West Point Honor Code

Humey said:
I looked, I didn’t see a category of people who would download but only things they would have never watched or heard and therefore would have never paid. Seems kind of very specific
Click to expand...

By golly, I think Humey Dershowitz has found a legal loophole that Disney, the NFL, ESPN, The Weinstein Company, the US Dept. of Justice have all overlooked.

Better download all that content you would never pay for fast--before they catch on.

Thanks for the tip.

I'm going to go rob a bank. I'd never use that money. Let them prove I would.
 
A sophomoric argument...

sophomoric
adjective soph·o·mor·ic \ ˌsäf-ˈmȯr-ik , -ˈmär- also ˌsȯf- or ˌsä-fə- or ˌsȯ-fə- \

1 :conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature
 
LineInTheSand said:
What does the FBI warning at the beginning of the movie say?
Click to expand...
They vary by distributor and warn that the FBI investigates violations of Title 17, Section 506.
The warning is not from the FBI directly, but is commonly known as FBI Warning.
 
AJC said:
They vary by distributor and warn that the FBI investigates violations of Title 17, Section 506.
The warning is not from the FBI directly, but is commonly known as FBI Warning.
Click to expand...

I’m assuming the FBI provided authorization to use the seal.

There’s also a DHS warning now.
 
Humey, I find your argument that the license holder is "undamaged" difficult to go unchallenged.

Humey, by downloading content that you never would have purchased, and viewing it, you have nonetheless have gained a benefit from the intellectual property. Your logic that the IP license holder has not been harmed does not hold true. It is an unknown whether you would have later changed your mind and purchased the product. Now that you have illegally accessed the product there is no longer any motivation for you to fulfill the void by legal purchase.

A hypothetical example: You stated that you are a CPA. Let's say that you download illegally some CPA software that you never would have purchased because it is not needed in your work. Let's say the software deals with non-profit audits which at this time your firm does not engage in. But whimsically, you downloaded it anyway. However a year later, you merge with another firm that DOES handle non-profit audits. You now already have the software and no longer need to purchase it!

Voila, the license holder has been damaged!
 
Last edited:
AROTC-dad said:
Humey, I find your argument that the license holder is "undamaged" difficult to go unchallenged.

Humey, by downloading content that you never would have purchased, and viewing it, you have nonetheless have gained a benefit from the intellectual property. Your logic that the IP license holder has not been harmed does not hold true. It is an unknown whether you would have later changed your mind and purchased the product. Now that you have illegally accessed the product there is no longer any motivation for you to fulfill the void by legal purchase.

A hypothetical example: You stated that you are a CPA. Let's say that you download illegally some CPA software that you never would have purchased because it is not needed in your work. Let's say the software deals with non-profit audits which at this time your firm does not engage in. But whimsically, you downloaded it anyway. However a year later, you merge with another firm that DOES handle non-profit audits. You now already have the software and no longer need to purchase it!

Voila, the license holder has been damaged!
Click to expand...
Thank you, you are the first person to actually give me a logical reason on how my logic could be wrong. Everyone just keeps repeating it is stealing without giving me a response. In your example of tax software, you are correct that it could in the future be something I would need or could use therefore the software designer would then be harmed as they lost revenue. On a practical manner, I dont do audits for anyone profit or non profit but I get the logic behind it. Let me argue that If i were to actually need the software that I had gotten without paying, that I would buy a full blown version. Now that may be just me and you may not believe that I would do that, but it would be consistent with my argument.
 
cb7893 said:
Humey said:
I looked, I didn’t see a category of people who would download but only things they would have never watched or heard and therefore would have never paid. Seems kind of very specific
Click to expand...

By golly, I think Humey Dershowitz has found a legal loophole that Disney, the NFL, ESPN, The Weinstein Company, the US Dept. of Justice have all overlooked.

Better download all that content you would never pay for fast--before they catch on.

Thanks for the tip.

I'm going to go rob a bank. I'd never use that money. Let them prove I would.
Click to expand...
Being that I have never downloaded a movie in my life, it makes no difference to me. I stream some movies from Netflix but just about everything I watch is on Blu Ray (Netflix) and 300 Blu Ray and HD-DVD movies I own. I never said it was legal loophole, all I said is in my scenario, there is no loss of income to the studio and therefore no harm to the studio. Instead of giving me a logical reaon why I am wrong your response is to ridicule me. As for robbing the bank, you are stealing a tangible asset that would have to be replaced and therefore it would cost the bank or more likely the insurance company. Someone would be then harmed. The fact that you dont intent to use the money isnt relevant. I feel like you dont seem to understand my point of stealing where no one gets harmed and stealing where someone gets harmed. It is both stealing, Not arguing that it isnt and have never did
 
USMCGrunt said:
A sophomoric argument...

sophomoric
adjective soph·o·mor·ic \ ˌsäf-ˈmȯr-ik , -ˈmär- also ˌsȯf- or ˌsä-fə- or ˌsȯ-fə- \

