Study Claims Handheld Game Piracy Losses Top $41 Billion

[Seldon2639]

Listen, the entire argument is built around the flawed core that every pirated copy is a lost sale. If this were true, then every image of a dead body is a prevented (or lost) murder, every frame of pornography is a prevented (or lost) sexual act, every instance of child pornography is a prevented (or lost) rape. You can't have one without the rest.

It's simplistic to frame it that way. It does not require an argument that every pirated copy is a lost "sale" to argue that it is (a) wrong, (b) theft, and (c) wrong again.

Your fundamental premise is still the same one that I've shown to be fallacious: that the "loss" due to a pirated copy is the actual value of the physical media (in this case, nothing). That only works if we assume that the true value of any product can be measured solely in the cost of the generation of that individual copy. But, in the same way that any pornographic movie cost money to create in the first place, the copies are actually worth more than the simple physical value of the DVD. Your analogy is flawed, as pornography, pictures, and child pornography are either recordings, or simulacra. They are not replications of the actual product. A picture of a murder is not a murder, a movie of sex is not having sex, and child pornography isn't actually abusing a child.

To compare a pirated game to porn is inapt. The closest analogy there would be that porn is to sex what video walkthroughs of a game are to actual gaming. A pirated game, though, that's the real deal. You are not seeing a recording of the underlying event (as with the media you describe above), you're getting the actual product. Remember, as well, that you pay for commercial photographs, and for commercial pornography (if you want to be legal, that is).

Also, the differences between used games and piracy from the consumer's point of view is irrelevant to the producer's point of view. As far as they're concerned, piracy and used games the exact same thing. But theres actual quantification of lost sales in the form of profit made by large retail chains engaged in the "used games" scam.

In terms of lost profit to the original developer, they are much the same. That actually weakens your argument. If both can be viewed as a loss of what would otherwise have been either a sale, or someone not playing the game at all, the distinction is one without a difference.

You're right, though, used games are different. The difference is that it's one individual copy changing hands. A copy bought and paid for is being transferred between different entities. At no point is a second copy generated, and bought, bartered, traded, or donated. Legally, there's a huge distinction, morally there's a huge distinction.

 

[Seldon2639]

In a sense it is a right due to the inspirational and educational values inherit within all media, the human animal needs sustenance for the soul not just the body alone, not to mentin posting blogging,ect the words you right could be copy righted and you could be harassed for daring to distribute(post) them thats a bad direction to go in IMO.

Wow... So the fact that I might want to get my soul fed using media makes it my right to use it for free? That's... Just... Wow. I also probably have a right to food, clean water, electricity, and other essentials on Maslow's hierarchy of need, but I still pay for the damned food.

As for blogs, I'm allowed to distribute (within fair use) certain types of media under certain restrictions. But, I must do so in such a way as adds new content. That's how fair use works.

So split the difference protect the licensed money making chain by harshly going after anyone that tries to make money off it and allow all distribution that is not making money or falls under the present status for fair use.

No. You can't protect the money-making chain without stopping the not-for-profit distribution of the same media. Excluding fair use (again, it does protect someone adding new content and ideas to an existing product, as with parody), to exempt any pirate enterprise which doesn't make money would essentially end the ability to make money off of products we create. That seems bad.

"There, I went and stole your words. Now you no longer have those words because I have stolen them from you. If I had infringed the copyright of your words you'd still have them, I'd just be benefiting from them as well, but because I stole them you can no longer have them."

Eh... You're misunderstanding the term "theft" or "stealing" in this context. It isn't so much the theft of the words, as the theft of the dominion over the product. My right to be the sole distributor, and reap all rewards from the distribution of my works, is what is at stake. The words themselves are not important. You've stolen my right to sell my product, and I'd like it back.

ahem........
Between how parody and copy right itself works you can duplicate a story up to 70-80% and sale it of course if any established "like story" with lawyers smells blood in the water they will sue and its a 50/50 roll of the dice if you are found to have plagiarized or not.

Not really, no. You either have to show sufficient addition to the story to make it either truly independent, or a parody. You cannot make a product which is substantially similar to an existing product which competes with the original product. I can make a parody of Twilight, and sell it, and I'm fine because it does not compete with the original product upon which its based. I could make a more adult version of Twilight, better-written, more mature (though then I might run into problems with Laurel Hamilton, but I digress), and I'd be fine in terms of my relation to Ms. Meyers, because my product does not compete with hers.

Otherwise, I have to show that my product was created independently and is only coincidentally similar to the existing product.

If I can't show independence, and it's competing in the same market with marked similarities, I'm hosed, and it's far better than a flip of a coin that opposing counsel will take me to the cleaner's.

All media is made from media and or the point of view of the story creator,not much is made in a vacuum so its hard to place absolutes beyond making any kind of money from unlicensed copies.

It's pretty easy to say that there's simply too much similarity between "Under Pressure" and "Ice, Ice, Baby" to be either coincidence or simple "influence". It was outright theft. That's what's at issue here. So, no, we can put in place an absolute that you can't re-release a product of significant similarities to compete with an existing product upon which it is based. I especially can't re-release the exact same product to compete with an existing product, especially especially if I'm releasing it for free. I don't care if people aren't making a dime, they're still stealing.

Edit
If you want to get down to specifics I suppose its more a protected privilege on the edge of being a right than a simple full blown right that you can not question, then again all of rights these days are questioned...

Nope. It's neither a protected privilege nor anything within shouting distance of being a right. You have the right to purchase media to enjoy, not a right to acquire media without concern for the recompense to the creator. Period.

 

[Seldon2639]

~Snip~

I also thought this quotation from Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises would be useful to elucidate the whole "non-profit" issue

"The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the solee motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price".

To further quote from Copyright Law and Practice by William F. Patry "the core of commerciality [is]: not just the receipt of incomes from sales of the defendant's work, but also the financial benefit obtaind by avoiding an otherwise due payment for the use of the copyrighted work".

It's also worth remembering that a copyright comprises the right to sole distribution, the right to replication, and the right to create derivative works. Aside from the affirmative defense of fair use (which is limited to the use of copyrighted materials to create a distinct new product), the only person who gets to distribute a given product is the entity which originally made it.

 

[Seldon2639]

Except it does require quantifiable damages before it can be argued, beyond textbook definition, that something is a problem.

No, not really. I need not prove (legally speaking) the extent of damages arising from a copyright violation in order for the violation to be wrong. Nor does it require that the violating work actually have made a profit. The mere existence of the violation in a commercialized sense (which includes but is not limited to the avoidance of paying for the product) is a "problem"

In terms of lost profit to the original developer, they are much the same. That actually weakens your argument. If both can be viewed as a loss of what would otherwise have been either a sale, or someone not playing the game at all, the distinction is one without a difference.

A: morality is completely subjective, so don't bother.

Okay. Replace "morally" with "ethically" or "legally" and it loses its subjectivity. Violation of a copyright is prima facie illegal, and save for an affirmative defense of fair use (which piracy is not), it's simply illegal. Morality was a bad thing to invoke, I'll stick to law and ethics.

B: That only weakens my argument if you completely misunderstand the point of bringing up used games. Every sale of a used game by a large retailer can be quantified as a lost sale for the publishers/developers, because that used sale went to someone willing to buy games. Which means theres actually more evidence that used games is actually damaging to the industry than piracy.

As I pointed out, the difference exists in the fact that the game was already bought, and is merely being transferred from one entity to another. The game itself was bought free and clear.

Of course, the same argument of "save for this ability to pay less than full price, this game would not have been purchased" applies, so your distinction is still one without significant difference. But, even so, it's a false flag. The fact that it represents a greater loss to the game developers is not what distinguishes a "bad thing" from an "okay thing", it's the amount of illegal and unjust damage it does.

 

[ScruffyTheJanitor]

lies.. dam lies and statistics.

It's never work if we removed piracy. The companies would then control the entire market and lets be fair, they'd live out the higher majority of the savings and still charge people 30 quid for a game they have to strain their vision to play. I doubt it will go anywhere else.

 

[Seldon2639]

lies.. dam lies and statistics.

It's never work if we removed piracy. The companies would then control the entire market and lets be fair, they'd live out the higher majority of the savings and still charge people 30 quid for a game they have to strain their vision to play. I doubt it will go anywhere else.

There will never be innovation in an industry until we make the profits from the development of products in that industry as close to nothing as possible. Holy crap.

You're insane. The companies should control the market, they're the ones making the products. That's how capitalism works, guys. And (like any copyright holder) they have the right to first distribution, reproduction, and derivative works. Incidentally, do you know the fastest way to actually make an industry less innovative? Choke off the profitability of innovation. What with the Humble Indie Bundle being pirated out the ass, World of Goo seeing over 90% piracy, and Spore being pirated over a million times, it doesn't seem like we're really supporting the whole "innovate, make better, cheaper, games" thing.

So your entire argument is legality. Thats likely the worst stance you could possibly take, as law, in a capitalistic society, is written by whoever has the most money... or soldiers (slavery).

I'll give you some credit for not going the Godwin way down the primrose path, but you're still full of it. The argument that laws are inherently invalid (especially without proof of current invalidity or corruption) makes you either paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, or nuts. None of which make you a reliable source on this issue. Show me widespread corruption and laws being passed on the basis of who has the most money, show me widespread modern failure of laws to be representative.

As with all of your posts, you [need citations]

Not to mention the reason the organized sale of used games isn't illegal right now is because publishers have already attempted that legal battle. They found an entity will spend every cent it has in defense of it's existence. Which means suing massive retail chains for putting "used" copies on the shelf for 10% less than new copies is like playing chicken with a freight train.

Uh... I'd like to see what court case you think exists wherein a game publisher has attempted to prevent the sale of used games.

'Cause I'm betting dimes to dollars it doesn't exist. And, even if it does, my point was that "the distinction between used game sales and piracy is that the former is legal, the latter illegal". It's the difference between "profit" and "unjust enrichment". You have yet to show that they are indistinguishable, or that piracy is justifiable.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Seldon2639

Wow... So the fact that I might want to get my soul fed using media makes it my right to use it for free? That's... Just... Wow. I also probably have a right to food, clean water, electricity, and other essentials on Maslow's hierarchy of need, but I still pay for the damned food.

You can't copy food and distribute it across the world easily either. Information is power and information is in all forums of media as long as the licensed chain is protected the world is rich enough to share in the wealth of informational,inspirational and educational information which is in all media.

As for blogs, I'm allowed to distribute (within fair use) certain types of media under certain restrictions. But, I must do so in such a way as adds new content. That's how fair use works.

Fair use is to vague to protect the public from the inane assault against them via lawyers with to much time and money on their hands. If its not diverting money away from the licensed chain via ads,donations and direct illicit profit it is so inane and oblivious you can not hope to stop or contain it in any reasonable manner thus becoming another failed war on drugs.

No. You can't protect the money-making chain without stopping the not-for-profit distribution of the same media. Excluding fair use (again, it does protect someone adding new content and ideas to an existing product, as with parody), to exempt any pirate enterprise which doesn't make money would essentially end the ability to make money off of products we create. That seems bad.

Riiiigghhhttttttttttttttt you seem to think its cheap and easy to distribute mass amounts of data if that was true there would be alot more richer torrent site owners. The facts say other wise. You remove the profit motive you make it imposable to share and gain unlicensed profit at the same time you change the focus and foundation of file shearing into much smaller much tighter niche communities that merely trade data for educational,archival or personal use reasons which in bits and pieces are still protected despite what the DMCA says.(yes the trading bit is illicit now but thats not the point in this discussion as we have moved from distribution to profiteering)

Eh... You're misunderstanding the term "theft" or "stealing" in this context. It isn't so much the theft of the words, as the theft of the dominion over the product. My right to be the sole distributor, and reap all rewards from the distribution of my works, is what is at stake. The words themselves are not important. You've stolen my right to sell my product, and I'd like it back.

Nope not even close you miss the point of the quote I have copied your words doing no harm to you, now there might be some harm in me shearing those words but only if I became a business and directly competed with you.

"Normal" unfunded shearing can not and never will compete in any meaningful way with you or anyone else.

The internet is the library of the 22 century you can't live by 19th century rules and mind sets anymore .....

Not really, no. You either have to show sufficient addition to the story to make it either truly independent, or a parody. You cannot make a product which is substantially similar to an existing product which competes with the original product. I can make a parody of Twilight, and sell it, and I'm fine because it does not compete with the original product upon which its based. I could make a more adult version of Twilight, better-written, more mature (though then I might run into problems with Laurel Hamilton, but I digress), and I'd be fine in terms of my relation to Ms. Meyers, because my product does not compete with hers.

Otherwise, I have to show that my product was created independently and is only coincidentally similar to the existing product.

If I can't show independence, and it's competing in the same market with marked similarities, I'm hosed, and it's far better than a flip of a coin that opposing counsel will take me to the cleaner's.

Yes really thats how vague and random it is, look at all the cheaper and some not so cheap fantasy,ect novels and such there is alot of idea,plot and character shearing even if they do not admit it.

It's pretty easy to say that there's simply too much similarity between "Under Pressure" and "Ice, Ice, Baby" to be either coincidence or simple "influence". It was outright theft. That's what's at issue here. So, no, we can put in place an absolute that you can't re-release a product of significant similarities to compete with an existing product upon which it is based. I especially can't re-release the exact same product to compete with an existing product, especially especially if I'm releasing it for free. I don't care if people aren't making a dime, they're still stealing.

And so? Sometimes like things get hammered by conniving greedy layers and sometimes they don't.
The beautiful thing about it its ok because in business a proper legalized process you must go through in order to keep your property from not being blind sided by another IP.

It comes down to unfunded traded copy righted items is the same as lending and analog taping of broadcasts and any other inane thing the public dose under their personal use rights.

Nope. It's neither a protected privilege nor anything within shouting distance of being a right. You have the right to purchase media to enjoy, not a right to acquire media without concern for the recompense to the creator. Period.

I dunno between free speech and fair use it practically is is a right , like it or not we as a society are either going to have to open up the rules and regs of what the public can do with IP/CP(like make non commercial infringement not even a civil crime, double up on commercial infringement and enforce that more than ever) so we can go after the real criminals and people trying to make a illicit profit or we can go after any and all IP/CP violations equating them to real theft, real murder, real rape and march out the under funded under skilled police in another nonfunctional ineffective war on vice.

You can claim to be pro IP or pro sharing but it boils down to taking more from the public or taking less.

Nope. It's neither a protected privilege nor anything within shouting distance of being a right. You have the right to purchase media to enjoy, not a right to acquire media without concern for the recompense to the creator. Period.

I dunno between free speech and fair use it practically is is a right , like it or not we as a society are either going to have to open up the rules and regs of what the public can do with IP/CP(like make non commercial infringement not even a civil crime, double up on commercial infringement and enforce that more than ever) so we can go after the real criminals and people trying to make a illicit profit or we can go after any and all IP/CP violations equating them to real theft, real murder, real rape and march out the under funded under skilled police in another nonfunctional ineffective war on vice.

You can claim to be pro IP or pro sharing but it boils down to taking more from the public or taking less.

I also thought this quotation from Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises would be useful to elucidate the whole "non-profit" issue

"The crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the solee motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price".

To further quote from Copyright Law and Practice by William F. Patry "the core of commerciality [is]: not just the receipt of incomes from sales of the defendant's work, but also the financial benefit obtaind by avoiding an otherwise due payment for the use of the copyrighted work".

It's also worth remembering that a copyright comprises the right to sole distribution, the right to replication, and the right to create derivative works. Aside from the affirmative defense of fair use (which is limited to the use of copyrighted materials to create a distinct new product), the only person who gets to distribute a given product is the entity which originally made it.

Which is all well and good but it dose not work and is loosely enforced at best. The non profit argument can be boiled down to if you make anythign for any reason without a license to do so you are breaking the law in a effective manner to where you will be fined and jailed if possible.


Fair use is vague and is easily shot down most of the time thus why I continue musing on a change to copy right, an overhaul may yet need be wrought but I do not mind infinite copyrights, protection schemes and the ridiculous way the CP/IP conglomerates work with each other and milk content creators. Thats all well and fine Copy right can be left as it is but with a few amendment's.

If you are not funding the share or trade of copyrighted works with outside income other than what you make from work not revolving around the share or trade of unlicensed copyrighted works this falls under personal use and is protected PERIOD(this dose not protect youtube and raiped share/mega upload you could amend it and allow some easily done profit shearing setup and run ads from the profit shearing network on those pages copyrighted items are on but generally they are for profit sites and should be nuked if they have to many CP/IP violations, oh even non profit groups and business are not exempt if fair use dose not protect it a business of any kind can not make money and share unlicensed copyrighted works ).



This makes it so any site that gets in the radar will have to cough up financial records to show its out of pocket and nothing hinky is going on.


The next amendment is deal with backing up, format shifting and hardware/software circumvention, a person has the right to make a backup of any media hey own, under the above they have a right to share it(we do it anyway and will always do it law be damned). Anyway One can make a backup and format shift of anything one can circumvent any protection system(all but servers that you do not own) on hardware or software now this may violate EULA/SUPPORT,WARRENTY,ect but thats the trade off there dose not need to an unenforceable law saying the trade of circumvention code/hardware is a crime.


Is copyright so important that small and inane uses of it
is so detrimental to a multi trillion dollar world wide industry that it must be crushed no matter the cost??

There's not going to be a huge change in society if you make it legal we are a consuming and media buying/using society and with most basic protection schemes the vast majority of the consuming public will buy whatever is being sold. This just creates a better buffer between the public and the CP/IP conglomerates.I bet you still have something to say, What of the small business you ask? Well they chose the pond to swim in its up to them and their marketing ability to sale the product and that rings true for most of the industry. You can't blame a shadowy 3rd party when they are not the core reason whatever failed.

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

lies.. dam lies and statistics.

It's never work if we removed piracy. The companies would then control the entire market and lets be fair, they'd live out the higher majority of the savings and still charge people 30 quid for a game they have to strain their vision to play. I doubt it will go anywhere else.

There will never be innovation in an industry until we make the profits from the development of products in that industry as close to nothing as possible. Holy crap.

You're insane. The companies should control the market, they're the ones making the products. That's how capitalism works, guys. And (like any copyright holder) they have the right to first distribution, reproduction, and derivative works. Incidentally, do you know the fastest way to actually make an industry less innovative? Choke off the profitability of innovation. What with the Humble Indie Bundle being pirated out the ass, World of Goo seeing over 90% piracy, and Spore being pirated over a million times, it doesn't seem like we're really supporting the whole "innovate, make better, cheaper, games" thing.

Last I checked, Blizzard did pretty well for itself (before World of Warcraft) making quality games, despite being heavily pirated as well. Besides the copyright and patent system is flawed one to begin with, so you are saying to stick with laws that are based around a broken system? That's what is insane!

So your entire argument is legality. Thats likely the worst stance you could possibly take, as law, in a capitalistic society, is written by whoever has the most money... or soldiers (slavery).

I'll give you some credit for not going the Godwin way down the primrose path, but you're still full of it. The argument that laws are inherently invalid (especially without proof of current invalidity or corruption) makes you either paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, or nuts. None of which make you a reliable source on this issue. Show me widespread corruption and laws being passed on the basis of who has the most money, show me widespread modern failure of laws to be representative.

As with all of your posts, you [need citations]

I bolded the important part. Take a look at the actual history of copyright in general and how it has evolved and tell me that it is not corrupt. Those with the money are those making the laws.

The pirates are only a problem when you start thinking of them as customers. They never were and they never will be. They pirated before the advent of the internet, and they will pirate after. They were never sales to begin with.

I hear that argument here a whole hell of a lot, and frankly it doesn't hold water. If they aren't interested in paying for the game, they shouldn't be playing the game. I don't get to drive a Porsche just because I want to, nor wold me stealing one off the lot (while paying, as I've said before, the actual physical value of the unit in and of itself) be construed as "well, he wasn't going to buy one anyway".

Either pirates are customers who should pay, or thieves who should be punished. There's no real wiggle room that allows for a population which refuses to pay for their product, but still have some entitlement to them.

Again, losing a physical product to thievery is not the same as a copier. Try again.

Actually, I believe "piracy" is just a symptom of people trying to get something that others aren't providing for them. I don't think of it as wrong any more than borrowing a game or movie or book off a friend. What if that were illegal?

Read John Funk's post above. He does a good job explaining the difference.

If I loan you an object (game, movie, CD, book), I'm taking my actual possession and transferring ownership. I am making you the owner of that product for whatever amount of time you have it. If I make a copy, it's a very different dynamic. In order for you to borrow my game, I must necessarily give it up, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Only one instantiation of the product exists. One unit was paid for, one unit is used.

If I make a copy, I now possess two units, only paying for one. Owning a product I didn't pay for would usually be considered stealing. If I now give you the copy, we've now created two units of the game. It's a very simple distinction.

I think it's a symptom of people wanting their money for nothing and their chicks for free, and being greedy bastards. And as long as any significant minority (or majority) of us consumers are defending their actions, we all deserve any crap that Ubisoft throws at us DRM-wise.

What you want is to ignore technology. You want to treat non-physical objects that can be copied ad-infinum to finite, physical items. It doesn't work, thus the laws need to change. Or should we still be fighting to be able to tape songs of the radio or T.V. shows for watching later...? Society has already accepted the internet as a form of distribution. Media has to stop fighting it and work with it instead. They need to adapt their business model (see iTunes for an example) if they want to survive.

 

[Seldon2639]

Hooookay. From the top.

Last I checked, Blizzard did pretty well for itself (before World of Warcraft) making quality games, despite being heavily pirated as well. Besides the copyright and patent system is flawed one to begin with, so you are saying to stick with laws that are based around a broken system? That's what is insane!

Have you actually read any copyright law? It's pretty fair, actually. The original producer has the right to first distribution (to sell the original rights), the right to replication (to make copies and sell them) and to create derivative works (self-explanatory). Anyone can use copyrighted materials as influence for other products, so long as those products are distinct and independent. I can also criticize copyrighted works, and analyze them, and parody them, all of which falls under fair use.

Where is that broken? Aside from the whole "internet generation folks don't like to pay for stuff" thing.

I bolded the important part. Take a look at the actual history of copyright in general and how it has evolved and tell me that it is not corrupt. Those with the money are those making the laws.

Funny, I did. The history is pretty straightforward (and relatively fair, going all the way back to Anne's Law). But, you have given no reasonable objection to the modern law. Thus, I can only assume that while you object to some historical copyright laws, you find nothing questionable in modern law. I agree wholeheartedly.

Again, losing a physical product to thievery is not the same as a copier. Try again.

I've explained why the distinction is semantic, rather than true difference, respond to my well-constructed analogy, and we'll talk about this. Simply saying "no, you're wrong" doesn't suffice.

As I said before: either I get to pay the pure physical cost of parts and labor on a new Porsche (I'm assuming about $50,000), or you're being hypocritical.

What you want is to ignore technology. You want to treat non-physical objects that can be copied ad-infinum to finite, physical items. It doesn't work, thus the laws need to change. Or should we still be fighting to be able to tape songs of the radio or T.V. shows for watching later...? Society has already accepted the internet as a form of distribution. Media has to stop fighting it and work with it instead. They need to adapt their business model (see iTunes for an example) if they want to survive.

See above. But, you need to brush up on your supreme court precedents. The recording of television shows is deemed to be (a) noncommerical, and (b) to simply be transference of the time I watch the show.

The fact that the cost of the physical item's duplication is negligible is not at issue. The actual value of a book is not simply the value of the ink and the paper, it's the value of the story therein. The value of a Porsche 9-11 GT2 RS is not just "how much did the steel and labor cost", it's also the value of the brand, of the design, of the expense in development of the car. Your point, while accepted widely by the defenders of pirates, is inaccurate.

It's a false flag. I want to treat non-physical objects the way they should be treated: as something which has value to the holder of the copyright, and the misappropriation of which is an actionable offense against the person whose right it is to profit off of it.

Even if you aren't profiting when you distribute it. Remember, if you would:

"the core of commerciality [is]: not just the receipt of incomes from sales of the defendant's work, but also the financial benefit obtaind by avoiding an otherwise due payment for the use of the copyrighted work". If an infringement is commercial, it is almost by definition indefensible

 

[Seldon2639]

You can't copy food and distribute it across the world easily either. Information is power and information is in all forums of media as long as the licensed chain is protected the world is rich enough to share in the wealth of informational,inspirational and educational information which is in all media.

You fellows really are obsessed with inventing some distinction between intellectual property and physical property. I don't really get it, but...

Who are you to decide that I should have to "share" my hard for for free with anyone else in the world? Who the hell are you to tell me that the time, money, and effort I put into this product shouldn't yield me the maximum reward because someone else has a right to it?

What about my rights?

Fair use is to vague to protect the public from the inane assault against them via lawyers with to much time and money on their hands. If its not diverting money away from the licensed chain via ads,donations and direct illicit profit it is so inane and oblivious you can not hope to stop or contain it in any reasonable manner thus becoming another failed war on drugs.

If you stopped with the bolded part, I'd agree. If this piracy (provably, not putatively) didn't divert money from the proper owners and recipient, I'd be fine with it. But just because a lot of people do something which is illegal, unethical, and damaging to an industry and to the people whose hard work grant us the privilege of enjoying the media we do, doesn't mean we should blithely allow it.

That's like saying that because we can't stop every rape, murder, or robbery, we shouldn't even try. It doesn't matter if the distributor is making a profit himself, he is benefiting (and other pirates are benefiting) from the exploitation of a product without paying for it.

Riiiigghhhttttttttttttttt you seem to think its cheap and easy to distribute mass amounts of data if that was true there would be alot more richer torrent site owners. The facts say other wise. You remove the profit motive you make it imposable to share and gain unlicensed profit at the same time you change the focus and foundation of file shearing into much smaller much tighter niche communities that merely trade data for educational,archival or personal use reasons which in bits and pieces are still protected despite what the DMCA says.(yes the trading bit is illicit now but thats not the point in this discussion as we have moved from distribution to profiteering)

Sort of. Educational purposes are always protected. But "sharing" (in this case "illegally copying") a video game would be unlikely to be construed as non-commercial and non-infringing. That said, your point that we should only go after the illegal profit from such distribution is dealt with a bit above.

Nope not even close you miss the point of the quote I have copied your words doing no harm to you, now there might be some harm in me shearing those words but only if I became a business and directly competed with you.

Nope. sorry. It harms me even if you make no profit, and never "compete" as an entity unto yourself with me at all. That's a misunderstanding of the law. It harms me because your free product is directly in competition with my product which costs money. Read the laws, the rulings, the statutes.

"Normal" unfunded shearing can not and never will compete in any meaningful way with you or anyone else.

That's not true. The fact that two identical products can both be obtained, one of which is free, one of which costs money, puts them in direct competition. The fact that no business profits from the free one doesn't render is non-commercial infringement.

The internet is the library of the 22 century you can't live by 19th century rules and mind sets anymore .....

Well, we're in the 21st century, and the decisions I'm referencing are less than 20 years old. No dice.

Yes really thats how vague and random it is, look at all the cheaper and some not so cheap fantasy,ect novels and such there is alot of idea,plot and character shearing even if they do not admit it.

Okay, first:

Sharing is what we euphemistically refer to the piracy of copyrighted works as

Shearing is what you do to sheep.

But, your point is not in-line with the law. Claiming vagueness and randomness without actual legal backing is ridiculous on its face.

And so? Sometimes like things get hammered by conniving greedy layers and sometimes they don't.
The beautiful thing about it its ok because in business a proper legalized process you must go through in order to keep your property from not being blind sided by another IP.

It comes down to unfunded traded copy righted items is the same as lending and analog taping of broadcasts and any other inane thing the public dose under their personal use rights.

Except analog broadcasts are paid for using advertising dollars. I actually am paying for the privilege of watching it, and the courts have wisely analyzed the taping and replaying of such broadcasts as mere transposition of time, rather than as anything close to the piracy you're talking about.

Legal scholarship is fun.

I dunno between free speech and fair use it practically is is a right , like it or not we as a society are either going to have to open up the rules and regs of what the public can do with IP/CP(like make non commercial infringement not even a civil crime, double up on commercial infringement and enforce that more than ever) so we can go after the real criminals and people trying to make a illicit profit or we can go after any and all IP/CP violations equating them to real theft, real murder, real rape and march out the under funded under skilled police in another nonfunctional ineffective war on vice.

Um... You're not quite clear on the definition of "commercial" versus "non-commercial" infringement. It's not "do you make a profit". See the below citation. From a legal standpoint, you make an illicit profit if you utilize a product without giving proper recompense, so any "sharing" would fall into the commercial infringement you're okay with prosecuting. So, fine with me.

Once again, your point seems to be that we shouldn't enforce laws which lots of people break. Here's the thing. Unlike the drug war, this is a necessary fight. We have to protect the rights of individuals and companies to profit from those products they develop. We need to protect my right to create something, and have exclusive domain over its use and distribution.

How can you justify trampling my rights like that?

You can claim to be pro IP or pro sharing but it boils down to taking more from the public or taking less.

It boils down to either allowing the public to infringe on copyrights more, or less. Please don't mistake any extant right, with some ill-conceived, unethical, and frankly retarded right to free access to any media I choose.

It's not taking away when the public doesn't have a right to it in the first place.

Which is all well and good but it dose not work and is loosely enforced at best. The non profit argument can be boiled down to if you make anythign for any reason without a license to do so you are breaking the law in a effective manner to where you will be fined and jailed if possible.

*whistles* nope. Your strawman wouldn't scare away the weakest of crows. Read the cases, then get back to me.

Fair use is vague and is easily shot down most of the time thus why I continue musing on a change to copy right, an overhaul may yet need be wrought but I do not mind infinite copyrights, protection schemes and the ridiculous way the CP/IP conglomerates work with each other and milk content creators. Thats all well and fine Copy right can be left as it is but with a few amendment's.

Nope. Fair use is invoked as an affirmative defense in a huge number of cases. It's easily dismissed when it's invoked wrongly, but that's not really the test of whether a legal defense is a good one. It's not vague, it's not easily shot down, as long as it's actually invoked properly. The issue you seem to take is that fair use doesn't cover the uses you'd like it to, but those uses aren't fair.

I'd bet all the money in my bank account against all the money in yours that if you read the fair use statutes (I can find the references for you), and follow them to the letter, you won't be found liable for infringement. I'd even represent you.

If you are not funding the share or trade of copyrighted works with outside income other than what you make from work not revolving around the share or trade of unlicensed copyrighted works this falls under personal use and is protected PERIOD(this dose not protect youtube and raiped share/mega upload you could amend it and allow some easily done profit shearing setup and run ads from the profit shearing network on those pages copyrighted items are on but generally they are for profit sites and should be nuked if they have to many CP/IP violations, oh even non profit groups and business are not exempt if fair use dose not protect it a business of any kind can not make money and share unlicensed copyrighted works ).

Not only is that inaccurate, it'd violate current Supreme Court holdings, and be wholly useless in actually protecting the people's rights to create, distribute, and profit from their creations. Even if I'm not making money, I'm availing myself of the use of a copyrighted product without paying the customary price for it, it's infringement straight up and down. Unless I'm using it for a protected fair use purpose (which "playing a game" isn't), I'm infringing. Period.

The next amendment is deal with backing up, format shifting and hardware/software circumvention, a person has the right to make a backup of any media hey own, under the above they have a right to share it(we do it anyway and will always do it law be damned). Anyway One can make a backup and format shift of anything one can circumvent any protection system(all but servers that you do not own) on hardware or software now this may violate EULA/SUPPORT,WARRENTY,ect but thats the trade off there dose not need to an unenforceable law saying the trade of circumvention code/hardware is a crime.

Again, the best you've come up with for a justification for upending existing law, and skewering existing rights for content producers, is that people are breaking the law a lot. That's... Not a great argument. Should we just legalize burglary, except if they sell my stolen television? And, as I've already dealt with the "is there a difference between physical and non-physical goods" thing, please don't resort to "hurr hurr, they're not making a copy, they're taking it" arguments

Is copyright so important that small and inane uses of it
is so detrimental to a multi trillion dollar world wide industry that it must be crushed no matter the cost??

It's neither small nor inane use to violate copyright. The fact that you defend such violations is not made more reasonable. The actual lack of monies made is irrelevant, and insufficient defense of an illegal act.

There's not going to be a huge change in society if you make it legal we are a consuming and media buying/using society and with most basic protection schemes the vast majority of the consuming public will buy whatever is being sold. This just creates a better buffer between the public and the CP/IP conglomerates.I bet you still have something to say, What of the small business you ask? Well they chose the pond to swim in its up to them and their marketing ability to sale the product and that rings true for most of the industry. You can't blame a shadowy 3rd party when they are not the core reason whatever failed.

The vast majority of people aren't going to murder. Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop or punish those who do? The vast majority of people aren't going to rape, steal, vandalize, speed, discriminate, or break any other law. Should we just blithely accept those who will, because clearly they're the minority?

No. We enforce the law because it's necessary to protect the rights of the people. Your concern for the rights of consumers is justifiable, but must be balanced against the rights of producers. I pray to any number of gods I don't believe in that you never have influence over actual law.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

TL: DR

The core of commerciality depends on the nature of the market and what you are trying to sale (old IP with a solid foundation,new IP with no foundation,revamping/retooling a IP in order try and reboot its profit potential). All of this is gambling on if the public will consume it and how much of it they will consume to be blaming marginalized shearing/downloading for any level of real fictional damage is to bring out the straw man and blame him for everything thats wrong with society via copyright.

Functionally and practically speaking a CP/IP is worthless without people buying it.We don't really have that trouble now with CP/IP being in the wild west faze of dissemination and enforcement. Once you allow unfunded free trade it frees the big boys up and their lawyers to after after places that are making money of hosting or indexing copyrighted items(90% f torrent sites, most file shearing sites,even blog sites that openly ad vert on pages can be looked at for criminal infringement)(also IMO a file that links to a file for any kind of money needs to be treated as a business and filtered through an amended fair use.)

 

[Lord_Jaroh]

Again, losing a physical product to thievery is not the same as a copier. Try again.

I've explained why the distinction is semantic, rather than true difference, respond to my well-constructed analogy, and we'll talk about this. Simply saying "no, you're wrong" doesn't suffice.

As I said before: either I get to pay the pure physical cost of parts and labor on a new Porsche (I'm assuming about $50,000), or you're being hypocritical.

As long as we're being hypothetical, what if I obtained the parts to build said car for free and proceeded to do so? Should I owe anything to anybody if I built it? What if I built a chair based on someone else's designs? In both cases I've copied the item. Now I photocopy a book to read in the bath? Bad? How about lending that copy to a buddy so he can read it? Where do we draw the line? The laws are created by those that want to control our ability to copy something, and gain monetaraly from those laws. It is bad because they said so, and for no other reason.

Again, there are a bazillion artworks on the net. I can print out each and every one if I choose. Is this bad or wrong? I printed a screenshot from a game and gave it framed to a buddy for a gift. Did I break a copyright law somewhere? How about a tattoo of Mario? Can I draw a picture of Superman? How about scanning it to send to a family member or a friend? Can I sing Happy Birthday to my children? Can I play a CD loud enough for my neighbour to enjoy it?

What you want is to ignore technology. You want to treat non-physical objects that can be copied ad-infinum to finite, physical items. It doesn't work, thus the laws need to change. Or should we still be fighting to be able to tape songs of the radio or T.V. shows for watching later...? Society has already accepted the internet as a form of distribution. Media has to stop fighting it and work with it instead. They need to adapt their business model (see iTunes for an example) if they want to survive.

See above. But, you need to brush up on your supreme court precedents. The recording of television shows is deemed to be (a) noncommerical, and (b) to simply be transference of the time I watch the show.

The fact that the cost of the physical item's duplication is negligible is not at issue. The actual value of a book is not simply the value of the ink and the paper, it's the value of the story therein. The value of a Porsche 9-11 GT2 RS is not just "how much did the steel and labor cost", it's also the value of the brand, of the design, of the expense in development of the car. Your point, while accepted widely by the defenders of pirates, is inaccurate.

It's a false flag. I want to treat non-physical objects the way they should be treated: as something which has value to the holder of the copyright, and the misappropriation of which is an actionable offense against the person whose right it is to profit off of it.

Then I need to be able to return products that are bad. I can return a toaster that I don't like and I can return Car that I have an issue with, but I can't return a game? My money has value, and after the media has fooled me into buying the game (as is generally the case with day one purchases), if I get a terrible game, I'm stuck with it, with no recourse against the developers or publishers or even sellers.

Copyright History [http://questioncopyright.org/promise]
More Copyright History [http://www.benedict.com/info/Law/History.aspx]
A Blog for Copyright Change [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/]

The laws are made by those who benefit most from it, ie. Big media.

Should the Printing Press have been destroyed and made illegal when it was first invented? The Internet is the new Printing Press, and it is changing the way the world performs on a daily basis. Just because big media says that it is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

FYI alot of the stuff I am talking about is in hypothetical, sorry for not making that more apparent...I forget things when I ramble in walls o text ....it takes up all my lil brains oxygen to do so much thinking >>

Seldon2639

You fellows really are obsessed with inventing some distinction between intellectual property and physical property. I don't really get it, but...

The law for one dose not consider it to be the same..... its infringement on the civil side its up to the randomness of the courts to decide if random Average Joe is to pay out millions or not. That is if the IP owner has the money and lawyers to even try to bully the public in such a manner.

Criminally you have commercial infringement which is treated as real IP theft.

Who are you to decide that I should have to "share" my hard for for free with anyone else in the world? Who the hell are you to tell me that the time, money, and effort I put into this product shouldn't yield me the maximum reward because someone else has a right to it?

WHo are you to say I can't post about stuff because X Y and Z is copy righted. Who are you to sue a person for uploading a video of their kid danceing to a tune with A youer copy/trade mark in the video or your song a playing, who are you to say I can not make a back up who are you to say I can not format shift.

In this day and age you have the world to sale too, a few million copies is noting going to do a damn thing to the over all worth of your IP and if you think it dose you got major OCD issues.

What about my rights?

IMO your rights start up when money is generated from your works in any shape or form, if money is made illicitly thats when you should have the full power of government and courts behind you to ensure the proper monetary chain is protected.

If you stopped with the bolded part, I'd agree. If this piracy (provably, not putatively) didn't divert money from the proper owners and recipient, I'd be fine with it. But just because a lot of people do something which is illegal, unethical, and damaging to an industry and to the people whose hard work grant us the privilege of enjoying the media we do, doesn't mean we should blithely allow it.

That's the problem with file sharing in all its forms today its about money and who can make it the longest before being crushed the waves.

I don't have a problem with the rights owners gaining money from their properties I have problems with how they do things(water down crap for mass demographics, screw with the news because its not entertaining enough,treat content creators and consumers,ect,ect).
So I don't have much sympathy for them as a person or as a conglomerate, I am a content creator myself I am looking at the media industry and see a giant bold that if it gave damn would eat me up in a heart beat promising gold and riches if I sign my soul away, ok so its not really like that but still its almost as bad.(and no on one wants my crappy IPs anyway )

That's like saying that because we can't stop every rape, murder, or robbery, we shouldn't even try. It doesn't matter if the distributor is making a profit himself, he is benefiting (and other pirates are benefiting) from the exploitation of a product without paying for it.

On the contrary rape and murder is in a different world than theft and qaussi theft(sharing). If I were running things I'd give people 1 chance to make up for cold blooded murder or violent rape they pay their time all is good do it again you get to die and chose the preselected method of death. We are far to kind to the real inhuman monsters and predators amongst us.

Theft can be one of those things where the person is just stuck in that cycle because there is no better choice out there and the same can be said for habitual murderers but if claim down have a descent trail first go around and then after the 2nd trail convicts the clock starts 1 year no deleys unless case changing evidence is brought up. It sucks but so is killing people....hahahah...pun....ah

But back to topic we are talking about quassi theft that at times skirts into the grounds of free speech and fair use and other rights granted to "we" the end users by copyright law.

Sort of. Educational purposes are always protected. But "sharing" (in this case "illegally copying") a video game would be unlikely to be construed as non-commercial and non-infringing. That said, your point that we should only go after the illegal profit from such distribution is dealt with a bit above.

Some of it is, fair use is a bit to vague for my liking relies on the courts to much(us it fair use or other rights in copyright that allow leeway in what educational sites do with media, god I am a hax )

But my point is copyright is broken so I am focusing on changing its focus call it nat vrs Goliath for all I care LOL

What I'd like to see done is basically make it so the normal end user, file sharer, lender, backupper, modder, cracker is un bothered by copyright.

Now if you start a fan site and use donations and what not to gather funds to run it,ect if fair use would not normally protect you then you are out of luck and have to deal with everything they throw at you generally 30 days C&D before the big guns are bought out and fines are levyed,ect,ect

If you are megaupload.....just bend over it will be over quick

Nope. sorry. It harms me even if you make no profit, and never "compete" as an entity unto yourself with me at all. That's a misunderstanding of the law. It harms me because your free product is directly in competition with my product which costs money. Read the laws, the rulings, the statutes.

No it dose not harm you as its so diluted down the path of non buying fools, right wig gun carrying high tech "screw the man and the system" red necks burred in their man caves who live off the land to a handfull on the world wide scale of teens and tweens who could care less either way.

The process is just to inane and oblivious to do any true damage.

That's not true. The fact that two identical products can both be obtained, one of which is free, one of which costs money, puts them in direct competition. The fact that no business profits from the free one doesn't render is non-commercial infringement.

......... one of these products comes with no support and is hidden deep in the net(much more so that what you see now, think file planet and all the servers are filled up most of the time because people are having a hard time staying legal and all the good legal places are pretty much filled to the brim)

Now that would be the scenario if you shifted the focus of copyright around some(that and as stuff like ACTA spreads you'll have an easier time gaining universal support because you are focusing on real crime IE illicit profit)


Now currently it is competing with it more than ever and its not putting a dent into the industry becuse of how the nature of things tuely work out.

Well, we're in the 21st century, and the decisions I'm referencing are less than 20 years old. No dice.

LOL I thought it be the 22nd since we jump ahead....oy I need to get my head out of the clouds

Anyway my point is is that it functionally has become the worlds library and antiquated laws and mindsets will never undo what has been set in motion.

Unless you do a tiered net with public<consumer<business<ISP/mainframe/low sec government<Banking/credit <Police<Army<High security government or something of the like....it would easy to squelch out infringement.. questionable speech and a bunch of other things deemed unnecessary by our leaders.....

Okay, first:

Sharing is what we euphemistically refer to the piracy of copyrighted works as

Shearing is what you do to sheep.

But, your point is not in-line with the law. Claiming vagueness and randomness without actual legal backing is ridiculous on its face.

My spell checker is not grammatically tuned *bangs head on wall* andmah zippah to enrish trans *dizzy* latoer dose not wrux to well rither....damn Iama seeing double......

Don't make me look up cases where the winning side was found to not be infringing wif another IP/CP with there works.

My point was sometimes its not all that clear who's in the wrong when these cases go to court.

Except analog broadcasts are paid for using advertising dollars. I actually am paying for the privilege of watching it, and the courts have wisely analyzed the taping and replaying of such broadcasts as mere transposition of time, rather than as anything close to the piracy you're talking about.

Legal scholarship is fun.

So are digital broadcasts yet you can't pay a mod to circumvent the no record flags and HDCP protection because its agisnt the law to traffic in such devices.....

It dose not matter if that instance was paid for or not you should go to the store and buy the DVD its immoral to do otherwise!!111

meh brains...I sometimes might haz them

Lucky you I am a barely fictional learning disabled 30 something ><

Do mind the drool and chewed straw now and then...I am trying ......

Um... You're not quite clear on the definition of "commercial" versus "non-commercial" infringement. It's not "do you make a profit". See the below citation. From a legal standpoint, you make an illicit profit if you utilize a product without giving proper recompense, so any "sharing" would fall into the commercial infringement you're okay with prosecuting. So, fine with me.

Interesting can you show me where lending and sharing equates to "commercial infringement" because how am I making money when I am broke each month and paying 150$ a month for cable I don't watch since I'd rather download it and watch it at my own pace?

Once again, your point seems to be that we shouldn't enforce laws which lots of people break. Here's the thing. Unlike the drug war, this is a necessary fight. We have to protect the rights of individuals and companies to profit from those products they develop. We need to protect my right to create something, and have exclusive domain over its use and distribution.

Mmmmmmmm not quite(sp...lol)... it falls to inane rules and laws that serve no real purpose but to annoy and harm the public.

Think traffic cameras and vans only everywhere ensuring maxim revenue gain despite the quassi legal and moral use of them.

Is it legal? yes should they do do it...no not so much.

Lets look at drugs while we have the can of worms open*tosses one in his month and gnaws on it*
Drugs have 2 or 3 sides to it one personal use,2 black market creation and foundation, 3 oh lets say the left overs from the use there of. So you push hard to limit only in reality you are expanding the black market and creating more trouble. This is where I see we are at with copyright as it is now, the system in place dose more harm than good, I mean look at the swiss cheese thats in commercial infringement if you are small content creator and have done everything but take the opposing side to court because you can't afford to take it to that level and the system ignores you because there is not enough profit being moved/lost/displaced to waste the FBIs time with it or you have a average joe downloader who just got hit with a 50K-2M lawsuit.

You can't possibly believe that what we have now is good enough?

We need to simply what is criminal and I do not think saying any and all distribution is helping its just a easy distraction over the real functional crime.

Focus on the money being generated by unlisced copy righted items, place a tax on digital storage and the internet of 10% run a case worker system to streamline the takedown process to ensure that the copyright owner is keeping things above board if not they get hit with fines and fees and offenders on the other side get them as well if not property confiscation if they dealt in more than 5K worth of illicit profit.

How can you justify trampling my rights like that?

Because some of your rights are unenforceable and morally questionable?Not allowing peasants and paupers to enjoy the Knowledge,education and inspiration of media smacks of hollier than thou robber barons to me....

What do you do with people who are inspired and entraced by media but can never quite pay for it all but find most of it non the less I suppose more for the pyre for you but without such inspiration some of us would be long dead or more distant than ever from the world they are learning more and more about....

It boils down to either allowing the public to infringe on copyrights more, or less. Please don't mistake any extant right, with some ill-conceived, unethical, and frankly retarded right to free access to any media I choose.

It's not taking away when the public doesn't have a right to it in the first place.

Oh really? the DMCA took a few of our rights away, the more the system clamps down on copyright infringement the more rights we lose, we had far more media rights in the early 90s than we do now.

I guess being so pro IP you can't see the damage being done by the system in place and can only see things through the eyes of the few very large IP firms....

Also like god ethics and morals are rather more subjective than you think they are.

*whistles* nope. Your strawman wouldn't scare away the weakest of crows. Read the cases, then get back to me.

Current law vrs what I want the law to be, I know damn well and good as things are is un defendable unless of course you one f the many who will never be touched by unenforceable rules and laws bought and paid for many the system.

Nope. Fair use is invoked as an affirmative defense in a huge number of cases. It's easily dismissed when it's invoked wrongly, but that's not really the test of whether a legal defense is a good one. It's not vague, it's not easily shot down, as long as it's actually invoked properly. The issue you seem to take is that fair use doesn't cover the uses you'd like it to, but those uses aren't fair.

I'd bet all the money in my bank account against all the money in yours that if you read the fair use statutes (I can find the references for you), and follow them to the letter, you won't be found liable for infringement. I'd even represent you.

Sharing should not fall under fair use but a amendment to copyright itself.

To live in the modern age you are going to post or type something online, this is distribution and with the march to copy right anything and everything it just seems imposable for for copyright to remain antiquated and backwards.

No thankz I has a whole 5 dolla in my bank *noms on 5$ bill drroooollllll*

Not only is that inaccurate, it'd violate current Supreme Court holdings, and be wholly useless in actually protecting the people's rights to create, distribute, and profit from their creations. Even if I'm not making money, I'm availing myself of the use of a copyrighted product without paying the customary price for it, it's infringement straight up and down. Unless I'm using it for a protected fair use purpose (which "playing a game" isn't), I'm infringing. Period.

Current law vrs what it should be *noogies*

Again, the best you've come up with for a justification for upending existing law, and skewering existing rights for content producers, is that people are breaking the law a lot. That's... Not a great argument. Should we just legalize burglary, except if they sell my stolen television? And, as I've already dealt with the "is there a difference between physical and non-physical goods" thing, please don't resort to "hurr hurr, they're not making a copy, they're taking it" arguments

Meh I call it civil disobedience you can;t take rights away from the public and expect them to be happy about it.

Mod chips and circumvention should be a non issue and not covered by law since the law already prevents the distribution of the data. SO if you own the game make a back up and use the mod chip you doing so legally at least you were until the DMCA came out and prevents legal software like realDVD to be produced because the media mafia has to much control and power over things.

Even you should be able to see soft/hard circumvention having nothing to do with with copy right.

It's neither small nor inane use to violate copyright. The fact that you defend such violations is not made more reasonable. The actual lack of monies made is irrelevant, and insufficient defense of an illegal act.

Your point? Alot of things are illegal yet morally correct and there are legal things that are immoral. Both sets of rules tend to be rather arbitrarily based on the flow of influence and power in government.

The vast majority of people aren't going to murder. Does that mean we shouldn't try to stop or punish those who do? The vast majority of people aren't going to rape, steal, vandalize, speed, discriminate, or break any other law. Should we just blithely accept those who will, because clearly they're the minority?

So you admit non commercial infringement is on the same scale as violent or over 500+ crime?

No. We enforce the law because it's necessary to protect the rights of the people. Your concern for the rights of consumers is justifiable, but must be balanced against the rights of producers. I pray to any number of gods I don't believe in that you never have influence over actual law.

More like to protect who's in office while trying to not offend the friends of those in office and protecting the masses dead last..... CP/IP laws are mostly scoff laws to me I'll keep on doing what I been doing for years to get by on.

You call it it a crime meh there are for worse things in life and to get alittle enjoyment and inspiration with a tiny bit of information out of life when you aint got much else to go on aint so bad, collages kids do it alot and so do teens, there's lots of reasons for it even more so when you move away from first world nations. And there's something to be said for media that inspired new media to be created so in my view there is no reason why unfunded sharing,ect can not become a reality other than the typical soulless greedy robber barons looking to to add a few grams(of crack) on their bottom line(lulz).
===================================


edit
Let me say something I did not have the time or train of thought to say befor

I don't see much difference in rights and privileges they both are caped and limited, freespeach being limited to you can say anything just not anywhere(not on soemone else property) and what you say might get you sued for libel. There is also the thing about crying fire in a crowed theater.

Now lets look at the car "privilege" in order to use it you have to prove that you are able to drive, also helps to prove you do not suck with money and that gets into ownership,ect. But the things we are granted have a flow and reasonable limit. Now lets look at copyright in order to protect the IP/CP from abuse we have made it so the rights granted to use copyright have been set back some, legal things(soft/hard circumvention) made illegal because illegal things(illicit distribution) happens.

All the while ignoring what is the real issue at hand loss of potential profit due to illicit profit not mere distribution, while distribution is high currently if we focused on illicit profit via a couple amendments and tweaks to copy right it would be so much easier to fight the vast majority of illicit distribution leaving what remains in the realm of fans being fans. [b/]

 

[Seldon2639]

As long as we're being hypothetical, what if I obtained the parts to build said car for free and proceeded to do so? Should I owe anything to anybody if I built it? What if I built a chair based on someone else's designs? In both cases I've copied the item. Now I photocopy a book to read in the bath? Bad? How about lending that copy to a buddy so he can read it? Where do we draw the line? The laws are created by those that want to control our ability to copy something, and gain monetaraly from those laws. It is bad because they said so, and for no other reason.

If you've bought the book free and clear, making a copy for personal use is probably a-okay. It's a trickier area, I'll grant you, but the supreme court has applied a rational assessment basis to it. If you use the copyrighted designs of an existing product to make a copy of it, you'd be violating the right to sole reproduction (only Porsche can make products using their designs, even if you cost them "nothing" in the infringement). If you make a copy and give it to a friend, you'd be violating the right to sole distribution.

So, yeah, it'd be illegal in both cases. Copying for personal use in order to change the venue of access is legal, violating the rights of reproduction or distribution are not. And... Yes. The laws are protecting those who create products, and protecting their rights to profit off of them. But, that's what they exist to do: to foster innovation, and creativity, and production, by making it profitable to do so.

Then I need to be able to return products that are bad. I can return a toaster that I don't like and I can return Car that I have an issue with, but I can't return a game? My money has value, and after the media has fooled me into buying the game (as is generally the case with day one purchases), if I get a terrible game, I'm stuck with it, with no recourse against the developers or publishers or even sellers.

A decent point, but one to take up with the retailer, not the original distributor. Technically, the chain of ownership makes your purchase of the product a relationship with Best Buy, not with Ubisoft. I'd go into caveat emptor, but I do get where you're coming from. And I agree you should be able to return shovelware, but that's not a question dealt with by law, but by the relationship between company and consumer. Fundamentally, if you want to return the games you buy, make sure you're buying from places with a money-back guarantee.

Of course, most car companies aren't under a similar geis, so make of that what you will.

Copyright History [http://questioncopyright.org/promise]
More Copyright History [http://www.benedict.com/info/Law/History.aspx]
A Blog for Copyright Change [http://www.michaelgeist.ca/]

The laws are made by those who benefit most from it, ie. Big media.

Should the Printing Press have been destroyed and made illegal when it was first invented? The Internet is the new Printing Press, and it is changing the way the world performs on a daily basis. Just because big media says that it is wrong, doesn't mean that it is.

See, that's just unfair. Quoting from three different "hurr, copyright law sucks" sources doesn't work as a debating technique. They have the same axe to grind you do, and that makes them biased. Copyright law is enshrined in the constitution, and exists to make production and creativity, and innovation, worthwhile endeavors. Yes, it ensures profit for people who make products, but it protects the small indie developer just as much as it protects the big ones. It protects World of Goo in the same breath it protect Assassin's Creed.

The analogy to the printing press is inapt. No one is suggesting destroying the internet or making it illegal. We are suggesting forcing the internet (and its denizens) to respect copyright laws. Much as printers were made to respect Anne's law (the first example of copyright law in Western civilization, dating back to the early 18th century.

Finally, the entire purpose of copyrights is to encourage production. It protects the work and labor of people who actually make things, that's a good thing. Do you really think that Ubisoft would have made Assassin's Creed if they didn't think they could make money off of it?