Are you a thief?

[Who's Doing What?]

I'm a thief.

I stole my wife's heart 7 years ago and still haven't given it back.

[DarkAngel_]

I'm a thief.

I stole my wife's heart 7 years ago and still haven't given it back.

how sweet... but wont it rot? give it back or at least take yours out and replace it once in awhile to keep it nice and fresh, ripe for eating.

[Charles Anthony]

drawn from the

Hollywood muscles Canada -- Movie piracy thread

If you repeatedly leave your barn door open, you should be responsible for closing it after yourself -- nobody else.

Incidentally, as noted elsewhere before most of the pirating consists of inside jobs. They are either employees of the theaters or people at the distribution level. I have recently encountered a person who buys and sells pirated movies in Montreal. For its unverifiably anecdotal value, he confirms that most of the products are copies of pre-release promotional items while a minority are actual handheld recordings.

Consumer demand for sitting in a cramped (and deliberately cold, I might add!) movie theater and listening to other people crunch pop-corn and chortle down soda is changing. The movie theater industry is like modern day furriers. You still find a few people trying to make a living selling mink coats but I can not, for the life of me, imagine that market prospering in years to come. Maybe we should have government outlaw imitation fur. Certainly, we should outlaw any piece of clothing that looks like any other piece of clothing -- we would not want to put the fashion designers out of business.

Secondly, the motion picture exhibition industry is not an easy market and pirating hurts the theaters more directly then it does the studios so eliminating piracy is only helping to boost an already deflated market.

I have a suggestion: the photoplay industry should stop releasing their own movies on video format. They are the architects of their own undoing. It is not like they made the movie-going experience much better.

Try to imagine a refrigerator manufacturing company inventing a robotic gadget that goes to the market, does your groceries, brings them home, cooks your meals, cleans and puts away your dishes and finally brushes your teeth. Now, try to imagine that same company complaining that people are not buying their refrigerators anymore because somebody else invented the deep-freezer. That is the movie industry.

As far as marketing their videos on DVD, that's asking to get copied.

I think it is asking for even more trouble too.

I believe the biggest thing that is hitting the theaters is the movie industry itself. Ever since DVDs came out with extra clips and subtitles, I stopped going to theaters. I can not imagine the demand for theaters going up. I would rather wait a year to see that wonderful blockbuster if it meant I was able to get the closed captioning.

And while stealing your grain may be hard, stealing your seed might be less difficult and if you created a new strain of grain that was revolutionary, you'd want to have some sort of royalty on it.

You would also want the tax-payer to fund the enforcement and protection of your "product" instead of incurring the cost yourself. The movie theaters would have to pay extra to frisk people. Naturally, they would want to brush that expense off to the tax-payer.

I am 1 person, what possible difference can I make???

You can make a little difference by voicing your opinion. You might convince a second person who might also convince a third and they will each tell two friends and so on and so on until everybody has bouncing and behaving hair. That is better than voting.

Ultimately, Hollywood movies are all the same. An original or innovative movie is rare. It is a fool who thinks you can keep churning out the exact same Hollywood movies over and over and over again and expect the consumer to keep coming back for more. Eventually, people grow up and kids have better things to do these days with their hard earned cash.

Kids are also substituting away from movie theaters and choosing other forms of entertainment, for example: video games and computers. Funny how it is only pirating that is blamed for the decrease in movie industry profits. Go figure.

The Hollywood movie industry is playing less of a roll in the whole entertainment industry and pirating is a complete red-herring.

[jdobbin]

You would also want the tax-payer to fund the enforcement and protection of your "product" instead of incurring the cost yourself. The movie theaters would have to pay extra to frisk people. Naturally, they would want to brush that expense off to the tax-payer.

Ultimately, Hollywood movies are all the same. An original or innovative movie is rare. It is a fool who thinks you can keep churning out the exact same Hollywood movies over and over and over again and expect the consumer to keep coming back for more. Eventually, people grow up and kids have better things to do these days with their hard earned cash.

Kids are also substituting away from movie theaters and choosing other forms of entertainment, for example: video games and computers. Funny how it is only pirating that is blamed for the decrease in movie industry profits. Go figure.

The Hollywood movie industry is playing less of a roll in the whole entertainment industry and pirating is a complete red-herring.

Is this a justification for stealing? Just because you don't think it is original? What a load of crap.

Thankfully, the very early drafters of laws and constitutions thought copyright was extremely important and ensured that they were enshrined.

Copyright is property pure and simple. Your view is in the minority even for people who believe in small government.

[Charles Anthony]

Is this a justification for stealing?

No. It is a justification for paying for your own defence.

Just because you don't think it is original? What a load of crap.

Correct. Your misinterpretation is invalid and worth very little.

Thankfully, the very early drafters of laws and constitutions thought copyright was extremely important and ensured that they were enshrined.

Very early??? When is that?

Copyright is a very new thing and history is very old. Like Mr. BlueBlood asked before:

Were we cavemen before copyright came along?

Thankfully we have the internet to learn many different accounts of history. Otherwise, we would be stuck following history books written exclusively by people who tell us to toe the party line and when to start reading history.

Copyright is property pure and simple.

What you call it is irrelevant.

Who you force to pay for protecting your "property" is where the issue of morality lies.

Your view is in the minority even for people who believe in small government.

In our current State of affairs, not everybody can be right.

[Remiel]

Do you have a big screen TV, Charles? I think the question has at least a little relevance to your preference for home viewing.

As for me, I still enjoy going to the theater to see movies. I think I'd be rather disappointed if that option were to suddenly go away. DVD extras are great, but they are also hit and miss. If I were given the choice to see a movie in the theatre OR to see the extras with it at home, I'd probably choose the theater.

[Charles Anthony]

Do you have a big screen TV, Charles?

No.

I think the question has at least a little relevance to your preference for home viewing.

Indeed.

I am hearing impaired and the plexi-glass thingies in the theater do not cut it.

I also have to go to the washroom a lot and I like to stop the movie intermittently instead of holding it.

Next relevant question?

As for me, I still enjoy going to the theater to see movies. I think I'd be rather disappointed if that option were to suddenly go away. DVD extras are great, but they are also hit and miss. If I were given the choice to see a movie in the theatre OR to see the extras with it at home, I'd probably choose the theater.

I would not.

Many films are artistic compromises of the final work. The director finishes his product and the producer sends it back to cut parts out.

[Remiel]

Well, there goes that theory. Some suspect that the emergence of massive LCD and Plasma TVs is the main force behind the decline in theater patronage.

[geoffrey]

Well, there goes that theory. Some suspect that the emergence of massive LCD and Plasma TVs is the main force behind the decline in theater patronage.

Absolutely. Why bother going to the (film) theater? I haven't gone in quite some time. Home is more comfy, it's much cheaper, the food is better (and better for you) and you can load up on blankets and stuff no problem.

Going to a movie theatre is an irrational choice I think.

[Slavik44]

I might be a theif, depending on your definition, but I am not guilty of breaking any laws...downloading pirated music is no more illegal than using public washrooms.

According to Canadian Law, it is perfectly legal to download music off the internet. Infact if you are not downloading music, your being irrational, your being conned, your giving money away. Every time you buy a blank CD, every time you buy a blank tape, every time you buy an MP3 player, every time you buy an IPOD, every time you do this, you pay a fee. This fee is given to artists as compensation for lost revenue. I am convinced that I am not getting my moneys worth, the music industry has gone through and destroyed most P2P downloading networks, but they still get the charges I pay on blank Cd's and MP3 players. Then they run around calling people theives and actively attempting to prevent individuals from participating in perfectly legal behavoir, but are depriving individuals from realizing the full legal benifiets that they have paid for when purchasing certain items.

[jdobbin]

Correct. Your misinterpretation is invalid and worth very little.

Very early??? When is that?

Copyright is a very new thing and history is very old. Like ]Were we cavemen before copyright came along? Thankfully we have the internet to learn many different accounts of history. Otherwise, we would be stuck following history books written exclusively by people who tell us to toe the party line and when to start reading history.

What you call it is irrelevant.

Who you force to pay for protecting your "property" is where the issue of morality lies.

In our current State of affairs, not everybody can be right.

Copyright was created to protect the individual creator in 1709.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne

Before that, the printers were given exclusive rights over authors' works starting from 1403.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worshipful_Co...ewspaper_Makers

It isn't brand new nor do I know any small government supporters who don't champion the idea of protecting the individual through copyright.

You are neither right nor moral in your argument. It is a justification for stealing and one that you have little to back you up on.

[Charles Anthony]

You are neither right nor moral in your argument.

You clearly do not know the difference between moral and legal.

It is a justification for stealing and one that you have little to back you up on.

I challenge you to define stealing in such a way that makes it immoral and does not make YOUR copyright laws theft from the tax-payer.

[jdobbin]

You clearly do not know the difference between moral and legal.

I challenge you to define stealing in such a way that makes it immoral and does not make YOUR copyright laws theft from the tax-payer.

I have no idea what moral basis you make decisions on. Are you religious? I make a claim that it is legal property as defined by centuries of law on the subject. By your definition, it seems you are arguing all property is theft from the taxpayer. You don't make any sense at all.

Theft from taxpayer? Please. I challenge you to show why the state should steal from individual intellectual property rights holders. Just because you don't recognize intellectual property doesn't mean that others don't see it as substantial as land or other goods.

As I said, I haven't seen any other small government advocate make this ridiculous argument that you make here.

[Charles Anthony]

Theft from taxpayer? Please. I challenge you to show why the state should steal from individual intellectual property rights holders.

This is one point (among others) that you fail to realize: the cost of enforcing YOUR intellectual property rights is borne by the tax-payer.

I realize that the tax-payer is forced to pay for tons and tons of other State decreed obligations. Your moral defense seems nothing more than "The Law says so." -- correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, let me remind you that some places still have The Law telling shop owners to have a hitch by their entrances to which horses may be attached.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Charles Anthony,

the cost of enforcing YOUR intellectual property rights is borne by the tax-payer.

You are quite correct, The alternative, though, (and I have said this elsewhere) is to have all property rights decided by the 'Law' offices of "Gimme, Gimme & Blam!" Which do you really want?

I gather from your posts (and Hugo's) that you wish for neither, but that is fantasy. People didn't learn to rob because 'the state did it first'.

[jdobbin]

This is one point (among others) that you fail to realize: the cost of enforcing YOUR intellectual property rights is borne by the tax-payer.

I realize that the tax-payer is forced to pay for tons and tons of other State decreed obligations. Your moral defense seems nothing more than "The Law says so." -- correct me if I am wrong. If I am right, let me remind you that some places still have The Law telling shop owners to have a hitch by their entrances to which horses may be attached.

The cost of not defending intellectual rights is to not defend any property rights.

And once again you bring in the word "moral."

This is what moral means to me:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moral

If you are trying to make a connection between good and bad. I have no idea why.

Copyright may have been corrupted to once again to protect corporate rights due to its astounding length (which I think should still linked to the length of the life of the creator) but its intent is to defend the individual from theft of creativity and invention.

Your argument has been against Hollywood as if they are the only ones who benefit from someone recognizing intellectual property rights. Blueblood thinks the small town writer is not really in it for the money suggesting they do it as some sort of hobby. It isn't. It's work and not unlike farming it is hit and miss. He said that someone stealing their book and printing it up is better marketing of the product. I suggested that if someone stole his grain, he would feel it was theft. He then went on to tell me that it was too hard to steal grain ignoring the fact that farmers do indeed expect state protection from theft like rustling of livestock.

Livestock is property while a book someone writes is not?

You are living in some sort of fantasy world, one that doesn't seem to include a grasp of what happens when property rights are not defended by the state.

If you have trouble with aspects of copyright (which I certainly do), take it up with the government. Much like the hitch outside each store, a concerted effort to change such a law would result in it being stricken off the books or adjusted to meet modern demands.

[Charles Anthony]

The cost of not defending intellectual rights is to not defend any property rights.

Fine. I believe it is immoral to force somebody ELSE to pay for defending YOUR property.

And once again you bring in the word "moral."

This is in the Moral and Religious Issues section, no?

If you are trying to make a connection between good and bad. I have no idea why.

I am starting to wonder why too given that I seem to be surrounded by many people who are afraid of defining right and wrong.

Copyright may have been corrupted to once again to protect corporate rights due to its astounding length (which I think should still linked to the length of the life of the creator) but its intent is to defend the individual from theft of creativity and invention.

Can I quote you on that?

You are quite correct, The alternative, though, (and I have said this elsewhere) is to have all property rights decided by the 'Law' offices of "Gimme, Gimme & Blam!" Which do you really want?

You certainly have said this elsewhere yet you have not convinced me of the virtues of State violence. Your statement is also a misrepresentation. You are actually describing what we have now. I am suggesting the opposite.

Nota Bene your reference to ALL property rights.

I gather from your posts (and Hugo's) that you wish for neither, but that is fantasy.

You want to talk about fantasy beliefs? I am going to let you in on a little secret: on the international stage, you live in anarchy. Locally, you do too. The only difference is that you have to work around the State to enjoy your freedom. Once you step outside of the borders of your State, what laws govern you?

We can quibble about whether we share a glass that is half-empty or half-full all we want. I want to quibble about who is sucking it dry.

People didn't learn to rob because 'the state did it first'.

Irrelevant.

People are denied the right to self-defense of body and property by the State. As such, generations of people are raised in a culture of clueless dependence on "government" to satisfy their needs before looking to themselves or to their neighbors. Copyright laws are an example of precisely that.

[jdobbin]

Fine. I believe it is immoral to force somebody ELSE to pay for defending YOUR property.

This is in the Moral and Religious Issues section, no?

I am starting to wonder why too given that I seem to be surrounded by many people who are afraid of defining right and wrong.

Take it up in church then if you find it immoral or the definition of right or wrong.

I wasn't responsible for placing the article in the morals section.

If you want to help yourself to what others create, by all means. Let's see if you can defend it in a court using your moral argument.

I see very little evidence of your position being supported by small government advocates.

[Charles Anthony]

I see very little evidence of your position being supported by small government advocates.

You probably will not find it supported by big government advocates either. To what are you trying to appeal?

[jdobbin]

You probably will not find it supported by big government advocates either. To what are you trying to appeal?

Some say Harper is about small government although I don't see the case for it with a 14% increase in government.

At the moment, Harper is about to create his own copyright legislation to replace Bill C-60 which died on the order paper. Some of it I think is fair, other parts are going to hurt if "fair use" is not more flexible.

Certainly big Tory supporters like Blueblood will have to suck it up because there is very little chance of copyright disappearing.

I think we need a law that isn't just trying to mimic the U.S. law. It should at its heart it should be about the creators and inventors. It shouldn't be about protecting corporations for over a hundred years.

[ScottSA]

I see a lot of people arguing past each other and entering conceptually hazy waters here. What does big or little government have to do with copyright law? How can a specious appeal against "corporations" transfer whatever moral value it was supposed to have any further than the anti-capitalist point it was presumably resting upon? How can one claim that the enforcement of laws is morally wrong by virtue of the fact that it is funded as a common good by taxpayers? The simple transference of that argument is to argue that all sanctions against illegality are immoral by virtue of being funded as the common good that they are. After all, is a stolen coke anyone else's concern than the shopkeeper from whom it was stolen? Is it somehow wrong to ask the public to fund enforcement of the shopkeeper's rights on the grounds that it is only his concern?

I am the future writer of the second greatest book ever written. Maybe the third greatest book; I'm still debating that one. When I write the book, I expect to be paid royalties for it. It is now my property, morally and legally, and it will continue to be my property, and it SHOULD continue to be my property and the property of my heirs, just as my other property is and will, until such time as my property no longer has value. If someone steals it and pretends to be the author, they are stealing my property. If they read it without paying me, they are doing the same thing as they would be if they walked into a corner store and sucked back a bottle of coke without paying for it. It doesn't matter whether the stolen product resides in their bowels or their head; it is nonetheless stolen property. It is, presumably, even more egregious a moral outrage if the property resides in their head, because one would hope it remains there longer than the coke remains in their bladder.

From a purely utilitarian moral standpoint, if I have no copyright protection, nor a reasonable expectation that such protection will be enforced, I may not write the book, and THEN you'll be sorry. And in fact no one will write books, and all that will be left is drinking a surfiet of coke and dying a hideous death of coke bloating and possibly brain freeze.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear ScottSA,

What does big or little government have to do with copyright law?

The 'libertarian anarchist' denies not only copyright law, but all law, and all 'rights', save one. The right to 'private property'. In the case of 'property rights', they see only the physical. You may write a book, but you could only 'own' the copies of which you have possession, and not the content. I disagree with this, for I think it would stifle the creative spirit.

Is it somehow wrong to ask the public to fund enforcement of the shopkeeper's rights on the grounds that it is only his concern?

Anarchism would dictate so, for the problem lies only between the shopkeeper and the thief. The shopkeeper would need to hire security staff to keep thievery from happening, but it may be a transgression of the thief's rights if the security staff perfomed the Heimlich Manoeuvre to recover the coke. Further, he would probably have to discount it if he wished to try to sell it again.

[ScottSA]

Dear ScottSA,

The 'libertarian anarchist' denies not only copyright law, but all law, and all 'rights', save one. The right to 'private property'. In the case of 'property rights', they see only the physical. You may write a book, but you could only 'own' the copies of which you have possession, and not the content. I disagree with this, for I think it would stifle the creative spirit.

Yes, but neither Canada nor any other state in the world is likely to become libertarian anarchist anytime soon. If we're dealing with philosophy and not praxis, fair enough because I'm a newcomer to this debate, but even so it seems to me that if the point has to be dragged by the hair out beyond the pale of the political spectrum and beaten into shape by hypotheticals to make an association between the size of government and copyright law, the point is strained at best.

Anarchism would dictate so, for the problem lies only between the shopkeeper and the thief. The shopkeeper would need to hire security staff to keep thievery from happening, but it may be a transgression of the thief's rights if the security staff perfomed the Heimlich Manoeuvre to recover the coke. Further, he would probably have to discount it if he wished to try to sell it again.

Yes, but disembowelment would ensure that the thief doesn't do the deed again. The coke might then be worth a small something, attached as it is to the disembodied bowel which can be dried and hung as a conversation piece over the shopkeeper's till, thus generating future business. After all, once out of the body, the bowel is worth no more to the thief than the coke to the shopkeeper. Everyone goes home happy.

[jbg]

Fine. I believe it is immoral to force somebody ELSE to pay for defending YOUR property.

*

People are denied the right to self-defense of body and property by the State. As such, generations of people are raised in a culture of clueless dependence on "government" to satisfy their needs before looking to themselves or to their neighbors. Copyright laws are an example of precisely that.

Excuse my confusion, but isn't the first and primary function of government preserving all individuals' safety and property?

[Remiel]

I think that is exactly what Charles is saying, jbg. The State has a monopoly on the right to preserve individuals safety and property in the name of the collective, thus denying individual the right to preserve their own safety and property.