View Full Version : Pirate bay
Internet war in Sweden.
Few days ago the police stormed the house(s) where the server belonging to Pirate Bay were stationed. Pirate Bay is the biggest bitorrent site, atleast so I think.
They took all the servers and this they did even tho any idiot can understand that the servers themself dont have any illegal material on them.
*http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,834580,00.html
Then it seems like the police did this, first after the "The Motion Picture Association of America" put some pressure on a swedish minister named Thomas Bodström.
Bodström (Social Democrat) is now getting alot of critcism from the Center party.
*http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,834874,00.html
Latest thing is that a group or maybe a single person is attacking the police website and making it crash, and its still not online.
*http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,835013,00.html
.... lets face it, filesharing is here to stay. Becouse it seems those arrested in connection to The Pirate Bay will go free.
*http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,835536,00.html
(links in swedish, sorry)
I use Pirate Bay a fair bit, not the best bittorent site but a damn good one, it is a crying shame this has happened.
.... lets face it, filesharing is here to stay.
Filesharing is nice, but piracy isn´t.
If there is nothing criminal on their servers they should get them back and everything is ok, but apparently some hacker is mad he won´t get his stolen software as nicely as before and thus has to attack the police.
I really pity him for having such a hard time to steal other peoples' work...:juggle2:
Here are a couple of English links...
http://www.idg.se/ArticlePages/200606/01/20060601121616_IDG.se317/20060601121616_IDG.se317.dbp.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/06/02/sweden.hacker.ap/index.html
Mikeus Caesar
06-02-2006, 18:49
It is quite a shame that the site has been closed down. Only last week i used it to get the Half Life 2 Beta. Oh well.
It'll probably be back up and running within a week.
Kanamori
06-02-2006, 18:56
A bit of warning, I've found out that the policy regarding piracy is fairly strict (related to CA?:idea2:). Advocacy of piracy, or declaring one will pirate, will get you a referral.
Mikeus Caesar
06-02-2006, 19:00
A bit of warning, I've found out that the policy regarding piracy is fairly strict (related to CA?:idea2:). Advocacy of piracy, or declaring one will pirate, will get you a referral.
O rly? Ya rly? No wai!
Don't worry, i'd never pirate from a company i like. Only companies that i don't like, who have ruined good game series...
*cough* Vivendi Universal!*cough*The tribes games!*cough*
I am coughing a lot, aren't i?
Kanamori
06-02-2006, 19:02
If there is nothing criminal on their servers they should get them back and everything is ok, but apparently some hacker is mad he won´t get his stolen software as nicely as before and thus has to attack the police.
The Pirate Bay (TPB) only keeps trackers. They know nothing about the content of files being shared; they direct the swarm, more or less, they host no files beside trackers. Although copyrights are probably violated more easily because of TPB they are not the ones violating anything. According to their law. Anyway, I'm not an expert but it seems to be more of a show than anything. The thing that is the worst about the whole deal is that they also took the server for the piracy party that is unaffiliated w/ TPB. I'm not quite sure how they were able to get a warrant for that.
O rly? Ya rly? No wai!
Don't worry, i'd never pirate from a company i like. Only companies that i don't like, who have ruined good game series...
*cough* Vivendi Universal!*cough*The tribes games!*cough*
I am coughing a lot, aren't i?
Well, if you care about referrals, I would delete the mentions of personal piracy. It does not matter that you would get the game if it were good, it is still advocating the activity.
Ser Clegane
06-02-2006, 19:10
This reminds me of recent police actions here in Germany (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2030624,00.html)
Any more advocating of piracy will lead to the closure of the thread amd to repercussions for the respective posters.
doc_bean
06-02-2006, 19:27
Filesharing is nice, but piracy isn´t.
If there is nothing criminal on their servers they should get them back and everything is ok, but apparently some hacker is mad he won´t get his stolen software as nicely as before and thus has to attack the police.
I really pity him for having such a hard time to steal other peoples' work...:juggle2:
MTE.
solypsist
06-02-2006, 22:14
usenet for teh win.
i gotta wonder if there are still people out there continuing to use kazaa....
Blodrast
06-02-2006, 22:15
You can also check the news on http://slyck.com (all in English, and they have additional links, etc), for some more details on the TPB thing.
discovery1
06-02-2006, 22:24
MTE.
What does 'MTE' stand for? My Thoughts Exactly?
On topic: All I can say is that the war will continue between the pirates and the makers of the stuff that they are stealing. Which is great, provided that neither side does things that are too outrageous. What does bother me alot though is people who dl stuff illegally but don't consider it thieft. I HATE that.
Pirate Bay is the biggest bitorrent site, atleast so I think.
According to the guys themself, no.
They are a search engine like google according to the creators.
Unfortunately TPB wasn't the only thing on the servers, a few legitmated companies had their stuff on the servers as well so the anti-piracy bureu has once again pissed off a lot of people and some who has nothing to do with piracy.
doc_bean
06-02-2006, 23:16
What does 'MTE' stand for? My Thoughts Exactly?
yes
On topic: All I can say is that the war will continue between the pirates and the makers of the stuff that they are stealing. Which is great, provided that neither side does things that are too outrageous. What does bother me alot though is people who dl stuff illegally but don't consider it thieft. I HATE that.
Unfortunately I know a lot of people like this...
Kanamori
06-03-2006, 04:33
'Internet piracy' is not theft. It is a breaching the other person's right to copy the thing for some period of time. The great works of the renaissance are not copyright protected anymore, and can you imagine just how awful a place we would live in if the discoverer of some great thing kept the right to reproduce that thing, or enact the idea, forever? Stealing is when someone goes in and takes the original or the copies w/o permission.
If copying some idea is theft, then, by the fact that we all browse the internet, we are all thieves. (By even viewing a webpage you are copying content, let alone if you have a cache or ocassionaly save things.)
One thing that I cannot stand is stretching the definitions of words in order to suit one's own purpose.
Samurai Waki
06-03-2006, 08:21
I heard somewhere that a new Political Party is...or has been formed in Sweden called the 'Pirate Party' which is a major advocate for file-sharing and internet laws there...if a Swede could confirm this, it would be appreciated.
Blodrast
06-03-2006, 08:53
It's back online. Check out slyck.com for updates.
Ironside
06-03-2006, 10:31
I heard somewhere that a new Political Party is...or has been formed in Sweden called the 'Pirate Party' which is a major advocate for file-sharing and internet laws there...if a Swede could confirm this, it would be appreciated.
It's true. AFAIK it haven't got much more policies outside that though, but I haven't much information on the party.
R'as al Ghul
06-03-2006, 10:36
The whole idea and purpose of networking computers was and is to share files and to communicate.
It's amusing to me that some people think they can prevent or regulate that. :laugh4:
I heard somewhere that a new Political Party is...or has been formed in Sweden called the 'Pirate Party' which is a major advocate for file-sharing and internet laws there...if a Swede could confirm this, it would be appreciated.
Yes true and they just gained more support through this action.
And as Ironside said, they are a one issue party that wanna get rid of copyright laws.
Myrddraal
06-03-2006, 10:44
All you guys should look up intellectual property. There's no question about what the law is here, and it's got nothing to do with the great works of the renaissance.
Unfortunately the attitude amongst hundreds of people is that it isn't really stealing. How it isn't really stealing is a mystery to me.
Kralizec
06-03-2006, 11:51
All you guys should look up intellectual property. There's no question about what the law is here, and it's got nothing to do with the great works of the renaissance.
Unfortunately the attitude amongst hundreds of people is that it isn't really stealing. How it isn't really stealing is a mystery to me.
Well, it's not stealing technicly (that requires you deprive the rightful owner acces to a certain good), but it's certainly very similar, and morally equivalent.
"It's not theft!"
"I'm only downloading from bad corporations who deserve it!"
"Information on the internet should be free!"
'Thiefs' who not only freeride on legitimate consumers who make game production possible, but also condescend these same people from their high horses. Sad :no:
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 11:55
'Internet piracy' is not theft. It is a breaching the other person's right to copy the thing for some period of time. The great works of the renaissance are not copyright protected anymore, and can you imagine just how awful a place we would live in if the discoverer of some great thing kept the right to reproduce that thing, or enact the idea, forever? Stealing is when someone goes in and takes the original or the copies w/o permission.
If copying some idea is theft, then, by the fact that we all browse the internet, we are all thieves. (By even viewing a webpage you are copying content, let alone if you have a cache or ocassionaly save things.)
One thing that I cannot stand is stretching the definitions of words in order to suit one's own purpose.
It's more like stealing a book or a cd or dvd from a store than anything else. If you're defending the right to rip-off's and copy cats than I'd agree, we'd have no music or games otherwise :laugh4:
But seriously, people have to work to make those things, what should they be paid with when everybody just takes what they've made without paying ?
And let´s not pretend that all games are just made to be shared and copied over the internet, some of them were never be meant to be on the internet.
The argument about webpages is completely silly, because by putting them online, the owner gives you the right to download them, if they are not password protected.
The thing is that many people work for a long time to make some software/music and they need money to feed their families in this time. If you now copy their stuff without paying them, you steal it, because you use their work without paying them.
The fact that a computer allows to copy it with minimum effort doesn´t change a thing, it just makes stealing easier.:furious3:
Legally, it can pass off as stealing (although a better term would be willingly damaging someone), since stealing includes two factors, one: the lost amount of money (obviosuly not this one since the damaged party didn't actually lose anything) and the second one: lost profit (this one applies) ...
As to the matter at hand, I don't really bother enough to care ... I buy the games I like in the local shop.
Its NOT stealing, its copying. Taking things from a store, yes, thats stealing, but when you copy youdont Take Away something from someone ells. Yes, maybe future income, but only maybe.
The question is, if this form of copying should be illegal or not.
Kralizec
06-03-2006, 13:29
Yes, that is a legitimate question...
given that it's illegal now (and for good reasons I might add), you should not copy.
Ser Clegane
06-03-2006, 13:33
On which basis should copying be allowed - except for the unwillingness of the individual to pay for a good?
I kind of support the creation of backup copies for personal use (but even against that you could make a valid argument) - but I think we all know that this only explains atiny fraction of copying.
Its NOT stealing, its copying.
The question is, if this form of copying should be illegal or not.
I am calling it stealing for simplicity ... in truth it is not, but I am unable to find a better term ... willing (or unwilling) infringement on other's rights, thereby causing damage to his property and/or income would probably be a better term, but a mouthful.
As far as the question of legalisation ... in my personal opinion, private copies should be legalised, but then, how does one differentiate? I could make two copies, and call both private copies in case I lost the original, which I just did (and no, I didn't keep the receit, I'm sorry). In dubio pro reo, I go free.
No matter how well one words a law, people will find a way around it. As it is, it is conveniently overlooked. As a matter of fact, most piracy does not come from people who are dedicated to it (as in, making money from it), but from the individual, who do it in small amounts and do not advertise the fact, aside from a few close friends.
Banquo's Ghost
06-03-2006, 14:43
Its NOT stealing, its copying. Taking things from a store, yes, thats stealing, but when you copy youdont Take Away something from someone ells. Yes, maybe future income, but only maybe.
It's stealing, because the law deems it so - you are depriving someone of their rightful recompense.
Why do you think you get to pick and choose what laws to obey?
I make much of my living by writing. What gives you the right to copy my work and distribute it for free? If you did so, you would take away my ability to provide for my wife and myself. Why do you think you have that right?
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 14:48
Its NOT stealing, its copying. Taking things from a store, yes, thats stealing, but when you copy youdont Take Away something from someone ells. Yes, maybe future income, but only maybe.
The question is, if this form of copying should be illegal or not.
And not paying a plumber isn't stealing because he can still do plumbing and you haven't taken anything away ?
The traditional meaning of stealing relies on the idea of goods, while software (and music) is essentially more of a service. You're stealing because you have taken something to which you have no right to.
Annoying things about pirates:
1. It's not stealing !
Suddenly our beloved anarchist turns into a lawyer and starts arguing the true meaning of stealing. You're doing something immoral and probably illegal, at least have the honesty to admit it.
2. I can't access my warez anymore !
That's what this thread is about isn't it ? People feeling they have the right to 'stolen' goods.
3. That game sucked ! The ending was totally lame ! They should have made it better !!!lolz!!!
Pirates complaining about the quality of what they acquired for free, is there anything more idiotic ? maybe if you actually bought it (like gave them money) they could make a better product because they wouldn't be so worried about getting the game out in time before their money runs out ?
4. Modchips, gameboy flashcards, etc.
Just how much trouble are you gonna go to to not pay for the stuff you're using ? Hey, here's an idea, let's pay someone that will let us play games for free ! Let's give out money to them instead of to the companies that actually make the games !
there are probably some more things that annoy me about the sheer hypocrisy of the matter (really, that's what bugs me most), but I'll leave it at this.
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 16:01
there are probably some more things that annoy me about the sheer hypocrisy of the matter (really, that's what bugs me most), but I'll leave it at this.
ah heck, I'm on a roll. Other things that annoy me about pirates in no particular order:
*I want to be in game development !
This gets a mention for sheer idiocy. I've heard one guy saying this in real life (he was probably 14 at the time, in his defense) and I've read a couple of others making similar remarks on forums. Rip off your future self, smart.
*(Conversation overheard in a store) hey, this looks like a good game ! Yeah, i'll download it tonight !
WTF are you doing in a store if you're not going to buy anuthing ? I know it's fun looking at games but don't go yelling to the world how you're gonna pirate them in a friggin' store !
*Your internet speed might be a little low since I'm downloading a movie !
ARGH ! Since I often have to share a house with other people, other people who go on the net, occasionaly I run into ******** like this. They download movies and music and whatever for a whole freakin' day, every day, reducing my connection from cable speed to worse than my old 56K.
*Hey, I just played this awesome new game ! x3 a week
There is little more annoying then having to listen to a pirate brag about all those cool new games he's played this week. games that have just come out this week, or sometimes even, games that haven't come out yet. Better still, mention you're playing a game you just got on budget, say Far Cry, and they'll mock you for being so much behind. True story BTW. It's kinda like a thief in a ferrarri making fun of your hard earned Honda isn't it ? Almost drives a man to piracy himself...
Which brings me to
*It's a victimless crime
no it isn't, and here's why
-I wouldn't have bought it in the first place
Possibly true, but are you sure ?
Cd sales have gone way down since Napster.
A local cinema (5 bucks for a movie !) is on the verge of bankrupty, why ? Because kids these days just download the movies to their pc and watch them at home. Sure Holywood can take it, but this charming cinema can't.
The guy bragging about all those games he plays for free ? You think he wouldn't actually buy one or two if he hadn't had access to them for free ? If a person fills a significant amount of his free time doing something, it would only make sense he'd be willing to pay for it, now wouldn't it ?
victimless crime ? no.
-You're actually paying for stuff ?? Lolz !!!!
I hinted at this before. Pirates threat you like an idiot for paying for stuff. Kinda like a thief thinks about the honest working man I suppose. It can get very frustrating, leading people to check out this 'for free' thing themselves. hhere's the real catch: THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT IF THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT FOR FREE. Similarly, and probably worse, a lot of pirates feel the need to share the wealth, so when someone mentions they want a certain dvd, they'll just be nice and make a copy for that person. Let me repeat: THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT IF THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT FOR FREE.
victimless crime ? no.
NOTE: spellcheck doesn't seem to work for me now, sorry for all the mistakes...
Soulforged
06-03-2006, 17:03
1. It's not stealing !
Suddenly our beloved anarchist turns into a lawyer and starts arguing the true meaning of stealing. You're doing something immoral and probably illegal, at least have the honesty to admit it.Again it's not stealing. When you steal something you're taking something concret that belongs to another person, pulling it out from another's dominion and making it yours by exercising your dominion upon it, thus depraving the other from the right of property (if you will) that he should exercise over it, when it comes to what some call "intelectual property" I'm not so sure that there can be stealing there. Let's see the concrete case of net-piracy shall we: You're using something that doesn't belong to you without the authorization of the one that exercizes property over it, however you're not depraving him of its continued use and comercialization, or its possible destruction, you're in fact only "buying" without buying (wich could be, in any case, stealing from the shop, wich will be pretty risky to state since the product is not in a place), you're not pulling anything from any dominion, you cannot exercise any exclusive property over the object. So not, it's not stealing, it's violating property rights, like when you read a piece written on a book on TV without the authorization of the author. It's still wrong, but it's not stealing.
However, if I may add, this technology is here to stay, either the laws adapt to this situation or the war againt it will be eternal.
Mikeus Caesar
06-03-2006, 17:07
Those of you who know the address for TPB (i'm not posting, i don't want more warning points!) check the website. Their new picture is...how do i put it, entertaining?
http://xs301.xs.to/xs301/06226/TPB.JPG
Talk about rubbing it in the face of the law.
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 17:10
Again it's not stealing. When you steal something you're taking something concret that belongs to another person, pulling it out from another's dominion and making it yours by exercising your dominion upon it, thus depraving the other from the right of property (if you will) that he should exercise over it, when it comes to what some call "intelectual property" I'm not so sure that there can be stealing there. Let's see the concrete case of net-piracy shall we: You're using something that doesn't belong to you without the authorization of the one that exercizes property over it, however you're not depraving him of its continued use and comercialization, or its possible destruction, you're in fact only "buying" without buying (wich could be, in any case, stealing from the shop, wich will be pretty risky to state since the product is not in a place), you're not pulling anything from any dominion, you cannot exercise any exclusive property over the object. So not, it's not stealing, it's violating property rights, like when you read a piece written on a book on TV without the authorization of the author. It's still wrong, but it's not stealing.
You're kinda proving my point here...
It's wrong, it may or may not fit whatever technical definition of 'stealing' you come up with, but it's wrong, and it's pretty damn close to stealing whatever definition of it may be. Stop whining when people call it stealing.
However, if I may add, this technology is here to stay, either the laws adapt to this situation or the war againt it will be eternal.
Murder is here to stay, theft is here to stay, rape is here to stay, should we just 'adapt' our legal system to them to ?
Most countries' legal system already deals with IP¨theft (or violation, if you must...) I don't see what's wrong with it right now.
Again it's not stealing. When you steal something you're taking something concret that belongs to another person, pulling it out from another's dominion and making it yours by exercising your dominion upon it, thus depraving the other from the right of property (if you will) that he should exercise over it, when it comes to what some call "intelectual property" I'm not so sure that there can be stealing there. Let's see the concrete case of net-piracy shall we: You're using something that doesn't belong to you without the authorization of the one that exercizes property over it, however you're not depraving him of its continued use and comercialization, or its possible destruction, you're in fact only "buying" without buying (wich could be, in any case, stealing from the shop, wich will be pretty risky to state since the product is not in a place), you're not pulling anything from any dominion, you cannot exercise any exclusive property over the object. So not, it's not stealing, it's violating property rights, like when you read a piece written on a book on TV without the authorization of the author. It's still wrong, but it's not stealing.
However, if I may add, this technology is here to stay, either the laws adapt to this situation or the war againt it will be eternal.
So, according to you, if I tell someone "give me 50 dollars and I'll wash your car", I wash their car and they stiff me... they didn't steal 50 dollars of mine? Obviously they did.
Piracy is stealing. I just don't care that it is. The reason I don't is because I have no sympathy for the software/music industry that stuck it to people for years on end before the piracy option became common. Hell look at the crap they are trying to pull with the PS3. For the record, I am not advocating piracy on these forums, however I am giving my opinion on the "victims" of it.
Maybe I'm a hypocrite but I'm honest with myself. It's stealing, but seeing as we can not admit to pirating games/movies in this thread I will say nothing of my own habits.
Perhaps if certain game manufacturers and the music industry would improve their pricing, product, and overall quality of service, people would not pirate their products with no conscience. Most treated their consumer base like crap when there was no alternative. Now that there is they are still going about things the wrong way. Instead of addressing their quality and adding incentives to their products make buying them worth while, they are content to sue 80 year old women and teenagers and push scare tactics. All that does is make people more defiant.
Mikeus Caesar
06-03-2006, 17:42
So, according to you, if I tell someone "give me 50 dollars and I'll wash your car", I wash their car and they stiff me... they didn't steal 50 dollars of mine? Obviously they did.
It isn't stealing though when you never had the $50 in the first place. It's lying when that happens. If you were given the $50, cleaned the car, and then had the $50 taken off you, that would be stealing.
It isn't stealing though when you never had the $50 in the first place. It's lying when that happens. If you were given the $50, cleaned the car, and then had the $50 taken off you, that would be stealing.
So if you show up to work next friday expecting your check and they tell you go away we're not paying you for the past two weeks of you showing up every day, they are not stealing? Interesting concept of law and property you have there.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-03-2006, 18:28
doc_bean for teh win.
Even if it technically isn't "stealing" it is still BAD. A rose by any other name smells as sweet - and being an asshat by any other name still deserves a beatdown.
It really bothers me, as doc said, that I pay for products while other people don't. And since we are all expected to pay for it, the pirates are in the wrong, not me.
:furious3:
doc_bean
06-03-2006, 19:46
Piracy is stealing. I just don't care that it is.
Now you're talking, but why all the justification ? You just don't want to pay for something you can get for free, admit it already. Don't act loike it's out of principal...
The reason I don't is because I have no sympathy for the software/music industry that stuck it to people for years on end before the piracy option became common.
Errrr...what did they force you to buy that you didn't want ? (Except windows, i'll give you that), to what was piracy the only alternative ? Paying ?
Hell look at the crap they are trying to pull with the PS3.
What ? Selling a machine under the production cost (http://ps2.gamespy.com/articles/710/710710p1.html) ? Damn those evil Sony Bastards !
For the record, I am not advocating piracy on these forums, however I am giving my opinion on the "victims" of it.
Sure, I appreciate it. At least you're honest enought to yourself that it's basically stealing.
Maybe I'm a hypocrite but I'm honest with myself It's stealing,
see ?
Perhaps if certain game manufacturers and the music industry would improve their pricing, product, and overall quality of service, people would not pirate their products with no conscience.
That's a very big if.
about the pricing:
A local network recently had a very big problem. They're airing Lost, but it seems like everybody and their sister 'somehow' had gotten copies of the US aired episodes (subtitled by some friendly people) ad where watching those isntead of the show on the network that paid a heck of a lot money for them. The product was essentially free, they were a few weeks behind the US schedule, not a lot, they showed two episodes a week, the first one uninterru^ted, an ad break and the second one with one add break. Hardly the worst way to watch the show. Yet they had to negotiate with the US channel (hbo ?) so they could air it sooner, otherwise everyone would have seen it already, and they'd have no revenue.
People will still pirate even if the cost of games were halfed. people are still pirating music and cd's are cheaper than ever (or just about). It won't have a lot of effect and the companies know this.
product:
well, no one is forcing you to use it. But if you use it, you should pay for it, that's just common sense in the modern economy isn't it ?
overall quality of service:
see above, although things like steam are really pushing the buttons of the paying costumer imo. i have never played HL2 because of it. It's a choice you make, you either accept what you're getting or you don't get it.
people would not pirate their products with no conscience
people pirate galactic civilizations II. People talked on the stardock forums about pirating the game. people suck.
Most treated their consumer base like crap when there was no alternative.
Got an example ?
Now that there is they are still going about things the wrong way. Instead of addressing their quality and adding incentives to their products make buying them worth while,
Like what ? If it's not worth while to buy then it's not worth while to own it then it's not worth while to pirate it. What's so difficult to understand about this concept ?
they are content to sue 80 year old women and teenagers and push scare tactics. All that does is make people more defiant.
Well, it's a bit like the war on drugs I guess, they can't possibly go after everybody so they just attack people at random in hopes of scaring the rest in line. It's not like they sueing truly innocent people is it ? You do the crime, you have a chance at having to do the time. Seems fair to me.
