Major Copyright Judgement

[KarlG]

Why would the definition of "theft" necessarily mean that the original is no longer available to the original owner ?

From Wiki: The UK Theft Act:

The basic definition of theft is defined in S.1(1) of the Act.

The Act states that

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Also from Wiki, a general description of theft:

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use

 

[KarlG]

...well, lets have that arguement then.

I believe that if you copy a game in a manner that the copyright holder does not approve of, that is wrong. Do you argue that it is right?

Well, ‘wrong’ is rather subjective, no? I’m sure we can all agree on what is illegal; we all know the laws of the land. However, in my opinion, not all things that are illegal are wrong, and not all things that are wrong are illegal. Does the simple matter of illegality make something wrong?

Also, are right and wrong the only positions in this argument? I don’t copy/download games. I did when I was unemployed and couldn’t afford to buy them. I knew it was illegal but did it anyway. However, the reason that I don’t copy/download games anymore isn’t because I believe it’s wrong, it’s partly because it is illegal and partly because I don’t need to as I can afford to buy them. Just because I don’t believe it is wrong doesn’t necessarily mean I believe it is right. Such issues are rarely black and white.

I don’t dispute that it is illegal to copy the game and that many people also consider it to be wrong. I just don’t accept that it is theft. I didn’t want to boil it down to this semantic argument, but has any convicted ‘pirate’ ever been convicted of theft?

On a slightly different, but related, subject, I download a lot of US TV shows before they are shown in the UK. I download these shows, watch them and then delete them. These shows are subsequently shown on channels I pay a subscription for. I would assume that this is illegal, but is it wrong?

 

[Cuddles]

Edit: Copying of media has been prevalent since the 80s

Way earlier than that. My father has a collection of tapes recorded of the radio and other tapes dating back to at least the early '70s. Even back then copying music was common enough for DJs to have started talking over the start and end of tracks to ensure perfect copies weren't possible.

I believe that if you copy a game in a manner that the copyright holder does not approve of, that is wrong. Do you argue that it is right?

I argue that it is absolutist statements like this that are the whole problem. Why should copying games or music be wrong? At least at one time, and I think it may still be the case, it was illegal to even make backup copies to avoid damaging the originals, or to copy music from a CD to the computer you actually use to listen to music. If the copyright holder doesn't approve of that, they can go and **** themselves.

The problem with piracy is not simply "things the copyright holder doesn't approve of", because many of their opinions are simply retarded and not worth listening to. The problem is the actual loss of earnings due to copies being bought and sold, or just distributed at no cost. I have no problem at all with there being laws against that, whether you consider it equivalent to theft or not. It's when people start demanding control over things I do with my own property in the privacy of my own home that the real problems come in, particularly when those demands are incredibly stupid things that have no effect whatsoever on the people doing the demanding.

As a bit of an analogy, take speed limits. Most people would probably agree that 30mph is a reasonable speed limit in a residential area. Some will drive too fast, some will drive to slow, but most people will at least make an effort to obey it. If the limit on the same road is lowered to 20mph, people will be less happy. If it's an uncluttered, good quality road that's had no accidents, they're likely to be rather confused why the limit is lower and you will get less people obeying it, since it doesn't actually affect safety at all. If the limit is now lowered to 10mph, pretty much everyone will ignore it completely. Not only is that an utterly stupid limit to have in most places, with the limits on analogue speedometers most people won't even be able to tell if they're breaking the limit or not.

With stupid laws and crippling DRM, the situation until very recently with media was the 10mph limit. The reasons for having a limit may have been sound, but it was implemented in such a way that it was almost impossible not to break the law in some way, and therefore no-one really cared about breaking it in other ways as well. With the relaxing of DRM by most companies, and generally more convenient ways to get media and more sensible rules covering, things are definitely improving. However, I don't think we're there yet, and people making arguments such as the one you make really don't help matters.

Why wouldn't you download a demo?

Because many games don't offer demos at all? Because many demos aren't really representative of the game? Personally I've never downloaded any games and I mostly rely on reviews and word of mouth. But that doesn't make the "just download a demo" argument any better, when often it's simply not an option at all.

 

[Belz...]

Look, it's a false analogy.

No. It's an imperfect analogy, as ALL analogies are. The only bit where it doesn't stick is the removal of the physical object. Get over it.

In the piracy bit, no CD is actually physically removed from the owner's possession.

I asked before and got no reply: why would the removal of the original be necessary for the definition of theft ? I earlier included one of the definitions at Dictionary.com:

Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

 

[Belz...]

