Do you think violating copyright law equates to stealing?

[Leros]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
stealing is appropriating the property with intent to deprive the owner of the property. violating copyright doesn't deprive the owner of the property. the owner still has the property.

While breaking copyright law is not theft, it does deprive the copyright holders of earnings on their intellectual property.

 

[B00ne]

no and yes

meaning in some case it equates more to stealing in other cases it actually provides a benefit to the company.

example1 - Music: often violating copyright laws does equate to stealing (I am not touching the reasons why ppl might do that) although certainly not to the extent as companies claim. Music (maybe even movies although I doubt that) that is pirated in many cases would/could be bought if one really likes it. I am exempting movies cause I take myself as example and I would not buy a DVD. Technically I am pirating movies sometimes but practically I am not. Explanation: I rent a movie or 2 and sometimes copy it because I might not watch at at the time. I am no movie buff I guess cause I throw them away after watching - I see no use in seeing something twice. So technically I am pirating but I payd for watching it - kinda like timeshifting.

example 2 - Software: this is true especially for expensive software: Like Photoshop, CAD software etc.: There is no way many private ppl could aford that or that their frequency of use would warrant the buying of such software. More often then not ppl rather familiarize themselves with such software and use it very infrequently. So the company is not loosing money, it woulndt be bought anyway. However the software companies gain from this kind of pirating because ppl then know their software and it will be potenially more likely to be bought (by a company).
btw, usually there are free alternatives which could be used to achieve what you want to do at home - however the pirated software might be more convenient simply because you have heard of it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: mchammer187

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Leros
Sure, but I don't agree with the way companies add up losses due to piracy.

Say 100,000 people pirate a $20 movie, the movie companies say they lost $2,000,000. But if there was no such thing as piracy, perhaps only 10% of those people would have legally purchased it.

Do they really do that, or do you just think they do that? If they used that kind of math, their "losses" would probably be much higher than their revenues. I thought (at least in the case of music companies) they used a more reasonable model that predicted what their revenues should have been (based on pre-filesharing trends) vs what they are and compared them.

I have absolutely no proof whatsoever, but I'm fairly certain that they inflate their losses to piracy as much as they possibly can.

Oh I have no doubt they take an estimate on the high side.

see this thread
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...atid=38&threadid=1979684&enterthread=y

You understand they are not saying or even implying that $1.65 trillion is anywhere near the amount of money they've lost due to Allofmp3.com, right? That's just the amount of money the law allows them to sue for.

 

[Leros]

What do you guys think about the fact that you get less punishment for stealing a physical CD than you get for downloading an album?

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Leros
What do you guys think about the fact that you get less punishment for stealing a physical CD than you get for downloading an album?

I think it shows how well the RIAA represents its clients.

 

[SirStev0]

I think stealing someone else's work and attempting to sell it for profit is violating copyright laws, stealing, and piracy. Major companies do it everyday.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Leros

Originally posted by: ElFenix
stealing is appropriating the property with intent to deprive the owner of the property. violating copyright doesn't deprive the owner of the property. the owner still has the property.

While breaking copyright law is not theft, it does deprive the copyright holders of earnings on their intellectual property.

yes and no. no if those were people who wouldn't be purchasing for the asking price anyway. those would be the people lower down on the demand curve.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Leros
What do you guys think about the fact that you get less punishment for stealing a physical CD than you get for downloading an album?

It's called a deterrent. The deterrent from stealing a physical CD is how easily you can get caught and fear of public confrontation. It is very easy to get away with downloading music, so they need a bigger deterrent - something to scare you into not pirating.

 

[Martin]

yeah, but I don't care.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Leros
What do you guys think about the fact that you get less punishment for stealing a physical CD than you get for downloading an album?

It's called a deterrent. The deterrent from stealing a physical CD is how easily you can get caught and fear of public confrontation. It is very easy to get away with downloading music, so they need a bigger deterrent - something to scare you into not pirating.

same reason why crack carries much bigger penalties than cocaine. people who use crack generally have a lot less to lose than people who use cocaine.

 

[KarenMarie]

I think that if I purchase something, it is mine and I should have the right to do whatever I please with it.

Having said that, it is not worth it to me to go thru the hassles of dealing with getting sued over a $10 CD... so I just dont make it available for sharing to the whole world.

 

[whistleclient]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Do they still have their song? If so, then it's not stealing.

crappy analogy, and you know it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I think that if I purchase something, it is mine and I should have the right to do whatever I please with it.

Having said that, it is not worth it to me to go thru the hassles of dealing with getting sued over a $10 CD... so I just dont make it available for sharing to the whole world.

So you think that if you buy a $10 CD, you should be allowed to reproduce millions of copies and sell them for $5 each?

 

[Dumac]

No, I don't considered it stealing, but I can understand why it is illegal and companies get huffy over the ordeal. Still, I think the ordeal is inflated.

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Yes, violating copyright law is stealing if you're doing it just to get something you would normally have to pay for.

However, punishment for circumvention of DRM in violation of the DMCA for legally acquired merchandise should be outlawed.

This is my problem with copyright law.

 

[Mo0o]

I haven't thought out this analogy fully but think about this:

An apple farmer grows a very delicious kind of apple though generations of refinement. I buy an apple, plant the seed, grow my own delicious apples then give them out to my friends. Am I stealing from the apple farmer?

 

[0roo0roo]

its not yes no. as currently written i'm pretty sure you are "stealing" if you rip your dvd to your ipod etc.

 

[torpid]

As worded I'd have to say yes. How can it possibly be no? Perhaps people who say no do not agree with the concept of intellectual property?

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: tangent1138

Originally posted by: yowolabi
Do they still have their song? If so, then it's not stealing.

crappy analogy, and you know it.

😕 That wasn't an analogy, and it wasn't crappy either.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: Golgatha
Yes, violating copyright law is stealing if you're doing it just to get something you would normally have to pay for.

However, punishment for circumvention of DRM in violation of the DMCA for legally acquired merchandise should be outlawed.

This is my problem with copyright law.

Depends on why you're doing it in my opinion. If they allow you to keep the song on 3 computers, and you strip the DRM so you can put it on 4 or more, that's really no different from buying one copy of XP and installing it on every computer in the house. If you want to strip off the DRM so you can use the music on a player that doesn't support the DRM variant in question, I think there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to rip a DVD to your hard drive so you can watch it without using the disc, I think there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: torpid
As worded I'd have to say yes. How can it possibly be no? Perhaps people who say no do not agree with the concept of intellectual property?

I bought a CD a while back that had some crappy copy protection on it.

It wouldn't play in my hifi system but ironically i could rip it on my computer make a copy and that would play.

Now who exactly was I 'stealing' from, the music company who I'd paid for one working CD? Myself? 😕

 

[Ricemarine]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: torpid
As worded I'd have to say yes. How can it possibly be no? Perhaps people who say no do not agree with the concept of intellectual property?

I bought a CD a while back that had some crappy copy protection on it.

It wouldn't play in my hifi system but ironically i could rip it on my computer make a copy and that would play.

Now who exactly was I 'stealing' from, the music company who I'd paid for one working CD? Myself? 😕

Wasn't it allowed for you to make a backup of your cd for backup purposes?...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
I haven't thought out this analogy fully but think about this:

An apple farmer grows a very delicious kind of apple though generations of refinement. I buy an apple, plant the seed, grow my own delicious apples then give them out to my friends. Am I stealing from the apple farmer?

You're getting into the area of patents there, and I'm not sure if you can patent a variety of apples or not.

Suppose on the other hand you spend millions of dollars on R&D to come up something incredibly useful. The thing is, once you figured it out it was very easy to reproduce. Should anyone be allowed to build one? If so, what was your motivation for designing it in the first place? You're out a few million, only to find yourself competing against every Tom, Dick and Harry who didn't spend a dime on R&D.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Ricemarine

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: torpid
As worded I'd have to say yes. How can it possibly be no? Perhaps people who say no do not agree with the concept of intellectual property?

I bought a CD a while back that had some crappy copy protection on it.

It wouldn't play in my hifi system but ironically i could rip it on my computer make a copy and that would play.

Now who exactly was I 'stealing' from, the music company who I'd paid for one working CD? Myself? 😕

Wasn't it allowed for you to make a backup of your cd for backup purposes?...

Legally you can make a backup copy for personal use, but if there's copy protection that must be broken in order to do so, you're then violating the DMCA.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: Ricemarine

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: torpid
As worded I'd have to say yes. How can it possibly be no? Perhaps people who say no do not agree with the concept of intellectual property?

I bought a CD a while back that had some crappy copy protection on it.

It wouldn't play in my hifi system but ironically i could rip it on my computer make a copy and that would play.

Now who exactly was I 'stealing' from, the music company who I'd paid for one working CD? Myself? 😕

Wasn't it allowed for you to make a backup of your cd for backup purposes?...

iirc you are if you don't circumvent the copy protection.

I have no idea what that means in practice 😕🙂