This changes nothing, people will still torrent huge amounts of copyright material. The only difference being that instead of making it easy to find and monitor as it is, for the most part, just now. The people who pirate will simply find ways of encrypting and hiding what it is they are doing. The most significant difference is it makes those who are in power look more like right idiots than they did before.
What you're really paying for when you buy a game is the experience and that's what a pirate is taking for free.
In terms of games that is both technically and factually incorrect. What you are paying for is the right to run the software on your system. If you study the fine print in most EULAs you'll find that most publishers / developers will have included a get out clause that specifically states that they will not even guarantee that the software will work at all and you just have to look at the forums of any major release and read the posts from people having trouble running the game to see just how much the average developer / publisher cares about the end users experience of the game.
Er, yes. Yes it is. Why was this actually in doubt?
Theft is where you deprive someone else of a material item i.e. take it from them. Piracy on the other hand merely copies the original and the owner hasn't been deprived of any goods. yes this may have an indirect impact on sales but you are not directly taking anything material at all from the copyright holder.
It maybe a species of criminal activity in some forms, but that doesn't make it theft, a different word is required. There is a big danger in branding copyright infringement "theft" with a broad brush, its far more complicated than that.
PIRACY does not DEPRIVE the holder of his object. It COPIES IT. There's a fundamental difference between copying and stealing. Piracy is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT! Let me repeat that for you. YOU ARE NOT, I REPEAT, YOU ARE NOT TAKING ANOTHER PERSONS PROPERTY, YOU ARE COPYING IT!
It's not theft, it's not even a form of theft, it's C O P Y R I G H T S - I N F R I N G E M E N T
Piracy is many things, including a form of sharing, but it is NOT THEFT.
You're really of the opinion that obtaining something for free, when it was only able to be created because somebody sunk a lot of money into it with the intent of having their investment refunded (at the very least) by sales... is in no way a form of theft?
It cost somebody else a lot of money to create what you're pirating. If you obtain it without payment, and without their consent, you're taking money from them without their permission. That's a very basic form of stealing.
Let's say my neighbor has an orchad and sells apples for a living. I buy an apple from him and use the seeds from that apple to grow my own orchad. I then start distributing apples for free. Is what I'm doing illegal?
TheRightToArmBears said:
It's still taking something without permission. It's kinda half-theft. You get something that's someone else's unlawfully (that's theft right there), but they don't lose it (the not-so-theft bit).
As someone who has tiresomely explained this same concept far more times than I care to recall, I feel your pain at the obtuse just not getting it. Pirates are, for the most part, jerks, and piracy isn't especially ethical (with certain limited exceptions), and it isn't legal, but it isn't theft either. From a purely fiscal standpoint there is no difference between the sale of a second-hand good and a copy pirated - if everyone who buys used games now pirated them instead, publishers would have made the same amount of money.
Which is a concept a surprisingly large percentage of the population here cannot seem to grasp - they'll yammer on about how those used copies all still had to be sold originally and pirated copies didn't, so that must make them better, but that reasoning is a load of bullshit: if 30,000 copies of a game are sold new at full price, and through the course of trade-ins a total of 60,000 are re-sold as used titles, the publisher/developers make exactly as much as they would if their title sold 30,000 new full price units and a million people pirated it. Yes, used copies had to be purchased originally, but that doesn't change the fact that, by buying a title used, your purchase has the same benefit to the content producer that software piracy does (none whatsoever). The only real impact the used game market has on first hand sales is that some people who buy new copies now then go on to trade them in, and if there was no readily available option to do so sale of new units might go down; when you buy a used game though you are contributed nothing to the people who bought it and do absolutely nothing to bolster sale of new goods in the process.
So if used game sales, which are perfectly legal mind you, if those cannot be considered theft, how can unauthorized copying be an act of theft when it produces an identical financial outcome? Theft is taking somebody's stuff, piracy (or rather, the way the term is used in this context as actual piracy has nothing to do with discussions of copyright infringement) is copying it. That members of the Obama administration seemingly cannot tell the difference is not a good sign at all.
Well if a small group of friends (say 5 people argument's sake, I'll use this group again soon) all chip in and buy a single movie and the make "backups" of the movie so each person has a copy at home. Even though there was a single purchase it still doesn't make it any more right.
Right or wrong, that's not really the topic being discussed. I was simply saying that, for example, your average used game may go through for example 5 owners but if put up on a torrent that same single copy could be distributed to thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of downloaders. I'm not going to say where one should draw the line, and I'm in agreement that rentals/used sales are not anywhere near as good as new sales where the creators are concerned, but there is a pretty clear and debatable difference between common sharing and internet file sharing if that's what someone wanted to discuss. No matter how you slice it 60/5 or even 60/20 is better than 60/1000000.
Right or wrong, that's not really the topic being discussed. I was simply saying that, for example, your average used game may go through for example 5 owners but if put up on a torrent that same single copy could be distributed to thousands, hundreds of thousands or even millions of downloaders. I'm not going to say where one should draw the line, and I'm in agreement that rentals/used sales are not anywhere near as good as new sales where the creators are concerned, but there is a pretty clear and debatable difference between common sharing and internet file sharing if that's what someone wanted to discuss. No matter how you slice it 60/5 or even 60/20 is better than 60/1000000.
Yet the 60 remains a constant across those 3 variable situations. The only difference is either 65, 80, or 1,000,060 people enjoyed the experience. The more people enjoy something the more they discuss it and create fandom around it, which may lead the author to create sequels to the original item. This would not happen if the numbers were limited to 65 or 80.
Actually, it's copyright infringement the words are different because they have different implications. Still illegal, but please get it right.
Really, why do they have to make a statement like this? It would be like me going to a crowded street in Boston screaming "APPLES ARE APPLES!" at the top of my lungs. There's just no reason for it, and it's time I could have spent doing more constructive things.
So the Obama administration is being manipulated into destroying the internet for the sake of a few overly weathy labels/studios/publishers that exploit their talent more than anyone who's ever downloaded anything.
Well guys, it was nice being able to have any sort of contact with you. ACTA pretty much makes the internet, as it currently exists, illegal. If only the copyright holder can "copy" information, then every ISP has to buy said rights from each copyright holder. Steam is dead, google is dead, forums are dead. All hail the forces of the obsolete and their war against the future.
Locke then lamented the fate of songwriters. "Recently, I've had a chance to read letters from award winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to 'be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.' This just isn't right."
He should've got himself a REAL job then and done like everyone else and put money away that he actually EARNED. (que flaming contraversy).
Yes there is reason to give him money for having done such a thing. But not so much that he can make his retirement off it. Unless he's written thousands upon thousands of songs. At which point I somewhat doubt pirac has wrecked his idiot pension plan unless all he ever wrote were say...britney spears songs.
Music is a career path just like any other - if a guy is good at writing songs, let him write songs and pay him to do so. Music has to come from somewhere, so someone has to make a living out of it, given the effort that goes into creating mainstream music. As much as the indie crowd would beg to differ, music on a global scale really can't be created in basements on weekends.
I get you pointed out that it's a controversial statement, but you seem to be saying that a professional songwriter shouldn't be able to make a retirement out of songwriting...?
You won't even ask why I lost my respect for the administration? Oh well, I'll just tell you anyway.
Piracy is not theft, period. To state that it's theft shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what piracy is and giving that it's coming from an administration that's pushing an act to give copyright holders the ability to more aggressively pursue pirates it's just unforgivable.
PIRACY does not DEPRIVE the holder of his object. It COPIES IT. There's a fundamental difference between copying and stealing. Piracy is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT! Let me repeat that for you. YOU ARE NOT, I REPEAT, YOU ARE NOT TAKING ANOTHER PERSONS PROPERTY, YOU ARE COPYING IT!
It's not theft, it's not even a form of theft, it's COPYRIGHTS-INFRINGEMENT
Piracy is many things, including a form of sharing, but it is NOT THEFT.
You're really of the opinion that obtaining something for free, when it was only able to be created because somebody sunk a lot of money into it with the intent of having their investment refunded (at the very least) by sales... is in no way a form of theft?
It cost somebody else a lot of money to create what you're pirating. If you obtain it without payment, and without their consent, you're taking money from them without their permission. That's a very basic form of stealing.
Let's say my neighbor has an orchad and sells apples for a living. I buy an apple from him and use the seeds from that apple to grow my own orchad. I then start distributing apples for free. Is what I'm doing illegal?
TheRightToArmBears said:
It's still taking something without permission. It's kinda half-theft. You get something that's someone else's unlawfully (that's theft right there), but they don't lose it (the not-so-theft bit).
And does the game designer/developer/creator get any money for that piracy, which they would had you paid for it? No, then theft.
Theft: The criminal act of taking another's property or services without consent.
They would make money off the game you bought, thus the money that the game would earn is their's, due to the copyright they hold on the game, by pirating the game you are taking their money without their consent. Theft.
Also, to say you lost respect for an entire adminstrationg because of this one issue is just childish, and if you can't engage with this subject on an adult level maybe you should stay away from it.
And because putting something in big letters doesn't make it true, let's address copyright infringement and for a moment entirely accept your point that stealing, piracy, theft and copyright infringement are all entirely unrelated issues.
Copyright infringement is against the law in almost every first world country, thus you are a criminal if you are a pirate. One way or the other, when you pirate something you have broken the law (various international treaties and national laws to be precise) you would be treated the same as a thief anyway.
I suppose in response to the actual point, I agree in the broad strokes (for reasons stated above), but I believe the response should be mediated correctly instead of a knee jerk reaction, Knee jerking never works, you need to find an intelligent solution (one that preferably ends with all pirates being deported to the moon)
Music is a career path just like any other - if a guy is good at writing songs, let him write songs and pay him to do so. Music has to come from somewhere, so someone has to make a living out of it, given the effort that goes into creating mainstream music. As much as the indie crowd would beg to differ, music on a global scale really can't be created in basements on weekends.
I get you pointed out that it's a controversial statement, but you seem to be saying that a professional songwriter shouldn't be able to make a retirement out of songwriting...?
The problem with his entire comparison is a "golden parachute" implies an effortless glide through life, while all the little people below him, at best, tread water. Hes angry he got a lead balloon because it means he might actually have to work for a living.
it never really pangs me as theft. Piracy is about duplication, there's no physical goods being taken from some one. Its like stealing candy from a baby, only instead of the baby no longer having its candy the pirate has the candy as well. Only they usually end up with a lower quality candy at the end, but some people would rather experience something at its worst than pay for it at its best.
Why are people pissed that the government takes piracy as stealing?
Seems like pure common sense to me. If you loose respect for someone for them pointing out the obvious, you probably aren't deserving of a whole lot of respect yourself.
I mean, it's called piracy. PIRACY. If there's one thing that should link to theft in your mind, it's the word piracy. If it doesn't, you should probably stop and think for a second why that is, and why you blame Obama for pointing the relationship out.
Besides, this will not stop me pirating, even though I only pirate games with insane DRM on them, just out of pure spite.
it never really pangs me as theft. Piracy is about duplication, there's no physical goods being taken from some one. Its like stealing candy from a baby, only instead of the baby no longer having its candy the pirate has the candy as well. Only they usually end up with a lower quality candy at the end, but some people would rather experience something at its worst than pay for it at its best.
Well, this isn't true. The candy is typically of identical quality. This is the reason "piracy" is such a problem to the old guard. They no longer have complete control over distribution, which is the linchpin of most 20th century business models.
Jaeriko said:
Why are people pissed that the government takes piracy as stealing?
Well, for one, people aren't getting paid for their copyright properties, that's for sure. Like less paid musicians and such. For two, it's against the law, ever heard of it? And for three, something or other.
Morally things start getting ambiguous though. I don't pirate, but developers aren't necessarily losing money from people pirating, as said pirates may not have bought the game anyway. Still, if you can't afford something, you simply don't get it.
There are way to many intricacies in this issue for me to make a solid decision. So my opinion is this:
1) I will not pirate because I personally believe it is morally wrong in general.
2) Pirating should stay as an illegal practice, although not necessarily equal to physical theft.
3) If you pirate, I won't judge you if you don't have the means to afford the product. If you DO however, I will most likely curse you out.
Well, for one, people aren't getting paid for their copyright properties, that's for sure. Like less paid musicians and such. For two, it's against the law, ever heard of it? And for three, something or other.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
