Understand here, I'm not trying to say piracy is not wrong; just that it is not theft, and as such punishments should not be decided as if it was automatically equivalent.

This has nothing to do with my dislike of these proposals. I have no problem with there being reasonable and workable laws against online copyright infringement. These proposals do not qualify. But I only entered this thread to try and clear up what I view as an important misunderstanding, I'd have an even harder time in the climate of this thread trying to explain my issues regarding these proposals. I will say that they mostly relate to RIAA's litigation scheme in the USA, and my belief that these proposals will do nothing to prevent the same situation occurring in Europe.

I am a plumber (currently an aprentice, about a month from my journeyman license) that works for a company and that actualy happens from time to time.

Our solution to this problem?

We just get our good ol' buddy the SawZaw and start cutting what we installed out of the house. (Instant results!!!!)



Look at piracy as 2 parts of the same whole,

Making copies without consent, and then distributing the copies.

Making copies without consent = copyright infringement.

Making copies without consent with intent to distribute and sell = piracy = theft.

The problem is many people, including myself, make no distinction between stealing a ditigal product and a physical product. In either case, you are taking something without consent. In my opinion, the penalty for the theft of digital product should be slightly less than that of physical product - but that difference should only account for the logistics and packaging required to shelf the product. 

Your right about that, people have a hard time with the concept of theft over something intangible.

Punishment should go case by case tho. First time offenders should get warned and then repeat offenders should face restrictions, fines then possible jail time.
In my opinon at least.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/207/


This is a case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court

The defendant used the arguement that copyright infringement (piracy) was not theft in itself.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the law, piracy and theft, the terms are interchangeable.

What is the differences between people who just plain download copies of software from the internet, to those who uploads them on the let, to those who are in the hacking and cracking software scene. Are all three categories consider to be "pirates"

I thought the last categories, they just do it for the fun and challenge of being able to crack copy protection. Afterall, it is not everyday joe with a computer science degree that can pull it off. Because it takes time committment to learn how to do it properly.

The problem is that conflating piracy with theft confuses the issue on several levels, not the least of which is that it leads to irrational thinking about what can be effectively done about it.

Which leads to irrational actions that lower your profit margins without actually helping the issue - because, in the case of theft, those actions would be effective.

So - it's not about right and wrong when I argue that piracy!=theft - it's about the fact that there are two separate issues that instinctively look similar, but attempting the same solutions will have different results.

First of all: For all the people saying Piracy equals theft as an absolute immoral act - can you honestly say you judge all theft, regardless of value, motivation, what was stolen, et al, the same way?

If I steal Frogboys new Porsche, do I deserve a greater or lesser sentence than if a mother steals food? Is the difference between the two actually only a matter of degree (His porsche is worth $100K(?), versus $20.00 in food), or would there still be a difference between my stealing a $20 bauble versus $20.00 in food? If he had both a Porsche, and a 74 Pinto and I choose to steal the pinto?

Note - there are justifiable yes and no responses to each of those questions, and we're not even dealing with the jump between material and intellectual goods.

Now add in that jump. And add in the fact that there are four separate broad categories of intellectual property - Copyright, Patent, Trademarks, Trade Secrets, all of which are not all that subtly different, with different tradeoffs, risks, and rewards.

While it would be convenient to ignore the differences in favor of simplicity, just mathematically, we now have forty permutations. Saying all of these different possibilities are, not merely equivalent, but *identical*, seems to me to be a recipe for shooting yourself in the foot.

Jonnan

Is stealing from a thief wrong?

The legality of it I don't question, you have to be an idiot to claim that pirating someones software isn't illegal at this point.

I do question the morality though.

This is a termination clause, perhaps someone from Stardock recognizes it?

"TERM This license is effective from your date of purchase and shall remain in force until terminated. You may terminate the license and this
agreement at any time by destroying the SOFTWARE and its documentation, together with all copies in any form."

Entirely reasonable, when you're through using it you can terminate your license by getting rid of it. Makes sense huh?

This is EA's idea of a termination clause.

"Termination. This License is effective until terminated. Your rights under this License will terminate immediately and automatically without any notice from EA if (i) you fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this License; or (ii) EA ceases to support the Application. Promptly upon termination, you must cease all use of the Application and destroy all copies of the Application in your possession or control. EA’s termination will not limit any of EA’s other rights or remedies at law or in equity. Sections 2-10 of this License shall survive termination or expiration of this License for any reason."

Reading EULA's is rather educational eh? I buy their product, and they can rescind my right to use what I purchase at any time.

If someone pirates Spore, they are committing copyright infringement, true, but I can't honestly say it's immoral. Anyone that steals from Stardock is just a putz, plain and simple. The EULA's are non-restrictive, the support is outstanding, and they don't screw the customer. EA is at the opposite end of the spectrum though, EA treats me like a thief for paying them, and at any point can legally steal from me.

Some of you don't seem to like pirates to the point of saying there is no time at which they are in the right. If EA cuts support for one of their games, legally I become a pirate on continuing to use the software. I can be fined, sued, potentially see jail time for such use. Consider the target when calling a pirate scum of the earth.

The act of 'theft' is not quantified...it's an absolute.

