Torrent Talk (1 Viewer)

[NutterButter]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

But we seem to agree there is an accepted degree of "stealing".

I'm not sure what you mean by accepted. I do it b/c its easy and it saves my cheap #### a good chunk of change.

You're OK with d/l'ing stuff but (probably) wouldn't walk into Walmart and lift the same title. There's a line somewhere you won't cross. Some degree of stealing is OK.

Yeah, stealing where i don't get caught. That's the line. With the agreement that was reached between the studios and isps, even if you do get caught, there's really no consequences. The lack of marginal cost probably comes into play in a very small way as well. Its just lost revenue for them.

 

[Wingnut]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

But we seem to agree there is an accepted degree of "stealing".

I'm not sure what you mean by accepted. I do it b/c its easy and it saves my cheap #### a good chunk of change.

You're OK with d/l'ing stuff but (probably) wouldn't walk into Walmart and lift the same title. There's a line somewhere you won't cross. Some degree of stealing is OK.

Well of course. 'Stealing' movies online is way different than stealing in the real world. Almost no chance of getting in trouble for downloading vs most likely getting busted and going to jail for actual stealing from a brick and mortar building. I bet everyone here arguing that this is stealing break the law in some way on a regular basis, be it not wearing a seat belt, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, to taking a big sip of that big gulp before you fill it up to the top again, or eating a grape at the grocery store as you pass the produce section. If you're gonna represent the moral high horse brigade, I hope you are following every law to the letter. Otherwise, take a good long look in the mirror and start making changes or stop preaching and judging.

 

[drummer]

Hollywood want's to take over the internet anyway. Because all they want is your $$, and they'll screw it all up too.

 

[Otis]

Hollywood want's to take over the internet anyway. Because all they want is your $$, and they'll screw it all up too.

I'm now going to assume this is shtick, and a conversation no longer worth having.

Good day, sir.

 

[drummer]

Hollywood want's to take over the internet anyway. Because all they want is your $$, and they'll screw it all up too.

I'm now going to assume this is shtick, and a conversation no longer worth having.

Good day, sir.

Now if only this can work with you in the Tiger Woods thread.

 

[[icon]]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

I'm praying to jesus you got that off some torrentnerd board, and that you're not in law school or aspiring to law school.

By the way, let's set aside the question of how ####### geeky all these torrentnerds are amassing enormous collections of 1's and 0's to impress their friends.

I've got every Stallone movie ever made on this badboy. Dude, wanna go rip some bong hits and watch Cobra?!?!?

Wanna know how to tell when Otis has opted for that 3rd scotch?

 

[drummer]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

I'm praying to jesus you got that off some torrentnerd board, and that you're not in law school or aspiring to law school.

By the way, let's set aside the question of how ####### geeky all these torrentnerds are amassing enormous collections of 1's and 0's to impress their friends.

I've got every Stallone movie ever made on this badboy. Dude, wanna go rip some bong hits and watch Cobra?!?!?

Wanna know how to tell when Otis has opted for that 3rd scotch?

When he uses the term nerds? Otis? The nerdiest gadget consumer?

 

[[icon]]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

 

[biggamer3]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

That's just legal mumbo jumbo. This isn't a courtroom. We all know its stealing in some form.

But we seem to agree there is an accepted degree of "stealing".

I'm not sure what you mean by accepted. I do it b/c its easy and it saves my cheap #### a good chunk of change.

You're OK with d/l'ing stuff but (probably) wouldn't walk into Walmart and lift the same title. There's a line somewhere you won't cross. Some degree of stealing is OK.

Well of course. 'Stealing' movies online is way different than stealing in the real world. Almost no chance of getting in trouble for downloading vs most likely getting busted and going to jail for actual stealing from a brick and mortar building.I bet everyone here arguing that this is stealing break the law in some way on a regular basis, be it not wearing a seat belt, or not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign, to taking a big sip of that big gulp before you fill it up to the top again, or eating a grape at the grocery store as you pass the produce section. If you're gonna represent the moral high horse brigade, I hope you are following every law to the letter. Otherwise, take a good long look in the mirror and start making changes or stop preaching and judging.

But the difference is stealing something which is physical in nature is obvious theft, "stealing" something which is digital could be seen as borrowing a movie or some music from your friends. Afterall, I doubt anyone who copied their friends CD 15 years ago thought they were "stealing"

 

[cstu]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

Nobody here is arguing about the legal application of the term "steal" or the application of a particular statute. We're arguing the common parlance use of the word:

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

But thanks for the lesson, Darrow.

1's and 0's are property?

 

[tonydead]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

 

[tonydead]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

Wikipedia blerbs?

Why else is it that hundreds of thousands of torrents are downloaded each day and no one is charged?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

Wikipedia blerbs?

Why else is it that hundreds of thousands of torrents are downloaded each day and no one is charged?

Why dont you try to answer what I asked you? What "huge gray area especially with digital media" are you talking about? Explain it, please. And whether or not people are prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement does not create some "huge gray area" or whatever it is you think exists in copyright law.

 

[tonydead]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

Wikipedia blerbs?

Why else is it that hundreds of thousands of torrents are downloaded each day and no one is charged?

Why dont you try to answer what I asked you? What "huge gray area especially with digital media" are you talking about? Explain it, please. And whether or not people are prosecuted for criminal copyright infringement does not create some "huge gray area" or whatever it is you think exists in copyright law.

Because the answer is obvious.

At least were calling it copyright infringement now. Baby steps.

 

[Todd Andrews]

lol, stealing, copyright infringement, whatever.

Please explain the "huge gray area" you believe exists in copyright law, "especially with digital media".

 

[tonydead]

lol, stealing, copyright infringement, whatever.

Please explain the "huge gray area" you believe exists in copyright law, "especially with digital media".

You're a smart guy. Try googling gray area in digital media copyright vs gray area in theft and let us know which one has recent papers published by universities and report back.

 

[cstu]

lol, stealing, copyright infringement, whatever.

Please explain the "huge gray area" you believe exists in copyright law, "especially with digital media".

You're a terrible liberal. It's perfectly fine for the government to steal people's money to give to poor people but god forbid a poor person download a series of 1's and 0's and watch a movie without paying for it.

 

[tonydead]

lol, stealing, copyright infringement, whatever.

Please explain the "huge gray area" you believe exists in copyright law, "especially with digital media".

You're a terrible liberal. It's perfectly fine for the government to steal people's money to give to poor people but god forbid a poor person download a series of 1's and 0's and watch a movie without paying for it.

I like the explain it to me debate tactics. Because its so hard to look up FACTS on my own.

 

[drummer]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

 

[Otis]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

 

[drummer]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I'd like to hear less fanboy's like you in any thread.

 

[Otis]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I'd like to hear less fanboy's like you in any thread.

What is that even supposed to mean.

 

[drummer]

I would like to hear more about these evil bastards of this "Hollywood" conglomerate.

I'd like to hear less fanboy's like you in any thread.

What is that even supposed to mean.

It means stop.

 

[drummer]

BTW, SOPA. That's what people like Otis want here.

 

[Psychopav]

I know it's too simplistic but I have a very hard time understanding why loaning a friend my cd, or participating in the book swap at work is not stealing, but dl'ing a movie to watch (side note: seeding it only while the dl is still going on), then just deleting it afterwards is stealing.

As long as it was paid for originally and it's being given away for free now, it never used to be stealing but now it is? Sounds like a corporation looking to use lawyers to make more money to me.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I know it's too simplistic but I have a very hard time understanding why loaning a friend my cd, or participating in the book swap at work is not stealing, but dl'ing a movie to watch (side note: seeding it only while the dl is still going on), then just deleting it afterwards is stealing.

As long as it was paid for originally and it's being given away for free now, it never used to be stealing but now it is? Sounds like a corporation looking to use lawyers to make more money to me.

Think of the word itself "copyright", I.e., "the right to copy". In the first example you are taking an existing copy and transferring possession to another person , which is not creating an additional copy in the marketplace, which is totally different from a DL of a torrent which is creating anew copy of a creative work, thus depriving the original creator of its most fundamental right, the RIGHT to stop others from making a COPY of the original work without permission.

