[Silencer]

worrywort, on 01 December 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

I was with you right until the third paragraph, Silencer. "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is basically the unifying slogan of every police state that's ever existed.

Mea Culpa. That's not to say the slogan is wrong, however, is it? The implementation of extensive surveillance and the use of that slogan to cover it are separate from the principle it represents. Personally, I see nothing wrong with cameras on every street corner, as long as the footage is treated as private, confidential, and destroyed within a reasonable time frame.
While I grant any such system is open to massive potential for abuse, it isn't *wrong* in and of itself. The people who use it, however...

Morgoth, on 01 December 2011 - 11:34 AM, said:

@Silencer

Oh I agree with most of that. Mind you, receiving different punishments for the same crime is the consequence of having hundreds of legal systems around the globe. It's the same with every sort of crime, not just pirating . An international set of laws governing the internet would certainly not be bad, but it's also rather impossible to implement when China, the US and the EU have such radically different point of views. As such you pretty much have to accept that you'll be governed by the legal code of the country you live in.

The problem here though is that people are not committing these crimes in isolation to their own country. It would be closer to have a bunch of people commit a bank robbery in Germany, then flee the country to France. Under whose legislation are they to be tried? Standard practice (if the crime was large enough) would be extradition. That, obviously, does not work for piracy with a dollar value in the hundreds at most, when the people in question were also not, at the time, in the nation in question.

Additionally, they didn't take anything from the producer. This is not corporate theft, this is Person A making available a copy of Item A to Persons B, C, D, and E, in part to each, so that each may then share that part with the rest in exchange for the other parts. Kinda. So while these people are technically depriving the producer of Item A of income, they did not, in fact, take anything from the producer - so what exactly are you charging people for? Receiving and transmitting illegally copied data? That crime could conceivably be tried in your country of origin, but bear in mind that it was truly an international crime committed with the aid of the other Persons, at the facilitation of Person A, and affecting the producer, who may very well be in a different country altogether! So who are you fining, where is the money going, and how do you place a value on it? Very, very hard to do.

worrywort, on 01 December 2011 - 11:43 AM, said:

Macros, on 01 December 2011 - 11:31 AM, said:

The problem is quite simple.
People need to stop thinking piracy isn't theft, I'm not sayign I do or don't participate but I don't try and claim bullshit moral high ground that my D/ling something free when it's copyrighted isn't stealing. it is, point and case.
and don't bring up the lending CD's bollocks either, if you loan your friend a CD then you no longer have it, so can't listen to it. <--- thats a fullstop

Well, if you burned yourself some backup copies, perfectly legally, you certainly can listen to it while your friend is borrowing the original. You no longer have the physical product, but that's all. And If you downloaded it in the first place, legally, you still never had the physical product to begin with. Even downloading something illegally deprives nobody else of that product, including the content creator; it simply avoids the monetary transaction that perhaps ought to have gone with it. That's not a pro-piracy argument, but as a matter of fact, stealing a car or even a physical CD from Best Buy, and downloading that album for free, aren't particularly comparable acts. Illegal or no, they're simply two different things.

Also, this. Breach of copyright is NOT theft. If you could magically duplicate someone's television, and take that duplicate, it would not be theft. The crime is breach of copyright, the practical or material component of that crime is depriving a company of their 'rightful' money, as exchanged for their product.

Anyone who calls 'piracy' theft, stealing, or anything else is BS'ing as much as someone who says they aren't doing anything wrong/breaking any laws. There's a very real, very relevant distinction. Especially seeing as nothing is actually be taken from anyone, as worrywort points out. You're denying a company the money you kinda-sorta-technically owe them, which is not theft.

[Macros]

I'll simplify it then
you are making use of something you are required by the creator to pay for.
If you tried get away without paying for your haircut there would be repercussions, even though there is no physical product
If you tried to sneak into a concert, you'd be kicked out when caught

[Silencer]

Macros, on 01 December 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

I'll simplify it then
you are making use of something you are required by the creator to pay for.
If you tried get away without paying for your haircut there would be repercussions, even though there is no physical product
If you tried to sneak into a concert, you'd be kicked out when caught

Flawed. The haircut involves a direct exchange of money for services rendered.
The concert example involves the same.

More relevant is you seeing a stylist's signature haircut, and performing one on yourself at home.

Or having a bunch of people who have seen the concert come to your house and reproduce it for you.

See the problem with your examples?


EDIT: In other words, arguments by analogy DO NOT WORK. Just sayin'.

[JLV]

Regardless if it is theft or not, it is illegal. I'm not sure on my own stance as to if it is morally just or not.

NUMEROUS musicians have said that the majority of their income is from merchandise sales and concerts, not the actual mp3s or CDs.

MANY musicians support piracy as long as you share the music with your friends. Maybe that's just the underground scene I live in.

This bill can persecute a 12 year old for putting up a Lady Gaga cover, essentially, without even consulting the artist who is being infringed.

Books are different. Authors don't make much money. Then again, neither do lower popularity musicians. Not sure how I feel about that.

Textbooks piss me off. New edition every year, the newest only having 10 different words from the edition 5 years ago, yet the newest edition is required for class? Hello pirating.

[worry]

If I had one other point to make above, besides the inherent difference between copyright breach and theft, it's that the murkiness of the issue is a good thing and trying to make it a clear cut black-and-white issue isn't exactly favorable to me. I'm not even just talking about fair use and satire, though of course that's included...but say posting your favorite two minute clip from a movie on youtube, or an amateur cover of an existing song, or even just playing a song over a slideshow. This stuff is both a breach of copyright, and also completely benign. I don't think copyright holders should be restricted from enforcing their rights, but smashing youtube with a hammer isn't exactly the most reasonable answer. Nor is forcing civilians (in this case or any other) to become de facto law enforcement.

[Coco with marshmallows]

JLV, on 01 December 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

Books are different. Authors don't make much money. Then again, neither do lower popularity musicians. Not sure how I feel about that.

With regard to this particular point,

I submit the Baen free library, in particular their key principles as laid down by the author Eric Flint here

TL:DR version - we give some books away for free as publicity, readable online, downloadable or printable. This has proved to be a marketing bonanza for us, we're going to keep doing it.

[JLV]

That's true. Setting aside the moral issue of infringement, piracy generally does increase publicity, especially in the case of music.

[Obdigore]

We have been over this about 17 times. Pirating is, at least in the US, Criminal Conversion which generally carries the same sentences and requires the same burden of proof as Theft.

Saying it isn't theft is just semantics.

Quote

That's true. Setting aside the moral issue of infringement, piracy generally does increase publicity, especially in the case of music.

Oh please, JLV. If you like something enough that you want to own it, pay the price the people who do own it say it is worth. If that price is too high, don't pay it and don't listen to it. Pirates seem to think they have the right to listen to any and all music they want without paying the artists and/or anyone involved in making/producing the music for their time/effort.

You do not have a 'right' to something because it exists. If it is too expensive, don't buy it. Not listening to N'Syncs newest album or not playing the newest game is not going to stop you from enjoying your life.

Edit: That is not to say I support this bill as it is written... or in any way, really.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 02 December 2011 - 05:09 AM

[worry]

Indeed, you should spend the entirety of the very little time on earth you have listening only to the music and watching only the movies you can afford. What good is a death bed if you don't have regrets to cuddle up with?

This post has been edited by worrywort: 02 December 2011 - 05:51 AM

[Obdigore]

worrywort, on 02 December 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Indeed, you should spend the entirety of the very little time on earth you have listening only to the music and watching only the movies you can afford. What good is a death bed if you don't have regrets to cuddle up with?

You are right, you deserve everything you could ever want just because you exist. I cannot afford to drive all the cars I want, I'm just going to go borrow them overnight from dealerships when they wont be missed. Sound good?

Hey that 350 foot Yacht you have, I'm going to take it for a week while you are Skiing in Switzerland, I mean I'm not depriving YOU of it since you weren't using it at the time. Sound good?

That is a nice bed, I'm going to sleep in it while you are at work. Sound good?

Maybe if people stopped pirating shit the recording industry would realize their stuff is overpriced and do something about it. Or maybe not and they would crash and burn and the bands would record and sell their own stuff. But instead, these executives delude themselves into thinking that the reason they are losing sales is because of pirating.

[HoosierDaddy]

worrywort, on 02 December 2011 - 05:50 AM, said:

Indeed, you should spend the entirety of the very little time on earth you have listening only to the music and watching only the movies you can afford. What good is a death bed if you don't have regrets to cuddle up with?

I don't really buy the Jean Valjean here. This isn't life or death and to pretend to place these things on such a level as to qualify this as a "quality of life" argument is fairly preposterous. One can enjoy quite a high quality of life without pirating protected music, movies, or anything else.

If were going to argue for the Revolution, well, let's go ahead and leave the music and movies out of this shit and go straight to money: Interpretative Dance. That's where the money is really at.

[amphibian]

HoosierDaddy, on 02 December 2011 - 06:18 AM, said:

If were going to argue for the Revolution, well, let's go ahead and leave the music and movies out of this shit and go straight to money: Interpretative Dance. That's where the money is really at.

Or as it's more commonly known: football.

[Lucifer's Heaven]

Obdigore, on 02 December 2011 - 05:04 AM, said:

We have been over this about 17 times. Pirating is, at least in the US, Criminal Conversion which generally carries the same sentences and requires the same burden of proof as Theft.

Saying it isn't theft is just semantics.

Quote

That's true. Setting aside the moral issue of infringement, piracy generally does increase publicity, especially in the case of music.

Oh please, JLV. If you like something enough that you want to own it, pay the price the people who do own it say it is worth. If that price is too high, don't pay it and don't listen to it. Pirates seem to think they have the right to listen to any and all music they want without paying the artists and/or anyone involved in making/producing the music for their time/effort.

You do not have a 'right' to something because it exists. If it is too expensive, don't buy it. Not listening to N'Syncs newest album or not playing the newest game is not going to stop you from enjoying your life.

Edit: That is not to say I support this bill as it is written... or in any way, really.

It's a fairly important bit of difference between piracy and theft. The simple fact that the act of piracy is victimless. Yes, were you going to buy the product and then didn't because you pirated it you could argue that the person lacking the profit is a victim, and I would agree. However, with theft the actual act of taking leaves a victim. The act of piracy itself does not. You are copying, not taking.
Whether that makes a difference to your punishment or not is irrelevant, there is a distinct (and from a moral standpoint, important) difference.

I also take umbridge at the broad generalisation of pirates there.
I have pirated things in the past. Pirated, played, then stopped playing because I've decided I want the game, and I'll go buy it. And more often than not, that is actually the way I used it.
You can argue that's still illegal, and technically you'd be right.
Still, far different from the way you'd have all pirates sound.
Essentially, the way I use it, it's no different to a video store hiring out console games. Except there's a much higher chance I'll buy it (If I'm paying to hire a game, I feel no obliation to buy it if I like it. I'll just finish it hired).

I'm not a fan of this bill, but I'm not a fan of it because I'm trying to be selfish, I'm not a fan because I don't like the way it goes about what it's trying to do. I really, REALLY don't like it's "guilty by association" mentality.
It attempts to punish the infringer by cutting it's website's support. Asking the hosts/ISP and such to take it down. However if the ISP or hosting group does not wish to take it down, THEY can get sued.
This leads to a whole lot of potential problems in my mind. Not least a scyrocket in the cost of getting sites hosted. Plus big companies being able to take sites down by threatening the weakest link in the chain that keeps the site up. Small hosting companies that may take down a sight because they can't afford the legal team to determine if the site is actually infringing.
This is a horrible, horrible idea and I loathe it both from a practical and moral stand point.

[Morgoth]

This is eerily similar to discussions I've had with right wing religious people in the past. They have the same problem understanding that their idea of what theory means is not the same as the meaning of theory in a scientific context.

[Obdigore]

So, did you completely ignore my post after that one?

It is stealing (theft) the rights of the copyright holder to distribute it how and when they please, by taking it for yourself.

I don't really care that you pirated something, then purchased it. Did you ever pirate something and then not purchase it? Pirating stuff is annoying. It certainly isn't the 'problem' that the big recording companies claim, but it is an issue, like many others, that can be addressed.

As I noted in that post you seem to have ignored, I certainly do not agree with this bill at all.

[Silencer]

Obdigore, on 02 December 2011 - 05:04 AM, said:

We have been over this about 17 times. Pirating is, at least in the US, Criminal Conversion which generally carries the same sentences and requires the same burden of proof as Theft.

Saying it isn't theft is just semantics.

Quote

That's true. Setting aside the moral issue of infringement, piracy generally does increase publicity, especially in the case of music.

Oh please, JLV. If you like something enough that you want to own it, pay the price the people who do own it say it is worth. If that price is too high, don't pay it and don't listen to it. Pirates seem to think they have the right to listen to any and all music they want without paying the artists and/or anyone involved in making/producing the music for their time/effort.