1 :conceited and overconfident of knowledge but poorly informed and immature
Click to expand...
Now that I am sophomoric, explain why my logic is wrong without just saying it is stealing. Also my question has nothing to do with West Point
 
I looked, I didn’t see a category of people who would download but only things they would have never watched or heard and therefore would have never paid. Seems kind of very specific[/QUOTE]

No such category can exist.
If a person would never watch, look or listen to the material or pay for it, then they would never download it just because it's free, so they would never break the law.
If same said someone chooses to download it simply because it's free and they can, regardless of their use/intent of use, they are then breaking the law. It makes no difference of any "perceived" loss or not to the company , its illegal. Tangible or intangible, its against the law
You can't have it both ways.
It's like telling your girlfriend you love her, but won't take her out in public....
 
Going back to the OP...

propblast said:
How has the Honor Committee ruled on downloading unlicensed movies/videos or watching streaming videos from unlicensed sites? Is this considered stealing?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but the FBI anti-piracy warning confirms my understanding of copyright law - "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment."

So any unauthorized distribution (regardless of the end user's perceived value of the copyrighted work or end user's intent to actually receive a benefit from the copyrighted work) is illegal and, as such, would be subject to enforcement by the USMA Honor Committee and/or other authorities.
 
Honor is doing the right thing and making the right choices, even when no one is looking and no one will ever know what you did.

Without honor, there can be no civilized society worth fighting for.
Honor is the best part of you and your every day life, or it isn't.

You cannot chip away at honor and have less of it. You either have it, or you don't.
 
THParent said:
Honor is doing the right thing and making the right choices, even when no one is looking and no one will ever know what you did.

Without honor, there can be no civilized society worth fighting for.
Honor is the best part of you and your every day life, or it isn't.

You cannot chip away at honor and have less of it. You either have it, or you don't.
Click to expand...
True, but the right choice is not always clear. That is why cadets go through extensive honor education and why, in some cases, violators are given a second chance. Making the wrong choice through naivete is redeemable. Know what is wrong and doing it anyway is not.

Pick up a lost wallet that contains the owner's identification and $1,000; Return wallet and contents to rightful owner = Honorable.; Keep money and trash wallet = Dishonorable. Few would fail to see the right choice.

For an example where many will disagree about the right choice just look at all the threads on Plan B deposits.
 
FMHS-79 said:
Going back to the OP...

propblast said:
How has the Honor Committee ruled on downloading unlicensed movies/videos or watching streaming videos from unlicensed sites? Is this considered stealing?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but the FBI anti-piracy warning confirms my understanding of copyright law - "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment."

So any unauthorized distribution (regardless of the end user's perceived value of the copyrighted work or end user's intent to actually receive a benefit from the copyrighted work) is illegal and, as such, would be subject to enforcement by the USMA Honor Committee and/or other authorities.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about the Law or the Code of Conduct. I sometimes feel like I am talking to the wall . I completely understand that downloading without the studios consent is illegal. I am not arguing that is legal or it should be legal. What I am asking is if there is no loss or harm to the studio (i have stated five times how it could be done), does that make a difference? And not if it makes a difference to the law or the FBI. Does it make a difference and how you would view it. I dont want to hear that the FBI tells you not to make illegal copies or that stealing is always bad. Stealing food to keep your childrenalive may be stealing but it isnt morally wrong
 
Stealing music is morally wrong because it's stealing , not the same as ultimate survival and saving your children from death, poor comparison.

Humey said:
FMHS-79 said:
Going back to the OP...

propblast said:
How has the Honor Committee ruled on downloading unlicensed movies/videos or watching streaming videos from unlicensed sites? Is this considered stealing?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but the FBI anti-piracy warning confirms my understanding of copyright law - "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment."

So any unauthorized distribution (regardless of the end user's perceived value of the copyrighted work or end user's intent to actually receive a benefit from the copyrighted work) is illegal and, as such, would be subject to enforcement by the USMA Honor Committee and/or other authorities.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about the Law or the Code of Conduct. I sometimes feel like I am talking to the wall . I completely understand that downloading without the studios consent is illegal. I am not arguing that is legal or it should be legal. What I am asking is if there is no loss or harm to the studio (i have stated five times how it could be done), does that make a difference? And not if it makes a difference to the law or the FBI. Does it make a difference and how you would view it. I dont want to hear that the FBI tells you not to make illegal copies or that stealing is always bad. Stealing food to keep your childrenalive may be stealing but it isnt morally wrong
Click to expand...

The wall you speak of seems to be in front of you and you can't find the doorway to morality, or see that it is indeed harmful to steal music/videos.
There is loss and harm to the studio when people steal their music, you just don't believe that to be true . Regardless, you keep asking and the answers remain the same, it doesnt matter if there is no loss to the company
( which I believe there to be), law or no law, it's not mine for the taking without permission from the owner /creator/producer.
Based on your argument, one would have to believe you support lying if it is used with discretion and costs no one any money or physical loss , is this how you would view it?
 
shock-n-awe said:
Stealing music is morally wrong because it's stealing , not the same as ultimate survival and saving your children from death, poor comparison.

