So most people understand that piracy is NOT theft, technically...

[Alterego-X]

Understand, I realize that copyright infringement is not technically theft. I just have no problem in referring to it as theft, and I don't quite understand why people get so defensive over it.

Evidently, they'd rather think of themselves as "Copyright Infringers" than "Thieves".

Exactly. Copyright Infringment is a modern crime, that was written for certain practical reasons.

Theft is an ancient commandment, and a cornerstone of morality pretty much everywhere.

Very good arguments could be made why copyright in it's current form is no longer legitimate. And very good arguments coul be made in favor of it, too.

But likening piracy to theft uses an appeal to primitive emotions, that "it's bad because it's bad". It's a thought-stopping phrase, to avoid having to discuss the legitimacy of copyright laws.

 

[direkiller]

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.

No it isint it falls under fair use.
(prong 3&4) if you want to be technical(no mensurable economic cost incurred and the amount of copyrited material used).

Meanwhile piracy fails on all points of fair use. Arguably you can say old games do not result in an economic loss but pirating current games dose have a measurable amount of loss.

Actually, no, piracy doesn't cause a measurable loss. Just think about it: How could we even measure the harm that is caused to a product by piracy, without the same content release being repeated in a completely piracy-free environment, and comparing the numbers?

The only difference between fair use and piracy, is that Fair Use happens to be legal.

funny thing is
you can measure it

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1609847

"Figure 1 also shows that about one quarter of file sharers felt that a price
that was higher than the average retail price of ?12.31 would still be
reasonable. Again, adjusting this for the likelihood that consumers will
actually buy the CD for that price, means that roughly 17% of all file sharers
would be willing to buy the CD for the retail price if downloading were not
possible."

 

[Wargamer]

The problem with Piracy (and hell, a vast majority of our current social issues) can be summarised thusly:

The people who made the rules about Piracy are dead. They died long before the modern era. Their work has been carried on by people who grew up in a time when the Internet did not exist, when Digital Media meant reading a textbook on how radios work, and who generally have no fucking clue how the world works.

That's it. Seriously, that's it.

Our laws have not kept pace with reality, and they never will because too many people have a vested interest in not only ignoring the present, but PUNISHING it. If you make money selling CDs, you don't want people to get their music online. If you need arses in seats at the cinema to turn a profit, you'll fight tooth and nail to crush any other means of watching movies. This is why we have SOPA and PIPA; because instead of updating the law to suit the modern age, we're being forced to CHANGE the modern age to suit Victorean Era laws.

 

[Alterego-X]

Actually, no, piracy doesn't cause a measurable loss. Just think about it: How could we even measure the harm that is caused to a product by piracy, without the same content release being repeated in a completely piracy-free environment, and comparing the numbers?

The only difference between fair use and piracy, is that Fair Use happens to be legal.

funny thing is
you can measure it

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1609847

"Figure 1 also shows that about one quarter of file sharers felt that a price
that was higher than the average retail price of ?12.31 would still be
reasonable. Again, adjusting this for the likelihood that consumers will
actually buy the CD for that price, means that roughly 17% of all file sharers
would be willing to buy the CD for the retail price if downloading were not
possible."

I didn't ever doubt that some people buy less games because piracy exists. But there are more factors in that issue than that. To measure all of these, we would actually have to see how the same work would succeed in a situation without any piracy.

Right now, it doesn't take into account the probability of word of mouth and other ways of the increased audience further increasing sales. For example maybe if file sharers wouldn't have access to it, 17% of them would rather buy it, but the other 83% not being able to play it would have such a bad effect on mainstream awareness of it, that it would be much more obscure, and that would badly affect it's long term sales, or sequel sales.

 

[Terramax]

Would people perhaps agree that it's closest in crimes to counterfeiting?

You're taking something of value and copying it, and in doing so, making more copies than were originally available, and in doing so, devaluing the originals.

Are the prices of music, games and films really changing as a consequence?

Here in the UK, prices have remained the same for at least 15 years.

That being said, people who create the original products are receiving less revenue.

Oh, IDK, swings and roundabouts....

