Why do people not see copy-right infringement as stealing?
- Thread starter SerriaFox
- Start date
jtb1127
Deity
Because it's taking property without permission.
Because they do not have any intellectual property worth stealing.
I think most people would admit it's a kind of theft (though "not as bad" or something). Though there are those who don't believe in copyright law in the first place.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
A) Because nowadays the IP laws are ridiculous.
B) Poverty. (I'm not talking about USA)
B) Poverty. (I'm not talking about USA)
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
Because there is such a grey area with it.
Currently I am listening to the choral section of Beethoven's 9th on youtube. I don't own the recording, and I doubt the person who uploaded it owns the actual recording (which, given that it features Karajan, is likely owned by Telarc). Does that person's ownership of a copy of the actual recording allow him to put it up on youtube? Am I guilty of copyright infringement because I listened to it if it is decided that his uploading of it was copyright infringement?
As to the argument that it cuts down on sales, I find that a bit suspect. Of the CDs I own, many of them* I purchased precisely because I listened to them on youtube and decided I liked the music. In that case, the possible copyright infringement resulted in a net positive for the owner of the actual recording.
*List:
Berlioz La Damnation de Faust
Dvorak Requiem and The New World
Verdi Requiem (and soon Rigoletto)
Orff Carmina Burana
Prokofiev Alexander Nevsky Cantata
Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto A
And many more including Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, Handel, and Liszt.
Currently I am listening to the choral section of Beethoven's 9th on youtube. I don't own the recording, and I doubt the person who uploaded it owns the actual recording (which, given that it features Karajan, is likely owned by Telarc). Does that person's ownership of a copy of the actual recording allow him to put it up on youtube? Am I guilty of copyright infringement because I listened to it if it is decided that his uploading of it was copyright infringement?
As to the argument that it cuts down on sales, I find that a bit suspect. Of the CDs I own, many of them* I purchased precisely because I listened to them on youtube and decided I liked the music. In that case, the possible copyright infringement resulted in a net positive for the owner of the actual recording.
*List:
Berlioz La Damnation de Faust
Dvorak Requiem and The New World
Verdi Requiem (and soon Rigoletto)
Orff Carmina Burana
Prokofiev Alexander Nevsky Cantata
Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto A
And many more including Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Bruckner, Handel, and Liszt.
Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
IP Law is really a grey area. There are some things that really shouldn't be copyrighted but are.
Er, what?
You can't take photos of the artwork in the Vatican because the cumulative effects of flash photography (tens of thousands of individual flashes) damage the art.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
I think that as long as we live in the digital age where traditional concepts of copyright law is challenged, instead of adapting to the changes, corporations and various organizations expect people to continue believing that digital contents is still the same as physical things.
Piracy does not take money away from sellers. It reduces how much they get. This is not the same thing.
Piracy does not take money away from sellers. It reduces how much they get. This is not the same thing.
The law regarding the right to distribute intelectual property does not change merely because of the way the intellectual property is stored.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
IP doesn't have any marginal costs. If I steal a DVD in a store there's one DVD less in the store. If I download it there's nothing missing.
Also, a pirate constantly searches for justifications and publishers are eager to provide them. Reselling used games ? Either not possible, or the game is missing 'free' DLC. Borrowing a game to a friend ? Not possible, it's bound to your account.
If EA goes through with Origin I'll never install an uncracked EA game on my PC again. I'm not gonna pirate the games. I'll go to the store, buy it and then downlad a crack -and there's always a crack- because I don't want their spywarejunk on my computer
Other people will do the same and depending on their honor and financial situation skip the buying part. I remember a game I bought some years ago that wouldn't run on my PC because it it didn't recognize the DVD. Why ? Because I have a 64 bit OS and the copy protection was incompatible. After I got a crack it worked fine.
So why the F do I pay for stuff when I have search shady websites for a crack ?
Also, a pirate constantly searches for justifications and publishers are eager to provide them. Reselling used games ? Either not possible, or the game is missing 'free' DLC. Borrowing a game to a friend ? Not possible, it's bound to your account.
If EA goes through with Origin I'll never install an uncracked EA game on my PC again. I'm not gonna pirate the games. I'll go to the store, buy it and then downlad a crack -and there's always a crack- because I don't want their spywarejunk on my computer
Other people will do the same and depending on their honor and financial situation skip the buying part. I remember a game I bought some years ago that wouldn't run on my PC because it it didn't recognize the DVD. Why ? Because I have a 64 bit OS and the copy protection was incompatible. After I got a crack it worked fine.
So why the F do I pay for stuff when I have search shady websites for a crack ?
Can I walk freely into a concert because my presence does not add to the marginal cost?
Mise
isle of lucy
Because it's not theft, it's not prosecuted as theft, and it's not punished as theft. It's copyright infringement.
Maybe you should ask why the criminal justice system doesn't see it as theft. The only people who see it as theft are the people who stand to lose from it. EDIT: And JR, for some reason.
Maybe you should ask why the criminal justice system doesn't see it as theft. The only people who see it as theft are the people who stand to lose from it. EDIT: And JR, for some reason.
GoodSarmatian
Jokerfied Western Male
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 9,408
No, but you wouldn't be accused of stealing.
I'm talking specifically about the Sistine Chapel and that's what I was told when I visited before I even entered the place.
There are three types of "stealing," arguably as varying levels or "degrees" of theft:
1. Obtaining an item while depriving the retailer (and related parties) of that item. Example: shoplifting a movie DVD.
2. Obtaining an item without depriving the retailer (and related parties) of that item, but denying the revenue to the retailer (and related parties) from what would have been a transaction. Example: downloading a movie that you would have otherwise purchased.
3. Obtaining an item without depriving the retailer (and related parties) of that item, as well as without denying any revenue to the retailer (and related parties). Example: downloading a movie on which you never would have spent any money.
To brand them all under one word would be impractical and foolish, due to the varying degrees of action and effect.
http://ncsi-net.ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/cyberspace/law/responsibility/cybercrime/www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/ipmanual/06ipma.htm
What if it is not a sell out or I am standing in a space that no paying customer would occupy?
If caught, I very well could be charged with a crime and the marginal cost defense would not help me out.
I think the more important question is when is an author adequately paid for his work? The fact that some musicians' heirs are paid royalties for up to 75 years after a piece of work is released just isn't right.
There are people who hold the position that this injustice makes copyright infringement morally acceptable. I can't say I disagree with them.
There are people who hold the position that this injustice makes copyright infringement morally acceptable. I can't say I disagree with them.
Similar threads
