We cut the cord. Now what?

[GuitarStv]

Just to add some more noise to the original question:

Downloading music, movies or any other digital file is NOT stealing. It is copyright infringement. These are two very different things with very different legal implications.

So the poster who downloaded music never stole anything.

That is merely semantics.  What do you think the meaning of "infringement" is?   In any case you are taking somebody else's property without their permission.  I call that stealing.  And when you do that the somebody is entitled to $750 by statutory law per "infringement."

Those semantics have real meaning and real consequences in a court of law. So I wouldn't consider that to be just semantics. It is however a distinction most forget.

Stealing not acceptable and neither is copyright infringement. They are however two different things with different consequences as one is civil law and the other is criminal law.

+1

Stealing is taking someone else's property.  It deprives the owner of something.  Copyright infringement is making a copy of someone else's idea with your own private tools/means.  You deprive the owner only of the possibility of making a sale to you.

Copyright infringement encompasses a pretty big range of stuff, much of which most reasonable people wouldn't consider morally wrong . . . retelling a joke that you heard from a comedian is copyright infringement, for example.

Referring to copyright infringement as 'stealing' or 'theft' is no different than referring to assault as pedophilia.  Imagine how ridiculous you would sound saying that Jeremy Clarkson was a pedophile for what he did to the producer of Top Gear!  Yep they're both against the law . . . but they're both very different crimes.  Displaying ignorance of the action you're discussing is hyperbole that only weakens your argument.

[Iplawyer]

Just to add some more noise to the original question:

Downloading music, movies or any other digital file is NOT stealing. It is copyright infringement. These are two very different things with very different legal implications.

So the poster who downloaded music never stole anything.

That is merely semantics.  What do you think the meaning of "infringement" is?   In any case you are taking somebody else's property without their permission.  I call that stealing.  And when you do that the somebody is entitled to $750 by statutory law per "infringement."

Those semantics have real meaning and real consequences in a court of law. So I wouldn't consider that to be just semantics. It is however a distinction most forget.

Stealing not acceptable and neither is copyright infringement. They are however two different things with different consequences as one is civil law and the other is criminal law.

+1

Stealing is taking someone else's property.  It deprives the owner of something.  Copyright infringement is making a copy of someone else's idea with your own private tools/means.  You deprive the owner only of the possibility of making a sale to you.

Copyright infringement encompasses a pretty big range of stuff, much of which most reasonable people wouldn't consider morally wrong . . . retelling a joke that you heard from a comedian is copyright infringement, for example.

Referring to copyright infringement as 'stealing' or 'theft' is no different than referring to assault as pedophilia.  Imagine how ridiculous you would sound saying that Jeremy Clarkson was a pedophile for what he did to the producer of Top Gear!  Yep they're both against the law . . . but they're both very different crimes.  Displaying ignorance of the action you're discussing is hyperbole that only weakens your argument.

Most reasonable people think it is okay to take something that doesn't belong to them without the owner's permission?  Really? 

And you aren't even close to the legal definition of copyright infringement.

When you take something that does not belong to you it is stealing. And what you are stealing doesn't  have to be tangible. 

And I don't come close to your hyperbolic argument about Jeremy Clarkson. 

[Daley]

Most reasonable people think it is okay to take something that doesn't belong to them without the owner's permission?  Really? 

Let me see if I can take another approach at the argument for your case.

People who participate in the legal copyright system, artists, producers, middlemen, the whole shebang... they are creating something with the express expectation of being paid for the creation and distribution of their labors. They are of the mindset that if you enjoy their labors, then you owe them some level of financial compensation. You may choose to call it greedy or selfish or wrong or whatever, you may cite the corruption and theft from within the industries themselves, or you may cite that art is meant to be culturally free or some other noble, heartwarming philosophical ideal. It matters not what argument is made.

If you choose to defend art (or any intangible intellectual work) as such, then only consume that which is produced for the sake of sharing and sharing alike, given freely with no expectation of financial compensation for your private enjoyment. If your desire is to do away with the copyright system, you are only harming the very cause you claim to champion by continuing to participate in it, which duplication and sharing without legal permission of copyrighted works is. You cannot disrupt a system in which you willingly support and enforce through your own actions, for better or worse. Two wrongs do not make a right, and your very actions only champion greater and more draconian laws from those you have taken from against their permission.

Further, given the expectation of payment for their works as this is part of their livelihood, from their perspective you are depriving them of their fairly earned wages. You are muzzling the ox that you have worked in the field. If it is your desire to owe nothing but love to others, participating in the unauthorized intellectual property redistribution of works protected by copyright leaves you with a debt greater than love.

I'm only 29, so I grew up in a time when 101% of all people my age downloaded music and didn't buy a single CD, EVER.  So, maybe I'm messed up.  I'm definitely not a "2 wrongs doesn't make right" kinda person, I'd align myself more with the "an eye for eye" group =P.

I suspect, like Reynolds, you have not truly thought out your position.

I don't know what sort of work you do, but let's say you're a programmer and someone commissions you to design some software work. You both agree on a price and royalties as they plan to resell the work, they pay a retainer, and you deliver the completed software with the expectation of not only getting the rest of the money owed for the work, but a steady stream of income from future sales to compensate you for the fact that you worked for a lot less than you normally would because you both know the software will be popular and used frequently. Just to up the stakes, let's say this deal brokered is the very thing that can permit you your financial independence, but that security does not come until after the work is finished and in your contractor's hands. It will be the pinnacle of your labors, and you have poured the very collected essence of your being into it as an accumulation of your wisdom, understanding, skills and talents. We'll say the contract stipulates that you get paid $100,000 up front as a retainer with the promise of $900,000 on delivery, and 10% of all profit from sales after distribution costs. The profit sharing is expected to bring in at least another $100,000 a year for the next decade.

They then proceed to take your work, and never pay you the remainder of your contract. Further, they then take that work and give it away for free. They have deprived you of the compensation you were owed for completing the work, and removed any hopes of steady income. What do you do now?

[BTDretire]

Can we at least think about stealing the movies of the 20 highest paid actors?

"The World's Highest-Paid Actors 2016. From Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson to Harrison Ford, the world's 20 highest-paid actors earned a combined $703.5 million between June 1, 2015 and June 1, 2016"
 That's an average $35M, I'm not going to worry about them.

 Please don't try to explain anything to me, I know stealing is wrong.

[Reynolds531]

Free rider problems are part of every economy. When I start my gas car, apparently a polar bear skips lunch.

Netflix until very recently did next to nothing to stop Canadians from using a VPN to access the far more extensive us library of movies they didn't offer in Canada. And did not have the rights for.

For years dish Network allowed Canadians to get us satellite service on the grey market. This despite clear damage caused to local cable revenues.

Both US companies looked the other way to make a buck. They only care about their own self interest. Doesn't make them right....Or me right. When the law of the land changes, I will switch.

Anyone professing to have sole possession of the moral high ground, being a computer expert, or having analyzed my decision more thoroughly than I have will find very little common ground with me.