 

[direkiller]

Right now, it doesn't take into account the probability of word of mouth and other ways of the increased audience further increasing sales. For example maybe if file sharers wouldn't have access to it, 17% of them would rather buy it, but the other 83% not being able to play it would have such a bad effect on mainstream awareness of it, that it would be much more obscure, and that would badly affect it's long term sales, or sequel sales.

There is studdys done on that but this one pertains to music(there is a part on word of mouth sales in there if your wondering). It showed that the word of mouth advisement was not enough to counteract piracy loss on larger record labels.
I can go into depth if you want but you stated the effect were not mensurable which is just wrong.

 

[Alterego-X]

Right now, it doesn't take into account the probability of word of mouth and other ways of the increased audience further increasing sales. For example maybe if file sharers wouldn't have access to it, 17% of them would rather buy it, but the other 83% not being able to play it would have such a bad effect on mainstream awareness of it, that it would be much more obscure, and that would badly affect it's long term sales, or sequel sales.

There is studdys done on that but this one pertains to music(there is a part on word of mouth sales in there if your wondering). It showed that the word of mouth advisement was not enough to counteract piracy loss on larger record labels.
I can go into depth if you want but you stated the effect were not mensurable which is just wrong.

The very article that you linked also says that "There does not appear to be a clear relationship between the decline in sales and file sharing", that "The effect of file sharing on sales is ambiguous.", and that "Needless to say, these calculations are necessarily based on
assumptions and contain many uncertainties."

 

[Woodsey]

Its not theft in the strictest definition of the word "theft". Even so, it is still theft. You take a product that is not yours, that has been created for the purpose of being sold, you consume it, and you don't pay for it. You've gained, they've lost - whether or not you were going to buy it anyway is irrelevant (for this side of the argument, it would be relevant if we were talking about DRM), you've assigned a value to it by way of consuming it.

This whole thing is very odd. Gamers seem to get antsy about it being "JUST FUCKING COPYRIGHT ARE YOU STOOPID OR WOT?" purely because the morons in the the government of various countries are too fucking old to actually understand the issue with trying to introduce laws on the internet.

Personal opinion in a nutshell: piracy is theft, (current) attempts at trying to regulate the internet are ridiculous. If someone invests time and money into a product that they are going to sell, and you consume it without paying, then you have robbed them of that time and money.

So, what you're saying is that even though it doesn't meet the definition of theft, it's still theft? That makes no sense at all. You're entitled to your opinion, however it is completely wrong. Legally it is not theft and that's the only context that matters.

Wait a second! The LEGAL definition is what is most important in the LAW?! NO ONE TOLD ME THIS!

But yes, thank you Atticus. The point I was putting forward was that in 'spirit' and motivation (most of the time), its the same thing as stealing a physical copy. Obviously the crux of the definition (the physical taking) is not the same.

If we were all only talking about the actual legal definition as it is now then all these piracy threads would have exactly one post.

Wow, aren't you being a massive twat. Well why would you look to other definitions? Theft and copyright infringement are legal offences so use the legal definitions.

No, it's not the same thing in "spirit" at all, nothing has been taken, no one has been deprived. Seriously, what's wrong with calling it copyright infringement? Or does it not have enough emotional impact as theft?

I... what? You'd have to be a moron to get riled up by the word "theft". I'm not writing a piece of rhetoric. I'm calling a bear a fucking bear.

End result of pirating a copy of a game: you consume the product, creator of the product is deprived of the return on their investment. In essence, it is the same as stealing. You are withholding what they are owed.

The product being sold is the files, not the disc.

"no one has been deprived"

Oh, of course. So when the next Call of Duty comes out, and everyone pirates it and plays it, and no one purchases it, it'll STILL break sales and earnings records. Yes, that's completely correct. (Actually, the fucking thing probably will after that deal Kotick made with the devil.)

 

[direkiller]

Right now, it doesn't take into account the probability of word of mouth and other ways of the increased audience further increasing sales. For example maybe if file sharers wouldn't have access to it, 17% of them would rather buy it, but the other 83% not being able to play it would have such a bad effect on mainstream awareness of it, that it would be much more obscure, and that would badly affect it's long term sales, or sequel sales.

There is studdys done on that but this one pertains to music(there is a part on word of mouth sales in there if your wondering). It showed that the word of mouth advisement was not enough to counteract piracy loss on larger record labels.
I can go into depth if you want but you stated the effect were not mensurable which is just wrong.

The very article that you linked also says that "There does not appear to be a clear relationship between the decline in sales and file sharing", that "The effect of file sharing on sales is ambiguous.", and that "Needless to say, these calculations are necessarily based on
assumptions and contain many uncertainties."

That quite simply means there not 95% confended the numbers are accurate. It still a mesusruble effect.

Also your first quote is taken from the intro/procedure. In that paragraph they expain why it is ambiguis.
"Research on this issue
results in descriptions of mechanisms through which file sharing either
results in an increase or, conversely, in a decrease in digital media sales, or
in having no impact on sales whatsoever. These various potential
mechanisms are summarized in Table 3. The most prominent positive effect
is the sampling effect: consumers are introduced to new music and this
creates new demand. When downloading serves consumers whose demand
is driven by a lack of purchasing power, the effect on sales is neutral. File
sharing has a negative impact on buying when it replaces paid-for
consumption."

Its the last one they tried to measure It came out to 17% of file sharers download instead of buy(or the negative effect) but there not entirely confident on that number. It is still a measurable effect.





Large corprations with

 

[Woodsey]

Its not theft in the strictest definition of the word "theft". Even so, it is still theft. You take a product that is not yours, that has been created for the purpose of being sold, you consume it, and you don't pay for it. You've gained, they've lost - whether or not you were going to buy it anyway is irrelevant (for this side of the argument, it would be relevant if we were talking about DRM), you've assigned a value to it by way of consuming it.

This whole thing is very odd. Gamers seem to get antsy about it being "JUST FUCKING COPYRIGHT ARE YOU STOOPID OR WOT?" purely because the morons in the the government of various countries are too fucking old to actually understand the issue with trying to introduce laws on the internet.

Personal opinion in a nutshell: piracy is theft, (current) attempts at trying to regulate the internet are ridiculous. If someone invests time and money into a product that they are going to sell, and you consume it without paying, then you have robbed them of that time and money.

So, what you're saying is that even though it doesn't meet the definition of theft, it's still theft? That makes no sense at all. You're entitled to your opinion, however it is completely wrong. Legally it is not theft and that's the only context that matters.

Wait a second! The LEGAL definition is what is most important in the LAW?! NO ONE TOLD ME THIS!

But yes, thank you Atticus. The point I was putting forward was that in 'spirit' and motivation (most of the time), its the same thing as stealing a physical copy. Obviously the crux of the definition (the physical taking) is not the same.

If we were all only talking about the actual legal definition as it is now then all these piracy threads would have exactly one post.

Wow, aren't you being a massive twat. Well why would you look to other definitions? Theft and copyright infringement are legal offences so use the legal definitions.

No, it's not the same thing in "spirit" at all, nothing has been taken, no one has been deprived. Seriously, what's wrong with calling it copyright infringement? Or does it not have enough emotional impact as theft?

I... what? You'd have to be a moron to get riled up by the word "theft". I'm not writing a piece of rhetoric. I'm calling a bear a fucking bear.

End result of pirating a copy of a game: you consume the product, creator of the product is deprived of the return on their investment. In essence, it is the same as stealing. You are withholding what they are owed.

The product being sold is the files, not the disc.

"no one has been deprived"

Oh, of course. So when the next Call of Duty comes out, and everyone pirates it and plays it, and no one purchases it, it'll STILL break sales and earnings records. Yes, that's completely correct. (Actually, the fucking thing probably will after that deal Kotick made with the devil.)

No matter how you want to spin it, it's still not stealing. You'd have to be a moron to think otherwise.

And you'd have to be a complete dick head to think no one is deprived of anything when people pirate. You'd also have to be an utter nob to not be able to read the words "in essence".

I read the words "in essence", doesn't change the fact that you're completely and utterly wrong. Well, the courts would disagree with you on the deprivation point and so would I. A hypothetical "loss" is not deprivation, they never had the money in the first place.

For the love of... I'm well aware of the current legal standing of it. What is so fucking complicated about that?

"A hypothetical "loss" is not deprivation, they never had the money in the first place."

They put money out to make the game, they release game, people play it for free. Of course that's a fucking loss you moron. If they THEN purchase it then a loss is negated, so no, in that regard it is of course not the same as physical stealing, and of course the loss is not so easily quantifiable, but there IS a loss.

You are making the ridiculous assumption that the cost of disc production and distribution is the only investment made, and therefore the only money to be lost.

 

[Phlakes]

Heres the thing: nobody really cares about what you or Thal think about the subject.

In legal terms, its not theft. Thats what matters. Nothing more to say really.

No, in legal terms, it's not theft, that's absolutely true. But in (relative) moral terms, hell yeah it is.

 

[Veylon]

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).

Why would people look for quality any more than they do now? Right now people buy crappy games and then complain about it. Allowing any number of people access to the same IP only muddies the waters and buries the truly good games.

Yes, endless sequels and mindless buying of a franchise does end up ruining it. But confusing who even owns the franchise only pushes it under even earlier.

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.

Except that nothing is preventing you from making a masterpiece now. Are you seriously claiming that not having Mario on tap is the sole obstacle to creating something great?

One of the benefits of copyrighting is that you can create something and no one can steal your character or name out from under you. Nintendo's lockdown on Mario didn't stop Super Meatboy from appearing, nor did Microsoft's ownership of Halo prevent Valve from making their own protagonist in Portal. Someone with a great idea doesn't need to tie themselves to an existing franchise to succeed.

But I think what is at root here is the fan-made games. Super Mario X got clobbered by Nintendo even though it was better than anything they'd put out recently. But the author didn't weep and rage that he'd been denied access to creative rights; he went on to make Terraria instead. He didn't need Mario in the end.

 

[The]

It's not theft if they weren't going to buy it in the first place. OK, technically it is, but no one will know.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Technically if you pirated the game you haven't given any consideration and so there isn't any contract.

I should've been clearer, I guess. The breach of contract happens on both ends of the supply chain. The cracker or scene member is breaching his contract for distributing an unauthorized version, while the receiving user is also breaching his contract for using an unauthorized version. The software *still* comes with a copy of the EULA, pirated or otherwise. However, it's a contract that the pirated copy simply *cannot* fulfill, being a copy of a starting legitimate disc that *could* operate within the bounds of the EULA.

Considering this, there's a breach of contract on the end-user's side, too. It's as if I bought an iPhone from someone who would've already applied a jailbreak to it. I'm still legally obligated to uphold Apple's conditions as an iPhone user, but I can't because of my phone's applied jailbreak.

The nature of the current economy makes it so these goods need to be purchased and offered with a contract. Being unable to uphold said contract, no matter from which end, makes the pirated copy illegal.

 

[Azarhac]

Well it's like this, if there is any option to buy something do so, but mostly for ALL tv shows blabla I could do so like a few years afterwards and that just went fly for me.

I pirate like a fucking captain so I am being hypocritical here but, I have always bought anything that was worth it AND I could get my hands on, this doesn't stand for any video feed though as I can't buy them really....

Yeah pirating is bad I know but I don't really care, I will not be denied awesome TV shows just because I can't pay for them.

 

[Chewster]

Can we all just please agree to call it fucking piracy because that is what it is? No matter how much twisting and bending and whatever else, people are still try trying manipulate the very clear meanings of words, for whatever political reasons. Piracy is a form of copyright infringement. There is no fucking reason to call it anything but that because that is what it fucking well is. I am astounded that there are reasonable people who will still make attempts to try and convince people that this is not so.

I don't defend pirates or piracy, but Goddamn, can we get off this line of thinking already? Until we do, there is literally no possible way to have a meaningful conversation about the subject because one side will be operating using a very flawed and inaccurate definition of what piracy is.