Why are you stealing?

[Blue Phoenix]

The question is "Have you ever taken copies (from other books)?"

It´s funny, this people don´t mind this, but downloading people complain. Downloads are a "side-effect" of the internet, and nothing will stop them.

*Regarding books, if a book is GREAT I prefer to buy it than to have a pdf file.

 

[Paradox]

If the worst thing people ever did was download some music for free, this world would be utopia. There's genocide going on in Darfur. I just think there's bigger issues out there to get passionate about than Sony and BMG losing some profit.

A while ago one of our DJ brothers posted about stealing from Blockbuster

I have a game for XBOX 360, that is scratched a bit, and now doesnt work. Me and my buddies loved this game played it every day. So I rented a new one from blockbuster....The blockbuster game has absolutely no marking, nothing saying its the blockbuster one.... So we decided were gonna switch it with our scratched one and send it back to blockbuster, saying that it doesnt work....Think this will work? the game looks 100 % legit...the only thing i can think of, is that maybe that have some crazy bardcode system in the computer....I could also blame the people before me..

Here is my response:

Sure you could do it but it would be a moral crime.

Think about it this way. Blockbuster must now buy another copy. So what you say? They have millions of dollars you say? Yes they do but let's look at your crime.

Let's say they buy another copy it might cost them $30 bucks. This means a total cost of $60 for that title which in turn means that they would have to rent that title 10 times or more before they turn a profit. Let's say you do this only twice a year. What kind of impact are you having? If others are doing it also how is everyone impacting this business?

Who cares about Blockbuster? The franchise owners, employees, their families, banks, distributors, actors, truck drivers, stock brokers,...

Well don't they just write it off? Yes, they do but write-offs are against profits. This means instead of making 25 mil they take a 5 mil loss from theft and damage and only show a profit of 20 mil. How many jobs can be created for 5 mil? 1,666 jobs at $30,000 per year. You and "your friends" just put 1,666 people out of work.

You are now like some kind of monster because you are causing famlies, children and good hardworking people hardship. I hope you enjoy your game you monster!

It's a little extreme but check the math. What impact are you having on other people? And yes what is happening in Darfur and other impoverished nations is a tragedy!

 

[Da Realist]

*cough* Soulja boy *cough*

Read my mind.

But back to the whole stealing thing, Paradox. I was going to try to make this case about what's legal and what's really right, but something dawned on me. Nascar came into being because guys used to supe up their cars so they could get moonshine from point A to B without the cops being able to catch them. When people decided drinking wasn't wrong again, the guys kept fixing up their cars and racing them; from that Nascar came into being. Why am I saying this? Because morality changes when dollars come into play. People used to tape movies from tv, but you never had the studios calling a witch-hunt because somebody taped Ghostbusters even though you could have bought it on tape. No one was crying when kids used to record music off of the radio and played their favorite musician on the streets. But, lo and behold, you copy a video from youtube or download a song from somebody, and it is a crime. Want to know the real reason? Things are in a way cheaper now. Boomboxes and VCR's used to be expensive, but now you can get both for $5. Computers compared to the power they had then are really cheap. Along with it came cd and dvd burners and affordable internet. Since technology moved forward, the big companies had a harder time controlling where their stuff ended up. It was easier when a person would have to steal a film reel or master copies of a tape, but now hackers can find a digital copy in the company's computers. So really, the companies may now start saying they're being stole from, but the fire's been burning. he funny thing is they didn't care before, but now that they are losing money and are trying to blame people for them turning out an inferior product, it's wrong. The Golden Rule at work.

 

[(JJ)]

I dont remember people complaining when people were recording movies on cassette tapes or movies on VHS.

Actually there was a big issue about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

 

[Paradox]

Read my mind.

But back to the whole stealing thing, Paradox. I was going to try to make this case about what's legal and what's really right, but something dawned on me. Nascar came into being because guys used to supe up their cars so they could get moonshine from point A to B without the cops being able to catch them. When people decided drinking wasn't wrong again, the guys kept fixing up their cars and racing them; from that Nascar came into being. Why am I saying this? Because morality changes when dollars come into play. People used to tape movies from tv, but you never had the studios calling a witch-hunt because somebody taped Ghostbusters even though you could have bought it on tape. No one was crying when kids used to record music off of the radio and played their favorite musician on the streets. But, lo and behold, you copy a video from youtube or download a song from somebody, and it is a crime. Want to know the real reason? Things are in a way cheaper now. Boomboxes and VCR's used to be expensive, but now you can get both for $5. Computers compared to the power they had then are really cheap. Along with it came cd and dvd burners and affordable internet. Since technology moved forward, the big companies had a harder time controlling where their stuff ended up. It was easier when a person would have to steal a film reel or master copies of a tape, but now hackers can find a digital copy in the company's computers. So really, the companies may now start saying they're being stole from, but the fire's been burning. he funny thing is they didn't care before, but now that they are losing money and are trying to blame people for them turning out an inferior product, it's wrong. The Golden Rule at work.

Almost all true but really the impact on the industry back then was smaller. Back then people were buying movies and tapes and cd's.

You have to remember that in Pre internet times a movie would play in the theatre first. The studios would get their money from distribution. Then the movie would be put on video. Again the studios would make money. Then it would be licensed to a tv station. And again the studios would make money

Now when a movie comes out someone records it with their camcorder and distributes it on the internet to millions.

Studios employ people. They also purchase goods and services from vendors, so when they lose the whole economy suffers.

 

[Da Realist]

There are also studios that have began showing first run movies over the net for a fee. They still get their money but with less chance of someone recording the movie. With record companies, you have guys who can record their own songs and either sell them on their own sites or burn them to cds for when they do shows. The main issue I think is really what someone said early: the big companies are behind the technology curve. What I see is basically stalling tactics till the companies catch up. The RIAA pissed and moaned about Napster, *****, etc. till they could set up their own version of them. Youtube was probably going to face a similar problem before they got bought. As far as I'm concerned right now, the big guys are like all the pimps losing money because of Craigslist: you can understand, but you're not going to shed a tear for them.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Now when a movie comes out someone records it with their camcorder and distributes it on the internet to millions.

And those millions probably would not have watched the movie in the theater anyways. They're desperate enough to watch a camcorder version.

Not lost sales.

Perfectly copied versions of a DVD or a promotional disc, some of those are lost sales.

Studios employ people. They also purchase goods and services from vendors, so when they lose the whole economy suffers.

'The economy suffers'. Again, its not so cut and dry. Sure the studios might lose some money, but people making the recording equipment gain money. It's simply a displacement. It's been happening in alot of industries. Check out the automation of car plants. People keep complaining that all these mass production technologies like robotics put 'good workers' on the street. Then they forget the robotics factory needs manual laborers.

 

[Bible_Belt]

That said, I own a couple of trademarks myself, and if someone were to try to use the names that I created for my brands to profit off of the work I put into building them you better believe their ass would get sued.

Have you priced an IP attorney? I am guessing $10,000 retainer plus $300/hr.

An professor of mine used to work for Budweiser. He would basically fvck with anyone selling black market T-shirts with Bud logos or knockoff ads. The catch was that he was a staff attorney and could litigate ad infinitum, while the small T-shirt vendors could not come up with the six-figure minimum to actually litigate the case. Lawyers refer to IP law as "the sport of kings," because of that giant retainer, $300/hr fees, and cases that can drag on forever.

 

[Jesus]

Why download it (steal it) if you didn't want it?

You couldn't possibly be this dense, could you? How about downloading it to try it? You really can't wrap your head around the idea of someone being interested in something enough to download it, but not want it enough to pay for it? Back when Napster came out and I was starting off college, I downloaded thousands of mp3s. You really think each of those mp3s on my computer represented a sale loss, even though there's no way in hell I would have bought almost any of that in the first place? Realistically, who lost money there? Who lost anything in me doing that? Who was deprived of something? What disappeared on someone else's end in the act of me downloading that mp3 I never would have bought in the first place?

A co worker said that he is not stealing music he is just downloading it. I asked him what if someone came to his house while he was at work and downloaded his furniture onto a truck.

This is just a bizarre statement. Are you saying this burglar came to your co-worker's house and downloaded copies of his furniture to his truck, leaving his original furniture behind? Because that's the only valid comparison. Likening someone copying mp3s of CDs I paid for off of my computer to the act of physically taking things from my home shows just how much you're stretching this black and white notion of "stealing is stealing". Yes the downloading may be illegal, and yes it is possible it represents a potential sale loss (although you'd have a hard time proving it), but downloading something for free and physically stealing something from somebody are two very different things.

 

[piranha45]

Its all about WILL I GET (suitably) PUNISHED?

Stealing certainly isnt the only thing people would do, IF they thought they could and they WOULDNT GET (suitably) PUNISHED.

I could name plenty of people that I-- personally-- would gladly go out and murder, right here right now, IF I thought I could get away with it. But I don't think I can.

I would gladly walk over to a local Bank of America with a pistol and take X amount of someone else's money, whenever I wanted, IF I thought I wouldnt get punished for it... go buy myself some houses and cars and other unnecessary stuff at the expense of others. But alas...

It's all about maintaining the fear of getting punished, with people. That's what drives many/most people to conform to societal laws. I guess there's some goody-two-shoes out there who believe in "higher" values, but I think they are few and far between.

