Feds Shut Down Megaupload.com

[Furah]

Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here.

Property can't be digital. Property is tangible and is ownable because it in itself is limited, in whatever form it takes.

[Guest jrhairychest]

It's not the *removal* though, it's the *copying*. That does make a difference.

Splitting hairs.

 

Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here.

Property can't be digital. Property is tangible and is ownable because it in itself is limited, in whatever form it takes.

 

Intellectual property rights. So, just so I'm clear by your point, no-one actually owns movies, music, software etc. because they may not take a physical form?

[Furah]

No, I'm saying you can't take something that's intangible and say it is just to give you the same legal power over it. No, wait, I'm wrong as they don't want the same legal power, they want more as it becomes more profitable to sue for thousands or millions over just having the person imprisoned like they would if they had actually stolen something.

[Kimberly]

Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here.

Property can't be digital. Property is tangible and is ownable because it in itself is limited, in whatever form it takes.

 

That seems contradictory.

[Furah]

Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here.

Property can't be digital. Property is tangible and is ownable because it in itself is limited, in whatever form it takes.

 

That seems contradictory.

 

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

[Nomrombom]

Copying vs. taking is not splitting hairs at all. We've hashed this out over and over in this thread. They are not the same thing and should not be treated exactly the same.

[Omar]

Yeah, so it's no different except it's different.

 

and theft is theft whichever way you look to legitimise it.

Theft:

a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

 

So, what say you of what isn't theft?

Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here.

So long as you don't remove and deprive its rightful owner of it, you're not stealing. This makes a huge difference in "no harm, no foul" morals.

[Danqazmlp]

Loved that article. Really got me thinking.

 

The first thing I would love to say is that I hadn't really thought about the huge disconnect that exists in the music, video and even software industries. Just about all the costs in producing a product in those industries are in development. Once you have a product, it can be duplicated in a digital format free of charge. The point is, that the decision to make something or not is based pretty much entirely on whether someone thinks it will be profitable or not. As long as piracy isn't so rampant that people can't actually profit, then creativity should be fairly safe. I suppose this would be a larger problem for smaller developers and bands, but then you have all these fringe bands that probably would never get anyplace without digital distribution so even they seem to be holding out.

 

As it relates to jobs, after the fact spending has no impact on jobs for that production.

 

 

Now, some of the profits are reinvested back into the industry to make more profit. An album pays for the next one to be produced, a block buster probably funds multiple movies (seeing as a lot of them tank), and version one of software x pays for version 2. Again, as long as piracy doesn't steal proffits beyond a certain point, its affecting profit but not production or jobs.

 

This also ties into the way people buy things. There is a maximum profit already built into these industries, because people only have so much money to spend on music and movies and software on a yearly basis. After that, people just stop getting more, because they can't afford it. So the question then becomes how much of the piracy is based off people who either lack an entertainment budget (like students going through post secondary education on loans), or have a very tiny one (people with anual incomes below the poverty line for example). Yes, there are probably plenty of people who could pay for things, and don't, but how do we know that a lot of the piracy isn't being perpetrated by people who would be spending next to nothing on this stuff either way because they simply can't.

 

Then, as the article Omar pointed out, and I found this really neat, you also have an effect where the money shifts. You can't pirate a live concert. At least not unless you have perfected matter synthesis and have a power source many times greater than our sun. So what they seem to be seeing is people moving their music budget from music to concerts, so its likely that for some people the same net money is being spent, just in different places.

 

 

I'm not trying to say that piracy is harmless, or good, or not stealing, just that it isn't a clear cut issue. I also find it interesting that there is some level of piracy (for very specific reasons and circumstances) that literally costs the world nothing but electricity, bandwidth and electricity, because its in no way displacing any spending that would have occurred if piracy didn't exist at all.

 

 

And as an extra little bit of philosophy, if you have someone who downloads say a movie for free that there was no way they were ever going to pay for anyway (so it hasn't cost anyone money), is it really wrong? I mean, yes they got something for nothing, and its not supposed to work that way, but if there was no way they were ever going to pay for it, then there isn't a victim. A true victimless crime so to speak. To make it even better, if that person sees the video, and loves it, and tells all their friends and just one friend actually buys it, then that is a sale they wouldn't have made without piracy (I suspect the music industry probably benefits more from this effect). Of course, its hard to know if that's actually a higher profit, since maybe because of the finite movie budget, so maybe that sale displaced another one. And kudos to anyone who is still following my train of thought.

