Major Copyright Judgement

[Belz...]

My moral code is based on the harm which I do to others.

While that's a fine way to go at it, let's make another physical-for-logical analogy, since I know you love those

Let's assume you break into my car, without damaging it, drive around a bit, because you have no car of your own, then fill the tank, return the car and include a few dollars to cover the mechanical wear, relative to the distance you covered. All the while, I didn't happen to need my car.

So, in the end, no "harm" was done. But it's still wrong, because the car is MY property and I didn't give you my permission to use it.

Is that a better analogy ?

 

[Gate2501]

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".

No, I am sorry, but the crime of copyright infringement is different from both theft and fraud, and even when you combine some elements of both a la carte, you still cannot draw a proper analog to infringement. Not to mention that having some similarities to theft or fraud does not make it theft or fraud.

As was pointed out earlier, finding a book on the ground also results in your having something you didn't pay for, and would deprive the author of a potential sale. I am not saying that finding a book on the ground is an analog for file-sharing at all; it isn't. I am just pointing out that sharing commonalities with another more emotionally loaded crime does not make it the same as that crime.

 

[Matthew Best]

I downloaded my entire vinyl collection.

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

I haven't gone quite that far (my vinyl collection is huge), but every now and then I have a hankering to listen to something I only own on vinyl without going into the garden shed where my turntables are. Then I see if I can download it for free from some music blog or other. I figure I've already paid for the album and don't feel guilty at all about getting another copy - if I didn't download it I could always go into the shed and copy it onto the PC and the end result would be exactly the same.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Is that a better analogy ?

It's better, but not accurate. The car owner would still be without the use of their car. The car would be returned in an altered state, even though there is compensation.

 

[Gate2501]

While that's a fine way to go at it, let's make another physical-for-logical analogy, since I know you love those

Let's assume you break into my car, without damaging it, drive around a bit, because you have no car of your own, then fill the tank, return the car and include a few dollars to cover the mechanical wear, relative to the distance you covered. All the while, I didn't happen to need my car.

So, in the end, no "harm" was done. But it's still wrong, because the car is MY property and I didn't give you my permission to use it.

Is that a better analogy ?

Reasons I wouldn't do this:

-One key difference here is that you didn't happen to need your car. How could I possibly predict that?

-I also would worry that I would damage your car, how could I know that I wouldn't? Accidents happen.

-How could I know what value you set on the "wear and tear" I would do? It is your car after all, perhaps you have only driven it once and want to keep the mileage as low as possible.

-The penalties are way more severe. Joyriding is criminal conversion, a kind of theft, and if I couldn't prove that I did not intend to deprive you of the car, it would be GTA and I would be screwed.

Basically, I would need to be psychic for this to not be immoral.

You might have all manner of personal, subjective reasons for not wanting me to do this, even if no harm was done in my own opinion. The same cannot be said about my driving a freely given copy of your car. It wouldn't affect you at all, outside of perhaps upsetting you that you purchased your car and I was given one for nothing.

If there was a way to get a free copy of your car without doing anything to the car in your driveway, well... I might do that. I could see why this wouldn't be legal of course, and I could understand why it would PO auto manufacturers.

I realize that I have just made an argument for stronger penalties(or perhaps simply more frequent penalties) for infringement. It sucks, but it is true. I wouldn't do it if it were more dangerous to my personal well-being. The same can be said for not always crossing at a crosswalk as well.

 

[Belz...]

No, I am sorry, but the crime of copyright infringement is different from both theft and fraud, and even when you combine some elements of both a la carte, you still cannot draw a proper analog to infringement. Not to mention that having some similarities to theft or fraud does not make it theft or fraud.

As was pointed out earlier, finding a book on the ground also results in your having something you didn't pay for, and would deprive the author of a potential sale. I am not saying that finding a book on the ground is an analog for file-sharing at all; it isn't. I am just pointing out that sharing commonalities with another more emotionally loaded crime does not make it the same as that crime.

Drat! And I thought "Freft" would stick!

 

[CatInTheBag]

Drat! And I thought "Freft" would stick!

I am expecting substantive royalty payments for use of the word Freft©™

 

[Belz...]

-One key difference here is that you didn't happen to need your car. How could I possibly predict that?

Irrelevant. I stated that I didn't in my example.

-I also would worry that I would damage your car, how could I know that I wouldn't? Accidents happen.

Irrelevant. In the example you didn't.

-How could I know what value you set on the "wear and tear" I would do? It is your car after all, perhaps you have only driven it once and want to keep the mileage as low as possible.

Consult the car boosters' guild website and multiply the km by the established rate. I don't know. It isn't important!

-The penalties are way more severe.

Again, irrelevant. THE POINT is that in both cases there was NO HARM and NO LOSS to the owner, and YET you CAN'T do that.

Basically, I would need to be psychic for this to not be immoral.

Analogies aren't your thing, eh ?

The same cannot be said about my driving a freely given copy of your car.

Careful, now. The actual specifications for my car belong to Mazda, not me. So a copy of my car you didn't pay for would be a crime towards the manufacturer.

 

[Gate2501]

Irrelevant. I stated that I didn't in my example.

It isn't irrelevant at all. The harm that I would potentially do to you is what I would base my decision to do such a thing in the first place upon. You are asking me if it is wrong(morally). It *is* wrong, because I couldn't possibly know that the outcome would be no harm coming to you.

Irrelevant. In the example you didn't.

Relevant, the fact that I didn't is what makes it wrong.

Consult the car boosters' guild website and multiply the km by the established rate. I don't know. It isn't important!

It could be important to you in some subjective way not covered by the car boosters guild website.

Again, irrelevant. THE POINT is that in both cases there was NO HARM and NO LOSS to the owner, and YET you CAN'T do that.

Yeah, this one was irrelevant as to if it was wrong. Sorry about that.

Analogies aren't your thing, eh ?

False analogies aren't.

Careful, now. The actual specifications for my car belong to Mazda, not me. So a copy of my car you didn't pay for would be a crime towards the manufacturer.

Right, it would be. I would have infringed upon their design copyright.

 

[Belz...]

It isn't irrelevant at all. The harm that I would potentially do to you is what I would base my decision to do such a thing in the first place upon. You are asking me if it is wrong(morally). It *is* wrong, because I couldn't possibly know that the outcome would be no harm coming to you.

Gate, there is no potential whatnot. It was a specific example, tailored to be accident-proof because I made it that way as an analogy. You are over-analysing it.

It could be important to you in some subjective way not covered by the car boosters guild website.

Not in the example it's not.

False analogies aren't.

There are no false analogies. There are degrees of parallelism in analogies. No analogy is perfect, which is why I made such an effort to specify that NO HARM WAS DONE.

 

[Corsair 115]

I've seen that research. It's self-serving B.S.

That's beside the point I was making, which was a rebuttal to your implied assertion that EVERY download equals a lost sale. It doesn't.

I could also ask why any research demonstrating downloading does not necessarily equal lost sales is "self-serving B.S." but research from music or gaming companies indicating large losses due to downloading isn't also "self-serving B.S." It certainly is in there interests to portray the problem being as bad as possible

You don't have the right to steal music from band B and then pay the money you saved on that theft to band A. Even if it were true, in the end, that just as much money flows into the music business as would without piracy that wouldn't justify a single case of theft.

Not the point I was arguing.

So great. Let's say I'm a computer game company. I put a game out at $50 per game. You think that's too much to pay. After a year I discount the game to $20--the price you think it's worth. Only now I can't sell any of those $20 copies of the game, because everyone who decided the price was too high at $50 chose to steal a copy instead.

Goes right back to my original comment: you're assuming all those downloads equal lost sales, either at the original price or at a later discounted price.

Oh, but no one loses any money from piracy, no, of course not.

I never said that. I was challenging your comment which implied that downloads always equal lost sales. You made it again in the quote earlier.

Illegal downloading may well lead to loss of revenue. But that needs to be quantified in some objective, independent, and rational manner before all manner of copyright legislation is undertaken.

Like I say, it simply never ceases to amaze me the childishly nonsensical arguments people will hide behind if it allows them to keep getting stuff they want for free without having their consciences pricked.

And you are apparently unable to separate out of a debate the different lines of argument.

 

[Gate2501]

Gate, there is no potential whatnot. It was a specific example, tailored to be accident-proof because I made it that way as an analogy. You are over-analysing it.

I don't think I am, I was explaining to you why the actions taken in your scenario are wrong. It is wrong because the person who took the car couldn't have possibly know that the outcome would be so peachy and harmless to you.

There are no false analogies. There are degrees of parallelism in analogies. No analogy is perfect, which is why I made such an effort to specify that NO HARM WAS DONE.

It becomes a false analogy when someone states that there are commonalities between A(infringement) and B(theft), they have property X(gain without paying). Then goes on to say that A is B for sharing this property, even though there are other properties held by each which make them very different. It is made even worse by the fact that other analogs, like C(finding or borrowing an item), also share property X but are not said to be the same as B.

Maybe you are right about me over analyzing this...

 

[Corsair 115]

This generation of games consoles does more than help defeat piracy for developers. It provides every user with a standard interface, most of them are based around PC architecture inside, which makes developing games easy, and all you have to do to play the game is insert the disc.

Again, speaking from personal experience, that last statement describes my situation very well.

Five-plus years ago I used to be a die-hard PC gamer. I disdained console gaming, wrote it off as silliness. But as time went on, I got tired of having to learn new tech every year or so in order to make intelligent hardware buying decisions. I got tired of having to plunk down cash every other year to upgrade the computer in order to run the latest games in something resembling decent quality. I got tired of having to mess around with updating video drivers and other assorted stuff in order to get some games to run at all.

A year ago, I finally made the shift: I bought an Xbox 360 console. And I haven't regretted the decision at all. In fact, it is, by far, the best entertainment dollars I have ever spent. I've gotten my money's worth and then some. I can now just pop in a game disc and play. No compatibility issues, no driver issues, no insufficient hardware issues, just place-in-tray-and-play. I can also now game from the comfort of my couch rather than sitting at my computer desk, which is another benefit.

Getting games is also easier. No longer is it either full retail price or nothing (or illegal download) as with PC games. Now, I can rent, wait awhile for a discount, or buy used. More price point options allow me to make the most of a limited gaming budget.

Another reason for moving to console is some console-exclusive games. For example, Gears of War 2 is only available for the Xbox 360. Being a devotee of that particular game franchise, it tilted my preference towards console gaming.

I did have some trepidations about having to switch from keyboard & mouse to gamepad, as I loathed gamepads. But now, after a year, I've fully made the transition. Certainly, gamepads have some issues and are not as good as keyboard & mouse, but if I can make that switch, anybody can.

So, long story short: is illegal downloading part of the reason for the decline of PC gaming? Certainly. Is it the only reason? Far from it, as my own experience indicates.

 

[Belz...]

I don't think I am, I was explaining to you why the actions taken in your scenario are wrong. It is wrong because the person who took the car couldn't have possibly know that the outcome would be so peachy and harmless to you.

Well in that case YOU don't know if your actions pertaining to copyrighted material is peachy and harmless either.

It becomes a false analogy when someone states that there are commonalities between A(infringement) and B(theft), they have property X(gain without paying).

Actually that makes it an analogy, right there. The fact that there is SOME parallel mean the analogy works at SOME level.

Then goes on to say that A is B for sharing this property, even though there are other properties held by each which make them very different.

But the discussion about theft wasn't an analogy. It was arguing about a definition of the word "theft".

 

[ZirconBlue]

Sigh. No. "Colloquial" contains no implications of "incorrectness" whatsoever. There are colloquial usages that are "incorrect" in specific technical contexts, yes, but that does not mean that describing a usage as "colloquial" implies incorrectness in any way, anymore than it implies salaciousness or rudeness or whatever else. The "colloquial" meaning of "telephone" is the same as the "technical" meaning. The "colloquial" meaning of "postcard" is the same as any other meaning. The vast majority of words in the dictionary are being given their "colloquial" meanings. Some small subset of those words have "technical" meanings which vary from their "colloquial" ones. All "colloquial" means is "ordinary usage."

Another example for illustration: In geometry, a "line" is infinitely long and infinitely thin. Yet, colloquially, we have no trouble drawing a line, or standing in a line, or even drawing a "curved line". Even though those wouldn't fit into the technical definition of a line as used in geometry, those are not incorrect colloquial uses of the word, and, further, are probably more widely used than the geometric term.

I also tape music off the radio.

Just an FYI: At least in the US, recordable media such as blank cassettes, blank video tapes, and CDR media labeled for audio use, have an added fee on them that is payed back to the RIAA (for music, a different body for film/tv), ostensibly to compensate for the lost revenue from taping, etc. (IIRC correctly, the recording equipment also has a similar fee applied.)

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Gate, there is no potential whatnot. It was a specific example, tailored to be accident-proof because I made it that way as an analogy. You are over-analysing it.



Not in the example it's not.



There are no false analogies. There are degrees of parallelism in analogies. No analogy is perfect, which is why I made such an effort to specify that NO HARM WAS DONE.

Look, it's a false analogy.

What your analogy is more accurately describing is:

I take a CD out of your house, use it for a few days, and then return it.

This is theft as I physically removed the item from your "possession" (even if you're not home, don't intend to use it, the fact that it's no longer in your possession makes it theft).

In the piracy bit, no CD is actually physically removed from the owner's possession. Rather, a copy of that CD is used. This is why it doesn't count as theft - and it's the same for any analogy of theft you can devise. Stealing from a brick and mortar store physically removes the item from the store, that's why it's theft. If you want to bargain the price down to $1, that's on you - but it's their property you are attempting to remove, not a copy, so it's their choice whether they accept your offered price or not.

There is, legally and in laymans terms, a difference between an original and a copy. Piracy is, thus, not theft as the owner does not lose physical possession of the goods. Please stop attempting to equate it to theft.

 

[GreyICE]

Look, it's a false analogy.

What your analogy is more accurately describing is:

I take a CD out of your house, use it for a few days, and then return it.

This is theft as I physically removed the item from your "possession" (even if you're not home, don't intend to use it, the fact that it's no longer in your possession makes it theft).

In the piracy bit, no CD is actually physically removed from the owner's possession. Rather, a copy of that CD is used. This is why it doesn't count as theft - and it's the same for any analogy of theft you can devise. Stealing from a brick and mortar store physically removes the item from the store, that's why it's theft. If you want to bargain the price down to $1, that's on you - but it's their property you are attempting to remove, not a copy, so it's their choice whether they accept your offered price or not.

There is, legally and in laymans terms, a difference between an original and a copy. Piracy is, thus, not theft as the owner does not lose physical possession of the goods. Please stop attempting to equate it to theft.

Okay, haircut example time.

I walk into a barber shop, get a haircut, then run out without paying. Is this theft? If so, please name the item the barber no longer possesses. If not, what is it?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Okay, haircut example time.

I walk into a barber shop, get a haircut, then run out without paying. Is this theft? If so, please name the item the barber no longer possesses. If not, what is it?

This has been discussed before. If you chose not to accept the answer then, why should I expect you to accept the answer now?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Okay, haircut example time.

I walk into a barber shop, get a haircut, then run out without paying. Is this theft? If so, please name the item the barber no longer possesses. If not, what is it?

If you can stand next to a barbershop and have your hair magically disappear with every snip the guy in the chair gets, you will have found the valid analogy to theft of services in regard to barbershops.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Why, oh why, can't we have a single discussion on this issue without it devolving to pages and pages of "It's theft!" "No it isn't!"? Personally, I don't give a flying crap whether it technically is or is not theft. The question is whether it's right or wrong, and whether it should be encouraged or discouraged by law.