Why online piracy isn't theft

[Jamie123]

Excellent Op-Ed in the New York Times about why equating online piracy to theft makes no sense.

[EdwardKaraa]

Let's say that our morality has consistently and considerably dropped in the last decade or so. I see people stealing everyday, everywhere, and this is considered smart these days. And this article just proves it, by making the case that stealing intellectual property is not stealing. Decadence.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by EdwardKaraa

Let's say that our morality has consistently and considerably dropped in the last decade or so. I see people stealing everyday, everywhere, and this is considered smart these days. And this article just proves it, by making the case that stealing intellectual property is not stealing. Decadence.

Sorry, but it seems you didn't get the point of the article at all. The point is, to quote the text, that "we should stop trying to shoehorn the 21st-century problem of illegal downloading into a moral and legal regime that was developed with a pre- or mid-20th-century economy in mind."

It's not that people are so decadent or morally corrupt nowadays that they think stealing is ok. It's not the people's morals that have changed in the last decade (at least not in regards to theft), it's the world that has changed. Illegal downloading would've been just as much of a problem 20 years ago if it had been possible back then.
The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet? Well, because they're quite aware of the fact that what they're doing is not stealing. What they're not aware of is what exactly it is that they are doing and what effects it has on other people's livelihoods. Blatantly false equations won't educate anyone.

[jsrockit]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

SoIllegal downloading would've been just as much of a problem 20 years ago if it had been possible back then.

Agreed... instead we just copied to tape in the past.

[ferider]

Lot's of conscious big gaps in the article, Jamie:

Originally Posted by Jamie123

The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet?

1) People illegally download for the same reason that they commit traffic violations consciously and often agressively. They feel anonymous and protected.

2) Modern copyright theft includes non internet activities that were the same more than 20 years ago, such as copying and distributing via physical media (paper, tapes, floppies, etc.); don't forget, even today, the majority of the world population doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download an entire movie, but rather uses a DVD copy.

3) Patent infringement has nothing to do with the internet.

For Caveman Bob to “steal” from Caveman Joe meant that Bob had taken something of value from Joe — say, his favorite club — and that Joe, crucially, no longer had it. Everyone recognized, at least intuitively, that theft constituted what can loosely be defined as a zero-sum game: what Bob gained, Joe lost.

4) That zero-sum game changed as soon as Bob and Joe invented money, didn't it ?

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement

Roland.

[Jamie123]

Originally Posted by ferider

Lot's of conscious big gaps, in this article, Jamie:

1) People illegally download for the same reason that they commit traffic violations consciously and often agressively. They feel anonymous and protected.

Not quite. For the most part people commit traffic violations because they think they can benefit from them without causing any harm to either themselves or others. And unless they cause an accident or get a ticket they're actually right. It's just the risk that's the problem.
And while it's true that some people steal when they know they won't get caught, I don't think this holds true for the majority of people. We all encounter situations in our everyday lives where we could steal something without getting caught yet few of us do it.

2) Modern copyright theft includes non internet activities that were the same more than 20 years ago, such as copying and distributing via physical media (paper, tapes, floppies, etc.); don't forget, even today, the majority of the world population doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download an entire movie, but rather uses a DVD copy.

I don't quite get your point. The intangible asset isn't the medium but the information on the medium, be it paper, disk or DVD. The problem only really became this significant in the age of the internet because of the ease of information transfer which makes it much harder to enforce any kind of restrictions. And the majority of the world who doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download a movie is really not significant as they couldn't afford to buy movies anyways.

3) Patent infringement has nothing to do with the internet.

Sure, but nowhere in the article does it say that. As far as I can see the only time patents are mentioned is as an example of intangible assets. The point is moot.

4) That zero-sum game changed for Bob and Joe, as soon as they invented money, didn't it ?

Not really. For a long time exchange of money for goods was still a zero sum game. And if you have a closed system with a fixed amount of money than the exchange of money amongst the participants of said system is still a zero-sum game.

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement

Maybe, if by that you mean a write up that merely argues that ''global warming'' is a misleading term.

[huntjump]

4) That zero-sum game changed as soon as Bob and Joe invented money, didn't it ?

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement

Roland.

When you put "global warming" in quotes, I assume because you disagree it is real, correct? Do you disagree it is happening, or that it is human driven? (or neither)?

Last credible scientist (who I studied under) changed his tune a few months ago (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ticle-1.969870). Would love to see a credible scientist that has done a legitimate study and has concluded it isnt happening. It is pretty much the entire scientific community that has confirmed it is happening, you may though disagree humans are the cause...but i'd be curious to see what science you point to (That isn't directly sponsored by big oil). my 0.02

just wondering, though i know this isnt on point with OP


PS. I didn't agree with the article for the most part. I agree with Roland on all his points but the one ^^

[JohnTF]

[quote=huntjump;1845595]When you put "global warming" in quotes, I assume because you disagree it is real, correct? Do you disagree it is happening, or that it is human driven? (or neither)?

Last credible scientist (who I studied under) changed his tune a few months ago (see: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ticle-1.969870). Would love to see a credible scientist that has done a legitimate study and has concluded it isnt happening. It is pretty much the entire scientific community that has confirmed it is happening, you may though disagree humans are the cause...but i'd be curious to see what science you point to (That isn't directly sponsored by big oil). my 0.02

just wondering, though i know this isnt on point with OP



Science does not really work on consensus -- and it is not a "confirmation" thing, data either supports or fails to support a hypothesis. Climate is over a very long period of time and we really do not want to wait for the results of this experiment.

All the political values in the topic are irrelevant -- we have known for a very long time we are doing a real time experiment with atmospheric chemistry -- that we should not be doing.

No need to beat it to death with doomsday etc. arguments, or make a new slide show, we should not be significantly altering the atmosphere as it is not a reasonable course of action with known consequences.

It is certainly more complex than can be intelligently discussed by most doing so, and does not require consensus.

You need go no further than "we should not be doing it to begin with", now let's get on with trying to lower emissions.

Nor should we be destroying the oceans, it's where most of our oxygen comes from and where the CO2 is absorbed.


Regards, John

[RealXenuis]

I was JUST going to make the traffic violation analogy. Any reasonable person knows it's theft. Mayhaps the connection btwn immediate action (downloading) and consequence (jail, fine) has not been properly taught, learned, understood, or reinforced. These are different issues though. B/c you can and have gotten away with something never made it less illegal. Because all your friends download doesn't make it more legitimate. Just because you haven't been caught or charged yet doesn't mean you wont. There's a sort of "power in numbers" aesthetic going on with illegal downloading, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate or reasonable stance. There are plenty of real and legitimate causes for concern with regards to our personal freedom, but as long as our capitalist commerce system allow for us to make a living via creative means, then those "products" are going to need protecting, and thus rules. I see this argument being misplaced: it should be a discussion about our system of commerce, such as various property rights and how we are allowed to make money.

I do think there should be open standards for media. I understand businesses difficulties in policing theft, so they create DRM. But I think that their problem to solve. It's a cost of doing business. I should be able to stream or watch or listen to whatever I rented or purchased on any of my devices. More specifically, if I've outright bought something, I should be able to manipulate it however I please. Rentals are a more complicated matter, and I do think sellers should have some rights there.

Originally Posted by ferider

Lot's of conscious big gaps in the article, Jamie:



1) People illegally download for the same reason that they commit traffic violations consciously and often agressively. They feel anonymous and protected.

2) Modern copyright theft includes non internet activities that were the same more than 20 years ago, such as copying and distributing via physical media (paper, tapes, floppies, etc.); don't forget, even today, the majority of the world population doesn't have enough internet bandwidth to download an entire movie, but rather uses a DVD copy.

3) Patent infringement has nothing to do with the internet.



4) That zero-sum game changed as soon as Bob and Joe invented money, didn't it ?

I don't like the article. Feels like the "global warming" write-up on copyright infringement

Roland.

[Roger Hicks]

Originally Posted by RealXenuis

. . .
I do think there should be open standards for media. I understand businesses difficulties in policing theft, so they create DRM. But I think that their problem to solve. . .

Who are 'they'? I'm not a big business or a rich man but I've got by for 30+ years on freelance writing and photography. Suddenly, it's my problem if my work is stolen? How would people feel if I were suddenly to say, "Private ownership of cars is an outmoded concept, so I'll just borrow your car, without permission, to drive to the shops. You needn't worry, because you'll still have the car afterwards, and I'll even put gas in it" ?

This is why we have society: for fairness, and collective action. Intellectual property theft is bread out of my mouth, and no-one so far has made any suggestion about how to replace the 'outmoded' model of copyright. If anyone has any good ideas, I'm all ears. But I've not actually heard ANY ideas so far, let alone good ones.

Cheers,

R.