Stealing intellectual property fits in there too; nobody seems to get punished for doing it, so that fear of getting punished is gone, so people do it. Ta-Da!




Bang! I just smoked this thread. All questions answered. Damn I'm good. If you have any other grand questions about life that you'd like me to knock out for you, lmk.

 

[Inquisitus]

Technically yes sharing a book or music is stealing. if it's with one person or a million. A public library is set up so that people can have access to books and research material. Publishers and book companies consent to have their books in libraries. I'm not sure of the fees involved. Operating expenses are paid for by taxes

That's bull****. Sharing a book is not stealing/copyright infringement. Copyright doesn't actually cover that scenario. See this

Check this out on music as well;

From Stanford U http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/9-c.html

4. Music Cases

* Not a fair use. A karaoke manufacturer paid a compulsory license fee for the right to reproduce musical compositions on its machines. The music publisher requested an additional fee for the right to reproduce the lyrics on the karaoke video monitor. The manufacturer refused to pay additional fees and claimed that it had a fair use right to reproduce the lyrics. Important Factors. Display of the lyrics was not a fair use because: singing along to lyrics was not a transformative use; the karaoke company used all of the lyrics; and the manufacturer's use was for profit. This ruling harmonizes the Ninth Circuit with the Second Circuit's ruling in ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., 96 F.3d 60, (2d Cir. 1996). (Leadsinger, Inc. v BMG Music Publishing, CV-04-08099-VAP (9th Cir. January 2, 2008).
* Not a fair use. Downloading songs is not a fair use. A woman was sued for copyright infringement for downloading 30 songs using peer-to-peer file sharing software. She argued that her activity was a fair use because she was downloading the songs to determine if she wanted to later buy them. Important factors: Since numerous sites, such as iTunes permit listeners to sample and examine portions of songs without downloading. the court rejected this “sampling†defense. BMG Music v. Gonzalez, 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).
* Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent's campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the purpose was for purposes of political debate. (Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm., 457 F. Supp. 957 (D. N.H. 1978).)
* Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)

Pertinent excerpt bolded. Unfortunately, there is no example on ripping CD's and giving to your friends on this site.

 

[Inquisitus]

Found this on a case between the RIAA and Diamond. It concerns their Rio mp3 player.

[32] In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose - the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. § 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings," H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.

 

[Blue Phoenix]

Downloading is not stealing, it is a Copy-cat! When I steal, you don´t have that thing anymore. Do the owners lose their files when I download from them? NO!

 

[STR8UP]

What's left and right wing? Conservative and liberal?

Yea, the Robin Hood idea of robbing from the rich is typical liberal, left-wing bullsh!t. The idea that it's ok to steal from the record companies because they "stole" from the artist in the first place in the form of an unfair contract wreaks of the entitlement mentality. You really feel that the record companies are thieves even though the artist is free to sign with whomever they please? There are no guns held to anyones heads.....

Downloading is not stealing, it is a Copy-cat! When I steal, you don´t have that thing anymore. Do the owners lose their files when I download from them? NO!

You are stealing the potential lost revenue that the copy could have produced, so yea, it IS stealing.

 

[spider_007]

why are you stealing

when it comes to music & movies;

because i can't put my finger on the victims
because i don't see any imediate consequences for me.
because it doesn't feel like stealing.

it's wrong, but in this case i'm ok with it.

 

[Guoy Darko]

Why are we eating meat? We stole away those little piggies, chicks and baby cows from their momma's.

Why are you still living in the United States when you know it was stolen from the Native Americans?

I can rant on about this. Tropical rainforests, (former) colonies, slavery, western civilization, the curent economic crisis. etc. etc. Al examples where stealing comes looking around the corner.

Artists don'nt get paid a lot from a cd they are selling, unless it's indie. So in some way record companies are stealing from the artists.

 

[jonwon]

By downloading or watching films online is not stopping people from getting jobs, there are only so many positions to fill in a work place.

Yeh you can just picture it now:

"joe we are firing you, because there has been a heavy download of movies last week, sorry we can't afford to keep you on"

Thats just bull-****, they need the staff to make the business, the staff do not suffer because of this!

The:

Share-holder suffers or the business owner.

If we where to talk about profits from a business like a movie, granted there will be a certain % of funds put towards other movies, but the actual truth of the matter is, the extra cash is more or less given to the people who created that venture anyway and not filtered out to create more jobs.

The block-buster scenario was just stupid, if the kid swapped the disc, no one would get fired, no jobs would be lost, what would happen is the share holders would probably get a very small % back on there return, such a small % in the shape of things, they wouldn't even miss it.

So blowing something out of proportion to make a point is all well and good, but please for the love of god, dont make a mountain out of a mole-hill, if for example you was a judge, every kid who did anything remotely none corporate america line-towering they would be locked up, or even worse have there hands chopped off.

Anyone debating such a topic started and continued in this fashion needs to check there sanity, the fact that extreme examples have been quoted for the most mundane shi* is rather laughable -

Get a fuc*ing grip -

Yes it is steal, but then the point can be shifted to everyone in some form or other has stolen, from someone else. Taking crisps from your mates packet without asking him, taking a sip of his pop e.t.c. Spending an extra buck when you go to the shop from your mamma's change and eating the sweet fast and telling her that milk went up slightly e.t.c.

Everyone has done it.

Also let's get something clear as well and this is why such cases like watching movies online or downloading music e.t.c is such a grey area.

The fact of the matter is, it's called 'temptation' you don't develop a system that allows people to get what they wan't for 'free' and expect a % of the people to not take that stuff for 'free', you'd have to be a complete social-bot to think people will toe the line of corporate america. Now music and films is a good subject because your actually copying, which means the original stays, which again adds to the 'temptation' to do it, because if anything your taking away from share-holders -

Granted if everyone did it, there would be no movies, but at the end of the day, the temptation is there - the system works where you can get access to it, so calling people a thief when the only thing they need to do is click a button at the comfort of there own home is stretching it a bit much - yes its stealing, but when you break into someones house the owner does not stand at the door, hands you the keys and tells you can take anything you wan't and nothing will probably happen to you, do they?

And no your not taking away 16000 jobs, what a silly absurd way to look at it - That sort of thinking is very dangerous and far more so then copying music from the internet. This is boarderline fascist talk, where it's one step short of having your hands cut off for nicking a loaf of bread on a windowsil, whilst you thought no one was watching.

Its this sort of thinking that is producing a lock down on the internet, because of people who can't associate commen sense with every day things in life and see things in a typical black and white fashion - You don't blame the thief if the owner give the guy the front door key and an open invitation do you? And this is why it is not in the strict term of the sense stealing - because the person who has done it, has had the goods shoved in his face everytime he turns on his PC - The problem then is the temptation in making people steal and if we wanted to get real dam silly we could actually start suing the company's for tempting us to steal there goods.

Take an alcholic for example, if you waved a bottle of gin in his face - told him not to touch it because it's yours and you own it - how long do you think it's going to take before he picks it up and takes a swig? How long of swinging that bottle in his face is he going to hold out for the sake of Corperate Profits? Even more so when he has a special power that lets him make an exact copy whilst leaving the original, do you think hes not going to at least try it?

If you think so your delusional, this is human nature, if you don't want people to steal your shi* you make steps to protect your shi*. There is a whole market out there for this sort of thing, hence again - More jobs created to stop people stealing your shi* - So steal shi* your creating jobs (in jest but has stupid has that sounds, no more stupid then the Block-Buster scenario)

 

[ChrizZ]

Morals are just "rules" to manipulate the masses.



Do whatever the fvck you want. It's your life...

 

[Colossus]

I think Paradox's point is that you are obtaining---for free--something that was intended for purchase when you download.

File-sharing programs are mostly legal because they just facilitate the transfer of files---what you transfer is another story.

If you are arguing the explicit definition of stealing---taking something that is owned by another without consent or taking something intended to be purchased---then yes, it's stealing.

But I personally dont view stealing in purely legalistic terms. Some do, and that's ok, but I dont. It's more of a value judgment for me. If my roommate leaves $20 on the table and I take it---I stole from him, and that's wrong. That was his money that he earned. Even if it was $1, it's still his money. Now if I download an electronic file that someone else put up for the purpose of sharing, then I dont have a problem with it.

Theoretically you are keeping some small fraction of a dollar from the artist if you download a song, but you arent putting them out of work or causing any appreciable harm to them. They most likely gained a fan they wouldnt have if that song or album was only available for purchase. After all, most people wouldnt go out and buy every song or album they liked even if there werent downloads. And if you really dig them you would still pay to see them live.

With movies, they make the lion's share of their money from the box office. DVD sales arent huge in comparison. If you get the film online while it's still in theaters, you are costing them money, but again it's not really appreciable, and it's typically a burn of an advance copy of the DVD.

 

[Luthor Rex]

A co worker said that he is not stealing music he is just downloading it. I asked him what if someone came to his house while he was at work and downloaded his furniture onto a truck.

That analogy doesn't hold up. What is actually happening with movies and music would go something like this:

I come into your home, build a copy of your couch with materials I brought, and take the copy home with me. What exactly did I just steal?

People do it because in the traditional sense, it doesn't "feel" like stealing.