Is this Illegal?

13»

Comments

  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    DotNetWill wrote: »
    My point was maybe from a technical stand point they are one and the same.

    But it's associations people have with the words. I may say not illegal because it's a civil matter but what I mean is I won't get a criminal record or a prison sentence. I may just get a court judgement against me to say I need to pay some money and that's pretty meh in the grand scheme of things.

    You are getting mixed up with "criminal" or "criminally illegal" though. Everything that breaks a law of the land is illegal but only acts that break criminal law are in the generally more serious category of criminal or criminally illegal.

    Is driving at 34 mph in a 30 mph zone illegal? Yes. Is driving a McLaren MP4-12C at 200 mph on the M1 at 3pm illegal? Yes. Is leaving the road while doing one of the above and killing an innocent pedestrian or motorway worker illegal? Yes! Nobody would suggest that all these offences are equally serious either legally or morally, but they are all illegal.

    It's not theft, it's not usually criminal, but copyright infringement is not a legal activity either, whatever connotation certain groups of people choose to place on it.
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    DotNetWill wrote: »
    My point was maybe from a technical stand point they are one and the same.

    But it's associations people have with the words. I may say not illegal because it's a civil matter but what I mean is I won't get a criminal record or a prison sentence. I may just get a court judgement against me to say I need to pay some money and that's pretty meh in the grand scheme of things.

    Most torts (such as defamation or trespass) are still illegal especially if they break rules or laws. There is also legislation surrounding areas such as liability and any act that breaks those rules is illegal.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,583
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I love a good lemon tort.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    I love a good lemon tort.

    I tort you were Irish there, for a moment!
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    I love a good lemon tort.

    I prefer the chocolate tort myself :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    These threads always descend into debates over definitions.

    A better question might be: is it ethical to download? If you are getting for free what otherwise would be paid for, are you depriving someone of an income?

    That's the big question isn't it? "Would you otherwise have paid for it?"

    Would someone who has 1,000 unlawfully downloaded albums on their hard drive have gone out and purchased them all if the internet didn't exist? Of course they wouldn't, and to imply that all those artists have been deprived of income is incorrect.

    If someone uses the internet to get what they otherwise would have purchased, then they are the ones who are depriving the artists, but since the likes of Bruno Mars, Mumford & Sons and whoever else the kids are listening to today are not queueing in the dole office, then these people would seem to be a minority.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    Jittlov wrote: »
    That's the big question isn't it? "Would you otherwise have paid for it?"

    Would someone who has 1,000 unlawfully downloaded albums on their hard drive have gone out and purchased them all if the internet didn't exist? Of course they wouldn't, and to imply that 1000 artists may have been deprived of income is incorrect.

    No, but some of the downloaders would have purchased some of the tracks or albums, therefore, the artist, composer, support musicians etc. have been deprived of income.

    And anyway, copyright owners have the legal right to decide who shall have copies of their music, how it can be delivered (e.g. by CD only) and even under what circumstances it can be played - irrespective of any payments being made (or evaded). So income isn't the sole factor in this.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    d'@ve wrote: »
    No, but some of the downloaders would have purchased some of the tracks or albums, therefore, the artist, composer, support musicians etc. have been deprived of income.

    Would they? We can't know for sure, but evidence suggests that people are still buying their music despite how incredibly easy it is to get it for free.
    d'@ve wrote: »
    And anyway, copyright owners have the legal right to decide who shall have copies of their music, how it can be delivered (e.g. by CD only) and even under what circumstances it can be played - irrespective of any payments being made (or evaded). So income isn't the sole factor in this.

    That's like saying "I should be able to go to bed at night and leave my front door wide open without fear of getting burgled", a nice thought, and indeed you should, but that's never going to happen.
  • darkjedimasterdarkjedimaster Posts: 18,620
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    d'@ve wrote: »
    No, but some of the downloaders would have purchased some of the tracks or albums, therefore, the artist, composer, support musicians etc. have been deprived of income.

    And anyway, copyright owners have the legal right to decide who shall have copies of their music, how it can be delivered (e.g. by CD only) and even under what circumstances it can be played - irrespective of any payments being made (or evaded). So income isn't the sole factor in this.

    Study finds that Music sales are not affected by web piracy

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720


    Thankfully the outdated laws of it being illegal to back up cd's that you have purchased to another CD / mp3 player are in the process of being scrapped. I really couldn't give a flying toss if I have been breaking the law by ripping a cd to play on other sources. The industry have gotten my money from the CD, they are not getting it again for a different format.

    Imho the music industry are equally to blame for the lack of sales, They keep on allowing little girls like Bieber, and autotuned idiots like 1D, to release records, not to mention the hideous dubstep. Yes I could well be classed as being a music snob, as I have only bought three top 20 albums & one top 10 single in the last couple of years, due to the amount of sh!t that is being released. The majority of the albums I purchase are bought from rock specialist stores as they are cheaper than the likes of HMV. If shops like HMV promoted new CD's from Rock genres like they do with 1D, then perhaps they may get a few more customers, as sticking a Rock CD in an import section & charging double sometimes almost triple when compared to a Top 20 release, is just not excusable.

    Seriously tho, the top 40 music has gotten so bad over the years, that the Now Collections, died for me at the end of the 90's. If I listen to an album on Spotify & like it, then I will buy it & then rip it or download it, so that I can listen to it on my Phone / Tablet, PS3 or media center PC. But imho the majority of stuff released is that bad, that not only would I refuse to pay for it, I wouldn't even waste Hard Drive space on it.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Imho the music industry are equally to blame for the lack of sales, They keep on allowing little girls like Bieber, and autotuned idiots like 1D, to release records, not to mention the hideous dubstep. Yes I could well be classed as being a music snob, as I have only bought three top 20 albums & one top 10 single in the last couple of years, due to the amount of sh!t that is being released.

    It's not just you. I think the last album I purchased was Black Holes And Revelations by Muse in 2006. Since then, there has been literally nothing worth buying.

    Maybe it's because I'm well outside of the the industry's target age group which seems to be 16-24. Incidently the unemployment rate for that age group is 21%, which probably isn't helping.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    Jittlov wrote: »
    That's like saying "I should be able to go to bed at night and leave my front door wide open without fear of getting burgled", a nice thought, and indeed you should, but that's never going to happen.

    But if you do that, and someone does walk in and steal your property, they are committing an illegal act. Which is what this thread is asking.
    Study finds that Music sales are not affected by web piracy

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21856720
    "However the international music industry body the IFPI was highly critical of the research.

    "The findings seem disconnected from commercial reality," it said in a statement.

    "If a large proportion of illegal downloaders do not buy any music (and yet consume, in some cases, large amounts of it), it cannot be logical that illegal behaviour stimulates legal download sales and inflicts no harm.""

    I wouldn't place too much reliance on a one-off study, though illegal downloaders will no doubt quote it until the cows come home and ignore all the other studies that have showed the opposite.
    Thankfully the outdated laws of it being illegal to back up cd's that you have purchased to another CD / mp3 player are in the process of being scrapped. I really couldn't give a flying toss if I have been breaking the law by ripping a cd to play on other sources. The industry have gotten my money from the CD, they are not getting it again for a different format.

    I have sympathy for that viewpoint about uses for personal backup or playing on other devices that a person owns and yes the law will thankfully be moving a little on that. However, the same logic can be applied to say Microsoft, who through licensing and technology restrict your use of one copy of Windows or Office to one PC/device in your home. There doesn't seem to have been much of a fuss made about that one, though, and as similar principles apply, I wonder why? And if Microsoft and Governments won't move on that one, why should the music industry move?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    d'@ve wrote: »
    I wouldn't place too much reliance on a one-off study, though illegal downloaders will no doubt quote it until the cows come home and ignore all the other studies that have showed the opposite.

    The entertainment industry is just as guilty of that. They are always happy to quote studies that agree with their point of view, studies which they themselves mostly fund.
    d'@ve wrote: »
    I have sympathy for that viewpoint about uses for personal backup or playing on other devices that a person owns and yes the law will thankfully be moving a little on that. However, the same logic can be applied to say Microsoft, who through licensing and technology restrict your use of one copy of Windows or Office to one PC/device in your home. There doesn't seem to have been much of a fuss made about that one, though, and as similar principles apply, I wonder why? And if Microsoft and Governments won't move on that one, why should the music industry move?

    Your logic doesn't work there, you can't compare buying a music disc with a single system software licence, besides that, you are allowed to make as many system backups as you like, which is making a copy of the operating system and all the files on it, is it not?

    Most homes have just the one PC with its own pre installed version of Windows, so it's not an issue for the average user.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    Jittlov wrote: »
    The entertainment industry is just as guilty of that. They are always happy to quote studies that agree with their point of view, studies which they themselves mostly fund.

    They do, but there are many studies to support their viewpoint, some of them independent. Unless and until we have a few more like this recent one, it needs to be taken with a large pinch of salt. It's also counter-intuitive for most people with no personal interest in the situation.
    Jittlov wrote: »
    Your logic doesn't work there, you can't compare buying a music disc with a single system software licence, besides that, you are allowed to make as many system backups as you like, which is making a copy of the operating system and all the files on it, is it not?

    Most homes have just the one PC with its own pre installed version of Windows, so it's not an issue for the average user.
    I have no issue with backups, that's not the point I made. We should soon I hope (if not now) have legal equality on backups between computer software and music.

    But with the standard licence, you and your household cannot legally and simply use a single copy of Windows (for example) on your desktop and laptop(s) - and that is a common situation not at all unlike the situation with music. And it's all commercially owned copyright so arguing nuances about whether it's "many" "most" or "some" who have multiple devices in the home misses the point.

    And why do you think Windows frequently comes pre-installed on say a laptop? Because it's only licensed for one computer, that's why! If it was licensed as you argue music should be licensed (and may soon be) people would insist on an install disk or image for use on their other laptops and/or desktops, with valid activation keys available for all their/partner's/kid's machines ort at least a sensible limit say 3 or 4 (like many commercial Internet Security licences).

    It's essentially the same thing but for some reason, nearly all the fuss and outrage is made about music copyright restrictions and not "home use" computer software restrictions... well I find that odd. I suspect that the difference is that many people know they *can* illegally and easily copy and play other people's music, so they do it then try to justify it. But they mostly *cannot* illegally copy and use e.g. Microsoft software, so there is nothing for them to try and justify. Human nature, eh?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,502
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    d'@ve wrote: »
    I suspect that the difference is that most people know they *can* illegally copy and play other people's music, so they try to justify it. But they mostly *cannot* illegally copy and use e.g. Microsoft software, so there is nothing for them to try and justify. Human nature, eh?

    What? Of course they can. Windows 7 was cracked before it was officially released, and the crack is as easy to find as any of the latest albums.

    When you install software you are usually presented with a EULA (end user licence agreement) which you have to agree to before you can install. No such agreement takes place before you play a disc.
  • DotNetWillDotNetWill Posts: 4,564
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    d'@ve wrote: »
    It's essentially the same thing but for some reason, nearly all the fuss and outrage is made about music copyright restrictions and not "home use" computer software restrictions... well I find that odd. I suspect that the difference is that many people know they *can* illegally and easily copy and play other people's music, so they do it then try to justify it. But they mostly *cannot* illegally copy and use e.g. Microsoft software, so there is nothing for them to try and justify. Human nature, eh?

    I don't think the parallel between the two really works. A lot of people don't realise that downloading music is wrong because of the way we've consumed music for such a long time. Yes people buy albums, but the majority of us are introduced to songs/artists/music in general by radio, which is free and many of us grew up taping our favourite tracks off the radio.

    I've heard it debated whether recording the chart off R1 on a Sunday night is legal or not, it's a very confusing message to let an entire industry spring up around this (the tape players/recorders/tapes themselves) then say it's wrong to acquire music this way.

    I would say a lot of people in the early days of MP3s, edonkey, napster and such like literally had no idea it was wrong. As it's just an extension of existing habits. The record companies used the radio stations and people recording tracks to help sell. Once they lost control they freaked out.

    FWIW, I don't pirate music at all any more for one reason, Spotify (with a bit of Soundcloud for obscure trance)

    If someone did a Spotify for TV shows, I'd sign up tomorrow and stop all pirating activities. And no NetFlixs/LoveFilm streaming aren't Spotify for TV.
  • d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,452
    Forum Member
    Jittlov wrote: »
    What? Of course they can. Windows 7 was cracked before it was officially released, and the crack is as easy to find as any of the latest albums.
    And most people wouldn't have a clue what to do with a crack if they were sent it in their email as a free gift. Nearly everyone knows how to rip a CD or copy an .mp3 these days.
    Jittlov wrote: »
    When you install software you are usually presented with a EULA (end user licence agreement) which you have to agree to before you can install. No such agreement takes place before you play a disc.

    Copyright protection is automatic, and applies equally both to music and software.

    Yes anything can additionally be licensed instead of sold, and of course it is, nowadays (Spotify etc.) along with a EULA. I hope you aren't suggesting that for all legal music - but it could certainly be done that way. And if it was, I'd hope they'd license it for all your home devices, or at least say 3 or 4 of them. Kaspersky and McAfee etc. do for Internet Security, Spotify do that for their premium service so it's not unusual - well I think Microsoft should do the same, but few people seem bothered about it for some reason, that's all I'm saying. The law could easily deal with this if there was enough public pressure to do so - and it shouldn't just be the music industry that gets all the stick!

    Single device sale or licensing of music, software etc. for personal use is anachronistic and should be stopped, IMO.
Sign In or Register to comment.