 

 

So yeah, your dealing with theoretical max profits, industries where sales have no direct correlation to jobs, and cases where sales are being displaced rather than replaced. Fun times.

 

 

Most of this however (As well as your other post) relies on people moving their budget around, which has not been proven, as the study is incredibly limited and doesn't factor in other things which may have an effect. They seem to have gone into the study with blinkers on.

[sees_all1]

Property can't be digital? You're clutching at straws here.

Property can't be digital. Property is tangible and is ownable because it in itself is limited, in whatever form it takes.

 

That seems contradictory.

 

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

I'm pretty sure you don't buy a book for it's paper. And I'm pretty sure you don't buy a CD for it's shape.

 

The phrase you need is, You stole my idea!

[Randox]

It would be pretty difficult to prove either way, though that really wasn't my point. The best your going to be able to get are logical assumptions really.

 

The first one would be that people don't have an unlimited entertainment budget. I think we can assume this one is pretty solid, unless everyone but me has discovered a way to grow money.

 

The second assumption would be that people will put a priority on spending money on things that they can't obtain for free. In this case, concerts and movie tickets, since neither can be downloaded. Now, maybe you disagree with me, but the preference for spending on things I can't get for free before spending money on something I can get for free makes perfect sense to me, so I'll continue on.

 

The logical conclusions would be twofold.

 

First, people are probably moving money out of their 'entertainment budget' entirely, to spend on other things that make them happy, because they aren't paying for things they can get for free.

 

The second would be that with more money available to treat yourself with, that if you consider things like a movie theater or concert to be a treat, then you have more money available to spend on them.

 

I'm not trying to argue that all the money gets redistributed, I'm just saying that it is logical for some of the money to be recaptured in other areas.

 

 

I have no real point with this other than digital theft is not as strait forward as say shoplifting. Mostly I'm interested in the question of, if your stealing things you were never in a position to pay for, and the theft doesn't actually cost anyone anything, is it still wrong? No one loses profit, because it was never going to be paid for anyway, and no one loses money because nothing with an individual production value has been stolen (like there would be with a DVD). Or would I just be trying to justify my own guilt?

[Zierro]

Never used the site, but from what I've gathered in this thread: Businessmen are being babies. People are being people.

 

Seriously, piracy, to an extent, is that little loophole in the system where society as a whole benefits. A lot of bands and movies wouldn't have the socialization they have now if it wasn't for streaming on the internet. If you looked up from your legal documents every now and then and saw the real world, you would see that this actually causes more money to be spent on their media in the long run. Not to mention, being a sellout isn't a very attractive feature to your customers.

[Omar]

@Danq: Even if the film and music industry could be doing better without piracy, even if you factor in the recapturing, point is they're not doing worse, which means those 19 million jobs are actually not threatened. Even if the Oberholz-Apfelstrudel study is narrow-minded, it does prove that the music industry, at least as a whole, isn't doing worse.

Not to mention, being a sellout isn't a very attractive feature to your customers.

I would argue that music that is made with the sole purpose of making money, although by many standards not true art, remains work, and pirating instead of buying from its creators is wrong. On the other hand, pirating music which is an end in and of itself is "less wrong", if at all (there's a reason why it's free to begin with). There are all types of gray areas ("I make music for the music but I still need money to sustain myself"), but in extreme cases, that's the way I see it. Just because something isn't art, doesn't mean it's bad/unethical/worthless.

[Guest jrhairychest]

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

 

The law disagrees.

 

Copying vs. taking is not splitting hairs at all. We've hashed this out over and over in this thread. They are not the same thing and should not be treated exactly the same.

 

So long as you don't remove and deprive its rightful owner of it, you're not stealing. This makes a huge difference in "no harm, no foul" morals.

 

Sorry gents but copying deprives the rightful owners of cash you're supposed to pay for the use of the product. Strictly speaking you're taking an item (or a copy!) and not paying for its use. That's theft. I'm getting the impression here that the word 'thief' makes some a little uncomfortable and so a little word playing has commenced. Would you prefer me to use the term pirate instead? Either way you put it it's still illegal :)

[obfuscator]

Are people still honestly trying to claim that piracy isn't theft?

[jasignhagj]

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

 

The law disagrees.

 

Copying vs. taking is not splitting hairs at all. We've hashed this out over and over in this thread. They are not the same thing and should not be treated exactly the same.

 

So long as you don't remove and deprive its rightful owner of it, you're not stealing. This makes a huge difference in "no harm, no foul" morals.

 

Sorry gents but copying deprives the rightful owners of cash you're supposed to pay for the use of the product. Strictly speaking you're taking an item (or a copy!) and not paying for its use. That's theft. I'm getting the impression here that the word 'thief' makes some a little uncomfortable and so a little word playing has commenced. Would you prefer me to use the term pirate instead? Either way you put it it's still illegal :)

 

But theft implies something is taken. Nothing has been taken from the artist. If I take a picture of a painter's painting, I haven't stolen it from him, I've made a copy.

[Omar]

@jr: Wouldn't have paid for it if I hadn't "stolen" it. I just wouldn't have used it. So yeah, technically I stole it, but in many cases that makes no difference to the seller, because I didn't deprive him of cash nor product.

So yeah, honestly, piracy, in many cases, isn't theft. For example, would you consider pirating something you've paid for and lost to be theft? I'm not saying piracy never is theft, just that a gray zone exists and that it's actually pretty vast.

Also, I'm not saying it's legal, I'm saying it's legitimate.

[Zierro]

Just because something isn't art, doesn't mean it's bad/unethical/worthless.

 

How did you get that from my sentence? :lol: What I mean is that sometimes when artists or companies go sue-happy towards their customers, they can actually lose more profit, or whatever else they were after, because they generate too much negative publicity (which is just about everything when it comes to marketing). Metallica lost plenty of fans by suing Napster. Whether those fans are right or wrong, it doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad move from even a business perspective.

 

I was saving my opinion on art for when things get more controversial.

[Omar]

My bad, I thought you were talking about artists that compromise their music for it to sell better.

[obfuscator]

Well, I guess they are. Nothing to do here....

 

Seriously, just stop. Claiming that piracy isn't "theft", or "stealing" is frankly a matter of semantics - it's obvious and undeniable that when you pirate a movie or song you're obtaining and using the property of someone else without their permission. It doesn't matter if there's a physical object being deprived or not.

 

If you pirate, say it's because of the outrageous prices and awful product these companies put forth. That's a fair argument. Saying you're not taking anything away from them just clouds the issue and is completely untrue.

[Omar]

Alright, alright, you've intimidated me into changing my opinion.

[obfuscator]

Alright, alright, you've intimidated me into changing my opinion.

Not my intent. But if you seriously think there's nothing wrong with piracy and are legitimately trying to argue that, you need to rethink your opinion.

 

EDIT: But I see you admit that you stole it. Which is my entire point. So we seem to agree?

[Omar]

No, we don't. "Stealing", "theft", and "piracy" are all inadequate words, and no adequate words exist in my opinion. Am I right in thinking you don't believe in harm-based morals? If my memory serves me well, we can't agree.

[obfuscator]

No, we don't. "Stealing", "theft", and "piracy" are all inadequate words, and no adequate words exist in my opinion. Am I right in thinking you don't believe in harm-based morals? If my memory serves me well, we can't agree.

I'm not a big fan of harm based morals, no.

 

Even so, we live in a capitalist society where people deserve to be paid for their work. When their work is taken or otherwise used without their permission or payment, that constitutes theft. The word itself may not be "adequate" as you put it, but the idea behind it is quite clear.

[Furah]

What I'm saying is that, as long as it's tangible (ie it's something you can physically hold/possess,) then it doesn't matter if it's a CD, a book, a table, a car, a block of land, a pet, a computer. They're all property that can be possessed, traded, and stolen.

 

The law disagrees.

 

Just because it's the law does not mean that it can change what something is or isn't. There's many laws that don't make sense.

[Omar]

No, we don't. "Stealing", "theft", and "piracy" are all inadequate words, and no adequate words exist in my opinion. Am I right in thinking you don't believe in harm-based morals? If my memory serves me well, we can't agree.

I'm not a big fan of harm based morals, no.

 

Even so, we live in a capitalist society where people deserve to be paid for their work. When their work is taken or otherwise used without their permission or payment, that constitutes theft. The word itself may not be "adequate" as you put it, but the idea behind it is quite clear.

What kind of morals are you into then?