Lawyer Destroys Arguments for Game Piracy
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As has been pointed out, this guy didn't really "destroy" the arguments for piracy. Pointed out flaws, yes, but hardly destroyed.
For example: the implication that every pirated game is a lost sale. No, not every one of them. A lot of them, yes, are lost sales. If the game weren't available for pirating, the people who really want it would go buy it. But honestly, the majority of people pirating stuff are frequently college age or younger, and we've grown up in a world where everything is one Google search away from a torrent or a download link, so to a lot of people my age, that's just part of how the world works. And after all, why pay when you can get something for free? You can twist rhetoric and logic to say that because they have the means to get something for free, of course they won't pay for it. But this is circular, as piracy is required to provide a free way to get games to justify pirating them. So in other words, that argument comes down to "piracy justifies piracy". Anyways. If somehow pirated games didn't exist, a lot of these people still want the games badly enough to either shell out the full list price for it or wait for it to go on sale on Steam or to come down in price or what have you. It's the exact same reasoning behind why you buy generic drugs rather than brand name--there's a cheaper alternative. It doesn't mean you wouldn't buy the brand name drugs, but there's no reason why you shouldn't save a few bucks. Same reasoning applies to a lot of pirates--"well yeah, I could buy it, but I could save a few bucks doing this instead." Yeah, there are some people who are just "HRRRNG NO I WOULD NOT EVER WANT TO BUY THIS GAME but I will totally pirate it and enjoy the fuck out of it without compensating the developers". They're not as much of an overwhelming majority as people want to think.
As for DRM and such, there are, to me, three ways to do it. The first is restrictions on accessibility, like requiring a valid Steam or Origin login or having online passes or some sort of bulky program to constantly monitor the game itself. The former--requiring a valid login for something--is effective, because it's not cumbersome on the player and the majority of PC gamers already have a Steam account and/or an Origin account. Online passes are just a nuisance, and I imagine effective at blocking online play for pirates but I don't have any actual gauge for its effectiveness, so that's mere speculation. The third type of this is what everyone hates, because oftentimes it directly and severely impacts gameplay for legitimate customers, while pirates who crack the game to remove that coding get a smoother experience. There is frankly no excuse for this sort of DRM, but that doesn't in any way count as a justification for pirating something. The second type: do what Serious Sam 3 or Dark Souls or Arkham Asylum did, and have a gameplay element change or be introduced (like the invincible scorpion in SS3) that makes progression in the game difficult or impossible. No idea how effective this is or how easy it is to remove something like this from a cracked copy, though. And the last type of DRM is "none," which is wildly ineffective because, as The Wither 2 proved, on the whole pirates don't give a rat's ass about how much DRM affects legitimate players, because no DRM makes it infinitely more easy to pirate something.
On the whole, as you may have noticed, I very much despise piracy and people who try to justify it. Ultimately, it removes incentive for people to keep doing work, decreases industry innovation (see Jim Sterling's article on casual gamers, where he explains this point in more depth), and is just plain selfish. After all, debate morals all you like, piracy is very explicitly illegal, and deciding "oh but I want this" and proceeding to break the law is just plain immature and stupid. Rule of Law, people. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow.
For example: the implication that every pirated game is a lost sale. No, not every one of them. A lot of them, yes, are lost sales. If the game weren't available for pirating, the people who really want it would go buy it. But honestly, the majority of people pirating stuff are frequently college age or younger, and we've grown up in a world where everything is one Google search away from a torrent or a download link, so to a lot of people my age, that's just part of how the world works. And after all, why pay when you can get something for free? You can twist rhetoric and logic to say that because they have the means to get something for free, of course they won't pay for it. But this is circular, as piracy is required to provide a free way to get games to justify pirating them. So in other words, that argument comes down to "piracy justifies piracy". Anyways. If somehow pirated games didn't exist, a lot of these people still want the games badly enough to either shell out the full list price for it or wait for it to go on sale on Steam or to come down in price or what have you. It's the exact same reasoning behind why you buy generic drugs rather than brand name--there's a cheaper alternative. It doesn't mean you wouldn't buy the brand name drugs, but there's no reason why you shouldn't save a few bucks. Same reasoning applies to a lot of pirates--"well yeah, I could buy it, but I could save a few bucks doing this instead." Yeah, there are some people who are just "HRRRNG NO I WOULD NOT EVER WANT TO BUY THIS GAME but I will totally pirate it and enjoy the fuck out of it without compensating the developers". They're not as much of an overwhelming majority as people want to think.
As for DRM and such, there are, to me, three ways to do it. The first is restrictions on accessibility, like requiring a valid Steam or Origin login or having online passes or some sort of bulky program to constantly monitor the game itself. The former--requiring a valid login for something--is effective, because it's not cumbersome on the player and the majority of PC gamers already have a Steam account and/or an Origin account. Online passes are just a nuisance, and I imagine effective at blocking online play for pirates but I don't have any actual gauge for its effectiveness, so that's mere speculation. The third type of this is what everyone hates, because oftentimes it directly and severely impacts gameplay for legitimate customers, while pirates who crack the game to remove that coding get a smoother experience. There is frankly no excuse for this sort of DRM, but that doesn't in any way count as a justification for pirating something. The second type: do what Serious Sam 3 or Dark Souls or Arkham Asylum did, and have a gameplay element change or be introduced (like the invincible scorpion in SS3) that makes progression in the game difficult or impossible. No idea how effective this is or how easy it is to remove something like this from a cracked copy, though. And the last type of DRM is "none," which is wildly ineffective because, as The Wither 2 proved, on the whole pirates don't give a rat's ass about how much DRM affects legitimate players, because no DRM makes it infinitely more easy to pirate something.
On the whole, as you may have noticed, I very much despise piracy and people who try to justify it. Ultimately, it removes incentive for people to keep doing work, decreases industry innovation (see Jim Sterling's article on casual gamers, where he explains this point in more depth), and is just plain selfish. After all, debate morals all you like, piracy is very explicitly illegal, and deciding "oh but I want this" and proceeding to break the law is just plain immature and stupid. Rule of Law, people. You don't get to pick and choose what laws you follow.
Colinmac93 said:
From the opening post:
"The notion that piracy does not equate to lost sales is just as erroneous. "Piracy might result in an eventual purchase of a game, but in the meantime it means a financial loss for the developer," Purewal said. "Sadly developers are not gamer banks, willing to effectively loan gamers money until we decide we like them enough to pay them.""
How the fuck is it erroneous? How is a pirated game a financial loss? Its DREAM MONEY. The developer is not missing a game (unless its physically stolen from the shelf), there is absolutely no guarantee that the gamer would have purchased the game if he didnt pirate it. Its MAKE BELIEVE.
One can discuss the morality of it past the end of forever, but no amount of college-years or lawyer education is going to change the FACT that a pirated game is NOT a financial loss. Its a THEORETICAL loss...but nothing more.
If one starts to pull numbers out of ones ass...how much free PR does a pirate provide? Downloading a game...telling all his friends, this is the best game ever...they buy it...they tell their friends et cetera. How much money is this? Maybe its not a financial loss at all, maybe the game industry owes pirates money. And lots of it!
Therefore they should be compensated with THEORETICAL MONEY!tzimize said:
Finally, a use for that old monopoly set with half the pieces missing.
I am not in favour of Piracy.
I am simply against "Anti-piracy" efforts that hurt legitimate consumers more than the actual perpetrators!
Oppressive DRM can kill your sales FAR worse than piracy, mostly because even with people turned away by the inconvenience of DRM preventing games they paid for working, it's a matter of time before the DRM can be cracked and then the bootleg version is the better version.
THAT is the insidious thing about gaming piracy. All throughout the history of people making and illegally selling bootleg copies of things, the strongest argument against the bootleg is that it is:
-lower quality
-less reliable
-less durable
-Still have to pay with no guarantee
But the OPPOSITE is true with software piracy as crippling the DRM you have a version which will work more reliably and being digital the quality is identical and may even be better if it is cracked for more convenient rendering modes.
