Why action against piracy must be harsh and taken now

[Duke]

It is agreed in this thread that piracy is theft, and that point is not being discussed. Hopefully I get it.

No, it is not agreed here, though it should be.

 

[Danoff]

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

...actually, I'll go a head and make a point regardless of whether it was what Pako was after.

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

The fact that we are discussing this is not evidence that theft is not black and white. It is evidence that not everyone understands the reason property rights exist. Disagreement on the subject has no bearing on whether property rights exist, or whether they're well defined.

 

[Pako]

...actually, I'll go a head and make a point regardless of whether it was what Pako was after.



The fact that we are discussing this is not evidence that theft is not black and white. It is evidence that not everyone understands the reason property rights exist. Disagreement on the subject has no bearing on whether property rights exist, or whether they're well defined.

👍 Thank you! As always, it sounded better coming from your keyboard than mine.

 

[Omnis]

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.

Downloaders are receiving copied goods, not stolen goods. If we're discussing whether or not something is property, why do you keep comparing it to stolen property?

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.

I'm trying to make the distinction between stealing and copying. Trust me, I'm not purposefully trolling. I'm trying to bring the conversation to a point where we can discuss the legitimacy of IP being equivalent to real property. Maybe this is the wrong thread for that. If so, I'm sorry.

My argument is that if the nature of IP is the same as the nature of ideas, in that they can be possessed and passed on freely and without detriment to the originator, then can that particular IP or IP as a whole really be considered property at all? If it can be copied without being stolen, no harm no foul, right? It seems to me that, while the possessor of an idea or IP has every right to keep it secret or proprietary, they are using coercive force via some government or agency to the effect of trying to undo the spread of ideas after failing to keep the cat in their bag. But that is a difficult task; probably impossible. If someone publishes your idea that you intended to be kept secret, then are you going to go after that one man or any and everyone who happened to read what he wrote or heard what he said? You could only go after the initial "teller," and to him you could only charge a violation of an agreement since you never owned that which was secret in the first place. So then the solution for maintaining that artificial "ownership" would have to come through improved security of the possession, like I said previously. Reliance on the present state of the issuance of artificial scarcity backed up by a coercive force has proven to be a failure. As it stands, the sharing of already-disseminated IP is a crime when it would not naturally be.

I will have to make a giant polysyllogism (or two) soon. If someone wants to work on one and PM it to me or whatever, then great. I'd love to find the fallacy.

 

[Giancarlo]

It seems to me that, while the possessor of an idea or IP has every right to keep it secret or proprietary, they are using coercive force via some government or agency to the effect of trying to undo the spread of ideas after failing to keep the cat in their bag. But that is a difficult task; probably impossible. If someone publishes your idea that your intended to be kept secret, then are you going to go after that one man or any and everyone who happened to read what he wrote or heard what he said? You could only go after the initial "teller," and to him you could only charge a violation of an agreement since you never owned that which was secret in the first place. So then the solution for maintaining that artificial "ownership" would have to come through improved security of the possession, like I said previously. Reliance on the present state of the issuance of artificial scarcity backed up by a coercive force has proven to be a failure. As it stands, the sharing of already-disseminated IP is a crime when it would not naturally be.

God, yes.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm trying to make the distinction between stealing and copying. Trust me, I'm not purposefully trolling. I'm trying to bring the conversation to a point where we can discuss the legitimacy of IP being equivalent to real property. Maybe this is the wrong thread for that. If so, I'm sorry.

I think it is the way you just start the conversation. Every time you do it you have people thinking you are defending piracy, when eventually you get to a point where you aren't defending piracy but asking why we define it as we do, when it is technically something different.

I see what you are saying, but I don't like how you approach it because it gets people approaching you the same as they would any guy who says, "Piracy is cool, hurts no one, and I should be allowed all the free music, movies and games I want because the creators of them are just greedy. If they gave it to me for free I wouldn't steal it."

 

[Touring Mars]

To be fair, that sounds considerably more like you are misunderstanding his point rather than him being "troll like", which is a harsh and unfair accusation in my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

My argument is that if the nature of IP is the same as the nature of ideas, in that they can be possessed and passed on freely and without detriment to the originator, then can that particular IP or IP as a whole really be considered property at all? If it can be copied without being stolen, no harm no foul, right? It seems to me that, while the possessor of an idea or IP has every right to keep it secret or proprietary, they are using coercive force via some government or agency to the effect of trying to undo the spread of ideas after failing to keep the cat in their bag. But that is a difficult task; probably impossible. If someone publishes your idea that your intended to be kept secret, then are you going to go after that one man or any and everyone who happened to read what he wrote or heard what he said? You could only go after the initial "teller," and to him you could only charge a violation of an agreement since you never owned that which was secret in the first place. So then the solution for maintaining that artificial "ownership" would have to come through improved security of the possession, like I said previously. Reliance on the present state of the issuance of artificial scarcity backed up by a coercive force has proven to be a failure. As it stands, the sharing of already-disseminated IP is a crime when it would not naturally be.

