Obama administration: "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft"

Recommended Videos

Alandoril

New member
Jul 19, 2010
532
0
0
As much as I disagree with piracy I would like to point out that it's only piracy if the individual concerned is making profit from the act of piracy. And it's not like the company releasing the product actually loses any money because if someone is going to pirate something then they likely weren't going to buy it in the first place...
 

Ironic Pirate

New member
May 21, 2009
5,544
0
0
LWS666 said:
i hate it when people claim piracy is theft, as it proves they've not actually researched the subject before giving their opinion.

although i agree piracy is bad, it's copyright infringment and should not be given as harsh a punishment as theft, as if you pirate then shops are losing out on your money, while theft is stealing the value of that game.
This is probably the right idea, although more severe punishments should probably given to the one who uploaded it to the pirate site.
 

JuryNelson

New member
Mar 3, 2010
249
0
0
Diddy_Mao said:
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.
But the law can't work like that.

Take running a stop sign. It's illegal all the time, even when it's victimless. Because sometimes, it directly results in death.

So in the eyes of the law, piracy is illegal all the time, whether you're pirating a forgotten classic or the new release that a company might be staking its continued existence.

A victimless crime is still a crime. Otherwise it wouldn't be a crime at all.
 

Gildan Bladeborn

New member
Aug 11, 2009
3,044
0
0
ciortas1 said:
Gildan Bladeborn said:
No politicians seem to get it. Either that, or they understand it perfectly fine and just want to hide behind big words like "theft", "immoral", "we gon' find you" and "crime" to get the support of the dumb brainless masses and get to shake off the last few rights the public has.
True, both sides of the aisle seem to be equally unenlightened on this particular issue - doesn't make me any less concerned that the current administration is saying things like this though, as they're the ones in the position right now to act on their misguided rhetoric; worrying about what the republicans might do should they regain a majority or the presidency takes a back seat to worrying about what the current administration is going to do.
 

JuryNelson

New member
Mar 3, 2010
249
0
0
Ironic Pirate said:
JuryNelson said:
Ironic Pirate said:
While piracy is wrong, it's not quite theft. That's more of an issue of semantics, however.
The bummer is that this whole thing is an issue of semantics. They say piracy is theft, you say piracy is something other than theft.

Unfortunately, the only people who ever tend to get heard are the people who say "We need to stamp out this pirate menace" and the people who say "St33l teh gam3z! LoL! DRM = Fascism!"

You seem level headed about it, you should run for office. Make some well-intentioned, reasonable noise up there.
But you can't put "X is a multi-faceted issue that requires a case by case look and is more up to society to solve than any government figure" on a button, can you? Has to be "Y is a Nazi!" "Z is communist!", short, quick, and easy to understand. That does, however, make things more accessible, but how simple is too simple?

But that's something for a different topic.
And there you go with the fundamental problem of having a representative democracy in a country that values specialization over a broad range of understanding.

Well played.
 

JuryNelson

New member
Mar 3, 2010
249
0
0
ciortas1 said:
JuryNelson said:
Did you just try to defend the apparently brainless politicians because they don't give enough of a shit about a problem to investigate it? Seriously? What they're 'thinking' of a problem when they only see the tip of the iceberg should not mean anything. People in power, who have the fate of a whole country (or even a few countries) in their hands, should not be allowed to make such stupid and rash decisions.
I'm saying they're not apparently brainless. I don't think it's that dismissive or that much of an oversimplification to say that piracy is stealing. I don't think it's a stupid and rash decision to say that the law should have something to say about it. They were PUT THERE to make decisions about things like this.

I do think it's stupid and rash to say that what the Vice President says shouldn't mean anything. It's their job to do things and every moment they spend investigating an issue takes time away from doing other things.

If you really understand this issue, run for office. Call your congressman. When they inevitably put together an anti-piracy task force, sign up.

But if you just don't like it when government takes your toys away or disagrees with you, then I don't know what to tell you. Vote.
 

Melgrath

New member
Aug 5, 2010
30
0
0
JuryNelson said:
Diddy_Mao said:
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.
But the law can't work like that.

Take running a stop sign. It's illegal all the time, even when it's victimless. Because sometimes, it directly results in death.

So in the eyes of the law, piracy is illegal all the time, whether you're pirating a forgotten classic or the new release that a company might be staking its continued existence.

A victimless crime is still a crime. Otherwise it wouldn't be a crime at all.
I understand both points of view on this. Speaking as someone who enjoys some of the games that are no longer around anymore or near impossible to find, I like to think that I'm not harming anyone. While it is technically illegal, there just isn't any other way to get a hold of certain games. (Music and movies can't use this excuse)
 

JuryNelson

New member
Mar 3, 2010
249
0
0
Melgrath said:
JuryNelson said:
Diddy_Mao said:
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.
But the law can't work like that.

Take running a stop sign. It's illegal all the time, even when it's victimless. Because sometimes, it directly results in death.

