Sharing files isn't theft any more than sending postcards of the Mona Lisa constitutes ripping it off the walls of the Louvre and taking it home.
Piracy
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
You have to pay for the postcard. You have to pay for the files. It's theft. The law is very clear on that.
If everybody pirated, you wouldn't even get the music in the first place because companies would go out of business. So let's all adopt that mentality: steal all the software you can! NEVER, EVER pay for software. Always steal it. In fact, steal the computer too.
Great idea, spidergoat.
Companies don't make music, people do. I don't pay for software, I use open source versions.
And the people that make the music own it; and they sign deals with the companies and sell it to you. And you take it without paying. That is theft.
Someone payed for it or it wouldn't exist.
And that someone then gets to use it. Don't you get it? You have to pay to use it. That means you.
i'm surprised you've had the patience to keep dealing with spider goat, his argument amounts to 'its not stealing because i say so'. taking what someone else owns (according to the law) sounds like stealing to me, and listening to any music you want is not a human right. are you just shit-stirring?
i don't think suing is the way to go, its too costly and wastes court time. i think a government supported company aimed at reducing piracy, given the power to issue fines should deal with this. they could use software which monitors downloads. or perhaps implements my earlier idea about media players. i'm pretty useless for technical side of this.
given the artist/producer/tax money being lost, there's an incentive to fund this type of action. @ spidergoat, whatever percentage of people wouldn't have bought the media if they hadn't procured a pirated version, is still a sizable amount of money.
well i'm left wing if it means liberal (the following selected from dictionary.com for 'liberal'), the definition didn't mention the extent to which we should empower the government
- favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
- free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
- open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
- characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
- not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
You are talking to spidergoat, right?
I agree, but it should be many things in conjunction; agencies, technology, and severe punishment (severe fines + lengthy prison sentences 50 years per song)
I'll go ahead and refute the 'liberal' definition, though if you want to refute back you should just put it in my visitor messages
That's libertarian
This assumes that intolerance is bigotry, when that isn't the case. See my "Bigotry and Open-mindedness" thread; one can be open minded and intolerant, and I see no pragmatic benefit from tolerating dangerous cultures.
Okay. See above.
If you are taxed, then you aren't willingly or generously giving.
This is a good thing?
If I take something, that means I have it and they don't. Since they still have it, it's not theft.
Norse,
Ever hear the phrase "the punishment should fit the crime? AKA "an eye for an eye"? The punishment should be of a magnitude similiar to the damage inflicted.
Did you ever watch Star Trek the next generation? There was an episode in which they visited a planet where the penalty for every crime was death. The ship doctor's son (Wesley) was playing catch with some of the local children when he fell into a flowerbed and crushed some flowers. He was immediately arrested for this crime and sentenced to death.
The people of the Enterprise were, of course, outraged by the severity of the punishment for what was an honest mistake and the fact that they had not been informed of the unusual system of justice on the planet. They were prepared to rescue Wesley by force but it turned out that the apparently primitive people had an interdimensional super high tech defender. Picard was forced to argue the meaning of justice with the alien defender and ultimately convinced it that justice would be best served by letting Wesley go.
You're splitting hairs.
While the artists still have the music, they do not have the rightful money they are owed for their work. If you go to a concert, you pay. Why shouldn't you pay for recorded music?
When I go to a library they lend me the book to read, if I copy it and keep the copy for my own enjoyment then I've done nothing wrong. Same with video taping a TV program, as long as they sell video recorders I can record anything I want for free.
The same reason I wouldn't pay $300 for a Hustler magazine, it's not the real thing.
I pay for music that is too new or little known to be shared, that way I support emerging or well deserving artists, not corporate monopolies. Music downloading revealed to me the full extent of the con. All my life, I went to music stores and was cheated out of some of the best music in the world, and instead was led like cattle down the chute to the dumbest mass marketed crap. I didn't even know what I didn't know about a cultural heritage more vast and varied than one person could explore in a lifetime.
I consider what I do to be reparations.
That's not true. Copying a book you don't own is illegal - a breach of copyright.
The law in many places makes an exception for recording TV programmes. It's a technical one. What you're allowed to do is to time shift programmes that are broadcast on free-to-air networks, or pay TV that you pay for. That means you can watch a programme later than the broadcast date. But, technically, you're only allowed to watch it once. Keeping a copy for yourself to watch as many times as you like is a breach of copyright. And much worse is giving a copy to other people. In practice, mostly the authorities only police the sale of illegal copies of programmes, but just because you're unlikely to be prosecuted that doesn't mean what you are doing is legal.
That's not true. As long as you aren't copying it to sell, just for personal use, there is no violation of the law.
Music recordings are as "real" as you can get as a recording artist. They are a major source of income.
All of those corporate monopolies pay royalties to their signed artists. Also, why should you not pay for distribution and promotion of music?
Your defence includes some of the classic self-justifications of criminal behaviour.
Please don't make blanket statements when you haven't done the research.
How can I be promoted music if I haven't heard it? I'll tell you what, first I hear it, and then if I like it, I'll send you a donation. Passing around the hat is an honorable way for a musician to make money.
I would never do that.
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research. " If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law.
Precisely. I must say, good arguing in this thread, James. Piracy is theft any way you cut the cake.