Jimquisition: When Piracy Becomes Theft

[Alterego-X]

There is no moral high ground nor justification for it. Games, and the like, are wants not needs. In some cases I can understand why certain people do pirate games. I can even empathize with those reasons. That, however, does not make the action any less illegal.

Morality =/= legaility.

You know what else is illegal in most nations of the world? Free speech. At least if you also count all african, middle-eastern, and east-asian countries as "nations", then there are a lot more chances for you getting prosecuted for saying bad things about the government, than for downloading a game.

To mix together what is moral with what is legally allowed, is just an appeal to authority.

Saying things like copyright laws are evil and should be abolished are, imo, a completely specious and spurious argument. They hold no water. For very much the same reasons why communism failed in such a massive way. Everything belonging to everyone is a noble ideal and goal but just doesn't work. It's predicated on everything and everyone having the same intrinsic value which, sadly, is not true and more the likely won't ever be.

I'm not some information-freedom fighter who thinks that all media content should be automatically public property, but in the specific issue of piracy, as in downloading personal copies from the Internet, the idea of legalization is a lot more grounded in reality than the attempts at stopping the Internet from doing what it inherently does, that is making free copies of everything.

 

[Agayek]

Putting aside all the semantical arguments about the issue, whether or not it's called copyright infrigment or theft, there is one inescapable fact about the issue. That is this; in most nations of the world it's illegal. That's all anyone should take away from it. Illegal. As in if caught doing so you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. Full stop. End of story.

It does not matter how we, as individuals, decide to dress up the issue or even what name we call it. What matters is the laws regarding these actions are specific and speak to the illegal nature of the actions as well as the consequences thereof.

There is no moral high ground nor justification for it. Games, and the like, are wants not needs. In some cases I can understand why certain people do pirate games. I can even empathize with those reasons. That, however, does not make the action any less illegal.

Saying things like copyright laws are evil and should be abolished are, imo, a completely specious and spurious argument. They hold no water. For very much the same reasons why communism failed in such a massive way. Everything belonging to everyone is a noble ideal and goal but just doesn't work. It's predicated on everything and everyone having the same intrinsic value which, sadly, is not true and more the likely won't ever be.

While I mostly agree with you, there is one aspect of your argument I must protest. Just because something is illegal does not make it immoral, or vice versa. Legality has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

Whatever government you care to name is fully capable of declaring rape to be legal. That won't make it any less of an abhorrent and immoral act. Holding up the legality of an act in a moral debate is utterly meaningless.

That said, you are correct at the very core of your statement here. Taking something for free that was not given is morally void, and is generally accepted as a bad thing to do. The fact that the victim does not technically lose anything in the process does not suddenly grant the act moral standing. It simply means you cheated the system.

Also, your copyright spiel at the end is 100% accurate. Copyright is very much necessary, and certainly a good thing. I do not agree with the scope and duration of copyright, but that does not mean it is unnecessary.

 

[Alterego-X]

That said, you are correct at the very core of your statement here. Taking something for free that was not given is morally void, and is generally accepted as a bad thing to do. The fact that the victim does not technically lose anything in the process does not suddenly grant the act moral standing. It simply means you cheated the system.

I disagree with that. I'm not saying that it *is* moral, but I think you are exaggerating when you say that it is "generally accepted as a bad thing". Normally, a bit of freeloading is considered OK as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

For example, if you pick up a newspaper that was left by someone on a table, not many would call you morally void. Or if you are walking down from a hill, get thirsty/hungry and pick a grape from a nearby vineyard, not many would call that morally void. It is just generally understood that the freedom to comfortably use your environment, is more important than technicalities of always making sure to pay for everything, as long as you aren't malicious.

 

[IKWerewolf]

I can't argue with Jimquisition on this one. There is no protection for Indie developers in the global market, so we should be the responsible party telling people that ripping off Indie developers is worse than theft!

Although throwing paint on their house is maybe one step too far.

 

[Darth_Murmeltier]

Hey, lov' ya Jim <3

I totally agree with you on this, it's just really shit when you pirate something from an indie dev "with a good heart", if you know what I mean.

 

[zefiris]

Completely agree with Jim Sterling. There's no reason to pirate something like the humble bundle.

