Downloading illegally

[2Loose]

Theft is the dishonest taking of another's property with the intention to permanently deprive them of it. Copying is, therefore, not theft, because it does not deprive. If it were theft we wouldn't need a separate offence of copyright violation, would we?

+1, This definitely needed some clarity.

I find it interesting that when the radio was more popular, it was considered normal and even acceptable to record shows or music to listen to. Music was ultimately free, so the record companies gave us shiny boxes and booklets as an incentive to buy the full version, which we did - if we liked the music we heard of course.

Depite being frowned on by the music companies ('Home taping is killing music' anyone?), most people knew that without home taping and radio, the music would not 'get out there' and therefore sales would be poorer than they were.

There have been several studies to show that people who download music for free actually buy more music than the average listener. Perhaps this is because to actually want to buy something, you would normally want experience of a product that you could not otherwise get experience of.

'Lost sales' is a phrase used to suggest that all people who hear the music from a free download would have actually paid money for it, whether or not they liked it or even kept it.

Morally I have no issue with 'try before you buy' for free, But I do have issue with people obtaining money dishonestly from someone else's efforts, such as when Person A pays Person B for something that Person B downloaded for free, in essence depriving the manufacturer of a proper and genuine sale.

Note: Out of the last 5 albums I have downloaded, I bought 2 of them. Can't beat that nice shiny disc and lyrics book imho.

 

[User169]

I see that no-one has yet answered the question of whether "illegally" downloading music is actually illegal if the downloader already owns a purchased copy. Is it? Or isn't it?

I have hundreds of vinyl LPs and singles + a lot of CDs, all legally purchased. If I now wish to download MP3 copies of the same music so that I can play them on my portable player do I have to pay for them again, having already paid the copyright holder once?

It remains the case under UK law that format shifting, for example coverting a CD into an MP3 copy, is copyright infringement (even where the CD was purchased legally).

It was identified as problematic in the Gowers report with a recommendation that an exception to infringement be introduced for private format shifting. The proposal is still in the consultation phase.

Having said that, I don't think there's been any action taken against such "infringers" in the UK.

 

[postman]

What i do not understand is.I have a playlist on You Tube.Songs that i grew up with .From the sixties many of them .So how can a young kid called dizzydee or whatever put up on his channel a song featuring say Roy Orbison .That kid does not own that piece of material .He would not have been born when it came out .Then YT says we cannot copy it .

 

[Norm]

I see that no-one has yet answered the question of whether "illegally" downloading music is actually illegal if the downloader already owns a purchased copy. Is it? Or isn't it?

I have hundreds of vinyl LPs and singles + a lot of CDs, all legally purchased. If I now wish to download MP3 copies of the same music so that I can play them on my portable player do I have to pay for them again, having already paid the copyright holder once?

Yes, it is illegal. I believe it is even illegal to change the format, so recording your own CD's for use in an MP3 player is infringing the copyright.

As for the definition of "theft" offered earlier, the Theft Act was amended in 1978 to include services, so that really should be long enough to have got through by now.

What i do not understand is.I have a playlist on You Tube.Songs that i grew up with .From the sixties many of them .So how can a young kid called dizzydee or whatever put up on his channel a song featuring say Roy Orbison .That kid does not own that piece of material .He would not have been born when it came out .Then YT says we cannot copy it .

dizzydee is also guilty, and YouTube should remove the video if it is reported.

 

[2Loose]

Format shifting a computer game for backup purposes does not fall into illegality in this country, but music does...both come on shiny disks, both are covered by copyright laws, but in different ways.

 

[2Loose]

Norm, you can deprive someone of a service through theft, but COPYING something does not deprive them of it...therefore not Theft. (Nor legal either)

 

[Norm]

Norm, you can deprive someone of a service through theft, but COPYING something does not deprive them of it...therefore not Theft. (Nor legal either)

From the Theft Act 1978:

1 Obtaining services by deception
(1)A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains services from another shall be guilty of an offence.
(2)It is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to confer a benefit by doing some act, or causing or permitting some act to be done, on the understanding that the benefit has been or will be paid for.
(3)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, it is an obtaining of services where the other is induced to make a loan, or to cause or permit a loan to be made, on the understanding that any payment (whether by way of interest or otherwise) will be or has been made in respect of the loan.

No mention of deprivation there.

And, my point remains that the two organisations formed to combat such things both contain the word "theft" in their names is reason enough for me to consider it to be theft.

 

[2Loose]

The person being deprived will be the person providing the service.

Either way, a service is not a computer file that has been duplicated by a third party so this is not relevant. Subverting someone else's Love Film accountwater supply etc. on the other hand...

 

[monkeypony]

I'm guessing you're not in favour of it then
Think very carefully....is there, or has there ever been, nothing you do in your life thats slightly or outright wrong ?
Nothing ?...nothing at all ?....then you're a better man than me ....are you ?

True, none of us are perfect, but I'm not trying to justify anything with bullshit reasoning.

 

[Debian]

As I said earlier...


Your little piece of pedantry might be of interest to the Federation Against Copyright Theft or the Federation Against Software Theft, coruskate, but it still looks like an attempt to justify theft to me.

Your definition of theft is also a little out of date, as it now covers goods and services, but I'll leave that one aside for now.

I believe that the services part of the theft act is there to cover things like electricity, gas, telephone and water supplies. A piece of music is not a service.

Also, the fact that FAST include the word theft in their title doesn't make copyright infringement theft.

 

[Dan B]

Well, of course they call it "theft" because that word has more impact than "copyright violation" and causes people to make sloppy analogies. Yes of course I'd be upset if you took my £1000 bike, because then I would not have a £1000 bike any longer. But the fact is still that by copying an mp3 from my friend for free I have not obtained either goods or services from anyone who was expecting me to pay for them. It still isn't theft

I mean, yes, it's illegal and yes it's morally questionable, but throwing sloppy and emotive terminology into the debate does nobody any favours

 

[Bman]

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Stealing ? technically correct but (irrelevent in a way) i always worked on the principle that the mainstream musicians i'm interested in are fabulously rich compared to me. How much money do the Rolling Stones for instance want ?

you seen Tesco and Wal-mart profits?

wanna try your how rich do you need to be argument on them when you're dashing out of the store with a trolley full of shoplifting?

 

[User169]

Format shifting a computer game for backup purposes does not fall into illegality in this country, but music does...both come on shiny disks, both are covered by copyright laws, but in different ways.

I'm not convinced it's quite as simple as that.

Section 50A(1) of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that:

"It is not an infringement of copyright for a lawful user of a copy of a computer program to make any back up copy of it which it is necessary for him to have for the purposes of his lawful use."

The question then is when making a back-up is "necessary". It's not clear to me that a private user of a computer game would necessarily benefit from this exemption.

The copy of Cornish I have in my office is a bit out of date but only says it is to be hoped the exemption is given reasonable scope. The website of one firm of lawyers I found says the exemption is unlikely to apply to private users of computer games.

I assume that you could agree contractually with the copyright holder that when you buy the game you get a license to make back-ups. On the other hand a contractual provision purporting to override the exemption would be void.

The consultation documents stemming from the Gowers report make it clear that the exemption they want to introduce in relation to format shifting wouldn't apply to computer programs since the infringement exemptions are defined under EU directive.

 

[MacLean]

Record companies used to actually create physical cds and records for artists. Big machines for producing and copying physical cds and cases (and the little book or whatever that came in it). I.E they actually done something!

People now adays dont want the physical CDs they want the music on mp3, and record companies still want a slice of the pie for 'pasting' and mp3 file onto a website?

Sorry record companies, times have moved on, their product is no longer wanted (physical cds, records)

Any artist will still make a decent living from live performances and can get their music heard via mp3 and radio. Record companies are just another unfortunate victim of continuous evolving technology.

And yes i have downloaded free music and no i dont feel guilty.