Pirate Decries Piracy After Piracy Program Pirated

[Byers]

Well. For a company whose only response to my ipod suddenly ceasing to work after less than two years is that I should buy a new one (as replacing the expired battery would cost more than the price of a new ipod), I find it difficult to take Apple's side in any argument of the moral kind.
It is one's right by law to demand several of Apple's products lasting for years beyond what they generally have done so far, even with careful use, so if some people want to reimburse themselves a little, I can't say I have a strong urge to rush to the defense of the poor little multi billion dollar corporation.

I'm not too well versed in law, which law would that be?

At least where I live, electronic goods of that nature (cameras, phones, music players; anything that in common sense should be expected to last longer than 2 years) have a 5 year period where problems arising from normal use should be corrected by the distributor. If the problems are caused by abuse from your end, proof has to be found. (i.e., the distributor finding dents/cracks etc in the item that may have caused the problems).

I think it's the fact that the ipods technically still do work, it's just the battery that dies, is what lets Apple get away with it. But if changing the battery is that expensive of an ordeal that it's more financially sound to buy a new ipod instead, this fact should be made readily available to all customers upon purchase, and advertised a lot more thoroughly, because it's certainly reasonable to expect a portable music player lasting a hell of a lot longer than 2-3 years. (Mine lasted just under two years). Unless you throw it against a wall or drop it in the ocean.

 

[Byers]

[...]
So yes, it ,is piracy [...]

So is that CD you burned for your girlfriend to listen to in her car, or any of those other numerous things you might have done without considering it piracy because it, like, didn't really hurt anyone and, like, everyone else does stuff like that. It's not really piracy unless it's someone else that does it, right?

 

[sheic99]

I wonder...back a couple centuries ago, during the heyday of ARR! piracy, were any of those pirates pirated themselves? Like, did one of those British corsairs knock over a Spanish galleon, only to be hit itself on the way home by a rogue Spanish privateer?

Because that would make a great movie.

I in general always get a big kick out of it when criminals get criminalized themselves. In fact, I think that should be the nature of their punishment. The State should do to you what you've done to others. We do that in America with murder, and I think we should do it with rape and assault.

The rape one is already handled. The become a prison *****. Same goes for child molesters.

 

[sheic99]

Well. For a company whose only response to my ipod suddenly ceasing to work after less than two years is that I should buy a new one (as replacing the expired battery would cost more than the price of a new ipod), I find it difficult to take Apple's side in any argument of the moral kind.
It is one's right by law to demand several of Apple's products lasting for years beyond what they generally have done so far, even with careful use, so if some people want to reimburse themselves a little, I can't say I have a strong urge to rush to the defense of the poor little multi billion dollar corporation.

I'm not too well versed in law, which law would that be?

At least where I live, electronic goods of that nature (cameras, phones, music players; anything that in common sense should be expected to last longer than 2 years) have a 5 year period where problems arising from normal use should be corrected by the distributor. If the problems are caused by abuse from your end, proof has to be found. (i.e., the distributor finding dents/cracks etc in the item that may have caused the problems).

I think it's the fact that the ipods technically still do work, it's just the battery that dies, is what lets Apple get away with it. But if changing the battery is that expensive of an ordeal that it's more financially sound to buy a new ipod instead, this fact should be made readily available to all customers upon purchase, and advertised a lot more thoroughly, because it's certainly reasonable to expect a portable music player lasting a hell of a lot longer than 2-3 years. (Mine lasted just under two years). Unless you throw it against a wall or drop it in the ocean.

Or you could be like me and claim it doesn't turn on when fluid from my cracked screen disrupted part of my ipod.(Which worked because it ran with a cracked screen for 2 hours before it wouldn't turn on)

 

[Blind0bserver]

Well. For a company whose only response to my ipod suddenly ceasing to work after less than two years is that I should buy a new one (as replacing the expired battery would cost more than the price of a new ipod), I find it difficult to take Apple's side in any argument of the moral kind.
It is one's right by law to demand several of Apple's products lasting for years beyond what they generally have done so far, even with careful use, so if some people want to reimburse themselves a little, I can't say I have a strong urge to rush to the defense of the poor little multi billion dollar corporation.

