-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is copyright infringement stealing?
- Thread starter Kungfuzed
- Start date
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
Take a car for instance. Suppose I had a neighbor who hand crafted his own beautiful musclecar. He invites me over and shows me the whole thing inside and out. Little does he know, but I'm a super genius and I memorize the whole thing. Then I go into my own garage and make an exact copy of his car and display it in my driveway the next day. Have I stolen anything from my neighbor?
Djamila
Bosnjakinja
I think, technically, it is stealing but the United States and Western Europe are fighting an uphill battle in this regard. Asia, and especially China, produce pirated copies of everything - from the latest films on DVD, to the DVD technology they're played on.
Eastern Europe is just as bad, though we're mainly a market rather than a producer. You can visit any city in the Balkans and find several markets selling pirated copies of everything any American inventor or artist has ever produced - hehehe.
It's just too difficult a battle to win... so I have no idea what they should do.
Eastern Europe is just as bad, though we're mainly a market rather than a producer. You can visit any city in the Balkans and find several markets selling pirated copies of everything any American inventor or artist has ever produced - hehehe.
It's just too difficult a battle to win... so I have no idea what they should do.
Kungfuzed
Student Nurse
Usually when you steal something you are removing something from another person. In the case of copyright infringement you are just making a copy of something and the other person is still in posession of the origional. The copyright holder hasn't lost anything but what they percieve as a lost sale. In this case they would sue over a sale that theoretically could have happened but didn't.
standing_alone
Well-Known Member
Kungfuzed said:
I think it's a matter of stealing "intellectual property." The copyright holder is the one with the right to copy ("reproduce" may be a better word) his/her work - not you.
lizskid
BANNED
Having just applied for a copyright on something, I can tell you that it does matter. You can steal ideas and make money form them instead of the person who really thought of it. You can steal symbols or logos and represent association with something you know nothing about. You can steal a product such as a song or movie and deny many people involved in making it their due pay.
It leads to litigation daily. It is stealing.
It leads to litigation daily. It is stealing.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Seems to me that there is all manner of confusion over copyright laws:
http://www.copyright.gov/
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on copyrights:
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
For some interesting reading on the subject of Peer to peer networks:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat090903.html
http://www.copyright.gov/
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on copyrights:
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
For some interesting reading on the subject of Peer to peer networks:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat090903.html
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Personally, I don't see how it can be easily stopped. Technology is just too robust to put a dent in peoples habits now. My guess is that we might get a hidden tax added to the cost of MP3 players similar to the added cost on DVD/CD media we have here in Canada.
I think one factor that is overlooked is that of rich vs. poor. I firmly believe that the average working stiff, student, etc does not feel much sympathy for the likes of multimillionaires like Metallica sniveling over Napster. Likewise hearing Madonna moaning about her material being ripped off just doesn't resonate with people. Like, gee, the poor girl only made $20 million last year instead of $30 million. My heart bleeds. (Did you get a raise last year? Was it more than a crumb?)
I'm also not convinced that struggling artists are that big of a target either. If I really like something, I go buy the CD/DVD. The quality is far better. If I don't care for it that much, I don't buy it.
Another example is in the heyday of the computer era it was considered to be sacrilege to charge for software. Billy Gates changed all that and for a long time was considered a bit of a pariah by his peers... until they saw how rich he was getting.
I think one factor that is overlooked is that of rich vs. poor. I firmly believe that the average working stiff, student, etc does not feel much sympathy for the likes of multimillionaires like Metallica sniveling over Napster. Likewise hearing Madonna moaning about her material being ripped off just doesn't resonate with people. Like, gee, the poor girl only made $20 million last year instead of $30 million. My heart bleeds. (Did you get a raise last year? Was it more than a crumb?)
I'm also not convinced that struggling artists are that big of a target either. If I really like something, I go buy the CD/DVD. The quality is far better. If I don't care for it that much, I don't buy it.
Another example is in the heyday of the computer era it was considered to be sacrilege to charge for software. Billy Gates changed all that and for a long time was considered a bit of a pariah by his peers... until they saw how rich he was getting.
Ryan2065
Well-Known Member
To me it is stealing legally... But morally there is some leeway...
I know many people who never listened to music before... Now they have tons of downloaded copies of mp3s that they listen to every now and then. If they did not have the ability to download music they would never have listened to any of these songs and would have not bought any of the albums... Also... if they do end up liking an artist, they go out and buy the cd. Now they buy more cds than they ever did before and its because of music downloading...
In this instance I think morally its alright to download because you are still going to buy cds of artists that you like. If you download instead of buying cds then both morally and legally you are in the wrong.
I know many people who never listened to music before... Now they have tons of downloaded copies of mp3s that they listen to every now and then. If they did not have the ability to download music they would never have listened to any of these songs and would have not bought any of the albums... Also... if they do end up liking an artist, they go out and buy the cd. Now they buy more cds than they ever did before and its because of music downloading...
In this instance I think morally its alright to download because you are still going to buy cds of artists that you like. If you download instead of buying cds then both morally and legally you are in the wrong.