Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures

File Swapping isn't as bad as wife swapping!

from JoeUser Forums
Draginol recently posted an article about file-swapping, Kazza. Rather than hijack his thread, I decided to post my lengthy thoughts here.

I agree that stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you walk out of the store with a box or download a program from the internet. No arguments there.

That being said, I am publicly confessing. I have used LimeWire, Kazza and pirated copies of various programs throughout the years. I am guilty. I have stolen ideas from other people's websites, by copying the codes and using them myself. I have used software, copied Disney movies (for my own use), copied tapes, downloaded music, burned CDs and more....all because I was too selfish to be honest.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, I was just "checking the music out" and that I would buy some songs later on. But honestly, I would listen to a song for a week or two and then discard it. But by doing that, I'm still stealing.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, "I was just watching tv shows that I missed." I didn't pay for premium cable and I don't intend on paying an extra $80 for one show. I did rent it from blockbuster, but Season 2 wasn't out yet....so I downloaded it from Kazza. It's still stealing. I didn't pay for it.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, "She had to load a program so they could finish a project on my computer (her's crashed)....but I left it on my computer and continued to use it. That's illegal.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, "I just used my friend's copy of Photoshop to see if I liked it." But it wasn't honest to do that. (I did eventually buy it) It was still stealing.

I could try to justify my guilt by saying, I just used the trial copy of WindowBlinds indefinetely. Oh, wait, I AM still using the trial copy and it's LEGAL. I still feel a little guilty for not buying it. but I am broke and I can't afford it right now. BUT thanks to the smart guys over at WinCustomize. I have a FREE trial copy that I can use it indefinetely. A lot of the features that look really cool are disabled until I pay for it, but that's okay. The longer I use it and test it, the more likely I am to buy it (which I plan to)

I know that pirating stuff is wrong. I'm not stupid. I've justified it in the past but Draginol has made a good point that people tend to ignore. They change the subject or point fingers at "the system" but the fact remains....Stealing is wrong. It was wrong in the 80s when your buddy made a mixed tape for you. It was wrong in the 90s when you bought a pirated DVD and it is wrong when you download pirated material now.

On the other side, we have WinZip trial version and the free WindowBlinds. It allows casual users the chance to test it out, legally. I sacrifice the high-end cool features for the chance to play around with it, but I don't have to steal to do it. Maybe other companies would have more success if they followed this lead. MS is now offering free trial versions of Office etc. The trials are time based instead of feature based, so maybe that will not encourage honesty. Someone who has used a program for 90 days may not want to run out and give someone $300 for the privilage of using the same stuff. But paying to get features enabled? Maybe that will work. But I doubt it.

It boils down to this. Stealing is wrong. Excuses don't change the truth. Stealing is wrong. People won't stop being dishonest, but that doesn't mean you should do it too. Because... (repeat after me....) STEALING IS WRONG.
"
4,253 views 35 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Speeding is breaking the law, and it can result in DEATH for innocent bystanders. People get all outraged and fume about it, but this kind of thing is going to be common, as it has been for decades before the Internet. The immortal Larz admitted to swapping mix tapes with his friends and then was SHOCKED that people swapped music online.

I'm with you, I think it is wrong, but I think it is insipid to send people to jail for decades and fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars for a crime that some people don't even know they commit. Programs like Kazaa run in the background all the time sharing your downloads folder unless you tell it not to. There are no doubt thousands of people who think they are just downloading and in reality they are farming mp3s out to thousands of other people.

Should they go to prison for more time than the average child molester? Nope. The idea that the average murderer in the US stays in jail 64 months or so, and yet we have this draconian response to mp3 sharing makes it patently obvious that lawmakers create this legislation with their pockets open to business interests.

I don't have a problem calling it a crime, and I don't have a problem with people being punished. When companies use it as an excuse to villify the consumer and stifle competition, though, I think it has crossed the line. It would be like advertisers lobbying for speeding laws that made you drive really slow past their advertisements.

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I agree that stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you walk out of the store with a box or download a program from the internet. No arguments there."

Actually... it does matter. And copying copyrighted work is NOT stealing.

Copyright is not, regardless of what many believe, a property right. You do not "own" your copyrighted work, you own the copyright. Copyright is a title, a government-granted monopoly. That's why copyrights run out after a few years (that period keeps getting longer for some reason).

If you copy materials without permission, you are violating a government-granted monopoly, but you are NOT stealing.
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"If you copy materials without permission, you are violating a government-granted monopoly, but you are NOT stealing."


Then you should take that up with the Supreme Court, Attorney Generals of the US, the Department of Justice, the press, and everyone else that openly use the word "theft" and "stealing" when refering to it. Obviously they should be asking you what words to use.

Copyrights aren't "a few years", and never have been. Since 1978 they have been 70 years beyond the life of the creator. Previous to that I think it was 28 years.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Then you should take that up with the Supreme Court, Attorney Generals of the US, the Department of Justice, the press, and everyone else that openly use the word "theft" and "stealing" when refering to it. Obviously they should be asking you what words to use."

I don't care what the press call it, it's not stealing. And I doubt that the Supreme Court calls it "stealing". They usually know their legal jargon.

Copyrights were originally 14 years or so and were forever extended. That doesn't mean that their purpose has changed. Or at least it doesn't mean that the people have changed what copyright law mean.

Copyright law was introduced to grant a monopoly to authors in order to give authors an incentive to create. It was NOT meant to create a new category of property rights and the current attempts to change the meaning of copyright laws is rather an example of big business making law without the people's consent.

And I see that the propaganda has worked. You do not only use the word stealing with regard to something that is not property, but you are also shocked when you learn that other people do not.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bakerstreet, I believe it's now 95 years beyond the life of the creator. And when the 95th anniversary of Walt Disney's death rolls around, Congress will up it to 110 or 120, and so on.

Andrew, if it's not theft or stealing, what is it properly called? As the copyright holder, I have a right to exact a payment from you in exchange for your use of my work. If you use my work and don't pay me the required amount, what else is it besides theft?
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I don't care what the press call it, it's not stealing. And I doubt that the Supreme Court calls it "stealing". They usually know their legal jargon."


Mmm, well "stealing" is defined by the law, not you, and not laws from 100 years ago trumping newer ones. You might be able to make the argument that it SHOULDN'T be considered stealing, but you're not presenting anything that proves it isn't.

"Copyright law was introduced to grant a monopoly to authors in order to give authors an incentive to create. "


No, it was incentive to PUBLICLY share their work, without fear of their work being STOLEN.

"And I see that the propaganda has worked. "


Ah, the greatest a priory argument of them all. The fact that I believe that things are the way they are, it proves your point that things aren't, since we are all brainwashed. How... logical...

You seem to think that once a law is made, no change is really valid. You can't disavow every bit of copyright legislation after the last one you agree with just because you don't agree with them. They are still laws, unless someone declares you Ming the Merciless and we have to ask your permission.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Mmm, well "stealing" is defined by the law, not you, and not laws from 100 years ago trumping newer ones."

If "stealing" is defined by the law, why do you insist that an act must be called "stealing" when the law doesn't call it "stealing"? I don't understand you. Considering your position here, the argument that the law defines the terms is rather odd. I wouldn't have expected it from you after I made that point.


"Andrew, if it's not theft or stealing, what is it properly called? As the copyright holder, I have a right to exact a payment from you in exchange for your use of my work. If you use my work and don't pay me the required amount, what else is it besides theft?"

I believe the law calls it a "copyright violation". Non-payment of money owed is not theft either, by the way. You will be in a lot of trouble if you used self-defence provisions against either kind of "theft".
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Copyrights are governed by the Copyright Act of 1976 contained in title 17 of the U.S. Code. The Act protects published or unpublished works that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression from which they can be perceived. The Act does not protect matters such as an idea, process, system, or discovery. Protection under the Act extends for the life of the creator of the work plus fifty years after his or her death. For works created before January 1, 1978, but not copyrighted or in the public domain, the copyright starts on January 1, 1978, and extends for the same period as for other works, but in any case will not expire before December 31, 2002. Prior to the enactment of the Act, copyright protection was available for unpublished works only under common law. The Act abolishes the common-law rights, as well as any rights available under state statute, in favor of the rights available under the provisions of the Act. The Act provides for certain exceptions, however, including rights to protection for works not fixed in a tangible medium of expression, and rights regarding any cause of action arising from events occurring before January 1, 1978. —copyright adjective


In simpler jargon....The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Exclusive means NOBODY ELSE CAN publish, produce, sell or distribue it without permission. Doing so would be STEALING.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"And when the 95th anniversary of Walt Disney's death rolls around, Congress will up it to 110 or 120, and so on."

I wonder if a never-ending extension of a time limit counts as a limited time. Given the meaning of the word "limit" (a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass), it seems rather odd that extending that time is compatible with that idea.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm a Pirate.

I make no excuses. I hear it on the TV. I like it. I download it. I put it on my husband's MP3 player. If we like enough of the songs, we buy the CD. If it's only one or two that we like, we don't.

Hell, some things you can't even find in stores or through legal downloading...that's how I ended up taking up the Pirate life to begin with. But then I was trapped by its sweet, sweet lure of savings.

Anyone remember the South Park episode on illegal music downloading? Does Britney Spears really need a theme park for her Chihuahua, Bit Bit?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki: As I said, if you want to jabber about semantics, fine, but as far as I know, there is no criminal charge of "stealing in the first degree" either. Does that mean no one ever stole anything in the US? Just because they call it "fraud" or "embezzlement" doesn't mean it isn't stealing. Do you deny existance of "rape" because the charge is "sexual assault"?

The US government in practice calls this Intellectual Property Theft" The task forces formed by law enforcement call it theft. Supreme court justices and Attorney Generals publicly call it stealing. By your rationale, there is really no such thing as "stealing", since only words used in the laws themselves are valid.

You aren't Webster, and frankly even if you were not even Webster defines words, they simply record our definitions of them. That's why "sick" suddenly means "cool" which doesn't really mean "cool" anyway.

If you want to politicize the word "steal", fine, but don't go around correcting people who opt not to bandy about with semantics for political effect.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm with you, I think it is wrong, but I think it is insipid to send people to jail for decades and fine them hundreds of thousands of dollars for a crime that some people don't even know they commit. Programs like Kazaa run in the background all the time sharing your downloads folder unless you tell it not to. There are no doubt thousands of people who think they are just downloading and in reality they are farming mp3s out to thousands of other people.


I'm not debating the punishment/consequences of stealing...My intent was simply to point out...it's stealing. Saying people don't know Kazaa is running in the background isn't an excuse for them downloading music that they did not pay for.

If I record a song off the radio these days, or borrow a VCR tape from a friend, no one blinks an eye, if i download that same song or video off of Kazaa, its a crime?

Media recorded from airwaves is free. Copy it at a lower quality and use it. No prob there. Borrow media from a friend. Also no problem. But to TAKE media that was not distributed for that intent is a crime.

And copying copyrighted work is NOT stealing.

Copyright law was introduced to grant a monopoly to authors

Hmmmmm, so anyone breaking the monopoly on author's right to distribute would be breaking what law? Keep it simple.......think hard......STEALING! Copyright only protects tangible works, not ideas. By trading, copying, distributing their work, digitally or physically, you are STEALING.

Perpetual ownership of intelectual property is not at debate here. The time limits are to ensure that creativity isn't stifled in the long run. The issue I am making is that this is stealing.

I'm really surprised at the laid back position that people have taken on this issue. Maybe if we were in a different position, our opinions would change....
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
BakerStreet, it doesn't matter how angry you get. It's still not stealing.

Calling illegal copying stealing is merely an attempt to create a moral equivalence between taking an object AWAY from somebody (meaning that the victim doesn't have it any more) and not taking an object away.

Stealing and copying are not morally equivalent and should not be described by the same word, and, in legal jargon, aren't.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Hmmmmm, so anyone breaking the monopoly on author's right to distribute would be breaking what law? Keep it simple.......think hard......STEALING! Copyright only protects tangible works, not ideas. By trading, copying, distributing their work, digitally or physically, you are STEALING."

No. Breaking a law is not "stealing". Taking an object away is stealing. You are not keeping it "simple" if you use the word stealing to describe violation of any law.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I'm really surprised at the laid back position that people have taken on this issue. Maybe if we were in a different position, our opinions would change...."

Perhaps if you bought as many DVDs as I, you would also be so annoyed by non-skipable messages accusing you of potentially supporting terrorism, that you would have very little sympathy for the copyright mafia.

And if you don't know what I am talking about, you have not bought enough DVDs.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
" BakerStreet, it doesn't matter how angry you get. It's still not stealing."


lol, i'mnot angry. I know that no matter how many arguments I make there will always be irrational people who like to make up their own reality. People who wear tin foil hats don't make me angry, and neither do you. You can just assume that everyone else is wrong and you are right. No biggy.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leauki, I'm really sad that you can't seem to understand my point of view.

Try this example and tell me you are not stealing....As a photographer, I make my living with my photographs. You buy ONE picture from me and then copy it 47 times to send to family and friends. Is this stealing? You are taking my work and not paying for it. You stealing my income by copying the pictures without paying.

Or how about stealing another person's thoughts? If they wrote it down, it's call plagarism....or in simpler terms...STEALING!

Computer games, software, movies etc are the same. It doesn't matter if you think they are overpriced, filled with anoying messages or whatever.....taking something without paying, whether it is tangible or intangible is stealing.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lifehappens,

I understand your point of view. I just disagree with it. What you can't seem to understand is that I do not have to call an act stealing just to agree that the act is wrong.

But in your hypothetical case, the word stealing is simply wrong. I wouldn't be "stealing" your income, because you don't have the income. You merely might or might not have it. That's really not the same as taking something away from you, something that you actually have.

