The dishonesty of Intellectual Property Theft.

[Orion]

The thing that those who want to steal things for free don't want you to know include things like:

1: Making a song is not cheap.
2: Making a movie is not cheap.
3: writing a book takes a long time, and time is of value, so again, not cheap.
4: people have a reasonable expectation to get a return from people who use a product they spend considerably(or even minor) resources on.
5: people who steal IP's are taking away potential returns on investment earned.

Edit to add: this really is not a complicated issue. It is thievery, and all the justifications and attempts to obscure that won't change this fact.

I'm sorry but it's not theft. Maybe colloquially speaking it is, but legally speaking it is not. Also, all of the factors you mention are not in jeopardy, given that IP driven industries still make up the input cost plus profit at the end of the day. Hollywood is not going bankrupt despite exaggerated claims to the contrary. If profits were really slumping then we'd see a decline in output, like fewer DVDs made, but that's not happening. What we are looking at is profit maximization trends, not profit loss trends, and I will explain why in the next part. The internet represents a threat to their aging business model, which is why we are getting the latest propaganda campaigns. People have been ripping music since it was possible. The industry is not going anywhere.

A torrent that reduces sales of a product is stealing from the owner. This really is not complicated.

There's more to it than that. You can't claim that loss of projected or imagined profits is a real loss. Just because a company projects that they will make $2 billion this year, does not mean they are entitled to make that, or will. As was quoted in the other thread, the music industry, for example, willfully admits under pressure that they are not losing that much money due to downloading, especially with the advent of expanded access through itunes and the like. If you look at the honest stats, the profit losses are not that big, and as the industries adapt to the internet era, they are making more money than ever.

Furthermore, as was mentioned before, you don't know the motivations or the end results of illegal downloads. You can't assume that one unit downloaded means one unit lost, because for all you know that individual may buy the legal version, or they live in a region where the legal version is not available (like in China, for example). The "profits lost" as illustrated by the industry are based on the 1:1 download:loss ratio assumption, but it's not logical at all. They are assuming that it leads to one lost purchase, but there is no real way to know that for sure. In fact I don't think any real studies have been done on downloading and if it leads to consumer purchases or not.

This is about profit maximization, nothing else. We should not be subject to hefty privacy invasions because some companies refuse to adapt to the modern era. Torrents are here to stay and the industries will never stop them all.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

And you can inspect a movie too, with a high probability that it will return full value. We call those trailers, and reviews(Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic will give you hundreds of reviews of every single movie). You have more access now than you ever used to to information to make an informed decision on what movie to watch.

A trailer and reviews are not the equivalent of inspection.

A trailer is usually less than 60 seconds of an 90+ minute movie.
I can't count how many times, I've disagreed with movie reviewers.

The material is highly subjective, we aren't talking about basic differences like shape, color and ergonomics.
We are dealing with imaginative differences in taste, something that can't be quantified with a review or trailer.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

You only want to steal a little bit? That's a nice compromise...

Stealing implies that I want to deprive the creator of money and enjoy their works.
That isn't true.

I want to sample the product to decide on, whether or not, I want to make a permanent purchase.
I do buy the DVD's of movies I like.

 

[Renae]

how the **** do you pick this up from my post? no don't tell me I don't want to watch the gymnastics.

Well from your belief that the Industry cannot adjust to modern delivery methods, so it really doesn't matter if there is theft. If I was wrong, tell me why, I'm human and make mistakes from time to time bud.

 

[Renae]

Stealing implies that I want to deprive the creator of money and enjoy their works.
That isn't true.

I want to sample the product to decide on, whether or not, I want to make a permanent purchase.
I do buy the DVD's of movies I like.

Ah, so you've been backed into the corner of "I'm just sampling the content, so it's okay". No sir, you are both aiding and abetting theft, and participating in theft of IP you have no legal right to "sample". If you wish to sample a movie:

Movie Trailers - iTunes
Netflix: Rent as many movies as you want for only $8.99 a month! Free Trial


If you wish to sample a song the iTunes store has clips of songs, and there is also this thing called radio.

Games have Demo's you can try or you can rent games prior to purchase like my wife and I:
Video Game Rentals: Rent/Buy Wii,PS3,PS2,Xbox,360,PSP,DS,GC,GBA Games

See the OWNERS of the IP, have all ready taken the time to create and provide you access to "Sample" content. If your real intent was to sample before purchase, you would use the established methods for obtaining and sampling the IP. That's how most people do it. Legally, morally, correctly.

However, since you do not, one can only conclude that "sampling the material" is merely a lame excuse on your part to justify obtaining IP you wish to enjoy, with no intent of providing the producer of the content monetary compensation for the material. Try a different avenue hoss, cause that dog won't hunt.

 

[Laila]

This is about profit maximization, nothing else. We should not be subject to hefty privacy invasions because some companies refuse to adapt to the modern era. Torrents are here to stay and the industries will never stop them all.

Music companies and the cheek the entertainment industry has in believing the Government should be fighting its corner is just so amusing. Enterprise, adapt, evolve to meet the challenges.

It was the entertainment industries fault illegal downloading has gotten to the rate it has. Its stalking of 12 year old girls and dead grandmothers and attempting to sue them has done nothing but drove it underground.
If they listened to Napster who came up with a wonderful proposal and compromise, I doubt this would be such a big issue.

P2P is here to stay. It's not going to go anywhere I agree.
All the new laws has done to me because UK is trying to tackle this has made me just invest in VPN's and proxies. Just rendered the law pointless in 2 easy steps. What a waste of time that could be better spent on trying to compromise.

 

[Winston Smith]

Stealing implies that I want to deprive the creator of money and enjoy their works.
That isn't true.

I want to sample the product to decide on, whether or not, I want to make a permanent purchase.
I do buy the DVD's of movies I like.

I agree that one rarely wants to make a permanent purchase without having seen the whole movie first. That's why they have this thing called renting.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ah, so you've been backed into the corner of "I'm just sampling the content, so it's okay". No sir, you are both aiding and abetting theft, and participating in theft of IP you have no legal right to "sample". If you wish to sample a movie:

Movie Trailers - iTunes
Netflix: Rent as many movies as you want for only $8.99 a month! Free Trial


If you wish to sample a song the iTunes store has clips of songs, and there is also this thing called radio.

Games have Demo's you can try or you can rent games prior to purchase like my wife and I:
Video Game Rentals: Rent/Buy Wii,PS3,PS2,Xbox,360,PSP,DS,GC,GBA Games

See the OWNERS of the IP, have all ready taken the time to create and provide you access to "Sample" content. If your real intent was to sample before purchase, you would use the established methods for obtaining and sampling the IP. That's how most people do it. Legally, morally, correctly.

However, since you do not, one can only conclude that "sampling the material" is merely a lame excuse on your part to justify obtaining IP you wish to enjoy, with no intent of providing the producer of the content monetary compensation for the material. Try a different avenue hoss, cause that dog won't hunt.

Then the movie industry should be subject to false advertising lawsuits.
What happens when the movie isn't as good as the preview plays it out to be?
What happens if it isn't as good as the reviewer says, should I be able to sue them for false advertising as well?

Vich you don't understand the nature of the issue, you're just lumping every single person into one camp and calling it "stealing."

There is a lot more to it than that.

Are people, who use the library, stealing?
Because that is essentially what you are arguing right now.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree that one rarely wants to make a permanent purchase without having seen the whole movie first. That's why they have this thing called renting.

Nope because If I don't enjoy it, I am still out my money and my time.
At least with most everything else in the world, I have a high probability of getting the full cash value of my product back, I just lose time in that scenario.

 

[Winston Smith]

Nope because If I don't enjoy it, I am still out my money and my time.
At least with most everything else in the world, I have a high probability of getting the full cash value of my product back, I just lose time in that scenario.

What you get is the use of the product, which you want and which has an ascertainable value. How much you enjoy it is your own concern. You're conflating the subjective aspect (your enjoyment or lack of it) with the objective aspect (the market value).

And you don't get cash back in any rental scenario, unless there's some misconduct on the part of the renter.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What you get is the use of the product, which you want and which has an ascertainable value. How much you enjoy it is your own concern. You're conflating the subjective aspect (your enjoyment or lack of it) with the objective aspect (the market value).

And you don't get cash back in any rental scenario, unless there's some misconduct on the part of the renter.

That is the problem though, with products based in the physical realm, you can ascertain the quality of said product by inspection and use, even then you have the opportunity to get a refund if it doesn't meat your definition of quality/usefulness.

Enjoyment is one of the primary features of, whether or not, a movie has value to you.
That's something you will most likely never know, unless you watch it.

Market value is tied to subjective value.
One influences the other, if it does not meat your subjective measurement of good, you don't buy it but you can't find out unless you buy or rent it.

You're putting the consumer in a catch 22 and people wonder why torrent sites were established.

 

[Winston Smith]

Then the movie industry should be subject to false advertising lawsuits.
What happens when the movie isn't as good as the preview plays it out to be?
What happens if it isn't as good as the reviewer says, should I be able to sue them for false advertising as well?

Vich you don't understand the nature of the issue, you're just lumping every single person into one camp and calling it "stealing."

There is a lot more to it than that.

Are people, who use the library, stealing?
Because that is essentially what you are arguing right now.

This is basic contract law. Sales talk or even "puffing," as it's sometimes called, is not false advertising. It's a legitimate statement of the seller's opinion that he has a good product. You're responsible for judging how valuable that opinion is and making your own decision. If you're as discriminating as you appear to be, it's not hard to do.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This is basic contract law. Sales talk or even "puffing," as it's sometimes called, is not false advertising. It's a legitimate statement of the seller's opinion that he has a good product. You're responsible for judging how valuable that opinion is and making your own decision. If you're as discriminating as you appear to be, it's not hard to do.

Well I'm applying the concept for the common person.

These companies want an "all sales final" market for their product.
There should be a higher level of scrutiny for their products, if that is the case.

 

[Winston Smith]

That is the problem though, with products based in the physical realm, you can ascertain the quality of said product by inspection and use, even then you have the opportunity to get a refund if it doesn't meat your definition of quality/usefulness.

Enjoyment is one of the primary features of, whether or not, a movie has value to you.
That's something you will most likely never know, unless you watch it.

Market value is tied to subjective value.
One influences the other, if it does not meat your subjective measurement of good, you don't buy it but you can't find out unless you buy or rent it.

You're putting the consumer in a catch 22 and people wonder why torrent sites were established.

Enjoyment is one of the primary features of real property, as well. Every rental contract entitles the renter to "use and enjoyment" of the property. Does that mean you're legally entitled to like the place as much you thought you would? Of course not. To be assured of that, you have to take responsibility for being a savvy renter. Now if there is some objective misrepresentation, that's a different story. If they showed you a trailer with footage from a different movie, maybe you'd have a complaint. Otherwise, no.

 

[Winston Smith]

Well I'm applying the concept for the common person.

These companies want an "all sales final" market for their product.
There should be a higher level of scrutiny for their products, if that is the case.

A higher level of scrutiny? There's a whole industry dedicated to scrutinizing Hollywood's products. Go to Rotten Tomatoes and you can spend all day reading reviews for free. If you know anything about movies, you can get a very good idea of what's interesting to you and what isn't.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Enjoyment is one of the primary features of real property, as well. Every rental contract entitles the renter to "use and enjoyment" of the property. Does that mean you're legally entitled to like the place as much you thought you would? Of course not. To be assured of that, you have to take responsibility for being a savvy renter. Now if there is some objective misrepresentation, that's a different story. If they showed you a trailer with footage from a different movie, maybe you'd have a complaint. Otherwise, no.

I am allowed full inspection with real property though.
I largely know what I'm getting, when I buy it.
Real property also allows refunds if you aren't happy with the product.
Even things that depreciate quickly allow this, like vehicles.

A trailer is not full inspection.
It's a common complaint that trailers happen to be the best parts of the movie.
That could definitely count as misrepresentation, if the rest is junk.

I can't morally or ethically rent a movie, unless I know the creator has a history of quality works.
Supporting an industry cartel is not part of my ethical or moral belief system.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

A higher level of scrutiny? There's a whole industry dedicated to scrutinizing Hollywood's products. Go to Rotten Tomatoes and you can spend all day reading reviews for free. If you know anything about movies, you can get a very good idea of what's interesting to you and what isn't.

To put it into perspective, I liked Battlefield Earth, even though I hate scientology.
It has one of the worst movie scores ever.

Those places are insufficient.

 

[Gardener]

There is another thread going on but it got side tracked... by me partially, discussing the theft of IP via download sites like Piratebay.

The basic argument is on whether or not Intellectual Property, like a song, a movie or software is an Idea, that should be free, or property which has legal protections.

Those in favor of free stuff, claim no one can own an Idea, and really the companies aren't all that hurt by the theft, so what does it matter if they make a copy of Iron Man2 the day it hits the theaters?

On the other side are folks like myself that contend IP is property and has legal protections, the copying of such IP for personal use is in fact theft.

I realized while sitting there, the problem lies in the dishonest position of the Idea folks. IP is not "an Idea", it's a product, a product created with the intent of earning the creators a profit.

And that's where the problem arises, these IDEA folks seem to think Movies, games, books, songs just happen... someone thinks of something and it happens. IT's not an "Idea", work was involved in the creation, planning, production and distribution of the end product, whatever that IP happens to take.

To say that the producers of said IP are not entitled to legal protection for their product is intellectually dishonest, and shows a severe lack of understanding into what goes into the creation of, and purpose of IP.

If you are downloading songs, musics, movies, books or software you did not purchase from sites like Piratebay, you ARE stealing, and no amount of twisted logic will change the fact you are obtaining a product you did not pay for. It's NOT just "an idea and ideas need to be free man!!" Pay up, or go without.

The problem here is that the immature people who want to steal are incapable of placing themselves in the position of the people from whom they steal. They are so busy venting that little chip on their shoulder raging about "the man" that they just can't imagine the work involved in producing the intellectual property in the first place. Perhaps it is because they have no work ethic, themself, but they do not understand the time and energy it took to write a script. They lack the wherewithall to understand the effort necessary to hone an actor's craft. They are too self-centered to realize all the hard work of the set designers, and the sound people, and the gaffers, and the key grips, carpenters, electricians, technical specialists, computer engineers, and support staff necessary to produce a movie. THey are so wrapped up in their impotent little protest that they fail to realize that the production of a movie requires a small army of individuals who are out there working their butts off while they are sitting at home producing nothing at all and ripping them off.

Perhaps if these children would get out into the real world and WORK for a living, they might be able to understand that other people work, too.

Or, then again, if all that exists in their self-centered little world is themself, maybe not.......

 

[Renae]

Then the movie industry should be subject to false advertising lawsuits.

All this hate you have, yet you take the time to steal the product.

What happens when the movie isn't as good as the preview plays it out to be?

Then you are a little wiser for it, try renting.

What happens if it isn't as good as the reviewer says, should I be able to sue them for false advertising as well?

That's even lamer an excuse for stealing, again, you can RENT the movie to try it first.

Vich you don't understand the nature of the issue, you're just lumping every single person into one camp and calling it "stealing."

No, I understand the issue quite well, you want something and are unwilling to pay for it. That's called stealing. You make EXCUSES why it's OKAY for you to do it, yet there are legal and morally correct ways for you to achieve your goals without theft. If there were no trailers, no samples, radio, renting... you might maybe have a case. But there are, thus you DO NOT.

There is a lot more to it than that.

Are people, who use the library, stealing?
Because that is essentially what you are arguing right now.

