Goodbye, Torrent Sites.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Illegal doesn't equal immoral. They did deserve to be shut down though, yeah. No one could say they didn't have it coming to them. At the same time, I don't think piracy will ever be stopped. I doubt it'll even be significantly slowed by this kind of thing.

suprnova.org hosted plenty of non-illegal things too. For example I downloaded an old book about teaching yourself Latin, and some Linux stuff. bittorrent does have legal uses.

I won't pretend I didn't also download things illegally. Right now I'm downloading some Monty Python episodes. I watched the episodes on TV, and it was legal. I could've taped them onto VHS, and it would've been legal. I'm downloading them to my computer, and it's illegal. If I'd taped them on VHS and somehow input them to my computer via video-in, would that be legal? Maybe not legal; would it be moral? The legality of this kind of thing isn't something that's clearly defined, to me, let alone the morality. This is something we're still trying to figure out as a society.

But yeah, some things on those sites are blatantly illegal and blatantly immoral to download, and I probably downloaded some of those too. I am not the king of morals.

I didn't mean that everything illegal was immoral, but it's like you said you admitted to downloading illegal files and you have the funds to purchase the material that's illegally downloaded, that's what I referred to as immoral.

I'm guilty of that myself...at least in the past. It didn't take me long to delete my stolen files when I had contracted a virus. I know that it's tough for some people who don't have a lot of money or any money to not be tempted to just download whatever they can find, but it doesn't make it right.

The thing that shocks me most is that on my LJ Friend's list and this forum is that no one feels the least bit of sympathy for the creators.

[escobert]

I feel sorry for them I mean they were helping people get things iin illigal was but still, I think the governments and such take this a little too far. The game companies, music and movies still make lots of money. Sometimes more then they desreve.

[Dingo Jellybean]

I feel sorry for them I mean they were helping people get things iin illigal was but still, I think the governments and such take this a little too far. The game companies, music and movies still make lots of money. Sometimes more then they desreve.

There's no doubt the distribution of wealth is sometimes socially unfair. The best way to combat this in a moral and legal way is to not buy their products. Lord knows I don't anymore.

And when I meant creators, I meant creators of the animes and shows people illegally download. At least I think that's what you're referring to I hope.

I don't think gov't takes this too far. Because so much tax dollars come from these entertainment businesses, they have to. Not only tax dollars, but these businesses do help a country move along. Entertainment is almost a trillion dollar industry, the gov't should take steps like these to stop illegal activity.

But yeah, I realize that piracy will somehow find a backdoor. If this was me 2 years ago, my reaction would've been disgusted, not almost joyous.

[Dr Unne]

Whether you have the money to buy things isn't relevant to whether or not it's moral to steal it. If you're starving on the street, it's still immoral to steal a loaf of bread. It's just as immoral for a poor person to download something from a bittorrent site as it is for a rich person.

I own every Weird Al Yankovic album (except one or two) in existence, on cassette tape, which is completely useless to me at this point. Is it illegal or immoral for me to download those songs onto my computer? How many times do I have to pay for something before it's no longer immoral? I sometimes listen to music on the radio. Is it immoral to listen to the same music on my computer in MP3 format? I can go to the library and read a book for free. Why can't I do the same for music or movies?

I don't think that people who sing songs or make movies have a right to the amount of money they make. Musicians aren't starving on the streets; they're living in solid-gold houses with solid-gold cars and cyborg maids (probably). Even if p2p sharing of songs hurts artists (not sure that it does), I don't really care. I don't think they have any right to the amount of money they make. In terms of "hurt", I think that taking $13 from a person who does nothing I'd consider "work" who makes more money in one day than I make in one year isn't as bad as most other things I could think of. I don't think that the music and/or movie industry behaves morally; they've been convicted in the past of price-fixing, for example. Same goes for a few software companies I could think of. I think they outright abuse the law in many cases.

I don't think that the concept of computer data as "property" is entirely defined. A song stored on a computer is just a very very large number in binary. How can someone own the copyright to a number? If I tell someone the number, how am I stealing anything? Copyright law in this country (or maybe this planet) is currently all but insane.

None of that is a legal justification for p2p sharing of files. But it's something to think about. Musicians and actors still exist and are still filthy stinking rich. I think downloading copyrighted files from the internet is way, way down low on my list of immoral acts.

I'll quote my 10th grade history teacher: "No law has ever survived in this country when a majority of people opposed it". A majority of people think that downloading stuff for free is fine. I rather think it is too. The law should reflect that. One could perhaps view music and other forms of art as belonging to our society, as part of our culture. Imagine if someone owned the copyright to the song "Happy Birthday". Oh, wait. Someone does.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Whether you have the money to buy things isn't relevant to whether or not it's moral to steal it. If you're starving on the street, it's still immoral to steal a loaf of bread. It's just as immoral for a poor person to download something from a bittorrent site as it is for a rich person.

The difference is that stealing files don't make you live any longer. Stealing for hunger is much different, and I consider it somewhat moral if it's a last resort, I.E.: if their family desperately needed food and money could not be made in time to feed them before they die. Morality doesn't have a target, it affects everyone rich or poor. Just because you're not rich enough to buy something doesn't mean you should steal it.

I own every Weird Al Yankovic album (except one or two) in existence, on cassette tape, which is completely useless to me at this point. Is it illegal or immoral for me to download those songs onto my computer? How many times do I have to pay for something before it's no longer immoral? I sometimes listen to music on the radio. Is it immoral to listen to the same music on my computer in MP3 format? I can go to the library and read a book for free. Why can't I do the same for music or movies?

The difference is that the artists send out samples of their music in hopes you will buy their music. Samples is what gets them noticed. It's like sampling food at a grocery store. As long as the artists allow it, it's legal. Besides, you only pay for songs and movies once as I recall.

However, when you listen to songs on the radio, those songs are paid for by advertisers. When you listen to them on a computer, they're not. The books in the library are free because they're paid for by the public. The reason why most music and movies are illegal is because a lot of money goes into making them. Stealing them would completely put these people out of business.

I don't think that people who sing songs or make movies have a right to the amount of money they make. Musicians aren't starving on the streets; they're living in solid-gold houses with solid-gold cars and cyborg maids (probably). Even if p2p sharing of songs hurts artists (not sure that it does), I don't really care. I don't think they have any right to the amount of money they make. In terms of "hurt", I think that taking $13 from a person who does nothing I'd consider "work" who makes more money in one day than I make in one year isn't as bad as most other things I could think of. I don't think that the music and/or movie industry behaves morally; they've been convicted in the past of price-fixing, for example. Same goes for a few software companies I could think of. I think they outright abuse the law in many cases.

Yes, many people don't deserve the money they have. The distribution of wealth will probably never be socially equal. If you hate them so much, don't download their products. It's a compliment to them that you admire their work, even though you download it illegally. And just because the music industry or any other industry behaves immorally, doesn't justify anyone to do the same. But you should put yourself in their position. It's like our debate some months earlier, you see through almost completely biased eyes. What's "work" to you might seem like a walk in the park to someone else. It's all relative. Taking $13 from someone might not hurt, but do that a couple of thousand times and all of the sudden it does hurt.

And just because one person does it doesn't mean it hurts the artists. It spreads like a disease. If one person litters, then almost always someone else does the same and so on. Then all of the sudden the parks are completely filthy. All these little things add up. That's why laws fine people $500 if they litter even one thing. I support whatever stringent law the gov't passes to protect these artists and authors.

I don't think that the concept of computer data as "property" is entirely defined. A song stored on a computer is just a very very large number in binary. How can someone own the copyright to a number? If I tell someone the number, how am I stealing anything? Copyright law in this country (or maybe this planet) is currently all but insane.

You can say the same thing about a car. A car are just a group of atoms combined together. Atoms are everywhere, so what makes some atoms more special than others? I don't think what you're saying is really right, it's even outrageous. It's like me writing FAQs. Yes, it's all just binary on a computer. But if someone made money off my guides, I would be extremely angry. You just don't know how it's like until you're on the other side. Without copyright laws, creativity would plummet. You wouldn't have a computer if it wasn't for copyright laws. No one would create anything if they couldn't get some profit from it. Copyright protects people, it's not there to be a bitch for you. It protects people's freedom of speech.

None of that is a legal justification for p2p sharing of files. But it's something to think about. Musicians and actors still exist and are still filthy stinking rich. I think downloading copyrighted files from the internet is way, way down low on my list of immoral acts.

I'm not saying illegal downloads is equivalent of murder. But it's so petty like you said that you should be able to avoid doing it. Even though musicians are rich, so what. Why should that bother you? Just because you hate them being rich doesn't mean you should steal what they have. You'd be pissed too if you were some hot rock band and all of the sudden you find that no one is buying your music and they're just getting free copies of it.

I'll quote my 10th grade history teacher: "No law has ever survived in this country when a majority of people opposed it". A majority of people think that downloading stuff for free is fine. I rather think it is too. The law should reflect that. One could perhaps view music and other forms of art as belonging to our society, as part of our culture. Imagine if someone owned the copyright to the song "Happy Birthday". Oh, wait. Someone does.

Downloads should be free...ONLY if the authors of the files allows it. Just because you think it's free doesn't mean it should be. The majority of the people DON'T think downloading illegal files is fine. I don't know where you read that, but you should do a search engine on CNN polls to find out. If someone owned a copyright to Happy Birthday, like you said, then so be it. But music isn't something that you can just think up and people will like it. It takes a lot of energy. And if people are willing to pay, then so be it. If people really believe that everything on the internet should be free, then iTunes wouldn't be so profitable. Honestly, what you said was just ridiculous, I still can't believe I see these words coming from you.

[krissy]

CNN is not unbiased in it's own special way.
I did a report on Napster once. I realize this is a long ways back, but the implications on the wallets of the recording industry weren't as big as you'd think.

Haven't read the whole thread, but has it been mentioned that some people like to sample before purchasing? And you really can't sample some stuff on the radio.

There were these two 10 year olds talking by a church today, one of them was like 'So I downloaded Age of Empires 34 and [some other crappy game] etc etc', so it's such a norm in today's society no one gives a second look anymore.

The things you own, end up owning you.

[Dr Unne]

I don't care about this subject to discuss it further than this post, but you have some good points; I just don't think this subject is NEARLY as simple as you seem to think. I had some courses in college on the ethics of technology, and we're living in a world now that is fundamentally entirely different than anything that ever occurred in the past, when it comes to things like the internet. Like I said, we're trying to figure this out as a society.

[qq]If you hate them so much, don't download their products.[/qq]

I don't, for the most part. I do buy things like software and games, even if I have the ability and the means to download them for free very easily.

[qq]You can say the same thing about a car. A car are just a group of atoms combined together. Atoms are everywhere, so what makes some atoms more special than others? I don't think what you're saying is really right, it's even outrageous.[/qq]

Atoms are physical and can be owned. If I own a rock, you can't duplicate the rock. That's property. If someone ever creates a machine that can take an object and assemble atoms to exactly duplicate that object, we'd be in EXACTLY the same position we're in now.

Information is different than property, and when you treat it like property, things start to become ridiculous. For example, people are copyrighting algorithms. That's like copywriting a mathematical equation. People are copyrighting DNA strands. There are people who say that you can't compile a list of information unless you own that information. Google gets sued for giving a list of web site links. FACTS are being copyrighted.

What is an MP3: property or information? It can be duplicated exactly, like information. An MP3 is a number, plain and simple. But it is also something that's "created", like property. It seems to be both property and information. Very complex issue, not nearly as simple as you're describing it, I think.

0923840912842394127589658097569823746123987463298746328741693827461328974623987461239874624. That number can be encoded as a .wav file and played through a set of speakers. Is it illegal if someone reads this thread and sees my number and writes it down and gives it to a friend?

[qq]It's like me writing FAQs. Yes, it's all just binary on a computer. But if someone made money off my guides, I would be extremely angry. You just don't know how it's like until you're on the other side.[/qq]

I made a whole web site. Everyone has permission to duplicate my site for their own use, or for their own site. I'd feel silly saying "This site is mine, never copy it". Every single time someone loads my site, they're making an exact copy of the whole thing on their hard drives, even to be able to see it.

[qq]Even though musicians are rich, so what. Why should that bother you? Just because you hate them being rich doesn't mean you should steal what they have.[/qq]

Let's draw a distinction between "steal" and "break copyright". I don't steal anything from someone when I download a file. I create an exact copy of a number. An MP3 on my hard drive is created out of nothing as a copy of another MP3. "Stealing" would be if I broke into someone's house and took their CDs.

[qq]Downloads should be free...ONLY if the authors of the files allows it.[/qq]

People can only "allow" something if they have the right to control its use. That right isn't inherent; we grant people the right, through means of the government and the laws to which we all agree.

[qq]But music isn't something that you can just think up and people will like it. It takes a lot of energy. [/qq]

Why does it matter if it takes a lot of energy? People don't have an inherent right to make money from something just because it takes energy. I could spend a year digging a hole in my backyard with a spoon. I don't automatically deserve to be paid for it. "Blargle imphath kerslorg". That's creativity right there. Why do I automatically gain the right to refuse you to the right to EVER say that phrase?

[qq]Without copyright laws, creativity would plummet. You wouldn't have a computer if it wasn't for copyright laws. No one would create anything if they couldn't get some profit from it.[/qq]

This is very wrong. Copyright law is looking to destroy creativity in very nasty ways. Read about the current state of software patent law in the European Union for example, and see how many software creators passionately oppose having ANY kind of software patents. People own the copyright to such things as "hypertext links", "using an online shopping cart", "a plug-in for a web site", etc. Companies use copyright law right now to obliterate other companies, and to make money from things that no human has the right to claim ownership of.

[Loony BoB]

I just don't really care that it's illegal, to be blunt. I download TV episodes and ther is absoloutely no harm in that as they don't show them over here and I wouldn't buy the DVD's anyway. Also, I've already paid my TV subscription which includes other TV shows I download, so I wouldn't be paying any more money to watch them on TV, I'd just have to watch them at a different (and fixed) time, something which I do not wish to do.

As for the big screen stuff. "The movie companies are losing money", some might say. Well, it's either them or me. I could complain "I lose money if I go to the cinema, and I lose money by going on the bus to get there, and I have to watch over 20 minutes of advertising, not to mention the again fixed times, not to mention the time spent standing in the cold waiting for said bus, etc." So it's either them or me. I say "I'll save myself some money."

To be honest, as I'm in debt, I can't really afford to go see these movies anyway, so they aren't losing my money - I never would have spent it in the first place. If it's a movie I REALLY want to see, like LotR or I, Robot, I'd go to the big screen so I can get the full movie effect. But the movie would have to be worth the trip as well as the money.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Information is different than property, and when you treat it like property, things start to become ridiculous. For example, people are copyrighting algorithms. That's like copywriting a mathematical equation. People are copyrighting DNA strands. There are people who say that you can't compile a list of information unless you own that information. Google gets sued for giving a list of web site links. FACTS are being copyrighted.

Mp3's are not facts. They're not information. They're a form of musical expression put in a computer.

What is an MP3: property or information? It can be duplicated exactly, like information. An MP3 is a number, plain and simple. But it is also something that's "created", like property. It seems to be both property and information. Very complex issue, not nearly as simple as you're describing it, I think.

0923840912842394127589658097569823746123987463298746328741693827461328974623987461239874624. That number can be encoded as a .wav file and played through a set of speakers. Is it illegal if someone reads this thread and sees my number and writes it down and gives it to a friend?

Just because something can be duplicated exactly never entitles anyone to steal. It's not created, it's copied. It's like I write down the number "2", I just copied the number...not created it. The numbers you created can't just simply be read by a person and all of the sudden they recognize that as Michael Jackson's Billie Jean. You're breaking down something very complex into something simple. The most complex of anything can be broken down into something simple. As far as I know, no law prohibits reading these numbers because they would do very little people very little good.

I made a whole web site. Everyone has permission to duplicate my site for their own use, or for their own site. I'd feel silly saying "This site is mine, never copy it". Every single time someone loads my site, they're making an exact copy of the whole thing on their hard drives, even to be able to see it.

You missed the point I was making. Anyone can copy the website, but you can't profit off of it. If I made milliions of your website, you'd be pretty angry. I don't care if my guides are being copied, just so long as no one alters it or profits from it.

Let's draw a distinction between "steal" and "break copyright". I don't steal anything from someone when I download a file. I create an exact copy of a number. An MP3 on my hard drive is created out of nothing as a copy of another MP3. "Stealing" would be if I broke into someone's house and took their CDs.

Actually, you do steal. Some of the files you took were already on a CD that someone had ripped onto their hardrive. What's the difference if you steal a CD full of music files and download files illegally of that CD? There is no difference other than not having that plastic 5" disc. It's like you're defining that illegally downloading is "not stealing", making it seem right. Correct me if I'm wrong about you on that.

People can only "allow" something if they have the right to control its use. That right isn't inherent; we grant people the right, through means of the government and the laws to which we all agree.

The difference is that with something like land use, that's property that people can share. No one necessarily owns land completely, farmers have to apply for that land or contractors. With 1978 international copyright law, you are automatically protected by the law when you create a document or music of distinct originality. Obviously originality is defined differently by people.

Why does it matter if it takes a lot of energy? People don't have an inherent right to make money from something just because it takes energy. I could spend a year digging a hole in my backyard with a spoon. I don't automatically deserve to be paid for it. "Blargle imphath kerslorg". That's creativity right there. Why do I automatically gain the right to refuse you to the right to EVER say that phrase?

The reason why copyright laws are in place is to prevent people from illegally profiting from it. You can't profit from your phrase. But you can profit from music. I realize that almost anything takes a lot of energy, but no one is going to dig a hole or twiddle their thumbs for eons and say they deserve copyright rights. You don't have the right to refuse me to say that phrase, because it doesn't yield any profit.

This is very wrong. Copyright law is looking to destroy creativity in very nasty ways. Read about the current state of software patent law in the European Union for example, and see how many software creators passionately oppose having ANY kind of software patents. People own the copyright to such things as "hypertext links", "using an online shopping cart", "a plug-in for a web site", etc. Companies use copyright law right now to obliterate other companies, and to make money from things that no human has the right to claim ownership of.

Those are the kind of creators who abuse the international copyright law. That's how lawyers work. They look for loopholes to their advantage. Copyright laws can favor and unfavor anyone depending on how people interpret the laws. But the original creators of the law intended for copyright laws to protect people from illegal profiting.

I just don't really care that it's illegal, to be blunt. I download TV episodes and ther is absoloutely no harm in that as they don't show them over here and I wouldn't buy the DVD's anyway. Also, I've already paid my TV subscription which includes other TV shows I download, so I wouldn't be paying any more money to watch them on TV, I'd just have to watch them at a different (and fixed) time, something which I do not wish to do.

Laws don't care if you already paid for the media and make copies of it. In fact, you're allowed to make copies of it. Infinitely many as far as I know. So if you paid for them, fine. If you didn't, then it's illegal, but what do you care? You're not creating these TV shows anyways.

As for the big screen stuff. "The movie companies are losing money", some might say. Well, it's either them or me. I could complain "I lose money if I go to the cinema, and I lose money by going on the bus to get there, and I have to watch over 20 minutes of advertising, not to mention the again fixed times, not to mention the time spent standing in the cold waiting for said bus, etc." So it's either them or me. I say "I'll save myself some money."

That's a bad excuse to steal. You don't have to watch the 20 minutes of movie previews. At least I don't, I buy my ticket just 5 minutes before the actual show time, or 10 minutes after the listed show time. It's fine if you want to save yourself money, just don't "steal" to "save."

[Loony BoB]

Watching pirated material != Stealing. Both are illegal in most countries (all of them for all I know), yes, but they are still different. I wouldn't steal to save, but I would watch pirated material to save.

[Dingo Jellybean]

Watching pirated material != Stealing. Both are illegal in most countries (all of them for all I know), yes, but they are still different. I wouldn't steal to save, but I would watch pirated material to save.

I completely disagree. Pirated materials are reproductions without authority of the creators. That IS stealing. You're trying to find that exception to a rule, and stealing should never have exceptions.

[MecaKane]

If BoB was going to steal a movie, he would have to go into a theater and take the projection spool things home with him. And then the theater would be "Hey, where'd our movie go?" If Unne was going to steal music, he'd have go to HMV and put them in his pants, and them HMV people would go "Hey, we ran our of those Nelly CDs, but the computer says we still have one of each left! wtf man"
When you steal something it's not there anymore, you have it and the person you stole from doesn't. But HMV and the movie theater people can still sell BoB's seat and Unne's CDs. etc etc
And if the MPAA are so concerned with the crew on a movie not making as much money because it grossed 87 million instead of 95 million(losing 7 million a picture is still quite a stretch, I'm sure but whatever), they can use thier 'don't pirate' advertising budget and legal budget to pay them.

[-N-]

I haven't seen a convincing argument from either side equating stealing to copyright infringement (other than certain nasty rhetoric, which reduces an entertaining subject for discussion to mere conceptual redefinitions). And since there probably won't be any agreement on common terms, well, have fun trying to be louder than each other.

I've never used BitTorrent, so I can't say I have any personal opinions on this matter.

[Miriel]

I used Bittorrent mainly for downloading episodes of Lost, which airs while I'm at school. I don't see anything wrong with that, it's not like it's gonna keep me from buying the DVDs when it comes out.

I used to download movies as well, I mean, it was so easy to do and I never really gave it a second thought. But after actually working on a movie set and working with the people who create these films I felt absolutely ashamed of myself for ever having illegally downloaded movies.

I would feel thoroughly pissed off if I told a friend to go watch a movie I'd worked on, and they go and download it instead. It's such an insult, really.

[Dingo Jellybean]

If BoB was going to steal a movie, he would have to go into a theater and take the projection spool things home with him. And then the theater would be "Hey, where'd our movie go?" If Unne was going to steal music, he'd have go to HMV and put them in his pants, and them HMV people would go "Hey, we ran our of those Nelly CDs, but the computer says we still have one of each left! wtf man"
When you steal something it's not there anymore, you have it and the person you stole from doesn't. But HMV and the movie theater people can still sell BoB's seat and Unne's CDs. etc etc
And if the MPAA are so concerned with the crew on a movie not making as much money because it grossed 87 million instead of 95 million(losing 7 million a picture is still quite a stretch, I'm sure but whatever), they can use thier 'don't pirate' advertising budget and legal budget to pay them.

This is what makes the internet generation so uneasy sometimes. Not one person here has even justified the law. Taking illegal copies is stealing. Just because you can copy a file doesn't entitle anyone to steal it. It's what Miriel said, you have to put yourself in the producers' shoes. If you were a producer, you'd want to maximize as much profit as possible. The more money you have the more likely you are to stay in business.

Saying taking files illegally is not stealing is like someone who has the flu but isn't really sick. It's ridiculous. I know some of you don't have a job, either you're too lazy or just can't get one...I don't know. But once you've had a job, you'll realize how valuable money really is. Doesn't matter if you make $1 or $1 million, 90% of all people wants to make as much money as they can. You'll never be satisfied. So for those of you here who say it's your right to "steal", you'd do the same thing as a producer to make as much money as possible. I guarantee it.

I used Bittorrent mainly for downloading episodes of Lost, which airs while I'm at school. I don't see anything wrong with that, it's not like it's gonna keep me from buying the DVDs when it comes out.

I used to download movies as well, I mean, it was so easy to do and I never really gave it a second thought. But after actually working on a movie set and working with the people who create these films I felt absolutely ashamed of myself for ever having illegally downloaded movies.

I would feel thoroughly pissed off if I told a friend to go watch a movie I'd worked on, and they go and download it instead. It's such an insult, really

That's not what I was debating. It's perfectly fine if you're going to buy the copies legally. You can make as many copies as you want. But I'm glad you can see where I'm coming from. Dr.Unne wouldn't care because he's never worked on a movie set, never once worked with a live band for hours a day, days a week and weeks a year on one album to realize how much effort goes into these things.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that working on these projects are hard work, and every line of work makes more or less than others. I hope the gov't continues these actions and puts these people in jail for a good few years. I wouldn't have any sympathy for anyone on these forums who get caught either.