"Copying Is Not Theft" - Agree or disagree?

[creator]

"Copying Is Not Theft" - Agree or disagree?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4

Wondering what everyone thinks about this issue...

"Copying Is Not Theft" - Agree or disagree?

[Like]

I agree copying is not theft. However my best friend is an IP/Copyright lawyer and says try copying certain things and the ulimate theif (government) will take your money and maybe send you off to prison.

[shadow]

Sometimes copying is theft, sometimes it isn't.

[lost ark]

Well, I guess that depends on how you view theft. If you view it as taking a physical object from a person and keeping it for yourself, then copying would not be theft.

If, however, you pick up my borrow my book from the library, and copy every page so that you do not have to buy my book from the store, you have decided to keep from paying me for work completed. I call that theft.

You say, it's only one copy. Well, would it be different if you made ten copies, or a hundred, or a thousand? What if you make so many that people don't buy my book anymore? I receive no more royalties. Perhaps it is a significant work that would pay royalties to my children upon my departure from this world. Is it OK to deprive them of income?

Copying is theft, whether it's one copy or a million.

[LV Architect]

This is from a CES Fireside by Elder Bednar "Things as They Really Are":

Now I would like to address an additional characteristic of the adversary’s attacks. Satan often offers an alluring illusion of anonymity. Lucifer always has sought to accomplish his work in secret (see Moses 5:30). Remember, however, that apostasy is not anonymous simply because it occurs in a blog or through a fabricated identity in a chat room or virtual world. Immoral thoughts, words, and deeds always are immoral, even in cyberspace. Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful. We are all accountable to God, and ultimately we will be judged of Him according to our deeds and the desires of our hearts (see Alma 41:3). “For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).

Copying or taking something from someone else without permission is always theft (even if they maintain the original). Thou shalt not steal / Thou shalt not covet. What are you setting your heart on and for what purpose?

[Like]

Even though someone buys an item, in the eyes of the government it is not yours to do whatever you want to do with it. It's that simple. Government makes the rules, you either obey or get in trouble.

[creator]

I love that talk... thanks for pointing that part out

This is from a CES Fireside by Elder Bednar "Things as They Really Are":

Now I would like to address an additional characteristic of the adversary’s attacks. Satan often offers an alluring illusion of anonymity. Lucifer always has sought to accomplish his work in secret (see Moses 5:30). Remember, however, that apostasy is not anonymous simply because it occurs in a blog or through a fabricated identity in a chat room or virtual world. Immoral thoughts, words, and deeds always are immoral, even in cyberspace. Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful. We are all accountable to God, and ultimately we will be judged of Him according to our deeds and the desires of our hearts (see Alma 41:3). “For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).

Copying or taking something from someone else without permission is always theft (even if they maintain the original). Thou shalt not steal / Thou shalt not covet. What are you setting your heart on and for what purpose?

[Henmasher]

How many temple recommends just expired

[Like]

Government says sometimes you never truly have a full right of ownership over somethings no matter how much you pay for them.

[Quiet Cricket]

What if you Tivo a show to watch later and fast forward through the commercials? Is that different than downloading the show "illegally" from the internet? I don't think it's any different. I never watch any commercials, therefore no one is making money off of me either way.

Ever watched a news clip on youtube? Must be piracy because you didn't see the commercials for that program.

I think a lot of it isn't black and white yet, because we are in the middle of a transition.

[creator]

I think a lot of it isn't black and white yet, because we are in the middle of a transition.

I certainly am grateful for the "fair use" clause in the copyright law... it basically says you can use portions of other people's work for educational purposes, commentary, etc...

[p51-mustang]

copying software, music etc is theft. I know lots of lds who think doing these things are fine. spirit tells me otherwise.

[SAM]

copying software, music etc is theft. I know lots of lds who think doing these things are fine. spirit tells me otherwise.

FWIW, the Spirit told me otherwise as well. One night, my then fiance and I went through all our music and dumped thousands upon thousands of files we never paid for. It was painful at the time, but it was a burden lifted to have done so. I'd rather ere on the side of being too honest about it, than trying to find loopholes.

[Legacy]

I didn't intend to pull the trigger that killed that person, but I was overcome by ________. Intention is not always the dividing line. I feel that when we justify something, that is when we are wondering over the gray line. As an example would be those that copy rented dvd's. They claim they are not selling them or giving them away so it okay. It for their own personal use. They will counter that they may not have time to watch the movie when they rented it. By copying it, they can watch it later. Since the dvd was returned on time, the company can make more money when someone else rents it.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

If we don't like a particular law, either take the steps needed to change it or do not participate in your activity that conflicts with the law.

[Rensai]

Interesting question. Legally, copying is in fact, copyright infringement. It is not theft by legal definition, despite the ad's from RIAA and MPAA to the contrary. So I guess, the technical correct answer is no, copying is not theft. But where it gets really interesting is deciding on whether it is right or wrong. In the USA, we are taught that it is wrong, that it is "theft." In many other countries though, there are no copyright laws at all. It is perfectly legal and no one would consider it theft or immoral. It used to be that way here too.

I guess its basically a 12th article of faith issue now imho. If I were living in a country where it was still legal to make copies, I would not hesitate to do so. Here in the US, making copies (other than for personal use and/or fair use) violates the law. As we believe in following the law, it would be wrong for us to do so.

What I'd really like to see is a change in the laws. Instead of protecting corporate greed, lets go back to a more reasonable copyright system that doesn't hamper competition, progress, creativity, or my entertainment budget. We have one of the most restrictive set of copyright laws in the world. It's insane for companies to be able to renew these copyrights for 50+ years. I also get pretty upset about the "no-returns" policy companies are allowed to get away with on many copyright items, because I MIGHT have went home and copied it. I might also have found it to be a falsely advertised piece of crap that I got ripped off on but there's no allowance there. Where is the fairness in that? Like many of our laws today, copyright laws have been completely subverted by the lobbyists for the companies involved. I think that is a large part of the reason why copying is so common. I guess what I want to say is, no copying is not theft, but it is against the law, and we must follow the law until we can change it, even though it is messed up.

[Squally]

http://www.unhappybirthday.com/

A birthday that involves copyright infringement is an...

Unhappy Birthday Did you know Happy Birthday is copyrighted and the copyright is currently owned and actively enforced by Time Warner?

Did you know that if you sing any copyrighted song:
...at a place open to the public
...or among a substantial number of people who are not family or friends
You are involved in a public performance of that work?

Did you know an unauthorized public performance is a form of copyright infringement?

Is Happy Birthday Really Copyrighted?
Yes.

The melody for Happy Birthday was first penned by two sisters from Kentucky, Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill. The song was called Good Morning to All, but bore the recognizable melody. The tune was first published in 1893 in the book Song Stories for the Kindergarten. The melody has since passed into the public domain, and is safe to hum in public without permission.

While it is not entirely clear who first wrote down the words for Happy Birthday, it showed up in a few places before Jessica Hill (another Hill sister) was able to demonstrate undeniable similarities between Good Morning to All and Happy Birthday and to secure the copyright to the song.

Working with the Clayton F. Summy Publishing Company, Jessica Hill published and copyrighted Happy Birthday in 1935. While the copyright should have expired in 1991, copyright has been extended repeatedly over the last quarter of the twentieth century and the copyright for Happy Birthday is now not due to expire until at least 2030.

The Clayton F. Summy Company is no longer independent, but, through a chain of purchases, the copyright for Happy Birthday To You lies securely in the hands of the Time Warner company. Happy Birthday's copyright is licensed and enforced by ASCAP, and the simple little ditty brings in more than USD $2 million in annual royalties.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... id=1111624

Copyright and the World's Most Popular Song

Robert Brauneis ---George Washington University - Law School GWU Legal Studies Research Paper Abstract:
"Happy Birthday to You" is the best-known and most frequently sung song in the world. Many - including Justice Breyer in his dissent in Eldred v. Ashcroft - have portrayed it as an unoriginal work that is hardly worthy of copyright protection, but nonetheless remains under copyright. Yet close historical scrutiny reveals both of those assumptions to be false. The song that became "Happy Birthday to You," originally written with different lyrics as "Good Morning to All," was the product of intense creative labor, undertaken with copyright protection in mind. However, it is almost certainly no longer under copyright, due to a lack of evidence about who wrote the words; defective copyright notice; and a failure to file a proper renewal application.
The falsity of the standard story about the song demonstrates the dangers of relying on anecdotes without thorough research and analysis. It also reveals collective action barriers to mounting challenges to copyright validity: the song generates an estimated $2 million per year, and yet no one has ever sought adjudication of the validity of its copyright. Finally, the true story of the song demonstrates that a long, unitary copyright term requires changes in copyright doctrine and administration.

I personally hope that copyrights are extended for 5000 years on everything, and why not extend patents to at least 500 years. I am sure most of us would like to see this as this would benefit a few at the expense of many; this would be perfect and fit in just fine with our financial system that benefits a few at the expense of many.
Just think of how wonderful it would be if mozart and bach and beethoven were still under copyright.

[Quiet Cricket]

It seems strange that a person who spent a few weeks writing a song can get paid for that song the rest of their lives for those few weeks of labor. A construction worker could spend the same amount of time and effort on building a house, but they don't get a piece of the rent for the rest of the houses life. Not totally the same, but I think the difference is interesting. I'm not saying it's right, but the music industry is making the money off of the songs and ripping off the artists in general. So I don't like to feel sorry for the artist in this discussion, because I think it's the big music business that loses money. Hopefully in the future they'll be happy giving away mp3's as advertisements for their concerts.

In eternity I doubt there will be copyright laws. Maybe to just give credit to the creator. But overall a creation will go to all who can benefit IMO. For this way of thinking I LOVE open source software! This community mentality is common in the programming/computer world. People work together to improve upon projects to benefit everyone possible. And not to mention reduce the hold certain companies have on crappy software that costs $2000.

[Quiet Cricket]

Is there anything to be said about the reduction of quality in copying? There is a reason an mp3 is 3mb and the song on the CD is 100mb. You lose a ton of quality. Same with copying movies. Usually if you rent a dvd and copy it to a dvd you are trying to fit it on the standard 4.7gb dvd when the original was about 8gb. The reduction of quality is very noticeable.

[pritchet1]

Since all things are done via Inspiration, and we are told to acknowledge God in all things, isn't He the one who owns "Copyright" on all things?


The key is "copy with permission" in writing.

[ChelC]

I think it depends. I can post a recipe from a copyrighted book, give credit to the book and it's considered promoting it. If I copy the whole book so I don't have to pay for it - that's theft. I do have to admit I have on occasion broken copyright rules for school curriculum. Many companies want to force you to buy a set of workbooks for each child, so they call it consumable and prohibit copying even within the family. I think that's crap. I bought it, it's mine, I can use it how I want to. I used to have my oldest write on everything in a page protector so that I could reuse it for my younger son, but then I figured, what's the difference?

Oh yeah, and I think it's borderline theft for Amazon to control books that you "buy." Which is why I chose a Sony reader over a Kindle. The digital age is irksome when it comes to copyright issues.

[Like]

What do you call it when the government allows the Fed to print off a bunch of Federal Reserve Notes, making the Federal Reserve Notes I personally have worth less and less as the more the Fed prints off? I call that theft.

I guess it is not technically copying because each one has a unique serial number.

Government is so wise when they come up with laws.

[Original_Intent]

I think it depends. I can post a recipe from a copyrighted book, give credit to the book and it's considered promoting it. If I copy the whole book so I don't have to pay for it - that's theft. I do have to admit I have on occasion broken copyright rules for school curriculum. Many companies want to force you to buy a set of workbooks for each child, so they call it consumable and prohibit copying even within the family. I think that's crap. I bought it, it's mine, I can use it how I want to. I used to have my oldest write on everything in a page protector so that I could reuse it for my younger son, but then I figured, what's the difference?

Oh yeah, and I think it's borderline theft for Amazon to control books that you "buy." Which is why I chose a Sony reader over a Kindle. The digital age is irksome when it comes to copyright issues.

I think this matches my position best. Although I hate when people talk about grey areas, I think copyright and IP are areas where it is very difficult for there not to be. As a general rule, I think that if you are copying to avoid paying for a product, that is wrong, but if you are copying what you already own and it is for your own or immediate famillies use - that isn;t so cut and dried. And copying to make money - definitely wrong.

The video in the OP is kind of strange as it talks about things like "copying" a bicycle...well if you can look at a bicycle and create a second identical bicycle from raw materials - nothing wrong with that. But most of the things that get copied - music, software, other published stuff - it is distributed with the understanding that it is copyrighted material. By purchasing it, it could be argued that you are entering a contract and agreeing not to distribute those materials by any means...right?

[fps.sledge]

When I hear things like "Download illegal songs" It doesn't make any sense to me. I know the phrase is used, but nothing about any song is considered illegal. Just as today, there is NOT A SINGLE FIREARM that is illegal. The term "illegal guns" is incomprehensible.

The method of acquiring those items is where the question of legality comes in. The ATF might come after you if you've been transferring firearms without paying them money. The transfer process is what is illegal.

With music, simply copying a song or a movie is not illegal. I've been contended with that perspective, but from what I've been told by some people in the media world, the act of copying something itself is not illegal. It's when you distribute that without the permission to do so is when it comes illegal. With video games or software companies, the software discs/data itself is very easily distributed and transferred. They really don't care about this. Serial Keys (license) is what is used to unlock use of the software. I know of places where you can simply purchase this serial key, then the software developers don't have to deal with distribution of the data/disc.

That all being said. The moral question of whether or not is right is the better way to approach the subject. It's pretty simple. Copying a single movie and then selling it and keeping the profit is dishonest. The president of Disney and Pixar recently spoke at my university and he centered his talk around the topic of intellectual property. He said that in other countries where copyright laws are not in place yet, 'pirating' is an industry there. It's a business for people in other countries to distribute the work others have created. Copying (with the intent to give) or selling others work is very dishonest. Plain and simple.

[Mahonri]

I think it is theft. However, I think this video on the subject is funny and appropriate to the topic

[Fiannan]

This is from a CES Fireside by Elder Bednar "Things as They Really Are":

Now I would like to address an additional characteristic of the adversary’s attacks. Satan often offers an alluring illusion of anonymity. Lucifer always has sought to accomplish his work in secret (see Moses 5:30). Remember, however, that apostasy is not anonymous simply because it occurs in a blog or through a fabricated identity in a chat room or virtual world. Immoral thoughts, words, and deeds always are immoral, even in cyberspace. Deceitful acts supposedly veiled in secrecy, such as illegally downloading music from the Internet or copying CDs or DVDs for distribution to friends and families, are nonetheless deceitful. We are all accountable to God, and ultimately we will be judged of Him according to our deeds and the desires of our hearts (see Alma 41:3). “For as [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).

Copying or taking something from someone else without permission is always theft (even if they maintain the original). Thou shalt not steal / Thou shalt not covet. What are you setting your heart on and for what purpose?

That's why so many LDS in Utah subscribe to, or otherwise pay, for porn...they feel too guilty only go to free sites.

But seriously, technically you are breaking copyright when you sing "Happy Birthday" at a party. Also, we have stake dances -- how many stakes have purchased a license to play copy righted songs for public audiences?