Copying Is Not Theft!

it's a cute animation but i really really hate when people say that. You're arguing semantics. By that logic Rape isn't Murder so maybe that shouldn't be thought of so harshly. I mean when you murder someone they're dead. they're done. no more person left. But when you rape someone. they get to live (i wager from TV and such they don't always want to but still). They get to testify. maybe even they get to have a baby. So rape is a much much lesser crime than murder.
 
[quote name='Wolfkin']it's a cute animation but i really really hate when people say that. You're arguing semantics. By that logic Rape isn't Murder so maybe that shouldn't be thought of so harshly. I mean when you murder someone they're dead. they're done. no more person left. But when you rape someone. they get to live (i wager from TV and such they don't always want to but still). They get to testify. maybe even they get to have a baby. So rape is a much much lesser crime than murder.[/QUOTE]

Id rather be raped than murdered. So really it is a much lesser crime.

Well, unless the person who murders me is drunk or famous, in which case it seems to be okay in this country.
 
yes and making illegal copies is a 'lesser crime' than theft but my point is it's still a crime.

If you wanted to argue that it shouldn't be a crime that's one thing but I've seen people based their entire argument on "it's not theft because the OP still has a copy therefore what I'm doing is perfectly fine" and that (like saying Rape
 
[quote name='Wolfkin']yes and making illegal copies is a 'lesser crime' than theft but my point is it's still a crime.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure you've commited a crime / crimes at some point in your life.

How would you feel if you stole a candy bar, you were being charged at the hearing for the same crime as robbing a bank.

Or getting in a minor fist fight, and charged in the same lines as the guy who tried to murder his wife and kids.

The point is they are not the same, and it's not a trivial difference, yet people who copy are being charged / threatened to be charged with the same crimes as an organized mafia run bootleg syndicate.
 
[quote name='Wolfkin']yes and making illegal copies is a 'lesser crime' than theft but my point is it's still a crime.

If you wanted to argue that it shouldn't be a crime that's one thing but I've seen people based their entire argument on "it's not theft because the OP still has a copy therefore what I'm doing is perfectly fine" and that (like saying Rape
 
The fact that making a backup copy of something one purchased is illegal, is completely and utterly asinine. I think it's hilarious though, the lengths publishers and distributors go to to remind people of how it is, in fact, a crime. As if folks that have been robbed or been through house fires are going to cry themselves to sleep over what they've done; making a copy for themselves, just in case.
 
[quote name='Mr Unoriginal']Triple post for the win.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, sorry... I'm kinda new and forget about the "edit" button sometimes.
 
ok so I'm landed myself in semantic waters again. Let me try to clarify everything at once

- People using Kazaa being charged full sentence as thiefs
I am against this. I think that's extremely unfair. i fully recognize and support a legal acknowledgement of variation in degree of crimes.

- Copy = Theft
I am against this as well. Very very clearly copying something (legal or not) is not theft.

- notTheft = OK
this is the implication you make when all you say is 'Copying isn't theft' in these cute videos and photoshops. It's probably not what you mean but that's what you're implying. You're implying that because it isn't theft it isn't a crime. When in fact is IS a crime. it's just not as big a crime as theft.

- Copy is illegal
grey area i suppose. but over all i don't think copying should be illegal. I wouldn't stand in front of a judge and defend that to the bar but that's my opinion right now. I have lot of them and generally I only share the ones I'm well versed in. talk to me about why the gamecube was the greatest console ever created some time.

stealing a candy bar isn't the same thing as stealing a gold bar. Yes I agree with this. but stealing a Candy Bar is still wrong. Should you be in federal pen no? but is it wrong to force someone to pay a $20 fine? I say no.

The point is they are not the same, and it's not a trivial difference, yet people who copy are being charged / threatened to be charged with the same crimes as an organized mafia run bootleg syndicate.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to trivialize this matter but I do think it IS that simple. You guys just seem to think i'm on the other side. In this case yes the mom/pop and the bootleg syndicate are guilty of the same crime. but clearly they're in different realms of severity. There's no way that mom/pop should be charged with the same punishment that the syndicate leader has to endure, but technically Mom/Pop are guilty of a crime.

I think a drug analogy works here. Smoking weed is illegal. If you become the local weedman you're breaking the law. If I'm a drug kingpin I'm also guilty of breaking the same law (and more) just because I'm more guilty and deserve a greater punishment doesn't mean what you do is ok. maybe you only deserve a fine and comm service where as i get locked up for life but we're both guilty of illegal acts.

As for my personal life. I'm no Saint. I'm a nice guy sure but not everything I've done is legal. To be honest thought I couldn't think of any examples until I remember this was a game site. so yes I'll admit I have in the past pirated games and I'm not saying I won't in the future I won't even attempt to explain or justify that statement unless you ask (but I am lazy and I do like to own my games so it's unlikely) but I never claimed to be a the last BoyScout and I still maintain my stance. I just think everyone is misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.
 
[quote name='BigPopov']I'm sure you've commited a crime / crimes at some point in your life.

How would you feel if you stole a candy bar, you were being charged at the hearing for the same crime as robbing a bank.

Or getting in a minor fist fight, and charged in the same lines as the guy who tried to murder his wife and kids.

The point is they are not the same, and it's not a trivial difference, yet people who copy are being charged / threatened to be charged with the same crimes as an organized mafia run bootleg syndicate.[/QUOTE]


That's silly.

Here's a real analogy.

1. Persons A steals a copy of a CD from a store.
2. Person B steals a digital copy by downloading it from a pirate site.

There's not much different there. Crime 1 is still a tad worse because in that case a store has lost a physical product. But from the stand point of the artist and publisher both people are enjoying owning their content without paying a dime for it.

So as we move into the digital era the distinction between the two needs to lessen, illegal downloads/filesharing needs to be treated more harshly in the terms of being a criminal offense, rather than a civil offense that's seldom punished and when it is applied is a cruel and unusual punishment in the form of huge fines.

So in the current system Person B is less likely to get caught, but will get a MUCH harsher punishment than Person A due to the absurd settlements in RIAA suits etc.

At the end of the day, they're similar offense and should be misdemeanor crimes and dealt with through punishments that fit the crime. i.e a small fine something around the value of the content +25% or something.

But even with that, you'll the legions of idiots on the net who feel entitled to take whatever they want when it comes to digital content. Especially on a site full of broke ass people like this one, so that's all I'll say about the topic.
 
The problem with your analogy is that one is a criminal act for criminal courts and one is a civil act for civil courts. That distinction is large.

;D
 
[quote name='speedracer']The problem with your analogy is that one is a criminal act for criminal courts and one is a civil act for civil courts. That distinction is large.

;D[/QUOTE]

And the rest of my post was outlining that illegal file sharing needs moved to criminal court to eliminate that distinction and the absurd penalties handed out in civil courts. ;)
 
Why do people continually try to justify piracy. I've pirated/do pirate all types of media (games, movies, music) for my own personal use. I'm not profiting. I also still buy lots of games and get movies and music through legitimate avenues such as Netflix and iTunes.

I mean, who hasn't checked out a CD from the library, ripped it to iTunes, and then returned it? Are the moral police going to come after you if you don't delete those MP3s from your library? Just seems silly to me. I want to meet the person whose entire library of digital music exists on CDs they own or are paid downloads (I'm sure someone will reply).
 
[quote name='Hush']I want to meet the person whose entire library of digital music exists on CDs they own or are paid downloads (I'm sure someone will reply).[/QUOTE]

That would be me. I own cds, and all my mp3s where ripped from then. Have never pirated an album, movie or game etc.

Now I've downloaded some songs, or got a burned cd from a friend in the past--and even than not in the past 7 years or so (not sense college) And even for those I don't have the files or burned CDs anymore as I bought the ones I liked and ditched the rest. If it ain't good enough for me to drop $$$ on it, it's not worth having around.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's silly.

Here's a real analogy.

1. Persons A steals a copy of a CD from a store.
2. Person B steals a digital copy by downloading it from a pirate site.

There's not much different there. Crime 1 is still a tad worse because in that case a store has lost a physical product. But from the stand point of the artist and publisher both people are enjoying owning their content without paying a dime for it.
[/QUOTE]

"A tad worse"?

Are you retarded?

Stealing an actually copy is way worse because it's an actual, tangible loss. With piracy, you are going with hypothetical loss. The idea that if that person couldn't download the item, they would have bought it (which isn't true in most cases)

I hope you think that used copies and libraries are also on par with copyright infringement/theft because the artist and publisher don't recieve a dime (or the amount they should if people had to buy new)
 
Rape isn't murder and copyright infringement isn't theft, the fact that they're completely separate and distinct things does not justify them. Its also not piracy, piracy is what goes on off the coast of Somalia.

Copyright infringement is what it is. Its downloading music you haven't paid for, and its also selling CD's of music that you don't own or have any right to use. I expect that Warner, Sony, Universal, and EMI should have to at least pay the $20,000 per song for actually selling and profiting from copyright infringement, the same amount that they demand the average Joe Schmoe pay for simply downloading a song for personal use.
 
[quote name='dafoomie'] I expect that Warner, Sony, Universal, and EMI should have to at least pay the $20,000 per song for actually selling and profiting from copyright infringement, the same amount that they demand the average Joe Schmoe pay for simply downloading a song for personal use.[/QUOTE]
$20,000 for downloading a song? Yikes, time for me to figure out another way to get CDs. What's the fine for getting caught shoplifting?
 
The problem is a precedent was set back in the analog days when it was "harmless" to make copies. For all intents and purposes VCRs were tools of copyright infringement for three decades, almost every home in America was guilty of it, and nobody gave a shit. Same goes for using your tape deck to record songs off the radio. It happened all the time, it was generally accepted by society, and nobody cared.

When things went digital, the quality improved, and companies saw a way to make a profit while lowering production costs at the same time. People are essentially doing the same thing they have been for years...just in a different format. But now all of a sudden, it's not ok. I'm not trying to advocate for copyright infringement, but the way it has been handled is 90% of the problem...and this goes back a long time.

I do agree though that there's a misconception that if people weren't able to download things, they would go buy it. That's why I've always thought the RIAA's "estimated losses" were grossly inaccurate. People download way more than they can afford. If they couldn't download it...they'd just have less shit.
 
I'm going to just keep it simple. And this should be the way of the law....

Copying your own product = LEGAL
Copying someone else product = ILLEGAL

That would just save so much bullshit because people love to skirt around words and shit.

If I didn't buy it....I shouldn't be able to claim I "had" it. If I did have it at one point though...any copy I obtain shouldn't matter because I purchased it at one time. Sometimes things do get lost...

But people who go "well, I didn't buy it anytime in my life, but I borrowed it from a friend and you may not be able to prove that I got it illegally and...."...go to hell
 
Copying isn't "theft" in that you are depriving something of someone they own.
Copying [something you don't already own] is "theft" in that you are taking something you have no right to own.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Copying isn't "theft" in that you are depriving something of someone they own.
Copying [something you don't already own] is "theft" in that you are taking something you have no right to own.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Could just call it digital theft, since these days many times it's downloading a digital product illegally vs. buying it from a digital store.

Seems like a win-win to make it a criminal offense. For pirates they get away from the cruel and unusual punishments in the form of the absurd RIAA suit settlements. For publishers, artists etc. it will hopefully create more of a negative connotation with illegal downloads since it will generate an misdemeanor arrest/citation etc. with a small fine.
 
The absurd RIAA settlements bothered me immensely, in that I can see a REASONABLE amount being paid per song the person downloaded illegally, but $20k a song.

