Indeed. I would not mind paying for movies, but the studios won't let me. My computer runs the wrong operating system, my HDMI cable is not the right kind, the movie isn't for sale in my country, etc., etc. OK fine, I will just download it instead. All that anti-piracy protection gave me no option but to pirate the movie.
Oh, the irony.
(I could "just do without", but why should I suffer for the studio's mistakes?)
I think this argument is disingenuous. We as consumers do not have any "right" to copyrighted content. If you can't watch a movie because of some distribution problem, so what? It's their loss because they've alienated a purchaser, but it still doesn't mean you are entitled to it.
I am very against DRM on content I have purchased, and I've admittedly "sampled" music that I may or may not have purchased later. But I've never violated digital rights because I felt like I had some sort of privilege to do so. I would love to see an overhaul of the industry, but until we do, we can play by their rules, or at least be genuine about it when we don’t.
Copyright is a compromise between the general public and the creators of the material. It's a construct that exists to promote the creation and distribution of works.
If you can't watch a movie, what does that serve? The public is clearly not getting anything. And the creator isn't getting anything either. Everybody loses. This isn't the same as simply not being able to pay either.
I agree. My main contention is with technology being bent to enforce compliance. Per definition, this only inconveniences legitimate consumers, since in order to pirate something at all, those measures must have been defeated.
Basically, I don't take issue with copyright law. I take issue with producers "managing" my rights for me. Tell me my rights, trust me to abide by them, and sue me for transgressions.
Bittorrent is possibly the best distribution system ever. There is no DRM, there are no checks to see if you're in the right country, there's nothing stopping you from getting exactly what you want.
Movies for example...some people hate the extra/bonus features on DVDs and just want to see the damned movie while others like them. Why don't movie companies distribute two different versions? Also, what about letting people in all sorts of countries download or watch things? This is possibly the worst thing for me because I'm Canadian.
I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted.
Because it's a lie? "Piracy" isn't theft. Abortion isn't murder. You can argue that they're wrong, but this kind of misrepresentation is the lowest possible way of discusion. In fact it's an admission that people doesn't look at copyright infringement as wrong, so it must be tagged with a stronger word.
This debate is not going away, because that's the politics of our time. So please, at least let's keep it a little more intelligent than that.
My point is that both behaviours are misrepresented by the persons that oppose to them. Calling someone "copyright infractor" doesn't sound like an insult. "Thieve" is incorrect, but sounds more dramatic. With abortion happens the same thing.
It doesn't mean that abortion and file sharing are connected in any other way.
Abortion is murder because it purposefully denies the baby their life. Copyright is not theft because it does not deny the creator access to and full enjoyment of their creation [though it's probably possible to construct some situation in which it does?].
Whether you believe the murder of the child is justified is a separate question. But even if you believe copyright infringement is wrong someone doing it will not stop the original creator from have access to their [original] copy.
Abortion is not murder because the law says so. Laws and beliefs are two different things. Murder and abortion (except the cirscumstances in which it's permitted) are two legal concepts. There are also "popular" meanings, but the ones that matters if you want to do something about a behaviour are the legal meanings. You can't sue people because of your beliefs.
Wrong and right are "moral" or "ethical" concepts, so different persons have different notions of right and wrong. But there is only one law (in each country, at a given moment).
Natural law is a dead idea. Of course moral concepts are often the motivation for people to try to crate and change laws. But only when the ideas take the form of law, they become a common ground.
BTW, have abortion and murder the same punishment in the USA? I mean illegal abortion. Even performed against the woman's will. I can assure you that it's not the case in many other countries.
dude, this debate is not "going away" because it's grey.
abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
A separate comment to explain a little more. In my country having sex with a person younger than 13 is considered rape, even with consent. If the 13th birthday is today, is it right to do it today and not yesterday? Why?
If a barman sells tobacco to someone who's just turned 16 it's legal. Why wasn't it legal yesterday? Laws need this kind of hard limits. Abortion is legal in many countries within certain weeks of conception. Abortion is illegal (but not murder!!) simply before birth. Penalties are different, that's the law.
I'm very happy to have laws, even if I don't like all of them, because they're way better than someone's sense of morality.
So taking software, music, books, movies, and other things without paying for them isn't theft? Is anything that can be represented as binary data free from ownership? Or only the things you want? Why is taking a car theft? Because it's physical? Care to justify that metaphysical distinction?
It's a legal distinction. Laws say that they're different.
Also there's a number of material differences that justify that different treatment.
Theft removes the object from someone. Copyright infringement does not.
Theft (as tipified in my country, opposed to "hurto" or "apropiación indebida", sorry don't know how to translate those) means certain quantity, violence on persons or things.
Even if the same laws were applied to digital content, there would be impossible to convict anybody without specific laws, because taking something from someone without violence, dameges and not depriving the owner would amount as a small fine, not worth the legal costs.
There is a concept in penal law over here that's called "punibility". The idea is that certain behaviours can't be controlled using criminal law because it's impossible to keep an eye on everybody: "behaviour that's socially accepted". If you need a policeman on every citizen, that also needs to enter your home to see if you're acting bad... then it's a bad idea to criminalize. The punishment isn't uniformly applied so it's even more unjust.
That "legal distinction" says stealing music is punishable by millions in fines, so...please start making sense some time soon. The very legal system you want to overthrow you're now saying justifies claiming one isn't theft.
Taking a picture of a car you got from Google Streetview != theft of the car. Taking a car from the Googleplex [without the owners permission] == theft. Do you need us to explain why?
The first has zero cost to the owner of the car, they keep their car and Google keep their [Google's] picture of it, plus I get my copy.
The second denies the owner their original and any possible use of that original.
The distinction is physical, not metaphysical. The clue is in the terms property and intellectual property. One of these is ethereal and almost impossible to steal [at present], can you guess which?
I think it was downvoted for its tone -- it's very easy to interpret as name-calling.
There is a rational basis for opposing copyright controls without simultaneously supporting piracy, but sadly, most people seem to advocate from the latter camp.
