Print

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

[Pnx]

You do realize that Let's Plays are illegal copyright infringement, right?

As far as I know they aren't... at least not yet.

I believe it comes under fair use. Although certain parties would like to see that change.

Except, again, THEY NEVER HAD THAT MONEY. How can they be "out" something they never had? How are they any more "out" that money than if you bought a different product? Or if you bought nothing at all? Since the consequence is the same for the "victim" in all cases, why is your case so much worse?

Because, as I believe I said in my last post, they would've received money had you bought the game legitimately. Pirating nets you a copy of the game they spent money to create, without you having to pay for it. This results in them losing profit, because there's a copy of the game out there that the pirate didn't pay money for.

In other words:
Company X sells 1,000,000 copies of Game Y: Game Gamier, a highly anticipated sequel, on the day of release. They've spent lots of money on writers, voice actors, playtesters, music, programmers, etc. It sells for 30$ each. Later, someone uploads a pirated copy on the interwebs. 100,000 people download it illegally because they can't be arsed to spend 30$. Company X now sees 3,000,000$ less profit than they would've seen had those 100,000 people bought the game.

You know, I'm not entirely sure you're not just trolling now.

[GlyphGryph]

For the downloaders anyways, significantly more damning for the the providers.

It's actually a bit of a legal grey area, truth by told. By the letter of the law, at least a good portion of them aren't really fair use, though, and are very clearly copyright infringement. (see, Hatoful Boyfriend lets plays)

Remember that remixing is copyright infringement.

[Vector]

Oh, and let me ask one more thing:

Should selling things used be illegal?  After all, the company doesn't get any profit from the resale!

[Solifuge]

I sense that people are getting too personally invested in defending piracy, lest it reflect poorly on them. For the record, I have pirated media in the past. I consider myself having stolen something, and hold myself accountable for that. I'm all for a revision of the way our economic system values creation and creators, but that's another discussion; why one commits acts of piracy is completely independent from whether or not, by the definitions used within the present system, they stole a product from a creator.

What happened to creating for the sake of creation?  Solifuge, you seem to have thrown that possibility away from the outset.

People who create for the sake of creation don't generally ask for compensation. If they do expect something in return, and their creation was taken or experienced without this being given, it's definitely still a violation of the social contract by which the creator allowed their creation to be owned or experienced by others. If they ask for nothing and nothing is given, the contract is upheld.

Satisfaction is not an innate guarantee of out economic system; when you go to the supermarket and buy tomatoes, it's your responsibility as a buyer to determine whether the tomatoes you buy are fresh or not. Just the same, it's up to the consumer to put enough research and forethought into purchasing a music album or game before buying it; the creator does not owe you once you purchase something, no matter how much it failed to amuse or entertain you, since you've already "consumed" and experienced the product.

Replace piracy justified by the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, because I don't know if I'll enjoy it" argument with a grocery patron who wouldn't buy a Cantaloupe because they were unsure if they would like them. Rather than seeking out a sample of a Cantaloupe from a friend, the person steals a Cantaloupe, so they can taste it and decide if they'd have bought it or not. The same works for media; rather than doing the research on a product, or trying a demonstration out, if they steal the product they still consume it without offering anything in exchange.

Our system isn't one that allows consumers to place a lower value on a product, if the producer asks for more. It's up to the consumer to convince the producer to lower that price to something they would find acceptable, and the producer to decide if they can afford to offer it to them for that price.

[MorleyDev]

You do realize that Let's Plays are illegal copyright infringement, right?

It's essentially a massive grey area, which is why youtube has "Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time will not be accepted for monetization." and not "be removed from the site".

Nobody has ever outright pursued legal action over it to the bitter end, so no precedent has ever been set so it's literally a "nobody knows" and down to interpretations of certain phrases -_-

So for the last time, piracy is a civil offence. It is not legally theft, which is "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it", as whilst yes you are depriving them of the sale but NOT the item itself.

[Darvi]

For the downloaders anyways, significantly more damning for the the providers.

Well ya, but I'm not providing anything am I.

[freeformschooler]

Oh, and let me ask one more thing:

Should selling things used be illegal?  After all, the company doesn't get any profit from the resale!

Should lending a book be illegal? Once your friend has consumed the information, they haven't paid anything and probably aren't going to!

These are very muddied waters.

[Frumple]

Oh, and let me ask one more thing:

Should selling things used be illegal?  After all, the company doesn't get any profit from the resale!

They ('they' being publishers, distributors, etc.) are trying really, really hard to make it illegal, yeah. Isn't, yet, but it might be in the next decade. I think there's also some odd tax issues with stuff like yard sales, but only quote me on that to elucidate on the subject

[Solifuge]

Oh, and let me ask one more thing:

Should selling things used be illegal?  After all, the company doesn't get any profit from the resale!

