Anonymous doing good?

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

But if the industry didn't lose so much money through illegal downloading, then the prices wouldn't need to be so high.

Just as an addendum to my post above. Has anyone EVER tried to quantify the losses to the movie / music industry or are they just saying 'We've lost money'?

Seems surprising really, we're in the aftermath of a global economic crash, spending is down in all sectors, yet this is the information on the media industry...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/1...ear-mongering/

http://grabstats.com/statmain.asp?StatID=67

Seems to me they're doing pretty well in a period where established companies have gone bankrupt, share prices have plummeted, house prices fell through the floor and jobs have been vanishing.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Quite aside from the supposed illegality of downloading (It's copyright infringement which is a civil matter. I did mention it above, see also the note about reading before responding, it'll save time in the replies, an explanation of this is in the following site http://findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/ot...cs/500108.html ) I have yet to see a single release of any film, tv show, piece of software or music accredited to Anonymous (Apart from the Low Orbit Ion Cannon which is their DDoS application) so quite frankly they have no vested interest in filesharing other than the principle of freedom of information.



Not really, as in not remotely close as an analogy. If you steal a TV then you have deprived someone else of the physical object which is a TV. If you download a film then the person who made the film has not lost that film, they still have the film. A closer analogy would be for someone to precisely duplicate a TV thus depriving the original TV seller of their profit margin on that TV.



Yes, it is, however downloading is NOT theft, as explained above by FindLaw, and by the Merriam Webster Dictionary which describes theft as the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
In downloading you do NOT deprive the rightful owner (There is NO physical removing of personal property) of the item thus theft is not committed. You may have infringed the copyright which is a civil matter but you have not STOLEN the item as defined in both law and the dictionary.



They would be as high as the market would sustain, the problem being that without piracy in one form or another (Copying tapes for friends was also piracy, as was recording a song from the radio. It's been around a LONG time) that market would be to some degree captive and it is far more likely the prices would be higher. Quite frankly the prices don't need to be anywhere as high as they are, I suspect the fastest way to cripple piracy would be a radical price slash thus making the original item far more attractive to people. This goes double for items distributed electronically, there is NO reason an eBook should be MORE expensive than a paper version, there's no paper, processing of paper, printing, cutting, binding, bulk physical storage, haulage, etc involved. One electronic copy can be distributed to millions globally without international freight charges.


Something only partially related to consider. Libraries loan out books and videos / dvds / cds. Does each of those loans also deprive the rights holder of a sale and if so, does that make libraries bad?

It sound like you are just trying to justify the fact that you illegally download.

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

It sound like you are just trying to justify the fact that you illegally download.

I thought I explained, with references to authoritative sources above that downloading doesn't fall into the category of 'theft'? I also don't enter into whether or not I am one of the downloaders, this thread is about whether Anonymous are doing good, I only went into the legality aspect because you seem to have a fixation on the subject. The opposition to yet more of our civil liberties being eroded is a good thing, Anonymous' actions are 100% legal with regards to Black March.


I shall ask you though 2 questions.

1) Please provide, with an authoritative reference how downloading is theft, I have provided several sources which prove it is NOT theft, including the dictionary definition of theft.

2) Please provide, with authoritative reference, an approximation as to how much money they movie industry has lost in any given year to piracy. I have provided evidence that every year for them sets a new record high.

This thread is intended to discuss however the actions of Anonymous, I have provided examples of how some of their actions promote good, the reason being to play devil's advocate in this matter.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

I thought I explained, with references to authoritative sources above that downloading doesn't fall into the category of 'theft'? I also don't enter into whether or not I am one of the downloaders, this thread is about whether Anonymous are doing good, I only went into the legality aspect because you seem to have a fixation on the subject. The opposition to yet more of our civil liberties being eroded is a good thing, Anonymous' actions are 100% legal with regards to Black March.


I shall ask you though 2 questions.

1) Please provide, with an authoritative reference how downloading is theft, I have provided several sources which prove it is NOT theft, including the dictionary definition of theft.

2) Please provide, with authoritative reference, an approximation as to how much money they movie industry has lost in any given year to piracy. I have provided evidence that every year for them sets a new record high.

This thread is intended to discuss however the actions of Anonymous, I have provided examples of how some of their actions promote good, the reason being to play devil's advocate in this matter.

Stop making excuses!

If you have downloaded a product, that you should have paid for, but haven't. Then that is theft, plain and simple. It doesn't have to be a physical product. If it was a DVD, then that is just the media that it is stored on.

You are depriving actors, musicians, and the industries of money that they are legally entitled to.

Did you know that there is at least one fire service who have now banned the watching of DVD's on station, because of the risk of prosecution. Which could be up to a £2000 fine, and possible inprisonment.

Now I'm not going to get drawn into this "have you got a link" business. You don't need one to know that what you do is illegal.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Stop making excuses!

If you have downloaded a product, that you should have paid for, but haven't. Then that is theft, plain and simple.

Actually no.. Theft is illegal where as Copyright infringement is a civil law (though covered by the DEA2010). Although companies like DCS (whole other thread) would love for people to think that it's theft and illegal it is not.. The only illegal side to it is if you try to sell on for commercial gain (not file share) the game/film then it's covered by piracy laws.. (again all this has been discussed to great extents in other threads so please use those threads for such discussion)

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ----------

Even the DEA2010 notes downloading as Copyright Infringment and not theft

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Stop making excuses!

If you have downloaded a product, that you should have paid for, but haven't. Then that is theft, plain and simple. It doesn't have to be a physical product. If it was a DVD, then that is just the media that it is stored on.

