Copying is not theft

[the.golden.ax]

To me its a moral issue and when you take something, anything, without permission from the copyright holder, that TO ME constitutes theft.

 

If its not, I'll make copies of one of the homebrews sold here, put up an ad here in the marketplace and give them away. How do you think that would go over? I won't ask any money and even pay the shipping so its not theft and the homebrew programmer, and Albert, should be fine with it right? *

 

* No I'm not going to do this, just making a point

Well it'd certainly be copyright infringement, but it's pretty far from theft. Everybody else would still have the rights and products they're entitled to but some schmoe would be illegally distributing bootlegs. ...And everybody would be 'willing AIDS' upon him.

 

However copyright infringement isn't such a great topic to bring up around *some* homebrewed carts. The process you're describing sounds a lot like how 'reproduction' carts come into being. Also 'hacks' may fall into the same boat since they're new creations often substantially based on established works. Other commercially available homebrews 'borrow' trademarked or copyrighted content that doesn't belong to the author.

 

All valid and true points. And as Ax pointed out a person should be able to make a backup or archival copy of their own purchases as the money has been properly paid. That I have no problem with, its when said copies are either sold or given away to other potential buyers that it becomes an infringement issue.

 

Its a very muddied issue and my problem with the video is that it presents a very gray issue as black and white.

 

 

Now, that said, if someone wants to write a review or walkthrough of a game, or make a Hogwarts Bible, they shouldn't get sued for it. IMHO.

 

Let's see a video about Wesley Snipes and how we shouldn't pay our taxes

 

Until then we need to cure E.S.S.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9alvLdf5eWw

 

AX

[Hatta]

If I steal a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid. If I copy a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid.

 

Is it really your assertion that all activities that do not result in a copyright owner getting paid are equivalent to theft?

 

It may not be the same thing in a court of law, but its like arguing that getting shot in the left leg is not the same as getting shot in the right leg. In the end does it really matter? Either way, you have a hole in your leg.

 

 

Courts have these distinctions for a reason. There's a difference between accidentally shooting someone, and deliberately shooting someone. There's a difference between shooting someone out of self defense, shooting someone in a fit of passion, and shooting someone for calculated self interest. In all of these cases someone ends up shot, yet they are all very different actions. "Shoot em all, let God sort em out" is not a very intelligent or mature way to deal with the shades of grey we encounter in the real world.

[AtariLeaf]

If I steal a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid. If I copy a CD, the copyright owner is not getting paid.

 

Is it really your assertion that all activities that do not result in a copyright owner getting paid are equivalent to theft?

 

No, if I take a dump he's not getting paid but then again, I'm not trying to take his intellectual property for free when I take a dump.

 

It may not be the same thing in a court of law, but its like arguing that getting shot in the left leg is not the same as getting shot in the right leg. In the end does it really matter? Either way, you have a hole in your leg.

 

 

Courts have these distinctions for a reason. There's a difference between accidentally shooting someone, and deliberately shooting someone. There's a difference between shooting someone out of self defense, shooting someone in a fit of passion, and shooting someone for calculated self interest. In all of these cases someone ends up shot, yet they are all very different actions. "Shoot em all, let God sort em out" is not a very intelligent or mature way to deal with the shades of grey we encounter in the real world.

 

You took a simple analogy and took it completely out of context and that wasn't what I was saying at all. From the copyright owners perspective, it doesn't matter if you stole a CD from him directly or made a copy and gave it to a friend who would have otherwise bought it. He's still out that sale and its still a hole in the leg.

 

 

It seems some people are terrified of the word "theft". Fine what do you call it when you take something that you shouldn't and doesn't belong to you or that you didn't pay for? Is calling it "copyright infringement" better? Why are people prosecuted for downloading songs? They didn't steal a CD? It was freely distributed on the web? Only difference is when Johnny down the street makes you a copy of that Justin Beiber/Lady Gaga/Snoop Dog song chances are you won't get caught.

Edited December 14, 2010 by AtariLeaf

[Mirage]

 

No, if I take a dump he's not getting paid but then again, I'm not trying to take his intellectual property for free when I take a dump.

 

 

Does "take a dump" mean the same thing in Canada as it does in the US

[AtariLeaf]

No, if I take a dump he's not getting paid but then again, I'm not trying to take his intellectual property for free when I take a dump.

 

 

Does "take a dump" mean the same thing in Canada as it does in the US

 

I believe so

I know it means the same thing in Russia

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0QLxcvowk

[Mirage]

 

I believe so

I know it means the same thing in Russia

 

 

LOL, okay, just checking!

[Cebus Capucinis]

No, if I take a dump he's not getting paid but then again, I'm not trying to take his intellectual property for free when I take a dump.

 

Actually, technically if you're going into other people's houses, rushing to their toilets, and taking their dumps, you ARE stealing. I'd recommend leaving them from now on.

[AtariLeaf]

No, if I take a dump he's not getting paid but then again, I'm not trying to take his intellectual property for free when I take a dump.

