Downloading to be made illegal?

[mmm-five]

Would this not be the same as 'receiving stolen goods' rather than 'stealing' - as if you're downloading and not uploading (i.e. leeching), then you are not doing the 'stealing' part.

[Jinx]

dern said:

You can mince words all you like but ultimately you have something which you use by obtaining it without paying for it so it'll still be petty theft in my book.

When have I admitted to copyright infringement?

Here's the other side for a moment - the loss of revenue (the theft bit) is only relevent if (the hypothetical) you would have purchased the "right to copy" said material if only you hadn't illegally downloaded it. The question I asked earlier is whether or not this is the case i.e. is there any revenue actually lost?

[ATG]

dern said:

Jinx said:

dern said:

As always the argument that our freedom is being inhibited is used to make petty theft seem somehow acceptable.

Copyright infringement please. Nothing has been removed from the possession of anyone.

You can mince words all you like but ultimately you have something which you use by obtaining it without paying for it so it'll still be petty theft in my book.

Well said.

I also shar the practical frustrations Don sets out. While the technology is rapidly advancing, legislation is always likely to be left lagging behind what is practical and reasonable. Copying tracks onto an MP3 player so you can go for a jog is clearly rather different from selling pirate CDs on the street. I think we all have a pretty good idea when we are taking the piss, even those people who chose to go ahead and take the piss anyway.

[dern]

Jinx said:

Here's the other side for a moment - the loss of revenue (the theft bit) is only relevent if (the hypothetical) you would have purchased the "right to copy" said material if only you hadn't illegally downloaded it. The question I asked earlier is whether or not this is the case i.e. is there any revenue actually lost?

That really isn't the point... you (i.e. read 'one') has something you haven't paid for it. If you weren't going to use that download then you wouldn't have it. I understand that if you had to pay for it then you wouldn't bother but my point is that if you don't want to pay for it then you shouldn't have the benefit of having it.

My angle is simple... I love music, I love listening to new music on the radio, at the cd shop (until it closed down and was replaced by HMV which is shit... now they really do take the piss on profiteering), I love looking at band's website's and seeing what they're doing, I love the whole thing about getting cds home or getting a box from amazon in the post. That's my thing. This doesn't in anyway lead me to begrudging someone who bypasses all this and rips off their music. However, what does lead me to begrudge them is the distinct possibility that some new band that I love won't be given the opportunity to make a second cd because the first one didn't make enough money for the label. That really sucks and it really pisses me off that people earning a wage who proclaim to enjoy music can be as pissy as you'd have to be *not* to spend 5 or 6 quid on a cd which is all they tend to cost these days if you shop around just because 'one' thinks they can get away with it. Then it *really* s me off when they don't simply acknowledge that they're being a pikey thief and they whine that they 'aren't really stealing' and that 'their freedom is being curtailed'.

Edited by dern on Tuesday 12th February 11:40

[ATG]

Jinx said:

dern said:

You can mince words all you like but ultimately you have something which you use by obtaining it without paying for it so it'll still be petty theft in my book.

When have I admitted to copyright infringement?

Here's the other side for a moment - the loss of revenue (the theft bit) is only relevent if (the hypothetical) you would have purchased the "right to copy" said material if only you hadn't illegally downloaded it. The question I asked earlier is whether or not this is the case i.e. is there any revenue actually lost?

So if I walked into the newsagent, and stole a Mars Bar that would have otherwise been thrown out the next day becasue its "best before" date was about to expire, that would be OK, because my stealing the Mars Bar didn't reduce the shop's income?

[JustinP1]

ATG said:

Jinx said:

dern said:

You can mince words all you like but ultimately you have something which you use by obtaining it without paying for it so it'll still be petty theft in my book.

When have I admitted to copyright infringement?

Here's the other side for a moment - the loss of revenue (the theft bit) is only relevent if (the hypothetical) you would have purchased the "right to copy" said material if only you hadn't illegally downloaded it. The question I asked earlier is whether or not this is the case i.e. is there any revenue actually lost?

So if I walked into the newsagent, and stole a Mars Bar that would have otherwise been thrown out the next day becasue its "best before" date was about to expire, that would be OK, because my stealing the Mars Bar didn't reduce the shop's income?

