Poo

[Phang]

i download lots of albums that i wouldnt pay money for. there is no loss of potential earnings and no actual loss, just a gain for me of some music.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by sniborp

yeah not totally agreeing with your argument, if you wanted to get 20 dvds then how is potential earnings different to actual loss.. surely its just a matter of time...

Because the concept of owning potential earnings is bizzare to the point where I disagree with it being accepted as valid.



Oh look the root of the argument.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Phang

i download lots of albums that i wouldnt pay money for. there is no loss of potential earnings and no actual loss, just a gain for me of some music.

You wouldn't buy them for any price at all, even for a few quid through iTunes?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by queball

You wouldn't buy them for any price at all, even for a few quid through iTunes?

no, because i have a tiny disposable income.

edit: well, if they were VERY cheap - 10-20p a song cheap - then maybe. But they aren't. So I can't.

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Because the concept of owning potential earnings is bizzare to the point where I disagree with it being accepted as valid.



Oh look the root of the argument.

Sure, it just seems strange to argue "The only thing that's lost is A instead of B" when A and B have similar value. That B is a physical object isn't very persuasive, I mean as far as law is concerned there might as well not be any physical objects. If you take something of mine it's not the object that's lost, it's my ability to use that object. If someone trespasses on your land it's not the land that's infringed it's your rights over that land, etc.

Originally Posted by Phang

no, because i have a tiny disposable income.

edit: well, if they were VERY cheap - 10-20p a song cheap - then maybe. But they aren't. So I can't.

Ok, me too. They're around £1 at the moment. But I think the music I like would be less expensive if it wasn't distributed for free.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

But I think the music I like would be less expensive if it wasn't distributed for free.

It wasn't significantly differently priced either way before Napster and the rise of internet music distribution, so I don't see your evidence for that assertion.

Sure, it just seems strange to argue "The only thing that's lost is A instead of B" when A and B have similar value. That B is a physical object isn't very persuasive, I mean as far as law is concerned there might as well not be any physical objects. If you take something of mine it's not the object that's lost, it's my ability to use that object. If someone trespasses on your land it's not the land that's infringed it's your rights over that land, etc.

If I steal a DVD they lose the ability to sell that DVD. If I download a film, then what exactly have they lost the ability to do?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If I steal a DVD they lose the ability to sell that DVD. If I download a film, then what exactly have they lost the ability to do?

as i pointed out

when you steal a dvd you steal: dvd + the film, the most valuable of the two is clearly the film.
when you download a film you steal: the film, again the valuable bit.

its quite trite to say they haven't lost anything, if you stole a dvd film from a store then took the film off that dvd and returned a blank dvd even you must notice that the store has lost something.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

when you steal a dvd you steal: dvd + the film, the most valuable of the two is clearly the film.
when you download a film you steal: the film, again the valuable bit.

No, you're missing the point; it's not a value comparison, it's the fact that I do not see a valid argument for "theft" taking place if you download a film.

[Yahwe]

this seems absurd given that you accept you gain something which you did not have before.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

this seems absurd given that you accept you gain something which you did not have before.

I don't see how this has any relevence at all.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

its quite trite to say they haven't lost anything, if you stole a dvd film from a store then took the film off that dvd and returned a blank dvd even you must notice that the store has lost something.

Iin that example they're losing their copy of the film. If you rented the movie, copied it and returned the original they would not have lost anything.

Originally Posted by queball

Sure, it just seems strange to argue "The only thing that's lost is A instead of B" when A and B have similar value. That B is a physical object isn't very persuasive, I mean as far as law is concerned there might as well not be any physical objects. If you take something of mine it's not the object that's lost, it's my ability to use that object. If someone trespasses on your land it's not the land that's infringed it's your rights over that land, etc.

You don't lose the ability to do anything with your book or dvd or whatever if I make another copy of it.

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It wasn't significantly differently priced either way before Napster and the rise of internet music distribution, so I don't see your evidence for that assertion.

