Is Piracy Stealing?

[KACHOW!!!]

The more important question we should ask ourselves is "Is it ok to steal, if so, what is it ok to steal?"
Looking at it from a consequentialists perspective, we might say : "Well, if we pirated enough copies of super smash bros, would they stop making it?" The answer is almost always 'No', because the amount of pirated copies of any e-good is almost always vastly outnumbered by the amount of that thing that was actually payed for in a shop. In all seriousness, when is it ok to pirate? I mean, really ok, like you shouldn't feel guilty at all: When there's no possible way of buying the thing you want to pirate, or getting the money to the original content producer or license holder. Like, a very obscure band who doesn't have digital distribution, and doesn't have a company that produces physical copies of an album. That being said, I pirate stuff constantly, mostly without meeting any of my aforementioned criteria.

 

[Sucumbio]

abandonware is commonly "pirated." It's funny but EA actually applied a cease and desist against macintoshgarden.org for their posting downloadable copies of several Maxis games which EA bought the rights to. There's NO way to obtain legal copies of any of the software on that site, and yet some of the powerhouse publishers like EA still go out of their way to stop them, because they can. And if EA simply put a similar copy on THEIR site, and charged 5 bucks for it, people would pay it! (I certainly would, I still have a mac that runs OS9 and can play all the old school mac games going back to the late 80's early 90's). But, nah, they'd rather just stop other people from enjoying life. **** EA.

 

[Claire Diviner]

abandonware is commonly "pirated." It's funny but EA actually applied a cease and desist against macintoshgarden.org for their posting downloadable copies of several Maxis games which EA bought the rights to. There's NO way to obtain legal copies of any of the software on that site, and yet some of the powerhouse publishers like EA still go out of their way to stop them, because they can. And if EA simply put a similar copy on THEIR site, and charged 5 bucks for it, people would pay it! (I certainly would, I still have a mac that runs OS9 and can play all the old school mac games going back to the late 80's early 90's). But, nah, they'd rather just stop other people from enjoying life. **** EA.

EA is often rated as one of the worst companies for a reason, no? Or am I thinking Activision? Both? I sometimes get the two mixed up, and I'm not even dyslexic.

 

[Sucumbio]

Indeed. On the one hand working for EA is awesome, they pay well, have great benefits, and offices all over the world. But to the consumer they're just money grubbing assholes. And yet they don't even want to make money on old titles, or port them to ti rebuild interest and maybe spawn sequels. They'd rather just promote title death, which to me makes zero sense.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Thought I'd share this for relevance.

https://torrentfreak.com/swedish-police-raid-the-pirate-bay-site-offline-141209/

 

[Sucumbio]

Heh just goes to show sharing copies of things is never okay in the eyes of money makers. Even Sweden isn't safe. No where is safe. If you host files, whether you "own" them or not, letting others copy them will get you in trouble.

Of course this also means anyone that's used tpb could potentially be on some list somewhere now in the authorities hands.

Meh.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Heh just goes to show sharing copies of things is never okay in the eyes of money makers. Even Sweden isn't safe. No where is safe. If you host files, whether you "own" them or not, letting others copy them will get you in trouble.

Of course this also means anyone that's used tpb could potentially be on some list somewhere now in the authorities hands.

Meh.

I don't think they'd really bother TPB users; there's way too many of them.

 

[Chesstiger2612]

Actually it is "Illegal Duplication", because the original still exists. Indirectly it has the same effect though.
Illegal Duplicaters have argued (in some cases) that they wouldn't be buying the product anyways, if they wouldn't be able to get it via piracy.
Even if this is the case, you can't separate between someone who would buy it and someone who wouldn't, and even if, would it be fair? Why should someone pay for it if someone else doesn't need to?
Individual prices (where you can choose how much to pay, sometimes with a minimum price, or the price is determined by some other factors) are a double-edged sword. On the one hand it sounds great if everyone can get the product for the price they would be willing to pay for it. No one gets harmed, the producer gets more than with a fixed price (those worshipping it more buy more, while others wouldn't be buying it otherwise at all) and everyone can get the procuct. But it is utopian that everyone will really pay the price they would be paying for it, and I can't think of a way this system would work currently.

 

[Sucumbio]

Jon bon Jovi's restaurant model comes to mind, Soul Kitchen. Originally marketed as a "pay what you think you should" place, the restaurant has a "minimum donation" of 10.00 per meal (3 courses). Anything over that is strictly up to the patron, and if you read up on it, you'll note that you could technically feed your whole family there, pay nothing, and instead volunteer at the restaurant to compensate for the meal(s).

This is more of a charity, though, and artists who are in the "biz" to make money often scoff at the idea that they're charity cases. But really, what is art? It's supposed to be SO imaginative, so -deep-, so is it something that you can really put a price tag on it? No, not really. So of course you really are looking for donations to counter production costs. Ancient performers and the traveling bards had it right. Play for the night, get a free meal, a free room, maybe some clean clothes, or some jingle change to buy some booze, whatever. Good performers could send the money home where Ms. Bard and little Bard lived. It was a profession. Today's is a ramped up version, I guess.

But Microsoft Office isn't "art." It's a utility. It has a function other than to be regarded. It produces other things. So taking a copy of Microsoft Office w/o Microsoft's permission, and without paying for it, I suppose could be seen like talking a Hammer or Power Drill from Home Depot without paying for it, or without permission...

 

[TheVillainous]

It's stealing, but the amount of pirates is nowhere near 1% of people that have the copy of the product. It's more of a .001 margin and should just be ignored. Besides, tracking them and trying to arrest them and make jail space plus jail food is more expensive than the amount of profits that they caused in losses.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

It's stealing

Wrong statement is wrong.

 

[Izanagi97]

All I know is that piracy laws are bull****

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Piracy is stealing. You're not physically taking something, but we have ownership laws for intellectual property for a reason. If I don't want you to have something I made, why should you be able to take it? Even if it can be taken from me at no cost to me? If you want to contest the concept of ownership for intellectual property, that's fine, and there are some serious problems with copyright law as it currently stands. But if we acknowledge the idea that someone can own an idea or a work (something we're basically stuck with when it comes to dealing with content providers), then copying that work for free when they don't want you to is stealing.

 

[Twewy]

I personally see piracy as duplication, rather than stealing, but still an illegal act. Others have said it better than I can, though. If software does not provide some form of trial (demo, 30 day trial, etc.), you can expect it to be pirated (then again, you can expect just about anything to be pirated). Of course, people can and will pirate something as a free alternative. Sometimes, developers encourage the pirating of their products, such as the Hotline Miami developers or even Notch when Minecraft was smaller. In the case of HM's devs, they've encouraged it twice or so, with helping users on The Pirate Bay with their questions and even encouraging them to buy it, and then again when Hotline Miami 2 was banned from Australia. Of course, their stance is slightly different from other developers, with one dev saying "game first, money later." Notch flat-out encourages it, as he sees it as a potential sale.

Morally, piracy depends from person to person. Legally, it doesn't, it is flat-out against the law. I've personally pirated before, but have bought the product if I was satisfied, with Hotline Miami funnily enough being a case.

Sources:
http://www.vg247.com/2012/11/02/hotline-miami-creator-talks-piracy-not-making-games-for-the-money/
http://www.destructoid.com/hotline-...an-alternative-to-australia-ban--286287.phtml
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2011/03/04/minecrafts-notch-piracy-is-not-theft/

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Piracy is stealing. You're not physically taking something, but we have ownership laws for intellectual property for a reason. If I don't want you to have something I made, why should you be able to take it? Even if it can be taken from me at no cost to me? If you want to contest the concept of ownership for intellectual property, that's fine, and there are some serious problems with copyright law as it currently stands. But if we acknowledge the idea that someone can own an idea or a work (something we're basically stuck with when it comes to dealing with content providers), then copying that work for free when they don't want you to is stealing.

You cannot take anyone to court on charges of theft when it comes to illegal copies. Piracy is not stealing.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You cannot take anyone to court on charges of theft when it comes to illegal copies. Piracy is not stealing.

This is a particularly weak semantic argument. You can't take people to court on theft charges for piracy; you can for piracy. In international law, it is very much illegal; I fail to see why saying "you can't stick a theft charge" is relevant when the fact is that we have different terms for theft of intellectual property.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

This is a particularly weak semantic argument. You can't take people to court on theft charges for piracy; you can for piracy. In international law, it is very much illegal; I fail to see why saying "you can't stick a theft charge" is relevant when the fact is that we have different terms for theft of intellectual property.

People are usually taken to court on charges of copyright infringement. You are confusing casual speech with legal terminology. Sure, we like to talk about how so-and-so "stole my idea". Headlines like to sensationalize piracy with talk of "IP theft", but according to the facts, no theft took place. How can you honestly sit there and argue that copying is the same as physically taking something?

If I steal your TV, what are you more upset about? The fact that you can no longer enjoy a TV (and are out the cost of said TV)? Or the fact that I am illegitimately enjoying a TV?

If I copy your writing, you can only be upset about the fact that I am enjoying illegitimate gains from your work, but you still have your writing.

Call it a "weak semantic argument" all you want. Frankly, semantics are all that matter here.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

People are usually taken to court on charges of copyright infringement. You are confusing casual speech with legal terminology. Sure, we like to talk about how so-and-so "stole my idea". Headlines like to sensationalize piracy with talk of "IP theft", but according to the facts, no theft took place. How can you honestly sit there and argue that copying is the same as physically taking something?

Because we've defined IP rights in such a way. I mean, do you want to dispute the concept of intellectual property? Because that seems like a different discussion - the entire concept of piracy is founded on the idea that owning an idea is, in and of itself a legitimate concept.

If I steal your TV, what are you more upset about? The fact that you can no longer enjoy a TV (and are out the cost of said TV)? Or the fact that I am illegitimately enjoying a TV?

Except that the analogy is clearly not valid when it applies to ideas. What's more, the fact that you are illegitimately enjoying my TV is a lesser offense in this case, but it is still clearly an offense. This thing is my property; it is mine to deal with as I wish within reasonable grounds. If I don't want you to have it, and you use it, even if I see no harm from that use, there's a problem.

If I copy your writing, you can only be upset about the fact that I am enjoying illegitimate gains from your work, but you still have your writing.

Except that the entire concept of it being "mine" has now vanished. This is an important distinction in IP law - if you have ownership of my idea as well without my permission, then it's no longer "mine". You've effectively taken it from me. If I write a piece of music and you take that music and play it without my permission, and I have no legal recourse, congratulations - you have stolen my song. It is no longer "mine". I do not own it to do with as I please. How is this not to some degree theft?

If the only point is semantics, then yes, piracy is not theft, just like embezzlement is not theft. But I think there's a little more to this than that, wouldn't you agree?

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Because we've defined IP rights in such a way. I mean, do you want to dispute the concept of intellectual property? Because that seems like a different discussion - the entire concept of piracy is founded on the idea that owning an idea is, in and of itself a legitimate concept.



Except that the analogy is clearly not valid when it applies to ideas. What's more, the fact that you are illegitimately enjoying my TV is a lesser offense in this case, but it is still clearly an offense. This thing is my property; it is mine to deal with as I wish within reasonable grounds. If I don't want you to have it, and you use it, even if I see no harm from that use, there's a problem.



Except that the entire concept of it being "mine" has now vanished. This is an important distinction in IP law - if you have ownership of my idea as well without my permission, then it's no longer "mine". You've effectively taken it from me. If I write a piece of music and you take that music and play it without my permission, and I have no legal recourse, congratulations - you have stolen my song. It is no longer "mine". I do not own it to do with as I please. How is this not to some degree theft?

If the only point is semantics, then yes, piracy is not theft, just like embezzlement is not theft. But I think there's a little more to this than that, wouldn't you agree?

The thread presents a very simple question: is piracy stealing? Well, that's simple: no, it's not. We can talk all day about whether it is wrong, its similarities to stealing, its implications, etc. At the end of the day, though, it's just not stealing: not in the legal sense and not in the literal sense.

Is it any wonder that opponents of the concept of IP refer to it as "imaginary property"? That is exactly what it is. We sat around many years ago before copying was easy to do and decided that if someone goes to the hard work to make a print of something, others are discouraged from going to the effort of producing copies by marking it as illegal. Today, copyright has been absurdly contorted to the point of arresting people for so much as thinking of copyrighted material.

Do you want to dive deeper into the intricacies of piracy? Or do you wish to continue denying what piracy is?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The thread presents a very simple question: is piracy stealing?

Well ****, then I guess we're done here, because if that's the full extent of the debate, whether or not piracy constitutes the exact same thing, legally, as theft, then there's no point. You might as well ask "is manslaughter homicide" - bit of a waste of thread, really.

Is it any wonder that opponents of the concept of IP refer to it as "imaginary property"? That is exactly what it is. We sat around many years ago before copying was easy to do and decided that if someone goes to the hard work to make a print of something, others are discouraged from going to the effort of producing copies by marking it as illegal. Today, copyright has been absurdly contorted to the point of arresting people for so much as thinking of copyrighted material.

I'll be the last person to argue that modern copyright law is without its flaws. But to argue that the concept of intellectual property is meaningless or useless is really untenable.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Well ****, then I guess we're done here, because if that's the full extent of the debate, whether or not piracy constitutes the exact same thing, legally, as theft, then there's no point. You might as well ask "is manslaughter homicide" - bit of a waste of thread, really.

So, because the question was asked, we're obligated to conjure up a detailed and possibly wrong response for the sake of dragging it out? It's fine to pose the question. It just so happens to have a simple answer. Again, I'm fine going into the surrounding details (how "wrong" it is or how it affects the economy or whatever). That doesn't change the answer to the core question.

I'll be the last person to argue that modern copyright law is without its flaws. But to argue that the concept of intellectual property is meaningless or useless is really untenable.

IP is meaningless and useless in its current form. It doesn't just have a few flaws; it is wildly out of control and horribly favors the copyright holder in ridiculous situations. Fair use is trampled regularly. There is no respect for derivative works. DRM infects everything we buy: we are slowly losing ownership over physical goods we buy. (Trying to resell your camera? NOPE! That violates the EULA on the software running on the camera!)

 

[Deleted member]

Here is when I believe it is okay:
1: The game is no longer in production or circulation
2: The company that made it is out of business (THQ, Lucasarts, etc.)