of an article and sends it to you that pertains to the law you are in.

First example, not stealing. Second example, stealing.

 

[Eulogys]

Right now there are two factions.A. People who say it is stealing.B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.Can there not just be a third option?C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

 

[Christo]

Right now there are two factions.A. People who say it is stealing.B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.Can there not just be a third option?C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

That would be B.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Grunching here but I love the Radiohead model for In Rainbows. Download the album from their website and pay whatever you think it's worth. Be that $0.01 or $20. They made a LOT more per unit than they EVER did selling CDs via a Record Label.

I agree for sure, icon. I love that marketing style. But my point is that its only ok when Radiohead decides that's what they want to do with their content. Does that make sense?J

Totally and I agree. Using your buddies as an example. I have passed around compies of their double live album to friends because they provide it for free to download on their website. They intended it for that purpose. I'd be less inclined to pass around copies of a CD of theirs I purchased off iTunes. I would feel like I was taking money out of their pockets.

Exactly. J

 

[Foosball God]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Are you talking about a situation where a person buys a gift for someone else? If so, no.

Not buying a gift. Your friend already purchased a book/magazine/newspaper that you are interested in and said friend simply gives it to you.You're a lawyer and your friend makes a copy of an article and sends it to you that pertains to the law you are in.

Those two examples are not the same. The first one is a gift, they are releasing property rights to the new person. They could also sell the book or magazine used to them. Either way they are releasing all property rights. This is not stealing. In your second example Christo's friend has maintained the original property and created a copy to give to someone else. This is stealing.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Right now there are two factions.

A. People who say it is stealing.

B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.

Can there not just be a third option?

C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.

Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

So again, it's ok for you to take it for free, because other people are going to pay for it so the producer will have a financial incentive to keep producing.You don't see the flaw there?

 

[Worm]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Are you talking about a situation where a person buys a gift for someone else? If so, no.

Not buying a gift. Your friend already purchased a book/magazine/newspaper that you are interested in and said friend simply gives it to you.You're a lawyer and your friend makes a copy of an article and sends it to you that pertains to the law you are in.

Those two examples are not the same. The first one is a gift, they are releasing property rights to the new person. They could also sell the book or magazine used to them. Either way they are releasing all property rights. This is not stealing. In your second example Christo's friend has maintained the original property and created a copy to give to someone else. This is stealing.

What if I legally download an mp3, give it a listen, decide I don't want it any more, and physically sell the file to you? Is that the same/different? I don't think the record companies/labels view it in the same manner (though I don't know for sure).

 

[E-Z Glider]

I think a lot of this goes to what J said earlier... if one company wants to charge for something while another is giving it away for free, that's their choice (and their problem when they go out of business).

I assume most people see the music industry as we know it as quickly "going out of business" and can see the writing on the wall that things are about to change. I dont want to be throwing good money at something only to find out a short time later that it would have been free. That's a waste of my money. Is it illegal by today's definitions? Yes. Do I think it will always be that way? No.

eta - I think that puts me in the "C" camp.

 

[Christo]

Right now there are two factions.

A. People who say it is stealing.

B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.

Can there not just be a third option?

C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.

Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

So again, it's ok for you to take it for free, because other people are going to pay for it so the producer will have a financial incentive to keep producing.You don't see the flaw there?

The only flaw I see is in your logic.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Right now there are two factions.A. People who say it is stealing.B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.Can there not just be a third option?C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

Why don't you feel that you should pay for the value of getting the preview? It did help you make a decision - no? Or, are you saying you get no value from the download?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Right now there are two factions.

A. People who say it is stealing.

B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.

Can there not just be a third option?

C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.

Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

So again, it's ok for you to take it for free, because other people are going to pay for it so the producer will have a financial incentive to keep producing.You don't see the flaw there?

The only flaw I see is in your logic.

Please explain, because I thought we were in agreement here. Eulogys is stealing and arguing that he isn't.

 

[Jason Bourne]

I think a lot of this goes to what J said earlier... if one company wants to charge for something while another is giving it away for free, that's their choice (and their problem when they go out of business).

I assume most people see the music industry as we know it as quickly "going out of business" and can see the writing on the wall that things are about to change. I dont want to be throwing good money at something only to find out a short time later that it would have been free. That's a waste of my money. Is it illegal by today's definitions? Yes. Do I think it will always be that way? No.

eta - I think that puts me in the "C" camp.

Thats not exactly what he is saying.

He is saying if a company has content they want to give for free - that is their choice to make. There is no second company in his example.

 

[Christo]

For the people who think this is stealing then I assume not paying for a book, say your parents or friends give you a book, is also stealing in your eye, right?

