iPod?

[JaKiri]

But they aren't actually taking your money' date=' are they? You are aware that you don't have to have the music, right? Unless there is coercion on their part, you can't say they are stealing. There is absolutely no way you can legitimately justify it.

 

[i']and other posts[/i]

 

Incorrect.

 

'Stealing' is a term which has been hijacked out of all proportion by the RIAA and the like.

 

Stealing is defined as (basically) 'taking an object without permission'.

 

If I steal an object from someone's home, they are deprived of the use of that object; I stole it. They don't have it any more.

 

If I 'steal' music, or films, or whatever, from the producing companies, they have not lost the use of it. They have not lost any money. What have I taken from them? They have only lost the potential revenue which they may have received had I chosen to buy the product*.

 

These two situations are hardly analogous, are they?

 

*They may not even lose that. It is fairly common, at least in groups with either disposable cash or some form of respect for the needs of the makers, to view downloading music, films or games as a 'trial', and to buy the product if it meets their requirements, in which case they've gained money, given it's fairly likely that noone was ever going to buy everything that it is possible to download, and there's a large amount of 'good stuff' which is fairly obscure or unanticipatedly brilliant.

 

Finally, a more generic point:

 

Relative to other sections of the entertainment industry, the amount of music bought has been rising continuously, even through the rise of the P2P programs.

[Sayonara]

I read swanson's post as being a description of the music companies' behaviour rather than that of file sharers, so it's not really incorrect based on what you said. His point was that the consumer isn't being forced to hand over cash, because they can walk away from a sale.

 

Although I do agree with the post itself.

[JaKiri]

It was more referring to the earlier one ('So, what do you do? Steal yours?'); the post just happened to pop into my head at the time.

[swansont]

Incorrect.

 

'Stealing' is a term which has been hijacked out of all proportion by the RIAA and the like.

 

Stealing is defined as (basically) 'taking an object without permission'.

 

If I steal an object from someone's home' date=' they are deprived of the use of that object; I stole it. They don't have it any more.

 

If I 'steal' music, or films, or whatever, from the producing companies, they have not lost the use of it. They have not lost any money. What have I taken from them? They have only lost [i']the potential revenue[/i] which they may have received had I chosen to buy the product*.

 

These two situations are hardly analogous, are they?

 

*They may not even lose that. It is fairly common, at least in groups with either disposable cash or some form of respect for the needs of the makers, to view downloading music, films or games as a 'trial', and to buy the product if it meets their requirements, in which case they've gained money, given it's fairly likely that noone was ever going to buy everything that it is possible to download, and there's a large amount of 'good stuff' which is fairly obscure or unanticipatedly brilliant.

 

Finally, a more generic point:

 

Relative to other sections of the entertainment industry, the amount of music bought has been rising continuously, even through the rise of the P2P programs.

 

My argument isn't about whether or not the income of the artist in question is affected. I think the RIAA has their collective heads up their rearends on this issue.

 

The person who holds the copyright is the only person who is legally allowed to decide how and if their work is to be distributed. Taking that copyrighted material, without permission, is stealing. Intellectual property is still property.

 

Any argument that tries to justify it is just rationalizing the behavior.

[Guest InfinitZero]

Well satellite signals are being broadcasted everywhere...when bellexpressvu/dishnetwork/directv send these signals all over my lawn why should I have to pay to receiver them.

 

I just simply alter information on the access cards so i can decrypt the signal. If they don't want me to steal their propoerty then stop broadcasting it all over my property

 

When they have the technology to spotbeam only to their subscribers then it won't be justified...until then..Free TV

[JaKiri]

The person who holds the copyright is the only person who is legally allowed to decide how and if their work is to be distributed.

 

Legally is different from morally.

 

I know many countries don't have IP laws, or acknowledge global copyright. That makes it ok for people from those countries to do whatever, yeah?

 

 

Taking that copyrighted material, without permission, is stealing.

 

I've said why I don't think it is. Can you make a counterargument?

 

Intellectual property is still property.

 

In what sense? Intellectual property isn't something you can possess, it's abstract at best. 'Property' (and property laws) are based on definites, not abstracts.

 

Any argument that tries to justify it is just rationalizing the behavior.

 

You've stated this before, with no evidence. Obviously it's opinion, but why are you saying it so strongly? Where's the justification?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If you don't pay, they aren't able to give you TV. Thus, you pay.

[JaKiri]

Well satellite signals are being broadcasted everywhere...when bellexpressvu/dishnetwork/directv send these signals all over my lawn why should I have to pay to receiver them.

 

I just simply alter information on the access cards so i can decrypt the signal. If they don't want me to steal their propoerty then stop broadcasting it all over my property

 

When they have the technology to spotbeam only to their subscribers then it won't be justified...until then..Free TV

 

It's not 'stealing', but it's not morally valid; in any case, I suspect that the contract with the satellite providers say that the decoder card is still their property, and you are only licensed to do certain things with it.

[JaKiri]

If you don't pay, they aren't able to give you TV. Thus, you pay.

 

I don't think you've understood.

 

If you have the capability to receive satellite signals, then, assuming you can decode them (which I imagine would be fairly trivial if you can find the relevent information online), you get the service provided by the satellite provider without paying for it.

 

You see?

[iglak]

It's not 'stealing', but it's not morally valid; in any case, I suspect that the contract with the satellite providers say that the decoder card is still their property, and you are only licensed to do certain things with it.

in which case you'd be technically stealing the decoder card, which they have copyrighted and liscenced out.

 

you can get the signal, and take it, and do whatever you want with the signal, but the information to decode it is copyrighted material, that someone stole and put on the internet. so the downloader and user of that copyrighted material is using stolen property for their benefit.

[JaKiri]

in which case you'd be technically stealing the decoder card' date=' which they have copyrighted and liscenced out.

 

you can get the signal, and take it, and do whatever you want with the signal, but the information to decode it is copyrighted material, that someone stole and put on the internet. so the downloader and user of that copyrighted material is using stolen property for their benefit.[/quote']

 

No, not really.

 

You can decode something without stealing anything; indeed, even if the decoding information was taken by hacking their systems, that's still not stealing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't think you've understood.

 

If you have the capability to receive satellite signals' date=' then, assuming you can decode them (which I imagine would be fairly trivial if you can find the relevent information online), you get the service provided by the satellite provider without paying for it.

 

You see?[/quote']

I'm saying that if you don't pay, they don't get money for their services. If too many people don't pay, they can't give their services anymore since they'd be bankrupt.

[JaKiri]

I'm saying that if you don't pay, they don't get money for their services. If too many people don't pay, they can't give their services anymore since they'd be bankrupt.

 

That's not really true, as the number of people who can do such a thing is rather limited.

[swansont]

Legally is different from morally.

 

Yes, and you seem to be making a moral argument, while I am making a legal one. Taking copyrighted material without permission is against the law in the ~100 countries that are signatories to the Berne convention on literary and artistic works. I don't need to "justify" my position - I am stating a fact.

 

In the US: "The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly."

 

Exclusive right to reproduce the work. Black letter law. Your position seems to be that you don't think it's wrong. But trying to argue that it's not stealing is rationalizing, by definition.

[JaKiri]

Exclusive right to reproduce the work. Black letter law. Your position seems to be that you don't think it's wrong. But trying to argue that it's not stealing is rationalizing, by definition.

 

'Rationalizing' must be incorrect, and must also be to support ones own actions.

 

Unless you mean 'to make rational', in which case, thanks for the recognition.

 

Furthermore, breaking copyright law isn't stealing. It's 'copyright theft', which is a seperate, if over emotive, term.

[Sayonara]

I don't think you actually are in breach of copyright by taking a copyrighted work for your own private use.

 

Under the terms of the Berne Convention, one could argue that P2P downloaders are not actually theives, but uploaders are.

[JaKiri]

I don't think you actually are in breach of copyright by taking a copyrighted work for your own private use.

 

Under the terms of the Berne Convention' date=' one could argue that P2P downloaders are not actually theives, but uploaders are.[/quote']

 

Go go gadget DMCA, and the proposed New Stupid Version.

[swansont]

Furthermore, breaking copyright law isn't stealing. It's 'copyright theft', which is a seperate, if over emotive, term.

 

 

theft n. 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

[JaKiri]

theft n. 1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

 

It's another of those fun instances where a reply to my post is replied to by the origional post.

 

The term isn't "copyright" "theft", it's "copyright theft". It's not theft, in the same way that if eating a banana was termed "banana theft" that wouldn't be theft either.

 

It's only theft if and only if the conditions for theft are fulfilled. Changing the name of something just doesn't cut the mustard.

[swansont]

Changing the name of something just doesn't cut the mustard.

 

Exactly.

[JaKiri]

Exactly.

 

Then we agree, thread over.

[Severian]

Well, we did it - we bought an ipod mini (in silver). Thanks for all your help guys.

[blike]

nice, i got my brother one as well.

[JaKiri]

My sister has an iPod Mini, she seems to like it.

 

Although according to Wiggles, iTunes has if anything gotten worse.