Is Piracy Stealing?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Reasonable royalty is the best guess they can come up with. But it's still based on what was pirated. It mentions both loss and damages which are not punitive. That much I do know about the law. LJS9502_basicReasonable royalty, again, is not based on what you pirated. Reasonable royalty is a hypothetical situation. If you accept there was a loss, if you accept that loss was part of your actions, and if these actions are writ large here is what we think should be paid. It does not, however, make a statement about whether or not there was a loss from piracy. I also already explained those other damages; nominal and general.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] rational self interest is pretty strict. we all want happiness, and certain human actions lead to more happiness. Perfect happiness isnt possible, but if you want sustained happiness you cannot ignore the need of others to be happy as well. the only way to sustain this happiness is to be rational, which means throwing away short sited intent.VandalvideoThere are masochists in this country. They find happiness in what you deem as pain. Merely because they find happiness elsewhere does not make them wrong. Heck, for all you know I could be a Mr. Despair who finds pleasure in despair. Thats usually seen as a mental illness. Something thats in societies self interest to try and "cure"
also if you care about your own self interest, and self happiness, you must, by logic, care about others self interest and individual happiness.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Reasonable royalty is the best guess they can come up with. But it's still based on what was pirated. It mentions both loss and damages which are not punitive. That much I do know about the law. VandalvideoReasonable royalty, again, is not based on what you pirated. Reasonable royalty is a hypothetical situation. If you accept there was a loss, if you accept that loss was part of your actions, and if these actions are writ large here is what we think should be paid. It does not, however, make a statement about whether or not there was a loss from piracy. I also already explained those other damages; nominal and general. It's added on to the fines because they did in fact pirate and not pay royalty fees. I think you are just quibbling here. No...you did not explain. Because the fact that someone is in possession of something they did not pay for....they did in fact cause a loss of revenue since the ONLY other option of obtaining it would be to pay. The thing about this topic is the government just made it more complicated then it needed to be. Copyright infringement vs theft due to the non physical aspect. Yet, it still "belongs" to someone and they should be compensated for it. Then they use reasonable royalty since it's not physical and they don't want to go that route....but basically it comes down to the lost revenue. You pay this since you didn't pay that. *shrugs* It's semantics but at the base level the law is saying you took something you didn't have the right to take and we will fine you based on what we find to be reasonable.
Thats usually seen as a mental illness. Something thats in societies self interest to try and "cure"Atheists_PwnMaybe those that care about society are the mentally ill ones. Prove the sensible knave is the ill one. Irregularity does not equal illness or disparity.
Also, that is false. What if all I want is chaos? If I enjoy chaos and the dissolution of society then it would be in my best interest to ignore the self-interest of others. your claims do not follow.also if you care about your own self interest, and self happiness, you must, by logic, care about others self interest and individual happiness.
[QUOTE="Atheists_Pwn"] Thats usually seen as a mental illness. Something thats in societies self interest to try and "cure"VandalvideoMaybe those that care about society are the mentally ill ones. Prove the sensible knave is the ill one. Irregularity does not equal illness or disparity.
Also, that is false. What if all I want is chaos? If I enjoy chaos and the dissolution of society then it would be in my best interest to ignore the self-interest of others. your claims do not follow. You can see the differences in brain activity from the majority of people, who a re able to build succesful relationships with people, are able to accomplish goals and act rationally, than those who are not able. Its really not subjective. We are all interested in self happiness, rationality is purely objective. If you want pure chaos, then you are irrational, and would be ignoring one of the most important parts of what im talking to you about :)also if you care about your own self interest, and self happiness, you must, by logic, care about others self interest and individual happiness.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And your main point was what? That some copies are allowed and some not...correct?LJS9502_basic
Focusing in mostly on the double standard that I alluded to.
Oh but I did respond to that. It's not actually a double standard. The DVRs are supposed to be for people to catch up on programming at their leisure. So instead of watching a program on Friday...they can watch it Saturday. Is it possible to abuse....I guess. I've never had a DVR so I don't know who they hook up. Nonetheless, pirating off the internet when there is a value attached means one has to pay for the product. Not doing so is copyright infringement and illegal. You can however, watch movies and listen to music on sites that allow that. For instance last.fm.....and some such. I'm not sure how that is a double standard. You pay for the DVR monthly so fees are being paid.Isn't recording a TV show or any broadcast on my DVD player or onto my hard drive an illegal redistribution of content that robs a studio of DVD sales revenue? No one cares about that. But if you obtain a copy via download, it's suddenly a criminal offense. Recording a song off the radio is fine, but downloading it is a criminal offense?
So is piracy then just a matter of method?
Oh but I did respond to that. It's not actually a double standard. The DVRs are supposed to be for people to catch up on programming at their leisure. So instead of watching a program on Friday...they can watch it Saturday. Is it possible to abuse....I guess. I've never had a DVR so I don't know who they hook up. Nonetheless, pirating off the internet when there is a value attached means one has to pay for the product. Not doing so is copyright infringement and illegal. You can however, watch movies and listen to music on sites that allow that. For instance last.fm.....and some such. I'm not sure how that is a double standard. You pay for the DVR monthly so fees are being paid.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
Focusing in mostly on the double standard that I alluded to.
MarcusAntonius
Isn't recording a TV show or any broadcast on my DVD player or onto my hard drive an illegal redistribution of content that robs a studio of DVD sales revenue? No one cares about that. But if you obtain a copy via download, it's suddenly a criminal offense. Recording a song off the radio is fine, but downloading it is a criminal offense?
So is piracy then just a matter of method?
Who said recording off the radio wasn't piracy?
Rational self-interest merely means self-interest which is suited to the goals of the individual. If it meets the goals of the individual, whatever those goals may be, it is rational.its not purely self interest. Its RATIONAL self interest. without rational, it become some psychotic ayn rand nonsense.
I dare you to prove to me that to be human is to want society. Prove to me that wanting chaos is inhuman.its irrational because it ignores the basic intent of being human, and it ultimately ruins any chance at sustained happiness.
No, no it does not. The mere fact that you aren't like the majority does not mean you lack something. If you are a genius on a planet full of idiots it does not make you the person with a problem. Likewise, merely because a lot of people love community does not mean that to want sollitude is wrong. Not following the status quo does not mean you are bad or lack something. It merely means you are irregular.you can only determine deficiency based upon what is normal, so yes, those who have the mental illnesses does infact equal deficiency.
Rational self-interest merely means self-interest which is suited to the goals of the individual. If it meets the goals of the individual, whatever those goals may be, it is rational.its not purely self interest. Its RATIONAL self interest. without rational, it become some psychotic ayn rand nonsense.
I dare you to prove to me that to be human is to want society. Prove to me that wanting chaos is inhuman.its irrational because it ignores the basic intent of being human, and it ultimately ruins any chance at sustained happiness.
No, no it does not. The mere fact that you aren't like the majority does not mean you lack something. If you are a genius on a planet full of idiots it does not make you the person with a problem. Likewise, merely because a lot of people love community does not mean that to want sollitude is wrong. Not following the status quo does not mean you are bad or lack something. It merely means you are irregular. my viewpoints dont say what you enjoy is bad. you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of what im saying. Masochism and such usually comes from abuse as a child. It is objectively bad, from a rational stand point. "Rational self-interest merely means self-interest which is suited to the goals of the individual. If it meets the goals of the individual, whatever those goals may be, it is rational." Everyone, including your own goals require that you have a decent life to live. In order to achieve your goals you rationally cannot contribute to the ills of society. this is really utilitarianism 101. Human beings are naturally social animals. This is indisputable fact given by endless varying empirical observations. Saying anything otherwise is absolute ignorance of the highest order. I was talking about emotional disorders, not differences among people.you can only determine deficiency based upon what is normal, so yes, those who have the mental illnesses does infact equal deficiency.
Prove it wrong.this is really utilitarianism 101.