I'm not too well versed in law, which law would that be?

The closest law I can think of to what he's describing are Consumer Protection Acts, but they all mainly relate to a company's liability when misrepresenting a product or by creating and distributing a product that can or has become dangerous and has the potential of harming the user. When this happens, the company in question is wide open for vaious class-action suits to try to procure damages. In regard to Apple and iPods, this really wouldn't apply unless Apple manufactures a batch that overheats and explodes for no apparent reason. Software malfunction not caused by the user, though, are usually covered in a product warranty and can be replaced by the manufacturer.

[...]
So yes, it ,is piracy [...]

So is that CD you burned for your girlfriend to listen to in her car, or any of those other numerous things you might have done without considering it piracy because it, like, didn't really hurt anyone and, like, everyone else does stuff like that. It's not really piracy unless it's someone else that does it, right?

So yes, by that logic, every time I copy a CD I'm committing piracy, just like how I'm stealing every time I photocopy a page out of a book for an assignment or pull an image off of Google that came from a website, etc. It's pretty easy to just say that the entire issue is morally gray and leave it at that. On the flip side, it's also fairly easy to take up a "either all of it is okay, or none of it is" stance to the entire thing. Yes, I admit that I've copied my fair share of CDs in my lifetime (like most people, I'm sure), but the reason I can confidently pass along a copy of the most resent Radiohead CD to my girlfriend or some other person as opposed to torrenting a copy of Fallout 3 off of the internet is a difference in industries. Most artists these days make their money off of touring and doing concerts. I'm not using that as justification as to why copying a CD isn't wrong, but if the music industry had a problem with it they would have taken action. In fact, if you remember the first incarnation of Napster, they did because several labels sued the ever loving crap out of Napster for, essentially, making music piracy easier.

Besides, it hard to consider copying a CD outright theft when it's content is so readily available for free over the airwaves. Keeping with that example, it's hard to say that you've stolen/pirated a TV show by copying an episode onto a tape or downloaded from the internet when, in actuality, that same episode was released on a TV channel for no cost to the viewer (with the exception of a cable bill if you want to get nitpicky). In contrast, the same doesn't really apply for a movie that's been downloaded in the same way if it was just done to avoid purchasing the DVD or paying for a ticket to a movie theater.

So, getting back to your original point, fine, I'm a music pirate and I'm a bad person. I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep at night now. However, if the artist that recorded the CD or the recording label that published it had any major problem with that, then they would have tried to bring the legal hammer up against several companies, like Apple for example, because programs like iTunes have software in it that enables you to copy a CD. The same cannot really be said for the game industry or, for that matter, the developer of the software mentioned in the opening post, because they have taken action against such activity, whether it be by adding DRM programs or by just flat-out decrying those that pirated the program in the first place.

I'm not going to deny that copying music like that may be wrong, but I'm sure as hell not going to stand by and let you say that because your actions aren't right that everyone is in the wrong.

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

Same goes for child molesters.

They don't get an easy time in prison when other inmates find out what they did.
I just don't understand why any guards ever stop the other inmates.

 

[sheic99]

Same goes for child molesters.

They don't get an easy time in prison when other inmates find out what they did.
I just don't understand why any guards ever stop the other inmates.

One simple answer. Guards have children or plan to have children at some point. "They see" it as an extended punishment.(What's in quotes is my interpretation of the situation).

[...]
So yes, it ,is piracy [...]

So is that CD you burned for your girlfriend to listen to in her car, or any of those other numerous things you might have done without considering it piracy because it, like, didn't really hurt anyone and, like, everyone else does stuff like that. It's not really piracy unless it's someone else that does it, right?

