Is copying a file still theft? Included propaganda

[Nigerius Rex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw-MFeR8Frw

Is copying a resource and distributing it wrong? It seems to me that although it is illegal, the entire reason for it being illegal is a made up way for someone to make money. And in the process of that, you infringe upon the benefits of mass data sharing.

[Adami]

It's a tough issue.

One on hand, it's not a physical concept and thus can very easily be copied and distributed. It's also something that is commonly distributed freely in certain ways, yet illegal in other ways which are very similar.


On the other hand, it's deeming that in a society completely run by the concept of making money, certain professions are no longer deemed worthy of making money. Artists and so forth have to resort to taking on different jobs and ways of life to live a normal life.

[XJDenton]

If you copy something, you are bypassing the time, effort and money required to design and create the original copy. Objects/files don't just magically appear, and none of them are free to create. To quote the west wing.

Toby: The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
Josh: You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.

[Nigerius Rex]

That again seems to me seems like a synthetic reason . What about indie game developers or youtube stars as an example? The work that shot them to popularity and wealth was freely shared and had little production value. In fact, it is copyright free data sharing that allows people like that to contribute to the world on a scale that allows them to turn whatever talents they have into a career.

[Sigz]

What about indie game developers or youtube stars as an example? The work that shot them to popularity and wealth was freely shared and had little production value.

Everything about this statement is wrong.

1) Indie games (and games in general) require a massive amount of work produce, saying that they have little production value is flat out wrong. Also, pirating games doesn't help indie developers at all. Notch would not be rolling in 700,000 euros had everyone just pirated minecraft.

2) A youtube poster is making their works freely available, so piracy is a non-issue. Not that it's done a whole lot of good for most of the 'stars', because while their work has "shot them to popularity", the wealth part isn't quite there.



But either way, you can't confuse an action having positive benefits with being ethical. If someone wishes you to pay for their property and you don't, that is wrong even if you've actually helped them in some way.

[XJDenton]

That again seems to me seems like a synthetic reason . What about indie game developers or youtube stars as an example? The work that shot them to popularity and wealth was freely shared and had little production value.

In addition to sigz' point, even if that were true, the production budget/development would reflect the intended nature of distribution, and would be something the creator has planned for. On the other hand, big budget films/software and such like relies on income to break even and eventually fund the next project. Noone spends 100 million researching and designing a new car that is going to be freely distributed because it is simply not feasible to do so in a normal enviroment.

[Perpetual Change]

Like all things, it's a matter of intent. Sometimes file sharing is wrong. Other times it's not. The point is, our generation has abused file-sharing to the point where it's become a problem. Is it innately wrong? No. But have we abused it to the point where something now must be done about it? Sure, I'd believe that in a second.

When kids are growing up, sometimes parents don't set rules for them about how long they can play videogames, or whether they can go out with girls, or play outside, etc. And then kids take advantage of that, and create problems that parents have no choice but to solve.

That's where were we are now with file sharing. I'd like to say the government shouldn't have to do anything about it, but we've pretty much ruined it ourselves by completely devaluing everything we can steal for free.

[El Barto]

Indie game developers and youtube stars still have an eye towards making money at some point.  DooM was shareware, and they made the code freely available to people who wanted to edit the thing.  They made a gazillion dollars by licensing the engine to others who would use it for profit.  If people had known that any future releases using that engine would be pirated, nobody would have wanted to pay money for the rights to the engine in the first place. 

Similarly, some silly tool on youtube might be able to profit down the line due to their notoriety.  If the market is non-existent due to piracy, then their efforts will never pay off.

Now, the important part of both of these examples is that they've found new and innovative models to make money.  Piracy isn't going anywhere and it's the young people who adapt that'll do well.  The dinosaurs in the RIAA camp are just ignorantly watching comet come down.

[Nigerius Rex]

Also, pirating games doesn't help indie developers at all

I disagree. Pirates number in the millions, and among them are people who are willing to spend money on a game if it meets whatever standards they set for what they are willing to spend their money on. A fantastic example is an indie game called World Of Goo that shipped with zero copyright/antipiracy and has sold (and continues to sell) millions of copies. 2dboy even ran an experiment to see what their audience would pay for the game if there were no set price and the results were quite interesting.

https://2dboy.com/2009/10/19/birthday-sale-results/

This one was a big shocker. Steam sales rose 40% relative to the previous week. Our Steam sales tend to fluctuate and it’s not unheard of for there to be a 25% difference from one week to the next (up or down) but the 40% increase came after a week that saw a 25% increase.  It has been several months since we’ve seen this number of sales in a single week on Steam.