The mere fact that a majority of people are social does not necessitate that we are social by nature. Prove to me that it is not merely a byproduct of generation of deficient idiots, and that people who are not social are not the true ubermench.Human beings are naturally social animals. This is indisputable fact given by endless varying empirical observations. Saying anything otherwise is absolute ignorance of the highest order.
Merely because someone is not like you does not mean they are the insane one.I was talking about emotional disorders, not differences among people.
Prove it wrong.this is really utilitarianism 101.
The mere fact that a majority of people are social does not necessitate that we are social by nature. Prove to me that it is not merely a byproduct of generation of deficient idiots, and that people who are not social are not the true ubermench.Human beings are naturally social animals. This is indisputable fact given by endless varying empirical observations. Saying anything otherwise is absolute ignorance of the highest order.
Merely because someone is not like you does not mean they are the insane one. Pain is something we evolved to have in order to survive, to remove our selves from situations that would harm us. Without pain we would literally all be dead. Wanting pain is an emotional disorder by the very nature of it. The instances that bring it up are actually pretty irrelevant given what pain "is" I am arguing in favor of people having diverse lifestyles. You need to understand that in order to have a serious conversation with me. If you come into a conversation with the intent to "prove people wrong" then you've already slipped into something dogmatic in nature. "The mere fact that a majority of people are social does not necessitate that we are social by nature. Prove to me that it is not merely a byproduct of generation of deficient idiots, and that people who are not social are not the true ubermench." Yes we are social. Go live on an island alone for several years, your mental state will deteriorate, just like any animal that is social. All humans that ever existed are 100% purely social. Every single instance in which someone lived in complete solitude resulted in very serious mental breakdowns. Ubermensch is a stupid concept by a stupid pseudo philosopher. "Merely because someone is not like you does not mean they are the insane one." did you read what you quoted?I was talking about emotional disorders, not differences among people.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Oh but I did respond to that. It's not actually a double standard. The DVRs are supposed to be for people to catch up on programming at their leisure. So instead of watching a program on Friday...they can watch it Saturday. Is it possible to abuse....I guess. I've never had a DVR so I don't know who they hook up. Nonetheless, pirating off the internet when there is a value attached means one has to pay for the product. Not doing so is copyright infringement and illegal. You can however, watch movies and listen to music on sites that allow that. For instance last.fm.....and some such. I'm not sure how that is a double standard. You pay for the DVR monthly so fees are being paid.poptart
Isn't recording a TV show or any broadcast on my DVD player or onto my hard drive an illegal redistribution of content that robs a studio of DVD sales revenue? No one cares about that. But if you obtain a copy via download, it's suddenly a criminal offense. Recording a song off the radio is fine, but downloading it is a criminal offense?
So is piracy then just a matter of method?
Who said recording off the radio wasn't piracy?
Sony vs. Universal (1984)
I'll throw in my 2P Piracy is theft, it carries little social stigma, which is why it is committed heavily, its not the same as stealing a physical item from a store, which carries a different type of image and is far more risky
the UK (Where I live) has now put new legislation into place, allowing ISPs to Ban Customers that download illegally obtained media,
a short sighted initiative by a government party that wants to bring internet to every home in the UK
Its supported by another government that wants to do the same, however, as more people are wrongly banned/prosecuted, and more people become familiar with the darker parts of the internet, more people are banned and new programs are founded which will make regular P2P defunct a legislation built for the record industry, by the record industry, that will soon collapse internet service providers profits
ISPs don't really care what you download, if you download too much, they sell you more space, they don't care as long as you pay. I see P2P and Piracy okay to a certain extent, depending on how much money you contribute to the industries you effect
One example (hypothetical)..,,,I download a film, I enjoy it, I purchase it.....is that considered "acceptable"?
However, Turn the situation around...I download a film, I enjoy it, I don't purchase it.....I keep my Pirated copy.....is that considered "unacceptable"?
Yet again, I download a film, I enjoy it, I don't purchase it.....I delete my Pirated copy.....is that considered "acceptable"?
Last Turn around....I buy the Film before downloading, its Crap (trust me, I've paid full price for some crap films....Yes I'm looking at you DeathProof) I've been ripped £14.99 for another pile of crap churned out by a profit driven corporation, and I've just donated £14.99 towards a service for someones Ferrari
To me, the last one can be counted as theft.
