Is Piracy Stealing?

I do not see any two ways about it. piracy and stealing have the same definition and piracy of any type is a crime

iowastate

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

I do not see any two ways about it. piracy and stealing have the same definition and piracy of any type is a crime

sSubZerOo

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

I do not see any two ways about it. piracy and stealing have the same definition and piracy of any type is a crime

iowastate

Except they arn't the same. If I pirate a CD, I have not caused the original owner to no longer have it. It would be closer to stealing if I pirated the CD and then destroyed the original copy that the owner had.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="Sins-of-Mosin"]Just as much as getting a used copy. Either way, the dev/pub don't get any money. Thou, I think used copys are worse as other people are getting rich off it.Pixel-Pirate

No. Used sales are protected by the Doctrine of First Sale.

Just because it is protected by law doesn't mean it isn't similar. The developers and publishers get no money, just like with piracy. They are very similar but no one really cares about used games because the law says it's okay (which instantly means it's good) and the law says piracy is not okay (which instantly means it's evil).

I was just taking issue with the comment that I referenced in particular that's all. I see where you're going with this however. Doctrine of First Sale as a means to distinguish a legal transaction from piracy does seem silly when you think on it. Either way, the content creator receives no compensation from it. While this seems like sheer rationalization, it still does provide some food for thought.

It's prolly been posted already, but still stands true. the_foreign_guy

use a dictionary......piracy IS theft

Piracy forces an industry to evolve, introduce new products, and change practices. Otherwise a company just rides the same item or IP for decades.

Pixel-Pirate

I think that the same could be accomplished byt just not buying the stuff.

If anything, I think that piracy just clouds the issue, and allows companies to get away with BS (such as DRM) in the name of "anti-piracy".

If the people who had a problem with these companies' practices decided to not buy and to also do without the product/service entirely, then I guarantee that those companies would change their practices a LOT ****ing faster.

It's like, if you boycott Dr Pepper because they kidnap children and force them to make Dr Pepper under penalty of death (Dr Pepper doesn't do this), and then you continue to get all the Dr Pepper you want by stealing it out of vending machines, thwen the whole point of the boycott is suspect.

Better is to do without until the companies change, because then they can't continue to do the same **** while dismissing their lost sales as the result of piracy. But as I said in the recent thread about the collapse of civilization, FAR too few people are actually willing to make personal sacrifices. If people want music and don't like the business practices of companies releasing that music, doing without the music entirely provides a stronger statement and incentive to change than getting that music illegally, for free. Doing without the product/service ENTIRELY provides a hell of a lot more incentive for companies to change their practices. But people are willing to pirate, even though it hurts their cause, simply because they are too weak-willed to make a REAL statment and show that they really don't need the product/service. They want change without having to make any sacrifices, and that's one of the reasons why it's taken so ****ing long for any changes to be made.

Piracy HURTS the cause of many people, but they do it anyway. Because they really don't care about their cause, they just want everything and are willing to give up nothing.

Piracy is an interesting topic becouse technically borrowing a cd or game to a friend can also be called piracy. Recording off of the tv, piracy. College students xeroxing whole books, piracy.

I hope I won't offend anyone here. But in my opinion Piracy is what little kids do. I means what's the point of big firms making games, programs... what's the point of musicians making great songs. What's the point of actors and producers filming movies if no one would buy them.

I do use youtube to watch and listen to music. But if i like music I buy album. I download demos from GS and demonoid. But if I like game I buy it.

Supporting the firms is what needs to be done.

So yeah. I'd call it stealing.

I hope I won't offend anyone here. But in my opinion Piracy is what little kids do. I means what's the point of big firms making games, programs... what's the point of musicians making great songs. What's the point of actors and producers filming movies if no one would buy them.

I do use youtube to watch and listen to music. But if i like music I buy album. I download demos from GS and demonoid. But if I like game I buy it.

Supporting the firms is what needs to be done.

So yeah. I'd call it stealing.

gooper102

What I call stealing is what "firms" do to artists they have signed. Musicians get so little from the sale of cds that its pathetic. Most of the big stars are big becouse of their conter tours not album sales becouse revenue from that for the most part goes to the companies.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Piracy forces an industry to evolve, introduce new products, and change practices. Otherwise a company just rides the same item or IP for decades.

MrGeezer

I think that the same could be accomplished byt just not buying the stuff.