As several in here have pointed out, no it isn't, there is a legal and literary distinction. I have provided authoritative references to this, besides, that isn't the topic of this thread. I am trying to help you through education. I haven't discussed whether I or anyone else downloads content from the net without payment. I shall however state I am a member of my local cinema's premier club and enjoy it's rewards on a relatively regular basis.

You are depriving actors, musicians, and the industries of money that they are legally entitled to.

You know, given I have an extensive library of music movies and books I legitimately own, as well as enjoying regular trips to the cinema I would dispute that point. You inaccurately made an assumption about me based on my opposition to the various proposed acts, SOPA, RIPA and ACTA et al. Perhaps if you did not have the inaccurate fixation on 'downloading is theft' which has been disproved numerous times that may not have happened. I try to approach each subject objectively and form my opinions based on informed knowledge, I would suggest you try the same, it can be quite refreshing.

Did you know that there is at least one fire service who have now banned the watching of DVD's on station, because of the risk of prosecution. Which could be up to a £2000 fine, and possible inprisonment.

That is due to the requirement of a public performance license. My local cafe has one because they have a TV on the wall for customers to watch.

Now I'm not going to get drawn into this "have you got a link" business. You don't need one to know that what you do is illegal.

I happen to state factual information, I back up my claim to facts with references to authoritative sources. (Wikipedia being editable by anyone does not qualify as authoritative) I ask that you also do me the courtesy of backing statements you claim to be fact with authoritative references, that way this discourse remains an informed one and not one based on what could be construed as fantasy on the behalf of one of the participants.

We have however digressed from the original topic of this thread which was Anonymous doing good.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Actually no.. Theft is illegal where as Copyright infringement is a civil law (though covered by the DEA2010). Although companies like DCS (whole other thread) would love for people to think that it's theft and illegal it is not.. The only illegal side to it is if you try to sell on for commercial gain (not file share) the game/film then it's covered by piracy laws.. (again all this has been discussed to great extents in other threads so please use those threads for such discussion)

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 ----------

Even the DEA2010 notes downloading as Copyright Infringment and not theft

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

The Theft Act states clearly that "Property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property.

Intangible property includes things such as copyrights.

Therefore, a physical loss or deprivation of physical property is not an absolute prerequsite in acts which might constitute "theft" where intangible goods such as copyright are concerned.

Confusing, I know.

---------- Post added at 14:17 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

We have however digressed from the original topic of this thread which was Anonymous doing good.

Well the simple answer is no!

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

No claims to credit by Anonymous either at their twitter feed or at their blog. Could be someone 'acting in the name of Anonymous' but without any 'official' ties to them.

So how do we know who is the real Anonymous

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

Well the simple answer is no!

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

I happen to state factual information, I back up my claim to facts with references to authoritative sources. (Wikipedia being editable by anyone does not qualify as authoritative) I ask that you also do me the courtesy of backing statements you claim to be fact with authoritative references, that way this discourse remains an informed one and not one based on what could be construed as fantasy on the behalf of one of the participants.

Oops, let me refresh your memory on what qualifies as an authoritative source.

http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher...References.pdf

Wikipedia is a significant example of a useful but non-authoritative source: the articles can be changed at any time (not archival), there is no guarantee of corroboration, and the contents are not sanctioned by any official and trustworthy source. So, by all means go ahead and use Wikipedia and similar sites as you begin your literature search, but you should not cite the information from Wikipedia in your term paper or official report. Instead, use the links and leads typically found in Wikipedia articles to help you find and cite the authoritiative sources.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Oops, let me refresh your memory on what qualifies as an authoritative source.

http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher...References.pdf

You only state 'selective' factual information. You need to look at the wider picture.

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Sirius

So how do we know who is the real Anonymous

Official Anonymous operations are posted at their blog and twitter feeds.

http://anonops.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/anonops

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

Official Anonymous operations are posted at their blog and twitter feeds.

http://anonops.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/anonops

Unless they want to remain anonymous

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You only state 'selective' factual information. You need to look at the wider picture.

I state factual information to corroborate my statements, I have asked repeatedly for you to provide factual information to corroborate yours, upon being presented with such it may change my stance, however you have yet to do so.

[Tim Deegan]

Originally Posted by Lord Nikon

I state factual information to corroborate my statements, I have asked repeatedly for you to provide factual information to corroborate yours, upon being presented with such it may change my stance, however you have yet to do so.

You have only provided 'selective' facts, as I said.

I'm not going to waste my time finding links for you, when you are obviously quite capable of finding them yourself. Like I said, look at the wider picture, and all the laws that might apply. And not just the ones that back up your side of the argument.

[Lord Nikon]

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan

You have only provided 'selective' facts, as I said.

I'm not going to waste my time finding links for you, when you are obviously quite capable of finding them yourself. Like I said, look at the wider picture, and all the laws that might apply. And not just the ones that back up your side of the argument.

I'm not about to try to find authoritative references to justify your position, I did take a brief look but was unable to easily do so, I can surmise from this that one of three things is correct, these being.

1) Downloading is not in itself illegal and only happens to be illegal in your mind

2) Downloading is illegal but the information is being suppressed (not likely as they would publicise the hell out of it as a deterrent)

3) My search parameters were either too broad or too restrictive and the information wasn't on the first 4 pages.

Now, 3 is unlikely, there were a lot of links to your statements on here but very little else.
2 is very unlikely due to the perceived positive effect of publicising it.

Now, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable it is invariably the truth (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) or in simpler terms - Occams Razor - the simplest solution is usually the best one - I am left with option 1.

I would however welcome any repudiation of this with links to authoritative sources.