[Closed] Illegal downloads

It's theft pure and simple... anyone who argues otherwise is deluding themselves... it's the same as nicking a CD/DVD direct from a store is it not?

I may have done it a lot in the past, but almost always for rare recordings that have never been for sale. Maybe I once might have done it for some v expensive software.

... it's the same as nicking a CD/DVD direct from a store is it not?

Or ripping a copy of a CD/DVD/Software if you don't own the original.

It's theft pure and simple

i'm not saying its morally correct, but you're taking a copy of something so its not theft. The original still exists.

I'd like to hear Elfin's stance on this

If the technology exists to download/rip it, the artists should protect their work to prevent it from being downloaded/ripped. I'm not too sure it's the artists that have a problem with the download/ripping problem but the record companies and distributor who have missed an opportunity and are now bleating.
I have downloaded [b]and[/b] I've had my work downloaded. That's life!

No moral problem with downloading music, if I like it I'll go to a gig, buy an album and a t-shirt, the band will get their money off me anyway. If I don't enjoy their stuff I'm not throwing money down the drain.

If the technology exists to download/rip it, the artists should protect their work to prevent it from being downloaded/ripped

So if someone nicks your bike it's your fault because it was possible for them to nick it?

Twenty years ago the record companies didn't have an ethical issue with charging £12.99 for a CD that cost £1 to make. Now they're screaming foul because people don't want to pay over the odds for music.

Anyway, good music is where you find it. The internet has been an excellent platform for getting previously unsigned bands music out there which cannot be a bad thing - the consumer is driving demand, not the record companies who are selling something completely formulaic.

it's the same as nicking a CD/DVD direct from a store is it not?

Not really, no. A CD/DVD costs money to produce, ship and keep in a shop on top of the cost of making the recording. Digital downloads don't have those extra costs. Media companies persist in pushing that analogy despite the fact it's so obviously not true. The profit on a digital download is far higher than that of a CD and in some cases, emerging artists don't get as much of a share of the digital sales either.

I'd like to hear Elfin's stance on this

I'm sure you would. However, I'm off down the pub for Sunday Lunch. 8)

I'm not too sure it's the artists that have a problem with the download/ripping problem but the record companies and distributor who have missed an opportunity and are now bleating.

So the artists have no problem with getting no money from their work?

Hairy - you go to a gig of every band you've d/l'ed and liked?

Sorry, I don't believe you.

If you want to know if you like something, there's Spotify & Youtube for that.

Fred - I suppose you came over all tired last night, when you managed to congratulate TJ on his snide dig at me, yet didn't have the balls to answer my question.

Twenty years ago the record companies didn't have an ethical issue with charging £12.99 for a CD that cost £1 to make. Now they're screaming foul because people don't want to pay over the odds for music.

Oil companies don't seem to have many ethics (ignoring government tax for now) about ripping us off for fuel - should we go and syphon some tanks?

Oil companies don't seem to have many ethics (ignoring government tax for now) about ripping us off for fuel - should we go and syphon some tanks?

Erm, no...I don't recall suggesting that ripping off music was the right thing to do - read my second paragraph.

Secondly, the analogy with oil companies is bunk - why do you think oil is expensive compared to twenty years ago?

if you siphon fuel tanks, the original owner no longer has use of the fuel. not so with a download. but then you knew that.

Hmmm. The goal posts have definitely shifted. When I was starting out as a photographer I used to cover the British University ski and snowboard comps. The day after the photos were delivered to the organisers, I'd see my photos all over facebook. It annoyed the piss out of me so the next year, I watermarked the websized pics but the organisers handed out the full size images to anyone who asked.

These days, I have come to accept that any photos on the net are fair game, whether I like it or not. Similar to unsigned bands, it's all about advertising and getting your name out there, if managed properly.

iDave - Member
if you siphon fuel tanks, the original owner no longer has use of the fuel. not so with a download. but then you knew that.

That analagy is worse than my original one - on that basis, the artist should only be able to sell one recording. Or if it's digital, is it not real?

So the artists have no problem with getting no money from their work?

Millionaire Robbie Williams didn't. 😉

So if someone nicks your bike it's your fault because it was possible for them to nick it?

So you deserve to have it nicked if you don't secure it?

Isn't that the same as saying the bloke that takes it, deserves to have it, because the owner didn't take care of it?

What a load of crap.

So you deserve to have it nicked if you don't secure it?

I still think the analogy is bunk...music isn't mountain bikes, nor is it petrol. Digital music doesn't have a physical form, if you steal a bike it's a crime against the person who paid for it in the first instance, not against the company who made the bike and who retails it at a substantial mark up.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I do think the analogies are far too simplistic and not subjective enough.

Hairy - you go to a gig of every band you've d/l'ed and liked?

I still think the analogy is bunk...music isn't mountain bikes, nor is it petrol.

You seem to be going round in circles trying to justify your argument don.

So, if something is unsecured, should it, or shouldn't it be taken without the owners permission?

Words of one syllable for you... 🙄
If it is easy to steal, more people with steal it and the owner has a problem
If you don't want it stolen, secure it.

A door is and honest man's deterrent.

¿Comprende?

¿Comprende?

Non.
Surely the morality of actually taking the item is not affected by the level of security.

i'd like to steal an upside down question mark

¿really?

Surely the morality of actually taking the item is not affected by the level of security.

Yes there is the moral question too, which is why I said that a door is an honest man's deterrent.

If you find a fiver on the floor, what do you do?

For iDave. ¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿ (feel free to take one as they have no copyright protection).
I've got some of these ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ too.

If you find a fiver on the floor, what do you do?

It doesn't happen to me that often, but for your info last time it did I put it in the collection box for the RNLI. Should I have left it on the shop floor ?

I fail to see the relevance of that question though.

Words of one syllable for you too don.

Do..you..think..it's..fine..to..take..what..aint..yours?

You argue that something should be secured otherwise it will be taken, something which you admit doing, yet won't answer the moralistic question of whether it's right to do so or not.

It's not hard is it, simple question, non?

Downloads are all low quality. Not worth a bean IMHO.

Buy the CD if you want a proper copy!

Anyone know where I can get a good free download of Follow Me and Life Cycles..?

Are we talking in general or about me? You appeared to have asked a general question and now have singled it down to me.
I download.
Is it wrong legally? Yes, the law says so.
Morally? I download.
Do people download from my site? Yes.
What do I do? I make it a less attractive option.
What happened? Sales went up. Go figure.
Now the general answer and the relevance of the fiver, if there are less barriers to prevent the theft, people are more likely to take.
Why did the banks and post offices chain the pens to the counters?

Anything else my sweet?
¡Por cierto, no entiendo francés!

Downloads are all low quality. Not worth a bean IMHO.

You entered into the debate more than others don (and took the decision to start patronising, with your 'one syllable' nonsense above), ergo I address you personally. Feeling picked on?

Morally? I download.

Rather ambiguous.

Morally I think its wrong, we have no right to download the content.
But for the record, I have done.

Feeling picked on?

No, I'm just trying to decypher your questions to see which ones are directed at me and which ones are general. Do you feel patronised?

Rather ambiguous.

Morally I think its wrong, we have no right to download the content.
But for the record, I have done.

Yayyyyyyyyyy! Now you understand my point (I think). Whether I think it is morally right or wrong is irrelevant, because it is so easy, I'll do it. If it was more difficult or I needed specialist equipment, I wouldn't.

yes no moral issue for me
1. they are gaining a customer not loosing a sale
2. We are talking about multi billion pound companies getting shirty for a little bit of piracy - has always happened from bootlegs to tape to tape to video etc and always will.
Music has shifted its money making to live acts - look at the price of this compared to 20 years ago for example.
Films now have DVD sales + Blu ray + sky buying it then other channels etc
Any example of anyone going out of business due to piracy? Seriousl are ther any example?
Look at MS Office people buy it when you can get OpenOffice for nothing legitmately. Free copies may not be that big a threat to companies.
My windows XP once crashed and I had to reinstall and it would not accept my Serial number when I contacted MS they suggested I buy a new copy - I explained I could google a serial number and my copy was legit I mean really why would I and why should I feel bad about this?
For purposes of legal clarity I am speaking entirly hypothetically about how I may feel if I was to download a series of 1 and 0 from the internet.

I have no real moral issue with it TBH and doubt they would get greater sales as I still would not buy the stuff I would just not own it. Perhaps I would just borrow mates etc and then lend it someone else.

My thread was brought about by Elfin really don and wasn't meant to be personal towards you, but I appreciate your input anyway.

Personally, if people want to do it, then it's no business of mine.

It was more to adjudge people's elevation on the hypothetical mountain of morality.

So many on here seem so opinionated and holier than thou on so many issues, so I thought I'd throw this one into the ring.

With regards to downloading, I think it's the minimal chance of getting caught and punished that drives people to be honest. Morals & guilt don't come into it.

Any example of anyone going out of business due to piracy? Seriousl are ther any example?

While I'm not going to offer up specific example there are plenty of instances where piracy has a detrimental effect, and while nobody is likely to weep for the the big distributors or Robbie Williams its further down the ladder that piracy has a more marked impact. There are plenty of bands who are successful but not rich or famous - success being making a living wage for writing, recording and publishing and sale of their music - selling music to 10s or 100s of thousands of fans, rather than millions. Its at that level that loss of revenue bites.

What clouds the moral arguments is most consumers struggle to grasp exactly what it is that they are buying or stealing when it comes to recorded media. If you are comparing the cost of buying an album against the cost of manufacturing a CD then you've got your head so thoroughly buried in the sand its not even worth the breath to explain whats being bought and sold.

However the industry clouds the moral arguement too. Whatever the morals - if the music publishing industry is suffering it only really got itself to blame. For pretty much the entire history of music publishing its been shooting itself in the foot by trying to resist progress. At the advent of radio and recording music publishers resisted the recording and broadcast of songs - because up and till then people used to play and sing songs themselves, gathered round the piano. If you wanted to hear a new song you had to buy the sheet music and learn to play it. What the publishing industry feared was that if you heard a song on the radio you'd learn it by ear and not have to buy the sheet music. What they didn't foresee was that the recordings themselves would become marketable, and that people would more keen to consume recorded music than play it themselves.

Even up until the the late 60s the 'Needle time' agreement meant that the BBC could only play 5 hours of recorded commercial music each day, partly as a nod to the musician union who wanted keep the quantity of live performances on the radio high, but also because it was feared that if you played a record too often it would impact on sales. Needle time is what gave rise to the original off-shore pirate radio stations, as they were able to flout the rule and play records all day. Radio 1 and 2 and independent radio stations were still subject to a needle time agreement up until the late 1980s.

In the present day the publishing industry has just been far too late to adopt digital distribution. At the time iPods appeared there was a devise that could carry more music than most people would ever have bought in their who lives - and no legal channel to buy music for it. Now there is, but many consumers have gotten so in the habit of acquiring pirated material its difficult to place a financial value on a legitmate download. When you've got two weeks worth of music you've paid nothing for whats your motivation to pay to add 3 minutes to it?

That said people who are pirating and sharing music and film are still paying to do so, because data connections can cost £100s per year. I'd suspect most people spend more on their broadband annually than they ever spent of CDs and DVDs previously.

Just as airplay is monitored and artist's who's work is played receive a royalty, when I'm king you're ISP will pay content creators a royalty for the media you consume. Viewing or downloading any music, video or consuming anything - like a cycling forum, from any source, will count as airplay and a royalty will be paid to the content creator.

It amazes me that at present that I can pay a £100 odd quid for a TV licence and access 4 tv channels, 7 national radio stations, countless local radio stations, all teaming with original content and paying royalties to anything they haven't produced themselves, that I've helped to pay for, and I can spend £200 on broadband access and non of the people who's content I access sees a penny of that money.

its movies that **** me off and tv also!

i download tv. its free to air, so i dont have a problem with it. tv tax is paid so ! plop!

movies make a bucket in the cinema charging me 15 euro per viewing then want 15euro plus for a dvd of it.

personally i think that greed is too big and if they released it cheaper, i dont think anyone would care to pay 5 euro.

i wouldnt!

but untill that day comes ....

bit torrent and such places will thrive ......

Remember the 80s? "home taping is killing music!" Far as I can see, music still going.

I may be unusual here, but this is the way I look at it. I download stuff for two reasons.

1) I look at it as try-before-you-buy. I'll download an album, or a movie, and if I subsequently think it's worth buying, I'll go and buy it. If I don't, then I've not lost out on anything.

The industries come up with various figures about how much money they're losing due to piracy but this assumes that there's a 1:1 correlation between "download" and "lost purchase". This is bogus. There's plenty of times where I've downloaded stuff that I wouldn't dream of ever buying in a million years, and half the time have never got round to watching / listening to / playing anyway. Being generous, they're arguably missing out on rental fees of a few pence, but even then it's often stuff that I probably wouldn't have even paid money to rent. This is analogous to borrowing a book after a mate's read it. I don't see any "home lending is killing literacy" adverts (though this hasn't stopped eBook producers trying to stop you doing it).

When I was a kid, we used to swap C90s full of Spectrum games in the playground. Is each one of these tapes a loss of maybe 30 sales? Of course it isn't. Most of the games, we'd load up, go "hmm, this is crap, what's next?" and move on. As a kid, all my pocket money when on computer games, I couldn't possibly have bought more. Without the copying, I wouldn't have bought more games, I'd just have played less. Even then, I had the morality to go and buy original games that I already had on pirate copy if it was something I played a lot. Going back to the present day and the previous paragraph, if I couldn't download, I wouldn't buy more, I'd just watch more TV at point of broadcast.

Hell, games aside, at that age we were all taping the top 40 off the radio every week. How many 14 year olds sat with their head between ghettoblaster speakers, finger poised on 'pause', trying desperately to edit tapes live to remove the DJ and make mix tapes? That functionality was built right into the stereo. 25 years on, how many albums have we all bought since? My CD spend must have run into four figures by now. QQ moar.

2) The industries aren't helping themselves any. A new Xbox game comes out at £40-£50 rrp. There's no way I'm paying fifty quid for a computer game, not whilst I've got a hole in my arse. I'll wait till it comes down to sub-30 quid before I'll buy it - and by extension, I'd buy a lot more games if they were reasonably priced. Similarly, ten quid for an album is reasonable, £20 is taking the proverbial.

And then there's copy protection, DRM, unskippable patronising announcements on movies... I watched a Bluray the other day and had to sit through the "copyright theft is theft" warning in multiple languages I can't read, a mandatory trailer on about how copied DVDs are inferior quality etc etc, [b]on a film I'd damn well bought.[/b] When I can't even fast-forward a film I theoretically "own," something is wrong.

Buy an eBook, there's a likelyhood that it's locked to your device, you can't lend it to a mate (and this is retarded, it'd be trivial to allow you to temporarily transfer rights to someone else so that there's only ever one copy). Buy an eBook from Amazon etc, they have a clause which allows them to revoke rights to it. So if they decide to close their servers tomorrow, guess what, your books stop working. Buy a new device, or wipe and reinstall your current one, and restrictions on how many times you can download a title [i]that you've already purchased[/i] could mean that you have to buy it all over again. You're no longer paying to own, you're paying to long-term-loan.

I have Sky Plus. Great, but no option of backing it up. If I have to replace the box (far from unusual, I'm on my third) or reset it cos it's playing up (even more common), you lose all your recordings. I can't take recordings on holiday with me, lend them to a mate, or watch them in another room even.

The BBC iPlayer lets you download back episodes. But if you want to watch it in a couple of months, too late, it's expired. I spent two hours not so long ago trying to get iPlayer to work streaming an episode of something I'd missed, from the PC to the TV via the Xbox media extender, without success. In the end, I downloaded it illegally in about ten minutes, at a higher quality than iPlayer, and it streamed first time without any fuss whatsoever. I wanted to do it legitimately but they'd made it such a pain in the arse that I had to resort to nefarious methods.

Some people take the whatsit, of course, and there will always be a subset who never ever spend money on anything ever. I think - hope? - that they're a minority though. Certainly everyone I know who downloads music and movies also owns a fairly large back catalogue of original media. I shudder to think what I've spent on films, music, TV, games, books over the years. I go to the cinema semi-regularly (at nearly 20 quid a throw for a pair of reserved seats away from the great unwashed). My DVDs and CDs are in a bookcase that fills a wall, and the books we have between us here fill a room. That's aside from the pile of laserdiscs and vast quantities of VHS videos that I've now archived into cardboard boxes (along with stacks of Spectrum, Atari ST, Playstation, GameCube, PS2 etc etc games), all of which are now close to worthless. And when my Xbox gets replaced by whatever supersedes it, I'll have another several hundred pounds' worth of discs to send to landfill.

So yeah. Home taping is killing music, my eye. I might download "illegally" but the only way I could spend any more on media is by quitting eating.

So yeah. Home taping is killing music, my eye. I might download "illegally" but the only way I could spend any more on media is by quitting eating.

I think the illegality issue is quite interesting when combined with an interesting point raised by maccruiskeen.

Needle time is what gave rise to the original off-shore pirate radio stations, as they were able to flout the rule and play records all day.

I'm not at all bothered if people steal my music, just as long as they don't mind me stealing from them.

You know, it occurs to me that if the record industry was so concerned over the loss of revenue from CD sales for its up-and-coming stars, they might consider paying them reasonable royalties in the first place.

Just saying.

You know, it occurs to me that if the record industry was so concerned over the loss of revenue from CD sales for its up-and-coming stars, they might consider paying them reasonable royalties in the first place.

+10 a lot of the contracts offered are just theft on paper, pay the royalties deserved. Screw the liggers, backstabbers, bureaucrats, lawyers, etc to hell.

Indeed Cougar I think it's Philipps (or one of the majors) who charge 5% for breakage relating to old 68 discs that were fragile. All their artists get royalties on only 95% of the total sales! A rip-off or what.

I'm not at all bothered if people steal my music, just as long as they don't mind me stealing from them.

As a victim of this type of abuse I completely agree with you.
What are your motives for making music? To make lots of money or introduce your ideas through your music?

my motives for making music? I can't help it, its something I *have* to do or I'd probably go insaner.

As a victim of this type of abuse I completely agree with you.

Is there really a big piracy problem for, no offence, unknown bands? I've often bought CDs from pub bands, probably never played them more than once but I like to give them support. I can't imagine anyone copying that sort of thing (at least, not on any sort of scale that would make an impact). Am I just being naiive?

All their artists get royalties on only 95% of the total sales!

Yes, but that's a misleading statistic isn't it. How much is each 'royalty' payment?

If it's not a legitimate free download then it's theft, pure and simple.

So I imagine, with all the work you do, it must stick in your throat to see the latest marketing sensation making millions overnight. These are the people I'm talking about when I refer to cutting/losing incomes.
Without these sensations I think that we would have a more representative level of incomes and a more relistic view of what you have to do to be successful. Second, there is a change and a fightback from the artists, in that the biggest earners last year were those who got off their backsides and toured.
Let's not forget the advantages the intenet has brought us, twenty years ago you would have had to pass outthe C90s to your mates, then grafted in the local bars until an agent saw you. Now you just need to put a link in your next post and have your music listened to by the 1,000s who come and read these threads.
Same with the movies, there is so much crap out there that the more discerning customer is now starting threads to ask opinions about the films, or downloading to view before buying.
When people refer to quality are they talking the about the audio visual quality or the quality of the song/script/acting etc?

In the same way ebay wont allow you to sell things like unlock codes for phones and then email you the code because its not classed in consumer law as a sale of "physical goods" downloading digital data freely found in the public domain is fair game in my eyes. stealing a disc from HMV is clearly theft, but zero's and one's downloaded off my laptop?

If it's not a legitimate free download then it's theft, pure and simple.

If a mate buys a DVD, watches it, then lends it to me, is that theft?

If I read a book, then give it to my girlfriend to read, is that theft?

If I download a movie that I otherwise wouldn't have bought / rented otherwise, is that theft?

If I download a movie and never watch it, is that theft?

If a mate copies a DVD for me, I watch it, then throw it away, is that theft?

Not disagreeing with you exactly, just trying to ascertain exactly where the line of demarcation lies. I'm not sure that "it's that simple" is wholly accurate, is all.

It's a difficult issue.

Most people’s morals and ethics tend to mirror the law (more or less, give or take, ish!). As it stands ripping, copying downloading, file sharing etc music is illegal.

If a bank left a big pile of money in the street with a sign next to it saying "taking any of this money is against the law" I would find it hard to criticize anyone for diving in and popping up with a fist full of wedge.

I think it probably is hurting the music industry. The sheer scale of downloader’s or potential downloader has blown out of all proportion and if you own a PC you too can download.

As for where the money goes have you tried buying a concert/gig ticket recently. Live music and T Shirts is where the industries at!!

but zero's and one's downloaded off my laptop?

But you're stealing the particular way that they're arranged otherwise that would hold true for all songs/music/film/photo. All the words of a song are freely available....

Also,

If I get a film from LoveFilm, is that theft?

If I take a photo of the Mona Lisa, blow it up to A4 and stick it on my wall, is that theft?

What you on about cougar? When did lovefilm become free?

Cougar, technically they are all a breach of copyright law. The authors of those works recognise this and accept it. It isn't worth the effort to chase down every breach.

If someone leaves a copy of a newspaper on a train, and I pick it up to read it, without having paid for it, is that 'theft'?

As an aside,

On point of principle, I'll never download a 'screener' recorded in a movie theatre, anything that's really new release. If I want to watch something that badly, I'll go to the cinema or rent / buy it through legitimate means. The last film I downloaded was something I already own on VHS, it was more convenient to download it than hook up the video recorder (and I had no moral issues with this as I've already bought it.

The last pirated computer game I had was on the original Playstation. I've got a couple of pirated PC games, but in both cases they're of games that I own legitimately but have damaged / lost the CDs.

If I download music and like it, I'll buy it. All too often these days, albums are two really good singles and eight tracks of crap filler.

Mostly, I download episodes of TV shows that are otherwise widely available legitimately but I've missed the broadcast of, for example if Remote Record fails because the Sky box has crashed (again).

Just for clarity:

[img] [/img]

I pay for spotify premium and love film, go to gigs, festivals and the cinema.

Add to that that most of the music I listen is made by people who are now dead, should I have any qualms about downloading an album that is very hard to buy/well overpriced and of no financial gain to the original artist?

I think [url= http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2007/05/14/trent_reznor_speaks_out_about_music_piracy ]Trent Reznor's[/url] opinion may be more valid than most on the matter too...

technically they are all a breach of copyright law

Perhaps. But that's not what I asked - I asked if it was "theft".

DVD warnings and the self-righteous don't say "piracy is breach of copyright," they say "piracy is THEFT." I'm trying to get to the bottom of exactly what is and isn't theft (because frankly, it's not theft, it's a breach of copyright as you rightly say - still illegal, but not the same thing any more than saying "bike theft is MURDER").

If I reported my bike as stolen, and the insurance company came round and saw my bike sitting there, and I say "ah, well, you see, I saw someone else with the same bike so they've obviously made a copy" I'd be arrested for fraud.

Again I have to say yes, even though I'm not qualified to say that, you have received the benefit of someone else's work without paying. Moving on to the issue of personal use or financial gain, but that's another can of worms.
This is why I said earlier that the author has a responsibilty to protect their property or accept the consequences.

If I reported my bike as stolen, and the insurance company came round and saw my bike sitting there, and I say "ah, well, you see, I saw someone else with the same bike so they've obviously made a copy" I'd be arrested for fraud.

the author has a responsibilty to protect their property or accept the consequences.

That's cock, sorry.

By that argument, shoplifting is fine if the shop owner doesn't install CCTV. Mugging is fine, you should've learned self defence.

It wouldn't be a copy, and I could prove that, would it? Not the same.

Ok, bad example perhaps. Point is, if the original owner still has something, it's not theft. I'm not saying it's right / legal, but it's not theft, it's something else.

That's cock, sorry.

Really, we're talking about digital downloads. It has already been established that physical is different for digital. 🙄 Cock indeed!

QQ moar

Did a grown man really type that?

All this copying discussion is bobbins too. Just because the technology exists to make a copy, it doesn't change the ethics.

It has already been established that physical is different for digital

Has it? Where?

So what you're saying is, if it's electronic media, we can make stuff up and say it's FACT?(*)

Did a grown man really type that?

Sorry, I'm a recovering Warcraft addict. In my defence, you knew what it meant.

Just because the technology exists to make a copy, it doesn't change the ethics.

I think it makes for an interesting discussion though.

(* - see what I did there? Oh, please yourselves...)

(btw - Don, I don't mean to be pedantic but I vaguely remember English isn't your first language? FYI, it's always "different [i]from[/i]")

(btw - Don, I don't mean to be pedantic but I vaguely remember English isn't your first language? FYI, it's [u][b]always[/b][/u] "different from")

Although it is frequently claimed that different should be followed only by from, not by than, in actual usage both words occur and have for at least 300 years. (dictionary.com)
You do know the difference between a typo and bad grammar, don't you?
You do also know the difference between being pedantic, incorrect and a patronising *****, no?

😆 But thanks for that anyway. 😆

Definition of theft:

 (1)   A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ìthiefî and ìstealî shall be construed accordingly.

(2)   It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thiefís own benefit.

..ìPropertyî includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

But people done for music piracy are prosecuted under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 I think.

don simon - Member
Words of one syllable for you...

You do also know the difference between being pedantic, incorrect and a patronising *****, no?

Do you?

Yes.
I ask the question again, did you feel patronised?
I assumed you were being obtuse, I apologise if you genuinely didn't understand.

I presume that people on here will be familiar with 'Intellectual Property Rights'

An idea doesn't exist as a physical object, but under certain conditions, you are still not allowed to use it.

Just for the record however - I think this thread has turned out (for the majority) to be a reasonable debate. I couldn't give two hoots who downloads music, but personally I'm more than happy to pay for it.