If anything, I think that piracy just clouds the issue, and allows companies to get away with BS (such as DRM) in the name of "anti-piracy".

If the people who had a problem with these companies' practices decided to not buy and to also do without the product/service entirely, then I guarantee that those companies would change their practices a LOT ****ing faster.

It's like, if you boycott Dr Pepper because they kidnap children and force them to make Dr Pepper under penalty of death (Dr Pepper doesn't do this), and then you continue to get all the Dr Pepper you want by stealing it out of vending machines, thwen the whole point of the boycott is suspect.

Better is to do without until the companies change, because then they can't continue to do the same **** while dismissing their lost sales as the result of piracy. But as I said in the recent thread about the collapse of civilization, FAR too few people are actually willing to make personal sacrifices. If people want music and don't like the business practices of companies releasing that music, doing without the music entirely provides a stronger statement and incentive to change than getting that music illegally, for free. Doing without the product/service ENTIRELY provides a hell of a lot more incentive for companies to change their practices. But people are willing to pirate, even though it hurts their cause, simply because they are too weak-willed to make a REAL statment and show that they really don't need the product/service. They want change without having to make any sacrifices, and that's one of the reasons why it's taken so ****ing long for any changes to be made.

Piracy HURTS the cause of many people, but they do it anyway. Because they really don't care about their cause, they just want everything and are willing to give up nothing.

The problem is it's really hard to convince millions of people to not buy something they want. However you really don't need to prod someone to pirate, they'll do it on their own. Simply put, relying on people to just not buy it isn't going to happen, ever.

I hope I won't offend anyone here. But in my opinion Piracy is what little kids do. I means what's the point of big firms making games, programs... what's the point of musicians making great songs. What's the point of actors and producers filming movies if no one would buy them.

I do use youtube to watch and listen to music. But if i like music I buy album. I download demos from GS and demonoid. But if I like game I buy it.

Supporting the firms is what needs to be done.

So yeah. I'd call it stealing.

gooper102

You think musicians get any real amount of money from a CD/Song sale. Thats amusing.

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

I do not see any two ways about it. piracy and stealing have the same definition and piracy of any type is a crime

sSubZerOo

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

[QUOTE="gooper102"]

I hope I won't offend anyone here. But in my opinion Piracy is what little kids do. I means what's the point of big firms making games, programs... what's the point of musicians making great songs. What's the point of actors and producers filming movies if no one would buy them.

I do use youtube to watch and listen to music. But if i like music I buy album. I download demos from GS and demonoid. But if I like game I buy it.

Supporting the firms is what needs to be done.

So yeah. I'd call it stealing.

rzepak

What I call stealing is what "firms" do to artists they have signed. Musicians get so little from the sale of cds that its pathetic. Most of the big stars are big becouse of their conter tours not album sales becouse revenue from that for the most part goes to the companies.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

I do not see any two ways about it. piracy and stealing have the same definition and piracy of any type is a crime

LJS9502_basic

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

jimmyjammer69

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And as you just stated....it IS considered theft of intellectual property. LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="iowastate"]

I do not see any two ways about it. piracy and stealing have the same definition and piracy of any type is a crime

LJS9502_basic

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

Uh, you can't steal someone's copyright.

I would class it as stealing in the same sense I can "steal a ride" on a bus or train by fare dodging.AirGuitarist87

I would class it as stealing in the same sense I can "steal a ride" on a bus or train by fare dodging.AirGuitarist87

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Piracy is closer to plagerism or copywrite infringement, the theft of intellectual property.. They are both illegal, but they can not be realistically compared.

MarcusAntonius

Uh, you can't steal someone's copyright.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And as you just stated....it IS considered theft of intellectual property. LJS9502_basic

Uh, you can't steal someone's copyright.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

Uh, you can't steal someone's copyright.

T_P_O

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Note the words intellectual property...that is not the copyright.;)

LJS9502_basic

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but copyright is a type of intellectual property, since there is no abstract "property" to which the term can be applied independent of the rights to copy something material. I can't find any reliable source that supports your claim.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but copyright is a type of intellectual property, since there is no abstract "property" to which the term can be applied independent of the rights to copy something material. I can't find any reliable source that supports your claim.

jimmyjammer69

To wit....

the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Note the words intellectual property...that is not the copyright.;)

LJS9502_basic

Intellectual property is the legal monopoly over the artistic/commercial idea, copyright is a form of intellectual property, same as patents and trademarks. Even a 10 second google to wikipedia tells us this: "Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.[1]".