With World Of Goo, the developers planned for massive pirating and even counted on it to sell their game. So instead of focusing their energy trying to think of ways to discourage copying they focused on being efficient and putting more effort into creating a good game.

But either way, you can't confuse an action having positive benefits with being ethical. If someone wishes you to pay for their property and you don't, that is wrong even if you've actually helped them in some way.

The problem there is the presupposition that because someone wants you to pay for something that you are obligated ethically do so. It applies in real life where you justify your investment by not giving your product away on the street and you actually consume or steal a resource by taking it against the creators will, but not on the internet where data is copied at no cost or harm to the creator.

That's where were we are now with file sharing. I'd like to say the government shouldn't have to do anything about it, but we've pretty much ruined it ourselves by completely devaluing everything we can steal for free.

Something to keep in mind is that the thing that sells artistic projects is a high quality end product, not copyright protection. I was reading a while back and I can find the source later, is that the amount of data being shared, sold, and independently developed on the internet has only risen since the advent of file sharing, not fallen as would be expected from heavy pirating.

[rumborak]

Like all things, it's a matter of intent. Sometimes file sharing is wrong. Other times it's not. The point is, our generation has abused file-sharing to the point where it's become a problem. Is it innately wrong? No. But have we abused it to the point where something now must be done about it? Sure, I'd believe that in a second.

When kids are growing up, sometimes parents don't set rules for them about how long they can play videogames, or whether they can go out with girls, or play outside, etc. And then kids take advantage of that, and create problems that parents have no choice but to solve it.

Nah, this is not an outcome of some moralless generation. It's human nature to do what you can safely get away with. File sharing is our generation's tax evasion, the thing you don't want to spend money on and try to skirt. The problem really is the internet's anonymity, which amplifies this to unseen proportions.

What really concerns me is when I see people like NR try to create an ethical system for themselves which makes it morally permissible to steal. I think that is the real danger here, that a whole generation of "if everyone does it, it must be ok" kids gets created whose moral objections can be switched off if need be.

rumborak

[El Barto]

What really concerns me is when I see people like NR try to create an ethical system for themselves which makes it morally permissible to steal. I think that is the real danger here, that a whole generation of "if everyone does it, it must be ok" kids gets created whose moral objections can be switched off if need be.

rumborak

Yet another aspect of human nature.  Steeling isn't black and white, and hashing out shades of gray is a constant ethical activity. 

[ack44]

The reason all of this is happening is because the notion that a person can own something that's not a physical object is absurd and can only be actualized in a very controlled setting. The internet is hardly a controlled setting and an attempt to try to block the flow of information will only succeed at all if it has wide-spread support, hence you don't see a lot of child porn on the net (the question of what exactly is being censored here is another issue).

[Perpetual Change]

I actually agree with Barto's and Rumby's statements. People will do what they can get away with, and the reason why I still buy most of my media is because I've always found the ethical justification for downloading to be quite bizarre. What I'd like to see is downloading or uploading files to actually be enforced better, and that means MORE enforcement and at the same time less "extreme" enforcement: Instead of fining one person who downloaded a new album obsence amounts of money they'll never be able to pay off (just to make an example), why not fine 50 people who downloaded that album $50?

[ack44]

It's an extremely complicated process (or so I'd assume) to fine somebody, and if it wasn't it would be very problematic. Besides, most people think it's absurd for a person to be fined for downloading information onto their PC. No pun intended.

[Perpetual Change]

I don't  know who they fine, or what the process is. Someone want to tell me?

[Nigerius Rex]

Like all things, it's a matter of intent. Sometimes file sharing is wrong. Other times it's not. The point is, our generation has abused file-sharing to the point where it's become a problem. Is it innately wrong? No. But have we abused it to the point where something now must be done about it? Sure, I'd believe that in a second.

When kids are growing up, sometimes parents don't set rules for them about how long they can play videogames, or whether they can go out with girls, or play outside, etc. And then kids take advantage of that, and create problems that parents have no choice but to solve it.

Nah, this is not an outcome of some moralless generation. It's human nature to do what you can safely get away with. File sharing is our generation's tax evasion, the thing you don't want to spend money on and try to skirt. The problem really is the internet's anonymity, which amplifies this to unseen proportions.

