...so the IP Commision wants to infect everyone's computers with malware...

[Mocmocman]

Sorry, didn't see any links from it, is it just something with my computer or what?

Oh there's links there alright.

Have a look again. Go and quote one if its other posts (but don't hit the post button). There's hidden spam links in every post that bot has made.

By quoting it in a post, you're spreading the hidden spam links around, which is exactly what the bot wants people to do.

Huh. Clever (enough to fool an idiot like me.)

 

[nexus]

The stupidest part is that cracked copies would likely have this malware removed, so the pirates get a better product again.

Yea, the thing is they're not out to stop piracy. They're really just out to establish a means to control and watch everyone. It has been obvious for about 5 years now. I really don't know how nefarious.. most likely just publisher monopolies and stuff like that.

 

[Devil's Due]

Maybe if people would stop pirating and actually pay for what they use, then maybe all this wouldn't happen. Seriously people, own up. I pay for all my songs, and those that I am on the edge about I just favorite their official YouTube page and listen to it there until I decide in time if I want to buy it or move on. I have never illegally downloaded a game, either. If I am going to play it, I will buy it. If I did not like the game, I will try to get a refund if it's a technical issue or write a poor review about it if I completed it to warn others.

A lot of these anti-privacy acts wouldn't be in place if people OWNED UP TO THEIR CRIME. If you can't pay for the game, you do not get to play it. There is no justification. None. Once you pay for it, you agree to their terms. If you dislike their terms, do not buy from them.

And before anyone flame bombs me, I never recheck any thread that I post in again that's about piracy because it's always "WELL, I DESERVE THE GAME SO" remarks. No thanks.

Please stop stealing, and then we'll have a nicer place. Thank you.

 

[Silvershadowfire]

The idea that they might even consider putting out software that locks down someone's computer and takes their picture with their own web cam scares the ever living crud out of me. I'm glad I'm in Canada, where this would never fly.

That being said... I don't think that it's ever going to be legal under American law. Innocent until proven guilty - and the first time that an innocent third party lost everything because of this, they're going to sue the pants off someone. I can smell the class action law suits now.

 

[Product Placement]

I do think the title is misleading at best...

Well, to each their own but I personally consider the implementations that they're describing in page 81 to be malicious in nature. Particularly the part where your computer is locked down, if it detects unauthorized access. So no, I don't think I'm misleading anyone here.

Maybe I'm guilty of sensationalizing things, sure, but I wouldn't be the first person to stoop to that level.

 

[DoPo]

I do think the title is misleading at best...

Well, to each their own but I personally consider the implementations that they're describing in page 81 to be malicious in nature. Particularly the part where your computer is locked down, if it detects unauthorized access. So no, I don't think I'm misleading anyone here.

Except it's not "pirates", nor "everybody", nor it's truly "infecting", right? Because the way I read it it's for data actually stolen from the company. Unless, again, by "stolen", they mean "copyright infringement"

Maybe I'm guilty of sensationalizing things, sure, but I wouldn't be the first person to stoop to that level.

So...the immortal words of Linkara 'Ah, the "they started it" defence - very popular among 8-year-olds.'

 

[Product Placement]

Unless, again, by "stolen", they mean "copyright infringement"

And it's precisely the "Unless" part, that I'm worrying about. At any rate, the malicious code that's required to give the IP holder the power to do this crap to the pirate's computer, would still be in everyone's legal copies as well. This opens up huge security concerns for anyone purchasing it.

the immortal words of Linkara

And I'll have you know that using someone else's words doesn't stop you from looking like a condescending asshole. I managed to defend my point without resulting to name calling; why can't you?

 

[DoPo]

Unless, again, by "stolen", they mean "copyright infringement"

And it's precisely the "Unless" part, that I'm worrying about. At any rate, the malicious code that's required to give the IP holder the power to do this crap to the pirate's computer, would still be in everyone's legal copies as well. This opens up huge security concerns for anyone purchasing it.

Go ahead and read the document before you start worrying, will you? Prove it to me that what you're saying is actually a concern and then come back and we can discuss this. Right now you're just making wild theories.

And don't "defend" your position with stuff that literally kindergarteners say to defend themselves - that makes you look immature. What of sensationalism? Well it's against forum rules to post misleading titles. It looks a bit like the true portion of the title is "IP commission". Also, outright lies are something I'm not comfortable in people defending.

 

[Product Placement]

-snip-

Ok mister derailer. Way to go and latch on what was originally supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek confession of me maybe dipping into a bit of sensationalization in my title. I said that I believed I wasn't deceiving anyone and yet you keep insisting that I'm lying to people and breaking forum rules (btw, sensationalizing is the idea of pointing out the most shocking bit of the news story in the title, without resulting to a lie. If this is forbidden in the escapist, then every other news article here is breaking the site rules). I pointed out the very thing that you were asking for; they're recommending that legal copies of programs contain malicious code, designed to lock down computer. These are not wild theories; it says so on the paper.

But now you're strawmanning my entire thing, by simplifying that my entire argument is nothing more then "other people mislead with their titles; I wanna too!"

So, thank you but no. I have no more interest in discussing anything with you further. Go ahead and call me immature, while you're at it.

 

[Ickorus]

It's sad that we the consumer constantly have to fight tooth and nail for our rights against businesses that should be bending over backwards to make us happy, something has gone seriously wrong in our society for this to be the case.

Given how some people are quite happy to bend over and let corporations fuck them silly, I'm wondering how long it'll be until someone comes into this thread and tries to defends this bullshit.

I don't think they've gone far enough, they should put something in the users body that induces cardiac arrest until the user admits to being a dirty little thief, y'know, unless they die first.

 

[DoPo]

-snip-

Ok mister derailer.

Dude, I want to discuss the IP commission stuff with you. You don't You want to call witch hunts without knowing what or why. Tell me - have you read the report? Did you even look at it at all before you posted this thread?

I said that I believed I wasn't deceiving anyone and yet you keep insisting that I'm lying to people and breaking forum rules (btw, sensationalizing is the idea of pointing out the most shocking bit of the news story in the title, without resulting to a lie. If this is forbidden in the escapist, then every other news article here is breaking the site rules).

How do you know that? Tell me, how do you know that? Are you sure that's what the IP commission suggests? is this what you want to believe? I told you I had a look through the document and didn't find that part, you on the other hand didn't do anything to confirm what you're saying is true. I don't even think if you yourself know it or not. You can't just blindly believe stuff when confirmation is at your fingertips.

I pointed out the very thing that you were asking for; they're recommending that legal copies of programs contain malicious code, designed to lock down computer. These are not wild theories; it says so on the paper.

Page number and/or direct quote. You said page 81 - that is about stealing information from the company. "Some information or data developed by companies must remain exposed to the Internet and thus may not be physically isolated from it. In these cases, protection must be undertaken for the files themselves and not just the network, which always has the ability to be compromised." this should be able to clue you in it's not software copies they are talking about - it's about data physically present, exposed to the Internet and not able to be isolated. It throws the words "network" and "protection" together, so it's not a software copy it's a network of computers they are protecting. Again, unless there is something else they mean - you did not show me any hidden meanings, just went "well, if they DO mean something else, it'd be bad" - yes, it'd be bad, but ARE THEY talking about piracy? Seems pretty clear to me it's malicious crackers and corporate espionage they are targeting.

But now you're strawmanning my entire thing, by simplifying that my entire argument is nothing more then "other people mislead with their titles; I wanna too!"

No, you said

Maybe I'm guilty of sensationalizing things, sure, but I wouldn't be the first person to stoop to that level.

Or in other words, "Others do it, too!". can I read this in any other way than trying to justify yourself by pointing out you're not the only person guilty? Because that's what you did say.

So, thank you but no. I have no more interest in discussing anything with you further.

No, it seems you don't want to discuss anything. You don't even seem to know your source material - you're throwing accusations.

 

[DoPo]

Ownership of what I create is insanely important to the functioning of capitalism.

Well, you, erm, do, umm...you know, own it. By definition and by default. It seems you're saying that piracy is taking that from you, or did I read that wrong?

Piracy is theft. That's definitional.

Piracy is copyright infringement - while illegal, it's definitely different than theft. Whether or not somebody pirates your stuff, you still maintain ownership of the IP and that's why their action would be illegal.

Also you are immediately granted ownership of anything you create (unless, say, you're working for a company and have signed a contract to grant them the rights to your work) so that's why I found your comment a bit baffling - piracy cannot take an actual IP away from you.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Again, I thank God I'm not an American. I really pity you guys, stupid people are in control

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Ownership of what I create is insanely important to the functioning of capitalism.

Well, you, erm, do, umm...you know, own it. By definition and by default. It seems you're saying that piracy is taking that from you, or did I read that wrong?

Piracy is theft. That's definitional.

Piracy is copyright infringement - while illegal, it's definitely different than theft. Whether or not somebody pirates your stuff, you still maintain ownership of the IP and that's why their action would be illegal.

Also you are immediately granted ownership of anything you create (unless, say, you're working for a company and have signed a contract to grant them the rights to your work) so that's why I found your comment a bit baffling - piracy cannot take an actual IP away from you.

Having recently just had an expert give a lecture on the subject of copyright, I will point out to you that copyright infringement is itself a type of theft XD. You have to buy the copyright off the creator/owner to be allowed to distribute the copyrighted material, something which a pirate hasn't done.
((And for a receiver who doesn't then re-distribute the material, it's basically the same as keeping/holding stolen goods, same as if someone stole a phone or the museum's priceless ruby then sold/gave it on to you, so they're still in the wrong.))

So yeah...

 

[DoPo]

Ownership of what I create is insanely important to the functioning of capitalism.

Well, you, erm, do, umm...you know, own it. By definition and by default. It seems you're saying that piracy is taking that from you, or did I read that wrong?

Piracy is theft. That's definitional.

Piracy is copyright infringement - while illegal, it's definitely different than theft. Whether or not somebody pirates your stuff, you still maintain ownership of the IP and that's why their action would be illegal.

Also you are immediately granted ownership of anything you create (unless, say, you're working for a company and have signed a contract to grant them the rights to your work) so that's why I found your comment a bit baffling - piracy cannot take an actual IP away from you.

Having recently just had an expert give a lecture on the subject of copyright, I will point out to you that copyright infringement is itself a type of theft XD. You have to buy the copyright off the creator/owner to be allowed to distribute the copyrighted material, something which a pirate hasn't done.
((And for a receiver who doesn't then re-distribute the material, it's basically the same as keeping/holding stolen goods, same as if someone stole a phone or the museum's priceless ruby then sold/gave it on to you, so they're still in the wrong.))

So yeah...

Umm, you don't have to "buy" it, you need permission to redistribute. Or to be more formal, infringement is exercising rights you do not hold over a a property. Copyright infringement is for, of course, copyright - the rights of either the IP holder or what they can grant.

Moreover, theft is applicable to physical objects.

If your expert didn't draw distinction between the two, then either you live somewhere with more unusual laws or the expert may have been...well, not presenting the truth properly either through accidental or purposeful error.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Ownership of what I create is insanely important to the functioning of capitalism.

Well, you, erm, do, umm...you know, own it. By definition and by default. It seems you're saying that piracy is taking that from you, or did I read that wrong?

Piracy is theft. That's definitional.

Piracy is copyright infringement - while illegal, it's definitely different than theft. Whether or not somebody pirates your stuff, you still maintain ownership of the IP and that's why their action would be illegal.

Also you are immediately granted ownership of anything you create (unless, say, you're working for a company and have signed a contract to grant them the rights to your work) so that's why I found your comment a bit baffling - piracy cannot take an actual IP away from you.

Having recently just had an expert give a lecture on the subject of copyright, I will point out to you that copyright infringement is itself a type of theft XD. You have to buy the copyright off the creator/owner to be allowed to distribute the copyrighted material, something which a pirate hasn't done.
((And for a receiver who doesn't then re-distribute the material, it's basically the same as keeping/holding stolen goods, same as if someone stole a phone or the museum's priceless ruby then sold/gave it on to you, so they're still in the wrong.))

So yeah...

Umm, you don't have to "buy" it, you need permission to redistribute. Or to be more formal, infringement is exercising rights you do not hold over a a property. Copyright infringement is for, of course, copyright - the rights of either the IP holder or what they can grant.

Moreover, theft is applicable to physical objects.

If your expert didn't draw distinction between the two, then either you live somewhere with more unusual laws or the expert may have been...well, not presenting the truth properly either through accidental or purposeful error.

Indeed, You need permission to redistribute, which is something that a company or entity will (usually, though i guess there could be some exceptions somewhere) buy from the author or creator, for a negotiated sum((look for example at the THQ auction that happened a little while back, where all it's various IP's were sold off)).

This permission to distribute is called 'copyright', the right to copy
There are ofcourse some elements of your copyright which cannot be transferred, these are called moral rights (they include the right be be credited as the works creator, the right to not be mis-credited, and the right to 'artistic integrity'.... which basically means they can't do anything you're not happy with).

Although these moral rights can't be transferred, individuals can chose not to enforce them. Usually when selling the copyright to something, the previous owner also signs an agreement saying they won't pursue their moral rights.
You are partially right though, in that a copyright owner may instead sell licenses of varing degrees, which may include a right to redistribute, or the more more common right to a single copy ((which is how games tend to work))

Don't get me wrong, I am not here to argue that piracy isn't copyright infringement. It definitely is, that is the proper term for it, it's just the assertion that 'it's not theft' tends to be a somewhat dubious argument. For example your latter point, I believe the proper legal term you are looking for is a 'Theft of service', which is still a legally defined act of theft/larceny .
((this isn't coming from the lecture now, this is just my own research on the matter))


So yeah, despite what the internet would have you to believe, piracy really is just a less direct form of theft. Amusingly enough, a pirate has basically 'stolen the copyright' XD.
I guess a good way of recontextualising the argument against piracy being theft is that it's kinda like saying 'no, oranges aren't a fruit they're a citrus'.

---

Personally I always considered piracy as being most akin to Counterfeit. I mean counterfeiting is where you make fake-ass duplicates of something and distribute them, which sounds a lot like piracy. Before when I've mentioned it people have countered that piracy is literal duplicates of the actual product therefore it can't really be counterfeit, but my own rebuttal is that the quality of the counterfeit reproduction isn't really what defines something as counterfeit or not.
I don't know, care to share your opinion on the idea?

((on a side note, since you got me thinking of it again; did you know that two people could both create an identical work, and both be the rightful copyright owners? Despite being exactly the same, we both came to it our own ways, without having copied each other, therefore in copyright terms we're both legit, you own yours and I own mine. Even if one came first. I thought that was kinda interesting))

 

[Dryk]

Again, I thank God I'm not an American. I really pity you guys, stupid people are in control

You think that a Congress backed MPAA would care whose computers it infects? It won't be confined to the US if it goes through I almost guarantee it.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Again, I thank God I'm not an American. I really pity you guys, stupid people are in control

You think that a Congress backed MPAA would care whose computers it infects? It won't be confined to the US if it goes through I almost guarantee it.

No but the Australian government would need to fix it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Piracy is theft. That's definitional.

*sigh*
Really? People are still perpetuating that lie?
Even after it has been proven false several dozens of times before if not hundreds (on this site alone)?

I ponder whether people just aren't educating themselves, or they're throwing out known misconceptions just to draw attention to themselves.

DoPo has it correct: Software Piracy is just lingo for Copyright Infringement; not theft.

BY LEGAL DEFINITION: Theft requires the object being stolen to be just that: Stolen. Not created, not destroyed. Simply transferred from its legal owner to the perpetrator without the owner's consent. One object per instance of theft. Piracy always requires at least two different objects in question: an original copy and a new copy.

Software piracy does not magically destroy copies of software on the market, nor does it magically deduct cash from bank reserves. It competes with production of Copyrighted goods, where Copyright is just a legal monopoly on the right of production and reproduction of specific Information Goods.

Since the cost of reproduction is minimal once the original production is completed, this results in new lines of supply filling demand at the lowest cost possible (near-free to free) while those charging for the copies earn less by simple economic law.