Major Copyright Judgement

[CatInTheBag]

So, you agree there was no point in posting it? Pure waffle, in other words.

No, it adds context. As opposed to fatuous pedantry.

 

[Alan]

I just don't see how he could have caused Nintendo $1.5 million in damages, nor have I seen a good argument for statutory damages that let the courts pretend he did.

I think I overheard it being reported on A Current Affair, a horrible source, that there were 50,000 downloads of it.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Yeah, in what bizarro world could anyone possibly construe illegally taking possession of property that does not belong to you as "theft"?

In the world where the appropriation of intellectual property is a dealt with in its own separate class of law, mostly civil as opposed to criminal.

You know, the world in Supreme Court judges make statements like "copyright infringement is not theft".

 

[Belz...]

Your opinion is noted.

Keep in mind that what I am "taking" is a free copy.

A copy that doesn't belong to you.

I get the impression that you are trying to justify your own crime (whether we call it theft or copyright infringement doesn't matter here). Bear in mind that I'm using "crime" in the technical sense, here. I'm not trying to be rude.

 

[KarlG]

To me it isn't a semantics argument. Theft = taking something that isn't yours to have. Copying a game means taking the damned copy. And it isn't yours. Ergo, theft.

But when you copy a game, you dont take the original game, you create another copy. Where there was 1 copy, there are now 2. That is in no way taking the original away from someone else. Is it illegal; yes. Is it wrong; that's a whole other argument. Is it theft; no.

 

[Belz...]

You're assuming, however, that EVERY illegal download translates into a lost sale.

No one here is doing that. It's sufficient to assume that SOME of those will. I would think that this is how the courts see it.

 

[Belz...]

Speak for yourself. I've downloaded a computer game or two in my day, but that did not stop me from still purchasing some at retail.

That doesn't mean much.

I have a friend who only purchases the games he likes best, and downloads a big bunch of other games. So he buys "some", but that doesn't mean that, were he unable to download the other ones, he'd only buy those same games.

 

[Belz...]

More rank equivocation between intellectual and physical property. This entire thread is filled with equivocation and false analogies.

While I know that there's a difference between physical and 'virtual' things, I don't think taking things that don't belong to you is any less wrong either way.

It's the justification of the act that I find annoying.

 

[Belz...]

I just don't see how he could have caused Nintendo $1.5 million in damages

I think that's the problem with many pirates.

 

[Belz...]

But when you copy a game, you dont take the original game, you create another copy. Where there was 1 copy, there are now 2. That is in no way taking the original away from someone else. Is it illegal; yes. Is it wrong; that's a whole other argument. Is it theft; no.

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

 

[CatInTheBag]

No one here is doing that. It's sufficient to assume that SOME of those will. I would think that this is how the courts see it.

Which appears to be an entirely equitable solution. The remedy for the infringement ought to be in line with the damages that the infringement has caused.

I do think, however, that those damages should be demonstrable, and not just pulled from the air.

I'm not aware of that many jurisdictions that impose punitive damages on top of that, although I am aware that some do exist.

 

[Ambrosia]

But when you copy a game, you dont take the original game, you create another copy. Where there was 1 copy, there are now 2. That is in no way taking the original away from someone else. Is it illegal; yes. Is it wrong; that's a whole other argument. yes Is it theft; no.

fixed that for you.

It's not techincally theft, but you are in fact depriving that copyright holder of the money that they would have received if you had bought whatever it was that you copied.

It gets complicated because sometimes the act of copying what isn't yours leads to increased sales for the copyright holder.

I have downloaded music from torrent sites in the past, I have a spare room stacked full of vinyl much of which I would never have bought had I not originally downloaded some track and given it a listen.

Yes I could have found that music elsewhere, it was orders of magnitude more convenient for me to download stuff from Napster at the time though, so thats what I did. Nowadays rather than manually convert music I want in other formats from my CDs or vinyl I just go and download a digital copy of it to stick in my ipod, reasoning that seeing as I already paid for it once, no harm no foul. Technically thats both illegal and wrong, but who cares.

The present generation of internet radio stations and websites where you can preview music in reasonable fidelity before parting with monies, means that even with my obscure music tastes it's easier for me to go and listen to something online to decide whether I want it or not, than it is to download something, so I do that now rather than download.

Convenience is a powerful thing.

People have been pirating music for as long as music has been around, the music industry is still alive, kicking and in pretty good shape all told.

 

[CatInTheBag]

I think that's the problem with many pirates.

As above - there has to be some sort of justification.

Did Nintendo show, on the preponderance of evidence, that there were 50,000 downloads? That does seem like a huge number - although I do suppose on what protocol was in play.

I'm not familiar enough with the case to know.

 

[CatInTheBag]

fixed that for you.

It's not techincally theft, but you are in fact depriving that copyright holder of the money that they would have received if you had bought whatever it was that you copied.

Presupposing, of course, that you would have bought it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

That doesn't mean much.

I have a friend who only purchases the games he likes best, and downloads a big bunch of other games. So he buys "some", but that doesn't mean that, were he unable to download the other ones, he'd only buy those same games.

So...you're saying I should pay $60 for every game I think I might like rather than try it out first?

Hmm...that sounds like wise monetary planning to me...


I won't, generally, make this same point about music - although the argument could be presented that most of the music played on the radio is little of the music contained on a CD. I'm sure everyone involved in this discussion has, at some point, bought a CD based on one song they heard on the radio only to find that the rest of the CD was not to their liking.


So, the morality argument is that downloading a copy of the CD and/or game deprives the artist/developer of income. How, then, is it immoral to give the music/game a test-drive before deciding whether or not to purchase said music/game? After all, the artist/producer/developer is not deprived of the income.

Keep in mind: These are not cheap items. A single $15 CD seems inexpensive enough until you realize that many people have hundreds of CDs...that's a lot of potentially wasted spending.

 

[banquetbear]

But when you copy a game, you dont take the original game, you create another copy. Where there was 1 copy, there are now 2. That is in no way taking the original away from someone else. Is it illegal; yes. Is it wrong; that's a whole other argument. Is it theft; no.

...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?

So...you're saying I should pay $60 for every game I think I might like rather than try it out first?

Hmm...that sounds like wise monetary planning to me...

Why wouldn't you download a demo?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

...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?



Why wouldn't you download a demo?

Not all games have demos...

 

[Ambrosia]

Presupposing, of course, that you would have bought it.

not really.

a non 0% of people downloading X would have bought X had downloading not been so easy and without consequence.

If 1 million people download X and you are one of those, and 10 000 of those million, of which you are not one, would have paid for it, one could argue that your download accounts for 1% of the revenue lost to the distributor.

"But I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a cop out argument that people make to rationalise illegal downloads. There is no way to prove or disprove that argument.

Similar to "lots of other people do it, and they won't notice" is a cop out argument that people use to rationalise throwing a sickie and defrauding their employers out of an honest days work.

 

[Belz...]

Which appears to be an entirely equitable solution. The remedy for the infringement ought to be in line with the damages that the infringement has caused.

I do think, however, that those damages should be demonstrable, and not just pulled from the air.

Perhaps. However, were I the owner of a song, should I not be the final arbiter of who can use my property, and how ?

 

[Belz...]

So...you're saying I should pay $60 for every game I think I might like rather than try it out first?

Oh, please. You can RENT games to try them out. Also, with the number of gaming sites out there, you can be pretty sure about your purchase before making it. That's how I do it. I never rent games, I just buy them after checking out my pet websites.

So, the morality argument is that downloading a copy of the CD and/or game deprives the artist/developer of income.

Actually, my argument is that the artist/developper OWNS the music. That should be enough.

How, then, is it immoral to give the music/game a test-drive before deciding whether or not to purchase said music/game? After all, the artist/producer/developer is not deprived of the income.

As I said above, you can rent it legally. I also mentioned upthread that piracy has some good to it.

I'm also a little fuzzy on stuff downloaded that is NOT available commercially.