illegal downloads?

[Bellvedere]

I don't pirate music or games for the simple reason that I use both for an extended period. If a TV show has aired on TV I don't mind pirating because I could legitimately watch it on TV but might have missed it and/or I will likely only watch it once and never again.

There's also the fact that many things I want to watch may not be available locally so spending a whole day searching stores or waiting possibly weeks to order it in is a far less attractive prospect than illegally downloading it. It has a whole lot to do with convenience and practicality than getting something for free.

 

[Vrach]

Clearly not theft nor copyright infringement. Nor is it destroying the music industry since the artists don't make jack off the actual CD sales anyway.
Plus if you actally think that it is that bad then you should not buy used games/cds nor borrow shit from a friend since borrowing is basically the same and the used market does more damage to the industry.

^This. There's a big difference between theft and copying something. As far as I know lending a game/music CD/etc. to a mate is not illegal, file sharing is no morally different (even though a lot of companies losing money on it would argue otherwise), only legally so, making it, in my 2 cents, an arbitrary rule. I'd also argue that I've never seen a person even remotely struggling to make a living (ie. anything less than "well off"), complain against file sharing.

I've also seen (not talking about hearsay here, seen this with my own eyes) a lot of people hear some music through either a lent CD or far more commonly, file sharing/YouTube "copyright infringement" videos etc. Those people would've otherwise never bought someone's CD, not wanting to waste money on something they don't know (in a lot of cases, these aren't the kind of bands that spin their songs on VH1, MTV and such, ie. those people wouldn't normally be exposed to that music or paid attention to it), then later went and bought the next (in some cases, even the same) CD legally or came to the band's concert.

So what can we extrapolate from that? File sharing earnt these people money, money they wouldn't otherwise have earned. It's just that it's not a guaranteed sum and that it requires the product to actually be be worth the money - which is what they actually have a problem with.

But the problem with that argument is that the friend doesn't own the rights to the songs, and therefore they aren't his to give away. You may own the physical disk, but you don't actually OWN the songs on the disk. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the torrents themselves not being illegal, but giving away something you don't actually own is. That's like if you lent a TV to a friend and they gave it away. Even if they had paid you to borrow it, it still wasn't theirs to give away.

No, you see, if your friend gave away your TV, you would be deprived of your TV and you wouldn't have your TV anymore. Therefore, that is theft, because you don't have the object anymore.

If however, your friend had a magical device to make an instant copy of your TV and then gave that away, that's what file sharing would be analogous to, and I don't think you'd give much of a shit about there being a copy of your TV out there, cause you'd still have your own bloody TV, it wouldn't go anywhere

 

[Vuljatar]

It's not theft, because if you were going to buy it you would have bought it instead of pirating it.

It does however have a big affect on pc gaming. Devs are now either refusing to release for it (gears 2) or has RETARDED drm (asscreed 2)
It is theft. I morally object to theft as my father owns a business based on software.

Actually, devs are using piracy as a scapegoat. And in doing so, they are simply encouraging more piracy by people protesting their draconian DRM.

 

[Randomvirus]

You know what I think is dirty, criminal, and outright thievery?

When a company makes a PC game, but doesn't put out a demo. So I have no idea how it's going to run on my computer until I buy it. And fewer and fewer places are exchanging PC games because "my computer won't play it."

That's shenanigans.

I personally feel justified in downloading an "illegal" copy of a game so that I can see how it's going to play on my computer. If it plays fine, then I go buy a legitimate copy of the game. (After I spend about 5-10 hours putting it through the motions.)

I go legit because support for a game is rather limited when you've got a pirated copy. But I still think it's just plain dirty pool that with so many differences between PC's from person to person, companies get away with not putting demos out there.

 

[razer17]

But the problem with that argument is that the friend doesn't own the rights to the songs, and therefore they aren't his to give away. You may own the physical disk, but you don't actually OWN the songs on the disk. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the torrents themselves not being illegal, but giving away something you don't actually own is. That's like if you lent a TV to a friend and they gave it away. Even if they had paid you to borrow it, it still wasn't theirs to give away.

If you purchase a physical CD, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it. Other than renting it out. You don't own the copyright, but you do own the rights to use the songs in whatever way you see fit, including public performance (such as DJ's)

And my point the whole time has been that the technology is legal, the things shared aren't. Many artists put their songs on torrents, they are allowed to give that away, and then you as a downloader can also give it away. But with commercial music, you can buy the CD, but you can't give it away (or, in your analogy, the borrowing a TV)

yes, if someone gives you a CD you are perminently depriving them of it, but you are not appropriating it (taking without permission) and for a theft you need both the Actus Reus (appropriation) and the Mens Rea (intention to perminently deprive). When I made this thread, I had Things like Limewire in mind, not things like WoW. I was talking about copyright infringement, and the majority of people got that. apart from you. The reason I put in the latin was because those are the words for them, I'm not sure I can explain them any other way. It was pretty obvious that I was not talking about people giving things away.

Firstly, I know Mens Rea and Actus Reus, because I actually studied Law.

Limewire itself still isn't theft. Say I am a provducer of music. I publish all my music using Creative Commons licensing. Then someone puts that music on Limewire. That isn't theft, because my contract allows it to happen.

What you said is that file sharing software is illegal. OR at least that you think it is. This in no way makes sense. The part I disagree with you on is that the programs themselves are illegal, because they are clearly not.

 

[Vrach]

It's not theft, because if you were going to buy it you would have bought it instead of pirating it.

It does however have a big affect on pc gaming. Devs are now either refusing to release for it (gears 2) or has RETARDED drm (asscreed 2)
It is theft. I morally object to theft as my father owns a business based on software.

Actually, devs are using piracy as a scapegoat. And in doing so, they are simply encouraging more piracy by people protesting their draconian DRM.

This. DRM was/is just shooting a mosquito with a cannon, and predictably, they destroyed their house while the mosquito just wafted away unharmed (in fact I'd say stronger). Assassin's Creed 2 only took a few extra weeks to crack because of the DRM (even though Ubisoft still pounded their chest at their unbreakable system in articles while people were actually already playing illegal versions of the game), and a lot of people, who either don't have constant access to internet, hate the fact they would have to rely on an unstable server/their internet connection or are just plain outraged at legal buyers of the game being treated like criminals, chose to wait or in some cases, even turned in their legal copies of the game and waited for the crack.

 

[Gindil]

It's outright theft and copyright infringement. Give anyone violating those laws the punish the law seems fit.

That worked pretty well... [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars]

 

[Uncreation]

Hello fellow Escapists. My friends and I have this conversation often. What are your views on file-sharing software? Do you class it as theft?

Personally, I think it is theft and it is slowly destroying the music industry. So, what do you think?

I do not agree. Also, tjis thread has been done numerous times in the past. That is all.

 

[Gasaraki]

-snip-

Spoiler: arrr

Yes I would download a bear! I'd never need an anti virus program again!
Digital Bear! Maul that trojan's face off!

 

[dragonslayer32]

But the problem with that argument is that the friend doesn't own the rights to the songs, and therefore they aren't his to give away. You may own the physical disk, but you don't actually OWN the songs on the disk. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the torrents themselves not being illegal, but giving away something you don't actually own is. That's like if you lent a TV to a friend and they gave it away. Even if they had paid you to borrow it, it still wasn't theirs to give away.

If you purchase a physical CD, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it. Other than renting it out. You don't own the copyright, but you do own the rights to use the songs in whatever way you see fit, including public performance (such as DJ's)

And my point the whole time has been that the technology is legal, the things shared aren't. Many artists put their songs on torrents, they are allowed to give that away, and then you as a downloader can also give it away. But with commercial music, you can buy the CD, but you can't give it away (or, in your analogy, the borrowing a TV)

yes, if someone gives you a CD you are perminently depriving them of it, but you are not appropriating it (taking without permission) and for a theft you need both the Actus Reus (appropriation) and the Mens Rea (intention to perminently deprive). When I made this thread, I had Things like Limewire in mind, not things like WoW. I was talking about copyright infringement, and the majority of people got that. apart from you. The reason I put in the latin was because those are the words for them, I'm not sure I can explain them any other way. It was pretty obvious that I was not talking about people giving things away.

Firstly, I know Mens Rea and Actus Reus, because I actually studied Law.

Limewire itself still isn't theft. Say I am a provducer of music. I publish all my music using Creative Commons licensing. Then someone puts that music on Limewire. That isn't theft, because my contract allows it to happen.

What you said is that file sharing software is illegal. OR at least that you think it is. This in no way makes sense. The part I disagree with you on is that the programs themselves are illegal, because they are clearly not.