Humey said:
FMHS-79 said:
Going back to the OP...

propblast said:
How has the Honor Committee ruled on downloading unlicensed movies/videos or watching streaming videos from unlicensed sites? Is this considered stealing?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but the FBI anti-piracy warning confirms my understanding of copyright law - "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement without monetary gain, is investigated by the FBI and is punishable by fines and federal imprisonment."

So any unauthorized distribution (regardless of the end user's perceived value of the copyrighted work or end user's intent to actually receive a benefit from the copyrighted work) is illegal and, as such, would be subject to enforcement by the USMA Honor Committee and/or other authorities.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about the Law or the Code of Conduct. I sometimes feel like I am talking to the wall . I completely understand that downloading without the studios consent is illegal. I am not arguing that is legal or it should be legal. What I am asking is if there is no loss or harm to the studio (i have stated five times how it could be done), does that make a difference? And not if it makes a difference to the law or the FBI. Does it make a difference and how you would view it. I dont want to hear that the FBI tells you not to make illegal copies or that stealing is always bad. Stealing food to keep your childrenalive may be stealing but it isnt morally wrong
Click to expand...

The wall you speak of seems to be in front of you and you can't find the doorway to morality, or see that it is indeed harmful to steal music/videos.
There is loss and harm to the studio when people steal their music, you just don't believe that to be true . Regardless, you keep asking and the answers remain the same, it doesnt matter if there is no loss to the company
( which I believe there to be), law or no law, it's not mine for the taking without permission from the owner /creator/producer.
Based on your argument, one would have to believe you support lying if it is used with discretion and costs no one any money or physical loss , is this how you would view it?
Click to expand...
Sure, I would lie to keep someone from being hurt. I have no problem with that. When a telemarketer calls me about doing work in my house, I tell them I rent. When they call about getting a car insurance quote, I tell them I dont have a car. I also believe stealing from the studios is wrong. I have never stolen any movies from anyone. As I mentioned before I belong to Netflix and I either stream or get Blu Rays discs. I dont keep asking the same question, I keep getting the same answer about it being illegal. I just wanted a better answer than just saying the FBI says it is illegal. So I will be done with this subject as outside of one post, no on seems to put any thought into it besides it is illegal. I am guessing this is the wrong crowd
 
jl123 said:
...True, but the right choice is not always clear. That is why cadets go through extensive honor education and why, in some cases, violators are given a second chance. Making the wrong choice through naivete is redeemable...
Click to expand...

I completely understand what you're saying here, and I don't agree.
I think the difference between right and wrong is easy to ascertain, but I am sort of a blockhead that way.
 
The spirit of the honor code and committing to living an honorable life is what the cadets are taught daily. The words actual words do matter but honorable leaders strive to internalize the spirit as well. The cadets receive "honor" instruction but the learning objectives are to help promote honorable living. Discussions on items that take three or four pages of debate are clear if we follow the spirit and the letter of the code.

Excerpt from the Cadet Prayer: Strengthen and increase our admiration for honest dealing and clean thinking, and suffer not our hatred of hypocrisy and pretence ever to diminish. Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life. Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half truth when the whole can be won.
 
Humey said:
Explain to me how the studio gets hurt either way
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll bite. And it isn't the studio, it's the artist. Lets say you download music 'you'd never buy'. So this is less likely to be Katy Perry and more likely to be Band No-Name's EP, their first venture in professional music. There is a singable hit on the EP, and you can hear it out of every dorm room for three months straight. Now Band No-name is shopping for a contract for their next CD. The studio says 'Well, your first EP only sold 5,000 copies, mostly in your home town, so we'll give you two weeks in the studio and a thousand bucks." or worse, "We really aren't interested in distributing your next album." If you are watching or listening to entertainment you haven't paid for, you are stealing from the artists and technicians who produced it and intended to get financial remuneration for their efforts.
 
Folks, I appreciate everyone's replies. But I think the thread has gone off topic to the argument of whether it is morally ok to download unlicensed movies/music.

What I really want to know is How has West Point handled it? No doubt, it is immoral. No doubt, college students do it. No doubt, some cadets at some time have done it--what was the outcome?

My question is really, has the Honor Committee made a specific ruling or has any cadet ever been brought up on an Honor Violation for downloading or streaming illegal movies?

When I was a cadet, the Internet was barely fast enough to send e-mail. At the time, the Honor Committee had made a specific ruling that copying software for personal use (one disk to another) was not an Honor violation. I'm not sure how it came up. Perhaps there was a case and after investigation the cadet was not found. There were interesting views on it at the time. Some cadets still declined to copy software. Some copied everything they could get their hands on. I am curious as to how Internet and streaming technology has impacted the climate at the Academy.

Has anyone heard of any recent cases on this topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top