Poll: Piracy is legal
- Thread starter Entitled
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Copyright Infringement =/= Theft
Theft is taking someone else's thing. If you go up to your neighbour's car and duplicate it with a magic device, you didn't steal his car, his car is still there. What you did was infringe on Ford's copyright on that specific car design.
People who keep trying to say they are the same thing are like someone arguing that First Degree Murder and Manslaughter are the same thing. They're different! Two similar things are two different things. I don't understand how after more than ten years of arguing about piracy people still don't understand the terms 'theft' and 'copyright infringement'.
Theft is taking someone else's thing. If you go up to your neighbour's car and duplicate it with a magic device, you didn't steal his car, his car is still there. What you did was infringe on Ford's copyright on that specific car design.
People who keep trying to say they are the same thing are like someone arguing that First Degree Murder and Manslaughter are the same thing. They're different! Two similar things are two different things. I don't understand how after more than ten years of arguing about piracy people still don't understand the terms 'theft' and 'copyright infringement'.
The morality of piracy is always on a case by case basis. For instance if you just pirate all games for no other reason than to get free games, most people consider that immoral. However, if you pirate for such reasons as intrusive DRM, region locking, old games that are no longer making the company money, lack of demo, etc, these are reasons which people find more morally legitimate. Ultimately, it's up to the individual to determine what they find immoral, regardless of the law.
Here in Canada (although i've heard it's changed recently, or is changing), the RCMP have stated that they won't pursue charges against those who download copyrighted material for personal use, they only go after the uploaders. I don't think this changes the morality on piracy really.
The law shouldn't dictate what is moral, what is moral should dictate the law.
Here in Canada (although i've heard it's changed recently, or is changing), the RCMP have stated that they won't pursue charges against those who download copyrighted material for personal use, they only go after the uploaders. I don't think this changes the morality on piracy really.
The law shouldn't dictate what is moral, what is moral should dictate the law.
If anyone believes that developers and/or artists are losing anything by having their works pirated, I propose we should make a law which states that every pirate who downloads someone's product must send back not only the product he's downloaded to the artist, but also an another copy of said product. That way, the 'creator' will not only cover up his losses but also have an extra surplus of goods!
you want a productEntitled said:
you should pay for a product
people pirating is a thing...IT IS NOT OK just because a bunch of people do it, they put the burden on people who actually pay for their shit
makes...no...godman..senseShilefin said:
just pay the creator
You know what, I couldn't care less about whether piracy is technically stealing or not. What really, truly irks me is that by downloading for free what I pay for, they are piggybacking on me and everyone else who paid. Essentially, I am paying for their game, because if nobody actually spent money on the games, the developers wouldn't make them.
That is why people should be angry. Pirates are using everyone else to fund their gaming, because if everyone pirates like they do, then the games stop shipping.
That is why people should be angry. Pirates are using everyone else to fund their gaming, because if everyone pirates like they do, then the games stop shipping.
Again, that only works if you assume that it's the same people who always pirating everything, and the same people always buying everything, as opposed to most people buying most of their games, and they also feel relaxed about occasionally also pirating some when they are broke, or want to play something that isn't sold anymore, or unsure about a game that doesn't have a demo, etc, usual justifications.Compatriot Block said:
There are very few people who are hardcore pirates, or who are obsessed with ALWAYS following copyright laws.
Edit: Besides, isn't that also true for LEGALLY getting a copy without paying? Like borrowing from a friend? Do you feel angry about people who borrow stuff piggybacking on the industry?
Or people who only buy things after a price cut? They also harm the industry why not paying a full price, aren't thes?
Because it bears repeating, apparently...
Copyright Infringement =/= Theft
The former involves a copy of the original. The latter involves the original being taken.
Different concepts.
As for the morality question, refer to melbourne's post on page 3. The guy's spot on.
Copyright Infringement =/= Theft
The former involves a copy of the original. The latter involves the original being taken.
Different concepts.
As for the morality question, refer to melbourne's post on page 3. The guy's spot on.
Stealing is stealing, you can put whatever pretty label or justification on it you want, it's still morally wrong. And yes, it is stealing.
Let's look at an example definition of theft from a jurisdiction I'm familiar with. The basic distinction is the same in the US, the UK and Australia. This is from the Crimes Act 1958 (VIC).Sonic Doctor said:
Crimes Act 1958 - SECT 72
Basic definition of theft
72. Basic definition of theft
(1) A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
(2) A person who steals is guilty of theft; and "thief" shall be construed
accordingly.
Basic definition of theft
72. Basic definition of theft
(1) A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
(2) A person who steals is guilty of theft; and "thief" shall be construed
accordingly.
This is the Commonwealth definition of basic copyright infringement, from the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 36
Infringement by doing acts comprised in the copyright
(1) Subject to this Act, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorizes the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright.
(1A) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether or not a person has authorised the doing in Australia of any act comprised in the copyright in a work, without the licence of the owner of the copyright, the matters that must be taken into account include the following:
(a) the extent (if any) of the person's power to prevent the doing of the act concerned;
(b) the nature of any relationship existing between the person and the person who did the act concerned;
(c) whether the person took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the doing of the act, including whether the person complied with any relevant industry codes of practice.
Infringement by doing acts comprised in the copyright
(1) Subject to this Act, the copyright in a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the copyright, and without the licence of the owner of the copyright, does in Australia, or authorizes the doing in Australia of, any act comprised in the copyright.
(1A) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1), whether or not a person has authorised the doing in Australia of any act comprised in the copyright in a work, without the licence of the owner of the copyright, the matters that must be taken into account include the following:
(a) the extent (if any) of the person's power to prevent the doing of the act concerned;
(b) the nature of any relationship existing between the person and the person who did the act concerned;
(c) whether the person took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the doing of the act, including whether the person complied with any relevant industry codes of practice.
Can you see how those are two different things?
The definition of theft under which you operate is legally inaccurate. "Taking something without paying" is not the definition of theft. You know why? Because that would criminalise any transaction where one party did not pay the other party, including all forms of charitable donation.
Do yourself a favour. Go get the local criminal statute for the state you live in (I'm assuming you're American.) Look up the definition of theft. Then go get the Copyright Act 1976 (US), which is the US federal copyright statute. Look up its defintion of copyright, and its definition of infringement.
Then, get an apple and an orange, shuffle them around a table, and see if you can tell them apart afterwards. Because if you can do that, you can tell that copyright infringement and theft aren't the same thing.
Thank you for your fucking time.
Sure, whatever. It's bad and only bad people do it. It's still not theft.Vault101 said:
Listen. You haven't read any of my posts above, and you don't know anything about the law, so I'll not get angry at you.spartan231490 said:
But I want you to ask yourself - is the legal definition of a specific offence a "pretty label?" Do you think that these definitions exist because lawyers and judges need to dress up crimes in fancy words to make themselves feel pretty? Do you honestly think that the majestic engine of the common law serves the same purpose as a pink tutu on a chihuahua?
These definitions exist because crimes need to be clearly defined. You can't just haul a guy before a judge and say he did something bad, and have the judge go "Yeap, he looks like a bad person" and throw him in jail for twenty years.
When you talk about copyright infringement, you're talking about whether something is or isn't legal. It is a legal inquiry. It needs a legal definition, one that is distinct from other legal definitions, such as those for theft. If you think that copyright infringement is theft, you are wrong. You are factually wrong. You are provably wrong. If you tried to haul a pirate to court and told the judge he's a thief, the judge would ask you to prove theft. He won't accept it if you accuse a guy of theft and prove he committed copyright infringement. He won't accept it if you say he did a really bad thing, your honour, for reals, he's such an asshole. He's only going to accept proof of theft.
Personally I blame the ads. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU]
I find the whole piracy discussion kind of backwards.
To answer the OT: piracy is wrong from a morality point of view. A person worked hard to create something that is worthwhile enough to take without giving back to the person. Because the persons livelihood depends on earning money, it is just mean to enjoy their work with them not getting any return on it.
This is the problem: people work to earn money to be able to fulfill their requirements for living. Especially people who create something and only get their reward once the product is done take a big risk. What if nobody wants it after all, then all the work was for nothing (from a financial POV).
Piracy is a bad thing to do in the sense that it actually damages the creators of products. On the other hand, piracy though is a form of sharing things that are abundant. Games, movies, music are all digital goods, and they can be copied and multiplied infinitely. Therefore, they should logically be all free. After all, money was invented because the goods that were traded weren't abundant. If back then humans had infinite access to all things, food, water, shelter etc, then there wouldn't be a need for trade in the first place. Everybody would have everything.
Digital goods are such a good. Everybody can share anything online. Because our economic system is designed with the idea that all goods are finite in the first place, digital goods just don't fit with it, and that's why companies are trying to artificially limit access to their produced digital goods. After all, money must be made to provide for the people who create these goods, and they need money because they live in a system where money is needed to be able to live.
The questions shouldn't be whether piracy is good. The question should really be how we can rethink our system to get rid of the need for money altogether, in other words, to make our physical goods as abundant as our digital goods.
Impossible?
If we applied EXISTING technologies without regard for the existing economic structures (stock market, corporations etc), without trying to cater to the already obsolete system we have, we could provide food and shelter for all people in the world. Engineers and scientists have already figured out much of what is needed to really propel us into the future, but cannot realize much of it because a lot of these projects need big funding and nobody wants to invest into something that isn't meant to return a profit.
To answer the OT: piracy is wrong from a morality point of view. A person worked hard to create something that is worthwhile enough to take without giving back to the person. Because the persons livelihood depends on earning money, it is just mean to enjoy their work with them not getting any return on it.
This is the problem: people work to earn money to be able to fulfill their requirements for living. Especially people who create something and only get their reward once the product is done take a big risk. What if nobody wants it after all, then all the work was for nothing (from a financial POV).
Piracy is a bad thing to do in the sense that it actually damages the creators of products. On the other hand, piracy though is a form of sharing things that are abundant. Games, movies, music are all digital goods, and they can be copied and multiplied infinitely. Therefore, they should logically be all free. After all, money was invented because the goods that were traded weren't abundant. If back then humans had infinite access to all things, food, water, shelter etc, then there wouldn't be a need for trade in the first place. Everybody would have everything.
Digital goods are such a good. Everybody can share anything online. Because our economic system is designed with the idea that all goods are finite in the first place, digital goods just don't fit with it, and that's why companies are trying to artificially limit access to their produced digital goods. After all, money must be made to provide for the people who create these goods, and they need money because they live in a system where money is needed to be able to live.
The questions shouldn't be whether piracy is good. The question should really be how we can rethink our system to get rid of the need for money altogether, in other words, to make our physical goods as abundant as our digital goods.
Impossible?
If we applied EXISTING technologies without regard for the existing economic structures (stock market, corporations etc), without trying to cater to the already obsolete system we have, we could provide food and shelter for all people in the world. Engineers and scientists have already figured out much of what is needed to really propel us into the future, but cannot realize much of it because a lot of these projects need big funding and nobody wants to invest into something that isn't meant to return a profit.