stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
 ·Comcast
| reply to b10010011
Re: My wife was one of them
It is a really sad commentary on our moral decay in this country that people believe they can justify theft. Downloading the torrent also seeds this torrent so others can download from you. Your wife did essentially the same thing as if she ordered the book from say amazon.com then went over to the local Walmart and shopped lifted the book, after all she has the book on order right? What does this say to our children? If you feel the need to know what the book is about wait until it is released in book stores and buy a copy. Theft is theft even if it is an electronic copy on the Internet |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| Your knowledge of copyright law is astounding. I guess making a digital copy is theft now, even if physical property was not lost.
My own snarkyness aside, it irks me when people are so ignorant about the law regarding this issue. Yes, downloading/uploading copyrighted material is a crime. But it is not theft. It is copyright infringement. Theft entails depriving a party of physical property. Copyright infringement is distributing copyrighted material (i.e. a digital book) without permission from the copyright holder. Two very different crimes with different penalties.
This link provides a good breakdown of the difference. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO | Irk away become one with your "snarkyness", stealing books online is theft of Intellectual Property. I am sure your law degree keeps your from being one of the ignorant ones. Have a great day |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN | In spite of your sarcasm, you are correct. I do not hold a law degree. But I do have a basic grasp of US law that is taught in any high school civics class.
I am not trying to defend or justify the act in any way. But call it for what it is. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
 ·Verizon FIOS
edit:
July 18th, @12:10PM
| reply to MightyPez
It is a really sad commentary on our moral decay in this country that people believe they can justify copyright infringement. Downloading the torrent also seeds this torrent so others can download from you. Your wife did essentially the same thing as if she ordered a movie from say amazon.com then ripped a copy of the movie from Netflix, after all she has the movie on order right? What does this say to our children? If you feel the need to know what the book is about wait until it is released in book stores and buy a copy. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement even if it is an electronic copy on the Internet.
Same message. Different words. Don't get tied up splitting hairs.
I personally think all the hoopla is funny. Photographing the pages of a book? It's like a copy of a movie captured by some guy sitting in the back row with a cell phone camera. Yeah you may be able to see that it's a particular movie or book, but the quality is so atrocious why would anyone sit through 2 hours or 900 pages of such madness? True fans (and even most casual ones) probably are going to buy the book even if they downloaded it. Those that don't, probably weren't going to buy the book anyways. I'm not trying to justify the book being put up on the internet, but it's not the end of the world.
BTW, if you want to know who dies in the end its you didn't really think I was going to say, did you?
--
Go Colts |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN
·Comcast
| said by cdru  :It is a really sad commentary on our moral decay in this country that people believe they can justify copyright infringement. I'm having a bit of trouble finding where in my post I justified either theft or copyright infringement. In fact, I believe I stated they are both crimes.
Much in the same way arson and drunk driving are both crimes. I don't condone either one, but I also don't call them the same thing. |
|
stevephl
join:2000-11-27
Colorado Springs, CO
·Comcast
| reply to MightyPez
Actually I wasn't questioning your knowledge, I think that the issue could go either way or more likely both copy protection and theft charges could be levied. I graduated from H.S. over 35 years ago I'm lucky to even remember the name of the school any longer and I did not take any law classes in College.
I will agree that the copy right is being infringed as well. Thanks |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to MightyPez
said by MightyPez :I'm having a bit of trouble finding where in my post I justified either theft or copyright infringement. In fact, I believe I stated they are both crimes. Much in the same way arson and drunk driving are both crimes. I don't condone either one, but I also don't call them the same thing. I wasn't implying that you did. You were commenting on the technicality that copyright infringement is not the same as theft. Which you are correct. I just reposted what stevephl posted making a few minor tweaks. While what was said is different, it's still almost the exact same message.
--
Go Colts |
|
MightyPez
join:2002-05-01
Saint Paul, MN | My bad, I thought the reply was directly to me. |
|
AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to cdru
said by cdru :While what was said is different, it's still almost the exact same message. Contextually, but not morally. Copyright infringement is simply not following legal code, but you aren't depriving anyone of anything physical (ie. theft). Saying infringement is in the same realm as theft (in terms of moral obligations) is like saying murder is akin to stealing.
Not to mention the OP has paid for a copy of the book already. Where exactly is the damage done, other than the OP doing something with his purchase that the content's author doesn't condone? |
|
nipseyrussel
Nipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA
| reply to cdru
this revised version is much more accurate, but by rewriting the part that you didnt bold for some reason ("ripped a copy of the movie from Netflix" vs shoplifting at Walmart) you point out that the two courses are, indeed, more different than just splitting hairs. In the previous example, walmart is out the cost of the book. In the other example, neither party is harmed:
-netflix doesn't lose any money, and in fact you paid them for their subscription in order to do this, so they are actually UP
-the harry potter supply chain is paid by the wife for the book.
so regardless of whether a copyright was infringed, all 3 parties involved actually come out ahead in this example and the wife need not feel that her morals are in a sorry state |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to AquaBlaze
said by AquaBlaze :said by cdru :While what was said is different, it's still almost the exact same message. Contextually, but not morally. Copyright infringement is simply not following legal code, but you aren't depriving anyone of anything physical (ie. theft). Saying infringement is in the same realm as theft (in terms of moral obligations) is like saying murder is akin to stealing. I don't believe I said anything about morals. Morals are very subjective and are in the eyes of the beholder. My guess is that J.K Rawlings and the publishers would have much rather had a single copy of their book stolen and deprived them of that $19.99 in revenue then to have one book not stolen, but had every page copied and distributed across the internet. They were not only protecting their financial interests in what they've spent developing the book, but also the overall interests of the franchise.
I won't argue with you that copyright infringement doesn't deprive someone of a physical object (be it money, property, etc). But copyright infringement and theft are closer to one another then your comparison of stealing to murder. All the above are illegal, from a strict moral standpoint all are bad. To what degree they are bad is up to the legal system. That is why we have difference classes of crimes as well as sentencing standards.
Not to mention the OP has paid for a copy of the book already. Where exactly is the damage done, other than the OP doing something with his purchase that the content's author doesn't condone? What did the OP purchase? He purchased a book that will be made available in a few days. He did not purchase the rights to obtain a copy by whatever means possible whenever he chose. Sure there is not real measurable amount of damage done. That is why copyright holders don't often go after people who merely download pirated content. They usually go after the ones that upload the content too. But that none the less makes it right.
--
Go Colts |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to stevephl
said by stevephl :It is a really sad commentary on our moral decay in this country that people believe they can justify theft. Downloading the torrent also seeds this torrent so others can download from you. Your wife did essentially the same thing as if she ordered the book from say amazon.com then went over to the local Walmart and shopped lifted the book, after all she has the book on order right? What does this say to our children? If you feel the need to know what the book is about wait until it is released in book stores and buy a copy. Theft is theft even if it is an electronic copy on the Internet She deleted the torrent after is was completed so she was only seeding for the few minutes it took to download it.
Besides whats the difference here? She could have waited a few days and scanned the book her self and you would have been ok with it? But since she downloaded it that somehow makes her a shoplifter? 
The sad comentary is people like you living in your glass houses and throwing stones. |
|
AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to cdru
said by cdru :Not to mention the OP has paid for a copy of the book already. Where exactly is the damage done, other than the OP doing something with his purchase that the content's author doesn't condone? What did the OP purchase? He purchased a book that will be made available in a few days. He did not purchase the rights to obtain a copy by whatever means possible whenever he chose. *shrugs* Those two are in about the same to me. I personally don't feel anything when I'm downloading a CD that I've already purchased years ago.
Basically, I equate downloading content that you've paid for to purchasing IKEA furniture, but not assembling it in the manner the vendor specified. From a legal standpoint, I'm dead wrong...but from an aspect of morals, I feel I've already met my obligations by paying them.
I was more trying to address the people who were following up the OP with the "what morals are we teaching our children?!?" line. Copyright infringement != stealing. There's a reason for the difference in legal terms, and it's not just because using extra words is fun. |
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN
| reply to AquaBlaze
Why does everyone try to claim "morals?" Define "morals" to everyone. How can a community have the same "morals" when a community is a collection of individuals?
I see nothing wrong in downloading software, music, movies, etc... All it is is a collection of 0s & 1s.
I don't approve of beastiality. Maybe you do. Who is right; who is wrong?
The only counter argument that can be offered against the morality issue is that we elect people to run our country based on the "moral" majority rules. However, you can easily see that the elected officials do not vote based on the morals of the people that elected them. They vote based on their morals. (See the illegal alien debate.) That argument falls flat.
It is awful easy to setback and claim the "moral" obligation has been broken by the downloaders. Yet, I bet you continually break some law, speeding, perhaps turning right before a complete stop, or, you are one of the bastards that dont wash their hands after using the toilet then tosses a salad for a waiting customer. Do you feel "morally" wrong? |
|
AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
edit:
July 18th, @02:15PM
| There are some certain morals that run through almost every culture. I can't say I've seen a whole lot of civilizations promote rampant stealing and/or murder, usually those things are frowned upon.
As for your example about bestiality being proper and otherwise, as history has shown, it just depends on who's on top. 
said by BVT :It is awful easy to setback and claim the "moral" obligation has been broken by the downloaders. I do feel that those that purely download umpteen volumes of modern-day garbage without any intent to pay should be clocked in the head. They should pay *something* to the artist/label for said amounts, or simply do without said pirated booty. Just because you can get away with it doesn't mean you should.
However, do I believe the RIAA jingle that every download is a lost sale? That downloading (ie. copyright infringement) = stealing? Hell no.
said by BVT :Yet, I bet you continually break some law, speeding, perhaps turning right before a complete stop, or, you are one of the bastards that dont wash their hands after using the toilet then tosses a salad for a waiting customer. Do you feel "morally" wrong? To answer your questions:
I don't feel "bad" about going ~5 MPH over the speed limit, no. I can handle my car, know the terrain, and haven't been in an accident (or even close to one) because of it. No, I don't feel bad as it's a victimless "crime".
As for salads, yes, I would feel bad. If my job is to toss salads and I don't practice expected hygiene, then I'm royally screwing over a job that I voluntarily signed up for. Would I feel bad from a moral standpoint? Not nearly as much as I feel the shame from being crappy at such a simple job. I like to take pride in my work. |
|
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | reply to stevephl
Copyright infringement is not theft. Get over yourself. |
|
Xizer
join:2004-02-05
Kenosha, WI
edit:
July 18th, @03:37PM
| reply to AquaBlaze
There are some certain morals that run through almost every culture. I can't say I've seen a whole lot of civilizations promote rampant stealing and/or murder, usually those things are frowned upon.
 |
|
Tzale
Ron Paul - No Bailout Conservative
Premium
join:2004-01-06
NJ, USA
·Verizon FIOS
·Optimum Online
| reply to stevephl
said by stevephl :It is a really sad commentary on our moral decay in this country that people believe they can justify theft. Downloading the torrent also seeds this torrent so others can download from you. Your wife did essentially the same thing as if she ordered the book from say amazon.com then went over to the local Walmart and shopped lifted the book, after all she has the book on order right? What does this say to our children? If you feel the need to know what the book is about wait until it is released in book stores and buy a copy. Theft is theft even if it is an electronic copy on the Internet Actually, she did nothing wrong in my eyes. She purchased the book and then she downloaded it.... She didn't buy a counterfeit book from some guy's trunk, that would be taking money away from the publisher/author... She already paid for the book, so what did she do wrong? Now some could argue downloading movies/music is wrong since you aren't purchasing the media, but I think they are grossly overpriced and feel that since I don't have the money to waste on such things, I might as well have fun and download them. It's not like I'm making money by selling them to someone else...
-Tzale
--
"I'm a Geek, Are You?" |
|
AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
| reply to Xizer
And your point is? Warring factions see one another as a threat, and with such, moral ideals go out the window. Hell, murder is wrong, but you'd bet your sweet ass we expect a US soldier is going to shoot an insurgent taking a bead on him.
I don't think all of Africa adopts a "shoot whomever, it's all good" policy, as much as you'd like to infer with the picture. |
|