Intellectual property is the legal monopoly over the artistic/commercial idea, copyright is a form of intellectual property, same as patents and trademarks. Even a 10 second google to wikipedia tells us this: "Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.".

T_P_O

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but copyright is a type of intellectual property, since there is no abstract "property" to which the term can be applied independent of the rights to copy something material. I can't find any reliable source that supports your claim.

LJS9502_basic

To wit....

the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but copyright is a type of intellectual property, since there is no abstract "property" to which the term can be applied independent of the rights to copy something material. I can't find any reliable source that supports your claim.

jimmyjammer69

To wit....

the exclusive right to make copies, license, and otherwise exploit a literary, musical, or artistic work, whether printed, audio, video, etc.: works granted such right by law on or after January 1, 1978, are protected for the lifetime of the author or creator and for a period of 50 years after his or her death.

[QUOTE="T_P_O"]

Intellectual property is the legal monopoly over the artistic/commercial idea, copyright is a form of intellectual property, same as patents and trademarks. Even a 10 second google to wikipedia tells us this: "Intellectual property (IP) is a term referring to a number of distinct types of legal monopolies over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial, and the corresponding fields of law.".

LJS9502_basic

Also, where does that quote imply ownership? Only the term "intellectual property" insinuates ownership or possession.

The fact remains that intellectual property is nothing more than an umbrella term used to tie together rights (such as copyright), not an entity independent of those rights and laws.

Also, where does that quote imply ownership? Only the term "intellectual property" insinuates ownership or possession.

jimmyjammer69

You can write a book, music, movie, game but not copyright it. The book is a book etc just as the copyrighted book is the book. The difference is you haven't made sure you have the exclusive rights to the book. Exclusive rights = ownership.

Now I'm out. Work calls unfortunately. Though I'd like to read how one copyrights a "nothing".

Though it technically a(nd legally) is not stealing, the effect to the owner of the object is the same.

daqua_99

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

The fact remains that intellectual property is nothing more than an umbrella term used to tie together rights (such as copyright), not an entity independent of those rights and laws.

Also, where does that quote imply ownership? Only the term "intellectual property" insinuates ownership or possession.

LJS9502_basic

You can write a book, music, movie, game but not copyright it. The book is a book etc just as the copyrighted book is the book. The difference is you haven't made sure you have the exclusive rights to the book. Exclusive rights = ownership.

Now I'm out. Work calls unfortunately. Though I'd like to read how one copyrights a "nothing".

My own view is that it simply isn't theft because a work is always a physical entity and short of stealing that work, there can't be any theft (let's remind ourselves: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to deprive them of it). If I could read your mind and see thoughts as they whizz through your head, could I be accused of having stolen something because I then also have those thoughts in my own mind?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

The fact remains that intellectual property is nothing more than an umbrella term used to tie together rights (such as copyright), not an entity independent of those rights and laws.

Also, where does that quote imply ownership? Only the term "intellectual property" insinuates ownership or possession.

jimmyjammer69

You can write a book, music, movie, game but not copyright it. The book is a book etc just as the copyrighted book is the book. The difference is you haven't made sure you have the exclusive rights to the book. Exclusive rights = ownership.

Now I'm out. Work calls unfortunately. Though I'd like to read how one copyrights a "nothing".

My own view is that it simply isn't theft because a work is always a physical entity and short of stealing that work, there can't be any theft (let's remind ourselves: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to deprive them of it). If I could read your mind and see thoughts as they whizz through your head, could I be accused of having stolen something because I then also have those thoughts in my own mind?

A lot of people don't know this, but ripping a cd onto your computer that you don't own is illegal. People just don't think about it. It really makes you think where the line between legal and illegal actually is.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. The book, music, game, movie exists. Just not physically since it's an idea. The law wanted to cIassify theft of physical property from theft of intellectual property...in the US. I don't know that the UK makes that difference nor have I studied the law of other countries in great detail. So a copyright gives the holder all rights to the "idea'. But something has to exist BEFORE you can get a copyright. In other words...the copyright legally gives you the rights to the creation. But it's not the creation itself. Copyrights can expire....the creation does not.

You can write a book, music, movie, game but not copyright it. The book is a book etc just as the copyrighted book is the book. The difference is you haven't made sure you have the exclusive rights to the book. Exclusive rights = ownership.

Now I'm out. Work calls unfortunately. Though I'd like to read how one copyrights a "nothing".

xscrapzx

My own view is that it simply isn't theft because a work is always a physical entity and short of stealing that work, there can't be any theft (let's remind ourselves: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to deprive them of it). If I could read your mind and see thoughts as they whizz through your head, could I be accused of having stolen something because I then also have those thoughts in my own mind?

A lot of people don't know this, but ripping a cd onto your computer that you don't own is illegal. People just don't think about it. It really makes you think where the line between legal and illegal actually is.

cain006

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] I hear what you say. Once again, could you provide a single link to support your thoughts on the matter? You are especially privileged to know, as you suggest, the reasoning behind the law, so maybe you could tell me why "theft of intellectual property" doesn't exist in the eyes of American (or any other) law...

My own view is that it simply isn't theft because a work is always a physical entity and short of stealing that work, there can't be any theft (let's remind ourselves: dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intent to deprive them of it). If I could read your mind and see thoughts as they whizz through your head, could I be accused of having stolen something because I then also have those thoughts in my own mind?

jimmyjammer69

Also I think I'm going to bring Bill Gates to court on Monday because I created Microsoft first. It was in my head before he created it. I mean do you see how foolish that is? What you are claiming is that it is ok for someone to have rights toanother person'screation without evidence at all that you created it first before that said individual. Do you not see how rediculous that sounds?

yes its stealing, ,, theres no getting around that.. but everyone does it. so who cares

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]I would class it as stealing in the same sense I can "steal a ride" on a bus or train by fare dodging.T_P_O

What does matter is what they will charge you with if you are caught:wink:iowastate

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"] I think what you aren't understanding is this. The minute someone comes up with something and they write it on a piece of paper, the minute it hits that paper the law protects it, but they also have to prove that they created it first. Now talking about thinking about something or whatever path you are going on has no grounds in the eyes of the court system. You have to have physical proof you created it first. Other than that there is no evidence at all that you created it. Going the path you are going is like me bringing Kayne West to court and saying I want exclusive rights to one of his songs because I created it in my head back 10 years ago, but unfortunately I never wrote it down. I mean do you see how foolish that sounds? Hence where LJ is going with this. Unless I'm completely out of touch of what you are really trying to say?

xscrapzx

Also I think I'm going to bring Bill Gates to court on Monday because I created Microsoft first. It was in my head before he created it. I mean do you see how foolish that is? What you are claiming is that it is ok for someone to have rights toanother person'screation without evidence at all that you created it first before that said individual. Do you not see how rediculous that sounds?

*edit* actually, after reading through it again, I can see where you're coming from.

Let's take a familiar example: Do you know how hot on the tail of MS open source software is? I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing you're using Firefox right now rather than some proprietary browser like IE. These programs only exist because of people who have exactly the opposite approach to intellectual property and progress as the one you're outlining. Still, I know what you mean, and yes, I'd be furious if someone else copied an idea I had come up with and passed it off as their own, turning it into a huge money spinner and preventing others from modifying it or using it without licence.

What I'm suggesting, though, is that nobody should be able to claim exclusive rights to an idea so nobody should be able to stand in the way of progress by preventing others from expanding on a good idea.

I'm not arguing semantics. I don't mean it in a sense that it is literally like fare dodging, but to me they're similar. If you didn't pay your fare on a train you don't deprive someone else of using the train, but in both cases you're meant to be paying for a service. Although I've never got a free game because the shop keeper didn't ask for money. :? AirGuitarist87

It not as much as stealing, its more like illegaly cpid something thats not yours.

[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And as you just stated....it IS considered theft of intellectual property. LJS9502_basic

Uh, you can't steal someone's copyright.

The term would be "infringement." Ohhhhh smoooooked!!!!!:P

[QUOTE="AirGuitarist87"]I'm not arguing semantics. I don't mean it in a sense that it is literally like fare dodging, but to me they're similar. If you didn't pay your fare on a train you don't deprive someone else of using the train, but in both cases you're meant to be paying for a service. Although I've never got a free game because the shop keeper didn't ask for money. :? T_P_O

Yes it is stealing.optiow

its not theft but it is stealing