Why online piracy isn't theft

dbarnes said:
@jamie123 -- As with my earlier reply to @andersju, I would like to respectfully ask you a question about your position. I just want to understand you. Here is what I think I hear you say:

* As long as you don't try to resell or publicly display or take credit for using an artist's work after downloading it for free on a torrent feeed, when the artist is trying to sell it on some other channel such as the iTunes store or a stock photo website, downloading a copyrighted work isn't wrong.
* Copyright infringement happens when someone DOES try to resell or publicly display or take credit for the artist's work. But personal use of stuff available in torrents doesn't infringe a copyright.

Is that about right?
Click to expand...

No, that's not right at all. I didn't say in any way that one or the other is ok. What I said was that these are two very different forms of copyright infringement and just labelling it all 'stealing' as if it was exactly the same as what a shoplifter does does not do the complexity of the problem justice.
 
The author of the article sounds like a lawyer or law professor arguing a fine point in the legal use of words in legislation. I believe that Jamie is presenting the issue in the same manner, but that most of us here on RFF are arguing in a broader moral sense. I believe that this is the basis of our disagreements in this thread. Again the problem is based in semantics.

(There do seem to be a radical few who argue the extreme that copyright on the internet should be thrown out the window. They are merely fanning flames and should be discounted, IMO.)

Unfortunately most are responding to the title of this thread which naturally raises our moral hackles, mine included.
 
I would like to stigmatise copyright infringment/piracy/theft/pick-your-label.

We are not entitled to something simply because it has been produced. It is offered at a price and under certain conditions, and we can take it or not as we please.

Those who buy legal copies of materials that are for sale subsidise those that do not pay for it. It takes time and resources to create a product. Many artistic works are created without the intention of earning money from them or even recouping costs, but to assume that the creator is not entitled to benefit from their creation is self serving.
 
Snacks said:
Those who buy legal copies of materials that are for sale subsidise those that do not pay for it. It takes time and resources to create a product. Many artistic works are created without the intention of earning money from them or even recouping costs, but to assume that the creator is not entitled to benefit from their creation is self serving.
Click to expand...

If only everything was this black and white. When it comes to music, I just don't know beforehand whether I like an unknown band or not when friends wrote about it. Before we had Spotify, downloading a torrent cd rip was the great way of finding new music to like or dislike. Bands I otherwise would never have heard of and would have ignored for the rest of their existence, I now could pre-listen. Bonus if they came to my town for a concert. I'd book tickets then, buy a cd there and a t-shirt. Bands not recognizing the marketing value of the interwebs and chasing the freeloaders will be missing out much more in the end. The web is for linking and sharing, your product should be more than that. A great print for example, of something that was widely shared as jpeg on the web.
 
FrankS said:
The author of the article sounds like a lawyer arguing a fine point in the legal use of words. I believe that Jamie is presenting the issue in the same manner, But that most of us here on RFF are arguing in a broader moral sense. I believe that this is the basis of our disagreements in this thread, (though there do seem to be a few who argue the extreme that copyright on the internet should be thrown out the window.) Again the problem is based in semantics.

Unfortunately most are responding to the title of this thread which naturally raises our moral hackles, mine included.
Click to expand...

Definitely different discussions going on here.

I've never argued for throwing copyright out the window, but I do think current copyright legislation - which was written for a totally different era - needs to be reformed in light of the reality in which we now live. Unless we really do think that a majority of today's youth ought to be punished and have a criminal record.

A law must be rooted in moral support among the people. Punishing individuals for unauthorized downloading of music goes against the sense of justice that most people who have grown up with the Internet seem to have. That, in turn, weakens these people's respect for the judicial system, which can have more dire consequences for society.

Now, if you really do think that all unauthorized use of copyrighted material is theft, why don't the mods here at RFF start removing posts with links to YouTube videos and start warning users? At least in the obvious cases, of which there are many. The linked videos are very often uploaded without unauthorization, and by linking to them you're helping these criminals and promoting piracy, no? Or are you not? Do you not think it's theft? If so, why?

A lot of "copyright infringement = theft & wrong" people seem to have no problem browsing and sharing YouTube videos. I don't see how that is consistent with their views. I'm genuinely curious about this.
 
FrankS said:
The author of the article sounds like a lawyer or law professor arguing a fine point in the legal use of words in legislation. I believe that Jamie is presenting the issue in the same manner, but that most of us here on RFF are arguing in a broader moral sense. I believe that this is the basis of our disagreements in this thread. Again the problem is based in semantics.
Click to expand...

Quite accurate, although I'd make a small adjustment. I think both the author of the article and me are arguing that unless you clarify the legal case it's very hard to make people who download illegally understand what they are doing wrong in a moral sense. Because they're just not buying the stealing car = stealing music argument no matter how hard the industry presses it.
 
Jamie123 said:
Quite accurate, although I'd make a small adjustment. I think both the author of the article and me are arguing that unless you clarify the legal case it's very hard to make people who download illegally understand what they are doing wrong in a moral sense. Because they're just not buying the stealing car = stealing music argument no matter how hard the industry presses it.
Click to expand...

Just because they don't buy it, doesn't make it okay then. I'm the same way with speed limits on roads and highways. I think thay many/most speed limits are way too low, to the point of being stupid. But I accept the consequences of my actions and pay my tickets.
 
jippiejee said:
If only everything was this black and white. When it comes to music, I just don't know beforehand whether I like an unknown band or not when friends wrote about it. Before we had Spotify, downloading a torrent cd rip was the great way of finding new music to like or dislike. Bands I otherwise would never have heard of and would have ignored for the rest of their existence, I now could pre-listen. Bonus if they came to my town for a concert. I'd book tickets then, buy a cd there and a t-shirt. Bands not recognizing the marketing value of the interwebs and chasing the freeloaders will be missing out much more in the end. The web is for linking and sharing, your product should be more than that. A great print for example, of something that was widely shared as jpeg on the web.
Click to expand...

The point you're missing is IT IS NOT YOUR MUSIC. If the band chooses to forego whatever benefit you think they'd get from giving music away free on the web ITS THEIR DECISION. Not yours. Repeat: NOT YOURS. Get it?

Some bands do put music free online, others don't. In both cases its their right to do what they chose. You have ZERO right to force businesses to give away their product, and a band (just like a visual artist) is a business. Don't like their marketing? Don't buy. Enough people don't buy, they may change how they do things, but ultimately its is the band's decision, not yours.
 
The point you might be missing is: the things found online is not their product. Their product is a great show on stage. Sweat and tears. Live music that you want to experience. Your product is not a 600 pixel wide jpeg on screen, but a hi-res print on my wall.
 
Jamie123 said:
Quite accurate, although I'd make a small adjustment. I think both the author of the article and me are arguing that unless you clarify the legal case it's very hard to make people who download illegally understand what they are doing wrong in a moral sense. Because they're just not buying the stealing car = stealing music argument no matter how hard the industry presses it.
Click to expand...

And I think most know full well that it's morally wrong. But they

1) don't fear being caught
2) think it's socially acceptable
3) feel entitled to consuming for free

And semantic arguments like yours make 2) and 3) worse.

What matters is lost revenue and many, many lost jobs. Calling illegal downloading theft appropriately reflects the outcome of the action, and not how a criminal wants to label it; or a lawyer for that matter.

Roland.
 
jippiejee said:
The point you might be missing is: the things found online is not their product. Their product is a great show on stage. Sweat and tears. Live music that you want to experience. Your product is not a 600 pixel wide jpeg on screen, but a hi-res print on my wall.
Click to expand...
So you do think musicians, which don't play live, aren't worth anything?
Or a 600px jpg can't be a product?
Yippee, my boss pays me for nothing... 😉
 
jody36 said:
just a question. Had it not been posted would you have sold hundreds of copies? would your work still have reach all these people?
Click to expand...

Hi,

Please don't ask me to forecast how a book published 40 years ago would sell these days after being put up as a scan a couple of years ago. If I knew the answer I'd get it republished, perhaps. I did ask all those naughty people posting it how many copies had been downloaded but few would even answer, although the downloads did vanish from their websites.

More to the point, it's not about reaching people but being paid for my labour etc.

Regards, David
 
jippiejee said:
The point you might be missing is: the things found online is not their product. Their product is a great show on stage. Sweat and tears. Live music that you want to experience. Your product is not a 600 pixel wide jpeg on screen, but a hi-res print on my wall.
Click to expand...

No you're the one missing it. The 640 px JPEG are just as much my product as large prints. I've licensed a number of small jpegs for use on websites, they are most certainly one of my products. I find it deeply offensive that you would state otherwise.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
No you're the one missing it. The 640 px JPEG are just as much my product as large prints. I've licensed a number of small jpegs for use on websites, they are most certainly one of my products. I find it deeply offensive that you would state otherwise.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even know about your work if I hadn't seen those 640 pix shots online for free, so can't imagine how you can be offended by someone saying their first entrance to your work was through the free webs. I never heard of the Band of Horses for example. Which is now one of my favorite bands. But I wouldn't have bought those €60 euro tickets without the free access to their music the web gave me. Then I went there, saw them live, bought their cd's and t-shirts, which is in the end a lot more profitable than when they had closed all access to their online music. Just deliver to the webs what you're willing to give away. Sell the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom