Piracy is being sold to us as Stealing but is it ?

originally posted by: gosseyn
You use words that seem to exist only in your mind : "stealing", "damages", those words are out of place and I don't recognize their relevance here.

Most self-entitled thieves do not.

a reply to: mazzroth

In the case of downloading a tv show like GoT you simply copy the copy and watch it at your leisure with the owner unaware and unhurt by the action. You can argue financially they are hurt but when a decent movie comes out it makes 100's of millions so are we to accept the greedy Hollywood Bankers argument they should get more ?

If you use a thing without making an equal exchange in value, and the other party feels slighted, you are guilty of theft.

All the people involved in the process of producing a thing, or offering a service, deserve some form of value-exchange from you, because they are adding value to your life. Otherwise, you wouldn't willingly seek out their product or service.

It is theft, because there was labor involved, and you are effectively stating with your actions that you want people to labor for you for free, and you are attempting to excuse it.

People are greedy because they want an equivalent exchange in value for providing a thing, I am not greedy for making my participation in the exchange non-equivalent.--You

Is piracy stealing? No.
Let me explain.
Let's say I'm sitting at home bored one night and decide that I feel like watching a movie, so I download one and watch it. Would I have paid for the movie otherwise? No, so the people who made the movie have not lost any profit. Now, maybe I really liked the movie. Maybe it was the coolest movie I've ever seen. So now I go on Facebook, or some other website, and tell everyone what a great movie it was and that they should all see it. Some of them decide to. Instead of taking money away from the movie industry, I just generated income for it.

a reply to: trollz

No, so the people who made the movie have not lost any profit. Now, maybe I really liked the movie. Maybe it was the coolest movie I've ever seen. So now I go on Facebook, or some other website, and tell everyone what a great movie it was and that they should all see it. Some of them decide to. Instead of taking money away from the movie industry, I just generated income for it.

You can also do that by actually paying for the things that you use, instead of assuming that people want to work for you for free.

a reply to: mazzroth

Personally I don't think it's stealing, but you are depriving someone the right to profit off of their creation. I really believe if someone creates something others enjoy they should be paid for it if they choose to be. Whenever I can I try to buy music directly from the creators. It's a lot easier to do these days and it feels good knowing my money's going towards helping create more music I love or at least keeping the creators fed so they can make more.

Where I feel less bad is downloading things that have been released for years, things I used to have in a different format but have no longer or things I know that my money is likely going to some executive or company and the artists themselves are receiving little to nothing of the profits made off their creation.

And honestly I've found I don't really pirate much of anything these days because I've basically stopped watching movies and tv shows and only really listen to music I buy directly from different artists around the world.

originally posted by: dug88
Personally I don't think it's stealing, but you are depriving someone the right to profit off of their creation.

Do you not find that to be oxymoronic?

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
a reply to: trollz

No, so the people who made the movie have not lost any profit. Now, maybe I really liked the movie. Maybe it was the coolest movie I've ever seen. So now I go on Facebook, or some other website, and tell everyone what a great movie it was and that they should all see it. Some of them decide to. Instead of taking money away from the movie industry, I just generated income for it.

You can also do that by actually paying for the things that you use, instead of assuming that people want to work for you for free.

But that's the thing - without "piracy", those movies still aren't going to be paid for... They just won't be watched. The people who made those movies are losing, not gaining, by fighting piracy.

a reply to: trollz

But that's the thing - without "piracy", those movies still aren't going to be paid for... They just won't be watched. The people who made those movies are losing, not gaining, by fighting piracy.

But, that's the thing, you're still excusing doing something that is immoral.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dug88
Personally I don't think it's stealing, but you are depriving someone the right to profit off of their creation.

Do you not find that to be oxymoronic?

No if there is theft involved it's theft of potential profits and not the media itself. I don't think I was clear enough. It is not stealing the way stealing a car is as implied in the op. If taking a copy of something is stealing then everytime you make a photocopy of something you're stealing it. You can't steal a song by downloading it but you are taking their money.

originally posted by: CharlestonChew
But, that's the thing, you're still excusing doing something that is immoral.

"Immoral" is entirely relative.
Let me ask you this honest question: Let's say you go to Walmart and buy a movie. Ok, great, you bought it and you have the right to legally watch it. Now you take it home and watch it with your wife and 2 kids. Do you feel like you did something wrong, or bad? You've just committed piracy by letting those 3 other people watch a movie they did not pay for. Maybe you tell your friend at work that you got so-and-so movie and it's pretty good, so your friend says "Hey, can I borrow it sometime?". So you decide to let your friend borrow the movie. Do you now feel like an immoral criminal? You've just committed piracy again by providing a movie to someone who did not pay for it.
This is why the argument against piracy completely fails. It's generally considered "ok" to do those things which I've mentioned. So where do you draw the line? Why is it ok to lend a movie to someone, or watch a movie with a significant other, but it's not ok to watch one on your computer? If it's ok to watch a movie with your 2 kids, is it "wrong" to watch it with 3, 4, 5 other people who didn't pay for it?

originally posted by: dug88
You can't steal a song by downloading it but you are taking their money.

And taking money is called what?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dug88
You can't steal a song by downloading it but you are taking their money.

And taking money is called what?

Go back and read the op he was equating downloading with stealing a car. I think I made it very clear that I feel there is a distinction in the products you are stealing. You are not stealing a song. The only way to compare it to auto theft would be if you broke into the recording studio and stole the master tracks for the song. That would be equivalent to auto theft. Downloading not so much.

I never said it wasn't wrong but its definitely not the same.

a reply to: dug88

Sorry, what was the answer to my question about taking money?

a reply to: trollz

"Immoral" is entirely relative.
Let me ask you this honest question: Let's say you go to Walmart and buy a movie. Ok, great, you bought it and you have the right to legally watch it. Now you take it home and watch it with your wife and 2 kids. Do you feel like you did something wrong, or bad? You've just committed piracy by letting those 3 other people watch a movie they did not pay for. Maybe you tell your friend at work that you got so-and-so movie and it's pretty good, so your friend says "Hey, can I borrow it sometime?". So you decide to let your friend borrow the movie. Do you now feel like an immoral criminal? You've just committed piracy again by providing a movie to someone who did not pay for it.
This is why the argument against piracy completely fails. It's generally considered "ok" to do those things which I've mentioned. So where do you draw the line? Why is it ok to lend a movie to someone, or watch a movie with a significant other, but it's not ok to watch one on your computer? If it's ok to watch a movie with your 2 kids, is it "wrong" to watch it with 3, 4, 5 other people who didn't pay for it?

This is a false equivalency. The difference between the scenarios is intent. On the one hand you have made the equivalent exchange in value, the item you have purchased is yours and you can do with it as you will, including sharing it with other people. In the instance that you pirate a thing, you have no intention of making the equivalent exchange necessary for the people who produced the thing to be compensated for their work.

You are excusing people working for free. In the instance that I buy X, and watch it with my kids, the party that I purchased it from has already been compensated for their labor. You are claiming that not-compensating someone is the equivalent as compensating someone and then sharing the portion that you purchased. It's not.

the corporations and industries steal more from people producing creative work of artists etc these days than fans of the persons work does. in todays platform of social media and global connectivity such industries are not needed... as a conglomerate exploiting individual artists talents when they can do that themselves and employ people they know with a talent for helping them achieve that without the old formal business model.

i know quite a few doing this grass roots in various sectors all over the world living and working their passions and are so very happy to be out from the old collective noose called a business tie.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Under that logic, shops that buy and sell dvd's are technically pirates as well. They are denying future profits to the original content owner.
The gaming industry have been trying to shut down the 2nd hand gaming market for years.
They use codes that can only be used once. So now when you purchase a game 2nd hand, to play online you need to purchase a pass.
The next generation of consoles will be cloud based so they won't have a problem with piracy on that platform and will kill the 2nd hand gaming market dead.
All games will be accessible instantly and the pricing model should be more fluid so that as a game ages the cheaper it should get.
You won't need to download as it will be on the cloud and you will just have an hdmi dongle in the back of the tv.
With DRM controlled gaming they will be able to rent games as well.

