The Sinking of The Pirate Ship

RealEstateKing

Heres a little article what I wrote on the controversy surrounding the Pirate Bay verdict.

Any thoughts on this ?

http://thesickbag.blogspot.com/

Neurojazz

Awesome. Your'e a great writer, love the way you've brought it all together.

democrates

A most interesting read.

I like the future you envisage whereby artists get the lions share rather than corporations, since my general view is that productive effort deserves more reward than shareholders with spare capital to invest.

As for formalising surveillance of citizens online activity, that's far too great an erosion of privacy, it's the modern version of a phone tap so should require a warrant from a judge and be executed by An Gardai, but corporate surveillance is way out of order and presents too great a risk of being abused by corrupt elements.

The old chestnut here is that "if you're doing nothing wrong you've nothing to worry about", but if you accept that carte blanche then for example there should be cctv in every home to catch paedophiles who destroy lives. Those paedo rings are online too, so how come we've never considered mass online surveillance for that, but when it comes to large US corporations raging at the prospect of reduced capacity to concentrate wealth we're suddenly ready to bend over and take it?

Though our ISP's may agree to a three strikes rule, that has yet to be tested in court, we've yet to see how music industry representatives are carrying out their surveillance of Irish citizens and whether such activity complies with our broad constitutional rights.

In the future I hope we can look back on the surveillance society of today.

RealEstateKing

'Preciate it. Me righty good.

As far as the "Surveillance" aspect of it goes, I dont see the problem.

Hell you are being 'watched' by the owner of every shop you walk into, to make sure you dont steal anything. As long as you dont steal anything, who cares? - the worst that can happen is he sees you picking your nose.

This is merely the online version of the same thing. You can rest assured that no organisation/government would have the time or money to actually watch everything that you do online - they would simply set up an automated system that would beep when you download something that doesnt belong to you. As long as you dont do that, what have you got to worry about?

This is in no way connected to some future development of an Orwellian police-state, its simply common-sense policing.

democrates

RealEstateKing wrote: »

As far as the "Surveillance" aspect of it goes, I dont see the problem.

Hell you are being 'watched' by the owner of every shop you walk into, to make sure you dont steal anything. As long as you dont steal anything, who cares? - the worst that can happen is he sees you picking your nose.

This is merely the online version of the same thing. You can rest assured that no organisation/government would have the time or money to actually watch everything that you do online - they would simply set up an automated system that would beep when you download something that doesnt belong to you. As long as you dont do that, what have you got to worry about?

This is in no way connected to some future development of an Orwellian police-state, its simply common-sense policing.

I don't buy the comparison with in-shop cctv, this is more like a pub having covert mics all over the place to record conversations.

The UK have gone down the road you prescribe and the House of Lords recently published a damning report outlining how the incessant creep of new surveillance powers undermines the foundation of a free democracy - even titled monarchists object.

Policing is based on assent, while I can and do assent to police powers within reason, IRMA are not the police, they are a private body representing large corporate interests.

eircom said they would only block websites on foot of a court order, but will not challenge any IRMA request for a court order. Without challenge then, IRMA can have websites they don't like blocked to all of an ISP's users, so now the music industry have power to act as a censor of the internet.

On top of that is the three strikes rule, where a person can have their internet access cut off on foot of IRMA's allegations. Is the ordinary person in any position to fight a protracted legal battle in court? Of course not, they couldn't afford to match the army of solicitors, barristers, and expert witnesses the music industry can muster, they know it and we know it, so the individual is economically defeated and effectively denied due process.

If any artist in the music industry thinks they'll win hearts and minds by setting "Blackwater in Suits" on the people to diminish freedom while at the same time trying to pass themselves off as rebels or friends of the people, think again, this is not raging against the machine it's joining the machine against the people.

Neurojazz

I'm sure that if the had cctv and microphones everywhere that it would do wonders for the economy - they'd have to employ a huge amount of people to maintain, implement and monitor those systems. The AI also involved in facial and number plate recognition should be noted - if someone nicks your property/car etc the AI can find them - scary or safe it's only going to get wilder than out imaginations.

Obviously all the super paranoid tin foil hat wearers would go completely bananas and that would impact on the mental health system.