And I was in the other threads, saying that some piracy doesn't hurt anyone.

This kind? Does.

Sorry No, Indie devs are not special

They aren't special - just specially good at making games. I sure am having more fun with them than with AAA titles.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

It's theft, it will always be theft and those that say it's something less are enablers.

It's not theft, it's never been theft and those that say it is are just trying to appeal to emotion to put someone who downloads a few games on the same footing as a mugger.

People who are saying that it is theft are *not* equating it with mugging. That is *your* emotional manipulation of the issue. Theft ranges all the way from taking a paperclip from your employer, all the way through to armed robbery or massive corporate fraud. Nobody said that all theft is equivalent, or that all theft involves violent crime.

Taking property without permission has always been defined as theft. Whether that property is digital or not is irrelevant. The fact is that we have laws that define "Intellectual Property." Now, you may not agree with that concept, but that is the law. If you take intellectual property, you are taking property without permission.

The reason that the legal system has so many different names for charges relating to theft, is that theft is infinitely varied in its degree and nature. If you commit embezzlement or fraud, you are not charged with "theft," even though your actions involve theft. We speak of "Identity Theft," even though that does not actually remove the identity of the victim.

It's impossible to have an intelligent debate while people continue to re-define words to mean something that they are not. In this case, it's people who are claiming that software piracy is not theft. It is. But that doesn't define what kind of theft it is - whether it's more like stealing a paperclip from your place of work, or breaking into somebody's house and stealing items at gunpoint.

Somebody previously argued that software piracy should be compared to something less extreme, like vandalism, or property destruction. That's pretty strange to me, as I think that most people would think that vandalism and property destruction are *much* worse than petty theft. Those activities indicate psychopathy and seriously anti-social behavior. Surely, petty theft is less objectionable to most people than the needless destruction of things?

Most people can relate to not having enough money to afford something. When people refer to software piracy as "theft," it's usually closer to the "steal a loaf of bread" end of the spectrum than the "armed bank robbery" end.

 

[surg3n]

You do realise that indi developers are some of the biggest pirates out there!

The difference is that the software an indi dev will pirate is worth thousands. 3D Studio Max, Photoshop, any Adobe software, Reason, FruityLoops.

I'm not saying the professional indi's, like 2D Boy are like that, I mean the million other indi and hobbyist developers out there, who don't have a penny to their name, yet they aquire thousands of dollars worth of software.

That's just software, software that admitedly is so expensive because professionals use it, but theres more - like media. I myself have had media used without credit, in one of those god awful trucking games. No credit, no linky to a free copy of the game, no email saying they were using it - they just took the media and made it their own. I'm not sure if those guys are considered pro's, or indi - but developers and artists are perfectly capable of the same actions. God only knows how many times CGTextures has been ripped off, or any number of media sites out there.

It's a horrible situation, when someone has to 'steal' to create something for people for free, and with hobbyists that is certainly the case. Copyright laws need to wind down a little, and concentrate on people who profit from infringement. So it wouldn't be illegal to download and use Photoshop or 3DS Max, but if you use it commercially then you should have to pay. Indi developers could develop for free, then pay licences if their game gets sold. Steam is becomming much more accesible for indi developers, it will be easier to sell PC only games, and more developers will see it as a legitimate money platform, much like they see the iPhone and iPad. It all boils down to money, people can't afford so they take copies, there's no point in suing these people, so let them have it... if they start to make money from this software though, they should be expected to pay for it.
I know that won't happen, they couldn't police it, things will continue as they are, with everyone acting all butt-hurt.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Legally speaking it is not theft. That is the end of the matter. If you think that it is, you are wrong.

Who said we were speaking legally? I was talking about the common definition of the term. But it is also considered theft in a legal sense, too.

I could quote plenty of cases where judges have flat out said that copyright infringement cannot be theft.

Please, go ahead and quote those cases.

We have a term and offence for this: copyright infringement. If everyone just used that and didn't twat around trying to call it theft, or counterfeiting, or fraud, or god knows what else, we might actually make some progress talking about it.

No, it's an important distinction. When we're talking about software piracy, it's *deliberate* copyright infringement as an act of theft. "Copyright infringement" as a general term can cover things like accidental copyright infringement, which is not what we're talking about.

I'm fine with calling it copyright infringement, the problem is that people are claiming that it is not *also* theft, which it most certainly is. Why is it that you feel the need to claim that it isn't? Do you claim that fraud and embezzlement aren't also forms of theft?

 

[The Human Torch]

If I steal your bike, then you lose a bike. That's theft.
If you copy one of your games, you lose nothing. See the difference?

Piracy is theft, simply because you take a game/video/cd without paying for it. You are using the service that they provided and you are not paying for it. I don't care how you spin it, you are pirating.
You are a pedophile burglar, if you pirate games.

Thanks for that term Jim, I am going to be using it a lot.

I am not the one that said that, you may wish to get your quotes right next time

Meh, sorry about that, I got it from a post that was filled with quotes and I backspaced the wrong part. My apologies.

To clarify to all readers: FelixG is NOT a pedophile burglar!

 

[Aardvaarkman]

You did?. You're clearly describing theft in a legal context. Although it's painfully obvious you have no legal education at all from the way you're writing.

Discussion of legal issues does mean that discussion of the common dictionary meaning of a word is invalid and cannot be used. I guess it's painfully clear you don't have an education in the English language.

Go and read:
Rank Film Distributors&#65279; v Video Information Centre
R v Lloyd
Dowling v United States

You said you could quote them. So, please go ahead and quote the sections where the judges say that copyright infringement *cannot* be theft, rather than just generally waving in the direction of some cases.

No, fraud does not necessarily involve theft and so is not a type of theft.

But it frequently is a type of theft. This is a logical failure. Just because some kinds of fraud may not be used for theft, doesn't mean that fraud cannot be theft. Your argument is like saying that because some cats have three legs, then a cat cannot have any number other than three legs.

I've already addressed this, but you chose to ignore it. While it is possible for copyright infringement to exist without the intention of theft, software piracy is copyright infringement for the specific purpose of theft.

 

[electric method]

Alterego-X and Agayek, sorry for not quoting both of you in this reponse but it woulda gotten a bit out of control (possibly). I can understand both of your points of view and can respect them as well.

I am fully aware of the fact that legality does not imply morality nor that morality connotates legality. Which is why I've always been against legislating morality. People's belief systems and values are products of specific upbrings and environmental issues.

Also, I understand that in some nations freedoms I enjoy, such as free speech, are illegal acts. Furthermore, in some of those countries, specifically certain arabic ones, theft still comes with the punishment of having hand(s) chopped off. That is something I find no less disgusting than the suppression of free speech. Both are things that enable despotic governments to rule through fear, hate-mongering etc and not the rule of law. However, I suspect that people living in those nations are not worried so much about pirating video games so much as they are about surviving.

In most cases laws serve to protect society, establish a code of conduct and punishment(s). In cases like the piracy one we are dealing with here, the laws are meant to protect the IP's and the creators of them while serving as both punishment and warning to those who would break those laws.

Copyright laws, whatever your take on them, do both good and bad. In some cases they are just highly draconian and favor big business. In others, they protect the intellectual products of people's labors ensuring that the person won't have their ideas and products stolen and reproduced by someone lacking the creativity and vision to make an original piece.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

People pirated Humble Bundles? The shame...

 

[Alterego-X]

Also, I understand that in some nations freedoms I enjoy, such as free speech, are illegal acts. Furthermore, in some of those countries, specifically certain arabic ones, theft still comes with the punishment of having hand(s) chopped off. That is something I find no less disgusting than the suppression of free speech. Both are things that enable despotic governments to rule through fear, hate-mongering etc and not the rule of law. However, I suspect that people living in those nations are not worried so much about pirating video games so much as they are about surviving.

It's interesting that you bring up the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law] is a legal maxim, that states, that

all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal transparency.

You could say, that the current copyright model, is in direct contradiction with this principle.

Copyright can't be fairly enforced on the Internet, so authorities resort to randomly sueing a small percenage of Internet users for ridiculously large sums, to make an example of them and scare all the others.

Of course, it's a much lesser problem than third world rules of terror, but among our first world problems, this is a pretty big one. And as long as the industry is based on it's archaic expectation that they can supervise what is being downloaded on the Internet, this fault in the legal system is here to stay.