If you can afford, then you are depriving… and not we. Please don’t generalise.So by using these copyrighted files for free we are depriving the producers of money,…
I disagree with you here again. Everything is just kinda wrong with copyright laws. That is why there are anti-copyright groups.There is nothing wrong with the copyright laws by the way. Nothing…
I think you are being naive here. Have you ever been to a third world country?…Nothing is the price anyone can afford.
Some people do not want to hear the truth, but are looking for other people to confirm their actions. And when someone points out the truth, the messenger gets shot.Not at all. It is the truth. You asked a question - I stated the truth.
I agree.I agree with Ed. Also, straight from the link provided by Ed. It is a violation of Federal law to distribute copyrighted music, movies, software, games, and other works without authorization.
People have the right to share the contents of their computers be it on a LAN, Intranet or Internet.Also, viewing something at your Grandma’s house is considered private along with personal use. But when someone puts it online for public use, now you have crossed the line. I have to agree with Ed again, too many people making excuses for their actions.
I agree with your point.I work in the media. I go to file sharing sites to see if they are stealing our material, and guess what? They are. Copyright means right to copy. If you have no right to copy then don’t copy it. How much simpler does it get? If it doesn’t belong to you, don’t take it. Ever.
Switching the word ‘stolen’ with ‘abused’ doesn’t make it less wrong.Intellectual property can be abused. But it cannot be stolen. If I plagiarize someone else’s work, I abuse their intellectual property, but it remains their Intellectual property. I have “taken” nothing from them.
Ed,
Spirithound, recall the dialectic. I was responding to andy’s claim that filesharing is stealing (where “is” is the “is of identity”). Whatever filesharing is, it cannot be “theft” since intellectual property cannot, in principle, be stolen, it can only be abused. Personally, I’m not even sure that filesharing constitutes an “abuse” of intellectual property. At any rate it would take a further argument to establish even as much as this.Switching the word ‘stolen’ with ‘abused’ doesn’t make it less wrong.
Very sad that you should bring up this lame example. I have a close friend who was poor. He rarely had more than exact change for things. Guess what? Stealing anything would not have helped him. There are people living in their cars in the United States today because they got kicked out of their homes.I think you are being naive here. Have you ever been to a third world country?
Do you think most people in third world countries can afford to buy DVDs or buy musics from an online store?
I know one can get an mp3 song for $0.99 ~ $1. Do you know the number of people living under a dollar per day?
Do you know how much just one of the products of an Adobe Creative Suite costs?
If you do know all the above, then you will probably understand why some people rely on file sharing + freeware (when applicable).
You guys seem to just be interested in your business and that’s all
I am aware of all of those cases. None of them would even go to trial if the plaintiffs can’t show damages. Did you know that? Before a judge wastes any time, the party bringing the suit has to show clear evidence that (A) an actionable infringement occurred and (B) that damages have occurred or will occur as a result of this infringement.I disagree with you here again. Everything is just kinda wrong with copyright laws. That is why there are anti-copyright groups.
The laws are unfortunately even confusing to the copyrighters themselves. Just so many lawsuits against copyrighters. E.g
US soldier sues Hurt Locker writer
Did J.K. Rowlings Steal Harry Potter?
Apple sues HTC
C’mon
This is straight out of the Anarchism 101 playbook. Followed by: Those lawmakers just can’t keep up with rapid changes in the technology.Ed,
With all due love and respect to you personally…citing the FBI regulations here is a red herring. The issue we (terminated and I) are discussing is a philosophical one. We’re asking you and andy to provide a conceptual analysis of theft which captures the sense in which both actually physical theft of property and non-physical “theft” of intellectual property are both “theft”. My contention is that intellectual property laws which try to equate abuse of intellectual property with the traditional physical concept of theft are just wrongheaded and contrary to moral law…in the same way that laws prohibiting alcohol, or denying women or minorities the right to vote were wrongheaded and contrary to moral law.
The fact is that the rules of the entertainment business have been outdated be technilogical advance, new categories of reasoning are required. It’s a brave new world.
See, I think this is the crux of the argument. The word “take”. And I’m speaking philosophically here, not legally.So now you are comparing your actions to a public library. You are downloading this stuff out of the goodness of your heart. Give me a break. According to Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, the definition of steal is to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice Are you wrongfully taking someone else’s property? If the company wanted us to have it for free, they would put up their own website for you to download it for free. But maybe the company wants to be compensated for their time, money & effort in producing something.
Person A has been deprived of a just wage (assuming Person A is the artist/programmer/writer).So can we really say that in the second situation it is theft then when it doesn’t follow the traditional reasoning (ie it is wrong because Person A has been deprived of their property)? It’s just a hypothetical conjecture, nothing more.
That one I did know about. I think you can apply that to most cases.Person A has been deprived of a just wage (assuming Person A is the artist/programmer/writer).
That is what the industry first claim with cassette tapes, at first they started to sell cassettes with extra cuts on them so you wouldn’t be content to tape your album and the first CDs often had the second single omitted from them as they tried to force you to buy your entire catalog over and over again as formats changed,That one I did know about. I think you can apply that to most cases.
Ok, another one. Let’s say a person buys a song on his laptop. He copies it to his desktop computer (so it exists on 2 computers at once). Would that be considered theft?
4square…I never DL music, or video, from torrent sites, except for BT-Etree, a site which offers torrents of live performance audio by openly trade-tape friendly artists (like WILCO, Phish, the Grateful, etc). Otherwise I buy my music in the iTunes store. I asked Edwest, who claimed earlier that all filesharing is stealing to address the issue of filesharing with the permission of the artists, but he has said nothing (which makes me think he is not much interested in dialoguing so much as gainsaying opposing views).That is what the industry first claim with cassette tapes, at first they started to sell cassettes with extra cuts on them so you wouldn’t be content to tape your album and the first CDs often had the second single omitted from them as they tried to force you to buy your entire catalog over and over again as formats changed,
All this talk of sharing files I wonder how many of the pro side actually bought a song/movie to share with others versus how many just use songs/movies someone else bought or stole?