Should lending a book be illegal? Once your friend has consumed the information, they haven't paid anything and probably aren't going to!

These are very muddied waters.

I think we could simplify a lot of this by separating the discussion of "whether electronic media piracy is tantamount to theft" from "whether we need to revise how goods/experiences are valued, when these goods/experiences can be endlessly reproduced at no material cost".

[GlyphGryph]

I sense that people are getting too personally invested in defending piracy, lest it reflect poorly on them. For the record, I have pirated media in the past. I consider myself having stolen something, and hold myself accountable for that. I'm all for a revision of the way our economic system values creation and creators, but that's another discussion; why one commits acts of piracy is completely independent from whether or not, by the definitions used within the present system, they stole a product from a creator.

Methinks some people may be letting their guilt get to them, and making assumptions about other people that are completely unjustified. For example, I don't pirate*. I don't pirate because I feel its wrong. But I don't feel that it's theft.

Why do YOU feel the need to conflate it with a separate wrong rather than letting its immoral nature stand on its own?

* Unless one considers downloading rom hacks, or downloading roms of games I own so as to gut them and replace them with the game I want, and listening to remixes, pirating, I suppose.**

** Wait I just realized I often visit image boards, too. Copying all those unsourced images to my RAM by viewing them is probably also piracy, even though I don't post anything. Hmm... Damn me, stealing all those lolcats! I need to start paying for this shit, or I'm a dirty rotten thief!

[Vector]

I think we could simplify a lot of this by separating the discussion of "whether electronic media piracy is tantamount to theft" from "whether we need to revise how goods/experiences are valued, when these goods/experiences can be endlessly reproduced at no material cost".

This.

I think people might find this post interesting.

[Willfor]

Oh, and let me ask one more thing:

Should selling things used be illegal?  After all, the company doesn't get any profit from the resale!

Should lending a book be illegal? Once your friend has consumed the information, they haven't paid anything and probably aren't going to!

These are very muddied waters.

Book lending and libraries are accounted for in the publisher's business model because these questions have already been gone over in the past. The answer is: Book lending is acceptable practice. It's also encouraged by some authors as word of mouth advertising in an already underpopulated market.

[Solifuge]

I sense that people are getting too personally invested in defending piracy, lest it reflect poorly on them.

Methinks some people may be letting their guilt get to them, and making assumptions about other people that are completely unjustified. For example, I don't pirate*. I don't pirate because I feel its wrong. But I don't feel that it's theft.

Why do YOU feel the need to conflate it with a separate wrong rather than letting its immoral nature stand on its own?

* Unless one considers downloading rom hacks, or downloading roms of games I own so as to gut them and replace them with the game I want, and listening to remixes, pirating, I suppose.**

** Wait I just realized I often visit image boards, too. Copying all those unsourced images to my RAM by viewing them is probably also piracy, even though I don't post anything. Hmm... Damn me, stealing all those images through lolcats!

You were one of those whom I felt was getting overly emotional/personally invested in this, yes.

As I said, I'll reserve discussion for why I would commit acts of piracy, and my feelings on how the system needs revision, for another discussion. I am not inspired by feelings of guilt; in fact, I consider what I've done to be morally right, but until such time as our system and laws are revised, I understand why my actions would be considered theft. Acceptance of these actions as theft is all the more inspiration for me me to seek to revise these laws.

[GlyphGryph]

The law does not consider copyright infringement theft, though.

[Solifuge]

Electronic media which can be duplicated infinitely is a relatively new thing, culturally speaking. This is a new concept, and as such, we need to take a moment to consider this outside traditional legal concepts, and give some thought to the social and economic implications of piracy, and the spirit of theft itself.

Replace piracy justified by the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, because I don't know if I'll enjoy it" argument with a grocery patron who wouldn't buy a Cantaloupe because they were unsure if they would like them. Rather than seeking out a sample of a Cantaloupe from a friend, the person steals a Cantaloupe, so they can taste it and decide if they'd have bought it or not. The same works for media; rather than doing the research on a product, or trying a demonstration out, if they steal the product they still consume it without offering anything in exchange.

People who create for the sake of creation don't generally ask for compensation. If they do expect something in return, and their creation was taken or experienced without this being given, it's definitely still a violation of the social contract by which the creator allowed their creation to be owned or experienced by others.

A vinter may have made their champagne from physical grapes, and a programmer may have made a game from an intangible electronic code, but both represent an object which we assign a value to, as a society. We want them to make these things for us, and offer pay as consumers. A consumer who experiences either of these products without compensating the creator steals from them a real product. It's theft, plain and simple.

By these arguments, I would say they should be considered one and the same.

EDIT: Within this context, of course. Not all copyright-infringement is theft.