Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[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.

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?

How is it a benefit for me to watch a movie at the same time as someone else who is paying the same as I am to watch the same movie. If anything, it would benefit everyone else that has the movie in their Q since it's not in mine. I typically don't have new releases in my Q enabling others the opportunity to maybe see the movie earlier.And what if I produce the DVD of every movie I ever DL'd? Regardless, chances are they aren't going to find any illegal downloads as they aren't saved for more then a couple days at most.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

You're depriving him of the ability to sell as many CDs as he otherwise would by decreasing the demand for his product.But people don't have a property interest in a certain level of demand for their products. If I reduce your ability to sell your CDs by writing better songs than you, nobody would say that I'm stealing from you. For the same reason, if I reduce your ability to sell your CDs by making copies for everyone I know, I don't think that "stealing" is the right way to describe what I've done. I've hurt your business. I've violated your copyright. But property theft is the wrong analogy, IMO, because you don't have a property interest in would-be demand for your product, and I therefore haven't taken any of your property. All the property you had before I distributed free copies of your CD, you still have. Any injury I've caused you was not to your property, but to your future sales, which aren't property.

 

[scoobygang]

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

Price discrimination is certainly one way producers manage to capture segments of the market with differing valuations of a product.

 

[Jason Bourne]

How is it a benefit for me to watch a movie at the same time as someone else who is paying the same as I am to watch the same movie. If anything, it would benefit everyone else that has the movie in their Q since it's not in mine. I typically don't have new releases in my Q enabling others the opportunity to maybe see the movie earlier.And what if I produce the DVD of every movie I ever DL'd? Regardless, chances are they aren't going to find any illegal downloads as they aren't saved for more then a couple days at most.

If it was not a benefit - you would not download it.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Only one of you can still use the hedge trimmers at a time. You both have perfectly good copies of the CD if you burn it. Now, if there were some sort of duplicating machine for matter*, then we might have a discussion.*patent pending

FYI - 3-D printers already exists, including those that can handle multiple materials. So given the appropriate design materials and a large enough 3-D printer I should at the very least be able to print out the fiberglass shell of a Bryant Boat today. The ability to transform random matter into another form of matter and/or the ability to successfully layer complex machinery is, as far as I know still on the to do list. But the point is that the ability to create copies of at least some physical items already exists today. So if fifteen years from now I could download via torrent the instructions for my $200 3-D printer with its $1000 fiberglass cartridge and whatever other raw materials I needed to print a Bryant Boat for less than I could buy one, am I stealing anything? For argument sake consider ignore that Joe in a thread long ago said that boat designs are generally not patented but go ahead and assume it was, imagine that the torrent was created by someone's over the counter 3-D scanner (i.e. no one broke into the factory and stole any designs), and assume that the Bryant Boat trademarks were removed so no one is capitalizing on Bryant Boats "goodwill". What was stolen? Anything? The design?Because really the discussions in these threads should be more about principles and concepts beyond just music, video, and software. Technology is quickly changing the rules and basing argument in classical property rights is the wrong place to begin.

 

[tonydead]

I was unaware that PS3's now had that capability. How are the data transfer rates? Do videos become choppy?Still taking 3-4 hours to DL a BR quality film (yes I know it can be faster) vs getting the same film instantly on streaming video for $10 will keep that usage in the minority.

PS3 quality is great. Serving a file over a LAN will have much better quality than trying to stream it through a VOD service you're sharing with others. I've never noticed it to be choppy over ethernet. I have a cheap linksys router and wirelessly stream to other rooms in the house and haven't noticed choppiness on those devices either.While it may be in the minority for the nation as a whole (stuff my grandparents wouldn't have the first clue about doing), I don't think it's in the minority for those who already torrent.

Agree. If you're clever enough to download you should be clever enough to stream everything you downloaded to your entertainment center.

 

[Disco Stu]

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.

The counter to both of your points is that eventually Netflix will have to realize that they're not meeting their costumers' needs, which will cause them to buy more blurays, which will profit the movie studios. Your argument is only valid if you assume Netflix is purchasing a set number of dvds/blurays, regardless of demand. I don't think that's a valid assumption.The way you're doing it is more convenient for you (and your fellow Netflix customers most likely) and cheaper for Netflix (which in turn avoids subscription price increases for you and others), but it does come at a cost.

 

[Jason Bourne]

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.