It isn't stealing though when you never had the $50 in the first place. It's lying when that happens. If you were given the $50, cleaned the car, and then had the $50 taken off you, that would be stealing.
and in the first case the person not giving the money is better than the person taking away the money in the second case how ? :dizzy2:
doc_bean for teh win.
:bow:
doc_bean for teh win.
I agree completely.
And on the topic of stealing, copying from a computer is basically taking bits and bytes from someone else, so if you want some transfer of matter, take electrons coming to your computer which you don´t own, or physical structures that are being transfered to your harddisk without the allowance of the owner of these physical structures.
So, you wanted it complicated, you got it complicated...thieves!!:rtwno:
As I said before, stealing stuff online is just easier currently than going to a shop and stealing it there, the stuff in a shop contains the same physical structures as the transfer via the internet.
The difference is the similar to stealing cars, you can either steal the whole car and try to drive out of the country(hard) or steal only parts and build them together elsewhere(easy). But both are stealing.
And dutch is very right about most people in public, some really call me stupid for not copying and saying "No!" to their offers to copy some stuff for me. I´d really like to knock them out sometimes if I weren´t trying to be a good christian and wouldn´t know they are nice people apart from being thieves.
And concerning the testing of games, there are a lot of reviews everywhere and if your internet connection is good enough to download a full game, a small demo shouldn´t really hurt, yes, some games I didn´t buy because there was no demo to try out before.
If you really think a car is not worth it´s money, does that make it right to steal it?:wall:
Soulforged
06-04-2006, 03:48
You're kinda proving my point here...Never tried to do otherwise, I just entered, as Kanamori, to correct some problem with definitions. In legal matter the definitions are...let's say sacred.
It's wrong, it may or may not fit whatever technical definition of 'stealing' you come up with, but it's wrong, and it's pretty damn close to stealing whatever definition of it may be. Stop whining when people call it stealing.I'm not whining at all. For me it's wrong, but...can I say it here? What the hell, I do it anyway, as simple as that.
Murder is here to stay, theft is here to stay, rape is here to stay, should we just 'adapt' our legal system to them to ?The difference with all that is that this kind of activity, piracy, is not seen by the public in general, as something bad, many take advantage of this in many ways, even the ones that say it's wrong, like me, take advantage of it. It improves the flow of information and ideas, lubricates the mechanism of communications, and allows everyone to do the "job" of going to the shop and get a box 10 times easier. It's a cultural and sociological phenomenum. If murder or robbery were cultural phenomena could it be allowed? No, but then again it will be pretty damn hard to stop it, to the point that the government should intervein in every single situation, apply oppression to the maximum and unleash a river of blood, just for the sake of correcting the general population. The same happens with piracy, if staditically, let's say, there's %51 of the people using it, and of those there's an %90 that thinks this is actually good measuring some rights, then how do you do to correct that actitude? I've my doubts too. There's two fundamental rights in play here, the property right and the right to be informed (wich belongs to freedom of speech), the both are constitutional, so what of those rights is the most valuable for you? Well large post, ufff...:2thumbsup:
So, according to you, if I tell someone "give me 50 dollars and I'll wash your car", I wash their car and they stiff me... they didn't steal 50 dollars of mine? Obviously they did.I don't see the correlation mate... Let's see in your case they did took 50 dollars out of you, 50 dollars that you won't be able to use anymore unless you get them back, that's they're not anymore in your dominion but in their's, they can sell it, destroy it or buy things with those 50 bucks. There's a radical difference between violating property rights (intelectual property of course) and stealing, wich is, that when you steal you always deprive someone of using, destroying or selling/buying something. Again that doesn't make net-piracy less wrong, but calling something that is not stealing, stealing is a sustancial problem, not just semantical.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-04-2006, 04:24
But piracy IS (in all practicality) depriving the seller of a sale. The pirate gets the value of a purchase without paying, and the seller won't be able to sell to the pirate - why would they when they already have it for free! Plus, piracy, I think, is self-propogating; it is more likely to spread, killing off more potential sales than physical stealing does.
I guess what it comes down to is that piracy is close enough to theft for some of us to call it theft. I also think they should be treated equally before the law.
Byzantine Prince
06-04-2006, 06:20
Why is it morally correct for sellers to sell to potential thieves?
GodsPetMonkey
06-04-2006, 07:18
So, according to you, if I tell someone "give me 50 dollars and I'll wash your car", I wash their car and they stiff me... they didn't steal 50 dollars of mine? Obviously they did.
Actually no, the critical part to stealing is that someone converts your property to their own (another way it's put is that property was 'taken and carried away', though this can be rather misleading if you take it to literally).
What has happened here is a breach of contract, you performed your part of it, they didn't, if you REALLY wanted that $50, you could take them to court and (should, but you know, nothing is definite) get an order demanding the performance of their obligations. If they still don't, then there might be a crime (contempt of court is fun - if you like jail).
In truth, every such transaction is a contract - you go and buy a piece of software, you just entered and completed a contract with the business you bought it from (well, you did pay for it right? Good!).
Now, to the main theme of our thread -
All you guys should look up intellectual property. There's no question about what the law is here, and it's got nothing to do with the great works of the renaissance.
Unfortunately the attitude amongst hundreds of people is that it isn't really stealing. How it isn't really stealing is a mystery to me.
Ok, one more divergence! Your right Myrddraal, what it all has to do with those great works is beyond me, the concept of copyright and intellectual property didn't exist back then (hence they were never subject to it!).
Which does sort of lead me on to the topic at hand - Technically (at law), 'piracy' (of software, music, movies, etc) is not stealing. Going into a store and taking the software or CD with out paying for it is.
However, and this is VERY important, for the sake of simplicity, and to make sure everyone's head does not turn to mush, it is safe to call it stealing, or theft, or what ever else. It just makes life that much easier.
But I know people are not going to leave it there (that would be far to simple). The reason why ideas like copyright and intellectual property law were developed was because it was to hard to apply, for example, the various laws dealing with larceny to the text inside books. It's easy enough to apply them to the book itself, but not the ideas contained within. Fast forward a little, and we have things like the internet and computers, and software. And this all makes our lives that much more difficult (or interesting?).
Modern IP Law is complex, perhaps pointlessly so. That really isn't helped by the fact that with the internet, it's almost always going to involve international issues, and cross-jurisdictional nightmares. A simple case in point (and I stress this is really only one small issue), if you have a software developer in one country (say CA), their publisher in another (SEGA), the person who downloaded the pirate version of the software in yet another, and finally, the server from which is was obtained in another, 4th country, just where do you take the legal action? Typically you will probably go after the offenders in their respective jurisdictions (though this is going to cost you an arm and a leg to run two separate actions in two different countries), but you will find that many of the 'big' pirate sites are hosted in countries where they are essentially safe from such action, so what do you do then. In the end, it's just a total mess, and really, the aim of most legal action taken by groups such as the MPAA is not to actually succeed, but totally destroy their target (as they are unlikely to afford the legal assistance needed to defend the not one, but many causes of action taken against them and the innumerable number of court orders sought), and most of the time, it works, but for every one person they are able to bankrupt into submission, a thousand more rise to steal more stuff on the internet.
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 12:31
I just lost a huge reply because the org died on me, I'll try to summarize here.
Never tried to do otherwise, I just entered, as Kanamori, to correct some problem with definitions. In legal matter the definitions are...let's say sacred..
we use murder when it's technically manslaughter all the time. same thing.
I'm not whining at all. For me it's wrong, but...can I say it here? What the hell, I do it anyway, as simple as that.
At least you're being honest to yourself.
The difference with all that is that this kind of activity, piracy, is not seen by the public in general, as something bad, many take advantage of this in many ways, even the ones that say it's wrong, like me, take advantage of it.
like tax evasion.
It improves the flow of information and ideas, lubricates the mechanism of communications,
No it doesn't.
One: what you pirate is probably not important anyway: music and games and movies. They're entertainment, not some great ideas. Even if they contained great ideas, it still wouldn't be legal, you can paraphrase a book, but you can't just copy it because it contains a great idea, similarly, you can talk about what happen sina game, you can even make videos of what happens, but you can't just copy the game.
Two: you probably pirate some utility software too (Windows, Office), there certainly isn't a great idea to be understood from using windows. Besides if people wouldn't be pirating those, free, open source alternatives like Open office, Linux and LaTeX might have actually taken off and we'd have more 'ideas' floating around. Piracy has the adverse effect.
and allows everyone to do the "job" of going to the shop and get a box 10 times easier.
People don't buy what they pirate.
It's a cultural and sociological phenomenum.
so is tax evasion
If murder or robbery were cultural phenomena could it be allowed? No, but then again it will be pretty damn hard to stop it, to the point that the government should intervein in every single situation,
that's pretty much what they try to do isn't it ? Besides, i don' tknow anyone who hasn't stolen something at least onc ein their life. Most people just don't do it anymore because they realize it is wrong, same thing should go for piracy imo.
apply oppression to the maximum and unleash a river of blood, just for the sake of correcting the general population. The same happens with piracy, if staditically, let's say, there's %51 of the people using it, and of those there's an %90 that thinks this is actually good measuring some rights, then how do you do to correct that actitude?
Same thing with tax evasion.
I've my doubts too. There's two fundamental rights in play here, the property right and the right to be informed (wich belongs to freedom of speech), the both are constitutional, so what of those rights is the most valuable for you? Well large post, ufff...:2thumbsup:
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to you using word, there's no speech there, no transfer of information, no nothing that would make it applicable. Freedom of information only applies to the government, companies can keep secrets all they want, no one is forcing coca cola to divulge its recipe. You have no right to another persons knowledge if he is not willing to share it. Your freedom of speech argument is without any substance, I fear.
Damn I wish I still had my original reply, it was much better, really, but i think i've got my point across.
AggonyDuck
06-04-2006, 15:30
Think about this:
Filesharing has actually increased my consumption of games and music, not decreased it. To be honest I don't think I would have bought a single CD and only bought about a third of the games I currently own if it wasn't for filesharing.
An example:
I initially downloaded Shogun: Total War, loved it and ended up buying all of the published Total War games.
In my opinion there is nothing wrong with filesharing as long as it is combined with customer loyalty and hint of decency.
I'm not whining at all. For me it's wrong, but...can I say it here? What the hell, I do it anyway, as simple as that.
Yes, very simple, and I have fun every time I hear the police strikes some pirates or anyone gets a letter about having to pay several hundred €/$ to some company for piracy.:2thumbsup:
The difference with all that is that this kind of activity, piracy, is not seen by the public in general, as something bad, many take advantage of this in many ways, even the ones that say it's wrong, like me, take advantage of it. It improves the flow of information and ideas, lubricates the mechanism of communications, and allows everyone to do the "job" of going to the shop and get a box 10 times easier. It's a cultural and sociological phenomenum.
That´s very nice, but unless you will find someone who will make the stuff for cultural and sociological hot air instead of money, you completely ruin it in the end. A company cannot live from sociological "values" or whatever you call it...:juggle2:
Besides, if everybody else jumps down the cliffs and dies, it´s probably the best thing to do...:wall:
Soulforged
06-04-2006, 17:16
we use murder when it's technically manslaughter all the time. same thing.Exactly. But the difference between murder and manslaughter is not of external manifestation, like the one already posted. Hence the difficulty to point out that error in a concrete case.
like tax evasion.Exactly. But we pay taxes nontheless. Also at the other end of the tax there's someone that needs that extra money. In this case there's a lot of rights and values in play. The radical difference is that taxes are always imposed by the government, while about anything that can be pirated has a private origin.
No it doesn't.
One: what you pirate is probably not important anyway: music and games and movies. They're entertainment, not some great ideas. Even if they contained great ideas, it still wouldn't be legal, you can paraphrase a book, but you can't just copy it because it contains a great idea, similarly, you can talk about what happen sina game, you can even make videos of what happens, but you can't just copy the game.That's your opinion. When it comes to ideas and information everything is subjective, so there cannot be any objective limit imposed by anyone. To me a game can be much more fullfilling that the possition that some politician is taking towards immigration for example.
