Illegal downloading is not theft - its something new

[Same River New Water]

Although, if you do not trust Wikipedia, I'm sure you'll find the same info on a more reliable webpage.

Good enough for me! I'm happy to consider it the truth as long as it makes a good story.

 

[chronobreak]

It's still theft. Sorry.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Nah man, it's deff so. It's theft. It's stealing. After reading through 3 pages of arguments, I still don't get what's wrong with a lot of you people. You're splitting hairs. Call a spade a spade.

 

[Willwillwritehiswill]

It's theft. it's probably been said before. But, say for example, you download the latest album by your favourite artist. The likelihood of you then going out and buying that album is significantly reduced. Property is theft. If it's in your posession (or on your hard drive) by purely ilegitimate means, it's theft.

 

[incal11]

It's still theft. Sorry.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so.

Nah man, it's deff so. It's theft. It's stealing. After reading through 3 pages of arguments, I still don't get what's wrong with a lot of you people. You're splitting hairs. Call a spade a spade.

Because it is another issue with 2 sides who won't change their opinions I don't think it'll go anywhere , but I'll at least try to sum it up.

we have:
-the ones who think there are gradations in "theft"
and that "piracy" is the least harmful form of theft, so much that theft is maybe too big of a word for it.

-the ones who think theft is theft is theft , and seems to think "piracy" is just as bad as killing someone for his shoes.
If you can't see what is wrong with that , you are probably among the ones with selective vision that ignore posts like these:

Sorry babe, but it's copyright infringement.

For it to be theft, it has to deprive the original owner of the rightful possession of that property or its use.

It's just as bad as theft, but saying it's theft is a frankly dishonest simplification of such a complex issue.

One last though, I know there are countless studies , figures or whatever that "proves " the industry is loosing money . Before throwing these around , look who made them ...

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

I never said I thought there was anything fine with it. I would defend it except that isn't how a copyright works. A basic wiki would've explained it to you. You're mixing it up with a patent. A copyright gives you sole ownership of the expression of an idea for a finite period of time. So if two people made a movie based on Romeo & Juliet, they aren't infringing on one another because they are separate expressions of an idea. The play itself is now too old to be protected by a copyright.

Ok, so you're telling me I don't know how copyright works, and then offering an example completely inapplicable to the situation? You know, I've been following copyright for a really long time, and I'm really wondering if you just checked the wiki for yourself here. A play like Romeo and Juliet cannot be owned because it's so old it's in the "public domain." It cannot be trespassed upon, and those two separate plays cannot be considered as trespassing upon each other. Why bring the public domain into this conversation? It's a pointless example.

Now, you seem to have really stupidly gotten hung up on the use of the word idea. I was not talking about the idea of a first person shooter. I was talking about the ideas, experiences, and expressions contained within works of art. Those can and are copyrighted. Now, I made all this clear. To assume I was talking about things covered by patent is to almost willfully misinterpret me. And if we want to sit here playing ridiculous semantic games on the difference between the words "idea" and "expression" tell me so I can get out now.

HEY! You quoted me. All I did in this thread was cite the Federal Law that a person is violating when they download a video game. I'm not waltzing around telling pirates they're wrong and I'm not yammering about hurting the publishers. I just wanted people to be better informed about the technical details.

If you don't like it when I tell you that your bizarro world "thinking other people's thoughts" idea is not actually what's going on legally, then don't drag me into the argument. You can cry foul all you want, you can yammer about how the public domain and patents weren't what you were talking about, it doesn't matter. That is the fundamental error you make when you say that violating a copyright is thinking other people's thoughts and those are the principles that explain why your entire idea doesn't work.

The fact is you quoted me and expected me to agree with your completely fictional idea about how copyright works and no, I'm not going to. If you don't like the fact that I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, then stop talking to me about it.

 

[Jimmyjames]

...please provide your definition of stealing. This seems to be where most of the conflict is originating from and perhaps we can iron out a definition that stands up in all scenarios we perceive as "theft."

How about... taking something that is not yours without giving compensation?

 

[Jimmyjames]

Explain to me how the library system differs substantively to torrents.

Now, I can think of one instance, and one instance only in which a game was leaked to torrent before it was released. But, outside of that one instance, pirates buy the game, set copies out on the shelves--er torrents, and start the "book sharing." So how has that differed from the library?

Oh, wow. You really don't understand the difference?

Read this carefully: AT THE LIBRARY, YOU DON'T COPY THE WHOLE DAMNED BOOK WHEN YOU BRING IT HOME. Nor do libraries DISTRIBUTE the book illegally. If you can't understand that, I'm not going to explain it any further.

So, you bring it home and use it as reference. Well, that's exactly what libraries are FOR. REFERENCE.

Oh, and your insistence that there have been no torrents of games before their release is bullshit. It's happened with TWO of my games. Let me explain how it happens: At the factories where the press the discs, some employee swipes a copy, rips it and gets it out there. Then, some hacker patches it. Voila.

Ok, you're mind is completely closed down to this example. Work with me here.

Why shouldn't it be? Your example isn't relevant.

 

[Jimmyjames]

The fact is you quoted me and expected me to agree with your completely fictional idea about how copyright works and no, I'm not going to. If you don't like the fact that I'm telling you that you don't know what you're talking about, then stop talking to me about it.

Pay no attention to Ragdrazi. He thinks software piracy is comparable to borrowing a book from the library.

 

[TsunamiWombat]

It's still theft. And no, I havn't been reading your replies or thinking about my arguments at all.

Because it's theft. You are taking something. Something you usually would pay for. Except your not paying for it, your just taking it. Copywrite infringement is a form of theft. Wether or not you have deprieved them of ownership you have deprived them of the money they would aquire from selling it to you.

It's theft.

 

[Asehujiko]

Look at it this way then had you not acquired the game through "piracy" you would have had tto of bought it from a store. That is why this is theft. There is no way around it.

Or, more likely, not bought it at all. In that case, the only thing they gain or loose is word of mouth and wether that's good or bad is up to the developers.

Tell me, how is downloading World of Goo in europe or asia detracting anything from the developers directly?

 

[Alex_P]

I don't get it, whats the difference from downloading a game and stealing a copy from Gamestop? Isn't it the same thing?

The difference is that in X years, a piece of "intellectual property" protected by copyright or patent law will be considered part of the public domain, meaning that it can be freely copied, modified, or redistributed by any and all.

(Unfortunately, for copyrighted works, "X" is an ever-increasing number because Disney is sabotaging the whole system to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain.)

-- Alex

 

[Alex_P]

Pay no attention to Ragdrazi. He thinks software piracy is comparable to borrowing a book from the library.

Charles Stross, from "Why the Commercial Ebook Market is Broken [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/03/why_the_commercial_ebook_marke.html]":

In the pre-internet dark age, there was a subculture of folks who would get their hands on books and pass them around and encourage people to read them for free, rather than buying their own copies. Much like today's ebook pirates, in terms of the what they did (with one or two minor differences). There was a closely-related subculture who would actually sell copies of books without paying the authors a penny in royalties, too.

We have a technical term for such people: we call them "librarians" and "second-hand bookstore owners".

The problem, as he goes on to point out, is that there's no one who can legally fill that niche now.

-- Alex

 

[Jimmyjames]

You bring up a couple good points (and yes, I'm angry- because I'm sick of defending this position to people that all basically say the same thing). But, I still think you're wrong. Add to that the fact that you are asking me to make an exception to my values, while you are not willing to make an exception to yours.

You know Jimmy, I'm catching a lot of anger from you. I know you're invested in this, but you got to understand. In addition to liking games, I want to be a writer. The concept of what libraries mean to that is something I've thought about.

Well, then it should bug the crap out of you that people distribute things (like books) over the internet. How can you defend one and not the other?

You take the copy home, it's yours for free, provided you renew. You say libraries do not distribute illegally? That's true. But I'm asking what makes the a library exempt from that law? I don't have to buy the writing of some brilliant young author such as myself, because I can read the book when ever I want it without buying it.

What about the fact that the library only has a certain amount of any one book- as opposed to digital distribution, of which can plant literally millions of illicit copies onto machines across the globe? Even digital library resources must be "checked out", and you only have access for a certain amount of time.

At the factories where the press the discs, some employee swipes a copy, rips it and gets it out there. Then, some hacker patches it. Voila.

And I'm not going to defend that. Clearly that is theft.[\quote]

So how is it any different if someone buys the game, copies it, and puts it up on the internet? Only thing different is the fact that they got the original copy legally. Distributing is (very clearly in US law) illegal.

This generation was the generation of our founding fathers. [SORRY- LIBRARIES GO BACK A LOT FURTHER THAN THAT] The only thing that's changed now is the attitudes we have on art and information. Before, we believed it should be available to all. Now we believe it's a commodity.

I don't write commodities. I write art.

So, you are basically contradicting what you just said. You're saying that writing has a value beyond the material it's printed on, right? So... can't the same be said of games? On one hand you have "Orange Box", and on the other "Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing", so how do you explain defending piracy and comparing it to libraries? By comparing it to a commodity, you're saying that quality has something to do with it's value.

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

Ok, if you're not interested in conversation, you shouldn't have come to a public forum.

Indeed, one may have to encounter obnoxious things like facts that don't agree with their world view. For example, the copyright remains viable after you die, it continues on for a set period of years depending on the country it was filed in.

As a slight note on the library argument, one artistic medium is thousands of years old, the other is about thirty years old. Once there are enough video games that are no longer protected by copyright, then a fully functioning library system will be perfectly legit under the current law.

I don't really expect this to come true though, given the speed at which the internet is enabling streaming technology. At this point I think companies will just host libraries of games that are no longer economically viable and just let people use it for free or as a fee. There are already several projects under way with Origin and a few other company's old files as they are stored and published.

 

[Jimmyjames]

What I am saying is that these things have a value beyond the material they are printed on, and that value cannot be judged monetarily.

When it comes down to it, I think we mostly agree (except for the idea that the library is similar in any way to piracy). So I guess the question is:

WHAT IS YOUR POINT? You keep contradicting yourself- step away and formulate your idea. I can't tell anymore if you agree with libraries, or you think they are the same as software piracy, or you don't put monetary value on artistic merit, or you consider creative output to be something more than a public resource.

FYI: You know the definition of a commodity, right? Because the more I read back, the more I think you don't really know. It's essentially goods of which the value is dependent of the market price, not quality. Example: Steel, wheat, rice, corn, etc, are commodities. Cars, TVs, bicycles are not.