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

[ElPatron]

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.

By showing a film to your friends you're also making that copy server for more people than it was supposed to, essentially "replicating" it.

I haven't played recent games lately, the fact I'm not leeching off games for free doesn't matter. I am not paying, I am hurting the industry as much as a pirate.

Seriously, when I was a kid I tried to understand the fine print on the back of a VHS cover. I know that anyone born in the 90's or before is a hypocrite if he criticizes pirates.

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.

The best part is that they have committed copyright infringements thousands of times in their life with conscience of having done so, but they have also committed thousands of them without knowing.

Of course, I am referring to the fine print saying that lending that CD/VHS/music tape is copyright infringement, hence pirating.

In my opinion it's worse than theft. When you steal a car it doesn't effect what happens to every other driver. Imagine if all the car manufacturers made it so that you have to call in to verify that the car is yours every single time you wanted to open the door or turn the key. Because that's what pirates make publishers do with DRM. It ruins everyone's experience.

I also hate DRM. That's why some people gently supply fixes that are only a few megabytes that skip the DRM.

How would you feel if someone set up right next to your table and started handing out free ones? (...) You walk up to hims and say "Dude. You're stealing my work!" and he says "You still have all of your books. I'm not stealing anything.

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. Open a book and see the part where it says that you need authorization from the author/publisher/whatever if you want to print something longer than a few pages from his work - it's copyright infringement.

 

[w00tage]

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.

It is after all, one of the pirate's excuse that 'games/cds/movies aren't worth the asking price', but that's coming from the perspective of someone who gets them for free.

This isn't a criticism or defence of piracy, more some desperate plea not to see 'its theft/no it isn't' take up a full page of every tangentally related thread on here

I don't believe every download is a lost sale, but I do believe piracy in general devalues what's being copied.

I agree with the counterfeiting proposition, but you also must consider that entertainment has no intrinsic value. It's only worth what someone is willing to pay for it, and if someone is not willing to pay, it's worthless. Therefore, since the content in question can be licensed at any time by the consumers of unlicensed content (aka "pirates"), the fact that they do not do so iindicates that they are not willing to pay for it.

The inevitable conclusion is that it's impossible to claim that sales are being lost through unlicensed consumption of content, since ipso facto, those people are indicating that they are not willing to buy it. A point that the industry lobbyists are very careful not to bring up when they're in a Congressperson's office or issuing media statements.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

ok, it's now amusing how much talk of the definition of 'theft' there's been when my whole point was to try to get away from that idea.

Any thread about piracy, especially trying to argue semantics, is going to be a one gigantic flame-magnet. Nice attempt though :L

 

[Para199x]

there is nothing in this world that cannot be explained in poster form

More like, imagine you built a car, somebody makes an exact copy without having to actually exert any effort, you still have the car and have no money.

 

[Blow_Pop]

All I will say is that IF I can't find something more than a trailer for a film that I'm kind of on the fence about(I'm talking like maybe 5 mins or so of a snippet of the film that ISN'T the trailer) I'll find something online to look at to see if I want to spend the small amount of money I have then promptly delete it and then if I like it go out and see it/buy it(depending on how long it has been) and music wise If I can't find anything off the album I'm curious about I'll find it elsewhere down to asking my friends if someone has it and I can listen to a few tracks to determine if I will buy it or not. Game wise I won't download shite. Game wise unless I actually buy it I won't download it. I'm more I'll go to someone I know who has it and borrow it if no demos exist. But that's someone on a very limited budget. I'm not justifying piracy or advocating it. I'm merely stating not everyone who pirates things does it for the same reasons. Personally I don't want to pay a bunch of money for a film/cd/game that it turns out was a waste of money and in some cases I can't get my money back(*ahem films*) But my preferred form of finding stuff out exists on youtube. It is rare I have to go elsewhere to find what I'm looking for.

 

[Something Amyss]

I will put out this little scenario, and leave it at that. You and an online buddy are excited about getting Destroyer Arcade, the biggest, baddest FPS Shooter hyped at all the big conventions. You put in extra hours at your job to make sure you can get it on release day, all the time messaging your buddy on what you are putting in to get this game, and how much your boss is riding you about overtime and such. But you manage to get a big enough paycheck to get the game without having to make important sacrifices to food(Yay, no ramen!) or other extraneous bills(Yay, can keep ZCube Online going for another month!)
The big day comes, you spend the entire day camped out in front of the gamestore, and get home in time to install the game for your usual nightly gaming fest. You and your buddy are going at it, having a whole lot of fun, and during a loading screen it occurs to you to ask your buddy what he had to give up to get the game.
"Oh, nothing, I found it on a torrent two days ago and had already had some practice on the single player up to the launch."


Setting aside the feelings of the developers and the publishers for the moment, what emotion would be running through your veins about then after the sacrifice in time you had to make in order to get the game? This should be something also to consider where piracy is concerned.

So the argument is "I sacrificed and they didn't, that's wrong?"

What about people who have enough disposable income that buying games is not a sacrifices? How is this any different from an independently wealthy friend not sacrificing at all? Should we also resent the haves if we are have-nots?

Come now, piracy is wrong. Even if one doesn't feel it's wrong, it's illegal. The problem is, almost all of these emotion-jerking examples are sorely flawed. This is no exception.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

According to Wikipedia piracy is not theft, it is an example of copyright infringement.

Wikipedia on the subject: "Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works."

This means that they are unlawfully making derivatives or copies of the original without the authority of the owner. Not theft, but still illegal.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

How about it might be theft, and it might not, but it doesn't damn well matter either way, because it IS copyright infringement?

If we could all drop the 'theft' word entirely, we'd save a lot of time. (Tho admittedly I think my thread would have died after a day without the debate on theft running on so far )

As for the largest 'names' losing money while piracy can actually help smaller names thru publicity and spreading the word...

I can't help but be in favour of that.

Say there's $10 million to be made this year in music in terms of profit that artists will see.

What's better, 10 artists becoming millionaires?

or 200 artists making $50,000 a year?

Wouldn't that be better? To have so much more choice in terms of genres and styles? Instead of a US top 40 that's pretty much rap, R&B, and new country?

I'm thinking back to the 70s and 80s, where, unless you really went hunting, the top 40 was the only music there was, really, as a teenager.

We've got so much more freedom now, but it comes at the expense of not becoming a multimillionaire after one album.

Sure, they can't retire or buy gold plated Humvees, but it's enough to get by, but I think part of the industry involves hanging all their hopes on a few select artists, when the whole world would be better off if it was spread around some more, and I think as the internet grows, this will happen.

More and more people will discover music thru word of mouth, instead of letting the industry make their buying decisions for them. Unless SOPA or its like gets passed, then it all goes back to us consuming the entertainment we're allowed to see by EMI,Sony,Time Warner etc, and screw all the independents.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

I do not think piracy is theft, I think you could call it a form of counterfeit.

 

[kouriichi]

You know what the truth is? Alot of products released these days are just not worth the price theyre developed/asked for. Im not saying that piracy is a good thing, or that its legal.

But what i mean is.... Look at the costs. Notch made minecraft, practically 0$ budget, in his own home. Hes made tens of millions of dollars on something that cost him nothing but his own time and effort produce. He even came out and said "If you cant afford it, pirate it, try it, and if you like it, consider buying it".


Imagine if companies took their time developing games, produced them at say... 60% their current budgets? They could sell them at a lower price, probably have better quality games, and piracy would be less of an issue.

The idea here is "Where does quality meet cost". The better the game is, the more likely people are to buy it. The cheaper the game is, the more likely people are to buy it. If you can make a 30-40$ title thats just as good, or BETTER then a 60$ title, people are going to more inclined to purchase it.

Piracy is only a real issue, not because people cant afford games, but because people are worried the game wont be worth the money. Make your game WORTH 60$, and people will pay 60$. Look at WoW. Honestly, its ugly, repetitive, and has no story you want to follow. But look how long its been around. Look at how well its held up.

Not because its worth 60$, and charges 60$. But because its worth 20$, and 15$ a month till you get tired of it. Its worth is equal to how long you enjoy it.

 

[theAlfaBlade]

For me only reason to pirate is

1.The game is super old and is profitless
2.Can access it because of region coding
3.Your really that poor

 

[immortalfrieza]

You cannot say that it is a victimless crime. It hurts the developers and people that create games. There have definitely been sales lost through piracy. There have been people that would have bought the game, but because it was available for free, pirated it.

And there have definitely been sales won through piracy. If 6 million people bought one game, while 5 million bought and 10 million pirated another, then it's 6 vs. 15 million people discussing them, the news sites will be a lot more eager the cover the one with 15 million readers than the other one, etc, so it will grow even larger, and some of it's more players will be legit buyers. Maybe even more than 1 million.

Both Alan Wake and the Witcher had doubts cast on the profitability of their sequels, because of poor both managed to secure sequels with some difficulty (and the Witcher 2 is considered an excellent game)

And many other excellent games fail completely, while others sell huge numbers. And even if piracy wouldn't exist, obviously SOME games woul have to have poor sales.

.

Even if you dispute that its a silly move for the company, or piracy isn't that much of an issue, it has created a tangible shift in resources which is hurting PC gamers. Why does all this DRM and 3 limited installs crap exist? Because of piracy. These measures would not have been put in place if piracy wasn't a thing, so it is hurting gamers as well as developers

If we assume that it's a silly move for the company, then it is really unfair to blame these on piracy. It's like if a man would set his hose on fire to get rid of mosquitos, and then everyone would blame it on the mosquitoes.

This is more or less what I was going to tell him

 

[peruvianskys]

The law defines what counts as theft and what does not.

Nobody gives a rats ass what you think about it in your own relative moral terms. They do not count for shit. It is completely irrelevant.

The law says it is copyright infringement. Saying its theft is like saying "Oh yeah, well, most people call apples apples, but I prefer to call them bananas hurrr".

I am so fucking tired of people thinking they can define whats what in their own stupid, unimportant morals terms. This is normally the place where I apologize for being so frank, but you know what? I dont think I need to this time.

Get a reality check.

So there is literally nothing illegal that is moral and nothing legal that isn't? Laws reflect morality but they don't match up on every point in any ethical system. The law reflects the autonomous moral decision-making of a culture, not the other way around.

To take your example, we call apples apples because the culture around us has decided on it. If the government were to enshrine that concept into law and make the calling of apples oranges illegal, that law would not be what decides the name of apples. And if a bunch of people had reasoned and logical points for why apples should be called something else at this point in time, it would be not only silly legalism but actually factually incorrect to say, "Nope, the law clearly decided a long time ago that apples are called apples."

The best example I can give of your thinking would be someone making a portrait of me with a full head of hair and then, upon my shaving it, remarking, "You can't do that, the portrait clearly says that you have hair!" That which is formed by a reflection of a culture's concepts of morality does not have the logical ability to shift from being a reactionary portrayal of that morality to the deciding factor in the system that it reflects, any more than a photo taken of me yesterday has the right to dictate what I wear today; it can definitely be used as an indicator, but it is completely subject the changing whims of the demographic it represents.

I believe that the definition of theft, in a moral and not legal sense, is simply the property of another agent which is not offered to you. Piracy falls under that moral definition but I do not believe that the law, which exists for reasons other than safeguarding morality, has any role in prosecuting the behavior as such.

If we assume that it's a silly move for the company, then it is really unfair to blame these on piracy. It's like if a man would set his hose on fire to get rid of mosquitos, and then everyone would blame it on the mosquitoes.

I agree, but if I saw someone standing on the sidelines throwing more and more mosquitoes at the house, and it was my house, I would probably tell them to stop being a dick. Can we get passed the whole "who's fault is it?" and "Who has the right to do this or that?" and instead just address the outcomes of our actions and how we can lead the industry to a better place? Even if you might not have the "blame" directly on you, it doesn't mean that a clear examination of your actions wouldn't show them to be destructive.

 

[Odbarc]

Technically, piracy is breach of contract. Nothing worse.

A breach of what contract? I never agreed to buy everything Sony produces.
If I download an entire season of a television show that's already available to watch (also for free) online, but there's also the set on DVD, except it's across town, can be stolen or broken, not to mention it's also displayed on TV for free.
I'm not 'stealing' when I watch it at the TVs at the gym, am I?
I mean, technically, owning a physical copy is less valuable. Free is free. Something less valuable than free means I should get paid to own the copy.

Music can be found on youtube. There's nothing preventing me from holding up a recorder to my speakers and acquiring that song for my personal use. Or doing the same thing for the radio.
But a program (freeware) does this for me with better results is crossing the line without going any further down the road?

I'm paying for it with bandwidth. My money goes to my internet provider who charges me extra for the excess download fees.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No it is not theft or counterfeiting last time I checked. So as far as I remember from the last time I looked into the matter piracy is considered copy right infringement. Since none of us have ever bought a game(at least in the last few years) and only licences(according EULAs) it is not theft. I think this is something people need to understand.

We should not be concerning ourselves with piracy the way we do and actually start fighting for some real consumer rights as gamers and do away with these ridiculous EULAs as they are now. We are in a creative industry that functions as an Oligopoly that has seemed to have forgotten how those function. They need a reminder.

 

[DeltaEdge]

Although it is somewhat similar to theft, I still agree with you that it is not "theft", but copyright infringement. My real world example would be taking a cloning gun and going into a store and cloning a chocolate bar. The bar is not stolen, you have instead produced your own exact copy of the chocolate bar without actually taking the chocolate bar in question. Thus, nothing is stolen, but it could potentially result in a loss of money, because even though they have not lost the product for no compensation, the have lost a potential for compensation and the cloning of that single chocolate bar might result in many people cloning that exact chocolate bar, and if everyone obtain a copy of that chocolate bar, then it could be infinitely cloned, thus no one would buy them any more, which would lead conveniences stores and chocolate bar retailers to not allow cloning guns into the stores any more. I'm sure all of you already get it completely, but that's just my analogy since it's pretty unique in a sense.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

The trouble is copies do no harm its the monetary flow around them that dose harm and devalues the originals.

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Weighing up the pros and cons of piracy, I'd have to conclude it's a good thing. Preservation and distribution of art is far more important than personal interests of a few of its creators.

 

[Alterego-X]

According to Wikipedia piracy is not theft, it is an example of copyright infringement.

Wikipedia on the subject: "Copyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works."

This means that they are unlawfully making derivatives or copies of the original without the authority of the owner. Not theft, but still illegal.

Only in the US and some other countries. But for example in Switzerland, Canada, Russia, or the Netherlands, making copies for personal use (that makes the largest part of "piracy") is entirely legal.

That also implies that there is a substantial difference between theft and piracy. After all, you don't hear that entire developed countries legalize robbery, or fraud, solely because "legally, it's not 'theft'".

 

[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.

Yet pirates spend just as much money (If not more) than those that don't pirate.

My source? The Swiss government. http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397173,00.asp

about 17% of them don't.
They will pirate in lue of buying a product.