Should pirates be reported

[dukebound85]

you can't assume that someone who is pirating something would go out and buy it if the downloading option wasn't available.

the fact is that most pirated material wouldn't be purchased.

you cant really assume that either

itd be interesting to see what % of pirates would have bought the software if there wasnt any way to pirate it

ive also read that companies like adobe benefit in a sense from pirates in that those who do (i assume largly students and other poor folk) learn to use the programs and thus do buy them when they need them for work since thy re familiar with the program

 

[Nadav]

I have a question, and it has been bothering me for a while. My dad has a great collection of records, but I did not know how to convert it to the computer. Is it illegal if I downloaded it for free off of a website, if I already had a physical copy?

To purchase all of those albums again seems a little absurd to me.

 

[chilipie]

Intellectual Property is still property -.- It is theft.

Another definition of theft: "the fraudulent taking of property belonging to another, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property."

I guess you would feel different if your welfare depended upon selling your work.
You design a widget and have 10,000 built, to break even you need to sell 4500. You sell 10 then all of a sudden you see more than 30 widgets that look similar and youask where they got it. I bought it for $5 from the guy on the corner. You go down there and sure enough there is a guy that is selling the widget for $5 and is making a modest profit. You discver he has sold 10,000 with a $2 profit per widget.

Now can you honestly tell me you would be ok with that. Your time, your, work, your investment is suddenly gone. would you simply walk away and say well they didn't really steal my work it they just copied it with this other person pocketing $20,000 at your expense.

That's not the same thing though. Building and selling something similar to someone else's unpatented product isn't illegal, as far as I know.

no, but you are depriving them of earnings.

if you actually understood all the ins and outs of how the music,movie and tv industries work, you'd get that.

As zioxide said, not necessarily.

you can't assume that someone who is pirating something would go out and buy it if the downloading option wasn't available.

the fact is that most pirated material wouldn't be purchased.

I agree with dukebound85 that you can't just assume that most pirated material wouldn't be purchased, but I'm with you on your first point.

I'm not trying to defend pirates or piracy, but the equation of piracy with physical theft and the assumption that anything pirated means a loss in profits for content creators just isn't true.

 

[dinaluvsApple]

LOL this must be an American thing, rest of world seems to have no issue with sharing information.

I'm in Canada luckily where our ISP by law won't turn any iformation about usage unless it's a security or child porn issue.


Go Canada and rest of world!

 

[dmr727]

LOL this must be an American thing, rest of world seems to have no issue with sharing information.

It's not strictly an American thing - all the ISPs around here don't care, at least not yet. I don't pirate for the same reasons I don't steal DVDs from a store, but I certainly have a couple of buddies that do. One of them probably pulls down a few hundred gigs a month from Usenet, and Time Warner doesn't seem to mind.

It seems to me that it's only a matter of time before they cap him, though. I can't think of any legitimate reason to be pulling down that much data.

 

[charlituna]

you can't assume that someone who is pirating something would go out and buy it if the downloading option wasn't available.

the fact is that most pirated material wouldn't be purchased.

oh I don't know about that.

The reasons I have heard for illegal downloading have typically been price related. often with "I don't want to pad the pockets of some rich studio exec/label exec"

some of those folks might download legally if shown who is being hurt by going illegal.

you are correct that not all would however. cause a good 75% of all illegal downloaders just like to flip it to the system.

What about copying a DVD from Netflix and sending the original back?

by letter of the law. illegal.

What about a friend recording a TV show onto VCR for you?

legal. about 15 years ago when VCRs were the thang there were cases about this, which are also what allow DVRs which deemed that recording for the purposes of 'time shifting' was okay because it was a single copy for personal use, typically destroyed later and was not further duplication, distributed or broadcast/presented.

So basically as long as you didn't dupe the tape for your friends and create additional copies (including digitally), upload it to a server (which would be distribution) etc you are cool. but as soon as you do any of those things you stepped over the line

Netflix then copying is just a slow version of downloading, and getting TV shows from BitTorrent or usenet (but thats a big l33t secret...) is like asking a friend to record a TV show for you.

no it isn't. because those make an additionally copy. in the cast of bittorrent and usenet, it makes a lot of additional copies.

waiting for Netflix to arrive, watching it and sending it back, is the slow version of downloading. from a legit source.

