If I download a film, but never watch it, have I done anything wrong? (Assume it was not torrented, so I have not uploaded anything to anyone else)
Mininova deletes all illegal material
- Thread starter /\ndy
- Start date
If I download a film, but never watch it, have I done anything wrong? (Assume it was not torrented, so I have not uploaded anything to anyone else)
That's a bad analogy. Again you are making the mistake of comparing a physical item with making a digital copy of something.
Before they built the new stadium in Cardiff, there were large blocks of flats down a street called Westgate St. overlooking the stadium that could see everything that went on there perfectly, for free. The people on the top floors actually used to rent out their flats on big match days.
Did the authorities come after them and charge them because they were getting something for free (and even making money off it)? - no.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
The point is that when copyright infringement is concerned there is no negative impact on the rights holder at all.
stockhausen is arguing that the simple act of depriving rights holders of potential earnings is the negative impact of copyright infringement, and has thus committed himself to accepting that whether a person commits copyright infringement or not, even the act of not consuming material is depriving rights holders of potential earnings and therefore equivalent to theft.
Not always true. I admit that one download does not equal one lost sale, but there are many out there that if it wasn't so easy to download, WOULD buy the good.
No it's not. By the arguments used here anyone should be able to walk into any event they like and watch it for free as long as they're not depriving anyone of a physical item (i.e. the seat hadn't been sold anyway) and they claim they never would have paid for it
Don't be pointlessly pedantic. Would you expect to be allowed to walk into an event and watch it for free if you weren't depriving anyone of something physical (a seat for example) and you claim you weren't going to pay for it anyway?
Watching a match from your own windows (assuming you could) doesn't infringe copyright or terms and conditions so of course that's ok - what's your point?
Last edited:
You're missing the obvious point, what you are proposing is obtrusive.
Sure, if you could walk into a stadium and not pay and not have any consquence and have no one say anything to you during the whole time, everyone would do it. A little like piracy
And other file sharing thread ends in a perpetual loop:
Person1: It's ok to download, as I would never have bought it in the first place
Person2: So you think it's ok to just help yourself to things for free?
Person 1: But it's not like theft cos no-one actually loses out.
Person2: Yes, but...
Yawn.
Personal opinion: Anyone that downloads things which they know they shouldn't, only does so because they know there's not much chance of getting caught. And instead of just accepting that it's wrong, most of them try to justify it with various excuses about how it is 'harmless'.
Much like drivers speeding.
I'm not going to pretend that I don't do both. And I can 'justify' both to myself, but it doesn't matter how good your argument is for doing it - doesn't actually make it ok.
Person1: It's ok to download, as I would never have bought it in the first place
Person2: So you think it's ok to just help yourself to things for free?
Person 1: But it's not like theft cos no-one actually loses out.
Person2: Yes, but...
Yawn.
Personal opinion: Anyone that downloads things which they know they shouldn't, only does so because they know there's not much chance of getting caught. And instead of just accepting that it's wrong, most of them try to justify it with various excuses about how it is 'harmless'.
Much like drivers speeding.
I'm not going to pretend that I don't do both. And I can 'justify' both to myself, but it doesn't matter how good your argument is for doing it - doesn't actually make it ok.
It's not obtrusive if the seat hadn't been sold and wasn't going to be. Sure, people that paid for seats and the organisers/owners are likely to be unhappy with you but that's the whole point.You're missing the obvious point, what you are proposing is obtrusive.
Sure, if you could walk into a stadium and not pay and not have any consquence and have no one say anything to you during the whole time, everyone would do it. A little like piracy
You know you'd be in the wrong and because you'd be likely to be caught there would be consequences so you wouldn't do it(generally, a few people are bound to argue they would/do). Just because you're unlikely to get caught doesn't make it right.
This...
In your trippy analogy world, I am failing to see the difference between viewing the match from outside the stadium for free, and sitting in a seat that wasn't going to be used anyway?
Breaking the speed limit is much like piracy in a way.
Lots of instances of arbitrary speed limits that do not increase safety yet only serve a money generating role.
If I do 55 in a 50 on a road that by the 80th percentile rule is deemed safe at 70 should I be locked up for it?
Lots of instances of arbitrary speed limits that do not increase safety yet only serve a money generating role.
If I do 55 in a 50 on a road that by the 80th percentile rule is deemed safe at 70 should I be locked up for it?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Posts summarised and adjusted for claritykrooton. Morgoth said:
That's because you're missing the fundamental point conveniently. One infringes on copyright (or Terms and conditions etc) and one doesn't. Really, it's not difficult.
So you are saying your stadium infringement only occurs if you are within the facilities?
*sigh*
So you are saying your stadium infringement only occurs if you are within the facilities?
Posts summarised and adjusted for clarity
By clarity you mean an out right lie?
Unless the legal definition of theft and copyright infringement has changed rather radically in the last few minutes.
But then what can you expect when in 90% of your posts you resort to childish name calling when referring to anyone who doesn't share your view.
Not to mention god awful puns.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
If you don't mind I'd like to dwell on this example for a moment or two.
First I'd like to suggest an amendment to the example. You are attempting to cast the individual in this example as one of an unattractive character by introducing the notion of expectation. I would not expect to be allowed into an event at no cost, but if I was presented with the opportunity to do so, I probably would. People who commit copyright infringement do not expect to be able to obtain copyrighted material at no cost, but if presented with the opportunity to do so, seize that opportunity.
The example is somewhat troublesome in that there are actual costs involved in providing the seat for the individual to make use of. In terms of utilities (electricity, heating, etc.), stewarding, cleaning, the provision of emergency services, etc. there are a range of costs that the event organiser would be incurring if they were to allow a person admission at no cost. This is obviously not compatible with the case of copyright infringement in which the rights holder incurs no actual cost for each infringement.
If we assume — to make the example more analogous to the case of copyright infringement — that there is no notion of expectation, and that the event organiser is incurring no costs by allowing an individual admission, I quite honestly do not see a problem with a person taking that opportunity and gaining admission at no cost.
No harm is done to anyone, financial or otherwise, but the individual derives enjoyment from gaining admission to the event. Is that not the most desirable outcome? Would you rather the seat remain empty and the individual deprived of the potential for enjoyment based on some stubborn notion that admission has to be paid for?
