stealing is more of a term where you take something that is not yours and the person loses it. copyright is when the person has it but you copy it, and they want compensation for their hard work.

Conspiracy theoriests…

Jeremy,

I was not trying to say those things are the same. What I was saying is that there are unlimited ways to view or listen to media. The law is very relaxed for some things and very strict on others. For instance no one sued people for recording movies on VHS, no one sued for taping the radio and editing out the comercials. There are literally too many combinations.

Now, when it comes to online downloading (not just sharing) all of the sudden the person is the worst criminal in the book deserving $2 mil in fines.

I am no lawyer or MAFIAA employee, but, it would seem to me that the targets should be those that actually make a profit off of it. I think the whole “making available” is lame and really punishes the big music/movie fans that actually buy more media anyway. I think it’s too strict of an interpretation.

I think just like using a DVR, as consumers we should also be able to make a backup copy of something we bought, and we should be able to download music.

However, I think the studios are going about it all wrong. I think they should make their entire music and movie catalogs available for free. They should flood the net with legit but downgraded product. Then people can sample, experiment, try out, and if they like it they buy high quality versions. I also think that they should offer all media in a DRMless environment so if I buy a download movie I can play it on any PC.

I think the way they go about it should be to give more and then make the stuff you buy higher quality.

The thing is, sure people will share stuff, they always have and always will. But the real money isn’t suing people that share, whether we are talking tapes in the old days or mp3s now. The money is in making compelling products that people buy.

Think about it, no matter how much people download, the cost of storing and downloading all that starts to eat into the value when you could just buy a song for $0.99 or DVD for $9.99 or rent it. Well, that’s the thing most people do end up renting, then buying, even in multiple formats (DVD then blu-ray). So the studios are really still making the money.

I know most of the people I know that “acquire” and “share” online are some of the biggest purchasers and enthusiasts of movies and music.

In the end, I think the law has been hijacked by corporate interests and is being applied unfairly.

i must have said stealing requires deprivation. thanks for the correction.

and still, sharing doesn’t cause deprivation. you say “you are depriving somebody of something, the money they are deserved for that copyrighted material they own.” you assume that people would definitely pay for that material if it wasn’t shared. well, assuming is half-way to a mistake. and who can say, for sure, the copyrighted material is worth the money asked?

if there is a crime there must be a victim and nobody can prove that there is a victim because of sharing. if you have proof, enlighten me.

if there is something people like out there they support it, according to their ability (if they choose to) if nobody supports it, it fades. nothing should be taken for granted including the money paid for a movie ticket. it must be illegal to charge beforehand for a mystery box.

PS: great set of info sources there for the definition on stealing(theft). i wonder what proudhon had to say about theft.

The idea behind the “piracy” (an incorrect use of the term to begin with…) penalties for illegal downloads is based on a theory of compounded damages that works something like this: 1) We lose a metric s-load of money on illegal downloads, 2) It is only economically feasible to pursue and prosecute a VERY small percentage of those that download illegally 3) Since we can never afford to catch and prosecute everyone, then we will only go after the most blatant and easiest to catch 4) Once we have them, we can make them pay restitution for the damage they cause, and, while we’re at it, we’ll make them pay for the damage caused by all the other illegal downloaders that we haven’t or won’t bother putting out the cash to track down and prosecute; after all, this guilty downloader obviously used and benefited from the services of all the other guilty downloaders and is therefore liable by association.

The legal logic all makes sense up until step 4; you cannot hit someone with compound damages based upon association with another actually liable party. Its cuckoo, but the EntLaw legal lobbyists have somehow convinced someone to buy it.

If anyone here thinks that digitally viewable media (iTunes, Hulu, etc.) would not be where they are today if not for piracy they are simply retarded. All of these digital services are available as a RESPONSE to piracy and if not for piracy we would probably be waiting another century for the industry to catch up.

The fact is piracy is more a form of civil disobedience than anything else.

Personally I have pirated stuff, I won’t be shy about it either because services that were made available to others were not made available to me. iTunes is only now offering TV Shows to Canadians, so in the past couple of years I have gotten TV shows and movies by other means. Now that they offer these services, however, I am indeed paying for them.

The fact is nothing would have changed if piracy wasn’t so strong. Piracy was the call from consumers for media providers to get their act together- and some of them have. That is all.

“stealing means to deprive someone of something.”

American Heritage Dictionary – Steal
“To take (the property of another) without right or permission.”

Merriam-Webster Dictionary – Steal
“to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice”

Dictionary.com – Steal
“to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.”

The list goes on, but I think you get the point. Your definition is not a definition, it’s merely an often outcome. Whether music, movies, software or whatever, if it is copyrighted then it is owned. If that owned property is distributed in a means not authorized by the owner/s of that copyright, then those that get it are stealing it plain and simple as going by the definition of the word “steal”. And honestly, you are depriving somebody of something, the money they are deserved for that copyrighted material they own.

Of course I know piracy will eventually doom entertainment industry, I don’t like it (I don’t actually dislike it either), but there is nothing you can do about it.

And I say this because I reckon you would have to consider other cases than the US. If you’d just walk two blocks in any place in south america you’d see what I mean. They sell it on the street, more than that, they display copies on the street… on main streets by the way. Sellers just lay their copies on the sidewalk, so you can approach and check them. The main problem ain’t them, they are like small dealers to teenagers. The thing is that people is idiotic, they don’t care about movies, they don’t mind if the copy has a shitty quality or (even worst) if it is dubbed, they just want to watch it as soon as possible and spending the lesser amount of money on it.

It is said that the internet is the most democratic media. You can’t control internet users all over the world. If what they do is wrong (or at least you think it is wrong) don’t attack them (certainly don’t call them “pathetic”), because they won’t listen what you have to say. (By the way I don’t think you are right, law is not clear at all when it comes to multimedia copyright issues, but…)

“I wouldn’t steal a car, but I would certainly download one from the internet”

I am simply making a point John. If you make a “backup” of a DVD regardless of if you bought it or not you are breaking the law. It is piracy once you make that “backup” regardless of how you intend to use it.

pi·ra·cy : the unauthorized use of another’s production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright.

The movie studios do NOT authorize you to make “backups” of DVDs. If they intended that DVD Copy X Software wouldn’t have been sued into oblivion by movie studios. Studios make no profit from your “backups” and therefore would go after you in the same way they attack people who they catch downloading over the internet. The problem with you is that you make blanket statements about what piracy is without even realizing that you are breaking the law yourself. So by your logic it is ok to take an extra ice cream bar as long as you’ve paid for the first one?

what are those “FACTS”? since i’m so ignorant enlighten me.

“Piracy(i prefer sharing) is illegal.” what a discovery! i’m not arguing it’s not. i’m saying it’s wrong that it’s illegal. see my previous posts about law.

and i don’t remember admitting to any crime or promoting it.

PS: sharing is not illegal throughout the world but you think that u.s.a. is the world. so narrow minded.

And despite how long winded and ignorant this whole comment is, all he did was prove that you can babble empty justifications all you want but that still doesn’t change the FACTS.

Piracy is illegal. You have done nothing to disprove that. All you did is describe why you feel justified in your crimes.

Tell it to the judge and see how that goes.