 

[Todd Andrews]

lol, stealing, copyright infringement, whatever.

Please explain the "huge gray area" you believe exists in copyright law, "especially with digital media".

You're a smart guy. Try googling gray area in digital media copyright vs gray area in theft and let us know which one has recent papers published by universities and report back.

You are an idiot. You throw around vague claims about copyright law and then tell us to go google white papers to understand your silly babblings.

You are misinformed/uninformed. You clearly know a little about copyright law, enough to sound like you might know something, but you actually know very little and you seem to actually "know" things that are the exact opposite of reality.

Well done. You have convinced everyone you can cut and paste a blurb about a US Supreme Court case that says that for criminal law purposes counterfeit/infringing copies are not stolen. Well done.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

It means someone has to actually place value on the .avi or .mp4 that you aren't distributing in mass, and then figure how much money you made from it. Of course, the charges against Granny for a torrent that exceeds over $30,000 didn't help the industry not look anymore greedy, even though she didn't know someone was leeching her WiFi and bandwidth and was downloading all kinds of files that were already on the internet to begin with.

Already on the internet to begin with...

Somehow, this is more valuable than health care?

This is what he meant by "gray area"? Are you sure? Because it looks like you are confusing criminal copyright infringement with the innocent versus willful civil infringement cutoff for statutory damages. I think you are trying to say that there are valuation issues in civil copyright infringement cases and/or criminal copyright issues, is that right?

 

[Sinn Fein]

Hmm - is it stealing when you go to the movie theater, buy a ticket for one movie, but watch a different movie?

What about when you go to a bar to see a band play, but you know the bouncer and he lets you in without paying the cover charge? Could you be charged with Theft?

What about when you read a copyrighted article that was pasted on an internet message board, instead of visiting the website hosting the original article? Is that theft?

 

[[icon]]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

What a KooK.

The law has made it abundantly clear. Torrents aren't stealing.

 

[[icon]]

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it."

1's and 0's are property?

He means "Take" in the "Biblical sense" I think...

 

[Todd Andrews]

Did we really just have a patent attorney just dismiss the judgement of the supreme court's appraisal of the classification of an action as stealing or not?

Its significant because theft is pretty black and white and almost always prosecuted when charged. Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media. That's why individuals never get charged anymore. But the MPAA, RRIA and Otis like to say its the same to try and move the grey to their side.

I know you threw up a couple wikipedia blurbs Supreme Court cases, but you really dont know much about this stuff, do you?

"Copyright is a huge gray area especially with digital media." What are you babbling about? What huge gray area? Are you trying to say individuals never get charged any more because the law isnt clear? Because that is idiotic. What are trying to say here with this vague nonsense about gray areas and prosecutions?

What a KooK.

The law has made it abundantly clear. Torrents aren't stealing.

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

 

[[icon]]

The law has made it abundantly clear. Torrents aren't stealing.

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Nobody's stealing anything, Karl Childers.

 

[Amused to Death]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

 

[Amused to Death]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

 

[Vike Me]

Hollywood want's to take over the internet anyway. Because all they want is your $$, and they'll screw it all up too.

I'm now going to assume this is shtick, and a conversation no longer worth having.

Good day, sir.

Did you purchase that image of the Hamburgler?

 

[Todd Andrews]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

Does that fall within the parameters of criminal copyright infringement?

 

[Amused to Death]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

Does that fall within the parameters of criminal copyright infringement?

How could it not? Still making copies for people who won't buy the material. Is there a legal difference if I'm making copies for 2 or 200?

 

[Otis]

Hollywood want's to take over the internet anyway. Because all they want is your $$, and they'll screw it all up too.

I'm now going to assume this is shtick, and a conversation no longer worth having.

Good day, sir.

Did you purchase that image of the Hamburgler?

OHHHHH SNAP!

Nope. Do you think I stole it?

 

[jdoggydogg]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

If that works for you.

So are you saying you wouldn't share music with anyone? At what point is it crossing the line? Can my wife "borrow" the cd I ripped? In the base sense, that's stealing too. What if she made her own copy or kept the hard copy at work?

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

 

[jdoggydogg]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement and the case moved to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where he argued that the goods he was distributing were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud", according to the language of 18 U.S.C. 2314 - the interstate transportation statute under which he was convicted. The court disagreed, affirming the original decision and upholding the conviction. Dowling then took the case to the Supreme Court, which sided with his argument and reversed the convictions.

Hmmmm. Kind of a weird decision in the digital age.

Sorry if you don't like it, but, they haven't ruled against that since.

It's not a question of like or dislike.

 

[Amused to Death]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

If that works for you.

So are you saying you wouldn't share music with anyone? At what point is it crossing the line? Can my wife "borrow" the cd I ripped? In the base sense, that's stealing too. What if she made her own copy or kept the hard copy at work?

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

Does that fall within the parameters of criminal copyright infringement?

How could it not? Still making copies for people who won't buy the material. Is there a legal difference if I'm making copies for 2 or 200?

I think you may want to google Audio Home Recording Act.

 

[Amused to Death]

Stealing is wrong. Sinner.

Should people who torrent copywrited material be prosecuted in your opinion?

Until the criminal copyright law is changed, of course. That is a no brainer.

So should I be prosecuted for copying my music library for my family to use? If we have multiple copies of 1 purchased cd?

Does that fall within the parameters of criminal copyright infringement?

How could it not? Still making copies for people who won't buy the material. Is there a legal difference if I'm making copies for 2 or 200?

I think you may want to google Audio Home Recording Act.

I'll take your word for it. Does it say I can share my cloud log in with family? Or coworkers? So sharing with 10 family member is ok, but copying for a friend isn't? Does the AHRA address that?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

A lot of conversations seem to go like this:

Q. Is illegally downloading a movie stealing?

A. No.

Q. So you don't think it's wrong to download movies?

What an odd inference that last part is. It shows that the person thinks of "stealing" as a synonym for wrongdoing -- if something isn't stealing, it must be okay. But that's not what "stealing" means. It's not a synonym for wrongdoing; it's a synonym for theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft; it's copyright infringement. You can download a thousand movies and never be charged with theft. If you're charged, you'll be charged with copyright infringement.

A downloaded movie is not stolen property. The fact that copyright infringement isn't stealing does not make it morally okay. ("Is rape stealing?" "No." "So you think it's okay to rape someone?" The non sequitur is obvious, right?)

If you want to ask whether copyright infringement is wrong, ask whether it's wrong. Don't ask whether it's stealing. Those are entirely separate questions.

 

[jdoggydogg]

Can we all just agree that its stealing already. I don't watch anything legally and I watch a lot of stuff. Its just too damn easy and I'm too damn cheap. I personally like to thank everyone that does it legitimately b/c you're the one's that keep all these industries from tv to movie to sports afloat.

Take it to the Supreme Court if you want the definition changed.

The court ruling is separate from the moral question. If the court ruled that discriminating on the basis of race was legal, would that make it moral? No.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If it's stealing, it's about as close to being a victimless crime as it gets.

If that works for you.

So are you saying you wouldn't share music with anyone? At what point is it crossing the line? Can my wife "borrow" the cd I ripped? In the base sense, that's stealing too. What if she made her own copy or kept the hard copy at work?

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

 

[Amused to Death]

I can accept that. But then its stealing if I make my rips available to friends and family as well. There should be no moral high ground that torrenting is worse.

There are at least two seperate arguments here. The RIAA says that I cannot buy a CD, rip it to my computer, and then listen to that same CD in my car. I think that's pretty silly. I'm saying that if you download an entire CD for free on a torrent site, that is tantamount to stealing the CD from a store. The RIAA has some petty, antiquated views on music in the digital age. But downloading music for free is stealing.

I totally understand. This is where the argument becomes more difficult.

Exactly my point. No here would think twice about sharing and ripping music for family, but as soon you introduce torrents it becomes taboo. Can't have it both ways.

Like others have said, its ALL stealing copyright infringement . Can't get high and mighty though (like the OP) if it occurs with torrents.