Indeed.

That is pretty much advocating that it is OK to steal something that you wouldnt have bought anyway...!?

This is where this argument is flawed... an illegal downloader is happy to spend their time downloading a song, and then spend their time listening to a song. They wouldnt have bothered spending their time if that 'right to use' that song didnt have a value to them!

The fact is, music DOES have a value to them. They would just rather not pay for it, and at the moment, most can get away with it. Thats still next to theft in my book though.

[Jinx]

ATG said:

So if I walked into the newsagent, and stole a Mars Bar that would have otherwise been thrown out the next day becasue its "best before" date was about to expire, that would be OK, because my stealing the Mars Bar didn't reduce the shop's income?

No because a mars bar exists. The "copy" does not exist until the material is downloaded. It only hypothetically exists in a quantum "theft" state - and is only theft until you do get the copyright owners permission (or it passes out of copyright) .
Much music is passing out of copyright and therefore is perfectly legal to download without anyone's permission (the 50 year law) . As such is this really the same as theft (taking of a possession without permission with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of said possession) ? I suspect using the word "theft" is just the propaganda war being won.

Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 12th February 12:00

[The Dude]

dern said:

However, what does lead me to begrudge them is the distinct possibility that some new band that I love won't be given the opportunity to make a second cd because the first one didn't make enough money for the label.

Don't believe the hype.

The industry is far too quick to look externally for excuses instead of turning the mirror on itself.

If piracy is that rife and problematic, why do CD sales not seems to be suffering and didn't Apple recently announce 1 billion sales from iTunes music store? What about the industry's own responsibility? X-Factor? Throw-away rubbish? Lowest-common denominator music? Compilation after compilation after compilation? Chasing merchandising deals instead of reinvesting in bands? None of this is good for the industry but it sure makes them a quick easy buck.

The business model that the recording industry is clinging to is outdated and irrelevant.

Change or die.

[Jinx]

dern said:

That really isn't the point... you (i.e. read 'one') has something you haven't paid for it. If you weren't going to use that download then you wouldn't have it. I understand that if you had to pay for it then you wouldn't bother but my point is that if you don't want to pay for it then you shouldn't have the benefit of having it.

My angle is simple... I love music, I love listening to new music on the radio, at the cd shop (until it closed down and was replaced by HMV which is shit... now they really do take the piss on profiteering), I love looking at band's website's and seeing what they're doing, I love the whole thing about getting cds home or getting a box from amazon in the post. That's my thing. This doesn't in anyway lead me to begrudging someone who bypasses all this and rips off their music. However, what does lead me to begrudge them is the distinct possibility that some new band that I love won't be given the opportunity to make a second cd because the first one didn't make enough money for the label. That really sucks and it really pisses me off that people earning a wage who proclaim to enjoy music can be as pissy as you'd have to be *not* to spend 5 or 6 quid on a cd which is all they tend to cost these days if you shop around just because 'one' thinks they can get away with it. Then it *really* s me off when they don't simply acknowledge that they're being a pikey thief and they whine that they 'aren't really stealing' and that 'their freedom is being curtailed'.

I love music as well, have a rather large CD collection and go to see bands play live on a regular basis. I also have some ripped music that I could only obtain without the copyright holders permission because the CD has been deleted from the "list" i.e. you can't buy it (and I have tried - even ebay has failed me ) !
Do I deserve to have my internet connection cut for the above transgression?
Most of the CDs I buy these days are from unsigned bands as labels have long neglected my tastes (frequently bought through myspace or at the gigs themselves) - this is probably more of a threat to the "labels" revenue than the odd bit-torrent.
The problem I have with the OPs link is who will the onus be on to prove the copyright is expired/non-existant?

[Altrezia]

People will buy stuff that's worth buying. Chuff is worth getting if it's free, but if it wasn't free very few people would bother. Make better products, make more money.

[mmm-five]

ATG said:

Jinx said:

dern said:

You can mince words all you like but ultimately you have something which you use by obtaining it without paying for it so it'll still be petty theft in my book.

When have I admitted to copyright infringement?

Here's the other side for a moment - the loss of revenue (the theft bit) is only relevent if (the hypothetical) you would have purchased the "right to copy" said material if only you hadn't illegally downloaded it. The question I asked earlier is whether or not this is the case i.e. is there any revenue actually lost?

So if I walked into the newsagent, and stole a Mars Bar that would have otherwise been thrown out the next day becasue its "best before" date was about to expire, that would be OK, because my stealing the Mars Bar didn't reduce the shop's income?

As I said before, that's not what's happening in downloading though.

To use your analogy (love that word as it sounds like a bum science) then someone else would walk into the shop, steal a Mars bar and then set up a market stall and offer 'free' Mars bars to anyone wanting one.

If you took one, you wouldn't be stealing, but receiving stolen goods.

[ATG]

Jinx said:

ATG said:

So if I walked into the newsagent, and stole a Mars Bar that would have otherwise been thrown out the next day becasue its "best before" date was about to expire, that would be OK, because my stealing the Mars Bar didn't reduce the shop's income?

No because a mars bar exists. The "copy" does not exist until the material is downloaded. It only hypothetically exists in a quantum "theft" state - and is only theft until you do get the copyright owners permission (or it passes out of copyright) .
Much music is passing out of copyright and therefore is perfectly legal to download without anyone's permission (the 50 year law) . As such is this really the same as theft (taking of a possession without permission with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of said possession) ? I suspect using the word "theft" is just the propaganda war being won.

Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 12th February 12:00

The Mars Bar exists, but the copy doesn't? Are you seriously suggesting that is a substantive point? The data I am going to copy exists prior to copying it, and the copy of the data clearly exists and is in my possesion afterwards. If you are uncomfortable with the term "theft" as you have defined it, would you be happier with "stealing"?

[dern]

Jinx said:

I love music as well, have a rather large CD collection and go to see bands play live on a regular basis. I also have some ripped music that I could only obtain without the copyright holders permission because the CD has been deleted from the "list" i.e. you can't buy it (and I have tried - even ebay has failed me ) !
Do I deserve to have my internet connection cut for the above transgression?

No, of course not, if you can't buy it you can't buy it. My beef is with the habitual downloaders and the chances of this kind of action having any impact on you if you download something that you simply can't buy are incredibly tiny. I've been in the same situation as you looking for a particular cd that had been deleted and if I could have downloaded it I would because, as you say, there's no copyright to infringe. In the end after kicking myself for not buying a copy for some 20 years I found it on ebay for sale in holland.

Jinx said:

Most of the CDs I buy these days are from unsigned bands as labels have long neglected my tastes (frequently bought through myspace or at the gigs themselves) - this is probably more of a threat to the "labels" revenue than the odd bit-torrent.

Maybe not, maybe these bands will get signed because of the attention they attract. Music does tend to follows fashions after all.

Jinx said:

The problem I have with the OPs link is who will the onus be on to prove the copyright is expired/non-existant?

I agree with you there although to be honest if you are only downloading the odd cd that really has been deleted then firstly you won't be targetted and secondly it should be relatively trivial to prove. However, I don't think the majority of illegal downloaders out there are downloading copyright expired glenn miller tracks

[buggalugs]

JustinP1 said:

buggalugs said:

JustinP1 said:

buggalugs said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm

They're talking about a law to obligate ISP's to terminate your contract if you do an 'illegal download' whatever one of those is.

Personaly I'm not sure that it's the governments job to support an industry's business model but I guess they have deep pockets, and took a lot of politicians out to lunch or something.

They bleated on that cassette tapes would kill the industry, and VHS FFS. Nobody banned those did they? And the world did not end.... and we all enjoyed the use of these things for a very long time. How is this any different?

Support an industry "Business model"!?

Looking at it bluntly its theft, and the industry is asking the government for legislative support.

Look at it this way: Lets say for the sake of argument you work hard all week making a commodity - food, plants, beer, whatever. You sell some and you do OK, however recently you have not been doing so well, in fact you don't have much money to do it any more. You find that in the night, those items you were spending your own money to produce were being stolen, blatantly. As much as you can try you can't stop the thieves though. You are running close to the breadline and often losing money and working for nothing, and you don't know how long you can last...

In that situation would you be asking the government to give the authorities 'teeth' to protect *your* business model? Or is that example fine by you?

I do know what you mean but I don't think the example quite fits. They're not producing a physical item, or if they do it's incidental. It's a virtual item, and technology has now evolved that's making it impossible to control the creation and distribution of these items. So the thing to do is change they way they do business, the way they make money. That's where I was coming from with the business model comment.

We're not talking about some poor humble shopkeeper having his stock stolen.

Are we not?

OK, so if you dont steal a physical item, then its not stealing? And items that do not have weight in your had are 'virtual' and irrelevant?

Consider my previous analogy, where it was *your* work that was being stolen. This time instead of your cakes, trees, or beer that you have worked hard to produce, you work in IT from home and the 'potential customer' lists that you spent your day working on and selling to business were copied from under your nose, and given out to the companies for free?

Is that right, or is it stealing?

Or is it technologies fault, and just a matter of evolution, as the burglars now have jamming devices which mean they can sneak into your house at night, and take your work without your alarm going off...

So that would be your fault for not keeping up with the burglars? Or would you ask the government for help?

I'm not saying that people shouldn't get paid for their work, thats clearly not an argument that anyone can hope to win, and its not a viewpoint that I support. I'm opposing the way that these people are going about their business. If the music industry is dieing then downloading is not killing it, pop idol is. And picking on customers to throw their lawyers at is not the way forwards IMO. This isn't a cottage industry that asking for protection, its a bunch of cynical sharks who are only interested in playing the numbers. And I don't like them calling the shots in parliment.

At least, thats my perception anyway.

I'm not sure what the way forwards is. Perhaps bands that can sing can make a bigger percentage of their income from touring? The moves by some bands to try to reduce the number of middle men involved must also be a good thing surely.

[ATG]

mmm-five said:

ATG said:

Jinx said:

dern said:

You can mince words all you like but ultimately you have something which you use by obtaining it without paying for it so it'll still be petty theft in my book.

When have I admitted to copyright infringement?

Here's the other side for a moment - the loss of revenue (the theft bit) is only relevent if (the hypothetical) you would have purchased the "right to copy" said material if only you hadn't illegally downloaded it. The question I asked earlier is whether or not this is the case i.e. is there any revenue actually lost?

So if I walked into the newsagent, and stole a Mars Bar that would have otherwise been thrown out the next day becasue its "best before" date was about to expire, that would be OK, because my stealing the Mars Bar didn't reduce the shop's income?

As I said before, that's not what's happening in downloading though.

To use your analogy (love that word as it sounds like a bum science) then someone else would walk into the shop, steal a Mars bar and then set up a market stall and offer 'free' Mars bars to anyone wanting one.

If you took one, you wouldn't be stealing, but receiving stolen goods.

The example illustrated the irrelevance of the "no lost income" argument. It wasn't an analogy of downloading.

[qube_TA]

I don't think the ISP's will have many customers left if this was enforced. There can't be many people who've not infringed a copyright law whether they've downloaded a tune/programme/film/warez or simply borrowed a DVD from a friend.

[SGirl]

What about when people download an album which they own on vinyl but they no longer have a record player to play it on? Would that be copyright infringement?

Just kicking ideas around.

[130R]

Data protection laws mean that ISP's cannot look at the information sent over their networks. So this law is completely unenforceable, it is just the government who are too stupid to realise it.

[Jinx]

ATG said:

The Mars Bar exists, but the copy doesn't? Are you seriously suggesting that is a substantive point?

[i]Substantive/[i]
1. having independent existence; independent.
2. belonging to the real nature or essential part of a thing; essential.
3. real or actual.
4. of considerable amount or quantity.
5. possessing substance;

yep that is exactly my point - you are not stealing anything substantive....

ATG said:

The data I am going to copy exists prior to copying it, and the copy of the data clearly exists and is in my possesion afterwards. If you are uncomfortable with the term "theft" as you have defined it, would you be happier with "stealing"?

The basic legal definition of theft is ‘the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it’.
A download is not depriving anyone.

I am perfectly happy with the term "copyright infringement"

[pdV6]

Silverbullet767 said:

Dod eat dog

Ken Dodd at a Korean restaurant, yesterday