PDA

View Full Version : Piracy Cripples iOS Game in Less than a Week




Pages : 1 [2]

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 07:53 AM
In this case, the only thing the developer has been deprived of, in a legal sense, is server bandwidth and resources.

And their rights under the law! I'm not sure how you keep ignoring this fact. How do you discuss things in a "legal sense" and avoid legal rights? Legal rights are what gives things value under a modern economic system.

You just keep picking and choosing what legal rights fit your argument.



phr0ze
Dec 5, 2012, 07:56 AM
I think Apple should create a trial period on all apps because sometimes the "lite" versions don't come with the original apps full features!!

I'm not sure about this. I downloaded an excellent ipad only game called The Room. I was hooked and beat it in 3 hours of downloading it. If you allow returns then I'd get my money back if I was that type of person? Then that to me is, in effect, the same thing as the pirate.

On the flip side, I bought a $50 ipad app which I ended up loving. But the purchase decision would have been much easier and sooner if I could have just tried it first. Its a productivity app which isnt something useful for just a few hours, but there is still room for abuse. Maybe I know I only need the app on occasion. I would just download it and try it when I need to produce something. If they limit accounts to just one trial per app, I'd find a loophole to switch to a temp account.

XboxMySocks
Dec 5, 2012, 07:56 AM
And their rights under the law! I'm not sure how you keep ignoring this fact. How do you discuss things in a "legal sense" and avoid legal rights? Legal rights are what gives things value under a modern economic system.

You just keep picking and choosing what legal rights fit your argument.

Again, just because something is unlawful doesn't mean it is unethical. Laws (about this at least) are pretty subjective and 'grey'. No Black and White about it. Or all these people would be in jail.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 08:00 AM
Again, just because something is unlawful doesn't mean it is unethical. Laws (about this at least) are pretty subjective and 'grey'. No Black and White about it.

I have no idea what that has to do with what I said. I didn't mention ethics at all.

Or all these people would be in jail.

:confused: Why would they go to jail? Not everything that is illegal (or unethical?) is criminal.

XboxMySocks
Dec 5, 2012, 08:02 AM
I have no idea what that has to do with what I said. I didn't mention ethics at all. Why would they go to jail? Not everything that is illegal (or unethical?) is criminal.

Because you're stating that depriving them of their 'rights under the law' as if it's an ethical issue. Why else would it be a problem? It's an incredibly grey area.

And I'm not sure where you're coming from there. Everything illegal is criminal. that's the point of making it illegal?

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 08:08 AM
Because you're stating that depriving them of their 'rights under the law' as if it's an ethical issue. Why else would it be a problem? It's an incredibly grey area.

No, I didn't. Again, I didn't mention ethics at all. We were talking about how deprivation of property rights is a form of theft.

And I'm not sure where you're coming from there. Everything illegal is criminal. that's the point of making it illegal?

No, it's not. There are many types of law. Criminal, civil, penal, etc.

Running a stop sign isn't criminal. It's a violation of the penal code. You don't go to jail. You pay a fine.

Simple copyright infringement is a violation of a civil code. You don't go to jail. You can be sued by the party whose rights you violate.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 08:21 AM
I pirate, but I also pay into the system. I pay for:

CDs
DVDs
Netflix
Lovefilm
Blu-rays
Gig tickets
PS3 games
Cinema trips
TV Licence fee
Music Unlimited
Playstation Plus

I feel I am paying enough into the system to warrant pirating a couple of things here and there. I may technically be in the wrong, but on a personal level my karma is balanced and I don't feel the tiniest bit guilty.

ekdor
Dec 5, 2012, 08:27 AM
I've actually found torrents of software I've written. I did two things:

1 - I contacted the web hosts and had the torrents taken down.

2 - I added in some code that assigns each user a unique ID. I can shut down users that pirate the app.

I've never had to actually use #2 before (I've found that only 2% or so of my users use pirated versions, and I suspect many of them wouldn't pay if I shut them down, and they don't seem to be seeding out torrents, so I don't really care,) but I put it in as a safeguard for if I ever need it.

Additionally you could create a duplicate with some nasty additions and serve it up to torrent servers. These things get automatically spread. Muddy the water so to speak. The more mess dodgy versions of your software you add the more unreliable the darknet service for people looking for your software.

phr0ze
Dec 5, 2012, 08:30 AM
I pirate, but I also pay into the system. I pay for:

CDs
DVDs
Netflix
Lovefilm
Blu-rays
Gig tickets
PS3 games
Cinema trips
TV Licence fee
Music Unlimited
Playstation Plus

I feel I am paying enough into the system to warrant pirating a couple of things here and there. I may technically be in the wrong, but on a personal level my karma is balanced and I don't feel the tiniest bit guilty.

Yeah, I should be able to steal the car if I pay for
Gas
Insurance
Licensing
Registration
Inspections
Taxes
Repairs
Maintenance

I pay into it enough.

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 08:33 AM
Yeah, I should be able to steal the car if I pay for
Gas
Insurance
Licensing
Registration
Inspections
Taxes
Repairs
Maintenance

I pay into it enough.


LOL Good reply.

As if paying for a DVD from one company is and stealing an app from a different developer compensates the developer for his/her work.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 08:37 AM
Yeah, I should be able to steal the car if I pay for
Gas
Insurance
Licensing
Registration
Inspections
Taxes
Repairs
Maintenance

I pay into it enough.

That's totally different.. Why do people keep using false analogies?

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 08:41 AM
That's totally different.. Why do people keep using false analogies?

It's only "totally different" in that you get to feel like nobody knows you stole something. :)

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 08:41 AM
That's totally different.. Why do people keep using false analogies?

So explain how paying for products from some companies is ok while steal from others is ok. As if they are all part of the same system.:rolleyes:

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 08:50 AM
So explain how paying for products from some companies is ok while steal from others is ok. As if they are all part of the same system.:rolleyes:

The stuff I pirate is made by the same studios that are in collaboration with Netflix and Lovefilm, and since I pay them a subscription fee I am lining the same pockets. So yes, as you say, the same system.

Most of the stuff I pirate because it's not avaliable in the UK. If it was, I'd pay for it, but since it isn't, off to the pirate bay I go. I pay for what I can, which is more than most people who pirate, so quit jumping to conclusions.

If iTunes movie store had an unlimited subscription service for all films/TV shows in HD (similar to Netflix's model), I'd be first in line.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 09:01 AM
So explain how paying for products from some companies is ok while steal from others is ok. As if they are all part of the same system.:rolleyes:

On another note, the picture on your profile isn't a professionally taken one is it? Because if it is, I do hope you have consent from the photographer to use it with their permission on this forum, otherwise ou would be in breach of copyright infringement.

It does certainly look like a professional pic to me..

http://i49.tinypic.com/b6at83.jpg

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 09:02 AM
The stuff I pirate is made by the same studios that are in collaboration with Netflix and Lovefilm, and since I pay them a subscription fee I am lining the same pockets. So yes, as you say, the same system.

Most of the stuff I pirate because it's not avaliable in the UK. If it was, I'd pay for it, but since it isn't, off to the pirate bay I go. I pay for what I can, which is more than most people who pirate, so quit jumping to conclusions.

If iTunes movie store had an unlimited subscription service for all films/TV shows in HD (similar to Netflix's model), I'd be first in line.

You seem so proud of your lack of respect for other people's rights. The fact that someone doesn't want to sell you something how and when you want it doesn't justify stealing it.

ArtOfWarfare
Dec 5, 2012, 09:03 AM
Additionally you could create a duplicate with some nasty additions and serve it up to torrent servers. These things get automatically spread. Muddy the water so to speak. The more mess dodgy versions of your software you add the more unreliable the darknet service for people looking for your software.

That sounds like it could easily backfire when I frustrate freeloaders and they chose to retaliate by mudslinging on the internet. Level headed people wouldn't do that, but unfortunately the web isn't full of level headed people.

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 09:07 AM
Well don't give half-ass, explanation that you pirate stuff and feel good about it. If that's the only option available (find it hard to believe there isn't a legal version, via international shipping or VPN services), then that's another story.

The stuff I pirate is made by the same studios that are in collaboration with Netflix and Lovefilm, and since I pay them a subscription fee I am lining the same pockets. So yes, as you say, the same system.

Most of the stuff I pirate because it's not avaliable in the UK. If it was, I'd pay for it, but since it isn't, off to the pirate bay I go. I pay for what I can, which is more than most people who pirate, so quit jumping to conclusions.

If iTunes movie store had an unlimited subscription service for all films/TV shows in HD (similar to Netflix's model), I'd be first in line.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 09:08 AM
You seem so proud of your lack of respect for other people's rights. The fact that someone doesn't want to sell you something how and when you want it doesn't justify stealing it.

Why would someone not want to sell me something? Did you have permission from the University to use that logo as your Avatar?

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 09:08 AM
On another note, the picture on your profile isn't a professionally taken one is it? Because if it is, I do hope you have consent from the photographer to use it with their permission on this forum, otherwise ou would be in breach of copyright infringement.

It does certainly look like a professional pic to me..

Image (http://i49.tinypic.com/b6at83.jpg)


Would you like to see the receipt for the $495 dvd we purchased with 13 sessions on it? I bought the rights to those pictures, thanks for asking.

phr0ze
Dec 5, 2012, 09:10 AM
The stuff I pirate is made by the same studios that are in collaboration with Netflix and Lovefilm, and since I pay them a subscription fee I am lining the same pockets. So yes, as you say, the same system.
But not the same directors, actors, etc. They get paid too based on their specific film. The studio doesn't say 'ohh we just collect up all our money and divide it evenly to each film'. Its not the same system.

Here is an analogy. I buy 3 movies but I decided thats paying enough but you must give me 3 more because I want them too.


Most of the stuff I pirate because it's not avaliable in the UK. If it was, I'd pay for it, but since it isn't, off to the pirate bay I go. I pay for what I can, which is more than most people who pirate, so quit jumping to conclusions.
I get annoyed by this too. But still not justification. And its usually not that you can't get the film/product, its more about not wanting to pay the costs for it. There is always ebay and other methods to buy anything desired.

If iTunes movie store had an unlimited subscription service for all films/TV shows in HD (similar to Netflix's model), I'd be first in line.

Well this again just sounds like you can get whatever you want on iTunes, you just don't like the price.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 09:14 AM
Well don't give half-ass, explanation that you pirate stuff and feel good about it. If that's the only option available (find it hard to believe there isn't a legal version, via international shipping or VPN services), then that's another story.

That's your problem right there. I prove you wrong and then you pretend you don't care.

But you have raised a good issue - VPN. It does seem a little hypocritical of you to say on one hand don't take what's not yours, and on the other you're saying I should use a VPN to access the US Netflix catalogue (that I haven't payed for).

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 09:16 AM
Care to use your wisdom to explain where you proved me wrong? I haven't been wrong about anything in about 7 years, I keep track.


That's your problem right there. I prove you wrong and then you pretend you don't care.

But you have raised a good issue - VPN. It does seem a little hypocritical of you to say on one hand don't take what's not yours, and on the other you're saying I should use a VPN to access the US Netflix catalogue (that I haven't payed for).

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 09:30 AM
Care to use your wisdom to explain where you proved me wrong? I haven't been wrong about anything in about 7 years, I keep track.

I gave you an explanation to show you that I am lining the same pockets and you dismissed it.

Your thoughts on the VPN issue I raised?

----------

Would you like to see the receipt for the $495 dvd we purchased with 13 sessions on it? I bought the rights to those pictures, thanks for asking.

$495 sounds like a fee to obtain those photographs on DVD, and not to distribute as you please. Buying them on DVD doesn't give you the right to copy them, much like when you buy a movie on DVD.

Unless you have a document (not a reciept) saying the photographer has passed on his permission, you are in breach.

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 09:37 AM
I gave you an explanation to show you that I am lining the same pockets and you dismissed it.

Your thoughts on the VPN issue I raised?


If you use VPN to get US Netflix, at least you're paying for it. You should feel better about that than using piratebay or whatever torrents you use. Is VPN illegal? How about slingbox?

----------

You don't need to babysit me, I have full rights to do what I please with these pictures. Would you like the view the rest of them? I could explain the program, and yes I know the price is cheap, they normally charge over $100 per session.


http://www.sakurawalker.com/albums/Complete_iSmile_set/photoview.php

FYI, I find you more annoying than BMA and he's on my ignore list, so I guess it's time to add you.





$495 sounds like a fee to obtain those photographs on DVD, and not to distribute as you please. Buying them on DVD doesn't give you the right to copy them, much like when you buy a movie on DVD.

Unless you have a document (not a reciept) saying the photographer has passed on his permission, you are in breach.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 09:37 AM
Why would someone not want to sell me something?

Why is that any of your business? Maybe the rights aren't available locally. Maybe they are favoring another distribution method. Maybe they just don't want to deal with it. Regardless, their decision not to sell to you how and when you want doesn't justify stealing it.

Did you have permission from the University to use that logo as your Avatar?

Yep. Available from their website for this specific purpose. Nice try on the ad hominem attacks. You are 0 for 2. Not sure how they would change the argument.

I don't care that your stealing. I'm just arguing against the misinformation and justifications.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 09:54 AM
If you use VPN to get US Netflix, at least you're paying for it. You should feel better about that than using piratebay or whatever torrents you use. Is VPN illegal? How about slingbox?

Bit of a gray area I suppose since the laws were written before such a thing existed.

The whole system needs re-thinking in my opinion. Laws need scrapping, new ones writing and the distribution model needs re-shaping.

What's needed is some more sensibly priced digital services. £15 for a digital copy of a film that you can never sell on is nothing short of a rip off, yet £6/month for Netflix with a mediocre movie selection is too cheap and not good enough.

I'd rather pay £15-25/month and have an iTunes/Netflix crossover, a great selection at a higher price. A decent service like this is needed to eliminate the need for piracy. Yes, it will always happen, but that is easily factored into the model (Such as the pricing for products as Photoshop etc)

----------

FYI, I find you more annoying than BMA and he's on my ignore list, so I guess it's time to add you.

I think I've found the reason you believe that you've never been wrong in your life. Just ignore the people that are right.

----------

Why is that any of your business? Maybe the rights aren't available locally. Maybe they are favoring another distribution method. Maybe they just don't want to deal with it. Regardless, their decision not to sell to you how and when you want doesn't justify stealing it.



Yep. Available from their website for this specific purpose. Nice try on the ad hominem attacks. You are 0 for 2. Not sure how they would change the argument.

I don't care that your stealing. I'm just arguing against the misinformation and justifications.

I could say that I'm not stealing, but you wouldn't listen.

Getting back on topic, there are plenty of things this game developer could have done to avert disaster.


Larger servers
Make game only iOS 6 compatible
Improve game effeciency to reduce server load
In-game purcasing to increase revenue
Lower game price to attract more legit users


I feel they are using piracy as an excuse.

All games get pirated yet somehow this is the only one that can't cope? Sounds fishy to me. I bet we haven't heard the full story.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 09:58 AM
I could say that I'm not stealing, but you wouldn't listen.

You could say a lot of things. Doesn't make them right.

Getting back on topic, there are plenty of things this game developer could have done to avert disaster.

Larger servers
Make game only iOS 6 compatible
Improve game effeciency to reduce server load
In-game purcasing to increase revenue
Lower game price to attract more legit users

I feel they are using piracy as an excuse.

All games get pirated yet somehow this is the only one that can't cope? Sounds fishy to me. I bet we haven't heard the full story.

Ahh, blame the victim.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 10:00 AM
Ahh, blame the victim.

But seriously, is there any good reason they can't do any of those things though? Surely that's better than shutting down?

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 10:07 AM
But seriously, is there any good reason they can't do any of those things though? Surely that's better than shutting down?

Maybe they didn't plan on that degree of piracy. Maybe they're just not very experienced developers.

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions without all the facts.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 10:14 AM
Maybe they didn't plan on that degree of piracy. Maybe they're just not very experienced developers.

Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions without all the facts.

Which is exactly what you've just done. I just said it sounds a bit fishy, 'tis all. Either way, it seems to me like they're using piracy as a scapegoat.

WestonHarvey1
Dec 5, 2012, 10:14 AM
Ahh, blame the victim.

You can rail against victim blaming all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that not implementing a way to block the pirates has killed this app.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 10:20 AM
You can rail against victim blaming all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that not implementing a way to block the pirates has killed this app.

Absolutely.

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 10:34 AM
You can rail against victim blaming all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that not implementing a way to block the pirates has killed this app.

In the same way that not wearing protective clothing in a warzone will get you killed. You may not like the fact bullets are flying, but the reality is they are, so you have to adapt to survive.

They'd have to be incredibly naive to have thought piracy wouldn't affect them, they must have known about it.

Whilst not totally their fault, I do feel whatever the reason for them shutting down, that their own incompetance is partly at fault.

Analog Kid
Dec 5, 2012, 10:57 AM
That's not how it works, legally. You can't be deprived of something you never had.
So you can't, for example, deprive someone of oxygen they never had?

Jsameds
Dec 5, 2012, 11:01 AM
So you can't, for example, deprive someone of oxygen they never had?

If they never had it they'd be dead anyway :rolleyes:

Renzatic
Dec 5, 2012, 11:06 AM
Yeah, I should be able to steal the car if I pay for
Gas
Insurance
Licensing
Registration
Inspections
Taxes
Repairs
Maintenance

I pay into it enough.

That's a horrible analogy, because you're comparing solid theft to something far more nebulous.

Say I go out and buy a Blu-Ray movie. I sit down, I watch it once or twice, then put it away on the shelf. One day, maybe a year later, I'm going on vacation and want to watch this movie on my iPad.

I can't rip the movie directly, since it's DRMed to hell and back, and against the law to do so. And the digital copy I can buy on iTunes costs twice as much as the movie I bought. It ends up I've got two choices here. Pay for the movie again, or download it off The Pirate Bay.

I've already bought the movie once and supported the studio. Hell, I've bought whole tons of their movies in the past. So if I download a copy of something already sitting on my shelf watch it on another one of my devices, am I stealing?

If I never bought the movie, you could say that, yes, I am. Though it's not direct theft in a physical sense, like it would be if you stole a car. It's more like denial of compensation. But since I already bought and own a copy...

...which is right, and which is wrong?

Though as far as this app goes, it's just pathetic on the pirates part. It costs 5 bucks. There's no reason not to pay for the damn thing.

Cartaphilus
Dec 5, 2012, 11:16 AM
This story smells IMO. Any developer should take so called piracy into account when scaling up their models and either be prepared for the extra traffic and publicity they're about to receive or develop preventive measures to keep them at bay. Blame it on the convenient "pirates" is only a convenient way to bail out for whichever reasons they may have.

As for piracy, you really believe that humans love to pay money in order to discover new and amazing things in this internet age? I do respect devs work and I do pay for it but when a means for trying first doesn't exist, I either move away or try other means.

I think the current business model is broken where you need to pay upfront to try. If it works for you it's great for everybody but if it doesn't it's still great for the dev as it doesn't need to scale up but the customer has to suck it up for trying.

You are a thief, plain and simple. It is purely the right of the seller to decide whether you can try his product before buying it or not. If you are unwilling to buy without a trial, you may not use his product. Fathers of potential brides often adhere to this approach.

If you are ever charged and brought to trial you better hope no one like me is making, enforcing, or judging under the law. I would apply a harsher punishment to a thief than to a man who kills his wife found in flagrante. The latter acts out of passion and uncontrollable rage that won't be deterred. The thieving pirate makes a cold, calculating decision to deprive a fellow human being of his property. Since pirates are expensive to catch, deterrence is more efficient. I think administering an anti-piracy vaccine intervenously would cut down the incidence of piracy markedly. I'm sure the witnesses on the other side of the plexiglass will be moved by your explanation that you were just stealing it to test it and fully intended to expiate your crime by eventually paying for it maybe.

Go tell your mother she did a lousy job raising you.

mabhatter
Dec 5, 2012, 11:40 AM
I guess you subscribe to this theory. Regardless, piracy is taking something that doesn't belong to you, in an illegal manner. Try to justify it any way you want, but you're wrong.

Image (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_jWNhyMUpjSE/TLItM8FFAvI/AAAAAAAAHZ4/LZhHTueXx00/s1600/piracy-600x597.jpg)

I like the analogy one if the Great Old Dead Dudes made. Copying ideas is like sharing your candlelight so somebody can light their own candle. Overall the world has more light.

Except if everybody "shares"... Nobody can afford matches and the time to learn to MAKE fire. Piracy is the group "punishing" the people resourceful enough to light their candle ON THEIR OWN. ... A society that can't create NEW fire isn't going to last long on a windy, rainy nite.

ericrwalker
Dec 5, 2012, 11:49 AM
I haven't heard that one before, but I like it. Thanks for sharing.


I like the analogy one if the Great Old Dead Dudes made. Copying ideas is like sharing your candlelight so somebody can light their own candle. Overall the world has more light.

Except if everybody "shares"... Nobody can afford matches and the time to learn to MAKE fire. Piracy is the group "punishing" the people resourceful enough to light their candle ON THEIR OWN. ... A society that can't create NEW fire isn't going to last long on a windy, rainy nite.

chrono1081
Dec 5, 2012, 12:54 PM
Ok so you have a license to redistribute Valve's work, Highly unlikely.



LOL are we justifying another type of theft. Free to Use since you are not making money off it? Sounds like what the pirates say.



Your use on a forum as an avatar for self/brand recognition doesn't fall under that definition. While I'll trust that the image was on Valves site and if you say they included words that specifically say you may redistribute the work, then fine. There doesn't appear to be anything like that now. There are videos, screen shots, and music. But I don't see anything that says you can redistribute the copyrighted work. Infact I see a 'All rights reserved' statement at the bottom of the page.


Again, nice try but read what I wrote. Valve put them on their for their fans to use. They wouldn't have made an avatar section if they didn't want people to use them as avatars.

Stop trying to justify theft. If valve CHARGED for these, and I didn't buy one yes, its theft. They didn't charge for these and put them up for anyone to use.

Brian Y
Dec 5, 2012, 01:07 PM
And their rights under the law! I'm not sure how you keep ignoring this fact. How do you discuss things in a "legal sense" and avoid legal rights? Legal rights are what gives things value under a modern economic system.

You just keep picking and choosing what legal rights fit your argument.

OK - since you insist on carrying on with this.

You have the exclusive rights to distribute an app. I download a copy from a file sharing website (which suggests that the exclusive distribution "right" was broken already) and do not distribute it. I haven't changed your rights to exclusively distribute it - your right to do so is completely unmodified. Now, *sharing* the application is different, however that's not what we're talking about here.

That's not picking and choosing which ones fit my argument, that's using the ones you think will fit yours. Also, I'm yet to think of a specific right that is actually *removed* by downloading a "pirated app" (note, removal isn't the avoidance of - i.e. by downloading an app you haven't removed somebody's right to charge for an app, since they can still charge for it).

Again, I'm not justifying piracy, I'm just saying it's not theft.

Renzatic
Dec 5, 2012, 01:13 PM
Stop trying to justify theft. If valve CHARGED for these, and I didn't buy one yes, its theft. They didn't charge for these and put them up for anyone to use.

I dunno what the guy is even getting at. It's a screenshot from a game you're using as an avatar on a forum. It's copyright infringement only in the absolute strictest most anal retentive definition of the phrase.

...and it doesn't do any harm to Valve. If anything it's quite the opposite, since it could work as indirect advertising. It's kinda like making your own Apple logo and sticking it on your car. You're not selling them, so what's the harm in it?

I'll say this, when you can't show fan appreciation for something without worrying about getting accused of infringement, you know things have gone too far.

----------

Again, I'm not justifying piracy, I'm just saying it's not theft.

Right, I'm sticking by my "denial of compensation" line. It's not theft by the letter of the law, since the only thing anyone's been deprived of is payment.

That doesn't excuse anyone from going out and doing it. But those who do aren't "thieves" exactly. Rather, they're cheap bastards.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 01:44 PM
You have the exclusive rights to distribute an app. I download a copy from a file sharing website (which suggests that the exclusive distribution "right" was broken already) and do not distribute it. I haven't changed your rights to exclusively distribute it - your right to do so is completely unmodified. Now, *sharing* the application is different, however that's not what we're talking about here.

That's not picking and choosing which ones fit my argument, that's using the ones you think will fit yours. Also, I'm yet to think of a specific right that is actually *removed* by downloading a "pirated app" (note, removal isn't the avoidance of - i.e. by downloading an app you haven't removed somebody's right to charge for an app, since they can still charge for it).

Again, I'm not justifying piracy, I'm just saying it's not theft.

Again, you are just playing with words that you don't seem to understand. You talk about discussing thing in a "legal sense" and then make up your own definitions while ignoring any legal concepts. You seem to want to make a distinction between violating someone's rights and depriving them of those rights. There isn't.

You have been provided with several definitions of the word "theft" that apply to piracy. Just because you want to go by your own interpretation of the word doesn't mean the other definitions don't exist. This is starting to feel like one of those silly arguments that claim an iPad is not a computer because of some made up definition of the word "computer".

That's not picking and choosing which ones fit my argument, that's using the ones you think will fit yours.

:rolleyes: That's how words work. To call something "theft", I only need one accepted definition that fits. To say that I'm wrong, you need to eliminate all reasonable definitions.

----------

It's not theft by the letter of the law,

Which law?

since the only thing anyone's been deprived of is payment.

Again, it's already been established that you can steal a service. Laws have been quoted and everything. :D

chrono1081
Dec 5, 2012, 01:56 PM
I dunno what the guy is even getting at. It's a screenshot from a game you're using as an avatar on a forum. It's copyright infringement only in the absolute strictest most anal retentive definition of the phrase.

...and it doesn't do any harm to Valve. If anything it's quite the opposite, since it could work as indirect advertising. It's kinda like making your own Apple logo and sticking it on your car. You're not selling them, so what's the harm in it?

I'll say this, when you can't show fan appreciation for something without worrying about getting accused of infringement, you know things have gone too far.[COLOR="#808080"]


I don't get what he's getting at either. I give up. I'll let him think he's right by saying its OK to steal.

Valve releases these things as marketing and freebies to the fans. Game companies LOVE when people display their stuff and/or create fan art based off of it because it gets the word out about their game. If they didn't like it you wouldn't find avatars, wallpapers, ring tones, etc on Valves site.

Just don't steal the game and everything is good.

phr0ze
Dec 5, 2012, 01:59 PM
Stop trying to justify theft. If valve CHARGED for these, and I didn't buy one yes, its theft. They didn't charge for these and put them up for anyone to use.

Since when did I try to justify theft?

BTW, whether or not they charge for them does not mean you are free to use it any way you like.

Renzatic
Dec 5, 2012, 02:09 PM
Which law?

I should've said definition of the term (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft).

But then we'd have to get into what's covered under the term "property", which'll likely then launch into a discussion about "intellectual property", and if each individual instance of a piece of digital media could be considered the copyright holder's property.

And then we'd get into the issues I brought up above, like could it be considered theft for downloading a digital copy of a song or movie you already own on a physical medium?

It could go on and on and on.

Again, it's already been established that you can steal a service. Laws have been quoted and everything. :D

That does murky things up a bit. But I could argue that stealing a service like cable could be considered theft since you have to bypass a physical block to gain access to it.

Once again. On and on and on.

Though I do think we all agree on one thing: it's not right. Even though I take a more lax attitude regarding certain issues contained with the broader scope of copyright infringement, I do think that if you enjoy something, you should pay the people who made it as at least a sign of respect and support.

...and there's absolutely no good reason I can think of for pirating a goddamn $5 app.

aerok
Dec 5, 2012, 02:17 PM
I feel like the developers could have priced it lower than $5 :) I guarantee more people would have bought it instead of pirating it.

They would've pirated it even at 99 cents.

chrono1081
Dec 5, 2012, 02:20 PM
Since when did I try to justify theft?

BTW, whether or not they charge for them does not mean you are free to use it any way you like.

So you're saying that when Valve posts "avatars" I can't use it as an avatar? When they posted ringtones I can't use them as a ringtone? When they post wallpapers I can't use them as wallpapers?

Seriously, you lost this argument. I'm done.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 02:20 PM
I should've said definition of the term (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft).

But then we'd have to get into what's covered under the term "property", which'll likely then launch into a discussion about "intellectual property", and if each individual instance of a piece of digital media could be considered the copyright holder's property.

And then we'd get into the issues I brought up above, like could it be considered theft for downloading a digital copy of a song or movie you already own on a physical medium?

It could go on and on and on.



That does murky things up a bit. But I could argue that stealing a service like cable could be considered theft since you have to bypass a physical block to gain access to it.

Once again. On and on and on.

Though I do think we all agree on one thing: it's not right. Even though I take a more lax attitude regarding certain issues contained with the broader scope of copyright infringement, I do think that if you enjoy something, you should pay the people who made it as at least a sign of respect and support.

...and there's absolutely no good reason I can think of for pirating a goddamn $5 app.

Good summary of the issues!

s15119
Dec 5, 2012, 02:41 PM
i pirate games, and if i like them i'll buy them. if i dont i delete the game.

You understand you just admitted, publicly, to being a thief?

----------

This analogy doesn't work, considering software doesn't have a CoGS associated with it.

But for the sake of the analogy, I'll say this: what the pirate guy said is no different than someone buying a pair of headphones, trying it out for 29 days, then on the 30th day returning it for a full refund or keeping it. The only difference, assuming he's true to his word, is that he doesn't have to provide a "downpayment" so to speak.

So really, in his case, it's only wrong if you think people should provide money upfront. In the same breath, do you think it's outrageous if the local frozen yogurt shop won't let you sample their flavors without money down? Or if a car dealership wouldn't let you test drive before buying?

What a lousy attempt to excuse theft.

----------

There's a relatively important distinction to be made between two types of pirated software that at least a few people don't seem to be grasping:

A: In the case of a music album, a movie, or a "traditional" game, if you pirate it, try it, and decide to buy it, the original producer wasn't directly harmed by the action, at least in theory. And if some good-for-nothing jerk pirates it and doesn't pay, but never was going to in the first place, he's benefitting from somebody else's hard work that he has no right to and deserves to get punched in the face, but again, he's not actually causing active harm to the creators of said work. Might even be helping them, if he tells a friend who's not quite so much of a lout how awesome the game/album/movie is and that friend goes out and buys it.

Leaving aside the large grey area of abandonware or things that aren't available legally, at any price, in your country.

There is a much, much different case, however, which applies to situations like this story:

B: For software that has a cost of supplying service, such as (mainly, really) an online game that requires servers to support it, if somebody pirates it and doesn't pay for it, then the developer is having to support the pirated user with actual outlay of resources, without the corresponding compensation expected for it.

It doesn't take a genius to tell the difference between those two versions.

Now, in type A, it is certainly possible for everybody to pirate something, to the point that nobody buys it and the creator just can't make enough money to justify producing the material. It has certainly happened in at least some cases. But there are other cases where the opposite has played out, and a large middle ground (the modern movie industry, for example) where it seems to be more or less a wash. The analogy of intangible good piracy = shoplifting, however, just isn't 100% equivalent.

Type B is a different matter entirely--that's pretty much directly equivalent to shoplifting. You're stealing something--bandwith and server resources--that you're not paying for. You can only make the argument you're not if you're either 12 years old and not too sharp, or just an idiot. Or an unashamed pirate, which probably puts you in one or both of the other categories.


And I should add that I hate DRM with a passion (and when given the option, didn't put it on the books I've published online, so my money is where my mouth is), but if it comes down to no DRM = no game for anybody, you don't really have much choice.

I'll also add that even if this story turned out to not be true (which I can't honestly see why--if they're not selling the game and giving refunds, there's no marketing benefit for the company), the above still holds entirely true.

It's an imaginary distinction. In both cases it's theft. Ridiculous attempt to make it look like stealing is ok.

Brian Y
Dec 5, 2012, 03:51 PM
Again, you are just playing with words that you don't seem to understand. You talk about discussing thing in a "legal sense" and then make up your own definitions while ignoring any legal concepts. You seem to want to make a distinction between violating someone's rights and depriving them of those rights. There isn't.

You have been provided with several definitions of the word "theft" that apply to piracy. Just because you want to go by your own interpretation of the word doesn't mean the other definitions don't exist. This is starting to feel like one of those silly arguments that claim an iPad is not a computer because of some made up definition of the word "computer".

:rolleyes: That's how words work. To call something "theft", I only need one accepted definition that fits. To say that I'm wrong, you need to eliminate all reasonable definitions.

Again, it's already been established that you can steal a service. Laws have been quoted and everything. :D

Yes, I do understand the words - and there is a massive difference between violating rights and removing them.

You have the rights to sell a game. If I download that game, I have prevented you selling that game to me, however, if somebody else comes up afterwards, you still have the right to sell them that game. Therefore my downloading of said game hasn't *removed* your right to sell the game.

If you go to court - both sides will be playing with words - applying various laws to situations, that's how it works. However, I'm going to leave this thread now, since I have a distinct feeling you're just trolling me now, and I'm not willing to play along.

BaldiMac
Dec 5, 2012, 04:07 PM
Yes, I do understand the words - and there is a massive difference between violating rights and removing them.

You have the rights to sell a game. If I download that game, I have prevented you selling that game to me, however, if somebody else comes up afterwards, you still have the right to sell them that game. Therefore my downloading of said game hasn't *removed* your right to sell the game.

If you go to court - both sides will be playing with words - applying various laws to situations, that's how it works. However, I'm going to leave this thread now, since I have a distinct feeling you're just trolling me now, and I'm not willing to play along.

Except you just made up the distinction. It's not a legal one. Rights are never removed in the way that you are trying to imply except through changes in laws. Years of legal precedent have established specific meanings for legal terms.

Through your logic, I'm not deprived of my right to free speech if the government throws me in prison for writing an article, because I still have the right to speak freely. That's just silly. Interfering with or violating someone's rights is the same as depriving them of those rights.

Why is it illegal to steal a hammer? Because the owner has certain property rights to the hammer granted by the law. If you interfere with those rights with dishonest intent, we call that theft. The same is true with intangible property even though the rights that the owner has are different.

wgnoyes
Dec 5, 2012, 04:57 PM
i pirate games--<SNIP>

Okay, so you're a software criminal

Analog Kid
Dec 5, 2012, 05:45 PM
If they never had it they'd be dead anyway :rolleyes:
I'd be curious if you could show me which oxygen is yours... Do you brand it like cattle?

Renzatic
Dec 5, 2012, 05:56 PM
I claim all the oxygen within my personal space.

...thought everyone did that.

ZacNicholson
Dec 5, 2012, 06:06 PM
That is what the free demo version is for.

can you please show me the free demo of "sleep cycle", "infinity blade II", "pages", "numbers", "iMovie", "Garageband", and "ac/dc pinball rocks"?

Also for everyone saying its like stealing a car, it isn't. It's like taking the car out on a test drive, then buying if you like it.

Renzatic
Dec 5, 2012, 06:11 PM
Also for everyone saying its like stealing a car, it isn't. It's like taking the car out on a test drive, then buying if you like it.

It's more like taking someone else's car out for a joy ride without their permission. Then either buying that very car if you like it, or leaving it on the side of the road somewhere without any gas in the tank if you don't.

haruhiko
Dec 5, 2012, 06:40 PM
Except you just made up the distinction. It's not a legal one. Rights are never removed in the way that you are trying to imply except through changes in laws. Years of legal precedent have established specific meanings for legal terms.

Through your logic, I'm not deprived of my right to free speech if the government throws me in prison for writing an article, because I still have the right to speak freely. That's just silly. Interfering with or violating someone's rights is the same as depriving them of those rights.

Why is it illegal to steal a hammer? Because the owner has certain property rights to the hammer granted by the law. If you interfere with those rights with dishonest intent, we call that theft. The same is true with intangible property even though the rights that the owner has are different.

Strictly speaking, "stealing" in law requires the "thief" to have an intent to permanently deprive of the owner of the thing. Therefore pirates are not to be dealt with by the crime of "theft".

bumblebritches5
Dec 5, 2012, 08:58 PM
It's not "information." It's someone's work. Get out of the 19th century.[COLOR="#808080"]

Regardless of your views, it IS information, everything you clearly do, is just ones and zeroes and has absolutely no meaning outside of Apple's system. how does that make you feel? Helpless?

I need to get out of the 19th century, when I know that piracy isn't theft, and you don't? Ironic.

rdlink
Dec 5, 2012, 11:47 PM
Regardless of your views, it IS information, everything you clearly do, is just ones and zeroes and has absolutely no meaning outside of Apple's system. how does that make you feel? Helpless?

I need to get out of the 19th century, when I know that piracy isn't theft, and you don't? Ironic.

Shouldn't have had that last beer...

----------

Strictly speaking, "stealing" in law requires the "thief" to have an intent to permanently deprive of the owner of the thing. Therefore pirates are not to be dealt with by the crime of "theft".


Wow, the contortions some people will go through to justify thievery. It's like I'm watching a gymnastics meet.

stuffradio
Dec 6, 2012, 12:08 AM
That's a horrible analogy, because you're comparing solid theft to something far more nebulous.

Say I go out and buy a Blu-Ray movie. I sit down, I watch it once or twice, then put it away on the shelf. One day, maybe a year later, I'm going on vacation and want to watch this movie on my iPad.

I can't rip the movie directly, since it's DRMed to hell and back, and against the law to do so. And the digital copy I can buy on iTunes costs twice as much as the movie I bought. It ends up I've got two choices here. Pay for the movie again, or download it off The Pirate Bay.

I've already bought the movie once and supported the studio. Hell, I've bought whole tons of their movies in the past. So if I download a copy of something already sitting on my shelf watch it on another one of my devices, am I stealing?

If I never bought the movie, you could say that, yes, I am. Though it's not direct theft in a physical sense, like it would be if you stole a car. It's more like denial of compensation. But since I already bought and own a copy...

...which is right, and which is wrong?

Though as far as this app goes, it's just pathetic on the pirates part. It costs 5 bucks. There's no reason not to pay for the damn thing.
Your analogy is horrible. The pirates didn't pay in the first place. They didn't buy the game once and then put it on another iOS device. They just stole it.

Switchback666
Dec 6, 2012, 03:20 AM
Your analogy is horrible. The pirates didn't pay in the first place. They didn't buy the game once and then put it on another iOS device. They just stole it.

Well someone pay for it once to save and upload the .ipa, what are the rules of sharing :D ?

Jsameds
Dec 6, 2012, 04:19 AM
So what about buying a used game? For simplicitys sake lets say it's an offline game such as Peggle.

Developer still gets $0 but somehow it's more acceptable than pirating. Why?

bumblebritches5
Dec 6, 2012, 06:38 AM
Shouldn't have had that last beer...

----------




Wow, the contortions some people will go through to justify thievery. It's like I'm watching a gymnastics meet.

I don't drink, unlike you obviously. It's not going to some length, we believe that as much as you believe what you say. nothing is black and white, and you can't expect everyone or even most to agree with you.

whooleytoo
Dec 6, 2012, 06:50 AM
So what about buying a used game? For simplicitys sake lets say it's an offline game such as Peggle.

Developer still gets $0 but somehow it's more acceptable than pirating. Why?

Because with used games, the developer is paid for every copy of the game that's being played.

With piracy, the developer is paid for a fraction of the game copies being played.

MacRumorUser
Dec 6, 2012, 07:44 AM
Because with used games, the developer is paid for every copy of the game that's being played.

With piracy, the developer is paid for a fraction of the game copies being played.


Actually with used games matey, the developer and publisher is only paid on the first sale. Every subsequent sale the retail store / seller is paid, but the developer and publisher are not. Unless of course they have an online pass which means the developer/publisher will get a cut - but only IF the second hand copy has an online pass bought for it.

It's the reason publishers & developers hate the second hand market.


That being said, at least with every used copy at least 'once' in it's life cycle some $$ went back to the publisher & developer, with every pirate copy zero is given back EVER...




I know this is not going to make me popular......

Personally I think piracy is rife, and it's about time MacRumors closed down the 'jailbreak' threads as regardless of many 'legit' uses, it seems all it does is facilitate the ability of users to pirate games and other applications, and for that reason alone Macrumors should end jailbreaking threads, and let users discuss those topics on other forums should they wish to.

Although we do have a anti-piracy rule on MacRumors, the fact that we still facilitate the hacking of hardware which facilitates piracy, means that macrumors is at times complicit by sanctioning jailbreaking and it's discussion in the first instance...

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 07:52 AM
Strictly speaking, "stealing" in law requires the "thief" to have an intent to permanently deprive of the owner of the thing. Therefore pirates are not to be dealt with by the crime of "theft".

Are you implying that pirates are going to return the copy to the developer? Doesn't seem likely to me.

Regardless, intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property is not required. Interfering with their property rights with dishonest intent would qualify as well. If I take your hammer from you while knowing you wouldn't allow it, the fact that I plan to return it in a year doesn't change the fact that it is theft.

Here is a more complete explanation.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9183731&highlight=common+law+theft#post9183731

whooleytoo
Dec 6, 2012, 08:00 AM
Actually with used games matey, the developer and publisher is only paid on the first sale.

Yup, that's consistent with my point. Unless someone copies the game before selling it on (another form of piracy), the developer is paid once for every copy being played.

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 08:09 AM
Yup, that's consistent with my point. Unless someone copies the game before selling it on (another form of piracy), the developer is paid once for every copy being played.

Also, many license agreements allow for the sale and transfer of the license along with the original media provided any additional copies (including installs) are destroyed.

rdlink
Dec 6, 2012, 08:25 AM
I don't drink, unlike you obviously. It's not going to some length, we believe that as much as you believe what you say. nothing is black and white, and you can't expect everyone or even most to agree with you.


But it is black and white. That's the point. Thieves try to blur the facts. But that doesn't change the facts. Someone puts their efforts and talents into developing a product, and under the law they are protected from those who would steal from them. Justifying that theft by attacking the victim's business model, security measures, etc. does not change the fact that it's theft.

Sorry to hear that you don't drink. Hate to think that your mind is naturally that addled.

whooleytoo
Dec 6, 2012, 08:41 AM
Also, many license agreements allow for the sale and transfer of the license along with the original media provided any additional copies (including installs) are destroyed.

Exactly. It's like a book, there's no problem lending it to someone or selling it, but if you make a copy for someone else, it becomes an issue.

Of course, that doesn't tend to happen as (printed) books are awkward to copy. Digital copies -books, games, music, videos - are much easier to copy. Which actually shows a funny thing about human behaviour: Easy = right. Difficult = wrong.

If you break into someone's house and steal from their safe, that's obviously wrong. But if you take money they left sitting on a cafe table, people start to equivocate... "they shouldn't have left it lying there, it's their own fault. It's ok.".

If you spend hours hacking a site to download a game/video without paying, it's wrong. But if that file was accidentally left unprotected and people downloaded it knowing it's not free "they didn't secure it, it's their fault, it's ok".

It seems to me the easier it gets to pirate games, the more people think it has to be "ok".

Renzatic
Dec 6, 2012, 09:01 AM
Your analogy is horrible. The pirates didn't pay in the first place. They didn't buy the game once and then put it on another iOS device. They just stole it.

I was arguing about copyright laws in a more generalized, overarching sense, rather than against the people who pirated the game specifically. I've stated my opinion on them with one simple line.

Jsameds
Dec 6, 2012, 09:19 AM
I just wish they would get rid of DRM. The digital world is riddled with it. It's quite frankly rediculous that a pirate who has cracked the DRM gets a better experience than the fella who paid in full.

itjw
Dec 6, 2012, 09:43 AM
i pirate games, and if i like them i'll buy them. if i dont i delete the game.

"But officer, I was just TRYING this new Big screen TV out... if I liked it, I was going to go back and pay for it, I SWEAR! If I didn't like it I was going to bring it back...."

Stealing is stealing. You can lie about your motives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that as soon as you download something you don't have the rights to without paying for it, you have STOLEN it. It's the same as if you walked into Best Buy and walked out with a TV. You can't do that, why do you think it's ok to do it here?

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

Jsameds
Dec 6, 2012, 10:27 AM
"But officer, I was just TRYING this new Big screen TV out... if I liked it, I was going to go back and pay for it, I SWEAR! If I didn't like it I was going to bring it back...."

Stealing is stealing. You can lie about your motives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that as soon as you download something you don't have the rights to without paying for it, you have STOLEN it. It's the same as if you walked into Best Buy and walked out with a TV. You can't do that, why do you think it's ok to do it here?

Oh that's right, because you are doing it from Mommies basement it means you don't have to actually feel as bad as if you were stealing from someone directly (or fear being caught).

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

For the thousandth time it's not theft, it's copyright infringement, even the MPAA say so:

http://advanced-television.com/2012/05/21/mpaas-dodd-more-subtle-anti-piracy-approach-needed/

“We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.” - Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPAA)

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 10:43 AM
For the thousandth time it's not theft, it's copyright infringement,

And you'll ignore all arguments to the contrary! Piracy is a type of theft. Piracy is also copyright infringement. Read the rest of the thread, so we don't have to rehash the arguments.

even the MPAA say so:

http://advanced-television.com/2012/05/21/mpaas-dodd-more-subtle-anti-piracy-approach-needed/

“We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.” - Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPAA)

How the MPAA chooses to word their PR is irrelevant.

Jsameds
Dec 6, 2012, 10:45 AM
And you'll ignore all arguments to the contrary! Piracy is a type of theft. Read the rest of the thread, so we don't have to rehash the arguments.



How the MPAA chooses to word their PR is irrelevant.

I have read it. It's still not theft since nothing has been taken, it's infringement by definition, and what a bunch of folk say on a forum doesn't change that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 10:53 AM
I have read it. It's still not theft since nothing has been taken,

This argument has already been discussed. Intangible property and services are specifically included when discussing the definition of property in relation to theft. The UK Theft Act, 1968 (http://sixthformlaw.info/06_misc/statutes/16_theft_act_1968.htm), was provided as an example.

If you would like a common law definition of theft, read here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9183731&highlight=common+law+theft#post9183731

it's infringement by definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22

It is copyright infringement. No one is arguing otherwise.

Radiating
Dec 6, 2012, 10:55 AM
And you'll ignore all arguments to the contrary! Piracy is a type of theft. Piracy is also copyright infringement. Read the rest of the thread, so we don't have to rehash the arguments.



How the MPAA chooses to word their PR is irrelevant.

Piracy is not theft, theft involves stealing physical objects. You are a very confused person.

Accessing a server without permission is a crime though, along with copyright infringement.

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 10:58 AM
They are not "just" accessing the server. They "obtained" software without paying for it. Aka theft.

Piracy is not theft, theft involves stealing physical objects. You are a very confused person.

Accessing a server without permission is a crime though, along with copyright infringement.

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 10:58 AM
Piracy is not theft, theft involves stealing physical objects.

Again, read the thread before making the same unsupported statements. Theft can involve intangible property or services.

Brian Y
Dec 6, 2012, 11:05 AM
Again, read the thread before making the same unsupported statements. Theft can involve intangible property or services.

It is *you* who is unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument. Several people have given several arguments as to why piracy != theft, yet you still seem to prefer to go on the attack and tell people to "read the thread".

Every time somebody posts something which backs them up - you just shrug it off with "well that doesn't matter". You said I was dodging around the point, answered the very point you threw at me, and yet you still chose to ignore it. Fighting for the sake of fighting is pointless.

You also seem to keep referring to that one post on MR as god-like, and then go on to quote wikipedia as a respectable source (which happens to go against your point that piracy = theft):


Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights.

Radiating
Dec 6, 2012, 11:14 AM
They are not "just" accessing the server. They "obtained" software without paying for it. Aka theft.

No, absolutely not. They didn't obtain the software because that would require taking someone else computer and physically ripping out their hard drive. Which would be hard drive theft. They copied a piece of software.

Again, read the thread before making the same unsupported statements. Theft can involve intangible property or services.

No absolutely not. You do not understand how the law works. Again you can't steal bandwidth unless you physically re-rout the cables, and then that would be cable theft. What they did was they gained access to a computer system without authorization, which is a crime. It falls under "hacking" and the pirate's "hacking" caused a loss of bandwidth. Just like you don't "steal customers away" when someone does a DDoS attack on an online store. Nobody is being kidnapped and forced to not use amazon.com.

Get your facts straight.

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 11:17 AM
Copied, is a form of obtaining. It's also not a legal way of acquiring it, therefore it's stolen software. Keep trying to justify theft.

No, absolutely not. They didn't obtain the software because that would require taking someone else computer and physically ripping out their hard drive. Which would be hard drive theft. They copied a piece of software.



No absolutely not. You do not understand how the law works. Again you can't steal bandwidth unless you physically re-rout the cables, and then that would be cable theft. What they did was they gained access to a computer system without authorization, which is a crime. It falls under "hacking" and the pirate's "hacking" caused a loss of bandwidth. Just like you don't "steal customers away" when someone does a DDoS attack on an online store. Nobody is being kidnapped and forced to not use amazon.com.

Get your facts straight.

Brian Y
Dec 6, 2012, 11:20 AM
Copied, is a form of obtaining. It's also not a legal way of acquiring it, therefore it's stolen software. Keep trying to justify theft.

It's. Not. Theft. According to the law, if you bothered to read what people had written instead of just trolling, you'd have realised that by now.

If you copy something, you haven't removed it, therefore, by legal definition, it cannot be theft.

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 11:26 AM
It is *you* who is unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument. Several people have given several arguments as to why piracy != theft, yet you still seem to prefer to go on the attack and tell people to "read the thread".

Every time somebody posts something which backs them up - you just shrug it off with "well that doesn't matter". You said I was dodging around the point, answered the very point you threw at me, and yet you still chose to ignore it. Fighting for the sake of fighting is pointless.

You didn't answer my point. You made up your own definition. I provided an accepted definition of the word "theft", and explained how piracy meets that definition.

If you want to provide your own definition of "theft" that doesn't include piracy, that's fine. Words have multiple meanings. But that doesn't make me wrong.

You also seem to keep referring to that one post on MR as god-like, and then go on to quote wikipedia as a respectable source (which happens to go against your point that piracy = theft):

The post I quoted was from an IP lawyer and specifically addressed the argument. You also have not refuted any of his points.

----------

No absolutely not. You do not understand how the law works. Again you can't steal bandwidth unless you physically re-rout the cables, and then that would be cable theft. What they did was they gained access to a computer system without authorization, which is a crime. It falls under "hacking" and the pirate's "hacking" caused a loss of bandwidth. Just like you don't "steal customers away" when someone does a DDoS attack on an online store. Nobody is being kidnapped and forced to not use amazon.com.

Get your facts straight.

I do actually understand the law. As I have linked to several times, here is the UK Theft Act, 1968 (http://sixthformlaw.info/06_misc/statutes/16_theft_act_1968.htm) that another poster brought up.

Note where it specifically includes "intangible property".

Brian Y
Dec 6, 2012, 11:27 AM
You didn't answer my point. You made up your own definition. I provided an accepted definition of the word "theft", and explained how piracy meets that definition.

If you want to provide your own definition of "theft" that doesn't include piracy, that's fine. Words have multiple meanings. But that doesn't make me wrong.



The post I quoted was from an IP lawyer and specifically addressed the argument. You also have not refuted any of his points.

So, let's reverse the roles. Tell me which part of the quote you provided from Wikipedia backs up that copyright is theft. I'm struggling what that tbh. Or even better, link me to one case in any courtroom in any country in which somebody has been charged with theft, for illegally downloading or copying somebodys intellectual property.

----------


Note where it specifically includes "intangible property".

It also says "permanently depriving the other of it;". Which you are not - since I was the one who brought that act up.

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 11:27 AM
It's. Not. Theft. According to the law, if you bothered to read what people had written instead of just trolling, you'd have realised that by now.

If you copy something, you haven't removed it, therefore, by legal definition, it cannot be theft.

Which legal definition?

Brian Y
Dec 6, 2012, 11:30 AM
Which legal definition?

Section 1(1) of the Theft Act, 1968.

Plus, you didn't answer the points I raised ;).

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 11:40 AM
So, let's reverse the roles. Tell me which part of the quote you provided from Wikipedia backs up that copyright is theft. I'm struggling what that tbh.

We don't need Wikipedia. The Theft Act is fine.

As summarized by cmaier, the act is in agreement with the common law definition.
theft is an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

When you infringe copyright, you are doing the stuff in bold, and hence stealing.

It also says "permanently depriving the other of it;". Which you are not - since I was the one who brought that act up.

See section 6. And again, note in section 4 where it specifically applies to intangible property.

And most specifically, section 3.
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation"

ThunderSkunk
Dec 6, 2012, 12:19 PM
I pirate content all the time.

...to try it out.

If it's good, I buy it. If it's not, I delete it.


Best of both worlds.

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 12:21 PM
I pirate content all the time.

...to try it out.

If it's good, I buy it. If it's not, I delete it.


Best of both worlds.


That's still wrong, but I think developers should have a lite or trial version of their apps. I would imagine that most people don't pay for it if they like it, even if they claim they do.

Jsameds
Dec 6, 2012, 12:31 PM
theft is an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

The developer doesn't own the 0's and 1's you are downloading, nor the electrons flowing down your ethernet cable. They only own the rights to their software, that's it.

So, once again, it's not theft, you're infringing on someone else's rights hence it is copyright infringement.

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 12:34 PM
The developer doesn't own the 0's and 1's you are downloading, nor the electrons flowing down your ethernet cable. They only own the rights to their software, that's it.

So, once again, it's not theft, you're infringing on someone else's rights hence it is copyright infringement.

From the Theft Act:
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation"

Copyright law gives the developer exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute their software. You are assuming their rights by creating a reproduction.

Brian Y
Dec 6, 2012, 12:54 PM
We don't need Wikipedia. The Theft Act is fine.

As summarized by cmaier, the act is in agreement with the common law definition.




See section 6. And again, note in section 4 where it specifically applies to intangible property.

And most specifically, section 3.
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation"

Dodging the question again, I just asked if you could point which part of the paragraph you used in your argument applied to your argument. Apparently not.

And from Section 6 of the Theft Act:


A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.


Since we're talking about rights, by downloading an app, I have no intention to treat the exclusive right to distribute as my own.

Also, with regard to assumption:


Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.


Again, by downloading an app, I haven't assumed, nor appropriated, the exclusive right to distribute the app. Nor have I assumed or appropriated the right to reproduce it. I have, however, violated the owners rights to do such things, but at no point do I gain the right to do so. There is a massive difference between violating a right, and assuming it (to clear it up - I'm using these as examples, should you wish to throw another point at me accusing me of dodging the bullet, feel free and I'll apply it :)).

BaldiMac
Dec 6, 2012, 01:08 PM
Dodging the question again, I just asked if you could point which part of the paragraph you used in your argument applied to your argument. Apparently not.

:confused: I didn't dodge the question at all. I provided the exact definition of theft that supports my assertion that copyright infringement is theft.

And from Section 6 of the Theft Act:

Since we're talking about rights, by downloading an app, I have no intention to treat the exclusive right to distribute as my own.

No, you are assuming their right to create a reproduction.

Also, with regard to assumption:

Again, by downloading an app, I haven't assumed, nor appropriated, the exclusive right to distribute the app. Nor have I assumed or appropriated the right to reproduce it. I have, however, violated the owners rights to do such things, but at no point do I gain the right to do so. There is a massive difference between violating a right, and assuming it (to clear it up - I'm using these as examples, should you wish to throw another point at me accusing me of dodging the bullet, feel free and I'll apply it :)).

Again, you are creating a distinction with no legal basis. By your logic, you can't even steal a hammer because the original owner still has rights to the hammer! What you are talking about is the legal transference of rights which would never happen during a theft. The closest thing I can think of would be fraud.

Assuming someone else's rights is inclusive of doing something that they have the exclusive right to do.

Assuming someone's rights. Violating someone's rights. Depriving someone of their rights. Interfering with someone's rights. These are all the same thing in this context.

ZacNicholson
Dec 6, 2012, 03:47 PM
Oh that's right, because you are doing it from Mommies basement it means you don't have to actually feel as bad as if you were stealing from someone directly (or fear being caught).

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

Im not in my moms basement, i am at my university

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 03:49 PM
Im not in my moms basement, i am at my university


Too bad you can't pirate your education, and if you like it pay for it later, if you don't you can delete it.:rolleyes:

bumblebritches5
Dec 6, 2012, 05:35 PM
But it is black and white. That's the point. Thieves try to blur the facts. But that doesn't change the facts. Someone puts their efforts and talents into developing a product, and under the law they are protected from those who would steal from them. Justifying that theft by attacking the victim's business model, security measures, etc. does not change the fact that it's theft.

Sorry to hear that you don't drink. Hate to think that your mind is naturally that addled.

Well, the word "Product" is debatable, and no it's not black and white, it's not stealing period, and your insistence on calling me a thief because I refuse to agree with you, isn't going to keep me from commenting on every single comment you post stating otherwise.

I love how you keep tooting your own horn "talents" nobody respects developers, and they never will, go play linux roulette. LOL "Victim" God, you're almost as bad as feminists.

----------

"But officer, I was just TRYING this new Big screen TV out... if I liked it, I was going to go back and pay for it, I SWEAR! If I didn't like it I was going to bring it back...."

Stealing is stealing. You can lie about your motives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that as soon as you download something you don't have the rights to without paying for it, you have STOLEN it. It's the same as if you walked into Best Buy and walked out with a TV. You can't do that, why do you think it's ok to do it here?

Oh that's right, because you are doing it from Mommies basement it means you don't have to actually feel as bad as if you were stealing from someone directly (or fear being caught).

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

What don't you people get? Does there need to be some big ass billboard with the words PIRACY ISN'T THEFT, PIRACY IS A COPY. THEFT IS REMOVAL. like Jesus christ.

thewitt
Dec 6, 2012, 05:48 PM
Did you purchase it? Because its not free. No? Then how did you end up with it? Oh, you stole it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

itjw
Dec 6, 2012, 06:23 PM
Im not in my moms basement, i am at my university

At your university, pirating software, and justifying it on an Apple fan board...

Bravo... Glad to see the University has a strong Ethics department.

Why not try out one of the cars in the faculty parking lot? If you like it you can pay the owner for it, if not, just give it back, I'm sure they won't mind (or press charges!).

You can call it whatever you want. It's still taking something that doesn't belong to you without permission. That makes it wrong, and I don't believe for a second that if someone "borrowed" something of yours without permission that you wouldn't be FURIOUS.

Especially if once they got caught they tried to justify taking it by saying "I was going to pay the guy if I decided to keep it! I swear!"

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 06:47 PM
Im not in my moms basement, i am at my university


BTW, interesting youtube videos. Do people actually watch those? I think you said the F word in the first video more than what was in Pulp Fiction.

ThunderSkunk
Dec 6, 2012, 06:55 PM
That's still wrong...

My other option is to go back to not buying anything at all.

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 06:57 PM
My other option is to go back to not buying anything at all.


That's fine, if you did could you admit you're a thief or would you make excuses like others here have?

itjw
Dec 6, 2012, 07:30 PM
My other option is to go back to not buying anything at all.

That implies we believe you buy anything in the first place. I don't. I think you lie about what you do to try and justify what you're doing even though you know it's theft/stealing/wrong/whatever...

It's ok. The world is full of petty criminals and you can count yourself among them. Some of them feel pretty good about themselves, and that's fine too.

Doesn't change the fact that you're a petty thief, but hey, I bet if someone stole from you you'd be cool with it, and what goes around comes around right?

If your iPad/iPhone turns up missing just let it go. I'm sure the thief would just "stop buying stuff" if you stopped/caught him anyway...

:rolleyes:

ZacNicholson
Dec 6, 2012, 08:17 PM
BTW, interesting youtube videos. Do people actually watch those? I think you said the F word in the first video more than what was in Pulp Fiction.

yeah one of them has almost 200,000 views. so i guess people do watch them :rolleyes:

ericrwalker
Dec 6, 2012, 08:22 PM
yeah one of them has almost 200,000 views. so i guess people do watch them :rolleyes:

Holy crap you're almost as cool as Rebecca Black.

ZacNicholson
Dec 6, 2012, 08:36 PM
Holy crap you're almost as cool as Rebecca Black.

na, i'm cooler

ThunderSkunk
Dec 6, 2012, 11:47 PM
That implies we believe you ad hominem ad hominem ad hominem

It doesn't matter what you believe. If I have no way to determine if I want to own something, & no recourse, I don't buy it. Never have. The result is, I either buy nothing at all, or I buy things that I'm fairly sure I want to own. Just like anyone. I've simply found a way to reduce the risk of buying a lot of garbage in between, by not gambling on total unknowns.

You can personally attack me any way you want but it changes nothing. You won't find anything in my possession I haven't paid for. ...and you have no idea what has been stolen from me over my life, so I'll just let your hotheaded blabbering slide.

praetorian909
Dec 7, 2012, 12:27 AM
If they can differentiate between pirated copy and original copy of the client software, why don't they just restrict access to the server for the pirated one?

I don't think they can necessarily differentiate between the pirated copies accesing their server vs. paid copies. I'm thinking it might be they know they sold X number of copies, and they see 10X copies making requests to their server.

thewitt
Dec 7, 2012, 01:33 AM
I don't think they can necessarily differentiate between the pirated copies accesing their server vs. paid copies. I'm thinking it might be they know they sold X number of copies, and they see 10X copies making requests to their server.

This is what happens, however its typical an order of magnitude higher than your example.

They sold X and there are 100x simultaneous server accesses.

With multiple devices under one Apple ID, its not uncommon to see multiple devices accessing a server for every copy sold, but an average increase of more than 100% is unlikely. For everyone who has three or more devices under the same Apple ID, there are many more who have only one.

There is currently no way to tell if the app accessing your service was purchased or is an illegal copy.

alvindarkness
Dec 7, 2012, 03:35 AM
This analogy doesn't work, considering software doesn't have a CoGS associated with it.

But for the sake of the analogy, I'll say this: what the pirate guy said is no different than someone buying a pair of headphones, trying it out for 29 days, then on the 30th day returning it for a full refund or keeping it. The only difference, assuming he's true to his word, is that he doesn't have to provide a "downpayment" so to speak.

So really, in his case, it's only wrong if you think people should provide money upfront. In the same breath, do you think it's outrageous if the local frozen yogurt shop won't let you sample their flavors without money down? Or if a car dealership wouldn't let you test drive before buying?

Possibly the best post I've read on macrumors in months. (and I say this as someone who buys all the software/games I use, but its just a breath of fresh air to see a parallel side of the argument put forth so well).

decafjava
Dec 7, 2012, 05:11 AM
Did you purchase it? Because its not free. No? Then how did you end up with it? Oh, you stole it.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Exactly, all the legal niceties don't change that.

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 05:23 AM
I'm surprised people don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

If I were to walk into HMV and steal a CD that's theft, I'm depriving HMV of their item and their ability to sell it. If I were to download a movie I'm effectively taking a copy, the original (if that term is even applicable for downloads) is still there. That's a big difference.

gnasher729
Dec 7, 2012, 05:57 AM
I'm surprised people don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

If I were to walk into HMV and steal a CD that's theft, I'm depriving HMV of their item and their ability to sell it. If I were to download a movie I'm effectively taking a copy, the original (if that term is even applicable for downloads) is still there. That's a big difference.

I'm unfortunately not surprised to what lengths people go to justify their unjustifiable behaviour.

If you walk into HMV and steal a CD, that's theft. HMV may or may not have insurance, but the record company is going to be paid for the CD, and the artist will get his money as well. You hurt HMV or the insurance, but not the artist. If you download a movie, you hurt the artist.

Of course copyright infringement is not theft. But it is illegal, just like theft is, and for the same reason. If you sneak into the movie theatre to watch a movie without paying, if you take a taxi and then run away before paying the driver, and in many other situations, what you do isn't literally theft, but it is just as bad, and therefore there are laws against it.

But you are right, of course, so we should not use the word "thief" anymore, but maybe "scumbag" is more appropriate.

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 07:29 AM
I'm not trying to justify anything, everything on my jailbroken iPhone is 100% legal. I don't have Installous installed. I just bothers me that people are using the wrong terms for things, it undermines their whole argument because it makes them look silly and hysterical.

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 07:39 AM
everything on my jailbroken iPhone is 100% legal.

I've yet to meet someone with a jailbroken iPhone for whom this is true, but that's a discussion for another thread. :D

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 07:56 AM
I've yet to meet someone with a jailbroken iPhone for whom this is true, but that's a discussion for another thread. :D

Doesn't matter to me if you believe me, I know that my statement is true.

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 08:06 AM
Doesn't matter to me if you believe me, I know that my statement is true.

Keep in mind that any tweak, theme, or app that modifies Apple's UI or modifies iOS to provide additional functionality not available to App Store apps likely results in copyright infringement.

Brian Y
Dec 7, 2012, 08:24 AM
I've yet to meet someone with a jailbroken iPhone for whom this is true, but that's a discussion for another thread. :D

Well I can tell you that I have a jailbroken iPad - and everything on there is legal.

My main reasons for doing so were to install TeX Live, OpenVPN, and a Java virtual machine. Also, due to the way the vast majority of jailbreak tweaks are made (code injection as opposed to distributing modified files), there isn't any copyright infringement involved.

And the USCO has quite clearly said that jailbreaking isn't copyright infringement, and have made it an exception to the DMCA - http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcaexemps.pdf

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 08:32 AM
Well I can tell you that I have a jailbroken iPad - and everything on there is legal.

My main reasons for doing so were to install TeX Live, OpenVPN, and a Java virtual machine. Also, due to the way the vast majority of jailbreak tweaks are made (code injection as opposed to distributing modified files), there isn't any copyright infringement involved.

Good for you if that's true! There's always a first! Most everyone I've come across has installed SBSettings and/or themes.

But copyright infringement doesn't require distribution. If you "inject" code that modifies iOS, you are still creating a derivative work. Not saying any of your software does that, just simply that a lack of distribution of the modified code is irrelevant.

And the USCO has quite clearly said that jailbreaking isn't copyright infringement, and have made it an exception to the DMCA - http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/07/dmcaexemps.pdf

Absolutely true. Except to clarify that the exemption makes jailbreaking legal for specific, limited purposes. Jailbreaking to install a pirated app is still a DMCA violation.

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 08:40 AM
Keep in mind that any tweak, theme, or app that modifies Apple's UI or modifies iOS to provide additional functionality not available to App Store apps likely results in copyright infringement.

I don't have any themes installed, that's not why I JB. I've bought BiteSMS and LockInfo because they add useful functionality to my phone.

----------

Good for you if that's true! There's always a first! Most everyone I've come across has installed SBSettings and/or themes.

But copyright infringement doesn't require distribution. If you "inject" code that modifies iOS, you are still creating a derivative work. Not saying any of your software does that, just simply that a lack of distribution of the modified code is irrelevant.



Absolutely true. Except to clarify that the exemption makes jailbreaking legal for specific, limited purposes. Jailbreaking to install a pirated app is still a DMCA violation.

Some of us couldn't care less about the DCMA because we're outside its jurisdiction. Frankly even if I weren't I'd still jailbreak. It's my device and if I'm not pirating anything my conscience is clear.

Brian Y
Dec 7, 2012, 08:43 AM
Good for you if that's true! There's always a first! Most everyone I've come across has installed SBSettings and/or themes.

But copyright infringement doesn't require distribution. If you "inject" code that modifies iOS, you are still creating a derivative work. Not saying any of your software does that, just simply that a lack of distribution of the modified code is irrelevant.


SB Settings and themes are both legal too ;).

By the nature of code injection, no derivative work is ever created - since extra code is injected directly into RAM. If you own a device, you're perfectly entitled to put whatever 0s and 1s you wish into its RAM (which is all code injection does). That's not creating a derivative work, that's using the hardware you've bought.

If jailbreaking in any way was illegal, do you not think Apple would have moved to shut cydia, or its repositories, down (which, let's face it, wouldn't be hard)? Yes, people do illegal things with it, but providing an avenue to do illegal things isn't illegal (i.e. I can illegally import things by driving them through the channel tunnel, but that doesn't make driving through the channel tunnel illegal).

Also, there is no real "for limited use" clause I found - they made 3 main points:


“[t]o the extent a jailbreaking technique does not modify any of the individual software programs that comprise the iPhone firmware collection, but instead simply adds additional software components to the collection, the practice may not exceed the scope of the license to ‘use the iPhone software’ or constitute a ‘modification’


Second, EFF asserted that “to the extent a jailbreak technique requires the reproduction or adaptation of existing firmware beyond the scope of any license or other authorization by the copyright owner, it would fall within the ambit of 17 U.S.C. § 1l7(a).”270 EFF contended that the iPhone owner is also the owner of the copy of the iPhone’s firmware and that jailbreaking falls within the owner’s privilege “to adapt those copies to add new capabilities, so long as the changes do not "harm the interests of the copyright proprietor.


Finally, EFF contended that in any event, jailbreaking constitutes fair use of the firmware because jailbreaking is a purely noncommercial, private use of computer software, a largely functional work that operates the phone, and that the phone owner must reuse the vast majority of the original firmware in order for the phone to operate. Because the phone owner is simply modifying the firmware for her own use on the phone, there is no harm to the market for the firmware.

I think that covers pretty much everything i've discussed.

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 08:45 AM
I don't have any themes installed, that's not why I JB. I've bought BiteSMS and LockInfo because they add useful functionality to my phone.

And both of those apps modify iOS to add that useful functionality. Which is copyright infringement.

Some of us couldn't care less about the DCMA because we're outside its jurisdiction.

Good for you!

Frankly even if I weren't I'd still jailbreak. It's my device and if I'm not pirating anything my conscience is clear.

Hopefully, you see the difference between that and 100% legal!

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 09:00 AM
SB Settings and themes are both legal too ;).

By the nature of code injection, no derivative work is ever created - since extra code is injected directly into RAM. If you own a device, you're perfectly entitled to put whatever 0s and 1s you wish into its RAM (which is all code injection does). That's not creating a derivative work, that's using the hardware you've bought.

The code in RAM is just a protected by copyright as the code on the flash drive. But that is certainly a good argument. I doubt it is as straightforward as you describe because app sandboxes would have to be bypassed and apps would need to gain access to areas of the OS that are unavailable to App Store apps. But that is outside of my area of knowledge. :)

If jailbreaking in any way was illegal, do you not think Apple would have moved to shut cydia, or its repositories, down (which, let's face it, wouldn't be hard)? Yes, people do illegal things with it, but providing an avenue to do illegal things isn't illegal (i.e. I can illegally import things by driving them through the channel tunnel, but that doesn't make driving through the channel tunnel illegal).

Again, jailbreaking is absolutely legal for specific purposes. Read the exception that you linked to:

"Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset."

And, no, I don't think Apple would move to shut down cydia for much the same reason that they don't move to shut down hackintosh projects.

Also, there is no real "for limited use" clause I found - they made 3 main points:

You are quoting the EFF's opinion. Not the copyright office's decision.

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 09:07 AM
Hopefully, you see the difference between that and 100% legal!

Eh? Jailbreaking an iPhone is entirely legal. I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 09:19 AM
Eh? Jailbreaking an iPhone is entirely legal. I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

Absolutely. It is legal in the US for specific purposes.

Of course, as you pointed out, I don't know where you are. So you are making a vague and unsupported claim.

----------

Well I can tell you that I have a jailbroken iPad - and everything on there is legal.

Just FYI, to point out the legal mess, the copyright office actually disapproved a jailbreaking exception for tablets. So there is no DMCA exemption for the iPad. :D

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 10:10 AM
Absolutely. It is legal in the US for specific purposes.

Of course, as you pointed out, I don't know where you are. So you are making a vague and unsupported claim.

Ah, ok. I'm in the UK.

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 10:23 AM
Ah, ok. I'm in the UK.

From this article, it appears that you all have the same caveats as we do in the US. :)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/28/investigation-is-it-legal-to-jailbreak-a-uk-iphone

Vague laws to create a legal mess. :)

Switchback666
Dec 7, 2012, 10:29 AM
I remember saw something about next year jailbreak might be ilegal ? Any news about it ?

ECUpirate44
Dec 7, 2012, 10:30 AM
i pirate games, and if i like them i'll buy them. if i dont i delete the game.

For every one of you, theres a hundred who say the same thing then don't actually buy the game.

The real issue here was the amount of pirated copies was so overwhelming that it crippled the multiplayer servers.

thewitt
Dec 7, 2012, 10:44 AM
For every one of you, theres a hundred who say the same thing then don't actually buy the game.

The real issue here was the amount of pirated copies was so overwhelming that it crippled the multiplayer servers.

I'm sorry to say I don't believe it's 1 in 100, its more like 1 in 10,000... Pirates don't buy games, they steal them. Plain and simple. They are proud of that fact, as every thread I've read on every forum and BBS in the last 26 years reinforces.

We've been in the software business for nearly 25 years and it's been the same game on every platform. Nothing changes.

We spend nearly as much time thwarting the thieves as we do adding new features for our paying customers.

Brian Y
Dec 7, 2012, 11:53 AM
The code in RAM is just a protected by copyright as the code on the flash drive. But that is certainly a good argument. I doubt it is as straightforward as you describe because app sandboxes would have to be bypassed and apps would need to gain access to areas of the OS that are unavailable to App Store apps. But that is outside of my area of knowledge. :)


I can tell you that modifying the contents of the RAM of your own computer is not copyright infringement in any way shape or form, in any country, and no court would ever decide otherwise. That would be ludicrous!

m00min
Dec 7, 2012, 12:02 PM
From this article, it appears that you all have the same caveats as we do in the US. :)
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/28/investigation-is-it-legal-to-jailbreak-a-uk-iphone

Vague laws to create a legal mess. :)

Hmm, well there's illegal and then there's immoral. I shall choose based on the latter. If our police were charged with arresting geeks for doing geeky things they wouldn't have time to bait the speeding drivers or the round up the drunk teenagers :)

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 12:37 PM
I can tell you that modifying the contents of the RAM of your own computer is not copyright infringement in any way shape or form, in any country, and no court would ever decide otherwise. That would be ludicrous!

You could tell me that, but simply quoting a limitation to copyright law that applies directly would make for a more interesting conversation. :)

It doesn't make sense to me that what you are describing would be legal. Seems like it would allow for wholesale modification of the software.

Also, to your claim itself that the modification is limited to code injection within RAM. I assume you don't have to launch SBSettings and every other tweak every time you restart your device, so how does it get into RAM without modifying the copy on the drive to launch it into RAM?

ECUpirate44
Dec 7, 2012, 01:00 PM
I'm sorry to say I don't believe it's 1 in 100, its more like 1 in 10,000... Pirates don't buy games, they steal them. Plain and simple. They are proud of that fact, as every thread I've read on every forum and BBS in the last 26 years reinforces.

We've been in the software business for nearly 25 years and it's been the same game on every platform. Nothing changes.

We spend nearly as much time thwarting the thieves as we do adding new features for our paying customers.

Okay, 1 in 10,000. :rolleyes:

BaldiMac
Dec 7, 2012, 01:08 PM
I remember saw something about next year jailbreak might be ilegal ? Any news about it ?

I think the only news similar to that was that a proposed exemption to the DMCA for jailbreaking tablets was disapproved. I haven't heard anything new on jailbreaking smartphones.

Brian Y
Dec 7, 2012, 05:34 PM
You could tell me that, but simply quoting a limitation to copyright law that applies directly would make for a more interesting conversation. :)

It doesn't make sense to me that what you are describing would be legal. Seems like it would allow for wholesale modification of the software.

Also, to your claim itself that the modification is limited to code injection within RAM. I assume you don't have to launch SBSettings and every other tweak every time you restart your device, so how does it get into RAM without modifying the copy on the drive to launch it into RAM?

The "added" software (which is allowed) modifies value in memory.

There wont be a specific clause, but it would come under "fair use", since you own the machine, and changes in RAM aren't persistent changes (no modification has ever been made to the software - consider a painting on a wall - if you hold a filter in front of it, the colour may look different, but hasn't actually changed ;)).

BaldiMac
Dec 8, 2012, 02:20 PM
The "added" software (which is allowed) modifies value in memory.

There wont be a specific clause, but it would come under "fair use", since you own the machine, and changes in RAM aren't persistent changes (no modification has ever been made to the software - consider a painting on a wall - if you hold a filter in front of it, the colour may look different, but hasn't actually changed ;)).

There is no fair use exemption for modifying copies in RAM. Sounds like you just made that up. If not, feel free to quote a statute or legal decision. It doesn't make sense at all as it would render the developer's exclusive right to create derivative works irrelevant.

And, again, you skipped over the modifications necessary to inject the code into RAM.

itjw
Dec 8, 2012, 04:35 PM
It doesn't matter what you believe. If I have no way to determine if I want to own something, & no recourse, I don't buy it. Never have. The result is, I either buy nothing at all, or I buy things that I'm fairly sure I want to own. Just like anyone. I've simply found a way to reduce the risk of buying a lot of garbage in between, by not gambling on total unknowns.

You can personally attack me any way you want but it changes nothing. You won't find anything in my possession I haven't paid for. ...and you have no idea what has been stolen from me over my life, so I'll just let your hotheaded blabbering slide.

Call it whatever you want. Based on your responses I can decide that I don't BELIEVE that you "paid for everything in your possession" because you have already admitted that you don't pay for things until you TRY them first...

These programs that you steal first and pay for later (right...) DON'T offer "free trials" and therefore you are taking something without paying for it.

I realize that a petty thief needs to rationalize things like that so they don't feel bad, and you can choose to ignore me all you like, it doesn't change the fact that you are now a documented liar and a thief.

It's not namecalling if it's the truth lol... Sorry.

Rodster
Dec 8, 2012, 04:47 PM
I can confirm I have not paid a single penny for all my 100+ iOS games and apps. :D

Oh wait i'm not a pirate, i'm what you call a moocher. I hunt appshopper.com for every paid app that was sold for free. I wonder how long it will take for Infinity Blade to show up? :p

Brian Y
Dec 8, 2012, 05:13 PM
There is no fair use exemption for modifying copies in RAM. Sounds like you just made that up. If not, feel free to quote a statute or legal decision. It doesn't make sense at all as it would render the developer's exclusive right to create derivative works irrelevant.

And, again, you skipped over the modifications necessary to inject the code into RAM.

I'm going to give up with this - I seriously cannot be bothered arguing with you any more - it's getting boring and it's clear that you're not going to accept any logical argument. It's quite clear that you're trolling to get a reaction now, and arguing for the sake of arguing (you have argued against pretty much every single post I have made in this thread, and looking over your posts I'm not the first to get this).

There is no "fair use" exception, since there is no definition of fair use. It's any use, which can be considered fair. If you think somebody's going to list off every single fair use then you're seriously misguided. That, and I'm not going to quote some arbitrary law at this point because, quite frankly, I couldn't give a damn whether you agree with me or not. I know I'm right with this, end of conversation at this point as far as I am concerned.

And modifications aren't required, its "addition" of software, which you well know is allowed.

But I'm leaving this thread now.

yusukeaoki
Dec 8, 2012, 06:36 PM
I still pirate them.
If I like it, I support the devs by buying it.
If I dont, I just delete the game.
Its that simple.

firewood
Dec 8, 2012, 10:21 PM
The code in RAM is just a protected by copyright as the code on the flash drive. .

Almost every time you switch apps, or reboot your device, you are, sooner or later, modifying code in RAM, 4 to 16 bytes at a time depending on the memory bus width.

Are you saying that switching to another app (big enough to need the physical memory) is somehow illegal?

iSee
Dec 8, 2012, 10:29 PM
...What if this game had gone completely viral like Angry Birds? What would they do when the server crashed with 2 million legal players?...

Um, gee, I don't know... maybe they could spend some of the massive stream of cash coming in to scale up their server capacity. Now, I'm well aware that depending on the current design of their software that that may not be very easy to do. But a couple of million dollars (at least) has a way of making hard problems solvable.

Since their load was generated by non-paying pirates, it seems they didn't have the resources to deal with the problems.

JAT
Dec 8, 2012, 11:44 PM
Um, gee, I don't know... maybe they could spend some of the massive stream of cash coming in to scale up their server capacity. Now, I'm well aware that depending on the current design of their software that that may not be very easy to do. But a couple of million dollars (at least) has a way of making hard problems solvable.

Since their load was generated by non-paying pirates, it seems they didn't have the resources to deal with the problems.

It's weird, when I read your post, my brain automagically substituted "we" for every "they" you typed. Huh.

It takes more than 10 minutes to scale up, regardless of capital. They weren't prepared, period.

fujitsu
Dec 9, 2012, 03:34 AM
I feel bad for the developer. Piracy really hurts. Dang.

Winnychan213
Dec 9, 2012, 06:10 PM
Cry me a river, you are not the only company that needs to deal with piracy. Regardless of what the law said, piracy will still exist. Here is a bridge, now get over it.

BaldiMac
Dec 10, 2012, 07:57 AM
There is no "fair use" exception, since there is no definition of fair use. It's any use, which can be considered fair. If you think somebody's going to list off every single fair use then you're seriously misguided. That, and I'm not going to quote some arbitrary law at this point because, quite frankly, I couldn't give a damn whether you agree with me or not. I know I'm right with this, end of conversation at this point as far as I am concerned.

That's a pretty complete argument there. :rolleyes: Not sure what you were expecting here other than a discussion. Do you expect everyone to just agree with you because you know your "right with this, end of conversation."

You also thought you were right when you claimed your jailbroken iPad was completely legal. The copyright office disagreed.

And modifications aren't required, its "addition" of software, which you well know is allowed.

Again, iOS has to be modified to launch an app such as SBSettings into RAM. iOS does not launch third party services on startup without modification.

Almost every time you switch apps, or reboot your device, you are, sooner or later, modifying code in RAM, 4 to 16 bytes at a time depending on the memory bus width.

Are you saying that switching to another app (big enough to need the physical memory) is somehow illegal?

No. I'm saying that's a licensed use of the software.

ncaissie
Dec 10, 2012, 10:52 AM
Parking your car isn't a physical good. Neither is cleaning your house. Or doing your taxes. Or babysitting your kids. People still pay for these things. Why? Because you don't deserve things for free, no matter how self-absorbed and entitled you want to act.

----------



So to you as long as it isn't TOO expensive for your financial situation, it's okay to just steal. Okay then.

I didn't say to steal anything. I just said I JB to get themes and not everyone JB their phone to steal apps.

rutledjw
Dec 10, 2012, 11:21 AM
If they can differentiate between pirated copy and original copy of the client software, why don't they just restrict access to the server for the pirated one?

I don't think they can tell by connection. What they're saying is that we sold X copies and X+Y connections are showing up, where Y is a VERY large number. Clearly this was an oversight in design. There wasn't a user token or similar in there. I'd imagine they can do some re-design and fix the game. But who knows? Until you get into the code, it's hard to really say what it would take. So any statements are conjecture.

And if they're tapped out on funds, it might not be worth it to them. Either way it sucks. I've long had a dim view of pirates - regardless of large or small companies...

rutledjw
Dec 10, 2012, 11:32 AM
I'm surprised people don't understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement.

If I were to walk into HMV and steal a CD that's theft, I'm depriving HMV of their item and their ability to sell it. If I were to download a movie I'm effectively taking a copy, the original (if that term is even applicable for downloads) is still there. That's a big difference.

This is probably one of the most pathetic justifications I've read. You're stealing. Period.. You can try to paint it as something different, but you're taking something with providing due compensation. You're "depriving" them of revenue. In a digital world, it's the same thing as taking a physical item. How can that not be obvious?

Clearly you don't build anything for your work, or you would be outraged by what you describe. When I write code for work, I expect to be compensated for it. If someone commits "copyright infringement" (stealing) then I'm not getting what is due.

m00min
Dec 10, 2012, 01:00 PM
This is probably one of the most pathetic justifications I've read. You're stealing. Period.. You can try to paint it as something different, but you're taking something with providing due compensation. You're "depriving" them of revenue. In a digital world, it's the same thing as taking a physical item. How can that not be obvious?

Firstly, I don't pirate anything. I was trying to explain the difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Both are wrong but there is a difference.

Secondly, one download does not automatically equate to one lost sale. There are serial downloaders who will hoard everything they can get their hands on. They probably never even play/listen/watch it all, and it's highly unlikely they'd have ever bought the thing.


Clearly you don't build anything for your work, or you would be outraged by what you describe. When I write code for work, I expect to be compensated for it. If someone commits "copyright infringement" (stealing) then I'm not getting what is due.

I'm a web designer and developer, so I understand exactly what I've described. You seem to have a very simplistic view however.

stridemat
Dec 10, 2012, 01:14 PM
MOD NOTE

Open.

rutledjw
Dec 10, 2012, 03:21 PM
Firstly, I don't pirate anything. I was trying to explain the difference between stealing and copyright infringement. Both are wrong but there is a difference.

Secondly, one download does not automatically equate to one lost sale. There are serial downloaders who will hoard everything they can get their hands on. They probably never even play/listen/watch it all, and it's highly unlikely they'd have ever bought the thing.

I'm a web designer and developer, so I understand exactly what I've described. You seem to have a very simplistic view however.

Yes, I feel quite enlightened. This debate between stealing and "copyright infringement" is a red herring and I fail to see how your statements add anything nor how my stance is "simplistic". But, by all means, point out the distinction if it makes you feel better.

I'm annoyed with this entire thread

jowie
Dec 11, 2012, 06:31 AM
2 - I added in some code that assigns each user a unique ID. I can shut down users that pirate the app.
I'd be interested in hearing more about this. Even if you assign each user a unique ID, how do you know which ones are pirates and which ones are legit?

ArtOfWarfare
Dec 11, 2012, 07:19 AM
I'd be interested in hearing more about this. Even if you assign each user a unique ID, how do you know which ones are pirates and which ones are legit?

The ID doesn't change when they upload and distribute the app. All I have to do is download the pirated app, check the ID, and I can shut it down.

jowie
Dec 11, 2012, 07:21 AM
The ID doesn't change when they upload and distribute the app. All I have to do is download the pirated app, check the ID, and I can shut it down.
But where do you get the ID from? If someone downloads your app, hacks it and distributes it, how do you know that app came from a particular user?

besweeet2
Dec 11, 2012, 09:18 AM
But where do you get the ID from? If someone downloads your app, hacks it and distributes it, how do you know that app came from a particular user?

My guess is to have the app check for iTunesMetadata.plist within the root of the sandboxed app, since cracked apps tend to remove it. This, to Mme, would be the most basic approach.

jowie
Dec 11, 2012, 09:30 AM
My guess is to have the app check for iTunesMetadata.plist within the root of the sandboxed app, since cracked apps tend to remove it. This, to Mme, would be the most basic approach.
I found this:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11609651/detect-if-ios-app-hacked

This leads me to believe that since it is possible to detect that an app is hacked, this Battle Dungeon article is possibly a publicity stunt...

ArtOfWarfare
Dec 11, 2012, 11:52 AM
I found this:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11609651/detect-if-ios-app-hacked

This leads me to believe that since it is possible to detect that an app is hacked, this Battle Dungeon article is possibly a publicity stunt...

I'd suggest they should just release an update that:

1 - Detects if its pirated and disallows online play.
2 - Sends a code that the server verifies that the prior (cracked) version never would have.

muthuka
Dec 31, 2012, 07:51 PM
Piracy is bad. Doesn't matter if it's for Small Dev or big company. They deserve to get paid for their work. Coming with other excuses don't make it a good thing.

I started a company only after I was affected with piracy. We didn't go anywhere since developers didn't believe in trying our solution out. But it's a great thing that itself stopped abruptly this way. Good beginning.

BergerFan
Dec 31, 2012, 07:58 PM
Good news on the piracy front - Hackulous is shutting down. :)

MacsRgr8
Jan 1, 2013, 04:46 AM
i pirate games, and if i like them i'll buy them. if i dont i delete the game.

i.e. a demo...

ZacNicholson
Jan 1, 2013, 11:27 AM
i.e. a demo...

not all games have a demo

BergerFan
Jan 1, 2013, 01:07 PM
i pirate games, and if i like them i'll buy them. if i dont i delete the game.Such a pleasant fiction.

NewAnger
Jan 1, 2013, 01:16 PM
Good news on the piracy front - Hackulous is shutting down. :)

It won't stop piracy though. I know of several message boards where current and all brand new apps are traded.

Pirated apps will never go away.

yusukeaoki
Jan 1, 2013, 01:51 PM
I honestly do not mind pirating.
I personally pirate games, ones that dont have demos.

I play it and if I like it, I buy the game.
If I dont, I delete the pirated game.

Rodster
Jan 1, 2013, 02:03 PM
Don't know why people pirate apps? There is so much free which are full paid apps available and Starbucks gives away free codes to full retail apps. I've received codes for Rayman, Mirror's Edge, Mass Effect, Sonic Jump and Sonic Ep 2. That's just a small sampling of the free stuff that's available. :)

Mr. Retrofire
Jan 21, 2013, 03:44 PM
You can't steal information.
So secret services do not steal information? iLOL

XboxMySocks
Jan 21, 2013, 04:01 PM
Such a pleasant fiction.

You act as if this is false. It's true. I know a lot of people who do it. Myself included

shoulin333
Jan 21, 2013, 06:07 PM
Steam/ VAC secure solved this problem for VALVE... Why can't their servers validate the copies against a database of valid keys of some sort. Or even just send a code to their email address when they buy the game, that email contains a unique link necessary to create and account for the game. There will always be hackers/stealers but unless Devs stand up and implement readily available counter measures and stop just giving up they will not be slowed down.

bumblebritches5
Jan 24, 2013, 09:33 PM
So secret services do not steal information? iLOL

Hmm, that's a good question, the secret service and fbi and all that do steal information, and the difference is pretty obvious, there's nothing private about a commercial app.

MadDawg2020
Jan 24, 2013, 11:12 PM
Sad, but I doubt piracy will ever end. I think developers need to find different ways to fund their projects, one example is kickstarter..

People are willing to pay for great ideas or games, it's evident with the success of many projects in Kickstarter.

I'm not sure of the ins and outs of game development, but we gotta find different ways to fight piracy, DRM doesn't really work..

All DRM does is ruin the experience for paying customers. The games get pirated either way.. I remember tons of upset customers because of Ubisoft DRM..

Anyway, I think anyone would be open to good suggestions..

This never makes sense to me, people are more than willing to pay $20 to a hack in a garage using kickstarter campaign to start a 'cool' new project. Why bother? Once that same project is actually up and running as an actual app, it is declared evil, because a developer wants a whole $4.99 the buy the game!
If i am correct there was also a freeware version so you could try the game out before you buy!

If that is too much then maybe we should all go back to playing XBOX and PS3, games only cost about ten times as much there and few if any of those big game developers offer usable demos for their games!

So instead of paying someone a VERY reasonable fee for their work, people just rip them off, overload the system and since many of these copies are illegally stolen, then the developer cannot afford to pay for the server and other resources needed to upkeep and further enhance the game.

----------


Secondly, one download does not automatically equate to one lost sale. There are serial downloaders who will hoard everything they can get their hands on. They probably never even play/listen/watch it all, and it's highly unlikely they'd have ever bought the thing.


Yeah and these serial downloaders you speak of... so they just hoard everything they can get their hands on... they would never go and upload it to sites and torrents where others can copy from!!! Because its fun to waste hours downloading and filling terabytes of hard drives with stuff you will NEVER play/listen/watch.

or i dunno maybe in your world they just store them away these files on floppy disk never to be used again?

Hetalia
Jan 25, 2013, 07:44 PM
Piracy is theft let's be honest adults here. I hate re-arguing a almost mute point because it must of been said tons of times in this topic. Demos would solve alot of problems though personally I've played alot of games I paid for that were horrible. I really think development companies should invest in making demos even if it's a 5-10 day trial period. It might cut down on piracy. I don't know thought I'm just saying what I think.

m00min
Jan 26, 2013, 06:51 AM
Yeah and these serial downloaders you speak of... so they just hoard everything they can get their hands on... they would never go and upload it to sites and torrents where others can copy from!!! Because its fun to waste hours downloading and filling terabytes of hard drives with stuff you will NEVER play/listen/watch.

or i dunno maybe in your world they just store them away these files on floppy disk never to be used again?

That's ok, you just keep your head firmly in the sand. (Or whatever dark place you have it lodged.)

Cheffy Dave
Jan 26, 2013, 01:42 PM
i pirate games, and if i like them i'll buy them. if i dont i delete the game.

Sure you do!:rolleyes:

ZacNicholson
Jan 26, 2013, 06:11 PM
Sure you do!:rolleyes:

you're right i don't pay for apps! i steal them all and i don't care :D

thewitt
Jan 27, 2013, 04:46 AM
you're right i don't pay for apps! i steal them all and i don't care :D

We all knew that already.