You do not have a 'right' to something because it exists. If it is too expensive, don't buy it. Not listening to N'Syncs newest album or not playing the newest game is not going to stop you from enjoying your life.

Edit: That is not to say I support this bill as it is written... or in any way, really.

Semantics it may be, but it's nonetheless an important distinction in the same sense breaking and entering is a separate crime from theft. Fraud, too. They pretty much all boil down to the same thing, but there is still a reason for the distinction.


Coming off this to the point you make about producers realizing they were charging too much if people stopped pirating - dude, come off it. How is the act of piracy not sending them that message? If they want to explain it away by saying piracy is 'easier', or 'free will always be cheaper', or whatever, then guess what, they've got their head so far in the sand, they'll twist the loss of sales with the (unlikely) demise of piracy to being a protest about the end of piracy and keep charging what they want.
And guess what? The people who DO still buy their stuff? They make the companies more than enough money to PAY the pirates more than what they would have been charged had they purchased the item in question for every song/movie/game they download. So no, people not pirating will not have an effect on the prices of the products, even if the pirates all still don't buy the products.

Whether that justification (the product is too expensive) actually makes an argument for piracy or not is open to your interpretation, though it certainly doesn't make piracy any less illegal.

Should also point out that while you say you don't support the bill (does anyone here actually support it, without reservation, or only mild points of contention?) it's worth noting that nothing which has been said here by the anti-piracy crowd actually shows even a *need* for such legislation - as we all repeatedly have pointed out, piracy is already a crime.

Obdigore, on 02 December 2011 - 10:04 AM, said:

So, did you completely ignore my post after that one?

It is stealing (theft) the rights of the copyright holder to distribute it how and when they please, by taking it for yourself.

I don't really care that you pirated something, then purchased it. Did you ever pirate something and then not purchase it? Pirating stuff is annoying. It certainly isn't the 'problem' that the big recording companies claim, but it is an issue, like many others, that can be addressed.

As I noted in that post you seem to have ignored, I certainly do not agree with this bill at all.

Now who's playing with words? Stealing the rights of the copyright holder? You can't *steal* their rights by virtue of making a copy of their product. At best that's infringement, and at worst that's flouting. None of it *steals* their rights - that is something that only a revocation of the copyright could do, which is not what is going on here.

[Obdigore]

It is their right to decide who gets to enjoy their works and who does not. If they decide that anyone who pays them 15$ or whatever gets to listen to their CD, then if you copy that CD and listen to it without paying the 15 dollars, yes, that is removing their rights.

I do agree that there is no need for the bill. I'm just getting tired of people trying to claim that piracy is not illegally obtaining someone else' property. In my examples, every one of those things I did in no way prevented the actual owner of using the items when they wanted, but it is still the 'wrong' thing to do.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 02 December 2011 - 11:00 AM

[Silencer]

I don't think anyone here has honestly claimed that piracy is legal. Though, when you word it specifically like 'illegally obtaining someone else's property' we're probably getting a lot closer to the definition of 'theft' - which still implies you are depriving someone of an item they own, rather than unlawfully copying something which you have no right to hold a copy of. It breaches the copyright holder's rights, it results in you obtaining something for which you are legally obliged to pay.

And no, it's not removing their rights. It's violating them. The rights still stand, you aren't taking the right from them - hence why piracy is a crime and you can be fined for it. If every act of piracy *removed* the holder's rights, then after one person shared it with another every other act of piracy thereafter would not be illegal. See?

Now, whether piracy is *morally* wrong is another can of worms. And if we get into that, we're gonna *really* go around in circles seeing as the single argument in all things moral is "It's relative". XD

[Morgoth]

Silencer, on 02 December 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

I don't think anyone here has honestly claimed that piracy is legal. Though, when you word it specifically like 'illegally obtaining someone else's property' we're probably getting a lot closer to the definition of 'theft' - which still implies you are depriving someone of an item they own, rather than unlawfully copying something which you have no right to hold a copy of. It breaches the copyright holder's rights, it results in you obtaining something for which you are legally obliged to pay.

And no, it's not removing their rights. It's violating them. The rights still stand, you aren't taking the right from them - hence why piracy is a crime and you can be fined for it. If every act of piracy *removed* the holder's rights, then after one person shared it with another every other act of piracy thereafter would not be illegal. See?

