Major Copyright Judgement

[Gate2501]

I think it's morally reprehensible to put yourself in the position of making the judgment "oh well, I wouldn't pay for it anyway, therefore I'll take it for free." I cannot see any way in which that judgment cannot end up being self-serving and false.

Your opinion is noted.

Keep in mind that what I am "taking" is a free copy.

If you chose to obey the law--without exception--would that mean that you had no entertainment at all? No--others have pointed out the myriad affordable ways in which you could listen to music and play computer games without breaking the law. But more importantly: can you honestly say that if none of this music or these games was available to you in pirated form that you would never buy any music or any games? I frankly do not believe it. There are some albums and some games that you would scrimp and save to buy. There are some other discretionary purchases you would cut back on in order to free up money for music and games (do you never, ever buy a restaurant meal or a cup of coffee? Never ever order in when you could cook yourself? Always buy the cheapest possible food and the cheapest possible products for the house? I frankly doubt it.) All that would happen is that you would have a smaller number of albums to listen to as you see fit or you would have to listen to a wider array of music that is not entirely available at your whim (e.g. LastFM).

I do purchase games/music/movies when I have leftover monies after my bills, this just isn't much, and it happens quite rarely.

I haven't been out to eat on my own buck for years, and 100% of my food is purchased with a food debit card provided to me by OJFS. I cannot spend this money on anything else.

And lastly: if you think it's perfectly acceptable to download pirated music, why don't you upload it as well? If the people uploading it are committing a moral (as well as legal) wrong, in your view, how can it not be morally wrong for you to profit from that action?

I at least am not further contributing to the problem. It seems really quite morally neutral that I would profit from an action that will take place irrespective of my presence, to which I am not contributing in any way. If anything, I am being a jerk to the file-sharing community by not uploading, I am a net loss to them.

The fact is, nobody who illegally downloads music actually thinks that what they're doing is o.k. That's why they always try to come up with these bizarre and baroque justifications for their actions. It's also why they get so incredibly pissed off with anyone who simply and accurately describes what they're doing: stealing something that doesn't belong to them.

Some people here certainly do seem "pissed off". I feel that I have remained quite calm and coherent. Someone was calling people stupid earlier on in the thread, I forget who that was.

 

[Yoink]

Your opinion is noted.

Keep in mind that what I am "taking" is a free copy.

Everything stolen is "free."

I do purchase games/music/movies when I have leftover monies after my bills, this just isn't much, and it happens quite rarely.

Great: so you do have surplus discretionary money. You could save that towards purchasing music and games. That was my entire point.

I haven't been out to eat on my own buck for years, and 100% of my food is purchased with a food debit card provided to me by OJFS. I cannot spend this money on anything else.

And yet you still have surplus money (and, as I said, even if it's not on food, I'm quite sure that there must be some expenditure you make which is discretionary and could be diverted to increasing that surplus). You simply choose to steal certain luxury goods rather than save up for them.

I at least am not further contributing to the problem. It seems really quite morally neutral that I would profit from an action that will take place irrespective of my presence, to which I am not contributing in any way. If anything, I am being a jerk to the file-sharing community by not uploading, I am a net loss to them.

As I said. If you see this as a "problem" then it is wrong for you to profit from it. Stealing from thieves isn't "balancing" the moral wrong; it's compounding it.

Some people here certainly do seem "pissed off". I feel that I have remained quite calm and coherent. Someone was calling people stupid earlier on in the thread, I forget who that was.

Hey, I didn't say that bogus and transparent rationalizations of illegal and immoral actions don't piss me off.

 

[Gate2501]

Everything stolen is "free."

You don't steal the copies, they are freely given to you.

Great: so you do have surplus discretionary money. You could save that towards purchasing music and games. That was my entire point.

Yes, and I do this, it just doesn't amount to squat most of the year. I do buy when I have money available, I never said that I don't.