What really concerns me is when I see people like NR try to create an ethical system for themselves which makes it morally permissible to steal. I think that is the real danger here, that a whole generation of "if everyone does it, it must be ok" kids gets created whose moral objections can be switched off if need be.

rumborak

How nice of you to throw me into an easy to classify group of thief children with ethics that behave like a light switch. Secondly, reread my above post. I am not lying to myself to somehow justify file sharing (which I revealed I have done in the past, have done ≠ always do) I am questioning the idea that copying data at no cost to author or consumer be it fiscal or otherwise is stealing and that there are other forces at work aside from a blind adherence to a presupposed and narrow minded view. As an example if an artist releases a song and 5 million people obtain it via a digital copy from a torrent website, what negative fiscal impact will it have on the artist? None. The artist is not wasting resources because file sharing is autonomous and nearly instant, and the exposure to new audiences that likely would not have been reached can lead to an increase in sales by those who are genuinely interested in whatever the product is.

The negative side of file sharing is too often over exaggerated. If copying is so detrimental to the industry why have the number of independently created works increased? How do indie game developers, small time myspace bands, and other internet producers keep showing up if in the end file sharing is killing the industry? We are seeing growth all around, not the opposite.

Not to mention the detrimental effects of copyright and IP.

[Perpetual Change]

The artist is not wasting resources because file sharing is autonomous and nearly instant, and the exposure to new audiences that likely would not have been reached can lead to an increase in sales by those who are genuinely interested in whatever the product is.

The artist is also getting dropped from the label.

[rumborak]

I am questioning the idea that copying data at no cost to author or consumer be it fiscal or otherwise is stealing and that there are other forces at work aside from a blind adherence to a presupposed and narrow minded view.

Please give me you credit card number then. It's information that costs nothing to copy, thus it should be fine for me to have it.

rumborak

[ack44]

I am questioning the idea that copying data at no cost to author or consumer be it fiscal or otherwise is stealing and that there are other forces at work aside from a blind adherence to a presupposed and narrow minded view.

Please give me you credit card number then. It's information that costs nothing to copy, thus it should be fine for me to have it.

rumborak

costs nothing to copy ≠ no cost to author or consumer

[Adami]

I am questioning the idea that copying data at no cost to author or consumer be it fiscal or otherwise is stealing and that there are other forces at work aside from a blind adherence to a presupposed and narrow minded view.

Please give me you credit card number then. It's information that costs nothing to copy, thus it should be fine for me to have it.

rumborak

costs nothing to copy ≠ no cost to author or consumer

I think that was his point. Unless you're agreeing with him.

[Nigerius Rex]

I am questioning the idea that copying data at no cost to author or consumer be it fiscal or otherwise is stealing and that there are other forces at work aside from a blind adherence to a presupposed and narrow minded view.

Please give me you credit card number then. It's information that costs nothing to copy, thus it should be fine for me to have it.

rumborak

Don't think my credit card number is classified under copyright or IP.

[rumborak]

Your point being that only information that is copyrighted is fine to steal?

Or what?

rumborak

[Nigerius Rex]

Aside from being completely irrelevant, credit cards are not commonly downloaded from file sharing and torrent websites and are not the subject of the RIAA and major game developers complaints about file sharing and piracy.

Secondly, if I download a copy of eminems album he wont see 19.99 + tax deducted from his bank account whereas if I give out my credit card information I would likely see a monthly deductions for naughtyGermanhousewives.com, hence a negative fiscal effect.

[Perpetual Change]

This whole notion that piracy is a victimless crime is completely bizarre and childish. If someone makes a product, and you copy it instead of purchasing it, it's theft.　And it hurts the artist, because they'll either be dropped by their labels for sales sucking or because, you know, you're stealing their art which you should be paying for. Sorry, NR, but if you're going to be this semantic and equivocal about what "theft" means and act like downloading doesn't hurt anyone, you deserve to be in rumby's group of "childish thieves."

I can't see how people who claim to believe in the market could find themselves justifying not paying for something produced by someone else, even if it's just as you say a "copy."  But if someone argues that the libertarian movement will collapse because, at the end of the day, it's made up of 90 percent people who just want to legitimize drug use, file-sharing, and kiddie porn then I'd probably agree.

And before someone accuses me of being on the high-horse, I'm not. We all are guilty of file-sharing from time to time, whether we're just Youtubing a video or a movie or copying a PDF　of a book we want to read but don't want to purchase. But coming up with some twisted argument that throws the artist under the bus? Not cool.

Secondly, if I download a copy of eminems album he wont see 19.99 + tax deducted from his bank account whereas if I give out my credit card information I would likely see a monthly deductions for naughtyGermanhousewives.com, hence a negative fiscal effect.

Ridiculous. Money has been spent to produce physical copies of those records. Moreover, money has already been spent on hiring the producers and the artists themselves. That's like saying "If NR is a potter, and I steal a pot he's got lying around in his store, it's okay, because he's not losing any money (even though much investment has already been put into the production of the original.)

[ack44]

costs nothing to copy ≠ no cost to author or consumer

I think that was his point. Unless you're agreeing with him.

if I download a copy of eminems album he wont see 19.99 + tax deducted from his bank account whereas if I give out my credit card information I would likely see a monthly deductions for naughtyGermanhousewives.com, hence a negative fiscal effect.

That's what I meant to say.

[Adami]

This whole notion that piracy is a victimless crime is completely bizarre and childish. If someone makes a product, and you copy it instead of purchasing it, it's theft.　And it hurts the artist, because they'll either be dropped by their labels for sales sucking or because, you know, you're stealing their art which you should be paying for. Sorry, NR, but if you're going to be this semantic and equivocal about what "theft" means and act like downloading doesn't hurt anyone, you deserve to be in rumby's group of "childish thieves."

I can't see how people who claim to believe in the market could find themselves justifying not paying for something produced by someone else, even if it's just as you say a "copy."  But if someone argues that the libertarian movement will collapse because, at the end of the day, it's made up of 90 percent people who just want to legitimize drug use, file-sharing, and kiddie porn then I'd probably agree.

Also, the whole myth of "Well people will download your music, and then buy the album if they like it and then come to your shows" is just that, a myth.

Sure a band like Metallica (ironically) might benefit from downloading. But a local band owes a studio thousands of dollars for putting their album out. If no one buys the record, the band is out that much money. If there are no sales to chart, the label seems them as unable to produce profit and drops them. And people who download albums RARELY go out and buy them later unless they are big fans, which is why it works decently for big bands. And just because you or a few people you know say they will buy it, it doesn't mean anything.

[Perpetual Change]

If a label gives me $1,000,000 to create an album, and I spent that money, and then the album comes out and only sells a couple thousand copies (even though thousands of people also download it), as an artist I'm in trouble. My label's not going to support me. Maybe they won't give me a tour, where I could make some of that money back. Or maybe they'll drop me completely, and all the "fans" who've downloaded my music will cry about how evil the record labels are. But the truth is, the people who've downloaded my music have done me wrong. They've robbed me. Shit, maybe that's why our generation can't seem to put out decent pop-acts, because the labels know at the end of the day most aren't worth investing any special treatment in.

Here's a question, NR:

If someone puts some money into the Stock Market, is it fair to steal their return? After all, no-one's taking money out of anyone's bank account. We're just stopping money from entering someone's bank-account, even though any sense of justice would be able to tell it deserves to be there.

[ack44]

If someone makes a product, and you copy it instead of purchasing it, it's theft.

If I have Images & Words on CD and want it on my computer but can't be arsed to dig it out of the basement so I do a Mediafire search and get it there, is that theft? What if I haven't been in the basement since 1995 and am not even sure if it's still there but go ahead and download it anyways? My point is that to think that you can own information is a bit silly.

　And it hurts the artist, because they'll either be dropped by their labels for sales sucking or because, you know, you're stealing their art which you should be paying for. Sorry, NR, but if you're going to be this semantic and equivocal about what "theft" means and act like downloading doesn't hurt anyone, you deserve to be in rumby's group of "childish thieves."

But if someone argues that the libertarian movement will collapse because, at the end of the day, it's made up of 90 percent people who just want to legitimize drug use, file-sharing, and kiddie porn then I'd probably agree.

Huh? Western societies are clearly becoming more and more libertarian, at least in terms of decriminalizing drugs and file-sharing.

[ack44]

There's no doubt that the availability of information has cause many industries (especially big music labels) to suffer. The question I would ask is, why should I give a shit? I don't understand the premise that musicians should be making money. If musicians stop making music because they can't make money then that's that, but I'd say that money isn't the only motivator for musicians.

[Adami]

There's no doubt that the availability of information has cause many industries (especially big music labels) to suffer. The question I would ask is, why should I give a shit? I don't understand the premise that musicians should be making money. If musicians stop making music because they can't make money then that's that, but I'd say that money isn't the only motivator for musicians.

In a capatalist society, musicians are workers. You're basically saying an entire form of work is longer worth caring about because it's not a different form of work.

Why should I care about anyone making money? Artists are no less workers than factory men.

[Nigerius Rex]

you deserve to be in rumby's group of "childish thieves."

If you're stuck on the idea that it is stealing just because and is therefore wrong, then I don't see the discussion going anywhere.

Also, facts:

https://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/09-132.pdf

Overall production figures for the creative industries appear to be consistent with this view that file sharing has not discouraged artists and publishers.  While album sales have generally fallen since 2000, the number of albums being created has exploded.  In 2000, 35,516 albums were released.  Seven years later, 79,695 albums (including 25,159 digital albums) were published (Nielsen SoundScan, 2008).  Even if file sharing were the reason that sales have fallen, the new technology does not appear to have exacted a toll on the quantity of music produced. Obviously, it would be nice to adjust output for differences in quality, but we are not aware of any research that has tackled this question.

So to summarize, physical album sales have fallen, digital sales have risen, and overall album production has increased.

[ack44]

There's no doubt that the availability of information has cause many industries (especially big music labels) to suffer. The question I would ask is, why should I give a shit? I don't understand the premise that musicians should be making money. If musicians stop making music because they can't make money then that's that, but I'd say that money isn't the only motivator for musicians.

In a capatalist society, musicians are workers. You're basically saying an entire form of work is longer worth caring about because it's not a different form of work.

Why should I care about anyone making money? Artists are no less workers than factory men.

Some forms of revenue become irrelevant as technology advances and information is readily provided. Me, for example, I work as a translator. I don't expect anybody to act to try to preserve my way of making money. The translation industry is increasingly shrinking because of better software that can do the work that translators used to do.

Not all musicians make money through their music. To me, it's a matter of accepting change or being stubborn about it. It's encouraging to see the amount of musicians who are willing to accept change.

[Adami]

Musicians not getting paid for making music that people want isn't the same as computers doing your job.

In one case....you stopped doing your job because you were replaced. In another, the job was done but was just not paid for.

It would be more like you doing a translation and then never getting paid for it.

[Perpetual Change]

If someone makes a product, and you copy it instead of purchasing it, it's theft.

If I have Images & Words on CD and want it on my computer but can't be arsed to dig it out of the basement so I do a Mediafire search and get it there, is that theft? What if I haven't been in the basement since 1995 and am not even sure if it's still there but go ahead and download it anyways? My point is that to think that you can own information is a bit silly.

Sure, but you're mistaking the exception for the rule.

So to summarize, physical album sales have fallen, digital sales have risen, and overall album production has increased.

That's twisted. If you look at what top artists were selling in 2000 and compare it now, it becomes pretty obvious how skewed those stats are. Really all that says is that there's more music being produced now. Says nothing about individual artists. When was the last time your heard of an artist going multi-platinum? Even rock bands used to be able to do it. Now it's pretty rare, and happens nowhere near the level that it used to in the 2000s when artists were selling 10 million records in the US alone.

If you're stuck on the idea that it is stealing just because and is therefore wrong, then I don't see the discussion going anywhere.

It's not "just because." Again, I'll pose the question you ignored:

If someone puts some money into the Stock Market, is it fair to steal their return? After all, no-one's taking money out of anyone's bank account. We're just stopping money from entering someone's bank-account, even though any sense of justice would be able to tell it deserves to be there.

Some forms of revenue become irrelevant as technology advances and information is readily provided. Me, for example, I work as a translator. I don't expect anybody to act to try to preserve my way of making money. The translation industry is increasingly shrinking because of better software that can do the work that translators used to do.

Not the same thing at all. Being forced to adapt because computers are making it easier for people to translate without going to specialists is different than being forced to adapt because everyone can read your translations without paying to do so.

[ack44]

Musicians not getting paid for making music that people want isn't the same as computers doing your job.

In one case....you stopped doing your job because you were replaced. In another, the job was done but was just not paid for.

It would be more like you doing a translation and then never getting paid for it.

 It puts in question the whole practice of selling recorded music. It's only recently in history that corporations started selling recordings of music. Before that there was musical performance, where musicians (like translators) would get payed for each gig. Some clever people figured out that they could record music onto discs, mass-produce them and make loads of moneys. Music suddenly became complex with copy rights and royalties. Physical objects with audio information was being sold. Whoever controlled the process of mass-production controlled the flow of money. Record labels pressured musicians to make "hit singles" to trigger the jackpot.

 Then ordinary people started to figure out that they could duplicate the information themselves by burning the information to CD. We all know how the rest of the story goes. The manipulation that was once possible has lost control of the game. There's simply no reasons left to pay for audio information. If you want to help out an artist, go to their gigs, donate to them directly or tell your friends about them. If you want the physical disc, buy the physical disc. If you just want the music, download it. Don't throw away an hours wage to a record company.