• Never Ending Story of Copyright Infringement

    Never ending discussion starts from the main question: Is it right to obtain free content from the Internet?

    It has been the case for numerous years now that you can easily obtain the latest movies, music, and software; literally anything you want for free from the web. Many people argue that people who are involved in such activities have no morals, but is it as simple as that?

    Many of you reading this will be fully aware of how easy it is to download anything you want within a few clicks. All it takes is a search of Google and youíll have numerous sites to download whatever your heart desires. The question is, just because you can, does it mean you should?

    It can easily be argued that the users downloading the content are not willing to pay for the content anyway so downloading it for free of charge will make no difference to the copyright holder. That can be true but while researching into this topic I discovered a theory by Mazta and Sykes. In this theory they stated that people are aware of their moral obligations to live by the law but when people to commit crimes they have to use techniques to overcome the need to do the right thing. The techniques used would be denial and justification of the action.

    So with this theory being in place, letís see how it relates to downloading copyright content off the internet.

    Firstly comes the denial of responsibility; in this case the copyright infringer (downloader) would suggest that they have been forced into their action which was beyond their control. Basically, suggesting that the copyright holder didnít make the content readily available to them.

    Secondly comes denial of the victim; in this case the person sharing the file will believe that the copyright holder deserves to have their content available for free. This is suggesting that itís their fault itís available online; if they wanted it secure theyíd take measures to ensure it wasnít available to freely download.

    Finally comes denial of injury. What this basically means is that the user believes that no real damage has come of their actions. Essentially no one has been harmed or hurt by their actions Ė in this case the big money making studios havenít lost out on anything.

    The deeper I began to think about law and abiding by it the more confused I became. Just because a law is present if you break it you feel you have committed a moral sin, but if the next day this exact same law was changed would your moral stance change with it? What sets our moral boundary? Is it the law of the land or your own personal view and take on matters?

    It suddenly dawned on me the missing piece of the puzzle. The main reason why users do not even consider their moral stance when downloading from the internet is the simple fact that there is no one there to judge then when they are carrying out the act and more importantly in most occasions there will be no follow up to their downloading spree. Unlike other crimes which will play on your moral conscious this crime is one which doesnít seem to pull on the moral fibers of the users compared to other crimes.

    We can discuss this until the cows come home but in this modern day and age there will be many people continually downloading from the internet and there will also be people who will legitimately pay for content. The fight will continue to stop copyright content being spread and this is one discussion which will continue for the foreseeable future.

    Source: http://torrentus.to/blog/never-endin...ringement.html
    Comments 3 Comments
    1. ziggyjuarez's Avatar
      ziggyjuarez -
      If i did not download anything ever i would be listening the the radio and wouldent give a shit about 90 of whats out there theater wise.Most of my music, cant find in stores (i am surprised sometimes) and i do buy tickets when i care about something (riddick,chucky 6).
    1. megabyteme's Avatar
      megabyteme -
      Quote Originally Posted by ziggyjuarez View Post
      If i did not download anything ever i would be listening the the radio and wouldent give a shit about 90 of whats out there theater wise.Most of my music, cant find in stores (i am surprised sometimes) and i do buy tickets when i care about something (riddick,chucky 6).
      Good on you for supporting the high arts, z. I can only imagine you have equally discerning tastes when it comes to music.
    1. TheFoX's Avatar
      TheFoX -
      To add to the debate in the main article, how many people have speeded even though a road has a speed restriction?

      If there are no police, and no cameras, many of us are tempted to exceed the speed limit, whether it is by 10mph or even more.

      The fact is that as long as no individual is harmed by us braking a rule, we feel no remorse. Downloading content or speeding only harms a faceless company or authority, if indeed it does. After all, they'll never know of their lost sale, or lost revenue from a speeding fine.

      Besides, all the time the kids are downloading illegal content, they aren't on the streets at night mugging old ladies for pennies.