[mdarnton]

Originally Posted by Jamie123

The thing is, most people still think stealing is wrong which is why they don't steal in their everyday lives. Why then do they still illegally download stuff off the internet? Well, because they're quite aware of the fact that what they're doing is not stealing. .

Huh? Man if there ever was a concise example of how people's morals are dropping, your statement is it. And, of course, you don't get it at all, because your morals have dropped.

I'm not even going to read this thread further: you just nailed the whole issue down in one post, to the point where any further discussion is superfluous.

[Jamie Pillers]

This sounds like (I refer to the op ed piece primarily) like a bunch of blah, blah...

I'm sure its probably important to some legal experts, and may they solve it to their content. However, I still side with the artists, businesses that make money managing the artists' stuff, etc.

Just because people don't think illegal downloading falls into an arbitrary (old??) category called "stealing" doesn't give them the right to do what they do (which the op ed author points out). It sounds like these 'mis-appropriators' are just looking for any excuse to continue doing what they want. They should stop it NOW, period. Its wrong, whatever its called. Let the legal experts take their good sweet time coming up with a law that better defines this crime, but it the mean time how about if we just do what's right. (Geez... why do so many people on this planet need to be told to do the right thing???)

[kdemas]

Well said Jamie.

Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers

This sounds like (I refer to the op ed piece primarily) like a bunch of blah, blah...

I'm sure its probably important to some legal experts, and may they solve it to their content. However, I still side with the artists, businesses that make money managing the artists' stuff, etc.

Just because people don't think illegal downloading falls into an arbitrary (old??) category called "stealing" doesn't give them the right to do what they do (which the op ed author points out). It sounds like these 'mis-appropriators' are just looking for any excuse to continue doing what they want. They should stop it NOW, period. Its wrong, whatever its called. Let the legal experts take their good sweet time coming up with a law that better defines this crime, but it the mean time how about if we just do what's right. (Geez... why do so many people on this planet need to be told to do the right thing???)

[Jamie Pillers]

I was feeling grumpy last night.

[Steve M.]

I read this a few times to make sure I didn't miss something. None of it makes any sense to me. We all know that that many things are situational, and stealing some things is worse, or lesser, than stealing other things. Sometimes it depends on circumstances. If a father steals food because his family is starving, and it's because no one will hire the father due to his race/religion/etc, that's one thing. Yes, it's still stealing, but I'd do it too. It's doing what you need to do. But what if someone who DOESN'T need to steal (nearly everyone I've ever met in the US) decides to steal, that's a totally different situation. That's theft w/ a capital T. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure intent and situation are taken into account in a court of law, before a judge or jury decides on an appropriate punishment.

Stealing someone's intellectual work, whether it's been put into concrete form w/ a product or is simple just written down as a draft on a piece of paper ( being in a PDF format on a computer would be exactly the same) is stealing. In the case of an artist's or writer's work for example, even if it only exists in a draft form and no book or painting/drawing/etc has been created, it's still stealing someone else's work. I don't see how this can be misconstrued.

[redisburning]

Originally Posted by Steve M.

I read this a few times to make sure I didn't miss something. None of it makes any sense to me. We all know that that many things are situational, and stealing some things is worse, or lesser, than stealing other things. Sometimes it depends on circumstances. If a father steals food because his family is starving, and it's because no one will hire the father due to his race/religion/etc, that's one thing. Yes, it's still stealing, but I'd do it too. It's doing what you need to do. But what if someone who DOESN'T need to steal (nearly everyone I've ever met in the US) decides to steal, that's a totally different situation. That's theft w/ a capital T.

yeah, here's the problem with that.

it's 100% arbitrary and in the US at least we have decided that you have a fundamental right to equal protection under the law. that applies to the bad people as well as the good.

a good example, and I hate to agree with Kanye but this was really what happened, is that after Katrina when it was a white family getting food out of a flooded grocer it was "surviving" but when it was a black family it was "looting".

a man who steals for his child has still stolen and is subject to the same punishment as a dick who steals for himself. we exclude career criminals because they got equal protection the first time they did it.

IP infringement is not the same as property theft, but it's still illegal. It has been correctly pointed out that it is not zero sum, because it's non-rival. that is just the way it is. but, we need IP rules and property rights to keep things running smoothly so that's the way it is.

[thegman]

My career is in software, so I'm pretty anti-piracy, and anti-copyright infringement. However, I agree with Jamie, that it's not truly theft and should not be punished like it was. The fact is if someone uses one of my photos without asking, then I've not lost anything, I've just not gained anything. However, I do believe that for the sake of many industries, copyright does need to be protected, just not in the way it is now.

Basically, we need to use the law the way it was always meant to be, and let the punishment fit the crime. Copyright theft, especially if it's not for profit, should be pretty low down on the list of priorities for law enforcement, IMHO.

Also, I think that the law needs to be a lot more centred around fair-use. For example, if I purchase a movie on iTunes , my Playstation 3, or some other means, that should mean that I own rights to watch that movie, period. Not just on Apple devices, not just on Sony devices, not just where my devices can contact a DRM server.

If priced reasonably and fairly, most people I believe have no trouble paying for intellectual property.

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David

[Basset]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David

I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.

[Jack Conrad]

Originally Posted by Basset

I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.

Yeah, one might suggest that the revered public libraries are being destroyed by intellectual property rights and copyright infringement litigation.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Basset

I understand the web provides a distinction in that dissemination is a lot easier. But suppose only one person downloaded your book from Megauploads. After she's done reading it, she deletes it.

How is she different from someone who simply borrowed your book from a library or friend and then returned it after she was done? In either case, she does not buy your book, so the impact to you is the same. In either case, her motive is to read the book once without having to pay you.

We revere libraries in our culture, and yet in my example, the library is in a position to facilitate hundreds of transactions (borrowing, with no royalty paid to you) that may operate to deprive of many dozens, if not hundreds of sales. As noted above, the web makes many thousands, or millions or transactions possible, I understand that, of course. But do you also think libraries are a problem for authors as well, just to a lesser degree?


The NYT article does make a good point that intellectual property is different in nature than physical property, and thus the discussion might need to be different either. That's not saying authors are entitled to no protection for their work. It's just saying it's a different sort of conversation.

I have some idea what responses might be, but I am more interested in your response than mine.

Hi,

In this country authors are re-imbursed for library loans. Or were, I've little recent experience of it.

But, here we go, writing a book is like going to work but without being paid at the end of the week or month. You get paid when the thing is published and sells.

What that means in practice is weeks of work and expenses like photography, ink, ribbons (for typewriters as this was the 70's), photocopies, travel and you have to pay others to do very technical stuff like line drawings*. Then it gets checked, revised and then the final draft (more expensive photocopying) gets sorted out, printers and so on are visited to check pagination (getting the photo's opposite the right page can be a pita). Finally it's printed and sells, and you start paying off the loan for the expenses and then a long time later you actually get money for the work you did.

BTW, you have to eat and pay the mortgage while all this is going on.

So those people who put the scan up on the web have deprived me of hundreds if not thousands of pounds of wages or salary.

And I still have to search the web for the current scans and then start a row with the web-site owner etc. I can do without this.

Regards, David

* Line drawings cost a lot to be done properly and are ripped off very often. I've hard back books by others with my work in for instance. And lawyers cost a fortune. In the end you give up. I am not happy about that...

[jody36]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David

just a question. Had it not been posted would you have sold hundreds of copies? would your work still have reach all these people?

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by jody36

just a question. Had it not been posted would you have sold hundreds of copies? would your work still have reach all these people?

Hi,

Please don't ask me to forecast how a book published 40 years ago would sell these days after being put up as a scan a couple of years ago. If I knew the answer I'd get it republished, perhaps. I did ask all those naughty people posting it how many copies had been downloaded but few would even answer, although the downloads did vanish from their websites.

More to the point, it's not about reaching people but being paid for my labour etc.

Regards, David

[Jamie Pillers]

No feeling about it... you were defintely stolen from. Without question. Take the b**tards to court! In the meantime, lets all go out for a beer. :-)

[x-ray]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

Hi,

Hmmm, well now, one of my books from the 70's was scanned and posted on the www and hundreds of copies downloaded. I feel they've been stolen from me...

Regards, David

Yes, absolutely this is theft.

I regularly find some of my images scattered about the internet without my permission. The particular images that are popular were part of a documentary project that I spent three years doing and several thousand dollars. I've spnet three more years marketing this work and spent thousands more. All of the images are registered with the copyright office. I make my living from my photography and have made a good deal of money from these images. I also find them on ebay in the form of prints, cards, buttons, greeting cards and etc. With others making money and using my images without my consent. In my book this is absolutely theft.

It's not just my documentary work, my art is also copied and sold without my permission. I've shut down two groups infringing my copyright and have decided to take whatever steps necessary to stop these people.