As soon as Apple does video content without DRM, I will buy TV series and films from iTunes because I want to watch them through my xbox360. Also the prices for Film and TV is reasonable, just the DRM isn't great.

not likely to happen. not for a very long time

something folks need to remember is that Apple isn't the final say in what movies, tv shows, music go up or in what format. the studios and labels have that say. and while the music labels are seeing the wisdom that folks might stop with the games and buy the tracks legally, movie and tv shows are still hard targets for pirates. it's going to be a while before they give up any protection. the best you might hope for is a subscription that basically lets you rent show eps without even the ads that hulu has (which by the by is a totally legal site so have at it just don't hack it) where for a monthly you can stream to an apple tv or computer. but even that is a shot in the dark that might not happen

what is starting to happen finally is a too prong approach, education for the downloaders (some of whom simply don't get that they are doing something wrong) and going after the distributers and uploaders. Testing the claims that 'we just created the site we don't monitor what folks do, we are like an isp', tracking the high senders etc. Cut off the supply chain and a fair deal of the issue is solved. Yes there will still be some sources out there but hopefully they will slowly die out as folks figure out that they aren't being downloaded anymore.

 

[Sesshi]

I have a question, and it has been bothering me for a while. My dad has a great collection of records, but I did not know how to convert it to the computer. Is it illegal if I downloaded it for free off of a website, if I already had a physical copy?

To purchase all of those albums again seems a little absurd to me.

It's a grey area. What with torrents being what they are now, not only do you get variable material, but the use of torrents may mark you out by ISP's. Best to not take the risk.

To convert my vinyl I use a turntable connected to a preamp then to a soundcard. A cheaper version of this are the small number of USB turntables you can buy. It depends on if you want archival quality recordings (then it'll be a similar setup to mine) or just a usable recording (for which torrents and the USB turntables would be fine) and you don't care about quality. You can retrofit existing decks with decent USB output from as little as $100, through the use of a USB/digital preamp. I use much higher-rate conversion, but this should be fine if you just want to listen to your vinyl at reasonable quality.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

Another definition of theft: "the fraudulent taking of property belonging to another, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property."

This is completely irrelevant. US Copyright laws (and forgive me if you're not from the US, I have no knowledge of foreign copyright laws) state that the creator of a piece of work, whether physical or intellectual property, has the sole right to give or refuse permission for use of their work. That includes selling, using for a video or commercial, et cetera. If I release my work under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported license (which I do), and you get a copy for free (perfectly legal), but then you say to your friend "Hey, I found this random CD, I'll give it to you for a dollar" or if you give it to them for free, but withhold the information about it (name, et cetera), you have just stolen something of mine and violated my rights. I didn't lose a cent, since it's free in the first place. But is that right? It's certainly not.

Now, I'm not trying to say this is the same thing as piracy. However, you're using semantics to try to defend the position that someone taking a copy of someone else's application or their song or whatever is not theft.

Let me put it another way: If you take a CD from the store, you are stealing from that particular retailer (let's say, Walmart). Now, your friend steals the exact same CD from a torrent website. Would you consider stealing the CD stealing from the artist? After all, even though it's a physical CD, the CD is made of non-physical works (songs), and can be copied ad infinitum. According to your wordy translation of the definition of theft, you stole from Walmart, but not from the artist. I personally don't understand that at all.

 

[hayduke]

I would post the pirater's info in this thread so we can contact him for whatever we need.

(Knock on door, subpeona, court proceedings etc. quickly follow).

 

[UltraNEO*]

I wouldn't turn someone in for pirating movies or music for personal use. It is strictly someone selling bootlegs movies that I was discussing. Seriously though admitting you have 500GB of downloaded movies say something about the way you view society. I hope someday when you are an adult you understand how this actually does hurt the movie industry.

IMO, Hollywood movies are usual nothing more than entertainment for strays. Seriously it's really is made of dog poop and specialFX.
I hope the movie industry dies of a long long slow death. Dunno anyone who'd waste bandwidth downloading that crap, nevermind 500.

Bring on Top-Gear!

 

[UltraNEO*]

you can't assume that someone who is pirating something would go out and buy it if the downloading option wasn't available.

the fact is that most pirated material wouldn't be purchased.

I believe that...

Personally I'll be more than happy to download stuff for entertainment and delete it afterwards or better yet, just stream it of some free server. I certainly wouldn't waste my time and money buying into something I wouldn't enjoy again and again, such as movie remakes.

I really don't understand why people prefer to download music, rather than buy the actual CD's without any added DRM...

