What are we allowed to download?

[Mick_AKA]

What an interesting thread
I have to say that if I already own a copy of something, be it a retail copy or a magazine coverdisk I see no problems in downloading it from somewhere else if my original copy has become damaged over time.
In a similar vein for example, I cant see a problem with me downloading an album via a peer to peer when I have already purchased and paid for the album on vinyl, it just saves me a bit of time recording my own copy to MP3.

Ok so tecnically its probarbly illegal, but morally I dont see any problems.

[IFW]

Kurtz: no worries CB is not known for paying any of their developers either...
Mick: since you are in the UK it is legal for you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5053658.stm

[killergorilla]

I feel that if a company is not willing to spend the time and money to support a piece of software any more then the consumer should not have to pay for it.

[Kurtz]

Originally Posted by IFW

Kurtz: no worries CB is not known for paying any of their developers either...

...or even crediting them for their work in the game itself, IIRC.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Mick_AKA

Ok so tecnically its probarbly illegal, but morally I dont see any problems.

It should be taken under consideration that crime has been committed earlier by someone who is distributing those files. Even if you feel it is morally ok for you to download things you already possess and purchased it, the crime is already in act so it is still illegal.

[Doc Mindie]

Mailman.... if I can prove I bought the original thing, I don't see how _I_ could be a criminal if I download a copy of said original. Those who do NOT have the original copy in their bookshelf/basment/garage/wherever, however ARE engaging in illegal activities.

[mailman]

It is simple. Chain begins from the person who distributes without permission someone's intelectual property. If such persons does it (no matter if it is original or pirated stuff) he/she breaks the law. If you download such stuff you are also taking part in crime (even if you own original of what you have downloaded). It is the same like with the burglar (pirate) who steals things (software) and then needs to sell them to the receiver of stolen goods (those who download or buy pirated stuff). Receiving stolen goods is also the crime.

[sniperchaz]

I think what mailman is trying to say is even though YOU may own the original and can prove it can you prove that the person (or in the case of p2p) persons that you are downloading from ALSO own the original If they dont then its pirate software and even though YOU own the original you would be breaking the law and it would be practicly impossible to find out if those uploading own the original (unless its your neighbour tapped into your LAN) lol

[Marcuz]

Originally Posted by mailman

It is simple. Chain begins from the person who distributes without permission someone's intelectual property. If such persons does it (no matter if it is original or pirated stuff) he/she breaks the law. If you download such stuff you are also taking part in crime (even if you own original of what you have downloaded). It is the same like with the burglar (pirate) who steals things (software) and then needs to sell them to the receiver of stolen goods (those who download or buy pirated stuff). Receiving stolen goods is also the crime.

i don't know if that's the case with data, while you are making a fine point about phisical objects. let me explain my point: electronic data are a long sequence of bytes, 0s and 1s, if they are in the same exact sequence of what you already own, how do you differ one packet of data from another? it's the same identical thing. they represent a concept you already encompass.
it's like you know a story and one guy retells you it exactly how you know it, you could not say that's new to you. of course, if there's 1 bit difference it is already another thing, but so to speak...

[jasonver2.0]

You aren't taking from anyone, you are getting a copy of it. Saying you are stealingis silly - because no matter what anyone says it is a victimless crime.

You could argue that they are losing a sale because you downloaded it, but that is weak arguement - since you wouldn't buy it anyway.

Sale of copied data, that is certainly a not good and you could make a legitimate arguement about sale loss.

My 2cents

[Doc Mindie]

Mailman.... say.. for example:

I get hold of the Windows sourcecode.... then sell it. All the While, MicroSoft STILL has it's preciousssss and are developing it further..... This means, I haven't fysically stolen anything, as the Windows sourcecode is still at MicroSoft's HQ (or wherever they store it). Therefore, since there's no fysical copy of it at my place (I could forexample sell the HD and buy a new one, then noone could ever find out what I had on my computer, since I don't even have the HD anymore) I can't be charged for anything.

Now.. back to the main "problem"

Take a game like EoB2, which I have the original disks for in Norway. The disks are now likely to have been claimed by DiskRot(c), but I still have them. Would it then be awful of me to download said disks? "Forgotten Realms Archive" comes to mind where some company (interplay) had all the old SSI games on 4 CD, slightly updated for Win95/98, but they never bothered with the Amiga versions. Yes, I have THIS collection too, WITH manual :evil

[Marcuz]

i think you guys are mixing the morality with the legality of said actions.
i don't see having a copy of a copyrighted software that is 1) bit by bit alike 2) different in parts but substantially alike (same product, different versions) from the copy i already legally own, without paying the rights to own/use it (piracy) as immorale. i don't see that as immorale.
but i see it as clearly as unlegal. AND law is there to code and protect what is a system that largely conforms to morality.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by jasonver2.0

You aren't taking from anyone, you are getting a copy of it.

You may say that but bear in mind that you are not allowed to distribute your copy or your original. If you do or someone does (even if it is original) you are breaking the law (unless license says otherwise). After that it doesn't matter if you downloaded a copy of original or pirated stuff since it was distributed against license agreement. This was my point. Crime is committed by a distributor but those who become in possession of such distributed stuff also become criminals as receiver of stolen goods.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie

Take a game like EoB2, which I have the original disks for in Norway. The disks are now likely to have been claimed by DiskRot(c), but I still have them. Would it then be awful of me to download said disks?

Yes, that is a problem and I see your point. Like Marco I don't see it immoral either but law says something different and we can do little to change it. Looking back at your example, those who put those disks on the net, broke the law of illegal distributing and you will break the law either when you download it. In case of burglary and receiver of stolen goods, when buying such stuff you may not be aware that it comes from felony and you may get away from punishment. In case of software it is not likely for you to get away since you know the license and you know that you are not allowed to distribute things that are covered by this licence.

[Unknown_K]

People should understand that stolen goods refers to the theft of a physical item, selling pirated games is a copyright issue.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by sniperchaz

I think what mailman is trying to say is even though YOU may own the original and can prove it can you prove that the person (or in the case of p2p) persons that you are downloading from ALSO own the original If they dont then its pirate software and even though YOU own the original you would be breaking the law and it would be practicly impossible to find out if those uploading own the original (unless its your neighbour tapped into your LAN) lol

And even if you prove that they own original, they still can not distribute it for others (unless license says something different which is not likely). And this is where it all begins.

[mailman]

Originally Posted by Unknown_K

People should understand that stolen goods refers to the theft of a physical item, selling pirated games is a copyright issue.

Of course but the example with the thief shows quite good similarity. This is way in my first post I wrote about "someone's intelectual property".

[Unknown_K]

Originally Posted by mailman

Of course but the example with the thief shows quite good similarity. This is way in my first post I wrote about "someone's intelectual property".

A long time ago craftsmen would copy works from other countries down to the finest detail and that was ok, these days if you try that it is illegal (hell even reverse engineering something can be illegal). So I wanted to distinguish that theft of somebodies physical item is a crime, while making a duplicate of that item is a copyright violation. I think one goes to a criminal court and the other is a civil matter? I guess it depends where you live, laws here make it both depending on if you resell it or not (since you can go to jail).

[Marcuz]

Originally Posted by mailman

Yes, that is a problem and I see your point. Like Marco I don't see it illegal either but law says something different and we can do little to change it.

i expressed myself badly i SEE it illegal, but not immoral.
then everyone do his choice. you can go along Socrate in the Apologia, who, as men live in a system of law that they implicitely accept as a whole, refused the means to subtract himself to capital punishments, while innocent, because the system judged him culpable.
as men do not (can not) live outside society and laws they have to be saved or ruined by them even if they DO NOT agree with them in their particular case, while not agreeing with a law you try to change it through the means law/society itself intends for the renewal.
or else you can go along Protagora (among others) for whom, as there's no absolute thruth, men are legitimate to chose and defend the one more useful to them.
or, the worst act of empiety, even pirate copyrighted amigan software.
...
really there's more important things to spend time with, in a good sunny day than do the math inside someone'else pockets, moreover if it's megacorporations instead of other people

[Marcuz]

Originally Posted by Unknown_K

A long time ago craftsmen would copy works from other countries down to the finest detail and that was ok, these days if you try that it is illegal (hell even reverse engineering something can be illegal). So I wanted to distinguish that theft of somebodies physical item is a crime, while making a duplicate of that item is a copyright violation. I think one goes to a criminal court and the other is a civil matter? I guess it depends where you live, laws here make it both depending on if you resell it or not (since you can go to jail).

yep, that's an interesting fact, the difference between the two things you say: copy rights, the right of an author to decide how and when utilize and or spread his intellectual property, those rights for instance are deeper and more articulate than common laws states (imho). an author should be more protected about that, BUT the money revenues of an authored object to his sponsores or even author are handled in a consumistic way that make the actual object or idea incredibly less fresh and powerful than it could be, and the betterment of audience, almost null.
what is in fact the reason an author should be protected by the society if not the particular and rare value he add to the society itself? from a very human point of view, you could also say that he's to be commended, retained in the collective memory anyway, as a pulse of everybody human is to be able to live on. then anyone accords the favour to anyone else according it, by that action, to himself too. moreover, the remembering is the one that make possible to the remembered to live on, and both of them are required for the equation.
but the main reason of the protection of the authorial capabilities, is in fact the renewal of that capabilities both in new object or ideas and in the comunication of said capabilities to other. in facts: authors inspires.
but 1) what's the squilibre of protection, computed in money, in regards of people or entities (put here your favorite corporation, tycoon, artist...) and the human growth of theirs customers? 2) how come that growth has become more and more of no consequence at all, indipendently of the money or aknowledgement to authors? (imho, again) 3) what's the difference between production revenues and copy right revenues? why i have the feeling they are too mixed up? 4) most important. who's the author? who decide who will enjoy his production and how he discrimines?

for all these reasons and questions, i don't see immoral use of objects and informations to an extent, while, you cannot dispute it, it's in the law, that it's illegal! law protects fairness of the society, and perversely, fairness equals money, to a large extent.