Are you talking about a situation where a person buys a gift for someone else? If so, no.

Not buying a gift. Your friend already purchased a book/magazine/newspaper that you are interested in and said friend simply gives it to you.You're a lawyer and your friend makes a copy of an article and sends it to you that pertains to the law you are in.

Those two examples are not the same. The first one is a gift, they are releasing property rights to the new person. They could also sell the book or magazine used to them. Either way they are releasing all property rights. This is not stealing. In your second example Christo's friend has maintained the original property and created a copy to give to someone else. This is stealing.

What if I legally download an mp3, give it a listen, decide I don't want it any more, and physically sell the file to you? Is that the same/different? I don't think the record companies/labels view it in the same manner (though I don't know for sure).

I think that's like the first example. You bought one copy of the song and only one copy of the song exists. So it's not stealing.

 

[Eulogys]

What people like you lose track of is that when someone who DL's a torrent that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, it's not costing them a sale. If anything, it just might get them a sale.

What you lose track of is that if free distribution of these movies was acceptable, there would be no incentive to create the movies anymore. There would be no movies to download.So your argument is basically that it's ok for you to download the movie for free off the internet, because a sufficient number of others will pay for the movie such that the moviemakers can stay in business and keep making movies for you to download.

Not at all. All I'm saying is that me DL a movie isn't costing them a sale. Why is that so hard for people to wrap their heads around. How many people here have a netflix account and still pick up new release DVD's on their way home from work on Tuesday nights? The movie makers are still getting their share of my netflix subscription the same as everyone else. If anything, by me DL a movie instead of waiting for it to turn up in my mailbox enables someone else to see it earlier since it's not in my Q.

 

[Chaka]

If the music industry changes their pricing structure fewer people will steal the product. Why does an album still cost $12-20 when production & distribution costs have decreased significantly since the heydey of CDs?Musicians need to embrace the Radiohead distribution model.

The cost of an item should have no bearing on the value it provides to you. Pay for the value you receive - don't worry about how much someone else is making.If a song is worth $0.50 to you - don't pay $0.99 - that is your choice as a consumer. But just because you think a product is over-valued, you do not have the right to steal it from somewhere else.

And if a song is worth $0.00 to me is it okay to download it then?

 

[Christo]

Please explain, because I thought we were in agreement here. Eulogys is stealing and arguing that he isn't.

I misread it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The candy is real property with about five centuries of well developed property rights created to protect societies interest from one person taking another's real property, or more precisely developed to lessen the impact on society about one person inefficiently allocating resources to protect that real property. The song is not real property and there are about five centuries of developed "necessary evil" concepts of granting creators of songs (and other similar intangible things) limited monopolies to distribute these songs to protect societies interest that these songs are created and shared among the public. There is only about one century internationally and about a quarter century in the US of associating intellectual property as having the same kind of property rights as real property. That is the very notion that this is "stealing" to begin with a very new concept and the antithesis of why these "necessary evils" were created to begin with.It should not be about whether or not the "publisher's interest" are harmed by freely sharing music, movies, software, etc. but whether societies is maximizing the incentives necessary for creative people to create. Obviously these interests could be one and the same in some cases. As has been indirectly noted in this thread, each of these and anything else has a different answer based on the peculiarities of industry in question.

OK, I'll ask you the same question I asked scoob. Would you have a problem with me stealing CDs from the store instead of downloading music illegally? What if I told you that it only cost $.14 to produce a CD and its case, and that people who come into the record store are more likely to buy stuff than people who don't? Is it OK for people to steal CDs from the store?

When I steal a CD from the store I stole real property from the store. I did not steal the music on the CD from the artist and/or their publisher. The RIAA is not coming after me as they were paid and is not lobbying congress for stiffer federal laws against my shop lifting of the CD (or even armed robbery). The store might call the local police and have the local prosecutor come after me, but that is a whole other set of laws and victims isn't it?Oh, and I don't believe I have any music that was not fully paid for by me at least once* and nothing that I think I have shared since early 80 mix tapes for gals. So I am not justifying my behavior by arguing that this is not stealing. Nor am I advocating a free for all in sharing. I'm simply pointing out that the laws that exists are there to be incentives to encouraging creative people to share their creativity and I am troubled that currently they seem to be about something else. I'd also point out that since all laws are ultimately to protect societies interest, when technology makes the costs to thwart a behavior to protect a narrow groups profits out weigh the benefits to society those laws are no longer a legitimate function of government. I think we have crashed past that point for music file sharing and are fast approaching it for movies and TV. *Most I have paid for two, three, or even more times as I am lazier than I am cheap when it comes to moving from media format to media format in a legal manner.

