[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Well, technically copyright violation is stealing. Intellectual property and all that.

[Dr Trouble]

I own 3 Terabytes worth of "Files" from the last 2 years.

ARRRRRRRR!!!!

But while I worked, I spent so much money buying DVDs, CD's, and Games. I bought over 50 PS3 and XBOX360 games in the last 6 months. It adds up.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Going the honest route is painfully expensive.

[Dr Trouble]

It is. But there is nothing wrong with that.

Mostly what I pirate is things that never come out in Australia, or movies that take so long to be released I need to watch them. And Anime. Lots of anime (That I never watch)

[Wordmerchant]

As a person who derives a significant portion of my income from sale of intellectual property, I choose not to pirate the work of others who make their living in the same way.

Quote

you're not really damaging the artist in the vast majority of cases

When my income involves a royalty payment based on number of sales, this statement seems a self serving rationalization. The fact that some distributor or retailer makes more than I do per copy does not negate my right to payment for my work.

[Skywalker]

Used to be a big pirate in my student days... primarily because I had no money.

My paycheck in combination with stuff like iTunes, radio, Netflix instant viewing/ renting, redbox, and official TV web players mean I don't have to download anything illegal of the audio-visual variety (I'm not of the collect and hoard mindset when it comes to video or music).

I DO however tend to download books to sample before I buy. I had downloaded the first Harry Potter, GoTM, etc. but then since I bought almost every book I downloaded and liked, I have no qualms about that.

I think books are kind of an exception to the piracy rule... I totally agree with folks like Brandon Sanderson who are open to free distribution of ebooks on this one - I read his 'Mistborn: Fallen Empire" as a free TOR ebook (official), loved it, and have bought the first two in the series and pre-ordered the third. That is my behavior pattern with most books I like (certainly was with SE's and Rowling's work).

The thing is, after I download a book, if I don't like it, I figure I just saved myself some money by not buying it. It is no different from sitting in a bookstore and browsing the book for free.

Does this hurt authors? Sure... but not the good ones (whose work I end up buying). If you are a shitty author though - or just don't do anything for me - hey... tough luck!

[Yellow]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;361060 said:

Well, technically copyright violation is stealing. Intellectual property and all that.

But it's not stealing. If I distribute a file I copied (maybe of a song or a film or even a book), I'm not stealing anything. I'm copying it, and possibly allowing my friends to make a copy of my copy. I'm denying the owner of the IP the possibility of a sale (though of course you could argue I'm promoting said IP, but that's not an argument worth getting into), but I'm not stealing his rights to his IP.

This isn't stealing, as nothing is taken except the esoteric. If I download Star Wars Episode III, does this deprive anyone of the movie? Have I stolen Star Wars and prevented others from seeing it? Have I deprived someone of their IP, or made money from selling it on?

I would argue "no" to all of those questions, while never claiming that I hadn't broken the law (to some degree). But violation of copyright law is not theft, no matter what the propaganda in the adverts says. It's not legal, but it's not theft.

[Obdigore]

Yellow;361423 said:

But it's not stealing. If I distribute a file I copied (maybe of a song or a film or even a book), I'm not stealing anything. I'm copying it, and possibly allowing my friends to make a copy of my copy. I'm denying the owner of the IP the possibility of a sale (though of course you could argue I'm promoting said IP, but that's not an argument worth getting into), but I'm not stealing his rights to his IP.

This isn't stealing, as nothing is taken except the esoteric. If I download Star Wars Episode III, does this deprive anyone of the movie? Have I stolen Star Wars and prevented others from seeing it? Have I deprived someone of their IP, or made money from selling it on?

I would argue "no" to all of those questions, while never claiming that I hadn't broken the law (to some degree). But violation of copyright law is not theft, no matter what the propaganda in the adverts says. It's not legal, but it's not theft.

Without buying a license, and thereby getting permission from the person who owns the IP, you are stealing their ideas. You are stealing money from those who made the movie, thought up the ideas, and spent their money to put them into action.

Would you steal a copy of a book from your local book store? You are not preventing others from reading it, since the book store has other copies, right?

Since it is that entity's (person or company) intellectual property, only they have the right to say who has it, or who may use it. When you purchase it, you are granted authority by them to have and hold on to it, to you for your personal use. If you make copies of it, that is fine. If you then distribute (even for free) said copies, you are violating the agreement you entered with the IP owner regarding use of their IP.

I'm not saying you are a bad person for doing this, but at least be honest with yourself.

[Yellow]

I disagree with you on this one. There is a fundamental difference between a book in a shop and a word document.

If I take a book from a shop, that shop loses a physical object that they can no longer use or sell. If I copy a word document, the original owner loses... nothing. We both have a copy.

I'm also not trying to justify piracy, I'm just saying that it's not theft. It's a breach of copyright law and is illegal, but it's not theft.

EDIT - pedantic bear is sticking his oar in.

Ok, so I looked up the definition of "theft", as I believe that's where our argument essentially lies.

From dictionary.com:

1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

Now, I don't think piracy falls under the definition in 1, because the thing in question is not taken and carried away. It is the copy of the thing in question that is taken and carried away.

And this is from the Cambridge online dictionary:

theft Show phonetics
noun [C or U]
(the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it:
Unfortunately, we have had several thefts in the building recently.
Shoplifting is theft.
See also thief.

So I still think my argument stands, as I am not taking the thing but the copy of the thing. I imagine you might disagree with me on this one, though. It's a fine line.

[Obdigore]

It is theft of intellectual property.

[Yellow]

That's a very convenient term, but what does it actually mean? In what way does copying a word file (for example) equate to the theft of that intellectual property? Is the original file no longer sellable? Have the ideas actually been stolen? I think it comes down to, once again, the existence of a possible sale, rather an actual theft of money or goods.

Like I say, that's illegal and there's no arguing with that, but nothing tangible is actually stolen when you pirate (or copy) a file.

[Obdigore]

No, copying the file is not illegal.

Giving it to someone who has not entered a contract/agreement with the owner of the IP without their consent IS illegal, and it equates to stealing, since you are giving away something that isn't yours to give away.

If you sell it, it is making money off someone else, and just as illegal.

[Yellow]

I'm not arguing about whether it's illegal, I'm arguing about whether it's theft. If I give a copy I made to my friend, then that is illegal, and it gets called theft, but it's really not. It's a breach of copyright law.

I made the copy. I have the copy on my computer. I used my own resources to make it and distribute it. At what point did the theft take place? The law was broken when the file was distributed (and probably when the copy was made as well, though that's not the point), but at no point was anything stolen. It's just called theft of IP. It's not actually theft. It's a convenient term used to describe a complex rights issue. I give the file away. I do not take and keep the original. It is not stolen, but I have breached the law, and I am justifiably punishable by law.

I see we disagree on this fairly fundamentally, so I'm not going to whine on about it any more

[Obdigore]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

Wiki said:

In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. As a term, it is used as shorthand for all major crimes against property, encompassing offences such as burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, mugging, trespassing, shoplifting, intrusion, fraud (theft by deception) and sometimes criminal conversion

And now http://en.wikipedia....inal_conversion

Wiki said:

Criminal conversion, in criminal law, is usually defined as the crime of exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property. It differs from theft in that it does not include the element of intending to deprive the owner of the possession of that property.

Specificly, the part about exerting unauthorized use or control of someone else's property. Once you purchase a DVD/CD, you only purchase the RIGHTS for personal use of that property, once you give it to someone else, or attempt to sell it, it becomes Criminal Conversion which is (at least where I live) tried as Theft.

Can we agree that Pirating DVD/CD/other software is, at the very least, Criminal Conversion?

[Yellow]

Yeah, it sounds like it to me. "Unauthorised use or control" pretty much nails piracy on the head.

[Yellow]

Carrying on with the theme of control, I think some people in the record industry must really want to go back in time and give the inventor of the CD ROM a real big kick in the nuts.

Back in the day, if you wanted to pirate something, you had to make a shitty copy of an analogue signal onto magnetic tape. People did this all the time, and nobody particularly minded (unless you started selling the copies) because at the end of it, they knew that you had to come to the source if you wanted the real deal.

Now, of course, the perfect copy is just a click of a mouse button and 5p worth of plastic away.

The control is gone, and there's no need (other than the moral choice or the absence of information about copying methods) for people to return to the source. Massive pandora's box. It will be interesting to see what happens with the issue. In the past, the industries have concentrated on encryption, on taking back the control, but it seems plain to me that won't work in the future, or at least not for long. There are law suits and there are imprisonments and fines, but filesharing is on the increase. God knows what they're going to do about it.

Maybe it's just something they will have to live with? Seems unlikely they'll settle for that, but it's hard to see an alternative. They sell mp3s very cheap these days, but I remember seeing a poll somewhere (sorry, it's been ages and there's no way I'll find it) that a large proportion of filesharers would rather pay a monthly fee to their ISPs (and download unlimited amounts illegally) than pay a fee to the record publishers (and download legally). It's a strange cultural thing, and I think particularly in Sweden, it's not considered a problem from any standpoint but the political (going off Steal This Film and other PB-related stuff).

For anyone interested who hasn't seen these...

Steal This Film

Steal This Film 2

Nothing revolutionary or likely to change anyone's stance on anything, but interesting nonetheless.

[Sparkimus]

I do, but I have a crap job in a crappy, overpriced town.

Could I afford to buy a DVD every week? Maybe. Can I afford all the high priced software I use? It's a stretch, but maybe. The thing about that is, that if I wanted to do all that stuff I would do nothing BUT that. Not drive, not go out wtih the buddies, absolutely no dates, probably hardly pay my bills.

I know that sounds selfish, but I rather like having fun. And in the long run, if I find something I like I WILL purchase a hard copy. That way, the people that deserve my money get it, and the makers of shit copy/paste movies like Meet the Spartans can go fuck themselves.

[Vicodin&FantasyBooks]

I download everything I want.

Then I might buy the things that I really liked like a music CD or a game or whatever.

I just find it more reasonable that way.

The music and movie industry don't depend on the 5$ DVD stand at your local gas station to survive thank the Lord.

This post has been edited by Vicodin&FantasyBooks: 16 October 2008 - 12:04 PM

[Anomander]

I will admit to internet pirating, but I'm not terribly bothered by this. I can sum up my actions easily:

Music

I tend to download music a lot, because frankly I haven't time to browse or listen to albums in store to see if I in fact enjoy it enough to buy. If the artist is new, non-mainstream, or the type of music that really doesn't get a lot of play on radio/tv then I'm happy to pay for their CDs. In fact I tend to buy a number of CDs when I can, but there are many times where the stores here simply don't carry the music I'm looking for and thus I'm forced to download the songs if I want them.

Movies

When I had better torrent sites, yes I pirated movies. This saved me a lot of money in terms of buying/renting. If I enjoy a movie, I'll go out and buy it.

Books

Haven't really gotten into reading ebooks, so I can honestly say I haven't done any pirating in this regard.

Programs

Hell yes! The cost of owning most programs I need/want is ridiculous and I refuse to pay for them. If I were running a business or using any of the programs for professional reasons then I'd feel obligated to pay, but as that's not the case... well, no.

Games

Same as books really, I'll just buy the game if I'm interested enough.

[Mentalist]

meh
currently, I am lmited in my oirating ability by a bandwidth restriction
as a general rule, I've been a pirate since high school. the whole Morpheus.KaZaA/Ed2k/BitTorrent/Emule evolution of it.
have no qualms about it, as I came from UA, where EVERYTHING that was sold of the audio/video/games variety was pirated. I mean, I bought a game CD once that had a label inside "please copy the game executive from the file "Crack" to make the game run properly after installation".
so, no I have no qualms about it.

Audio
I used to get a bunch of Russian/ Ukrainian/French music that I would never find here in Canada to buy. nowadays, I get songs i like, but since I'm very particular about music (i. e., random), I don't want to pay for an album if I like just one song.

Video
sometimes. frankly, I don't have time to go to video stores to buy movies, even when I like them. I don't do it often, and most of the stuff I have I got in first year, when we had a rez hub for DC++ with ridiculously high speeds.

Games
I love strategies. But I'm not a multiplayer type of person. so, if I get a cracked game, i can play single player for the story, but I won't play multiplayer, which is what most ppl pay for. back in high school I DLed everything, now I have little time for gaming, so i've been cutting down a lot.

Programs: YES
when I need something, it's usually NOW. as in, tomorrow, or in the next few hours.
downloads + cracks are way simpler than ordering and paying.
for example, I'm a psych student, and I need to use a stats program SPSS a lot. last year we started with version 15.0, and a lot of people payed at he beginnning of the year to buy it. now, the thing is:
a) the year before, for a different course, I got version 14.0 with a textbook
b ) HALF-way through the year, the Uni UPGRADED to version 16.0. so people were then asked to buy that.
obviously, sice each time it costs sopmething like $70, i downloaded it instead.

my name is Mentalist and I'm a pirate. will probably always be one. I feel no regrets, because almost everyone who's not super-rich, or knows nothing about computers, does it to some degree.