Stance on pirating?

[gmichael]

I would not willingly buy a pirated copy of anything. I would also not try any of the tricks available to download for free. But if I pay for a CD, I will make a copy for my car.

 

[JerryLove]

Piracy bad.

Before the red-chicklets start, I wanted to make sure I was clear: piracy bad.

Piracy is not theft: it's copyright infringement.

Piracy *can* result in a loss of income for the copyright holder. But before we say "that makes it theft", I would point out that a bad review can result in a loss of income as well.

Costing someone money is not theft. It's not even recoverable *unless* the constituent act was illegal (civilly or criminally). In the case of copyright infringement, it certainly is; and so the losses that result are indeed something the infringer is culpable for damages (which is how it is different from a legal act like a bad review).

Piracy bad.

That said: it's not clear that any given act of infringement represents a loss of potential income. That 17-year-old that stole a copy of 3D-studio to modify ships in X3-Reunion, had he not pirated, was not likely to have spent $7000 to buy the software either.

So it's still copyright infringement, and still bad, but there's no real way to call it theft.

The truth is: companies can benefit from piracy. Linux would likely have a better share of the market, especially in countries like China, if not for piracy: and that private-party piracy means millions of people in the workforce familiar with Windows rather than Mac or Linux which is one reason it's the dominant OS in the (where MS gets paid) corporate world.

The funny thing about ideas is this modern idea that people can "own" them. For hundreds of years copyright has existed based on the premise that one cannot "own" an idea. Ideas belong to all.

But there's no profit in communal ownership... and so little motivation to innovate. For the good of society, society rewards innovators and producers with a limited-time exclusive right to control reproduction of that idea.

I fully support copyright (though some specifics of US copyright law are debatable), and oppose the violation of copyright. I just cannot agree with the hyperbole and rhetoric that has surrounded the issue of late.

Though I've tried to make a rational statement/argument: I suspect it will be unpopular. Let the flaming begin I suppose.

 

[Nemo128]

That 17-year-old that stole a copy of 3D-studio to modify ships in X3-Reunion, had he not pirated, was not likely to have spent $7000 to buy the software either.

Almost certainly he wouldn't have, but now he may have a marketable skill that allows him to contribute later to the growth of that industry. Piracy is always perceived as completely bad, but rarely do people consider the ripple effect of it.

The truth is: companies can benefit from piracy. Linux would likely have a better share of the market, especially in countries like China, if not for piracy: and that private-party piracy means millions of people in the workforce familiar with Windows rather than Mac or Linux which is one reason it's the dominant OS in the (where MS gets paid) corporate world.

Yep, piracy made MS dominant, fact known by anyone in the tech industry.

I'll readily admit to pirating things at times. You check something out, and if you really find it worthwhile, you drop the cash on it. The problem is, there's so much software, music, movies, and video games out there that are crappy, people would go broke just to find out how terrible a lot of it is. Game demos are great for that. Movie trailers not so much. Demo software even less so! Trials are sometimes so limited that you can't even test the functionality you are looking for.

So yes, piracy is bad, but I bet if all piracy was nixed and the companies saw even less market penetration and sales afterwards, they'd all be clamoring for piracy to be commonplace again. Right, wrong, all bull, it's about what reaps the greatest profits in the end.

 

[highfigh]

Unlike the other attributes that have been referenced in these morality threads such as drinking, drugs, loose sex, and even homosexuality, there is a major difference between them and piracy. All those are victimless crimes. They are affecting nobody except themselves.

Piracy is not a victimless crime.

Pure and simple, it's stealing from the artist and, yes, the music companies.

So, if you can justify stealing from them because they are not "in your face" and apparantly easy prey, what's to say that you wouldn't move that line a bit to include those closer to you?

I read a piece where three homeless guys robbed a dying man in an emergency room in Philadelphia last week. Same basic premise. They figured they could get away with it. Thanks to cameras, they were wrong. They now have a home, paid for by the taxpayers.

Those examples are far from being victimless.

 

[highfigh]

If the "artist" doesn't give that up, they don't get to produce an album.

It's hard to be smart when there's tons of money being shaken in your face and you have no experience. The fact that you don't get to have that money is something the artist only finds out later.

With artists making the bulk of their income from concerts, that's hard to support.

I adamently oppose for-profit piracy.

Let's say I "fail to support" private-party piracy (at least on the scale the internet allows).

I am a bit iffy on "but the copyright holder refuses to release it. I would give them my money if they would take it" being immoral.

I've got a shelf full of legit software, a rack full of legit (if used) DVDs, and a box full of legit CDs from before I started DLing from Amazon... but I'm not about to paint all piracy with the same brush.

One last thing: I adamantly oppose corporate piracy: such as the music industries illegal use of songs without compensation to artists (see the recent suit against the Canadian RIAA for an example)

The first point is why artists need to have a lawyer present whenever a record company rep is present and that goes double when that rep's lips are moving. If the record company wants that artist, they need to throw a bone, not just the advance. Finding out later is too late in every case and while they can plead ignorance, the record companies should include all of the details before they sign someone- it's impossible to make an informed decision any other way. OTOH, many seminars are available for musicians and writers, to detail the pitfalls of the music business and should be attended by anyone who's good enough to be considered. Too many have 'pie in the sky' ideas about how great it'll be to have a hit record and that their life will be wonderful after they have been discovered.

Also, the big-name artists make a lot from concerts but that part is the most expensive single thing they do (other than divorce). Unless they can command high ticket prices, merchandising is far more profitable.

 

[highfigh]

If you download this stuff yourself the greater chance you have of getting busted but if buy from a guy that is taking that chance there is no risk for you, as long you don't know each other. Like I said I don't condone this I just know how it's done.

Unless the sell is already being watched for this activity.

 

[markw]

Those examples are far from being victimless.

Could you please explain this? They do not involve taking anything away from nor harming another.

 

[Nemo128]

Could you please explain this? They do not involve taking anything away from nor harming another.

Less liquor for me, I say that's harmful to others.

 

[highfigh]

Piracy bad.

Before the red-chicklets start, I wanted to make sure I was clear: piracy bad.

Piracy is not theft: it's copyright infringement.

Piracy *can* result in a loss of income for the copyright holder. But before we say "that makes it theft", I would point out that a bad review can result in a loss of income as well.

Costing someone money is not theft. It's not even recoverable *unless* the constituent act was illegal (civilly or criminally). In the case of copyright infringement, it certainly is; and so the losses that result are indeed something the infringer is culpable for damages (which is how it is different from a legal act like a bad review).

Piracy bad.

That said: it's not clear that any given act of infringement represents a loss of potential income. That 17-year-old that stole a copy of 3D-studio to modify ships in X3-Reunion, had he not pirated, was not likely to have spent $7000 to buy the software either.

So it's still copyright infringement, and still bad, but there's no real way to call it theft.

The truth is: companies can benefit from piracy. Linux would likely have a better share of the market, especially in countries like China, if not for piracy: and that private-party piracy means millions of people in the workforce familiar with Windows rather than Mac or Linux which is one reason it's the dominant OS in the (where MS gets paid) corporate world.

The funny thing about ideas is this modern idea that people can "own" them. For hundreds of years copyright has existed based on the premise that one cannot "own" an idea. Ideas belong to all.

But there's no profit in communal ownership... and so little motivation to innovate. For the good of society, society rewards innovators and producers with a limited-time exclusive right to control reproduction of that idea.

I fully support copyright (though some specifics of US copyright law are debatable), and oppose the violation of copyright. I just cannot agree with the hyperbole and rhetoric that has surrounded the issue of late.

Though I've tried to make a rational statement/argument: I suspect it will be unpopular. Let the flaming begin I suppose.

If someone owns the legal rights to an idea, song, movie, manuscript or anything else, they have the right to decide who can use it. If an unauthorized person uses or buys it from another unauthorized person, it's definitely theft.

From Dictionary.com,

"Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes."

Re: owning an idea- have you ever had one that was completely unique and it had the potential to make a lot of money for you? If you do, will you let just anyone use it? How are inventions designed? Do you mean to say that patents are invalid, too?

 

[highfigh]

Could you please explain this? They do not involve taking anything away from nor harming another.

Drinking and drug use don't harm others? Please! You don't know that many addicts support their habit through crime? They don't drive while wasted and kill people? They don't ruin the lives of people in their family or their friendships?

Last I heard, homosexuality isn't generally prosecuted as a crime (although it can be, in some places) but as far as loose sex, you have never heard about people becoming infected and infecting others with diseases that can kill, maim or incapacitate? What would you consider intentionally or indifferently infecting someone with AIDS- a minor inconvenience for the person infected? How are these not causing harm to the other people?

If the person never interacts with anyone else and can have all the drugs, alcohol and sex they want, they won't harm anyone else but that's not how it happens.

 

[gmichael]

Drinking and drug use don't harm others? Please! You don't know that many addicts support their habit through crime? They don't drive while wasted and kill people? They don't ruin the lives of people in their family or their friendships?

Last I heard, homosexuality isn't generally prosecuted as a crime (although it can be, in some places) but as far as loose sex, you have never heard about people becoming infected and infecting others with diseases that can kill, maim or incapacitate? What would you consider intentionally or indifferently infecting someone with AIDS- a minor inconvenience for the person infected? How are these not causing harm to the other people?

If the person never interacts with anyone else and can have all the drugs, alcohol and sex they want, they won't harm anyone else but that's not how it happens.

But these are all things that MAY happen. Having a beer in my home before bed hurts no one.

 

[JerryLove]

If someone owns the legal rights to an idea, song, movie, manuscript or anything else, they have the right to decide who can use it. If an unauthorized person uses or buys it from another unauthorized person, it's definitely theft.

From Dictionary.com,

"Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes."

Re: owning an idea- have you ever had one that was completely unique and it had the potential to make a lot of money for you? If you do, will you let just anyone use it? How are inventions designed? Do you mean to say that patents are invalid, too?

No one owns an idea. Ideas are public domain. An idea is not property. It is not a service. Also, unless they have wiped your brain, an idea cannot be "taken". What is owned is the copy-right, which was not taken but rather violated.

No. If copyright infringement were theft, there would be no need to make laws prohibiting copyright infringement (you'd just charge people with theft). Your statement has no basis in hundreds of years of legal precedent on copyright.

 

[Nemo128]

No one owns an idea.

Darn tootin. That's why reverse engineering is such a huge part of the tech sector. No idea is owned, the specific implementation of an idea is. I can have the same idea (speaker, TV, receiver), but if I implement it differently I didn't steal anything.

 

[JerryLove]

Drinking and drug use don't harm others? Please! You don't know that many addicts support their habit through crime? They don't drive while wasted and kill people? They don't ruin the lives of people in their family or their friendships?

So stealing/robbing (whether the intent is to use the money for drugs or shoes) is a crime with a victim.

So killing someone by hitting them with a car, whether because you were drunk or busy texting is a crime with a victim.

Essentially you are saying, a crime which might motivate another, with the latter having a victim, means the former does as well. It feels like a stretch.

Can crimes have a beneficiary? Think of all the investigators, lawyers, agents, and judges employed by the copyright industry.

 

[krzywica]

Unlike the other attributes that have been referenced in these morality threads such as drinking, drugs, loose sex, and even homosexuality, there is a major difference between them and piracy. All those are victimless crimes. They are affecting nobody except themselves.

Piracy is not a victimless crime.

Pure and simple, it's stealing from the artist and, yes, the music companies.

So, if you can justify stealing from them because they are not "in your face" and apparantly easy prey, what's to say that you wouldn't move that line a bit to include those closer to you?

I read a piece where three homeless guys robbed a dying man in an emergency room in Philadelphia last week. Same basic premise. They figured they could get away with it. Thanks to cameras, they were wrong. They now have a home, paid for by the taxpayers.

I'm not taking sides just pointing something out Mark.

Technically you are incorrect and thats a very bad analogy. The bum at the hospital was depriving the man of his posessions. There is a HUGE difference between taking someones stuff and copying it. Both are stealing, but they are not apples and apples.

Piracy is so controversial because you are not actually depriving anyone of their posessions, simply copying it. Technically they do not lose out in any tangible way. You can't measure the drop in sales due to piracy. Just as you cannot measure an increase in sales due to Obama's stimulus.

I'm just saying.....

 

[markw]

You do like to stretch things, don't you?

Drinking and drug use don't harm others? Please! You don't know that many addicts support their habit through crime? They don't drive while wasted and kill people? They don't ruin the lives of people in their family or their friendships?

Theft is a totally different issue. People steal for reasons that have nothing at all to do with drugs. And, I believe that most of all the really dangerous drugs are covered under a different law than pot.

If someone tokes a bit of da ganja in their own home, is that a crime? No. DWI is a totally different issue, too. They could be under the influence of alcohol, which is a crime, or even unintentionally under the effect of prescription drugs.

No, it ain't the inebriate by itself. It's the driving under the influence that's the crime.

Last I heard, homosexuality isn't generally prosecuted as a crime (although it can be, in some places) but as far as loose sex, you have never heard about people becoming infected and infecting others with diseases that can kill, maim or incapacitate? What would you consider intentionally or indifferently infecting someone with AIDS- a minor inconvenience for the person infected? How are these not causing harm to the other people?

So, you're saying that every homosexual (or straight, which you also imply) that has sex with another has and is intentionally passing aids or some other heinous disease? If that's your reality, you really should find a new circle of friends.

If the person never interacts with anyone else and can have all the drugs, alcohol and sex they want, they won't harm anyone else but that's not how it happens.

So, can I take it that you are either don't drink, do drugs, and have sex? Or do you do all those but never interact with anyone?

Neither lifestyle would suit me. Having sex without interacting with another would really get to me. But, having learned to accept and take responsibility, I don't think it's too much of a problem. Even when I was single, it worked.

What you say may be great in theory, but it's not really doable in the real world. Learn to accept the realities that the actions I mentioned by themselves are victimless crimes.

If the users choose to DWI, well, that's another issue entirely. And, I believe that intentionally spreading aids is a crime, but loose sex in itself isn't.

Next, you'll be saying that selling knives, guns, or baseball bats is a crime because some people use them to harm others.

 

[markw]

I'm not taking sides just pointing something out Mark.

Technically you are incorrect and thats a very bad analogy. The bum at the hospital was depriving the man of his posessions. There is a HUGE difference between taking someones stuff and copying it. Both are stealing, but they are not apples and apples.

Piracy is so controversial because you are not actually depriving anyone of their posessions, simply copying it. Technically they do not lose out in any tangible way. You can't measure the drop in sales due to piracy. Just as you cannot measure an increase in sales due to Obama's stimulus.

I'm just saying.....

Not all assets are tangible, or can be held in ones hand like a watch. Do a little research on "intellectual property" and "royalties", which covers intangible work.

When someone "pirates" music, programs, or other intangible works that one should get paid for, they are being deprived of their pay for the work they did.

I'm pretty sure that if you got paid a royalty for each sale of the songs or programs you wrote you would have a good understanding of the concept.

But, in a sense you are right. It's not "taking away" anything. It's simply not paying for what one takes in the first place.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Darn tootin. That's why reverse engineering is such a huge part of the tech sector. No idea is owned, the specific implementation of an idea is. I can have the same idea (speaker, TV, receiver), but if I implement it differently I didn't steal anything.

It's an interesting concept, because most things are reverse engineered to some degree. It's at least staying relevant to what is made today, and making do with available resources.

It is amazing to me to see four bar linkages and things from before this century getting patented. How can you patent something that was defined in the 1800s? If it is used for a seat, or a door, or a crane.... it's all just four bar linkage. Just an example, but, I could go on and on.

A lot of music is sampled (or at least partially sampled) today. A ton of it is off the "amen break", a lot of pop is "four to the floor" 4/4 .... Everything is so made off of something else now days, that it is hard to say who owns what or if it is just a version of something else.

 

[lsiberian]

Arrgggghh! You must be three sheets to the wind.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Arrgggghh! You must be three sheets to the wind.

Me.......?