You really aren't getting my point. I never said I it is illegal, I know the law and it is not. What I was saying however, is that I, ME, Personally, class it as theft, I don't know why, but it just doesn't feel right. (THIS POINT WAS AIMED AT LEGAL FILE SHARING)

Now, for illegal file sharing:

I am not talking about the software, forget the software, my origional point was aimed towards copyright infringement. Downloading music from Limewire however, IS copyright infringement, trust me, I have the letter from Virgin Media telling me so. The letter also said that if I continue to download music from Limewire, they would contact the police. Now, why would they contact the police if it wasn't illegal?

 

[triggrhappy94]

First things first...

Clearly not theft nor copyright infringement. Nor is it destroying the music industry since the artists don't make jack off the actual CD sales anyway.
Plus if you actally think that it is that bad then you should not buy used games/cds nor borrow shit from a friend since borrowing is basically the same and the used market does more damage to the industry.

Lol, nice picture.

Now second... just a warning, i got suspended from the Escapist for condoning piracy, so be carefull...

And finally... I don't believe "piracy" is really destroying the music industry for the following reasons...
1)It allows people who don't have alot of money to be able to hear bands, someof which are up-and-coming, so it helps by getting the bands name out. (ie the post-hardcore band Fear Before (a pretty unknown band) has said in their interviews that they don't mind if people download their music aslong as people are hearing it; they actually get most of their money through concert and merchandice. As opposed to Metallica, who highly opposes "piracy" even though the are a household-name. Go figure...)

2) Like I said before, alot of bands depend more on the money made through concerts and mechandice, so it better to download the music and go see the concert, instead of not getting the album at all, because of (insert problem here).

3) Its not like itunes is any better. Sure your paying for it, but how much do you think the bands (the people you want the money to go to) are actually seeing.

 

[Spinozaad]

I'm not feeling strongly opinionated. It's not theft because I did not steal it. Unstable analogy coming in in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

If I were to take your car and copy it exactly (down to the porno mags and dead hooker in your trunk, you psycho, you!), before driving off with that exact copy.

Did I steal your car? No, I did not!

That said. Illegal downloads are not destroying any industry. It's ripping a ludicrous monopoly to shreds, and The Industries just have to cope. No sympathy for slugglish, 'evil' fossiles.

 

[Dapsen]

As said by some other guy:

Of course it's theft, but I always buy the CDs later.

 

[Gindil]

I'd like to say that people really get uptight about file sharing.

Thing is [http://www.jamendo.com/en/] some places want your business [http://www.flickr.com/] and love it when you share [http://creativecommons.org/].

And to the naysayers who don't understand that the music industry is doing fine with file sharing...

Do some research [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/06/file-sharing-has-weakened-copyrightand-helped-society.ars]

"The publication of new books rose by 66 percent over the 2002-2007 period. Since 2000, the annual release of new music albums has more than doubled, and worldwide feature film production is up by more than 30 percent since 2003... In our reading of the evidence there is little to suggest that the new technology has discouraged artistic production. Weaker copyright protection, it seems, has benefited society.

You're letting the "boogeymen" scare you about something that's taking away monopoly control from big industry. Namely, the RIAA and MPAA along with other lobbying groups are scared of this because they lose power. Wanna know what happened with all the suing they were doing?

See for yourself [http://www.p2pnet.net/story/42369]

Now the RIAA is defending the more than $17 million it blew on legal fees in 2008 ?after bloggers claimed the organization?s aggressive pursuit of damages for illegal downloading was yielding little legal in the way of legal recoveries

*scoffs* Money well spent indeed.

 

[The_Emperor]

its not theft.
it is illegal.
it is detrimental.
it is also necessary.

if there was no such thing as piracy the impoverished couldnt play games. To deny anyone those few hours of joy in a finite lifespan is somehow wrong and thats what the monetary system would do if there were no such thing as piracy.

sure theres no better system yet but until there is things should stay the way they are.

it's an ongoing powerstruggle that noone will win.

slapping people with supermassive fines and ruining their lives because people who are already rich feel hard done by. Disproportionate reactions.

piracy is not killing the games industry, the games industry flourishes despite piracy. The console did more to combat piracy than any drm by making it reasonably difficult to pirate.

Making people pay tens of thousands, endebting them for the rest of their lives, destroying peoples hopes for college, taking their college funds. It's just too far.

fine them a few hundred ok.

