DOWNLOADING IS NOT THE SAME AS STEALING
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/soRDTbkZSM0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
You probably have had the same experience as I had with legally purchased DVD’s. Before you can watch the movie, you’re forced to watch an anti-piracy advertisement propaganda. I never really understood this. Why are you trying to indoctrinate those that actually bought the film legally? It seems to miss the point completely. C’mon I already bought the film, don’t bother me with propaganda otherwise I’ll download the movie, which is usually:
- cheaper (ISP account + power)
- quicker (the more popular, the faster a download works, at least using Bitorrent)
- more convenient (no need for leaving the house to visit a store)
- no silly DVD-region encoding or other lame artificial digital
rightsrestrictions
Writing the above makes me wonder why I bother to buy films at all?
Anyway, some people decided to create an answer to the over the top, stupid and annoying anti-piracy propaganda and created a short film (view it above this post in crappy YouTube galore or download it using bittorrent) which ridiculous the rhetoric of ‘downloading equals stealing’ dogma.
In case you wonder why downloading is not the same as stealing: downloading a film or music does not mean that I take away your film or music. The metaphor of physical objects versus digital information does not work. Period. You can make unlimited copies from a digital work without quality degrading between copies. In fact it would be hard to tell which is the copy and which is the original. Perhaps cloning would be a better word to describe this process?
Some food for thought….at least for me 
If only the video was in a non encumbered format….. and not Flash crapola.
@Hub
There is also a bittorrent available with another format. Probably not an open format, but why not lend them a hand and create a theora version instead?
“In case you wonder why downloading is not the same as stealing: downloading a film or music does not mean that I take away your film or music.”
That’s just a very popular misconception. The Supreme court ruled (way back in 1977) that the duplication of music amounted to the conversion of property (and therefore theft) despite a lack a physical item in the equation.
Just because everyone online says something is true, doesn’t mean it is. the only relevant factor in determining what constitutes theft is the legal system. And on that topic, precedent is well established.
However, the DISTRIBUTION of protected material IS copyright violation. That’s far easy to prosecute, and has subsequently helped encourage the misunderstanding of how the law defines these particular activities.
@Memyself
Thanks for your comment.
The Supreme Court (I presume in the USA?) might have said so, but that doesn’t mean that we never should reassess court decisions. Especially when this ruling was made pre-Internet. Courts decision are like a lot things dependent on time, place and context. I wonder if they would make the same decision nowadays. Perhaps its time for the Supreme Courts to ‘update’ its ruling to the reality and practices of the 21st century?
My point is that downloads are intangible and much more like ideas or thoughts instead of physical property. One cannot steal ideas and therefor one can also not steal downloads. In fact as I have argued it would be hard to tell which is the original and which one is the copy as copying won’t degrade copy nor original.
I’m curious as to what you’re arguments are against this thesis.
You’re right. I am referring to the USA only and I should have clarified that. Certainly US law does not extend beyond it’s boundaries.
And I do agree that court decisions should be reassessed from time to time.
As for updating the legal perception now that technology has advanced, I personally believe that such adjustments in perception should be in favor of recognizing that intangible products are genuine commodities.
By way of example: I have no interest in the physicality of a book. I’m far more interested in the intangible content (I own a Sony Clie that I read most of my books on). The intangible copy holds just as much value to me as the printed version (if not more, due to convenience). While I do believe that a certain amount of price adjustment should be made due to a drop in manufacturing costs, I don’t see why I shouldn’t have to compensate someone for their efforts. Efforts that cost time and money.
So what really is the difference between an album that I put on a shelf or an album that I download? The physical presence? That’s not why we buy music. If it were, there would be no need for genre labeling as no one would care what type of music/movie/comic they were purchasing. Why differentiate between Debbie Gibson or the Beatles? Who cares whether it’s Marvel or DC book? Star Wars or Star Trek? We have ALWAYS (before the creation of the internet and after) chosen our books and movies and music and comics for the intangible content. NOT the physical delivery method. Yeah, you might pay more for that fancy edition, but only because it’s the fancy edition that delivers the intangible content you prefer.
In the end, intangible or not, these things are commodities. And the laws should (and typically do) reflect this fact.
“One cannot steal ideas”
It appears I have a bit more to say.
What you purport is an oft repeated argument. But how exactly is this true? Legal or psychological advice? These also are just thoughts and ideas. Do they no longer have value due the lack of tangibility? A seminar on computer programming? A class on economics? Any one of a number of things in our society that cost money to give that lack any tangible property? These all cost money to recieve. Not because people are greedy (though that can sometimes be the case) but because they cost money to GIVE.
Since when are thoughts and ideas free? You can certainly argue that you believe that they SHOULD be free, but that doesn’t mean that they are.
In the end, things cost money. Even ideas and thoughts are not free. They do not spring from the ether. Someone must create a thought and/or an idea. And if the person in question makes their living doing so, how is taking what they offer without paying the asked for compensation anything but theft?
Why does it matter if there is a physical object involved?
Legally speaking, it really doesn’t. Not universally anyway. Morally? Ethically? How is it ever right to take something without paying?
Yes, the legal system needs to update it’s way of thinking with the 21st century. The courts need to unequivocally determine that shifting delivery methods (vinyl, 8 track, cassette, cd, mp3) have nothing to do with the content itself. And in the case I cited in my original post, that is exactly what was determined. That the vinyl itself was not what the law was created to protect. It’s the content. The part we REALLY want.