 

Actually, technically if you're going into other people's houses, rushing to their toilets, and taking their dumps, you ARE stealing. I'd recommend leaving them from now on.

 

touche'

[Godzilla]

"and though we say all information should be free, it is not" billy idol. cyber punk

[Video]

Copying your own stuff for your own benefit isn't stealing (even commercial stuff) It isn't until said copies (or legit originals) change hands that it becomes theft.

 

And copyright infringement is just a fancy legal term for "stealing" Copyright infringement is theft, but that doesn't mean theft is copyright infringement, kind of like apples are fruit (except when their computers) but fruit isn't necessarily apples.

[Reaperman]

Copying your own stuff for your own benefit isn't stealing (even commercial stuff) It isn't until said copies (or legit originals) change hands that it becomes theft.

 

And copyright infringement is just a fancy legal term for "stealing" Copyright infringement is theft, but that doesn't mean theft is copyright infringement, kind of like apples are fruit (except when their computers) but fruit isn't necessarily apples.

I totally disagree. Theft is theft. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement. We have different terms for them because they are very different things.

 

The term 'theft' is used for emotional or figurative reasons, but that doesn't make it correct, or at least not very correct. Copyright owners have had nothing of substace taken from them when their rights are infringed upon.

What we have here also isn't a 'gray area,' but rather a couple of smaller black and white areas.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Reaperman

[Mirage]

Agree with Reaperman. It's not an issue of semantics, they are 2 different things. Related? Sure, I guess, but different.

[DickNixonArisen]

Just a quick note: when you are a competitor to a business who beats them with a superior marketing strategy or better product, or a consumer who just doesn't WANT a triple-headed Dildo or whatever and so doesn't buy, you're "Depriving the company of sales it would have otherwise made". Their sales decline, but no object goes missing from their warehouse. It may not be ethical, but it's not theft according to traditional definitions. Specific legal definitions are self-supporting - if the US government determines that eating peaches is sodomy, then it is, legally. So, if digital copies of data are legalized into a similar status as physical objects (a very, very, very bad idea in my opinion) then downloading them illegally will technically be theft and not copyright infringement or any other crime. Perhaps the most egregious example of this legalistic 'creep' is the practice of copyrighting the genetic structures of plants that have existed for hundreds of years, or even the genetic code of humans. I don't think a company or individual should be able to own the very existence and concept of an entire species.

[Mendon]

If THESE NUMBERS are to be believed, that's a lot of downloading going on!!

 

 

Mendon

[Emehr]

I can scan every page of a book I own, transfer my CDs to any other media (cassette, MP3, whatever), make numerous backups of my software, and/or convert my VHS tapes to DVD if I like. As long as I'm not selling, sharing, or giving away these copies and retaining the original, then I haven't monetarily deprived the producer of the material or affected their business in any way.

 

If THESE NUMBERS are to be believed, that's a lot of downloading going on!!

I wonder how many of those downloads turned into sales? Or sales from word of mouth? Not that we could ever know...but we also don't know how many of these downloaders would have bought the game anyway if they had no means to download it.

[Segataritensoftii]

How about changing it to "Copying is not always theft."? It's less simplistic while still being simple and catchy in my opinion, at least.

[Mirage]

How about changing it to "Copying is not always theft."? It's less simplistic while still being simple and catchy in my opinion, at least.

 

Or how about "Do whatever you want". It's simple, catchy, and seems to be their real point.

[Video]

Uh, I wasn't saying copyright infringement is a form of stealing just because I think it makes me look good, I said that because that is the legal definition for it. Look it up sometime.

 

How about changing it to "Copying is not always theft."? It's less simplistic while still being simple and catchy in my opinion, at least.

 

Or how about "Do whatever you want". It's simple, catchy, and seems to be their real point.

 

That seems to be the attitude of most people that I've come across "do you have (deposit movie/game/music here)" No "well why don't you just download it" I'd rather buy it "why? I can get it for free" Cause it's stealing, and I simply don't believe in it...."your a dumbass" (yeah, that always wins an argument )

 

besides, when I buy a legit CD/movie, i'm not limited to whatever format it's ripped in (literally, I rip all my stuff in 320kMP3, and can't see a reason to download at merely 96 or 120k) Plus, I get the bonus of not being locked into that format, if for whatever reason I decide I need an Ipod ( ) I can rip in it Ai format (or was that A1 ) and I won't loose any er..."resolution" for lack of a better word, as I can transfer it from it's original pure format (well, as pure as consumers can get)

 

Besides, there's also the virus thing, and while legal operations don't typically go after the downloaders, (their more interested in the big fish) they could, and what are you going to do when you get caught with a bunch of stolen shit on your computer?

 

But it still makes more sense to most people I've talked to, to just jack stuff online..granted, how many people do you personally know that have been busted for any type of copyright infringement or whatever? I know I can personally count the number I personally know on zero fingers.

[RevEng]

Uh, I wasn't saying copyright infringement is a form of stealing just because I think it makes me look good, I said that because that is the legal definition for it. Look it up sometime.

Citation please. I've read U.S.C 17 numerous times and never seen any reference to stealing.

 

Maybe you need to look up the definition yourself.

[Cebus Capucinis]

Uh, I wasn't saying copyright infringement is a form of stealing just because I think it makes me look good, I said that because that is the legal definition for it. Look it up sometime.

Citation please. I've read U.S.C 17 numerous times and never seen any reference to stealing.

 

Maybe you need to look up the definition yourself.

 

Beat me to it!

[AtariLeaf]

Just as an aside, I don't particularly like the "he/she/it wouldn't have bought the game/movie/music anyway" argument when it comes to someone downloading who otherwise wouldn't have purchased said product.

 

Why didn't they buy it? Too poor? Not anyone else's problem. Too bad so sad.

 

Not interesting enough? Then why download it?

 

If its interesting enough to download, its interesting enough to buy. Don't agree with the price? Too bad, its a free market society. They get to choose what to charge and you get to choose to buy it or not. You don't, however, get the choice to just take it digitally.

[Reaperman]

Just as an aside, I don't particularly like the "he/she/it wouldn't have bought the game/movie/music anyway" argument when it comes to someone downloading who otherwise wouldn't have purchased said product.

 

Why didn't they buy it? Too poor? Not anyone else's problem. Too bad so sad.

 

Not interesting enough? Then why download it?

 

If its interesting enough to download, its interesting enough to buy. Don't agree with the price? Too bad, its a free market society. They get to choose what to charge and you get to choose to buy it or not. You don't, however, get the choice to just take it digitally.

There are enough legal ways to come by things to kill off any thoughts of a 1:1 relationship between piracy and lost revenue for copyright holders. Items can be borrowed from a friend/library, or purchased used. Also timing of the purchase may come into question. Paying full retail at release vs waiting for sales. Not that I'm disagreeing, just throwing more into the mix.

 

As another aside, I've noticed that pirated works are often superior in quality to their legitimate brothers. I think this has something to do with the issue too. I can't even watch a DVD/bluray any more because the piracy warnings, forced trailers, and menu systems are just too annoying. A pirated movie is often just easier to use. Netflix is how I compromise, though it is just that--a compromise.

Edited December 30, 2010 by Reaperman

[Needles Kane]

If someone wouldn't have bought Item X anyway, then they still have no right to steal it. No one gets caught sneaking into a movie theater and gets off the hook by saying "I wouldn't have bothered to see the movie if I had to pay." You're not stealing a physical object off a shelf, but you are stealing access to something that someone else worked hard to create.

[AtariLeaf]

There are enough legal ways to come by things to kill off any thoughts of a 1:1 relationship between piracy and lost revenue for copyright holders. Items can be borrowed from a friend/library, or purchased used. Also timing of the purchase may come into question. Paying full retail at release vs waiting for sales. Not that I'm disagreeing, just throwing more into the mix.

 

Absolutely, I have no problem with any of that.

 

As another aside, I've noticed that pirated works are often superior in quality to their legitimate brothers. I think this has something to do with the issue too. I can't even watch a DVD/bluray any more because the piracy warnings, forced trailers, and menu systems are just too annoying. A pirated movie is often just easier to use. Netflix is how I compromise, though it is just that--a compromise.

 

I didn't know that pirated works were stripped down but it does make sense. It would be very ironic for a pirated DVD to have anti-piracy ads anyway

[Emehr]

I agree with the "they wouldn't have bought it anyway" theory mainly because illegally downloading commercially available products is for cheap, lazy people. They wouldn't have bought it if it meant getting a job and saving up for it. It's accessible without having to get off their ass or applying any more effort than navigating some software. It's not right and I don't condone it but it's one of the most reasonable explanations. There's an inherent laziness with a significant portion of the population. I'm sure many of us know or are aware of at least one type of person like this.

 

And no matter which way I wrap my head around it, I can't justify calling it "stealing". Copyrights are definitely being infringed, but physical property isn't being taken. Stealing implies that property is removed from the owner and transferred to the thief. In the case of illegally downloading commercially available products, the owner still retains the property. The person doing the downloading is just acquiring a copy. Hence, copyright infringement.

 

Whether or not the property owner is losing any revenue is a different matter. One could argue that if a group of people goes to another person's house and a movie is playing, that the property owner lost revenue because those people watched the movie and none of them own a copy of it. But then we get into the topic of public performances and what constitutes them. Is revenue really lost? These people wouldn't have bought the movie anyway, yet they sat there and watched it.

 

On the topic of movies stripped of all commercials, previews, and menus I must exert a hearty "Harumph!"! As much of a proponent as I am of physical media, that's the one beauty of ripping DVDs. I especially cannot stand animated menus. If I added up all the time I had to sit through animated menus I would probably curl up into the fetal position and wonder what I could've been doing with my life instead.