 

[E-Z Glider]

I think a lot of this goes to what J said earlier... if one company wants to charge for something while another is giving it away for free, that's their choice (and their problem when they go out of business).

I assume most people see the music industry as we know it as quickly "going out of business" and can see the writing on the wall that things are about to change. I dont want to be throwing good money at something only to find out a short time later that it would have been free. That's a waste of my money. Is it illegal by today's definitions? Yes. Do I think it will always be that way? No.

eta - I think that puts me in the "C" camp.

Thats not exactly what he is saying.

He is saying if a company has content they want to give for free - that is their choice to make. There is no second company in his example.

Sorry, I may be back a few pages, but Im referring to the music/candy argument here...This was from Joe earlier...

The way I see it, when a business owner is offering something for sale, the customer can't just take it for for free because he's decided it's ok to. The price is set by the business owner.

Now he may go out of business because all his customers are going for the free candy. But that's his problem.

YouTube and Pandora giving it away for free. Music companies trying to charge for it.

 

[Eulogys]

Right now there are two factions.A. People who say it is stealing.B. People who are stealing but argue that it isn't stealing.Can there not just be a third option?C. People who are stealing but don't care what you call it, we'll do it either way.Put me down for Camp C...

That is a more honest position than B.

Put me down for DD. Call it what you want, I'm not costing the artist any money since I wouldn't be buying it anyways......unless after listening/viewing it I find it's worth it which in that case, they just made a sale they otherwise wouldn't have made.

Why don't you feel that you should pay for the value of getting the preview? It did help you make a decision - no? Or, are you saying you get no value from the download?

Why can't I claim that I'm paying for that the same as everyone else that has the same option with their Netflix subscriptions? Seriously, what is the difference between waiting 3 weeks for a movie to get to my house or downloading it when it's available through a torrent? I get the same value as I would waiting for Netflix to ship it to me.

 

[Jason Bourne]

If the music industry changes their pricing structure fewer people will steal the product. Why does an album still cost $12-20 when production & distribution costs have decreased significantly since the heydey of CDs?Musicians need to embrace the Radiohead distribution model.

The cost of an item should have no bearing on the value it provides to you. Pay for the value you receive - don't worry about how much someone else is making.If a song is worth $0.50 to you - don't pay $0.99 - that is your choice as a consumer. But just because you think a product is over-valued, you do not have the right to steal it from somewhere else.

And if a song is worth $0.00 to me is it okay to download it then?

If the owner of the music is willing to give it to you - then yes.But as a practical matter - no, if something literally has no value to you - then you should not download it - it is a -EV play since it uses resources.When you buy copyrighted material - you are generally getting a personal use license for that product. When you go beyond that personal use - you are in the territory of theft. When you buy a CD or DVD - you do not have the right to give the material away.I think the cable company charges too much - should I go over to my neighbor's house, and splice into his line? What if he is willing to share it with me?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

What people like you lose track of is that when someone who DL's a torrent that wouldn't otherwise buy their product, it's not costing them a sale. If anything, it just might get them a sale.

What you lose track of is that if free distribution of these movies was acceptable, there would be no incentive to create the movies anymore. There would be no movies to download.So your argument is basically that it's ok for you to download the movie for free off the internet, because a sufficient number of others will pay for the movie such that the moviemakers can stay in business and keep making movies for you to download.

Not at all. All I'm saying is that me DL a movie isn't costing them a sale. Why is that so hard for people to wrap their heads around. How many people here have a netflix account and still pick up new release DVD's on their way home from work on Tuesday nights? The movie makers are still getting their share of my netflix subscription the same as everyone else. If anything, by me DL a movie instead of waiting for it to turn up in my mailbox enables someone else to see it earlier since it's not in my Q.

You are failing to extrapolate the consequences of everyone doing the same thing you did. If we, as a society, decide that it's ok for you to download movies for free, then we should decide that it's ok for everyone to download movies for free (since you are not more entitled to free movies than anyone else). And if we decide that it's ok for everyone to download movies for free, then no one would ever make another movie ever again.So, as I said, your justification for taking movies for free depends upon the condition that other people don't do the same. You just assume that everyone else will pay for it, so you don't have to. That's pretty obviously wrong, imo.

 

[Eulogys]

Please explain, because I thought we were in agreement here. Eulogys is stealing and arguing that he isn't.

If I kept the download after viewing it, I might agree that it was stealing. However, I delete the movies after I'm done watching them and if I enjoyed it, I'll consider buying the movie. How is that any different then getting a physical disc in the mail that I send back, or better yet, getting it streamed to me from netflix.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Why can't I claim that I'm paying for that the same as everyone else that has the same option with their Netflix subscriptions? Seriously, what is the difference between waiting 3 weeks for a movie to get to my house or downloading it when it's available through a torrent? I get the same value as I would waiting for Netflix to ship it to me.

A couple of points:1. Why not wait? There must be some reason.2. You are paying for NetFlix, and they are paying for the content, adn you are getting to use it for a while (or purchase it if you really want). Big difference.

 

[Random]

eoMMan is right that pirating doesn't lead to higher prices. Prices are set to maximize revenues*. The idea that producers can increase revenues (to make up for money lost to pirates) by increasing prices doesn't work; if they could increase revenues by increasing prices, they'd do so whether or not any pirates exist. So pirates don't affect prices. (Similarly, to correct another common misperception, NFL player salaries don't affect ticket prices. Owners don't charge more to "make up for" high player salaries. They charge the revenue-maximizing price regardless of player salaries -- which is why Notre Dame tickets cost more than Chicago Bears tickets.)

___

*Technically, to maximize net revenues. But the marginal cost of printing a CD is low enough that it doesn't substantially affect the price.

That's not entirely true. If there are 100 people who will pay up to $1000 for a product, and 900 more who would pay at most $200 for it, then I might sell it for $200, knowing I'd get $200,000 for it, instead of $1000. If the price sensitive people begin stealing, though, I might correctly raise my prices to $1000, because it would maximize profits from the remaining marketplace.

Yes, you're right.

I realize I'm late to the party here and haven't read the rest of the thread so this may have already been answered. But why wouldn't the 100 people that would pay $1000 buy it when it was $200?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Please explain, because I thought we were in agreement here. Eulogys is stealing and arguing that he isn't.

If I kept the download after viewing it, I might agree that it was stealing. However, I delete the movies after I'm done watching them and if I enjoyed it, I'll consider buying the movie. How is that any different then getting a physical disc in the mail that I send back, or better yet, getting it streamed to me from netflix.

Because you're paying to have the physical disc mailed to you, or to have it streamed to you via Netflix, and the creator of the content is (directly or indirectly) getting a cut of that. Filesharing for free on the internet disincetivizes the producer from continuing to create the content.

 

[Eulogys]

Why can't I claim that I'm paying for that the same as everyone else that has the same option with their Netflix subscriptions? Seriously, what is the difference between waiting 3 weeks for a movie to get to my house or downloading it when it's available through a torrent? I get the same value as I would waiting for Netflix to ship it to me.

A couple of points:1. Why not wait? There must be some reason.2. You are paying for NetFlix, and they are paying for the content, adn you are getting to use it for a while (or purchase it if you really want). Big difference.

1. because netflix doesn't purchase enough bluray's and there's normally an extremely long wait for them.2. So "they" are getting paid regardless if I get the movie from Netflix or if I DL it from a torrent site. It's not like "they" get more money if the movie is rented by X amount of people.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Why can't I claim that I'm paying for that the same as everyone else that has the same option with their Netflix subscriptions? Seriously, what is the difference between waiting 3 weeks for a movie to get to my house or downloading it when it's available through a torrent? I get the same value as I would waiting for Netflix to ship it to me.

A couple of points:1. Why not wait? There must be some reason.2. You are paying for NetFlix, and they are paying for the content, adn you are getting to use it for a while (or purchase it if you really want). Big difference.

1. because netflix doesn't purchase enough bluray's and there's normally an extremely long wait for them.2. So "they" are getting paid regardless if I get the movie from Netflix or if I DL it from a torrent site. It's not like "they" get more money if the movie is rented by X amount of people.

So you are getting a benefit in getting the movie early - I don't understand why you think you should get that benefit for free.Now, imagine you were fined $100 for each download of copyrighted material. Further imagine that technology exists to identify you as the person who illegally downloaded the content. How does that play into the equation?

 

[Eulogys]

Please explain, because I thought we were in agreement here. Eulogys is stealing and arguing that he isn't.

If I kept the download after viewing it, I might agree that it was stealing. However, I delete the movies after I'm done watching them and if I enjoyed it, I'll consider buying the movie. How is that any different then getting a physical disc in the mail that I send back, or better yet, getting it streamed to me from netflix.

Because you're paying to have the physical disc mailed to you, or to have it streamed to you via Netflix, and the creator of the content is (directly or indirectly) getting a cut of that. Filesharing for free on the internet disincetivizes the producer from continuing to create the content.

So, the creator has already gotten their cut from my netflix subscription. Good to know, they can keep on making more content to sell to netflix.The only thing producers should be fearful of filesharing on the internet is if they are producing crap. I have enough faith in people that if they enjoy something enough, they WILL pay for it like I do.

 

[Jason Bourne]

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

***

(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection ©.

(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

© Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

 

[Jason Bourne]

This really is not subject to "opinion" it is illegal.

The only catch is that enforcement has not caught up to the law breakers. But that is like speeding when the cops are not around. SUre you can get away with it then - but that is not a defense when you do get caught.

It is difficult to track the individual illegal downloads - and most cases that show up in the news are when someone has downloaded a proverbial #### pile - but that does not make the individual downloads legal.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

***

(a) In General. — Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either —

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection ©.

(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

© Statutory Damages. —

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

I don't see the words stealing, or theft, or any other synonym in there, do you?

 

[Please See Mine]

Isn't it the same product though?You can get either a free tootsie roll or pay for it. Most choose getting it for free.

Right. But I'm saying it's the seller's decision on what to charge. I'm saying that because store A is giving them away, that doesn't mean you can take them for free at store B that is charging for them.Does that make sense?J

Right, but it's the same product. You can go to Pandora, for example, and listen to Dave Matthews for free. Apple on the other hand, charges you $1.29 to hear that same song. Pandora chose not to charge for it's product where as Apple has. Is listening to music on Pandora stealing?

Good lord. Pandora pays royalties. They have chosen a specific business model in which they pay for content and distribute it in a certain way. There is no agreement between the torrent provider or downloader and the music company.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

eoMMan is right that pirating doesn't lead to higher prices. Prices are set to maximize revenues*. The idea that producers can increase revenues (to make up for money lost to pirates) by increasing prices doesn't work; if they could increase revenues by increasing prices, they'd do so whether or not any pirates exist. So pirates don't affect prices. (Similarly, to correct another common misperception, NFL player salaries don't affect ticket prices. Owners don't charge more to "make up for" high player salaries. They charge the revenue-maximizing price regardless of player salaries -- which is why Notre Dame tickets cost more than Chicago Bears tickets.)

___

*Technically, to maximize net revenues. But the marginal cost of printing a CD is low enough that it doesn't substantially affect the price.

That's not entirely true. If there are 100 people who will pay up to $1000 for a product, and 900 more who would pay at most $200 for it, then I might sell it for $200, knowing I'd get $200,000 for it, instead of $1000. If the price sensitive people begin stealing, though, I might correctly raise my prices to $1000, because it would maximize profits from the remaining marketplace.

Yes, you're right.

I realize I'm late to the party here and haven't read the rest of the thread so this may have already been answered. But why wouldn't the 100 people that would pay $1000 buy it when it was $200?

They would. So you'd have 1000 sales at $200 each (the 100 high rollers plus the 900 thrifty shoppers), but only 100 sales at $1000 each (just the 100 high rollers).

 

[Jason Bourne]

Link from US Copyright Office

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?

Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.

Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.

Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This really is not subject to "opinion" it is illegal.

Obviously it's illegal.The question in the poll is whether it's stealing.

 

[Jason Bourne]

I don't see the words stealing, or theft, or any other synonym in there, do you?

I think copyright infringement is a synonym for theft - in that you are depriving the copyright holder of the full value of his/her property.They certainly have rights against you to recoup their opportunity losses.It is not the same as theft of chattel (since there can be only one chattel) - but I do think it is analogous. And illegal.

 

[Statorama]

Has it been determined if viewing streaming movies online violates any existing law?

You're technically not downloading anything.

I, um, have a friend that watched Hot Tub Time Machine online this weekend and he'd like to know.

 

[Jason Bourne]

This really is not subject to "opinion" it is illegal.

Obviously it's illegal.The question in the poll is whether it's stealing.

I get the sense from many of the comments here that this boils down to acceptable conduct - since no one is hurt.

 

[DaVinci]

That's not entirely true. If there are 100 people who will pay up to $1000 for a product, and 900 more who would pay at most $200 for it, then I might sell it for $200, knowing I'd get $200,000 for it, instead of $1000. If the price sensitive people begin stealing, though, I might correctly raise my prices to $1000, because it would maximize profits from the remaining marketplace.

Yes, you're right.

I realize I'm late to the party here and haven't read the rest of the thread so this may have already been answered. But why wouldn't the 100 people that would pay $1000 buy it when it was $200?

They would. So you'd have 1000 sales at $200 each (the 100 high rollers plus the 900 thrifty shoppers), but only 100 sales at $1000 each (just the 100 high rollers).

Why not produce a standard version at $200 each and a "deluxe" version at $1,000? That way you take in $280,000.

 

[Chaka]

Avatar BluRay due to be released next week.