Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes, and it should be punished under theft.

Yes, and it should be punished under copyright law.

Yes, but it shouldn't be punished.

Certain cases are crimes.

I feel ambivalent towards piracy being a crime.

No, but it should be punished.

No, it is a natural part of a consumer's routine.

No, not at all.

Other

Don't Care / View Poll

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[ChairmanPoo]

A somewhat off topic observation: It seems to me that people on both sides of the argument are mixing up legality and morality.

[Neruz]

It happens more than you'd think.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[Soadreqm]

Whether or not you can legally download a game you already own probably depends on local laws. You're circumventing copy protection measures, but it's quite possible that you're not TECHNICALLY circumventing them yourself. You're certainly violating the EULA, but it's still an open question whether or not those monstrosities are enforcible, so that might not be a crime either. And because it is such a hassle, most game companies will probably not bother pursuing the matter further. Probably.

Whether or not copyright violation technically counts as theft shouldn't really matter in most cases. The are laws regarding copyright violation. Piracy might not be a crime under ancient Assyrian law, but we've been refining things since then. The hilarious part is that the correct use of English language is ultimately defined by how English language is used, meaning that if corporate propaganda defines intellectual property theft as theft, and enough people believe it, the definition of "theft" will, de facto, change to include that.

[Neruz]

Dunno about elsewhere, but i know in Australia when i buy a game, what i'm actually buying is the 'key' and the right to play the game. It's absolutely legal for me to download another copy of the game, make backups etc. I happen to know this because my ISP got uppity at me for torrenting Mass Effect way back when, and threatened to cut my internets off. I responded by showing them my Steam Proof of Purchase for ME and they apologised and dropped the issue.

Copyright Violation isn't theft; that's why it's called Copyright Violation. If it was theft, we'd call it theft.

[Soadreqm]

Copyright Violation isn't theft; that's why it's called Copyright Violation. If it was theft, we'd call it theft.

Counterpoint: several people do.

[Satarus]

It's only theft when you take a physical object without permission.  Software is information, not a physical object.   Taking a CD from a store is theft because it is a physical object.  It isn't copyright violation because that software was created with permision.  Me giving you a copy of my CD is copyright violation because I didn't have authorization to create that copy.

[Soadreqm]

Yes, we have been discussing exactly that for the past five pages or so. Consensus was never reached. Some maintain that your definition of theft is the correct one, while others claim that the object need not be physical, and others yet bicker about the exact definition of "take". This is all delightfully tangential to the question of whether piracy is wrong.

Also, copying a CD to a friend might fall under "fair use", depending on local laws. In Finland, for example, you are free to copy most intellectual property for your own use (or sharing in a family or something like that), even if the original is borrowed or rented, except computer programs, where I forget the exact definition of "computer programs" used.

[Neruz]

Copyright Violation isn't theft; that's why it's called Copyright Violation. If it was theft, we'd call it theft.

Counterpoint: several people do.

Lawyers don't; the layman can call it theft all he wants, all that matters is how the law sees it. And the law sees Copyright Violation (or Copyright Infringement as i believe it is called) as Copyright Violation, not as Theft.

[Soadreqm]

Lawyers don't; the layman can call it theft all he wants, all that matters is how the law sees it. And the law sees Copyright Violation (or Copyright Infringement as i believe it is called) as Copyright Violation, not as Theft.

It doesn't really matter what the lawyers call it, as long as there are laws describing what you do with it. It's not like they even call theft theft. There's burglary, larceny, shoplifting, looting, embezzling, robbery and fraud, all of which are presumably different in some subtle ways. And in any case, the law sees copyright infringement as illegal. Which, I suppose, is usually the only way law sees things.

And all the analogies about copyright infringement being LIKE theft are, well, analogies. They don't have to stand up to literal interpretation, and should really be expected to be highly dependent on personal opinion.

[Neruz]

Lawyers don't; the layman can call it theft all he wants, all that matters is how the law sees it. And the law sees Copyright Violation (or Copyright Infringement as i believe it is called) as Copyright Violation, not as Theft.

It doesn't really matter what the lawyers call it, as long as there are laws describing what you do with it. It's not like they even call theft theft. There's burglary, larceny, shoplifting, looting, embezzling, robbery and fraud, all of which are presumably different in some subtle ways. And in any case, the law sees copyright infringement as illegal. Which, I suppose, is usually the only way law sees things.

And all the analogies about copyright infringement being LIKE theft are, well, analogies. They don't have to stand up to literal interpretation, and should really be expected to be highly dependent on personal opinion.

Thankyou for agreeing with me.

[Bauglir]

-snip-

[fenrif]

There's a really interesting article written by an economist talking about copyright theft from a purely economical perspective. Linkadoo

Basically the gist of it goes that digital media is, from a purely economist perspective, a pure-public good. She talks about the differences between public and private good, and a few different types of things inbetween. According to the article a pure public good is something that is neither an excludable good (something you can stop people from just taking) or a rival good (something that is a finite resource, if i take your thing you are deprived of it). Now this is all purely economical, and doesn't deal with the morality of the situation, but here's a quick summary of what she says:

Media content can't really be made into a rival good, and any attempts to artificially make it excludable fail miserably (DRM, legislation, etc.) She basically says that all the old buisness models are built up around media content being a 'club good' (non-rival but excludable) and that modern technology has changed the nature of content, necessitating a change in the way it is distributed and dealt with.

Anyway, it's a good read if you're interested in this sort of thing.

[Phmcw]

Why does it matter that artist loose money?

As always and as usual, technology as render something else incredibly cheap. Book became thousand time cheaper after the invention of the printer, aluminium price pummelled after we found out how to get it from bauxite, industrial revolution decreased the price of everything, and now, information is almost free to share. Not that free actually, we still pay for Internet access and storage of data isn't free either. But as entertainment company are powerful, they try to refrain us to use what is ours, by, basically, controlling any exchange of data. So we must fight them. Simple.