Double edged sword really.

I would say that low quality content should be free (i.e. movies/music/old pap) and isp people ripping the higher quality content should be warned automatically and a strike system sounds fine. I currently stream 128kps right off my site and would never charge for that - then people get a fair idea of what the content is like and can go buy the high level content if they really feel the need.

RealEstateKing

I don't buy the comparison with in-shop cctv, this is more like a pub having covert mics all over the place to record conversations.

Well, no , it isn't. Nobody gives a rats ass what you're saying on the internet, it's what you're doing that counts. All Im talking about is the internet being policed just like real life is. If you seem to think that policing is inherently oppressive, then I invite you to go and live somewhere where there are no police, like say, the wonderfully liberated and free nation of Somalia. Let me know how you get on.

We don't allow people to do whatever they want in real life: We allow them to SAY what they want (subject to certain libel laws and other things) and DO what they want within limits (e.g not Steal, Murder, Rape) and so on.

Why should the internet be any different?

You want to continue downloading stuff that doesnt belong to you, and so you find an arguement that makes you feel good about it. Just don't try and pretend you're an advocate of civil liberties. You know full well that I am not talking about restricting your freedom in any way whatsoever - I am talking about restricting your freedom to steal things. All your other internet usage remains the same as it does now. And beleive me, you're not that interesting, Brian Cowen is not going to stay up late at night reading your Blog.

Lastly, I agree that it seems very uncool, unhip, and un rock-n-roll to be advocating these things, and most artists wouldnt be caught dead doing it: This, I hardly need add, doesnt undermine the truth of the arguement in any way:

Obviously if I write a song called "**** the Police" it'll be more popular with kids than a song called "The Police Are Great." , but I know that I'd be grateful and relieved to see a policemen when walking through a Limerick housing estate at 3 in the morning and so would you.

Neurojazz

It's a great pity that the policeman that *should* be out on the streets at 3am is probably snowed under at his desk in paperwork.

democrates

RealEstateKing wrote:

Well, no , it isn't. Nobody gives a rats ass what you're saying on the internet, it's what you're doing that counts. All Im talking about is the internet being policed just like real life is. If you seem to think that policing is inherently oppressive, then I invite you to go and live somewhere where there are no police, like say, the wonderfully liberated and free nation of Somalia. Let me know how you get on.

I've already said that I assent to reasonable policing, I'm not promoting the extreme of anarchy any more than you're promoting totalitarian control. We need to get the balance right so that the common good is best achieved whilst protecting the inalienable rights of the individual.

RealEstateKing wrote:

We don't allow people to do whatever they want in real life: We allow them to SAY what they want (subject to certain libel laws and other things) and DO what they want within limits (e.g not Steal, Murder, Rape) and so on.

Why should the internet be any different?

Points well taken, but if the Internet is to be policed it should only be by the legitimate police force, for legitimate reasons, using proportional methods, and with full independant oversight and accountability. This open season for private interests on the contrary is way out of line in my book, once you accept their argument then you've set a precedent for all sorts of commercial interests to mount surveillance on citizens with no transparency and therefore free from accountability. No one can have any doubts about the potential for abuse of power by private interests given our steady diet of corruption scandals so obnoxious they'd disgust Nicolo Machiavelli were he reincarnated.

Songwrighters, composers, and performers don't need anyone to retell the history of how badly music industry corporates will treat people when it can. Artists have had a long battle to get any justice, and that's only the few who make it. The rest are ignored since giving them their due exposure wouldn't create economies of scale, that's always going to be a problem so long as the market is dominated by a few corporates legally bound to concentrate wealth for shareholders under the simple equation "profit = revenue - costs".

That Sony/BMG had the audacity to rig cd's to install a rootkit on customers computers was just one recent story amid the savage tactics of the RIAA, and it's the same nasty big labels now driving IRMA to attack.

RealEstateKing wrote:

You want to continue downloading stuff that doesnt belong to you, and so you find an arguement that makes you feel good about it. Just don't try and pretend you're an advocate of civil liberties. You know full well that I am not talking about restricting your freedom in any way whatsoever - I am talking about restricting your freedom to steal things. All your other internet usage remains the same as it does now.

I don't download music or movies contrary to your assumption of guilt. My answer to what the RIAA and the MPAA have been doing over the last few years has been to quit consuming their products. Same thing with Microsoft in light of their attacks on free software and open standards, hence I moved over to Linux and exclusively develop software for open platforms. I advocate civil liberties, if you don't believe I'm telling the truth then there's not much more I can say.

As for "I am not talking about restricting your freedom in any way whatsoever - I am talking about restricting your freedom to ...". In real life I'm not restricted from stealing things, I can walk into any store and try. Of course the store owner will have cctv and should try to prevent any theft and seek redress from the law. The difference online is that people who download music don't have to visit iTunes or any other store, the exchange occurs in the commons. I wouldn't accept that a private security firm has the right to stop and search me in the street any more than I'd accept them having the right to mount surveillance on me anywhere other than on their premises.

RealEstateKing wrote:

And beleive me, you're not that interesting, Brian Cowen is not going to stay up late at night reading your Blog.

We should be able to discuss things without the Ad Hominem, and I don't have a blog.

RealEstateKing wrote:

Lastly, I agree that it seems very uncool, unhip, and un rock-n-roll to be advocating these things, and most artists wouldnt be caught dead doing it: This, I hardly need add, doesnt undermine the truth of the arguement in any way:

Obviously if I write a song called "**** the Police" it'll be more popular with kids than a song called "The Police Are Great." , but I know that I'd be grateful and relieved to see a policemen when walking through a Limerick housing estate at 3 in the morning and so would you.

Again I assent to policing within reason and I haven't expressed any problem with our Gardai as I've personally always found them to be fair and professional even under very tough circumstances. At no stage will I accept privatised policing of the commons however.

It sickens me to see friends with so much talent being sidelined, they could easily make a living from music if they got some backing but the big labels distort the market by selecting a small percentage and blanket marketing them to the masses. Corporate domination is the machine that provokes rage, and it needs to be replaced with a system that allows people a fair chance to make a living doing what they're good at.

Helix

One day, we will look back on the era of illegal downloading the way we now look back on the era of Drunk-Driving.

no we wont

we might look back on the era of illegal downloading the way we look back on prohibition in the states now tho

RealEstateKing

Points well taken, but if the Internet is to be policed it should only be by the legitimate police force, for legitimate reasons, using proportional methods, and with full independant oversight and accountability.

Well seeing as every one of us has to use an Internet Service Provider to look at the Internet in the first place, that would fall under their rubric. In exactly the same way as you have a right to own a car, but if you drive it over 70 miles an hour or with a six-pack in you its illegal. Simple. Do what you like on the internet, do something illegal , and its not allowed. I dont see whats so complicated about this or where 'surveillance' comes into it.

I apologise if Ive jumped to conclusions regarding your attitude towards piracy, however they do sound like the same supposedly civil-liberties-based arguements being trotted out by pirates everywhere, and you can see them sniggering into their sleeves when they do it.

Songwrighters, composers, and performers don't need anyone to retell the history of how badly music industry corporates will treat people when it can. Artists have had a long battle to get any justice, and that's only the few who make it. The rest are ignored since giving them their due exposure wouldn't create economies of scale, that's always going to be a problem so long as the market is dominated by a few corporates legally bound to concentrate wealth for shareholders under the simple equation "profit = revenue - costs".

I'm in agreement with you, but think that clouds the issue: The fact that Music Industry corprates are usually c**ts, does not in any way reflect on this discussion, vis, the question of whether musical artists should get paid for their creations the same way that writers and plastica artists do, and whether we should protect their rights or not. BMG being assholes, top 40 music being crap and Sony screwing their artists over has no bearing on this.

What I would like to see is a world in which everybody pays for the music they listen to, and as close to 100% of that money as possible goes to the artist(s).

The difference online is that people who download music don't have to visit iTunes or any other store, the exchange occurs in the commons

I am confused by this sentence. If you mean people who download music illegally, then its irrelevant whether its taking place in the commons or not: The person is using the technological capabilities he has paid for (his access to the internet), to steal things which don't belong to him, ergo he is committing a crime.

I am not advocating if thats what it looks like that Sony or BMG should be the ones arresting the guy: He should be fined and arressted by the police of the country he is in, for committing a crime in the country he is in.

We should be able to discuss things without the Ad Hominem, and I don't have a blog.

Sorry I didnt mean that sentence as an ad hominem, I meant it as people in general, i.e none of us is that interesting that the government is going to be watching our every move in the Internet.

It sickens me to see friends with so much talent being sidelined, they could easily make a living from music if they got some backing but the big labels distort the market by selecting a small percentage and blanket marketing them to the masses. Corporate domination is the machine that provokes rage, and it needs to be replaced with a system that allows people a fair chance to make a living doing what they're good at.

Again I largely agree, and would be as happy as you to see the record labels go down in flames. But I dont see the relevance of that to this discussion. It is the artists I cam worried about: Sony/BMG et al, may lose revenue from all this, and I admit I dont care much if they do.

But in a world in which nobody pays for music, its all those talented singer songwriters that'll get it in the ass. The Big Corporates will just go into another line of business. Again this seems to be an argument trotted out by many when discussing this issue: e.g. "He he, piracy is great, **** Sony." , which is missing the point rather a lot. Now obviously your thinking is a little subtler than most, but its the same basic arguement.

What I am worried by is the fact that recorded music is something artists are expected to give away for free now, and that this fact is already consigning future generations of Lennon/McCartneys to jack it in and go work in Call Centres.

Helix

RealEstateKing wrote: »

The person is using the technological capabilities he has paid for (his access to the internet), to steal things which don't belong to him, ergo he is committing a crime.

careful now

the downloader isnt stealing, hes breaking copyright law

RealEstateKing

the downloader isnt stealing, hes breaking copyright law

Which are one and the same thing.

the_syco

Regarding your article, about the bit that talks about games, etc. It's about seperating the men from the boys pirates from the public. Joe Public will use napster, or something that allows him to get music easily. That, or he'll get Joe Pirate to set up the software that's easy to use.

=-=

Also, you point about Music labels is a bit moot: they're needed to give money to artists that need money to move onto the bigger gigs, know what venues in what towns to play in, etc. A mate of mine does gigs, small venues, gets paid by the venue. To get a big venue, you need to pay off the place before the gig, sell tickets to ensure lots of people turn up, etc, etc. Big companies have this money, and can help musicians make it big.

Helix

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Which are one and the same thing.

no, theyre not

if i steal something i take a quantifiable item which the original owner no longer has. i remove it from their possession.

if i download something, they still have it. it hasnt been stolen from them

Neurojazz

Helix wrote: »

no, theyre not

if i steal something i take a quantifiable item which the original owner no longer has. i remove it from their possession.

if i download something, they still have it. it hasnt been stolen from them

You've stolen the potential revenue from the artist - of course, us artists are lucky, we can suck in air really hard and don't need to eat.

RealEstateKing

if you steal an album, you steal the money out of the artists pocket. You are also stealing it from the record label.

Just because many of those record labels are assholes who deserve to have their money stolen, does not make it OK to nick it from the artist, who, 99% of the time is a dude just like you, trying to make his way in the world.

Helix

Neurojazz wrote: »

You've stolen the potential revenue from the artist - of course, us artists are lucky, we can suck in air really hard and don't need to eat.

you cant quantify potential revenue though. if i download something i had no intention of buying (which would be most of the music i download to be honest; i only download stuff from artists ive never heard of because i find it a great way to discover acts) then im not costing the artist anything

in the long run ill be making them money because if i like what i hear ill go to see them

the potential revenue argument is nonsense imo

Helix

RealEstateKing wrote: »

if you steal an album

if you steal an album you need to remove the physical unit from its owner, or the retailer selling it

RealEstateKing wrote: »

you steal the money out of the artists pocket. You are also stealing it from the record label.

again, no youre not.

you really need to investigate what the word stealing means, and compare it to what happens when someone downloads. for me to steal money from the artist, i would have to take money they already had

ZV Yoda

Helix wrote: »

if i download something i had no intention of buying (which would be most of the music i download to be honest; i only download stuff from artists ive never heard of because i find it a great way to discover acts) then im not costing the artist anything

in the long run ill be making them money because if i like what i hear ill go to see them

the potential revenue argument is nonsense imo

You really believe that?... take it to it's logical conclusion... if nobody pays for material by new artists, then how do they ever make a living? How do they fund the tour, the 2nd album?

You know what I do if I want to hear music by new artists? I buy/pay for their album either via iTunes or CD…. I also listen to the radio/watch TV/go to gigs (where in each case, the artist gets a fee/royalty)

Helix wrote: »

if you steal an album you need to remove the physical unit from its owner, or the retailer selling it



again, no youre not.

you really need to investigate what the word stealing means, and compare it to what happens when someone downloads. for me to steal money from the artist, i would have to take money they already had

Er, yes you are stealing. It's not the physical CD that is inherently valuable - it's the artistic content – the writing, performing, recording & marketing of the music is what costs money. All that's changed with downloadable music is how it gets distributed. No CD doesn't mean the album costs less to make (although it will obviously cost less to distribute, so in my view, online downloads should be c. 15-20% less than their CD equivalents)

So, if you want to listen to new music for free, turn on the radio/TV... well & good if an artist decides to make their stuff available online. But that's their choice, not yours

DamagedTrax

Helix wrote: »

if you steal an album you need to remove the physical unit from its owner, or the retailer selling it



again, no youre not.

you really need to investigate what the word stealing means, and compare it to what happens when someone downloads. for me to steal money from the artist, i would have to take money they already had

grow up dude. its stealing whatever way you look at it. artists have production costs in making music. who do you think buys the gear, pays for rehearsal space and more often than not these days pays for recordings?

im no angel and ive downloaded my fair share of naughty stuff but i do buy what i keep and im under no illusion that its morally acceptable just because its not a physical product that i can hold!

Helix

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Er, yes you are stealing

no, its not. jesus h christ. you might want to call it stealing, but its not. neither by the letter of the law, nor the real life application of the word

DamagedTrax wrote: »

im no angel and ive downloaded my fair share of naughty stuff but i do buy what i keep and im under no illusion that its morally acceptable just because its not a physical product that i can hold!

where did i say it was morally acceptable or that there wasnt anything wrong with it?

im saying its not stealing, its copyright infringement. stealing is something completely different

Helix

i probably shouldve just done this in the first place... legal definition of the word steal:

STEAL - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently. No particular type of movement or carrying away is required.

Any appreciable change in the location of the property with the necessary willful intent constitutes a stealing whether or not there is any actual removal of it from the owner's premises.

This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.

In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter.

now, can we stop calling copyright infringement stealing please. it looks especially bad in otherwise well written articles about the topic

fitz

Helix wrote: »

if you steal an album you need to remove the physical unit from its owner, or the retailer selling it

again, no youre not.

you really need to investigate what the word stealing means, and compare it to what happens when someone downloads. for me to steal money from the artist, i would have to take money they already had

This is nonsense.
The music is a good that has a value dictated by those who a selling the good.
If you are taking the good without paying the seller for it, you're stealing. It doesn't matter what the mechanism for taking it is.

I'm the first to put the labels down for their archaic approach to this issue, but you're view of this just doesn't stand up.

More and more artists are using the likes of tunecore.com to digitally distribute their music. Excluding the very obvious label acts, you've no reliable way of knowing whether the artist you hear on myspace/radio/wherever who has their stuff for sale on iTunes has done so through a label deal, or whether they've paid to get it there and will see most of the revenue from sales go directly to them.

Now, if you hear something you like and go download a torrented copy of it instead of buying it, you are stealing from the artist directly. You are taking the material they are selling without paying for it.

Explain to me how you can justify that as "not stealing"?

fitz

Helix wrote: »

STEALING - the wrongful or willful taking of money or property belonging to someone else with intent to deprive the owner of its use or benefit either temporarily or permanently

Each digital copy of music is the property of the owner of the recording. When you pay for it, you're getting a license for that copy from the owner.

Taking the digital copy without paying is going to "deprive the owner of its use or benefit" - the benefit is the revenue generated by the sale of the license.

You're flat out wrong on this.

Helix

fitz wrote: »

If you are taking the good without paying the seller for it, you're stealing. It doesn't matter what the mechanism for taking it is...