I will have to make a giant polysyllogism (or two) soon. If someone wants to work on one and PM it to me or whatever, then great. I'd love to find the fallacy.

I've posted the start of that task in the thread I mentioned earlier. But I will wait to comment on your reasoning here until you demonstrate that you understand the reason property rights exist. That much is key to this discussion. I have read similar arguments to the one you posted here many times and remain unconvinced of the logical justification for limiting property to physical objects.

 

[Omnis]

I've posted the start of that task in the thread I mentioned earlier. But I will wait to comment on your reasoning here until you demonstrate that you understand the reason property rights exist. That much is key to this discussion. I have read similar arguments to the one you posted here many times and remain unconvinced of the limitation of property to all things physical.

Would you like me to do that here or there? I will have to hold it until tonight or possibly tomorrow night as I have an exam and lab work to do.

 

[Danoff]

Would you like me to do that here or there? I will have to hold it until tonight or possibly tomorrow night as I have an exam and lab work to do.

I think it makes more sense in the other thread. It won't leave this thread with a shortage of things to discuss. But either way is fine really, as it fits either place.

 

[Omnis]

I think it makes more sense in the other thread. It won't leave this thread with a shortage of things to discuss.

Okay. Or perhaps if you would like to create a new thread specific to Real Property vs. IP... this way you could link to each one of these previous discussions before we start moving forward and going back and forth.

 

[Sureboss]

Downloaders are receiving copied goods, not stolen goods. If we're discussing whether or not something is property, why do you keep comparing it to stolen property?



I'm trying to make the distinction between stealing and copying. Trust me, I'm not purposefully trolling. I'm trying to bring the conversation to a point where we can discuss the legitimacy of IP being equivalent to real property. Maybe this is the wrong thread for that. If so, I'm sorry.

My argument is that if the nature of IP is the same as the nature of ideas, in that they can be possessed and passed on freely and without detriment to the originator, then can that particular IP or IP as a whole really be considered property at all? If it can be copied without being stolen, no harm no foul, right? It seems to me that, while the possessor of an idea or IP has every right to keep it secret or proprietary, they are using coercive force via some government or agency to the effect of trying to undo the spread of ideas after failing to keep the cat in their bag. But that is a difficult task; probably impossible. If someone publishes your idea that you intended to be kept secret, then are you going to go after that one man or any and everyone who happened to read what he wrote or heard what he said? You could only go after the initial "teller," and to him you could only charge a violation of an agreement since you never owned that which was secret in the first place. So then the solution for maintaining that artificial "ownership" would have to come through improved security of the possession, like I said previously. Reliance on the present state of the issuance of artificial scarcity backed up by a coercive force has proven to be a failure. As it stands, the sharing of already-disseminated IP is a crime when it would not naturally be.

I will have to make a giant polysyllogism (or two) soon. If someone wants to work on one and PM it to me or whatever, then great. I'd love to find the fallacy.

The game is copyrighted, ergo you copy it without paying us to give you a license to use it, is stealing.

Ideas? We aren't selling a theory here. We're selling a product, which has been created by us for your use, at a fee.

"Can be passed on freely without damage to the owner?"

Is this a deliberate wind up? This isn't freeware, it's a product and we're a business. Using an extremity (and I feel I have to, to see your point), if we sell one game to one person, they can spread it to 100,000 others, it doesn't affect us?

 

[FoolKiller]

To be fair, that sounds considerably more like you are misunderstanding his point rather than him being "troll like", which is a harsh and unfair accusation in my opinion.

If he was doing it on purpose, referring to him causing people to get confused about his point and argue with him. I accused him of nothing.

 

[Duke]

Downloaders are receiving copied goods, not stolen goods. If we're discussing whether or not something is property, why do you keep comparing it to stolen property?

Because IT IS.

My argument is that if the nature of IP is the same as the nature of ideas, in that they can be possessed and passed on freely and without detriment to the originator, then can that particular IP or IP as a whole really be considered property at all?

You're making a fundamental mistake in your reasoning.

