Major Copyright Judgement

[BobTheDonkey]

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.



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



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.

I don't trust most review sites as far as game content goes. Nor do I feel like spending money at all on a game that I might not like - whether that be renting or buying. Additionally, I don't currently know of any places that rent PC games and I rarely (read never) play console games.

Please answer the question:

If I download the game to try it out and wind up buying the game, is that still as immoral as not buying it later? What if I try the game out and decide I don't like it, therefore choosing to not buy it but not playing the game any longer either - is that still the same level of immorality?

(FTR: I don't personally pirate games...this is for the sake of further discussion).

As I've stated before, I generally stick to downloading songs I can't find anywhere else - some of my favorite tracks seem to have never made it to album (mostly live versions, etc).

 

[banquetbear]

Not all games have demos...

...help me out here. Can you name some games you have downloaded recently that didn't have game demos?

 

[CatInTheBag]

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

As the creator, you are afforded certain rights over the that creation - copying, distributing, ceding control to corporate interests etc, inter alia other rights and obligation.

These rights are afforded by society to encourage creativity, and to allow creative works to be rewarded equitably.

 

[CatInTheBag]

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

How about Photoshop. A hugely expensive piece of software, cracked and distributed up the wazoo.

Anecdotally, at least, Adobe do very little enforcement, as the preponderance of cracked copies leads to higher sales of the full product.

 

[CatInTheBag]

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.

It is rationalisation. It is essentially stating that there is demonstrably no opportunity cost to the owner of the IP.

There is no way to prove or disprove that argument.

There is, though. You ask the person that made the download whether they would have bought the game / CD / DVD, were the download not available.

You yourself wrote "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."

You have already stated the conditional clause. All I did was reinforce it.

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.

Relevance?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

...help me out here. Can you name some games you have downloaded recently that didn't have game demos?

I don't download games. This is for the sake of discussion.


Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 does not seem to have a playable demo (first recent game release I looked up due to my own interest).

Assassin's Creed 2 does not have a playable demo.

Mass Effect 2 does not seem to have a playable demo.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Ok you were talking about downloading something you paid for ?

Yes, but in a different format eg vinyl.

I was musing (and looking for insight from others) on the difference between using technology (specifically sold for the purpose) to convert vinyl to digital and downloading the digital version from someone else (who may have already done the conversion or simply has a digital version).

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Yes, but in a different format eg vinyl.

I was musing (and looking for insight from others) on the difference between using technology (specifically sold for the purpose) to convert vinyl to digital and downloading the digital version from someone else (who may have already done the conversion or simply has a digital version).

Apologies if I wasn't clear.

I downloaded my entire vinyl collection.

The record companies certainly don't want me to do that.

I also tape music off the radio.

Am I a bad person?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

And, once again, you would be completely wrong on all counts. It is entirely legal for you to make a digital copy of your vinyl record, or tape, or VHS. It is not legal for you to make copies and sell them, no, but it is entirely and unquestionably and explicitly legal for you to make a copy for your personal use. And no, that is not in any way the "same" as downloading the MP3. A digitized copy of your analog "first sale" copy is not by anyone's definition the "same" as the MP3 that you would download.

I was not stating that that was the position, I was saying what I thought could be the position and looking for views / insight from others.

Do you know where I could find a definitive statement that digitising my vinyl, tapes etc is ok? The link I posted earler only specifically covers computer software.

Out of interest, why do you say that 'A digitized copy of your analog "first sale" copy is not by anyone's definition the "same" as the MP3 that you would download'? I have a specific example in mind that might help focus the discussion:

The first few Enid albums have never been released in digital form. Due to a dispute between the record label and the band, the record label refused to release them on CD so the band, who had rights to the music but not the recording, re-recorded the music and released that on CD. I own both the original vinyl version and the re-recorded CD version. They are quite different.

I would like a digital copy of those original albums. I am able to create such myself - though it's a bit of a potch - but I note that someone has already done so and made them available as MP3s.

If I understand the position correctly (and I'm happy to be told I'm completely wrong again) then I can do the former but not the latter even though the only material difference is someone has done the hard work part of the former 'for me' (and doesn't wish to charge or profit from that service). The net result is surely the same - NB I'm discounting minor differences in any clicks or scratches from their vinyl cf my vinyl copies (which are pristine btw) as they can easily be tidied up with software - perhaps that is where you would see the difference?

 

[Ambrosia]

There is, though. You ask the person that made the download whether they would have bought the game / CD / DVD, were the download not available.

In what way would that constitute proof?

Relevance?

If you call downloading "theft" then by the same definition pulling a sickie is also "theft".

Both are wrong, both are illegal (fraud essentially), and people make poor arguments to rationalise their behaviour in defense of both of them.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I've seen that research. It's self-serving B.S. And even if it were true (which it quite obviously isn't: one only has to look at CD sales to see that) .

I'm not sure which research is being referred to so can't comment but please don't cite the drop in CD Sales as being a result of illegal downloading. The decline in music sales generally had started way before downloading took hold. I believe music sales have actually recovered quite substantially as a result of the popularity of the ipod and itunes (shudder!) and the industry generally 'catching up' with the services previously only provided by the pirates but CD sales remain low as the market has shifted to the new medium.

I also think you may have mistaken me for someone who condones illegal downloading. That is not the case. I do however, believe that an awful load of nonsense is spouted about its effects by the RIAA and others who simply don't understand that sector of the market (or at least don't completely understand it).

 

[CatInTheBag]

In what way would that constitute proof?

Not proof, in the strict sense, but compelling evidence. Evidence that might only be rejected on the basis of "I don't believe you".

If you call downloading "theft" then by the same definition pulling a sickie is also "theft".

Both are wrong, both are illegal (fraud essentially), and people make poor arguments to rationalise their behaviour in defense of both of them.

I think that we're agreeing, insofar as downloading is not theft.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

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

I struggle with that myself.

 

[Gate2501]

In what way would that constitute proof?



If you call downloading "theft" then by the same definition pulling a sickie is also "theft".

Both are wrong, both are illegal (fraud essentially), and people make poor arguments to rationalise their behaviour in defense of both of them.

Do you mean to say that downloading copyrighted material is "essentially fraud"?

This seems even more strange than calling it theft. Fraud involves intentional deception for personal gain against another individual.

 

[Ambrosia]

Do you mean to say that downloading copyrighted material is "essentially fraud"?

This seems even more strange than calling it theft. Fraud involves intentional deception for personal gain against another individual.

It's about as accurate as calling it theft, DRM countermeasures are basically fraud, but whatever you want to call it, it is wrong, and illegal and very widespread.

Lets not derail the thread into another 3 pages of bickering over sematics.

 

[CatInTheBag]

It's about as accurate as calling it theft, DRM countermeasures are basically fraud, but whatever you want to call it, it is wrong

Depending on context.

and illegal

Depending on jurisdiction and context.

and very widespread

Supposedly.

Lets not derail the thread into another 3 pages of bickering over sematics.

Where's the fun then?

 

[Gate2501]

It's about as accurate as calling it theft, DRM countermeasures are basically fraud,

I can pretty much agree with this.

but whatever you want to call it, it is wrong,

My moral code is based on the harm which I do to others. If I am not going to buy it(99% of the time because I can't afford it), and someone is freely offering me a copy of it, I am going to take it. This amounts to a gain for myself and a loss to no one.

ETA: I have said before that I do feel bad for the arbitrary nature of what little I do purchase(arbitrary because it is based solely upon when I have the money, which isn't too often), I end up not supporting the companies and musicians that I really do enjoy. I probably should put a system in place where I spend my money only on things which I have already downloaded, and choose based upon which ones were the most worthy of my spending.

and illegal and very widespread.

Again, I agree.

Lets not derail the thread into another 3 pages of bickering over sematics.

Have you read this thread? It is really hard not to when people can't stop drawing false equivalence between the crime of copyright infringement, and things like auto theft, bank robbery, burglary, etc. That said, I probably jumped the gun being all pedantic with you about fraud. I see your point about how DRM countermeasures are quite similar in many respects, not exactly the same thing, but much more similar than the woefully bunk infringement = stealing analogies.

 

[Belz...]

I don't trust most review sites as far as game content goes.

Why not ? They usually give detailed reviews, which means you can determine for yourself, sometimes quite thoroughly, if the game might be for you.

Nor do I feel like spending money at all on a game that I might not like - whether that be renting or buying.

"I don't feel like paying" is no excuse to steal. It shouldn't be an excuse to copy games illegally.

Please answer the question:

If I download the game to try it out and wind up buying the game, is that still as immoral as not buying it later? What if I try the game out and decide I don't like it, therefore choosing to not buy it but not playing the game any longer either - is that still the same level of immorality?

The problem is that, since you can't know whether you'll eventually pay for playing the game, you might not, and that constitutes a copyright infringement. Of course you can always download a free demo.

As I've stated before, I generally stick to downloading songs I can't find anywhere else - some of my favorite tracks seem to have never made it to album (mostly live versions, etc).

Well, I've got a number of MP3 for which I don't have the CD. I mostly listen to video game soundtracks, actually, and many of them aren't available through import, which comes back to an earlier comment by me.

 

[Belz...]

I downloaded my entire vinyl collection.

The record companies certainly don't want me to do that.

I also tape music off the radio.

Am I a bad person?

A very interesting question. You already paid for the albums on another medium, after all. Should it be legal ? Hum.

 

[Belz...]

Do you mean to say that downloading copyrighted material is "essentially fraud"?

It's not entirely incorrect. So it's a bit of theft (you have something you didn't pay for) and a bit of fraud (the author loses net money).

So maybe we should, instead of the rather long term "copyright infringement", we should call it "Freft" or "Thaud".