Explain to me how you can justify that as "not stealing"?

because stealing is:

A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof.

if you download a song tomorrow, you are not taking an item from the owner. you are not depriving the owner of the use of said song. they still have the song. you are infringing upon their right as the copyright owners by acquiring the data (technically another grey area here since all youre actually doing is downloading a string of 0s and 1s which are then decoded to create sound) through means not allowed for in the implied license the owner of the work holds

Helix

fitz wrote: »

Taking the digital copy without paying is going to "deprive the owner of its use or benefit" as the benefit is the revenue generated by the sale of the license.

You're flat out wrong on this.

im not

and downloading a digital copy isnt depriving the owner of its use. the use of the track is to listen to it. they can still listen to it. they can also still sell it. you are depriving them of nothing apart from an unquantifiable potential sale

the copyright holder still owns the track, still owns their copies of it, still owns the copyright and has not had any money that was theirs removed, ergo it is not stealing, it is copyright infringement

no less illegal, no less wrong, but not stealing

fitz

It's not an implied license.
Read my second post. It's an actual license.
Of course you're not depriving them of the use...you're depriving them of the benefit.

If you're goint to post legal definitions and then only half interpret them, then go to another definition that better suits your wilfully skewed viewpoint, there's not much point in discussing this further with you.

You're wrong, and don't seem willing to be corrected.

Helix

fitz wrote: »

It's not an implied license.
Read my second post. It's an actual license.
Of course you're not depriving them of the use...you're depriving them of the benefit.

no, because in legal terms theres a discernable difference between intellectual property, and physical property. music is not physical property, it is intellectual property

fitz

That's completely irrelevant, property is property. It's still a good for sale, with a defined value.
Your definition for stealing says that if you're depriving the seller of the benefit of the property when you take it, you're stealing.

When you download an album from a torrent, you're depriving the owner the benefit of the sale price. Copyright means the owner has the right to dictate the conditions under which people can have a copy of the material. That's via a sale, unless they're giving it away free. Copyright infringement means you're taking it without permission of the owner. Even in non-legalese, taking something without permission is stealing.

To be fair, your argument is just highlighting that you don't understand the legalities involved in copyright and music distribution.

Helix

There is a big difference between what is now known as "piracy" and stealing. Stealing does constitute a direct loss of sales for a company. Stealing entails physically going to a store, taking something off a shelf, and walking out of the store without paying for it. In doing so, the thief takes tangible goods out of the store. It cost the company something to manufacture the packaging, to burn the CD, and to ship it to the store. Furthermore, the removal of that item from the store's shelf means that another potential customer may come in and find the shelf empty, in which case that potential customer will be unable to buy the product. The result of this is that the customer may end up buying a different product simply because the store was sold out of the original item. In this case, the thief has a direct, tangible effect on the revenues of a company.

Piracy is a totally different thing. With piracy, the pirate sits in his chair at his computer, looks on file sharing services for a copy of the full version of the software, and usually waits a few hours for it to download. It's true that the pirate is getting goods without paying for them, and that it's a morally unacceptable action. But that doesn't mean that he cost the company any money.

See, when a pirate downloads a full version of a piece of software, the pirate isn't leeching bandwidth from the company's servers. The pirate has to download the software from some other person who has already purchased it. So bandwidth costs because of the pirate are zero for the company. Furthermore, the pirate isn't depriving any other potential customer of the game: he has not physically removed a copy of the software from a store shelf. There's no loss of sale for the company there, either. Finally, the software company paid absolutely nothing for the packaging or manufacturing of the product. Given the nature of computer software, it was downloaded from someone else's computer; so no manufacturing was needed.

It could be argued that piracy amounts to lost sales because a pirate would be motivated to buy the software if he couldn't download it. However, given that pirates go out of their way to search the internet for pirated copies and to wait for the software to finish downloading, it's still highly unlikely that they would have ever bought the software, whatever the circumstances. Pirates don't want to go to the store, and they don't want to pay money for software. So this can't be legitimately construed as a loss of revenue.

It's unfortunate that groups like the RIAA and other software companies equate piracy with stealing. They are different, and people need to understand this. They are not the same thing. Piracy is not stealing. Piracy is simply downloading without authorization. There is no loss of revenue, and there is no loss of other potential customers.