Let's start with an idea. The idea of, say, a small portable telephone that works via a network of relay stations across the country. That in itself is not intellectual property to be protected by copyright. Anybody could come up with it or run with it after hearing about it.

But the design of a working cell phone system is IP that can be protected, even if no actual hardware is built. Do you think it is fair that a competitor company should be able to get a copy of the design information for this system and build their own version, using the research and development done by the first company?

After all, those are only ideas right? The first company still has those ideas in their possession, after all... right? Sounds fair, under your system.

I'm an architect. I design houses for people for money.

Say I design a house for a nice retired couple who pay me to come up with a nice, moderately-sized, attractive house. I do the drawings, they pay me, they get the house built, they love it.

Should they then get to give my plans away to all their friends so the friends can build one too? Should the contractor get to build as many copies as he wants from the drawings he used for the first one?

After all, it was just an idea of a house that I had, not the actual house, right? No need for me to get paid every time someone builds another copy of my house. Sounds fair under your system, too.

If it can be copied without being stolen, no harm no foul, right? It seems to me that, while the possessor of an idea or IP has every right to keep it secret or proprietary, they are using coercive force via some government or agency to the effect of trying to undo the spread of ideas after failing to keep the cat in their bag.

How exactly am I supposed to get a house built without issuing the drawings to anybody? If I have to issue the drawings are they then automatically entitled to copy the design?

The idea of "music" is not protected by copyright. But a song written by a band is protected. Should I be allowed to just photocopy every book I want to read? After all, aren't the words just ideas?

I normally agree with your thinking, but I believe you are severely barking up the wrong tree with this reasoning. Are you a major Chinese manufacturer or something?

Reliance on the present state of the issuance of artificial scarcity backed up by a coercive force has proven to be a failure. As it stands, the sharing of already-disseminated IP is a crime when it would not naturally be.

But you're mistaken in your premise of what IP is. Again, the concept of "music" is a public idea. A particular melody is NOT. Can I claim a legitimate share of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata just because I could have thought of it too?

There's no "artificial scarcity" of media that is causing piracy. If things are cost-effective to publish for sale, they are published. The fact that I can't buy CDs from obscure Japanese '80s metal bands in the United States is not caused by "artificial scarcity". It's caused by the fact that there are not enough Loudness fans to make it worth somebody's time and effort and expense to import the CDs or secure the distribution rights to sell the music online.

The mere fact that people are not willing to pay for something does not entitle them to own it in any way.

 

[TrievelA7X]

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.

You seem to think it's the music artist that suffer from internet theft. (illegal downloading/sharing) Wrong. It's the industry. The artists don't make crap off of cd's, we know that.
Or have you not been informed of TLC?
As much as I hate the music industry, it's still theft.

Downloaders are receiving copied goods, not stolen goods. If we're discussing whether or not something is property, why do you keep comparing it to stolen property?

See the bold? Copied Illegally! aka Stolen! OR, Shared Illegally! It's not their's to give you! You're not allowed to accept it! Whether it's music, movies, or games!
Where is your confusion here?

 

[Silverzone]

I personally stopped pirating. Being a musician myself, I wouldn't want my intelligent property floating around without compensation (unless I gave permission.) I'm a big fan of the idea of band releasing free music, bands make all their money on tour anyway, so give the fans a reason to come see you. Anyway, I think if the major labels wanted music to stop being pirated, they could stop charging 20 dollars a CD. Indie labels have better bands, and generally better prices and sometimes you have a harder time finding smaller bands albums circulating on Isohunt. The music industry needs to be turned on their heads, and the dinosaurs running the labels need to ousted and replaced with people who have distribution ideas more in the now. I feel that could make piracy slow down considerably. Don't try and sell me a Kid Rock CD that has like 2 (ok, maybe none) good songs, try and sell quality music at a reasonable price, and you instantly see sales rise.

 

[Pako]

The concept that makes IP interesting is that there is no direct financial harm associated with it. The digital copy doesn't cost the originator of the code any materials or loss of goods. What they do loose is opportunity cost by the potential loss of sales.

I may be starting to switch my views here a bit as I think this through as I apply it to music. For example, if I memorize someone's song and sing it to my child, or perform it privately for my own use, I am not required to have a mechanical license for that song. If, however, I am going to perform that song publicly or include it on a CD for release, I am required to obtain a mechanical license for that song and pay the original writer royalties for each performance or CD manufactured.

If I download a game and intend to only play that game for my own personal use and make no effort to sell that game for profit, am I truly violating any laws? I still think I am, but in the music example I have demonstrated, I am not.

 

[Duke]

If I download a game and intend to only play that game for my own personal use and make no effort to sell that game for profit, am I truly violating any laws? I still think I am, but in the music example I have demonstrated that I am not.

If you sing the song to yourself, you are using the concept of the song, not the song itself (as in the version performed by the artist). So long as you are singing that song privately, it's not an issue. Agreed, if you want to perform it publicly, you need to secure rights to it.

But if you're playing a game you are using the actual game product itself, not just the idea of the game. Playing a bootleg copy of Oblivion is theft, but dressing up and running around my back yard with a wooden sword is not.

 

[Touring Mars]

If he was doing it on purpose, referring to him causing people to get confused about his point and argue with him. I accused him of nothing.

Saying "If you are doing it on purpose, that is annoying, and borderline troll-like" is an accusation. You may not be actually calling him a troll, but you are accusing him of possibly behaving like one, which is enough to warrant being called out for it. Presumably since he has confirmed that this was not his intention, and without much else to back up the accusation, you'd care to withdraw it. Anyway, I've said all I want to say about the matter. If you have any further comments, PM me.

 

[homeforsummer]

You seem to think it's the music artist that suffer from internet theft. (illegal downloading/sharing) Wrong. It's the industry

So if the industry suffers from music piracy and goes out of business, who is going to fund/promote/manage the artists?

If the industry suffers then so do the artists. Only small bands don't make much money from CDs (and so are even more susceptible to suffering from piracy)

The artists don't make crap off of cd's, we know that.

If the artists don't make money from CDs and indeed other forms of recorded media, then there would be no business case for them and gigs would be the only place we could hear them. The music industry makes lots of money from music sales but logically it follows that some of an artist's revenue is from music sales too.

As much as I hate the music industry, it's still theft.

Point me to where I suggested that music piracy wasn't theft? I think from your poorly-worded post that you're supporting the consensus that downloading for free is theft, in which case we are both fighting the same corner.

Regardless, you missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is that game developers, especially small ones, will suffer more from piracy than the musicians do because the music industry can provide live entertainment which generates huge revenues. The game industry is literally selling a product, not an experience, and a product can be stolen.

I'm seeing some very intelligent points in this thread, it's a very interesting discussion 👍

 

[Northstar]

So if the industry suffers from music piracy and goes out of business, who is going to fund/promote/manage the artists?

There have already been companies established that mostly manage live shows(Live Nation being the biggest, although they are starting to do CD sales as well).

I think more people would pay for music if they did something similar to what Trent Reznor(Nine Inch Nails) and Radiohead have done and offer the album(although at a lower bit rate) for free while allowing people to pay for a better quality.

If the industry suffers then so do the artists. Only small bands don't make much money from CDs (and so are even more susceptible to suffering from piracy)

The artists don't make much off CD sales, the record company only pays them a small percentage of the profit. They get their money from the signing of the contracts(normally includes an X amount of albums and tours).

As for the smaller bands, them being smaller chances are you will only be able to find their stuff at their shows anyways.

If the artists don't make money from CDs and indeed other forms of recorded media, then there would be no business case for them and gigs would be the only place we could hear them. The music industry makes lots of money from music sales but logically it follows that some of an artist's revenue is from music sales too.

In most cases the artists don't care since as I posted above they only get a small cut off of CD sales anyways.

Also, I use Zune Pass so all the music I have is legally downloaded or I have a physical copy.

 

[TrievelA7X]

So if the industry suffers from music piracy and goes out of business, who is going to fund/promote/manage the artists?

The entire industry won't, because there are still honest people, still quite a few million, indicated by record sales, just in America alone.

I]If the industry suffers then so do the artists[/I]. Only small bands don't make much money from CDs (and so are even more susceptible to suffering from piracy)

I noticed you cut my remark about TLC. Or were they a "small band"? I believe their album "crazysexycool" sold about 10 million copies, and they went bankrupt, because they made something like 65 cents per album, divided by 3? (keep in mind not all album sales were made instantly) And obviously, they made the mistake of assuming they had more money than they did, too.

the artists don't make money from CDs and indeed other forms of recorded media, then there would be no business case for them and gigs would be the only place we could hear them. The music industry makes lots of money from music sales but logically it follows that some of an artist's revenue is from music sales too.

Yes, some is. That doesn't mean it hurts them any amount comparable to the industry.

me to where I suggested that music piracy wasn't theft? I think from your poorly-worded post that you're supporting the consensus that downloading for free is theft, in which case we are both fighting the same corner.

I don't believe I implied you did say it wasn't theft, I just said it is theft. And it is.

, you missed my point entirely. What I'm saying is that game developers, especially small ones, will suffer more from piracy than the musicians do because the music industry can provide live entertainment which generates huge revenues. The game industry is literally selling a product, not an experience, and a product can be stolen.

Yes and no. Smaller artists make their way into bigger shows/tours by selling more albums, and having a larger fanbase, no?



In short, the internet is slowly changing the world, and given that most people will not take action unless something affects them personally, internet piracy will most likely not be stopped, because the only people that care enough to do anything about it, have to convince other people to do something about it. That makes it increasingly difficult, and for smaller guys, next to impossible. Just my thoughts on the piracy issue.

 

[AOS-]

I was into the piracy stuff years ago, but I've stopped. The reason why I started though was because I was convinced products were priced the way they were because people are greedy and just want every dollar they can get, not just making a profit but trying to profit as much as they can with each unit.

 

[Northstar]

Recently I have decided to start collecting CD's that I've downloaded, however most will be used due to them being cheaper.

I was also wondering what your guys' view on used CD's/games are as no money is actually going to the artist/developer.

 

[Duke]

I don't have a problem with used stuff at all. The original purchaser bought the legal rights to the music or game. Those rights are then his property to re-sell if he wishes, subject to the original copyright protection: it's not cool if he buys CDs, rips them to his computer, and then keeps the rips and sells the CDs. Then he is pirating, even if he originally purchased the music legally.

But if he does not keep a copy of the music or game then the original purchaser is selling and giving up his rights to play the media.

 

[Joey D]

I was also wondering what your guys' view on used CD's/games are as no money is actually going to the artist/developer.

I see nothing wrong with buying anything like that used, however the game companies do. Bungie's Marty O'Donnell actually thinks they should get a cut of all used game sales.

Links:
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/09/26/bungie-game-companies-should-pocket-money-from-used-sales/

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/16/joystiq-interview-bungies-marty-odonnell-on-the-digital-cont/

Game companies should not receive anything for used games, although I can see where they are coming from, especially now that used game sales are at an all time high.

Link:
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/07/06/nielsen-gaming-time-used-game-sales-at-all-time-high/

I don't think many games are worth $60, but many of the games out today are worth $20-$30. I have no problem waiting a couple of months for the used market to get flooded with people who have beat or have become uninterested in the game and then just buy it used from Gamestop. Plus Gamestop typically has Buy 2 get 1 free sales, which is always nice. I also always trade in old games I no longer play for credit towards other used games.

I rarely buy any game new, even ones I really want I can wait a week and save $10 by getting it used. I think probably the only console game I'll buy new this year is Forza 3.

PC games are a different story though since I'm not sure you can install them on other machines, especially now with all the stupid DRM crap they put on them. If I want to install and uninstall Spore 5,000 times on my computer why shouldn't I be able to?

 

[Sureboss]

Well, with our DRM, it isn't a problem. I know with Sports Interactive/Steam/Football Manager you can unlock any game, which involves giving them the game code and they take off the DRM iirc.

Used games - No problem here, don't know any of my contacts who have a problem with it either.

 

[Joey D]

Having a serial code is fine, I have no issue with that. Limiting the number of installs is something I have a major issue with. If I just spent $50 on your game, it should allow me to install and uninstall it as I wish. There are a lot of games I will install for a couple of weeks and then uninstall to keep my hard drives free.

 

[Sureboss]

I agree, but some companies don't trust people enough, which is why it's used. Bob has x, 5 friends also want x, the install restriction method stops this.

For us, as long as you don't piss about with your registry the software will always read your code on the HDD, and you can transfer it to a 2nd PC. People who use up their 2nd license, will ask our DRM company and they will often give them another license.

 

[Joey D]

I agree, but some companies don't trust people enough, which is why it's used. Bob has x, 5 friends also want x, the install restriction method stops this.

For us, as long as you don't piss about with your registry the software will always read your code on the HDD, and you can transfer it to a 2nd PC. People who use up their 2nd license, will ask our DRM company and they will often give them another license.

I realise why they do it, although judging that Spore was the most downloaded game ever, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work and just pisses off people who actually purchased the game. A shame on me moment came when I purchased Spore without actually knowing the extent of the DRM on it.

This is also annoying because typically once I have played a game through and uninstalled it, I'll exchange it with a buddy for one of his games. And since I feel that I will probably get jumped on for this, I highly doubt this is illegal. I've uninstalled the game from my machine and I'm allowing someone else to use it. It's exactly like buying a used game, except another game is being traded for it instead of money.

This is unless it's illegal to have used games.