This has nothing to do with copyrighted works being overpriced. It's merely acknowledgement of the fact that copyright law does not re-affirm property rights but constitutes a compact between society and individuals, a compact that is supposed to ensure that more works are added to the public domain no less.

In your example the difference between stealing and illegal copying is the plain fact that you do not lose the picture. You do not even lose the right or ability to make further copies of it. You merely lose your monopoly. Whether the monopoly is deserved or not, whether breaking it is morally or legally sound or not has NOTHING to do with the fact that making a copy of the picture is NOT and never will be "stealing".
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
"i'm not angry. I know that no matter how many arguments I make there will always be irrational people who like to make up their own reality"

So disagreeing with you is irrational?

Did you find the quote where the Supreme Court call a copyright violation "stealing" that you were talking about?

To be honest, the fact that you don't understand copyright law, doesn't mean that disagreeing with you about it is irrational. It merely means that you are probably wrong. Perhaps if you read more about the logic behind copyright law, as documented when it was first introduced, you will understand what I am talking about.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually... it does matter. And copying copyrighted work is NOT stealing.

You should tell that to an Intellectual Property attorney.  Yes, using copyrighted material is stealing.  IP is treated the same as physical goods.  If a program sits in a box and sells at retail for $19.95, if you "copy" it and do not pay the $19.95 to the copyright holder, then you have stolen your copy. 

Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Intellectual Property Infringement is the obtaining of something, be it music software movies or whatnot which you have no legal or reasonable right to. You are acquiring something in violation of the terms of distribution set forth by the OWNER of the work.

Stealing is the obtaining of something be it music, software, movies or whatnot which you have no legal or reasonable right to. You are acquiring something in violation of the terms of distribution set forth by the OWNER of the work.

The ONLY difference between the two that everyone loves to argue over again and again and again is that one involves a physical disc or a box or whatever, and the other is just a bunch of 1s and 0s that happen to come together into the same thing as is on the disc or in the box.

It's splitting hairs. And in a world where everything is becoming digitized, it's a tricky distinction to make. The end result is the same in both cases. You have something that you did not pay for THAT YOU ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO.

The Justice Dept, the Attorney General and the Supreme Court, groups whose responsibility it is to determine the enforcement of the law, and in the latter case to interpret the words of the law, have drawn the direct parallel between theft/stealing and IP infringement. It is hard to argue that it is not the law, when those who set the law say it is.

IP Infringement is the equivalent in this digital age to theft. It's the closest thing we have to it. Saying it's something other than standard theft actually is what gives the RIAA and MPAA the wiggle room to make piracy a crime with punishments more severe than murder or racketeering. If it's 100% equated with stealing (a crime that it differs from only in method) then the punishments will be reasonably matched.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck... guess what it is? A duck. By the way a lot of people reason all of this out, they'd probably answer with "A moose!"
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's cute. I waste hours on one thread posting link after link after link. Then some doof starts spouting off on another thread, and when I don't want to waste the time I am wrong by default.

Justice Breyer refered to it as stealing just the other day. Janet Reno wrote a long editorial for the Industry standard wherein she called it both theft and stealing. The government lists it as "Intellectual Property Theft" in their investigations and in their statistics.

So, if someone wants to make some semantic argument that it isn't theft, fine, but you're going to be relegated to the neurotic, grumpy crowd who rants for hours that crackers aren't hackers.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Try this example and tell me you are not stealing....As a photographer, I make my living with my photographs. You buy ONE picture from me and then copy it 47 times to send to family and friends. Is this stealing? You are taking my work and not paying for it. You stealing my income by copying the pictures without paying.


Nope. If they hadn't sat for the picture you won't have it to sell in the first place, would you? They "bought" the picture from you. That now makes it their picture. Bad analogy!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
It depends on if it was a work for hire or if you bought the physical picture and the copyright for that picture remained with the artist. If you buy a print of a photo from an artist, you don't have the right to make copies of it and sell them. The only way you could is if it was a work for hire, and he just acted as a photograper in your employ.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
It depends on if it was a work for hire or if you bought the physical picture and the copyright for that picture remained with the artist. If you buy a print of a photo from an artist, you don't have the right to make copies of it and sell them. The only way you could is if it was a work for hire, and he just acted as a photograper in your employ.


The problem being Bakerstreet is that he/she did not mention selling anything. He's taking a picture for you. That makes it work for hire. Here's the clip:

Try this example and tell me you are not stealing....As a photographer, I make my living with my photographs. You buy ONE picture from me and then copy it 47 times to send to family and friends. Is this stealing? You are taking my work and not paying for it. You stealing my income by copying the pictures without paying.



Note that it says send, not sell. You going to sell to family and friends? I don't think so. So what I said, stands. Bad analogy.