Theft on the internet

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

edwest2

Guest
As someone who works in the media, it’s part of my job to keep track of it daily. Thanks to so-called “file sharing” sites, legalized theft is occurring on the internet.

Movies. At a convention not long ago, I was there when the FBI raided booths where pirated movies were being sold and confiscated everything. At the table where I was standing, a stranger walked up to me and said, “What are they doing this for? I can download movies for free off the internet. They should mind their own business.”

Mind their own business? Now while some of you consult your own mental lists of why movie studios should not attempt to fight piracy, consider the very real fact that people are stealing what doesn’t belong to them and trying to make money off of it.

Music. The music industry is shrinking at the rate of 20% per year due to illegal downloads. Bottom line: no one has a right to steal anything.

Now here are some of the supposed justifications for this behavior:

I don’t have any money.
Unless you are starving or need a place to get out of the cold and rain, you can do without.

Hey, my buddy sent me a song to listen to. What’s the big deal? Are you going to buy it now that you already have a copy?

It’s promotion, man. People get a taste and then they’ll want to get it.
Right. Now that they have a free copy downloaded, they’ll run out and buy one or spend a buck to download it again?

Soon. There will be no reason to spend money if you can download it for free. The answer will be laws that shut down such file sharing sites even if they are located in Uzbehkistan. Marvel Comics came to a less than good agreement with one file sharing company. DC Comics followed suit. The movie companies, and giants like Viacom, are pulling material from youtube. More legislation should follow.

In book publishing, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books were immediately pirated. Stephen King was asked to write an exclusive short story for internet only distribution. The security code was cracked and little money was made. Mr. King decided against being involved with any more experiments.

A book published by the company I work for appeared on a file sharing site less than 30 days after publication. Imagine if it were your book.

In the near future, new bands will make no significant money off of the internet. They will have to get other work There will be no record companies to sign them.

Fewer movies will be made unless additional laws are passed to deal with pirates on a global basis.

Books will be published, but e-books will die since, although the technology is there, little, if any, money can be made in the first place.

Do not steal.

God bless,
Ed
 
Hi edwest: You’re essentially true and accurate.

I would add these notes.

First, this whole issue of “piracy” of software, etc., stems in the main from Microsoft’s concern to uphold its software licensing arrangement. We don’t actually OWN our own software but license it, hence Microsoft and other software “publishers” shell out many dollars toward copyright protection.

Second, I also see that there is a similarly political motivation, in that the movie industry is highly visible and is able to fund politicians. Few people worry about steel plants and car plants closing down. . . shedding many, many real jobs. Rather than have the federal government run about with software and entertainment pirates, I’d like to see the government work to retain serious industry in America.

I know publishing and it’s tough to pretend people will waste time writing books unless there’s compensation. I wonder how many people simply write books and publish them for free on websites.
 
First of all, I live near Detroit and have relatives and friends who work for the Big 3. To say they are not concerned about their jobs is not accurate. The recent attempt to merge GM and Chrysler is not going through for exactly one reason: jobs. Too many jobs will be lost. But that is outside of the topic.

When creative people cannot make a living writing or publishing, they will not publish. Publishing for free is demeaning to the culture since too many of the books, for example, are written by amateurs who will not improve (or sell books) because they will not have the benefit of professional editorial guidance. I went to a very small press publishing site and read preview pages of a book. It read exactly like the manuscripts my company rejects all the time. Then the author asked, Why isn’t my book selling?

Free on the internet means no food on the table.

Peace,
Ed
 
It actually gets harder to pin people down on this whole downloading for free issue than what has been said. I hear the argument many times that it’s not stealing because the owner still has exactly the same 1’s and 0’s, you only copied information. And in this day and age, certainly, information should be free.

Call it what you like. The best solution I’ve found for this (to address the moral aspect) is to ask the person who engages in such activities one question. “What do you think the original file owner’s intentions are.” That’s a hard one to wiggle out of because, in most cases, it’s probably to make some money and sell their product.

People know it’s wrong, they obfusicate.
 
edwest2 said:
Music. The music industry is shrinking at the rate of 20% per year due to illegal downloads. Bottom line: no one has a right to steal anything.
Click to expand...
I would LOVE to see any evidence you have that DIRECTLY links decline in the music industry to online pirating. Are you sure it isn’t due to bad music? Or so many other things to do instead of just listen to music? Or the bad economy in general? Or any number of other things?

I have 713 songs on my computer right now, every one of them legal. Some were ripped CDs (that I own), some were purchased online, and some where legal, free downloads. But I’m buying less and less music due to things like podcasts and free audiobooks. Those are more interesting so I only purchase music I REALLY like. I can’t imagine that I’m the only one doing this.

Sure pirating is an issue, but I don’t see it as simple as you seem to think. I think a lot of pirating has more to do with availability. If the music/movie/tv industry chooses not to make things easily available, then people will find some way to get it. Sure, it isn’t right, but it is a factor.
 
Hello Karen,

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am not talking about legal downloading.

Evidence?

nytimes.com/2007/06/29/books/29book.html

Music piracy:

riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php

Movie piracy:

usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-03-11-showest-piracy_N.htm

You seem to dismiss piracy as just one of many factors. But real damage is being done. On a Catholic Forum, I’m a bit surprised to see the, yeah, it’s wrong but… argument.

What do you mean by easily available? I could go to amazon right now and buy whatever music or movies I want. Certainly, anyone can do the same.

I agree that dislike is part of the reason for the decline. No Christian should listen to or buy the rap/hip-hop being played on the radio, but I’m talking about stealing. Stealing is wrong and it’s illegal. That’s why an FBI Warning appears at the beginning of the DVD movie. It clearly warns that unauthorized duplication is a Federal crime, even if you don’t make any money doing it.

The point is stealing. It’s wrong, it’s illegal, and it harms the culture when artists cannot be fairly compensated for their work.

God bless,
Ed
 
I am the position that the Internet presents new technologies and opportunities, and the traditional entertainment industry is relying on obsolete mechanisms to protect its interests.

It’s a fact that file-sharing sites are there, and when you close one, another pops up. Going after each individual peer is infeasible, and market forces always dictate that consumers go for the best value at the least price.

I will not go into whether copying off peer-to-peer is stealing. It may be illegal, but again, copyright law given the present state of technology is backward and obsolete.

As for the recording industry, it will get no sympathy from me. Their rigidity in the face of technological advancement is responsible for their losses. Since they refuse to accept the present state of the Internet, they whine about it now that they get walloped. I said it before, and will say it again. The recording industry should adapt, or die.
 
The way forward is clear. The internet will go from being a lawless Wild Wild West to a strictly monitored and policed environment. If no money can be made, the internet, or parts of it, will be closed down. Or, it will be broken down into tiers and restricted.

Stealing is wrong.

Peace,
Ed
 
Or everybody will be forced to pay a surcharge for internet access, to pay reparations to the victims for the crimes of the few.

We already pay an approximate 10 per cent surcharge in stores, to make up for the losses due to shoplifters. “But it’s OK, the store can afford it!”

And I don’t know how much more we pay for insurance because of false claims, but it’s high. “But it’s OK, insurance companies are rich!”

There’s no such thing as a victimless crime. It’s not the company’s fault.

It’s the fault of the thieves.

You rock, Ed.

God, please convert the hearts of thieves!

Ruthie
 
Since there aren’t many movies in the theatres (or the money to go) worth seeing by my Catholic viewpoint, I’m more concerned about theft on the internet.

What good are spyware, virus software, pop-up blockers (which are useless since - if they block pop-ups, then they interfere with non-pop-up programs)? We spend money and time to make sure we’re “protected” - and yet how many times have we all done a spyware check and found a list of sites monitoring our internet activity. There’s a law against being a “peeping-Tom”, isn’t there? Why don’t they enforce that on our computers? We PAY for virus / spyware products - and it seems it’s worthless.