I would consider myself one of the rare few, cause I do buy audio discs but they're usually from my favourite artist (RadioHead)... most probably because I have respect for their work.

But that's it... everything else well... you know

*flushes bog*

 

[charlituna]

I

I really don't understand why people prefer to download music, rather than buy the actual CD's without any added DRM...

that statement doesn't take into account that a good 95% of the downloadable material was ripped from a CD, without any DRM, and then uploaded to places like usenet groups, torrent sites, limewire etc

 

[TK B$K]

Long Live TPB!

 

[UltraNEO*]

that statement doesn't take into account that a good 95% of the downloadable material was ripped from a CD, without any DRM, and then uploaded to places like usenet groups, torrent sites, limewire etc

I was thinking "iTunes Store"



*ripp off*

Long Live TPB!

hehe

 

[Regis27]

Now, I'm not trying to say this is the same thing as piracy. However, you're using semantics to try to defend the position that someone taking a copy of someone else's application or their song or whatever is not theft.

No, actually you've bought into the semantics of the rights holders who have tried to recast it as theft and piracy. The legal term is "copyright infringement" and it has nothing to do with theft.

Do you know any forms of theft that are handled in civil court? Even if you steal an apple or a newspaper, it's handled in criminal court (were it to go that far). However, copyright infringement is handled as a civil matter. Does that give you an idea about how it's separate from theft?

Copyright is a temporary, artificial monopoly granted by the state in return for the promise that the work will later enter the public domain. It does not connote ownership of property, equivalent to physical property. (Again this is evinced by the fact that copyright holders do not have to pay property taxes on the work.)

The legal and moral arguments should remain separate.
My point is don't try to reconstrue the legal basis in order to support your moral argument.

Copyright infringement is illegal (except for allowed Fair Use) and is likely to remain so for the indefinite future. That's not at issue here. Any moral arguments should be able to stand on their own without reference to that.

 

[gnasher729]

Another definition of theft: "the fraudulent taking of property belonging to another, with intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property."

I very much doubt that this is the definition of theft. The whole point of theft is that there is no fraud involved. If there is fraud involved, then it is fraud, not theft.

Theft = Taking something away from the rightful owner without his permission.
Fraud = Tricking the rightful owner into handing something over to you.
Embezzlement = Not giving something back to the rightful owner that you have temporarily, rightfully in your hands.
Copyright infringement = Making copies of protected things without permission of the owner
Piracy = Entering ships, killing everyone on board

 

[omegaphil6]

Pirates should only be reported if they successfully shiver your timbers, otherwise let them be.

Jerry: What do you mean he's bootlegging the movie?
Kramer: Well, it's a perfectly legitimate business.
Jerry: It's not legitimate.
Kramer: It's a business.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

No, actually you've bought into the semantics of the rights holders who have tried to recast it as theft and piracy. The legal term is "copyright infringement" and it has nothing to do with theft.

Do you know any forms of theft that are handled in civil court? Even if you steal an apple or a newspaper, it's handled in criminal court (were it to go that far). However, copyright infringement is handled as a civil matter. Does that give you an idea about how it's separate from theft?

Copyright is a temporary, artificial monopoly granted by the state in return for the promise that the work will later enter the public domain. It does not connote ownership of property, equivalent to physical property. (Again this is evinced by the fact that copyright holders do not have to pay property taxes on the work.)

The legal and moral arguments should remain separate.
My point is don't try to reconstrue the legal basis in order to support your moral argument.

Copyright infringement is illegal (except for allowed Fair Use) and is likely to remain so for the indefinite future. That's not at issue here. Any moral arguments should be able to stand on their own without reference to that.

As I pointed out in that very post, I was not saying copyright infringement = theft. I was simply adding that irrelevancy. But you're right - If you and I do not agree that stealing something that belongs to someone else is morally wrong, then trying to argue the point would simply be forcing my morality upon you and I really can't do that. Steal away, my friend.

Edit: Do you even know what Semantics means?

 

[Regis27]

As I pointed out in that very post, I was not saying copyright infringement = theft. I was simply adding that irrelevancy. But you're right - If you and I do not agree that stealing something that belongs to someone else is morally wrong, then trying to argue the point would simply be forcing my morality upon you and I really can't do that. Steal away, my friend.

Edit: Do you even know what Semantics means?

Friend

If you go back and read my post, you'll see that I certainly never advocated unauthorized copying. (And as an IP holder I do have a vested interest in this issue.)

All I said was that those who argue that copy infringement = theft are arguing against not only the "pirates" but also the established legal system (since it does not define it as theft...yet).

If you wrote earlier that infringement does not equal theft, I'm sorry that I missed that. But then why do you turn around in your next sentence and refer again to stealing (synonymous to theft). No one questions the morality of stealing, which is why rights holders are so quick to equate infringement with stealing.

If an artist were to say, "When someone takes my ideas and uses them, I feel violated. I feel raped." And then we had a whole bunch of people shouting "copyright infringement is RAPE!" I'm sure you would join others who might say, "Well, it's wrong and illegal, but it's not the moral equivalent of rape, and shouldn't be prosecuted as such."

I feel that when people conflate theft and infringement, in a thread such as this, it muddies the argument and detracts from whatever other valid points they might be making.

 

[Unspeaked]

I've got a question for those of you criticizing piracy... and please don't take this as a sign that I support it because the exact opposite is true; I'm only asking to satisfy my own curiosity about something.

What do you think of places that sell used games or second hand record shops or pre-owned movie stores? All of these places sell IP quite legally, and not a penny of it goes to the producers of the content or anyone else involved in the original programming, recording or filming.

In fact, someone could build a very impressive video game, CD or DVD library over a period of several years and own thousands of legitimate media and not have paid a dime to any IP owners by shopping at these spots, exclusively.

 

[benthewraith]

own thousands of legitimate media and not have paid a dime to any IP owners by shopping at these spots, exclusively.

Not they personally but the previous owner. Despite that however, using those 2nd hand shops raises another issue. They can sell the games for money, with none of that money going into the hands of the IP owner, and some could even make a profit, assuming they were given as a gift to the person selling to the secondhand shop. However, I'm not sure selling to those shops is even restricted in the EULA. Then again, I've never actually bothered to sit down and read one.

I hope that made sense.

 

[OllyW]

What do you think of places that sell used games or second hand record shops or pre-owned movie stores? All of these places sell IP quite legally, and not a penny of it goes to the producers of the content or anyone else involved in the original programming, recording or filming.

They got paid when the product was originally sold.

 

[Unspeaked]

I hope that made sense.

They got paid when the product was originally sold.

I understand your points - I know they got paid when they were originally sold - but aren't the people buying these second hand items (who can then go on and sell them to someone else, who could sell them to someone else, etc) each preventing someone who would otherwise have bought the items new at retail (and this give money directly to the IP owners) from doing so?

I'm sure some used CDs especially, since it's a format that's been around for years and years, have changed hands a half dozen times or more. That's six or so people that otherwise would have each owned a copy but instead just one was purchased and listened to. I realize only one of them can own it at a given time, but even setting aside the fact that it could have been copied (for the purpose of my question, I'm assuming everyone abides by the law and doesn't make duplicates before selling their items) that's several lost sales...

 

[Regis27]

I understand your points - I know they got paid when they were originally sold - but aren't the people buying these second hand items (who can then go on and sell them to someone else, who could sell them to someone else, etc) each preventing someone who would otherwise have bought the items new at retail (and this give money directly to the IP owners) from doing so?

I'm sure some used CDs especially, since it's a format that's been around for years and years, have changed hands a half dozen times or more. That's six or so people that otherwise would have each owned a copy but instead just one was purchased and listened to. I realize only one of them can own it at a given time, but even setting aside the fact that it could have been copied (for the purpose of my question, I'm assuming everyone abides by the law and doesn't make duplicates before selling their items) that's several lost sales...

But do you feel the same way about books? or bikes and boats? All of these have similar secondary markets, and it's not often that someone who is buying or selling a used bike says to themselves: "Should some of my money go back to the original equipment manufacturer?"

This right of first sale is included in the valuation that the consumer makes: wouldn't you think twice about buying a car that included a contract that stated you couldn't legally sell it? I would only buy a car like that if it was priced low enough to compensate me for losing the right to sell it. (e.g. normally $20k, depreciating to $5k after 10 years: so I would pay no more than $15k.)

Therefore, the ability to resell an item actually inflates its initial selling price. This can form a benefit to the original sellers because every item sold does not necessarily end up on the secondary market (items are lost, damaged, or abandoned), yet they are compensated as if they do.

BTW, @benthewraith: CDs and DVDs don't have EULAs. Only software.

 

[KingYaba]

Do you try and turn in speeders on the freeway too? Don't be a square.

I flash my lights to oncoming traffic when I pass a cop. Especially those who hide and wait...