Piracy staying legal in Switzerland - "Pirates still contribute"

[Levethian]

No metaphor is perfect. I'm not commenting on the mechanical aspects of the crime. I'm talking about the decision of who is/isn't hurt by the crime. I hope you can concede that, while not every pirated copy equates to a "lost sale," at least some do. To the person losing that sale, it doesn't matter to them that this person spent that "saved" money on someone else's product.

The metaphor works well enough for a single case in which someone who had intended & was able to buy a game instead decides to pirate, and then uses his saved money on another game.

But for the issue at large the number of lost/gained sales would need to be remotely quantifiable before that metaphor was helpful.

 

[Rude as HECK]

A government should not be there to "okay" crime in one industry because it seems to "benefit" another. It's the classic "broken window fallacy," and it's nothing but a shell game to trick people into thinking everything's just fine.

Ok, copyright infringement is categorically NOT a crime. It is a tort; a civil matter. This is why enforcement is not the role of the State, but of copyright holders.

To say it is a crime is categorically wrong.

Also, you cite Bastiat's infamous broken window. You do realize the real broken window is the artificial scarcity of IP?

 

[Dastardly]

No metaphor is perfect. I'm not commenting on the mechanical aspects of the crime. I'm talking about the decision of who is/isn't hurt by the crime. I hope you can concede that, while not every pirated copy equates to a "lost sale," at least some do. To the person losing that sale, it doesn't matter to them that this person spent that "saved" money on someone else's product.

The metaphor works well enough for a single case in which someone who had intended & was able to buy a game instead decides to pirate, and then uses his saved money on another game.

But for the issue at large the number of lost/gained sales would need to be remotely quantifiable before that metaphor was helpful.

I'm saying no matter how much someone else gains, that's no comfort to the person being stolen from. Of course it's case-by-case. I'm talking about the individual.

For instance -- let's say a bunch of criminals were stealing from your house, but then giving all of your stuff to other people. And maybe even donating some other stuff to those people. Are you going to think, "Well, society as a whole is better off. So it's okay that they're taking my stuff," or are you going to be pissed?

 

[Rude as HECK]

I'm saying no matter how much someone else gains, that's no comfort to the person being stolen from. Of course it's case-by-case. I'm talking about the individual.

For instance -- let's say a bunch of criminals were stealing from your house, but then giving all of your stuff to other people. And maybe even donating some other stuff to those people. Are you going to think, "Well, society as a whole is better off. So it's okay that they're taking my stuff," or are you going to be pissed?

This is based on so many unfounded claims regards the nature of property, I'm amazed anyone can believe it.

Computer data is infinitely reproducible. There is absolutely no possible comparison to any form of scarce, physical good. Not one- it's an impossible claim to make. In fact, the entire basis of the Intellectual property system is based on the principle of granting monopolies over infinitely replicable knowledge.

In other words, the entire basis of the IP system is that your analogy is wrong.

 

[Dastardly]

A government should not be there to "okay" crime in one industry because it seems to "benefit" another. It's the classic "broken window fallacy," and it's nothing but a shell game to trick people into thinking everything's just fine.

Ok, copyright infringement is categorically NOT a crime. It is a tort; a civil matter. This is why enforcement is not the role of the State, but of copyright holders.

To say it is a crime is categorically wrong.

Also, you cite Bastiat's infamous broken window. You do realize the real broken window is the artificial scarcity of IP?

[link]http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506[/link]
(Pay special attention to item a.1.C)

In America, it's a crime to infringe upon copyright in the way most software pirates do. I'm sure it's the case in many other places, too. So perhaps "wrong" wasn't so much the word you were looking for?

And I'm not sure you're interpreting the broken window correctly. The broken window refers to a harm done to one party that is viewed as a boon because it helps another party, but it only appears positive when ignoring the other consequences of the harm.

A company altering its own product (ie, creating "artificial scarcity") in order to receive just compensation is not "doing harm" to anyone. Taking a product that does not belong to you ("stealing") is an act of harm.

 

[Rude as HECK]

A government should not be there to "okay" crime in one industry because it seems to "benefit" another. It's the classic "broken window fallacy," and it's nothing but a shell game to trick people into thinking everything's just fine.

Ok, copyright infringement is categorically NOT a crime. It is a tort; a civil matter. This is why enforcement is not the role of the State, but of copyright holders.

To say it is a crime is categorically wrong.

Also, you cite Bastiat's infamous broken window. You do realize the real broken window is the artificial scarcity of IP?

[link]http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506[/link]
(Pay special attention to item a.1.C)

In America, it's a crime to infringe upon copyright in the way most software pirates do. I'm sure it's the case in many other places, too. So perhaps "wrong" wasn't so much the word you were looking for?

Damn, America's got messed up copyright laws.

And I'm not sure you're interpreting the broken window correctly. The broken window refers to a harm done to one party that is viewed as a boon because it helps another party, but it only appears positive when ignoring the other consequences of the harm.

A company altering its own product (ie, creating "artificial scarcity") in order to receive just compensation is not "doing harm" to anyone. Taking a product that does not belong to you ("stealing") is an act of harm.

I'm not talking about DRM here. I'm talking about the State imposed intellectual property regime- an act of interventionism into the market.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm saying no matter how much someone else gains, that's no comfort to the person being stolen from. Of course it's case-by-case. I'm talking about the individual.

For instance -- let's say a bunch of criminals were stealing from your house, but then giving all of your stuff to other people. And maybe even donating some other stuff to those people. Are you going to think, "Well, society as a whole is better off. So it's okay that they're taking my stuff," or are you going to be pissed?

This is based on so many unfounded claims regards the nature of property, I'm amazed anyone can believe it.

Computer data is infinitely reproducible. There is absolutely no possible comparison to any form of scarce, physical good. Not one- it's an impossible claim to make. In fact, the entire basis of the Intellectual property system is based on the principle of granting monopolies over infinitely replicable knowledge.

In other words, the entire basis of the IP system is that your analogy is wrong.

Fine. You pay $250 million for the first copy of the game, so the developers can make their money back, and then distribute infinite free copies to everyone else. Don't want to? Well, now you see the problem. "Artificial scarcity" is the only way to ensure the creator of a property benefits enough to 1. recover the cost of creation and 2. make enough to ensure the viability of future products.

Or do we mean instead to insinuate that no one should work a full-time job creating "intellectual property," and so no one would need to make a living on it?

 

[DracoSuave]

If I own a thing, and you are taking liberties with said thing without my permission, you are depriving me of my rights to my thing.

How is that not depriving? Or are you stating somehow that people don't own their own things? That sounds communist to me. Are you a communist?

I'll repeat again: Look up the word. You are just theorizing what YOU think the word means.

There is a reason these things are called "Intellectual Property" to begin with and the rules governing them are called "Copyright": Because intellectual property is not the same as physical goods.

But it's still ownership and that's the concept you're blatantly ignoring. The concept of ownership itself is why piracy is bad. If you own a thing, you get to control a thing. That's the basic fundamental concept of what ownership is.

If you disrespect ownership, you're abandoning that fundamental concept. So that means that you don't believe in the concept of ownership.

That's the point you miss; you have the right to decide what goes on with your own things. Physical, or abstract. If you own a garden, I don't get to pull out the plants and replace it with a bunch of rocks because I think you might benefit. That's not my place.

And that's why the 'it benefits the publisher' argument is bullshit; you're pretending you get to make that decision; you're inherently disavowing the ownership rights of the publisher, by stating they are not permitted to make decisions about their own things.

Now do you get it? It's exactly the same as if someone goes into your house and moves shit around because they think you'll be better off. It's the same. Fucking. Thing.

 

[Rude as HECK]

But it's still ownership and that's the concept you're blatantly ignoring. The concept of ownership itself is why piracy is bad. If you own a thing, you get to control a thing. That's the basic fundamental concept of what ownership is.

If you disrespect ownership, you're abandoning that fundamental concept. So that means that you don't believe in the concept of ownership.

Eh? You know, there is absolutely no inherent reason one must believe in ownership over physical goods AND intellectual ones. In many ways, the two are mutually exclusive.

I for one, do not entertain any notion of an ethical right to "own" information; I merely appreciate IP as a public policy tool.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm not talking about DRM here. I'm talking about the State imposed intellectual property regime- an act of interventionism into the market.

Neither am I.

It's not "interventionism." IP laws ensure those people who make a living creating and distributing items of intellectual property have the means to make that living without having to charge $250 million for the first copy (after which infinite "Free Copies" are given out).

The only way to render them unnecessary is to create a system in which no one makes a living making games/movies/books/music/etc. It becomes only a hobby, never a sole means of support. It's fine if that's what you want, but you have to be up-front about that to provide the correct context to your claims -- otherwise, it just sounds like it wasn't thought through properly.

 

[Rude as HECK]

I'm not talking about DRM here. I'm talking about the State imposed intellectual property regime- an act of interventionism into the market.

Neither am I.

It's not "interventionism." IP laws ensure those people who make a living creating and distributing items of intellectual property have the means to make that living without having to charge $250 million for the first copy (after which infinite "Free Copies" are given out).

What? This is a total non sequitor. Absolutely no logic here. And besides, if you are enacting a series of laws to protect people in a certain industry... that's interventionism. IP is a set of laws that are unenforceable otherwise. That's interventionism. It's hard to find a definition of interventionism that IP wouldn't fall into. It distorts supply, and price, etc.

The only way to render them unnecessary is to create a system in which no one makes a living making games/movies/books/music/etc. It becomes only a hobby, never a sole means of support. It's fine if that's what you want, but you have to be up-front about that to provide the correct context to your claims -- otherwise, it just sounds like it wasn't thought through properly.

Ditto. I cannot see any part of this post that logically follows from, well, anything.

 

[tzimize]

In all fairness, I rarely actually buy music. However, I always buy games. Tried pirating one once, and it was such a hassle I stopped bothering. The game was Duke Nukem Forever, and I just wanted to see if it would actually run on my laptop. It won't. Also, it's awful.

I bought the latest Batman game. Preordered it even. Just because the last one was fucking amazing and I wanted to support Rocksteadys latest effort. First time I fired it up I almost regretted my decision.

I had to:

1: Download/update securom
2: register cdkey in securom
3: Wait for securom to do all their fucking scanning EVERY TIME I start the game
4: Update GFWL (aka the devil himself) when I started the game
5: Restart batman on account of GFWL not being able to be updated on the fly
6: Register my cdkey again in GFWL
7: Log in to GFWL
8: Finally start playing.

And people wonder why pirating is happening...

Each and every goddamn time I started my game I spent the next 30-40 seconds waiting for securom to scan, logging in to that godawful GFWL and generally getting pissed while I waited for the game to be ready.

I really got the same (only worse) impression that I get from Blurays/dvds I buy. I have to sit through all that fucking PIRACY IS A CRIME or the more friendly approach of Blu-ray "thanks for supporting your local film blablabla"...when I just want to watch the fucking movie.

There are some people who turn to piracy to play games they have legally bought, simply to not suffer through all this shit. And the industry is NOT making me a fan through all this crap.

Fans buy stuff. People who are pissed, do not.

 

[dex-dex]

while reading this thread all I thought about was this

 

[hawkeye52]

"since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment products."

Umm.......that's a pretty flawed statement.

I mean come on, there's absolutely NOTHING stopping them from merely stealing music, films, games and not paying. Piracy is weird.

Well from where I stand that can be taken in 2 ways.

1)straight as it is where it just means that they will spend the money anyway and so it reinvests in the economy regardless as opposed to some company outside of switzerland who they don't tax based on the amount of money they have (so by government standards this is fine since I guess switzerland doesnt receive all that much income from media. Though I could be wrong)

or

2)That the people will spend the saved money on different forms of media that will help boost other parts of the entertainment industry (This doesn't make much sense either tbh) so should be read (I will enter a word here to make it clearer because it could be a translation mistake)

since people eventually spend the money saved on entertainment "other" products.

It could be read both ways but either way it seems odd for the reasoning stated

 

[Athinira]

But it's still ownership and that's the concept you're blatantly ignoring. The concept of ownership itself is why piracy is bad. If you own a thing, you get to control a thing. That's the basic fundamental concept of what ownership is.

If you disrespect ownership, you're abandoning that fundamental concept. So that means that you don't believe in the concept of ownership.

That's the point you miss; you have the right to decide what goes on with your own things. Physical, or abstract. If you own a garden, I don't get to pull out the plants and replace it with a bunch of rocks because I think you might benefit. That's not my place.

And you are once again wrong. "Ownership" and "Copyright" is once again two completely different things.

Ownership means direct ruling over a product. As a consumer, you can have that even with a copyrighted product. If i own a copy of Metal Gear Solid 4 for the PS3, then that copy is MY ownership, and i can legally use it and resell it if i like.

Owning a copy, however, does not give me the right to say duplicate that copy and give it to a friend, or go in and modify/reverse engineer the software and reuse code. That's forbidden territory because it breaches copyright, even though i still own the product.

I'm not ignoring ownership, you just don't understand the difference between ownership and copyright, just like you apparently don't understand what deprivation means. Piracy belongs in breach of the second category, not the former. I can conduct piracy with a product while owning it (legally) at the same time.

Edit: Oh and....

Now do you get it? It's exactly the same as if someone goes into your house and moves shit around because they think you'll be better off. It's the same. Fucking. Thing.

Short answer: No.

Not.

Even.

Close.

 

[CountChopula]

hey the mafia also contributes, I mean, the money they spend on things is circulated and taxed eventually.

 

[Rude as HECK]

hey the mafia also contributes, I mean, the money they spend on things is circulated and taxed eventually.

Well, that's it for this thread. We're one step away from a full blown Godwin scenario.

 

[Dastardly]

Stop, just stop, noone is stealing, robbing or pillaging anything and neither file sharing, nor copyright infringement is classified as stealing in any country I know of whatsoever, you need to reanalyze where you stand on this or how extensive your knowledge of the issue at hand is, if you are desperately looking for something tangible to compare it to in "real life" it would most likely be sneaking into a movie or watching unauthorized PayTV channels.

[link]http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506[/link]

Back to the drawing board for you, I think. You can pretty it up all you want, but "the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution," sounds to me like it's considered depriving someone of their right to profit from the sale of THEIR STUFF.

Not all "stealing" conforms to a singular, narrow definition. Not all stealing requires that the person be deprived of anything. All it requires to be stealing is that you are taking/using/obtaining something that you do not have the right to. Any means of classifying it outside of stealing is simply an inverse No-True-Scotsman -- you just keep narrowing the definition until you can claim piracy is excluded.

Fraud, for instance, is stealing things by providing false information. It's classified as "fraud" because of the method, but it's still a criminal form of obtaining property/information. Robbery, larceny, and so on -- they are all different forms of stealing, separated by the method. The effect is the same: Someone gets something they are not legally entitled to, and in fact legally belongs to someone else.

A government should also not be there to help an industry clutch on to outdated business models or intellectual property laws established almost a century ago, especially not if it means potentially criminalizing 60-80% of their population and able voters while totally trying to ignore the reality of the given situation.

Intellectual property laws are the cornerstone of modern innovation. No one would sink the millions of dollars into any research or development costs if someone could just show up, steal the research, and sell the product right out from under its creator. Are there some problems with the handling of intellectual property laws? Sure!

But the right for a software company to hold exclusive rights to distribute the shit THEY PAID AND WORKED TO CREATE? There's no case against it.