And yet you still have surplus money (and, as I said, even if it's not on food, I'm quite sure that there must be some expenditure you make which is discretionary and could be diverted to increasing that surplus). You simply choose to steal certain luxury goods rather than save up for them.

No, I really don't. I literally only own one pair of pants that I wear for a week or so at a time and then wash. You have no idea how frugal I am.

ETA: Most people wash their clothes way too often imo! Pants can go like a month if they don't start to smell bad.

As I said. If you see this as a "problem" then it is wrong for you to profit from it. Stealing from thieves isn't "balancing" the moral wrong; it's compounding it.

No, it isn't. I am not "stealing" from "thieves" either. I am leeching from file-sharers.

Hey, I didn't say that bogus and transparent rationalizations of illegal and immoral actions don't piss me off.

You didn't, this is true. I was merely pointing out that you seem quite a bit more angry than I do.

 

[Chaos]

You don't steal the copies, they are freely given to you.

So, can I just walk into your house while you´re away and grab all I can carry, because you freely give it to me without knowing it?

Yes, and I do this, it just doesn't amount to squat most of the year. I do buy when I have money available, I never said that I don't.

Yet, unlike people who are NOT thieves, you neglect to NOT buy (without paying) when you don´t have money.

No, it isn't. I am not "stealing" from "thieves" either. I am leeching from file-sharers.

Who are thieves. You are, in fact, stealing from thieves. Except that, unlike a burglar or robber, you are too cowardly and dishonest to admit it.

You didn't, this is true. I was merely pointing out that you seem quite a bit more angry than I do.

Maybe that´s because he is - and I am - the sort of sucker who actually prefer to pay artists real money for their hard word. Whereas you, on the other hand, are a parasite taking the product other peoples´ hard work without giving anything in return.

 

[funk de fino]

Your opinion is noted.
Keep in mind that what I am "taking" is a free copy.

My offer still stands? PM if you want to discuss.

 

[quixotecoyote]

So, can I just walk into your house while you´re away and grab all I can carry, because you freely give it to me without knowing it?

Only if he still possesses everything he owned before you did so.

 

[Yoink]

You don't steal the copies, they are freely given to you.

Because they are stolen, they're free. Or, to put it another way: they're freely given to you, because they're stolen.

Yes, and I do this, it just doesn't amount to squat most of the year. I do buy when I have money available, I never said that I don't.

Great. But "I don't steal ALL of my music" is not a defense for stealing some or most of it.

No, I really don't. I literally only own one pair of pants that I wear for a week or so at a time and then wash. You have no idea how frugal I am.

ETA: Most people wash their clothes way too often imo! Pants can go like a month if they don't start to smell bad.

O.K., fine. You never spend a single cent that isn't on the strictest most absolute necessity. That still doesn't give you the right to steal music and games.

No, it isn't. I am not "stealing" from "thieves" either. I am leeching from file-sharers.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

 

[Corsair 115]

The artist loses their percentage of the sales that would otherwise be made.

You're assuming, however, that EVERY illegal download translates into a lost sale. That is not necessarily so. I can speak to that from personal experience: I have downloaded an item or two on occasion, but had that version not been freely available, I would NOT have bought the retail version. I simply would have done without.

One can argue about the percentage of downloads which fall into the category of "would not have bought it retail regardless" versus "would have bought it retail had the downloaded version not been available" but there are certainly at least some downloads which do not translate into lost sales.

Now, this doesn't mean that copyright infringement wasn't taking place. But it does mean equating every download with a lost sale is not correct.

 

[Yoink]

You're assuming, however, that EVERY illegal download translates into a lost sale. That is not necessarily so. I can speak to that from personal experience: I have downloaded an item or two on occasion, but had that version not been freely available, I would NOT have bought the retail version. I simply would have done without.

One can argue about the percentage of downloads which fall into the category of "would not have bought it retail regardless" versus "would have bought it retail had the downloaded version not been available" but there are certainly at least some downloads which do not translate into lost sales.