The "it's theft" bit is there to add emotional *bang* to the debate, as Quixote says.

And he's incorrect, and so are you. The only word that's used to add emotional "bang" to the debate is the one we pretty much all agree on: "wrong".

 

[Belz...]

When it comes to the IPSs, however, I don't see how you can hold them responsible. It's like holding the phone company responsible for telemarketing fraud and expecting them to keep tabs on it.

Oh, no, no, no, Piggy. It's a FALSE analogy, because phone companies don't routinely record your conversations.

Sorry, pet peeve

 

[Belz...]

How about we stick to copyright violation. What does farming have to do with this? Yeah...

I see analogies isn't the only thing we're having problems with, here.

 

[Belz...]

The potential for the given sale may be lost, but that isn't the same thing and to my mind is a lesser thing. The infringer hasn't damaged anything but the owner's hypothetical future profits where the theft damages the owner's actual present possessions.

Well, I think that's an excuse that pirates use to make their crime appear milder than it actually is, and to a degree ("they already make enough money as it is") justify it. I don't think it's any lesser a crime than theft, assuming it's a completely distinct crime at all.

 

[Belz...]

The problem with piracy is not simply "things the copyright holder doesn't approve of", because many of their opinions are simply retarded and not worth listening to.

A person's wishes regarding their property is not worth listening to ? That's news to me.

Because many games don't offer demos at all? Because many demos aren't really representative of the game?

And that makes it okay how ?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

A person's wishes regarding their property is not worth listening to ? That's news to me.



And that makes it okay how ?

Do you buy a car without a test drive? Would you accept a test drive if the salesman was the one doing the driving and you were in the passenger seat?

The point is that, for many people, the ability to give a $60 game or a $20 CD a test drive is a way to better spend one's discretionary income. Just because someone has a large amount of discretionary income does not mean he/she should have to throw it away on a game/CD he/she might not like. And that goes even more so for those on a much more limited income. In this manner, the pricing and inaccessibility of games/music releases actually result in lower sales.


And here's a(nother) fallacious argument (personal anecdote):

I'm a big fan of Citizen Cope. Until I downloaded a handful of his songs, I had never heard his music. Because of those illegally downloaded handful of songs, I have now purchased every album he has released (3, 4 as of this month - haven't bought the 4th yet) and attended one of his live performances. That's a net gain for the artist - based completely on illegal downloads. And I know friends that have done the same (with the same artist and other artists).

ETA: I've also done this with Avenged Sevenfold and H.I.M. In fact, for a good 6 months or so, I would buy a new AS or H.I.M. album every payday - trying to collect them all. When I finally stopped (CD player ate my favorite one), I had purchased 3 or 4 AS albums and 5 or 6 H.I.M. albums. Again, due to a handful of illegally downloaded tracks, both of these groups resulted in a net gain in sales.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

No. It's an imperfect analogy, as ALL analogies are. The only bit where it doesn't stick is the removal of the physical object. Get over it.

Some analogies are more perfect than others. In this case, what you are attempting to compare with the analogy is exactly what the analogy is missing. One side has a physical loss of possession, the other does not. In that aspect, therefore, it is a very bad analogy - bad enough to be considered false.

I asked before and got no reply: why would the removal of the original be necessary for the definition of theft ? I earlier included one of the definitions at Dictionary.com:

Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent
NOTE: Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

Because that's the colloquial definition, not the legal (and more correct) one.

 

[Belz...]

The point is that, for many people, the ability to give a $60 game or a $20 CD a test drive is a way to better spend one's discretionary income.

So ? Play the demo, rent the game, try out the CD at a local store, listen to the radio, etc. There seems to be no legitimate reason to pirate the damn thing unless you're UNABLE to buy it.

Just because someone has a large amount of discretionary income does not mean he/she should have to throw it away on a game/CD he/she might not like.

Again, it's your choice to buy or not.

I'm a big fan of Citizen Cope. Until I downloaded a handful of his songs, I had never heard his music. Because of those illegally downloaded handful of songs, I have now purchased every album he has released (3, 4 as of this month - haven't bought the 4th yet) and attended one of his live performances. That's a net gain for the artist - based completely on illegal downloads. And I know friends that have done the same (with the same artist and other artists).

I've already said so earlier: piracy can make for good publicity. That might be why some allow it to continue. Hell, DOOM was easily pirates because it had no real copy protection whatsoever. I think that worked to id Software's advantage, back then. But it's still illegal.

 

[Belz...]

Some analogies are more perfect than others.

