Is It Ever OK To Steal?

[Castel]

And if it sucked, then then I shouldn't be honor bound to buy it just because I listened to it from a different medium.

So...if you take a product and you don't like it you shouldn't pay for it? In what other field is this remotely acceptable?

How is it different? The library buys a book and gives it away to anyone who wants it. Somebody bought and album/movie, and then uploads it to a torrent site, giving it away to anyone that wants it. In both case an initial copy was sold, and the producer compenstated.

In both cases I have not paid for it. And yet I'm only to be held accountable in one of them.

Not gonna lie: the logic is probably/basically that a library can buy a book to loan and so the company will be paid for it . There'll only ever be one book. The guy on TPB can buy a disc and he doesn't loan or sell it, he copies it a billion times. So it's not just for his personal copy any more being "lost" so to speak. Now hundreds of thousands of people have something they shouldn't have.

'Virtually indistinguishable." But 320kpbs =/= 1411kbps.

Oh, I stand corrected.

Nitpick: CD audio is recorded at 44100 Hz, 2 channels, 16 bits per sample. That's 1411 kbps.

That said, there are probably very few people who can tell the difference between that and a 320 kbps MP3 or Vorbis.

Yeah, unless you're on of those Head-Fi geeks with DACs and reference headphones you're probably not gonna get much out of it. If you are..well, sux2bU

But what if someone isn't tech savvy enough to convert a physical book him/herself, but is technically savvy enough to go online and "illegally" download a copy of that book's e-edition. Still okay? Or does that cross a line?

Should you have a right to a digital version? Aren't there benefits that would justify it being a separate thing? Searching, zooming,changing the font/page color, copying, cloud storage, all these things aren't available on regular books. Don't those things kinda add to the price? If you paid for a normal book then go and take an ebook aren't you getting these things without paying?

Is the argument undercut when ebooks are cheaper? On the other hand is it a reason for them to not be cheaper?

[Ken Stone]

So...if you take a product and you don't like it you shouldn't pay for it? In what other field is this remotely acceptable?

I would say that for the vast majority of things I buy, if I am not happy with them, I can get refund. Entertainment is probably the only field where you are SOL if you are unhappy with your purchase.

[thecryptile]

Given that the producers of GoT use piracy reports as a measure of popularity, it seems that downloading episodes, watching them and deleting them (which is what I would do if I were to pirate them, as I never keep anything) would probably ultimately make them better off than what I currently do completely legally, which is being a free rider on friends who have HBO. It's hard to see why the stealing I do legally is morally better than the stealing I would have done illegally.

Eponine makes a good point here, I feel. What is the moral difference between illegally downloading and watching it at a friends house, or borrowing the DVDs?

[Robin Of House Hill]

Watching at a friend's house or borrowing a DVD are within the terms of the license granted for viewing. Downloading a digital copy is not.

[Muttering Bill]

So...if you take a product and you don't like it you shouldn't pay for it? In what other field is this remotely acceptable?

In basically every field. Have you never returned an item because you didn't like it, or it didn't perform as advertised? And for those that you can't return, like a car or a house, you can test out and have thoroughly inspected before purchasing. Retailers don't refuse returns on opened items... except for CD's, movies and video games... interesting how these things should be exempt from being held accountable for quality. I can even return books provided I don't destroy them.

Not gonna lie: the logic is probably/basically that a library can buy a book to loan and so the company will be paid for it . There'll only ever be one book. The guy on TPB can buy a disc and he doesn't loan or sell it, he copies it a billion times. So it's not just for his personal copy any more being "lost" so to speak. Now hundreds of thousands of people have something they shouldn't have.

I quite understand that it is a matter of unauthorized copies being made, as opposed to just the original being re-distributed. All I meant was that, when you have one outlet for free stuff, then it's easy to understand why people feel that other free stuff is Ok too. If it isn't shoplifting, then it isn't stealing.

[Ken Stone]

Watching at a friend's house or borrowing a DVD are within the terms of the license granted for viewing. Downloading a digital copy is not.

Fine, it's legal, but is it moral to consume it without paying for it?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MB,

How is it different?  The library buys a book and gives it away to anyone who wants it.  Somebody bought and album/movie, and then uploads it to a torrent site,  giving it away to anyone that wants it.  In both case an initial copy was sold, and the producer compenstated.

In both cases I have not paid for it.  And yet I'm only to be held accountable in one of them.

Do you get to keep the copy of the book you checked out of the library? If not, then it's not the same situation at all. You, when you download a torrent, are keeping a copy of the work that was not an authorized creation. Even when you check an ebook out of the local library you only get to use the copy you've downloaded for a defined period of time, usually two weeks, then it disappears from the location where it has been downloaded. So, again, not the same thing as downloading perminantly from a torrent site.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Fine, it's legal, but is it moral to consume it without paying for it?

If consuming it is within the terms of the license granted, of course.

[MisterOJ]

MB,

Do you get to keep the copy of the book you checked out of the library? If not, then it's not the same situation at all. You, when you download a torrent, are keeping a copy of the work that was not an authorized creation. Even when you check an ebook out of the local library you only get to use the copy you've downloaded for a defined period of time, usually two weeks, then it disappears from the location where it has been downloaded. So, again, not the same thing as downloading perminantly from a torrent site.

So if you download something and then delete it after a week or two - it's all good?

[Ken Stone]

If consuming it is within the terms of the license granted, of course.

So legal = moral? I feel like I see a bunch of immoral, legal shit going down.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

MrOJ,

Nope. Libraries have permission to distribute as they do. When you download from a torrent site, you do not. Also, the deletion of the library copy is automatic. Not so with torrent downloads.

[Sci-2]

So if you download something and then delete it after a week or two - it's all good?

Eponine makes a good point here, I feel. What is the moral difference between illegally downloading and watching it at a friends house, or borrowing the DVDs?

Depends on how you download it.

Torrenting enables others to get a copy as well, if only doing so at a faster rate. Still, you are enabling people to hold on to a copy indefinitely.

Also depends on if you actually have these friends, when they'd let you borrow it, etc. Borrowing and downloading aren't really equivalent IMO.

[Castel]

In basically every field. Have you never returned an item because you didn't like it, or it didn't perform as advertised? And for those that you can't return, like a car or a house, you can test out and have thoroughly inspected before purchasing. Retailers don't refuse returns on opened items... except for CD's, movies and video games... interesting how these things should be exempt from being held accountable for quality. I can even return books provided I don't destroy them.

We've already discussed this above. You cannot get the experience out of a car/house/clothes completely just by testing them. Or at least, the number of people who can or want to get a shirt and return it the next day (and the number of stores that allow this and don't have ways of discouraging you) is small compared to people in the entertainment business.

The problem with books and movies is that many people, probably most, are generally happy with one reading/viewing unless it's amazing on repeat viewings, which every piece of entertainment cannot be. So people can just take the info, put it in their heads and get their money back because they don't need to see it again. I would do that with products like Star Trek, no matter how entertaining they were in the moment because I don't ever need to see it again.

So you basically have to not just provide a service but blow the pants off the people watching enough to make them want to buy. This is assuming that they're people like you who will ever buy. At what point does someone deserve money for their products? If it doesn't suck? If it's mildly entertaining? Where's the line? Are you entitled to a refund at football matches where the team sucks?

[Theda Baratheon]

I sometimes watch films in their entirety uploaded to YouTube.

/noshame. :cool4:

[Maltaran]

How is it different? The library buys a book and gives it away to anyone who wants it. Somebody bought and album/movie, and then uploads it to a torrent site, giving it away to anyone that wants it. In both case an initial copy was sold, and the producer compenstated.

In the UK, libraries pay royalties to the author every time their book is borrowed. Torrent sites obviously don't.

[SilentSense]

AND = bullshit.

Violation of copyright is, in and of itself, wrong.

What? Would you mind pointing out how that is BS? You seriously don't believe part of what's wrong with illegal downloads (or all of what's wrong, depending on one's view of copyrights. I realise you've just asserted it to be wrong but that's usually a point of contention in this debate) is that it a. causes economic damage and b. leads to less innovation?

[Muttering Bill]

The problem with books and movies is that many people, probably most, are generally happy with one reading/viewing unless it's amazing on repeat viewings, which every piece of entertainment cannot be. So people can just take the info, put it in their heads and get their money back because they don't need to see it again. I would do that with products like Star Trek, no matter how entertaining they were in the moment because I don't ever need to see it again.

