Why online piracy isn't theft

Jamie123 said:
I'm mostly talking about indigenous tribes and such where things in the world are merely used but they don't belong to anyone in particular.

As for your death penalty argument, no it's not the 'ultimate proof' (wtf?) that killing is wrong. If you want to be logically consistent and you say that killing is always wrong then you cannot kill no matter what the reason.
Click to expand...

Even in indegenous tribes, there would still be some kind of private property. Even early humans have been distinguished from other primates in archaeological excavations by the possession of tools.

As for killing as ultimate punishment for taking the life of another human, is it not a proof that killing is wrong?
 
EdwardKaraa said:
Even in indegenous tribes, there would still be some kind of private property. Even early humans have been distinguished from other primates in archaeological excavations by the possession of tools.

As for killing as ultimate punishment for taking the life of another human, is it not a proof that killing is wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes, every society or community in human history has created artifacts. That by itself does not necessarily mean that it is private property. I make artifacts all the time that aren't mine.
The fact of the matter is simply that the concept of stealing depends on the concept of property and this is in no way universal.

As for killing. No it's not 'proof' of anything. If somebody looks at me the wrong way and I punch him in the face that is not proof that he did something wrong.
You cannot argue a point by taking the conclusion as its premise. You can't say 'killing is wrong because when someone kills someone we kill them''. That just doesn't make sense at all.
The point is even in most western societies killing is not universally wrong. Most societies have exceptions for killing where it is accepted like war, self defense, death penalty, etc.. And these moral beliefs are constantly being negotiated in society which is exactly why views on things such as the death penalty can change over time.

To get back to the point of stealing, We live in a rapidly changing world and media landscape and if we want to be able to negotiate (both morally and legally) what is and what isn't acceptable behaviour, we'd better get a grip on what complexities we're facing nowadays instead of just throwing old solutions at new problems.
 
Sparrow said:
... in a democracy surely the majority decide the law, no? and if the majority decide it's OK then ...
Click to expand...

Yup. If you follow the law, you should pay the prices demanded. And if you don't, you pay the price of risking punishment as a price of participation in that society. It has little to do with right and wrong and a lot to do with math and timing.
 
This thread is really running on. I'm curious to know if those who support 'piracy' oppose the possession of private property, but maybe that should be saved for another time.

The cat may be out of the bag with regards to piracy, but there is an ongoing arms race between content manufacturers and distributors and those who try to copy their products. It's not over yet.
 
Snacks said:
This thread is really running on. I'm curious to know if those who support 'piracy' oppose the possession of private property, but maybe that should be saved for another time.

The cat may be out of the bag with regards to piracy, but there is an ongoing arms race between content manufacturers and distributors and those who try to copy their products. It's not over yet.
Click to expand...

"Piracy" is a very loose term. We need to be more specific. I believe that unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material should be legal (like - apparently - in Switzerland, and like in Sweden until 2005). The genie's out of the bottle, as you say. The only way to stop illegal file sharing would be to mount a police state of a kind never seen before, where everything you do is recorded and monitored by the government at all times.

So even if you do think that illegal file sharing is wrong... you can't really stop it, unless you want to give up basic civil liberties - the right to privacy, due process, etc. Which, sadly and tragically, many politicians, encouraged by major corporate interests, are willing to do (see SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, the EU's Data Retention Directive, HADOPI, etc.).

Back to your question: no, I don't oppose the possession of private property. But intellectual property is nothing like normal property. Which is why it's covered by different laws. Copyright is a limited monopoly granted and enforced by the government for a limited time.
 
The discussion proves why laws haven't caught up to today's reality with digital content: only a few people have a grasp of what "online piracy" really is (for the moment) vs. what it's perceived to be.

While people who make laws still can't tell the difference between a geek, a hacker, a computer whiz and a computer user with basic computer skills, this will remain improperly addressed.

Running a red light may be a crime, but I highly doubt that 20 years in jail for each count is an appropriate response to address the problem. You can argue that a red light has the potential to cause bodily harm and run amok with that.

The need to educate the public as well as legislators is just a big of a problem as online piracy itself: ignorance of the issue exacerbates it.
 
presspass said:
Let's simplify the whole argument. If you take something of mine, be it a photograph, a car, or a story, without my permission, it's theft. There may be degrees of theft, but it's still stealing.
Click to expand...
Reminds me to the fact:
There are already many forms of legal stealing... 😉
 
Well, I'd be interested to hear industry points of view on this. Here's how I perceive the situation with music. Record companies charge large amounts of money for their products. People do not want to spend that much and obtain the product for free, and feel like it is no problem because the record company takes a huge cut. They gradually come to think that this is no problem, and that other people will mitigate the consequences in some way (e.g. concert ticket sales). Record companies are less useful in the time of viral marketing but are losing money because of 'piracy'. They retaliate via DRM and clamour for high penalties for 'acts of piracy'. Artists give up on CD sales and make money from touring and from a few legal downloads. The industry loses money, the public gets free music.
 
presspass said:
Let's simplify the whole argument. If you take something of mine, be it a photograph, a car, or a story, without my permission, it's theft. There may be degrees of theft, but it's still stealing.
Click to expand...

If you have a car and I take it, you don't have it any more. I've stolen it. Theft.

If you post a picture online, I can't take it. I can only copy it. You still have it, and now I do, too. There are more copies of your picture in the world. I can save your picture to my computer (perfectly legal, naturally). I can even make a small print and put it on my fridge in my home, just like I could cut out a picture from the newspaper; still legal. I can, however, not distribute/republish your picture without your permission. But if I do, I haven't suddenly "stolen" it. I have violated your government-granted, temporary exclusive right to it.
 
andersju said:
If you have a car and I take it, you don't have it any more. I've stolen it. Theft.

If you post a picture online, I can't take it. I can only copy it. You still have it, and now I do, too. There are more copies of your picture in the world. I can save your picture to my computer (perfectly legal, naturally). I can even make a small print and put it on my fridge in my home, just like I could cut out a picture from the newspaper; still legal. I can, however, not distribute/republish your picture without your permission. But if I do, I haven't suddenly "stolen" it. I have violated your government-granted, temporary exclusive right to it.
Click to expand...

But if you really wanted my picture I could have sold it to you, but since you stole it, I've lost that income.
 
andersju said:
If you have a car and I take it, you don't have it any more. I've stolen it. Theft.

If you post a picture online, I can't take it. I can only copy it. You still have it, and now I do, too. There are more copies of your picture in the world. I can save your picture to my computer (perfectly legal, naturally). I can even make a small print and put it on my fridge in my home, just like I could cut out a picture from the newspaper; still legal. I can, however, not distribute/republish your picture without your permission. But if I do, I haven't suddenly "stolen" it. I have violated your government-granted, temporary exclusive right to it.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Say someone sneaks into a movie theatre or music concert without paying somehow. No difference since the show is happening anyway, but it's still dishonest and illegal. Morally and legally wrong. It is stealing income from the business.
 
It seems that this topic is like politics or religion. People with strongly held views are not going to be swayed by debating the issue. Pretty pointless to go on really.
 
FrankS said:
It seems that this topic is like politics or religion. People with strongly held views are not going to be swayed by debating the issue. Pretty pointless to go on really.
Click to expand...

Dear Frank,

"My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with the facts."

Well, it's not quite that bad. Even so, I think you're right.

Cheers,

R.
 
FrankS said:
But if you really wanted my picture I could have sold it to you, but since you stole it, I've lost that income.
Click to expand...

You possibly lost the possibility of income. This is all hypothetical. If I never would have paid for it either way, you never "lost" anything. Copyright violations may have a negative impact on sales but you cannot say that each infringement equals a lost sale. It's simply not true.

And I think you're right about the pointlessness (always reminded of this), although I'm still very much curious about people's views on the (likely) hundreds of links to copyright infringing videos on YouTube that you can find on RFF. Is this not promoting piracy/crime, according to many of the strongly held views here? Or should I take the silence as some kind of general tacit acceptance of some forms of piracy?
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
I couldn't read the study. You didn't give a link, nor did you give the title and publication info needed for me to search it out in the academic databases. I'm a grad student in History. I can read, and actually have a stack of academic literature in front of me now for a paper I'm writing. I'm not reading your study if I can't find it....and you blame me for not reading it...I despair for our future. :bang:
Click to expand...

Well then I'm sure you're familiar with how the academic model of distribution of knowledge works - namely you can take any idea by anybody and use it for anything, for free, as long as you give full attribution and don't claim as yours something that isn't. This is close to perfect in my book. If all copyright worked this way, I could live with it - do anything with any work and copy anything by anybody, as long as you have to make a clear attribution whose it is.

In the developing country where I work, there is basically very little protection for intellectual property rights (because the state is so weak that it basically has other things to do than to protect people's business models). Yet there are lots of photographers and creative people; I just came back from an exhibition and one third of the audience were people who make their living off photography, without the state protecting them. Somehow they still make a living and don't have a harder time than anyone else already has. This has made me lose respect for a lot of creative people in the West who are creative about everything but their business model and who thlink the end of copyright to the end of the world.

It is not the job of the state to protect business models, not Disney's, not yours. I'm sorry, but the present situation where the state grants monopolies for several generations on average is absurd. Even if we don't get into how together with technology it makes impossible everyday activities like lending e-books or digital albums to friends, you see the absurdity on every step. Just look into that society of yours, where when you get a birthday cake in a restaurant the waitresses can't sing Happy Birthday To You because the lyrics are under copyright (look it up, it's true). No matter how much you throw around big words like "theft" or "piracy", this is just not right by any measure. Is the waitress a thief now if she sings Happy Birthday for your grandad? You can't have the birthday cake and eat it, too.

You may be concerned all the way about your bottom line, but in reality I think all you do is support the bottom line of Disney, Sony and so on. Based on the experience from places where copyright actually is weak, if that state-protected business model would go away, I think the small artists are those whom it would hurt least of all.
 
Utility

Utility

Ah yes, here's the rub. Someone downloads your photo and you don't get a nickle (in the scheme of things .02 cents).

Now had your image become a political poster like Che' or an album cover like Miles, then there is an issue.
 
FrankS said:
Say someone sneaks into a movie theatre or music concert without paying somehow. No difference since the show is happening anyway, but it's still dishonest and illegal. Morally and legally wrong. It is stealing income from the business.
Click to expand...

It is also not fair for the guys who actually paid for the tickets. It always pisses me off.

Also, I find it very interesting that the attitude towards this issue seems to be cultural as well. For instance Americans seem to be more conservative (and more ethical) while Europeans seem to be more cool about it. Don't flame me for this remark, just my observation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom