Interesting article regarding piracy

[Khanmots]

While I understand there are legal differences this attitude is a much bigger problem than DRM will ever be. Knowingly using something that you have not paid for and have no right to is theft.

Why do you insist on using a word in a manner that defies it's definition?

Why do people insist in looking ONLY at the physical loss aspect of this crime?

They don't. If you're getting that idea, I'd suggest you reread. And think about definition of theft and why copyright infringment exists.

A person sees something they want, they take it without right or payment. Morally how is this different than someone taking my laptop?

Because in the case of the pirate you still have your laptop and in the case of the thief you don't?

There's a difference in the harm done.

I'm not trying to spout morality here I'm simply saying that if you look at the behavior of a prirate, the basic actions that a person takes in perpetrating the crime, piracy is NO different than any other theft.

Well, in that case, there's no difference from shooting a person and shooting a target. The action is the same, I pull the trigger on a gun. However they're quite obviously not the same. The harm done with the action differs.

I've never seen a counter argument to this that didn't involve the lack of physical loss contention which to me is just rationalizing bad behavior.

Target, human, as long as the trigger is pulled it's all the same?

Note, that noone has been saying that illegally infringing copyright is moral. We've been saying that it is not theft. And it isn't.

 

[WabeWalker]

Americans: They always assume that American Laws are global, and that the only country that matters is America. (Note the very last sentence.)

---------------------------------------------------------------

Criminal offences: Acts that may be criminal offences in the UK include:

Making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others.
Importing infringing copies (except for personal use).
Offering for sale or hire, publicly displaying or otherwise distributing infringing copies in the course of a business.
Distributing a large enough number of copies to have a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner.
Making or possessing equipment for the purposes of making infringing copies in the course of a business.
Publicly performing a work in knowledge that the performance is unauthorised.
Communicating copies or infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner).
Manufacturing commercially, importing for non-personal use, possessing in the course of a business, or distributing to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder, a device primarily designed for circumventing a technological copyright protection measure.

The penalties for these copyright infringement offences depend on the seriousness of the offences, and may include:
Before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
On indictment (in the Crown Court) some offences may attract an unlimited fine and up to 10 years imprisonment.

A British Government's report characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."

 

[heatlesssun]

Because in the case of the pirate you still have your laptop and in the case of the thief you don't?

There's a difference in the harm done.

Once again you're missing the point. You're looking at it in terms of CONSEQUENCE, not behavior. How is the BEHAVIOR of a thief and a pirate different?

Like I said earlier I have yet to see anyone give me a solid answer to the question after asking for nearly 3 decades. Not the CONSEQUENCE but the BEHAVIOR.

Well, in that case, there's no difference from shooting a person and shooting a target. The action is the same, I pull the trigger on a gun. However they're quite obviously not the same. The harm done with the action differs.

Specious argument. Shooting a person is CLEARLY wrong in almost all cases. And most people have a pretty good idea that when they are downloading software and content they didn't pay for that they are breaking SOME law. This situation doesn't exist in target practice. Both theft and piracy are acts that DISREGARD law. Target practice not so much.

 

[jiminator]

nobody gets killed accidentally while someone else downloads content.
if piracy is theft, the solution is simple.
have your company file an insurance claim for the goods that were taken at the cost of the current replacement value.
you really need to put things in perspective.

 

[heatlesssun]

nobody gets killed accidentally while someone else downloads content.
if piracy is theft, the solution is simple.
have your company file an insurance claim for the goods that were taken at the cost of the current replacement value.
you really need to put things in perspective.

I have. Consequence. That's ALL that some look at or even acknowledge in this debate. I'm talking about BEHAVIOR. How is the BEHAVIOR of a thief different from a pirate?

 

[Khanmots]

Once again you're missing the point. You're looking at it in terms of CONSEQUENCE, not behavior. How is the BEHAVIOR of a thief and a pirate different?

Like I said earlier I have yet to see anyone give me a solid answer to the question after asking for nearly 3 decades. Not the CONSEQUENCE but the BEHAVIOR.

If you focus purely on the person undertaking the action then it is quite similar. But then, so is shooting a gun at a target and shooting a gun at a person.

Personally I find your attitude rather disturbing. A belief that the only thing that determines the rightness or wrongness of an action is how that action affects the person undertaking it... that's pretty much the definition of a sociopath.

Consequences for ourselves and others are how we determine the rightness or wrongness of a behavior or action. Without looking at the consequences how would you decide if something is right or wrong?

 

[jiminator]

I have. Consequence. That's ALL that some look at or even acknowledge in this debate. I'm talking about BEHAVIOR. How is the BEHAVIOR of a thief different from a pirate?

how is the behavior of someone killing a person in a video game different from someone killing a person in real life? I'd say there is a pretty HUGE difference.

For both sets of events one does physical harm to another person, whereas the other is just some guy sitting at a keyboard. His actions are not having an effect on other people, aside from him not buying a product at that time.

 

[soulesschild]

You seriously think Blizzard games don't get pirated? Is that why when Diablo II was popular there were 100's of websites where you could download the game and CD-Keys for it?

And you still needed a legit key to play in closed bnet where people weren't hacking to shit and to later play Ladder. So this argument is fail. I don't know ANYONE who pirated D2 and just said, "I'll be happy just playing single player or playing with a buncha people with hacked items that 1 shot me."

 

[WabeWalker]

"... so this argument is fail..."

LOL!

The English language is quickly mutating into some form of strange dialect... which u will only b able 2 understand if u r an uneducated monkey.

The word fail is now being used so often, and for so many different things, that I honestly believe it's probably the single most used word on the internet.

That and the word 'rediculous'.

I actually fear for the word ridiculous - we're going to lose that one. The meaning of words, and sometimes the spelling of words, is dictated not by a committee, but rather by the masses - if people begin to believe that a certain word has a certain meaning, or that it's spelled a certain way, then that becomes the new meaning or the new way that it's spelled. Were going to lose ridiculous. Mark my words.

And by the way, epic fail to this entire thread - what a complete waste of space. Nothing has been gained by any of this.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Did you at least bother to read any of this thread?

Definition of Larceny

Piracy is not theft. .

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.....

taking something (a game that you downloaded for free off of the internet for example) without paying for it is theft simply becuase you did not the rightfull owner/distributor for it when you aquired it.

 

[defiant007]

The inability to afford a luxury item like a video game is not any valid justification for theft. If they can't afford the game but steal it anyways then it is a lost sale because it's possible the person would have otherwise saved up their money to actually buy it. But given the alternative (e.g., stealing) the other option is not taken, thus a lost sale.

Firstly, it is not theft, you may morally regard it as theft but from a legal perspective it is not theft.

Secondly, if they cannot afford it in the first place how can it possibly be regarded as a lost sale. Irrespective of the morality associated with piracy, they would and COULD NEVER have purchased the game. You make the assumption that people could always save up to purchase the software but such ludicrous assumptions demonstrate you have not experienced what it is like to live in third world countries and abject poverty.

You and many others seem to have great difficulty in grasping this concept, and it is chiefly because you fail to comprehend the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

 

[orangeblue]

Firstly, it is not theft, you may morally regard it as theft but from a legal perspective it is not theft.

Secondly, if they cannot afford it in the first place how can it possibly be regarded as a lost sale. Irrespective of the morality associated with piracy, they would and COULD NEVER have purchased the game. You make the assumption that people could always save up to purchase the software but such ludicrous assumptions demonstrate you have not experienced what it is like to live in third world countries and abject poverty.

You and many others seem to have great difficulty in grasping this concept, and it is chiefly because you fail to comprehend the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

Oh boo hoo, people are poor, that still doesn't give anyone a right to something that is not theirs. You can't afford something, you go without it, simple as that; it's not even like were discussing something necessary for living, we're discussing an entertainment item.

Now, I agree that piracy is copyright infringement and not theft *by the current standards of the country I live in (why are we still debating this after 11 pages?), but that doesn't matter. The product in question still has value in terms of a potential profit (unlike those poor people who feel entitled to it, the developers/song writers/film makers/authors etc. are entitled to earning money off of their creation), and it is still morally wrong to deprive someone of that. People make all kinds of excuses on why they shouldn't pay for something, like it's not a good value, the company is evil with their evil DRM... but this is capitalism; if you don't like something you vote to change it with your wallet by not buying it, not by taking it.
/rant

 

[WabeWalker]

Firstly, it is not theft, you may morally regard it as theft but from a legal perspective it is not theft.

In the United Kingdom and in many other parts of the world, yes, it's theft:

"Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."

America isn't the only country on the planet you know.

 

[defiant007]

In the United Kingdom and in many other parts of the world, yes, it's theft:

"Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."

America isn't the only country on the planet you know.

Excuse me but I am from Australia, a country whose legal system is based upon the common law which emanated from the United Kingdom. Don't worry, I intend to respond separately to your spurious posts concerning UK law.

 

[defiant007]

Criminal offences: Acts that may be criminal offences in the UK include:

Making copies for the purpose of selling or hiring them to others.
Importing infringing copies (except for personal use).
Offering for sale or hire, publicly displaying or otherwise distributing infringing copies in the course of a business.
Distributing a large enough number of copies to have a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner.
Making or possessing equipment for the purposes of making infringing copies in the course of a business.
Publicly performing a work in knowledge that the performance is unauthorised.
Communicating copies or infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright owner).
Manufacturing commercially, importing for non-personal use, possessing in the course of a business, or distributing to an extent that has a noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder, a device primarily designed for circumventing a technological copyright protection measure.

Not that I put much stock in anything spouted on a forum without appropriate reference to source material, observe how each of those offenses is firmly grounded on either the wrongdoer benefiting financially from their copyright infringement (in which case there is strong evidence that the copyright holder has suffered a loss as a result of their actions given that the wrong doer has received monies rather than the copyright holder, i.e. there is a quantifiable amount of money which was received by someone other than the copyright holder), or the misconduct having a "noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder".

In the latter case, simply pointing to the fact that a person has made pirated copies of software available does not prove that there has been a "noticeable effect on the business of the copyright holder", this concept is wound up in having to prove an actual impact as opposed to a theoretical impact which you say exists, i.e. that every download is a theoretical lost sale. Also observe that its not the downloader or recepient of the infringing material who is liable to prosecution but the copyright infringer who makes the material available.

A British Government's report characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."

Please provide a link to the said report, because I would actually like to read it for myself rather than you misconstruing it or taking statements out of context.

 

[defiant007]

Oh boo hoo, people are poor, that still doesn't give anyone a right to something that is not theirs. You can't afford something, you go without it, simple as that; it's not even like were discussing something necessary for living, we're discussing an entertainment item.

Now, I agree that piracy is copyright infringement and not theft *by the current standards of the country I live in (why are we still debating this after 11 pages?), but that doesn't matter. The product in question still has value in terms of a potential profit (unlike those poor people who feel entitled to it, the developers/song writers/film makers/authors etc. are entitled to earning money off of their creation), and it is still morally wrong to deprive someone of that. People make all kinds of excuses on why they shouldn't pay for something, like it's not a good value, the company is evil with their evil DRM... but this is capitalism; if you don't like something you vote to change it with your wallet by not buying it, not by taking it.
/rant

And you can rant and rave regarding the morality of what people do to your hearts content. That does not change the reality of the situation, it does not mean you have to be sympathetic to those people's positions, and quite frankly they probably don't give a shit about your views or the capitalistic dogma of largely US based publishers who bitch and whine about piracy. The fact is they cannot afford it, or the products are simply not available, so they will pirate it. Ergo, publishers and developers will never derive any sales or revenues from those persons.

 

[defiant007]

keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.....

taking something (a game that you downloaded for free off of the internet for example) without paying for it is theft simply becuase you did not the rightfull owner/distributor for it when you aquired it.

It has got nothing to do with him feeling better and everything to do with simply applying basic legal doctrines and definitions. You may think such conduct is "theft" as a result of your sense of morality, but that does not mean it is theft at law. Again, a lot of people seem to have real problems grasping this distinction.

 

[Oldie]

Here's a word on who's definition we can all agree on: closed.