Whether or not the legal system inteprets one or another example thereof as warranting greater/harsher penalty is a post-mortem quantification that has no bearing on the absolute.

Same applies to 'unlawful killing'....the absolute is that someone/thing dies....the quantification is in how society demands punitive response depending on the circumstances of that death.

Too many people get all infatuated with the concept of MATERIAL loss....and ignore the actuality of 'loss'.

Ok, so if stealing software is the same as stealing a service, or physical item. Then according to your own logic, rules that apply to physical goods (selling stuff that is defective/broken, etc) should apply to those in the digital realm.

In other words, if downloading software illegally is on par with lets say stealing a car. Then there should also be some grounds to take action on my part if they sell me software that doesn't work, or is defective in some way, in a similar way to what they would do if you bought a car, and the dealership didn't put an engine in it (even though you paid for a car with an engine).

If any of the laws pertaining to real goods/services are applied to those in the digital realm, then all of them should apply, not just the convenient ones.


I dont support piracy, but i believe that if the theft of virtual goods is going to be punishable in a way similar to the theft of real goods, then the laws made to protect consumers should also apply to virtual goods.

And while i believe that catching pirates is important, that personal security is even more important. And that monitoring my net traffic should be akin to wiretapping, and there should be laws to protect our privacy in the digital realm.

To reason society's discrimination [actual or moral] between the example above....Frogboy's Porsche vs mother stealing food [ostensibly because of need...rather than greed]....yes, people/society is more likely to sympathize with the mother.

However....think it through.

Frogboy loses his Porsche through theft....and yet has an immediate need to ferry his child for urgent medical attention....but now has to walk....to the detriment of his child's safety....it's not quite so 'cut-and-dried' then.

And such it should NOT be.

The potential ramifications can be dire.

The 'sympathy' argument can be countered quite easily....;)

Yes.  Who's arguing that's not the case?   :NOTSURE:

/me goes out to left field to wait for the next one.

They do...;)

So I can run off copies of "Duma Key", "The Dark Tower 1-infinity", and any other novel I want for my friends and not be breaking the law? Won't the authors be able to sue me for damages and rightfully win collecting an obscene amount of money beyond the cost of the actual books I photocopied for 300 of my closest friends?

Try taking your laptop and scanner into your local Barnes and Noble, Borders, etc... and scanning all the graphic novels into your laptop. Tell them it's not theft when they tell you to stop, tell the officers it isn't theft.

This applies to software as well. If you don't buy it, it's theft. If you get it from a friend or friend of a friend or stranger for free (even if you throw them $3-5 bucks for burning it for them), it is theft even if they bought it legitimately you have not.

Cutting support for a game does not constitute being a pirate if you continue to play the game you have purchased legally. If they kill all the servers and you start one -only to be told by the company to take down the server, then there might be a sticky problem.
I still have games that their makers no longer support/sell/upgrade and play them. Does that make me a pirate? No. If I burn off 30 copies for friends so we can all have a good old time, is that piracy? That boils down to "abandonware" or not. No company likes admitting their proud baby is "abandonware", but it happens and ends up on sites like "Home of the Underdogs" and others.

Simply, a lot of it comes down to conscience. If you have the feeling that you are being a "pirate scum of the earth", you probably are. Whether you listen to it or not is up to you -just like it's up to the criminal who felt a momentary pang of conscience before violating the law. It's easily ignored, but at your own peril.

Arguing EULA's and piracy are probably two separate arguments - in the U.S. at least, a lot of the standard assumptions about EULA's actually run afoul of Uniform Commercial Code stipulations regarding contracts, with divisions between courts as to whether some provisions are enforceable or not;

Jonnan

So you mean if i tried to take my copy of vista back too Microsoft for being a steaming pile of crap. Would they give me my money back, i don't think so.



Well if its made into law, im sure theyre going to disregard you... Of course thier not, most likely anything you download will come under scrutiny, it doesnt matter if it a copy of pong, these greedy bastards want your money, or at least to remove you of it.

Countries have their various Consumer Protection entities in place...usually referring to 'merchantable goods'...or the product purchased must 'reasonably' function as advertised/intended or a claim for refund/compensation can be argued.

The US is even luckier with 'Lemon Laws' re automobiles [something Oz still lacks]....;p

Also keep in mind this: there is a distinction between a pirate and someone who plays a pirated game. Maybe not in the letter of the law, but ethics and morals considered, yes.
The issue becomes quite ironic when we remind ourselves that most pirates will actually initially buy the product - so they can reverse-engineer it or otherwise modify it so that the DRM is removed.
On the other hand, the consequent "thieves", the people who download and play such games, cannot be morally held responsible to such a degree as someone who actively makes such things available. Why? Well, there are several reasons.

First, nowadays getting and playing a pirated game is like picking an abandoned item on the road after it fell out of the truck (or better said, was unloaded there by persons unknown). While it is still technically theft, it is anonymous, nobody sees us do it and as history has so often shown, humans often do naughty things if they think nobody is watching.
Then there is the whole issue of actual theft. Most people cannot fully grasp what it is they are doing when they download a movie, music albums or games for free from the net. It is an act of abstract theft, and most people aren't too good with abstract concepts.
And so on.

The fact remains that the current PC market is choked with low-content high-budget games which are way overpriced when their functionality and execution are considered.
Pirates were always there. Pirates will always be there, no matter how hard you crack down on them. Past experience shows clearly that reactive thinking in dealing with issues such as these (as in "you do the crime, you do the time") is counter-productive as opposed to preventive thinking (as in "why are these crimes being commited").

The true cause of the current piracy boom lies in the software companies themselves, their overall bad market approach, poor customer support and low product quality. They offer inferior content with superior graphics for overblown amounts of money because they are unable to consider long-term market strategies. Instead of lowering their budgets for chasing the latest state-of-the-art "look, I can make my pixels dance!" trick, instead of boosting their creative departments, the ones who think up all the new and experimental modes of gameplay, deep and interesting stories etc. they pour millions of dollars into making their title a shiny rehash of already-seen-it-a-thousand-times. And then price it so that its no wonder people take pause when they get the idea of acquiring their games.

Enter the pirate.
Change the above, and you will change the amount of piracy. It will not go away, it never will since there are always people willing to risk it to get something for nothing, but it will simmer down to negligible levels.
And that's all there is to it.

Back in the innocent days before computer games...software pirates...computers...geeks....hackers...crackers...et al.... there was a 'distinction' bet ween those who stole goods...and those who handled them.

"getting done for receiving" was just another variation on "taking without consent".

You can steal...or you can handle stolen goods....you'll still do time.....;)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hate this argument [edit: reply number 118]. If you don't like the games, then don't play them. If they are so crappy, why put so much effort into "copying" them?

You know, I've figured it out. This forum is a rufuge for pirates because stardock won't ban admitted offenders. That makes sense. What are they going to do about it anyway? Might as well let them gloat.

Something that truly disturbs me is the ease with which supposedly intelligent creatures like humans can rationalize something that is obviously thievery, without even considering that they themselves are making games crappier. They remove the incentive to make them. I don't have any software engineers working for me, but if I knew I could make a billion dollars for making a game, I'd hire some and take out a loan. I know I would not make a billion dollars, so I continue to do what I'm doing, and the people who are making games have less competition.



No, the essential problem is that they will not do time. If the police would put these thieves behind bars, they wouldn't be taunting developers with inane arguments. I think the government has really failed in this regard.

Er...no.

Stardock has a zero tolerance for warez use/users.

I'm possibly leading the score-card in warez-user exiling ...not sure though...depends on the prevalence in the Gaming corner of SD's realm....;)

Ok, well, that makes more sense. But what I said is still true. How is that going to help you, really? The banned user will just occupy time better by stealing sins of a solar empire.

I'm sorry SlyDrivel, but pirates are not the ones who are "making the games crappier", it's the game companies. I don't know about you, but I've been playing games since the days of Atari and Commodore 64.
I remember playing first RTS games to hit the market, or the first FPS, I remember fondly adventure games such as Maniac Mansion, Warcraft, Dune, games with massive amounts of original content such as Albion or incredibly huge sandboxes such as Daggerfall.
Games which took the risk of being original and broke outside of the envelope.

How many RTS-es we have today, how many FPS action "next-gen-whatnot" shooters? Are you telling me these unoriginal rehashes of things said-and-done have been created because of pirates?

If pirates actually do ruin big businesses, I think we will see an *increase* in originality, because only the geeks in their garages will be making games, like in the olden days. Only now they can make them a little prettier.
As it stands, the big companies are not run by developers (rare exceptions exist) but by accountants. Which are known to dislike risky moves which involve large sums of money. So they put a damper on all sorts of creative movement, instead calling a new control scheme "next-gen" and focusing on things tried-and-true, with the abovementioned results.
So don't blame pirates for unoriginality in the gaming industry. You can blame pirates for all sorts of things, but not this.

And by the way, I *hope* you didn't just call me a pirate a few posts above. Just because I advocate a different angle of approach to the problem does not make me a pirate. That sort of knee-jerk thinking is exactly why the allmighty government is unable to deal with the problems our society is facing, ones much larger than piracy at that.

It'll be funny to see black-hat hackers getting their neighbors banned if this sort of thing takes off. Then no one will have Internet, yay! Incoming ISP company closures.

I always find it funny this sort of crucification of people who dowload pirated games generally done at game developers forum's.

It's obvious that if people don't download them, games will stop being pirated (well not really but we can do this simplification for this specific scenario).

It's also obvious that if you arrest all drug addicts/consumers, trafficking will stop (this one effectively in all scenarios).

So why is should we pursue ppl who download stuff, and don't pursue ppl who consume or are addicted to drugs?

Drug addiction is far worse for the society than "virtually" hurting game developers/movie industry/music industry's income.

---

There are some notable differences between the 2 (luxury addictive through pleasure vs luxury addictive through chemical substances)

But the reason why the lesser evil is hardly fought and the bigger evil isn't is simple:

If drug comsumption stopped alltogether, the economic benefits gained from it would be somewhat intangible.

If downloading stuff stopped alltogether, copyright owners would see a slight improve in income.