So most people understand that piracy is NOT theft, technically...

[Akimoto]

The only arguement against piracy is the fact that it's illegal, that's it. If piracy were legal few people if anybody would care one way or the other about it. Besides, a Monopoly is illegal, and copyright laws allow one company to have a complete control on where and whether the distribution of a product is allowed, which is the definition of a Monopoly. If you look at it this way, piracy is in fact PREVENTING a crime, by preventing copyright holders from having complete Monopoly on digitally downloadable products.

Interesting. But it's hard to call the industry a monopoly when there are many different players. Take EA and Activision for an example - both produce FPS games, so it's not a monopoly. I cannot agree to calling the gaming industry a monopoly.

 

[Athinira]

Would people perhaps agree that it's closest in crimes to counterfeiting?

No.

1) Counterfeiting is done with the purpose of financial gain. Therefore, only commercial piracy would fit that description.

Against non-commercial piracy (illegal downloading), it's not like people store the cash they "save" under their bed forever. They typically go out and spend it (often on other entertainment), which means that the money at worst is still distributed to the entertainment industry (by no means distributed fairly since some products are hit harder by piracy than others, but it's still distributed WITHIN the industry). Against commercial piracy, however, those people are actually stealing money by ripping off your product, since the purchasers clearly are willing to pay for it, even if it's at a reduced price, and when those money doesn't feed the creators, it's clear selling of a counterfeit product.

2) Counterfeiting is recognized as creating a "fake" product representing something else (in other words, an imitation). A duplicate (read: copy) is not an imitation, it's the actual product with the same value.

Commercial piracy would likely come close. Non-commercial piracy, not so much.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I agree its not theft but every time I try to say something along the lines of "Potential loss isn't actual loss" I get 5 quotes telling me to stop defending Piracy.

 

[immortalfrieza]

The only arguement against piracy is the fact that it's illegal, that's it. If piracy were legal few people if anybody would care one way or the other about it. Besides, a Monopoly is illegal, and copyright laws allow one company to have a complete control on where and whether the distribution of a product is allowed, which is the definition of a Monopoly. If you look at it this way, piracy is in fact PREVENTING a crime, by preventing copyright holders from having complete Monopoly on digitally downloadable products.

Interesting. But it's hard to call the industry a monopoly when there are many different players. Take EA and Activision for an example - both produce FPS games, so it's not a monopoly. I cannot agree to calling the gaming industry a monopoly.

I'm not talking about the game industry as a whole, or similar types of products. I'm talking about individual copyrights. i.e. There's several FPS's true, but only one Call of Duty series, and there only ever will be. Another example, Nintendo is the only company that can develop ANYTHING Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. related without their permission, and only THEY can decide anything from how those products are distributed, where, to even the CONTENT that these products contain. For instance, some places never see releases of some Nintendo games, and even if it's incredibly stupid not to have it if they don't like something their developer is putting in a game it's gone, just like that.

In short, copyrights allow companies to have complete and utter control over everything that has their copyright in it, and they can charge us whatever they want for any product with their copyright on it, because they know that if we want that product, they're the only ones we can get it from.

 

[haruvister]

I don't think one needs to complicate the matter by referring to counterfeiting.

Theft is defined as "an act of stealing someone else's property, with the intention of permanently depriving them of it". Obviously it's the second part that doesn't appear to apply to piracy, given that a copy is made yet the original remains. But when a person consumes the product of another then the transaction is complete upon the exchange of something of equal value. (Hence why paper money states that the consumer is effectively indebted.) With piracy, the consumer is receiving the product without fulfilling 50% of the transaction. The producer DOES lose their property because they are not receiving that to which they are entitled.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

No it isn't theft by some stupid arbitrary designation.

 

[DracoSuave]

Interesting thought, but counterfeiting requires that anyone make a profit of it

Being able to possess something at no cost IS profit, chum.

Total benefit of having thing - cost of procurement = profit.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Piracy is copyright infringement. How about we leave it at that. They own the idea, you just used it without there permission.

 

[infohippie]

Technically, piracy is breach of contract. Nothing worse.

 

[Snotnarok]

I've got a better idea, let's try and come up with what the various companies were collectively trying to do to our rights on the internet.
They weren't trying to protect their stuff because they can do that without SOPA, they weren't trying to limit that stuff because again, they had the US government take down Megaupload.

I think what they were doing was, I think this is the scientific term "butt fuck everyones rights." I think that's right.

What's Piracy? At this point I'd say it's getting back at them for being assholes to everyone. I'm not saying pirate, I'm saying buy more used games.

 

[ex951753]

I find it interesting that so many people are so up in arms against piracy, some, even having the audacity to claim to never have pirated before. Look at you avatar, if you did not create it 100%, then chances are that too is a form of piracy. So lets all drop the elitist boasting.

 

[Athinira]

Interesting thought, but counterfeiting requires that anyone make a profit of it

Being able to possess something at no cost IS profit, chum.

The word you're looking for is "benefit", chum.

 

[emeraldrafael]

JIm has it right in its copyright infringement, but I would say its like counterfeiting.

I dont know, I've heard of when it was used and described as theft, and in that instnace it did sound like theft (i think it was something about either a patent design and the idea was stolen but I could be wrong) but I'd probably agree.

... Doesnt make it any less wrong.

The only arguement against piracy is the fact that it's illegal, that's it. If piracy were legal few people if anybody would care one way or the other about it. Besides, a Monopoly is illegal, and copyright laws allow one company to have a complete control on where and whether the distribution of a product is allowed, which is the definition of a Monopoly. If you look at it this way, piracy is in fact PREVENTING a crime, by preventing copyright holders from having complete Monopoly on digitally downloadable products.

Control of intellectual properties dont count as something that can classified as a monopoly. Monopolies (or at leaest the illegal ones, because there are legal monopolies, such as natural monopolies [water pipes, telephone lines to an extent, things of those nature where if competition were allowed it would be more detrimental to the consumer it wishes to serve then beneficial]) are on a firm level, and the allowance of competition to arise.

if companies didnt feel safe in that there were copyright laws where their intellectual properties couldnt be under their control for their use, they wouldnt bother and then no one would have anything. while the argument isnt as strong in say, media where someone will buy something that they didnt create just to own, it is when you look into things like major medical drug resources. And you cant really say "well, alright it can apply just to that industry, but not these ones, cause those guys are dicks about it" (which it seems most arguments about the develop turn into), so you have to expand that safety of intellectual properties to everyone.

Just think about it, if you were Nintendo, or more importantly Shigeru Miyamoto, would you want told how you're supposed to use your intellectual properties (as long as you own them of course, and the government doesnt make a legal intervention, which in this case would be rather hard for them).

...

Actually, the specilization and "monopoly" of what developers can do with intellectual properties is what helps keep a monopoly from forming. if every company had to share its properties with every other company (say nintendo having to share Zelda and making it for each platform, or vice versa with Mirosoft having to make a halo game for each platform, or even sony having to make um... having to make a God of war game for every platform) without the company having the free will to decide if it wants to there'd be no point in having multiple consoles and multiple companies cause there's nothing that would distinguish them from what would be their competition. Then you'd just have one universal console that can charge the price they want (which if you think 60 bucks US is outrageous, just wait until you saw companies charging triple for a single game and asking what you're gonna do about it when they're the only game in town) for whatever qaulity they see fit to put out.

 

[Pearwood]

and defecation.

I'm not sure what you intended to say there but it amused me.

Piracy is its own crime, part theft part counterfeit. Not much else to say about it, it's not theft, it's piracy.

 

[Veylon]

Nintendo is the only company that can develop ANYTHING Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc. related without their permission, and only THEY can decide anything from how those products are distributed, where, to even the CONTENT that these products contain. For instance, some places never see releases of some Nintendo games, and even if it's incredibly stupid not to have it if they don't like something their developer is putting in a game it's gone, just like that.

In short, copyrights allow companies to have complete and utter control over everything that has their copyright in it, and they can charge us whatever they want for any product with their copyright on it, because they know that if we want that product, they're the only ones we can get it from.

And what is wrong with this? Why should somebody else get to make a crappy game, slap "Mario" on the cover, and trick people into buying it? The only reason anyone wants a particular franchise is because of the hard work that has gone into keeping it good. That mechanism goes straight to hell if just anyone can pick up a character and do whatever they want. I wouldn't want that with a franchise I created, so why should Nintendo?

Now, if a game didn't get released where you are and there's no reasonable method of obtaining it, pirate away. It's not your fault if Nintendo is refusing to take your money.