Is it hypocritical?

[screenman]

When is a crime not a crime? Which is not the same as when is a door not a door.

 

[Dan B]

When is a crime not a crime? Which is not the same as when is a door not a door.

Nobody has yet suggested that it is not a crime. That doesn't mean it's theft, though, just that it's some other crime which is not theft. Driving at night without lights is a crime, but is not theft.

 

[Profpointy]

not quite the hyperbole of the Boston Strangler analogy mentioned up thread, but the " industry" also tries to put it about that income from piracy goes to fund the drugs business - strangely I'd always surmised that illegal drug supply was highly profitable in itself, but it seems they need the cross subsidy from piracy to keep those poor drug pushers off the dole queue

 

[Vapin' Joe]

Nobody has yet suggested that it is not a crime. That doesn't mean it's theft, though, just that it's some other crime which is not theft.

Taking someone else's property without paying for it is theft. It really is that simple.

 

[Profpointy]

Taking someone else's property without paying for it is theft. It really is that simple.

not in law - in law it is "an intention to permanently deprive".

And you are beggin the question by assuming a song or maybe even an idea is or can be really be "property".

Also how can it be theft 49 years after it's been written but not theft 51 years (or whatever the number is) ?

Conflating theft and piracy undermines a genuine discussion on fair reward for artistic or intellectual work

 

[Dan B]

Taking someone else's property without paying for it is theft. It really is that simple.

What property has been taken? Is "an opportunity to sell you something" property? Even supposing it is, does it have equal value to the thing being sold?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Would this be the same e-commerce industry being ripped off that refuses to acknowledge and allow the transfer of legally bought and downloaded music & books etc from the purchaser to another party as a death bequest etc?

If doesn't make piracy right but to whinge of theft on one hand and impose it on another is hardly the strongest of moral arguments.

 

[ScotiaLass]

When you have things like amazon prime, for less than £80 per year, you can download hundreds of songs and albums as well as have next day delivery on load of things, not to mention tons of tv programmes and films. With that in mind, I can't Imagine that artists make any money at all on any song. So does it make any real differance if you download a song illegally? The amount of money they would get is diddly squat.

Before digital downloading came Into being, then yes I think it mattered far more. Now? No. Songs are practically being given away by amazon and google music.

on the other hand, I do ave amazon prime, so at least they are making something I assume, and its all legal.

I have it too, as well as a trial of Now TV and Netflix.
We're going to keep Amazon as it's extremely good value IMO, and Netflix too

 

[mjr]

On the other hand some CC folks have admitted or condone taking part in downloading digital content, films, games, TV programs and music without paying for it.

Is there a difference in stealing someone's bike and stealing someone's digital content?

Downloading without paying is perfectly legal if the creator says you may. That's the basis of the other CC: Creative Commons. I wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone and suggest if you like their work, you buy something extra from the creator or fund their next project. No more buying a pig in a poke from Big Media and giving them all the creative control which leads to waves of uncreative copycat acts.

 

[400bhp]

not quite the hyperbole of the Boston Strangler analogy mentioned up thread, but the " industry" also tries to put it about that income from piracy goes to fund the drugs business - strangely I'd always surmised that illegal drug supply was highly profitable in itself, but it seems they need the cross subsidy from piracy to keep those poor drug pushers off the dole queue

Well, what they often say is that it boosts organised crime. Given that piracy is a crime and that it needs organisation to do it then, no shoot sherlock.

There's some good economics on this stuff, as well as fake goods and the incorrect assumption that it hits the profitability of the original owner.

 

[400bhp]

Bet the mindset of the average Brit on this is way different than the mindset of many other countries.

 

[Berk on a Bike]

My two cents: I haven't bought a music track or film for years. It's probably technically theft but I don't give a shît.

 

[Booyaa]

Bet the mindset of the average Brit on this is way different than the mindset of many other countries.

In what way?

 

[Profpointy]

Well, what they often say is that it boosts organised crime. Given that piracy is a crime and that it needs organisation to do it then, no shoot sherlock.

There's some good economics on this stuff, as well as fake goods and the incorrect assumption that it hits the profitability of the original owner.

did occur to me that if it's so much more profitable than drugs, we should be encouraging it to put the drug dealers into a.less harmfull business..

...I'm not (entirely) being serious

 

[Old jon]

Yes its hypocritical, one wrong is just as wrong as the other wrong. But I have never written a piece of music worth stealing.