Piracy is theft

RevRico said:

why restrict if you can't enforce? 

And if your forcing people to buy your product through an online only device to control is usage AFTER purchase, then you aren't actually selling the product are you? You're selling access to a product, which allows you control even after purchase. That's a rental, not a purchase, and that changes your position from a legal standpoint. 

To reduce your first point ad absurdum, what you're saying is that one lonely stranger meeting another lonely stranger should legally be allowed to murder the other person, if they are somewhere far enough away that enforcement is not possible.

Purchase or rental is irrelvant to the discussion.  You as customer are paying money to access a good or service, correct.  Permanence of that access does not change the ownership rights of the creator.  If you are buying a license to play a game instead of the physical disk it is still limited by the number of allowable users.

Keith Tanner said:

Duke said:

red_stapler said:

Using an adblocker is also theft.

Correct.

 

Is putting the commercials on TV on mute theft?

Looking at your phone during TV commercials and ignoring the TV just HAS to be theft DVRs that skip ads - super obvious theft

Apis Mellifera said:

You guys are missing my point.

And you are missing our point.

Cloning a product and then using that clone deprives the creator of a sale they are legitimately entitled to.

That is harm to the creator.

In reply to Apis Mellifera :

You're missing the supply and demand part. Say there are 6 people going to acquire pizza. In the no duplicates pizza scenario, that's 6 people that buy a pizza. Those 6 pizzas take one person each to make. That's 6 jobs and six inlets of revenue for those 6 pizzas. 

In scenario teilets say the magic pizza cuts in half once. That means I only need 3 pizzas made by three people to satisfy the end users need for 6 pizzas. That's only 3 pizzas paid for and three people with jobs making pizza. It doesn't matter if it's regular pizza or clone pizza to the end user, it is pizza. It's everyone above them in the chain that suffers, and not just the CEO of dominoes. 

Same concept with pirated digital music. I can purchase a digital copy that gives me a license to listen to it, or I can pirate one which, other than some legalese and moral gray area, is virtually indistinguishable from the one I could pay for. HOWEVER- that damage goes much deeper than the representation of the product. I don't pay for the song, which means it's less likely the person who made it can make more songs. It's also possible that as a result, that song will reach as many people if not more, but it jeapordizes the future of me being able to get more songs. 

A great example that happened recently was... I forget the name of the game, but it was a game that was on steam. It was an excellent game, but it was short. Short enough that it was physically possible (and it did happen) to play and beat it under the time required before steam would disallow from digital returns for the game being E36 M3. This lead to thousands of users buying the game, playing it, and returning it. They played it for free. While return for fraud and piracy are technically different things, and the copy they had didn't affect the game itself at all- it affected many more people upstream. If I'm not mistaken the game studio closed down and people lost their jobs. 

Keith Tanner said:

Duke said:

red_stapler said:

Using an adblocker is also theft.

Correct.

Is putting the commercials on TV on mute theft?

No, not any more than it is theft that I simply don't read the advertisements at the right side of this page and in the middle of each forum index.

The advertiser pays the media for the exposure.  There is no guarantee that the exposure will be effective.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

Imagine being me for a moment.  I write a song in my moldy basement with a $50 used guitar, a friend hears it and calls their friend who knows Taylor Swift.  T Swift records it and makes millions and I'm screwed without that law.  Taylor makes money from my idea which could have made me money.  That is the very definition of theft.

Except for the fact that most Taylor Swift fans will pay for the song only if Taylor sings it, not you. So Taylor Swift adds value to the song. You may not be able to sell it at all under your name. Taylor could imitate my dog howling and sell a million copies. So who is really creating the value here? You, or Taylor Swift?

Somebody obviously stole the song, but what is the value of what is stolen? Things can be more complicated than they look.

Duke said:

Really, that isn't hard to understand.

Oh, I understand. I never didn't.  It just appears that your position is sometimes based on what you believe is moral and in other instances what is legal - seemingly independent of each other.  So although I basically agree with you on both accounts, it likely appears that I don't because these two aspects are not mutually inclusive when applied to society on the whole.

ProDarwin said:

Duke said:

Beer Baron said:

If I were not able to preview if the $30+ book is going to be useful to me, I am not going to buy it. If I can preview it, I am far more likely to. Sometimes, piracy is the easiest or only practical way to do that.

Irrelevant.

Agreed, I firmly believe that demos and previews are a great business model.  But if they are not offered, you don't get to arbitrarily make your own.  Even assuming that 100% of "preview" piracies result in either a purchase or deletion.

 

His comment is somewhat relevant... there is a theoretical situation where piracy can increase sales, but its not realistic.

I do fully support playable demos or returnable games.  Publishers (foolishly, imo) have moved away from that model.

Pretty much any free to play model has adopted the demo, just in different ways. I download....wordle. For that, I get one puzzle a day. Completely free. I am under no obligation to buy anything... unless I want to play more than once a day. Additional levels/content/game (which as it sits is effectively a demo) can either cost me 10$ or, I can watch an ad to get one more puzzle. That ad pays them. 

The other scenario you describe, piracy leading to sales, is exactly why SoundCloud rappers exist today. (I'm ashamed that I know this......) Soulja boy was effectively the inventor of modern distribution as we know it. Back in the days of Napster, limewire, etc- he was a struggling artist with a decent song. He couldn't get distro. So he actively assisted people in pirating his own material, going so far as to re label it to other songs so people would download slayer and get Soulja boy. Mass blanketing of what was technically illegal copies of his own music lead to downloads, which lead to a platinum album- over a million copies sold. That basic model still works now, even though the purchase of physical media is basically dead. Let's say I hear a song on YouTube, not covered under fair use. I find out the artist is.... authority zero. I can do multiple things. I can go to their page on YouTube and watch the video. That pays them. I can go on Spotify and listen to them. That pays them. I can go to a show and buy a couple shirts and go deaf. That pays them. 

Piracy as a whole has a long and storied history, and it's not all bad. Let's say I hear a bootleg of a greatful dead song I know has NEVER been released, but has been played live. I can listen to a E36 M3ty (or excellent) bootleg all I want, or I can go experience it live. 

Duke said:

Apis Mellifera said:

You guys are missing my point.

And you are missing our point.

Cloning a product and then using that clone deprives the creator of a sale they are legitimately entitled to.

That is harm to the creator.

 

You're still missing the original point.

If the creator won't let you give them money for a product, then what? It's just lost to history, despite widespread availability?

LLet's try another, more car centric example.

You need eyeball vent rings for the manic miata. Mazda doesn't make then anymore, doesn't sell them anymore, so you find a good one in the junkyard and make your own on your 3d printer.

Is that theft? Is that illegal? Because you tried to give Mazda your money but they won't take it for a product that they used to sell and used to be widely available?

I'm actually surprised we haven't had any lawsuits, or at least high profile ones, in that same vein yet. I suspect we will as home 3d printing gets better and more accessible, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

GameboyRMH said:

Keith Tanner said:

Duke said:

red_stapler said:

Using an adblocker is also theft.

Correct.

 

Is putting the commercials on TV on mute theft?

Looking at your phone during TV commercials and ignoring the TV just HAS to be theft DVRs that skip ads - super obvious theft

None of it is theft. The ad exists whether or not I consume it. Whether or not I change the channel, put it on mute, block it outright, TiVo, I'm not watching the ad. Networks put tv out there for exposure and the hopes that I watch it. Just because Kelly Clarkson has a show that someone paid to put on a bandwidth contract I own, doesn't mean I have to watch it. 

hybridmomentspass said:

Duke said:

hybridmomentspass said:

Duke said:

hybridmomentspass said:

 

Does Nintendo still sell a NES console? Can I go buy a N64 and goldeneye so I can stay up all night with pizza and Jolt! cola? 

If they dont sell it/offer it, is it still theft? 

Yes, it is still theft.

If you sold your original system and disposed of it (by sale, gift, or trash) then you also disposed of your right to play it.  You need to legally acquire a physical replacement in order to reacquire the right to play the game.

What about all of their catalog? If they no longer offer it (Nintendo, sega, etc), is it still theft? Because youre saying it deprives them of reimbursement for their time, that's why I ask. 

You cannot go to Nintendo and buy a new NES/SNES or your favoritest-ever out-of-print Nintendo game.  However, that is irrelevant to the discussion.  What is relevant is that Nintendo still owns and controls the rights to those things.

You are correct that if you go to eBay or the flea market or Gamestop and buy a used NES and a used copy of Goldeneye, Nintendo will not see a penny out of that sale.  However, those systems and games were sold with the understanding that the right to use it went with the system itself.

One of your arguments was that by using these emulators or whatever doesnt pay the owners for their time/investment...but if they have no way of earning that money then your argument is invalid. 

No, I addressed this already. Right-to-use passes with the system itself. It follows the game through its chain of legal ownership, from original seller through original purchaser to any subsequent purchasers, regardless of the exchange of money after the initial retail purchase.

That is implicit in the original purchase from the creator. But nowhere does it include the right to reproduce the game in any way, for profit or not.

RevRico said:

Duke said:

Apis Mellifera said:

You guys are missing my point.

And you are missing our point.

Cloning a product and then using that clone deprives the creator of a sale they are legitimately entitled to.

That is harm to the creator.

 

You're still missing the original point.

If the creator won't let you give them money for a product, then what? It's just lost to history, despite widespread availability?

LLet's try another, more car centric example.

You need eyeball vent rings for the manic miata. Mazda doesn't make then anymore, doesn't sell them anymore, so you find a good one in the junkyard and make your own on your 3d printer.

Is that theft? Is that illegal? Because you tried to give Mazda your money but they won't take it for a product that they used to sell and used to be widely available?

I'm actually surprised we haven't had any lawsuits, or at least high profile ones, in that same vein yet. I suspect we will as home 3d printing gets better and more accessible, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

Yes. It's still "theft".
 

The owner of the IP has the right to make money. He ALSO has the right to NOT make money. 

Just because the product is no longer available doesn't give us the right to assume we know why, or take production into our own hands. For all we know, Mazda may have a competing product, and allowed availability to wane intentionally (so they could promote their new product). 
 

There are lots of instances of businesses buying other competing businesses and intentionally killing the product or service in order to sell their competing product. They own it. They have the right to not sell it if that's what they want. 

In reply to SV reX :

Plymouth, eagle, Pontiac, Oldsmobile, hummer, Saab....

My son is a high end videographer. He's earned 2 Emmy Awards, done things like the Super Bowl, Atlanta, and the Rolex 24.

His videos are available online. But ONLY when he wants them to be. He routinely makes things unavailable in order to promote scarcity and keep his prices where he needs them to be. 
 

He has NO obligation to make his stuff available all the time. He owns it. He gets to choose how it is accessed and distributed. 

In reply to Mndsm :

The thing is, the ad marketers pay based on how many views there are, which they can track fairly easily.  If you have an ad blocker, that download doesn't happen, and the website doesn't get paid.

Staying neutral here, but that is the mechanism.

Apis Mellifera said:

Duke said:

Really, that isn't hard to understand.

Oh, I understand. I never didn't.  It just appears that your position is sometimes based on what you believe is moral and in other instances what is legal - seemingly independent of each other.

No, it is not based on what is either legal or moral.  It is both illegal and immoral.

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

The bottom line is (according to the law), piracy IS theft.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Piracy is, as I've covered, infringement. The US Supreme Court, the law of this land, said themselves: "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'"

Saying that piracy is not theft is (from a legal perspective) a completely indefensible position.  There is zero basis in law that supports piracy. 

Saying something isn't theft is not the same as saying it's right to do. Copyright infringement, legally speaking, is not theft. It is copyright infringement.

Mndsm said:

Soulja boy was effectively the inventor of modern distribution as we know it. Back in the days of Napster, limewire, etc- he was a struggling artist with a decent song. He couldn't get distro. So he actively assisted people in pirating his own material, going so far as to re label it to other songs so people would download slayer and get Soulja boy.

Piracy as a whole has a long and storied history, and it's not all bad. Let's say I hear a bootleg of a greatful dead song I know has NEVER been released, but has been played live. I can listen to a E36 M3ty (or excellent) bootleg all I want, or I can go experience it live. 

But the difference is that Soulja Boy gave away his own material.  The users of P2P pirating sites didn't make that decision for him; he made it himself.  It's his content to do with as he pleases.  No problem at all.

And the Dead traditionally had a "bootlegger's box" where people were free to record their shows.  Again, their material, they're giving it away, at least in that format.

Several subtopics, plenty of disagreements about detail, latching on to separate minor details of each others' major points...

I think I'd rather testify in front of Congress. That would be similarly frustrating, but might be enforceable.

I feel that this confirms one of my notions about The Way Things Are These Days (and possibly all days):
We never address the underlying differences in assumption about what we are trying to achieve, instead launching straight into contractual detail of what we ought to do. Adversarial negotiations regarding the detail of what is allowed and what is not allowed seem like a poor way to settle differences in intent. It's like having one party who feels that society should effectively be a full Darwinian shootout for survival, one wants a cooperative approach with mandates for certain parts of contribution and distribution, and they come away with an agreement that both sides will cooperate on a central ammunition store and provisioning raids shall not be conducted between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. or on certain holidays.

RevRico said:

Duke said:

Apis Mellifera said:

You guys are missing my point.

Cloning a product and then using that clone deprives the creator of a sale they are legitimately entitled to.

You're still missing the original point.

If the creator won't let you give them money for a product, then what? It's just lost to history, despite widespread availability?

LLet's try another, more car centric example.

You need eyeball vent rings for the manic miata. Mazda doesn't make then anymore, doesn't sell them anymore, so you find a good one in the junkyard and make your own on your 3d printer.

Is that theft? Is that illegal? Because you tried to give Mazda your money but they won't take it for a product that they used to sell and used to be widely available?

Yes, if there is still a patent on the design it's theft, and it's illegal.  There may or may not be some grey area because I am reproducing a third-party replacement version of it that will not be identical to the OE piece, unlike a digital copy.  But if a valid entity still owns the rights to that design then it is theft, regardless of whether they choose to prosecute me or not.

Alright, I think this thread has gone as far as it can. 

So, where can I get a golden eye emulator and prefect dark? Because my N64 is no longer working anymore. I also need Legend of Zelda: Majoras Mask.

In reply to RevRico :

No, ads are not theft.  A nuisance, yes.  Of questionable value, yes.  But they are not theft.  They are a condition of using a particular service - GRM's non-premium website, network television, commercial radio, cheap magazine subscriptions, whatever.  If you are unwilling to pay for the ads (via data usage) or pay for the service (via subscription to the premium site) then you do not get to use GRM's website legally, if our hosts choose to make one or the other a condition of being here.

Duke said:

Apis Mellifera said:

You guys are missing my point.

And you are missing our point.

Cloning a product and then using that clone deprives the creator of a sale they are legitimately entitled to.

That is harm to the creator.

 

And again, the library deprives a creator innumerable sales.  One at a time, true, fair use (whomever gets to define that term), true, but like a piracy site, the consumer has not paid their due.  The library has purchased the same DVD I might buy at Wal-Mart, but they are allowed to share it with their friends ad infinitum and a pirate isn't doing the same thing?  One is OK and the other isn't, apparently.  A clone product doesn't necessarily automatically equate to a lost sale.  A consumer could chose to watch a pirated movie or not watch it because they aren't willing to buy a legitimate copy. There is no difference to the creator in those scenarios.  So, again, is your argument based on legality, morality, or both?  Because when you have circumstances that allow a consumer to obtain a product while the original is unaffected and remains with the owner, you therefore cannot accurately quantify the monetary harm incurred to the owner.  Is there harm, likely, but not certainly.  

Unfortunately, though you and I both agree that this is judged both on legality and morality, only one of those is actually a valid, definable metric that can be universally applied here.  You don't get to decide what is morally right for me and I don't get to decide what is morally right for you unless we both agree upon the same standards.

Duke said:

Mndsm said:

Soulja boy was effectively the inventor of modern distribution as we know it. Back in the days of Napster, limewire, etc- he was a struggling artist with a decent song. He couldn't get distro. So he actively assisted people in pirating his own material, going so far as to re label it to other songs so people would download slayer and get Soulja boy.

Piracy as a whole has a long and storied history, and it's not all bad. Let's say I hear a bootleg of a greatful dead song I know has NEVER been released, but has been played live. I can listen to a E36 M3ty (or excellent) bootleg all I want, or I can go experience it live. 

But the difference is that Soulja Boy gave away his own material.  The users of P2P pirating sites didn't make that decision for him; he made it himself.  It's his content to do with as he pleases.  No problem at all.

And the Dead traditionally had a "bootlegger's box" where people were free to record their shows.  Again, their material, they're giving it away, at least in that format.

 

If he was on a label, he probably didn't own his own music.

yupididit said:

Alright, I think this thread has gone as far as it can. 

 

So, where can I get a golden eye emulator and prefect dark? Because my N64 is no longer working anymore. I also need Legend of Zelda: Majoras Mask.

You need to either hunt around on eBay and find a used N64 (and maybe those games) to take rightful ownership on the chain of intellectual property, or you can just sit in a corner and feel sad while getting the exact same amount of money to any of the developers involved

Or you could DM me for further instructions