Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

[Luke Cartner]

I just lost respect for this administration.

Cuz it's such a stretch to consider piracy theft? I mean, the only people who've fooled themselves into thinking otherwise are pirates and idiots.

Is it different than physical theft? Absolutely. But it's still theft.

HOW many times will I have to EXPLAIN THIS?!

PIRACY does not DEPRIVE the holder of his object. It COPIES IT. There's a fundamental difference between copying and stealing. Piracy is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, NOT THEFT! Let me repeat that for you. YOU ARE NOT, I REPEAT, YOU ARE NOT TAKING ANOTHER PERSONS PROPERTY, YOU ARE COPYING IT!

It's not theft, it's not even a form of theft, it's C O P Y R I G H T S - I N F R I N G E M E N T

It's still taking something without permission. It's kinda half-theft. You get something that's someone else's unlawfully (that's theft right there), but they don't lose it (the not-so-theft bit).

Just a point of clarification, you are not 'taking' anything. The original is exactly where it was before, what is occurring is you are copying some thing.
In addition you dont not 'get something that's someone else's' The disk is yours the computer is yours, even the electrons involved are yours. Sure a part of your hard disk now is magnetically imaged to contain a pattern that if read correctly plays a song, but that doesn't invalidate the simple fact you own every physical object involved.

This is why it is copyright infringement not stealing, nothing is stolen, however the artists right to prohibit you getting to have access to their work without paying some form of license fee has been violated.

I get why various people want to remove that distinction, most of our IT industry (which is fueling the free piracy, that is piracy where no one benefits financially) is based on the free exchange of ideas and has had a long standing loathing of copyright, which means saying "but its not fair he copied from me.. wah wah" has very little traction. Also thou shalt not steal is one of the ten commandments.. But lets face it its not a thin lines between the two its a clear distinction, and ignoring it stops any real dialogue as to the reasons piracy such as it is is occurring in the first place.

 

[sharkinz]

Downloading games illegally causes developers to lose money and publishers to be more hesitant when it comes to making PC games. The PC community not only hurts developers when they download games, they hurt themselves. Their causing the lack of PC support and PC only features. If PC gamers want their medium of gaming to return to its former glory then they need to start paying for their games again, otherwise they will continue to see developers and publishers pass of PC games in favor of console games.

 

[Luke Cartner]

I was reading through the article hearing about the poor artists whose fortunes where ruined because people weren't buying their songs and the man who didn't actually save the money he made for his retirement being broke because no one cared about his songs now.
And I thought, aren't artist meant to be staving by definition anyways?

 

[MisterShine]

The reason I'm kinda skimming over what you're saying is because you (and every single solitary anti-piracy advocate) skims over the part where obtaining an exact copy at no one's expense is anything other than copyright infringement and how that in any way, shape, or form, equates to theft beyond a purely hypothetical sense.

Personally, as an anti-pirate advocate, I like to include the "You're gaining something to which you have no right, ergo, stealing in the colloquial sense" in my posts on this issue, just because there are so many, lets call them pro-piracy advocates, who like to jump in on every thread on this subject and post the same "THEYRE NOT THE SAME", either in text or in that cute picture with the stars. And of course anti-pirates (I'll drop the advocate part) do something similar, only responding with "hurr, you guys are thieves and can't admit it". Technically both sides have a point, but they are both underselling the complexity of this debate.

Crime requires damages.

Prostitution? Recreational drug use?

If someone is selling copyrighted material without the copyright owner's knowledge or permission, you can prove damages (coughusedcoughgamescough).

Purchasing a product gives you the right to resell it as you see fit.

Also, laws allow punishment to exceed what would be the direct proportion for the crime, to serve as a deterrent. A major school of thought of course being that is what punishment for crime is all about.

But without that monetary transfer, any losses or damages cannot extend beyond the realm of hypothesis, as even for it to enter the realm of theory requires some sort of evidence.

That's true, but sharing files gives the potential for damage to be done. We don't know how much damage is done, but it is done, and we know that. Any potential gains from piracy are irrelevant to the legality of it. If right holders want to take advantage of those ideas (like letting people download your music for free), they are free to do so. Piracy infringes on the copyright law, as is protected by the constitution. You may not agree that this should be a crime, and if you'd like to debate that issue I'd be happy to be the Douglas to your Lincoln (yes, you can be Lincoln).