This is a matter of rhetoric more than a matter of law in dealing with piracy. Piratical charges in law absolutely, positively do not base damages on the amount the product is actually worth. They primarily use damages as a deterrent. That is why they are so absurdly high. On the rhetorical end of the equation, in order to prove a loss, you would most assuredly have to prove intent to buy. This is primarily due to the fact that you cannot prove you lost a potential sale, you cannot prove you lost resources or materials, and you cannot prove any type of economic loss.Vandalvideo
But...with the loaf of bread, we can assign an arbitray value on the "loss". As you said, it's possible to take the theft of that $2 loaf of bread and assign a "loss" of anywhere between $1 and $12. Regardless of the fact that there's no proof that that loaf of bread wasn't going to end up right in the dumpster if it wasn't stolen.
Now...if that loaf of bread's "original value" can be determined to be retail price, then why does the same not apply to downloaded files? If a song's retail price is $1, then why can we not determine a loss of $1 same as when we determine that the theft of bread was a "loss" of $12 (even though retail price is only $2)?
In BOTH cases, we cannot prove intent to buy. We cannot prove loss of a potential sale. The ONLY difference between the bread and the song is that the bread contained tangible resources. Yet, when determining the amount of loss, it's perfectly fair to determine that the loss is well ABOVE the value of the resources themselves.
Please tell me a logical basis for this discrepancy.
What if a person kill somebody by stealing his/her head. Should You should call him a thief and not a murderer?NerubianWeaverNo one wants to Address My Post -.- Original movie has lots of introduction based on this image below while the pirated copy has the movie content right away. http://www.geekologie.com/2010/02/25/piracy-full.jpg The above image is a form of theft based on the image below because the thief removes the original content of the disk. http://i.justrealized.com/media/2008/08/piracy-is-not-theft-handy-guide.jpg Therefore PIRACY is no doubt equal to THEFT. I have the evidence in this post if somebody wants to argue show us your evidence. By the way its fun to see that the Pirates took a dose of their own medicine.
Prove it. The mere fact that someone does not conform to the majority does not prove it is a deficiency or disorder.Wanting pain is an emotional disorder by the very nature of it. The instances that bring it up are actually pretty irrelevant given what pain "is"
I have no intent to prove people wrong. I merely have the intent to demand proof from you.I am arguing in favor of people having diverse lifestyles. You need to understand that in order to have a serious conversation with me. If you come into a conversation with the intent to "prove people wrong" then you've already slipped into something dogmatic in nature.
I dare you to prove to me that if I were to go to an island and live by myself that my mental state would deteriorate. I would love to hear how you have a keen insight into how I particularly would react to a situation in which I was all alone. How do you know how I would react? To head you off, the mere fact that some operate this way does not necessitate that I operate this way.Yes we are social. Go live on an island alone for several years, your mental state will deteriorate, just like any animal that is social. All humans that ever existed are 100% purely social. Every single instance in which someone lived in complete solitude resulted in very serious mental breakdowns. Ubermensch is a stupid concept by a stupid pseudo philosopher.
Of course I did, and it begs the question; how do you know you're not insane?you read what you quoted?
But...with the loaf of bread, we can assign an arbitray value on the "loss". As you said, it's possible to take the theft of that $2 loaf of bread and assign a "loss" of anywhere between $1 and $12. Regardless of the fact that there's no proof that that loaf of bread wasn't going to end up right in the dumpster if it wasn't stolen.MrGeezerIt doesn't matter if the loaf of bread would have ended up in the dumpster or not. You have lost a fungible item. You no longer have the potential for profit. The same could not be said in the case of piracy. You cannot prove that you no longer have the potential for profit.
Because, in this instance, the fact of the matter is that there has not been anything lost. There is nothing which can no longer be redeemed in the cast of the online song. You cannot prove loss.Now...if that loaf of bread's "original value" can be determined to be retail price, then why does the same not apply to downloaded files? If a song's retail price is $1, then why can we not determine a loss of $1 same as when we determine that the theft of bread was a "loss" of $12 (even though retail price is only $2)?