Filesharing shows there is an untapped market. Files are cheaper to produce and sell than CDs and don't take up shelf space.

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Iin that example they're losing their copy of the film. If you rented the movie, copied it and returned the original they would not have lost anything.

You don't lose the ability to do anything with your book or dvd or whatever if I make another copy of it.

But my rights over the material are infringed.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't see how this has any relevence at all.

you have gained something you did not have, so the question is how you have gained it.

you normally gain things one of two ways, by buying it or by being given it.
now you didn't buy this new thing did you.
and the person who owned it didn't give it to you

so you've gained something new in an abnormal way, a dishonest way.

hence the theft.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by queball

Filesharing shows there is an untapped market. Files are cheaper to produce and sell than CDs and don't take up shelf space.

Yep. Your point being?

Originally Posted by queball

But my rights over the material are infringed.

We really are just going round in circles here.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you have gained something you did not have, so the question is how you have gained it.

you normally gain things one of two ways, by buying it or by being given it.
now you didn't buy this new thing did you.
and the person who owned it didn't give it to you

so you've gained something new in an abnormal way, a dishonest way.

hence the theft.

I don't think that works as an argument at all. It's constructed the wrong way round; theft is assumed because you believe that, aside from buying it or being given it, it is the only way to acquire something. I don't see why this should follow, and attempts to prove that it is theft from the perspective of the person "losing" something gives us the situation of potential loss; I think the lack of a symmetrical comparison is what dooms this to failure.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I don't think that works as an argument at all. It's constructed the wrong way round; theft is assumed because you believe that, aside from buying it or being given it, it is the only way to acquire something. I don't see why this should follow, and attempts to prove that it is theft from the perspective of the person "losing" something gives us the situation of potential loss; I think the lack of a symmetrical comparison is what dooms this to failure.

quite regardless of your aesthetic criticism the argument stands.

there are limited ways in which property can pass from one person to another person in all societies.

your obsession with the perspective of the peron you say needs to be 'losing something' is quite silly. the theft is perpetrated by the person who gains, thus if we are to analyse whether there is a theft or not we must concentrate on the person who gains, the notion of a loser or victim is a misnoma.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

But my rights over the material are infringed.

That's spectacularly circular reasoning dude


You can't lose property if you don't lose anything.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

quite regardless of your aesthetic criticism the argument stands.

It wasn't an aesthetic criticism.

When I give something physical to you, I am giving, and therefore losing the item, and you are receiving, and gaining..
If you buy something physical from me, I am selling, and therefore losing the item, and you are buying, and therefore gaining.
If you steal something physical, similarly, I am losing and you are gaining.

With the "theft" of intellectual property, this symmetry no longer applies, when it applies in every other case; I don't see why the assumption can still be made that parallels can be made to a physical or historical example, because it's quite clear that the situations are not the same.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

there are limited ways in which property can pass from one person to another person in all societies.

You appear to believe this is axiomic. I don't.

Originally Posted by Yahwe

you obsession with the perspective of the peron you say needs to be 'losing something' is quite silly. the theft is perpetrated by the person who gains, thus if we are to analyse whether there is a theft or not we must concentrate on the person who gains, the notion of a loser or victim is a misnoma.

This only works if we are forced to categorise it into "gift", "purchase" or "theft". Another prerequisite is some historical basis for the argument; you can only say that, from such a limited set of criteria, theft is taking place because, historically, that is sufficient evidence; however, IP "theft" doesn't obey the old systems, so the argument has to be built again from the ground up, something that you are absurdly resistant to attempting.

[queball]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Yep. Your point being?

*yawn*
Let's just say I have reasons that satisfy me.

We really are just going round in circles here.

I don't think so. Maybe I see distinctions you don't.
You don't lose an object, you lose rights associated with that object.
Loss is an economic or legal term, it doesn't just mean leaving your wallet on the train.
That you value a copy is enough to show that a copy has value and, in JonnyBGood's language, is a "thing".
Materialism is not relevant to any endeavour founded on interactions between dudes, dudes.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This only works if we are forced to categorise it into "gift", "purchase" or "theft".

I notice the word "owned" was segued into post #63.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

When I give something physical to you, I am giving, and therefore losing the item, and you are receiving, and gaining..
If you buy something physical from me, I am selling, and therefore losing the item, and you are buying, and therefore gaining.
If you steal something physical, similarly, I am losing and you are gaining.

this is a remarkably childish way of looking at property, loss is not a necessary part of a property transaction merely because it is frequently present.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

With the "theft" of intellectual property, this symmetry no longer applies, when it applies in every other case;

chose in actions such as train journeys or cab rides in a horse and trap have been recognised for quite some time, so to say that loss is a part of all property transactions is just silly.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This only works if we are forced to categorise it into "gift", "purchase" or "theft". Another prerequisite is some historical basis for the argument; you can only say that, from such a limited set of criteria, theft is taking place because, historically, that is sufficient evidence;

i'm sorry that you don't like the fact that there are limited methods of transfering property but if you were to think about it you would understand that it's essential.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

however, IP "theft" doesn't obey the old systems, so the argument has to be built again from the ground up, something that you are absurdly resistant to attempting.

IP is nothing conceptually new just because it is a hypothetical piece of property, it is no different from a chose in action and it has presented no such difficulty as you envisage.

Again i return to the point, If we are to analyse whether a theft has occured we must analyse the position of the person said to have committed that theft, the person who has gained. We must see if there has been a gain and we must then see if that gain was an honest one.

I can but think you fail to address this point because you are unable to find true fault.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

chose in actions such as train journeys or cab rides in a horse and trap have been recognised for quite some time, so to say that loss is a part of all property transactions is just silly.

Perhaps it is, but the relevant point here is that loss is a part of theft.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by sayonara

Perhaps it is, but the relevant point here is that loss is a part of theft.

please explain why you imagine this statement to be correct

[sayonara]

Don't presume to condescend to me Yahwe. You know perfectly well how it's relevant.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

chose in actions such as train journeys or cab rides in a horse and trap have been recognised for quite some time, so to say that loss is a part of all property transactions is just silly.

Or the example of trespassing I hear in this argument most often: if I sneak into Alton Towers or Glastonbury or borrow your car without your permission when you're away, the only damage I'm doing directly is a small amount of extra wear or crowding, which is probably negligible, but I'm still being naughty.

[meglamaniac]

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this, but Mark you seem to be being particularly dense and doing it on purpose. Either you're trolling (quite likely) or you've utterly missed the point.

To attempt to explain the point to you (I'm with Yahwe on this one btw, just so you know), let's go back to basics.
In a traditional "physical" purchase of an album on CD, LP, MD, or cassette, the content owners have placed a copy of their content on physical media. When you pay for your alubum, a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the cost is for the media. The overwhelming majority of the cost is for the content. The usual "fair use" restrictions apply to your purchse - eg. that you can copy it to use in the car and so on and are highly unlikely to get sued, but making copies and giving it away to anyone who requests it (or worse, selling it for a fee) are criminal activities. I assume you're with me so far.

In an electronic purchase of an album, the content owners are allowing you to receive a copy of thier content for a fee. Once again, a tiny fraction of the price is for the transmission overheads, and the vast majority is for the content. Again, fair use restrictions apply, so giving it away (or selling it) to anyone who wants it is a criminal act.

So then you rip the CD and share the files, or you remove whatever DRM there may be from your electronic purchase and you share the files. Either way the outcome is the same, you have breached fair use copyright provisions and have committed a criminal act.
Alternatively, you download the files someone else has offered. They were offered outside of the terms of the license their owner was granted, so unfortunately you are still commiting a criminal offence. The "I'm sorry guv, I didn't know they were copyrighted" lark really isn't going to hold water here, and in any case you are guilty of receiving stolen goods.

It is vitally important to understanding this that you are able to distinguish between the method of tranmission (be it physical media or electronic messages) and the content, which is an album in this instance. This is something you appear to be having trouble with, and god help me I can't see why.

As to your argument of "the music labels/movie studios haven't lost anything", I'm forced to correct you again. They have lost the opportunity of further sales, as you have deprived them of potential customers by giving away content they sold to you under a specific licence (to whit: copyright).
Now, I know what you're going to argue next. You're going to say that this is an abstract concept so cannot be lost, or something similar.
Well unfortunately, as we discussed earlier, the content you have purchased is also an abstract concept. Once you realise there is a distinction between the media the content is provided by and the content itself, you find that when you buy your album from HMV you have in fact just paid £12.99 for an abstract concept. Thus if you are willing to pay for it, then it must exist - and anything that exists has value.
So in depriving the labels/studios of customers, you have caused monetary damage which is the whole reason they get so upset.

At the end of the day, whether you agree with this is irrelevant.
If you get pulled up for this, the judge is not going to say "Oh well that's ok, you don't agree with our legal system. Sorry for wasting your time, here's your costs back and a taxi ride home."

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this, but Mark you seem to be being particularly dense and doing it on purpose. Either you're trolling (quite likely) or you've utterly missed the point.

I'm insulted. Actually, properly, insulted. I never troll, and, given that the argument is going on between people who are generally regarded to be of the more intelligent of the GD stock (sayo, jonny, etc), I doubt severely that you can really believe that I'm missing something so outrageously obvious.

As to your argument of "the music labels/movie studios haven't lost anything", I'm forced to correct you again. They have lost the opportunity of further sales

Like hell they have.

At the end of the day, whether you agree with this is irrelevant.
If you get pulled up for this, the judge is not going to say "Oh well that's ok, you don't agree with our legal system. Sorry for wasting your time, here's your costs back and a taxi ride home."

That's not the issue. That would be a valid point to make were I just rationalising my actions, but that's not the case.

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm insulted. Actually, properly, insulted.

You'll get over it.

Originally Posted by MrL_Jakiri

Like hell they have.

Well that's the rationale behind copyright. Do I take it you disagree with the entire principle of it?
The earlier argument of "if I steal a DVD (the physical item) from a store, copy it, and return it undamaged then no harm is done" example is an incredibly obvious example of the legal positioning. Clearly something has been lost in this instance: again the store has been deprived of a sale.

Originally Posted by MrL_Jakiri

That's not the issue. That would be a valid point to make were I just rationalising my actions, but that's not the case.

Fair enough.
Do you accept that the delivery mechanism and the content are two different things, and that the latter is what you are paying for (if overheads are disregarded)?

I feel I should make clear that I am far from innocent where such things are concerned, but I'm not disputing I'm doing something I shouldn't. If I do get pulled up, I can fully understand why people would be upset and persue me for losses. I may disagree with thier motives. Much of what I have I wouldn't otherwise buy (the major example of this is TV episodes, which I tend to delete once the season is over anyway), but I am prepared to accept that I have obtained something to which I have no rights, and that under our legal system that is classified as theft.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Well that's the rationale behind copyright. Do I take it you disagree with the entire principle of it?

Darn tootin.

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

The earlier argument of "if I steal a DVD (the physical item) from a store, copy it, and return it undamaged then no harm is done" example is an incredibly obvious example of the legal positioning. Clearly something has been lost in this instance: again the store has been deprived of a sale.

Oh goody, back to "taking away something that doesn't exist except in potential".

Do you accept that the delivery mechanism and the content are two different things, and that the latter is what you are paying for (if overheads are disregarded)?

I disagree personally, but I know that's the view held by the people who make the things.

[sayonara]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Darn tootin.

Is this disagreement per se, or disagreement with the way it has recently been bastardised?

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Phang

i download lots of albums that i wouldnt pay money for. there is no loss of potential earnings and no actual loss, just a gain for me of some music.

i'm going to repeat myself because i think it's fairly basic to the pragmatic argument. Personally, I think IP is the single worst concept ever devised, but that's irrelevant to this. In my downloading music, the record companies lose nothing, because regardless of whether or not i could get it for free, their product as it is is not one that I would buy. The last album I took off an FTP was Brian Wilson's Smile. It's a good album, not a great album. If there was a legal download setup that gave it to me for 2-3 quid, which made it easily within my means, then I would probably buy it that way. At full price it is not within my means, and there was no potential for sale there.

Potential earnings come from the good as it stands - the medium, the quality and the price - not merely the fact that it is on sale.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by sayonara

Is this disagreement per se, or disagreement with the way it has recently been bastardised?

It depends what you mean by copyright; I agree with the ability of the artist in question to be the only one who profits from their work, but then the record companies disagree with this bit satire lol.

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Darn tootin.

It almost seems like a lowering of the discussion to pose a "how would you feel if..." question, but can you imagine spending your time and resources on some work or other if there was no guaruntee of being able to make something out of it when you'd finished? That would be the world without copyright.
I fully accept (and agree with you, in part) that the majority of the public automatically filters between "legitimate" uses of copyright (ie. copyright applied to the small man, the underdog, the local musician/artist/writer etc) and "illigitimate" uses (copright applied to vast money-siphoning corporations). Unfortunately, the artists chose to hand over their rights to the corporations.

I for one would much prefer copyright to be non-transferable, and have the music industry (and all the others) make their money purely through distribution. I think we would then see fairer prices (through competition) and more quality over quantity. Realistically this isn't about to happen.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Oh goody, back to "taking away something that doesn't exist except in potential".

In a ideal world (from the coporation's point of view) everyone is law abiding, thus there is no way for you to legally obtain that content other than paying for it, or if the rights holders suddenly come over all generous and give it to you for free. In this scenario, a sale has been lost as you have not obtained the content through one of those two legal channels.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I disagree personally, but I know that's the view held by the people who make the things.

I don't see how it can be more clear cut.
If you buy the DVD for the DVD then there would be no difference between buying a DVD with a film on it and buying a box of 25 blank discs from PC World. In fact, the latter option represents significantly better value for money.
If you buy the DVD for the content, then obviously you don't want to be purchasing blanks.

To put it another way, try this:
You buy a DVD from Virgin or wherever, you get it home and find that there is nothing on it.
Do you feel:
a) Cheated; you've just paid £15 for something of very little value.
b) Not bothered; you like appreciate the form of the disc and think it would make an excellent coffee mat.

If you answer "a" then by extention you are distinguishing between the content and the delivery mechanism.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Phang

i'm going to repeat myself because i think it's fairly basic to the pragmatic argument. Personally, I think IP is the single worst concept ever devised, but that's irrelevant to this. In my downloading music, the record companies lose nothing, because regardless of whether or not i could get it for free, their product as it is is not one that I would buy. The last album I took off an FTP was Brian Wilson's Smile. It's a good album, not a great album. If there was a legal download setup that gave it to me for 2-3 quid, which made it easily within my means, then I would probably buy it that way. At full price it is not within my means, and there was no potential for sale there.

It's a bit odd that you say you would never buy this music and then offer an example of one you would buy.

Brian Wilson's Smile is available for legal download at the iTunes music store (US) for $10. Not quite in your price range, but perhaps your means might someday improve? Or perhaps the price might someday be reduced?

[I am Idler]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

It's a bit odd that you say you would never buy this music and then offer an example of one you would buy.

Brian Wilson's Smile is available for legal download at the iTunes music store (US) for $10. Not quite in your price range, but perhaps your means might someday improve? Or perhaps the price might someday be reduced?

is it actually possibly to listen to samples from albums on iTune? (I mean every single album thats there).

Or is this a "Spend $10, buy something that you might like"

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by I am Idler

is it actually possibly to listen to samples from albums on iTune? (I mean every single album thats there).

So far as I know, they have 30-second samples of all the songs they sell (both singles and all the songs on an album). There are some other legal download services appearing now as well.

[Phang]

the point is that regardless of whether i've heard the album or not, i wouldn't pay ten dollars or [UK] 30 dollars or whatever for it because to me it isnt worth that much. if i had far more money i'd probably accept it grudgingly (because its still hideous price gouging) but morally i'm still opposed to the concept of IP let alone the concept of IP 'theft'. If I had the money that it was irrelevant, I probably wouldn't flout the rules but only because it would be more convenient.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

It almost seems like a lowering of the discussion to pose a "how would you feel if..." question, but can you imagine spending your time and resources on some work or other if there was no guaruntee of being able to make something out of it when you'd finished? That would be the world without copyright.

I do a lot of work on things that will almost certainly never make me money. Getting it made is the main thing.

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

In a ideal world (from the coporation's point of view) everyone is law abiding, thus there is no way for you to legally obtain that content other than paying for it, or if the rights holders suddenly come over all generous and give it to you for free. In this scenario, a sale has been lost as you have not obtained the content through one of those two legal channels.

A sale has only been lost if the person was going to have bought it but now will not.

I disagree with both prerequisites; you cannot assume that someone is going to buy something if they weren't able to download it, and similarly you can't say that because a person downloads something they won't buy it in future.

If you answer "a" then by extention you are distinguishing between the content and the delivery mechanism.

It's not quite that clear cut; I'm defining the 'content' to be the thing in question; the film, the TV show, the music. There exist numerous other types of material to appear on the medium in question, and give it value. Obviously I'm using a fairly narrow definition of 'content', but given that you can't download some of the possibilities for this additional content, I think it's a worthwhile enough distinction.

For example, what if I was a musician, and, on my website, I hosted various encodes of my album, for free download. To encourage people to buy the physical edition, I'd include other things; say, a DVD of a live performance of the album, or a little booklet on the process of making the album, or some other artistic output.

[I am Idler]

So, iTunes is technically a "online music store". not a "Legal download site"


The term "Legal download site" used as a attempt to blackmail other sites who dont sell the stuff they offer actually offends me for some reason.

please refrain from using it in this discussion

[SYMM]

An 'online music store' would be somewhere like play.com or cdwow surely?
A site you can download things legally from would surely be a 'legal download site'?

[meglamaniac]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

A sale has only been lost if the person was going to have bought it but now will not.

I disagree with both prerequisites; you cannot assume that someone is going to buy something if they weren't able to download it, and similarly you can't say that because a person downloads something they won't buy it in future.

I didn't explain my point terribly clearly there.
What I meant was that, having downloaded the track/movie/whatever, you now have a copy of something for which you should have paid a fee. True, if downloading was not an option then you may well not have got it at all so in this sense a sale is not lost. However, in an absolute sense, you have content for which the only legal method of aquisition is purchase - so you owe somebody (the studio, the artist, whoever) money for that content.
The fact that you would not have got it if you couldn't have aquired it for free is not the issue.
The issue is the fact that you now, through whatever means, have it - and have not paid for it.

Although this is much less widespread, think of the example of downloading electronic versions of books. This helps bridge the gap quite nicely.
You could buy the book, or you could go out, download it, print it out, bind it and have aquired the book illegally. With enough effort on your part you could make it appear to be identical to the object on sale in stores.
Once again, you may never have got it had it not been available for free, but the fact remains that you once again have someone else's property without having paid the fee required.

Originally Posted by MrL_Jakiri

For example, what if I was a musician, and, on my website, I hosted various encodes of my album, for free download. To encourage people to buy the physical edition, I'd include other things; say, a DVD of a live performance of the album, or a little booklet on the process of making the album, or some other artistic output.

That's fine. People do similar things frequently enough anyway.
In this case there are two ways of viewing it.
Either you are paying for the additional content only, or you are paying for a better version of the freely available content plus the extras.
However people chose to rationalise it, it doesn't really take away the distinction between content and delivery.

I have done similar things myself. Back before I had broadband, I taped the first series of 24. Yes I know the whole legalities of taping broadcasts are a grey area, but it'll have to do. Anyway, shortly after the series finished I went out and bought the DVD box set, because while the content was the same it was of superior quality. And, like you said, it has extra features.
Now, if I'd downloaded the images of those DVDs and burnt them, I would know I had technically committed theft. The distinction here is that my tapes were copies of something that had been broadcast as free to view, whereas the DVD set is strictly a paid for item.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

I didn't explain my point terribly clearly there.
What I meant was that, having downloaded the track/movie/whatever, you now have a copy of something for which you should have paid a fee.

I disagree with that should there.

We're back onto the thing that was being discussed earlier in the thread; what has been stolen in IP theft?

For example:

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Once again, you may never have got it had it not been available for free, but the fact remains that you once again have someone else's property without having paid the fee required.

Someone's Intellectual Property. There's a substantial difference between this and actual property.

[meglamaniac]

Well we broadly term things such as painting, music and drama as "the arts".
Therefore, although it sounds laughable when applied to some things, you have stolen a work of art.

Going back to my 24 example (sorry, I edited it while you were replying), I am currently downloading series 4. I know the legalities here go further toward black than white as these are copies of a copy, and the fidelity is near enough to the original for some people not to be bothered. I will still go out and buy the DVD for the extras and the better quality and the ability to play it on my TV without a computer.
However, I can understand why the studios may be pissed off as I have something on my harddrive that is pretty close to the original which they would very much like me to pay for. I justify it to myself because I know I will, in this instance, pay for it.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

Therefore, although it sounds laughable when applied to some things, you have stolen a work of art.

STOLEN.

However, I will still go out and buy the DVD for the extras and the better quality and the ability to play it on my TV without a computer.
However, I can understand why the studios may be pissed off as I have something on my harddrive that is pretty close to the original which they would very much like me to pay for. I justify it to myself because I know I will, in this instance, pay for it.

Out of all the people I know, I own the most DVDs by FAR. I buy DVDs, and CDs, and Games, not because of some self-justification schtick, but for the things I gain that I feel are worth paying for them: the extras, the quality, the fact that it's immune to a hard drive failure. I don't really see how this is relevent, however.

[meglamaniac]

I assume you are saying that the word "stolen" is now the problem?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

I assume you are saying that the word "stolen" is now the problem?

What do you mean, "now"? I've been disagreeing with the definition of IP "theft" as theft thoughout my involvement in the thread.

[edit]

Missing your edits notwithstanding.

[meglamaniac]

Well the way things are going, I think for the sake of sanity we should agree to disagree.

[NEWSBOT3]

i disagree.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by meglamaniac

It almost seems like a lowering of the discussion to pose a "how would you feel if..." question, but can you imagine spending your time and resources on some work or other if there was no guaruntee of being able to make something out of it when you'd finished?

Erm, you don't have any guarantee in this world. You could work ten years on a novel and not a single person could read it. Or you could sell one copy and that person could then tell your story to hundreds of other people in the verbal form and you would receive nothing.

The world does not owe you a living for creating something. If your creation is worth something to someone then undoubtedly you can figure a way out of being recompensed through this. You could ask for donations and distribute your e-book via the public domain. You could perform live concerts and sell tickets. You could offer to write adaptations for other mediums. Whatever really, I'm not interested.

What I am interested in is when you try to use the force of the law (ultimately backed up by violence) to try and pry into what individuals do in the privacy of their own homes, or in private transactions with each other.

If you do insist on relying on outdated mechanisms to demand monies from people then fine. But literally billions of people around the world will continue (quite rightly) to ignore your childish whinings about "theft" and your loss of profits. Your business model will go where it belongs - into the dustbin of history.

[JonnyBGood]

That was quite a rant dante



PS You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Dante Hicks again.