Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

[Hateren47]

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.

How, exactly? :S

Some lady was charged $80.000 per song for an album-torrent she uploaded to some torrent tracker. I doubt she will ever get back on track and will probably have an easier life by turning full time criminal.

Holy shit. That's just for uploading stuff, not downloading, though? And I thought ACTA hadn't passed yet?

Well uploading is "worse" because you are making it available for everybody else to download, and I see why she got charged more than most would in that regard. But $80.000 per song is still ridiculous and $800 per song would be enough to punish her within her means. They did it as a scare tactic but ruined her life none the less.

 

[Kurokami]

Pretty much. It's just really really easy theft. Like stealing candy from a baby. An unconcious baby. [sub]Man, I want some candy now.[/sub]

To be honest, I'd take candy from a sleeping baby. If no one was looking and I really wanted it anyway. =/

 

[nYuknYuknYuk]

Have fun trying to enforce anti-piracy laws you guys

Hope you get that War on Drugs finished beforehand, though.

Yep. Throwing the whole country in prison poses some issues.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

The problem here, as always is that this isn't a strictly black and white issue.

Let us pretend for a moment that I want to own a copy of "Red Dead Redemption" and instead of going out and buying a copy or purchasing a Digital Download I go and pirate a copy off of some random bit torrent site.

That's theft, there's no way to argue otherwise unless you want to get into a semantics argument over the ownership of incorporeal data which I don't.

Now then, let us also say that I really want to play "Mighty Bomb Jack".
I can't finding it for download on the Wii Virtual Console and it isn't available on any classic compilations. This game hasn't been in production for decades and as such I have no way to purchase it.

In this second scenario I see piracy as a victimless crime. Nobody gets cheated out of their cut of the profits because there was no profit to be made in the first place.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

Spoiler

Good thing I live in Australia, This thing might help some people in some situations, but in others it's also damaging.

 

[Kortney]

Spoiler

Good thing I live in Australia, This thing might help some people in some situations, but in others it's also damaging.

You think because you live in Australia you are going to escape this? Your country has and will continue to have its head up the USA's backside and is a co-signatory of ACTA. In short, you are just as fucked as any American.

 

[Tipsy Giant]

Is this supposed to be a liberal party? forward thinking? wow America is still in the dark ages

 

[C95J]

DAMN U OBAMA!!

 

[Queen Michael]

Could someone please tell Biden that the only things that count as theft are things that elicits a "Oh no, my posession is gone! Somebody has stolen it!" and if nobody's lost any possessions then it's not theft?

Seriously, why do people believe that unless you label it "theft" you can't call it immoral? Would you say speeding is theft? Would you say rape is theft? Of course not, because even if you don't call them theft they're still immoral!

 

[Valkyrie101]

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.

How, exactly? :S

Some lady was charged $80.000 per song for an album-torrent she uploaded to some torrent tracker. I doubt she will ever get back on track and will probably have an easier life by turning full time criminal.

Holy shit. That's just for uploading stuff, not downloading, though? And I thought ACTA hadn't passed yet?

Well uploading is "worse" because you are making it available for everybody else to download, and I see why she got charged more than most would in that regard. But $80.000 per song is still ridiculous and $800 per song would be enough to punish her within her means. They did it as a scare tactic but ruined her life none the less.

I think $800 is a bit steep, but any more than that is ridiculous.

 

[C95J]

Obama, listen up.

Piracy is NOT theft. Theft is the taking of an original. If I test drive a car, then force the salesman out at gunpoint and drive off into the sunset I have just stolen that car. But if I download the blueprints and build a copy of that car in my garage then I have not stolen the car or it's plans. I have merely violated the car maker's copyrights, specifically the copyright on the plans.


It's still illegal but there's a HUGE difference. Get it straight you idiot.





Bah who am I kidding. He's a politician. He doesn't give a shit, and he's probably on the RIAA's payroll.

they are more worried about the money the companies are losing from people downloading all these illegal copies of things. But then again who gives a fuck about big companies like Microsoft. they already make enough money to last a lifetime its not like they need anymore.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

The way I see it, putting aside the main argument here, ah ok, I'll go there...

Piracy might be theft, but I think we can all agree it's at least wrong and criminal. I'll make exceptions for stuff that can't be bought new, as I don't believe paying $150 for a manky old Secret of Mana SNES cartridge on Ebay is a fair deal.

Anyway, What ACTA fails to take into consideration is that a vast number of pirates are also their biggest customers. Yes, many pirates also buy stuff. Block them from the internet, and you're just locking them and their wallets out of your stores, here's your medal, now go have a lay down.

It's shame that, just as we can't really tell how much the industry loses thru piracy in terms of actual sales lost, we can't tell how much pirates actually buy.

I'm going to put aside morality and law here for a moment.

You've got some guy , he's got $100 to spare each month on entertainment, he buys a new game, goes to the cinema and buys a couple of movies on bluray. Then over the course of the month downloads other games and movies. Some of which he likes so much he puts on his list for next month because he wants to keep them, or if not, he'll go out and get another $100 of new stuff.

He's breaking the law, sure, but blocking his internet access will just block him from buying stuff online. The way I see he's not losing anyone any money in real terms, but he will be if they block him from all his favourite stores.

Also in short, innocent until proven guilty should NEVER be cast aside just because the accusers have a massive amount of money. (makes me wonder how they can afford to bribe this bill into place, when they're all so poverty stricken by the evil pirates?)

 

[Eremiel]

Piracy isn't theft. It's piracy.

I'm not saying it's legal, but it's not theft. It's piracy.



Also, if piracy is theft it should be punishable on the same level as shoplifting. None of this 80.000$ per song bullshit.

 

[Hateren47]

Spoiler: snip

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.

How, exactly? :S

Some lady was charged $80.000 per song for an album-torrent she uploaded to some torrent tracker. I doubt she will ever get back on track and will probably have an easier life by turning full time criminal.

Holy shit. That's just for uploading stuff, not downloading, though? And I thought ACTA hadn't passed yet?

Well uploading is "worse" because you are making it available for everybody else to download, and I see why she got charged more than most would in that regard. But $80.000 per song is still ridiculous and $800 per song would be enough to punish her within her means. They did it as a scare tactic but ruined her life none the less.

I think $800 is a bit steep, but any more than that is ridiculous.

It is a bit steep, but if she had a good relationship with her bank she could easily lend $10.000 and pay her fine. I doubt a lot of people could lend $1.000.000 if they are not investing them in bricks or business. The more reasonable thing would be to fine her $80(or $8) per song but that would hardly make an example out of her.

 

[LandoCristo]

Good thing, too! Obama's finally doing the right thing, sticking it to those Somalians! They need to stop stealing all that cargo off of freighters for ransom!

What was that you said? You mean that this was about online pirating, which as someone said isn't actually theft, but instead copyright infringment? THAT pirating? Oh, no, I have no opinions on that.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Maybe you should read this treaty a little more carefully. Have you cleared your cache since viewing this thread? Then by the terms of Acta, you're guilty of theft. It isn't just applicable to music and videos. The way this is written, any intellectual property right saved to your computer, knowingly or not, is fair game. Corporate logos, trademarks, video game characters, just to name a few examples. My avatar is a picture of Mario. That is the intellectual property of Nintendo. Because you haven't cleared your cache, you have an unauthorized reproduction of Nintendo's property without Nintendo's written consent. According to ACTA, you've defrauded Nintendo and they may pursue you (or if you're underage, your parents or whoever pays your internet bill) for punitive and compensatory damages in court if they so choose. ACTA also allows for your internet service provider to scan your hard drive without your consent looking for copy right violations and notify the "defrauded" party.

I'm painfully aware of the implications of ACTA. It doesn't, however, change what I said.

 

[AlanShore]

There is some truly bizarre logic that goes on in people's heads when it comes to this topic. Why do people have this idea that anyone who says "piracy isn't theft" thinks that they must also think that "piracy is legal and ok"? You can say that piracy isn't theft and still think that it's wrong.

Anyway, why is this debate still going? Piracy is NOT theft in any way. The legal definition of theft is very clear and piracy does not meet the definition, ergo it is not theft. The US supreme court holds the same view and, to my knowledge, no one has ever been charged with theft as a result of pirating something. People need to stop making up their own BS definitions.