DISPROPORTIONATE REACTIONS ESCALATE SITUATIONS. PUNISHING PIRATES OVERZEALOUSLY MAKES PEOPLE PIRATE ON PRINCIPAL RATHER THAN FOR PERSONAL GAIN. YOU ARE MAKING MARTYRS OF THEM.

politicising the argument has turned it into more than a financial issue now its political and people would rather risk going to jail than handing money to someone their percieve as "doing evil"

-sigh-

 

[razer17]

You really aren't getting my point. I never said I it is illegal, I know the law and it is not. What I was saying however, is that I, ME, Personally, class it as theft, I don't know why, but it just doesn't feel right. (THIS POINT WAS AIMED AT LEGAL FILE SHARING)

Now, for illegal file sharing:

I am not talking about the software, forget the software, my origional point was aimed towards copyright infringement. Downloading music from Limewire however, IS copyright infringement, trust me, I have the letter from Virgin Media telling me so. The letter also said that if I continue to download music from Limewire, they would contact the police. Now, why would they contact the police if it wasn't illegal?

It doesn't make sense, thinking that legal file sharing is theft. How can you think it's theft if it isn't illegal. It makes no sense. I can't even fathom why you would think that.

Also, Limewire IS NOT ILLEGAL. You downloaded a copyrighted song from it, this is illegal. You download a Creative Commons song (CC allows you to share music free and legally) and Virgin won't do anything. Hell, if it weren't law Virgin wouldn't care anyway. Virgin doesn't even monitor your traffic, the music industry does, then they forward your IP to virgin to send you letters.

 

[dragonslayer32]

You really aren't getting my point. I never said I it is illegal, I know the law and it is not. What I was saying however, is that I, ME, Personally, class it as theft, I don't know why, but it just doesn't feel right. (THIS POINT WAS AIMED AT LEGAL FILE SHARING)

Now, for illegal file sharing:

I am not talking about the software, forget the software, my origional point was aimed towards copyright infringement. Downloading music from Limewire however, IS copyright infringement, trust me, I have the letter from Virgin Media telling me so. The letter also said that if I continue to download music from Limewire, they would contact the police. Now, why would they contact the police if it wasn't illegal?

It doesn't make sense, thinking that legal file sharing is theft. How can you think it's theft if it isn't illegal. It makes no sense. I can't even fathom why you would think that.

Also, Limewire IS NOT ILLEGAL. You downloaded a copyrighted song from it, this is illegal. You download a Creative Commons song (CC allows you to share music free and legally) and Virgin won't do anything. Hell, if it weren't law Virgin wouldn't care anyway. Virgin doesn't even monitor your traffic, the music industry does, then they forward your IP to virgin to send you letters.

FOR FUCK'S SAKE MAN! I AM NOT SAYING THAT LIMEWIRE IS ILLEGAL, I HAVE NEVER SAID THIS. DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC FROM IT IS. My last comment opened with the sentence 'I am not talking about the software, forget the software, my origional point was aimed towards copyright infringement'. THE SOFTWARE IS NOT ILLEGAL, DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC IS.
Well, that had to be said. Now, about what you are failing to see. I PERSONALLY DO NOT AGREE WITH FILE SHARING, IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT, IT IS LIKE THEFT. (THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION) Is this really that hard to fathom?

 

[Kapol]

But the problem with that argument is that the friend doesn't own the rights to the songs, and therefore they aren't his to give away. You may own the physical disk, but you don't actually OWN the songs on the disk. I understand where you're coming from in terms of the torrents themselves not being illegal, but giving away something you don't actually own is. That's like if you lent a TV to a friend and they gave it away. Even if they had paid you to borrow it, it still wasn't theirs to give away.

If you purchase a physical CD, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it. Other than renting it out. You don't own the copyright, but you do own the rights to use the songs in whatever way you see fit, including public performance (such as DJ's)

And my point the whole time has been that the technology is legal, the things shared aren't. Many artists put their songs on torrents, they are allowed to give that away, and then you as a downloader can also give it away. But with commercial music, you can buy the CD, but you can't give it away (or, in your analogy, the borrowing a TV)

I know it's a legal technology, I was agreeing with you there (or at least I meant to, sorry if I didn't put it in the post. I was tired). Yes, you can lend out the CD to your friends or something along those lines, but you're not supposed to let the friend rip the songs to their computer or anything like that. That was the point I meant to make: you can't let your friend have the songs on the CD. Borrowing the CD or something along those lines would be fine.

But then again, I'm still tired, so I'm not thinking straight. Hope that made sense. >_>

 

[jpoon]

I don't think it's theft, I don't particularly condone it but it definitely isn't taking anything away that still isn't there after the pirating has occured. Not theft at all...