Neuroscientists Discover Why Internet Pirates Don’t Feel Guilty

pothb said:
Uh, that is definitely not theft. It would breaking and entering, trespassing. Wow, you guys can really stretch this stuff, huh??

Tell media companies that.

Actually, government too.
Click to expand...

You're incorrect on this account. It is legally called theft of service.
 
Piracy also has another name, called copying. Piracy and copying is the same thing, except piracy is a more nasty word for copying without permission. It's hard to feel guilty for something that isn't actual physical theft. But if people did really enjoy the copy material, good chance they'll buy the product and support the people who made it. Mediocre products don't produce fans, and don't produce revenue, but they do get peoples interests and produce sales, unless they pirated it and didn't walk away from it with anything. Batman VS Superman is good example of a film that was hardly mediocre. The only reason it had any sales was because it has Batman and Superman. You think that filmed, if pirated, will produce fans? Unlike the new Avengers Movie which not only did well, but was a good movie.

 
viscountalpha said:
It took hours and hours and cost someone else to make those one and zeros. Sure it can be copied but it's still theft.
Click to expand...
"We should stop printing the Bible, there should only be written copies from authorized Roman clergymen."

Fuck off with your draconian logic.

This published, peer reviewed journal isn't science, it's simply a psychological socially engineered paper. It's framed from the start so participants are required to take the perspective that piracy is stealing. Flawed premise produces flawed results. This Australian university published an article about the study without linking to the paper itself and made basic spelling errors in the article: The science behind piracy: Guilt portion of the brain fails to fire, Monash University
 
NExUS1g said:
Copyright infringement is passing off a work as your own, not just taking it.
Click to expand...

Copyright infringement is any use of a copyrighted work that is not authorized by the owner of the copyright. Passing it off as your own can be a kind of copyright violation, but it is not the only kind, and if you charge money for it then I believe that could also fall under counterfeit laws.
 
DukenukemX said:
Piracy also has another name, called copying. Piracy and copying is the same thing, except piracy is a more nasty word for copying without permission. It's hard to feel guilty for something that isn't actual physical theft. But if people did really enjoy the copy material, good chance they'll buy the product and support the people who made it. Mediocre products don't produce fans, and don't produce revenue, but they do get peoples interests and produce sales, unless they pirated it and didn't walk away from it with anything. Batman VS Superman is good example of a film that was hardly mediocre. The only reason it had any sales was because it has Batman and Superman. You think that filmed, if pirated, will produce fans? Unlike the new Avengers Movie which not only did well, but was a good movie.

Click to expand...


Between 1990 and 2001 the movie industry doubled its annual revenue, in 10 years. Since 2001 -- oddly enough when broadband become more readily available along with file sharing and the propagation of digital media -- it's only increased by 21%, in 15 years. I think that says a lot about how piracy is affecting the bottom line.
 
MongGrel said:
Some things you can not buy, even if you'd like to.
Click to expand...

That's still the copyright holder's exclusive right to not provide you with a reproduction of the work. It doesn't authorize you to reproduce it for yourself.
 
NExUS1g said:
That's still the copyright holder's exclusive right to not provide you with a reproduction of the work. It doesn't authorize you to reproduce it for yourself.
Click to expand...

How can you say that to begin with, when you have no idea what I'm referring to ?
 
Last edited:
Any time you watch a movie you are committing piracy by copying the data of the movie to your brain. You're making a bio-electrical digital copy to grey matter and you should be fined $250,000 and spend 5 years in prison. Everyone is guilty.
 
Nukester said:
When they do this, it's fair but still breaks the law. You are entitled to make an archival copy of your movie.
Click to expand...

What breaks the law?

I understand you are supposed to be able to make an archival copy. I also understand it's an imperfect world. And that in cases where the distributor supplies a copy with the sale, perhaps it's not the rip-off Nukester feels it is.
 
I suppose the same would apply to being a racist a-hole on the internet, versus being one in person.
 
Theft of service and copyright infringement are different.
The main thing being: service is limited. Copying is not.
The analogy of sleeping in a room that was not rented isn't relevant.

It's like saying a person can take a picture of a hotel room and then sleep in the picture because it somehow becomes a duplicate in an alternate universe. That would be copyright infringement.

You can't copy a car, and if you could for .01% of the cost, you know you would. Everyone would. I would proudly drive my copied Ferrari all around town. Ferrari isn't losing money as i would have never have bought one to begin with.

And that's the crux of the problem. It's not theft if the original is still there and it's not theft if the person copying would never have bought the movie/music/software. It's not even a possible sale at that point.

The only thing that happens is a violation of the copyright holder's lawful power to control the copies. Something which most people would still consider not a big deal.
 
NExUS1g said:
Between 1990 and 2001 the movie industry doubled its annual revenue, in 10 years. Since 2001 -- oddly enough when broadband become more readily available along with file sharing and the propagation of digital media -- it's only increased by 21%, in 15 years. I think that says a lot about how piracy is affecting the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Correlation is not causation. We have also had a drastic increase in big screen TVs and people watching movies at home.
 
NExUS1g said:
Yeah, so steal a candy bar, take a bite -- because that's all you want, you don't want to pay for the whole thing -- then put it back.

Or you don't like coconut so you steal a Mounds bar, because it's crap anyway so it's alright.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. You still physically stole something.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
The analogy of sleeping in a room that was not rented isn't relevant.
Click to expand...

No, I found it eminently relevant and a superb analogy.


Ferrari isn't losing money as i would have never have bought one to begin with.
Click to expand...

Question:

Ferrari has their entire lineup on sale for 20% of sticker.


You can buy this 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale for 5% of it's former retail costs.

This $440,000 car now costs $22,000 plus TT&L.


2015 Ferrari For Sale | Global Autosports

ZFF75VFA8F0205590_1_thumb_6770.jpg




Now would you never own a Ferrari?

 
Snowdog said:
Correlation is not causation. We have also had a drastic increase in big screen TVs and people watching movies at home.
Click to expand...
But also the conclusion is flawed.
Broadband is a game changer for entertainment among other things. Video games to communication, etc have all been changed due to broadband.
When you add other forms of entertainment, especially for those with lower costs involved, why wouldn't they affect the movie industry?
I mean, wow was released in 2004. All those gamers who wanted to raid on the weekends instead of go to movies probably cost the movie industry bucket loads.
 
athenian200 said:
It's why copyright enforcement triggers such negative reactions among the general public, and most people feel like there's nothing wrong with piracy. Some people have learned to equate it to physical theft, but that's very much a learned behavior and a conscious choice made after thinking about the situation. And it's not one that everyone would make after thinking about it.

While you can certainly intimidate people with draconian prison sentences and fines, people will tend to feel that they're being punished for an arbitrary reason. As if, say, Sony could put you in jail for buying products from Microsoft or vice-versa. That's how irrational and absurd the concept of IP seems to a lot of people, and they'll fight tooth and nail against those kind of laws even if they're implemented.
Click to expand...

There's always the Robinhood defense.
We are simply stealing from those rich Hollywood elites and giving it to the poor unwashed masses :p
However, this form a wealth redistribution doesn't allow the government to take it's cut, so it has to be stopped.
 
lcpiper said:
No, I found it eminently relevant and a superb analogy.




Question:

Ferrari has their entire lineup on sale for 20% of sticker.


You can buy this 2015 Ferrari 458 Speciale for 5% of it's former retail costs.

This $440,000 car now costs $22,000 plus TT&L.


2015 Ferrari For Sale | Global Autosports

ZFF75VFA8F0205590_1_thumb_6770.jpg




Now would you never own a Ferrari?
Click to expand...
Fuck no, way too expensive.
If it was .01% of the original cost, it would cost me $440. That would be super affordable.
Literally it was like that back in the day when photoshop would cost 600$ but a blank cd would be .05$. That's 12,000 times lower cost to copy.
Applying the same cost, this Ferrari would cost me $36.67. Would i buy it at that price point? I might buy 7, one for each day of the week.
 
Hypergreatthing said:
Fuck no, way too expensive.
If it was .01% of the original cost, it would cost me $440. That would be super affordable.
Literally it was like that back in the day when photoshop would cost 600$ but a blank cd would be .05$. That's 12,000 times lower cost to copy.
Applying the same cost, this Ferrari would cost me $36.67. Would i buy it at that price point? I might buy 7, one for each day of the week.
Click to expand...

Oh, sorry, I forgot to post the corrected percentage, but the final cost was posted at $22,000 so there it stands.

Ahh, that's ok, you've made a counter offer, $440 dollars. I accept.

So now you are the proud owner of a Ferrari ........ "that you would never have bought any way".

Do you see the problem with your previous argument?
 
Snowdog said:
Correlation is not causation. We have also had a drastic increase in big screen TVs and people watching movies at home.
Click to expand...

I think of this the same was as arcades. When the quality gets so good at home, there is little reason to go elsewhere. When you pay good money for that experience at home, why not use it? Wait 3-4 months and rent/buy the Blu-ray and many times it's a better experience than going out to the theater. I know I've gone to the theater a lot less since I bought a big screen. That, and the cost of the whole family going out... I have taken 'sick time' in the past to go watch a movie alone, but that's rare. In general, though - it's because I can do the theater experience at home. I'm patient. Star Wars, MCU, etc. are must see in theater for me, though.

Pirating isn't legally theft. I think it's coming down to people bitching and moaning about what piracy is and isn't vs. if it's wrong or right. It's not theft in the standard sense. But, with the digital arena, we have to change a few things. There is no loss of material. It's all digital. It's going to be argued for a long time, and people aren't going to agree.... I don't know what the real answer is. I'll say it's theft, but going by the strict definition, it isn't.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I think of this the same was as arcades. When the quality gets so good at home, there is little reason to go elsewhere. When you pay good money for that experience at home, why not use it? Wait 3-4 months and rent/buy the Blu-ray and many times it's a better experience than going out to the theater. I know I've gone to the theater a lot less since I bought a big screen. That, and the cost of the whole family going out... I have taken 'sick time' in the past to go watch a movie alone, but that's rare. In general, though - it's because I can do the theater experience at home. I'm patient. Star Wars, MCU, etc. are must see in theater for me, though.

Pirating isn't legally theft. I think it's coming down to people bitching and moaning about what piracy is and isn't vs. if it's wrong or right. It's not theft in the standard sense. But, with the digital arena, we have to change a few things. There is no loss of material. It's all digital. It's going to be argued for a long time, and people aren't going to agree.... I don't know what the real answer is. I'll say it's theft, but going by the strict definition, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Just about the only thing I go see in a theater with friends is Event movies that benefit from the big screen, also pretty much Star Wars and MCU, though I am getting tired of superhero stuff.

Piracy is copyright infringement. That is all.
 
nutzo said:
In Italy a judge ruled that it's ok for poor people steal food if they are hungry.

Based on that, why should it be illegal for people who can't afford a DVD player to pirate a movie?
Click to expand...

You're justifying poor logic with a response.

You cannot compare taking a bite out of a chocolate bar, to digital piracy. A better comparison would be like obtaining a copy of the recipe and then making the chocolate bar yourself with your own ingredients. In this scenario, the chocolate maker isn't actually losing any product or physical good(s) given you are not making money or distributing made chocolate bars into their market.

The point of consideration in digital piracy can be broken into two primary categories (IMO).
First, you download something you would've otherwise bought, this is bad.
Secondly, you download something you would not have bought, this is good for the developer, you have a chance to become a fan and future customer. As a matter of fact, this happens constantly. This is very good, as it occurs with no marketing, distribution, or losses/costs to the developer.
Most people are unable to consider the second scenario, it feels better to stop at the first, basic line of thinking, and stagnate. Feels good to not think, generally your thinking is always the best in the world that way. lol
 
viscountalpha said:
It took hours and hours and cost someone else to make those one and zeros. Sure it can be copied but it's still theft.
Click to expand...


Nope, if I steal it, you no longer have it. As I made a copy, you are not deprived of the original. Folly number 1 is equating it as theft, when it is copy infringement. Folly number two is equating it to a lost sale, as most would not have bought it. It is no different than a library pointing the way to the content. Given it was paid for once, but the industry is trying to make the same product paid for multiple times. That in itself is morally bankrupt.
 
I look at it this way, I am giving Movie and TV studios a free backup of their content, just in case something happens and all copies are lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pothb
like this
Ur_Mom said:
I think of this the same was as arcades. When the quality gets so good at home, there is little reason to go elsewhere. When you pay good money for that experience at home, why not use it? Wait 3-4 months and rent/buy the Blu-ray and many times it's a better experience than going out to the theater. I know I've gone to the theater a lot less since I bought a big screen. That, and the cost of the whole family going out... I have taken 'sick time' in the past to go watch a movie alone, but that's rare. In general, though - it's because I can do the theater experience at home. I'm patient. Star Wars, MCU, etc. are must see in theater for me, though.

Pirating isn't legally theft. I think it's coming down to people bitching and moaning about what piracy is and isn't vs. if it's wrong or right. It's not theft in the standard sense. But, with the digital arena, we have to change a few things. There is no loss of material. It's all digital. It's going to be argued for a long time, and people aren't going to agree.... I don't know what the real answer is. I'll say it's theft, but going by the strict definition, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but in regards digital media, you don't actually pay for the physical component as much as the right to view it from the copyright holder. So when someone pirates it, they are violating the copyright holder's ownership of their IP, and their control of it, and have in effect "stolen" a viewing without their consent. But more importantly, they have stolen someone's right to control their IP as now, you have the means to allow whomever you wish to view it, or give it, or seed it.
 
Dv8ted21 said:
Nope, if I steal it, you no longer have it. As I made a copy, you are not deprived of the original. Folly number 1 is equating it as theft, when it is copy infringement. Folly number two is equating it to a lost sale, as most would not have bought it. It is no different than a library pointing the way to the content. Given it was paid for once, but the industry is trying to make the same product paid for multiple times. That in itself is morally bankrupt.
Click to expand...

I will reply to this in order to reinforce my previous post.

When you pirate a movie, it's not the physical item that you are stealing, it's the copyright holder's right to control who can view and or copy their material. Your not stealing an item, you are stealing someone's rights to their own creations.
 
I really don't think it's necessary to equate piracy to theft to explain why it should be wrong.

It's actually very simple, and embedded in the term "copyright" itself. Who has the RIGHT to make copies of this work? The author and/or the publisher. Sometimes, depending on the contract, even the author isn't allowed to sell copies of their work directly because they've sold the "copy rights" to a publisher in exchange for a percentage of the sales. It's not simply authorship that grants you the copyright, because it can be sold to a publisher or other entity that didn't author the book. Like how you can sell the mineral rights to a piece of property independently of that piece of property. Very complex set of rules, although there is a kind of logic to them.

A copy right is like a driver's license. You need to obtain the right to copy something legally, just like you need a license to drive legally. Incidentally, these copies are sometimes called "unlicensed copies," which might be more palatable to people who don't think it's equivalent to theft. Piracy is admittedly a loaded term that communicates a certain moral perspective on the matter.

Most people actually can see the moral problem with this in a scenario where people are SELLING unlicensed copies. Because, after all, that means they're directly competing with the publisher, without having had to buy the copy rights from the author or sign any kind of contract with them. They're making money through copying without having to make the same investment or play by the same rules as every other publisher, which strikes most people as unfair. Worse, in this case, it evokes images of unsuspecting consumers being misled by counterfeit merchandise. It's uncontroversial, really, why only the person who has the copy rights should be lawfully allowed to sell copies and profit from them.

The ambiguity comes in where the copies are being produced and distributed free of charge, to people who aren't being misled into thinking that these copies are authorized. Largely because the unauthorized distributor isn't really benefitting from what they're doing and may very well have altruistic motives, perhaps believing that even the poor should be able to experience this work of art. But the moment you add any price at all, even ten cents... you can immediately see the problem. The person is undercutting the publisher and not being required to play by the same rules. The unauthorized copy-maker doesn't have to deal with the same regulations, the same overhead, the same licensing agreements, operating costs, etc... as a traditional publisher. Yet they're benefitting from the work done by the publisher... the typesetting, the cropping and processing, the advertising, etc. The work would not be as well-known or reviewed if it weren't for the money being invested in advertisements, box art, and countless other little things you probably take for granted. All those costs are invested and recouped under the legally created assumption that no one else has the right to copy the work.

The flaw in the argument most people make in defense of copyright is that it's about defending the writer or artist. People forget about the publishers and advertisers, and don't really think about the investments they make. People invest in those companies, and those companies in turn invest in all kinds of things, under the assumption of copyright protection. That's where the real money is located. Imagine for a moment that we didn't have such a thing as a copyright. That anyone could make a copy of anything, and that no one was guaranteed an exclusive right to make copies. This would make things fair, because now publishers wouldn't have to pay for a copyright, but all quality control would go out the window. The publisher might very well have the right to change whatever they wanted to make the work sell better than other versions, they'd have to compete with other publishers to lower the price, and eventually everything would be distributed on the cheapest media possible, and you'd have to wade through mountains of terrible books and movies to find the good ones because there would be no time or money to vet... well, anything. You would more than likely see all the rejected book and movie ideas these people deal with on a daily basis. Publishers would be desperate to publish anything they could get their hands on in an attempt to make money before anyone else could copy the work. Everything would be produced and published on a budget, and the quality of artistic productions might go down.

So, the crime of unauthorized copying lies in the fact that you're invalidating all of those investments by violating the assumptions under which all that money was changing hands and the agreements that set the prices and allow the control of prices and thus of supply. Is insider trading wrong, even if you aren't stealing the stock? You're violating the rules and going against what most people would regard as fair play within the stock market because of an unfair advantage you have. In this case, again, the perpetrator making money makes the violation of the rules seem more morally repugnant. But the rules and agreements are still there even if no fraudulent gains are made.

Now, of course you could argue that copyright shouldn't exist, and you certainly have the right to question it. But so long as it exists and publishers have to play by different rules than pirates, then it's unfair to publishers who are obeying these laws and regulations that someone else should be allowed to undercut them by breaking those laws even if they don't profit from it directly. It's not simply about lost sales, although that's arguably part of it. Piracy being "free advertising" hurts advertising companies that might otherwise be hired, even if the person eventually buys the product. If people don't have to rely on 10-second soundbytes and will just experience the work before purchase, why spend as much on an advertising agency? It reduces the willingness of investors to invest in the publishing company, because they see that people can obtain the copies illegitimately and that the law aren't a deterrent. So even if every single person who downloaded a copy then purchased it, it still hurt the company in the eyes of investors and thus affected their bottom line.

Copyright is something that largely only makes sense within the context of a capitalist society with a complex, regulated market economy. It's a bit of a kludge because we don't have a perfect solution. But if you pull that thread out, you can start to see how it unravels a lot of things that were stitched together in ways you probably never contemplated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top