Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures

File Swapping isn't as bad as wife swapping!

Published on July 22, 2005 By lifehappens In Current Events

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.
"

Comments (Page 2)

bakerstreet

on Jul 25, 2005

" 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.

lifehappens

on Jul 25, 2005

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.

Leauki

on Jul 25, 2005

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".

Leauki

on Jul 25, 2005

"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.

KarmaGirl

on Jul 25, 2005

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.

Zoomba

on Jul 25, 2005

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!"

bakerstreet

on Jul 25, 2005

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.

drmiler

on Jul 25, 2005

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!

bakerstreet

on Jul 25, 2005

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.

drmiler

on Jul 26, 2005

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.

bakerstreet

on Jul 26, 2005

I don't see that, doc. He said "You buy ONE picture from me".

How is copying a picture 47 times and mailing it to your family is different than copying a CD 47 times and mailing it to your family? Sure if you go to a portrait photographer and hire him to take a picture of you, he's creating a work FOR you. I.E. you're purchasing the work, not a picture of the work.

If, though, I buy an Ansel Adams print, copy it 47 times and send it to all my friends, it's no different than doing the same with the new Britney album.

Leauki

on Jul 26, 2005

"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."

That is quite ridiculous. I'd rather have something I have copied than stolen. If the two ever happen to you, you will see that it does not differ "only in method".

Copying is NOT stealing, not by law, not by the physical act of it.

Bakerstreet, I did not see you posting any links, let alone "link after link after link". But I did ask you to point me to the instance of the supreme court calling a copyright violation "stealing" that you claimed you knew of.

Zoomba

on Jul 26, 2005

Stealing is obtaining without permission or proper payment
IP Infringement is obtaining without permission or proper payment.

The form they come in is different, but the end result is the same. You have something that you ILLEGALLY obtained.

drmiler

on Jul 27, 2005

"You" were the one that talked about "selling" the copies. The difference is that when you sit for a photo and you pay the person for that photo, that's work for hire and they don't own the rights to that photo. When you buy a CD of someone elses work you do not automatically get the distribution rights to it because you did not "hire" them to do the work for you.

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

lifehappens

on Jul 27, 2005

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. You have something that you did not pay for THAT YOU ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO

Note that it says send, not sell. You going to sell to family and friends?

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 OR GIVE THEM AWAY FOR FREE! Only the person who OWNS the original image can do that. If you pay for the copyright, you then have the right to do anything you want with it. I think a lot of people misunderstand the idea that IF you can copy it, you should be allowed to. You pay for one copy of an item, not the rights to distribute. for money or not.

It's the same reason Medical/employment records belong to the Dr (or company/military) and not the individual. It is a record of a person's personal medical history the information may or may not be owned by the individual, but that PHYSICAL COPY belongs to the company/Dr./Amy. Many soldiers dispute this upon leaving the service. They are authorized to copy the record, but the original belongs to Uncle Sam.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!