I think the solution to piracy is not DRM (in the traditional sense) but smaller and more reliable lawsuits against pirates. Suits me fine. Well, almost fine:
(Also, I think there should be a clause that if a game has been out of print for 5 years and NO ONE is selling a digital copy then it should have a greatly reduced penalty for piracy. For example Microsoft is flatly refusing to digitally nor Disc-copy sell Halo on PC to anyone anywhere, they are trying to retcon gaming history as if Halo was only ever released on consoles. As you could make the case that there is no lost-sale as the owners of the rights are refusing to sell it anyway, copyright law should account for sales. So you can't copyright something then refuse to sell a single new copy for over a decade!)
I am simply against "Anti-piracy" efforts that hurt legitimate consumers more than the actual perpetrators!
Oppressive DRM can kill your sales FAR worse than piracy, mostly because even with people turned away by the inconvenience of DRM preventing games they paid for working, it's a matter of time before the DRM can be cracked and then the bootleg version is the better version.
THAT is the insidious thing about gaming piracy. All throughout the history of people making and illegally selling bootleg copies of things, the strongest argument against the bootleg is that it is:
-lower quality
-less reliable
-less durable
-Still have to pay with no guarantee
But the OPPOSITE is true with software piracy as crippling the DRM you have a version which will work more reliably and being digital the quality is identical and may even be better if it is cracked for more convenient rendering modes.
I think the solution to piracy is not DRM (in the traditional sense) but smaller and more reliable lawsuits against pirates. Suits me fine. Well, almost fine:
(Also, I think there should be a clause that if a game has been out of print for 5 years and NO ONE is selling a digital copy then it should have a greatly reduced penalty for piracy. For example Microsoft is flatly refusing to digitally nor Disc-copy sell Halo on PC to anyone anywhere, they are trying to retcon gaming history as if Halo was only ever released on consoles. As you could make the case that there is no lost-sale as the owners of the rights are refusing to sell it anyway, copyright law should account for sales. So you can't copyright something then refuse to sell a single new copy for over a decade!)
DISCLAIMER: I do not support piracy. I have never pirated. I am only stating opinion, Blah blah blah.
I would really like to know the purpose for the posting of this.
First of all, just because he is a lawyer doesn't mean he knows everything everywhere. He can still make grievous mistakes.
Second, any nerd could tell you there IS evidence to support that most pirates use proxies as pirates are typically very adept computer users.
Third, you can't simply say "Every torrent IS a lost sale. Period." You need something to back it up.
Fourth, and most important, you can't stop piracy. You simply can't. No matter how many people you sue, no matter what laws you enact, people will continue to steal things digitally. In addition, any effective means of reducing it would have a horrible effect on people at large. So in reality, it comes down to a choice between a large number of people giving up a massive number of freedoms of privacy OR companies losing money
And just because I like giving, here is a video:
Great video, just felt like the time to post it.
I would really like to know the purpose for the posting of this.
First of all, just because he is a lawyer doesn't mean he knows everything everywhere. He can still make grievous mistakes.
Second, any nerd could tell you there IS evidence to support that most pirates use proxies as pirates are typically very adept computer users.
Third, you can't simply say "Every torrent IS a lost sale. Period." You need something to back it up.
Fourth, and most important, you can't stop piracy. You simply can't. No matter how many people you sue, no matter what laws you enact, people will continue to steal things digitally. In addition, any effective means of reducing it would have a horrible effect on people at large. So in reality, it comes down to a choice between a large number of people giving up a massive number of freedoms of privacy OR companies losing money
And just because I like giving, here is a video:
Great video, just felt like the time to post it.
What about Soylent Green? Is Soylent Green people? Charlton Heston put forward a pretty compelling case but it's not without it's flaws.Devoneaux said:
There is money that I would like that I don't have any intention of working for. That money I do not get to spend. However, if I steal/defraud/embezzle, I could have that money. I understand why people pirate. Having a "reason" doesn't make it okay.Eternal Taros said:
If you want something, pay for it. If you genuinely don't want it, there would be no reason to pirate it. If a person would have even paid $5 for a game, that's lost revenue to the publisher.
I'm absolutely clear on what it is. For your benefit: It's when someone's argument is challenged, so they change the definition of one or more of the terms involved to insulate their original argument from criticism. Say there's a psycho-killer, and a proud Scot says, "Well, it's not a Scotsman, because no Scotsman would do such a thing." Later, it's discovered that the killer is indeed a Scot. When confronted, our proud Scot friend says, "Well, no true Scotsman would do such a thing."Dastardly said:
He has changed the definition of "Scotsman" by adding arbitrary details, simply so it can't be used to assail his opinion. For instance:
A: "Piracy is good/okay/whatever."
B: "No, Piracy is stealing. You're taking something that doesn't belong to you."
A: "It's not stealing, because it has to be physical property."
B: "That's a NTS, because the definition doesn't say the property has to be physical."
A: "Well 'property' is different from 'intellectual property.'"
B: "That's another NTS, because the definition doesn't make that distinction. You're adding that detail and moving the bar."
A: "But the owner isn't deprived of the property, so it's not really stealing."
B: "That's yet another NTS, because the definition of stealing doesn't demand that the original owner be deprived, only that the would-be thief in question has obtained the property without permission or right."
Here are some accepted definitions of stealing:
From thefreedictionary.com:
"1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission."
From dictionary.com
"to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force"
From Merriam-Webster:
"to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" and "to take surreptitiously or without permission"
From Oxford:
"take (another person?s property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"
None of these definitions preclude intellectual property, or thefts that do not result in deprivation. Only by retroactively appending details to the definition can such a claim be made. That is a No True Scotsman (or, more generally, "Moving the Goalposts")
Because you don't pirate. So you're a non-issue in this, aren't you? If you did pirate, you'd be getting the game for free. Making the game better doesn't suddenly make "free" any less enticing. There is no reason to believe that someone (who has already demonstrated a willingness to take the game for free) will suddenly decide to pay simply because the perceived quality of the product has improved. That just means now they're getting even more for free.Dastardly said:
It's far more likely, given knowledge of basic human psychology, that a person will pirate to "try" a game, realize they have it for free, and then retroactively decide, "Nah, this game wouldn't have been worth the $60, so I'll just keep the free copy." Even if they loved the game immensely, it's easy enough to point out a few flaws to self-justify that claim.
Oh i'm sorry, did you just go on a tangent away from my actual point? You insulted him using an argument that was invalid, I pointed that out. If that makes me a moron then I will quite gladly be a moron. I never said I agree'd with his view, but your argument was flawed. No need to be a prick about it.Kwil said:
And on your movie theater analogy? They bring out trailers, those are the "demo's" of the theater world. You can argue that games bring out trailers too, but you can't magically sense how the game feels without a true demo. That analogy doesn't work, feel free to try again. This time, try to keep it civil, your tone is rather barbaric.
A lawyer offering his superficial understanding of what copyright is? And an overexcited journo calling the exposition of that opinion a 'destruction' of arguments? How tired. A lawyer the man may be, but a legal philosopher of any note he appears not to be.
Intellectual property is a legal fiction that in many cases seems to have outlived its usefulness. "Stealing" a game may or may not be a lost sale. That issue is mostly one of academic interest. What really matters is whether there are appropriate incentives to make games. If copyrights were fully enforceable, that incentive would actually be too high in comparison to those for producing the things which people actually need-- and that can't be copied at will (corn, for instance.) It may even be too high now: one can say that production of the Call of Duty franchise has enjoyed quite the incentive. The grant of a monopoly is a powerful thing, especially over something that is (more or less) unique and can be copied for pennies or less. Games companies should be able to tolerate some friction in the realization of the value of their legal monopolies. There is one thing I agree with: developers should look to adapting their business models rather than their legal strategies. The unfortunate downside of that is that it means doing something actually useful rather than whining about being unable to collect every rent to which they feel entitled.
