The Pirate Bay Found Guilty

[Raiders Army]

FT.com / Global Economy - Pirate Bay four found guilty (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/675bb2ea-2b35-11de-b806-00144feabdc0.html)
Pirate Bay four found guilty
By Salamander Davoudi and Maija Palmer

Published: April 17 2009 10:53 | Last updated: April 17 2009 12:03

The entertainment industry scored a victory on Friday after a Swedish court found four men guilty of promoting copyright infringement by running Pirate Bay, the world’s biggest free file-sharing website, and sentenced them to a year in prison.

Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Carl Lundstrom were also ordered to pay SKr 30m ($3.58m) damages to a series of entertainment companies, including Warner Bros, Sony, EMI, Columbia Pictures and Universal.

Though the damages are smaller than the SKr100m companies had been seeking, the ruling marks a victory for the entertainment industry, which has mounted numerous lawsuits to shut down sites such as Napster, Kazaa and Grokster, which facilitated illegal downloading.

“The Stockholm district court has today found guilty the four individuals that were charged with accessory to breaching copyright laws,” the court said in a statement. ”The court has sentenced each of them to one year in prison.”

Some industry observers remained sceptical about the impact of the court’s verdict saying that as one site is shut down another two open.

The Pirate Bay, which started in 2004, makes use of a peer-to-peer filesharing technology called Bit-Torrent. It provides a forum for its estimated 22m users to freely download music, films and computer games.

The owners of Pirate Bay maintained they could not be held responsible for the material being exchanged since no copyrighted material is stored on their servers and no exchange of files actually takes place there.

The prosecution argued that by financing, programming and running the site the four men promoted the infringement of property rights by the site’s users.

John Kennedy, chief executive of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which led the case, said: “The trial of the operators of The Pirate Bay was about defending the rights of creators, confirming the illegality of the service and creating a fair environment for legal music services that respect the rights of the creative community.”

“Today’s verdict is the right outcome on all three counts. The court has also handed down a strong deterrent sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crimes committed.”

The founders of Pirate Bay have been notoriously outspoken against copyright laws, often using the Pirate Bay site to campaign against such legislation. They have argued that media industries should create new business models rather than try to prevent copying.

The defendants were charged last year by a Swedish prosecutor with conspiracy to break copyright law and related offences. They denied the charges and now plan to appeal.
Huge decision here.

[jeff061]

Wonder if the outcome would have been different if they didn't act like such marvelous idiots.

[Icy]

That is the problem with WWW and each country laws (and why USA keeps trying but failing to regulate it worldwide, like casinos/poker). In Spain there have been 2 or 3 major torrent/emule sites lawsuits and the website owners have not ever lost one.

The main related law here states that if you are not getting any economical profit directly from file sharing, then you can't be lawsuited.

Also torrent sites are not considered like providing any content, just providing ways to find that content, exactly like others like google do. You can find in google anything ilegal that you could want, but they are not facing lawsuits for making it easy to find.

This would be the key here for them to win the lawsuit:


The owners of Pirate Bay maintained they could not be held responsible for the material being exchanged since no copyrighted material is stored on their servers and no exchange of files actually takes place there.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

So, how closely is Google watching this?

[whomario]

well, it might be key but in all seriousness it shouldn´t be : Of course they knew what was going on.

It´s like saying "yeah, i burried a land mine on a town square, how could i know someone would step on it?"

They knew for what their service was used, they didn´t shut it down, they are guilty.

Hell, i´m not saying "all you stupid filesharers should burn in hell" but if you play with fire you shouldn´t be suprised to get burned.

People need to learn some dignity, imo. Seriously, nowadays a lot of people act like it is their right to get everything for free and whenever they want it. I mean, if the new Flatscreen in the store is to expensive i´ll either live on with my old TV or at least wait till it gets cheaper, i don´t break in an get it at night.

Heck, i won´t say i´m a priest in that regard but i sure as hell won´t cry foul when someone takes steps against it.

kind of related question : What´s the going ratio itunes/Amazon MP3 to Disc at Shop/Amazon nowadays ? (i buy quite a lot as MP3, but almost allways directly at an artist´s or label homepage)
That´s the one legitimate complain i can see, that that ratio isn´t cheap enough from what i have seen a couple years ago. Wonder if it has gotten better or worse ?

[flere-imsaho]

kind of related question : What´s the going ratio itunes/Amazon MP3 to Disc at Shop/Amazon nowadays ? (i buy quite a lot as MP3, but almost allways directly at an artist´s or label homepage)

According to an NPR story I heard yesterday, CD sales were down 9% in 2008 while digital sales were up 17%. The main conclusion of the story seemed to be that sales of music on virtually all physical media (i.e. CDs) will eventually go away completely, with maybe a niche market remaining for vinyl, of all things.

[flere-imsaho]

So, how closely is Google watching this?

Why would Google care?

[CU Tiger]

well, it might be key but in all seriousness it shouldn´t be : Of course they knew what was going on.

It´s like saying "yeah, i burried a land mine on a town square, how could i know someone would step on it?"

They knew for what their service was used, they didn´t shut it down, they are guilty.
One could argue that it is more akin to why sell guns you know what they can be used for?
Or, why sell alcohol you know it makes people drunk and drunk drivers kills people
Or why sell cars, people drive them drunk.
If you have to be responsible for illegal use of your product, thats a mighty slippery slope.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Why would Google care?

What is the difference between the Pirate Bay linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material, and google linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material?

[Ksyrup]

What does Mike Leach have to say about this?

[Tekneek]

Copyright infringement needs to be a civil matter, just like patent infringement. To my knowledge, nobody does prison time for patent infringement and neither should they for copyright infringement.

They also need to do a better job of identifying damages. Damages need to be based on illegal copies sold/distributed, and then only for the ones where it is reasonable that the individual would've ever bought the legal version. It is a fallacy that everyone who acquires a free, or very cheap, illegal version of an object would have definitely paid regular price for the real thing.

I know this goes against the current "intellectual property" scheme, which says that you not only control the object, but you also control the time and method of distribution as well. I believe revising this would serve us all better in the end.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

What does Mike Leach have to say about this?

SEAL teams should move in and kill the Pirate Bay owners.

[molson]

It is a fallacy that everyone who acquires a free, or very cheap, illegal version of an object would have definitely paid regular price for the real thing.


I think that's true, but don't the pirate defenders also say, "I buy the CD if I like the illegal download", when that suits their purpose?

The conection between Google and piracy is a lot more tennuous than between The Pirate Bay and piracy. I mean if you want to take the Google comparison to it's aburd conclusion, Dell and Microsoft should be sued to, as well as the trucks that transport the computers. Obviously there's a line somewhere.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Obviously there's a line somewhere.

Of course, but the question is who defines that line? Is the line the same for different countries? The Pirate Bay obviously provides access to illegal things. Google as well provides access to illegal things. My only fear is where this all ends up.

[flere-imsaho]

What is the difference between the Pirate Bay linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material, and google linking to a .torrent file of copyrighted material?

It's probably a difference in scope. Google's search technology links to a wide array of things, the vast majority of which are legal, and Google doesn't make any overt effort to shield illegal activity from legal authorities.

Providing a platform for quasi-legal activities was more-or-less The Pirate Bay's modus operandi, regardless of their official legal protestations, and I don't think they were ever able to get away from that in court.

Call it a legal "smirk test". No one could really say "Oh, the main reason for The Pirate Bay existing is totally for legal filesharing" without smirking.

So if I'm Google, I'm not concerned. They already comply with takedown requests anyway, and the RIAA already learned their lesson in taking on a well-funded and well-connected entity when they went after Harvard Law School.

[Samdari]

In Spain there have been 2 or 3 major torrent/emule sites lawsuits and the website owners have not ever lost one.

There had also been numerous attempts by various agencies to shut down the pirate bay in the past, and their owners have always gotten relief from the swedish courts. They were quite proud of this, and used it to flaunt their "untouchability" in letters responding to cease and desist letters from copyright holders - their claim has always been that they were not violating any Swedish law. That seems to have changed.

Lesson: court opinions in individual countries can and will change in response to international pressure.

The main related law here states that if you are not getting any economical profit directly from file sharing, then you can't be lawsuited.

Oh, but the pirate bay owners were certainly profiting directly from file sharing, and it would be relatively easy for any competent lawyer to prove. If that is the single defining test (and I claim no knowledge of Spanish law) sites that sell advertising while providing access to copyrighted material will eventually lose that test.

A google test would be very interesting, although they have an additional 'abstraction' layer. They do not store addresses of copyrighted material on their servers - they store the addresses of those that do. A handle rather than a pointer, if you will.

[sterlingice]

To all making it, the Google to Pirate Bay are apples to apples comparisons :rolleyes:

(flere kindof summed this up well with the "smirk" test paragraph)

SI

[Noop]

Interesting. I will miss it if it goes away.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

To all making it, the Google to Pirate Bay are apples to apples comparisons :rolleyes:

(flere kindof summed this up well with the "smirk" test paragraph)

SI

Not sure I see the need for rolleyes here, I'm not trying to defend Pirate Bay in any way. I'm more worried about the law of unintended consequences. I would say that flere's "smirk test" is obviously the most logical way to go, but the law often seems to not be able to parse ambiguous situations effectively.

[sterlingice]

It's true- the law doesn't process ambiguous situations well. And the smiley wasn't directed personally at you- there are much more disingenuous defenses. You brought up a valid concern.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

I would say that flere's "smirk test" is obviously the most logical way to go, but the law often seems to not be able to parse ambiguous situations effectively.

I wouldn't be too worried, to be honest. In my opinion, the legal concept here (besides precedent) is, basically, intent. And in general the courts do a good job of determining intent and ruling correctly. The problem is that we generally only hear about the court decisions where they ignored intent and based their ruling on some other criteria, and then it becomes a cause celebre.

Another reason not to worry: over time, more and more judges will be tech-saavy. They'll understand better and better the intent of technologies and whether they were implemented primarily for illegal reasons (or to support illegal activity) or if their implementation has been partially corrupted for illegal activities.

This is not to say we shouldn't continue to fight the abuses of the legal system by the RIAA and MPAA, more that I think the "problem state" will trend towards normality and a resolution over time.

Plus, there's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much money to be made by providing a legal alternative to piracy (see, iTunes) that more-or-less obviates the need for piracy (for all but the hardcore). Eventually the entities that make up the RIAA and MPAA, being for-profit enterprises, will drag themselves kicking and screaming into the 21st century and offer reasonable content delivery systems that satisfy their customers and kill the need for pirate systems.

FREE MARKET AT WORK, BABY!!! :D

[molson]

A year in a Swedish prison doesn't sound bad at all.

[whomario]

According to an NPR story I heard yesterday, CD sales were down 9% in 2008 while digital sales were up 17%. The main conclusion of the story seemed to be that sales of music on virtually all physical media (i.e. CDs) will eventually go away completely, with maybe a niche market remaining for vinyl, of all things.

thanks . Although i was more aiming at price differences :) Anyone there who uses itunes etc regularly while still buying CDs ?

I know that most artists i have bought from (or labels like Arts&Crafts) it is regularly arround 9-10 dollars compared to about 15 for the CD at amazon.com And for germany that´s about 7 Euros converted, which than is a huge saving as most CDs here sell for about 16-18 Euros regular price.
A quick search at amazon has their MP3 downloads at 9 Dollars for most acts i searched, which still is reasonable and lower than i´d expect.

[SirFozzie]

What a sham trial. When you modify the charges on TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS during the trial, it's a fucking kangaroo court.

[SportsDino]

They deserve what they got. The difference between them and Google i think is that they were prosecuted under 'promoting copyright infringement', which they obviously were... and google does not promote copyright infringement, it rather operates a service for searching the net and complies with copyright protection requests.

Its like if I ran some website convenience service that offers user input and aggregation, and someone keeps putting up donkey human love pics on my site. I make an effort to stop and block abuse of my system, and I doubt very much that a court is going to hold me liable if some third party, the congregation of prudish people with too many lawyers, goes ahead and sues me because they search for something on my site and end up with graphic imagery. I'm sure I would get some sort of leniency... so in the worst case I think that is what happens if someone tries this to google.

As opposed to pirate bay, where they act like they are entitled to crap on intellectual property rights and did everything they could to flaunt that.

The ultimate solution is a new business model, but I believe that force is being driven more by convenience, technology, and the ability to rapidly sell more content at less cost... rather than assholes stealing stuff over the internet and acting self-righteous about it.

You do not have a need for the latest boy band drivel, the boy band could charge 50 bucks for their crappy CD if they want to, its their right. If you don't like it, screw you! The ability to steal something should never be encouraged and tolerated (I could probably get away with knocking off banks and convenience stores, or stealing candy from babies, but ethics as much as punishment hold me from doing those stupid things).

[MJ4H]

lol at anyone defending the pirate bay. the pirate bay.

ffs

[cartman]

The folks at Ninja Harbor are exceedingly happy with this verdict.

[Tekneek]

They deserve what they got.

So you advocate jail time for copyright infringement? Do you advocate the same for patent infringement? If not, why?

[sterlingice]

So you advocate jail time for copyright infringement? Do you advocate the same for patent infringement? If not, why?

Are we talking about flagrant, systemic, gross abuses or an individual act?

SI

[sterlingice]

The folks at Ninja Harbor are exceedingly happy with this verdict.

:D

SI

[Glengoyne]

What a sham trial. When you modify the charges on TWO SEPERATE OCCASIONS during the trial, it's a fucking kangaroo court.

Somehow, I figured you'd be backing the pirates. Just so I get this straight...On which side did you fall in the Somali pirate thread?

[Big Fo]

A year in a Swedish prison doesn't sound bad at all.

A year in prison would probably suck no matter where you are, even if some are worse than others.

[Tekneek]

Are we talking about flagrant, systemic, gross abuses or an individual act?

Feel free to set the limits however you think they should be. The first question is whether anybody should ever do jail time for patent infringement. I do not think patent infringement is even treated as criminal.

[SirFozzie]

Somehow, I figured you'd be backing the pirates. Just so I get this straight...On which side did you fall in the Somali pirate thread?

Are you fucking seriously comparing Somali hijacking of a physical ship to copyright infringement? Give me a fucking break. Do you work for the BSA or something?

BSA hijacks Somali pirate hype • Channel Register (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/04/14/bsa_pirates_are_pirates_are_pirates/)

[Calis]

Not sure where I stand this. Obviously you hate to see anything that encourages and makes pirating easier, but I do think this is a slippery slope legally and I'm not sure where this leads. They aren't hosting anything on their servers, and there is plenty of legal material you can obtain there...but of course that's not what people are grabbing in 99% of the cases.

I think if the Pirate Bay guys weren't such colossal dicks about it in the past they could actually have a leg to stand on making this a political issue and having more people on their side other than Pirates. They haven't approached it that way at all in the past, so it's hard to think of them as anything other than people trying to make money off giving people easy access to pirated media.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Are you fucking seriously comparing Somali hijacking of a physical ship to copyright infringement?

Both are nothing short of outright theft at their best. If not for the presence of the crew, I'd see no legitimate difference in the two at all. But I'll concede that much of a point.

If ever there have been two people who were truly & completely opposite on a subject, you + me + this one = a damned good example.

[Mota]

Somehow, I figured you'd be backing the pirates. Just so I get this straight...On which side did you fall in the Somali pirate thread?

I think it is quite obvious that not all pirates are the same, matey.

You can't really compare the guy who downloaded the new Pearl Jam re-issue because he already has purchased the CD once before to some dude who is killing people. If you kill a few spiders in your basement it doesn't make you a mass murderer like Dahmer.

[SirFozzie]

Both are nothing short of outright theft at their best. If not for the presence of the crew, I'd see no legitimate difference in the two at all. But I'll concede that much of a point.

If ever there have been two people who were truly & completely opposite on a subject, you + me + this one = a damned good example.


Nothing new here, Jon, eh?

Amazing that we get on the way we do otherwise (well, I think we both realize we won't change the other person's opinion, so why even bother arguing about it)

[sterlingice]

Feel free to set the limits however you think they should be. The first question is whether anybody should ever do jail time for patent infringement. I do not think patent infringement is even treated as criminal.

What type of stealing money do you draw the line at for prison time?

SI

[RendeR]

I think it is quite obvious that not all pirates are the same, matey.

You can't really compare the guy who downloaded the new Pearl Jam re-issue because he already has purchased the CD once before to some dude who is killing people. If you kill a few spiders in your basement it doesn't make you a mass murderer like Dahmer.


Only if you eat them.

[gstelmack]

Both are nothing short of outright theft at their best. If not for the presence of the crew, I'd see no legitimate difference in the two at all. But I'll concede that much of a point.

Maybe a good way to put it is that Somali pirates are more like armed robbers? These guys are certainly in the class of say the Barry Madoff's of the world though. They are making money off my hard work...

[Drake]

What type of stealing money do you draw the line at for prison time?

SI

The guys who own most of my credit line seem to be staying out of prison...and getting government bailouts.

And when they jacked my rate up last month for no discernible reason other than that they wanted to, I call that theft. Corporate theft of consumer money = AOK. Shoe on the other foot = prosecution. Color me disgruntled.

This is a complete t/j, though.

[sterlingice]

The guys who own most of my credit line seem to be staying out of prison...and getting government bailouts.

And when they jacked my rate up last month for no discernible reason other than that they wanted to, I call that theft. Corporate theft of consumer money = AOK. Shoe on the other foot = prosecution. Color me disgruntled.

This is a complete t/j, though.

Hey, I'm with you. There are much worse offenders out there who are going to get off completely and who have greatly profited from this. I wish we could throw a bunch of these guys in jail, but, again that's a threadjack.

SI

[Drake]

To continue the t/j...

The problem with the guys running the Pirate Bay isn't what they did...it's that they didn't make billions of dollars a year doing it so they could get on Forbes list. Once you've joined the club, you can fuck everybody and get away with it.

That said, it's the system we've got. You pay to play, and if you choose not to pay, you accept the consequences.

[Tekneek]

What type of stealing money do you draw the line at for prison time?

I am not sure, but theft of currency is always a crime, isn't it?

I am asking why copyright infringement should be regarded as criminal when patent infringement is not. My contention is that copyright infringement should be a civil matter, just like patent infringement is.

[Sgran]

I'm having a hard time coming up with a good reason to throw these guys in jail. A massive punitive fine would seem to do the trick without taking away a cell that could be used for a violent criminal.

[RainMaker]

So you advocate jail time for copyright infringement? Do you advocate the same for patent infringement? If not, why?

It's theft and in my opinion no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your TV. These guys have facilitated millions and millions of dollars of stolen content. Would somoene in the U.S. who stole millions not go to jail?

[RainMaker]

I am not sure, but theft of currency is always a crime, isn't it?

I am asking why copyright infringement should be regarded as criminal when patent infringement is not. My contention is that copyright infringement should be a civil matter, just like patent infringement is.

Patents infringement is for ideas while copyright is the expression of that idea. They are completely different issues that need to be handled different.

First, patents have much more grey area than copyrights. It's not always cut and dry when someone infringes on someone's patent. Many cases the infringer has no idea that they have done it or simply don't agree that they have.

When it comes to copyrights, the infringer almost always knows what they are doing and knows it's malicious. If I walk into a music store and steal a CD from the shelf, I know what I'm doing. Just as these people knew what they were doing when they facilitated the site.

[SirFozzie]

It's theft and in my opinion no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your TV. These guys have facilitated millions and millions of dollars of stolen content. Would somoene in the U.S. who stole millions not go to jail?

Except you still have your TV and can do whatever you want with it.

I love that analogy, it's gotta be the stupidest one that can be used in that argument. :/ (Nothing against ya Rain, just honestly, that argument is dumb)

[Pumpy Tudors]

and so it begins

lol internet

[Tekneek]

These guys have facilitated millions and millions of dollars of stolen content.

It isn't good enough to simply assume this, there needs to be evidence to back it up.

[Tekneek]

First, patents have much more grey area than copyrights. It's not always cut and dry when someone infringes on someone's patent. Many cases the infringer has no idea that they have done it or simply don't agree that they have.

Even if you know you are infringing on a patent, do you get jail time? I don't think the criminal charge even exists, at least in the USA. They simply get to sue for lost profits and/or lost royalties.

When it comes to copyrights, the infringer almost always knows what they are doing and knows it's malicious. If I walk into a music store and steal a CD from the shelf, I know what I'm doing. Just as these people knew what they were doing when they facilitated the site.

Again, we are not talking about theft of physical property. We are merely talking about the presumption of lost revenues due to an end run around the established distribution model. I don't see how anybody should have to do jail time for this. You simply sue them for lost revenue and get a judgment against them for that amount (or however it may get adjusted by judge/jury).

It is interesting to note that there is talk of tightening the definition of "willful" patent infringement, including limits on the jurisdictions for such claims. At the same time, the tide is moving in the opposite direction for copyright infringement. When you get down to it, they seem very similar to me. Willful infringement is the same, whether it be for patents or copyrights, but one NEVER results in jail time or even a criminal charge, while they may drag you away in cuffs for the other.

[Tekneek]

It is important to look at the history of copyright law to see how it has gone awry, which makes the positions taken by these big businesses less virtuous than it may seem.

Until 1976, copyright lasted a maximum of 56 years in the United States. You got 28 years, and if the author was still alive at the end of that term you could register for another 28 year term (prior to that, a maximum of 28 from 2 14-year terms was good enough for the first 119 years or so of this nation). In 1976, suddenly it went to 75 years, or the life of the author plus 50 years. By 1998, 75 years just wasn't long enough. It became life of the author plus 70 years, or for corporations it was the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. That year, copyright violation became criminal as well. By 2005, they decided to extend the definitions of criminal copyright violation...

If you look into guys like Thomas Edison, and even Alexander Graham Bell, there is evidence that they were patent infringers. They are sold to us as Great American Inventors, though, with a whitewash over what was really going on. Researchers have found patents filed by both of those men that were virtually identical to patents filed by others earlier, down to the notes in the margins. They didn't even try to hide it! At the end of the day, this is all about what is better for big business and worse for the public and individuals. Sure, theft is wrong, but the lobbying efforts behind the changes in copyright law over the past few decades is a challenging ethical position for me as well.

[molson]

Even if you know you are infringing on a patent, do you get jail time? I don't think the criminal charge even exists, at least in the USA. They simply get to sue for lost profits and/or lost royalties.

Again, we are not talking about theft of physical property. We are merely talking about the presumption of lost revenues due to an end run around the established distribution model. I don't see how anybody should have to do jail time for this. You simply sue them for lost revenue and get a judgment against them for that amount (or however it may get adjusted by judge/jury).

It is interesting to note that there is talk of tightening the definition of "willful" patent infringement, including limits on the jurisdictions for such claims. At the same time, the tide is moving in the opposite direction for copyright infringement. When you get down to it, they seem very similar to me. Willful infringement is the same, whether it be for patents or copyrights, but one NEVER results in jail time or even a criminal charge, while they may drag you away in cuffs for the other.

The US isn't exactly locking up people left and right for downloading music.

[Tekneek]

The US isn't exactly locking up people left and right for downloading music.

It is not about whether they ARE doing it, it is about whether they can or not. Also, the "fines" for copyright violation are not restricted to damages (lost revenues, profits, royalties, etc).

[SportsDino]

I've debated copyright since I was a kid, eventually the other side always comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Do I think criminal charges are an appropriate measure? Perhaps. I can easily see someone causing massive damage to intellectual property (i.e. distributing it over say a pirate bay) but not making enough money off of the act to deliver any value for suing them. If its necessary to stop penniless Joe Geekhacker from doing what could potentially be indirect grand theft, then I say it is fine to go to jail time as an option. Do I think it should be used all the time, no, and yes once the precedent is set it will probably be used too much... but I personally think you create punishments (or other remedies) that will stop the crime or repair the damage.

To me its the same as white collar criminals stealing millions or billions of dollars being treated with baby gloves and country club prisons. Stick them in maximum security garbage prisons with the murderers and rapists, as far as I'm concerned they've done as much damage if not more. The idea that some crimes should be inherintly treated as 'no big deal' annoys me.

Yes, I'm assuming I'll get the counter argument that I'm trying to form a lynch mob for every teen who steals a crappy album... which I'm not, I think everything should be pursued rationally and proportionate to the crime.. but oh well, I'm bored of this debate, and for whatever reason the pro-piracy side thinks they have won because the crime has run rampant... majority rules over ethics and common sense I guess (same reason we are so fucked in politics and economics in my opinion). Commence with tearing me apart if you wish while I chuckle in amusement.

[Tekneek]

I am definitely not arguing on a pro-piracy side, but I cannot speak for others in this thread. I am arguing from a copyright reform position.

There are plenty of examples in this country of people, who have nothing, causing harm to others and there being little that can be done about it. The victims just don't have the same kind of lobbying power that big business has to shape the laws in their best interest.

[Glengoyne]

Are you fucking seriously comparing Somali hijacking of a physical ship to copyright infringement? Give me a fucking break. Do you work for the BSA or something?

BSA hijacks Somali pirate hype • Channel Register (http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/04/14/bsa_pirates_are_pirates_are_pirates/)

I think it is quite obvious that not all pirates are the same, matey.

You can't really compare the guy who downloaded the new Pearl Jam re-issue because he already has purchased the CD once before to some dude who is killing people. If you kill a few spiders in your basement it doesn't make you a mass murderer like Dahmer.

Just seeing where you guys draw the line. There is no material difference between downloading a pirated movie and shop lifting something from a department store. They're both theft.

[JPhillips]

It is important to look at the history of copyright law to see how it has gone awry, which makes the positions taken by these big businesses less virtuous than it may seem.

Until 1976, copyright lasted a maximum of 56 years in the United States. You got 28 years, and if the author was still alive at the end of that term you could register for another 28 year term (prior to that, a maximum of 28 from 2 14-year terms was good enough for the first 119 years or so of this nation). In 1976, suddenly it went to 75 years, or the life of the author plus 50 years. By 1998, 75 years just wasn't long enough. It became life of the author plus 70 years, or for corporations it was the earlier of 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication. That year, copyright violation became criminal as well. By 2005, they decided to extend the definitions of criminal copyright violation...

If you look into guys like Thomas Edison, and even Alexander Graham Bell, there is evidence that they were patent infringers. They are sold to us as Great American Inventors, though, with a whitewash over what was really going on. Researchers have found patents filed by both of those men that were virtually identical to patents filed by others earlier, down to the notes in the margins. They didn't even try to hide it! At the end of the day, this is all about what is better for big business and worse for the public and individuals. Sure, theft is wrong, but the lobbying efforts behind the changes in copyright law over the past few decades is a challenging ethical position for me as well.

People forget that the original intent of patents was at least as much for public disclosure of methods as for protection of the inventor. The original intent had nothing to do with making inventors super rich.

As far as this case, I wouldn't argue the morality, as I'd agree it's theft, but I do wish the RIAA would come to grips with the inevitable. Their business model is dying and they likely won't ever make as much money as they did a few decades ago.

[SportsDino]

I should mention, as a wannabe writer/gamemaker who has only created digital content... and as a person who is actively working on patents, I am obviously more biased than ever to ownership rights. Business models, length of the copyright, and procedures for enforcement are all their own issues, and in my opinion not to be entangled into a discussion of whether a creator has the right to protect their work.

If I make a song, and decide I want all copies of it to be made as records, and that each will sell for $100, it is my right to make that decision. It is not up to the mob on the internet to dictate what I must do through criminal activity. Choice of a more practical distribution model is not yours to make, it is mine!

If you can successfully make a coherent argument that does not involve these intanglements, then you are better than 99% of people who argue copyright policy on the internet!

For what its worth, I don't think we need copyrights that last for centuries, and I do think that selling music internet style is a gold mine (just from old fashioned model of lower costs, higher volume, quicker impulse buying forces). But those are outside of whether the RIAA has the right at all to protect its property, just because they are a big giant heartless corporation doesn't excuse unethical behavior. You should punish them with market forces (don't buy and don't steal), pay their price, or become a thief (and pay consequences when caught).

None of the side discussions really matters when you have people stealing content that is only a week old at best, and the fact that their are increasingly convenient alternatives makes the old 'I'm gonna buy it, seriously' argument get weaker and weaker every day. If we want to consider the five finger discount to be legitimate please tell me where you live so I can steal anything that is too inconvenient to pay for at the store.

[Logan]

Just seeing where you guys draw the line. There is no material difference between downloading a pirated movie and shop lifting something from a department store. They're both theft.

Not excusing the piracy at all, but if you shoplift from a department store, the department store is losing the ability to return that item to the supplier along with all the other unsold inventory, which leaves them with a loss. Not the same with piracy. There are differences.

[RainMaker]

Except you still have your TV and can do whatever you want with it.

I love that analogy, it's gotta be the stupidest one that can be used in that argument. :/ (Nothing against ya Rain, just honestly, that argument is dumb)

How is stealing a DVD from Best Buy different from downloading a movie off the Pirate Bay? I don't get why these are so different in your mind.

[RainMaker]

Not excusing the piracy at all, but if you shoplift from a department store, the department store is losing the ability to return that item to the supplier along with all the other unsold inventory, which leaves them with a loss. Not the same with piracy. There are differences.

So shoplifters who are caught with the physical items the sold should not be arrested by the police since the store can return the item back to the supplier?

[Tekneek]

It is not up to the mob on the internet to dictate what I must do through criminal activity.

That's just the problem. Until relatively recently, copyright violation was NOT criminal. You write that line as if it has always been a criminal act. It's similar to people who act like income taxes have always been here (in the USA), or that we have always had to deal with payroll withholdings (and estimated taxes that you pay ahead if self-employed).

The government should not really be in the business of enforcing copyrights and patents (they have it right on patents, but are woefully wrong on copyrights), beyond adjudicating the legal disputes that result from this activity. This doesn't mean that I think copyright violators should get a free ride. It means that I do not think the enforcement arm of the government needs to be playing the copyright police on the side, funded by the general fund. If you want to hire the FBI to be your copyright protection force, then perhaps we can agree on a per hour fee for each agent. You can fund the prosecutors as well, when you want them working your copyright case for you.

[Logan]

So shoplifters who are caught with the physical items the sold should not be arrested by the police since the store can return the item back to the supplier?

He said "there are no material differences." To which I responded "there are differences" and gave an example. Would you like to debate my example and how it is not a difference or would you like to put words in my mouth?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Two things boggle my mind:

1. When it comes to piracy, so many people are willing (and often eager) to admit that they do it. As far as admitting to engaging in illegal activities goes, piracy and marijuana possession/usage are right up there at the top. I'm not really speaking out against either here, but I don't really see too many people happily talking about how they do other illegal things. If I were breaking a law on a regular basis, I'm not sure I'd really be talking about it in front of anybody, much less total strangers.

2. I have yet to see a real justification for piracy. Perhaps I just haven't been looking in the right places or listening to the right people, but I have not found someone who can explain to me how it's OK. I used to pirate software when I was a kid. I distributed pirated software, and I helped people crack copy protection on games. So I've been there, but I don't know what I could've said if someone caught me and asked me why I did it. I did it because I was a kid who couldn't afford the software, but I just thought I really really wanted it. Looking back on it, that doesn't really seem like much of a justification to me, and if I'd ever had to answer that question back then, I'd be kind of embarrassed about that answer now.

Anyway, with those things said, I personally don't care if other people are doing any of this stuff. I don't think they need (or want) me telling them that their actions or right or wrong, so I don't think my opinion matters at all. I'm just amazed that people admit to doing something illegal, and in the case of piracy, can't even really explain why.

[Raiders Army]

So Pumpy, you are amazed that people admit to doing something illegal and you just admitted that you did something illegal? :)

I agree with everything you said though.

[jeff061]

A lot of people actually justify it by saying they are helping the artist/company/whatever distribute their work and creating a positive buzz. That will of course in the long run lead to more sales than it would have otherwise.

I'm comfortable in my choice to just not like most people.

[Alan T]

Two things boggle my mind:

1. When it comes to piracy, so many people are willing (and often eager) to admit that they do it. As far as admitting to engaging in illegal activities goes, piracy and marijuana possession/usage are right up there at the top. I'm not really speaking out against either here, but I don't really see too many people happily talking about how they do other illegal things. If I were breaking a law on a regular basis, I'm not sure I'd really be talking about it in front of anybody, much less total strangers.

2. I have yet to see a real justification for piracy. Perhaps I just haven't been looking in the right places or listening to the right people, but I have not found someone who can explain to me how it's OK. I used to pirate software when I was a kid. I distributed pirated software, and I helped people crack copy protection on games. So I've been there, but I don't know what I could've said if someone caught me and asked me why I did it. I did it because I was a kid who couldn't afford the software, but I just thought I really really wanted it. Looking back on it, that doesn't really seem like much of a justification to me, and if I'd ever had to answer that question back then, I'd be kind of embarrassed about that answer now.

Anyway, with those things said, I personally don't care if other people are doing any of this stuff. I don't think they need (or want) me telling them that their actions or right or wrong, so I don't think my opinion matters at all. I'm just amazed that people admit to doing something illegal, and in the case of piracy, can't even really explain why.


I think people often admit to doing things illegal, but usually they are crimes that are minor infractions that most people don't think lesser of each other for. (An obvious example to me is how many people commonly comment that they drive faster than the speed limit for instance.)

As for a good reason for piracy, there isn't really one. Usually what people provide are rationalizations that they personally use to try to make themselves feel better (or morally correct) about doing something that is wrong. Things such as "The entire industry are crooks" or "My stealing their product actually helps increase their sales if by some chance I like it" are often examples of how people try to justify to themselves or others that doing something wrong isn't necessarily wrong.

I think the entire topic of piracy is a little off the mark from the Pirate Bay case however as there definitely is a grey area comparing piracy to what these guys did (basically empower or accomplice piracy without doing any stealing themselves), so the discussion of how serious what they did is an interesting one to read along with I guess.

[Philliesfan980]

I think it's pretty simple. When given the option of paying for something, or not paying for something, and having little to no risk of getting caught, most humans are going to choose the second option.

Does anyone think that the day of an "end user" getting busted for downloading pirated material is right around the corner? To my knowledge, the only people being targeted, now and historically, have been the distributors. I think if there was any chance of getting in trouble for downloading pirated material, some segment of the downloaders would stop.

[gstelmack]

Not excusing the piracy at all, but if you shoplift from a department store, the department store is losing the ability to return that item to the supplier along with all the other unsold inventory, which leaves them with a loss. Not the same with piracy. There are differences.

The problem with game piracy is that the pirates contact tech support for help, which is loads of fun when they have a pirated pre-release or the pirating has introduced an issue. Then they increase wait times for legitimate customers, plus steal money from the company that released the game.

Pirates that contact tech support (and there are a surprising number of them) DO cost the company money directly.

[jeff061]

Also this:
Slashdot | How Piracy Affected the Launch of Demigod (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/18/0255254)

Demigod is an RTS/RPG hybrid developed by Gas Powered Games and published by Stardock, a company notable for their progressive and lenient stance on DRM (http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/29/2341216&tid=10). The game was set to be released on April 14th, and shipped without any form of copy protection. Unfortunately, retailer Gamestop broke the street date and released it earlier in the week (http://frogboy.impulsedriven.net/article/346061). A day after pointing this out, Gas Powered Games posted some numbers about the players hitting their servers. Roughly 18,000 connections were made from legitimately purchased copies; over 100,000 were made from pirated copies (http://forums.demigodthegame.com/346815). Meanwhile, the servers, which were not yet ready for that level of traffic, buckled under the strain, resulting in poor experiences for people trying to participate in multiplayer. While some reviews were positive (http://www.crispygamer.com/gamereviews/2009-04-15/demigod-pc.aspx), others criticized the game for the connectivity issues (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/demigod/review.html). After another day, they were able to stabilize the servers (http://frogboy.impulsedriven.net/article/346928/Demigod_Day_2_Update) to the point they'd planned on for the original launch.

[gstelmack]

Yup jeff. I've seen pirates flood a message board with complaints about bugs that were fixed during the GM candidate cycle and did not exist in the release build, and I've seen review scores docked because "we didn't have any trouble, but the reports on the message board indicates there are stability issues" from it. Pirates do a heck of a lot more damage than their "I wouldn't have bought it anyway, so I'm not costing them money, and I'm creating positive spin" attitude would indicate.

[cody8200]

I think it's pretty simple. When given the option of paying for something, or not paying for something, and having little to no risk of getting caught, most humans are going to choose the second option.

Does anyone think that the day of an "end user" getting busted for downloading pirated material is right around the corner? To my knowledge, the only people being targeted, now and historically, have been the distributors. I think if there was any chance of getting in trouble for downloading pirated material, some segment of the downloaders would stop.


This won't happen because it is a PR nightmare. They have already tried going after individuals unsuccessfully in many cases. The RIAA in particular have put that "on hold" for now.

People pirate things because they can't afford them and it's easy to do. People want everything. Every game, cd, book, etc that they may like. They can't afford it. So they steal it. Stealing at a store could cause someone to get arrested. Downloading things on the internet involves very little risk.

People today believe they have a right to everything. That is what happens when they grow up hearing from their parents that they can "do anything", "be anything", "be the best", "are the best", etc. It's the same reason that kids expect things to be done for them, have little work ethic, or feel they should be rewarded for mediocre performance.

BTW, I think the argument that downloading music is the same as stealing a cd from a store is bullshit. Unless your saying that a physical cd has no additional worth than downloadable music. And if that's the case, why do cd's bought in the store cost 50% more than if you download them on Itunes?

[Pumpy Tudors]

So Pumpy, you are amazed that people admit to doing something illegal and you just admitted that you did something illegal? :)

I agree with everything you said though.
Well, I admitted that I did something illegal. That was about 15 years ago. I don't have any of that pirated software I talked about anymore, nor do I have a computer capable of running it. :)

[molson]

Also, the "fines" for copyright violation are not restricted to damages (lost revenues, profits, royalties, etc).

That's true of any kind of theft. If you steal a tube of toothpaste, you're going to have to pay back way more than the toothpaste. Otherwise, there's little incentive not to steal it. Not to mention that thieves should help pay back society for the financial losses they cause.

But even assuming copyright infringment is a "lighter" form of theft (or even as some people think, not theft at all), they still get off WAY easy. Even using your civil restitution solution.

Every American with an internet connection has probably stolen at least tens of thousands of dollars of intellectual propertly. Only a very, very, very tiny number has ever had to give anything back.