False, in the case of braed you CAN prove loss of a potential sale. The absence of that fungible item means that it can no longer be redeemed for a value. You have lost a tangible item. It does not matter if it would have been sold at a later time. You no longer have the potential to redeem it. The same cannot be said about the digital item.In BOTH cases, we cannot prove intent to buy. We cannot prove loss of a potential sale. The ONLY difference between the bread and the song is that the bread contained tangible resources. Yet, when determining the amount of loss, it's perfectly fair to determine that the loss is well ABOVE the value of the resources themselves.
Therefore PIRACY is no doubt equal to THEFT.NerubianWeaver
Oh, there is a lot of doubt in the matter. Let's see, piracy is just a sensationalized term for "copyright infringement", right? Or at least, it's another term for it. Theft is the criminal offence, of well, theft (obviousness). You can't charge copyright infringement under theft, you treat "piracy" as copyright infringement and theft as theft, they are not equal. Otherwise, I think the legal system would reflect if they were.
edit: messed up my quotation marks, drat.
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]But...with the loaf of bread, we can assign an arbitray value on the "loss". As you said, it's possible to take the theft of that $2 loaf of bread and assign a "loss" of anywhere between $1 and $12. Regardless of the fact that there's no proof that that loaf of bread wasn't going to end up right in the dumpster if it wasn't stolen.VandalvideoIt doesn't matter if the loaf of bread would have ended up in the dumpster or not. You have lost a fungible item. You no longer have the potential for profit. The same could not be said in the case of piracy. You cannot prove that you no longer have the potential for profit.
Because, in this instance, the fact of the matter is that there has not been anything lost. There is nothing which can no longer be redeemed in the cast of the online song. You cannot prove loss.Now...if that loaf of bread's "original value" can be determined to be retail price, then why does the same not apply to downloaded files? If a song's retail price is $1, then why can we not determine a loss of $1 same as when we determine that the theft of bread was a "loss" of $12 (even though retail price is only $2)?
False, in the case of braed you CAN prove loss of a potential sale. The absence of that fungible item means that it can no longer be redeemed for a value. You have lost a tangible item. It does not matter if it would have been sold at a later time. You no longer have the potential to redeem it. The same cannot be said about the digital item.In BOTH cases, we cannot prove intent to buy. We cannot prove loss of a potential sale. The ONLY difference between the bread and the song is that the bread contained tangible resources. Yet, when determining the amount of loss, it's perfectly fair to determine that the loss is well ABOVE the value of the resources themselves.
Ah, I'm misunderstanding the definition of the term "potential sale".
"Potential sale" means "there is no longer the potential to sell it", rather than "the sale which would have occured was prevented due to theft".
Is that pretty much correct? When you kept talking about a "potential sale", I thought you were saying the latter, which would necessitate knowing that a sale would otherwise have occured without the theft.
[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]Therefore PIRACY is no doubt equal to THEFT.T_P_O
Oh, there is a lot of doubt in the matter. Let's see, piracy is just a sensationalized term for "copyright infringement", right? Or at least, it's another term for it. Theft is the criminal offence, of well, theft (obviousness). You can't charge copyright infringement under theft, you treat "piracy" as copyright infringement and theft as theft, they are not equal. Otherwise, I think the legal system would reflect if they were.
edit: messed up my quotation marks, drat.
Did you bother reading my other post >_>Just as much as getting a used copy. Either way, the dev/pub don't get any money. Thou, I think used copys are worse as other people are getting rich off it.Sins-of-Mosin
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
No it isn't stealing, it's copying there's a huge difference. I copy food recipies all the time should I give money to the guy who invented curry?
