Yes, it is against the law. Yes, producers of content deserve to be paid. Yes, most people who rationalize copyright infringment are lying to themselves; they could afford it, they just choose not to pay for things because it’s convenient and easy not to.
This thread is not a defense of such acts.
This thread is about people who are either so fucking brainwashed by the **AA that they’ve forgotten what the point of copyright is or too fucking stupid to know the difference, and for people who would compare a pin-prick to a multi-state killing spree to make their point.
In this thread, duffer asks for possible alternate routes to finding a particular DVD, which is apparently only available used in small quantities for a lot of money. He makes mention of “bootlegs and imports.” moriah then jumps in and decries such suggestions by comparing them to breaking into people’s homes in case they have it.
This isn’t some studio release that duffer can’t be bothered to pay for. This is a movie that was in a small print run that has been exhausted and for which the price has gone up a great deal. How exactly is buying a used copy of the film more morally upstanding than getting a copy somewhere else? The artist isn’t being paid anymore. The company that holds the copyright is receiving nothing. The only person who benefits is the film collector who decides to sell off his copy. Why should this be a moral high ground? That’s like saying that watching a video of a popular concert is immoral because the ticket scalper doesn’t get his money.
I love the original Star Wars movies, and I bought some bootlegged DVDs of them a while ago (FWIW, I also got the official Lucasarts release). I could have shelled out a few hundred dollars for the Laserdiscs and a player to play them. But I didn’t. I would gladly have bought official DVDs, but they don’t fucking make them (and that’s a whole other rant). Buying media on a format I can play requires neither a moral dilemma or absurd analogies!
Sure, it’s not stealing La Giaconda out of the Louvre. But it’s still theft. There aren’t degrees to the word. There’s no “little white theft.” It’s stealing. You’re welcome to justify it all you want to. And for the most part, I’ll probably agree with you. But I’m not so “fucking stupid” that I don’t know what stealing is.
Every day, movie studios, book publishers and record companies make decisions over what works get released, issued or taken out-of-print. They’re economic - not artistic decisions.
If you’re going to define copyright infringement as ‘grand larceny’ - seeking out alternative sources for out-of-print titles doesn’t even come close to the level of petty larceny.
There aren’t degrees to the word. Certainly there are degrees to the action. But theft is simply taking something that ain’t yours without permission, regardless of value.
Well, in general, when referring to intellectual property rights, those rights can be infringed, but it is difficult to “steal” them as no matter how many times or to what extent the rights are infringed, the rights still remain with the owner. The rights are not stolen, they are infringed. That said, some infringement has been criminalized, but the term “theft” is a creation of the lobbyists working for RIAA as the term “theft” resonates to a much greater degree that does the term “infringed”. Its preferred by some to refer to making unauthorized bootlegs as “stealing” because it more easily gets the desired reaction. Conversely, your copy of an album can be stolen, but I’m having a hard time imagining how one might infringe a vinyl platter.
I won’t debate your definition of theft. But the answer to this question…
Is “no”. Copyright is a protection afforded by the government that gives you the exclusive right to reproduce a creative work. You don’t actually own every copy of the work or something.
I’d take the term used on this page with a grain of salt. Clicking through to the actual law it’s citing, the law itself is very consistent about referring to “infringement”, and never “theft”.
“Theft” is used in the names of these bills, but again I wouldn’t put much stock in the name of a bill, which is generally more marketing than anything. The text of the law, which is what actually gets enforced, again discusses “infringement”.
IMO there’s a big difference between illegally downloading something that is not available commercially (which includes obscure titles that are only available as $150 used copies) and downloading the latest albums or movies. If there’s no other way to get something except to download or bootleg it, then there’s no issue.
For instance, I’m a big fan of the show Upright Citizens Brigade. I have a dozen or so episodes downloaded (illegally) on my computer. When the first season came out on DVD, I gladly deleted the first season episodes from my computer and bought the DVD. I’ll do the same when the later seasons come out. But I don’t see what’s wrong with downloading them in the first place. If a television or movie studio can’t recognize that there’s a market for a cancelled show, then what are fans of that show supposed to do? Just say “oh, well, never going to see that again I guess” and forget about it? How do the actors and writers profit from that?
And it’s pretty clear that online availability doesn’t impact DVD sales that much, except maybe to keep a show/movie alive so that it reaches more fans, many of whom are willing to buy the legal releases of these movies or shows once they’re finally released by the short-sighted networks. Take Mystery Science Theater 3000. There are lots of fans of that show (myself included) who only got into it after it had been cancelled and was only available online or on bootlegged tapes. If it hadn’t been for “illegal” downloads then I never would have gotten into the show, and wouldn’t have spent any money on the legal DVDs at all.
My position is that if the producers hate the fact that their shows and movies are being bootlegged, then just release them legally already. At least put up a site where people can buy downloads of the shows/movies they want, if you’re not going to spring for a real DVD release. Otherwise, there’s no way (other than paying hundreds of dollars to obsessive collectors) for people to get copies of the things they want.
Alright, cj and Joools, I can see that as a reasonable argument. One is not stealing; rather one is violating another’s right to exclusivity. Bill Watterson doesn’t own every image of Calvin, he holds exclusive rights to let other people make images of Calvin. And when Joe Asshole puts a sticker bearing Calvin’s image on his car, he has stolen nothing, though he has violated Watterson’s ownership of permission-granting privileges.
Fair’nuff, I completely concede that argument.
(Now, as to whether it’s ethical to violate someone’s copyright in any case, umm . . .)
By “funny” I mean “isn’t he an interesting example, since IIRC he does not allow any use whatsoever of the images, or did not at one time”. But I could be wrong.
So in other words, if you drive away with my car in the middle of the night, leaving me with the title to it in my file box, that’s not car theft since I still hold title to it?
Copyright is the ownership to intellectual propery, just as a deed is the guarantee of title to real property and a title certificate is the guarantee of ownership to a motor vehicle.
The laws give you privilege with regard to fair use of my copyrighted property, just as you have the fair use of the sidewalk to my house. The laws limit your right to do anything beyond fair use with my property without my consent – just as your right to walk down my sidewalk does not license you to throw a party in my back yard or my kitchen.
Ummm, no. If I drive away with your car, you no longer are able to use your car to drive to the grocery store or to work or to Grandma’s house on Sunday. I have gained something, you have lost something that was previously in your posession (your car).
If I make a copy of your recorded song sans permission, you still have your recording to listen to in the car whilst driving to Grandma’s house. I have gained something, you have lost nothing, as you still have the song recording in your posession.
Yes, it’s (slightly) more complicated then that. But Copyright infringment and theft are not the same thing.
