Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Poll: Where do you draw the line on illegal downloads?
- Thread starter Grimace
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Downloading anything is too much...I did it was I was younger....and when I didn't want to buy the whole album to get one song. Its wrong anyway, but I don't base my whole music collection off it, and I've bought over 90% of my music on my Mac, all my TV shows and Movies, and Music videos(minus 2 that are sold anywhere)
But I'm not going out hunting people who do it, the RIAA are jerks, and in no way am I going out of my way to help them.
But I'm not going out hunting people who do it, the RIAA are jerks, and in no way am I going out of my way to help them.
Actually when you steal music you are rocking out with the man.
The agent steals, the manger steals, the lawyer steals, the record label steals, and now the fan steals.
Rockin' and stealin' with the man!
The agent steals, the manger steals, the lawyer steals, the record label steals, and now the fan steals.
Rockin' and stealin' with the man!
So in other words "steal what ever you want, just don't sell the stolen goods?"
You are rockin' and stealin' with the man.
None, but that's beside the point because copyright infringement isn't theft and the two shouldn't be equated.
I'm all about downloading -- almost never music, but definitely software and movies to check them out. If I like them enough I'll buy them. If not, they get uninstalled/deleted. I just consider it a test run - that's how I roll.
Yeah I took economics and law in college too. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, theft is a criminal matter. They are both laws, but they are treated differently by the courts.
You'd still be using something to which you had no rights. Does that sound proper to you?
Several posters here imply copyright infringement is not illegal. Copyright infringement is not stealing music by downloading, that is just stealing. Copyright infringement is using someone else's protected work in your artisitic work without permission. In other words plagerism or commercial use without license. That is civil. Stealing is penal and civil. I think the FBI and Interpol would have a good laugh over the poster's legal knowledge. And remember ignorance of the law is no excuse! Besides, why would anyone want to steal from their favorite artists. At least the rip off lawyers, record labels, and agents do something for what they steal.
Fans who steal are the lowest of the lows.
Fans who steal are the lowest of the lows.
You, and many others, fail to realize that there are fans who "steal" AND buy.
My morals, when it comes to digital content, are rather flexible, and I don't really draw the line anywhere.
I definitely have my fair share of "illegal" software, music, movies, etc.
But I've also bought a lot of software, music, movies, etc. and donated money to various free (both open and closed) software projects.
So why don't I always get it the legit way?
Sometimes it's about money. Sometimes I just can't afford it. In some cases I'll buy it later, when my economy is better.
Other times it's about availability and convenience. Just downloading a copy from various sources can be a lot quicker and easier and, sometimes, the only option if it's not for sale anymore/really hard to get.
Things like iTunes (though so far I usually get music from indie sites and not iTunes) and Steam (for games) really helps. It makes it very quick and easy to get what I want. Most of my legit music is downloads, not CDs. And most of the games I've bought recently have been downloaded from Steam, and not been boxed versions.
I definitely have my fair share of "illegal" software, music, movies, etc.
But I've also bought a lot of software, music, movies, etc. and donated money to various free (both open and closed) software projects.
So why don't I always get it the legit way?
Sometimes it's about money. Sometimes I just can't afford it. In some cases I'll buy it later, when my economy is better.
Other times it's about availability and convenience. Just downloading a copy from various sources can be a lot quicker and easier and, sometimes, the only option if it's not for sale anymore/really hard to get.
Things like iTunes (though so far I usually get music from indie sites and not iTunes) and Steam (for games) really helps. It makes it very quick and easy to get what I want. Most of my legit music is downloads, not CDs. And most of the games I've bought recently have been downloaded from Steam, and not been boxed versions.
Then I guess they are only artist's worst nightmares sometimes. Once you're rockin' with the man you can't take it back. Maybe they should become an agent or music lawyer, they have the same basic morals.
Survey says: wrong.
See 17 U.S.C. s 506.
That, my friend, is criminal copyright infringement, not "theft" (whatever you meant by that term). This is just one example of where copyright infringement can be prosecuted criminally.
The extent to which some posters are going to try to justify stealing someone else's work without paying them for it is really just incredible.
That is the common question, "is it okay to steal?"
My question highlights the varying degrees of acceptance for stealing.
copyright; the right to copy something that is not yours. Stealing; taking something that is not yours, like someone else's song.Some body tell me the difference between copywriting and stealing, becouse to me they both sound like stealing
But hey, no problem, if you like stealing from musicians then just start a record label and you will feel right at home. Illegal downloading makes for strange bedfellows.
Acceptance? I think excuse (only 1 album) is a better term.
The majority of people who steal music are too well educated to not know they are stealing, so an excuse is the only solution to alleviate their guilt.
I think it's an interesting issue. Digital media is infinitely replicable, so its value has to be artificially set by the people involved in its production. I suppose I believe that I know better what a digital product is worth to me than its producers, many of whom I am suspicious of. I feel I can trust the judgement of some companies more than others. Even though I feel responsible for giving extra money to groups and enterprises that I have benefitted extra from, I acknowledge that mine is a fairly arrogant, anarchic point of view.
The media has no value. It is the underlying intellectual property that is being stolen. The media is just a mechanical delivery device. The value of your favorite groups album is not based on replicability. It is based on royalties due to the band as writers and artists.
Someone still has to decide how that value is measured in dollars. I think many customers (well at least, speaking for myself) don't trust a lot of the people setting the prices to make that judgement call fairly. For the majority of TV shows, movies, music, and software, the content creators aren't even the ones deciding what their work is commercially worth. I can see how it might be naive to suggest that they should be, though, in a big corporate environment.
I just don't trust the marketing middlemen at Microsoft, Adobe, the major record labels, or the motion picture association to sell their products with the person who benefits from them in mind. I do, however, trust a large number of shareware creators and independent artists who sell their own work (or work with a label that has a trustworthy image).
I don't think piracy is right, but the antiauthoritarian aspect to it is quite compelling.
I just don't trust the marketing middlemen at Microsoft, Adobe, the major record labels, or the motion picture association to sell their products with the person who benefits from them in mind. I do, however, trust a large number of shareware creators and independent artists who sell their own work (or work with a label that has a trustworthy image).
I don't think piracy is right, but the antiauthoritarian aspect to it is quite compelling.
People don't dream up prices. They are based on royalties, manufacturing, promotion, distribution and profit. Hey, I don't like the price of that plasma tv at Best Buy, guess I should go down smash a window and take it, sounds logical. If you don't want to pay the price, don't buy. Then if others agree with you lack of sales will bring prices down, stealing raises prices to cover the losses covered by freeloaders trying to rip people off.
When I see the cost/quality disparity on products such as MS Windows and Adobe products compared to their smaller-time competitors, I can't think that the cost is really based on some rational equation that does not involve copious amounts of greed.
I agree with you, though, that one simply shouldn't buy these inflated products. But when one sees that most piracy is in the name of cheating the greedy corporate middleman rather than musicians, artists, or designers, it's a lot easier to see why it's done. Not to say it doesn't adversely affect these people, but it has its benefits for them, as well. (Exposure, for example.)
I do wish people would stop comparing online piracy to the theft of goods that cost resources to replicate. They don't seem analogous to me at all. The word 'stealing' implies a transference of wealth, where the ownership of an object changes from one person to another. Piracy is duplication. I suppose you could say that pirates are stealing the "sale" from media companies, but as has been shown, that is often not the case. People who download or copy media often purchase it later for the qualities that make physical objects special, out of a sense of responsibility to the market, or because they really like what they get and want to legitimate it. Then again, some don't, but I think the amount of sales actually lost by piracy is grossly over-exaggerated.
I agree with you, though, that one simply shouldn't buy these inflated products. But when one sees that most piracy is in the name of cheating the greedy corporate middleman rather than musicians, artists, or designers, it's a lot easier to see why it's done. Not to say it doesn't adversely affect these people, but it has its benefits for them, as well. (Exposure, for example.)
I do wish people would stop comparing online piracy to the theft of goods that cost resources to replicate. They don't seem analogous to me at all. The word 'stealing' implies a transference of wealth, where the ownership of an object changes from one person to another. Piracy is duplication. I suppose you could say that pirates are stealing the "sale" from media companies, but as has been shown, that is often not the case. People who download or copy media often purchase it later for the qualities that make physical objects special, out of a sense of responsibility to the market, or because they really like what they get and want to legitimate it. Then again, some don't, but I think the amount of sales actually lost by piracy is grossly over-exaggerated.