I know that by coming to CAF (I think that’s how anyway), I get emails regularly from another “Catholic” named site I haven’t subscribed to…Can’t recall if I ever visited it, but my inbox gets inundated by sites I never subscribed to, and I try to maintain CAF as my one “Catholic” online forum. :mad:
Thanks, I really needed to get that out !
 
ConservativeOne said:
Since there aren’t many movies in the theatres (or the money to go) worth seeing by my Catholic viewpoint, I’m more concerned about theft on the internet.

What good are spyware, virus software, pop-up blockers (which are useless since - if they block pop-ups, then they interfere with non-pop-up programs)? We spend money and time to make sure we’re “protected” - and yet how many times have we all done a spyware check and found a list of sites monitoring our internet activity. There’s a law against being a “peeping-Tom”, isn’t there? Why don’t they enforce that on our computers? We PAY for virus / spyware products - and it seems it’s worthless.

I know that by coming to CAF (I think that’s how anyway), I get emails regularly from another “Catholic” named site I haven’t subscribed to…Can’t recall if I ever visited it, but my inbox gets inundated by sites I never subscribed to, and I try to maintain CAF as my one “Catholic” online forum. :mad:
Thanks, I really needed to get that out !
Click to expand...
Maybe you should ask the moderators about that last one – I’ve never gotten anything except appeals directly from CA & CA Radio.

Back to topic. Yes, piracy is stealing and I always argue (rather futilely) that in discussions of the topic.
The problem is that piracy doesn’t feel like stealing to those who do it. I used to borrow CDs from the library & save them to my computer – they’re all gone now.

The other problem is that even I have no sympathy for Fortune 500 companies using their bought-and-paid for Senators and Congressmen to pass ever more draconian laws, some of which have broader implications than merely stopping theft. They’re also not above hitting innocent people with “cease and desist” orders, falsely accusing them of copyright violations and dire consequences.
 
Do you have any evidence to back up that last statement? Copyright laws exist not just for Fortune 500 companies but for any individual or small company to protect their artistic work from illegal, I wanna make a buck off of your work without your permission, types.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
As someone who works in the media, it’s part of my job to keep track of it daily. Thanks to so-called “file sharing” sites, legalized theft is occurring on the internet…
Click to expand...
If it legalized it is not theft. If it is not legalized it is not theft either it is copyright violation. Two different things. While I am against copyright violation and I consider it sinful, I disagree with the RIAA behaviors, I think that they are equivalent to racketeering. Please see this article on the constitutionality of such trends.
 
You make a good point. Consider when owners of “file sharing” sites are confronted with the fact that people are “sharing” files. They know it’s wrong but they take a “Hey, what am I supposed to do about it?” attitude. It is theft since the fact is that stolen material appears at these sites. It is not legal.

It is legalized in the sense that other thieves condone their actions. They approve it.

I don’t think constitutional challenges to stealing mean anything. Theft is theft. If the procedures for collecting damage are flawed, that still doesn’t take away the fact a crime was committed.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
You make a good point. Consider when owners of “file sharing” sites are confronted with the fact that people are “sharing” files. They know it’s wrong but they take a “Hey, what am I supposed to do about it?” attitude. It is theft since the fact is that stolen material appears at these sites. It is not legal.

It is legalized in the sense that other thieves condone their actions. They approve it.

I don’t think constitutional challenges to stealing mean anything. Theft is theft. If the procedures for collecting damage are flawed, that still doesn’t take away the fact a crime was committed.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Have you read the article? There is no constitutional challenge to justify stealing! It is about due process and how it is not followed. Theft in one thing, copyright violation another. Both are wrong, but please be honest and keep things separate.
 
How is copyright violation not theft? I make a copy when I’m told not to. That’s what copyright is, the right to copy. There is no permission given to copy - that is stealing.

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
How is copyright violation not theft? I make a copy when I’m told not to. That’s what copyright is, the right to copy. There is no permission given to copy - that is stealing.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Theft:
1 a: the act of stealing ; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

Copyright;
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)

When you have a violation of copyright the owner is still has access to the personal property and to his rights to reproduce it etc…

It is not theft, and you should be honest enough to say so. The RIAA does not go after people with the accusation of theft but it tries to bring people to judgment with the accusation of copyright violation.

Again theft and copyright violations are against the law, they are sinful behaviors and they are different.
 
Copyright violation is not theft under civil law, but, morally, it is.

The composers, authors, and artists of copyrighted materials earn their living from royalties. If I make a personal copy of a disc I own, for my own use, that’s fine. I already bought the original, so the artist has received their royalties. But if I copy one and give it to a friend (instead of saying, “You should buy this, it’s great!”) I have cooperating in stealing that money from the artist.

And contrary to what we tend to think, having your face on TV, an album cover, or the spine of a book, doesn’t make you rich. The greater majority of artists have day jobs to support themselves. (There’s a reason “starving artist” is a cliche.) Some make a living from their art - a moderate living. Only the few get to be wealthy megastars. And most of the cover price goes to the publisher, not the artists.

That’s why, as a previous poster said, if copyright violation becomes widespread, the artists will just quit selling their wares. Why work for no pay? If they don’t quit, the publishers will. It would make no sense to spend the money to make discs that won’t sell.

So if you want to download music, use I-tunes or the other businesses. Don’t buy pirated copies of anything. Don’t steal.

If you like the artist’s work so much, then support the artists!

God bless us all,

Ruthie
 
I certainly don’t think that this kind of thing is going to mean the end of the music or movie industries- they were around long before we had the means to make personal recordings of any kind.
The bottom line will always be that people like going to movies in theaters, and people like going to see live music.
But with any luck, however, it might mean the end of an oversaturated market bursting with talentless art and the “boy band” phenomenon.

But as for copyright violations…

I think it is in the best interests of the entertainment industry to figure out ways to differentiate between those of us who want personal use copyright allowances and those people who are copying for the purpose of illegal distribution. Toward that end, I think the market is already beginning to adjust and figure out how to continue to make money given the new technology- they are finding ways to concede a little bit of control over personal media by making allowances for people to make copies of the media they purchase.

For example, I have noticed a lot of CDs, DVDs, and Blu-Ray discs that include a “digital copy” that allows you to put the movie on your ipod. I will pay a couple extra bucks for one of these because I want to support this trend, and because of the convenience of having movies available in different formats.

I think this is an excellent compromise because, in my experience, the #1 reason average consumers (not talking about the mass distributors and buyers of illegal media) want to hack the copy protection on DVDs has nothing to do with distributing the movie- they just want to have a copy on their ipod, or their home theater server, or back a copy up to a harddrive in case the original gets scratched.
 
The RIAA and those like it need a good lesson in strategic management. The Internet is here, and it’s free, and is open. Now we have file sharing sites that represent a shift in the buying power of the consumers.

The RIAA and company need to recognize that they operate in a capitalist environment, dictated by market, not moral forces. Market forces will push to consumer to get the best value at the lowest price. That’s just the way it is. Appealing to a handful of members on a Catholic forum won’t change that.

What they need to do is check their internal strengths and weaknesses against prevailing external opportunities and threats and develop strategy accordingly. Use tools like the TOWS, EFE, IFE, and IE matrices. If they can’t find strengths to overcome threats or fix their weaknesses and exploit opportunities, then maybe the best strategy for them is to cut their losses and dissolve, which is a strategy too.

It’s just that the RIAA whines too much and strategizes too little, and if they die, well, I won’t care. They’re not approaching the Internet in a systematic and strategic manner. That’s why I have no sympathy for their “plight” since they refuse to adjust to the technological climate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top