Absolutely. It's the fact that some people refuse to accept ANY analogy on the grounds that it doesn't perfectly match the original situation, which it can't, that annoys me.

In this case, what you are attempting to compare with the analogy is exactly what the analogy is missing. One side has a physical loss of possession, the other does not.

The very REASON I did so is because Gate SPECIFICALLY said that there was NO HARM done to those from which he pirated stuff. You should pay closer attention to the thread.

Because that's the colloquial definition, not the legal (and more correct) one.

And yet that was in the "legal dictionary" section. You might've missed the little bit at the end. Or perhaps you didn't even read it.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

And here's a(nother) fallacious argument (personal anecdote):

I'm a big fan of Citizen Cope. Until I downloaded a handful of his songs, I had never heard his music. Because of those illegally downloaded handful of songs, I have now purchased every album he has released (3, 4 as of this month - haven't bought the 4th yet) and attended one of his live performances. That's a net gain for the artist - based completely on illegal downloads. And I know friends that have done the same (with the same artist and other artists).

ETA: I've also done this with Avenged Sevenfold and H.I.M. In fact, for a good 6 months or so, I would buy a new AS or H.I.M. album every payday - trying to collect them all. When I finally stopped (CD player ate my favorite one), I had purchased 3 or 4 AS albums and 5 or 6 H.I.M. albums. Again, due to a handful of illegally downloaded tracks, both of these groups resulted in a net gain in sales.

Which exactly matches my experience with downloaders (and at least one survey I've read). However, there is less reason to justify this approach these days as most bands have a variety of tracks available to listen to on their respective websites (Youtube is also a useful source) which should give a reasonable indication as to whether you'll like them or not. Doesn't completely remove the effect though as some music needs to grow on you before you really get into it (and consequently rush out and buy their entire back catalogue ;o) and you're more likely to listen to it several times if you have it in your possession.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Actually mentioning Youtube brings me on to another interesting one....

I believe some bands objected to their videos etc being on Youtube as it would 'reduce sales' but, over time, most have realised that it's effectively just another marketing tool (like getting your stuff played on MTV) and now the record companies themselves post videos up (at least labels like Spinefarm, SPV, Nuclear Blast etc).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

So ? Play the demo, rent the game, try out the CD at a local store, listen to the radio, etc. There seems to be no legitimate reason to pirate the damn thing unless you're UNABLE to buy it.

Have you paid no attention?

Up thread I listed at least 3 high-profile games released within the last 2-3 months that did not, and still do not, have playable demos.

And as for radio - I used Citizen Cope specifically because I had zero exposure prior to a friend recommending I download and listen to 1-2 tracks. That was years ago, and I still haven't heard his music on the radio - and I live in NY (spend many weekends in NYC) where's he's from and his music is pretty popular (for not being played on the radio).

I could list a few other artists that I would never have heard if I hadn't downloaded their music. Which is exactly the point.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Sometimes, yes, Copying = Stealing.

And always, Copyright infringement = Theft of intellectual property.

I downloaded my entire vinyl collection as MP3s.

I ripped my entire tape collection to MP3.

I infringed copyyrights.

What IP did I steal?

 

[CatInTheBag]

It's wrong.
It should be discouraged.

Is it? Does it?

I sang Happy Birthday to You to a crowded restaurant the other day.

I was unlicensed to do so.

Was that wrong?

 

[Gate2501]

Absolutely. It's the fact that some people refuse to accept ANY analogy on the grounds that it doesn't perfectly match the original situation, which it can't, that annoys me.

I refuse to accept it as evidence that infringement = theft.

I entertained your joyride analogy, and even explained why I felt that yes, the joyrider would be wrong in your scenario, morally speaking.

It isn't a false analogy unless you are using it to support the conclusion that A = B. I shouldn't have called your joyride analogy false looking back, it doesn't look like you were using it in this way like almost everyone else in this thread has done.

And yet that was in the "legal dictionary" section. You might've missed the little bit at the end. Or perhaps you didn't even read it.

What services are being stolen? Legally speaking, infringement is absolutely not considered theft of services, it never has been. This is a criminal matter, and includes things such as tapping into a cable line, walking out on a bill, or sneaking onto the subway.

 

[Gate2501]

Oh, no, no, no, Piggy. It's a FALSE analogy, because phone companies don't routinely record your conversations.

Sorry, pet peeve

Yeah, it isn't a false analogy unless it is being used to support the conclusion that A = B. Piggy didn't make a false analogy, I didn't say he did.