• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you think downloading movies or other content should be illegal?

Do you think downloading movies and other content should be illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 27.8%

  • No

    Votes: 19 52.8%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 5 13.9%
  • Total voters
    36
So explain how taking music, video, software, and other content against the wishes of the rightful owners is not stealing.
Click to expand...

Because you aren't "taking the property of others without consent." You are copying the property of someone that has consented for you to do so (i.e. the owner of the CD/movie/video game). This was actually explained a post above yours.

Some folks that walk into a convenience store with a gun and steal some beer and cigs can rationalize their actions also. I suppose you think their actions are justified or do you also rationalize hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Yes, downloading music is the same as robbing a convenience store with a gun.:roll:
 
Did anyone think it was illegal when a movie was on TV and you recorded it on a videotape with your VCR? Or a song on the radio that you loved and you bought a blank tape and recorded it onto the tape. I don't remember anyone condeming those actions. What's the difference? Besides time, convenience, and technology.....
 
Khayembii Communique said:
Because you aren't "taking the property of others without consent." You are copying the property of someone that has consented for you to do so (i.e. the owner of the CD/movie/video game). This was actually explained a post above yours.



Yes, downloading music is the same as robbing a convenience store with a gun.:roll:
Click to expand...

Indeed... I don't see how I or any of us are saying "It's OK," but rather stating that in order to properly debate, things need to be correctly addressed, hence my post. Hence my post about him seeing things that aren't there. There is no rationalization, just clarification. You can have one without doing the other.

Since this is a discussion on the legalities, the argument you/I make is stronger, since the court has made the distinction numerous times.
 
Travelsonic said:
....
Since this is a discussion on the legalities, the argument you/I make is stronger, since the court has made the distinction numerous times.
Click to expand...
Links please that show those court decisions that have said it is OK to copy/distribute copyrighted materal without the copyright holder's consent.
 
A thief is a thief no matter what or how they steal.
Click to expand...

Again, there is nothing being stolen. Stealing implies that I am taking something from someone, which means that they no longer have it.

As someone rightly pointed out, this is just like recording TV with a VCR; the only difference is the extent to which it is happening.

Since this is a discussion on the legalities, the argument you/I make is stronger, since the court has made the distinction numerous times.
Click to expand...

That might be true, but it's an incredibly precarious position from which to argue, as the most ridiculous decisions are made by courts on a regular basis. Frankly I don't care whether or not the courts find it to be legal; the question is whether or not it is a violation of someone's property rights.

Of course, I'm a communist, and I want to take all of your property away anyways, so what do I know, right?:lol:
 
Last edited:
While I don't condone thievery, I don't feel remotely sorry for Hollywood about this. The movies they churn out are absolutely horrible and getting worse by the year.
 
TOJ said:
Links please that show those court decisions that have said it is OK to copy/distribute copyrighted materal without the copyright holder's consent.
Click to expand...

Stop grasping at straws, you know DAMN WELL that is NOT what my repy was about and NOT what I am arguing, which was the separation of copying media and theft of physical product. Of course copying copyrighted ,material outside of the confines of fair use is illegal, but it ain't theft, it is... oh wait... COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT


Jeez, does reading comprehension mean ANYTHING anymore?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
I look at it this way. It's OK to record a physical copy of <insert movie/music here> and give that physical copy to another person as a gift. There are no laws against it. So why should downloading it from the net be illegal? As long as it is done without charging money for it then it's not a copyright infringement as far as I am concerned. Before the age of computers no one cared if you copied something so long as you didn't pass it off as your own work. A person could make a copy of Hamlet and pass it around and no one cared, again so long as they didn't pass it off as their own work.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of what you said. Its no different than I making a chair and someone making a copy of that chair I made or if I see a miniature wall hung curio cabinet and I make an exact duplicate of it at home(which I have done. This does not constitute theft. To call it theft is laughable, absurd, and diminishes the definition and people's perception of theft.

I know the argument of "it takes money away from the original authors/actors etc etc but I just don't see it.
Click to expand...

As far as I know these actors are paid first. I do not think any actor would say "Hey lets see how well the movie does in theaters and dvd/blueray sales first and then pay me". Because even some of the movies with the biggest stars have flopped.
 
Travelsonic said:
...
, but it ain't theft, it is... oh wait... COPYRIGHTINFRINGEMENT
...
Click to expand...
A distinction without a difference in the context of this thread. Trying to justify theft by calling it copyright infringment is simply another way to rationalize. You do have a gift for it though. ;)
 
TOJ said:
A distinction without a difference in the context of this thread. Trying to justify theft by calling it copyright infringment is simply another way to rationalize. You do have a gift for it though. ;)
Click to expand...

Not nearly as great as your gift of illiteracy though. Nowhere did I say it was ok regardless of what it was, which is actually required for justification and not merely disagreeing with you.