Now, this doesn't mean that copyright infringement wasn't taking place. But it does mean equating every download with a lost sale is not correct.

No, I'm simply assuming that some percentage of those downloads represent lost sales. I'm also assuming (because it's patently bleeding obvious) that you don't have the right to decide "well, I'm not going to pay for this, so I'll just steal it." Just as you don't have the right to walk into a store and say "well, I'll never buy this at retail, so I'll just pay you the wholesale price."

If you can get all the music you want for free it is simply self-evident that your motivation to buy music is correspondingly diminished. The fact that you will help yourself to vastly more "free" music than you would ever be able to buy doesn't mean that you aren't defrauding artists of profits they would otherwise have made; all it means is that the amount you're defrauding them of is less than the putative market value of all the music you've stolen. Big whoop.

It's just amazing to me that people will rest on these utterly disingenuous arguments. People didn't suddenly stop wanting to own music; they stopped paying for it because it was easy to get it illegally for free.

 

[quixotecoyote]

And until people stop making ridiculous equivalencies between actions which may or may not result solely in a lost sale and actions in which property is actually lost/stolen, even those of us against copyright infringement will be reluctant to get on board with you.

 

[Gate2501]

So, can I just walk into your house while you´re away and grab all I can carry, because you freely give it to me without knowing it?

If you don't see how my file-sharing is different than your burglarizing my home in ways extremely relevant to this argument, I really don't know what else to say.

Who are thieves. You are, in fact, stealing from thieves. Except that, unlike a burglar or robber, you are too cowardly and dishonest to admit it.

No, they are anonymous individuals who are violating the copyright agreement of the file in question. Burglars and robbers? What?

I am cowardly and dishonest because I don't subscribe to your emotionally charged false analogies to more harmful crimes? Please.

Maybe that´s because he is - and I am - the sort of sucker who actually prefer to pay artists real money for their hard word. Whereas you, on the other hand, are a parasite taking the product other peoples´ hard work without giving anything in return.

Opinion noted. At least know that I don't think you, or anyone else who chooses not to download files in violation of copyright, are suckers.

 

[Corsair 115]

No, I'm simply assuming that some percentage of those downloads represent lost sales.

And that percentage is actually a rather important part of the discussion. What if, for example, solid, reliable research determined 99% of downloads did NOT translate into lost sales? That'd put a whole different spin on the matter, wouldn't it?

I'm also assuming (because it's patently bleeding obvious) that you don't have the right to decide "well, I'm not going to pay for this, so I'll just steal it."

I never argued otherwise.

If you can get all the music you want for free it is simply self-evident that your motivation to buy music is correspondingly diminished.

Speak for yourself. I've downloaded a computer game or two in my day, but that did not stop me from still purchasing some at retail. It came down to my perceived value for that product: some games are simply not worth $50 to me. If a downloadable copy is available for free, I might give it a whirl. But if that free copy wasn't available, the game would still not be worth $50 to me, so it wouldn't be purchased at that retail price.

Now, if it was priced at $15 or $20, the publisher might well get a sale from me since that is a price point at which I don't mind taking a gamble on games I might not otherwise have considered.

Some games are, to me, worth the full $50 retail price, and for those I don't mind paying at all, even if a freely downloadable version is available.

So, as you can see, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

 

[Yoink]

And until people stop making ridiculous equivalencies between actions which may or may not result solely in a lost sale and actions in which property is actually lost/stolen, even those of us against copyright infringement will be reluctant to get on board with you.

And, yet again, I point out that nine supreme court justices agree that in any context other than highly technical legal ones, it is correct to describe copyright infringement as theft. Three of those nine would argue that even in those highly technical legal cases it is correct to do so.

Why this bizarre fetishization of the physical object? Do you think the company that makes physical CDs cares a hoot about the value of the physical object? When you buy a CD, the cost of the physical object is negligible. What you are paying for is the intellectual property. Why is it o.k. to steal that property if it's in purely digital form, but suddenly so taboo when it's encoded onto a cheap piece of plastic?