So when a company like MacSoft claims that their lost sales due to piracy rank in the millions of dollars, don't buy it. It's a bogus argument. MacSoft considers every single case of piracy to be a lost sale, whereas in reality, preventing most of those piracy cases probably would not result in a noticeable increase in sales. This sort of argument from companies like MacSoft just diverts blame from the real causes of revenue loss to the pirates. It's akin to the RIAA claiming that their lost sales are due to pirates, when in reality, it's because of high prices, decline in number of albums on the market, and a decline in the quality of music. The argument just doesn't stack up.

That does not mean that piracy is morally acceptable, however. Indeed, piracy is not right, since you are using the good or service originally provided by the company without legitimately paying for it. Just as stealing is wrong, piracy is wrong, too.

show me a single legal case where someone was up for larceny for downloading music, anywhere in the world

fitz

Stealing isn't a charge. Larceny is.
Charges have specific legal definitions in place in order to categorise the crime and the matching punishment.
Where's the quote you put in above from? Who wrote it? (I could pick holes in it with ease btw, it makes quite a few totally faulty assumptions.)
You're just posting up uncited material to support your view, anyone can do that. Just because someone else agrees with you, that doesn't mean you're right.
You've yet to make a single rational point to back up your argument that downloading illegally isn't stealing.

As I said on another thread, I hate seeing people say that they've lost €10 million cause 10 million copies were downloaded illegally. No, they haven't, cause you can't guarantee that all the people who downloaded it illegally would have bought it if they had no other way of getting it. But equally, you can't say that none of them would have. So their actually realistic losses are less than that value. That doesn't mean it's not stealing.

If you can't see how this is stealing, it's because it suits you to not see it that way.
I'm not gonna argue the point further, it's like banging my head against a wall.

WillieCocker

Stealing, Downloading, freeloading, call it what you like.
I can understand why people use the "greedy corporations" excuse, as some of the prices is just unreasonable, but it doesn't excuse the fact that you are enjoying a product for free.

Helix

fitz wrote: »

If you can't see how this is stealing, it's because it suits you to not see it that way.

how does it suit me though? what its actually called doesnt change anything. it just irritates me when people call it stealing, it is not.

fitz

The only reason I can think of for not accepting that it's stealing is that you don't want to think about it as stealing, cause then there's nothing wrong with it. That comment wasn't aimed at you in particular, it was a more general statement about people who use this argument to justify pirating.

Look dude, you can think of it whatever way you want, you're perfectly entitled to. But that doesn't make you right. You've presented absolutely no reasonable argument that supports your point.

It irritates me when people say this isn't stealing. It is.

RealEstateKing

A person steals who, without the consent of the owner, fraudulently and without a claim of right made in good faith, takes and carries away anything capable of being stolen with intent, at the time of such taking, permanently to deprive the owner thereof

Yes. You have permanently deprived the owner (the musician) of the 5 quid he would have made had you paid for the CD/Download. What about that is difficult to understand?

Just because downloading does not involve physical stealing, doesnt mean it isn't stealing.

show me a single legal case where someone was up for larceny for downloading music, anywhere in the world

Um there have been hundreds. Just cause you haven't been bothered to look them up doesn't mean they don't exist: Or do you apply the same 6th -form logic to the existence of legal cases as you do to artist's revenues: i.e. "If I dont know about a legal case, it doesnt exist" correlating to "If I dont buy an album the artist hasnt lost any revenue."

You should get a job as a lawyer defending blatantly guilty African Dictators with that kind of mind, you'd be great at it.

You could start off your cases by saying that Rwanda wasn't a genocide, because all human beings die eventually, so those involved were innocent.

jtsuited

this is gonna be the best thread ever!!!

Interesting points being made by all.

jtsuited

hmmmm....Technically speaking I'm fairly sure it's stealing (by dictionary definition anywho).

from the Apple dictionary stealing is defined as

"take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"

and as far as I can see, an artist's creation is intellectual property and therefore to take (in this case download) without permission (without paying for it) or legal right is stealing.

Max Cohen

Torrents suck balls anyway.
no loss to me