Two: you probably pirate some utility software too (Windows, Office), there certainly isn't a great idea to be understood from using windows. Besides if people wouldn't be pirating those, free, open source alternatives like Open office, Linux and LaTeX might have actually taken off and we'd have more 'ideas' floating around. Piracy has the adverse effect.The same applies to the first part. The second part looks interesting, but it stands to be demostrated.
People don't buy what they pirate.No they don't, but my point is that it reduces the amount of time and effort that means going to a shop to get something, it appeals to the really lazy ones and to the ones that live very far from any shop.
so is tax evasionIt could be...How many people do you estimate that take advantage of it? Besides great business mans.
that's pretty much what they try to do isn't it ? Besides, i don' tknow anyone who hasn't stolen something at least onc ein their life. Most people just don't do it anymore because they realize it is wrong, same thing should go for piracy imo.I'm talking about an extreme situation. Systematic intervention of the government with bloody outcomes always, not the occassional cop forgetting that what's his job.
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to you using word, there's no speech there, no transfer of information, no nothing that would make it applicable. Freedom of information only applies to the government, companies can keep secrets all they want, no one is forcing coca cola to divulge its recipe. You have no right to another persons knowledge if he is not willing to share it. Your freedom of speech argument is without any substance, I fear.No. Freedom of speech, wich in its generic character includes the right to give and receive information (you can see the recent thread about this, in the last page), applies to everyone the same way, in principle. Giving and receiving ideas is the same.
Yes, very simple, and I have fun every time I hear the police strikes some pirates or anyone gets a letter about having to pay several hundred €/$ to some company for piracy.So you're an state-boy, well nobody is perfect man...:sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:
That´s very nice, but unless you will find someone who will make the stuff for cultural and sociological hot air instead of money, you completely ruin it in the end.That's a good point Husar. Let me ask you the previous question then: What right do you think is more valuable in general, freedom of speech or intelectual property? What about in this case in particular (i.e. piracy)?
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 18:35
Exactly. But we pay taxes nontheless.
Because we're forced to, for a lot of people at least.
Also at the other end of the tax there's someone that needs that extra money.
An employee for a software company needs his paycheck too. If you want to point out that a lot of the money goes to the big shots, a lot of our tax money goes to politicians and diplomats and such too.
In this case there's a lot of rights and values in play. The radical difference is that taxes are always imposed by the government, while about anything that can be pirated has a private origin.
I don't see the difference having much importance here. Both tax evasion and piracy are small crimes, in the sense that one individual doing it has no effect, yet the collective effect can be devastating. To a government or to an industry. But if an industry is seriously undermined that has its impact on society too.
That's your opinion. When it comes to ideas and information everything is subjective, so there cannot be any objective limit imposed by anyone.
No it's very simple, someone (anyone) has to right to 'give' something to the public, like information, an idea, etc. THEN and only after that person has given it to the public does another person (of the public) has a right to what the first person divulged. Now freedom of information is an illusion, a lot of trials have been fought over company secrets and even personal information is protected in a lot of countries. People have a right to give information, freely or in any way they choose and then people have the right to access that information, within the limits set by the first person.
To me a game can be much more fullfilling that the possition that some politician is taking towards immigration for example.
And to me a Ferrari would be much more fulfilling than either, what's your point ?
It's about information you talked here, what information is there in a game or in an application ? None, that you're using. A game is pretty much equal to a ferrari the way you're talking about it, so i have a right to a Ferrari ?
The same applies to the first part. The second part looks interesting, but it stands to be demostrated.
In economics few things can be demonstrated, it makes sense though.
No they don't, but my point is that it reduces the amount of time and effort that means going to a shop to get something, it appeals to the really lazy ones and to the ones that live very far from any shop.
Jeesz, now you're reaching...
It could be...How many people do you estimate that take advantage of it? Besides great business mans.
A lot of Small business owners, a lot of people who know how to get away with it probably.
I'm talking about an extreme situation. Systematic intervention of the government with bloody outcomes always, not the occassional cop forgetting that what's his job.
I never suggested bloodshed to end piracy, nor did I suggest it to end tax evasion or anything...
No. Freedom of speech, wich in its generic character includes the right to give and receive information (you can see the recent thread about this, in the last page), applies to everyone the same way, in principle. Giving and receiving ideas is the same.
Ideas must be given before you have a right to them though, stealing trade secrets is very bad for instance. You have no right to information another party is not willing to give up and which is not (legally) publicly available or obtainable through legal means. (anticipating a paparazzi argument here)
But okay, let's say, for arguments sake, you are right about the freedom of receiving ideas. That doesn't give you the right to use them, and in case of a game, or certainly an application program you are. patents are public information that can only be used under permission, same thing with protected designs and copyrighted material in general. You do not have permission to use the idea (which would be the game here).
....freedom of speech or intelectual property?....
I hope you do realize that IP laws are in effect to help facilitate the exchange of ideas ? Without them every company would just keep everything a secret and there would be no progress. Musicians would have to enforce strict no-recording rules to avoid copying and movies would only be released in cinemas ? it's not a question of 'or', it's a matter of 'and'.
So you're an state-boy, well nobody is perfect man...:sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:
No I´m just trying to follow the law and I like to see people arrested who are the reason for my games being more expensive.
And if I´m not required to follow this law, why should I follow any other law?:inquisitive:
That's a good point Husar. Let me ask you the previous question then: What right do you think is more valuable in general, freedom of speech or intelectual property? What about in this case in particular (i.e. piracy)?
I don´t really see a link between piracy and freedom of speech. You can go onto the street and talk about piracy as much as you want, if you do not pirate anything in the end, I don´t see a problem.
Soulforged
06-04-2006, 19:44
An employee for a software company needs his paycheck too. If you want to point out that a lot of the money goes to the big shots, a lot of our tax money goes to politicians and diplomats and such too.No I simply pointed out that in both subjects there's a dilema. Wich one of the two is greater, well that is up to the individual.
I don't see the difference having much importance here. Both tax evasion and piracy are small crimes, in the sense that one individual doing it has no effect, yet the collective effect can be devastating. To a government or to an industry. But if an industry is seriously undermined that has its impact on society too.Never said it had importance for the subject at hand, as far a morality goes, just pointing it out and why people might be a little more irreverent to taxes.
No it's very simple, someone (anyone) has to right to 'give' something to the public, like information, an idea, etc. THEN and only after that person has given it to the public does another person (of the public) has a right to what the first person divulged. Now freedom of information is an illusion, a lot of trials have been fought over company secrets and even personal information is protected in a lot of countries. People have a right to give information, freely or in any way they choose and then people have the right to access that information, within the limits set by the first person.Still this doesn't refute my point. Do you agree that perception of information and ideas is something subjective? Then there should be no limitations.
And to me a Ferrari would be much more fulfilling than either, what's your point ?That I appreciate some kind of information more than other.
It's about information you talked here, what information is there in a game or in an application ? None, that you're using. A game is pretty much equal to a ferrari the way you're talking about it, so i have a right to a Ferrari ?Information and ideas are protected by the same right, ideas have even more protection for its very nature. However a Ferrari is a material thing, something that's not as easy as information or ideas to give and receive.
In economics few things can be demonstrated, it makes sense though.To tell you the truth I was not even aware of the fact that this alternatives exited.
A lot of Small business owners, a lot of people who know how to get away with it probably.Probably.
I never suggested bloodshed to end piracy, nor did I suggest it to end tax evasion or anything...Neither did I.
Ideas must be given before you have a right to them though, stealing trade secrets is very bad for instance. You have no right to information another party is not willing to give up and which is not (legally) publicly available or obtainable through legal means. (anticipating a paparazzi argument here)Again, never said that you legally, now, have the right to take information or ideas that the other party doesn't want to give for free. I'm talking about hypotesis here, not about actuallity.
But okay, let's say, for arguments sake, you are right about the freedom of receiving ideas. That doesn't give you the right to use them, and in case of a game, or certainly an application program you are. patents are public information that can only be used under permission, same thing with protected designs and copyrighted material in general. You do not have permission to use the idea (which would be the game here).Right.
I hope you do realize that IP laws are in effect to help facilitate the exchange of ideas ? Without them every company would just keep everything a secret and there would be no progress. Musicians would have to enforce strict no-recording rules to avoid copying and movies would only be released in cinemas ? it's not a question of 'or', it's a matter of 'and'.When there's two values it's always a question of "or", wich of the two is more important, A o B. Where are those IP laws in effect? Care to give me a link please?
And if I´m not required to follow this law, why should I follow any other law?It was just a joke, relax man.:2thumbsup:
I don´t really see a link between piracy and freedom of speech. You can go onto the street and talk about piracy as much as you want, if you do not pirate anything in the end, I don´t see a problem.You're looking at the wrong spot. The idea could be, for example, the game, you've the right to receive or give that game. Now to adquire the game you must pay in someway so you fullfil your obligations with the one who has the patent. There's a conflict between your right to receive ideas and the property rights of the owner. Just suppose that there's no regulation on the area and only this two values in a balance, wich of the two has more weight?
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 20:03
However a Ferrari is a material thing,
A Ferrari is a product so is a game. A game si far closer to the ferrrari than it is to this 'speech' you are claiming.
something that's not as easy as information or ideas to give and receive.
So something being easier to steal makes it more acceptable to do so ?
Again, never said that you legally, now, have the right to take information or ideas that the other party doesn't want to give for free. I'm talking about hypotesis here, not about actuallity.
So pretty much any point you have made here is mood since you agree that freedom of information does not exist and is in fact, not a basic right, at least not to the point where it includes things like trade secrets. So software is certainly out.
Now you're arguing about some hypothetical, frankly absurd, right we have to take into consideration ? It makes as much sense as invoking a hypothetical martian invasion...
You're looking at the wrong spot. The idea could be, for example, the game, you've the right to receive or give that game. Now to adquire the game you must pay in someway so you fullfil your obligations with the one who has the patent. There's a conflict between your right to receive ideas and the property rights of the owner. Just suppose that there's no regulation on the area and only this two values in a balance, wich of the two has more weight?
YOU HAVE NO SUCH RIGHT. you've said so yourself, besides the way you put it here, I have a right to a Ferrari. yes my right to a ferrari is certainly more important than the right of Ferrari (who owns them these days anyway ?) to make a profit.
But to answer your, abstract to the absurd, question: you weigh both rights by the money you are paying, that's the point were both rights are in balance.
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 20:08
I seem to have forgotten answering some of your points.
Still this doesn't refute my point. Do you agree that perception of information and ideas is something subjective?
Not really, defining information might be hard but it's certainly not endlessly stretchable. And as I pointed out, there's no freedom of information anyway. there's freedom of transfer of information, that's it.
Then there should be no limitations.
Broom, broom, I'm getting my ferrari !
That I appreciate some kind of information more than other.
A game is not information. Stop cheapening the importance of freedom of speech. A game is information in the same way a car is. Your entire argument doesn't hold ground.
Kanamori
06-04-2006, 21:12
I kind of support the creation of backup copies for personal use (but even against that you could make a valid argument) - but I think we all know that this only explains atiny fraction of copying.
It is still just as much violating the copyright. A copyright is simply exclusive rights to copy some idea that you’ve presumably discovered when actually you were the first to copyright it, and not necessarily the first to come up w/ it. When something you’ve bought goes bad, it is your responsibility to buy it again.
So, according to you, if I tell someone "give me 50 dollars and I'll wash your car", I wash their car and they stiff me... they didn't steal 50 dollars of mine? Obviously they did.
Actually, it’s pretty obvious that it is fraudulent and not stealing. He tricked you into giving it to him, but you still gave it to him. Hence, there is the difference between fraud and theft. Some simply refuse to differentiate theft from copyright violation in the same way.
Piracy is stealing.
Simply calling it that w/o any reason behind it is unsupported thinking, and you’ve no right to make a claim unless you’ve also got a reason behind it. And contrary to this claim, I have shown that there is a very clear difference between theft and copyright violation. In one case, you are taking some item that belonged to someone else, and you are making it your own thing. Law has recognized that an idea cannot belong to any one person, and copyrights are simply the exclusive right to copy some idea, or sets of concepts, in a way that one would make money for a set amount of time. Copyrights go away with time. In the US, 75 years after and artist dies, rights to copy the composition are in the public domain. Stealing is when you go into the store and take the item. Illegally copying is when another person lets you make a copy of the copy of that concept that is not their own, w/o going through the person w/ the copyright. It is not theft, and simply repeating that it is theft does not make it theft.
Even if it technically isn't "stealing" it is still BAD. A rose by any other name smells as sweet - and being an asshat by any other name still deserves a beatdown.
So, let me make sure that I understand this. Are you saying that one violation of law is the same as any other violation in the law, and that they deserve the same punishment? Because you are saying that even though they are different, they are the same, and that they deserve the same punishment under the law. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has recognized that theft and copyright violation are not the same thing. Copyright violation does not result in prison time, only in huge settlements. (Dowling v. United States ; 1985)
When a man was charged w/ a Federal crime of transporting stolen goods that were actually just created via copyright violation, the court overturned his conviction.
“Accordingly, when assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute, we must pay close heed to language, legislative history, and purpose in order strictly to determine the scope of the conduct the enactment forbids.”
Most here calling it theft are trying to do the same thing that the government prosecutors were trying to do. You are trying to label an act something that it is not, and so trying to associate its immorality w/ the immorality of some other action that is not its equivalent.
“According to the Government, the unauthorized use of the musical compositions rendered the phonorecords "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" within the meaning of the statute. 7 We [473 U.S. 207, 216] must determine, therefore, whether phonorecords that include the performance of copyrighted musical compositions for the use of which no authorization has been sought nor royalties paid are consequently "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. We conclude that they are not.
“The courts interpreting 2314 have never required, of course, that the items stolen and transported remain in entirely unaltered form. See, e. g., United States v. Moore, 571 F.2d 154, 158 (CA3) (counterfeit printed Ticketron tickets "the same" as stolen blanks from which they were printed), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 956 (1978). Nor does it matter that the item owes a major portion of its value to an intangible component. See, e. g., United States v. Seagraves, 265 F.2d 876 (CA3 1959) (geophysical maps identifying possible oil deposits); United States v. Greenwald, 479 F.2d 320 (CA6) (documents bearing secret chemical formulae), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 854 (1973). But these cases and others prosecuted under 2314 have always involved physical "goods, wares, [or] merchandise" that have themselves been "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." This basic element comports with the common-sense meaning of the statutory language: by requiring that the "goods, wares, [or] merchandise" be "the same" as those "stolen, converted or taken by fraud," the provision seems clearly to contemplate a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods.
“In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. "Section 106 of the Copyright Act confers a bundle of exclusive rights [473 U.S. 207, 217] to the owner of the copyright," which include the rights "to publish, copy, and distribute the author's work." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 546 -547 (1985). See 17 U.S.C. 106. However, "[t]his protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work." Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 432 (1984); id., at 462-463 (dissenting opinion). For example, 107 of the Copyright Act "codifies the traditional privilege of other authors to make `fair use' of an earlier writer's work." Harper & Row, supra, at 547. Likewise, 115 grants compulsory licenses in nondramatic musical works. Thus, the property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," for the copyright holder's dominion is subjected to precisely defined limits.” (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html)
Since, when copying material w/o stealing the original, you are not taking some thing that belongs to somebody else, you are not stealing. As when you are tricked into giving somebody your money, this is not a case of theft and it is neither the moral equivalent nor the legal equivalent. If it were the moral equivalent, then it would also be the same crime.
It really bothers me, as doc said, that I pay for products while other people don't. And since we are all expected to pay for it, the pirates are in the wrong, not me.
I don’t think that anyone is saying that pirates are in the right. Denying that it is theft is not equivalent to either supporting or advocating the action.
And on the topic of stealing, copying from a computer is basically taking bits and bytes from someone else, so if you want some transfer of matter, take electrons coming to your computer which you don´t own, or physical structures that are being transfered to your harddisk without the allowance of the owner of these physical structures.
So, you wanted it complicated, you got it complicated...thieves!!
I fail to see how downloading a file from another computer is taking it bytes… Perhaps in some cases of hacking, but never in filesharing. If you have legally copied music to your computer – if you have copied it to your compy w/o license from the copyright holder, you are violating the copyright – then it does not belong to those who originally copied the material and sold it to you, it belongs to you. Copying it again and giving it to another person is violation of copyright, not theft. Also, I do not know where you get off calling me a thief, or a pirate for that matter. I’ve not said anything in support of piracy, so I would greatly appreciate it if I were not accused of either here. And it would be terribly difficult for anyone here to support piracy because the act of supporting or advocating it is not allowed, here.
But piracy IS (in all practicality) depriving the seller of a sale. The pirate gets the value of a purchase without paying, and the seller won't be able to sell to the pirate - why would they when they already have it for free! Plus, piracy, I think, is self-propogating; it is more likely to spread, killing off more potential sales than physical stealing does.
It seems ridiculous to say that one cannot also buy a copy and also violate copyright. As I understand it, plenty of people use file sharing as a method screening what they buy, and I have also heard of cases where the person sends their money, all that they would pay for a CD, to the artist rather than buying at the store and supporting the label. Further though, few here are actually supporting piracy, because first of all it is violation of forum policy. So, this is clearly a herring.
Which does sort of lead me on to the topic at hand - Technically (at law), 'piracy' (of software, music, movies, etc) is not stealing. Going into a store and taking the software or CD with out paying for it is.
You, sir, are correct. Although, it is in technicality, the usage of technicality seems to imply that it is less valuable or less applicable when in reality technicality is all that is applicable.
we use murder when it's technically manslaughter all the time. same thing.
They are not the same thing, and not recognizing that is failure on your part. You are incorrect to call something murder that is not murder and can be clearly shown not to be murder. The issue is similar: you are attempting to make some thing into some other thing that it is not, in order to treat it w/ moral equivalency.
All you guys should look up intellectual property. There's no question about what the law is here, and it's got nothing to do with the great works of he renaissance.
This is quite true. Pirating is illegal, however, that does not make it theft. For things that are illegal are not necessarily thefts.
Unfortunately the attitude amongst hundreds of people is that it isn't really stealing. How it isn't really stealing is a mystery to me.
It has been clearly elaborated at various times why it is not theft, w/ some of the aforementioned reasons that are above in the post.
[qutoe=doc_bean]
1. It's not stealing !
Suddenly our beloved anarchist turns into a lawyer and starts arguing the true meaning of stealing. You're doing something immoral and probably illegal, at least have the honesty to admit it.[/quote]
If stealing has no true meaning, then it has no purpose in being discussed because we are then not talking about the same thing. This should be clear to anyone who has a chance of understanding any reasoning. Also, those who have been arguing that it is not theft, have not voiced support to either theft or copyright violation. I would appreciate, first of all, not being improperly labeled a thief and secondly labeled as a pirate who pays for none of his copies, when I am very certain that my bought music collection far exceeds those of many people here. I’ve done more for the musicians than you have.
2. I can't access my warez anymore !
That's what this thread is about isn't it ? People feeling they have the right to 'stolen' goods.
I don’t think anyone has said they’ve some right to stolen goods. This has absolutely no topicality, and so has no purpose in the discussion.
3. That game sucked ! The ending was totally lame ! They should have made it better !!!lolz!!!
Pirates complaining about the quality of what they acquired for free, is there anything more idiotic ? maybe if you actually bought it (like gave them money) they could make a better product because they wouldn't be so worried about getting the game out in time before their money runs out ?
Similarly, I wonder, what purpose does this have in relation to any logical argument mentioned here.
I HATE THOSE DARNED APPLE-EATERS TOO;ADFA;L THEY MAKE ME SICK!!!!1111
4. Modchips, gameboy flashcards, etc.
Just how much trouble are you gonna go to to not pay for the stuff you're using ? Hey, here's an idea, let's pay someone that will let us play games for free ! Let's give out money to them instead of to the companies that actually make the games !
there are probably some more things that annoy me about the sheer hypocrisy of the matter (really, that's what bugs me most), but I'll leave it at this.
Who’s said anything about modchips?
It's stealing, because the law deems it so - you are depriving someone of their rightful recompense.
Reality is the opposite of this. In law, the difference is recognized. That’s why pirates are not sent to prison and rather are sued for large amounts of money.:book:
Why do you think you get to pick and choose what laws to obey?
Anyone with an argument here has not been supporting violation of the law.
Stop whining when people call it stealing.
I will never do such a thing. I will not let you call something by a name that it does not apply to. I will never let you tell me that something is what it is not. Two plus two is does not make five, contrary to attempts to convince me otherwise, and copyright violation is not theft. I will not let you change the meaning of a word to suit your own purposes of associating it with a much worse negative concept.
In a nutshell, the discussion has progressed similarly to this model:
Me: ‘Piracy’ is not stealing, either in technicality or close to it, for it can be shown to be otherwise to stealing, then it follows that it is not stealing. It is illegal copying of something, not taking it and making it your own thing.
Them: You’ve rationally challenged my ideas. I’m going to go crazy now and continue denying it without any reason at all!
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 21:57
Who’s said anything about modchips?
It was just a rant about things that annoy me about pirates in general.
Me: ‘Piracy’ is not stealing, either in technicality or close to it, for it can be shown to be otherwise to stealing, then it follows that it is not stealing. It is illegal copying of something, not taking it and making it your own thing.
My main complaint is that the "it's stealing, it's not stealing" debate is mostly a discussion of wording and has little to no real relevance, since we're not in court here. People use broad terms all the time (like murder when it's manslaughter, ever heard of a manslaughterer, virtually no one will ever correct a post about a murder that turns out to be about manslaughter). It annoys me because the debate is rather pointless and boring.
Besides, I've said from the start that legally it's not stealing. It just annoys me when people people point this out, like this justifies their actions.
Them: You’ve rationally challenged my ideas. I’m going to go crazy now and continue denying it without any reason at all!
Errr, I haven't really pressed much on that issue really, looking back on my debate with Soulforged the stealing part takes up about one or two lines in posts that are a heck of a lot longer. Seriously, try reading all of a post before replying to it.
Soulforged
06-04-2006, 22:11
A Ferrari is a product so is a game. A game si far closer to the ferrrari than it is to this 'speech' you are claiming.An speech is a product too. Please clearify what you mean by "product".
So something being easier to steal makes it more acceptable to do so ?I didn't comment on its moral value, I simply stated a fact. As so it's much more feasable that information and ideas are pirated, without taking into account that you cannot pirate a Ferrari on the internet. This all has to do with the fact that the internet introduced enormous changes in how society works and is informed, to the point that this kind of phenomena is right now unstopable.
So pretty much any point you have made here is mood since you agree that freedom of information does not exist and is in fact, not a basic right, at least not to the point where it includes things like trade secrets. So software is certainly out.Freedom of information does exist, and it's a foundamental right in every constitutional nation that I know of, though I never debated that. My points are not moot, since I've been making some hipotesis over the basis of an actual situation, that's the fact that net-piracy has become a cultural thing. The existence of an state of things doesn't talk about its perception or its evaluation.
Now you're arguing about some hypothetical, frankly absurd, right we have to take into consideration ? It makes as much sense as invoking a hypothetical martian invasion...Right, except that there's no credible evidence that martians exist or any contact whatsoever with one of them.
YOU HAVE NO SUCH RIGHT. you've said so yourself, besides the way you put it here, I have a right to a Ferrari. yes my right to a ferrari is certainly more important than the right of Ferrari (who owns them these days anyway ?) to make a profit.What do you mean, that I don't have the right of freedom of speech? Or that I don't have the right to violate copyright? If it's the first you're wrong. If it's the second, as I said, SUPPOSE that there's no regulation, just two values in a balance: information and copyright.