You're depriving him of the ability to sell as many CDs as he otherwise would by decreasing the demand for his product.But people don't have a property interest in a certain level of demand for their products. If I reduce your ability to sell your CDs by writing better songs than you, nobody would say that I'm stealing from you. For the same reason, if I reduce your ability to sell your CDs by making copies for everyone I know, I don't think that "stealing" is the right way to describe what I've done. I've hurt your business. I've violated your copyright. But property theft is the wrong analogy, IMO, because you don't have a property interest in would-be demand for your product, and I therefore haven't taken any of your property. All the property you had before I distributed free copies of your CD, you still have. Any injury I've caused you was not to your property, but to your future sales, which aren't property.

Tomato - TomahtoThe value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

 

[scoobygang]

Tomato - TomahtoThe value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

We don't know whether the copiers have reduced the value of the copyright. And of course, there are lots of instances where behavior that is not illegal can reduce the value of your right to sell something.If you make widgets, and I make widgets cheaper, that reduces the value of your right to sell you widgets. But that isn't illegal.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

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.

You're depriving him of the ability to sell as many CDs as he otherwise would by decreasing the demand for his product.But people don't have a property interest in a certain level of demand for their products. If I reduce your ability to sell your CDs by writing better songs than you, nobody would say that I'm stealing from you. For the same reason, if I reduce your ability to sell your CDs by making copies for everyone I know, I don't think that "stealing" is the right way to describe what I've done. I've hurt your business. I've violated your copyright. But property theft is the wrong analogy, IMO, because you don't have a property interest in would-be demand for your product, and I therefore haven't taken any of your property. All the property you had before I distributed free copies of your CD, you still have. Any injury I've caused you was not to your property, but to your future sales, which aren't property.

I'm really late to this, but I think people are getting overly hung up on the term "stealing." It's true that copying a CD isn't the same thing as stealing somebody's car. It's more like sneaking into a baseball game without buying a ticket. That analogy better captures the fact that music and sporting events are non-rival (more or less -- this assumes the baseball game isn't sold out) but I don't think anybody would seriously try to argue that sneaking into a baseball game isn't still wrong.

 

[Jason Bourne]

Tomato - TomahtoThe value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

We don't know whether the copiers have reduced the value of the copyright. And of course, there are lots of instances where behavior that is not illegal can reduce the value of your right to sell something.If you make widgets, and I make widgets cheaper, that reduces the value of your right to sell you widgets. But that isn't illegal.

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

 

[eoMMan]

Tomato - TomahtoThe value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

We don't know whether the copiers have reduced the value of the copyright. And of course, there are lots of instances where behavior that is not illegal can reduce the value of your right to sell something.If you make widgets, and I make widgets cheaper, that reduces the value of your right to sell you widgets. But that isn't illegal.

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

You work for a record company or something? You're getting heated over this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.

At least from my quick and loose reading of the thread, it sounds like lots of people are arguing exactly that -- that the way we currently protect intellectual property isn't designed well. I'm not sure if that's what scoobygang is getting after and he can answer that for himself, but mostly it seems like posters are really more interested in whether violating this particular aspect of copyright law is "wrong" in some sense as opposed to just arguing about what the law says.

 

[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.

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.

Whether or not you have a Netflix subscription has nothing to do with downloading torrents, so there's no reason to keep bringing it up, except to make some pretzel-logic argument to justify illegally downloading movies over the internet. Your Netflix subscription has bought you the right to receive movies from Netflix, on the terms that they have arranged with you (and with the movie producers). Your Netflix subscription does not buy you the right to download whatever movies you want whenever you want and keep them for as long as you want, via torrents for free. Notwithstanding my doubts about your claims to buy all the movies you like after you've already downloaded them, you surely don't actually believe that most people would do the same (although I know you couldn't admit as much, because it would completely undermine your argument that there's nothing wrong with downloading movies via torrents). Given the choice of paying $15 for a movie or paying $0 for a movie, most rational consumers are going to pay $0. So producers have everything to fear with filesharing. If it were acceptable for anyone to freely distribute their product on the internet, they wouldn't be able to make movies anymore.

Once again, your entire argument rests on the fact that not everyone does what you do. You want us to believe that there is nothing wrong with downloading movies for free on the internet - that somehow it's no different than if you rent it from Netflix (lol) - but clearly if everyone downloaded movies for free on the internet, it would put the movie industry out of business, so there is definitely some loss of value to the producers of the goods that you are acquiring for free.

I know you and many others don't care and will continue illegally downloading material on the internet, but at least own up to what it really is instead of making some ridiculous argument that there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

Tomato - TomahtoThe value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

We don't know whether the copiers have reduced the value of the copyright. And of course, there are lots of instances where behavior that is not illegal can reduce the value of your right to sell something.If you make widgets, and I make widgets cheaper, that reduces the value of your right to sell you widgets. But that isn't illegal.

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

It is our duty to disobey unethical laws.

 

[scoobygang]

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.

Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.

The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.

This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.

Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

Probably because people are conflating a bunch of different concepts. So let's try to break them down.Is copyright infringement theft? I say no, for reasons that I've already explained.

Is breaking the law an absolute moral wrong? Again, I argue no. If there were a law against hiding Jews during the Holocaust, I'd like to think I'd break it. Obviously, copying a CD isn't like hiding Anne Frank. But maybe it's more like speeding or jaywalking or enjoying a marijuana cigarette. Sure, it's breaking a rule. I try not to break any of those rules because I don't want to deal with the consequences, but I don't consider breaking those rules moral wrongs. Particularly when the moral justification for those rules seems tenuous.

Should copyright infringement be illegal? I argue that the answer is only to the extent that it promotes efficient production of content to a greater extent than it inhibits the spread of artistic content. So if the copyright term actually inhibits the spread of content more than in incentivizes the production of content, then we should look to scale back copyright protection.

Does the copyright protection for music, movies, books etc. incentivize production of artistic content to a greater extent than it limits access to artistic content? This is an issue that should be subject to evidence-based analysis. We do have some preliminary data that suggests, however, that it does. In fact, we have some data that suggests that copyright infringement may actually incentivize production by building a larger prospective market. We can argue with that data, but it should be an evidence-based argument, not one based on moral intuition.

Is copyright protection the most effective way to incentivize content production in the digital age? Again, this is a question that should be subject to analysis, but I think the evidence suggests that the answer is no. Enforcement costs too much.

 

[GloryDaze]

How about recording something from a purchased Pandora subscription?

 

[eoMMan]

Peter Gibbons: Um, the 7-Eleven, right? You take a penny from the tray.

Joanna: From the crippled children?

Peter Gibbons: No, that's the jar. I'm talking about the tray, the pennies for everybody.

 

[Happy Ragnarok]

Let me put that another way.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not illegal to share music/movie files in a free for all. It is. It's illegal.

But everything that is a legal wrong is not necessarily a moral wrong. Indeed, in this case, I believe sharing art is a moral right. Anything which takes anyone's public and creative efforts and spreads them around to their glory and society's appreciation is bound to be a moral right. The only argument I can possibly see to the counter would be if this was hurting the artist, in which case you'd have two moral rights jousting for reason. But in this case, the evidence suggests (I would go further than suggests, since I work in digital marketing, but that's neither here nor there) that not only does sharing not hurt the artists, it actually helps them.

If this be a load of crap, then crap be far better than law.

 

[scoobygang]

Let me put that another way.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not illegal to share music/movie files in a free for all. It is. It's illegal.

But everything that is a legal wrong is not necessarily a moral wrong. Indeed, in this case, I believe sharing art is a moral right. Anything which takes anyone's public and creative efforts and spreads them around to their glory and society's appreciation is bound to be a moral right. The only argument I can possibly see to the counter would be if this was hurting the artist, in which case you'd have two moral rights jousting for reason. But in this case, the evidence suggests (I would go further than suggests, since I work in digital marketing, but that's neither here nor there) that not only does sharing not hurt the artists, it actually helps them.

If this be a load of crap, then crap be far better than law.

This is how Thomas Jefferson put it:

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Let me put that another way.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not illegal to share music/movie files in a free for all. It is. It's illegal.

But everything that is a legal wrong is not necessarily a moral wrong. Indeed, in this case, I believe sharing art is a moral right. Anything which takes anyone's public and creative efforts and spreads them around to their glory and society's appreciation is bound to be a moral right. The only argument I can possibly see to the counter would be if this was hurting the artist, in which case you'd have two moral rights jousting for reason. But in this case, the evidence suggests (I would go further than suggests, since I work in digital marketing, but that's neither here nor there) that not only does sharing not hurt the artists, it actually helps them.

If this be a load of crap, then crap be far better than law.

With music, I can see this being true. Musicians have multiple ways of making revenue, so distributing their music for free can really serve as an advertisement for their other revenue streams (e.g. concert tickets). I don't see how movies are the same, not to mention video games, software, etc. How does filesharing of movies, games, etc. help the artists who create it?

 

[scoobygang]

I don't see how movies are the same, not to mention video games, software, etc. How does filesharing of movies, games, etc. help the artists who create it?

More market penetration means more free loaders, but it also means more paying customers. We know this can be the efficient outcome in computer software. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a shareware market. In software, it seems to be the most efficient distribution mechanism for producers without large marketing budgets.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I don't see how movies are the same, not to mention video games, software, etc. How does filesharing of movies, games, etc. help the artists who create it?

More market penetration means more free loaders, but it also means more paying customers. We know this can be the efficient outcome in computer software. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a shareware market. In software, it seems to be the most efficient distribution mechanism for producers without large marketing budgets.

Shareware <> freeware.

 

[Christo]

Let me put that another way.

I don't think anyone's arguing that it's not illegal to share music/movie files in a free for all. It is. It's illegal.

But everything that is a legal wrong is not necessarily a moral wrong. Indeed, in this case, I believe sharing art is a moral right. Anything which takes anyone's public and creative efforts and spreads them around to their glory and society's appreciation is bound to be a moral right. The only argument I can possibly see to the counter would be if this was hurting the artist, in which case you'd have two moral rights jousting for reason. But in this case, the evidence suggests (I would go further than suggests, since I work in digital marketing, but that's neither here nor there) that not only does sharing not hurt the artists, it actually helps them.

If this be a load of crap, then crap be far better than law.

This is how Thomas Jefferson put it:

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

And if you read on, Jefferson says:

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

Our society has given an exclusive right. So according to Jefferson, all the haters in this thread don't have the right to complain.

 

[scoobygang]

Shareware <> freeware.

There's also a sizable freeware market, but shareware is put out there with the expectation that a large proportion of users will be free riders. It's a considered decision to make it much easier to download and copy the software. Only a small proportion of shareware in my experience even stops working after the trial period. And even then, the user just needs to uninstall and download again.

 

[Walton Goggins]

Tomato - Tomahto

The value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.

It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.

Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

We don't know whether the copiers have reduced the value of the copyright. And of course, there are lots of instances where behavior that is not illegal can reduce the value of your right to sell something.If you make widgets, and I make widgets cheaper, that reduces the value of your right to sell you widgets. But that isn't illegal.

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.

Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.

The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.

This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.

Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

Serious questions, have you ever driven at least 1 MPH over the speed limit? Drank any adult beverage before you turn 21?

 

[bosoxs45]

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.

then shouldn't sites like justin.tv be shut down?

 

[culdeus]

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.

Whether or not you have a Netflix subscription has nothing to do with downloading torrents, so there's no reason to keep bringing it up, except to make some pretzel-logic argument to justify illegally downloading movies over the internet. Your Netflix subscription has bought you the right to receive movies from Netflix, on the terms that they have arranged with you (and with the movie producers). Your Netflix subscription does not buy you the right to download whatever movies you want whenever you want and keep them for as long as you want, via torrents for free. Notwithstanding my doubts about your claims to buy all the movies you like after you've already downloaded them, you surely don't actually believe that most people would do the same (although I know you couldn't admit as much, because it would completely undermine your argument that there's nothing wrong with downloading movies via torrents). Given the choice of paying $15 for a movie or paying $0 for a movie, most rational consumers are going to pay $0. So producers have everything to fear with filesharing. If it were acceptable for anyone to freely distribute their product on the internet, they wouldn't be able to make movies anymore.

Once again, your entire argument rests on the fact that not everyone does what you do. You want us to believe that there is nothing wrong with downloading movies for free on the internet - that somehow it's no different than if you rent it from Netflix (lol) - but clearly if everyone downloaded movies for free on the internet, it would put the movie industry out of business, so there is definitely some loss of value to the producers of the goods that you are acquiring for free.

I know you and many others don't care and will continue illegally downloading material on the internet, but at least own up to what it really is instead of making some ridiculous argument that there's nothing wrong with it.

If someone sold a subscription model to movies/tv like netflix that allowed me to get movies at release and with no preview content or clunky menu I'd pay for that too. And this won't put the industry out of buisness. It might kick Jim Carrey and Jennifer Aniston square in the nuts, but there's still a huge segment of the world that will see movies in a theater until the sun burns out.

 

[jwb]

I just hope that everyone who downloads stuff all of a sudden has their company / employer / whatever affected by the free distribution of its product or service. I hope revenue falls drastically, and people get laid off.

Then perhaps, when it's their own paycheck affected by this, they will see it in a different light. But that's a pipe dream, and as long as it's nameless, faceless people getting hurt, it doesn't matter to most people (oh, quick note: it's not just the million dollar artist who makes money off of music / movies.)

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

If someone sold a subscription model to movies/tv like netflix that allowed me to get movies at release and with no preview content or clunky menu I'd pay for that too.

But since no one does offer such a subscription, it's therefore ok to download the movies for free on the internet?

 

[KGB]

looks like isohunt is pretty much worthless

 

[Otis]

I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.

I disagree with the bolded.

Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.

We've seen arguments like this a few times in this thread. While that may be true, I think the other side of the argument is that it's not up to you to tell someone how much they need to sell their product for. I can't walk into a Porsche dealer and say "you know what, this is highway robbery that you're charging 80 grand for this car. I'll pay 20" -- and then walk out with their car.They have a right to determine how much they sell their product for, and consumers can either decide to buy it or not.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm really late to this, but I think people are getting overly hung up on the term "stealing."

Well, that's what the poll question asks. Whether violating intellectual property laws is morally wrong is a more interesting question. But in order to address that question without undue baggage, I think it helps to first dispose of the notion that it's stealing.

It's true that copying a CD isn't the same thing as stealing somebody's car. It's more like sneaking into a baseball game without buying a ticket. That analogy better captures the fact that music and sporting events are non-rival (more or less -- this assumes the baseball game isn't sold out) but I don't think anybody would seriously try to argue that sneaking into a baseball game isn't still wrong.

Yes, it's more like that. But not completely like it because sneaking into a game involves trespassing, whereas copying a pirated CD does not. (On the other hand, copying a store-bought CD involves breaching a contract, whereas sneaking into a game does not.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

FWIW, if it were an option in the poll, I would have answered: "Absolutely not stealing, but generally not ok."

 

[Jason Bourne]

Tomato - Tomahto

The value of the copyright is determined by the ability to monetize the material. If you have impinged upon my ability to monetize the song/movie - you had reduced the value of my copyright.

It is not a tangible good - so technically it is not a "theft" - but you have damaged my property and reduced its value as if you have stolen a piece of the pie.

Based on the wording of the OP - I think this has more to do with copyright infringement - and its impact on the artists - than "theft" of chattel. By infringing on a copyright - you are negatively impacting the value of that copyright. Many people here seem to think that is OK.

We don't know whether the copiers have reduced the value of the copyright. And of course, there are lots of instances where behavior that is not illegal can reduce the value of your right to sell something.If you make widgets, and I make widgets cheaper, that reduces the value of your right to sell you widgets. But that isn't illegal.

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.

Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.

The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.

This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.

Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

Serious questions, have you ever driven at least 1 MPH over the speed limit? Drank any adult beverage before you turn 21?

Absolutely - but I never tried to justify the actions. I knew it was illegal and tried to get away with it. I have the speeding tickets and underage drinking citations to prove it.But, what I am reading here is that people don't like that they have to pay for stuff, so why not take it when they can find it for free. There seems to be a justification that its not hurting anyone (which is absolutely false) so why not get it via copyright infringement. Its a bogus law, that should not apply to music or movies. The times they are 'a changing. The internet has changed society so that everything is free - no body should be able to charge for any unique content - because that just infringes upon my ability to listen to/watch whatever I want, whenever I want.

 

[videoguy505]

I just hope that everyone who downloads stuff all of a sudden has their company / employer / whatever affected by the free distribution of its product or service. I hope revenue falls drastically, and people get laid off.

 

[scoobygang]

Absolutely - but I never tried to justify the actions. I knew it was illegal and tried to get away with it. I have the speeding tickets and underage drinking citations to prove it.But, what I am reading here is that people don't like that they have to pay for stuff, so why not take it when they can find it for free. There seems to be a justification that its not hurting anyone (which is absolutely false) so why not get it via copyright infringement. Its a bogus law, that should not apply to music or movies. The times they are 'a changing. The internet has changed society so that everything is free - no body should be able to charge for any unique content - because that just infringes upon my ability to listen to/watch whatever I want, whenever I want.

I think you're assuming a lot about people's motives. I don't use torrents. And considering the type of clients my firm caters to, I have every reason to prefer strong copyright protection as a matter of self-interest. I just think most of the arguments coming from copyright absolutists suck. I'm completely open to the possibility that the data could show that torrents are legitimately hurting content creators, but I don't take it on faith.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.

I disagree with the bolded.

Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.

We've seen arguments like this a few times in this thread. While that may be true, I think the other side of the argument is that it's not up to you to tell someone how much they need to sell their product for. I can't walk into a Porsche dealer and say "you know what, this is highway robbery that you're charging 80 grand for this car. I'll pay 20" -- and then walk out with their car.They have a right to determine how much they sell their product for, and consumers can either decide to buy it or not.

J

 

[Walton Goggins]

I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.

I disagree with the bolded.

Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.

We've seen arguments like this a few times in this thread. While that may be true, I think the other side of the argument is that it's not up to you to tell someone how much they need to sell their product for. I can't walk into a Porsche dealer and say "you know what, this is highway robbery that you're charging 80 grand for this car. I'll pay 20" -- and then walk out with their car.They have a right to determine how much they sell their product for, and consumers can either decide to buy it or not.

J

Why do so many people complain when CC rates suddenly increase and when the cost of gas is dramatically spiked?

 

[Walton Goggins]

I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.

I disagree with the bolded.

Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.

We've seen arguments like this a few times in this thread. While that may be true, I think the other side of the argument is that it's not up to you to tell someone how much they need to sell their product for. I can't walk into a Porsche dealer and say "you know what, this is highway robbery that you're charging 80 grand for this car. I'll pay 20" -- and then walk out with their car.They have a right to determine how much they sell their product for, and consumers can either decide to buy it or not.

J

Why do so many people complain when CC rates suddenly increase and when the cost of gas is dramatically spiked?

Also feel the same way when I lived in NYC...if owners want to increase rent by whatever % they should yet that's not the case.Sure Otis agrees that the owner of his place should be able to ask for whatever rent he thinks he can get, right?

 

[mex]

Big thanks to Wrigley for helping me understand and figure it out, he just hooked up a large number of Coast Guard men that are away from home and looking for a new workout routine. 5 weeks minimum to get it shipped out here to Japan and we are only here for 2 more weeks, dude hooked us up in a huge way. Too bad he got a 1 week timeout for helping out some servicemen.

 

[Disco Stu]

scoobygang is smarter than most people.

 

[Offa]

I don't see how it's a discussion. It's theft, pure and simple.

Virtually impossible to stop without resorting to unsavoury means, though.

 

[Jason Bourne]

So imagine these scenarios:

1. An artist creates a painting - should anyone be able to make a print of that painting and distribute it for free?

2. A programmer writes a new game - should someone be able to make a copy of the software and distribute it for free?

3. A song writer writes a song for someone else to perform - the only way the song writer is compensated is via royalties from sales (or licensing) of the song - should anyone be able to take that song and distribute it for free?

4. A movie producer buys a script and makes a movie, its low budget so it goes straight to DVD - should someone be able to get a copy of the movie and distribute it for free?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I agree and am surprised that people openly talk about how to steal on the internet. But I'm also interested in the Insanity workout DVDs and probably wouldn't be if I hadn't heard about it here. I won't steal it, so they may end up making money because other people did. But while the thieves may use this to justify their actions to themselves, I'm paying more for the priviledge of supporting the people who steal, and so are other honest people who don't want to risk their integrity, or at least jail, for a fancy workout video.

I disagree with the bolded.

Those "fancy workout videos" would be still be overpriced even if torrents didn't exist.

We've seen arguments like this a few times in this thread. While that may be true, I think the other side of the argument is that it's not up to you to tell someone how much they need to sell their product for. I can't walk into a Porsche dealer and say "you know what, this is highway robbery that you're charging 80 grand for this car. I'll pay 20" -- and then walk out with their car.They have a right to determine how much they sell their product for, and consumers can either decide to buy it or not.

J

Why do so many people complain when CC rates suddenly increase and when the cost of gas is dramatically spiked?

