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

[SenseOfTumour]

ok, it's now amusing how much talk of the definition of 'theft' there's been when my whole point was to try to get away from that idea.

I'm in full agreement now with one person however, why not call it copyright infringement or piracy? Depending on how serious the context is, I guess you can't call it piracy in court.

Also, someone stated it wasn't counterfeiting, but I meant it's similar to counterfeiting banknotes, in that you're copying something and in doing so, slightly reducing the value of the originals out there. Wasn't anything about ideas as such.

 

[Woodsey]

Its not theft in the strictest definition of the word "theft". Even so, it is still theft. You take a product that is not yours, that has been created for the purpose of being sold, you consume it, and you don't pay for it. You've gained, they've lost - whether or not you were going to buy it anyway is irrelevant (for this side of the argument, it would be relevant if we were talking about DRM), you've assigned a value to it by way of consuming it.

This whole thing is very odd. Gamers seem to get antsy about it being "JUST FUCKING COPYRIGHT ARE YOU STOOPID OR WOT?" purely because the morons in the the government of various countries are too fucking old to actually understand the issue with trying to introduce laws on the internet.

Personal opinion in a nutshell: piracy is theft, (current) attempts at trying to regulate the internet are ridiculous. If someone invests time and money into a product that they are going to sell, and you consume it without paying, then you have robbed them of that time and money.

So, what you're saying is that even though it doesn't meet the definition of theft, it's still theft? That makes no sense at all. You're entitled to your opinion, however it is completely wrong. Legally it is not theft and that's the only context that matters.

Wait a second! The LEGAL definition is what is most important in the LAW?! NO ONE TOLD ME THIS!

But yes, thank you Atticus. The point I was putting forward was that in 'spirit' and motivation (most of the time), its the same thing as stealing a physical copy. Obviously the crux of the definition (the physical taking) is not the same.

If we were all only talking about the actual legal definition as it is now then all these piracy threads would have exactly one post.

 

[Alterego-X]

Its not theft in the strictest definition of the word "theft". Even so, it is still theft. You take a product that is not yours, that has been created for the purpose of being sold, you consume it, and you don't pay for it. You've gained, they've lost - whether or not you were going to buy it anyway is irrelevant (for this side of the argument, it would be relevant if we were talking about DRM), you've assigned a value to it by way of consuming it.

So, what if you do this in a country where it's legal to make copy for personal use? Is that still theft?

 

[direkiller]

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.

No it isint it falls under fair use.
(prong 3&4) if you want to be technical(no mensurable economic cost incurred and the amount of copyrited material used).

Meanwhile piracy fails on all points of fair use. Arguably you can say old games do not result in an economic loss but pirating current games dose have a measurable amount of loss.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

Don't think piracy is theft? Willing to argue against it 'til the cows come home? Here's an idea: stop calling it "piracy".

pi·ra·cy
Noun:
1. The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
2. A similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking.

Call it something else. I think the OP is on to something with the "counterfeiting" idea.

 

[krazykidd]

I will put out this little scenario, and leave it at that. You and an online buddy are excited about getting Destroyer Arcade, the biggest, baddest FPS Shooter hyped at all the big conventions. You put in extra hours at your job to make sure you can get it on release day, all the time messaging your buddy on what you are putting in to get this game, and how much your boss is riding you about overtime and such. But you manage to get a big enough paycheck to get the game without having to make important sacrifices to food(Yay, no ramen!) or other extraneous bills(Yay, can keep ZCube Online going for another month!)
The big day comes, you spend the entire day camped out in front of the gamestore, and get home in time to install the game for your usual nightly gaming fest. You and your buddy are going at it, having a whole lot of fun, and during a loading screen it occurs to you to ask your buddy what he had to give up to get the game.
"Oh, nothing, I found it on a torrent two days ago and had already had some practice on the single player up to the launch."


Setting aside the feelings of the developers and the publishers for the moment, what emotion would be running through your veins about then after the sacrifice in time you had to make in order to get the game? This should be something also to consider where piracy is concerned.

How does this have ANYTHING to do with what Op was saying?

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

You're taking something of value and copying it, and in doing so, making more copies than were originally available, and in doing so, devaluing the originals.

Counterfeiting is copying an idea and passing it off as your own, so piracy is definately not counterfeiting. Still, I suspect Battlefield and COD might have some shenigens...

It is after all, one of the pirate's excuse that 'games/cds/movies aren't worth the asking price', but that's coming from the perspective of someone who gets them for free.

That was my perspective until the recent DRM and SOPA stuff. I realized I was actually hurting myself and others - worse of all, prices still remain the same for games that had clearly ended a good run. I admit to preordering MW3 and I regret it. COD has clearly ended it's good run at MW2 yet I was too blinded by loyalty to see it.

I don't believe every download is a lost sale, but I do believe piracy in general devalues what's being copied.

Hm... you may have a point there about every download not being a lost sale, but if you mention that be ready for lots of hyperbole, rhetorical sentences and defecation. Personally I disagree with you but let's leave it at that.

Although if you're talking about devalue as in lowering the retail price, that's wrong. But if you're talking about devaluing the work that was put into creating it, yes - I agree.

Overall piracy is still theft - albeit electronically. It's hard to see it as theft as it does not involve physically taking something you did not pay for. Theft may
not be the right term. How about electronic shop-lifting?

I thought counterfeight meant making a copy of something. Like counterfeight money is fake money that is made to look like real money . I think what you discribed was copyright...

OT: OP has an interesting point , but doesn't change the fact that piracy is bad. Piracy causes a lot of problems that wouldn't exist if people didn't pirate.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

No it isint it falls under fair use.
(prong 3&4) if you want to be technical(no mensurable economic cost incurred and the amount of copyrited material used).

Meanwhile piracy fails on all points of fair use. Arguably you can say old games do not result in an economic loss but pirating current games dose have a measurable amount of loss.

Actually, no, piracy doesn't cause a measurable loss. Just think about it: How could we even measure the harm that is caused to a product by piracy, without the same content release being repeated in a completely piracy-free environment, and comparing the numbers?

The only difference between fair use and piracy, is that Fair Use happens to be legal.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

People have no other reason to hate Piracy at all, because it's a completely victimless crime.

Except it's not.

The very nature of piracy is to take something without paying for it. Does it deprive anyone of their copy of the item? No, but the fact remains that you now got something without paying the creators.

So? Nobody victimises ANYBODY by pirating. Nothing is physically stolen from content creator, the content creator isn't physically harmed, no other people are harmed by it, plenty of people still buy the product, while anyone who pirates would never have purchased the product anyway, so nobody's even being hurt in the wallet, and if somebody pirates in most cases the content creator isn't even AWARE of it.

But you are taking their intellectual property without paying for it. The programmers, and designers, and everyone who created the games you are pirating put weeks, months and years into creating a game. It is their property, they deserve to be paid for their efforts, and I'm pretty sure that they make it a legal requirement for you to pay in order to experience their work. By pirating it you are consuming the experience they designed and refusing to pay them for it. It doesn't matter if you "wouldn't have bought the game anyway" because you are still stealing the experience they created without paying them.

You cannot say that it is a victimless crime. It hurts the developers and people that create games. There have definitely been sales lost through piracy. There have been people that would have bought the game, but because it was available for free, pirated it. Now, potential loss is a dirty word around here, so I won't get into the ratios, but considering the AAA games are pirated 2-3 million times, and launch prices for those games are £40-£50 ($60ish) there is a considerable amount of cash being bled from game companies by piracy, hurting the budgets and production of sequels, which hurts all gamers.
Both Alan Wake and the Witcher had doubts cast on the profitability of their sequels, because of poor both managed to secure sequels with some difficulty (and the Witcher 2 is considered an excellent game) the lost sales from piracy definitely hurt their chances of those games ever being created, and if left unchecked, it is only a matter of time before a game isn't granted a sequel due to poor sales, while millions have experienced the game for free and never paid a penny.
It has been established as fact that companies are moving from using the PC to console game because there is less piracy on consoles! Even if you dispute that its a silly move for the company, or piracy isn't that much of an issue, it has created a tangible shift in resources which is hurting PC gamers. Skyrim; a PC franchise, was a console port, leading to graphical limits and gameplay design unsuited for PV gaming. The Halo franchise from Halo 3 onwards was console only, meaning I never got to play any of the damn games. Finish the fight indeed.
Why does all this DRM and 3 limited installs crap exist? Because of piracy. These measures would not have been put in place if piracy wasn't a thing, so it is hurting gamers as well as developers

 

[Raesvelg]

No, it's not the same thing in "spirit" at all, nothing has been taken, no one has been deprived. Seriously, what's wrong with calling it copyright infringement? Or does it not have enough emotional impact as theft?

What's wrong with calling it theft, then?

Too much emotional impact?

And technically, part of the text to copyright infringement is worded, more or less, "deprive the copyright holder of income derived" from the sale of the item in question. So you are depriving them of something. Specifically, of the money you technically should have paid them for a legitimate copy.

The whole "Piracy = Theft" concept basically can be boiled down to a simple example:

Let's say that for whatever reason, I can make copies of an item that cost me literally nothing to produce. If you walk up and take one of those copies without my permission, legally it's considered theft.

The difference between this and copyright infringement is very, very slim.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

No, its theft.

no it isnt. at least, not in scotland. for it to constitute theft, it has to be taken without permission, and it has to be done with intent to remove the possession from the owner. if i copy-paste a document (basically what piracy is) then i now have two identical documents. if i put one on a USB memory drive, and give it to a friend, i still possess the original.

Yes let's argue about dictionary definitions

the thing is, it isnt a dictionary definition. its the legal requirement. if i'm drunk, cant take care of myself and alone in a public place, i'm breaking the law. if someone sober is with me, i'm not.

Technically, piracy is breach of contract. Nothing worse.

yeah, thats about it. and you cant even charge the downloader with breach of contract, because they didnt enter the contract. nor the host, because they didnt enter a contract, or breach it if they did.

 

[Raesvelg]

What's wrong with calling it theft? Are you joking? It doesn't meet the definition of theft! It's not a slim difference at all and your analogy doesn't work. If I take one of your items you are down an item, the fact you can produce a limitless supply of them is irrelevant.

And yet that is the crux of the whole "Piracy /= Theft" argument. That since the digital copies cost the copyright holder nothing, nothing is lost, therefor Piracy Is Not Theft. Hence the analogy; if the copies themselves cost me nothing to produce (nothing, incidentally, covers time as well as capital, essentially meaning that the instant you take a copy, one magically appears in its place), then the only value they have associated with them is the one I assign to them as their owner. And yet stealing one is still theft.

Understand, I realize that copyright infringement is not technically theft. I just have no problem in referring to it as theft, and I don't quite understand why people get so defensive over it.

Evidently, they'd rather think of themselves as "Copyright Infringers" than "Thieves".

 

[Alterego-X]

You cannot say that it is a victimless crime. It hurts the developers and people that create games. There have definitely been sales lost through piracy. There have been people that would have bought the game, but because it was available for free, pirated it.

And there have definitely been sales won through piracy. If 6 million people bought one game, while 5 million bought and 10 million pirated another, then it's 6 vs. 15 million people discussing them, the news sites will be a lot more eager the cover the one with 15 million readers than the other one, etc, so it will grow even larger, and some of it's more players will be legit buyers. Maybe even more than 1 million.

Both Alan Wake and the Witcher had doubts cast on the profitability of their sequels, because of poor both managed to secure sequels with some difficulty (and the Witcher 2 is considered an excellent game)

And many other excellent games fail completely, while others sell huge numbers. And even if piracy wouldn't exist, obviously SOME games woul have to have poor sales.

Even if you dispute that its a silly move for the company, or piracy isn't that much of an issue, it has created a tangible shift in resources which is hurting PC gamers. Why does all this DRM and 3 limited installs crap exist? Because of piracy. These measures would not have been put in place if piracy wasn't a thing, so it is hurting gamers as well as developers

If we assume that it's a silly move for the company, then it is really unfair to blame these on piracy. It's like if a man would set his hose on fire to get rid of mosquitos, and then everyone would blame it on the mosquitoes.

 

[Dogstile]

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.

Roughly the same thing here. OP: The reason most people didn't respond so quickly is because its like pissing against the wind when you try to tell them they have their definitions wrong. You get told you're defending piracy and that you're as bad as a pirate and whatever the fuck else even if you're not. Its a little tiring and most people have just decided to let other people be wrong with that definition.

And yes, you can say "yeah, but its illegal". Well then, to those people, say that then, instead of theft. Then you won't be wrong now will you? I got a little ranty there and most of it was aimed at other arguments but i needed an outlet.

Now onto your main point. They aren't making a product so I don't think so. Its an interesting spin on it certainly, but it still is wrong. Copyright infringement is still the most logical way to describe it so far. But kudos on the idea, it certainly is different.

(disclaimer: If I sound like i'm trying to kill off silly arguments before they start, its because I am)