With music, movies and tv it's going be slightly more difficult as there are too many ways for media to be transferred from one form to another.
With TV, they need to find a new model as the current model doesn't fit the need of the consumer.
An example being tv shows that don't get screened in my country for months after the episode has aired. Now as a fan of the show what am I meant to do, avoid the internet for months or am I going to find a way to watch it? The answer is pretty simple.
When the episode airs in my country I will probably DVR the series but I might only rewatch a couple.
Am I hurting the very show i am a fan of? Yes. Do I have much of a choice? Not really.

With music and bands the money has always been in the merchandising and tours, it's been that way for decades.
The record companies have always milked the artists, the difference now is that piracy is hurting their profits.
I support the bands and artists I am a fan of, although I may not have bought all of their albums.

With movies, again a different model needs to be adopted if they want to beat piracy or at least try to get more money from consumers who don't go to the cinema that often but watch lots of movies.
They need to adopt on demand movies that are available to people not too long after theatrical release, I would say a month after the theatrical release would be the best for the theatre and the consumer.
That way you will get the people who want to watch the movie in decent quality but want to watch it long before it gets released on Bluray or DVD.
That is a huge untapped market that do resort to watching dodgy streams from less than reputable websites.

a reply to: mclarenmp4

I find the move towards trying to eliminate the 2nd hand market by businesses to be slightly despotic. Once you purchase a thing, you own that thing totally and can do with it what you will.

I agree that they need a better model, but the people or person creating a thing have to agree to the transaction. It would do well for movie companies to host their films on a platform like Youtube, where lots of money can be made through ad revenue.

Personally, if I were in a band, I would host all of my music on the internet and let people download it with no charge to them--because, as you said, musicians make more money through touring and merch sales. The internet is an excellent tool for new musicians to self-promote, and circulate their music, with no need for the old record companies.

the most recent complant I have heard is from youtube personalities and artists and facebook as they get paid per view and facebook posting was by passing the view count wen shared, not sure if this has been since rectfied or not... but some artists and personalities depend on those clicks to live while producing more work.

the big stink metallica made over napster and suing 10s of thousands of individual fans... was later proven that torrent file sharing actually boosted sales as a form of advertizing and publicity... as anyone sharing the music with friends that was asked who is this band or what is this game what software did you use etc became a brand spokesman whether anyone knew it or not... the very same way facebook functions and makes most of its money.

a reply to: CharlestonChew

A majority of touring bands make hardly any money when you take into account all the expenses,when playing to the smaller 500 max capacity clubs

Bigger acts who play arenas do of course make money but there the exception

These long tour gigs by many bands are not a walk in the park, they don't just turn up for the gig and play songs then leave the stage afterwards

It's not glamorous most of the time but the perks of the job are a bonus and you hit the big time you can coin it in even more so if your the songwriter

If they gave away their music for free it would be even less money,as it is the normal small long haul gigging band i expect make the same money as someone working in a burger bar

a reply to: mazzroth

As a self-published author if I found out that people were downloading my books for free (sharing them without permission,) I would not feel them to be thieves. I would hope they enjoyed my book/s. However, I would also be concerned that, if it picked up, I might never be able to do what I love for a living. Therefore, I have an invested interest against piracy, yet I would not see the act as stealing. It's a moral issue, more than legal (philosophically speaking.)

In fact, I am a pirate myself (on occasion.) If I cannot afford a certain software that I feel I need, I will download a pirated version. I feel that it is not stealing, especially since I cannot afford to pay for it anyway. Twice now I have paid for a game which I had played a pirated copy of in the past. Even though I was no longer playing the game, in each case my conscience made me pay for it when I was able to.