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

Wessexman said:

In some sense it is at odds with the general common law idea of private property. Private property is about scarce items, these laws are about monopolies.

On the other hand I can see the practical benefit, certainly in th near-term. I'd advise keeping copyright and such but limiting them far more than they are now.

Click to expand...

Intellectual property is actually one of the things that was most important to the founders, hence its placement in the Constitution.

Maximus Zeebra said:

Who cares, when the model they use is outdated and backwards they deserve to be stolen from.

Thats like a bank who keeps its money outside on the street in a box, because it cannot afford a safe, or didnt think of it.. I blame the bank then not the people for taking that money.

Click to expand...

If I choose to run my store in a way that you think is outdated or backwards, it doesn't give you the right to steal from me. If I have a great product that everyone wants, but only leave my store open from 2-4pm on tuesdays, you don't have the right to break in and steal that product at 6pm on a Friday because you think I should be open then.

Copyright law is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Uploading or downloading copyrighted materials without permission is NOT a crime. However, you may face lawsuits for breach of copyright and pay damages. Certain places do have criminal charges for copyright violations, but that depends on the region and is confined purely to large-scale commercial pirating (like the stuff you buy from street vendors) not getting stuff from the internet.

The pirate bay case is completely different. All the pirate bay does is point links to places where you can download material. They do not actually infringe on anybodies copyrights. They are being charged with "making available" copyrighted materials , which is a bogus charge that is not a crime in Sweden. Only after the Swedish justice minister is involved with American recordings interests did the only charade start. The minister involved should be charged with corruption for putting America business interests over Swedish law.

Copyright today is nothing but a corrupt power grab by business, primarily fostered by Disney (as well as Sony, Universal, Time Warner and other content producers). Copyright was included in the constitution

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Click to expand...

In Thomas Jefferson's day, that meant 20 years. Today it is the entire life of the author PLUS 75 more years. Simply put, corporations bought our government to violate the constitution to get a monopoly. There is no way such a long copyright "promotes the arts". The original purpose of copyright was to provide a way for authors to get money, so they could make a living writing books. This would allow our society to produce more literature and music. Today, that entire system is perverted. Artists don't produce more music because they know they can profit from 1 song their entire lives. Corporations are even worse, as they can profit from artists long dead.

Finally, copyright is not a property right, it something that violates property rights. It not only provides a government granted monopoly, but it provides restrictions on what citizens can do with their own private property.

Personally, I think copyright is beneficial to society and should exist, but needs to be severely restricted in scope and duration.

The European Union has a proposal up right now to extend the copyright from something just below 50 years to about 100 years.

All across Europe.

I think this is a false ditchonomy, a flawed question. There are mvies, music, games, and programs that are available for free legally, and some that aren't. This generalization blanket excludes this fact.

Also, "Intellectual Property" is actually a relatively modern concept, even so the founding fathers did NOT believe it should last forever, as it would eventually need to go back to society to enrich culture freely, hence why such extentions of copyright to last over a century are, IMO, bull****.


And to those who say it is stealing: I contest this point just on a logical basis. In order to steal from somebody you need to take something away form them unlawfully from them, it seems to be a keystone when we are taught this conept a a child, and it seems to be a bit of a keystone in the legal defining of theft.

So then, what are you stealing from them that they had but no longer have? (I dismiss "profits" because they are only theoretical, and a capitalist society, while it should allow equal chance to try and make money, shows time and again that going in there feeling entitled to profit (entitlement sentiment hypocricy?) usually leads to backfire.)

Travelsonic said:

I think this is a false ditchonomy, a flawed question. There are mvies, music, games, and programs that are available for free legally, and some that aren't. This generalization blanket excludes this fact.

Click to expand...

I think the question is asking whether it should be illegal to download movies/music/etc. that are not intended to be downloaded legally.

Also, "Intellectual Property" is actually a relatively modern concept, even so the founding fathers did NOT believe it should last forever, as it would eventually need to go back to society to enrich culture freely, hence why such extentions of copyright to last over a century are, IMO, bull****.

Click to expand...

As quoted above, from the Constitution:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Click to expand...

That's intellectual property.

rathi said:

Copyright law is a civil matter, not a criminal one. Uploading or downloading copyrighted materials without permission is NOT a crime. However, you may face lawsuits for breach of copyright and pay damages. Certain places do have criminal charges for copyright violations, but that depends on the region and is confined purely to large-scale commercial pirating (like the stuff you buy from street vendors) not getting stuff from the internet.

Click to expand...

I agree that it should be a civil matter and not criminal.

rathi said:

The pirate bay case is completely different. All the pirate bay does is point links to places where you can download material. They do not actually infringe on anybodies copyrights. They are being charged with "making available" copyrighted materials , which is a bogus charge that is not a crime in Sweden. Only after the Swedish justice minister is involved with American recordings interests did the only charade start. The minister involved should be charged with corruption for putting America business interests over Swedish law.

Click to expand...

Don't you just love the entertainment industry. They refuse to innovate so they use governments to prop up their ****ty business model.

rathi said:

Copyright today is nothing but a corrupt power grab by business, primarily fostered by Disney (as well as Sony, Universal, Time Warner and other content producers). Copyright was included in the constitution

Click to expand...

I would include patents in that mix as well. They are way to long and do not foster competition.

rathi said:

In Thomas Jefferson's day, that meant 20 years. Today it is the entire life of the author PLUS 75 more years. Simply put, corporations bought our government to violate the constitution to get a monopoly. There is no way such a long copyright "promotes the arts". The original purpose of copyright was to provide a way for authors to get money, so they could make a living writing books. This would allow our society to produce more literature and music. Today, that entire system is perverted. Artists don't produce more music because they know they can profit from 1 song their entire lives. Corporations are even worse, as they can profit from artists long dead.

Click to expand...

I thought copyright was the life of the author plus 50 years.

I think that is why the King family sold off all of MLK's papers because the copyright has run out.

rathi said:

Finally, copyright is not a property right, it something that violates property rights. It not only provides a government granted monopoly, but it provides restrictions on what citizens can do with their own private property.

Personally, I think copyright is beneficial to society and should exist, but needs to be severely restricted in scope and duration.

Click to expand...

My primary stink is with the movie industry.

Music and books I can listen to and read before I purchase it.
Movies I have to pay for before I know if it is any good or not.
So I don't, If I like it I'll by the dvd if not they didn't have me as a customer anyway.

RightinNYC said:

I think the question is asking whether it should be illegal to download movies/music/etc. that are not intended to be downloaded legally.



As quoted above, from the Constitution:

That's intellectual property.

Click to expand...

No, that's COPYRIGHT. The right to copy, rather, the control over use of a work.

A RIGHT (well, actually, a temporary monopoly), not a PROPERTY.

Travelsonic said:

No, that's COPYRIGHT. The right to copy, rather, the control over use of a work.

A RIGHT (well, actually, a temporary monopoly), not a PROPERTY.

Click to expand...

Intellectual property (IP) are legal property rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law. Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; ideas, discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets.

Click to expand...

Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RightinNYC said:

Intellectual property is actually one of the things that was most important to the founders, hence its placement in the Constitution.
.

Click to expand...

So? I'm not even American. I was talking about common law ideas of property.

I can accept limited notions of intellectual property, particularly copyright, although it does seem like a bit of a state-created monopoly to me, as long as they are much more limited by now.

Isn't rationalization a great thing. It allows a person to do things they know are wrong and still feel good about themself.

Of course not. Record labels and the motion picture industry using government to enforce an artifical monopoly on the sharing of information is utterly abhorrent to the concept of true property rights. Thank God dinosaurs like the RIAA and MPAA are fighting a losing battle.

Harry Guerrilla said:

The Pirate Bay Goes To Court







The Pirate Bay is about to go on trial over file sharing and supposed copyright infringement.

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

The Pirate Bay Goes To Court | What Are The Consequences If The BitTorrent Tracker Loses?

Click to expand...

Of course it should be illegal. Sharing copyrighted works purposefully or unintentionally to millions of unknown people is a violation of fair use. It is facilitating stealing. Those that download such works are stealing, plain and simple.

TOJ said:

Isn't rationalization a great thing. It allows a person to do things they know are wrong and still feel good about themself.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is even better; it allows you to see what isn't there and spout off semi-intelligently without actual rational basis to do so.

Of course it should be illegal. Sharing copyrighted works purposefully or unintentionally to millions of unknown people is a violation of fair use.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is only done so if against the will of copyright holders. Thereare copyrighted movies/songs/etc shared legally you know.

It is stealing, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

Explain how, as I challenged to others with this mindset. WHAT are you stealing, how does it fit into the rational confines of stealing/theft. (my first post in this topic poses the challenge better.)

Defensor said:

Of course not. Record labels and the motion picture industry using government to enforce an artifical monopoly on the sharing of information is utterly abhorrent to the concept of true property rights. Thank God dinosaurs like the RIAA and MPAA are fighting a losing battle.

Click to expand...

