I agree its not theft but every time I try to say something along the lines of "Potential loss isn't actual loss" I get 5 quotes telling me to stop defending Piracy.
So most people understand that piracy is NOT theft, technically...
- Thread starter SenseOfTumour
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm not talking about the game industry as a whole, or similar types of products. I'm talking about individual copyrights. i.e. There's several FPS's true, but only one Call of Duty series, and there only ever will be. Another example, Nintendo is the only company that can develop ANYTHING Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. related without their permission, and only THEY can decide anything from how those products are distributed, where, to even the CONTENT that these products contain. For instance, some places never see releases of some Nintendo games, and even if it's incredibly stupid not to have it if they don't like something their developer is putting in a game it's gone, just like that.Akimoto said:
In short, copyrights allow companies to have complete and utter control over everything that has their copyright in it, and they can charge us whatever they want for any product with their copyright on it, because they know that if we want that product, they're the only ones we can get it from.
I don't think one needs to complicate the matter by referring to counterfeiting.
Theft is defined as "an act of stealing someone else's property, with the intention of permanently depriving them of it". Obviously it's the second part that doesn't appear to apply to piracy, given that a copy is made yet the original remains. But when a person consumes the product of another then the transaction is complete upon the exchange of something of equal value. (Hence why paper money states that the consumer is effectively indebted.) With piracy, the consumer is receiving the product without fulfilling 50% of the transaction. The producer DOES lose their property because they are not receiving that to which they are entitled.
Theft is defined as "an act of stealing someone else's property, with the intention of permanently depriving them of it". Obviously it's the second part that doesn't appear to apply to piracy, given that a copy is made yet the original remains. But when a person consumes the product of another then the transaction is complete upon the exchange of something of equal value. (Hence why paper money states that the consumer is effectively indebted.) With piracy, the consumer is receiving the product without fulfilling 50% of the transaction. The producer DOES lose their property because they are not receiving that to which they are entitled.
Being able to possess something at no cost IS profit, chum.SenseOfTumour said:
Total benefit of having thing - cost of procurement = profit.
Piracy is copyright infringement. How about we leave it at that. They own the idea, you just used it without there permission.
I've got a better idea, let's try and come up with what the various companies were collectively trying to do to our rights on the internet.
They weren't trying to protect their stuff because they can do that without SOPA, they weren't trying to limit that stuff because again, they had the US government take down Megaupload.
I think what they were doing was, I think this is the scientific term "butt fuck everyones rights." I think that's right.
What's Piracy? At this point I'd say it's getting back at them for being assholes to everyone. I'm not saying pirate, I'm saying buy more used games.
They weren't trying to protect their stuff because they can do that without SOPA, they weren't trying to limit that stuff because again, they had the US government take down Megaupload.
I think what they were doing was, I think this is the scientific term "butt fuck everyones rights." I think that's right.
What's Piracy? At this point I'd say it's getting back at them for being assholes to everyone. I'm not saying pirate, I'm saying buy more used games.
I find it interesting that so many people are so up in arms against piracy, some, even having the audacity to claim to never have pirated before. Look at you avatar, if you did not create it 100%, then chances are that too is a form of piracy. So lets all drop the elitist boasting.
JIm has it right in its copyright infringement, but I would say its like counterfeiting.
I dont know, I've heard of when it was used and described as theft, and in that instnace it did sound like theft (i think it was something about either a patent design and the idea was stolen but I could be wrong) but I'd probably agree.
... Doesnt make it any less wrong.
if companies didnt feel safe in that there were copyright laws where their intellectual properties couldnt be under their control for their use, they wouldnt bother and then no one would have anything. while the argument isnt as strong in say, media where someone will buy something that they didnt create just to own, it is when you look into things like major medical drug resources. And you cant really say "well, alright it can apply just to that industry, but not these ones, cause those guys are dicks about it" (which it seems most arguments about the develop turn into), so you have to expand that safety of intellectual properties to everyone.
Just think about it, if you were Nintendo, or more importantly Shigeru Miyamoto, would you want told how you're supposed to use your intellectual properties (as long as you own them of course, and the government doesnt make a legal intervention, which in this case would be rather hard for them).
...
Actually, the specilization and "monopoly" of what developers can do with intellectual properties is what helps keep a monopoly from forming. if every company had to share its properties with every other company (say nintendo having to share Zelda and making it for each platform, or vice versa with Mirosoft having to make a halo game for each platform, or even sony having to make um... having to make a God of war game for every platform) without the company having the free will to decide if it wants to there'd be no point in having multiple consoles and multiple companies cause there's nothing that would distinguish them from what would be their competition. Then you'd just have one universal console that can charge the price they want (which if you think 60 bucks US is outrageous, just wait until you saw companies charging triple for a single game and asking what you're gonna do about it when they're the only game in town) for whatever qaulity they see fit to put out.
I dont know, I've heard of when it was used and described as theft, and in that instnace it did sound like theft (i think it was something about either a patent design and the idea was stolen but I could be wrong) but I'd probably agree.
... Doesnt make it any less wrong.
Control of intellectual properties dont count as something that can classified as a monopoly. Monopolies (or at leaest the illegal ones, because there are legal monopolies, such as natural monopolies [water pipes, telephone lines to an extent, things of those nature where if competition were allowed it would be more detrimental to the consumer it wishes to serve then beneficial]) are on a firm level, and the allowance of competition to arise.immortalfrieza said:
if companies didnt feel safe in that there were copyright laws where their intellectual properties couldnt be under their control for their use, they wouldnt bother and then no one would have anything. while the argument isnt as strong in say, media where someone will buy something that they didnt create just to own, it is when you look into things like major medical drug resources. And you cant really say "well, alright it can apply just to that industry, but not these ones, cause those guys are dicks about it" (which it seems most arguments about the develop turn into), so you have to expand that safety of intellectual properties to everyone.
Just think about it, if you were Nintendo, or more importantly Shigeru Miyamoto, would you want told how you're supposed to use your intellectual properties (as long as you own them of course, and the government doesnt make a legal intervention, which in this case would be rather hard for them).
...
Actually, the specilization and "monopoly" of what developers can do with intellectual properties is what helps keep a monopoly from forming. if every company had to share its properties with every other company (say nintendo having to share Zelda and making it for each platform, or vice versa with Mirosoft having to make a halo game for each platform, or even sony having to make um... having to make a God of war game for every platform) without the company having the free will to decide if it wants to there'd be no point in having multiple consoles and multiple companies cause there's nothing that would distinguish them from what would be their competition. Then you'd just have one universal console that can charge the price they want (which if you think 60 bucks US is outrageous, just wait until you saw companies charging triple for a single game and asking what you're gonna do about it when they're the only game in town) for whatever qaulity they see fit to put out.
And what is wrong with this? Why should somebody else get to make a crappy game, slap "Mario" on the cover, and trick people into buying it? The only reason anyone wants a particular franchise is because of the hard work that has gone into keeping it good. That mechanism goes straight to hell if just anyone can pick up a character and do whatever they want. I wouldn't want that with a franchise I created, so why should Nintendo?immortalfrieza said:
Now, if a game didn't get released where you are and there's no reasonable method of obtaining it, pirate away. It's not your fault if Nintendo is refusing to take your money.
There's only 1 difference between Fair Use and Piracy, Fair Use is legal, Piracy isn't, in every other way Piracy and Fair Use are the EXACT same thing. Thus, no one cares about fair use, but Piracy has people up in arms over the it. People look at Piracy and say "Piracy's illegal!!! That makes it bad!!!" People have no other reason to hate Piracy at all, because it's a completely victimless crime.Regnes said:
Except it's not.immortalfrieza said:
The very nature of piracy is to take something without paying for it. Does it deprive anyone of their copy of the item? No, but the fact remains that you now got something without paying the creators.
It doesn't matter if it's legal or not, it's still morally wrong.
As for Fair Use, the difference is that it must fit certain criteria to be considered usable. Generally, things like reviews, commentary or educational purposes are covered by fair use. For a more concrete example, one could make a video ala Escape to the Movies with no issue under fair use. However, one could not post that video to YouTube. There's very much a difference between using bits and pieces in certain situations and actively taking the original product.
If there were no copyright laws and some guy decided to make a truly awful Mario game, and somebody else decided to just buy it without considering it's merits first, then they deserve to end up paying for a big steaming pile of crap. If copyrights didn't exist, it would be a market where people actually LOOK for quality, instead of just buying anything with a popular name on it (which is one of the REAL things that ruining the gaming industry).Veylon said:
Besides, your argument could easily be flipped, without copyright people could take an IP and make an absolute masterpiece of a game that the original creator could NEVER make.
I see it as breach of copyright.
it,s the same as me having th blue prints for a car and building one in my backyard according to said blue prints.
it,s the same as me having th blue prints for a car and building one in my backyard according to said blue prints.
pretty much this even if you where to take down the entire Internet nothing is going to stop people from recording from TV or from the radio.Fluoxetine said:
immortalfrieza said:
So? Nobody victimises ANYBODY by pirating. Nothing is physically stolen from content creator, the content creator isn't physically harmed, no other people are harmed by it, plenty of people still buy the product, while anyone who pirates would never have purchased the product anyway, so nobody's even being hurt in the wallet, and if somebody pirates in most cases the content creator isn't even AWARE of it. A guy that throws something away on the ground in a park once in his entire life (as you probably know, littering is also illegal) does more harm to himself and others with his crime than Pirates do.Agayek said:
This is pretty much the whole point of my last post, if Piracy was legal, and especially if it always had been you wouldn't think it was wrong in the least, in fact, like Fair Use (below) you probably wouldn't even think about it.Agayek said:
Fair Use is still taking another person's copyrighted material and using it for your own purposes without that person's permission and likely without even notifying them of that fact.Agayek said:
Whether it used as a whole or not, or "fits certain criteria" is irrelevant. In fact, to use copyrighted material in your own product of some sort is another form of copyright infingement, and it would be hard to find anyone anywhere on the internet that doesn't do it constantly. Fair Use is still Piracy, as well as being probably the highest form of copyright infringement, Fair Use is just LEGAL, that doesn't mean it's not the same.
Oh, right. I see where you're coming from. I prefer to call it 'ass-hattery'.immortalfrieza said:
Just as planned...Pearwood said:
Aww.... but she's so cute!ex951753 said:
Anyway, it's nice to see someone practice what they preach - and that was NOT sarcastic. Hopefully Dodd does not see your post or he may jump on the idea of avatar IP. I am not going to pay to use an avatar, I rather go faceless.
Eh, its easier to say stealing. The words copyright infringement are too big and scary.SenorStocks said:
Its really just a minor detail anyway.