Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is exactly my point when I say it is theft.

Thank you.

I'm ok with calling in piracy or something else, as it's not exactly the same. I do get that with theft of a physical item a sale is definitely lost as the person took a physical item that could have been bought by someone else, vs. taking a digital copy. So it's a loss of a sure sale, vs. a potential sale.

I have no issues choosing a different term for semantic reasons, rather than shifting the meaning of theft. I have BIG issues with the notion that there's no loss or harm to copyright holders when content is downloaded illegally.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I mean, again it's the same as shoplifting--minus the loss of a tangible, physical product. Would the person who shoplifted a Snickers bar have bought it if there was a camera etc. and they didn't feel they could get away with it? Of course the loss of the candy bar is a clear lost sale as no one else can buy--so their is a difference of course.

With shoplifting you have
(1) The loss of the physical object.
(2) The loss of the next person who can no longer buy that object.
(3) The potential loss, if the person shoplifting would have bought it anyway.

With copyright infringement 1 and 2 don't exist. You're left with 3, which is only a potential loss, not always a real loss. The real question is, how often would a "pirate" have actually bought the item. There is no answer to that question. Some would tell you "always", others would tell you "never". Neither are correct. Where in the that gray line is the truth?

But I think all the arguments about piracy increasing sales etc. are just bunk the most part, and are mainly just coming from people who pirate stuff to rationalize/justify their actions.

So are the arguemnts about the astronimical amounts of loss that the industry claims they are suffereng. That is just bunk too, coming from people who are trying to rationalize/justify stronger laws/punishments to prop up their business.

The industry is lying just as much as those who are trying to justify piracy. The truth is somewhere in between.

Some people pirate a song to check out a new band etc. and then run out and buy the band's albums, concert tickets etc. But that's not the real issue with piracy. The problem with piracy are those that just pirate everything and never pay for anything.

The REAL issue with piracy are those that pirate when they would have bought. If they pirate everything and never pay for anything, when they wouldn't have paid for anything anyway, that's not a real loss either.

Unfortunately nobody has any idea what those numbers really are.

I think anyone that's been in college from 2000 or so on probably knows/knew plenty of people who downloaded hundreds or thousands of songs, downloaded movies etc. and never bought CDs, never went to the theater etc. Would they have bought ALL those CDs if piracy wasn't so easy?

Anybody from the 80's or 90's knows plenty of people who traded/copied cassette tapes and never bought any themselves. This is nothing new.

No, but most probably would have bought some of them, so some sales were lost. Just hard to quantify it exactly in terms of how many.

That's exactly the point, you can't quantify it.

Loss/harm isn't as easy to quantify as it is with physical items where the store has lost an item that someone would have bought (or they could have returned etc.) eventually. So I just say treat each download as a lost sale in terms of the harm done, as the end result is a person has material they didn't pay for.

Your answer to it not being measurable is to assume 100% loss, and assume every pirate would have bought the material? That's the same nonsense that the industry claims. It's obviously a lie.

It's pretty dangerous to assume there's no loss/harm when digital products are downloaded illegally etc. as that sets a very dangerous precedent for protecting individuals and companies product as we move into a fully digital era in many industries.

It's also just as dangerous to lie about there being 100% loss when you're trying to get the public to pay for your protection.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

This is exactly my point when I say it is theft.

So it's "theft", except for the part that actually makes it theft.

[dmaul1114]

See for me I honestly don't give a flying f*** if a loss takes place.

The act of obtaining copyrighted digital content that is for sale without paying for it is wrong. It doesn't matter if there is a clear, quantifiable loss, it's wrong and there should be a penalty if you're caught with it, even if it's stuff the person would never would have bought. If they didn't pay for it, they shouldn't be able to get the enjoyment of having their own copy of the content.

The act itself is wrong. Just like drunk driving isn't only a crime if you get into an accident--I mean there was no harm or loss that occured if they didn't hit anything etc. Or various things like prostitution, illegal drug use, etc. are illegal even if there's no harm to anyone but the people willingly involved etc.

Harm/loss to others/society aren't requirements for things to be crime. There doesn't have to be an absolute loss that occurs for something to be wrong and to be subject to criminal penalties.

Every illegal download/upload is wrong and should be a misdemeanor criminal act IMO. Though again, I'll concede that enforcement probably has to focus just on the uploaders.