You are completely wrong there. First it is not piracy. Pirates use machine guns to rob boats in the ocean.
Second, copyright law allows for copies to be made and distributed as long as no money is made and it is done in person. I can make a copy of any game, movie or album and give it to any person I want to and there is nothing illegal about it.

 

[Brett Alex]

Well. For a company whose only response to my ipod suddenly ceasing to work after less than two years is that I should buy a new one (as replacing the expired battery would cost more than the price of a new ipod), I find it difficult to take Apple's side in any argument of the moral kind.
It is one's right by law to demand several of Apple's products lasting for years beyond what they generally have done so far, even with careful use, so if some people want to reimburse themselves a little, I can't say I have a strong urge to rush to the defense of the poor little multi billion dollar corporation.

I'm not too well versed in law, which law would that be?

I didn't read the many many user agrrements and didn't research my product and realise that this is a very well known fault in iPods and now I'm whining. PS Apple ran over my dog.

Its an obscure law but its definitely there.


EDIT:

BTW, where is Purp these days? He's gone awfully quiet.

Thats what he wants you to think.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Well. For a company whose only response to my ipod suddenly ceasing to work after less than two years is that I should buy a new one (as replacing the expired battery would cost more than the price of a new ipod), I find it difficult to take Apple's side in any argument of the moral kind.
It is one's right by law to demand several of Apple's products lasting for years beyond what they generally have done so far, even with careful use, so if some people want to reimburse themselves a little, I can't say I have a strong urge to rush to the defense of the poor little multi billion dollar corporation.

I'm not too well versed in law, which law would that be?

I didn't read the many many user agrrements and didn't research my product and realise that this is a very well known fault in iPods and now I'm whining. PS Apple ran over my dog.

Its an obscure law but its definitely there.

He's actually right -

...Sale of Goods Act 1979 is quite specific. It deems that goods must be safe, fit the description that's given of them and be both of "satisfactory" quality and fit for the purpose for which they're intended. If they have to be installed or assembled, there should be adequate instructions.

 

[Byers]

So is that CD you burned for your girlfriend to listen to in her car, or any of those other numerous things you might have done without considering it piracy because it, like, didn't really hurt anyone and, like, everyone else does stuff like that. It's not really piracy unless it's someone else that does it, right?

You are completely wrong there. First it is not piracy. Pirates use machine guns to rob boats in the ocean.
Second, copyright law allows for copies to be made and distributed as long as no money is made and it is done in person. I can make a copy of any game, movie or album and give it to any person I want to and there is nothing illegal about it.

RIAA and music industry bigwigs disagree. Neither copying for friends or 'backing up' is covered under the fair use clause according to the powers that be.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071002-sony-bmgs-chief-anti-piracy-lawyer-copying-music-you-own-is-stealing.html

http://www.electronista.com/articles/07/12/11/riaa.on.cd.ripping/

 

[Seydaman]

ironic lol

 

[Jolly Madness]

Legal downloads KILL piracy. Now let's all go hunting dear.

Well, if that irony had stricked me I'd retire and build a huge atomic bomb instead.

 

[Brett Alex]

He's actually right -

...Sale of Goods Act 1979 is quite specific. It deems that goods must be safe, fit the description that's given of them and be both of "satisfactory" quality and fit for the purpose for which they're intended. If they have to be installed or assembled, there should be adequate instructions.

Hmm you've out legal-ed me for sure, but I still doesn't think that makes it your right to pirate a completely different product. And where does the iPod not meet those requirements?

 

[Byers]

So yes, by that logic, every time I copy a CD I'm committing piracy, just like how I'm stealing every time I photocopy a page out of a book for an assignment or pull an image off of Google that came from a website, etc. It's pretty easy to just say that the entire issue is morally gray and leave it at that. On the flip side, it's also fairly easy to take up a "either all of it is okay, or none of it is" stance to the entire thing. Yes, I admit that I've copied my fair share of CDs in my lifetime (like most people, I'm sure), but the reason I can confidently pass along a copy of the most resent Radiohead CD to my girlfriend or some other person as opposed to torrenting a copy of Fallout 3 off of the internet is a difference in industries. Most artists these days make their money off of touring and doing concerts. I'm not using that as justification as to why copying a CD isn't wrong, but if the music industry had a problem with it they would have taken action. In fact, if you remember the first incarnation of Napster, they did because several labels sued the ever loving crap out of Napster for, essentially, making music piracy easier.

Besides, it hard to consider copying a CD outright theft when it's content is so readily available for free over the airwaves. Keeping with that example, it's hard to say that you've stolen/pirated a TV show by copying an episode onto a tape or downloaded from the internet when, in actuality, that same episode was released on a TV channel for no cost to the viewer (with the exception of a cable bill if you want to get nitpicky). In contrast, the same doesn't really apply for a movie that's been downloaded in the same way if it was just done to avoid purchasing the DVD or paying for a ticket to a movie theater.

So, getting back to your original point, fine, I'm a music pirate and I'm a bad person. I'm not sure if I'll be able to sleep at night now. However, if the artist that recorded the CD or the recording label that published it had any major problem with that, then they would have tried to bring the legal hammer up against several companies, like Apple for example, because programs like iTunes have software in it that enables you to copy a CD. The same cannot really be said for the game industry or, for that matter, the developer of the software mentioned in the opening post, because they have taken action against such activity, whether it be by adding DRM programs or by just flat-out decrying those that pirated the program in the first place.

I'm not going to deny that copying music like that may be wrong, but I'm sure as hell not going to stand by and let you say that because your actions aren't right that everyone is in the wrong.

So to summarize, recording something shown on high definition TV and copying it for all your friends is fine, but downloading the same program from the internet is not. Because the people who broadcast it has to expect it since they air it on national TV.
And pirating music is fine because sometimes you go to a concert.

Making these kinds of moral differences in your head is fine, you know. I'm not suggesting you should lose sleep over it. I'm not even anti piracy. But condemning people for piracy when you yourself obviously do things that are considered just as illegal is a little silly.

By the way, music CDs do come with copy protection, and has done so for many years. But most CD ripping software knows about this and lets you circumvent it easily and automatically.
And itunes lets you burn and rip CDs, this is true. But it's reasonable to understand that the expected use for these features is to transfer music you own from a CD onto your ipod or transfer tracks you've downloaded and paid for onto a CD, both for personal use. This is called music transfer and is vaguely covered under the fair use definition of the copyright laws. What's not allowed is actual duplication of the CDs. The downloaded media files also come with a limit as to how many personal itunes libraries (i.e., computers) you can transfer it to.

(My beliefs are that what you really should be paying for is the music itself, not the media it's stored on. CDs aren't gonna be the default media for storing music forever, nor are DVDs gonna be the main way to store video. And it should be up to the user to decide what he wants to do with the information (music, video, etc) he's bought, not the record company).

 

[Byers]

Hmm you've out legal-ed me for sure, but I still doesn't think that makes it your right to pirate a completely different product. And where does the iPod not meet those requirements?

Following a quick google search I found this article (it's two years old, but I doubt much has changed...please correct me if you find more up to date information):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/may/27/news.consumernews

For those who can't be bothered to read it all, here's the main point I was referring to:

It doesn't matter that iPod lovers can spend up to £300 on their gizmo. Apple operates on the basis that the iPod life expectancy is a year, and that's it.

Complain that your £200 or £300 could have bought a fridge or TV that would be expected to last five years or more, and a customer services assistant will explain that a one-year warranty is just that, and no more.

Last month Guardian Money explained how the Sale of Goods Act sets out a series of basic customer rights. These are fleshed out by guidelines from the Department of Trade & Industry. The key in all discussions with retailers, which are the first port of call, is that goods should last up to six years, depending on their cost and expected durability.

(And obviously this doesn't give anyone legal grounds to pirate Apple software in payback, but my initial comment was a moral stance, not a legal one).

 

[TheGhostOfSin]

Same goes for child molesters.

They don't get an easy time in prison when other inmates find out what they did.
I just don't understand why any guards ever stop the other inmates.

One simple answer. Guards have children or plan to have children at some point. "They see" it as an extended punishment.(What's in quotes is my interpretation of the situation).

No, I meant why do the guards stop inmates giving child molesters a hard time, when everyone knows how much they deserve it.

 

[Blind0bserver]

So to summarize, recording something shown on high definition TV and copying it for all your friends is fine, but downloading the same program from the internet is not. Because the people who broadcast it has to expect it since they air it on national TV.
And pirating music is fine because sometimes you go to a concert.

Okay, first of all, I already conceded to you that copying music is in fact a form of piracy, something you either missed of downright ignored. Second, you completely misinterpreted the TV example. At no point did I say that downloading the same show off the internet that you could record off of live TV was somehow the distinction between being legal.

The entire point of that lengthy post responding to your B.S. was to counter a point of yours: all forms of copying something are not considered piracy. Somewhere in your convoluted view of the world you realized that you couldn't justify your own brand of stealing so now your trying to say that any form of copying can be considered theft. You can distort meanings of things and put words in my mouth all you want, but we both know that just isn't the way it is.

 

[Byers]

Okay, first of all, I already conceded to you that copying music is in fact a form of piracy, something you either missed of downright ignored. Second, you completely misinterpreted the TV example. At no point did I say that downloading the same show off the internet that you could record off of live TV was somehow the distinction between being legal.

The entire point of that lengthy post responding to your B.S. was to counter a point of yours: all forms of copying something are not considered piracy. Somewhere in your convoluted view of the world you realized that you couldn't justify your own brand of stealing so now your trying to say that any form of copying can be considered theft. You can distort meanings of things and put words in my mouth all you want, but we both know that just isn't the way it is.

Well, you can call my points BS all you want, that doesn't alter the fact that the things you mentioned as being 'a form of piracy' (and continued to talk about as though they weren't really important), is considered no less illegal than downloading from the internet.

Condemning someone for being a pirate while you yourself are owning up cases of piracy is no less ironic than the thief crying 'stop the thief'. And you having the audacity to call my reasoning bullshit, practically in the same sentence, doubly so.

 

[Blind0bserver]

Well, you can call my points BS all you want, that doesn't alter the fact that the things you mentioned as being 'a form of piracy' (and continued to talk about as though they weren't really important), is considered no less illegal than downloading from the internet.

Condemning someone for being a pirate while you yourself are owning up cases of piracy is no less ironic than the thief crying 'stop the thief'. And you having the audacity to call my reasoning bullshit, practically in the same sentence, doubly so.

Okay, I will concede to you that, under your definition, I am a pirate and I'm essentially calling the kettle black. Now, let's see if we can put the outright arguing aside for a moment and try to have a thoughtful discussion again, if not for a moment.

Real quick, I'd like you to clarify something for me that may help me better understand your point of view. Why do you consider any form of copying a type of media to be piracy when it seems that your stance is pro-piracy? I use the word "seems" because that's the impression that I've gotten from your arguments, so if I'm off the mark here, you can go ahead and consider this post an apology while we're at it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

He's actually right -

...Sale of Goods Act 1979 is quite specific. It deems that goods must be safe, fit the description that's given of them and be both of "satisfactory" quality and fit for the purpose for which they're intended. If they have to be installed or assembled, there should be adequate instructions.

Hmm you've out legal-ed me for sure, but I still doesn't think that makes it your right to pirate a completely different product. And where does the iPod not meet those requirements?

Doesn't give you any rights other than to sue them. I'd say our mutual friend would be going for the 'one year lifespan' not being 'satisfactory'.