Now, the library PAYS for the book, and people borrow the book, and return the book.
It's an established system that promotes literacy, and acts like a rental store does for books. The only reason you don't pay to rent books is that it's be decided libraries are a public good and thus paid for with taxes.

 

[Renae]

Nope because If I don't enjoy it, I am still out my money and my time.
At least with most everything else in the world, I have a high probability of getting the full cash value of my product back, I just lose time in that scenario.

What poppycock.

If you buy a bottle of wine, and after a glass hate it... what liquor store will give you your money back??

 

[Redress]

That is the problem though, with products based in the physical realm, you can ascertain the quality of said product by inspection and use, even then you have the opportunity to get a refund if it doesn't meat your definition of quality/usefulness.

Enjoyment is one of the primary features of, whether or not, a movie has value to you.
That's something you will most likely never know, unless you watch it.

Market value is tied to subjective value.
One influences the other, if it does not meat your subjective measurement of good, you don't buy it but you can't find out unless you buy or rent it.

You're putting the consumer in a catch 22 and people wonder why torrent sites were established.

Here is a thought, radical, but it might work: if you are unwilling to risk your money on a movie...don't buy it. Maybe not liking it is not a good enough reason to justify stealing.

 

[Redress]

Odd thought: Me, MrV, Gardener, all on one side of an issue. Now that isn't going to happen more than once.

 

[Winston Smith]

I am allowed full inspection with real property though.
I largely know what I'm getting, when I buy it.
Real property also allows refunds if you aren't happy with the product.
Even things that depreciate quickly allow this, like vehicles.

A trailer is not full inspection.
It's a common complaint that trailers happen to be the best parts of the movie.
That could definitely count as misrepresentation, if the rest is junk.

I can't morally or ethically rent a movie, unless I know the creator has a history of quality works.
Supporting an industry cartel is not part of my ethical or moral belief system.

What you're calling "full inspection" is something you don't get with real property until you've lived there.

If a movie really is that bad, you probably can get your money back from a theater or rental store. But if you go back on a regular basis and say, "Gee, I had no idea how bad this movie was," they're going to conclude one of two things. Either you're an idiot or you're trying to get something for free. Now I don't mean to call you an idiot, so don't be offended. I just think you're trying to get something for free.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

All this hate you have, yet you take the time to steal the product.

I have no hate, I'm being realistic with the market that exists.

Then you are a little wiser for it, try renting.

That's even lamer an excuse for stealing, again, you can RENT the movie to try it first.

No thanks but I'll explain below.

No, I understand the issue quite well, you want something and are unwilling to pay for it. That's called stealing. You make EXCUSES why it's OKAY for you to do it, yet there are legal and morally correct ways for you to achieve your goals without theft. If there were no trailers, no samples, radio, renting... you might maybe have a case. But there are, thus you DO NOT.

Those "samples" are insufficient.
They do not constitute inspection of the product and can be considered false advertising, if the do not meat the quality of what is advertised.

You don't understand the issue at all.

Would you buy a car that you were only allowed to inspect 1% of?
Remember that in this scenario you have no right to refund.

Now, the library PAYS for the book, and people borrow the book, and return the book.
It's an established system that promotes literacy, and acts like a rental store does for books. The only reason you don't pay to rent books is that it's be decided libraries are a public good and thus paid for with taxes.

People buy the DVD's, as well as, the Cam videos they upload.
A lot of people (me for instance) just borrow the movie and don't burn it.
How is that different?

Giving someone money for something, with no reasonable amount of information as to the quality of the product, is wrong.
Especially since they have a government granted monopoly but aren't subject to government regulation, like every other granted monopoly in the U.S.

Renting is still paying for something I may not like.
What have they done to earn my money, if I end up not liking the product in the end?

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

What poppycock.

If you buy a bottle of wine, and after a glass hate it... what liquor store will give you your money back??

The potential exists, there are also wine sampling events.
Where you are allowed to taste and get the full flavor of the product before you buy it.