Intellectual property is a legal fiction that in many cases seems to have outlived its usefulness. "Stealing" a game may or may not be a lost sale. That issue is mostly one of academic interest. What really matters is whether there are appropriate incentives to make games. If copyrights were fully enforceable, that incentive would actually be too high in comparison to those for producing the things which people actually need-- and that can't be copied at will (corn, for instance.) It may even be too high now: one can say that production of the Call of Duty franchise has enjoyed quite the incentive. The grant of a monopoly is a powerful thing, especially over something that is (more or less) unique and can be copied for pennies or less. Games companies should be able to tolerate some friction in the realization of the value of their legal monopolies. There is one thing I agree with: developers should look to adapting their business models rather than their legal strategies. The unfortunate downside of that is that it means doing something actually useful rather than whining about being unable to collect every rent to which they feel entitled.
I don't think corporations are considered people, never heard of a company be put on trial for murder. At least not in the sense of criminal law, only civil law in terms of paying damages like in lawsuits and matters of ownership.Devoneaux said:
And it IS very important that there is corporate ownership, as it is ripe of embezzlement if it is the actual human being at the top who personally owns all the property of a company, like say if for a trucking company the boss of the company owns personally all 300 trucks they operate. But a company owning and being financially responsible for something doesn't make the company a person.
PS: you know who popularised the term "piracy is theft"?
Steve Jobs.
Before that the industry was extremely reluctant and conflicted on how to categorise online music piracy, but in Steve Jobs push for iTunes he had Apple pretty much coin the phrase "piracy is theft" at the same time as "iTunes is great". Soon after that criminal prosecutions and civil damages were pursued not just against napster but also the users of such service. iTunes was pushed as the one legitimate alternative locked into Apple products like iPad. It would be over half a decade before DRM-free songs would be sold on iTunes in that time iTunes and iDevices had more than cornered the market it had completely dominated it.
On the other hand, while Jobs screwed the pooch with 99c per song for the music industry, he did a wonderful move setting sub-$2 as the price for iOS games while Nintendo and Sony were struggling along with $40-50 games of very similar engagement/value (Steel Diver anyone?)
Personally I just buy all my games on Steam. Seriously, I rarely pay more then 10 bucks for a game and I'm happy with that. I also avoid most triple A titles. If a game has annoying DRM, I don't buy it.
Basically the only games I used to pirate was Chronotrigger and Secret of Mana, but as I have the first one on DS now, and hopefully the second will get a similar release.
Heck even some of my favorite sega games can be bought on steam for a 1-2 dollars us, and I own them for all time now.
I'm cool with that, I wouldn't mind another type of Steam service. In fact a company is more likely to allist a purchase for me if I can redownload a digital copy of said product on a new machine at a later date. Kind of like Blizzard's Battle.net system. (I refuse to use Origin because of all the spyware and other crazy shit that is in that)
Ancient Chinese Proverb - "All things come to the man who waits for the steam holiday sales"
Basically the only games I used to pirate was Chronotrigger and Secret of Mana, but as I have the first one on DS now, and hopefully the second will get a similar release.
Heck even some of my favorite sega games can be bought on steam for a 1-2 dollars us, and I own them for all time now.
I'm cool with that, I wouldn't mind another type of Steam service. In fact a company is more likely to allist a purchase for me if I can redownload a digital copy of said product on a new machine at a later date. Kind of like Blizzard's Battle.net system. (I refuse to use Origin because of all the spyware and other crazy shit that is in that)
Ancient Chinese Proverb - "All things come to the man who waits for the steam holiday sales"
The word 'piracy' is an inflammatory label for what is really copyright infringement, and any laws designed to limit or punish such behavior should be appropriate to that interpretation.
Remember that guy who was sued for half a million dollars? Or the woman who was fined nearly two million dollars? They are still alive you know. What do you think the next seventy years of their lives are going to be like? Do you think that's a bit much for not paying for a video?
If I actually stole those exact same products from a store, what kind of fine could be imposed? Would it be potentially ruinous to my life?
Something is seriously wrong with the punishments not fitting the crime.
Remember that guy who was sued for half a million dollars? Or the woman who was fined nearly two million dollars? They are still alive you know. What do you think the next seventy years of their lives are going to be like? Do you think that's a bit much for not paying for a video?
If I actually stole those exact same products from a store, what kind of fine could be imposed? Would it be potentially ruinous to my life?
Something is seriously wrong with the punishments not fitting the crime.
Lawyers are paid advocates, don't forget.
Piracy, DRM, etc... I just really detest what has happened to intellectual property. I have consumer rights protected by law for almost any consumer product i buy. If I buy a chainsaw I can return if it isn't fit for the purpose it was made, like cutting down a tree, and i have this right by law even if the retailer tries to refuse and puts up signs saying no returns (implied warranty of fitness for purpose). I have the right to get my money back if this chainsaw turns out to be something other than what a reasonable person would have expected it to be based on the description (the implied warranty of merchantability).
But wait, we've slowly stripped away all consumer rights from the realm of software. So much yelling, screaming, fear mongering, oh feel sorry for poor EA and ubisoft, their concerns are more important than your rights. If people start shoplifting chainsaws should i then lose *my* right to return mine when it doesn't even do what it purports to do on the box?
I remember a day when i could get a pc game and return it if it didn't work. Did the world end? Were no games made back then because it was impossible to make a profit? No. The world kept turning, games kept being made, some really good ones too. Its just greed.
Or for movies. Instead of being innovative, adapting to changing demands, and making a legit way for someone to see a new movie release on their computer over the internet at home, lets make it so someone who is willing to pay to see it this way, willing to pay full price, has to either wait a year for it to be on dvd/netflix, or pirate it, because there's zero legal ways to watch this finished and distributed product from home, even for someone ready, willing, and able to pay.
Its capitalism, adapt or die. Give the public what they want in a form they are willing to pay for, or die. If you don't give it to them, they might find their own means of getting what they want. People are like that. If they'd rather pirate than buy your product, you're doing it wrong. Or maybe its an issue of time, maybe they'd rather pirate than wait for you to take your sweet time in getting your product out there in a form they aren't even going to like. If so, you're doing it wrong. You don't use force to prevent the world from changing so that you don't have to change in response to it. If the pirated version of your game/movie works better than the official version, you're doing it wrong. If customers are sick of having to buy your product multiple times as different formats come out (dvd vs. blu ray, cassette vs. dvd, cd vs. mp3) at full price each time, then you are doing it wrong. Find a way to make money giving the customer something they are willing to pay for. Adapt.
But why adapt or be innovative when you can just strip away consumer protections, create invasive DRM that makes the official version of a product inferior to the pirated version, or turn potential customers into criminals by changing the law itself. Why adapt when you can just make an empty promise to your customer that your product will be x,y,and z, then avoid all accountability when it turns out to be anything but. Why adapt when you can dupe consumers themselves into arguing against their own hard fought consumer rights.
SmegInThePants, J.D.
Lawyered
Piracy, DRM, etc... I just really detest what has happened to intellectual property. I have consumer rights protected by law for almost any consumer product i buy. If I buy a chainsaw I can return if it isn't fit for the purpose it was made, like cutting down a tree, and i have this right by law even if the retailer tries to refuse and puts up signs saying no returns (implied warranty of fitness for purpose). I have the right to get my money back if this chainsaw turns out to be something other than what a reasonable person would have expected it to be based on the description (the implied warranty of merchantability).
But wait, we've slowly stripped away all consumer rights from the realm of software. So much yelling, screaming, fear mongering, oh feel sorry for poor EA and ubisoft, their concerns are more important than your rights. If people start shoplifting chainsaws should i then lose *my* right to return mine when it doesn't even do what it purports to do on the box?
I remember a day when i could get a pc game and return it if it didn't work. Did the world end? Were no games made back then because it was impossible to make a profit? No. The world kept turning, games kept being made, some really good ones too. Its just greed.
Or for movies. Instead of being innovative, adapting to changing demands, and making a legit way for someone to see a new movie release on their computer over the internet at home, lets make it so someone who is willing to pay to see it this way, willing to pay full price, has to either wait a year for it to be on dvd/netflix, or pirate it, because there's zero legal ways to watch this finished and distributed product from home, even for someone ready, willing, and able to pay.
Its capitalism, adapt or die. Give the public what they want in a form they are willing to pay for, or die. If you don't give it to them, they might find their own means of getting what they want. People are like that. If they'd rather pirate than buy your product, you're doing it wrong. Or maybe its an issue of time, maybe they'd rather pirate than wait for you to take your sweet time in getting your product out there in a form they aren't even going to like. If so, you're doing it wrong. You don't use force to prevent the world from changing so that you don't have to change in response to it. If the pirated version of your game/movie works better than the official version, you're doing it wrong. If customers are sick of having to buy your product multiple times as different formats come out (dvd vs. blu ray, cassette vs. dvd, cd vs. mp3) at full price each time, then you are doing it wrong. Find a way to make money giving the customer something they are willing to pay for. Adapt.
But why adapt or be innovative when you can just strip away consumer protections, create invasive DRM that makes the official version of a product inferior to the pirated version, or turn potential customers into criminals by changing the law itself. Why adapt when you can just make an empty promise to your customer that your product will be x,y,and z, then avoid all accountability when it turns out to be anything but. Why adapt when you can dupe consumers themselves into arguing against their own hard fought consumer rights.
SmegInThePants, J.D.
Lawyered
Supreme court is a criminal court. Their ruling says that if you merely download (or even buy) a pirated copy you are not criminally liable, the actual copyright violator is criminally liable. But that's criminal law. As in fines paid to the government and time spent in prison for committing crimes. So you won't ever have the cop's kick down your door but that doesn't mean you won't be served with a notice to appear in civil court.Devoneaux said:
Yeah, the importance of Jobs' evangelism is by saying "Piracy is theft" is that "people who pirate are bad people". He legitimised the idea of suing even a 12 year old girls for hundreds of thousands of dollars because they downloaded a Hannah Montana song. That's Civil Law in terms of lawsuits. Going after the people who download rather than the few intangible people who upload, that is what he had a big part in changing.
This does sway so many cases where such a pervasive idea as "piracy is theft" permeates into civil courts and does influence rulings.
Remember civil and criminal law are completely separate. OJ Simpson was acquitted in Criminal Court but in Civil Court was sued and found culpable for the murder of his wife where IIRK he had to pay so much he had to declare bankruptcy.
I faintly remember (I was very young) piracy in the pre-digital age, I don't think you'll ever find a case of someone being arrested for buying a bootleg VHS tape. Instead the industry was quite sympathetic to the people who bought such bootleg pirate copies and reasoned with them emphatically and reasonably not to buy such pirate goods for their own good.
I can't find a video example of the ad, but it shows how much the industry has changed its stance from informing the public - to threatening them.
Firstly, I appreciate that you went back and added a bit more of discussion value to your post.Devoneaux said:
On the topic itself, we're not talking the official labeling of crimes here. More specifically, I do not intend to. Allow me to clarify my position (though this does not necessarily apply to others making superficially-similar arguments):
I'm not arguing the legal definition of terms as used in courts. In these cases, fraud, embezzlement, robbery, and counterfeiting are technically not the same as larceny (commonly referred to as "theft"). That's because our legal system has to more carefully categorize crimes based on the method and means of commission, not just the impact of the crime. That's why murder, manslaughter, etc., are separate crimes.
Whether by murder or manslaughter, we can rightly say, "The convicted person killed the victim." It's the court that has a responsibility to be more specific--this is because the law has no "spirit," only a "letter." But if someone told you they were going to sell you something, you paid them, and then they fell off the grid and never contact you, would you say, "Hey! That guy criminally defrauded me of my money!" or would you feel (and probably say) that you were stolen from?
Where I find the problem is that most people tend to view "stealing" as a broad category of crimes. It includes robbery, larceny, fraud, and all the rest. But when the discussion comes up, we narrow the definition artificially by citing the very narrow legal definitions... and yet some of the very same people using that argument will throw out laws or cases that reinforce ideas they disagree with regarding piracy. It's the inconsistent application that bothers me.
That's why I take a step back from the legal system. I'm discussing the action itself on moral/ethical grounds. A person is receiving property that belongs to another person, to which they are not entitled and have not compensated the proper owner. If one was unaware of how computers work, regarding copying, one would look specifically at the behavior and say "That dude just stole that!"
Even back in 1985, we were still trying to deal with new ideas. Data was getting faster and faster, and the fidelity of recordings better and better. No longer could someone simply argue, "Yeah, he has a bootleg, but the quality sucks!" The quality was improving, to the point that the false product was nearly identical to the original. A crime that was easily ignored (or at least marginalized) was becoming more consequential.
And, as with any new things, the Supreme Court made a very conservative decision -- they didn't want to "throw the book" at this guy rashly. I disagree with their decision, and there's always still room for such things to be overturned by later decisions. I recognize that, under law, these things are prosecuted differently. I prefer to look at it from the human angle, however -- which is actually why the law exists in the first place. The technicalities are simply there to manage all the ins-and-outs of it.
____
Now, as for whether or not data has the same weight as physical goods... we already demonstrate the belief that it does, and we do so daily. My money, almost in its entirety, does not exist in the physical world. But we all, as a society, agree that the digital representation of my money is enough to assert its existence and resulting value. I can spend, loan, borrow, and otherwise operate on this "money" in any way I could actual bills.
If someone were to illegally access the banks computers and duplicate some of that digital money, inserting it into the bank's system, I would not be deprived of anything. They didn't necessarily steal from me, but that money is stolen. Until the crime was discovered and reversed, someone somewhere would be responsible for the value of that duplicated money. So, if the issue is that the goods don't actually "exist," we're inconsistently handling that. A digital good is a representation of something else -- in this case, my monetary value, and in the case of software, it is representative of the work and money put into the creation of the data.
Really think about this a moment -- "money" is intellectual property, in the sense that it only exists in our mind. Just like with software, we impose artificial scarcity on it. There's no reason we couldn't just all agree, "Hey, everyone is worth $1 million dollars." But we don't. We limit the monetary worth of people and demand that they go through proper channels to establish it.
But all of the physical goods (paper bills, metal coins, credit cards, even the computers upon which the data is stolen) all exist simply to represent the concept of "worth," which is entirely arbitrary when you get right down to it. Why is it illegal to steal someone's money? Is it just the paper that's being taken? No -- it's what the paper represents that is being taken. The law allows the physical good to stand in for the concept, but it is the concept itself that is the purpose for the law (if money had no "value" assigned to it, it probably wouldn't be a big deal to "steal" it any more than taking something out of someone's trash bin on the curb).
Intellectual property is still a relatively new concept in the eyes of the law. It hasn't been around as long as money has, in its various forms. Given enough time, as the world becomes more and more information-focused, we'll begin to see intellectual property gain ground as the same kind of concept that is behind our most basic ideas of "ownership" and "monetary value."
Just something to think about. Because, again, I'm not arguing this from a currently-enforceable-legal-perspective. I'm arguing it ideologically. Is that binding in any way? No. But I still feel it's worthwhile to think about, even just for the mental "exercise" of it.
Then we exercise simple math at this point.Slycne said:
Let c be the value of a hypothetical 'lost sale' with d being the number of pirated copies.
The lost sale argument would state the cost would be cd.
On the other hand, there 'there is no loss' argument, would instead state the loss is 0, and thus the cost would be 0d, or zero.
We know, however, the truth is somewhere in the middle, therefore the actual cost per unit, x follows this:
0<x<c
We can all agree this is correct yes?
Oh hey, x is greater than zero... turns out piracy has a cost!
This is also an NTS. He's not using the legal definition in his argument or his statement. You're trying to redefine what he is saying to fit your argument, rather than taking his argument on its own merits.Devoneaux said:
Bullshit. If a thousand people download a pirated game, the developers lose the income that would have come from the payment for those thousand. It's a financially negative impact on the industry, and whatever faults you have with paying for the game, if it was worth downloading and playing in the first place, then you have no fucking excuse.LilithSlave said: