I bought porn for the first time! :o

[bluesoul]

Actually it's an entirely valid justification that completely destroys the argument that downloading is equivalent to stealing.

actually i disagree. if you're making copies of something, then you're making a duplication. and that's one of the things that violates the terms of copyright.

where you're arguing that the original copyright holder still retains "the original item" i'd argue that what you have stolen is the information- because now you have something you didn't have before. it would be similar to getting into someone's computer and duplicating all their pictures. you can't argue it wasn't theft just because you didn't physically "take" the pictures. i'd argue it was theft because now you have information you didn't have- and you acquired this information without the owners permission

[Instrumental]

actually i disagree. if you're making copies of something, then you're making a duplication. and that's one of the things that violates the terms of copyright.

The argument wasn't whether it violates the terms of copyright; the argument was whether it is stealing. If you want to argue that it is copyright infringement, that is fair enough, but the word steal already has a meaning, one that is separate from copyright infringement, one that has two aspects that I've presented for you. The fact that the copyright owner didn't want you to obtain it in such a manner doesn't change the fact that he is still in full possession of the item and thus hasn't been deprived of their property. (i.e. stolen from)

Your example of getting into someone's computer tries to slyly add in the context of unwanted access to someone's computer and files in order to slant the argument. In reality most media originates from a person who bought the item and decided to upload it via file sharing methods done willfully and openly between the uploader and downloader. Even if a person had consensual access to a person's files and decided to make a copy of them when asked not to, it would still not be stealing because the files weren't removed from the owner's possession. At worst, a breach of trust.

And I ask to you, the same questions in my previous post: "I also wonder when copying becomes a reprehensible crime to you all. If I burn a CD for a friend is that stealing? If I make a mixtape for a friend is that stealing? If I record tracks I like off the radio? If I rip a copy of an album and then give the physical copy to my friend is that stealing? What if they then do the same for his or herself and another friend? How many people do I have to share an item with before it is stealing? Just one? More? "

[bluesoul]

instrumentals: i think you are missing my point that just because something tangible isn't being taken there is no theft. remember, everything on the internet is just 1s and 0s (ones and zeros)- but it's the combination, amount and complexity of these that gives us the information that either makes up music, images, films etc

when i say "copying is stealing" what i mean is that you're getting this information (the ones and zeros) without the consent of the owner (which the copyright protects) i.e. from an illegal site, without paying etc.

even when you download something legally, you're technically only downloading a copy of the information- but the reason why it's not stealing is because you're getting this information how the author agreed for you to get it (with their consent)

i'll try and answer your other questions later

[RallyCola]

the answer is simple...can instrumental be fined or arrested for infringing copyright law...which is legally defined as theft of intellectual property.

the answer is yes.

no effort to explain away blatant theft is acceptable because it remains illegal.

should the laws ever agree with your POV, then i will yield to your point. until such time, you are a criminal just the same as a shoplifter. there are millions of people like you so its not that i really care what you do...it is just that your argument is self-serving and counter to the laws of our land.

[bluesoul]

"I also wonder when copying becomes a reprehensible crime to you all. If I burn a CD for a friend is that stealing? If I make a mixtape for a friend is that stealing? If I record tracks I like off the radio? If I rip a copy of an album and then give the physical copy to my friend is that stealing? What if they then do the same for his or herself and another friend? How many people do I have to share an item with before it is stealing? Just one? More? "

imo, it depends the "worth" of what is being copied.

let me give you an example. if i was to steal your credit card, what do you consider more valuable? the card itself, or the information on it? so, i can steal someone's credit card online, by copying the information it has (name, credit card number, expiration date, 3 numbers on the back, card type)

so you still retain your card (the physical credit card) but your information has now been compromised. would you still argue this isn't stealing because you're still in possession of your card?

as for your example of burning cds/or ripping albums: whilst still illegal to duplicate, this is the equivalent of jay-walking. nobody really cares until you're doing it on a chinese sweat-shop bootlegging operation where you have an entire store carrying nothing but illegally copied+burned cds to replace the genuine article (btw: some discs carrying warnings that specifically say not to lend or make illegal copies. legal copies are actually made by schools that purchase some discs with the purpose of installing them on multiple computers for learning/teaching etc. so the information on the disc is "copied" multiple times or libraries)

[Instrumental]

instrumentals: i think you are missing my point that just because something tangible isn't being taken there is no theft...

I don't disagree with anything here except the last bit. Violating what the copyright owner wants dictates that it is copyright infringement, not the same as physically depriving someone of an item (i.e. stealing)

the answer is simple...can instrumental be fined or arrested for infringing copyright law...which is legally defined as theft of intellectual property.

the answer is yes.

no effort to explain away blatant theft is acceptable because it remains illegal.

should the laws ever agree with your POV, then i will yield to your point. until such time, you are a criminal just the same as a shoplifter. there are millions of people like you so its not that i really care what you do...it is just that your argument is self-serving and counter to the laws of our land.

Oh, you're one of those people who thinks law dictates morality. No arguing with you then. Surprised to see someone like that here though. Fortunately this country isn't absurd enough to treat file sharers like burglars even though some folks would have it that way.

imo, it depends the "worth" of what is being copied...

If you're going to be logically consistent, the value can't matter. Stealing one cent or one billion dollars, the act of stealing doesn't change, the amount of money? Yes. The penalty? Yes. The fact that it was taken and deprived from the original owner? Nope.

No, your example with the credit card is not stealing. Until someone uses it to actually deprive me of money, it isn't stealing. And this is excusing the flawed premise of your example because unlike my credit card information which is private between me and vendors for one time transaction, free or not, digital media is put out for public consumption.

I'd agree that burning and ripping CDs is on the level of jay walking. I'd say the same about downloading media for the same reasons as well, just because it's a more convenient way about doing it doesn't change anything. And unless you're profiting, it's the same sharing amongst music/film/porn enthusiasts.

[RallyCola]

morality? please don't confuse morality with legality. what you are doing is illegal....that is all.

i don't give a fuck about morality...most of the board will tell you that...do what you want but please stop inventing bullshit self-serving arguments that stand in opposition to the law.

copyright infringement is illegal. there is no morality associated with that statement.

[Instrumental]

I never argued nor implied that copyright infringement wasn't illegal. You have quite the habit of avoiding the points of discussion.

[bluesoul]

No, your example with the credit card is not stealing. Until someone uses it to actually deprive me of money, it isn't stealing. And this is excusing the flawed premise of your example because unlike my credit card information which is private between me and vendors for one time transaction, free or not, digital media is put out for public consumption.

but someone doesn't have to deprive you of money when they steal you're credit card information. they could just pretend to be you. this is called identity theft. this information doesn't even need to be used to profit them, it can be used to damage you. so again, nothing is being deprived from you and/or gained by them

there is also theft of ideas, which is why companies copyright and patent their intellectual property: again, nothing psychical is being taken. in fact, nobody needs to see the schematics of a particular idea or product. they just need to know what you're working on and "copy" this. it doesn't even have to be accurately copied: eg trade secrets

i think a lot of the reason why people don't see a problem with downloading music and/or movies online is because of how easy it's been made and how "normal" it's been made. so it becomes a part of "being online"

[Instrumental]

but someone doesn't have to deprive you of money when they steal you're credit card information. they could just pretend to be you. this is called identity theft. this information doesn't even need to be used to profit them, it can be used to damage you. so again, nothing is being deprived from you and/or gained by them

You are again trying to change the subject by adding on additional things after the credit card info has been copied. None of what you have said changes the fact that copying the credit card info in and of itself isn't stealing. Furthermore, by damaging my credit score and gaining purchasing ability they previously didn't have via my credit, they are taking and gaining things respectively. That is all irrelevant to the discussion though; we're not talking about fraud; we're talking about copying things.

there is also theft of ideas, which is why companies copyright and patent their intellectual property: again, nothing psychical is being taken. in fact, nobody needs to see the schematics of a particular idea or product. they just need to know what you're working on and "copy" this. it doesn't even have to be accurately copied: eg trade secrets

Again, you're using an example of something not (yet) put out for public consumption. And on top of that, you're using an example where an individual or company takes the idea to profit from it thereby gaining income while depriving the originator of theirs. It's not remotely comparable to file sharing. If someone came upon trade secrets and documented their findings, that in and of itself isn't stealing and the only way you can turn it into a negative is by adding on additional context where they then try to capitalize on their findings, but that isn't the argument.

I would agree with your last line though. People also don't have a problem because the nature of the action doesn't require that one remove property from another person's possession. (i.e. it's not stealing).