Now, whether piracy is *morally* wrong is another can of worms. And if we get into that, we're gonna *really* go around in circles seeing as the single argument in all things moral is "It's relative". XD

First and foremost. How difficult can this possibly be. Piracy is theft because the courts have decided that it is theft. This is not hard. Just as a theory means something different in scientific terminology than it does in regular speech, so too does theft encompass more than just your every day definition. I'm sure it's rather offensive to be compared to creationists, but continuing to claim that piracy is not theft shows the very same kind of pig headed ignorance.

Now, the whole any moral arguments ends with a claim that "it's all relative" falls into the same philosophy 101 category as "we cannot know that anything is real". Sure, it's theoretically a valid argument, but it's also completely irrelevant to any actual discussion about any sort of issue. Trying to use that as an argument is simply a last ditch attempt to justify a position that has very little going for it in the first place.

I certainly struggle to find good arguments for why piracy is not morally wrong.

[Silencer]

Morgoth, on 02 December 2011 - 11:20 AM, said:

Silencer, on 02 December 2011 - 11:13 AM, said:

I don't think anyone here has honestly claimed that piracy is legal. Though, when you word it specifically like 'illegally obtaining someone else's property' we're probably getting a lot closer to the definition of 'theft' - which still implies you are depriving someone of an item they own, rather than unlawfully copying something which you have no right to hold a copy of. It breaches the copyright holder's rights, it results in you obtaining something for which you are legally obliged to pay.

And no, it's not removing their rights. It's violating them. The rights still stand, you aren't taking the right from them - hence why piracy is a crime and you can be fined for it. If every act of piracy *removed* the holder's rights, then after one person shared it with another every other act of piracy thereafter would not be illegal. See?

Now, whether piracy is *morally* wrong is another can of worms. And if we get into that, we're gonna *really* go around in circles seeing as the single argument in all things moral is "It's relative". XD

First and foremost. How difficult can this possibly be. Piracy is theft because the courts have decided that it is theft. This is not hard. Just as a theory means something different in scientific terminology than it does in regular speech, so too does theft encompass more than just your every day definition. I'm sure it's rather offensive to be compared to creationists, but continuing to claim that piracy is not theft shows the very same kind of pig headed ignorance.

Now, the whole any moral arguments ends with a claim that "it's all relative" falls into the same philosophy 101 category as "we cannot know that anything is real". Sure, it's theoretically a valid argument, but it's also completely irrelevant to any actual discussion about any sort of issue. Trying to use that as an argument is simply a last ditch attempt to justify a position that has very little going for it in the first place.

I certainly struggle to find good arguments for why piracy is not morally wrong.

Last time I checked here, piracy was not, legally, theft. It was copyright infringement. Which is different. If that's different in other countries, all good, but then the distinction again becomes a problem with international enforcement. Besides which, the courts are not God, Morgy, they're an institution who decides things on expedience as much as the next person. Is there a particular reason they decided to try piracy as theft, ignoring the obvious practical distinctions in the process? I'll happily bow to your superior knowledge of the US legal code, don't get me wrong, but where there is a practical difference (as in scientific theory vs 'general' use of the word) it does have an impact on the legal interpretation, or else there must be a good reason for it not to. Whether the law is 'right' or 'wrong', I'll grant you, is irrelevant. But then. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY "YES, PIRACY IS ILLEGAL SO IT DOESN'T MATTER" before you get it? That's not what this thread is about, nor is it what the minor side debate of "Let's go over piracy again for the hundredth time" is about.
And the Ad Hominem is unappreciated. It doesn't do your claim any favours, so why include it?

Additionally, the moral thing is, as I pointed out, another issue entirely - seeing as Obdi said, " In my examples, every one of those things I did in no way prevented the actual owner of using the items when they wanted, but it is still the 'wrong' thing to do."
I was merely pointing out that bringing morality into this is pointless, seeing as morals are social constructs and, while the widely accepted societal perceptions of right and wrong dominate, in a contested area like piracy (where thousands, if not millions will happily declare they are doing nothing 'wrong', even while breaking a law) there really isn't any point in using it to back up a legal argument.
So I fail to see how you go from that, to " Trying to use that as an argument is simply a last ditch attempt to justify a position that has very little going for it in the first place." Given that I wasn't using it to justify any position, I was pointing out that the moral factor is itself irrelevant.