So in the eyes of the law, piracy is illegal all the time, whether you're pirating a forgotten classic or the new release that a company might be staking its continued existence.

A victimless crime is still a crime. Otherwise it wouldn't be a crime at all.
I understand both points of view on this. Speaking as someone who enjoys some of the games that are no longer around anymore or near impossible to find, I like to think that I'm not harming anyone. While it is technically illegal, there just isn't any other way to get a hold of certain games. (Music and movies can't use this excuse)
And, to a certain extent, nobody really cares if you do that. It's like if you punch a guy, but he knows he was being a dick, so he doesn't press charges, then technically no crime occurred. Laws are weird.

What's cool is that if you do love old games, there are a ton of games made nowadays that are just like old games. Terry Cavanagh and armorgames et al are all about that awesome stuff. Also, Cave Story. Go own Cave Story for free.

I'm very interested to see what free distribution and Creative Commons will do to debates like this once the public at large starts to become aware that things like that exist.
 

The Patient Mental

New member
Jun 30, 2009
7
0
0
Not a big poster, gotta throw in here though.

Piracy, is a fad name. Stop using it. It is the ultimate shopping experience, and they hate it. The industry has long thrived on selling garbage sprinkled with gold dust, you used to see it all the time. By CD, love 1 or two songs, hate CD. The label only sees numbers, and doesn't care about anything else period, not quality, and certainly not originality. The music industry has EXPLODED with new talent, ideas, concepts, and sales strategies directly because of "piracy". Aside from art (and lets remember all these "pirated" mediums are supposed to be art) what else would you purchase on the strength of an ad campaign alone? If you're an intelligent consumer you will demand to experience art before you buy it. period. We can argue the about this all day long, but I'm here to tell you that the vast, vast majority of "pirates" out there are also the people who buy most of the legit stuff as well. We are the fans, we are the consumers, we are your source of income, and we are sick and tired of being taken at every turn by Billion dollar ad budgets, psychology tricks, and the "sales" industry in general. The market is speaking very loudly and our "free market" economy doesn't like it. If it is good, it will still sell, if it is bad it wont. But rather than listening to an overexposed, over taxed, under payed and under utilized demographic, the industry has instead refused to comply and adapt to demand. Wages are down, costs are up, no one has any money to give you anymore, but we are addicted to your products BY DESIGN, it's a part of society to experience all this must see and must hear and must play art now, you wanted it that way. It costs me 13.50 for a movie ticket, 22 + for any cd thats not on the charts, 70 for a game. Call it what you want but you broke the market. You are talking multiple work hours for a movie ticket for alot of people. A lot of innovation has come out of this to make it easier and cheaper and more convenient for people to get ahold of products without piracy. Good first steps like iTunes, or selling singles for a fraction of the cost of an album are good both for consumers and for the industry, NiN for example, thank you trent for letting us experience your work before we commit as should be done by all artists. The Offspring are another example of a band that, once they owned their own product again, did what they could to make getting their art a more legitimate experience. The artists trust that we will buy what we can, the "piracy" community has changed to take on that mentality as well. Now it's solely the industry with bought politicians trying to convince an ignorant public that we are thieves. I resent that, I have the largest movie collection of anyone I know (bought and paid for thanks), same goes for music, again for games, we're talking hundreds. But even I can't keep up with you people and your weekly releases and slick ad campaigns. So I will shop as I do, for free, and when I can afford to reward an amazing talent, I will, so will all of us. Targeting innocent people and making them criminals for trying to dictate the market is a sin, shame on all of you. Artists you need to find ways of getting away from these distributors that steal your work for their own gain, it'll be hard but you can do it better and cheaper now than an overinflated piece of shit industry every could, I realize it's about the exposure, but the internet has proven you don't need them anymore, and that is what this is really about. Sorry for length, God's peace to you all.
 

MisterShine

Him Diamond
Mar 9, 2010
1,133
0
0
ciortas1 said:
I hope you're joking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000] On top of that, politicians do not give a shit about the people.
I hope [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IronicEcho] you're joking [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic].

The electoral college as we know it has been in place since the early 1800's. The US does not work by a strict majority opinion. Hence why we have a senate, where Rhode Island has just as much power as California and Texas do. And as someone who is obviously a cynic, you should see why following the majority opinion is not always a great idea. Though I do agree it is bullshit that Bush won, he did so fairly. This did not come out of left field or anything, unless you are ignorant of your own government process.

Don't like it? Vote for someone who will repeal that section of the constitution :) We can do that.

ciortas1 said:
The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.
I think your "THE END IS NIGH"/"YOU'RE ALL SHEEPLE" comes dangerously close to baseless ranting. Yes, corporations have a lot of control over things. As well they should, they represent thousands of people's livelihood. Or to be more accurate, everyone's livelihood. If things are bad for business, they're bad for the economy, and everything goes to shit.

Not that I think we should be carefree that our duly elected officials have our best interest at heart, but really, we do have elections, a constitution, and judges who are specifically charged with seeing power doesn't swing too much one way.

If you'd like to claim our corporations are making serious and legal attempts to subjugate us, I'd like some hard evidence to that fact, so you don't sound like a gibbering loon.



ciortas1 said:
...and someone who represents his people should know that better than everyone else, straight up.
That legally, piracy is not directly equal to grand theft or petty theft, yes I agree with you here. The language coming from some politicians is sigh-worthy.

ciortas1 said:
Piracy is not stealing...A pirated game, unlike these dumbasses seem to believe (I'd provide a link to an article stating how they think piracy is the thing running the US bankrupt), is not a lost sale, as opposed to a stolen CD. The damages can not be proved. They simply can't, end of story. Now if they're acting on the notion that "some people pay for what you get for free! Q.Q", they're bordering the line of laws based on religious beliefs, and incredibly varying moral systems.
I made this points a few pages ago, and if you want to get into it more I'll oblige, otherwise I'll just say this. Yes, legally "piracy" and theft need to be kept separate. There are many different kinds of stealing, and they all have wildly different penalties, and piracy should be no different. Colloquially speaking, as we are doing here and like politicians do at rallies, calling it stealing would be correct. You are gaining something to which you have no right. You are stealing it.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO QUOTED ME, ALL TWENTY SEVEN OF YOU:

I CANNOT spend another few hours attempting to debunk everything that has been said. The comments are to long and it's becoming a chore. I'll just quote Dowling v. United States, a 1985 case regarding copyright infringement:

"...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud."
 

cole2buhler

New member
May 7, 2009
3
0
0
AndyFromMonday said:
AgentNein said:
AndyFromMonday said:
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.
copyright-infringement is actually a form of theft since a portion of the sale which most would have paid had they not pirated the game or what not.


SODAssault said:
AndyFromMonday said:
I just lost respect for this administration.
You're really of the opinion that obtaining something for free, when it was only able to be created because somebody sunk a lot of money into it with the intent of having their investment refunded (at the very least) by sales... is in no way a form of theft?

It cost somebody else a lot of money to create what you're pirating. If you obtain it without payment, and without their consent, you're taking money from them without their permission. That's a very basic form of stealing.
Fine, let's go down this road again.

Let's say my neighbor has an orchad and sells apples for a living. I buy an apple from him and use the seeds from that apple to grow my own orchad. I then start distributing apples for free. Is what I'm doing illegal? [/quote]

but your neighbour dosen't make you agree to an agreement not to start your own orchard but the video game companies do in the form of an EULA
 

JuryNelson

New member
Mar 3, 2010
249
0
0
ciortas1 said:
JuryNelson said:
I hope you're joking. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000] On top of that, politicians do not give a shit about the people.

The table is tilted, folks. The game is rigged. And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.

Piracy is not stealing, and someone who represents his people should know that better than everyone else, straight up. A pirated game, unlike these dumbasses seem to believe (I'd provide a link to an article stating how they think piracy is the thing running the US bankrupt), is not a lost sale, as opposed to a stolen CD. The damages can not be proved. They simply can't, end of story. Now if they're acting on the notion that "some people pay for what you get for free! Q.Q", they're bordering the line of laws based on religious beliefs, and incredibly varying moral systems.

It's their job to do things and every moment they spend investigating an issue takes time away from doing other things.
This here is probably the reason something like the Patriot Act got passed. Not a good excuse. Passing or rejecting something because of its name or the first few lines you've read is, quite honestly, retarded. Retarded or done to further the goals of the people who stuff your wallets with money for passing or rejecting said bills.
I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing.

If someone represents a group of people, then he should understand exactly what they understand, exactly as well. That's what that word means. That's why you vote for people who you agree with, not people who tell you what's best.

I seriously don't know where you're getting "religious beliefs" from, or why you mentioned that you would post an article and then you didn't, or why you mention the Patriot Act.

It's not because of its name. It's because the result is the same, and the way this kind of piracy works is something that nobody has ever seen before. The Internet is a very, very new thing and the people who know it best are not the people who are deciding how it should be run. The people who know it best are using it to do shitty, lucrative things.

But you're right. Sometimes elections can be disputed. So you should definitely not vote, quote George Carlin and steal games & movies.
 

JuryNelson

New member
Mar 3, 2010
249
0
0
ciortas1 said:
And I said it would be the same as basing laws on religious beliefs and/or incredibly varying moral systems.
And I don't know why you said that.

ciortas1 said:
Example, someone puts up a video with copyrighted audio playing. Let's say a it's a machinima, and it has some music playing in the background. There will be many comments on it, people asking what the music is, other people answering that, thus providing publicity for the track that was used without authorization. So there, at the very least, the result isn't exactly the same. You steal something, you keep it to yourself and only to yourself.
But that's not piracy. That's unauthorized use or copyright infringement. Which is a different thing altogether.