Companies aren't stopping the sharing of information anymore than a store stops you. You can't walk into a store and steal "Windows" off the shelf without facing penalties. Just because the information isn't in a physical form doesn't mean its OK to steal it from others.

scourge99 said:

Of course it should be illegal. Sharing copyrighted works purposefully or unintentionally to millions of unknown people is a violation of fair use. It is facilitating stealing. Those that download such works are stealing, plain and simple.

Click to expand...

But what if you do it to decide if you want to buy it?

scourge99 said:

Companies aren't stopping the sharing of information anymore than a store stops you. You can't walk into a store and steal "Windows" off the shelf without facing penalties. Just because the information isn't in a physical form doesn't mean its OK to steal it from others.

Click to expand...

Just because it isn't in a physical form maks the act of "stealing " it like hard physical property impossible.

Your analogy is flawed - stealing a boxed copy of window deprives the store owner of the physical item and the potential sale. Copying the OS only has the potential - the odds unpredictable IMO - to tarnish potential sales. That is why the law looks at the two matters differently.

You wouldn't call rape theft, or murder theft, why not leave theft as thet and piracy as piracy and get on with the real debate?

scourge99 said:

Companies aren't stopping the sharing of information anymore than a store stops you. You can't walk into a store and steal "Windows" off the shelf without facing penalties. Just because the information isn't in a physical form doesn't mean its OK to steal it from others.

Click to expand...

Nobody has the right to "own" information and use that to attack the property rights of others.

Somebody who steals a copy of Windows off a store shelf is stealing, obviously, but that is a red herring since it is not what is being discussed here.

Harry Guerrilla said:

But what if you do it to decide if you want to buy it?

Click to expand...

So its OK to steal because you were just trying it? "Sorry officer I stole this car because I wanted to try it first and the dealership wouldn't let me test drive it" I don't think that would go over so well.

You don't get to force owners into selling or advertising their product a certain way.

Travelsonic said:

Just because it isn't in a physical form maks the act of "stealing " it like hard physical property impossible.

Your analogy is flawed - stealing a boxed copy of window deprives the store owner of the physical item and the potential sale. Copying the OS only has the potential - the odds unpredictable IMO - to tarnish potential sales. That is why the law looks at the two matters differently.

You wouldn't call rape theft, or murder theft, why not leave theft as thet and piracy as piracy and get on with the real debate?

Click to expand...

I'd add that windows software can't be considered a copyright material since it is a virtual mechanical function.

It is a virtual machine. A patent would only apply.

Harry Guerrilla said:

But what if you do it to decide if you want to buy it?

Click to expand...

Most sites offer a free "sample" of its softwares (demo or trial-period softwares), productions, movies or songs. So you shall know what are you buying.

scourge99 said:

So its OK to steal because you were just trying it? "Sorry officer I stole this car because I wanted to try it first and the dealership wouldn't let me test drive it" I don't think that would go over so well.

You don't get to force owners into selling or advertising their product a certain way.

Click to expand...

I understand that. But I can test drive the car, I can look inside and out the car, and I can also inspect the engine and the performance numbers of a car.

With a movie the only way you can see it is through a movie theater or dvd if you want to do it legally.

Every other form of digital entertainment except software and movie industries allows you to see what your buying before you buy it.

Defensor said:

Nobody has the right to "own" information and use that to attack the property rights of others.

Click to expand...

Yes, we do. Its called intellectual property and copyright. Another similar area is trademarks.

If you'd like me to fill you in on the details I can. The rules regarding these was pounded into my head through school as a computer engineering undergrad.

Defensor said:

Somebody who steals a copy of Windows off a store shelf is stealing, obviously, but that is a red herring since it is not what is being discussed here.

Click to expand...

Only if you failed to understand the analogy.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I understand that. But I can test drive the car, I can look inside and out the car, and I can also inspect the engine and the performance numbers of a car.

Click to expand...

Who says? The owner of the car decides this. They don;t have to show you squat. Car dealerships PERMIT you to test drive, its not a right.

Harry Guerrilla said:

With a movie the only way you can see it is through a movie theater or dvd if you want to do it legally.

Click to expand...

So?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Every other form of digital entertainment except software and movie industries allows you to see what your buying before you buy it.

Click to expand...

No they PERMIT you. No one HAS to let you.

scourge99 said:

Yes, we do. Its called intellectual property and copyright. Another similar area is trademarks.

If you'd like me to fill you in on the details I can. The rules regarding these was pounded into my head through school as a computer engineering undergrad.

Only if you failed to understand the analogy.

Click to expand...

Software should not be copyrighted. Only patented.