 

[Cynical skeptic]

Prostitution? Recreational drug use?

Those are viewed as damaging to the "social fabric." Its an asinine abstract concept that can't be defined and laws "protecting" it from "damage" don't quite grasp that prostitution and recreational drug use are symptoms of bigger societal problems. But thats the half-assed justification there.

First sale doctrine kinda runs contrary to copyright infringement, wouldn't you say? In the case of intellectual property, its strange how you're allowed to transfer ownership of a single copy a theoretically infinite number of times for or without monetary gain and its perfectly legal, but if you make a copy, you are suddenly an inhuman immoral subhuman beast with severe entitlement issues and zero moral compass. Pretty glaring double standard from an objective point of view.

As far as "obtaining what you don't have the rights to," theres still a very wide chasm separating that from theft. "The felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." One gains, one loses proportionally. Not hypothetically, not theoretically. The problem with this subject is people like to skip the "deprive/remove/take" bits. Its not anyone's fault, though. For the last decade or so theres been a full media blitz attempting to link any and every sort of free exchange to theft. Propaganda is a powerful tool, just some people are naturally immune to it.

I do like the end of your post. "we don't know if there are damages, but we know there are damages, and that is certain, maybe." When every independent study on the subject reveals that because file sharers are exposed to more, in many cases things they otherwise would not have considered buying, they actually buy more and feel better about more purchases than "moral guardians." With data like that, damages become almost impossible to claim. Hence the reason they've all pretty much shut up about it. That and they're devoting all their time and money to ACTA. A treaty designed to kill a fly with a nuclear weapon. Seriously, if that obscenity is ratified, the internet is completely over. All aspects. But thats what time warner has wanted since they took bailout money intended to be used to upgrade their network infrastructure and started trying to pass laws to criminalize network neutrality, and they're the biggest contributor to the ACTA talks.

 

[Signa]

As much as I think pirates are jackasses, they're not the ones actively going about annoying me by progressively eroding what little conception of ownership I have on the things I pay bloody money for whilst treating me like a criminal, all the while making unprovable claims and couching their explanations for the necessity of such actions in deliberately misleading terms (such as the quote from the thread title - that is someone in the Obama administration singing the RIAA/MPAA's corporate tune). It's pretty hard to support folks who deliberately mislead or outright lie to the public and go about suing average folk into oblivion, no matter how much I dislike pirates.

I think this needs highlighting. As important as it is to make sure everything is fair for everyone, you gotta pay attention to the motivations of the people who are saying what they say. A pirate is only going to tell the truth: they had no plans on buying it in the first place so where is the loss?. A corporate entity is only going to say what will get them more money.

Also, I read to the 5th page and I noticed an extreme lack of logical arguments coming from the anti-piracy side. They always beat the drum of "it's illegal, it's stealing" without defining why that is important. A few did, and they were responded to, but none offered a good rebuttal. It was always just repeating their first line again as if that was the ultimate truth (just like bible-thumpers!).

The pro-piracy arguments have been extremely passionate, well thought out and logical. Some are saying some weak things like "I wasn't going to pay, so I'll just steal it," but on the whole they are addressing all the flaws in the current system and giving extremely plausible reasons why piracy doesn't hurt anything.

So yeah, Piracy isn't theft, Obama obviously is getting paid by the copyright industry, and consumers need to learn how to not suck corporate dick.

 

[MisterShine]

Those are viewed as damaging to the "social fabric." Its an asinine abstract concept that can't be defined and laws "protecting" it from "damage" don't quite grasp that prostitution and recreational drug use are symptoms of bigger societal problems. But thats the half-assed justification there.

*note, not talking about pot here. It's more or less harmless, compared to what is legal today*

Half assed justification? Hard drug use is a scourge upon all of us. You make one tiny mistake of "hmm, I wonder what all the fuss is about?", and your internal chemistry gets so fucked up you'll do anything just to make the pain of withdrawal go away. It turns you into a mockery of what you used to be, and good luck having the presence of mind left to try and fix things yourself. I have experienced a lot of this first hand, you should go talk to an ex-junkie about how they feel on drug use and legalization. Namely, "Are you fucking insane?"

Prostitution.. yes, some prostitution is just poor women who really have no where else to turn. Then you look at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution#Relation_to_crime] and you should realize we need special laws and prosecution to deal with people who try and push these things.

...don't quite grasp that prostitution and recreational drug use are symptoms of bigger societal problems.

I'll quote this again, as it also applies perfectly to piracy I think. Namely that our citizens are cheap, or self-entitled brats (there are other kinds, but those are what causes it to be a problem).

First sale doctrine kinda runs contrary to copyright infringement, wouldn't you say?

...No, it doesn't. When you purchase something, you have the right to resell it at your leisure. The item itself is yours, not the idea/product itself. Sort of like how the store that sells you the game actually bought it from the company who pressed and shipped the game, who purchased the right to do this from the publisher. Mass market society is based upon this. And if it's something that isn't physical, the right holder can determine how many they can license out. Like how Steam ran out of PREY copies (Q.Q).

In the case of intellectual property, its strange how you're allowed to transfer ownership of a single copy a theoretically infinite number of times for or without monetary gain and its perfectly legal, but if you make a copy, you are suddenly an inhuman immoral subhuman beast with severe entitlement issues and zero moral compass. Pretty glaring double standard from an objective point of view.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Yes, the rights holder is allowed to sell/give away a copy of one of their intellectual property's an infinite number of times, at least until the copyright expires. If you copy it, yes that is wrong because you have no right to do that, and you're depriving said right holder of the chance to make another sale. You're doing theoretical damage. Do I think this makes you an "inhuman, immoral, subhuman beast with blah blah"? No. Do I think you should be charged with petty theft? No. Do I think you should be charged 21,000$ for each song? No. But you did damage to the holders rights to distribute his idea as he saw fit. Something needs to happen to discourage people from doing this.

"The felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it." One gains, one loses proportionally. Not hypothetically, not theoretically. The problem with this subject is people like to skip the "deprive/remove/take" bits.

It's true, you didn't remove a physical item, but you did remove the copyright holders right to distribute their idea/product as they see fit. If they want to take advantage of free distribution, like a demo, video showcases, or even games that ask you to pay for them at the end of the game (like the reason many people say they pirate), they are free to do these things. And if they are financially successful, obviously the market wanted those services. Until then... you're stealing

Its not anyone's fault, though. For the last decade or so theres been a full media blitz attempting to link any and every sort of free exchange to theft. Propaganda is a powerful tool, just some people are naturally immune to it.

Yeah.. and some people see things that aren't there. And some people are so angry/frustrated at their lives that they will rebel against anything just to give them something to do. And some are so egotistical they think themselves so much smarter than those idiotic sheeple, those people who spend their entire lives studying law and economics, but no, they're just shills for the corporate elite. Only the internet tough guys know what's really going on.

I do like the end of your post. "we don't know if there are damages, but we know there are damages, and that is certain, maybe." When every independent study on the subject reveals that because file sharers are exposed to more, in many cases things they otherwise would not have considered buying, they actually buy more and feel better about more purchases than "moral guardians."

The of my post was "That's true, but sharing files gives the potential for damage to be done. We don't know how much damage is done, but it is done, and we know that. Any potential gains from piracy are irrelevant to the legality of it. "

Also, links to these independent and peer-reviewed studies showing that pirates are more likely to buy things.

But thats what time warner has wanted since they took bailout money intended to be used to upgrade their network infrastructure and started trying to pass laws to criminalize network neutrality, and they're the biggest contributor to the ACTA talks.

Citation needed.

I'm curious, what country do you live in? Also I'd like to stress, it may be possible to take my post as I think you're a bad person, or that you're cheap or have an entitlement complex, please know that I don't. I just think we disagree on how economics does/should work.

 

[AstylahAthrys]

Piracy debates. How fun.

Personally, I know that if I want something, I will buy it. Most of what I download I am either curious about or I already own it and my copy is defective or missing. For the curiosity, I will either download it and dislike it or love it and buy it.

Eliminating illegal downloads do not equal increased sales. In fact, if people are like me, they may even decrease sales because less people will be motivated to buy it. None of it will be substantial, though.

I am all for the prosecution of big pirates who rip and put the stuff online in the first place, or run the sites that host torrents, but the little people who download a few files every so often don't need to be punished.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

Well, theres really not much I can say to that post. You just reiterated points that were perfectly understood the first time. But theres a couple bits I can address.

The argument that piracy is a symptom of consumers suffering from an inflated sense of entitlement is crap. A consumer, by definition, is always entitled to what it pays for. You cheat the consumer enough times, they stop paying at all. With filesharing, you have a shot of bringing some back. People who otherwise, would just be content to do what your parents (or people they knew) did. Do nothing but listen to their pink floyd and grateful dead albums the rest of their life.

So, basically, I'd say the current "rampant" disregard for copyrights is more a symptom of content producers acting like they're entitled to produce nothing but a constant stream of mediocrity to complete bullshit and get oceans of money for it. As if people should always be satisfied with the exact same quantity of quality, because attempting to create works of genius is too risky to be considered a safe investment.

Also, in order to remove an entity's right to copy something, I'd have to make it so they could no longer produce it. There is simply no connection between copyright infringement and theft, no matter what the large, useless, bloated middlemen corporations want people to think.

As far as ACTA... It doesn't matter what country you live in. Its not being written to arrest or bar anyone from the internet who engages in anything currently defined as copyright infringement. The law has always treated the internet like a natural resource. You can provide people access to it, but providers can't control access to it. All or none, on or off. If ACTA is ratified on 9-30-10, its going to be an internationally recognized document ISPs can point to and to say, "aw shucks, it seems the way them thar internets used to work is in violation of international law! We just can't let you get on your facespace or mybook accounts no more. But its not our fault, they just don't want to negotiate hosting rights no more "

But I can't believe you didn't hear about net neutrality [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality]... it was a massive shitstorm a few years ago. Basically, all the big cable companies (comcast, time warner, cox) were greasing every politician they could in hopes of passing a law to allow them to no longer have to provide equal internet service to everyone, giving them control over what their customers could access. They failed then, but ACTA is another attempt that has a pretty good shot, considering they've gotten Obama to justify their destruction of the internet.

 

[mythicdawn12]

 

[MisterShine]

Well, theres really not much I can say to that post. You just reiterated points that were perfectly understood the first time. But theres a couple bits I can address.

*MisterShine rolls against Cynical Skeptic!
*Cynical Skeptic dodges!
*MisterShine: Damn!

A consumer, by definition, is always entitled to what it pays for. You cheat the consumer enough times, they stop paying at all. With filesharing, you have a shot of bringing some back. People who otherwise, would just be content to do what your parents (or people they knew) did. Do nothing but listen to their pink floyd and grateful dead albums the rest of their life.

So, basically, I'd say the current "rampant" disregard for copyrights is more a symptom of content producers acting like they're entitled to produce nothing but a constant stream of mediocrity to complete bullshit and get oceans of money for it. As if people should always be satisfied with the exact same quantity of quality, because attempting to create works of genius is too risky to be considered a safe investment.

Content producers have every right to produce nothing but a constant stream of mediocrity. Just like consumers have every right not to purchase that same stream of mediocrity. Are there not review services? Demo's? Rentals? Libraries? Media stores that let you try before you buy? They don't do that because there's a law saying they should, they do it because the market demands that they do so.

Why is it that you think producers feel they are entitled for us to pay for their product? I'll make an assumption you are referring to the oft-quoted "Our product [x] sold like shit! And it was pirated a lot! Damn pirates drove us out of business ". Yeah, that's kinda silly to think piracy is the sole reason for failure in a complex system like our version of a free market. However, to point out that your product didn't get much to help itself when there was a free version of your paid-for product available two IP addresses over.. well, you can kinda see where they're coming from. Relying off of people's morality and fairness in a business perspective is.. unwise.

The "Content producers only make shit, pirating is our way to get back at them" Is, and let me be clear on this, complete bullshit. You want to get back at them? Don't buy it. By pirating something, you are proving that it has a worth to you. You went through the effort to get it, didn't you? If the market really cried out for innovation and genius, the companies that offered such things would become wildly successful. But they don't. Why is that? Could be along the lines of what you've stated previously, that people just accept the mediocrity because they don't see anything else, or are just gullible or stupid. Or maybe, just maybe, they disagree? Maybe they think things produced today are actually good, and worth the money? We all know the old saying about opinions..

Also, in order to remove an entity's right to copy something, I'd have to make it so they could no longer produce it.

You left out a very important part there. You removed their right to reproduce it as they see fit. By allowing the free distribution of something the right's holder wants to be paid for, you are reducing its value in the market by offering a competing product that is exactly the same for nothing at all. If such infringes are allowed to go entirely unopposed (or mostly unopposed, as we do now), we make it so that creators are less rewarded for their innovations, thus decreasing their value and promoting less innovation. You're arguing against the very thing you seem to seek out most.

~ACTA Snip~

I've read the latest draft [http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146029.pdf] on ACTA, and while there are a lot of troubling pieces to the agreement, I don't recall a section that would end net neutrality? Also browsing the ACTA wiki page doesn't seem to address that either. I'd appreciate a link.

 

[AnnihilaSean]

Man, people are touchy about this.

So, we're pirates. Pirates are fucking cool.

 

[Gindil]

Now if someone had a Courtcase [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)] that said copying isn't stealing, people won't believe it.

If you have a video saying it isn't theft:


People won't believe you. Face it, haters gon hate. Even if the market shows that you can compete with free

 

[Cynical skeptic]

-snip-

ACTA's effect on network neutrality is subtextual. All information technology works by transmitting copies of all hosted information upon request. ACTA holds ISPs responsible for copyright infringement, since only a few copyright holders own or operate anything beyond the server that hosts their copyrighted content, all ISPs violate ACTA with every single load of a webpage. Meaning ISPs become required to negotiate with each copyright holder (or vice versa) on a one by one basis.

Thus, network neutrality becomes illegal.

 

[Gindil]

-snip-

ACTA's effect on network neutrality is subtextual. All information technology works by transmitting copies of all hosted information upon request. ACTA holds ISPs responsible for copyright infringement, since only a few copyright holders own or operate anything beyond the server that hosts their copyrighted content, all ISPs violate ACTA with every single load of a webpage. Meaning ISPs become required to negotiate with each copyright holder (or vice versa) on a one by one basis.

Thus, network neutrality becomes illegal.

So in effect, the ISPs become underpaid police men of copyright content. With no compensation, I wonder how that's going to work [http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90536/french-isps-and-french-government-locking-horns-over-hadopi-costs/]

 

[Cynical skeptic]

So in effect, the ISPs become underpaid police men of copyright content. With no compensation, I wonder how that's going to work [http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90536/french-isps-and-french-government-locking-horns-over-hadopi-costs/]

ACTA is not supposed to "work" at all. ACTA is designed to give ISPs defacto rights to filter, block, and/or redirect any traffic they want. All in the name of protecting the rights of copyright holders.

Which in practice will mean, "you need to pay us to transfer data through our internet."

Time Warner, in particular, has been pushing for this ever since they started buying up broadband ISPs and cable providers.

 

[squid5580]

I'd be fine with this if they actually charged the people with the actual price of the things pirated, but no that's not good enough, they have to ruin some teenage lives.

Well that is kinda the thing. Right now any company can sue any teen/mom/grampa for kajillions of dollars. With this at least there will be laws in place to protect everyone (maybe,hopefully).

 

[Callate]

I really don't want to hear any more upper-level snarling and snapping about copyright enforcement unless there's equal attention brought to issues of fair use and copyright expiration. In a digital age, our system of patents and 100+ year copyrights is innovation-stifling and obscene. When making sure that big corporations get paid every time someone overhears a song in a restaurant or a struggling musician plays a cover in a coffee bar seems to be the priority, it does wonders for making the people who are actually subject to the law want to turn a deaf ear to the anti-piracy argument.

 

[Kenko]

I'd be fine with this if they actually charged the people with the actual price of the things pirated, but no that's not good enough, they have to ruin some teenage lives.

Agreed, the owners of piratebay got an insane fine on them and jailtime. While rapists, atleast where I live only sit a few months in jail.

Governments dont care about you people! They just want yer goddamn money. Not to run the country, but to put in their own pockets. Theres an old saying "He who has alot, wants more".

 

[Virus0015]

Piracy is not theft, period.

Now your opinion is valid, however it is a little confusing.

Theft is essentially taking something from someone without their permission

A company is selling an item of clothing. If you take the item without paying, you are taking it from them without their permission. This is shoplifting. Shoplifting is widely considered to be theft.

Someone is selling a game. If you take the item without paying, you are taking it from them without their permission. This is...wait this can't be theft, surely?