News Regulate Internet: What Does it Mean & Why is it Important?

[Angry Citizen]

Even if it isn't "theft", its just as wrong as knowingly buying cheap products from someone who has either stolen them or reproduced them illegally. Would you buy a 50 inch TV for 1/4 the normal price that you KNOW is stolen? Or physical copies of software that you know had been reproduced and burnt onto the CD? Sure, some people who bought these products probably wouldn't have bought the legal ones due to price, BUT IT'S STILL WRONG. And if you don't believe that it is, then I think you really need to look your morals. No amount of justification will change that in my opinion. Now, the specific bills that have been brought up may or may not be the best, and you can say they that they lead to all kinds of nonsense by governments, but that is a separate issue.

This is silly. The argument one can use to counter this is within your own post: "physical". A 50 inch TV is a physical object. It's a zero-sum game. If someone takes a 50 inch TV, that is a 50 inch TV that is no longer in the market. Someone made it, and now someone who may have wanted to pay for it no longer can because it isn't there any more.

Things are a wee bit different with downloads.

If anything, it's more akin to buying used goods. Does it hurt the author of a book if I purchase a used book instead of a new book? Yes, if we go by your sense of justice. That is because the used book has already been purchased, and royalties have already been paid through sales to the publishing company that is funneled back to the author. But the transaction for the used book does not involve any royalties - it is "stealing" in the same sense that downloading is "stealing". The author gets nothing for it. The publishing company gets nothing for it. And if the book is at a garage sale or something and is sold for a dime, I might as well be getting it for free. Imagine that. Piracy in the real world, perhaps?

 

[Travis_King]

Even if it isn't "theft", its just as wrong as knowingly buying cheap products from someone who has either stolen them or reproduced them illegally. Would you buy a 50 inch TV for 1/4 the normal price that you KNOW is stolen?

Stolen from the family across town or stolen from Best Buy? Either way, a TV is quite different from burned software. A TV is a physical item. It was stocked and listed as inventory and given a listing price. This TV, if stolen, cannot be sold by Best Buy and so they have directly lost revenue. The software that is ripped still exists and remains in the vendor's possession to be sold to someone else.

This copy infringes on copyrights and reduces the potential market but does not actually take assets which could generate revenue.

If I find the specs for an Aston Martin, build it from the ground up (let's forget costs), and market and sell it as an Aston Martin, I have not therefore stolen an Aston Martin.

Or physical copies of software that you know had been reproduced and burnt onto the CD?

yep.

Sure, some people who bought these products probably wouldn't have bought the legal ones due to price, BUT IT'S STILL WRONG. And if you don't believe that it is, then I think you really need to look your morals.

It is morally wrong to infringe on copyrights? I have no moral obligation to look out for the profit margin of any company or individual.

I'm not saying it's right to go out and pirate to stick it to "the system", but morally wrong?

As for this:

But they aren't stolen only by people that would not have bought them, IMO.

This is an interesting topic. You questioned nanosiborg's age earlier in the thread, referencing the fact that this person grew up with internet. Presumably you raised this question to imply that nanosiborg doesn't remember when people used to buy all of their music (though, admittedly, I could be way off on this). Whether or not that was your intention, I'll address this concern.

Considering the music industry, as this seems to be the most popular:
True, there was a time when people had to go to record stores and buy records, or CD's if they wanted music.

With the introduction of the internet and especially P2P sharing, there has been a paradigm shift in the industry. You've got youtube, grooveshark, pandora, spotify, etc. These are the LEGAL ways of getting music for free or for virtual pocket change. The only inconvenience of these services are the lack of ownership. If I listen to a song on Pandora or youtube, I don't have the ability to take that mp3 and transfer it to a CD so I can play it on road trips. Hence the illegal downloading.

The music industry cannot rely on the now-archaic business model of charging 18 bucks for a 12 song CD when the songs on that CD exist for free or for tuppens on the internet, both legally and illegally. Even iTunes' charge rate of $0.99 (for standard songs) will have to change. People, in general, do not mind paying small fees, once, to listen to music and organize play lists. But in a time where one can pay a $10 a month to grab the two songs of twelve that she likes from an artist's album while on Spotify (not to mention the unlimited other downloads she can do), the idea of charging her that same $10 for a single CD of mostly songs she doesn't want doesn't make sense anymore.

Piracy is illegal, and I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be (for the uploader, not the downloader, but that's another issue). But the various entertainment industries have to do what all other industries do when faced with paradigm shifts. They have to adapt. People like music, not CD's. People don't owe it to the multimedia industry to purchase CD's. They've got to change their methods of generating revenue to meet the needs and demands of their consumers.

I personally don't pirate music, at least not regularly or en masse. I pay for Pandora because it is a service that I think does a pretty good job at giving me music while supporting artists. If I really want to listen to a song, right now, I'll go to youtube.

 

[TheMadMonk]

Even if it isn't "theft", its just as wrong as knowingly buying cheap products from someone who has either stolen them or reproduced them illegally. Would you buy a 50 inch TV for 1/4 the normal price that you KNOW is stolen? Or physical copies of software that you know had been reproduced and burnt onto the CD? Sure, some people who bought these products probably wouldn't have bought the legal ones due to price, BUT IT'S STILL WRONG. And if you don't believe that it is, then I think you really need to look your morals. No amount of justification will change that in my opinion. Now, the specific bills that have been brought up may or may not be the best, and you can say they that they lead to all kinds of nonsense by governments, but that is a separate issue.

If that is aimed at me, I have at no point condoned illegally downloading music. I just don't understand why it should be considered theft.

 

[Evo]

This is going nowhere.

Fact -

The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement under certain circumstances, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act

I also previously posted the link to the law and a summary page.