• 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
TOJ said:
If you do it you are a thief.
Taking a CD from a store shelf is quite different from downloading a copy of a copy, etc off the Internet. If I am downloading a song it’s not like I walked into Walmart and took the CD off the shelf nor did I ‘hack’ a site like iTunes and take the music iTunes has for sale. The music online is made available to the user if they want it. I’m not stealing when I make a copy of a CD I bought for a friend and they are not stealing when they copy their copy and give it to another friend, etc.
 
Taking a CD from a store shelf is quite different from downloading a copy of a copy, etc off the Internet. If I am downloading a song it’s not like I walked into Walmart and took the CD off the shelf nor did I ‘hack’ a site like iTunes and take the music iTunes has for sale. The music online is made available to the user if they want it. I’m not stealing when I make a copy of a CD I bought for a friend and they are not stealing when they copy their copy and give it to another friend, etc.

You are alluding to the basic difference. One is type of property, the ancient common law kind is about scarce items, the other is not. It is about a state monopoly that interferes for certain reasons in what is basically is not scarce and can basically be copied as many times as one wants while leaving the original intact. Obviously the stated reasons are to aid artists etc but one cannot escape the conclusions that it is large, centralised corporations that benefit the most from this monopoly.

But on the other hand it does seem to have some positives. So the question is of limiting it for the time being while still trying to reward artists etc while removing it as a tool of industrial consolidation and general, lax monopoly before perhaps considering removing it completely.

The problem to me is that some have not really considered the difference as IP was growing up, between it and regular property and have just embraced it as a regular kind of property despite the obvious differences under some rationalisation of giving the necesary reward to artists.
 
Last edited:
Taking a CD from a store shelf is quite different from downloading a copy of a copy, etc off the Internet. If I am downloading a song it’s not like I walked into Walmart and took the CD off the shelf nor did I ‘hack’ a site like iTunes and take the music iTunes has for sale. The music online is made available to the user if they want it. I’m not stealing when I make a copy of a CD I bought for a friend and they are not stealing when they copy their copy and give it to another friend, etc.
If the copyright holder did not give permission, it is no different. You are taking for yourself something to which you have no right.

A thief is a thief no matter what was stolen or how it was stolen. ;)
 
As long as there is absolutely no profit being made by the uploading party, then I don't see an issue.

But, to make it safer, streaming the content is where it's at. For the very reason that it's not illegal to allow friends or neighbors (or anyone really) to watch a movie that you own.
 
Last edited:
If the copyright holder did not give permission, it is no different. You are taking for yourself something to which you have no right.

A thief is a thief no matter what was stolen or how it was stolen. ;)

So, even if the concepts are different and the law recognizes them as different, they are still the same. Got it..


Try that in a court, you'd be laughed out and also run the rish of being counter-sued for slander
 
So, even if the concepts are different and the law recognizes them as different, they are still the same. Got it..


Try that in a court, you'd be laughed out and also run the rish of being counter-sued for slander

The law recognizes what differently? Well it could be because there's nowhere near enough laws targeting illegal downloading yet seeing as how well, walking into Wal-Mart and stealing **** has been around since forever. And pirating has only been around seriously for 15 years. It's a matter of there not being enough laws for one and the other having been recognized since well the dawn of civilization.
 
Most downloading is done legally.

Well technically you are right since you are downloading bits from any website (to even load this page up) is considered downloading. However, most downloading of applications, movies, and songs are done illegally.
 
The law recognizes what differently? Well it could be because there's nowhere near enough laws targeting illegal downloading yet seeing as how well, walking into Wal-Mart and stealing **** has been around since forever. And pirating has only been around seriously for 15 years. It's a matter of there not being enough laws for one and the other having been recognized since well the dawn of civilization.

What exactly do you mean by this? That there should be more laws? The problem is that it is quite easy to catch and show that someone stole something from Walmart while it is pretty much impossible to catch someone downloading things "illegally" unless they admit to it. First you have to link an IP address with illegal content. Then you have to show that the given IP address belongs to a certain computer. Then you have to show that the person you are accusing was the one that actually downloaded it on that computer. So in terms of practicality, it isn't really feasible (aside from very highly regulated networks such as college campuses or businesses, who knows who is in exactly what room and the IP address for every computer on their property).

The only "solution" (if you could really call it that) is bandwidth capping, which is incredibly draconian given the fact that it can't discriminate between legal and illegal downloading/uploading. It's about on par with the current state of DRM with computer games. This is why we are seeing a shift towards ISP's being the new front on this ongoing battle.

If the copyright holder did not give permission, it is no different. You are taking for yourself something to which you have no right.

What about making a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend? What about lending your CD to a friend? What about recording movies off television so that you don't have to buy the DVD's? To what extent is that acceptable? Where is this line you are drawing, and how exactly is it not arbitrary?
 
The problem is that it is quite easy to catch and show that someone stole something from Walmart while it is pretty much impossible to catch someone downloading things "illegally" unless they admit to it. First you have to link an IP address with illegal content. Then you have to show that the given IP address belongs to a certain computer. Then you have to show that the person you are accusing was the one that actually downloaded it on that computer. So in terms of practicality, it isn't really feasible (aside from very highly regulated networks such as college campuses or businesses, who knows who is in exactly what room and the IP address for every computer on their property).
its not too difficult at all considering many people have static IP addresses and ISP's are more than willing to give out such information due to an investigation, warrant, or supoena. Usually they go after people who share intellectual prop rather than the people who d/load it.

The only "solution" (if you could really call it that) is bandwidth capping, which is incredibly draconian given the fact that it can't discriminate between legal and illegal downloading/uploading. It's about on par with the current state of DRM with computer games. This is why we are seeing a shift towards ISP's being the new front on this ongoing battle.
it is a very difficult problem to tackle. Past solutions have been fairly unsuccessful. However, cd-keys, online accounts, and other such things have been effective at the expense of a hassle ofr the user.



What about making a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend? What about lending your CD to a friend? What about recording movies off television so that you don't have to buy the DVD's? To what extent is that acceptable? Where is this line you are drawing, and how exactly is it not arbitrary?
this is outlined under something called "fair use". Wiki has a decent page on it.
 
its not too difficult at all considering many people have static IP addresses and ISP's are more than willing to give out such information.

The RIAA tried that already, look at the number of underage/computer-less, computer-less, and dead people they fingered.
 
The RIAA tried that already, look at the number of underage/computer-less, computer-less, and dead people they fingered.

I'm not aware of this. Link? I'm sure it happens. But this doesn't prove its not working. I

I am however well aware of the people who have been successfully sued by the RIAA for sharing. Last time I heard the RIAA were using torrents to distribute music and when someone would download they would log the IP. Enough hits from the same IP and they would go after them.
 
Last edited:
I voted 'other' in the poll. I haven't read through the whole thread and I've never really researched the issue in depth. But my feeling is that we're going to see our ideas about copyright and ownership of digitally reproducible intellectual property evolve dramatically over the next generation or two.

The digital age will mandate this. Laws which are, for all practical purposes, unenforceable are useless.
 
Back
Top Bottom