Topics like this without a poll is epic fail as well :roll:
[QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]Just as much as getting a used copy. Either way, the dev/pub don't get any money. Thou, I think used copys are worse as other people are getting rich off it.MarcusAntonius
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
THat is untrue itsa grey area.. If it weren't the case systems like Steam, and how WoW operates would not work. Both ban you for sselling steam accounts which would qualify as used games.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
[QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]Just as much as getting a used copy. Either way, the dev/pub don't get any money. Thou, I think used copys are worse as other people are getting rich off it.sSubZerOo
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
THat is untrue itsa grey area.. If it weren't the case systems like Steam, and how WoW operates would not work. Both ban you for sselling steam accounts which would qualify as used games.
I think that's down to you violating a civil contract, though, not because you've committed a criminal offence. You can legally sell your games but the services have the right to cut you off if that's what you've agreed to in the ToU.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
jimmyjammer69
THat is untrue itsa grey area.. If it weren't the case systems like Steam, and how WoW operates would not work. Both ban you for sselling steam accounts which would qualify as used games.
I think that's down to you violating a civil contract, though, not because you've committed a criminal offence. You can legally sell your games but the services have the right to cut you off if that's what you've agreed to in the ToU.That goes the same with EVERY game.. Before you install games on the pc you have to agree to a EULA, and terms of use contract even before you can install it.. Furthermore more games are cosntantly having online checking.. You are not paying for the physical copy, you are paying for the rights to be able to play the game.. Rights that can be taken away if you violate the contract you accepted when you wer einstalling the game.
I think that's down to you violating a civil contract, though, not because you've committed a criminal offence. You can legally sell your games but the services have the right to cut you off if that's what you've agreed to in the ToU.[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
THat is untrue itsa grey area.. If it weren't the case systems like Steam, and how WoW operates would not work. Both ban you for sselling steam accounts which would qualify as used games.
sSubZerOo
That goes the same with EVERY game.. Before you install games on the pc you have to agree to a EULA, and terms of use contract even before you can install it.. Furthermore more games are cosntantly having online checking.. You are not paying for the physical copy, you are paying for the rights to be able to play the game.. Rights that can be taken away if you violate the contract you accepted when you wer einstalling the game.
But the EULA doesn't override the doctrine of first sale (whatever it states to the contrary), which is deemed to be a basic consumer right or something. A service, however, can be withdrawn if you break the ToS.Incidentally, that's the only reason I refuse to use Steam - the client is putting a lot of faith in the service to continue to provide him with the same rights he enjoyed when buying hard copy retail.
I did look for the Steam ToU, or whatever they call it, and arrived at a page that basically said "We can do what we like, change what we like, and all we guarantee you is access to your games as long as you don't break our service agreement." While I adore the idea of Steam, I like what I've bought to retain some resale value, and that agreement's just a bit too circular and vague for me.
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
[QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]Just as much as getting a used copy. Either way, the dev/pub don't get any money. Thou, I think used copys are worse as other people are getting rich off it.sSubZerOo
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
THat is untrue itsa grey area.. If it weren't the case systems like Steam, and how WoW operates would not work. Both ban you for sselling steam accounts which would qualify as used games.
Uh, no. Doctrine of First Sale really does exist.:|
Publishers just find new ways to violate a consumer's Fair Use rights. If someone wanted to push a case against Steam and Activision, I'd love for them to try. But the judge's ruling would probably be some corporation-friendly tripe like validating both defendants because "they're not selling products, they're selling services", or some such BS. This is why I will never do business with Steam.
Care to read what's at stake?
EDIT: Hey, wouldn't you know, there was a case against Blizzard.
[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"]Therefore PIRACY is no doubt equal to THEFT.NerubianWeaver
Oh, there is a lot of doubt in the matter. Let's see, piracy is just a sensationalized term for "copyright infringement", right? Or at least, it's another term for it. Theft is the criminal offence, of well, theft (obviousness). You can't charge copyright infringement under theft, you treat "piracy" as copyright infringement and theft as theft, they are not equal. Otherwise, I think the legal system would reflect if they were.
edit: messed up my quotation marks, drat.
Did you bother reading my other post >_> Nope, but when you just assert it as "no doubt", you shouldn't expect someone to not contest it. I just sought to remind you of the legal boundaries between theft and copyright infringement which you tried to conflate oh so easily. Alright, I've just read it, and to be honest, it seems like you're kind of mistaking what the picture intends to mean. The point is that the original is not removed/taken from the creator, it's just copied. Stealing would be depriving someone of the item, in copyright infringement, you're copying a copy of the original which someone has a copyright on. Just because someone's tampered with the copy doesn't make it stealing or theft, it remains copyright infringement. In terms of music/movies on CD's/DVD's/Blu-rays, I could make this analogy: If I go to a concert or a cinema, that would be like eating in McDonalds and purchasing the food there. However, a CD/DVD is like going to McDonalds and buying a recipe (obviously assuming you've bought the disc, otherwise you have obviously stolen the disk and have committed theft) and having a machine at home to follow the recipe, since the DVD/CD is essentially a formula that tells your PC/player how to generate the movie/music using your own resources (power &computer). You eliminate the need to go to McDonalds for that particular item of food. If I download a copy of the files of a disk that someone ripped and uploaded to a P2P network or wherever, I'm not exactly depriving/taking anything off of the copyright holder, I'm just copying the instructions from the copy of the recipe that someone's put onto the internet without permission to do so (illegally, violating copyright), no deprivation occurs. Then you get to that argument of the creator losing potential income, which has been circular in this thread too many times for me to bother going into it, because I'm sure someone will just ignore what I've written and quote this sentence regardless, bringing us back to that issue for the 9001st time.[QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"][QUOTE="T_P_O"]Did you bother reading my other post >_> Nope, but when you just assert it as "no doubt", you shouldn't expect someone to not contest it. I just sought to remind you of the legal boundaries between theft and copyright infringement which you tried to conflate oh so easily. Alright, I've just read it, and to be honest, it seems like you're kind of mistaking what the picture intends to mean. The point is that the original is not removed/taken from the creator, it's just copied. Stealing would be depriving someone of the item, in copyright infringement, you're copying a copy of the original which someone has a copyright on. Just because someone's tampered with the copy doesn't make it stealing or theft, it remains copyright infringement. In terms of music/movies on CD's/DVD's/Blu-rays, I could make this analogy: If I go to a concert or a cinema, that would be like eating in McDonalds and purchasing the food there. However, a CD/DVD is like going to McDonalds and buying a recipe (obviously assuming you've bought the disc, otherwise you have obviously stolen the disk and have committed theft) and having a machine at home to follow the recipe, since the DVD/CD is essentially a formula that tells your PC/player how to generate the movie/music using your own resources (power &computer). You eliminate the need to go to McDonalds for that particular item of food. If I download a copy of the files of a disk that someone ripped and uploaded to a P2P network or wherever, I'm not exactly depriving/taking anything off of the copyright holder, I'm just copying the instructions from the copy of the recipe that someone's put onto the internet without permission to do so (illegally, violating copyright), no deprivation occurs. Then you get to that argument of the creator losing potential income, which has been circular in this thread too many times for me to bother going into it, because I'm sure someone will just ignore what I've written and quote this sentence regardless, bringing us back to that issue for the 9001st time.Oh, there is a lot of doubt in the matter. Let's see, piracy is just a sensationalized term for "copyright infringement", right? Or at least, it's another term for it. Theft is the criminal offence, of well, theft (obviousness). You can't charge copyright infringement under theft, you treat "piracy" as copyright infringement and theft as theft, they are not equal. Otherwise, I think the legal system would reflect if they were.
edit: messed up my quotation marks, drat.
T_P_O
But does Piracy really affects the Industry. Are there any Positive effects of Piracy in the Industry? And I mean both ways, not just one party.
But does Piracy really affects the Industry. Are there any Positive effects of Piracy in the Industry? And I mean both ways, not just one party.
NerubianWeaver
If the damages are incalculable, then I guess we'll never know if Big Content ever reakky gets hurt.
[QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]Just as much as getting a used copy. Either way, the dev/pub don't get any money. Thou, I think used copys are worse as other people are getting rich off it.MarcusAntonius
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
Just because it is protected by law doesn't mean it isn't similar. The developers and publishers get no money, just like with piracy. They are very similar but no one really cares about used games because the law says it's okay (which instantly means it's good) and the law says piracy is not okay (which instantly means it's evil).
Nope, but when you just assert it as "no doubt", you shouldn't expect someone to not contest it. I just sought to remind you of the legal boundaries between theft and copyright infringement which you tried to conflate oh so easily. Alright, I've just read it, and to be honest, it seems like you're kind of mistaking what the picture intends to mean. The point is that the original is not removed/taken from the creator, it's just copied. Stealing would be depriving someone of the item, in copyright infringement, you're copying a copy of the original which someone has a copyright on. Just because someone's tampered with the copy doesn't make it stealing or theft, it remains copyright infringement. In terms of music/movies on CD's/DVD's/Blu-rays, I could make this analogy: If I go to a concert or a cinema, that would be like eating in McDonalds and purchasing the food there. However, a CD/DVD is like going to McDonalds and buying a recipe (obviously assuming you've bought the disc, otherwise you have obviously stolen the disk and have committed theft) and having a machine at home to follow the recipe, since the DVD/CD is essentially a formula that tells your PC/player how to generate the movie/music using your own resources (power &computer). You eliminate the need to go to McDonalds for that particular item of food. If I download a copy of the files of a disk that someone ripped and uploaded to a P2P network or wherever, I'm not exactly depriving/taking anything off of the copyright holder, I'm just copying the instructions from the copy of the recipe that someone's put onto the internet without permission to do so (illegally, violating copyright), no deprivation occurs. Then you get to that argument of the creator losing potential income, which has been circular in this thread too many times for me to bother going into it, because I'm sure someone will just ignore what I've written and quote this sentence regardless, bringing us back to that issue for the 9001st time.[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="NerubianWeaver"] Did you bother reading my other post >_>NerubianWeaver
But does Piracy really affects the Industry. Are there any Positive effects of Piracy in the Industry? And I mean both ways, not just one party.
Piracy forces an industry to evolve, introduce new products, and change practices. Otherwise a company just rides the same item or IP for decades.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]
No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.
MarcusAntonius
THat is untrue itsa grey area.. If it weren't the case systems like Steam, and how WoW operates would not work. Both ban you for sselling steam accounts which would qualify as used games.
Uh, no. Doctrine of First Sale really does exist.:|
Publishers just find new ways to violate a consumer's Fair Use rights. If someone wanted to push a case against Steam and Activision, I'd love for them to try. But the judge's ruling would probably be some corporation-friendly tripe like validating both defendants because "they're not selling products, they're selling services", or some such BS. This is why I will never do business with Steam.
Care to read what's at stake?
EDIT: Hey, wouldn't you know, there was a case against Blizzard.
yet again I am pointing out that its a grey area.. IT DOES exist, but there have been numerous court cases that ruled in favor of both sides.. And systems like WoW, MMORPG's in general, and Steam.. Are no shrinking they are GROWING.. Where games are being tailored to accounts.. If this were not a grey area these systems and practices would not be growing..BUT THEY ARE.. And btw the Blizzard case is just that a case.. It has had no ruling on it.. And I am fairly certain with 11 million users alogn with numerous banning for trying to sell accounts, that this is far from the only court case.. And yet again nothing has changed.. You signed a contract when you installed played that game.. In that contract selling of used games is forbidden.. Because you do not own a copy, you own the rights for YOU YOUR SELF to use it.. Nothign less northing more.. And seeing as these practices to enforce these kinds of practices are INCREASING rather then decreasing, the doctrine of first sale is not being enforced very well.
But does Piracy really affects the Industry. Are there any Positive effects of Piracy in the Industry? And I mean both ways, not just one party.NerubianWeaver
The argument I'm trying to pose is that semantically, the statement "piracy is stealing" is incorrect, an action having an adverse effect on an industry doesn't make it stealing or theft, that's illogical. I'm not that interested in other things in this thread, such as the ethics side of the debate, I'm trying to keep out of that but if you wish to argue that point with someone else, please do. :P
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment