Download Illegally? You're no better than the looters.

Indubitable

No comparison between the two to be honest.

mikemac

If producers stopped waiting six or seven months aftter a series to release the boxset I'd buy a lot more

That always happened with 24.
Series ended around April and I've to wait until November to get the boxset

I'm a patient person but come on

hooradiation

Kold wrote: »

So like, enjoy your high horse but it's sort of laughable that you feel the need to do so in order to validate yourself.

Oh good, armchair pop psychology. Magnificent.

twinQuins

d'Oracle wrote: »

Because it makes a visual representation of your argument being a complete self contradiction.

This sounds like a fallacy of the undistributed middle (in any case what you're saying is a type non sequitur) - just because both are illegal doesn't mean they're the same thing. What you're saying is akin to:

Theft is illegal
Jaywalking is illegal
Therefore theft is jaywalking

hardCopy

LaVail wrote: »

I sometimes watch shows online and usually don't give it a second thought. The thing is though that somebody somewhere will eventually be put out of a job over this sort of thing. Mates of mine watch stuff online all the time, day in day out and they say things like "sure tis only a few shows, whats the harm?" The problem is that at the exact moment in time you download a song or watch a programme Illegally online there are 100's of 1000's of people around the world thinking the exact same thing.

Here is a video from a couple of years back, interesting fact about illegally downloaded songs at the end...

Watching TV shows online doesn't affect advertising revenues unless you have a Nielsen box.

I wouldn't buy a boxset anyway because their too expensive so me downloading TV shows makes no difference to anyone.

Turpentine

twinQuins wrote: »

Copyright infringement is now stealing?

If some person designs a widget and I make a copy of their blueprints and make my own version using my own materials, is that theft?

Maybe you could spend time and energy and use your ingenuity to develop your own widget, or go without a widget at all.

Is the designing of the widget undeserving of reward?

If the design was worthless why would you want it?

MungBean

later10 wrote: »

It is not the same as looting, but I agree it is a form of theft. You are enriching yourself with a product, using illegal channels, at the expense of an individual, group or company.

I think the acceptibility of illegally downloading music is a sad reflection of the ease with which some people will manipulate their ethical judgement in favour of their own personal gain.

If they do this whilst admitting its a form of theft, fair enough. But do engage in it and then deny that illegally downloading music is a form of theft - that's what is so incredible.

I downloaded Paul the other night, I wouldnt call it enriching myself.

I wouldnt have bought or rented that movie anyway so it was at nobody’s expense that I watched that movie.

I'm not manipulating anything, the facts are that what I did wasnt theft whether you bother to understand that or not. The only way I would watch this movie is online for free, regardless of whether I watch it or not the creators dont get one cent from me.

"Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud" *

Whats so incredible is the fact that people with no understanding of what they are talking about seem so comfortable accusing other people of manipulating their own judgement for their own gain when its themselves that have the judgement issues.



*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

cosmicfart

theifs!!

d'Oracle

Leeg17 wrote: »

I'm not denying both are illegal to do, but that they're not of the same gravity. Nobody dies because people pirate movies, no buildings are burnt to the ground because people pirate music.

I know.
I'm just pointing out that using the equation terms in that way.....its usually dumbing it down by putting it in a funny little mathematical terms. But its usually used for something absolute. Because = is a definitive term.

I took one look at you post and my eyes were just drawn to the irreconcilable mathematical statement,

Its like saying

y=x
z=x

z=/=y

Its not like saying

y is a number.
z is a number.

y is not the same number as z

d'Oracle

twinQuins wrote: »

This sounds like a fallacy of the undistributed middle (in any case what you're saying is a type non sequitur) - just because both are illegal doesn't mean they're the same thing. What you're saying is akin to:

Theft is illegal
Jaywalking is illegal
Therefore theft is jaywalking

I think your English skills are wasted here.

twinQuins

Turpentine wrote: »

Maybe you could spend time and energy and use your ingenuity to develop your own widget, or go without a widget at all.

Is the designing of the widget undeserving of reward?

If the design was worthless why would you want it?

That... doesn't answer the question of whether it's theft or not.

Frank Black

twinQuins wrote: »

That... doesn't answer the question of whether it's theft or not.

It's illegal, if the widget is patented or protected by copyright - you could think of it as 'moral intellectual theft'.

And nobody would bother designing widgets anymore if ideas could just be stolen without consequence, technology would stagnate and social order would collapse.

Logical Fallacy

I love threads like this...like the ones about weed and speeding you have a load of people desperate to say it's not REALLY breaking the law for some reason.

It is, it's that simple.

Embrace your criminal side people.

Also, embrace beards, but that's a different thread.

MungBean

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I love threads like this...like the ones about weed and speeding you have a load of people desperate to say it's not REALLY breaking the law for some reason.

It is, it's that simple.

Embrace your criminal side people.

Also, embrace beards, but that's a different thread.

Who said its not breaking the law? Everyone knows its illegal. Thread is about is it theft and is it comparable to looting.

Read the thread before commenting and you will know what its about, its that simple.

Rented Mule

Alter-Ego wrote: »

Yeah, because putting a bin through the window of Carphone Warehouse window is exactly the same as downloading Phil Collins' Greatest Hits.

You should be beaten within an inch of your life for both offenses.

ríomhaire

black francis wrote: »

I find your argument strange - what's the difference in saying that most people who loot stuff wouldn't have bought it in the first place if the looting option didn't exist?

My main point was that nothing is taken. Nothing is lost. The most people wouldn't buy it part was an afterthought.

Boneitus

downloading from a torrnet is peer to peer, so your sharing a copy with all others. So their completely different, unless the looters rob one tv - make a copy of it somehow then share it with all their mates

Guill

Skunkle wrote: »

I downloaded Paul the other night, I wouldnt call it enriching myself.

I wouldnt have bought or rented that movie anyway so it was at nobody’s expense that I watched that movie.*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

Have a copy myself,

Not a bad movie,

Not a great movie either.


Anybody want a copy?

Logical Fallacy

Skunkle wrote: »

Who said its not breaking the law? Everyone knows its illegal. Thread is about is it theft and is it comparable to looting.

Read the thread before commenting and you will know what its about, its that simple.

I did, and there are plenty of people implying why it's not really "illegal"...it's not theft, it's just copying etc.

Next time you feel like mounting that high horse of yours i strongly suggest you don't...you missed the saddle on this occasion.

twinQuins

black francis wrote: »

It's illegal

I'm not (and I don't believe anyone here) is denying that. Only that it is theft.

if the widget is patented or protected by copyright - you could think of it as 'moral intellectual theft'.

But theft still implies that, in some way, you are denying the person usage of what you've taken.
I won't deny copyright infringement is to some degree immoral but I don't accept it's on a level with theft.

And nobody would bother designing widgets anymore if ideas could just be stolen without consequence, technology would stagnate and social order would collapse.

Technological developments took place long before the concept of intellectual property emerged.
IP laws were introduced as an incentive to increase development of new technologies, not because without them there would be none. Although ironically, they've become so restrictive that it's begun to stifle creativity...

Bipolar Joe

OK, to put it into retard language for people not getting it:

I break into your house, and take your television. Now you have no television. I stole, I am a thief.

I duplicate your television. You have a television and so do I, now. I am in copyright violation.

Liam Byrne

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

OK, to put it into retard language for people not getting it:

I break into your house, and take your television. Now you have no television. I stole, I am a thief.

I duplicate your television. You have a television and so do I, now. I am in copyright violation.

How come you left out "I break into your house" (a crime in itself) from the second scenario ?

conorhal

Voodu Child wrote: »

When you bought the DVD, you paid for the non-expiring right to watch it in your home; the media itself (disc & box) barely costs anything.

Well, you didn't lose that right, its not possible to mislay something intangible. You only mislaid the media. So I don't see how downloading a copy could be construed as immoral, regardless of the technicalities.

Its the same with a scratched DVD or game disc.

Here's something else that's intangible, intellectual property.
If you appropriate my intellectual property without my authorization (through a transaction or purchase, the only manner in which I have agreed to share my intellectual property) then you are a thief.
Try this on for size, the next time you have a brilliant idea to present with to your boss, allow the office sneak to overhear it. If the office sneak chooses to present that idea as his or her own, then I guess you will have to shrug your shoulders and say, “tough on me, it’s not like that asshole stole my idea, they ‘just copied it’.

Trevor451

pepole who voted " Yes, absolutely the same thing." must work for the music/movie industry

Trevor451

people who voted " Yes, absolutely the same thing." must work for the music/movie industry

bren2001

Downloading illegally is nowhere near as looting.

I am not going to go into HMV and pay 15 quid for an album I may or may not like. What I will do is download the album and if I like it will pay money to see them in concert. Its my own moral compromise.

Liam Byrne

d'Oracle wrote: »

I know.
I'm just pointing out that using the equation terms in that way.....its usually dumbing it down by putting it in a funny little mathematical terms. But its usually used for something absolute. Because = is a definitive term.

Very small point - in computing terms "=" isn't, due to variable casting and typing.....so "=" is open to interpretation.

A supplemental equal sign is used to make "=" a definitive term - kinda like "to be sure to be sure"

Liam Byrne

Trevor451 wrote: »

people who voted " Yes, absolutely the same thing." must work for the music/movie industry

Hope you had copyright on post #145

Frank Black

twinQuins wrote: »

I'm not (and I don't believe anyone here) is denying that. Only that it is theft.

But theft still implies that, in some way, you are denying the person usage of what you've taken.
I won't deny copyright infringement is to some degree immoral but I don't accept it's on a level with theft....

That's not necessarily what theft implies - you've only defined it that way to suit your argument Theft could mean that you're denying them the profit from the sale of the widget

twinQuins wrote: »

Technological developments took place long before the concept of intellectual property emerged....

Obviously they did.

twinQuins wrote: »

IP laws were introduced as an incentive to increase development of new technologies, not because without them there would be none....

You shouldn't have taken my original comments so seriously. What you've said is essentially the point I was making - I'm glad we're agreed on that.

twinQuins wrote: »

Although ironically, they've become so restrictive that it's begun to stifle creativity...

Please explain how.

Bipolar Joe

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How come you left out "I break into your house" (a crime in itself) from the second scenario ?

Because I don't break into your computer to download files.

For the record, I make music. Two of my releases are on blogs and are downloaded. I don't actually give a rat's ass, because fuck it, and to top it all off as soon as they were put up I saw a rise in sales.