Similarly, the paper-ink-binding etc. of a book (even a pretty nice edition hardback) costs about $2-4 per copy. Is it really not "theft" then if I steal that nice new hardback and anonymously mail the publisher $4? Why not? After all, I've made good the loss of the physical materials--so why should they care about the intellectual content and other sunk costs (which comprise the rest of the book's price)? If the only thing that can be "stolen" is the physical object, and I've covered the cost of the physical object, how is that "stealing" in your view? And hey, if I chant the magic phrase "I wouldn't pay full price for it anyway" before I took it, then surely that makes it o.k.? They didn't lose anything, right? And I wasn't going to pay anyway, right? So everything's cool. No? Why not?

The fact is that piracy is just theft. It's no different at all from shoplifting in terms of the essential harm it does (again, no one cares about the physical object you've stolen when you steal a physical CD--they care about the lost sale of the intellectual property). It's just that it's so amazingly easy to do and get away with that we find it incredibly hard to resist. Because we download the music in the privacy of our own homes it feels as if they're almost our property already. Because the internet is so full of stuff that we are legally allowed to download, and because there's really no effective difference in our access to that stuff and the illegal stuff, it erodes our sense of breaking a social taboo.

But while that certainly explains this extraordinary collective crime-spree, it sure as hell doesn't excuse it.

 

[Yoink]

And that percentage is actually a rather important part of the discussion. What if, for example, solid, reliable research determined 99% of downloads did NOT translate into lost sales? That'd put a whole different spin on the matter, wouldn't it?

I've seen that research. It's self-serving B.S. And even if it were true (which it quite obviously isn't: one only has to look at CD sales to see that) it wouldn't alter the question of right, with which you apparently agree:

I never argued otherwise.

You don't have the right to steal music from band B and then pay the money you saved on that theft to band A. Even if it were true, in the end, that just as much money flows into the music business as would without piracy that wouldn't justify a single case of theft.

Speak for yourself. I've downloaded a computer game or two in my day, but that did not stop me from still purchasing some at retail. It came down to my perceived value for that product: some games are simply not worth $50 to me. If a downloadable copy is available for free, I might give it a whirl. But if that free copy wasn't available, the game would still not be worth $50 to me, so it wouldn't be purchased at that retail price.

Now, if it was priced at $15 or $20, the publisher might well get a sale from me since that is a price point at which I don't mind taking a gamble on games I might not otherwise have considered.

Some games are, to me, worth the full $50 retail price, and for those I don't mind paying at all, even if a freely downloadable version is available.

So, as you can see, it's not an all-or-nothing proposition.

So great. Let's say I'm a computer game company. I put a game out at $50 per game. You think that's too much to pay. After a year I discount the game to $20--the price you think it's worth. Only now I can't sell any of those $20 copies of the game, because everyone who decided the price was too high at $50 chose to steal a copy instead.

Oh, but no one loses any money from piracy, no, of course not.

Like I say, it simply never ceases to amaze me the childishly nonsensical arguments people will hide behind if it allows them to keep getting stuff they want for free without having their consciences pricked.

 

[Gate2501]

And, yet again, I point out that nine supreme court justices agree that in any context other than highly technical legal ones, it is correct to describe copyright infringement as theft. Three of those nine would argue that even in those highly technical legal cases it is correct to do so.

Dude, do you think that colloquial means "any context other than highly technical legal ones"?

Colloquial just means a usage that is technically incorrect, but may be recognized because it is commonly used in this incorrect manner.

Why this bizarre fetishization of the physical object?

Rofl...

You don't think that you perhaps are the one with a bizarre devotion to these physical analogs?

 

[Chaos]

If you don't see how my file-sharing is different than your burglarizing my home in ways extremely relevant to this argument, I really don't know what else to say.

