Poll: Let's Discuss Piracy

[Gindil]

Yes, going into a Barnes and Noble and taking the physical copy is wrong. Not arguing that part. But if I can read manga online, or I decide to translate it myself and share it with other lovers of anime and manga, I doubt I'm going to destroy the industry in any way, shape or form. I find the argument against this sharing ironic in the anime industry. Oddly enough, it started when you had people sharing Dragonball, Ghost in the Shell, and Akira in the 80s with the Japanese creators having few if any intention of spreading it outside of their native country. Now look at it. Because of mass production, these fields have been able to influence the US and spread anime and manga like wildfire. Still love One Piece btw.

Concerning anime and managa thirty years ago you might have a point. Today though your shit out of luck. Anime and Managa is readily available in Canada and the USA. Since this is the current condition what your doing is wrong. The deeds of the past do not validate the deeds of the present.

Wait, what? Lemme make sure before I give a rebuttal. I have the Kinnikuman series in Japanese. If I take the time to put my translation online, recolor the images and put out a high definition model, then I'm not helping to have others seeing the wacky side of one Yudetamago and the insane concept of a wrestling manga?

I disagree strongly with that. There's always new manga that others aren't aware of. I could spout examples, but we'll stick with Kinnikuman for now.

Since the other part you didn't comment on, I won't either.

 

[Jofrak]

OK first things first, apologies if this has been brought up already but 5 pages at 0130 = cba

I'm wondering if anyone shares my opinion on TV series and downloading. Now granted you can go out and buy a DVD box set, get all your shiny stuff with it and spent a fortune. But, you could also grab your sky+ box and record everything and keep it on the HDD for the foreseeable future, or the virgin alternative, hell you can even watch BBC tele, which we have to bloody pay for online for free ... on their website, which also lets you download the programs.
In short if it's possible to legally obtain these programs at no charge is it illegal to keep a copy not taken from said sources?

 

[Sjakie]

Piracy is Piracy and theft is theft.

STOP CONFUSING THOSE 2 THINGS!!1!

Not paying for something you enjoy that was made by people that should have been paid for there efforts is a dick move though!

 

[spartan231490]

Piracy is a crime and should be punishable under copyright law. Privacy invasion is bs and needs to be stopped, "those who trade liberty for a little security will have neither."-Ben Franklin. That said, as a copyright law, I believe that the people copying the files should be punished, not the people downloading it. In fact, that may be the best way to stop piracy.
Just my opinion.

 

[Doodlebox]

Bringing back those code wheels should stop it.

 

[Kagim]

Yes, going into a Barnes and Noble and taking the physical copy is wrong. Not arguing that part. But if I can read manga online, or I decide to translate it myself and share it with other lovers of anime and manga, I doubt I'm going to destroy the industry in any way, shape or form. I find the argument against this sharing ironic in the anime industry. Oddly enough, it started when you had people sharing Dragonball, Ghost in the Shell, and Akira in the 80s with the Japanese creators having few if any intention of spreading it outside of their native country. Now look at it. Because of mass production, these fields have been able to influence the US and spread anime and manga like wildfire. Still love One Piece btw.

Concerning anime and managa thirty years ago you might have a point. Today though your shit out of luck. Anime and Managa is readily available in Canada and the USA. Since this is the current condition what your doing is wrong. The deeds of the past do not validate the deeds of the present.

Wait, what? Lemme make sure before I give a rebuttal. I have the Kinnikuman series in Japanese. If I take the time to put my translation online, recolor the images and put out a high definition model, then I'm not helping to have others seeing the wacky side of one Yudetamago and the insane concept of a wrestling manga?

I disagree strongly with that. There's always new manga that others aren't aware of. I could spout examples, but we'll stick with Kinnikuman for now.

Since the other part you didn't comment on, I won't either.

Does a company have a license to distribute the product in or to your country? In other words is it legally viable to acquire said product in your country through either virtual or brick transaction? If so then your are violating the Copyright Act and i don't agree with what you are doing.

If however nobody holds a copyright on it to distribute it to your country then you haven't broken the Copyright laws(At least in Canada). Be aware that just because an online company imports untranslated manga and anime doesn't necessarily mean they legally have the right to, and therefor you legally can do what your using as an example.

Understand?

Edit:

Piracy is Piracy and theft is theft.

STOP CONFUSING THOSE 2 THINGS!!1!

Not paying for something you enjoy that was made by people that should have been paid for there efforts is a dick move though!

If you want to split hairs your actually wrong.

Piracy is slang for Copyright Infringement in the eyes of the law.

Piracy in the eyes of the law is committing acts of agression agaisnt your own and other countries naval vessels.

STOP CONFUSING THOSE TWO THINGS!

 

[Sikachu]

See, I think that you're missing out on defining 'theft' there. I agree that the author has rights over the text regarding distribution and profits (i.e. you aren't allowed to make copies and distribute them) but I fail to see how this possibly fits into the definition of theft, which in England is defined thus:

A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

I recognise that by copying and redistributing the information (text, music, whatever) you are dishonestly depriving the copyright owner of the opportunity to profit from selling it, but you really aren't appropriating any of their property. I do think there is certainly a crime in selling pirate copies of things, and also in downloading them where they are freely shared, the crimes being copyright infringement and unjust enrichment, but I don't think it is really analogous to 'theft' in any traditional sense.

"It's theft because if it wasn't no one would devote their time to writing anything new."
^ is, in my opinion, wrong because there are other crimes that regulate the type of behaviour you're calling theft, that do the job that you want theft to do in this area. I certainly don't think that the definition of 'theft' needs to be stretched to include software piracy to fulfil the goal of criminalising pirates when we can use other, better suited laws.

I'm afraid the Copyrights designs and patents act 1988 supersedes that law and effectively criminalises downloading copyrighted materials and distributing copies, which is classed as a form of theft under this act. It's fairly difficult to wade through but if you've got the free time it basically criminalises software piracy.

Not everything that is criminal is theft. The Copyrights Designs and Patents Act does indeed make downloading coprighted materials illegal, but even if it does for some reason stretch the definition of theft to include such behaviour (and I don't see why it would, it doesn't need to, it can impose penalties independently of that act) it is still warping what theft means to include something that theft's independent definition would not include. So yes, it is a crime, no, that crime is not theft.

Addendum: The text of CDPA1988 doesn't at any point reference the Theft Act.

 

[Kagim]

See, I think that you're missing out on defining 'theft' there. I agree that the author has rights over the text regarding distribution and profits (i.e. you aren't allowed to make copies and distribute them) but I fail to see how this possibly fits into the definition of theft, which in England is defined thus:

A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

I recognise that by copying and redistributing the information (text, music, whatever) you are dishonestly depriving the copyright owner of the opportunity to profit from selling it, but you really aren't appropriating any of their property. I do think there is certainly a crime in selling pirate copies of things, and also in downloading them where they are freely shared, the crimes being copyright infringement and unjust enrichment, but I don't think it is really analogous to 'theft' in any traditional sense.

"It's theft because if it wasn't no one would devote their time to writing anything new."
^ is, in my opinion, wrong because there are other crimes that regulate the type of behaviour you're calling theft, that do the job that you want theft to do in this area. I certainly don't think that the definition of 'theft' needs to be stretched to include software piracy to fulfil the goal of criminalising pirates when we can use other, better suited laws.

I'm afraid the Copyrights designs and patents act 1988 supersedes that law and effectively criminalises downloading copyrighted materials and distributing copies, which is classed as a form of theft under this act. It's fairly difficult to wade through but if you've got the free time it basically criminalises software piracy.

Not everything that is criminal is theft. The Copyrights Designs and Patents Act does indeed make downloading coprighted materials illegal, but even if it does for some reason stretch the definition of theft to include such behaviour (and I don't see why it would, it doesn't need to, it can impose penalties independently of that act) it is still warping what theft means to include something that theft's independent definition would not include. So yes, it is a crime, no, that crime is not theft.

Addendum: The text of CDPA1988 doesn't at any point reference the Theft Act.

Copyright and the Copyright Act refers to Intellectual Property Theft. While in this case the word Theft is not referring to the laws regarding Theft the word itself is able to take on the responsibility of explaining Copyright Infringement.

If you have a problem with Theft being used as a reference word for Intellectual Property Theft and Copyright words i am going to have to ask everyone to stop using the word Piracy to describe Intellectual Property theft from here on in. Seeing as how Piracy is the act of criminal aggression towards sea faring vessels from your own and other countries.

In short, stop splitting hairs over the word theft.

 

[Sikachu]

Copyright and the Copyright Act refers to Intellectual Property Theft. While in this case the word Theft is not referring to the laws regarding Theft the word itself is able to take on the responsibility of explaining Copyright Infringement.

If you have a problem with Theft being used as a reference word for Intellectual Property Theft and Copyright words i am going to have to ask everyone to stop using the word Piracy to describe Intellectual Property theft from here on in. Seeing as how Piracy is the act of criminal aggression towards sea faring vessels from your own and other countries.

In short, stop splitting hairs over the word theft.

I'm a lawyer, I can't not split hairs over terms of art such as 'theft'. You're demonstrably wrong in saying that the act refers to 'intellectual property theft' - it does not contain either those words or words to that effect. See section 107 (entitled 'Offences') and you will see that the offence is explicitly 'copyright infringement', and that there is no interaction with theft, nor indeed any suggestion that 'theft' would explain it.

 

[Kagim]

Copyright and the Copyright Act refers to Intellectual Property Theft. While in this case the word Theft is not referring to the laws regarding Theft the word itself is able to take on the responsibility of explaining Copyright Infringement.

If you have a problem with Theft being used as a reference word for Intellectual Property Theft and Copyright words i am going to have to ask everyone to stop using the word Piracy to describe Intellectual Property theft from here on in. Seeing as how Piracy is the act of criminal aggression towards sea faring vessels from your own and other countries.

In short, stop splitting hairs over the word theft.

I'm a lawyer, I can't not split hairs over terms of art such as 'theft'. You're demonstrably wrong in saying that the act refers to 'intellectual property theft' - it does not contain either those words or words to that effect. See section 107 (entitled 'Offences') and you will see that the offence is explicitly 'copyright infringement', and that there is no interaction with theft, nor indeed any suggestion that 'theft' would explain it.

If we were in a court room right now i would not, for a single second, be having this conversation with you.

If this were a court room, or we were discussing a particular case, once again i would not be saying this.

However we are not currently in either of those situation. We are talking about Copyright and Intellectual Property theft in general. I am not suggesting that 'Theft' and 'Copyright Infringement' are the exact same thing.

I am suggesting that while sitting in a discussion on The escapist threads we don't drag the conversation into a bitter fight over the proper usage of terms.

Edit: We are speaking in specifically colloquial terms. While Legally the term 'theft' is incorrect both dictionaries in my house however do include Intellectual Property theft as a description of Copyrighting.

Fighting over terms when speaking strictly colloquially is as relevant to the topic at hand as if i were to bust your chops for using a double negative.

 

[Sikachu]

If we were in a court room right now i would not, for a single second, be having this conversation with you.

If this were a court room, or we were discussing a particular case, once again i would not be saying this.

However we are not currently in either of those situation. We are talking about Copyright and Intellectual Property theft in general. I am not suggesting that 'Theft' and 'Copyright Infringement' are the exact same thing.

I am suggesting that while sitting in a discussion on The escapist threads we don't drag the conversation into a bitter fight over the proper usage of terms.

In which case I will henceforth call it 'Intellectual Property Murder' and refuse to be corrected. I can't understand why you are so adamant about calling it 'theft' when it demonstrably does not fit the meaning of 'theft'. We are not talking about "copyright and intellectual property theft in general", we are talking about 'copyright and intellectual property infringement in general'. You choosing to call that 'theft' is to give it connotations that do not fit because you want to stigmatise the act of infringing copyright by associating it with something that most everyone agrees is wrong. I do not appreciate the industry's (and your) attempts to conflate two things that have literally nothing to do with one another, and I am trying to combat your misinformation by spreading a little researched truth. If you don't want to drag the conversation into a "bitter fight" than stop insisting on mis-labelling copright infringement 'theft'.

P.S.
I did not see this as a bitter fight, but rather an opportunity to spread a little knowledge about a topic of which there is a painful amount of ignorance.

 

[Kagim]

If we were in a court room right now i would not, for a single second, be having this conversation with you.

If this were a court room, or we were discussing a particular case, once again i would not be saying this.

However we are not currently in either of those situation. We are talking about Copyright and Intellectual Property theft in general. I am not suggesting that 'Theft' and 'Copyright Infringement' are the exact same thing.

I am suggesting that while sitting in a discussion on The escapist threads we don't drag the conversation into a bitter fight over the proper usage of terms.

In which case I will henceforth call it 'Intellectual Property Murder' and refuse to be corrected. I can't understand why you are so adamant about calling it 'theft' when it demonstrably does not fit the meaning of 'theft'. We are not talking about "copyright and intellectual property theft in general", we are talking about 'copyright and intellectual property infringement in general'. You choosing to call that 'theft' is to give it connotations that do not fit because you want to stigmatise the act of infringing copyright by associating it with something that most everyone agrees is wrong. I do not appreciate the industry's (and your) attempts to conflate two things that have literally nothing to do with one another, and I am trying to combat your misinformation by spreading a little researched truth. If you don't want to drag the conversation into a "bitter fight" than stop insisting on mis-labelling copright infringement 'theft'.

P.S.
I did not see this as a bitter fight, but rather an opportunity to spread a little knowledge about a topic that there is a painful amount of ignorance about.

Here in lies the problem. Your a lawyer as you say so you should know this.

If we were to use proper terminology and forgo colloquial terminology then the subject of this Thread has nothing to do with "Copyright and Intellectual property Infringement" but rather the act of..

75. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,
(a) steals a Canadian ship,
(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or destroys anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a Canadian ship,
(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship, or
(d) counsels a person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Since legally that is the act of Piracy.

Lets discuss Piracy. That's piracy. Why this is frustrating me is while you are upset people are using the word 'theft' ignorantly i have not seen you correcting people for improper use of the term piracy. By accepting the term piracy you are accepting colloquial language in general for this thread.

While you may be honestly just trying to clear up a misconception, and while i am not angry with you for how your doing it, i have seen these threads turn into nothing but two people splitting hairs over the word theft. One using the term in a legal sense and the other using the term in a colloquial sense. It irritates me and i am sick of it in general.

 

[Sikachu]

Here in lies the problem. Your a lawyer as you say so you should know this.

If we were to use proper terminology and forgo colloquial terminology then the subject of this Thread has nothing to do with "Copyright and Intellectual property Infringement" but rather the act of..

75. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,
(a) steals a Canadian ship,
(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or destroys anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a Canadian ship,
(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship, or
(d) counsels a person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Since legally that is the act of Piracy.

Lets discuss Piracy. That's piracy. Why this is frustrating me is while you are upset people are using the word 'theft' ignorantly i have not seen you correcting people for improper use of the term piracy. By accepting the term piracy you are accepting colloquial language in general for this thread.

While you may be honestly just trying to clear up a misconception, and while i am not angry with you for how your doing it, i have seen these threads turn into nothing but two people splitting hairs over the word theft. One using the term in a legal sense and the other using the term in a colloquial sense. It irritates me and i am sick of it in general.

Calling torrent-based intellectual property infringement 'piracy' and calling it 'theft' are two very different kettles of fish. No-one claims that such infringement is in fact the looting of a ship. You yourself and plenty before you have stated that these actions "are theft", which I believe I have shown is not the case. When it is called 'theft' it is to bring the act of copyright infringement within the definition of 'theft' and thereby condemn it. When it is called 'piracy' it is imagined by no-one to be within the legal definition of piracy. It is, in fact, used as the second sense of the word. I will freely admit that the likely reason this use started off was because of people wanting to compare copyright infringement to piracy by analogy, and that this analogy has failed (largely for the same reason that such infringements aren't stealing). The reason I choose not to correct 'piracy' is because it is such an archaic crime that the word is of greater utility being used as shorthand for online copyright infringement than it is being preserved. 'Theft' does not have the same characteristic, being a current and lasting issue.

TL;DR 'Piracy' is a disused and archaic term of art for a crime that has no relevance today, 'theft' is not.

P.S. If you read the original post I respond to in our little tree of replies you'll see that the poster was claiming:

Piracy is theft, it's theft of intellectual property in the same way as scanning a book and posting it online is clearly theft. It's the same crime, just easier to commit with a dvd.

 

[Kagim]

Here in lies the problem. Your a lawyer as you say so you should know this.

If we were to use proper terminology and forgo colloquial terminology then the subject of this Thread has nothing to do with "Copyright and Intellectual property Infringement" but rather the act of..

75. Every one who, while in or out of Canada,
(a) steals a Canadian ship,
(b) steals or without lawful authority throws overboard, damages or destroys anything that is part of the cargo, supplies or fittings in a Canadian ship,
(c) does or attempts to do a mutinous act on a Canadian ship, or
(d) counsels a person to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Since legally that is the act of Piracy.

Lets discuss Piracy. That's piracy. Why this is frustrating me is while you are upset people are using the word 'theft' ignorantly i have not seen you correcting people for improper use of the term piracy. By accepting the term piracy you are accepting colloquial language in general for this thread.

While you may be honestly just trying to clear up a misconception, and while i am not angry with you for how your doing it, i have seen these threads turn into nothing but two people splitting hairs over the word theft. One using the term in a legal sense and the other using the term in a colloquial sense. It irritates me and i am sick of it in general.

Calling torrent-based intellectual property infringement 'piracy' and calling it 'theft' are two very different kettles of fish. No-one claims that such infringement is in fact the looting of a ship. You yourself and plenty before you have stated that these actions "are theft", which I believe I have shown is not the case. When it is called 'theft' it is to bring the act of copyright infringement within the definition of 'theft' and thereby condemn it. When it is called 'piracy' it is imagined by no-one to be within the legal definition of piracy. It is, in fact, used as the second sense of the word. I will freely admit that the likely reason this use started off was because of people wanting to compare copyright infringement to piracy by analogy, and that this analogy has failed (largely for the same reason that such infringements aren't stealing). The reason I choose not to correct 'piracy' is because it is such an archaic crime that the word is of greater utility being used as shorthand for online copyright infringement than it is being preserved. 'Theft' does not have the same characteristic, being a current and lasting issue.

TL;DR 'Piracy' is a disused and archaic term of art for a crime that has no relevance today, 'theft' is not.

P.S. If you read the original post I respond to in our little tree of replies you'll see that the poster was claiming:

Piracy is theft, it's theft of intellectual property in the same way as scanning a book and posting it online is clearly theft. It's the same crime, just easier to commit with a dvd.

1)Archaic? Stay the fuck away from Somalia then. Seriously Pirates pretty much control that area. It is not 'disused'. it is a very real threat to people traveling through international waters and any where near South Africa and China. Seriously and your a lawyer?

2)The theft of physical properties and the Infringement of Intellectual Properties are more closely related crimes then IP Infringement and Somalia pirates robbing and stealing your vessel.

3)If Theft is an ignorant word to describe IP infringement then so is Piracy seeing as how both are clearly distinct and separate from as laid out by the CCC. Just because you have decided that it is 'Archaic' doesn't mean it is.

Piracy is very very real. Just because you live in a country protected from it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

 

[Sikachu]

1)Archaic? Stay the fuck away from Somalia then. Seriously Pirates pretty much control that area. It is not 'disused'. it is a very real threat to people traveling through international waters and any where near South Africa and China. Seriously and your a lawyer?

2)The theft of physical properties and the Infringement of Intellectual Properties are more closely related crimes then IP Infringement and Somalia pirates robbing and stealing your vessel.

3)If Theft is an ignorant word to describe IP infringement then so is Piracy seeing as how both are clearly distinct and separate from as laid out by the CCC. Just because you have decided that it is 'Archaic' doesn't mean it is.

Piracy is very very real. Just because you live in a country protected from it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Yes, there are still pirates in the world, though the incidence of piracy pales into insignificance in comparison to the incidence of theft. Your second point kind of underlines the point that I was making - when you call it theft, you are conflating two things that are not the same, when I call it piracy, no-one is placed under the illusion that it is looting ships. Your third point is right, piracy does not adequately describe copyright infringement, but using it in that context does not have any misleading effects so there is no harm in adding a second definition to the word because neither is warped by the process. So yes, fundamentally you're right, we shouldn't call it piracy. But doing so does not confuse or mislead anyone as to the nature of the crime and therefore does no harm. That's why I don't correct it.

 

[Kagim]

1)Archaic? Stay the fuck away from Somalia then. Seriously Pirates pretty much control that area. It is not 'disused'. it is a very real threat to people traveling through international waters and any where near South Africa and China. Seriously and your a lawyer?

2)The theft of physical properties and the Infringement of Intellectual Properties are more closely related crimes then IP Infringement and Somalia pirates robbing and stealing your vessel.

3)If Theft is an ignorant word to describe IP infringement then so is Piracy seeing as how both are clearly distinct and separate from as laid out by the CCC. Just because you have decided that it is 'Archaic' doesn't mean it is.

Piracy is very very real. Just because you live in a country protected from it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

Yes, there are still pirates in the world, though the incidence of piracy pales into insignificance in comparison to the incidence of theft. Your second point kind of underlines the point that I was making - when you call it theft, you are conflating two things that are not the same, when I call it piracy, no-one is placed under the illusion that it is looting ships. Your third point is right, piracy does not adequately describe copyright infringement, but using it in that context does not have any misleading effects so there is no harm in adding a second definition to the word because neither is warped by the process. So yes, fundamentally you're right, we shouldn't call it piracy. But doing so does not confuse or mislead anyone as to the nature of the crime and therefore does no harm. That's why I don't correct it.

Here the thing. When i say 'theft' i am using the word as shorthand for Intellectual Property Infringement because a) its shorter and b) I don't like the word piracy because now a days it carries a positive thought in most cases and c) you will notice my posts are more focused on the morality of the actions rather then legal repercussions.

As well when i say theft i am under no illusions that i am talking about the physical deprivation of physical property. I know the legal difference between the two. However though legally distinct i am hard pressed to admit they are as different as Rabbits and Logs when it comes down to morales. In the case of downloading illegal programs, movies and music both constitute acquisition of products you have no right to. While they are and should remain legally distinct they are still very closely related actions when talking about torrents, P2P programs and the like.

You will find the people throwing the definition of theft around are using it like a shield. That because it technically isn't theft they seem to think it's alright to do it. Use of the word piracy is out since most people who do these things take pride in the word and wear it like a freaking badge. Piracy doesn't translate to IPI to these people. It translates to "Your are the Batman".

The other problem is this bullshit is dividing us. Clearly i think IPI is wrong. It sounds like you think its wrong. The guy you originally quoted thinks this is wrong. Yet we are fighting. Over terminology and definitions. This isn't helping our case. I'm sick of fighting with people i agree with over proper usage of words and terminology.

We both know the true meaning behind these words. Likely because Neither of us are stupid. Rather then pointing out the Theft is the wrong word to someone on your side point out the legal ramifications of IPI to someone trying to use the fact it's not theft as justification to do so.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

There are a lot of shameless thieves here.