If you download music or movies via peer-to-peer and never........?

Question

.....share the data with other users, never have the intention of ever buying the CD album or seeing the movie at a cinema or purchasing it on DVD - do you consider this ethically wrong?

Whilst I fully accept the legal ramifications of downloading copyright protected data being classed as theft, who exactly is losing anything if you adopt what I have outlined above?

It appears that Jim Maryland's answer is highly contradictory. It is not theft he claims, then lists all the people who financially lose from the act! It appears he has not thought this through.

However, my question was clear. If you never would buy what you download and never share - who loses what exactly?

Please consider your response carefully and avoid waffle.

Answer 1

Yes this is theft, the RIAA say it is copyright theft. However as you say you never had the intention of ever buying the music or whatever, there is no money to exchange hands, then no-one has lost anything. Good move not sharing though.

Answer 2

First, the crime is not "theft". Theft implies that you have deprived someone of some physical item. What you are doing is committing copyright infringement.

As for it being ethically wrong, yes, I believe it is. Content (movies, games, applications, etc...) all cost some amount of money to create and the only way for the creator to recoup the investment is through sale of a license to view/use the content within a limited scope (primarily giving you certain rights while retaining rights like distribution/ownership for themselves). Content is easily reproducable but the initial production is not.

As to who loses, the content developers, investors, and consumers all essentially lose. Content developers lose the ability to make some amount of money off of the sale, same for investors. Consumers lose by the fact that the creator can't recoup their cost on a large number of sales so they have to do it on a limited number. Think of it as those who pay for content also paying for those who will commit copyright infringement.

** Edit **
You have stated that you had no intentions of purchasing the rights to consume the content. If you don't obtain the content then you are not a potential customer. You do however state that you are going to download the content and you then become a consumer who hasn't paid the fee for the content. This is potential income to the content owner that you are depriving the owner. The money necessary to cover the content development must be spread over the cost of all units sold. By illegally obtaining a copy of the content, you are not purchasing a copy and thereby removing yourself from the possible consumer group. The burden of paying for the content cost must now be covered by those willing to pay for the content or the content creator if they are willing to accept the loss of your illegal copy.

Theft isn't the only way to lose money.

From a Wikipedia link:

"Copyright advocates point to an economic argument called the free rider problem to explain the moral downside to copyright infringement. This argument is usually used by economists to describe the disadvantage of collective action because even when use of a product has no cost to the companies associated with its production as theft does, it is claimed that the lack of financial contribution from the person infringing the copyright reduces the company's incentive to continue development"