Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

[Cynical skeptic]

Well, for one, people aren't getting paid for their copyright properties, that's for sure. Like less paid musicians and such. For two, it's against the law, ever heard of it? And for three, something or other.

Prove they would've gotten paid in the absence of piracy. Law is not absolute. Bananas.

You truly are a cynical skeptic bastard. There is no prove needed, it's right there in front of you, or are you that blind to not see? Open your eyes dammit! And of course law is absolute! Or do you live in the Old West?

Laws change every day. That perpetual state of shift is proof enough that law is not absolute.

Or are you still living in luxury on the backs of hundreds of negros?

I don't really care what they call it, it's wrong. For maybe the second or third time, I support what the Obama administration is doing.

Even if ACTA ends the internet?

I do love this site. Used games are right because publishers are greedy and piracy is wrong because developers/publishers/studios/labels are hard working individuals.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

"One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to 'be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon.' This just isn't right."

Sounds like corporate businesses getting involved in polititcs again if you ask me.

 

[Darth Pope]

Finally. One more thing I agree with the man on.

Which brings the list to 5 things. I'm not a big fan of Democrats or Republicans. I agree with the democrats on social issues like gay rights and abortion, but I agree with the Republicans on financial issues.

Finally. One more thing I agree with the man on.

Which brings the list to 5 things. I'm not a big fan of Democrats or Republicans. I agree with the democrats on social issues like gay rights and abortion, but I agree with the Republicans on financial issues.

Hooray! Your a Libertarian!

He'll have to learn to speak Libertarian. There's alot of eye-rolling involved.

Mr. president, learn economics.

it might be theft, but the rewards of doing it is just too much and the cost for not stealing is too high.

When companies support the FREE FUCKING MARKET and stop their cartels and price fixing we'll talk.

Amen, my reasonable friend, perhaps Obama needs to read 'the Road to Serfdom' and realize he's the problem, not the solution.

Bummer Libertarians can't win any elections.

 

[Sn1P3r M98]

I am not even going to begin, because I'll probably start a rant that is to powerful for me to stop. I will just state, that I personally do not think piracy is theft.

 

[lacktheknack]

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


Piracy is many things, including a form of sharing, but it is NOT THEFT.

Are you going to agree that it's wrong, if nothing else?

Personally, I define "theft" as "acquiring items being sold without paying for them", ie. true copyright infringement. Tell me that it isn't against the spirit of the law.

 

[JackRyan64]

So I've seen at a ton of places, including this very thread, people saying piracy helps the economy. Explain to me how that makes any sense at all.

 

[Hallow'sEve]

BTW, I'm still gonna do it, *****.

 

[Deshin]

Let me ask then, with all that has been said would it be wrong to pirate an old game, let's say Broken Sword for the PC (loved that game btw). The game netted its devs/pubs a fair chunk of change and it has been out of production for quite some time. No local stores have it, no online shops have it, no friends have it. The only way of getting an original copy would be to camp ebay but even then the author isn't getting a single cent of your money so wanting to buy it original to support the makers is out. Is it wrong to download this game? Is it also wrong to help distribute this game so people who never got the chance to play it can play it now?

 

[lacktheknack]

But the common people (like say, most of us) who just don't want to fork out 13 bucks for a cd just to get ONE DAMN SONG FROM IT (or 8.99 for a single that has one damn song on it, remixed 3 times with programs that it took someone all of 5 minutes to use), or people who want one song from a cd that a company DOESN'T SELL ANYMORE will probably be perfectly fine.

Ever heard of iTunes? Or Amazon's mp3 section?

Using Amazon, I could download one song of any obscure limited edition soundtrack I want for a buck. Not bad.

 

[ultrachicken]

Obama, shouldn't you have more important things on your mind?

 

[Deshin]

Are you going to agree that it's wrong, if nothing else?

Personally, I define "theft" as "acquiring items being sold without paying for them", ie. true copyright infringement. Tell me that it isn't against the spirit of the law.

Sadly, the spirit of the law should be to protect the innocent and the weak from harm. Instead it is used to protect the interests of those who pay for the law-keepers. People with so much money and power they have judges, police commissioners and politicians in their pocket. The spirit of law has changed, or perhaps it has been this way all along and no one just really noticed?

 

[Amalith]

"I lost 11 million pounds in the lottery today."
instead of
"I didn't win the lottery today."

I won't pretend mass-piracy isn't a bad thing or something that should be heavily discouraged but it just isn't theft, it just isn't. They don't lose anything, they just don't gain anything. By that train of logic simply not buying it is almost theft since they don't gain anything.

I just want to tell you that that is probably the best analogy I've ever heard.


I'm not going to get into this argument, as both sides of the argument have already been fully fleshed out. I agree with the pirates on an objective level, the anti-pirates on a moral level. This makes sense, as the pirates have argued the semantics all the way out, and the anti-pirates have said it's bad morally, and illegal (and that's about all they've said). Which side you're on seems to depend almost entirely on what stage you're in in Kohlberg's stages of moral development.

 

[Haagrum]

The flaw in your come back is that we are not using a physical copy, if I take a virtual reality car out for a drive I've never actually sat in the car, I've sat in a digital copy and have therefore never left skin cells on the vehicle or done anything else to it physically to deprive it of value, I've not opened the game case so gamestop can still sell it for full price, I've simply had my way with a copy of it.

Your counter to my comeback is flawed on the basis that it assumes it's impossible to reduce something in value without physically possessing or altering it. A lot of work goes into creative processes and coming up with interesting ideas, art or products (and a lot of tripe is turned out by companies who just want money from a hungry audience). A creation should belong to the person or people who created it, and they should be able to say how it can be appropriated, transferred or used. In that sense, there's no substantive difference between physical or intellectual property. It is devalued by taking away their ability to control its dissemination and "selling it" for free on a download site.

Credit should go where it's due. How does deliberately depriving someone of the income they should have had for their work not strike you as wrong? Pirates might not have bought a game anyway, but in that case, what claim can they possibly assert to being entitled to enjoy the product of other people's work - even if only for one and a half hours?

It's like saying that because I had sex with a robot that looks like a famous actress I've stolen her virginity, when in fact I've done nothing but violate a copy.

Entirely different reasoning, but nice try. You're talking about an inherent quality of a person, not a thing that can be disposed of by anyone other than that person. Obama was saying that taking something made by someone else without paying for it is theft, even if you don't take it directly from the person who created it.

The only real reason most people get pissed at pirates is because I can tell you what games are shit and which are not because I've played them and not paid for them. Honestly I'm not gonna stop pirating some things, music that is over ten years old, DS games, and other things, mainly because I have no money, no income, at all, in fact my internet is stolen WI-FI from the phone company down the road. The only time I get cash is when I trade in games, or on a special occasion, and the fuck if I'm going to spend it on something that might be good without getting a fair trial attempt at it, which is why I love gamestop's 7 day used return policy, except I can't get a ride but once or twice a week, and if someone refuses to take me then I'm stuck with a shit game that cost me 20 bucks and I hated two hours after purchasing. I'm not using it as an excuse, I'm saying, "this is why I do it, that doesn't make it any more right, but that doesn't make the iron fist waving companies any less evil for even making these obviously shit games"

No, you are using it as an excuse. You want your fix, and you don't care how you get it. I'm not disagreeing that a lot of games, music, movies, et cetera are absolute tripe. I'm a student and thus not exactly overstuffed with money, so I consume a lot less voraciously. If you want to try something out first, fine. That's why rental stores exist. If the music industry had to rely on customer satisfaction to make a profit, I'm sure it'd improve. If something's going to be crap, don't buy it. If you think it might be crap, exercise some caution before buying it. Just don't cling to an argument that piracy is defensible because the product is probably terrible and the company is evil.

Personally, I'm a PC gamer and I don't pirate. I know people who do. I don't get stuck into them about it because (1) they usually buy anything that's half-decent, (2) it's their life, and (3) I don't lecture them about it as it would be counter-productive to spending time with them. They are under no illusions that they are "entitled" to any of that material, and they don't try to justify it. They know what they're doing is illegal. We all laugh at how stupid the anti-piracy material quite often is (as we did at the billionaire mining company owners crying poor over a proposed mining tax in Australia), think that anti-piracy groups are over-exaggerating actual losses by a factor of at least ten thousand, and know that two wrongs really don't make a right.

 

[holographicman]

give it a few months and our governments will find another issue they know nothing about
and rip on it and pass ineffective laws relating to it and be idiots in general

 

[FortheLegion]

I just lost respect for this administration.

Seriously? Well, I just lost respect for you.

I just lost respect for ......... hmm well i didn't lose respect for anything based off your two posts

 

[Data Zero]

As many people have said before me: Piracy is NOT A THEFT, its a COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

I know that its illegal, but I dont care. Music, game and movie businesses ripped me off long enough with their overpriced crap. Come on, 1000 EEK (60 USD) for a game is WAY too much for a piece of ****. Why? Because people here roughly earn 8000 EEK and nearly half of it goes to food, water, electricity, and other similar stuff (Taxes and loans too). And you need to buy clothes and other essential stuff. For me, a games perfect price is 10 to 20 USD ( 400 EEK), but that isn't happening soon.

Me and my friend act like Alden Hou. We only buy games what we like and if the game reaches that 400 limit.


Hardcore_gamer, not everyone was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and Iceland isn't the onliest country on this planet. Think about it BEFORE making bad remarks and go outside and make some REAL friends.

You may call me a criminal, pirate or something else, I don't care, because unlike you I think outside the BOX. First try to think why there is piracy and if you can not, I'll tell you. Its because Movie, Game and Music industry companies are greedy SOB's. They don't care about the costumers. All they care about is our money. And if they could, they ask 100 USD for a game, for a piece of music or a movie. IT'S cold HARD TRUTH. And if you don't believe me, Modern Warfare 2 is my proof. And if you still won't belive me you're a lost cause

One thing is certain. If that law be is accepted it's bye bye internet, X-box live and PS network.

Fun fact: In ESTONIA, as long as I don't upload copyrighted software, games, music or movies, I can download as much copyrighted stuff I want. So bite me. I follow my nations laws and I ain't a criminal in my country.

And if I get banned, atleast I know how companies think about their costumers.

Oh, if I have any grammar mistakes, remember, ENGLISH ISN'T my native language and I am sorry for my GRAMMAR mistakes.

 

[BabySinclair]

As to companies not losing anything the answer is yes and no. If one wanted to play a game but couldn't pirate it, they would be forced to buy/rent... in order to do so. That means their money enters the market. If they could get it for free however; then their money doesn't. Now if they weren't going to buy the game regardless then the value lost equals zero, the companies weren't going to see any in that case.

So in the general sense it depends on how much income a pirate would spend on games were they not able to pirate them but then the question is there a loss on more of a different level.

Imagine if you will, a homeless person, vagrant, vagabond... with no intention of paying anyone (or the means if for better metaphor) who comes across an empty motel room that no one pays for that night and by some luck manages to enter the room unnoticed. He showers, sleeps, and lives in the room for the night before he leaves in the morning leaving no mess or hint that he was ever there.

Would that be considered a crime? Technically it would be trespassing and the use of the motel's services without their consent and would be a chargeable offense. Convert motel services to video game and you have yourself an argument.

 

[senataur]

The World is Changing and the internet is to blame.

IP (Software, movies, music) can now be distributed much more easily and cheaply. The cost of entering the market and marketing your product had dropped incredibly. All this has led to a heavy tipping of the demand/supply curve in the direction of supply and thus reducing the cost.

Or so it should. The traditional distributors and producers have been slow to catch on. Most consumers no longer see the value in much of the product on offer and piracy has become an alternative to taking part in a market in which they do not see any real value.

As an example of probably the industry who has it most wrong, the music industry; Many new release CDs in Australia are still $30Au, that's $22-24US for you seppos. They might have gotten away with that when the big distributors were the only source of music. But with the internet the market is now very different. Adapt or go extinct. It a big change and it's not easy, but it has to be done.

The World is Changing.

 

[Blue Musician]

He mentions musicians. Seriously, how many musicians make music just to express themselves, not to sell? Not the really popular ones until now...