I don't buy a movie unless I'm planning to view it multiple times. In which case, I've already seen it. For a 1 time viewing type of movie, that's what theaters and rentals are for (of course, they are seeing a profit from this). I've seen it once, and then can decide whether it was good enough to own.

But allowing that most movies are approached as 1 time use items. Still, a music CD (or mp3) is not. These are meant for repeated play. And if they're any good, I'll use them a ton. So do we need different rules for each of them?

Furthermore, does that making checking these things out on YouTube (without downloading) immoral, unless it's specifically through the Vevo channel?

So you basically have to not just provide a service but blow the pants off the people watching enough to make them want to buy. This is assuming that they're people like you who will ever buy. At what point does someone deserve money for their products? If it doesn't suck? If it's mildly entertaining? Where's the line? Are you entitled to a refund at football matches where the team sucks?

Well, you can demand your money back at a movie theater if you really hated the movie. Why not at a football match? If it really was that bad.

But mildly entertaining is still entertaining. The line would be in a different place for each person. So it's easier to keep it simple and not allow a line. And it's easier for me to circumvent their restrictions by sampling their goods from other sources. As long as they're still making a profit, then it should all work out fine.

In the UK, libraries pay royalties to the author every time their book is borrowed. Torrent sites obviously don't.

.....

Really? How do they stay they open? I mean, they're not charging for use, are they?

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Since I don't recognize the legitimacy of "intellectual property" I don't consider downloading copyrighted works to be wrong or immoral (and even if I did recognize the legitimacy of intellectual property, it still wouldn't be "stealing").

That being said, if you do accept the legitimacy of IP laws, and it seems like most people do, I'm confused at why some people feel like every commercial transaction has to have the exact same terms. A store is not obligated to accept returns merely because you decided after you purchased it that you don't like it. Most stores do have return policies for material goods, especially when the material goods have some significant value, because it's good business. Customers like to shop at places where they can return goods for whatever reasons, subject to reasonable restrictions - time limits for the return of good, restocking fees, etc. But movie theaters, football stadiums or music retailers are not obligated to offer you refunds. And frankly, I don't think they make sense for "experiences" like movies or football games, but your mileage may vary, and you're free to shop around for a movie theater that offers refunds based on aesthetic judgments of quality (good luck). But I don't see why some retailers offering refunds for some goods means all commercial transactions should offer the same terms.

[Muttering Bill]

MB,

Do you get to keep the copy of the book you checked out of the library? If not, then it's not the same situation at all. You, when you download a torrent, are keeping a copy of the work that was not an authorized creation. Even when you check an ebook out of the local library you only get to use the copy you've downloaded for a defined period of time, usually two weeks, then it disappears from the location where it has been downloaded. So, again, not the same thing as downloading perminantly from a torrent site.

No, you don't keep a copy. But, as Castel has established, books are largely single use items. After reading it once, then you've exhausted it's usefulness. You've enjoyed the experience of the book without having paid for it.

It Ok to do that according the Fair Use, yes? Publishers can't stop Libraries from lending books. But the affect is the same as with a torrent. There's no reason for me to buy a book if the Library will give me the experience for free. So they are taking customers away. They don't make a huge fuss over it since it's on a much smaller scale. Of course, there have been at least a few research studies stating that people who download (torrent) music, are also more likely to purchase more music than those who don't.* So the question is: is it still a profitable system? How much do torrents really hurt them? Today's profits, as opposed to 20 years ago?

* I can't go and search them out to link, because I'm at work and the content filters wouldn't like it.

[Robin Of House Hill]

What? Would you mind pointing out how that is BS? You seriously don't believe part of what's wrong with illegal downloads (or all of what's wrong, depending on one's view of copyrights. I realise you've just asserted it to be wrong but that's usually a point of contention in this debate) is that it a. causes economic damage and b. leads to less innovation?

What is the point of owning anything if you cannot control access to it? The point of contention isn't economic damage. It is the right of the owner of the property to control who has access to it. Whether there is an economic aspect to it is irrelevant.