Illegal downloading is not theft - its something new

[jh322]

if a breach of copyright is theft, then so is this. If it's not, then this is simply a breach of copyright. It's really that simple.

 

[perfectimo]

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?

I don't know exactly what that has to do with location but it will take from the developer as a direct after affect because if you and whoever else out there is torrenting his products then the company will look at his sale and realise he didn't make as much as usual. In fact he had made about 20% less in sales and so the next project he wants to work on the company gives him less money and then you and your friends torrent and you think the game is worse than his last outing but you still plan on stealing his next game. This goes on and well his pay starts to decrease and the game are just crap and then you all go out and ***** and moan about the how crap his games are now but in the end it was you lot that caused it.

Thank you for reading this if you did and I hope you see the error in your ways.

What has location to do with this? Well here's what location has to do with this: The game isn't available outside the usa. How can they loose 20% of their sales if they weren't seling it anyway? Error in my ways? I'd say there's an error in your ability to research.

I didn't bother researching as you may have noticed by my poor example. Thank you for telling about that it was only in the USA, i thought that was worldwide sales. Are they planning an international release at some point?

 

[perfectimo]

I wish people would stop saying illegal=wrong. The law isn't infallible.

Sorry for double but just read this.

Not everything illegal is "wrong" but it is branded legally and socially wrong in most cases.

Legally wrong... isn't that, like, the definition of illegal?
And socially? Not here.

Yeah, after looking at my post I noticed what I had written and how stupid it was. It is seen as somewhat socially wrong around here, though downloading music is perfectly fine.

 

[hakker]

One way or another it's still considered illegal when you pirate something with copyrights.

 

[perfectimo]

Yep.

Looks like you returned that book.

Okay I feel like this has happened before but could tell me how insulting you is hypocritical?

I don't blindly accept the law but I abide by them, I didn't say they were acceptable.

You are a dumb person but that's not name calling. Isn't my ability to use my intelligence in fact part of my intelligence? If not please tell me what it is called since you seem to think you are more intelligent than me.

You are being the very definition of hypocritical with this post.

Despite the telling look of your avatar I've been trying not to categorize you;
do you even realise that YOU think you are smarter than everyone ?

The fact that you feel the need to tell how idiotic I am each time should be a hint.

I'm going to just stop with you after this by saying, "Of course I think I am smarter than some people. I don't just go around all day thinking about how much smarter everyone is than me." Oh and I'm yawning in my avatar.

 

[hakker]

That I completely agree with

 

[perfectimo]

Yep.

Looks like you returned that book.

Indeed. And yet in the eyes of the law, the book was still distributed.

You missed my point.

 

[hakker]

I think having material possession should be if you don't want to go to the library every time you want to read a specific book. Same with DVD's. like why I bought fight club because I wanted it on disc.

 

[Alex_P]

Merry missed it by that much. Anyone else show a real difference between torrents and libraries?

Libraries and torrent networks differ in a number of important ways, of course!

Filesharing has more in common with borrowing a book from a private individual than it does with borrowing a book from a library.

Most libraries are run by people with specialized training in the organization, distribution, and preservation of information based on certain legal and educational principles. Torrent networks, in general, are not.

In the US, there is explicit legal protection for libraries.

Because they still deal in physical media, libraries and rental places have, effectively, a cap on volume.

Moreover, for much of the library's history, duplication of works you got from the library was a difficult task. The best that someone without a lot of specialized resources could do is make a crappy xerox a book or an uncopyable copy of a video cassette. It's much, much easier to redistribute digital media you got from someone else.

Compared to filesharing, the library system was much more organized and much more contained.

We can still use some of the same general principles that guided the creation of libraries to deal with filesharing. However, the specifics don't match up. Society and the law are still trying to catch up with the technology.

It's fallacious to assume that we can just blindly slap freely-copyable digital media into the same legal and social framework as older physical objects and have everything just work perfectly.

... Which, incidentally, is why illegal duplication and redistribution of a digital work is not "stealing" but, rather, something else -- something that society and the law are still struggling to fully define. Theft is an older idea that refers to a significantly different class of actions and goods.

-- Alex

 

[perfectimo]

Looks like you returned that book.

Indeed. And yet in the eyes of the law, the book was still distributed.

You missed my point.

You have a point?

Don't worry, this is one of those arguments where most people are set in their own way and if I were to discuss my point in ay way the debate would continue but end up going no where, so yeah don't worry.

 

[perfectimo]

No. If you have a point of view that I can't immediately shoot down on its own merit I'd like to see it. It will be a welcome change of pace to a thread full of asinine people who want to call me a bunch of asinine names and then to back up their opinions provide ideas I've already shown aren't right.

Okay if your only reason to know it is to shoot me down then I'll tell you.

The point of me saying

Looks like you returned that book.

was to show that it is no longer in his possession. The comic leads me to think that what had been done is more like playing a demo in a store. You play it for how ever longer you want but at the end of the day you don't have it physically at home. When you download something it is sitting right there on your harddrive and is capable of full function.

 

[Alex_P]

Moreover, for much of the library's history, duplication of works you got from the library was a difficult task. The best that someone without a lot of specialized resources could do is make a crappy xerox a book or an uncopyable copy of a video cassette. It's much, much easier to redistribute digital media you got from someone else.

That remains unimportant both to your case and mine. Libraries distribute, and that distribution would be considered illegal if they were anything other then libraries. But, interestingly enough, libraries have gained the legal exemption to make copies of works themselves, now that the technology allows them to make replacement copies. They are still constrained by their physical "stealing," but the difference is extremely minor.

Untrue! I can legally lend a give/lend a book to a friend just as easily as a library can. I can lend it out to 20 different friends serially if I want, just like a library can, too. It's not all that different from letting a friend borrow a toaster.

Copyright and patent law essentially assume that duplication is beyond the capabilities of a private citizen doing it just for kicks, so they only really regulate what happens when someone else tries to mass-produce "intellectual property." The original idea was that creating the initial thing was a significant investment that a duplicator doesn't have to pay, so the originator gets a temporary monopoly to recoup those costs (and the potential to make additional money during that, as an incentive). Our old system honestly didn't have a particularly robust mechanism for individuals trying to use copyrighted or patented stuff non-commercially because, well, it didn't matter economically. Some guy making his own gizmo out of spare parts or hand-writing a copy of his favorite book wasn't going to noticeably affect the originator's economic interest.

The sticky thing with pure data is that copying it is near-costless. Heck, the copying is essentially automatic. I can't transmit data without basically creating several copies of it along the way. So, in essence, people who aren't actually out to compete commercially with the "IP holder" can impact his sales -- even inadvertently, sometimes! It's a totally different situation now.

-- Alex

 

[Bagaloo]

It's still theft. Sorry.

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

Just because you say it isn't doesn't make it so either.
See how that logic works?

 

[L.B. Jeffries]

The sticky thing with pure data is that copying it is near-costless. Heck, the copying is essentially automatic. I can't transmit data without basically creating several copies of it along the way. So, in essence, people who aren't actually out to compete commercially with the "IP holder" can impact his sales -- even inadvertently, sometimes! It's a totally different situation now.

-- Alex

He's just going to stuff words in your mouth you didn't say, straw man your argument with examples that have no relevance, and do whatever else it takes to assert his psychological need to not be wrong. Like I said above, the innate refusal to believe that they are doing anything wrong is what drives these people because it conflicts with their self-image. Whatever helps ya like yourself.

Before this debate is over our right to imagine unicorns and happy ponies is going to enter the mix.

Here, this is what's going on right now:

http://allpsych.com/psychology101/defenses.html

Spare yourself.