If you don´t see, or don´t admit that you do see, that "sharing" something that doesn´t belong to either of the sharers is theft then I don´t know what to say.

No, they are anonymous individuals who are violating the copyright agreement of the file in question. Burglars and robbers? What?

I am cowardly and dishonest because I don't subscribe to your emotionally charged false analogies to more harmful crimes? Please.

You are cowardly and dishonest because you refuse to face the nature of your actions.

Opinion noted. At least know that I don't think you, or anyone else who chooses not to download files in violation of copyright, are suckers.

Yes you do. If you thought that actually buying stuff was the ethical thing to do, you´d do it yourself. Instead, you steal, and amuse yourself endlessly about the suckers whose money keeps your stream of "free" stolen goods flowing.

 

[Yoink]

Dude, do you think that colloquial means "any context other than highly technical legal ones"?

Colloquial just means a usage that is technically incorrect, but may be recognized because it is commonly used in this incorrect manner.

It's really not that unusual a word, you know. I'm afraid it really, really does not mean "technically incorrect." It never has meant that, and probably never will.

Look, let me help you out. Here's the OED's definition:

"Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language."

See, no hint of "technically incorrect" at all.

Rofl...

You don't think that you perhaps are the one with a bizarre devotion to these physical analogs?

I'm the one trying to point out that there is no relevant distinction between the phsyical instance and the digital. I can't see how that suggests that I'm fetishizing the physical. Perhaps "fetishize" is another word that gives you trouble? Here's the OED again: "to pay undue respect to, to overvalue."

Yes, you're overvaluing the physical object in thinking that it is somehow taboo to steal the physical object, but perfectly o.k. to steal the intellectual property contained on the physical object.

 

[Gate2501]

If you don´t see, or don´t admit that you do see, that "sharing" something that doesn´t belong to either of the sharers is theft then I don´t know what to say.

Well, it literally isn't theft. Accepting a freely given copy of copyrighted IP is not equivalent to stealing a physical object.

You are cowardly and dishonest because you refuse to face the nature of your actions.

I have repeatedly faced the nature of my actions in this very thread. I simply won't allow you to paint false analogs to other crimes which you feel carry more of an emotional *bang*.

Yes you do. If you thought that actually buying stuff was the ethical thing to do, you´d do it yourself. Instead, you steal, and amuse yourself endlessly about the suckers whose money keeps your stream of "free" stolen goods flowing.

Jeez. No, I don't.

 

[Yoink]

Well, it literally isn't theft. Accepting a freely given copy of copyrighted IP is not equivalent to stealing a physical object.

Yeah, in what bizarro world could anyone possibly construe illegally taking possession of property that does not belong to you as "theft"?

 

[Gate2501]

It's really not that unusual a word, you know. I'm afraid it really, really does not mean "technically incorrect." It never has meant that, and probably never will.

Look, let me help you out. Here's the OED's definition:

"Belonging to common speech; characteristic of or proper to ordinary conversation, as distinguished from formal or elevated language."

See, no hint of "technically incorrect" at all.

Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizable due to common usage. For example, though biweekly is truly defined as "every other week", many dictionaries list both "twice a week" and "every other week".

I'm the one trying to point out that there is no relevant distinction between the phsyical instance and the digital. I can't see how that suggests that I'm fetishizing the physical. Perhaps "fetishize" is another word that gives you trouble? Here's the OED again: "to pay undue respect to, to overvalue."

Yes, you're overvaluing the physical object in thinking that it is somehow taboo to steal the physical object, but perfectly o.k. to steal the intellectual property contained on the physical object.

Then why not drop the analogies to the theft of physical, personal property? Why would you think that this word gives me trouble? You are acting a bit childish with these insults(yes that was one of my own).

fetishize, fetishise [ˈfɛtɪʃˌaɪz]
vb
(Psychology) (tr) to be excessively or irrationally devoted to (an object, activity, etc.)
fetishization , fetishisation n