That's fuckin' ridiculous.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']The absurd RIAA settlements bothered me immensely, in that I can see a REASONABLE amount being paid per song the person downloaded illegally, but $20k a song.

That's fuckin' ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. USA is punishing copying more then theft. As in, you could walk into FYE steal the CD and it won't get you a tenth of the punishment that copying the music online will.

These days I mostly listen to long mixes on youtube/shoutcast or see live bands. The music recording industry is dead to me.
 
[quote name='he1l1o']No, not at all. Like Picasso said..."good artist copy; great artist steal"[/QUOTE]

Which is a problem when musicians can get sued into oblivion for even sampling a 3 second clip. All art is built on the foundation of what came before.
 
That has to be the dumbest video ever, I thought it was fake til the end, seemed like a lame spoof.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Copying isn't "theft" in that you are depriving something of someone they own.
Copying [something you don't already own] is "theft" in that you are taking something you have no right to own.[/QUOTE]

And, in both cases, you are not paying for it, and therefore denying the creator from profiting from their creation.

[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']The absurd RIAA settlements bothered me immensely, in that I can see a REASONABLE amount being paid per song the person downloaded illegally, but $20k a song.

That's fuckin' ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, the difference between the two is pretty staggering. In my state, the most you can get fined for shoplifting (first time offense) is $1,000, but it can be 20 times that for a single song.

I get that the RIAA is trying to make examples of people, but I think it just ends up hurting their case when you see a multimillion dollar business suing low to middle income families for millions of dollars. It just creates further backlash.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That would be me. I own cds, and all my mp3s where ripped from then. Have never pirated an album, movie or game etc.

Now I've downloaded some songs, or got a burned cd from a friend in the past--and even than not in the past 7 years or so (not sense college) And even for those I don't have the files or burned CDs anymore as I bought the ones I liked and ditched the rest. If it ain't good enough for me to drop $$$ on it, it's not worth having around.[/QUOTE]

Don't worry, your next on the radar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping

"Recording industry representatives have claimed (in the context of Atlantic v. Howell) that ripping itself may be regarded as copyright infringement."

It's interesting to say the least. Say you have the CD, have a CDr in your car, have the mp3 on your computer, have an mp3 on your ipod, your wife has a CDr in her car, kids have it on their mp3 player. At what point does fair use end? Also, wouldn't a legal backup be a copy of the CD. Doesn't changing the song into an mp3, constitute a derivative(copyright infringement) and not a fair use copy?
 
I'm pretty sure it's been ruled on / commented on before that basically, no, you're not allowed to copy your own purchase.
 
[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']Say you have the CD, have a CDr in your car, have the mp3 on your computer, have an mp3 on your ipod, your wife has a CDr in her car, kids have it on their mp3 player. At what point does fair use end? Also, wouldn't a legal backup be a copy of the CD. Doesn't changing the song into an mp3, constitute a derivative(copyright infringement) and not a fair use copy?[/QUOTE]

Easy - the fair use ends whereever the group with the most lawyers and lobbyists says it ends.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
Here's a real analogy.

1. Persons A steals a copy of a CD from a store.
2. Person B steals a digital copy by downloading it from a pirate site.

There's not much different there.
[/QUOTE]

There is a significant difference.

1. The store not only loses the profit from the potential sale of the stolen CD, but they lose the money used to purchase the CD from a wholesaler.

2. This may result in the loss of a sale. No person or entity is losing any inventory. I say "may" result in the loss of a sale, because frequently, the person downloading the music would not purchase it, even if they couldn't freely download.
 
The basis is, by copying, your not buying, and thus it's like stealing from the owner because you have their item/work and didn't pay for it. On the flip side, without copying, you'd never have bought it anyway, so the owner isn't losing out on anything. The whole point is that copiers would be buyers if there was no other choice. Which isn't always true. That is RIAA's failure. That downloaders would have bought the music if they couldn't d/l. Most people would never have bought the music to begin with.
 
I know I've downloaded music I never would have risked buying. If it's free I'll try it, like the way that music stores used to let you listen to things before buying, but if I have to buy it just to see if I'll like it, forget it. Online music stores do at least let you sample a clip from a song much of the time.

camoor is basically right, fair use stops wherever industry lawyers say it does, consumers are basically at their mercy.
 
I say this in every one of these threads, but I'm still surprised that nobody has sued in violation of 8th amendment rights. I mean, look at the punishments. $1,000 for stealing the physical CD with 10 songs on it, but $200,000 for downloading those songs? And when you download them, there's not even any physical property loss. Talk about excessive fines. This is EXACTLY what the 8th amendment was for. Why has nobody used it to their advantage?
 
[quote name='antlp89']The guy at the end of the vid sounds like he's gotten butt raped a time or two.

Don't know if this was intentional.[/QUOTE]

Best part was the dumbass writing on the read side of the CD.
 
The fine is too high and doesn't make sense. The RIAA is using the government as a tool against the people. I think iTunes is more of a deterrent to piracy than ruining a few kids' lives for downloading a Black Eyed Peas discography.

You can debate piracy all day, it's a gray area because the crime is passive and doesn't hurt anyone. Recording artists and executives are still rich and most independent artists (who are not) still encourage people to download their albums.

That said, I appreciate this thread for showing me the sequel to Don't Copy That Floppy. I had never seen it.
 
I've bought maybe one new book at a bookstore in 10 years. I've probably spent $100s at used book stores in that time frame. I also check stuff out from the library frequently. Am I stealing?
 
Media companies would love to stop the sale of used media. Why do you think download codes and stuff are included with some games now? To get you to buy a new copy instead of used. Buying a used CD for example is really no different than pirating it, the media owner still isn't getting any money from it. The only person who would lose money from pirating it would be the used music store owner you didn't buy from. That doesn't justfiy piracy, but it does show a flaw in the argument of media companies, that they always lose a sale when something is pirated.
 
The first thing I thought of when I saw that video was how proudly and prominently the artist displayed their name, website, etc. And I thought, what if a whole bunch of people took that song and video, but took the name of the artist and the website at the end off of it so they could add the name of their file-sharing website there instead, and then posted the new video all over the web.

The original artist wouldn't be mad, because nothing got stolen. There's just more.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I've bought maybe one new book at a bookstore in 10 years. I've probably spent $100s at used book stores in that time frame. I also check stuff out from the library frequently. Am I stealing?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Clak']Media companies would love to stop the sale of used media. Why do you think download codes and stuff are included with some games now? To get you to buy a new copy instead of used. Buying a used CD for example is really no different than pirating it, the media owner still isn't getting any money from it. The only person who would lose money from pirating it would be the used music store owner you didn't buy from. That doesn't justfiy piracy, but it does show a flaw in the argument of media companies, that they always lose a sale when something is pirated.[/QUOTE]

Part of the issue is with rights management. People who own a physical copy of something have a clear legal right to resell that copy should they want to. That legal ability pretty much disappears when you get into strict digital content. So, the media company will have to find an appeasement method for people who are used to paying less for content. To some extent, that's already occurred. ($9.99 itunes albums versus $18 CDs, $60 games that drop to $30 or less within months of release). I feel that Valve really has a handle on how to maximize sales to all sections of the gaming community. That's a good starting point.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I say this in every one of these threads, but I'm still surprised that nobody has sued in violation of 8th amendment rights. I mean, look at the punishments. $1,000 for stealing the physical CD with 10 songs on it, but $200,000 for downloading those songs? And when you download them, there's not even any physical property loss. Talk about excessive fines. This is EXACTLY what the 8th amendment was for. Why has nobody used it to their advantage?[/QUOTE]

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but maybe the cruel and unusual punishments clause has some precedent for not applying to fines given out in civil court and is limited to criminal court?

In any case, that's a big reason why copyright infringement should be moved to just being a misdemeanor criminal offense that doesn't go on your record once you pay the fine or do your community service or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top