Why online piracy isn't theft

Theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Nowhere does this definition say stealing one thing is more or less than stealing another thing.

Theft is theft.... stealing is stealing...........period..................
 
Jamie123 said:
The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet? Well, because they're quite aware of the fact that what they're doing is not stealing. .
Click to expand...

Huh? Man if there ever was a concise example of how people's morals are dropping, your statement is it. And, of course, you don't get it at all, because your morals have dropped.

I'm not even going to read this thread further: you just nailed the whole issue down in one post, to the point where any further discussion is superfluous.
 
colyn said:
Theft: The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

Nowhere does this definition say stealing one thing is more or less than stealing another thing.

Theft is theft.... stealing is stealing...........period..................
Click to expand...

Theft implies someone has been deprived of the thing stolen.

"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" -- Webster's

The 1913 edition also had this cute little note:

"To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."

Let's say I download an old episode of Seinfeld. Who has been deprived of what? What is it that Sony/NBC originally had, that I "stole", and that they now no longer have?
 
Well I can listen to plenty of new music through legal streams, most musicians are not rich and if their streamed album sounds good I will buy it. A few years ago I tried downloading films apart from feeling dirty the quality was dire with sound out of place and so on, I can see them for free on my TV eventually and frequently get them for a couple of pounds. I see little point of downloading anything I can get off my free to air tv or for less than the price of a pint. The only time I feel it can be justified is the odd documentary that is on YouTube and I can not get it for love nor money. Now is it theft? In some ways yes it is, if you take the term to be denial of the owner of their income from it, but then would the downloader have bought it? Is it defrauding the copyright owner of their wage? would you be happy to have your employer to say I was just borrowing your time for the last month and you have not lost anything have you (Our government thinks this ok though). People will consider their view on something often on how it inconveniences them, it being virtual and no physical thing being lost or more appearing to be lost that makes it seem less bad or OK. I think it is depriving someone of their work, its easy for an photographer who does not need to earn money from it to say I am fine with x type of use of their work. Chris for example is depending upon people paying him for his work it is how he will feed himself and his son is it ok to not pay him for a few hours of his time?
 
How about the cqse of music I purchased on vinyl, 8 track and CD, none of which play anymore? Should I pay a fourth time?

I agree that downloadingthe first one free is theft, but how many times do I have to buy that Beatles album I first bought in 1964?
 
Al Patterson said:
How about the cqse of music I purchased on vinyl, 8 track and CD, none of which play anymore? Should I pay a fourth time?

I agree that downloadingthe first one free is theft, but how many times do I have to buy that Beatles album I first bought in 1964?
Click to expand...

In those cases, its legal to copy for yourself, songs from one type of media to another. You can copy your outdated records or 8-tracks or cassettes to something modern like a CD or mp3 player, that's perfectly legal because you did buy it.
 
Gotta note first that the article in question isn't an editorial by the Times. It's someone's opinion published by the Times, and that someone doesn't work at the Times.

I work in publishing (not at the Times!) and my hobbies are photography and songwriting. Like everybody at RFF, I know how much goes into creating a digital work that's easy to download without paying anything for.

Personally, I do consider it theft when someone refuses to pay and instead just takes a copyrighted work that's for sale.

However, I get the author's point. A huge part of the internet-connected world acts like all information should be free (as in beer, at no cost). For various reasons:
  • They don't respect the way record labels treat musicians.
  • They can't abide that a movie they bought a license for can only be viewed on their big computer and not on their cellphone.
  • They live in a country that gets TV shows many years after the US gets them and they can't stand to be left out of the global conversation.
  • They really think that when they're buying a collection of songs, they're buying the those songs in whatever format they'll ever be released in, in perpetuity, rather than just a particular recording.
  • Their budget went south when a job went poof and they can't afford to buy stuff, but the job loss wasn't their fault, so why should they have to suffer?
Like it or not, it's a huge change in consumer perspective. I don't like it, but it's real.

So if, as the opinion piece's author suggests, using some word other than "theft" helps you reach people who are convinced they're not stealing and won't listen to you if you tell them they are, fine. Call their behavior whatever it needs to be called to get them to listen.

Personally, I'm happy to call it copyright infringement. Because I think you can even leave the "thing" out of it, whether the thing is a photo or a movie or a song. I *do* still have the original. What an illegal download of my work steals is my *control* of my work. *That's* what I've lost and can't replace.

And if you don't agree with how I sell my work, fine. But how come you get to choose for me?
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
In those cases, its legal to copy for yourself, songs from one type of media to another. You can copy your outdated records or 8-tracks or cassettes to something modern like a CD or mp3 player, that's perfectly legal because you did buy it.
Click to expand...

I am actually going to the scenario where I download the digital copy when all the oldforms are unreadable. While I agree with you, I'm betting the music industrywould call me a thief...
 
I got rid of all my CDs ages ago (well, my thankfully-ex-wife sold them) and nowadays I generally resell or give away CDs after I copy them into iTunes. I haven't listened to a CD in a decade.

Is it theft to not destroy the digital copy of a CD once you resell or otherwise dispose of the CD?

Is it immoral to buy used CDs, which one can safely assume were digitally copied by any number of previous owners?

If you buy the argument that illegally downloading digital copies of copyrighted work that you can otherwise purchase legitimately is theft, then it's not much of a leap to argue that buying CDs, copying them, and then reselling them, is also theft, and that buying used CDs is immoral.
 
Mr. Fizzlesticks said:
Your attitude is insulting to society because without protections there would be no great music, movies, art etc. No one would bother to make them. Figure it out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good thing copyright law kept Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, et al. going. Oh wait, it's a fairly recent invention? Statute of Anne, 1709, you say?

I'd rather say that the notion that no one would bother to create anything if it weren't for copyright law is insulting to the human spirit.
 
^ Well that's the point of the article, to raise this issue.

Those of you whose feathers were so ruffled, you realise you can write in to the Times to respond to writer, right?
 
andersju said:
Yeah, good thing copyright law kept Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, et al. going. Oh wait, it's a fairly recent invention? Statute of Anne, 1709, you say?

I'd rather say that the notion that no one would bother to create anything if it weren't for copyright law is insulting to the human spirit.
Click to expand...

I'd suggest getting some education in history before spouting off like a fool about something you do not understand.

Absolutely nothing is known of Homer, not even if he really existed.

Virgil was the court poet of Roman Emperor Augustus, so he didn't have to care if someone copied his work, he was being paid handsomely for it by the state.

Shakespeare owned his own theater and acting company to perform his work.

Dante Alighieri (yes, he had a last name!) was a wealthy nobleman and politician who wrote the Divine Comedy as a political statement, so he didn't care about making a living from it.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I'd suggest getting some education in history before spouting off like a fool about something you do not understand.

Absolutely nothing is known of Homer, not even if he really existed.

Virgil was the court poet of Roman Emperor Augustus, so he didn't have to care if someone copied his work, he was being paid handsomely for it by the state.

Shakespeare owned his own theater and acting company to perform his work.

Dante Alighieri (yes, he had a last name!) was a wealthy nobleman and politician who wrote the Divine Comedy as a political statement, so he didn't care about making a living from it.
Click to expand...

Quite true. I'm well aware of this history, and it's not at all relevant to my point. I merely pointed out that copyright law is not a prerequisite for the creation of great works. I did not say anything about whether copyright is a good idea or not.

And may I counter with suggesting that you try to be a bit more polite when discussing things? Seriously. There's no point at all to insults in a discussion or debate. It only makes whoever you're trying to argue with less inclined to understand or accept your point of view.
 
David Hughes said:
Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David
Click to expand...



I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom