Why action against piracy must be harsh and taken now

[Omnis]

/sigh... It's not theft, Pako. But for the contracting party, it's just as bad or worse.

 

[Jay]

Deja vu...

 

[Blake]

Code and data are not property because one man can possess another's wholly and without detriment at the same time. You can't just arbitrarily define property, or especially theft in cases like these.

That's like saying a book isn't property until it's printed. It is property. It is protected under copyright law to protect the creator because it has value, and if someone else were to exploit that and claim it as their own it would be stealing from the creator.

 

[Sureboss]

And you can't own what is not property.

Well, our IP got shifted out to some dodgy company in America once our publisher went under. We spent god knows how many tens of thousands trying to retrieve the IP, to claim our ownership on it. Through courts of law. The code is included in the IP, so it is property, as stated by both the UK and US legal systems, or else those legal proceedings didn't happen.

 

[Omnis]

That's like saying a book isn't property until it's printed. It is property. It is protected under copyright law to protect the creator because it has value, and if someone else were to exploit that and claim it as their own it would be stealing from the creator.

Tell that to Shakespeare. Plagiarism is quite different from possessing the same idea. It wouldn't be stealing from the creator, it would be fraud against the consumer.

Well, our IP got shifted out to some dodgy company in America once our publisher went under. We spent god knows how many tens of thousands trying to retrieve the IP, to claim our ownership on it. Through courts of law. The code is included in the IP, so it is property, as stated by both the UK and US legal systems, or else those legal proceedings didn't happen.

So you're saying now that your code got taken from your possession and put into theirs? That sounds more like theft then.

 

[Blake]

It wouldn't be stealing from the creator, it would be fraud against the consumer.

Seems like both to me. You can own data, I don't see why you think it should be treated differently.

 

[Omnis]

Seems like both to me. You can own data, I don't see why you think it should be treated differently.

Then read this, including the comments.

Deja vu...

Tell me about it.

 

[Duke]

It's one thing to disagree with someone, it's another to act how you did. I really thought GTP was above flaming posts, seems as if I was wrong.

There. I removed any personal references from my post, and the filtered profanity while I was at it. I hope that makes you feel better.

It is a black-and-white issue, and every word in my post is true.

 

[Mr P]

A few years ago I used to have a PS2 and the only way I could play GT3 ntsc North American version was either by using a mod chip for the PS2 or a swap magic disc, The swap magic disc was unlike any other disc I had seen before and I'm sure it was classed as a pressed disc or similar? (see image below)

Apparently this disc was uncopyable? and I know for sure my PC wouldn't read it when I put it in my DVD drive ... which leads me to my question

Why are these discs not used by the giant companies in an attempt to reduce piracy like the makers of swap magic did? Sure I understand that some consoles / cd /dvd players might have problems reading these discs, but surely it's a step in the right direction for a possible future solution? Is it all down to the extra cost of these special discs? ... I'm not sure! But those guys really stuck it to the pirates by selling them a disc that play imports / back ups / pirates that was uncopyable itself

Just curious why they are not in regular use as they seem to do what they were intended to do
Thanks for any info in advance
Cheers

 

[Pako]

/sigh... It's not theft, Pako. But for the contracting party, it's just as bad or worse.

Really? So I can legally download and install software until I squeeze every last drop of bandwidth from my internet connection? I thought it was steeling.

 

[Sureboss]

So you're saying now that your code got taken from your possession and put into theirs? That sounds more like theft then.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Our publishers owned our IP (well, barring one bit my boss owned) and they went under, the chief exec of the company, had another company in the states, they bought the IP. (See why I say the chief exec is dodgy?)

 

[Omnis]

Really? So I can legally download and install software until I squeeze every last drop of bandwidth from my internet connection? I thought it was steeling.

Yes, unless it's something where you agree to a EULA that you subsequently violate.

And let's not consider the current law when discussing whether things should or should not be unlawful. As it stands, the current law is whatever is tried to be enforced by whoever is in charge. That's why our Constitution, for instance, has become toilet paper.

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Our publishers owned our IP (well, barring one bit my boss owned) and they went under, the chief exec of the company, had another company in the states, they bought the IP. (See why I say the chief exec is dodgy?)

Your publishers had possession of the code, went under, and the CEO of your publisher transferred that code-- without copying it-- to another company of his in the States in exchange for a sum of money. Or tired to anyway. Ok, I get that. And then you're mad because someone violated your terms of use or EULA (assuming you had one for the software) by sharing it. That's wrong, plain as day. So track that guy down and sue him for contract violation.

For the downloaders, file sharing is not the crime, but if you see it as problem for your business (and, of course, you do) then I can tell you that it's not something a coercive force can remedy.

 

[Pako]

Yes, unless it's something where you agree to a EULA that you subsequently violate.

Most hacked software has the EULA removed, or so I've heard. So in those instances, I'm good?

 

[TrievelA7X]

Yes, unless it's something where you agree to a EULA that you subsequently violate.

And let's not consider the current law when discussing whether things should or should not be unlawful. As it stands, the current law is whatever is tried to be enforced by whoever is in charge. That's why our Constitution, for instance, has become toilet paper.



Your publishers had possession of the code, went under, and the CEO of your publisher transferred that code-- without copying it-- to another company of his in the States in exchange for a sum of money. Or tired to anyway. Ok, I get that. And then you're mad because someone violated your terms of use or EULA (assuming you had one for the software) by sharing it. That's wrong, plain as day. So track that guy down and sue him for contract violation.

For the downloaders, file sharing is not the crime, but if you see it as problem for your business (and, of course, you do) then I can tell you that it's not something a coercive force can remedy.

File sharing is not a crime? You mean you haven't read federal copyright laws and you're discussing them?

File sharing of copyrighted material is illegal, that's why Sony was granted nearly 2 million by the courts. File sharing is not stealing, it is "Illegal distribution". Downloading copyrighted material in any manner other than paying the copyright owner, or any autorized vendor for it, is stealing.
Why are you trying to excuse it so badly?

Apparently this disc was uncopyable?

Because a truly un-copyable disc won't play in most CD/DVD players. And even if they make ones that can, than computers will make CD-ROM's etc, that can play/read them, and therefore they will be copied anyway.

The only way I know of to prevent this type of theft, is to stop computers from being able to burn CD's/DVD's. This would require assistance from Microsoft, etc. It would also stop abilities to create personal mixes, among other things that people can legally make, and enjoy. (aka never gonna happen)
So basically, it needs to be made easier for companies/copyright owners to sue for damages and losses. And they need to pursue it, big time. Otherwise i feel it's a dead issue, and they may as well give it away.

I will mention that the record companies in particular asked for it, in a sense, charging so much for a cd, while letting pure crap out there, with 1 great single. I'm sure most everyone here has bought at least one cd, took it home and realized that except for that one song they heard, the entire cd sucked. But that doesn't excuse stealing.

 

[homeforsummer]

There's a lot of mention in this thread of the music industry, implying that it's no different from the gaming industry. This is incorrect.

If you download a game, how likely are you to go out and buy the game from a shop at forty quid? Not very, I'd guess. If you download a music track from the net, how likely are you to go out and buy the CD from a shop for a tenner? Probably a lot more likely.

Even if you steal all the music in the world, you can't "steal" the experience of going to a live show, unless you can somehow forge tickets and go for free. Artists will therefore make money from every person who goes to a gig (in some cases, like hundreds of thousands of people paying fifty quid a ticket to go see Sting, for example, the artist will make millions on the back of one tour - so CD revenue becomes much less important) Gaming has no physical experience feature so any revenue loss from piracy results in revenue loss from their total income. And if it's a small developer who don't have their fingers in many pies then simply surviving becomes very difficult.

For the record, I don't download anything free unless it's expressly come from the person publishing the music/game/video/whatever. My entertainment expenditure isn't that high anyway and I'm a bit old-fashioned in that I like a physical copy of something, so the appeal of having a CD with a nice case and a booklet etc is far greater than intangible MP3s on a computer. Same goes for games. I bought GT5P from a shop rather than from PSN.

 

[Keef]

Looking up EULA on Wiki, I ran into this, about the first-sale doctrine, and software copyrights and whatnot. I don't have time to read it this morning, so have at it. Sounds interesting, whether it proves us right, wrong, and nothing at all.

 

[Duke]

For the downloaders, file sharing is not the crime, but if you see it as problem for your business (and, of course, you do) then I can tell you that it's not something a coercive force can remedy.

That's like saying fences aren't doing anything illegal because they didn't perform the original burglary themselves.

"Receiving Stolen Goods" is actually a chargeable crime. Pirating the software for download is stealing it. Downloading it is receiving stolen property. The downloaders know it is stolen property unless it is legally published as freeware or shareware. That's a crime.

 

[GT Pro]

Theft IS black and white.

If it were so we would not be having an entire thread dedicated to it and relevant topics' discussion. Like most things in law, at face value the concept often seems so simple as to undermine the existence of contested cases, but once you try to put book to many different scenarios you will inevitably become very frustrated by the abundance of different shades of grey.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

If it were so we would not be having an entire thread dedicated to it and relevant topics' discussion. Like most things in law, at face value the concept often seems so simple as to undermine the existence of contested cases, but once you try to put book to many different scenarios you will inevitably become very frustrated by the abundance of different shades of grey.

We're having an entire thread about the boneheadedness of a minority who just cannot understand that getting something free of charge without the provider's consent is stealing. Or who are convinced - against all reason - that just because the provider can't stop them from stealing, the provider should "adapt or die". It's cretinous. And then you have some maniacs who can't understand the relative position of their arse and elbow trying on some existential philosophy they picked up off a blog somewhere.

Unfortunately, Sureboss has completely failed either to understand where the value in his product comes from or to convey this in this thread. There's been no attempt to discuss the number of programmers paid in a number of dollars per hour for a number of hours. Or the costs associated with getting retailers to take on the product and sell it. All of these things have value. Yes, any old schmuck can come up with a game idea (actually, this is surprisingly hard), but the idea does not equal the product. There's a whole load of work 'twixt the idea and the product, and it is that work which has an undeniable value.

If a good or a service is sold or rented at a price (discounted or not), and a consumer consumes that good or service without paying the price in full, then that consumer has stolen the good or service. It's that simple. If you paid for it, you can use it. If you didn't pay for it, you cannot use it. If you use it when you have not paid for it, you are stealing it.

And, since some people get all upset when a member of staff expresses either their opinion or the truth, please be aware that this post is my opinion, not that of GTPlanet staff (although, since the staff is almost entirely devoid of the aforementioned maniacs, they probably agree). I'm not making any moderatorish requests or rules, I'm not throwing my weight around.

I'm just somebody who's not a blithering idiot, stating the blindingly obvious.

 

[Sureboss]

Yes, I think you're right, I could have elaborated more on costs. Obviously some are private, some I don't know.

Well, I'm on £15/hour, others would be similar. 5 part time staff is the company.

I think our projected sales for this year are about 100,000-130,000.

I'd love to be able to state more than that, I can't.

I think the fact we wouldn't have survived the last two months unless my boss' parents hadn't bankrolled us states some of the costs involved. Software, PCs (think we have about 20 machines), business taxes, rents, rates, etc.

 

[Duke]

We're having an entire thread about the boneheadedness of a minority who just cannot understand that getting something free of charge without the provider's consent is stealing. Or who are convinced - against all reason - that just because the provider can't stop them from stealing, the provider should "adapt or die". It's cretinous. And then you have some maniacs who can't understand the relative position of their arse and elbow trying on some existential philosophy they picked up off a blog somewhere.

Unfortunately, Sureboss has completely failed either to understand where the value in his product comes from or to convey this in this thread. There's been no attempt to discuss the number of programmers paid in a number of dollars per hour for a number of hours. Or the costs associated with getting retailers to take on the product and sell it. All of these things have value. Yes, any old schmuck can come up with a game idea (actually, this is surprisingly hard), but the idea does not equal the product. There's a whole load of work 'twixt the idea and the product, and it is that work which has an undeniable value.

If a good or a service is sold or rented at a price (discounted or not), and a consumer consumes that good or service without paying the price in full, then that consumer has stolen the good or service. It's that simple. If you paid for it, you can use it. If you didn't pay for it, you cannot use it. If you use it when you have not paid for it, you are stealing it.

And, since some people get all upset when a member of staff expresses either their opinion or the truth, please be aware that this post is my opinion, not that of GTPlanet staff (although, since the staff is almost entirely devoid of the aforementioned maniacs, they probably agree). I'm not making any moderatorish requests or rules, I'm not throwing my weight around.

I'm just somebody who's not a blithering idiot, stating the blindingly obvious.

:GOLF CLAP: Well played, sir, from start to finish.

 

[FoolKiller]

(b) change your business and distribution model to make a profit (like WoW does with their monthly fee, etc).

This right here is why I think we should all do everything we can to prevent software piracy of video games. The most guaranteed way to prevent it is a pay to play system. If the entire industry moves in that direction I will be done with gaming.

Every time a software piracy discussion comes up you start out with this, "It is not theft because nothing physical is stolen" angle, and after 50-100 posts you finally mention that it does violate contracts, which is illegal. Do you do this on purpose? You could easily explain from the get-go that while it is not physical theft it is in violation of copyright agreements that are agreed to upon purchase, and that anyone who willingly downloads (or even takes a burned disc) a copy of that software then has the same moral integrity as a shoplifter. You would save yourself, and everyone else, a lot of time. As I was reading through this thread I knew specifically where you were going with this.

If you are doing it on purpose, that is annoying, and borderline troll-like. If you aren't doing it on purpose you have now been made aware.

The consumer determines the value of a product.

Value? Yes, what it is worth to them. However, a sale is based on cost, which is set by the consensual agreement of value by both seller and buyer. If one party cannot agree with the assumed value of the other party then there is no sale, no exchange of products/money, and the buyer does not get to just take it.

If somebody is not willing to pay for the product, then they should not get to use it unless the real owner legitimately gives it to them for free. Anything else is illegal and immoral.

End of freaking story.

That is about as simple as it gets.

If it were so we would not be having an entire thread dedicated to it and relevant topics' discussion.

I can show you someone that will argue that they should be allowed to take money that you earned because they need it for more important things than your video games? Does that suddenly mean it is a legitimate discussion?



EDIT: Sureboss, I don't think I have seen your game mentioned, and to avoid you being accused of spam I invite you to PM me what it is and where I could legitimately get a copy of it. If I find it of interest I'll buy it.

Also, I am surprised you all haven't attempted taking advantage of the independent games programs that Microsoft and Sony have setup for XBL and PSN. That is assuming you haven't, of course.

 

[Danoff]

Looks like I'm a little late to the party.

@ Omnis

Intellectual property rights exists for a reason - and that reason happens to be the same reason that physical property rights exist. Sit down and derive physical property rights using logic and you'll see that your conclusion applies directly to intellectual property rights.

To get you started I have posted part of an essay I've been working on on this very subject in a thread called "Truth, Justice, and the American Way".

Please ensure that you can, at a minimum, derive property rights from logic alone before you decry intellectual property. Understanding why property exists is key to identifying what exactly it is.

@ Joey

Intellectual property rights exists for a reason. Violating those rights is theft and an affront to human rights in general. Principally, that theft is the same as the violation of physical property rights. However, you are right to point out that the damages are not easily calculated, and the 0th order attempt from most people is a gross overestimation. Thank you for making that point, I wish more people in this thread were listening to it.

@ Sureboss

You are right to be upset at the violation of your company's property rights and frustrated at the inability of your government to protect those rights. But there are two important things for you to recognize. One is that you are grossly overestimating the damages incurred by illegal copying. Another is that this is a particularly difficult arena for government to protect. It is damned near impossible to stop these people from infringing your rights without violating rights even worse. For the foreseeable future, any software company must take this failure of government into account when they venture their time and money on a product. This theft will, necessarily, discourage software development and rob some profits from the companies that choose to do so anyway. But, for now, the alternative is far worse.

 

[Pako]

If it were so we would not be having an entire thread dedicated to it and relevant topics' discussion. Like most things in law, at face value the concept often seems so simple as to undermine the existence of contested cases, but once you try to put book to many different scenarios you will inevitably become very frustrated by the abundance of different shades of grey.

Please take no offense, but you are not the only one to have stated this concept, yet this is one of the most ludicrous stands on a debate that I have ever heard. The point is that piracy is theft, not whether or not a lawyer can weasel his client out of jail. That discussion is for an entirely different thread.

 

[Sureboss]

You are right to be upset at the violation of your company's property rights and frustrated at the inability of your government to protect those rights. But there are two important things for you to recognize. One is that you are grossly overestimating the damages incurred by illegal copying. Another is that this is a particularly difficult arena for government to protect. It is damned near impossible to stop these people from infringing your rights without violating rights even worse. For the foreseeable future, any software company must take this failure of government into account when they venture their time and money on a product. This theft will, necessarily, discourage software development and rob some profits from the companies that choose to do so anyway. But, for now, the alternative is far worse.

Couldn't disagree with any of that.

 

[GT Pro]

Please take no offense, but you are not the only one to have stated this concept, yet this is one of the most ludicrous stands on a debate that I have ever heard. The point is that piracy is theft, not whether or not a lawyer can weasel his client out of jail. That discussion is for an entirely different thread.

Many people argue that it is not theft, and oftentimes debates will be cast based on the question of whether or not piracy legally constitutes theft. Pardon me if piracy is agreed in this thread to be absolutely a criminal offence without question.

 

[Danoff]

Many people argue that it is not theft, and oftentimes debates will be cast based on the question of whether or not piracy legally constitutes theft. Pardon me if piracy is agreed in this thread to be absolutely a criminal offence without question.

You <----------------------------------------------> Pako's Point

(hint: look at the part in red)

 

[Duke]

Many people argue that it is not theft, and oftentimes debates will be cast based on the question of whether or not piracy legally constitutes theft. Pardon me if piracy is agreed in this thread to be absolutely a criminal offence without question.

It is not agreed to be a criminal offence without question. It SHOULD be agreed without question, but it isn't. Debate is irrelevant in this matter because "piracy is a crime" is the only logical, fair position to take.

The estimation and extent of damages for that crime are difficult to assess, as Joey rightly points out. However, the extent of damage in no way changes the fact that piracy is theft.

 

[GT Pro]

You <----------------------------------------------> Pako's Point

(hint: look at the part in red)

I was implying that I understand now Pako's point that this thread did not entail debate over whether piracy is theft. It is agreed in this thread that piracy is theft, and that point is not being discussed. Hopefully I get it.

 

[Danoff]

I was implying that I understand now Pako's point that this thread did not entail debate over whether piracy is theft. It is agreed in this thread that piracy is theft, and that point is not being discussed. Hopefully I get it.

See my previous post. I'll let Pako speak for himself, but I seriously doubt that was his point.