Can someone tell me what this means?

[jonnythan]

I was reading your last paragraph, and have to disagree with you. Copyright violation does not deprive someone of the piece of property you took? Think about that for a minute.

I've thought about it a lot.

Stealing a DVD from Best Buy means that Best Buy suddenly no longer has a piece of property that they own. Stealing a car means that someone who paid for 3800 pounds of steel and plastic suddenly no longer has what they paid for.

Copy a Windows XP CD? You have not taken a piece of property owned by someone away from them. Download the latest Kellie Pickler album? You have not taken a piece of property owned by someone away from them.

Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Is copyright violation wrong? Yes. Have you taken an item away from someone? No. When you commit copyright violation, no one actually loses any of their possessions.

 

[no. 5]

When you commit copyright violation, no one actually loses any of their possessions.

true, but thay do lose the money thay would have had, if the copyright violation had not happened.

 

[jonnythan]

true, but thay do lose the money thay would have had, if the copyright violation had not happened.

Maybe, maybe not. The typical 15 year old's catalog of 30GB of downloaded music does not necessarily represent $7000 worth of money that would have gone directly to the RIAA. People download a *lot* of music, movies, and software they would never pay for.

 

[stratman]

Maybe, maybe not. The typical 15 year old's catalog of 30GB of downloaded music does not necessarily represent $7000 worth of money that would have gone directly to the RIAA. People download a *lot* of music, movies, and software they would never pay for.

Here's another way of looking at it: That typical 15 year old didn't write the music, money aside, he still didn't originate the intellectual property, if he duplicated it and gave it away if he downloaded it without paying for it he's doing it illegally, he's causing monetary harm to the owner of the copyright. It's about the action not the quantity, it's not his in the first place to begin with.

 

[jonnythan]

if he duplicated it and gave it away if he downloaded it without paying for it he's doing it illegally, he's causing monetary harm to the owner of the copyright.

I'd say "maybe, maybe not" to that. He's certainly committing an illegal act, but by downloading the latest pop hit, he's not necessarily doing financial harm to the copyright owner. Definitely not a point worth arguing over though. Clearly he is committing illegal acts.

 

[stratman]

Then I guess what you're implying is that its a matter of degrees, in other words small crime no biggie big crime big deal. Well lets say you're in a band and you release a CD, ok one kid copying and giving it away or illegally keeping it ok no biggie, now multiply that by 30% or 40%, you see that's where bands (Metallica)freak out.

 

[jonnythan]

Then I guess what you're implying is that its a matter of degrees, in other words small crime no biggie big crime big deal.

You're reading more into what I'm saying than what I'm actually saying.

Committing copyright violation does not necessarily mean that someone loses money as a result. It doesn't make it any less wrong or any less illegal.

 

[stratman]

J,

The fact that there's a law written against it makes it illegal to perpetrate it. My family is ripe with legal eagles and we've discussed this before over dinner and drinks, anyway you slice it you're breaking a law.

 

[jonnythan]

J,

The fact that there's a law written against it makes it illegal to perpetrate it. My family is ripe with legal eagles and we've discussed this before over dinner and drinks, anyway you slice it you're breaking a law.

That's a fact I have repeated and restated over and over in virtually every one of my posts in this thread. No argument whatsoever there.

 

[stratman]

J,

Help me understand your point. Is it a moral point? We've taken monetary and legal out of the equation.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I've thought about it a lot.

Stealing a DVD from Best Buy means that Best Buy suddenly no longer has a piece of property that they own. Stealing a car means that someone who paid for 3800 pounds of steel and plastic suddenly no longer has what they paid for.

Copy a Windows XP CD? You have not taken a piece of property owned by someone away from them. Download the latest Kellie Pickler album? You have not taken a piece of property owned by someone away from them.

Is copyright violation illegal? Yes. Is copyright violation wrong? Yes. Have you taken an item away from someone? No. When you commit copyright violation, no one actually loses any of their possessions.

Stealing one dvd from Best Buy represents a much smaller issue than someone commiting copyright violations. Copyright violation is similar to patent infringement. Imagine if you spent thousands on R/D with a new subwoofer design, and someone stole your idea and had a very similar subwoofer mass produced in China and made billions from your idea. White collar crime is a much larger problem than blue collar crime. Copyright violation is definitely white collar crime that's almost impossible to put a dollar figure on. One is petty theft, while the other is grand theft. Multiply the number of songs you've downloaded on your HD by $1 (or whatever the going rate is), and compare that to walking out of BB with a $12 CD. No comparison.

 

[jonnythan]

Stealing one dvd from Best Buy represents a much smaller issue than someone commiting copyright violations. Copyright violation is similar to patent infringement. Imagine if you spent thousands on R/D with a new subwoofer design, and someone stole your idea and had a very similar subwoofer mass produced in China and made billions from your idea. White collar crime is a much larger problem than blue collar crime. Copyright violation is definitely white collar crime that's almost impossible to put a dollar figure on. One is petty theft, while the other is grand theft. Multiply the number of songs you've downloaded on your HD by $1 (or whatever the going rate is), and compare that to walking out of BB with a $12 CD. No comparison.

Compare 30GB worth of illegally downloaded songs with driving off with an 18 wheeler full of 50" plasma TVs. Does that mean stealing is worse?

You can't compare "stealing" to "copyright violation" to "patent infringement" and say one is worse than another by comparing a *huge* violation of one to an exceedingly minor violation of another.

Crimes need to be compared on an individual basis. Is downloading one song "worse" than stealing one CD? Probably not. Is selling $2000 worth of pirated DVDs on a street corner "worse" than stealing one DVD from Best Buy? Probably.

 

[jonnythan]

J,

Help me understand your point. Is it a moral point? We've taken monetary and legal out of the equation.

The only point I was trying to make when I entered this thread was that *copyright violation* is not *theft*. It's a pet peeve of mine that people use the word "steal" to describe the illegal downloading of MP3s, movies, software, etc.

Apparently people took this to mean that I thought it was OK. Of course it's not OK. Of course it's illegal. Of course it's not "more OK" than some theft. I've said this from the beginning.

The other point I was trying to make on this page is that an instance of copyright violation does not *necessarily* mean that someone lost money they would have otherwise had. That is often the case, but *not always*.

I hope this clears things up.

 

[stratman]

Compare 30GB worth of illegally downloaded songs with driving off with an 18 wheeler full of 50" plasma TVs. Does that mean stealing is worse?

You can't compare "stealing" to "copyright violation" to "patent infringement" and say one is worse than another by comparing a *huge* violation of one to an exceedingly minor violation of another.

Crimes need to be compared on an individual basis. Is downloading one song "worse" than stealing one CD? Probably not. Is selling $2000 worth of pirated DVDs on a street corner "worse" than stealing one DVD from Best Buy? Probably.

Then I was correct, your point seems to be degrees of what's a "big" crime versus a "small" crime. The problem with that logic is simple: the law is blind it sees crime as crime, it's upto the judge to decide the amount of punishment as prescribed by the law. Stealing is stealing and it's wrong there is no jutifying it, sorry. I wouldn't let my kid get away with stealing a piece of candy from a 7-11 or illegally downloading anything.

 

[stratman]

Sorry then it's just semantics.....ok. understood. The connotation is what bothers you.

 

[jonnythan]

Then I was correct, your point seems to be degrees of what's a "big" crime versus a "small" crime. The problem with that logic is simple: the law is blind it sees crime as crime, it's upto the judge to decide the amount of punishment as prescribed by the law. Stealing is stealing and it's wrong there is no jutifying it, sorry. I wouldn't let my kid get away with stealing a piece of candy from a 7-11 or illegally downloading anything.

WTF are you talking about?

Who justified anything? Are you even reading what I'm writing?

 

[stratman]

Read my post above, BTW that's how it came accross, look at how everyone responded. You should have said: the connotation bothers me thats all "violation is not theft" ok

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Compare 30GB worth of illegally downloaded songs with driving off with an 18 wheeler full of 50" plasma TVs. Does that mean stealing is worse?

You can't compare "stealing" to "copyright violation" to "patent infringement" and say one is worse than another by comparing a *huge* violation of one to an exceedingly minor violation of another.

Crimes need to be compared on an individual basis. Is downloading one song "worse" than stealing one CD? Probably not. Is selling $2000 worth of pirated DVDs on a street corner "worse" than stealing one DVD from Best Buy? Probably.

My point is that you cannot compare copyright violation on an individual basis, because it's so widespread. Imagine the money lost (or gained by musicians/writers) if people actually had to pay for each song/movie on their HD. 50 plasma tv's is petty compared to what you're talking about. Why else would the RIAA make such a big stink about it.

In your mind, is patent infringement a theft?

 

[jonnythan]

In your mind, is patent infringement a theft?

Absolutely not. Theft has an actual definition, and patent infringement does not fit said definition.

Can patent infringement potentially be more damaging than theft? Absolutely. Is it theft? Absolutely not.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

You should start printing money. It's not illegal until you spend it. I assume you don't listen to the illegal downloads on your HD.