You seem to feel differently, and that's fine. We'll just have to agree to disagree as we're just both re-iterating the same points over and over.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

See for me I honestly don't give a flying f*** if a loss takes place.

The act of obtaining copyrighted digital content that is for sale without paying for it is wrong. It doesn't matter if there is a clear, quantifiable loss, it's wrong and there should be a penalty if you're caught with it, even if it's stuff the person would never would have bought. If they didn't pay for it, they shouldn't be able to get the enjoyment of having their own copy of the content.

So you're not concerned with the financial justification of encouraging artists, you're just worried about control? You're offended because somebody managed to do something with content without the owners permission, even if it does no harm?

The act itself is wrong. Just like drunk driving isn't only a crime if you get into an accident--I mean there was no harm or loss that occured if they didn't hit anything etc. Or various things like prostitution, illegal drug use, etc. are illegal even if there's no harm to anyone but the people willingly involved etc.

You're not seriously comparing copyright infringement to drunk driving, prostitution, drugs...

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So you're not concerned with the financial justification of encouraging artists, you're just worried about control? You're offended because somebody managed to do something with content without the owners permission, even if it does no harm?

I'm worried about both. In any case it's a potential lost sale. Even worse, most people I know who download stuff illegally also have it up for others to download on torrents ,p2p clients etc. So even if they wouldn't have bought it, they're making it available to tons of other people so some sales are lost along the way.

What I'm saying is that I think there is loss, and it's best to just assume a lost sale for each illegal transfer personally. Versus trying to quantify exactly how many were lost, which is impossible.

And then I'm saying even if there is NOT not a lost sale, the act itself is WRONG and should be illegal. And I'll get back to this below in responding to the other part of your post.

But yes, a lot of it is control. If I create something, and choose not to give it away freely but to try to make money off it. I want full control over it in terms of how people can get it (pay

If we had those memory erasing flash things from the Men in Black movies (or the Haitian from Heroes) I'd support using them on people who illegally obtained my material to wipe the experience of enjoying my content without paying for it from their brains.

But in all seriousness, yes, I support copyright holders having their sales protected, as well as having a great deal of control over their material and what people who didn't pay for it can do with it. I think control should be passed over in many ways when people do pay for it--can't copy and sell it, plagiarize etc., but they should be able to sell it, loan it etc.--I'm not lover of DRM. It's a hassle for legit users and does nothing to stop pirates.

You're not seriously comparing copyright infringement to drunk driving, prostitution, drugs...

I'm not comparing the nature of the acts. Just showing there are various things that are criminal law violations that are behaviors that don't necessarily involve harm/loss.

The criminal law systems does not exist primarily to repair loss etc. It exists to shape behavior. Behaviors that are outlawed are behaviors which society doesn't want to occur--some cause harm/loss and need to be prevented, some don't, some are ambiguous on that front etc.

The legal system and punishments are deterrents to encourage people not to engage in those behaviors.

Copyright is one of those behaviors I think we need criminal laws to dissuade as many as possible from engaging in. Regardless of monetary loss, it's a wrong act that shouldn't happen.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So it's "theft", except for the part that actually makes it theft.

Sorry. It's theft. Something has been taken without permission.

You can continue to stick your head in the sand and call it file-sharing or copying if you like. I prefer to call it like it is.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry. It's theft. Something has been taken without permission.

This has been discussed to death, and I probably shouldn't fall for the bait, but nothing has been taken.

You can continue to stick your head in the sand and call it file-sharing or copying if you like. I prefer to call it like it is.

I prefer to call it copyright infringement, which is what it actually is.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On the other hand, if you've agreed to the terms of sale of an ebook store which say "you can't give it away", then I think you should be bound by those terms which you've knowingly agreed to when you bought the book.

But actually, you see, I don't "knowingly agree" to those terms. In fact, I knowingly disagree with them. As far as I'm concerned, when they tell me I can't give it away, they are blowing smoke. Obviously I can give it away. And what's more, they can't stop me from doing it. All they can do is try to place obstacles in my way.

The existence of an "agreement" is a factual question, a gloss on the exchange which extends to what happens after the exchange. And the law, at least in the US, frowns very strongly on the idea that once an exchange takes place, the party who handed over the property to another person in exchange for money can continue to control what happens to that property.

That's why it is neither criminally wrong, or legally actionable, if I take my ebook and give it to someone else. The issues about that all surround what happens if there are copies made, and the ambiguities concerning the transmission of originals by making copies.

But if you take the purest situation, where I acquire an ebook on my Sony 505, and then give or sell the 505 to some other person with the original ebook file on it, it is abundantly clear, utterly beyond question, that I can legally and morally do that. And if the terms of the "agreement" explicitly say that I can't, they are simply not enforceable.

When one party completely controls the terms of a sale, where the only leverage that the other party has is to take it or leave it, then there is no "agreement."

I think that's why you recognize that you are on shaky ground when a husband gives a copy of the ebook to his wife. You recognize the human situation - husbands, wives, sons & daughters, and friends, share things. A sale of an object to a husband presupposes that his wife may use it, no matter what the "agreement" says to the contrary. Neither law nor morality allows a seller to take that away in the absence of a real agreement, negotiated in good faith by the specific parties to the agreement concerning that particular copy of the ebook.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

These big companies with huge teams of lawyers aren't going to put that stuff in the fine print without knowing they have a legal backing to do so.

That's simply not true. Lawyers frequently make legal claims on behalf of their clients which they know cannot be successfully challenged except at great expense to the other person. If the fine print results in scaring the vast majority of customers into compliance, it doesn't matter if the terms really can be enforced.

The fine print in any of these so-called agreements that are foisted on the general public is nothing more than the opinion of the lawyer who wrote it, that he can come up with a legal argument if he is ever challenged.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Hopefully the fines would make the agency largely self sufficient.

My God I hope not. There is no surer way to corrupt a bureaucracy than to let the bureaucrats be paid from the fines they collect.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Go that route, and I can pretty much guarantee my fear above of all digital content being streaming services only when internet capacity allows for becoming reality as that will be the only way companies can protect their product.

What's wrong with that? At least we'll know what we're getting, and prices will come down. Just compare Netflix with used DVDs.

And of course, those who want to will be able to capture the stream.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Harmon

What's wrong with that? At least we'll know what we're getting, and prices will come down. Just compare Netflix with used DVDs.

And of course, those who want to will be able to capture the stream.

Yep. I don't have much issue with it personally. Full access to anything I want and no worries about storage space or losing every thing in a burglary etc.?

Well, only worry is selection, censorship etc. if some things are kept off the streaming services etc.

And it's a blow to to collectors who like having the physical item. I used to be that way, but I'm starting to feel it's a bit silly. I have around 350-dvds/blu rays, but I seldom watch any of them as I usually watch something for the first time from Netflix (disc rental or the streaming service). Have about the same number of CDs, but mostly listen to MP3s etc.

So while I like having the physical media, if I could pay a fee to stream any of them in some future where the internet is blazing fast (so quality doesn't suffer) and has a wide system of back ups so there's seldom an outage etc. I could see myself going for the convenience of not having to store physical copies of stuff I seldom use.

Stream capturing may occur, but if you have to pay for the stream, and always have access to it, it won't be a major issue. Not many are going to capture all they want then cancel their subscription to never sign up again. They'll want new content and have to keep the subscription--and not point in capturing it if you have full access to stream the content everywhere you can go and log into your account etc.

But for now it's a pipestream as we're decades away from having even today's broad band everywhere in the US, much less everywhere around the globe and at much faster speeds and much better reliabilities.

[captcrouton]

Every time a library buys a book, it definitely translates into losses of sales. Every time that book is read and returned, it's a possible loss in sales. If that book is stolen, the library may have to buy a new one, so that translates into increased sales.

Why are the big publishers not putting the smack down on public libraries? Or should I not give them ideas.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by captcrouton

Every time a library buys a book, it definitely translates into losses of sales. Every time that book is read and returned, it's a possible loss in sales. If that book is stolen, the library may have to buy a new one, so that translates into increased sales.

Why are the big publishers not putting the smack down on public libraries? Or should I not give them ideas.

1. Libraries are amongst the biggest buyers of hardback books, and publishers often produce special "library editions" of books, which are more expensive than the standard hardback.

2. Many countries have a "public lending right", which pays an author directly (ie the money goes straight to the author, not the publisher) every time the author's book is borrowed from the library. Eg, in the UK, an author gets slightly over 6p (about US 10c) per loan.

To equate libraries to piracy is inaccurate.