But to answer your, abstract to the absurd, question: you weigh both rights by the money you are paying, that's the point were both rights are in balance.So by your logic if the more something costs the more we should protect it from violations. However that's not an answer, my question was clear: What value is more important to you? After that's answered we'll see if in this case it would be correct to give any right more importance over the other.
Not really, defining information might be hard but it's certainly not endlessly stretchable. And as I pointed out, there's no freedom of information anyway. there's freedom of transfer of information, that's it.Ok then. Define your limit and I'll give mine, let's see if they coincide, and then let's add another person, and see if his limit coincides. (NOTE: By limit I mean that information or idea that you don't consider whorty of protection, beyond that imaginary point freedom of speech gets the second place to any right or it gets no protection whatsoever.)
Broom, broom, I'm getting my ferrari !I don't get it. I thought we were talking about information and ideas here.
A game is not information. Stop cheapening the importance of freedom of speech. A game is information in the same way a car is. Your entire argument doesn't hold ground.A game is an idea, generically protected by the same right. I think that you're confusing the DVD or CD, or even the box, with the game itself. Unless you want to state that a game is energy, but you cannot hold copyright over energy. And by taking a quick look at the thread, I'm not the one "cheapening the importance of freedom of speech", if it was ever cheapened.
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 22:39
Freedom of information does exist, and it's a foundamental right in every constitutional nation that I know of
Let's face it this is the point we disagree on most isn't it ? I'm getting tired of these long posts.
If there is freedom of information, explain trade secrets to me, explain the right to privacy, and explain why I should pay to access a newspaper (even an electronic one) if I were guaranteed the right to information.
Oh and information: an (abstract) idea, concept, line of reasoning, thought, method that can be 'transferred' from one person to another, via a carrier, be it speech, the written word, images or another means. Generally speaking, information about a subject is whatever increases knowledge about the subject, but of course, wrong information can lead to faulty knowledge.
So, since I define information as purely abstract, and software is not, your argument still fails :2thumbsup:
Kanamori
06-04-2006, 22:54
My main complaint is that the "it's stealing, it's not stealing" debate is mostly a discussion of wording and has little to no real relevance, since we're not in court here. People use broad terms all the time (like murder when it's manslaughter, ever heard of a manslaughterer, virtually no one will ever correct a post about a murder that turns out to be about manslaughter).
Wording absolutely has importance. Wording and meaning is the only importance to anything, and to say things like 'technically its not stealing, but I'm still going to consider stealing,' are applying meaning to something where it does not belong. It is injustice. We are in no court room, it's true, but that hardly makes wording less important. When I say "let's kill everyone," and then also say, "hey, don't get so angry at me, wording is not important," the refusal to think wording is important becomes patently absurd. That people use broad terms incorrectly is bad and it has no place in any discussion where there is actually some point to be had.
Besides, I've said from the start that legally it's not stealing. It just annoys me when people people point this out, like this justifies their actions.
The point is made because many people try to say that it is the equivelant of theft when it is clearly not. It is a much lesser crime, and refusal to accept that is associating the crime of copyright violation with the crime of theft.
Seriously, try reading all of a post before replying to it.
My posts are relevant to what I have quoted, and I have read the posts. I don't know how you can accuse me of not reading posts simply because my posts are not in response to the whole thread but rather to certain points that people are trying to make.
Kanamori
06-04-2006, 23:02
If there is freedom of information, explain trade secrets to me, explain the right to privacy, and explain why I should pay to access a newspaper (even an electronic one) if I were guaranteed the right to information.
The idea does not belong to some person. It belongs to no thing but perhaps God. The exclusive right to copy or implement that idea is what the concept of copyright covers. For example, the idea of a compact disc and how to make one/manufacture them belongs to no person at all. In order to encourage creativity, because the artists or inventors will look for profit, a person is given the copy right or patent to implementing that idea for some period of time. The right to privacy has nothing to do witht the right to information which is simply that ideas do not belong to people. Right to privacy is freedom from government intervention in personal affairs. It's nothing to do w/ implementation of ideas. You pay for a newspaper, because they've rights to copying in regards to how they have expressed that idea. Because someone has discovered some mathematical theorem does not mean that they have exclusive rights to ever mentioning that theorem. That would be rediculous and that is where my comparison to the renaissance comes in.
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 23:02
nd I have read the posts. I don't know how you can accuse me of not reading posts simply because my posts are not in response to the whole thread but rather to certain points that people are trying to make.
I was complaining since I said it wasn't stealing, technically, and you still felt the need to respond. Let's just let this rest, I hate it when discussion start to be about word usage instead of the actual issue.
doc_bean
06-04-2006, 23:12
The idea does not belong to some person. It belongs to no thing but perhaps God. The exclusive right to copy or implement that idea is what the concept of copyright covers. For example, the idea of a compact disc and how to make one/manufacture them belongs to no person at all. In order to encourage creativity, because the artists or inventors will look for profit, a person is given the copy right or patent to implementing that idea for some period of time.
Sure, but you have no right to the ideas of another if those aren't divulged do you ? You can't force someone to tell his ideas. You can have the same idea, a different matter entirely and part of the problem with IP, but you do not have the right to everything another person knows, if he isn't willing to share. You have freedom of thought, not freedom of information.
The right to privacy has nothing to do witht the right to information which is simply that ideas do not belong to people.Right to privacy is freedom from government intervention in personal affairs. It's nothing to do w/ implementation of ideas.
I was thinking more about celebrities and invasion of privacy laws and such.
You pay for a newspaper, because they've rights to copying in regards to how they have expressed that idea.
Same would apply to a game wouldn't it ? It's an implementation of an idea. (I agree)
Because someone has discovered some mathematical theorem does not mean that they have exclusive rights to ever mentioning that theorem.
Math is explicity excluded from copyright. It is indeed an idea, in itself and not an implementation. Software is an implementation and such does not fall under some universal 'freedom of information' law.
That would be rediculous and that is where my comparison to the renaissance comes in.
Err..paintings are implementation, concrete objects, so i don't see your point really. Besides, copyright expires, so no one has rights forever (just until 50 years after they're dead...)
You're looking at the wrong spot. The idea could be, for example, the game, you've the right to receive or give that game. Now to adquire the game you must pay in someway so you fullfil your obligations with the one who has the patent. There's a conflict between your right to receive ideas and the property rights of the owner. Just suppose that there's no regulation on the area and only this two values in a balance, wich of the two has more weight?
First off, the right of free speech means you can speak freely, that means you spread information, not receive it.
About the right to receive every and all information that exists, you may first want to ask your local intelligence agency before looking up a few things about spies...~;)
You have no right on the information that is a game, except if the owner/creator says so. And he may ask whatever he wants for that information. You are then free to give him what he wants or not, if you give it to him, you receive the right to own that information, not to copy it(except for private use, depending on the law). Everything else is is a crime/theft.
Papewaio
06-05-2006, 00:54
With software you do not buy the media or the code, you buy a license to use it.
EULA... End User License Agreement. You do not own the software and you normally do not have the rights to see how it works, nor do you have the right to distribute it.
Piracy of Software means the pirates are not willing to pay for the coders labour, the productions costs of the producers, quality control, writers etc.
There are positive ways in which companies are adapting to new technology. Probably the most obvious example is iTunes and how quickly it is distributing content around the world. Another example is how quick movies are going to DVD, this is great as a parent it is a logistics nightmare to organise for a movie session which allows babies to attend. Companies are adjusting to the new paradigm that it is content not media that they distribute.
However just because there is a lag time inbetween the technology being available and companies implementing it, does not mean that content can be freely ripped off and distributed.
Of course you don't get to read the EULA until you have paid for the product, which sounds backwards to me. Anyone here ever taken software back to the shop because you clicked "disagree" on the EULA? Do you reckon it would be easy to get your money back?
That said, there are no high motives behind software piracy and those who think otherwise are deluding themselves.
Soulforged
06-05-2006, 04:04
If there is freedom of information, explain trade secrets to me, explain the right to privacy, and explain why I should pay to access a newspaper (even an electronic one) if I were guaranteed the right to information. As every freedom tha the man possess in society it's not absolute. We're right in the business of determining its limits. But it has proved an elusive task.
So, since I define information as purely abstract, and software is not, your argument still fails.Let's make this as clear as I could put it: what you're violating by piracy is the copyright that the owner upholds over a given product. The copyright is constructed, only over the idea, hence it's the idea of the given game wich is protected, not the box, not the DVD, not the energy transmited from PC to PC. Was that clear enough?
First off, the right of free speech means you can speak freely, that means you spread information, not receive it.
About the right to receive every and all information that exists, you may first want to ask your local intelligence agency before looking up a few things about spies...The right of free speech, has historically, contained the right to give and receive information freely. I'm not talking about an actual absolute right to every information, I'm just making an hipotesis to see, in a balanced case, wich of the two values in play is the heavy one.
Papewaio
06-05-2006, 04:50
So as all lawyers do on the day is talk they should not get payed...
doc_bean
06-05-2006, 11:04
As every freedom tha the man possess in society it's not absolute. We're right in the business of determining its limits. But it has proved an elusive task.
That's like wondering when the "he needed killin' " defense would be valid. Society has set limits, live with them.
Let's make this as clear as I could put it: what you're violating by piracy is the copyright that the owner upholds over a given product. The copyright is constructed, only over the idea, hence it's the idea of the given game wich is protected, not the box, not the DVD, not the energy transmited from PC to PC. Was that clear enough?
Copyright protects an implementation, not an idea as such, so you're wrong. (the idea can be partially protected with plagarism and such, but that's a different matter that doesn't apply here really). It's perfectly legal to discuss a book, its meaning, its characters and such, but it isn't legal to make a copy of it.
The right of free speech, has historically, contained the right to give and receive information freely.
Yes receive information that has been given freely, I pointed this out a while ago...
I'm not talking about an actual absolute right to every information,
That's new. So you suddenly agree that you don't have a right to information another person isn't willing to give, so you have no right to a game ? (were it strictly information even)
I'm just making an hipotesis to see, in a balanced case, wich of the two values in play is the heavy one.
One is an actual right of property, the other just doesn't make sense...
doc_bean
06-05-2006, 11:10
Of course you don't get to read the EULA until you have paid for the product, which sounds backwards to me. Anyone here ever taken software back to the shop because you clicked "disagree" on the EULA? Do you reckon it would be easy to get your money back?
I think pretty much any store here takes a game back that's been returned within 24hours.
GodsPetMonkey
06-05-2006, 13:02
So as all lawyers do on the day is talk they should not get payed...
:embarassed:
Next time you buy a house or need a will made out, keep that in mind ~:angry:
Besides, I think you mean politicians ~;)
yesdachi
06-05-2006, 15:07
I think pretty much any store here takes a game back that's been returned within 24hours.
Yep, I can pretty much get Wal*Mart to take anything back.
Interesting discussion, here’s my 2 cents!
I think in a lot of cases it is piracy but in many cases I really don’t have a problem with it, and that is kind of weird for me, usually I would say arrest the criminals! But I find myself feeling very forgiving for 2 reasons.
1) I think a lot of the things people share/download/pirate or whatever you want to call it is done by people that would not have bought the product in question anyhow. There are no lost sales in that, just more people enjoying your product that would never have gotten it without the file sharing.
2) The industries that are most upset about it (music, movies and software) are all industries that have been living a life of wealth while ignoring the people’s demands to lower prices. Seriously, do you even realize how much some of these record labels and movie houses make and don’t even get me started on the margins of Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, they are victims, but maybe they need to be punched in the gut for them to change their greedy ways.
I feel like a real rebel now. Fight the power! Down with the establishment! Stick it to the man! ~D
Banquo's Ghost
06-05-2006, 20:39
2) The industries that are most upset about it (music, movies and software) are all industries that have been living a life of wealth while ignoring the people’s demands to lower prices. Seriously, do you even realize how much some of these record labels and movie houses make and don’t even get me started on the margins of Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, they are victims, but maybe they need to be punched in the gut for them to change their greedy ways.
Fascinating perspective. So the richer an organisation is, the less it deserves the protection of law? Is this a sliding scale?
Does this apply to rich people too? Should we tax them till they squeak?
For the record, I'm on the barricades with yesdachi :2thumbsup:
(By the by, the traditional mechanism for 'punching greedy corporations in the gut' is through not buying or using their products - especially M$ ~;) )
doc_bean
06-05-2006, 21:30
2) The industries that are most upset about it (music, movies and software) are all industries that have been living a life of wealth while ignoring the people’s demands to lower prices. Seriously, do you even realize how much some of these record labels and movie houses make and don’t even get me started on the margins of Microsoft. Don’t get me wrong, they are victims, but maybe they need to be punched in the gut for them to change their greedy ways.
All companies want to make a profit though, you can hardly blame someone for being successful. Microsoft maybe since they've used and abused their monopoly position just a little too often. I don't want to defend those companies and their actions, but they're no more 'evil' than your average company, and they they manipulate prices is not much different than the way, say, car manufacturers do.
Most videogame developers aren't making a ton of money though, just look at all the bankruptcies, even publishers have a hard time, Eidos and atari are in almost constant debt, SEGA is still crawling out of debt after the Dreamcast debacle afaik. Even EA was losing money a few years ago now they made a profit of about 250 million $, which seems like a lot, but they are the biggest game developer/publisher out there. In comparison, Coca cola quaterly earnings are around a billion and Nike makes about $400 million quaterly. Microsoft lost over 4 billion $ on the Xbox.
Record labels might have made a lot of money, but to be fair, a lot of it went to the artists. Sure, Prince wrote 'Slave' on his face but he was living in a castle (which he still owns) at the time. Michael jackson is just now seeing the end of his fortune, and he still has most of the rights to the Beatles catalogue. Several one hit wonders are still rich.
Don't forget that in order to get a record promoted radio stations often have to be 'persuaded' to play a song and stores have to be 'convinced' that displaying the album in a noticable place is a good idea.
There's also the touring industry, with Clear Channel and Ticketmaster really ripping people off, but again, these are not the same people you are ripping off when pirating a song.
I wish I could find some more figures, most talk about revenue and not of profits :furious3:
yesdachi
06-05-2006, 22:05
(By the by, the traditional mechanism for 'punching greedy corporations in the gut' is through not buying or using their products - especially M$ ~;) )
Traditionally there has not been file sharing. :wink:
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-05-2006, 22:10
1) I think a lot of the things people share/download/pirate or whatever you want to call it is done by people that would not have bought the product in question anyhow. There are no lost sales in that, just more people enjoying your product that would never have gotten it without the file sharing.
So I don't feel like spending money - thus entitling me to the product I desire!? I'm disappointed, yesdachi, I thought you had more sense.
Kanamori
06-05-2006, 22:15
I'm disappointed in you too, yesdachi. I thought you were better than that, your opinion disqualifies you from being cool.:no:
yesdachi
06-05-2006, 22:52
All companies want to make a profit though, you can hardly blame someone for being successful. Microsoft maybe since they've used and abused their monopoly position just a little too often. I don't want to defend those companies and their actions, but they're no more 'evil' than your average company, and they they manipulate prices is not much different than the way, say, car manufacturers do.
Now Doc, I never said they were “evil” and I would never blame someone for being successful… but I would look at them with a certain amount of contempt for enjoying such a large profit margin. I think it is their success that has instigated the file sharing phenomenon.
Part of me says Lie in the bed you have made and another part says we need to uphold the law and the law says, No Pirating. There is also a law that says the speed limit is 55 mph (at least in some places) but the police have the discretion to not pull you over for less than 10 over (that’s what a state trooper friend told me) in this file sharing situation I feel comfortable giving the police some discretion to leave casual pirates alone.
Side note but related:
I don’t think the video game industry is so volatile because of file sharing, I don’t think Dreamcast’s demise was related to file sharing (I actually have one :shrug:) but more a supply and demand issue.:bow:
yesdachi
06-05-2006, 23:29
So I don't feel like spending money - thus entitling me to the product I desire!? I'm disappointed, yesdachi, I thought you had more sense.
GAH, my # 1 has stirred the pot too!
I never said “entitled”, sheese everyone is putting words in my mouth today. ~D
Let me clarify my meaning and see if it disappoints less. Say someone would never in a million years buy Herb Alpert’s album featuring the song “Little Spanish Flea” but if they can download it via file sharing and use it as the sound their computer makes every time they get new mail, well I think that’s ok I would even say it was ok if that someone downloaded the entire album listened to it once and kept it in a folder that gathered dust. Sure it is pirating but there is no lost revenue because it would have never been bought anyway. (BTW I do not have Little Spanish Flea nor do I plan on downloading it)
Downloading in place of purchasing and downloading with the intent of redistributing is real pirating and should be stopped but why not let someone enjoy something via file sharing that they never would have purchased otherwise. Maybe they will actually like it and buy the CD?
Still disappointed?
And Kanamori, who made you the cool police? I know cool, it oozes from my very being! I am cool like the other side of the pillow, that’s cool.:cool4:
Humm, people that have to say they are something usually aren’t, are they?
doc_bean
06-05-2006, 23:32
Now Doc, I never said they were “evil” and I would never blame someone for being successful… but I would look at them with a certain amount of contempt for enjoying such a large profit margin. I think it is their success that has instigated the file sharing phenomenon.
You (still) seem to imply doing it out of some sort of 'vengance'
Part of me says Lie in the bed you have made and another part says we need to uphold the law and the law says, No Pirating. There is also a law that says the speed limit is 55 mph (at least in some places) but the police have the discretion to not pull you over for less than 10 over (that’s what a state trooper friend told me) in this file sharing situation I feel comfortable giving the police some discretion to leave casual pirates alone.
I really liked filesharing when it originally appeared, I never had had acces to so much great music from obscure bands before, I bought a cd a week and still couldn't keep with what I wanted to get. I'm really not as 'anti' as I may seem from this thread. I certainly don't want to lock up each and every pirate, and I don't think someone having the odd illegal mp3 on his ipod should seriously worry. There's also a difference (to me...) whether you are pirating a song because you can't get it anywhere else, or emulating an old nes game or whether you're downloading albums before they're released and game the week they are.
I also think there is a difference between copying because you're curious (works, with music, not really with games or videos) and just want to check a band out, or if you're downloading an entire Metalica album you could have gotten in the shop for less than ten bucks easily, because you want to own that album.
Yes, both are still illegal, but one is done out of curiosity and the other is simply done out of desire for a product. One can lead to a sale, and the other can't.
Side note but related:
I don’t think the video game industry is so volatile because of file sharing, I don’t think Dreamcast’s demise was related to file sharing (I actually have one :shrug:) but more a supply and demand issue.:bow:
Well, depends on what you call volatile, they certainly aren't as stable as the other branches of the entertainment industry.
My point was that they aren't all swimming in money, laughing at the common buyer. Most developers actually need the money. Most videogames make a loss (that much is true), so developers, and certainly publishers aren't so prone to taking risks. When a good, original game comes out, like Shogun back in the day, or Vampire Bloodlines, then I really think people should support it and not pirate it, because that will only mean we will get less good, original games in the future, and more FIFA, because that's what sells (unbelievable but true).
Piracy does influence the economy, but I'm afraid that instead of sticking it to the Man, you're sticking it to the common man. After the music industry went into a crisis it were the indie bands and smaller (sub)labels that got it the worst, bubblegum pop reigns as strong as ever. I gave the (admittedly non-provable) example of Microsoft and the Windows monopoly being partially due to piracy. That's the true wrong, I guess. It's not that the big companies aren't making more money, it's that the small, original ones aren't making enough anymore to sustain themselves. So I really don't care when people pirate the latest FIFA or NBL game, it doesn't effect me, but thinking about how great companies like Black Isle (Fallout !) or Looking Glass (System Shock, Thief) *might* actually still be here if the people who enjoyed their games had all played legal copies, well, it makes me a little sad. Piracy undermines the market, and not for the better. :shame:
Papewaio
06-06-2006, 01:17
:embarassed:
Next time you buy a house or need a will made out, keep that in mind ~:angry:
Besides, I think you mean politicians ~;)
I was actually referring to our anachist lawyer Soulforged and his idea that ideas are free because they are not physical and the same applies to speech. If that is the case people should not have to pay for anyform of speech including a lawyer defending your in court.
Also if you look at the degrees politicians get, quite a few are lawyers... so lawyers have a lot to answer for. :laugh4:
Why do university scientist students use law undergraduates nowadays instead of guinea pigs?
a) The law firms made them cull out as many graduates as possible to decrease supply and keep the partners rates up.
b) Science students don't get attached as much to Law students as guinea pigs.
c) Law students will do things that no self respecting guinea pig will ever do.
d) Law students are more common in universities then guinea pigs.
e) All of the above.
Soulforged
06-06-2006, 01:26
That's like wondering when the "he needed killin' " defense would be valid. Society has set limits, live with them.I live just fine with them, do not worry.:2thumbsup:
Copyright protects an implementation, not an idea as such, so you're wrong. (the idea can be partially protected with plagarism and such, but that's a different matter that doesn't apply here really). It's perfectly legal to discuss a book, its meaning, its characters and such, but it isn't legal to make a copy of it. My bad. It's the implementation of the idea, the right to exclusivelly copy it. In that form it's abstract, however.
Yes receive information that has been given freely, I pointed this out a while ago...This was to Husar mate.:oops:
That's new. So you suddenly agree that you don't have a right to information another person isn't willing to give, so you have no right to a game ? (were it strictly information even)Not without paying for it. The right is there, in that you're correct, but it's not freely.
One is an actual right of property, the other just doesn't make sense...It does make sense if you consider they're in a balance. Though you answered, and that's an step. So in the actual situation we now know in what direction we should lead the people: to respect private property and reject net-piracy. How do we do that?
Papewaio
06-06-2006, 01:56
1) I think a lot of the things people share/download/pirate or whatever you want to call it is done by people that would not have bought the product in question anyhow. There are no lost sales in that, just more people enjoying your product that would never have gotten it without the file sharing.
If you use a pirated copy to make something should you be allowed to sell the end product or any services that you create by using pirated software?
It is the same thing as shoplifting and how the costs are then passed onto the buying customers.
I do not see how being poor makes it automatically ethical to steal something. Nor do I see how a target being rich means it is automatically ethical to steal something as well. Afterall it is not a need that is being stolen, it is often a game or song which is purely a luxary good.
yesdachi
06-06-2006, 04:10
I do not see how being poor makes it automatically ethical to steal something. Nor do I see how a target being rich means it is automatically ethical to steal something as well. Afterall it is not a need that is being stolen, it is often a game or song which is purely a luxary good.
Another set of words put into my mouth,:laugh4: I haven’t said anything about stealing being ethical if the thief is poor. What I said is that I think a lot of the files being shared would not have been bought by most of the people sharing them. The result is that there more people having something that they would not have had if it wasn’t “free”.
yesdachi
06-06-2006, 04:25
You (still) seem to imply doing it out of some sort of 'vengance'
No Vengeance, just contempt. ~D
Contempt = lack of respect accompanied by a feeling of intense dislike (the dislike is from them enjoying a large profit margin while I'm still paying $16 bucks a CD, Fat Cats! shaking fist)
I agree that the video game industry is not as stable as other branches of the entertainment industry. :bow:
Papewaio
06-06-2006, 04:33
Another set of words put into my mouth,:laugh4: I haven’t said anything about stealing being ethical if the thief is poor. What I said is that I think a lot of the files being shared would not have been bought by most of the people sharing them. The result is that there more people having something that they would not have had if it wasn’t “free”.
Which is fine if the shared files are shareware or free for public use.
If it is something is a pay for use, then using them without paying for them is stealing.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2006, 05:03
yesdachi - let's look again at the case of DLing Herb Alpert’s album featuring the song “Little Spanish Flea." Firstly, in this modern age of ours there is generally ways you explore the content for free without violating any laws. A song may be played on the radio - either a traditional AM/FM station, or a "shoutcast" or other online station. Many online stores, like Amazon, I believe, offer samples of songs - you can get the gist of a song from a certain portion of it. Certainly enough to tell if you really don't like the music. Another option is to see if one of your friends has the CD and ask to listen to it. If they don't have it, then go look for samples/radio that does.
Additionally, there is an awesome website - pandora.com - that plays related music; ie, if you select a ska band as the center of what they call a "station" then that station will play similar ska music. It is very interesting, apparently open-source, and FREE.
Secondly, the argument that "you never would have bought it anyway" has what appears to be a logical flaw - though we'll have to ask Pindar for confirmation. ~;) I shamelessly quote from the Wikipedia article on warez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez):
Logical fallacy of the victimless crime argument – The "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument, the truthfulness of the sentence itself presumes a situation where it is taken for granted that the knowledge itself, about the chance of acquiring an illegal copy of the product in question, doesn't in any way change the potential interest of buying it. However, if one already knows beforehand that it is possible to obtain a copy illegally, and decides to do so, there is afterwards no way of really knowing whether or not the person in question would have bought it. This is because the knowledge about the possibility of obtaining an illegal copy for free might turn down the person's interest to buy it, so the potential chance for using warez in the first place might actually effectively sometimes become the reason for not obtaining the legal version.
If you didn't have an illegal method for obtaining the content, would you still not buy it? We can't say, because the method exists. That's my understanding of that argument.
doc_bean
06-06-2006, 10:46
This was to Husar mate.:oops:
Well, we've been thinking along the same lines this entire thread, I think I mentioned it too somewhere, but if he pointed out I probably didn't not to make this thread too repetitive.
Not without paying for it. The right is there, in that you're correct, but it's not freely.
Well then, that proves piracy is wrong doesn't it ?
It does make sense if you consider they're in a balance. Though you answered, and that's an step. So in the actual situation we now know in what direction we should lead the people: to respect private property and reject net-piracy. How do we do that?
I suggest reasonable fines for small pirates (private use), big fines, maybe even jail time for big distributors, and taking down the servers whenever possible, like in Sweden. People who actually do the pirating (the hacking) can normally be dealt with within the existing law I think.
Possibly, but it might be a bad start to something, denying access to pirate servers (in countries where we can't stop them) through the ISPs.
doc_bean
06-06-2006, 11:03
yesdachi - let's look again at the case of DLing Herb Alpert’s album featuring the song “Little Spanish Flea." Firstly, in this modern age of ours there is generally ways you explore the content for free without violating any laws. A song may be played on the radio - either a traditional AM/FM station, or a "shoutcast" or other online station. Many online stores, like Amazon, I believe, offer samples of songs - you can get the gist of a song from a certain portion of it. Certainly enough to tell if you really don't like the music. Another option is to see if one of your friends has the CD and ask to listen to it. If they don't have it, then go look for samples/radio that does.
Additionally, there is an awesome website - pandora.com - that plays related music; ie, if you select a ska band as the center of what they call a "station" then that station will play similar ska music. It is very interesting, apparently open-source, and FREE.
Yes, part of the reaosn I'm not interested in file sharing anymore is that the internet has evolved enough to allow me to discover new things just as easily without as much hassle and legally. (I should point out that in my file sharing days, downloading illegal copies was still legal in Belgium afaik)
Secondly, the argument that "you never would have bought it anyway" has what appears to be a logical flaw - though we'll have to ask Pindar for confirmation. ~;) I shamelessly quote from the Wikipedia article on
If you didn't have an illegal method for obtaining the content, would you still not buy it? We can't say, because the method exists. That's my understanding of that argument.
One of the huge problems with the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' argument is that often, pirates show a willingness to spend on gaming, just not on the games. Someone who buys a $3000 rig and then pirates games can't use that argument, he could have gotten a $2000 rig (almost as good anyway) and have bought over 20 games with the rest of the money. He might have had to turn down the resolution here in there in a couple of years, but that hardly makes for a lesser experience imo (but that'sa different debate I guess).
Another example is with movies or music, people often need a bigger HD to store the content, an HD costs about €150 (guessing here, and keeping it cheap), for that price they could have bought 10 albums and rented about 50 movies. You can actually borrow cd's in my local library, they could have borrowed 300 cds for the same amount of money.
A third and final example is their internet connection. We have limits to the amount of data you can download a month of about 10 GB, which isn't really that much, and your average pirate would need more so they pay, let's say 20€ more for a 35GB download limit, that's 240€ a year. they could have bought 6 full price games (let's face, aint that much more decent coming out, and/or most people don't have the time to play much more) 15 or so cd's or rented 80 movies.
There is a definite willingness to pay money amongst most 'heavy' pirates, just not for legal content it seems.
yesdachi
06-06-2006, 14:00
So what you guys, doc bean and Alexander the Pretty Good, are saying is that there are so many other ways to get the same music and movies for free, that there should be no need for file sharing (at lease the music and movies). If that’s the case than what does it matter if people file share the same things they could get for free at a library or on the web? I know the answer, permission, without it, file sharing is illegal. But what I am saying is that casual file sharing something that is available somewhere else for free doesn’t really matter any more than someone going 5mph over the speed limit. Both are against the law but IMO neither matter (I am not advocating anyone do either). Humm, I just said that breaking the law is ok in some cases, I guess I get to pick and choose what laws I obey now.
As to the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' argument, I still stand by what I said in that if it wasn’t free many people wouldn’t have gotten it. In the early days of file sharing I know several people that filled hundreds of GB’s of hard drive space with music that there is no way they would have ever considered actually buying. Many of them didn’t even listen to the music they had, it was more of a challenge thing. I’ll bet that is still the case with many file share’ers now.
Hardcore downloading and redistributing for profit is big time wrong :thumbsdown: but casual file sharing is IMO harmless :hippie: . My mind is not set in stone on this but I haven’t heard any reason to think any different, file sharing has been pretty available for years now and I haven’t seen any people negatively effected (maybe some gamming software companies, but I don’t know if file sharing is the reason for their poor profits) even Metallica is still doing fine. ~D
On a related side note, my family and I listen to music, watch movies (usually kids movies) and play video games (cartoonnetwork.com and some others) all the time on-line all for free, I have developed a comprehensive list of bookmarks :smile:.
doc_bean
06-06-2006, 15:42
So what you guys, doc bean and Alexander the Pretty Good, are saying is that there are so many other ways to get the same music and movies for free, that there should be no need for file sharing (at lease the music and movies).
Right
If that’s the case than what does it matter if people file share the same things they could get for free at a library or on the web?
If they're just using it to 'check it out' and not to add it to their collection, nothing. I'm not inherently against file sharing. I'm against the abuse of file sharing by people who have no interest in getting a 'legal' version of what they have gotten, yet want to keep/use it permantly or completely (like watching a whole movie).
As to the 'I wouldn't have bought it anyway' argument, I still stand by what I said in that if it wasn’t free many people wouldn’t have gotten it. In the early days of file sharing I know several people that filled hundreds of GB’s of hard drive space with music that there is no way they would have ever considered actually buying. Many of them didn’t even listen to the music they had, it was more of a challenge thing. I’ll bet that is still the case with many file share’ers now.
Yes, there's that group. I also know people who watch 2 or 3 pirated movies a week, are you also suggesting that they would have otherwise never rented a movie, watched in on tv or seen it in the cinema ?
I'm not saying every pirated copy is a loss of sale, far from it, but it does impact sales. You mgiht not have gotten everything you pirated but like I said earlier, if you are willling to buy a $2000 PC and download and play pirated computer games a lot in your spare time, wouldn't it make sense that, if there was no access to those pirated products, you would be willing to buy a couple of games a year ?
Hardcore downloading and redistributing for profit is big time wrong :thumbsdown: but casual file sharing is IMO harmless :hippie: . My mind is not set in stone on this but I haven’t heard any reason to think any different, file sharing has been pretty available for years now and I haven’t seen any people negatively effected (maybe some gamming software companies, but I don’t know if file sharing is the reason for their poor profits) even Metallica is still doing fine. ~D
Well, you can never really prove such a relationship can you ?
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2006, 15:47
I think you are underestimating the effect of file-sharing on the industry, for one. I have no idea, but I suspect that one reason CD's cost so much is the industry is trying to make up for lost sales due to piracy and file-sharing. Ditto video games. I'm getting the shaft because you don't pay.
Secondly, I don't think all of file-sharing is harmless "challenges" to see how much stuff they can download for free. At the high school I go to (an admittedly high tech one) virtually everyone pirates media, both games and music. It's lost sales. The music, movie, and videogame industries would be generally appalled at the cavalier file-sharing and piracy that goes on. This file-sharing is definitely not just a challenge thing, although that is a part of it for some people - it's a network for getting free stuff (illegally).
As to getting stuff for free - you can't get the same thing as just illegally downloading left and right. There are restrictions and limits on what you can legally attain for free. But what is there is certainly enough to make the "try before you buy" argument totally invalid.
yesdachi
06-06-2006, 16:25
I think you are underestimating the effect of file-sharing on the industry, for one. I have no idea, but I suspect that one reason CD's cost so much is the industry is trying to make up for lost sales due to piracy and file-sharing. Ditto video games.
I don’t think I am underestimating the effects of file sharing on the industry, CD’s cost practically the same as they always have and any decrease in sales can easily be attributed to the economy or the fact that file sharing and places like myspace have allowed lesser known bands to take some of the market share. Same thing with low budget films and some independent software.
Secondly, I don't think all of file-sharing is harmless "challenges" to see how much stuff they can download for free. At the high school I go to (an admittedly high tech one) virtually everyone pirates media, both games and music. It's lost sales. The music, movie, and videogame industries would be generally appalled at the cavalier file-sharing and piracy that goes on. This file-sharing is definitely not just a challenge thing, although that is a part of it for some people - it's a network for getting free stuff (illegally).
It sounds like your HS should have some tighter limitations on internet usage.
I'm getting the shaft because you don't pay.
Just to clarify, I have never, nor do I ever intend on pirating a video game. :bow:
yesdachi
06-06-2006, 16:38
Yes, there's that group. I also know people who watch 2 or 3 pirated movies a week, are you also suggesting that they would have otherwise never rented a movie, watched in on tv or seen it in the cinema ?
I'm not saying every pirated copy is a loss of sale, far from it, but it does impact sales. You mgiht not have gotten everything you pirated but like I said earlier, if you are willling to buy a $2000 PC and download and play pirated computer games a lot in your spare time, wouldn't it make sense that, if there was no access to those pirated products, you would be willing to buy a couple of games a year ?
Sounds reasonable, but I would still be curious about how much they would spend if it wasn’t available via file sharing.
doc_bean
06-06-2006, 16:46
Sounds reasonable, but I would still be curious about how much they would spend if it wasn’t available via file sharing.
That's like wondering how long you could live if you stopped smoking. Maybe a lot longer, maybe you get hit by a bus tomorrow. there's just no telling in such an 'if' scenario, you could only make rough estimates based on hypthesis.
Alexander the Pretty Good
06-06-2006, 18:28
I should've clarified - the piracy doesn't happen at the school, just nearly everybody there does it on their own time.
And the "I'm getting the shaft because you don't pay" was a more general "you" - and its good to note that you don't pirate videogames. But the same applies for music.
yesdachi
06-06-2006, 18:48
...and its good to note that you don't pirate videogames. But the same applies for music.
Haven’t pirated any music since napster either! ~;p
Ironside
06-10-2006, 08:34
Update on the original subject. It seems that this has triggered so that the politicians are backing on the law that led to the bust. Or are aleast "considering other options". It can be worth mention that it's election year this year.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.