12 ms·

The whole system makes eminent sense. Content that has been permitted by the owner is released in your country, when the owner permits. If you are resort to pir

The whole system makes eminent sense. Content that has been permitted by the owner is released in your country, when the owner permits. If you are resort to piracy because of this, you are still stealing.

rickmb 15y ago
It always amazes me that people who consider it an ethical issue by equating copyright infringement with "stealing", have no ethical problem with the fact that copyright law is being blatantly abused to achieve exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do, i.e. maximizing the distribution of original work. Copyright laws exist to serve society, not just a handful of corporations.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  [Citation needed.] Was it really meant to maximize distribution, or was it meant to encourage production? Because it -does- encourage production.
  - hxa7241 15y ago
    It is meant to optimise the trade-off of both. (Encouraging production alone does not suffice to justify it.) See paragraph 2 of http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html Given that, the original point stands.
ugh 15y ago
You are not stealing, you are making illegal copies.
- michael_dorfman 15y ago
  Which is a form of theft (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services). There's no point in rehashing the semantic argument; it's still theft in the eyes of the law, and while renaming it may help assuage your conscience, it doesn't really add much to the argument.
  - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
    Clearly there is a point to rehashing the argument as long as you're pointing to a wikipedia page on theft of services and claiming that bitorrenting a copy of a TV show is the same thing. Clearly they're not. Hacking a cable box to access channels without paying for them might be, but if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it.
    - michael_dorfman 15y ago
      if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it. Huh? That's a completely specious claim. The owner of the rights to the TV show may not be offering the product in your market--yet. The may choose to do so at some point in the future. Whether they do or not, it has no bearing on the fact that you are consuming their product (and infringing on their rights) without paying. Your argument is essentially saying that it isn't theft of services if a 15-year-old sneaks into an R-rated movie, because the theater won't sell them a ticket.
      - ugh 15y ago
        Just a little note, something can be not theft and still be illegal. When I damage your computer it’s not theft but still illegal.
      - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
        No, it would be theft of services if they sneak into a theatre. On the other hand, if they stay at home and watch a bootleg DVD they bought from a criminal because they were refused admission due to their age, or because they want to watch films the cinema doesn't show, then it's no longer "theft of services", since they are no longer taking up a seat in the cinema. The "service" that is stolen is not the film itself but the delivery mechanism, much as you can steal a DVD from a shop.
  - ugh 15y ago
- beza1e1 15y ago
  Not in Germany. Here, we make "copies for personal use", which is not illegal. Publishing (seeding) is illegal, though.
  - ugh 15y ago
    Copies for personal use don't come into play when you are, for example, using torrents. Downloading copies which obviously infringe copyrights has been made illegal in 2008 (http://www.medienrecht-urheberrecht.de/urheberrecht/101-neues-urheberrecht-zum-1-januar-2008-privatkopie-oder-kopierschutz http://www.medienrecht-urheberrecht.de/urheberrecht/101-neue...).
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
StudyAnimal 15y ago
Releasing content per country is simply a carry over from the broadcast days where radio signals or cables are naturally constrained by geography. In the internet era it makes no sense either. Now I don't pirate, as I am on a WAN (plus I do distance learning through a UK University and have to use their proxy server so iPlayer works for me too) and don't seem to be discriminated against by Hulu, or some other sites (Hulu could be breaking some laws though, by allowing me to see the content, or more likely just breaking a license agreement). Even Germans I know are encouraged to use proxies (is that really pirating?) because they want their shows when they are released, not months later, and they don't necessarily want them overdubbed into German. The system encourages this, by thinking the internet can be divided up into countries like a broadcast signal.
DasIch 15y ago
Legally speaking you are correct but that is irrelevant to any serious discussion on the topic. Laws should be the strictest manifestation of societies expectations. This is clearly not the case here, most people consider this kind of privacy to be about as bad as crossing the street at a red light. As long as expectations don't change and they clearly won't, people will continue to resort to piracy as long as it is the most convenient way to fulfill their needs. If people could easily buy music in a lossless format and videos without artificial geographical restrictions at a reasonable price, I seriously doubt that piracy would still be such a "serious" problem. I'm not a total fanatic, I have no problem with DRM systems if they make sense for e.g. renting movies. I buy all my games via Steam which I consider an awesome platform. However piracy is still the most convenient way to get music/videos quickly in (most of) Europe and it seems very clear who is to blame for that.
DarkShikari 15y ago
Content that has been permitted by the owner is released in your country, when the owner permits. There is no legal means for someone to restrict where and when I can and cannot choose to view or use content I own, as much as they would love to think so. And they indeed love to think so: I've actually seen companies claim that it is illegal to use the software they sell outside of the country they sell it in. If a movie by company X is released in country A but not country B, company X cannot prevent me from watching their movie in country B. I may have to go out of my way to import a copy, but there is nothing illegal about doing so (at least not under the laws of typical Western countries). If this wasn't true, it would basically be illegal to take any sort of media-carrying device (laptop, iPod, etc) outside of the country where you bought the relevant media.
- wccrawford 15y ago
  And so you can import it, assuming your country's laws permit. But if you want the content owner to sell it to you directly, you'll have to wait for them want to do so. The reasons for them not wanting to do so could include laws, expenses, or other craziness that you aren't aware of. Believe it or not, we experience the same crap here in the US in regards to foreign stuff. BBC shows are really popular here, but are usually delayed at best. Trying to find foreign-language stuff is almost impossible. So while I share your pain, I also know that there's more to it than it might appear at first glance.
  - cabalamat 15y ago
    > But if you want the content owner to sell it to you directly, you'll have to wait for them want to do so. .. or use BitTorrent! If the content owner refuses to sell the content to someone, then that person isn't depriving them of any income by pirating it. If an activity harms no-one, then it can't be immoral to do it. If the law says otherwise, it's a bad law.
    - wccrawford 15y ago
      If someone refuses to sell you the Mona Lisa for the price you want, it's okay to copy it? Because let's be honest, they aren't just refusing to sell the TV episode to you... They're refusing to sell it at market rates. If you offered them a million dollars for the latest episode of XYZ show, they'd make it happen on your schedule. What you're saying is that if you can't have it your way, it's perfectly ethical to just take it. And I can't agree with that.
rmc 15y ago
Although that might be legally correct, it will not stop people rating, and any tv/film company that bases it's online strategy on that theory will continue to fail and miss opportunities.
fauigerzigerk 15y ago
Yes, it's "stealing" something that has zero marginal cost and is not for sale. I think the world has more important problems than this, for instance, teaching ants to respect traffic rules ;-)

rickmb 15y ago

It always amazes me that people who consider it an ethical issue by equating copyright infringement with "stealing", have no ethical problem with the fact that copyright law is being blatantly abused to achieve exactly the opposite of what it was intended to do, i.e. maximizing the distribution of original work. Copyright laws exist to serve society, not just a handful of corporations.

wccrawford 15y ago
[Citation needed.] Was it really meant to maximize distribution, or was it meant to encourage production? Because it -does- encourage production.
- hxa7241 15y ago
  It is meant to optimise the trade-off of both. (Encouraging production alone does not suffice to justify it.) See paragraph 2 of http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html Given that, the original point stands.

ugh 15y ago

You are not stealing, you are making illegal copies.

michael_dorfman 15y ago
Which is a form of theft (cf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_services). There's no point in rehashing the semantic argument; it's still theft in the eyes of the law, and while renaming it may help assuage your conscience, it doesn't really add much to the argument.
- ZeroGravitas 15y ago
  Clearly there is a point to rehashing the argument as long as you're pointing to a wikipedia page on theft of services and claiming that bitorrenting a copy of a TV show is the same thing. Clearly they're not. Hacking a cable box to access channels without paying for them might be, but if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it.
  - michael_dorfman 15y ago
    if you're completely routing around their service, in part because they don't actually provide what you want (e.g. a show in your language), then you're clearly not stealing it. Huh? That's a completely specious claim. The owner of the rights to the TV show may not be offering the product in your market--yet. The may choose to do so at some point in the future. Whether they do or not, it has no bearing on the fact that you are consuming their product (and infringing on their rights) without paying. Your argument is essentially saying that it isn't theft of services if a 15-year-old sneaks into an R-rated movie, because the theater won't sell them a ticket.
    - ugh 15y ago
      Just a little note, something can be not theft and still be illegal. When I damage your computer it’s not theft but still illegal.
    - ZeroGravitas 15y ago
      No, it would be theft of services if they sneak into a theatre. On the other hand, if they stay at home and watch a bootleg DVD they bought from a criminal because they were refused admission due to their age, or because they want to watch films the cinema doesn't show, then it's no longer "theft of services", since they are no longer taking up a seat in the cinema. The "service" that is stolen is not the film itself but the delivery mechanism, much as you can steal a DVD from a shop.
- ugh 15y ago
beza1e1 15y ago
Not in Germany. Here, we make "copies for personal use", which is not illegal. Publishing (seeding) is illegal, though.
- ugh 15y ago
  Copies for personal use don't come into play when you are, for example, using torrents. Downloading copies which obviously infringe copyrights has been made illegal in 2008 (http://www.medienrecht-urheberrecht.de/urheberrecht/101-neues-urheberrecht-zum-1-januar-2008-privatkopie-oder-kopierschutz http://www.medienrecht-urheberrecht.de/urheberrecht/101-neue...).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

StudyAnimal 15y ago

Releasing content per country is simply a carry over from the broadcast days where radio signals or cables are naturally constrained by geography. In the internet era it makes no sense either. Now I don't pirate, as I am on a WAN (plus I do distance learning through a UK University and have to use their proxy server so iPlayer works for me too) and don't seem to be discriminated against by Hulu, or some other sites (Hulu could be breaking some laws though, by allowing me to see the content, or more likely just breaking a license agreement). Even Germans I know are encouraged to use proxies (is that really pirating?) because they want their shows when they are released, not months later, and they don't necessarily want them overdubbed into German. The system encourages this, by thinking the internet can be divided up into countries like a broadcast signal.

DasIch 15y ago

Legally speaking you are correct but that is irrelevant to any serious discussion on the topic. Laws should be the strictest manifestation of societies expectations. This is clearly not the case here, most people consider this kind of privacy to be about as bad as crossing the street at a red light. As long as expectations don't change and they clearly won't, people will continue to resort to piracy as long as it is the most convenient way to fulfill their needs. If people could easily buy music in a lossless format and videos without artificial geographical restrictions at a reasonable price, I seriously doubt that piracy would still be such a "serious" problem. I'm not a total fanatic, I have no problem with DRM systems if they make sense for e.g. renting movies. I buy all my games via Steam which I consider an awesome platform. However piracy is still the most convenient way to get music/videos quickly in (most of) Europe and it seems very clear who is to blame for that.

DarkShikari 15y ago

Content that has been permitted by the owner is released in your country, when the owner permits. There is no legal means for someone to restrict where and when I can and cannot choose to view or use content I own, as much as they would love to think so. And they indeed love to think so: I've actually seen companies claim that it is illegal to use the software they sell outside of the country they sell it in. If a movie by company X is released in country A but not country B, company X cannot prevent me from watching their movie in country B. I may have to go out of my way to import a copy, but there is nothing illegal about doing so (at least not under the laws of typical Western countries). If this wasn't true, it would basically be illegal to take any sort of media-carrying device (laptop, iPod, etc) outside of the country where you bought the relevant media.

wccrawford 15y ago
And so you can import it, assuming your country's laws permit. But if you want the content owner to sell it to you directly, you'll have to wait for them want to do so. The reasons for them not wanting to do so could include laws, expenses, or other craziness that you aren't aware of. Believe it or not, we experience the same crap here in the US in regards to foreign stuff. BBC shows are really popular here, but are usually delayed at best. Trying to find foreign-language stuff is almost impossible. So while I share your pain, I also know that there's more to it than it might appear at first glance.
- cabalamat 15y ago
  > But if you want the content owner to sell it to you directly, you'll have to wait for them want to do so. .. or use BitTorrent! If the content owner refuses to sell the content to someone, then that person isn't depriving them of any income by pirating it. If an activity harms no-one, then it can't be immoral to do it. If the law says otherwise, it's a bad law.
  - wccrawford 15y ago
    If someone refuses to sell you the Mona Lisa for the price you want, it's okay to copy it? Because let's be honest, they aren't just refusing to sell the TV episode to you... They're refusing to sell it at market rates. If you offered them a million dollars for the latest episode of XYZ show, they'd make it happen on your schedule. What you're saying is that if you can't have it your way, it's perfectly ethical to just take it. And I can't agree with that.

rmc 15y ago

Although that might be legally correct, it will not stop people rating, and any tv/film company that bases it's online strategy on that theory will continue to fail and miss opportunities.

fauigerzigerk 15y ago

Yes, it's "stealing" something that has zero marginal cost and is not for sale. I think the world has more important problems than this, for instance, teaching ants to respect traffic rules ;-)