Because people are frequently incapable of thinking beyond their own self-serving desires.It's impossible to convince some people that they don't have to use credit cards, that unlimited affordable credit isn't a right. "It's not FAIR! I should be allowed to borrow as much money as I want, whenever I want, and keep it for as long as I want, without all these *predatory* companies charging me fees lol!!"

This whole torrent thing seems like the same deal. People can't seem to understand that they are not entitled to unlimited free downloads of all their favorite movies and music. They'll jump through hoops to try and justify it, but it basically boils down to the same thing - they want to pay nothing for the fruits of others' labor. It's ridiculous.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Whether violating intellectual property laws is morally wrong is a more interesting question. But in order to address that question without undue baggage, I think it helps to first dispose of the notion that it's stealing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...Notwithstanding my doubts about your claims to buy all the movies you like after you've already downloaded them, you surely don't actually believe that most people would do the same (although I know you couldn't admit as much, because it would completely undermine your argument that there's nothing wrong with downloading movies via torrents). Given the choice of paying $15 for a movie or paying $0 for a movie, most rational consumers are going to pay $0. So producers have everything to fear with filesharing. If it were acceptable for anyone to freely distribute their product on the internet, they wouldn't be able to make movies anymore....

I think most people rather pay the $15 for the ready made DVD, or the $5 for the Movie on Demand than go through the trouble of downloading and burning a DVD and/or streaming the movie to their entertainment center. Even if this is not true, the movie industry existed long before there were these markets for their products after the release to theaters. The market would change, but unlimited legal file sharing would not end the movie making business.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I get the sense you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. It is illegal to download copyrighted material without the owner's consent. There is no dispute about that. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept.

Now, if you want to talk about changing the US copyright laws - that is a different conversation.

The copyright holder owns the exclusive right to reproduce the material - when you reproduce it without his/her consent - you have diminished the value of the copyright.

This whole, well I would never have paid for it, so it must be ok to download, is the biggest bunch of crap I have read on this site in a long time.

Shame on me for biting - but watching people trying to justify breaking the law is just frustrating.

Probably because people are conflating a bunch of different concepts. So let's try to break them down.Is copyright infringement theft? I say no, for reasons that I've already explained.

Is breaking the law an absolute moral wrong? Again, I argue no. If there were a law against hiding Jews during the Holocaust, I'd like to think I'd break it. Obviously, copying a CD isn't like hiding Anne Frank. But maybe it's more like speeding or jaywalking or enjoying a marijuana cigarette. Sure, it's breaking a rule. I try not to break any of those rules because I don't want to deal with the consequences, but I don't consider breaking those rules moral wrongs. Particularly when the moral justification for those rules seems tenuous.

Should copyright infringement be illegal? I argue that the answer is only to the extent that it promotes efficient production of content to a greater extent than it inhibits the spread of artistic content. So if the copyright term actually inhibits the spread of content more than in incentivizes the production of content, then we should look to scale back copyright protection.

Does the copyright protection for music, movies, books etc. incentivize production of artistic content to a greater extent than it limits access to artistic content? This is an issue that should be subject to evidence-based analysis. We do have some preliminary data that suggests, however, that it does. In fact, we have some data that suggests that copyright infringement may actually incentivize production by building a larger prospective market. We can argue with that data, but it should be an evidence-based argument, not one based on moral intuition.

Is copyright protection the most effective way to incentivize content production in the digital age? Again, this is a question that should be subject to analysis, but I think the evidence suggests that the answer is no. Enforcement costs too much.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And if you read on, Jefferson says:

Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

Our society has given an exclusive right. So according to Jefferson, all the haters in this thread don't have the right to complain.

Yes, society decides whether or not ideas are freely shared or not, not those that falsely claim ownership to creative works falls under general property rights.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I just hope that everyone who downloads stuff all of a sudden has their company / employer / whatever affected by the free distribution of its product or service. I hope revenue falls drastically, and people get laid off. Then perhaps, when it's their own paycheck affected by this, they will see it in a different light. But that's a pipe dream, and as long as it's nameless, faceless people getting hurt, it doesn't matter to most people (oh, quick note: it's not just the million dollar artist who makes money off of music / movies.)

I create intellectual property for a living. In fact page 20 of my employee handbook states that this posts is the intellectual property of my employer. Basing right and wrong on whether it impacts people livelihoods is a stupid foundation for an argument. If technology and change in societal norms means I'm in a modern day "buggy whip" job I won't be the first.