I remember one of the original justifications for piracy - "It only costs them 10 cents to make the CD!!!!" As if people are entitled to pay cost only. That same argument though, shows you that even when you're stealing a physical CD/DVD, you're stealing mostly intellectual property.

I wonder if the pro-pirate people would have a problem with sneaking into a movie or concert or baseball game they didn't pay for.

[Noop]

I am half and half on this issue. I have had music stolen from me but I have also downloaded albums. If I like the album I usually buy it and delete if I don't like it. I have had a few of my beats stolen on soundclick and couldn't even get mad because I knew the risk. Karma I guess.

[Tekneek]

But even assuming copyright infringment is a "lighter" form of theft (or even as some people think, not theft at all), they still get off WAY easy. Even using your civil restitution solution.

Explain how they get off "way easy" when they make the other entity whole again.

How about when somebody is at fault for an accident, and your car is totaled... They don't buy you a new car. They don't even offer you more than what their research indicates is "fair market value" for the car. You don't get what you want for the car. You don't get what would actually replace the car for you. Depending on the limits of their insurance, you may never get fully compensated back for any of your medical bills related to injuries you may have sustained. They get off WAY EASY. What is your solution for this, if your philosophy is going to be expanded across the board for society? The perpetrators of serious crime, the type that could cause someone problems for the rest of their lives, get off pretty easy since there is virtually no attempt to force them to make you whole (lost income, lost earning potential, etc - depending on the injuries sustained). How does this fit into your philosophy?

Every American with an internet connection has probably stolen at least tens of thousands of dollars of intellectual propertly. Only a very, very, very tiny number has ever had to give anything back.

What support do you have for this claim? Is it based on any research, or just a guess?

[RainMaker]

Explain how they get off "way easy" when they make the other entity whole again.


Please tell how the individual who leaked the Wolverine movie will be able to make Fox whole again. Lets say he makes a $60,000 a year. How will he be able to repay Fox for the millions of dollars in lost revenue?

The problem with piracy and civil cases are the ones stealing are the ones can't possibly compensate the copyright owners.

[Fidatelo]

I don't pirate movies or games, but I do download tv shows and music. I justify the TV shows because I pay for them already via my cable company and the gazillions of ads I watch on there when I do watch things live.

The music is less justifiable. I try to buy anything I really like, but I don't delete the stuff I didn't end up liking enough to buy. I don't pretend that its right though, nor do I feel I 'deserve' it, and as I get older I find I'm less inclined to continue the practice.

That said, until recently the music industry didn't exactly make it easy for me to buy the songs legally. And I do believe that I buy more music on iTunes now than I ever spent on CD's, even back at the height of my music listening days in high-school/college. It's just so easy to find stuff I like and avoid stuff I don't. I can't tell you how many CD's I bought back in the 90's only to discover none of the songs sounded anything like the hit single. And I honestly don't think we'd be where we were in terms of legal purchasing of digital music if it wasn't for Napster et al forcing the music industry's hand.

[RainMaker]

I don't really see the point in downloading music illegally these days. Maybe in the past when songs weren't being sold digitally or individually. But nowadays a song is $0.99. We aren't talking a $15 CD like the old days when you maybe wanted 1 or 2 songs from the artist.

[Tekneek]

Please tell how the individual who leaked the Wolverine movie will be able to make Fox whole again. Lets say he makes a $60,000 a year. How will he be able to repay Fox for the millions of dollars in lost revenue?

Get a judgment. Get liens on property. Get approval to garnish wages. That's what I would have to do if I sued somebody in court. I may never get all my money, but that's the system we have. What good does it do Fox if the guy goes to jail? They could stand to get a lot more from somebody out there earning an income than they will get from somebody behind bars.

The problem with piracy and civil cases are the ones stealing are the ones can't possibly compensate the copyright owners.

So they go to jail? So, what if somebody with the minimum car insurance coverage required in their state is at fault for the destruction of a brand new luxury vehicle. What if they have no assets? What if they are actually unemployed? Do they go to jail because the victim has no way to extract the value of their lost asset?

[sterlingice]

BTW, I think the argument that downloading music is the same as stealing a cd from a store is bullshit. Unless your saying that a physical cd has no additional worth than downloadable music. And if that's the case, why do cd's bought in the store cost 50% more than if you download them on Itunes?

One would think the physical media and distribution (getting said media to store) would cost *some* money. Not necessarily the extra 50% but some of that cost as well as some profit for the record company.

Basically, if it costs, let's say $10 on iTunes and $15 in stores, wouldn't it be broken down something like this:

$9 for music
$1 to distribute on iTunes
$6 to distribute in store

(roughly)

So, basically, either way, if you're downloading or stealing from a store, aren't you basically stealing the most costly part of the music? That is, the music itself?

SI

[RainMaker]

Get a judgment. Get liens on property. Get approval to garnish wages. That's what I would have to do if I sued somebody in court. I may never get all my money, but that's the system we have. What good does it do Fox if the guy goes to jail? They could stand to get a lot more from somebody out there earning an income than they will get from somebody behind bars.

So they go to jail? So, what if somebody with the minimum car insurance coverage required in their state is at fault for the destruction of a brand new luxury vehicle. What if they have no assets? What if they are actually unemployed? Do they go to jail because the victim has no way to extract the value of their lost asset?

The guy who hit the car is not doing it maliciously. Theft is not an accident. If the guy driving the car hit the luxury vehicle on purpose, then yes he should go to jail.

Sending people to jail cuts down on crimes. If stealing DVDs from Best Buy was handled in civil court, everyone would fucking shoplift.

[sterlingice]

Well, I admitted that I did something illegal. That was about 15 years ago. I don't have any of that pirated software I talked about anymore, nor do I have a computer capable of running it. :)

Wanted: Pumpy Tudors
Reward: $50 in 1985 dollars adjusted for inflation + additional damages
Crime: Pirating Oregon Trail for Apple 2E
Last Spotted: Losing an oxen while trying to ford the Kansas River to escape authorities
Warning: Has rifle and boxes of 20 bullets; Has been seen hunting and is a mediocre shot, missing a buffalo on multiple attempts, but still consider armed and extremely dangerous

SI

[Tekneek]

The guy who hit the car is not doing it maliciously. Theft is not an accident. If the guy driving the car hit the luxury vehicle on purpose, then yes he should go to jail.

That is the criteria that takes something from a civil situation to a criminal situation? No malice = civil issue, malice = criminal?

Sending people to jail cuts down on crimes. If stealing DVDs from Best Buy was handled in civil court, everyone would fucking shoplift.

You think so? With the hassle of having to pay BB's court fees and having judgments against them on their credit reports? Everyone would be doing it? Are you really serious? You think people would actually prefer to have the hassles related to civil litigation instead of generally paying for the items they want? You are just trolling with statements like that.

The only real reason to make copyright infringement criminal is to shift the costs of investigation and enforcement to the public sector.

[RainMaker]

You think so? With the hassle of having to pay BB's court fees and having judgments against them on their credit reports? Everyone would be doing it? Are you really serious?

You think Best Buy is going to pay a paralegal, serve me with papers, and then take me to court over a $20 DVD? Especially considering court fees are rarely reimbursed. They'll be out of business in a week.

Also, how do these fine folks at Best Buy get my information? Detaining me is illegal and rummaging through my pockets is illegal too (not to mention I can just leave my ID at home).

[Tekneek]

So, the only thing keeping everyone from stealing everything is the fear of going to jail? If all they had to fear was destroyed credit ratings, inability to get good jobs, and inability to rent from anyone that actually has standards, they would steal constantly?

Also, how do these fine folks at Best Buy get my information? Detaining me is illegal and rummaging through my pockets is illegal too (not to mention I can just leave my ID at home).

How does anybody get sued in civil court then? Somebody must be able to figure it out at some point, you think?

[gstelmack]

The guy who hit the car is not doing it maliciously. Theft is not an accident. If the guy driving the car hit the luxury vehicle on purpose, then yes he should go to jail.

Well, to be fair a number of these folks are drunk, or talking on a cell phone, or driving like maniacs.

[RainMaker]

How does anybody get sued in civil court then? Somebody must be able to figure it out at some point, you think?

It's a serious question. I go in and steal 2 DVD's at Best Buy. What do they do? Every possible civil situation costs them more money long term and is just not viable for them to stay in business.

[RainMaker]

Well, to be fair a number of these folks are drunk, or talking on a cell phone, or driving like maniacs.

Which makes it a crime.

[Tekneek]

Every American with an internet connection has probably stolen at least tens of thousands of dollars of intellectual propertly. Only a very, very, very tiny number has ever had to give anything back.

I would really like to see some justification for this. Is there any data out there that actually supports this?

[Tekneek]

Which makes it a crime.

But does not mean they owe you more money or that they necessarily go to jail. When a drunk driver killed a friend of mine, with his 16th DUI, he did 6 months. When a man ran a red light, while talking on his cellphone, and did permanent brain damage to my stepdad (who had to close up his business and go on disability), the guy only had the insurance to cover a week of his stay in ICU. This man has not served a minute of jail time. How does this jive with your view of the world?

Those are strawmen, you could say, but I'm just looking for your interpretation.

Of course, the arguments about Best Buy are just a red herring meant to distract from the real discussion. My points were always about the criminality of copyright infringement, not about stealing physical objects.

[RainMaker]

But does not mean they owe you more money or that they necessarily go to jail. When a drunk driver killed a friend of mine, with his 16th DUI, he did 6 months. When a man ran a red light, while talking on his cellphone, and did permanent brain damage to my stepdad (who had to close up his business and go on disability), the guy only had the insurance to cover a week of his stay in ICU. This man has not served a minute of jail time. How does this jive with your view of the world?

Those are strawmen, you could say, but I'm just looking for your interpretation.

Of course, the arguments about Best Buy are just a red herring meant to distract from the real discussion. My points were always about the criminality of copyright infringement, not about stealing physical objects.

It seems your issue is with the length of punishment. They should be longer I'm assuming, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime. Just that you don't feel the penalties are severe enough.

So a movie that is placed on a DVD is different than a movie placed in a digital format? Are you saying that unless the item is a physical object, it should not be treated criminally?

[Tekneek]

So a movie that is placed on a DVD is different than a movie placed in a digital format? Are you saying that unless the item is a physical object, it should not be treated criminally?

They aren't going after these people for theft. They are going after them for copyright violation. If they were the same thing, why would they be called entirely different things?

[RainMaker]

They aren't going after these people for theft. They are going after them for copyright violation. If they were the same thing, why would they be called entirely different things?

One is used to describe the theft of physical property while the other is used to describe the theft of intellectual property. Copyright Infringement is considered theft by our government.

[Tekneek]

Copyright Infringement is considered theft by our government.

But they are not the same. Which pretty clearly explains why it is not exactly the same as stealing a DVD from Best Buy, despite your attempts to portray it that way. If it were exactly the same, the criminal charge would be the same, wouldn't it?

[RainMaker]

But they are not the same. Which pretty clearly explains why it is not exactly the same as stealing a DVD from Best Buy, despite your attempts to portray it that way. If it were exactly the same, the criminal charge would be the same, wouldn't it?

They are not the same but both considered theft. Just as petty theft and grand theft are different versions of theft.

You are trying to say that whether something is in physical format or not should determine whether something is a civil or criminal issue. A movie is a movie.

[Tekneek]

You are trying to say that whether something is in physical format or not should determine whether something is a civil or criminal issue. A movie is a movie.

I am saying that your attempts to make it exactly the same as taking a movie from Best Buy are wrong right from the start, because they are not even treated the same under the law. If I steal a movie from Best Buy, they will NOT charge me with copyright infringement. It is the making and distributing of unauthorized copies that is copyright infringement, which is DIFFERENT than walking out of a store with a DVD.

[RainMaker]

I am saying that your attempts to make it exactly the same as taking a movie from Best Buy are wrong right from the start, because they are not even treated the same under the law. If I steal a movie from Best Buy, they will NOT charge me with copyright infringement. It is the making and distributing of unauthorized copies that is copyright infringement, which is DIFFERENT than walking out of a store with a DVD.

Both are considered theft and a criminal activity. They have different names and different punishments. You are the one trying to say that if something isn't in physical format, it shouldn't be a criminal case.

[Tekneek]

Both are considered theft and a criminal activity.

Only in recent times. That is a relatively new change to the way copyright infringement is handled. You are dishonest if you claim that copyright infringement has always been a criminal matter. Copyright law has existed in this nation since 1790. I wonder why infringement only became criminal within the past 15 years or so, if it has always been a crime? Please explain.

They have different names and different punishments. You are the one trying to say that if something isn't in physical format, it shouldn't be a criminal case.

Indeed, because it served us just fine for the first 200+ years of copyright law in this nation. I see no need for government (aka taxpayers) to foot the bill now (which is the real magic behind making it criminal).

[RainMaker]

Only in recent times. That is a relatively new change to the way copyright infringement is handled. You are dishonest if you claim that copyright infringement has always been a criminal matter. Copyright law has existed in this nation since 1790. I wonder why infringement only became criminal within the past 15 years or so, if it has always been a crime? Please explain.

Indeed, because it served us just fine for the first 200+ years of copyright law in this nation. I see no need for government (aka taxpayers) to foot the bill now (which is the real magic behind making it criminal).

Times have changed and so has technology. That is why laws have evolved. There was no way that we could have foreseen music and movies being transfered digitally from one person to another in seconds 50 years ago.

I just think it's absurd that you want to make the theft of something criminal because you can hold it in your hand but civil if it can't be held in your hand. Just doesn't work in this day in age.

[Tekneek]

I just think it's absurd that you want to make the theft of something criminal because you can hold it in your hand but civil if it can't be held in your hand. Just doesn't work in this day in age.

Wonder why that was the case for 200+ years then? I understand the changes in the world, but if it should have always been criminal, why wasn't it?

[RainMaker]

Wonder why that was the case for 200+ years then? I understand the changes in the world, but if it should have always been criminal, why wasn't it?

So if someone logs into your bank account online and steals your money, it should be handled in civil court, right?

[Tekneek]

So if someone logs into your bank account online and steals your money, it should be handled in civil court, right?

No, but I guarantee it won't be called copyright infringement and it won't be a situation where it was a civil issue for 200+ years. You are totally awesome at completely distorting the real issue.

[RainMaker]

No, but I guarantee it won't be called copyright infringement and it won't be a situation where it was a civil issue for 200+ years. You are totally awesome at completely distorting the real issue.

Slavery was also a civil issue 200 years ago and had been one across the globe for centuries. The argument that just because something was treated a certain way 200 years ago it should be treated the same now is absurd. Especially when you consider the massive technological advances we've seen.

Not everyone wants to live under the same laws we had in the 1800's.

[gstelmack]

Music may be a touchier area for some folks because there is no tech support, etc (it's much like how people used to record songs from radio on to tape). Video games certainly lead to direct stealing when I talk about tech support and generating a "buggy" reputation from pre-release stolen builds.

When we talk about tech, one key difference is the ability to produce "perfect" copies in the modern age. It used to be that each analog-produced copy was worse quality than the original, but in the age of digital no quality need be lost. That has made a difference as well. Books used to be expensive to make copies of, now it's dirt cheap.

[Tekneek]

When we talk about tech, one key difference is the ability to produce "perfect" copies in the modern age. It used to be that each analog-produced copy was worse quality than the original, but in the age of digital no quality need be lost. That has made a difference as well. Books used to be expensive to make copies of, now it's dirt cheap.

I do not know, but are you claiming that the vast majority of copyright infringement w/ music is in loss-less audio formats? If so, then it really could be a situation of perfect copies. If it isn't in a loss-less format, then there is definitely going to be degradation from the original.

[Tekneek]

Slavery was also a civil issue 200 years ago and had been one across the globe for centuries.

Now the slavery comparison is made. Bravo. That has to do with human rights. Not exactly the same and you must know this in your heart (I hope).

The argument that just because something was treated a certain way 200 years ago it should be treated the same now is absurd.

Not 200 years ago, big guy. It wasn't even criminal 30 years ago. It wasn't even criminal 20 years ago. Doesn't mean you did not have the right to sue someone who violated your copyright, but they didn't go to jail for it.

Especially when you consider the massive technological advances we've seen.

Things change. You adapt to the new reality. You don't suddenly create new criminals. I know that isn't the way most people think, though.

Not everyone wants to live under the same laws we had in the 1800's.

Indeed.

[RainMaker]

So is your entire argument for being against criminalizing intellectual property theft is that the law was different from the 1800's up till a decade or so ago?

The Supreme Court would be thoroughly impressed with the argument.

[Tekneek]

The Supreme Court would be thoroughly impressed with the argument.

Maybe even as impressed as I am with your strawman parade.

[SirFozzie]

Funny, Rain, your courts and the US Courts don't seem to agree....

Groklaw - Judge Tells RIAA Attorney: "Stop Using Abusive Language, Like Calling File Sharing 'Piracy'" (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040205005057966)

From the Judge

"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."

[RainMaker]

Funny, Rain, your courts and the US Courts don't seem to agree....

Groklaw - Judge Tells RIAA Attorney: "Stop Using Abusive Language, Like Calling File Sharing 'Piracy'" (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040205005057966)

From the Judge

"Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language."

We were discussing whether stealing intellectual property is considered theft, not file sharing. The judge in that case ruled that the file sharing had legitimate legal uses and was talking specifically about that.

[SirFozzie]

But File Sharing IS stealing IP, I thought.. that's the argument you were trying to make before. Ergo, File Sharing=Theft to you.. but not at the least settled at the legal level (or if it is settled, that it is NOT)

[RainMaker]

But File Sharing IS stealing IP, I thought.. that's the argument you were trying to make before. Ergo, File Sharing=Theft to you.. but not at the least settled at the legal level (or if it is settled, that it is NOT)

Not at all. File sharing is a method of transferring files. It is often used to steal intellectual property, but that doesn't make it theft.

[Tekneek]

We were discussing whether stealing intellectual property is considered theft, not file sharing.

I'm open to the concept that "stealing" intellectual property could be criminal. What they commonly call "copyright infringement" is not the stealing of intellectual property, it is the unauthorized distribution of intellectual property. Not quite the same as stealing it outright so that the original owner doesn't even have it anymore.

[MJ4H]

Um, file sharing is perfectly legal. It is only if the information contained in the file is protected in some way that we have an issue. There is nothing inherently bad about file sharing. The internet is practically based on it.

[SportsDino]

You can't make any money off intellectual property if you don't control the rights to its distribution. It is a completely illogical argument to say that you are 'not stealing' anything because they still have the original 'copy'.

If you can't understand how it is a crime, imagine big giant corporations as the villains committing these acts. If you can say that giant RIAA, instead of paying artists, instead systematically copies their intellectual content and undercuts the price of the original artist (free distribution with ads)... and that you wouldn't have a problem with that, well at least you would be drinking your own kool aid.

For every imaginative writer, artist, or singer (not to mention inventor), there are probably 99 other mouth breathing morons in this world. Given how much of a pain it is already to get paid for creating something awesome, do you really want to undercut the entire capability of them to make a profit at all? If it comes down to a vote the mob will always select screw the minority, even if in the long run it means so many wonderful pieces of art will never see the light of day. That is why we have to have ethics, and develop and update laws to comply with them. Quit taking away an artist's rights just because a crowd is a selfish pile of jerks that are enjoying a grey area in between laws being redefined for a new age.

Edit: File sharing itself is not illegal. It merely is a form of communication. The legal issue is the ability to create entire copies (either perfect or with some loss). There are even exceptions for fair use so people can communicate about intellectual property without breaking the law, but there is a threshold for that so the original creator of the idea still has some profit incentive. Even compressed music does not meet that threshold, it is like changing the title to 'A' Lord of the Rings and occaisonally chopping a sentence here and there, still wrong!

[MJ4H]

I love that post with all my heart.

[Tekneek]

You can't make any money off intellectual property if you don't control the rights to its distribution. It is a completely illogical argument to say that you are 'not stealing' anything because they still have the original 'copy'.

Theft of revenues, perhaps. Those are the damages.

If you can't understand how it is a crime, imagine big giant corporations as the villains committing these acts. If you can say that giant RIAA, instead of paying artists, instead systematically copies their intellectual content and undercuts the price of the original artist (free distribution with ads)... and that you wouldn't have a problem with that, well at least you would be drinking your own kool aid.

What are you talking about? I've been advocating suing people/companies for violations the whole time. I suppose you may be talking about someone else, because I have never once said anybody gets a free ride here. If a big company were to do it, you sue them and take the money you would've made. Perhaps you've been drinking some other kind of kool aid.

Given how much of a pain it is already to get paid for creating something awesome, do you really want to undercut the entire capability of them to make a profit at all?

If a violator of your copyright goes to jail, how much does that add to your bank account?

If it comes down to a vote the mob will always select screw the minority, even if in the long run it means so many wonderful pieces of art will never see the light of day. That is why we have to have ethics, and develop and update laws to comply with them. Quit taking away an artist's rights just because a crowd is a selfish pile of jerks that are enjoying a grey area in between laws being redefined for a new age.

Were we not seeing any good art produced in the United States of America prior to the '90s? This is a relevant question because that is when copyright violation in itself finally became criminal. Good thing they finally came around and made copyright violation criminal, or we might never have amounted to squat.

[Tekneek]

Even compressed music does not meet that threshold, it is like changing the title to 'A' Lord of the Rings and occaisonally chopping a sentence here and there, still wrong!

This analogy seems weak. It would be much more like chopping off a few lines from the top and bottom of every page.

[SportsDino]

You seem to have a big hangup on whether it is civil or criminal court. I think in an ideal world where civil suits were easy and efficient, I might agree, but if the problem and scope is getting out of hand (as it clearly is), I think it is well within the government to consider it a matter of public policy to criminalize the behavior. I believe that is what occurred, it is not some magical overnight matter of "we want to imprison bootleggers".

Really to me this is really no different than how physical theft should be treated. You have your minor shoplifting treated as a misdemeanor, or you have your grand theft (say stealing revenues on 100,000 copies of a video game, what is that, three to five million, certainly a felony). Apparently, as a matter of promoting the public good, theft has been considered a matter for enforcement in the criminal courts... even though it could clearly be handled as a purely civil matter (in theory). So explain the difference, especially now that you've basically admitted that a theft is occurring (consider it a theft of cash as a parallel if a published work is too abstract to consider).

If the violator goes to jail, at the very least I can assume for some amount of time he is not going to be actively distributing my content. It also acts as a disincentive to performing the act again. It is a matter of the courts to assign reasonable punishments to convictions, and they can, and have, been challenged throughout our history. Also, I'm reasonably sure that conviction in a criminal court does not prevent seeking a lawsuit in civil court for damages.

Finally, there was plenty of great works created before the concept of copyright law was even considered. The problem for thieves was that replication of a statue, book, or other such work often was more difficult than just snatching the original. As reproduction of works becomes easier, laws have changed. If it takes criminal courts to stop piracy, I would prefer that over just saying content creators are screwed, and need to go to great lengths to protect their work in addition to its original creation.

A better analogy would be to take a copy of lord of the rings, and smudge the ink here and there, but such that it is still readable. Sure you are 'losing content' but not such to the point you are missing words or actions from the story. With the common compression there is these days, its hard to even call it truly lossy... you need to be a technician to understand how its any different (or have a good ear).

[Atocep]

I'll start this off with the following disclaimer: I don't pirate games. The only music I've ever downloaded are songs I've bought at one point or another in my life and either had the physical copy stolen, lost, scratched to shit, or something else that keeps me from listening to it. I don't support it, but I know its the reality of today's market.

However, I do know quite a few people that pirate games for one reason or another. Some just do it because its free stuff. Some do it to give a game a serious try before buying. Some do it for a mix of the two reasons above. One friend I have does it because he lives in South Korea now and even though he would gladly pay for the games he plays, he's unable to in most cases. He can't use D2D, he can't use Steam, and he can't buy games from stores there because they're Korean copies.

The problem with the industries, and throughout this thread, is that there's a significant failure to adapt to the current market. You can stomp your feet, claim that whatever business model used is your right to choose, and complain when your shit gets pirated or you can adapt to the situation. Whether people like it or not, the public is who chooses whether or not your business model works. Whether it fails because your product sucks or because you made it easy for people to steal is really inconsiquential because, when it comes down to it, you failed.

Stardock is mentioned above because of the Demi-god disaster, but at the same time Stardock has embraced piracy and for a couple reasons. They have zero copy protection on their games because 1.) They've realized that out of the people that pirate their games a small percentage would probably still buy them if no pirated copies were available and you can write it off all you want, but word of mouth from the people that pirate does help sales and 2.) They want to treat their customers like paying customers instead of assuming everyone is going to steal their games. Yes, they got screwed over in this scenario, but I think even stardock would admit the word of mouth from playing thier games has helped them build a following.

Gabe Newell from Valve stated earlier this year that Valve treats pirates as paying customers. He said the trick is to find a business model that gives people a reason to buy their games rather than pirate them. If you look at Left for Dead, you can go online and download the single player game and its ok, but nothing special. Where Left for Dead shines is in its multiplayer gameplayer, which requires a purchased copy to play.

There are games out there now that advertise the fact that they don't use copy protection because they want their game on as many computers as possible. The puzzle quest games immediately come to mind here.

This thread actually gives a lot of insight as to why the industries refuse to change. People simply expect everyone to do things the way they want them to be done rather than changing the way they do things in order to maximize their profits.

[Tekneek]

You seem to have a big hangup on whether it is civil or criminal court. I think in an ideal world where civil suits were easy and efficient, I might agree, but if the problem and scope is getting out of hand (as it clearly is), I think it is well within the government to consider it a matter of public policy to criminalize the behavior. I believe that is what occurred, it is not some magical overnight matter of "we want to imprison bootleggers".

I find it very interesting that copyright terms have been extended at the same time that enforcement of them has become so difficult that it has to be handed over to the government. It seems to me that the pendulum has swung too far. Not only do they get copyright terms that are longer than many will live to see, but they get criminal prosecutions to boot.

So explain the difference, especially now that you've basically admitted that a theft is occurring (consider it a theft of cash as a parallel if a published work is too abstract to consider).

A bad choice of words by me. More like causing a loss of revenue, which is not the same thing as stealing it outright. I simply see copyright infringement as a end run around the typical distribution model. It would be more like a company that has a policy to only allow certain authorized dealers to peddle their product, and somebody else comes along and starts selling it (or even giving it away) without proper authorization. This, in itself, is not criminal. It is going to be a civil matter handled before a judge. Any involvement of law enforcement will likely be limited to the enforcement of a cease-and-desist order (once that order has been violated).

If the violator goes to jail, at the very least I can assume for some amount of time he is not going to be actively distributing my content. It also acts as a disincentive to performing the act again. It is a matter of the courts to assign reasonable punishments to convictions, and they can, and have, been challenged throughout our history. Also, I'm reasonably sure that conviction in a criminal court does not prevent seeking a lawsuit in civil court for damages.

Of course you can still sue for damages. However, aren't you more likely to collect from someone who is not behind bars in a correctional facility? I understand the urge for more punitive measures to be in place. That merely having a chance to recover your lost revenue does not provide the emotional relief that watching somebody get taken away in an orange jumpsuit would.

Finally, there was plenty of great works created before the concept of copyright law was even considered. The problem for thieves was that replication of a statue, book, or other such work often was more difficult than just snatching the original. As reproduction of works becomes easier, laws have changed. If it takes criminal courts to stop piracy, I would prefer that over just saying content creators are screwed, and need to go to great lengths to protect their work in addition to its original creation.

Are content creators really screwed? Do we know this to be true? It is hard to find good data to support the positions of any side when it comes to this, because it appears to often be shaped to support whatever cause is being promoted. Perhaps you could point me to some trustworthy sources that could help me form a new view of this situation.

With the common compression there is these days, its hard to even call it truly lossy... you need to be a technician to understand how its any different (or have a good ear).

It depends on the kind of music you listen to. Many classical recordings that I have heard with the standard compression found in iTunes, for example, are hardly what the originals are. You lose the dynamic range required to really appreciate what some of these composers (and performers) were doing.

Compressed music certainly is worth more than nothing, but to declare it a perfect copy of the original is absurd.

[CU Tiger]

I generally stay out of these threads, because I have a skewed view in most peoples eyes.

That being: If I am an artist and I paint a famous painting and then stand on the street corner handing out photo copies, can I be upset if someone copies and freely distributes one of my copies? To me this is what radio does and why I think many people have a disassociation with file downloading and theft.

A more interesting question to me is, what about the music that would never be purchased? An example "American Pie" (The Don McClean song not the movie) is an American classic and one I have a "pirated" copy of on my MP3 player, however would never in a million years have paid even $.99 for it(and I can assure you its not the only one), have I harmed anyone?

Secondly the thought that intellectual property is 90 or 80 or even 60% of a CD cost is ludicrous. To suggest so ignores hard material (CD, Jewel Case, and liner material and production), distribution (most would be shocked how significant this is), advertising and marketing, and other artist fees (cover art, producng, etc.) and RADIO PROMOTION..thats right you pay so they can give it away to others for free.

What if I buy a CD and then play it on a boom box on my dock at such a level that the entire lake can hear the music free of charge....have I unfairly distributed their music?
Would I be due a promotion and distribution fee?

I think the intellectual property argument is weak at best since MOST artists make 80% of their income off concert and merchandise sales, as a result it CAN be argued that pirates help promote the artist.

Do I download music? I have however I currently have no means of which to download it on my PC but wouldnt mind changing that.

Do I think its "wrong"? I guess on some level, yeah.

Is it the business of the gov't? HELL NO!

[gstelmack]

I do not know, but are you claiming that the vast majority of copyright infringement w/ music is in loss-less audio formats? If so, then it really could be a situation of perfect copies. If it isn't in a loss-less format, then there is definitely going to be degradation from the original.

A better way to put it is it gets copied once into a lossy format, but additional copies are perfect copies of that. You don't continue to lose quality after the first copy.

But lots of pirated movies, for example, are perfect rips from the original DVD, and there is nothing stopping pirates from ripping perfect copies of CDs. Most just chose to go with low bit-rate MP3 for size convenience.

[molson]

That being: If I am an artist and I paint a famous painting and then stand on the street corner handing out photo copies, can I be upset if someone copies and freely distributes one of my copies? To me this is what radio does and why I think many people have a disassociation with file downloading and theft.



They can freely distribute your copies all they want. But they can't make copies of your work - that right belongs solely to you. Of course, if you could care less, nobody's going to get in any trouble.



A more interesting question to me is, what about the music that would never be purchased? An example "American Pie" (The Don McClean song not the movie) is an American classic and one I have a "pirated" copy of on my MP3 player, however would never in a million years have paid even $.99 for it(and I can assure you its not the only one), have I harmed anyone?



You individually, probably not. But a billion downloads a day, that will hurt the entertainment industry and the entire economy. Even if nobody would ever pay for that song otherwise - it creates a culture where stealing is OK, and if you want something, you feel you're entitled to have it (there have already been more than a million downloads of the Wolverine movie).

Technotainment on Variety.com (http://weblogs.variety.com/technotainment/2009/04/wolverine-has-been-downloaded-over-one-million-times-does-it-matter.html)



I think the intellectual property argument is weak at best since MOST artists make 80% of their income off concert and merchandise sales, as a result it CAN be argued that pirates help promote the artist.



There's no doubt pirates can help promote the artist. That's the artist's call though, not the customer's. If the artists think that lots of people getting free stuff will help them out - they can give away lots of free stuff. Companies do this all the time. But if the artists DON'T want to give away mass free stuff, it's a silly argument to say that it's actually good for them. That's THEIR call. I mean, why in any universe should that be the decision of the customer, that sums of the sense of entitlement very well.

[JPhillips]

Finally, there was plenty of great works created before the concept of copyright law was even considered. The problem for thieves was that replication of a statue, book, or other such work often was more difficult than just snatching the original. As reproduction of works becomes easier, laws have changed. If it takes criminal courts to stop piracy, I would prefer that over just saying content creators are screwed, and need to go to great lengths to protect their work in addition to its original creation.

Here I would disagree. For centuries artists had no legal claim to their work. Live performance was often copied and claimed as another individual's work. The song or bit wasn't what separated performers, but the virtuosity of the performer. Only in the twentieth century when previously live performances could be recorded and sold did a singer or actor have any hope of making money on the text/music.

That's one of the reasons I'm torn on this. As an actor/director I feel a great sense of ownership to my work, but I also understand that the distribution of other work inspires my own. Also, the means of protecting the artist has more often been a way of shifting the profits from the artist to the producer.

[Raiders Army]

I was reading the NY Times Editorial on the possible end of paper news and was reminded of this thread. In a way I wonder how much difference there is between downloading copyrighted music illegally and cutting and pasting news (much like I did in the first post of the thread). Somebody went out there and had to get the information for the article and the newspaper (or whatever media source) had to pay that person to write it, pay for the servers, etc.

[SirFozzie]

Well, in the US, it's strictly civil, overseas it's criminal. The RIAA wanted it to be criminal (as so to push the investigating costs to the Department of Justice, while they would get the settlements), but it's not yet.. we haven't gotten that far.. yet.

[JPhillips]

I was reading the NY Times Editorial on the possible end of paper news and was reminded of this thread. In a way I wonder how much difference there is between downloading copyrighted music illegally and cutting and pasting news (much like I did in the first post of the thread). Somebody went out there and had to get the information for the article and the newspaper (or whatever media source) had to pay that person to write it, pay for the servers, etc.

The issue for newspapers is advertising. No one has been able to come up with an online model that makes anywhere near as much in ad revenue as newspapers used to. It may deny them a slight amount of ad revenue, but even sending everyone to their site won't equal the ad revenue from paper copies.

[Tekneek]

But lots of pirated movies, for example, are perfect rips from the original DVD, and there is nothing stopping pirates from ripping perfect copies of CDs. Most just chose to go with low bit-rate MP3 for size convenience.

So, if you simply choose to degrade the quality out of convenience, rather than lack of options, you are guilty of making a perfect copy? If you lack the technology to even have a chance at a perfect copy, you're doing alright?

[Tekneek]

If the artists think that lots of people getting free stuff will help them out - they can give away lots of free stuff.

That is not entirely true. There have been artists out there who have had DMCA notices served on them by the record label.

[Tekneek]

Well, in the US, it's strictly civil, overseas it's criminal. The RIAA wanted it to be criminal (as so to push the investigating costs to the Department of Justice, while they would get the settlements), but it's not yet.. we haven't gotten that far.. yet.

Are you sure? Perhaps you should take a closer look at both the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act).

[Raiders Army]

The issue for newspapers is advertising. No one has been able to come up with an online model that makes anywhere near as much in ad revenue as newspapers used to. It may deny them a slight amount of ad revenue, but even sending everyone to their site won't equal the ad revenue from paper copies.

Understood, but I guess what I was getting at was how much difference in terms of theft is there between cutting and pasting an article and illegally acquiring music?

[Danny]

Understood, but I guess what I was getting at was how much difference in terms of theft is there between cutting and pasting an article and illegally acquiring music?

I think this is the problem with making copyright theft a criminal offense. I'm not debating it morally, but making it criminal could be a slippery slope. What you post above is copyright violation. Frankly, I don't have faith in the government to properly assert whether one form of copyright violation should be a criminal offense or not.

[gstelmack]

So, if you simply choose to degrade the quality out of convenience, rather than lack of options, you are guilty of making a perfect copy? If you lack the technology to even have a chance at a perfect copy, you're doing alright?

The point was that before, every copy made kept degrading the quality. This is not true anymore, and any degradation is the choice of the person making the copy.

[gstelmack]

A more interesting question to me is, what about the music that would never be purchased? An example "American Pie" (The Don McClean song not the movie) is an American classic and one I have a "pirated" copy of on my MP3 player, however would never in a million years have paid even $.99 for it(and I can assure you its not the only one), have I harmed anyone?

My big stink with this has been that if you were talking about a video game, a fair chunk of those who steal it in this manner then call asking for tech support. Or as seen in the Demigod issue, flood the servers blocking out legitimate customers. In those cases, yes you are harming folks.

[Tekneek]

The point was that before, every copy made kept degrading the quality. This is not true anymore, and any degradation is the choice of the person making the copy.

So therefore it must become a criminal act?

[SportsDino]

Like I said at the very start, every argument comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Every one of these fallacious arguments can be applied to another crime that everyone will acknowledge is a wrong thing to do. Copyright has become a 'special' case jsut because so many people have done it they think it has to get a special status. Unfortunately, this was inevitable, back when I started this whole stance the internet was still fairly primitive. All the arguments were around how the numbers would be small, the quality and bandwidth would turn people off, the conversion rates of pirates into sales would be huge. Every single one of those went exactly how I thought it would years ago, and the consequences panned out about the same:

- Piracy has grown in numbers dramatically, you are now considered the exception if you don't think it is okay.

- Bandwidth has grown massively, and the ability to copy at high quality improved, and the ability to transmit efficiently has improved. So the 'bad copy' argument is already dead, and if not it will be in a couple years as everyone is on the giant GB measured pipe.

- Conversion rates of pirates are still low. So low that the whole 'there isn't enough data' bullshit you keep spouting should actually be applied to the theory of piracy leading to sales, not the other way around.

As for the consequences:

- Companies would eventually take it seriously and increase efforts to attack pirates. Check.

- Some companies would crunch the numbers and find a way to make a profit off it as a business. Check.

- Pricing and profits of those businesses will be under a lot of downward pressure due to their 'free competition', and the supposed morality of pirates will make the transition to paying for something that 'used to be free' slow. Check (in my opinion).

You are not entitled to luxury goods, like music, books, movies, and so on. If they don't sell it in Korea, tough. If they don't provide it through the channel you want, at the price you want, tough. If you get thrown in jail when you pursue your other options (theft), tough.

Stealing material is not a market force, it is a security cost. Pirates are why we are seeing terrible DRM software that makes paying customers incapable of using a product many times. Pirates are why software companies need to have a lawyer available to file takedown requests all the time. Pirates are the simplest example of a free loader in economics, there are half a million papers you could read about how they impact systems in a negative fashion (in or out of the field of intellectual property).

[gstelmack]

So therefore it must become a criminal act?

No, because the ease with which you can make high quality copies has turned copyright from "I printed and sold a few books I didn't have the rights to" to "I stole that album/game/movie before the public could buy it and distributed it for free across the globe". The amount of damage you can do is much greater now.

[Atocep]

Like I said at the very start, every argument comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Every one of these fallacious arguments can be applied to another crime that everyone will acknowledge is a wrong thing to do. Copyright has become a 'special' case jsut because so many people have done it they think it has to get a special status. Unfortunately, this was inevitable, back when I started this whole stance the internet was still fairly primitive. All the arguments were around how the numbers would be small, the quality and bandwidth would turn people off, the conversion rates of pirates into sales would be huge. Every single one of those went exactly how I thought it would years ago, and the consequences panned out about the same:

- Piracy has grown in numbers dramatically, you are now considered the exception if you don't think it is okay.

- Bandwidth has grown massively, and the ability to copy at high quality improved, and the ability to transmit efficiently has improved. So the 'bad copy' argument is already dead, and if not it will be in a couple years as everyone is on the giant GB measured pipe.

- Conversion rates of pirates are still low. So low that the whole 'there isn't enough data' bullshit you keep spouting should actually be applied to the theory of piracy leading to sales, not the other way around.

As for the consequences:

- Companies would eventually take it seriously and increase efforts to attack pirates. Check.

- Some companies would crunch the numbers and find a way to make a profit off it as a business. Check.

- Pricing and profits of those businesses will be under a lot of downward pressure due to their 'free competition', and the supposed morality of pirates will make the transition to paying for something that 'used to be free' slow. Check (in my opinion).

You are not entitled to luxury goods, like music, books, movies, and so on. If they don't sell it in Korea, tough. If they don't provide it through the channel you want, at the price you want, tough. If you get thrown in jail when you pursue your other options (theft), tough.

Stealing material is not a market force, it is a security cost. Pirates are why we are seeing terrible DRM software that makes paying customers incapable of using a product many times. Pirates are why software companies need to have a lawyer available to file takedown requests all the time. Pirates are the simplest example of a free loader in economics, there are half a million papers you could read about how they impact systems in a negative fashion (in or out of the field of intellectual property).


And this comes down to you wanting the market to act the way you expect it should based on your morals. Its not working that way so instead of destroying your customer base and getting bad PR more time should be spent finding out ways to get people to want to pay for your goods rather than finding ways to punish those that don't.

Best Buy keeps getting brought up comparing digital theft to physical theft, but if best buy had a problem with people stealing their goods do you think they would put in security measures that would make people uncomfortable going into their store, hope that the police just fix everything for them, or would they attempt to find some non-intrusive security measures?

[SportsDino]

What penalty would you assign to someone who leaked some movie prior to release and is watched by millions of people (say piracy of movies becomes as popular as music)... and they decide not to buy a ticket for it now?

Say only ten percent are determined to actually willing to go see the movie if they didn't get that preview. So 100,000 tickets multipled by what, $5 a generous ticket price these days... are you saying the only remedy should be a civil suit for $500,000? That will probably take the pirate, likely some half-assed college student, about 30 to 40 years to payoff?

Oh, and put the burden of proof on finding said pirate on the movie company to begin with... like they have an investigation arm that can track the entire internet and locate the pirates. And have them do it for every movie they release, and so on...

The public can criminalize anything it wants to, see example A marijuana, at some point it comes down to a public policy decision that was made by the government for some reason in the public interest.

It seems you want to argue that it is not in the public interest to pursue this crime through criminal courts. In that case, prove it. Show me a good, ethical reason, that it is not in the public interest to protect copyright. "What about the poor itsy bitsy pirates, and sticking it to those big meanie music men!" is not good enough, I'll let you know in advance. Rooting for the underdog is not particularly an ethical question, it might just feel good (like getting away with a bank robbery scott-free would probably feel good).

[Atocep]

The public can criminalize anything it wants to, see example A marijuana, at some point it comes down to a public policy decision that was made by the government for some reason in the public interest.


Way off topic, but this is a really bad example for proving your point. The criminalization of marijuana had everything to do with the government (actually a very small number of people in the gov't) enforcing their morals on the American people for their own gains.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Very side-point, because I agree with most of what SportsDino and others have been saying, but anyone who doesn't go see the Wolverine movie based on the leak is a moron. I didn't pirate it, but was curious to see a small video of what it looked like and it was just ridiculous. Most visual effects were missing, and a lot of the time it just looked silly.

[SportsDino]

Best Buy already has enough bad policies, but if 'everyone' started yanking DVDs off the shelves instead of paying for them... I am pretty sure after the first million they would get pissed off enough to put in even draconian measures.

You are bringing up the whole 'piracy as a market force' debate which I've battled before, but that comes down to "you cannot compete with free". It is simply impossible. Like I said before, there are 99% morons out there, and 1% creators... so by default the market is 'gimme gimme, I'm a selfish turd, I want it and I can get it without spending my money, so its mine, fuck you nerd!'. The only thing stopping that mob is the law, I think piracy among everything else in our modern society shows that the morale compass often is ignored in favor of the selfish ego.

This is not a market, if you had even a hint of economic knowledge I'd bother to go down the path of how looters and free loaders completely devestate market economies. A market implies trade, this is not trade, it is theft, I don't see why fools can't understand that. If I could steal the physical fruits of your labor, I would be exactly the same as a pirate (although you guys say because its a copy that its not stealing). If you want to go even more abstract, we could apply some variant of 'tragedy of the commons' to the problem, and show similar damage to the inventor, namely that the faster a unique contribution is diluted without profit to the creator, that incentive or ability to create declines rapidly.

In all of these cases, it is not 'market forces' that causes the situation to resolve. It is the creation of an external force to enforce laws that ban those other behaviors. The closest we get to economic forces in all of this is that the original creator eventually starts to say "I'm losing so much money due to this, I need help".

You are acting like they should change their distribution model to serve your whim. Guess what, they ARE doing that, and the statistics support that it is not enough. Yes, they are tapping new markets, but the core problems are still there and rampant, and most evidence indicates that they are leaving profit on the table because of the unique problems of market share that piracy introduces (reducing the rate of growth of those solutions until they developed hardware/software integration, like iPhone/iTunes, which gave them a competitive advantage over pirate options).

It also cost them massive amounts of money to set up those systems, not to mention quite some time figuring out how to pay the artists, which pirate systems obviously didn't need to do.

All of that, and piracy is still a massive force. It resides OUTSIDE the market, quit acting like it is noble or even tolerable. It is like me going to your house, stealing all your stuff, and telling you after the fact "And let that be an incentive to you jackass to buy a better lock for your door!". Do you want to make that a civil matter only and see how far the crime wave goes? Or would you be happy to have the cops bust me?

[Tekneek]

Like I said at the very start, every argument comes down to "wanhhh, but I want, want, want it!".

Not from me, but since you keep repeating this mantra you must somehow hope it will magically become true. When all else fails you, just start attributing false statements to others in hopes the audience will believe it is true.

Every one of these fallacious arguments can be applied to another crime that everyone will acknowledge is a wrong thing to do.

Make sure it is more apples to apples than apples to oranges and it might be more convincing.

Copyright has become a 'special' case jsut because so many people have done it they think it has to get a special status.

No. It wasn't a non-criminal event because people wanted to give it special status. It was that way because it was intended to be that way. It was determined that it wasn't the job of the government to protect business interests in a free market. It was determined that the government would provide a reasonable term of exclusive control over an item (a set number of years, broken into 2 terms) and then these items would become public domain. It would provide a venue, the courts, to resolve disputes involving your copyright. They did not offer up the power of the government as a tool for big business to enforce their private copyrights with, and I believe they had the right idea. They also limited the terms so that the public might derive benefit from our creations. I assure you that the continued expansion around copyright laws has nothing to do with the public good and has everything to do with the interest of big business to stamp out the entire concept of public domain. The evidence supports this view. For argument's sake, I would gladly accept copyright infringement becoming criminal if we could just roll back copyright terms to 28 years.

- Piracy has grown in numbers dramatically, you are now considered the exception if you don't think it is okay.

I do not believe I have said it is ok. I certainly do not think it is ok right now. You confuse my view regarding copyright enforcement as a civil activity as approval of copyright infringement. I don't know where you got it from, but you don't seem to mind making things up.

- Bandwidth has grown massively, and the ability to copy at high quality improved, and the ability to transmit efficiently has improved. So the 'bad copy' argument is already dead, and if not it will be in a couple years as everyone is on the giant GB measured pipe.

And we are still well behind what is happening in some other countries in this area.

[SportsDino]

So you want reform of copyright law? That is all well and fine, I'm all for a copyright of 28 years, and criminal court enforcement of it.

Look, I'm aware companies are nasty beasts, but at some level they are at least paying a share to the content creators, whereas mass piracy (i.e. if the trend continues to an even worst state) would make it rough on content creators. There is a difference between fighting their excesses, and arguing about whether you are allowed to attack piracy.

In my opinion the problem is people pirating stuff that is less than X years old, and every tactic that is reasonable to stop that should be pursued (in my opinion criminal enforcement being one). As for defining X years, or broadening fair use for the modern day... I'd probably fall in your camp. But that is a separate issue from whether the 'X years' is enforced as criminal.

My problem is when the 'I want it' crowd uses the 'big bad corporation' argument to support piracy. Two separate issues. It is like saying two wrongs make a right.

Say copyright was 28 years, and definitions were made more reasonable. Do you think civil courts are capable of stopping the current abuse that is occurring in an effective manner? I obviously do not.

[Tekneek]

Say only ten percent are determined to actually willing to go see the movie if they didn't get that preview. So 100,000 tickets multipled by what, $5 a generous ticket price these days... are you saying the only remedy should be a civil suit for $500,000? That will probably take the pirate, likely some half-assed college student, about 30 to 40 years to payoff?

If the problem is lost revenue, how do they get it back by putting them in jail?

Oh, and put the burden of proof on finding said pirate on the movie company to begin with... like they have an investigation arm that can track the entire internet and locate the pirates. And have them do it for every movie they release, and so on...

Ok. So the burden of protecting their copyright is just too much. They want to outsource this to the government where the cost involved is paid, to some degree, by every person and business in the country (whether they own any copyrights or not).

The public can criminalize anything it wants to, see example A marijuana, at some point it comes down to a public policy decision that was made by the government for some reason in the public interest.

I suppose the issue here is proving it was actually in the public interest. Only a fool believes that everything the government puts into law is really in the best interest of the public at large.

It seems you want to argue that it is not in the public interest to pursue this crime through criminal courts. In that case, prove it. Show me a good, ethical reason, that it is not in the public interest to protect copyright. "What about the poor itsy bitsy pirates, and sticking it to those big meanie music men!" is not good enough, I'll let you know in advance. Rooting for the underdog is not particularly an ethical question, it might just feel good (like getting away with a bank robbery scott-free would probably feel good).

It is in the public interest to protect copyright, which is why you should be able to sue for violations of your copyrights. I never argued otherwise.

I never said anything in support of piracy. You dreamed that up.

[molson]

If the problem is lost revenue, how do they get it back by putting them in jail?



The penalty for any kind of theft involves more than restitution. None of the money lost from theft is recovered by putting people in jail. But you might prevent a lot of theft with the threat of jail. And you might prevent more theft by having thieves in jail.

I know you're concerned about the mere possibility of pirate users being put in jail, but again, that's never happened in the US, as far as I know. It's theoretically possible to get 6 months in jail for having a messy yard or a barking dog under misdemeanor nusiance statutes in most states. But if anyone ever actually got 6 months for a messy yard, it would be unconstitutionally excessive, barring extreme aggravating factors.

[Tekneek]

So you want reform of copyright law? That is all well and fine, I'm all for a copyright of 28 years, and criminal court enforcement of it.

At least we agree on something. Unfortunately, Disney and others have deep enough pockets to make sure we can never roll this clock back.

Look, I'm aware companies are nasty beasts, but at some level they are at least paying a share to the content creators, whereas mass piracy (i.e. if the trend continues to an even worst state) would make it rough on content creators. There is a difference between fighting their excesses, and arguing about whether you are allowed to attack piracy.

I never claimed piracy needed to be embraced, was ok, or should not be fought. I said that government force, being paid for by everyone who is forced to contribute to government revenues, should not be used to enforce copyrights. The judicial system is a sufficient venue for resolution of these matters.

In my opinion the problem is people pirating stuff that is less than X years old, and every tactic that is reasonable to stop that should be pursued (in my opinion criminal enforcement being one). As for defining X years, or broadening fair use for the modern day... I'd probably fall in your camp. But that is a separate issue from whether the 'X years' is enforced as criminal.

With copyright terms out there up to 120 years, public domain simply does not exist. When you are not likely to see a work produced during your life enter the public domain, it essentially no longer exists. If copyright terms can be reigned back into something much more reasonable, there is ground for compromise. The "copyright holders" want it all. They want ever-increasing copyright terms, and criminal prosecution for infringement as well. It is a win on all fronts for them. How extending copyright terms that long is truly in the interests of the public good is bizarre to even think about. Having more works enter the public domain sooner is what is really in the interests of the public. That way we can create far more new things, even if they are derivative works, without waiting for stodgy old people/companies to be willing to share their cash cow with us. These people/companies have built huge business models based on these copyrights and they are afraid of losing even more revenue when that slips back into the public domain. I do not know this to be true, but it seems to me that they fear public domain more than piracy. It would cause them to innovate and not be able to sit back and cash in the checks for 70 year old material.

My problem is when the 'I want it' crowd uses the 'big bad corporation' argument to support piracy. Two separate issues. It is like saying two wrongs make a right.

I agree. However, when you see the law moving in their favor repeatedly over the past 30 years, what do you do? At some level, people need to understand that piracy may represent an act of civil disobedience at this point. The concept of public domain was to benefit all of society, and it is basically dead now.

Say copyright was 28 years, and definitions were made more reasonable. Do you think civil courts are capable of stopping the current abuse that is occurring in an effective manner? I obviously do not.

Maybe, maybe not. It would certainly provide a wealth of material that would enter the public domain immediately. If material from 1981 and before suddenly entered the public domain and you were free to do anything you wanted with it, it would probably keep people very busy for a while.

[gstelmack]

The judicial system is a sufficient venue for resolution of these matters.

Except that it isn't.

[Tekneek]

Except that it isn't.

How? Because they find it too difficult or expensive and want to outsource this enforcement to the taxpayers as a whole?

They are free to choose alternatives to the traditional copyright structure, if they want to. You know they don't have to all follow the same path, don't you?

[Atocep]

Sportsdino, you have a serious problem with assuming that anyone that doesn't want to to see people that pirate software, music, ect rot in prison for the rest of their lives is a pirate themselves. Read my fucking posts above and see that I don't pirate shit so stop talking down to me like your somehow morally superior to me.

Best Buy already has enough bad policies, but if 'everyone' started yanking DVDs off the shelves instead of paying for them... I am pretty sure after the first million they would get pissed off enough to put in even draconian measures.

No, they wouldn't. They'd be smart enough to realize that if they went to draconian measures people would stop shopping there and take their business elsewhere. Treat everyone like a criminal and you're going to lose your legit customers.


All of that, and piracy is still a massive force. It resides OUTSIDE the market, quit acting like it is noble or even tolerable. It is like me going to your house, stealing all your stuff, and telling you after the fact "And let that be an incentive to you jackass to buy a better lock for your door!". Do you want to make that a civil matter only and see how far the crime wave goes? Or would you be happy to have the cops bust me?

It absolutely nothing like you coming into my house and stealing a damn thing. If you can't see that then there's no reasoning with you. Piracy is theft, NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING THAT, but to compare it to robbing someone's home is asinine.

Your posting sums up why piracy is still a major problem. Businesses are completely out of touch with their customer base. Instead of looking at pirates as potential customers you look at them as criminals (before you go jumping onto the last sentence read the above paragraph again). Piracy is theft, but pirates are also a big part of your customer base so by attacking them you're going to end up turning your own customers against you.

You want to see a company that has very little problem with piracy and manages to escape the negative PR because of their views on it? Look at Valve. Read Gabe Newell's thoughts on piracy and how Valve as a whole deals with it now and plans to deal with it in the future.

[Atocep]

if you had even a hint of economic knowledge

oh, and go fuck yourself.

[molson]

Sportsdino, you have a serious problem with assuming that anyone that doesn't want to to see people that pirate software, music, ect rot in prison for the rest of their lives is a pirate themselves.

Nobody here is arguing that pirates should rot in prison for the rest of their lives. That's your false assumption.

[Fidatelo]

I think pirates should have their mousing hand cut off.

[SportsDino]

I'll just cut this short and skip straight to, yes you are an idiot. And Valve's solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(content_delivery) has its detractors as well (although overall I think it is a great idea).

I will never agree to criminal activity being used to enforce mob rule over content creators. End of story, fuck you, etc.

[Drake]

I was reading the NY Times Editorial on the possible end of paper news and was reminded of this thread. In a way I wonder how much difference there is between downloading copyrighted music illegally and cutting and pasting news (much like I did in the first post of the thread). Somebody went out there and had to get the information for the article and the newspaper (or whatever media source) had to pay that person to write it, pay for the servers, etc.

The more I think about this, the more apropos it feels in this discussion. We've sort of got this "play nice" mutual agreement where we include the source/link/byline when we copy/paste an article...but mostly that's for verification purposes, not because any of us are thinking about the copyright.

In some ways, this is the equivalent of walking into a convenience store, cutting an article out of the paper and passing it around to your friends...or at least in the same way that file sharing is theft.

It's pretty clear that newspapers and other online content providers have accepted this sort of behavior because passing text around easily is the nature of medium. They've done the whole "politely suggest that people cite sources" thing, but don't troll around on message boards suing people who don't.

So, newspapers are a case of IP providers who have embraced the new business model.

Unfortunately, they all seem to be going belly up. I'm not sure what that means for the record industry and a new, internet-based business model.

[gstelmack]

How? Because they find it too difficult or expensive and want to outsource this enforcement to the taxpayers as a whole?

Because the person who pirated may not have anything to give up. There is plenty of white collar crime that is considered "crime" for reasons like this.

They are free to choose alternatives to the traditional copyright structure, if they want to. You know they don't have to all follow the same path, don't you?

What alternatives would you suggest that will deter people from stealing? How else do you propose to protect something like video games where having the playable format in electronic form means you can play it how you want? Sure, everything could be an MMO, but even they are dealing with the nightmare of security and hacking and piracy. Sure, you can do episodic content, but then everyone gets mad that you didn't ship the data with the game to begin with.

The major players are still trying to figure out how exactly the law should deal with this. Copyright was an early easy model, but it doesn't quite fit software. Hence some of the changes, like the attempt to criminalize it. It's much like hacking; you aren't physically trespassing, but you are virtually trespassing. The law has to adapt to keep up with technological changes.

[gstelmack]

The more I think about this, the more apropos it feels in this discussion. We've sort of got this "play nice" mutual agreement where we include the source/link/byline when we copy/paste an article...but mostly that's for verification purposes, not because any of us are thinking about the copyright.


Technically, you aren't supposed to paste the whole article, just an excerpt with a link to it.

[Tekneek]

It's much like hacking; you aren't physically trespassing, but you are virtually trespassing. The law has to adapt to keep up with technological changes.

They don't charge you with "virtually trespassing." It is unauthorized access. Also not the kind of thing that was historically dealt with in civil courts, is it? Or have they routinely been trying people in civil courts for unauthorized entry?

[Tekneek]

Technically, you aren't supposed to paste the whole article, just an excerpt with a link to it.

I wish somebody would take care of that copyright infringer. No tolerance for any of it, I tell you! There don't have to be damages, you just have to infringe!

[gstelmack]

They don't charge you with "virtually trespassing." It is unauthorized access. Also not the kind of thing that was historically dealt with in civil courts, is it? Or have they routinely been trying people in civil courts for unauthorized entry?

Now you're coming full circle. Making a copy of a video game is stealing, and that hasn't routinely been tried in civil courts either, has it?

Copyright was originally intended to cover written material, period. It got extended to things like sheet music. There was no recorded music at the time (copying the actual performance, or a particular reading of a novel), no movies, and certainly no software. It used to be an issue between businesses, now individuals with little to no income can do the copying. Times have changed, and the law is changing to keep up with them. Deal with it. One of the government's jobs is to regulate commerce, it's even in the Constitution.

[gstelmack]

I wish somebody would take care of that copyright infringer. No tolerance for any of it, I tell you! There don't have to be damages, you just have to infringe!

And you've ignored every case of damages I've presented here. Video game pirates do PLENTY of damage beyond the (potentially) lost sale of the game.

[Tekneek]

Now you're coming full circle. Making a copy of a video game is stealing, and that hasn't routinely been tried in civil courts either, has it?

Is it stealing? Or are you infringing copyright? Or both? Which is it?

It got extended to things like sheet music. There was no recorded music at the time (copying the actual performance, or a particular reading of a novel), no movies, and certainly no software. It used to be an issue between businesses, now individuals with little to no income can do the copying. Times have changed, and the law is changing to keep up with them. Deal with it.

So, in effect, people go to jail because they don't have the resources to pay for their damages. Is this the new version of debtor's prison?

One of the government's jobs is to regulate commerce, it's even in the Constitution.

Are they charged with regulating commerce, or regulating commerce between states? The latter is what I recall, but I have not read the document in a while. That would mean that they should not be involved with commerce that starts and stops within a particular state, unless my recollection is wrong.

[Tekneek]

And you've ignored every case of damages I've presented here. Video game pirates do PLENTY of damage beyond the (potentially) lost sale of the game.

I have not ignored any of it. Maybe I didn't jump and down and proclaim it proof that copyright infringement is criminal. I'll grant that much.

[Tekneek]

Unauthorized access is unauthorized access, whether you go through a door, window, or enter a computer system. If I take your book, it is not copyright infringement. It is only copyright infringement if I copy and use your book without authorization. They are not the same thing and saying it over and over again will not make it so.

[molson]

So, in effect, people go to jail because they don't have the resources to pay for their damages. Is this the new version of debtor's prison?



I think you're missing the point. Nobody's saying, "the restitution would be huge, nobody could afford it, the intellectual property owners could never be made whole, so let's send them to jail instead". Jail isn't an alternative to paying fines. It's a punishment, independent of fines and restitution.



Are they charged with regulating commerce, or regulating commerce between states? The latter is what I recall, but I have not read the document in a while. That would mean that they should not be involved with commerce that starts and stops within a particular state, unless my recollection is wrong.

Copyright isn't authorized by the commerce clause (though FYI, the commerce clause has been interpreted extremely liberally, and allows Congress tor regulate pretty much everything - they could easily regulate copyright protection under the commerce caluse), it's actually authorized by the....Copyright Clause:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, empowers US Congress:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Now I'm sure that you don't feel that the current copyright time is "limited", but Congress was given clear obvious power to regulate Copyright, including criminally.

It's pretty amazing that the framers were so concerned with copyright protection before recorded music, the internet, etc. That's pretty telling.

[RainMaker]

Unauthorized access is unauthorized access, whether you go through a door, window, or enter a computer system. If I take your book, it is not copyright infringement. It is only copyright infringement if I copy and use your book without authorization. They are not the same thing and saying it over and over again will not make it so.

You are right. It's also not grand theft auto. But all of them are versions of theft and all should be criminal acts. That's all we're saying.

[molson]

The plaintiff in a criminal case is "the people". A "wrong" becomes criminal, rather than civil, when it implicates more than the people involved in the transaction. You breach a contract, that's between you and the other party. You steal something, that has ramifications on our entire economy.

[Tekneek]

I think you're missing the point. Nobody's saying, "the restitution would be huge, nobody could afford it, the intellectual property owners could never be made whole, so let's send them to jail instead". Jail isn't an alternative to paying fines. It's a punishment, independent of fines and restitution.

Oh. I must have misunderstood. I would have sworn that some people in this thread were saying that you had to really punish these people because there was no hope that they could ever pay for the damages caused.

Now I'm sure that you don't feel that the current copyright time is "limited", but Congress was given clear obvious power to regulate Copyright, including criminally.

It's pretty amazing that the framers were so concerned with copyright protection before recorded music, the internet, etc. That's pretty telling.

No arguments here. I am sure they understood the value of giving creators exclusive license for a limited time. They also believed in public domain, which we are told is completely unimportant because nobody can turn a buck on it. Our economy will totally collapse if we don't let corporations hold copyrights for 120 years.

If you date the birth of the US as July 4, 1776, that makes us only 232 years old. A current copyright term of 120 years, being more than half of the age of the entire nation, is certainly not "limited" by any reasonable interpretation of the word.

[Tekneek]

You are right. It's also not grand theft auto. But all of them are versions of theft and all should be criminal acts. That's all we're saying.

Why was it not criminal before the late 90s?

[Tekneek]

You steal something, that has ramifications on our entire economy.

Are you suggesting our current economic troubles are due to the unauthorized distribution of software, music, and movies?

[RainMaker]

Why was it not criminal before the late 90s?

I don't know, I was not privy to their discussions.

[Tekneek]

I don't know, I was not privy to their discussions.

But if it has always been theft, as you claim, how come it went unnoticed for nearly 200 years? Surely you have a theory, don't you?

[molson]

Are you suggesting our current economic troubles are due to the unauthorized distribution of software, music, and movies?

no

[Tekneek]

no

Oh, good. I thought you were claiming that it has been devastating to our economy, yet it seemed to be going pretty strong until December of 2007. I'm trying to find the major ramifications/effects this is having on our economy.

[RainMaker]

But if it has always been theft, as you claim, how come it went unnoticed for nearly 200 years? Surely you have a theory, don't you?

I don't know if it's always been considered theft. I know it is considered theft now though.

[Tekneek]

I don't know if it's always been considered theft. I know it is considered theft now though.

And you have no theory as to why it wasn't "in the public interest" to make it criminal 20 years ago? Even 15 years ago?

[RainMaker]

And you have no theory as to why it wasn't "in the public interest" to make it criminal 20 years ago? Even 15 years ago?

My theory would be that technology dramatically changed.

[Drake]

Technically, you aren't supposed to paste the whole article, just an excerpt with a link to it.

Technically, but no one is going to court over it...despite the fact that this practice may be even more universally ignored than mp3 piracy.

And one thing we know about copyright protection is that if the copyright holder isn't aggressive in defending it, the courts have historically not enforced it. That is, the courts have treated copyright as a civil matter -- you tell us infringement took place, then we'll notice. We (as agents of the government) won't go looking for it on your behalf.

So, did the newspaper folks as an industry just decide that it was too difficult to go the RIAA's route? Or are newspaper articles worth less as artifacts than songs?

I'm sort of curious about why written text folks went the other route for the same offense.

[Tekneek]

My theory would be that technology dramatically changed.

I can appreciate this. The capability of the average person to do wonders with "consumer grade" hardware is vastly improved today.

I don't know if I will ever be swayed completely to the other side, but the discussion has helped me better understand the different views that are out there.

I would certainly be more inclined to agree to more draconian copyright infringement protections if I knew that the terms were limited, and not subject to another round of payoffs next time Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain.

[gstelmack]

The reason it is "theft" is that we are dealing with an amorphous medium and aren't talking about physical copies at all. It's where the confusion and debate comes in. You can make a copy without affecting the original, you can make a copy very cheaply, and you can then distribute that copy very cheaply. The second two were not around when the original laws were put in place, so the law is adjusting. Copyright was used early when there were no laws to cover the change in technology, and now those laws are being updated and do consider it theft. Penalties for those in possession are mild (damage can be minimal), penalties for those who distribute should be severe (even RIAA went after folks for making their music available, the whole debate was over whether or not those folks were aware they were making it available), and penalties for those who make the copies to distribute should also be severe.

[gstelmack]

Also understand it's a broad spectrum the laws are trying to keep up with. Everything from singing "Happy Birthday" at a party, through downloading an MP3, through bootlegging a pre-release album, to copying a DVD from a friend, to uploading that DVD to a filesharing service, to copying a game, to calling the game company's tech support hotline, to decrying all over the internet message boards how buggy your pirated copy of a game is, to distribuing the game/DVD/album on the streets in Asia, and on and on. There is a wide spectrum of damages here, and it's a far cry from printing a book or sheet music back in the 1700s...

[Tekneek]

Penalties for those in possession are mild (damage can be minimal), penalties for those who distribute should be severe (even RIAA went after folks for making their music available, the whole debate was over whether or not those folks were aware they were making it available), and penalties for those who make the copies to distribute should also be severe.

I have a friend who once worked for Sony Records. There is something he told me about the industry that just doesn't jive with the gung ho approach some of you have to this issue. It goes down like this...

For every CD that was released under the watch of his manager, his manager would get about 25,000 CDs for himself. He could give these away, sell them, put them in the dumpster, it did not matter. The artists received NOTHING for these. They were an off the books transaction, effectively. These were routinely sold through a distributor ran by a family member, turning significant bucks on the side that did not have to be shared with the company or the artists involved. He claims this is standard operating procedure in the industry. The executives potentially make lots of off the table money from each album that comes out of their studio. This guy is trustworthy, but I have not talked to anybody else who has been on the inside somewhere else to see if it really is rampant in the industry.

For the sake of argument, if this is true, is this theft and/or copyright infringement?

[molson]

I have a friend who once worked for Sony Records. There is something he told me about the industry that just doesn't jive with the gung ho approach some of you have to this issue. It goes down like this...

For every CD that was released under the watch of his manager, his manager would get about 25,000 CDs for himself. He could give these away, sell them, put them in the dumpster, it did not matter. The artists received NOTHING for these. They were an off the books transaction, effectively. These were routinely sold through a distributor ran by a family member, turning significant bucks on the side that did not have to be shared with the company or the artists involved. He claims this is standard operating procedure in the industry. The executives potentially make lots of off the table money from each album that comes out of their studio. This guy is trustworthy, but I have not talked to anybody else who has been on the inside somewhere else to see if it really is rampant in the industry.

For the sake of argument, if this is true, is this theft and/or copyright infringement?

No, because the record label owns the copyright. It's their CDs, they can do whatever the hell they want with them, it's their right. NOT the consumer. There is no entitlement to free music just because the copyright owner decides to award an essential bonus to an employee. This is like McDonalds givings away free french fries to employees, and then someone complaining that they don't you free french fries too. It's THEIR french fries. (If the artist doesn't like that the label does that, don't sign away copyrights to the label).

You keep saying that you're not claiming infringement isn't wrong, you just don't think it should be criminal, but you continue to try to minimize it. Stealing an album or a video game isn't the worst crime ever. It's like stealing a toothbrush, maybe even less, on an individual level.

[thesloppy]

I've never understood how the sale/trade of used records/cds/video games fits under copyright law, seeing how many is being exchanged, and some sort of property is being exchanged, but certainly nobody with any claim to that intellectual property is getting a single cent of that transaction, or has any control over it. If I buy a used CD, aren't I 'stealing from the artist' in exactly the same measure as if I downloaded the MP3s for free? It doesn't seem that the fact that some greasy middleman at the pawnshop gets $5 from me, should invalidate the copyright. Likewise, if the original purchase of the property gives me the right to sell or give away that property at my convenience, how come I can't give it away digitally? I understand the ethical complaint, I just don't understand the legalese of how the sale or giving away of second-hand copyright material is considered legal. Anyone care to 'splain to me?

[Tekneek]

No, because the record label owns the copyright. It's their CDs, they can do whatever the hell they want with them, it's their right. NOT the consumer. There is no entitlement to free music just because the copyright owner decides to award an essential bonus to an employee. This is like McDonalds givings away free french fries to employees, and then someone complaining that they don't you free french fries too. It's THEIR french fries. (If the artist doesn't like that the label does that, don't sign away copyrights to the label).

What? It was a simple question. I am concerned that reading is something you are not good at. I never said anything about entitlement. Are you on Earth?

You keep saying that you're not knowing infringement is wrong, you just don't think it should be criminal, but you continue to try to minimize it. Stealing an album or a video game isn't the worst crime ever. It's like stealing a toothbrush, maybe even less, on an individual level.

I keep saying that I am not knowing infringement is wrong? What the hell does that even mean? And then I try to minimize it? When did I do that?

[Coder]

I'm just curious, how much extra revenue does the used games/cd industry bring back to the companies? If EB sells a used PS3 game for $40, how much of that is pure profit and how much is going back to the game-developers? And if a used CD is sold from any of the Used CD stores, does any of that go back to the artist or is it "pure profit" for the retailer?

[SirFozzie]

I'm just curious, how much extra revenue does the used games/cd industry bring back to the companies? If EB sells a used PS3 game for $40, how much of that is pure profit and how much is going back to the game-developers? And if a used CD is sold from any of the Used CD stores, does any of that go back to the artist or is it "pure profit" for the retailer?

The answers:
A) Zero.
B) How much of that is profit for the retailer? 100%, developers? 0%
C)How much of that is profit for the retailer? 100%, developers? 0%

[Shkspr]

On the other hand, on the initial sale of an item, retailers only take a 15-20% margin, which isn't enough to keep a store open. The real issue is how much extra revenue would a developer take in if specialty retailers were to cease to exist?

[Tekneek]

The real issue is how much extra revenue would a developer take in if specialty retailers were to cease to exist?

People might buy less games, music, and movies if they knew they would never be able to trade/sell it w/o dealing with the corporate machine. I've been told that the used game business is the only way that teens, for example, are able to bring their market forces to that industry. If they were not able to sell back or trade in their games at their favorite game store, they would be buying a lot less games every year.

I am sure the industry would love to put a stop to all of that gray market activity, since they are a cartel and want a cut of every transaction.

[Coder]

People might buy less games, music, and movies if they knew they would never be able to trade/sell it w/o dealing with the corporate machine. I've been told that the used game business is the only way that teens, for example, are able to bring their market forces to that industry. If they were not able to sell back or trade in their games at their favorite game store, they would be buying a lot less games every year.

I am sure the industry would love to put a stop to all of that gray market activity, since they are a cartel and want a cut of every transaction.

What if distributors went all in on the online-market and cut the prices of their software, removing the costs involved with distribution?

I find it astounding that I have to pay €49 for a game on Steam that I can buy a hard-copy of for €39, only because the distributors "do not want to force physical retailers out of business"..

I bought 4 games the last week, Majesty, Stronghold, Crusader Kings and Victoria. Paid max $15 for the most expensive one. Not only did I buy them easily online, I don't have to have physical CDs lying around the office either. All games are stored on servers and I can install/uninstall at my own convenience.

There were no distribution costs for neither Paradox nor GoG in these cases, no CD-pressing costs, not physical storing costs. Bandwidth and server costs, yes, but in comparison they're low.

So why do I have to pay more for a digital copy of a game than for a physical copy in the case of, for example, FM? Oh, I forgot to mention, the Steam-price is excl. VAT, which is included in the store-price.

This tirade may sound like it has nothing to do with the Pirate Bay trial, but what I'm sort of getting at is that the main reason younger people do not buy games is because they're WAY too expensive. Lower the prices, see the sales go up, I promise.

Before I bought the four bargain-games, I hadn't bought a game since February, when I bought FM, in a store by the way. Before then I hadn't bought a game since July last year, and it was Madden 08 for the PS3 for $39.. I haven't pirated a game since I had a Commodore 64 in the 80s, but I've gone from buying perhaps a game or two a month to hardly buying any games at all.. they're not worth it.. while I can afford them, I don't think a game I usually end up playing for two-three hours before being bored is worth the price of 6-7 lunches.

[gstelmack]

I've seen the Steam studies on the lowering of prices, and they are intriguing.

But if the price is too high, don't buy, it's that simple. High prices do not justify stealing; we're dealing with games (movies/music), not food. If people didn't buy at the prices, they'd either come down or the developers/publishers would go out of business. That still does not give you the right to a free copy of the game. And it certainly doesn't give you a right to call tech support when you have a problem with the game you stole.

[Tekneek]

Prices are an ancillary issue, not a primary issue. For several years now I have only been buying games that are one version older, and often priced very low as a result, or taking advantage of other discounts. I do not pay retail for any games.

I don't buy more than 2 or 3 a year, at best.

[Coder]

I've seen the Steam studies on the lowering of prices, and they are intriguing.

But if the price is too high, don't buy, it's that simple. High prices do not justify stealing; we're dealing with games (movies/music), not food. If people didn't buy at the prices, they'd either come down or the developers/publishers would go out of business. That still does not give you the right to a free copy of the game. And it certainly doesn't give you a right to call tech support when you have a problem with the game you stole.

I'm not buying games at high prices, nor do I pirate them. I'm just saying that I'm sure that lowering prices would have a positive effect on sales versus pirated copies.

I know you've been pushing the issue about tech support etc, and I'm not objecting to that.. I'm just saying that the entire debate and all of the companies resources are focused on preventing piracy by bringing people to court.. no one is trying to see what's wrong with the industry..

WHY ARE PEOPLE PIRATING!?

It's not as easy as saying "because they can".. I know how to and I'm not doing it.. I bet most people on this board know how to, and they're still not doing it. Try to find the root cause of the issue rather than just pointing fingers (that's a general suggestion to all game distributors).

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I think that a large percentage of pirates would still do it if the games cost $5.

[gstelmack]

The root cause of the issue has already been pointed out: when given a choice between "free" and "costs something", many many many people will choose "free" regardless of the consequences. There remain just enough that are willing to pay for games to keep things rolling along, but there are plenty that just want it for free.

Yes, reducing the price can reduce that equation, but that mostly works for online distribution where you are cutting out middelmen (and console games are more difficult, because in addition to the retailer / distributor, the console maker gets a cut as well), and the remaining middleman (the distributor) has to be willing to take less as well. But online distribution is certainly gaining in popularity, and may in fact become the wave of the future.

However, even cheap casual games deal with piracy, so you still have to combat it. There are plenty of crimes where you can remove the incentive to do it, but people still do it, so you still have to have punishment in place to deter it.

And as I've said above, this does not necessarily involve going after the individual person who downloads a game, which all the people arguing against me want to focus on. Pirate Bay helped distribute pirated software. THOSE are the folks you really need to go after, and I'm happy to see companies doing so.

[Coder]

The root cause of the issue has already been pointed out: when given a choice between "free" and "costs something", many many many people will choose "free" regardless of the consequences. There remain just enough that are willing to pay for games to keep things rolling along, but there are plenty that just want it for free.


Valid point.. but look at it from this angle: Those who do "pay to play".. can they be encouraged to buy more games? I may be a minority, but as I pointed out in another post, I've gone from buying 2-3 games a month to maybe buying one full price game every 6 months. Can I be encouraged to buy more games? If so, how?

I'm willing to bet that many of those people who pirate games today would not buy them even if there was no alternative.. While they're stealing the product, it's not a lost sale since they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Focus on the people who want to pay, and give them better offers..

[gstelmack]

I'm willing to bet that many of those people who pirate games today would not buy them even if there was no alternative.. While they're stealing the product, it's not a lost sale since they wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Well, that's why I keep bringing up the tech support issue, because many pirates DO cost the company money without supplying any revenue.

But I hear you on the sales thing. I just think it's a separate issue to be addressed orthogonally. Every game company wants to sell as many as possible, it's just sometimes difficult to figure out HOW. I know the Steam folks have been pushing the price mantra recently, and they were nicely set up to do some studies. That may actually help the PC market in the long run; not sure what it will do for console games given their economics, barring a major shift in approach to consoles which goes beyond the developers.

You're voting with your wallet, and more power to you for doing so. That's the right approach if you think games are too expensive.

[SportsDino]

As it pertains to used books and games, that is why there is a COPY right. The publisher could define that they want 100,000 copies floating around in the world, get paid for 100,000 copies, and then not have to worry any more. If the demand was really high that 100,000 was just not enough in circulation, they would print more, pay all the appropriate people, and everyone was happy. A nice functional economy.

Copyright law was sufficiently enforced because the only person that could really piss you off, was another publisher, who had the machinery to print 100,000 copies as well... cases of this occurred sufficiently enough that they developed a whole field of law about how to stop it. Since the targets were easier to identify, and it was easy to assess damages, the civil courts did a fine job I am sure.

The concern of the modern day is that even before you send out the first copy of your E-book, that someone has grabbed a copy, replicated it en masse, and is offering 100,000 copies at reasonable quality for free against your I-store selling it for $9.50. The price argument is fallacious, because you have $0 (and limited chance of being caught) on one side, and a gradually reducing price on the E-book on the other side. There may be a price that is low enough to prompt the cheaters to contribute, but often it is at a level where you are not maximizing profits (even if you assume costs approach 0, you still want to maximize dollars multipled by volume, not just volume).

No one is saying all pirates should go to jail, for the most part it would be a waste of taxpayer money. The whole point though is to make a major disincentive to the behavior. If suppliers of the pirate material start to doubt the point, for instance, having to pay for bandwidth, no chance of commercializing at all, and on top of that ending up with a fine/lawsuit (99% of the time IMO) or jail time (rare 1% of the gross violators trying to make a business out of it)... it will start to dry up. At least, it will either reduce to little Becky directly sharing with little Nancy, or to private peer to peer networks (which would need to stay relatively smaller than otherwise).

As for you Sony example, that is outright theft. My original anti-piracy motivation was actually anti-corporate, I personally want people to be able to independently distribute their content to get away from businesses ripping them off. Unfortunately, in the way is the perception that if you are an indy you need to deliver everything at a cut-rate price, and that you need to give it away for free like a charity, which is opposite what it should be, since a giant corporation has plenty of money to spare, but if you don't make sales off your first game/e-book/whatever, you probably have to go back to your day job. If I ever get up the guts to release something in that model, I don't want the first loser to create a copy out there to dictate my business model.

Heck, I'm sure even Front Office Football has been cracked or pirated out there somewhere.

[Tekneek]

Heck, I'm sure even Front Office Football has been cracked or pirated out there somewhere.

I would be very surprised to find out this is true. To my knowledge, only 1 elicense game has been pirated (EHM2007) and I've never heard or read about any others. I always assumed that FOF and OOTP were not pirated due to the close knit community around those games, as well as the personal connection felt between that community and the developer. I have no data to back that up, it is merely an assumption I have made.

The contradiction to this belief is CM/FM/WWSM, which I think is widely pirated. It could be that demand for that game is simply too large for the pirates to be held at bay by the community surrounding the game. Despite the piracy, don't they usually set high marks for sales every time?

[Atocep]

I'll just cut this short and skip straight to, yes you are an idiot. And Valve's solution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(content_delivery) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_%28content_delivery%29) has its detractors as well (although overall I think it is a great idea).

Steam was only a small part of what I was talking about. I was speaking more specifically about his speech at DICE earlier this year.

I will never agree to criminal activity being used to enforce mob rule over content creators. End of story, fuck you, etc.

That's fine. Everyone that refuses to address the problem at its root and instead looks to the government to step in a fix things for them can watch as companies that actually get it reap the benefits.

Companies that adapt to people's behavior will be far more successful than those that try to change it.

[gstelmack]

I'd love to see the company that is being more successful embracing piracy than the companies that are fighting it. Right now they're doing about equally well...

[RainMaker]

That's fine. Everyone that refuses to address the problem at its root and instead looks to the government to step in a fix things for them can watch as companies that actually get it reap the benefits.

Companies that adapt to people's behavior will be far more successful than those that try to change it.

Explain this "get it" part to me. Are you talking about all those comapanies that are giving stuff away for free? I still don't see how giving in to thieves and letting your content get passed around for free is a long term option for many people. The pro-piracy group always uses the "adapt" argument but doesn't seem to realize that it's pretty tough to adapt to this.

[Tekneek]

The pro-piracy group always uses the "adapt" argument but doesn't seem to realize that it's pretty tough to adapt to this.

A common tactic for many is to misrepresent the position of others, so as to make it seem like something it is not. Pro-Lifers try to portray Pro-Choice as Pro-Death. Anti-drug types try to portray the decriminalization movement as pro-drugs. These are all bogus, yet people still love to portray their opponents as something worse than what they really are.

[Atocep]

Explain this "get it" part to me. Are you talking about all those comapanies that are giving stuff away for free? I still don't see how giving in to thieves and letting your content get passed around for free is a long term option for many people. The pro-piracy group always uses the "adapt" argument but doesn't seem to realize that it's pretty tough to adapt to this.

Where in the hell have I said I'm pro piracy?

[RainMaker]

Where in the hell have I said I'm pro piracy?
Call it whatever you want, I didn't mean to cause a stir over semantics. Please explain what you mean about these companies "not getting it".

[Atocep]

Call it whatever you want, I didn't mean to cause a stir over semantics. Please explain what you mean about these companies "not getting it".


People who pirate games and software typically don't pirate everything. They pay for some games/software, but not all. At the very least they're willing to spend a large chunk of money on a computer, so the resources to buy stuff are there. If you remove these pirates altogether by fining them heavily, sending them to jail, or whatever then you're taking part of your own industry's revenue away. On top of that a lot of these people are teens or college kids and the industry as a whole is seen as "the man", so to speak, so anytime they come down harshly on the public its very bad PR (RIAA) and the industry as a whole suffers from it.

So instead of coming up draconian DRM measures, hoping the government or someone steps in for me, or something similar. Why are these companies not asking the question; why do I have a major problem with piracy and this other company doesn't?

If you look at Valve and Blizzard, since they're two major companies that aren't experiencing the piracy issues of, lets say EA, you ask what are they doing differently?

Blizzard put millions into making a MMO. MMOs are fairly safe from piracy, but not many companies have the resources blizzard had when they started making WoW.

Valve, on the other hand, wasn't exactly rolling in cash when they made Steam. They're also working on new technology that gives each individual that has their games a unique executable file making piracy damn near impossible on their stuff in the future. Beyond that, however, they're also driving more and more toward online content that is regularly updated as it gives people an incentive to buy their stuff. What they aren't doing is attacking their own customers and treating them all as if they're criminals.

Left for Dead, you can pirate single player, but if you really want to have fun with the game you need to buy it. Team Fortress 2, you could pirate it and host your own server, but the purchased copy has the advantages of regular updates and the ability to play anytime you want as you don't have to rely on the small number of people playing on your private server to log on.

The other option is going the route of EA, slapping Securom on all of their shit, and watching multiple games make the top 10 most pirated lists each year.

[SirFozzie]

Ok. Certain forms of DRM doesn't stop piracy, it just pisses off and inconvenience real, paying customers.

That explain it well enough for you?

[Atocep]

Ok. Certain forms of DRM doesn't stop piracy, it just pisses off and inconvenience real, paying customers.


Absolutely, I believe it was Rainbow Six Vegas 2 that I had to go and download a cracked .exe to get it to run properly in multiplayer.

[molson]

People who pirate games and software typically don't pirate everything. They pay for some games/software, but not all. At the very least they're willing to spend a large chunk of money on a computer, so the resources to buy stuff are there. If you remove these pirates altogether by fining them heavily, sending them to jail, or whatever then you're taking part of your own industry's revenue away. On top of that a lot of these people are teens or college kids and the industry as a whole is seen as "the man", so to speak, so anytime they come down harshly on the public its very bad PR (RIAA) and the industry as a whole suffers from it.

So instead of coming up draconian DRM measures, hoping the government or someone steps in for me, or something similar. Why are these companies not asking the question; why do I have a major problem with piracy and this other company doesn't?

If you look at Valve and Blizzard, since they're two major companies that aren't experiencing the piracy issues of, lets say EA, you ask what are they doing differently?

Blizzard put millions into making a MMO. MMOs are fairly safe from piracy, but not many companies have the resources blizzard had when they started making WoW.

Valve, on the other hand, wasn't exactly rolling in cash when they made Steam. They're also working on new technology that gives each individual that has their games a unique executable file making piracy damn near impossible on their stuff in the future. Beyond that, however, they're also driving more and more toward online content that is regularly updated as it gives people an incentive to buy their stuff. What they aren't doing is attacking their own customers and treating them all as if they're criminals.

Left for Dead, you can pirate single player, but if you really want to have fun with the game you need to buy it. Team Fortress 2, you could pirate it and host your own server, but the purchased copy has the advantages of regular updates and the ability to play anytime you want as you don't have to rely on the small number of people playing on your private server to log on.

The other option is going the route of EA, slapping Securom on all of their shit, and watching multiple games make the top 10 most pirated lists each year.

It's still their choice, not the customers'. Why are people so upset about what they perceive as bad business practice? The only logical answer of course, is when it restricts them from getting free stuff they feel they're entitled to. Otherwise, if trying to defend against bad piracy is bad business, then those business will fail, and the ones that embrace piracy will succeed. Like any other business (at least pre-Obama/Bush). If I don't like a product, I don't buy it.

[gstelmack]

Ok. Certain forms of DRM doesn't stop piracy, it just pisses off and inconvenience real, paying customers.

That explain it well enough for you?

That part I understand and get.

However, the assertion that some other companies have less issues with piracy (as in, folks stealing games, not in their attitude towards pirates) is patently false. Stardock and Valve both have games pirated as well, and they both have to deal with the costs involved.

One side of this keeps bringing it back to going after individual users of pirated copies to point out draconian measures, and I've said several times that the real target is the distributors and enablers, like Pirate Bay. You HAVE to keep going after them, or you have multiple distribution channels, only one of which you control / profit from.

[gstelmack]

Blizzard put millions into making a MMO. MMOs are fairly safe from piracy, but not many companies have the resources blizzard had when they started making WoW.

Valve, on the other hand, wasn't exactly rolling in cash when they made Steam. They're also working on new technology that gives each individual that has their games a unique executable file making piracy damn near impossible on their stuff in the future. Beyond that, however, they're also driving more and more toward online content that is regularly updated as it gives people an incentive to buy their stuff. What they aren't doing is attacking their own customers and treating them all as if they're criminals.

Left for Dead, you can pirate single player, but if you really want to have fun with the game you need to buy it. Team Fortress 2, you could pirate it and host your own server, but the purchased copy has the advantages of regular updates and the ability to play anytime you want as you don't have to rely on the small number of people playing on your private server to log on.

So, in order to fight piracy, you demand that game companies invest in a major online infrastructure to prevent their game from being pirated? FWIW, this may actually be the best approach, but I'll just point out that it's a lot more expensive than just shipping your title, so again the pirates are costing these companies money...

[Atocep]

However, the assertion that some other companies have less issues with piracy (as in, folks stealing games, not in their attitude towards pirates) is patently false. Stardock and Valve both have games pirated as well, and they both have to deal with the costs involved.


This is bullshit. Of course Valve games get pirated, but they absolutely have less of a problem with piracy than a company like EA that just relies on Securom.

Top 10 Most Pirated Games of 2008 | TorrentFreak (http://torrentfreak.com/top-10-most-pirated-games-of-2008-081204/)

How many of those games are from EA? How many are from Valve? How many are from Blizzard? How many used draconian forms of DRM?

[gstelmack]

We're talking degrees here. Feel free to post the list; I'm not heading to a site named "TorrentFreak". How about a top 20? Top 100? There are THOUSANDS of games released every year.

Anyway, there are many "issues with piracy" beyond number stolen, there is also the impact they have on paying customers, tech support, and other areas we've discussed. And again, those companies have put a major infrastructure in place (read: cost) that has not come close to eliminating the issue for them. It may have reduced it some, but at a noticable cost to the company.

[Atocep]

So, in order to fight piracy, you demand that game companies invest in a major online infrastructure to prevent their game from being pirated? FWIW, this may actually be the best approach, but I'll just point out that it's a lot more expensive than just shipping your title, so again the pirates are costing these companies money...


I don't demand anything. As I said above, I'm simply pointing out that companies that actually adapt to the public are going to be more successful than those that try to change public behavior. I gave an example of companies coming up with ways to minimize piracy. I'm sure other innovative companies will come around with new ways of approaching things.

[Tekneek]

FWIW, this may actually be the best approach, but I'll just point out that it's a lot more expensive than just shipping your title, so again the pirates are costing these companies money...

There is a security expense for many industries.

[Atocep]

Here's the list. If you want a bigger list you'll have to find another one because this is the only one I saw released for 2008. As you can see, though, the number of downloads decreases dramatically after the top few so I think its safe to say valve doesn't have the issues that EA and other Securom supports do.

<table class="css hover" summary="Most downloaded Games 2008"><tbody><tr><td>1</td> <td>Spore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_%28game%29)</td> <td>(1,700,000)</td> <td>(Sept. 2008)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>2</td> <td>The Sims 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_sims_2)</td> <td>(1,150,000)</td> <td>(Sept. 2004)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>3</td> <td>Assassins Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins_Creed)</td> <td>(1,070,000)</td> <td>(Nov. 2007)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>4</td> <td>Crysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crysis)</td> <td>(940,000)</td> <td>(Nov. 2007)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>5</td> <td>Command & Conquer 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_Conquer_3)</td> <td>(860,000)</td> <td>(Mar. 2007)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>6</td> <td>Call of Duty 4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of_Duty_4)</td> <td>(830,000)</td> <td>(Nov. 2007)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>7</td> <td>GTA San Andreas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GTA_San_Andreas)</td> <td>(740,000)</td> <td>(Jun. 2005)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>8</td> <td>Fallout 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3)</td> <td>(645,000)</td> <td>(Oct. 2008)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>9</td> <td>Far Cry 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Cry_2)</td> <td>(585,000)</td> <td>(Oct. 2008)</td> </tr> <tr> <td>10</td> <td>Pro Evolution Soccer 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Evolution_Soccer_2009)</td> <td>(470,000)</td> <td>(Oct. 2008)</td></tr></tbody></table>

For those that don't know, torrentfreak is a torrent blog frequently linked directly by kotaku and other sites so they're safe.

[SirFozzie]

It's still their choice, not the customers'. Why are people so upset about what they perceive as bad business practice? The only logical answer of course, is when it restricts them from getting free stuff they feel they're entitled to. Otherwise, if trying to defend against bad piracy is bad business, then those business will fail, and the ones that embrace piracy will succeed. Like any other business (at least pre-Obama/Bush). If I don't like a product, I don't buy it.

No, you completely missed the point. In the effort to defend against piracy, where more and more restrictive forms of DRM are used.. the only people they're pissing off is the paying customer. The pirates don't give a fuck.

Kinda reminds me about the quote from the first Star Wars. "The tighter you grasp, the more worlds will slip through your fingers".

So, what do you do? You buy from companies who "get it" Look at Stardock and the Customer's Bill of Rights. I specifically bought DemiGod to support them, and I make a lot of purchases through Steam and Impulse, that balance the companies need to try to control the distribution of their game, to the customer's viewpoint for it to be as unobtrusive as possible.

Of course, there are asses, look at what happened with DemiGod.. GameStop released it early, and when they opened their servers, all the connections were swamped by people playing torrented versions.. but Stardock actually didn't go ranty/ravey or threatening to sue people, etcetera, they restricted the pirated versions them to one tiny server (that probably no one will ever stay connected to), and you have to be a registered user (with a valid serial code) to get any patches.

In a digital era, trying to come up with a way to stop piracy 100% is like King Canute trying to command the tide not to come in. Do you need to come up with a way to slow down the tide of piracy? Yes. But you also need to understand that the tide's gonna come in, and you're going to look foolish with your feet wet.

[gstelmack]

There is a security expense for many industries.

But why aren't the software companies entitled to protection under the law like other companies? Car lots have to put up fences and enact some security, but they still expect police help if someone walks onto the lot and drives off in a car without paying. And software customers object to any kind of fences and security (even Steam has its detractors on this very board).

These companies pay taxes, too, so why don't they rate government protection for their business?

Game players are more than welcome to vote with their wallet. Witness the demise of StarForce as a used copy protection method. Piracy didn't change that, the effect on legitimate customers did.

Game companies are trying to figure out the best way to deal with piracy without trying to tick off legitimate customers. Missteps have been made (StarForce) and may continue to be made. Customers have the right to not buy those games, and drive those companies out of business if they don't adapt in a way that the market will handle.

But to consider pirates a market force that should not be punished, and consider media companies entities that are not entitled to legal protection from those that attack their business foundation, is ludicrous.

The discussion about how to combat piracy from a company standpoint is orthogonal to the discussion about whether or not piracy should be punished. I actually agree with much of what is being said about the best ways for a company to handle this (I'm a big fan of Steam personally, and have been switching more and more of my personal game buying to it), but none of it excuses what pirates do or changes what needs to be done to punish the pirate distribution houses. They are criminals and should be treated as such.

[gstelmack]

Here's the list. If you want a bigger list you'll have to find another one because this is the only one I saw released for 2008. As you can see, though, the number of downloads decreases dramatically after the top few so I think its safe to say valve doesn't have the issues that EA and other Securom supports do.

FWIW, aside from the MMO games, these are some of the top SELLING games of 2008 as well. There is often a correlation between sales and piracy. The best games tend to be both sold a lot AND pirated a lot. Valve won't release sales figures, and I would not be surprised at all to find out it was hard to get figures on piracy. Another thing to note is that about half of those titles were distributed via Steam as well as via traditional CD / copy protection, yet still were heavily pirated.

[SirFozzie]

Um, I would object to the last part of that. They didn't appear on Steam for quite a few months after the game's release, and one would assume that a majority of the pirating occured before then.

I would expect within the next 5-10 years (if not sooner), for example, the PC game market is nearly all digital download, because anything CD/DVD related can and will be broken.

[gstelmack]

I would expect within the next 5-10 years (if not sooner), for example, the PC game market is nearly all digital download, because anything CD/DVD related can and will be broken.

I would agree with this, especially since retailers don't like to carry PC games anymore...

[RainMaker]

People who pirate games and software typically don't pirate everything. They pay for some games/software, but not all. At the very least they're willing to spend a large chunk of money on a computer, so the resources to buy stuff are there. If you remove these pirates altogether by fining them heavily, sending them to jail, or whatever then you're taking part of your own industry's revenue away. On top of that a lot of these people are teens or college kids and the industry as a whole is seen as "the man", so to speak, so anytime they come down harshly on the public its very bad PR (RIAA) and the industry as a whole suffers from it.
I think that's kind of a silly argument. It's like saying "don't punish a kid for shoplifting jeans because sometimes he actually buys them".

So instead of coming up draconian DRM measures, hoping the government or someone steps in for me, or something similar. Why are these companies not asking the question; why do I have a major problem with piracy and this other company doesn't?

If you look at Valve and Blizzard, since they're two major companies that aren't experiencing the piracy issues of, lets say EA, you ask what are they doing differently?

Blizzard put millions into making a MMO. MMOs are fairly safe from piracy, but not many companies have the resources blizzard had when they started making WoW.

Valve, on the other hand, wasn't exactly rolling in cash when they made Steam. They're also working on new technology that gives each individual that has their games a unique executable file making piracy damn near impossible on their stuff in the future. Beyond that, however, they're also driving more and more toward online content that is regularly updated as it gives people an incentive to buy their stuff. What they aren't doing is attacking their own customers and treating them all as if they're criminals.

Left for Dead, you can pirate single player, but if you really want to have fun with the game you need to buy it. Team Fortress 2, you could pirate it and host your own server, but the purchased copy has the advantages of regular updates and the ability to play anytime you want as you don't have to rely on the small number of people playing on your private server to log on.

The other option is going the route of EA, slapping Securom on all of their shit, and watching multiple games make the top 10 most pirated lists each year.

I'd argue that a lot of those companies don't have problems with piracy because they are geared toward online players. It's much easier to protect your product when they must logon to your server and have their copy verified. Blizzard is probably the best example there.

The problem with that is you are pigeon holing programmers into building a certain type of game. We have already seen companies shift away from the PC as well as focus most of their energy on multiplayer.

[Atocep]

FWIW, aside from the MMO games, these are some of the top SELLING games of 2008 as well. There is often a correlation between sales and piracy. The best games tend to be both sold a lot AND pirated a lot. Valve won't release sales figures, and I would not be surprised at all to find out it was hard to get figures on piracy. Another thing to note is that about half of those titles were distributed via Steam as well as via traditional CD / copy protection, yet still were heavily pirated.


They based their numbers off of what bittorrent reported to them so Valve had no control over it.

[RainMaker]

Video games is also just one minor element of online piracy. A lot of game makers have shifted their focus to consoles too to avoid the headache of dealing with PC piracy.

What about software makers? TV shows? Movies? Music? It's easier to say that a company can adapt in the video game market, but a musician can't offer multiplayer and updates.

[Atocep]

I think that's kind of a silly argument. It's like saying "don't punish a kid for shoplifting jeans because sometimes he actually buys them".

No, its me saying I'm going to come up with the least intrusive means to minimize my risk instead of waiting on the government to step in and save me. If they ever do, that's great for me, but I'm doing what I need to do in the meantime.



I'd argue that a lot of those companies don't have problems with piracy because they are geared toward online players. It's much easier to protect your product when they must logon to your server and have their copy verified. Blizzard is probably the best example there.

The problem with that is you are pigeon holing programmers into building a certain type of game. We have already seen companies shift away from the PC as well as focus most of their energy on multiplayer.

That's the point. Companies that do this or other innovative things are going to reap the benefits from those that aren't adapting to public.

[Atocep]

Video games is also just one minor element of online piracy. A lot of game makers have shifted their focus to consoles too to avoid the headache of dealing with PC piracy.

What about software makers? TV shows? Movies? Music? It's easier to say that a company can adapt in the video game market, but a musician can't offer multiplayer and updates.

Its no different than games in the sense that innovative companies or musicians that respect their customer base will tend to thrive.

[RainMaker]

That's the point. Companies that do this or other innovative things are going to reap the benefits from those that aren't adapting to public.

You call it adaption, I call it pigeon holing. Essentially what it comes down to is that you have to create a multiplayer game with updates to survive these days. While having endless first person shooters may seem "innovative", it just dulls the video game market and destroys its variety.

[RainMaker]

Its no different than games in the sense that innovative companies or musicians that respect their customer base will tend to thrive.

There isn't much you can do in the music sector. A song is a song.

[Atocep]

You call it adaption, I call it pigeon holing. Essentially what it comes down to is that you have to create a multiplayer game with updates to survive these days. While having endless first person shooters may seem "innovative", it just dulls the video game market and destroys its variety.

Stardock, even with the demi-god problems, is doing just fine without focusing first person shooters and strictly online content.

I'm not pretending to have all of the answers here. What I'm saying is there's better ways to approach things than hope someone else solves the problem for me. Its not fair. They shouldn't have to do it. But I shouldn't have to lock my doors and windows at night. I shouldn't have to lock my car when I get out of it. I shouldn't need 10,000 passwords to do anything online. However, I'm taking the means necessary to protect myself instead of waiting on the government to get rid of all crime.

[Atocep]

There isn't much you can do in the music sector. A song is a song.

So NiN is just sitting on their asses hoping piracy is someday fixed?

[RainMaker]

Stardock, even with the demi-god problems, is doing just fine without focusing first person shooters and strictly online content.

I'm not pretending to have all of the answers here. What I'm saying is there's better ways to approach things than hope someone else solves the problem for me. Its not fair. They shouldn't have to do it. But I shouldn't have to lock my doors and windows at night. I shouldn't have to lock my car when I get out of it. I shouldn't need 10,000 passwords to do anything online. However, I'm taking the means necessary to protect myself instead of waiting on the government to get rid of all crime.

VG247 » Blog Archive » Demigod - 18,000 sales, over 100,000 pirates (http://www.vg247.com/2009/04/17/demigod-18000-sales-over-100000-pirates/)

I know they've had some success with other games. But 120,000 people trying to play with 18,000 who actually bought it. If you think that isn't a huge problem, than I don't know what to say. I know their CEO knows how to play the PR game well, but it's kind of silly to act like piracy hasn't had an effect on them.

[SirFozzie]

way to try to use something I already brought up to buttress your failing point. Those accounts got pigeonholed to a small server of their very own, and won't get any patches. He even joked that he didn't need to release a demo, the torrenters had done it for them.

[Tekneek]

So NiN is just sitting on their asses hoping piracy is someday fixed?

That is a great example of a way around the problem. From what I have read, it is working out pretty well for Trent Reznor.

[gstelmack]

way to try to use something I already brought up to buttress your failing point. Those accounts got pigeonholed to a small server of their very own, and won't get any patches. He even joked that he didn't need to release a demo, the torrenters had done it for them.

And in the meantime cost them at least one negative review (which may have been updated / retracted, I haven't checked yet) plus all the time to pigeonhole them. It just helps point out the pirates DO have a cost on the industry, even for those who are trying to accomodate them.

[RainMaker]

So NiN is just sitting on their asses hoping piracy is someday fixed?

NiN has been a big name for nearly 20 years in the music industry. I have a feeling that there aren't a ton of musicians with millions of millions of dollars in the bank that can just give away albums for free because they know they'll sellout arenas across the globe.

[RainMaker]

way to try to use something I already brought up to buttress your failing point. Those accounts got pigeonholed to a small server of their very own, and won't get any patches. He even joked that he didn't need to release a demo, the torrenters had done it for them.

And if 10% of those thieves had purchased the game instead of downloading it illegally, they would have doubled their sales. They also wouldn't have pissed off all their paying customers on release by having overloaded servers.

[SportsDino]

An ironic side note (in my tragically warped mind)... I started my own anti-piracy stance because I felt that a small time independent would have a hella rough time making a buck if they did not have a massive company worth of enforcement machinery behind them. Essentially, you are arguing that they should just build a massive, secure infrastructure to sell things at a lower price, to people that will pirate their material en masse if there is one leak.

Valve is researching new types of DRM, no doubt spending a few salaries worth on finding ways to protect their revenue streams, even as they try to embrace a new model (I would argue it is NOT the pirates model, they want to innovate their channel, but not that whole giving away stuff for free aspect that proves annoying come payday).

If you table the argument on 'what is the best channel' to deliver content, or assume it goes whatever way you want, you still have the core problem. If there is one channel, and it is free, as long as it is open some fraction of that number is otherwise paying customers (at worst) and at best people freeloading (enjoying your hard work without contributing to your company creating further titles).

Even if Steam at ultra low prices (Fallout 3, $10!) becomes the norm, Valve is probably going to jump on the same bandwagon of asking the government to close off competing pirate sources.

In the worst case, you build these systems, and don't police the pirates (the supply side), and you give the big companies that much more leverage over startups and indies who need to come to them for protection (since no one else will provide it, and the culture supports piracy as commonplace).

I don't see why we need pirates to make any of this work, they are a drain on the system and that is it. Will they hasten the demise of some companies, probably. Just like any criminal activity preying on a business could kill it off, whether it is innovative/profitable or not. You are not going to bring down EA with piracy, it has deep pockets, but I'm sure along the way the pirates will contribute to the death of no small number of creative game developers trying to work outside the machine, and forcing them out of the business, or to the arms of some place like EA that will suck their brains out with a straw. As it is, don't game developers have enough trouble trying to do their job because they don't know when their funding is going to be yanked, their parent company bought out, or their schedule pushed up for 'business reasons' so they release buggy half finished crap?

I dunno, I find this field particularly interesting... I'm actually considering an independent game company as one potential foray into opening a business of my own. I'm more on the 'embrace technology' side of the spectrum, but I don't stretch that to giving things away for free. If anything, I'd probably challenge things and sell games at a high price, with a focus on differentiation from the corporate game mills. I could build an epic game of the year, try and charge a $100 for it, and not make a cent off it until everyone pirates my game, EA notices, and asks for my soul and a sequel in exchange for some funds.

I'd rather just make a sweet demo, try to be as nice as I can about distribution, and have at least an inkling that I could shut down the sites annoying me the most without more red-tape that I can handle... but the more likely thing is I'd just engineer an incentive mechanism that makes it so the more people pirate my game, the less content and updates they would get (until theoretical zero and I go back to playing stocks and working for the man). Even so, I'd doubt that would work either, I could say: "If I hit X revenue I'll release an expansion pack for free to everyone" and still probably have flat sales and mass piracy. I really have little faith in the common sense of modern man, to understand making stuff takes cash (in my case time more important than money, since I make more sitting around doing nothing than anything else these days).

If I put it in black and white, hey I'm small time developer, and every dollar made goes into financing an art team for more games and content, I bet I could have game of the year pirate distribution (saying it was truly awesome) and a relative pittance of paying customers (I'm assuming they are already cost neutral if they are paying at all, so $100 or $50... its all the same volume wise most likely because everyone else is getting it for $0).

Anyways, I'm diverging way off topic... I just think killing off entire classes of business models for the sake of criminals is not a very smart thing to do. There are countless examples in history of people taking advantage of others until the law caught up and started to enforce a standard. The first copyright violators after all were businesses screwing over writers. I know that has been perverted, as Tekneek has pointed out, but I'd like to think we work from establishing what makes sense ethically, and working from there (in which case I think the Disney laws should pretty much be stricken as frivilous). In this case, it means acknowledging that attacking piracy as wrong is a fundamental truth, and that all steps to alleviate the problem should be pursued (practically that means better business models, better security, better laws, and better enforcement of those laws).

[Alan T]

An ironic side note (in my tragically warped mind)... I started my own anti-piracy stance because I felt that a small time independent would have a hella rough time making a buck if they did not have a massive company worth of enforcement machinery behind them. Essentially, you are arguing that they should just build a massive, secure infrastructure to sell things at a lower price, to people that will pirate their material en masse if there is one leak.


My own anti-piracy stance is mostly self preservation I guess. I work for a software company, and I guess luckily most of my company's money come from mainframe applications (which I am guessing are not quite as hot a target for pirates), but we still do have a good selection of software, some of which I am sure has been pirated at some point or another.

I really have gotten to the point of hating threads such as this on the internet, but always find myself unable to look away either, so I just read along and try to understand the other's side point of view, but it gets me so angry inside.

In the end, I understand on the grand scale of things, software piracy isn't as "bad" as murder or many other crimes, but it still hurts people, and is still wrong. I don't really get too worked up when someone says they downloaded music illegally or whatever, I'm sure I do plenty of things that are wrong too (I speed at times, I'm sure I have messed up with taxes in the past, etc) so don't really look down on people who do choose to steal music/software/whatever... but on the other hand, I see the market currently, I see that my company has laid off too many people just like many others in the tech sector. I know that all of those lay-offs aren't directly due to software piracy, and perhaps just only a small part are, but part of me feel that when people steal the software that my company produces, they are stealing from me as well.

I guess that just makes me bitter, and it really clouds the entire theoretical discussion that several are trying to make for the opposite point of view here, but I honestly have a very tough time being open to hearing that side of the discussion, that is how frustrated this type of thing has led me to become.

[SportsDino]

I work on a product that routinely has keys and keygens pirated. We also have less than 5% of downloads convert into sales, while the download numbers consistently remain strong. A full quality trial period, try before you buy distribution model, with incredibly good marks along the spectrum for customer service and tech support. It costs a pretty penny, but anyone who has paid it says that it has delivered its price several times over in value.

Is piracy the other 95%, I find that doubtful. But still, when you see the key-vid on youtube get more than a magnitude more hits than your sales in the same month, it would probably make you dejected. Of course, my stance was formed before this job.

The truth is no business model can compete with free, and its only free because they are breaking the law. Civil pursuit of the violations is occurring, and you could argue we should step up security measures (which would only annoy those people who are paying)... but am I going to say no to it being enforced as a crime? No. It won't hurt anyone who is doing the right thing, and most of the people doing the wrong thing (the suppliers, not necessarilly the people watching the key-vid) I'm perfectly fine with them getting a sternly lettered warning a few times before they get hit with the hammer. But if the hammer is out there, maybe you will get people to hesitate just that bit more before they distribute to the entire internet, especially if they have no real financial motive, and can face a penalty, even at low probability.

[JPhillips]

NiN has been a big name for nearly 20 years in the music industry. I have a feeling that there aren't a ton of musicians with millions of millions of dollars in the bank that can just give away albums for free because they know they'll sellout arenas across the globe.

But why are you assuming that musicians should rightfully make millions? For the bulk of human history musicians lived on what they could make from live performances and patrons. I'm sure there were far fewer rich musicians, but society as a whole didn't hurt for a lack of music.

Recorded performances and the money that comes from their distribution is a very recent phenomenon. Society can choose whether or not to create a system that guarantees profits for recordings, but there's no natural law that says it must be so.

[RainMaker]

But why are you assuming that musicians should rightfully make millions? For the bulk of human history musicians lived on what they could make from live performances and patrons. I'm sure there were far fewer rich musicians, but society as a whole didn't hurt for a lack of music.

Recorded performances and the money that comes from their distribution is a very recent phenomenon. Society can choose whether or not to create a system that guarantees profits for recordings, but there's no natural law that says it must be so.

I'm not. I'm saying that if a creative person creates something, they should be able to do what they want and charge what they want for it. Whether that's free or lots of money.

That's another issue with this mess that really doesn't get brought up. If the Pirate Bay was doing this for free I still think it's wrong, but not as bad. But these guys were making millions of of other people's life works and passions. These guys aren't noble crusaders, they were just talentless hacks who had to leech on other people's innovations to make a buck.

[Ksyrup]

Although a pretty small sample size, the results of this aren't really surprising to me.



Study: pirates biggest music buyers. Labels: yeah, right<!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->
http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/...erage-folks.ars (http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2009/04/study-pirates-buy-tons-more-music-than-average-folks.ars)


Those who download illegal copies of music over P2P networks are the biggest consumers of legal music options, according to a new study by the BI Norwegian School of Management. Researchers examined the music downloading habits of more than 1,900 Internet users over the age of 15, and found that illegal music connoisseurs are significantly more likely to purchase music than the average, non-P2P-loving user.

Unsurprisingly, BI found that those between 15 and 20 are more likely to buy music via paid download than on a physical CD, though most still purchased at least one CD in the last six months. However, when it comes to P2P, it seems that those who wave the pirate flag are the most click-happy on services like the iTunes Store and Amazon MP3. BI said that those who said they download illegal music for "free" bought ten times as much legal music as those who never download music illegally. "The most surprising is that the proportion of paid download is so high," the Google-translated Audun Molde from the Norwegian School of Management told Aftenposten.

Record label EMI doesn't quite buy into BI's stats, though. EMI's Bjørn Rogstad told Aftenposten that the results make it seem like free downloads stimulate pay downloads, but there's no way to know for sure. "There is one thing we are not going away, and it is the consumption of music increases, while revenue declines. It can not be explained in any way other than that the illegal downloading is over the legal sale of music," Rogstad said.

Rogstad's dismissal of the findings don't take into account that the online music model has dramatically changed how consumers buy music. Instead of selling a huge volume of full albums—the physical media model—the record labels are now selling a huge volume of individual, cherry-picked tracks. It's no secret that the old album format is in dire straits thanks to online music, which is a large part of why overall music revenue is going down.

BI's report corroborates data that the Canadian branch of the RIAA, the Canadian Record Industry Association, released in 2006. At that time, the organization acknowledged that P2P users do indeed buy more music than the industry wants to admit, and that P2P isn't the primary reason why other people aren't buying music. 73 percent of of respondents to the CRIA's survey said that they bought music after they downloaded it illegally, while the primary reason from the non-P2P camp for not buying music was attributed to plain old apathy.
<!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_843607--><!-- THE POST -->

[gstelmack]

So they found that people who love music are more likely to buy music, right?

[riz]

So they found that people who love music are more likely to buy music, right?

Shocking isn't it ? :D

Edit: Oh, it has been nice to read some of the discussions in this thread. Especially SportsDino has had some very well constructed posts.

[RendeR]

Shocking isn't it ? :D

Edit: Oh, it has been nice to read some of the discussions in this thread. Especially SportsDino has had some very well constructed posts.


*chuckles*

[molson]

Although a pretty small sample size, the results of this aren't really surprising to me.



I'm curious what the motivation is behind the minimization of the impacts of piracy. It's all throughout this thread, and you see it everywhere:

-Pirates don't steal things they would have otherwise bought
-Pirates are the biggest music buyers
-Pirates spread good word of mouth about a product
-Pirates help to beta-test products
-Some products aren't available in countries where pirates live
-Businesses have ripped off customers for years
-Business treat everyone like criminals so they might as well steall anyway.

I'm sure there's some I'm missing.

What's the point of these minimizations when people spout them off? It sounds like they're justyfing/supporting/defending piracy, but when you say that, they all worked up and deny that.

So what's the point? That copyright shouldn't exist because it doesn't protect artists?

Otherwise, the points are completely irrelevant. Because whether or not those justifications are true, it's 100% up to the owner of the copyright whether they believe them or not, and it's up to them to decide how they want their works copied. If a record company says all of those justifications are wrong, and they prefer to defend their property as they see fit, that's their choice. If the record companies' reason was "we just feel like it" - THAT'S a legitimate reason, because they're the owner. There's no requirement that they have to defend their copyright protection through data.

I just don't see any other reasons for carrying on, minimizing the impacts of piracy, beyond the old stand-by: people feel entitled to free stuff, and if they don't get it, or they're punished for getting it, they get all pissy and hate the companies that prevent their theft.