Actually, the difference is not only blatantly obvious, but very important - This thread talks aqbout the LEGALITY.

The LAW referrs to piracy as copyright infringement:

copyright infringement - a violation of the rights secured by a copyright
Click to expand...

and not theft:

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments. (See: larceny, robbery, burglary, embezzlement)
Click to expand...

So not only is the distinction there, but it is important. The case against Grokster, IIRC, the judge called out the representative for the RIAA for misusing terms. (same ones you and I are quibbling over too).

Simpler way to state my point: Name one person infrining upon copyright or pirating goods who was charged with theft and not copyright infringement. One. I'm waiting.
 
Last edited:
TOJ, theft is a criminal charge in which physical property is taken unlawfully. Theft is investigated by the police and those convicted are sentenced by a criminal court.

Copyright infringement is a civil matter, in which a lawsuit is brought by the damaged party. Someone convicted in a civil court pays damages.

They are entirely separate legal issues. If you called copyright infringement theft in a court of law, you would get reprimanded by the judge. It is incorrect terminology.
 
I can't remember who it was but one of the huge British rock stars told Jay Leno that he just illegally downloaded new music he wanted to hear it.

Everybody laughed.

Sure it's illegal but it's hard to get people to have any sort of sympathy for multimillionaires. I'm sure a common justification is "well I've bought their music before!"
 
The vast amount of money goes to the record companies anyways. If you want to support the artist then donate or go see them in person. Buying CD's to support artists makes no sense.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
The vast amount of money goes to the record companies anyways. If you want to support the artist then donate or go see them in person. Buying CD's to support artists makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Musicians should be better at exploring and using the possibilities of new technology to avoid the record companies. Their music would get cheaper and they could earn more at the same time.

For once I agree with you completely. Donation and live performances is the real thing anyways. Thats a real token of appreciation.
 
Musicians should be better at exploring and using the possibilities of new technology to avoid the record companies. Their music would get cheaper and they could earn more at the same time.
Click to expand...

That is already happening, which is a much larger reason why the record company sales have declined so much in the past decade (and why the shift over the past few years has been towards decentralization of the record industry into the hands of much smaller companies, although this isn't exactly true). Of course, it is much easier for them to blame "illegal downloading" than their inability to adapt to changing market conditions.
 
Khayembii Communique said:
That is already happening, which is a much larger reason why the record company sales have declined so much in the past decade (and why the shift over the past few years has been towards decentralization of the record industry into the hands of much smaller companies, although this isn't exactly true). Of course, it is much easier for them to blame "illegal downloading" than their inability to adapt to changing market conditions.
Click to expand...

isn't this more true for small artists, and artists who have gotten big without record companies, just through modern technology?

Most big artists as far as I know still stick with record companies, while some have now started to make their own record companies to release their own music, something I also do support(thats since they can afford it obviously).
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
isn't this more true for small artists, and artists who have gotten big without record companies, just through modern technology?
Click to expand...

Even though it was rarer before this technology evolution, it did happen where artists started their own label and became successful.

Mannheim Steamroller for example.


Chip Davis started the American Grammaphone label because he had a hard time finding a label that was interested in his work, IIRC of course, look where it got him/them now.
 
rathi said:
TOJ, theft is a criminal charge in which physical property is taken unlawfully. Theft is investigated by the police and those convicted are sentenced by a criminal court.

Copyright infringement is a civil matter, in which a lawsuit is brought by the damaged party. Someone convicted in a civil court pays damages.

They are entirely separate legal issues. If you called copyright infringement theft in a court of law, you would get reprimanded by the judge. It is incorrect terminology.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that if someone robs a bank, but is never charged criminally, they are not a thief? That's is sure an interesting take on it.

Can you show me where the definition of theft is limited to a criminal charge?
 
The "small artist" only makes the case more -- for them, every sale of, say, a song is important; someone else pirating it and offering it for free download takes money directly out of their pockets.
 
TOJ said:
So you are saying that if someone robs a bank, but is never charged criminally, they are not a thief? That's is sure an interesting take on it.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's totally what he said. :doh

Please exersize some critical thinking, this thread is becoming quite dull.
 
Here's another poll that doesn't make sense or isn't clearly explained.

Downloading movies or other content by no means should be illegal - hell, just make internet access and participation illegal.

I think the pollster is asking "should downloading unauthorized (ie: unpaid) copyrighted material be illegal" - and answer is: it already is.

Is that the thing on this board - to put up illogical or incoherent polls and debate the non-issue for 50 pages?
 
Captain Obvious said:
Here's another poll that doesn't make sense or isn't clearly explained.

Downloading movies or other content by no means should be illegal - hell, just make internet access and participation illegal.

I think the pollster is asking "should downloading unauthorized (ie: unpaid) copyrighted material be illegal" - and answer is: it already is.
Click to expand...

It's not asking is it, its asking should it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom