Should pirates be reported

[Unspeaked]

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?"

Again, I think I understand what you're saying, but I still don't fully grasp the concept.

Books I view as the same thing, to be honest. I could have easily included a second hand book shop in my earlier list.

Bikes, boats and most tangible goods are different because the value comes from the item itself. If you buy a hamburger or a car, you're buying an item, not a holder for some intangible good. When you buy a video game or CD, you're not buying the cartridge or optical disc, necessarily, but the IP it represents. It just happens that the item you're buying - the game or song - is being delivered to you on a real, tangible piece of media.

When you go and resell this media, you're selling something you never really purchased in the first place. You only bought something that would allow you to enjoy the IP owners work, but the work itself. Shouldn't the next person who wants to enjoy the IP owners work have to buy it from them directly?

(Maybe it's just the concept of EUL and such that I'm not understanding correctly...)

 

[Regis27]

When you go and resell this media, you're selling something you never really purchased in the first place. You only bought something that would allow you to enjoy the IP owners work, but the work itself. Shouldn't the next person who wants to enjoy the IP owners work have to buy it from them directly?

OK, I'm not an expert, but I would say it results from two things:

1. The IP owner was already compensated for the secondary sales through the inflated price of the initial sale. (my point in the earlier post) Note: I'm not trying to say that the owners themselves inflate the price of the goods, but that the market is willing to bear a higher price because of right to resell it. If you take that right away, the market will settle on a lower average price for the initial sales (including for people who never intend to resell the item).

2. The copyright holders are compensated every time a new copy is made, NOT every time that someone enjoys an existing copy.

Copyright holders would very much like to move to a "per use" system in which users would be required to pay every time they watched a movie or listened to a song again (or for that matter, re-read a book). For that to happen would require 1) a change in the laws, 2) a change in public perception which would begin to view "per use" as "natural." Because without #2, #1 can't happen. That's why organizations such as the RIAA and MPAA are spending millions trying to recast the debate and the terms used to discuss it.

The best we can do is to educate ourselves and avoid the non-sense advocated by people at the extremes on either side of the issue.

(BTW, you're right to admit that it's a confusing issue. It's confusing for two reasons that I see: first, we don't have as long a cultural and legal tradition dealing with the issues generated by recent advances in technology, and secondly, forces on both sides seek to confuse the issue to their own advantage by offering one-sided analogies and analysis. I certainly don't know the all the answers, but I know more now than a few years ago when I first started to think about these issues.)

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

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.

You must have misinterpreted me:

I said I think piracy is theft. I also said piracy is copyright infringement. I think piracy is both of them, but I do not think both of them are the same.

 

[millerj123]

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?

ZiggyPastorius: I don't think you know what Semantics means, but you use it here. Not only that, but you make baseless personal accusations about Regis27. He's never said stealing is right, or that he's done it. This is out of line.

 

[Regis27]

You must have misinterpreted me:

I said I think piracy is theft. I also said piracy is copyright infringement. I think piracy is both of them, but I do not think both of them are the same.

Yes, I think I misunderstood.

However, the reason I misinterpreted your meaning is that "piracy" is a just synonym for "copyright infringement." It's simply the emotionally-charged term that an industry has applied to the rather bland sounding legal term.

With that in mind, your statement becomes:

"I said I think copyright infringement is theft. I also said copyright infringement is copyright infringement. I think copyright infringement is both of them, but I do not think that both of them are the same."

In that light, it's not surprising that I didn't catch on immediately.

It might seem that I'm baiting you, but that's not my intention. I'm pushing you to clarify your terms and position for the others following the thread, even if you and I don't end up agreeing.

I didn't even take offense when you called me a thief and morally bankrupt.

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

ZiggyPastorius: I don't think you know what Semantics means, but you use it here. Not only that, but you make baseless personal accusations about Regis27. He's never said stealing is right, or that he's done it. This is out of line.

Perhaps you should read the thread. My comment on semantics was with regard to this:

Quote:Originally Posted by ZiggyPastorius
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."

Then when I mentioned semantics, a comment was made about me buying into semantics (apparently because we have a different definition of piracy?), when in actuality my argument had nothing to do with the linguistic interpretation of meaning at all.

Yes, I think I misunderstood.

However, the reason I misinterpreted your meaning is that "piracy" is a just synonym for "copyright infringement." It's simply the emotionally-charged term that an industry has applied to the rather bland sounding legal term.

With that in mind, your statement becomes:

"I said I think copyright infringement is theft. I also said copyright infringement is copyright infringement. I think copyright infringement is both of them, but I do not think that both of them are the same."

In that light, it's not surprising that I didn't catch on immediately.

It might seem that I'm baiting you, but that's not my intention. I'm pushing you to clarify your terms and position for the others following the thread, even if you and I don't end up agreeing.

I didn't even take offense when you called me a thief and morally bankrupt.

Well, looking up what "piracy" is in a legal term, I now see where this whole argument started. My apologies.

Before that, I'd like to say that I wasn't necessarily accusing you of stealing, even though my wording may have been poor. You said the issue of whether stealing is wrong or not is a moral issue and therefore I shouldn't try to argue it, so I replied with something more satirical than anything, that I would follow your advice, and if you (a generic you, not you specifically) didn't think stealing was morally wrong, then "steal away," as I can't argue the point.

On to the point. With software or music, you can't speak in terms of physical property, since one may feel that since another copy of the song/software can simply be generated digitally, that it isn't wrong to take a copy. I disagree. Since many people, including artists, labels, et cetera, put TONS of money and time into creating the songs, the marketing, and the CDs themselves, whether another copy can simply be made or not, they are selling these copies of the music (or software) in an attempt to gain back what they've spent and make a profit. Saying (as some in this thread have) that it's okay to pirate if you wouldn'tve bought the song/CD anyways is like saying it's okay to steal a television because you didn't have the money and wouldn'tve bought it anyways. The way I see it, if you steal a CD from a store, you are stealing one copy that can be remade of a set of songs (forget the booklet and casing for now), when you're pirating, you're doing the exact same thing. So why is one wrong and one not? It just truly perplexes me. When I think piracy, I think someone taking a copy of something (non-physical) that is meant to be paid for off the internet. I don't see how there's anything not stealing about that.

 

[harryhood]

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.

lol!

If you are stealing music/movies and selling it - thats pretty lame.

If you are stealing music/movies to watch yourself, who cares! All music/movies that I download and enjoy I end up paying to see them live, or buying the movie anyways.

Most of these movies/music I wouldn't have ever even known about or eventually bought. So whats the difference?

 

[harryhood]

Awesome article about pirating and where alot of that "TONS of money" that artists are losing is really being spent.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/10/when-pigs-fly-death-of-oink-birth-of.html

 

[millerj123]

Perhaps you should read the thread. My comment on semantics was with regard to this:

Then when I mentioned semantics, a comment was made about me buying into semantics (apparently because we have a different definition of piracy?), when in actuality my argument had nothing to do with the linguistic interpretation of meaning at all.

ZiggyPastorius, perhaps you should try understanding what was said.
Your definition of semantics wouldn't make any sense in terms of the discussion. What you have been accused of has nothing to do with the "linguistic interpretation of meaning". Instead, it has to do with the additional definitions of semantics (From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics)

"3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs ; especially : connotative meaning b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings"

This is specifically the rhetoric you bought into, and what you then used in an attack but that you claim is "poor word choice".

Well, looking up what "piracy" is in a legal term, I now see where this whole argument started. My apologies.

Before that, I'd like to say that I wasn't necessarily accusing you of stealing, even though my wording may have been poor. You said the issue of whether stealing is wrong or not is a moral issue and therefore I shouldn't try to argue it, so I replied with something more satirical than anything, that I would follow your advice, and if you (a generic you, not you specifically) didn't think stealing was morally wrong, then "steal away," as I can't argue the point.

Again, "misunderstanding"? What Regis27 said was:

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.

I don't see how you could equate this to "We can't talk about it" when clearly all that was said is that we need to treat them individually.

Does this make sense?

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

ZiggyPastorius, perhaps you should try understanding what was said.
Your definition of semantics wouldn't make any sense in terms of the discussion. What you have been accused of has nothing to do with the "linguistic interpretation of meaning". Instead, it has to do with the additional definitions of semantics (From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics)

"3 a: the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs ; especially : connotative meaning b: the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings"

This is specifically the rhetoric you bought into, and what you then used in an attack but that you claim is "poor word choice".


Again, "misunderstanding"? What Regis27 said was:

I don't see how you could equate this to "We can't talk about it" when clearly all that was said is that we need to treat them individually.

Does this make sense?

I apologise for my misunderstanding of your use of semantics. I was confused because I used the word myself when talking to chilipie using the definition I was referring to. So it was a bit odd when it was turned around and someone accused me of the exact same thing in what seemed to me to be an inappropriate context.

Though your original post about me not knowing what semantics means is still completely irrelevant, because I have not once made the claim that I think copyright infringement and theft are the same thing. I already clarified that I was unaware piracy was used as a synonym for copyright infringement and adjusted the content of my posts accordingly. If I hadn'tve mentioned copyright infringement at all in that post, this argument wouldn't even be happening. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to do defend the idea that intellectual property is not property other than saying "stealing music/movies is handled as a civil case, so therefore it can't be theft."

I'm still waiting for someone to actually tell me why intellectual property is not property, and why someone who creates a song or movie, spending the large amounts of cash required to do that (as well as time) should not have the same protection as someone who has something physical of their's stolen.

 

[Regis27]

I'm still waiting for someone to actually tell me why intellectual property is not property, and why someone who creates a song or movie, spending the large amounts of cash required to do that (as well as time) should not have the same protection as someone who has something physical of their's stolen.

One reason why IP is not really property is because you can't own ideas. It's just not allowed under our culture or legal system. If you have an idea (song, movie, scientific process, etc) the government makes you this offer: "In exchange for sharing your idea with the public, we will protect your ability to profit from it for a limited time."

I think that addresses both your points: IP isn't property, but it is deserving of protection.

 

[charlituna]

One reason why IP is not really property is because you can't own ideas.

You are correct and incorrect.

You can not copyright an idea. As a writer I can't copyright "Asteroid about to hit Earth and kill everyone". That's an idea.

I CAN copyright how I work out that idea. The characters, the exact places, the actions taken and the words said. Under some circumstances I can even copyright my title.

to put it into computer terms, I can't copyright the idea of "graphical user interface" but I can copyright the code used and the exact appearance of my gui"

in music I can't copyright the idea of 'beat on drums, tap on keyboard, make noise with my voice' but I can definitely copyright the exact timing, tones, words etc that make up my song.

in ALL cases, the creator of the work has the right to copy or not copy the work, to distribute it etc. Unless the creator makes a deal to give up any or all rights to another party. Some works have select twists on these rights including that my copyright of my screenplay includes copying it until another form such as a film. For a singer, the CO has the right to control 'copying' in the form of performance and so on


in the terms of what is going on with file swapping of music, software etc. they aren't copying ideas. they are copying actual works. works they don't own the right of distribution to so that's illegal. and in many cases they are copying things that should be paid for and so are in effect stealing from the copyright owner via denial of profit.

 

[nizz]

Oh, look at you macrumors people, sitting on your clouds of judgement, handing down life lessons to all the sinners

you'd really snitch out your own family?

 

[ZiggyPastorius]

Oh, look at you macrumors people, sitting on your clouds of judgement, handing down life lessons to all the sinners

you'd really snitch out your own family?

Nobody in this thread said anything about snitching on their family and this is an irrelevant, inflammatory post.

As for what Charlituna said, I think that was perfectly worded.

 

[Regis27]

@charlituna,

You are entirely correct about the distinction about an idea and the concrete expression of it, with respect to the ability to copyright it.

However, I was addressing ZP's question about the difference between real property and intellectual property.

As a writer, if you write a book, do you OWN that book? I've never heard anyone refer to it in that way. People say you own the rights to that book...and even then, the word "own" is not used. You hold the rights to that book (because rights are another thing that one does not "own.") Just like you said, the author automatically becomes the rights holder of the work. These rights are usually limited to copying and distribution, and are not identical to the rights that are associated with the ownership of property.

For example, if I own a painting and decide that I don't want anyone else to ever see it again, I could destroy it--that is within my rights. However, if I'm a copyright holder of a book, and decide that I don't want anyone to ever read it again (it has already been released and copies sold legally), I'm much more limited. I can say that within the term of the copyright, no more copies can be made, but I can't do anything about the existing copies. Also, once the copyright expires, anyone can make and distribute copies. Please notice, that I'm not saying that it's difficult or practically impossible to do anything about the copies already "out there"--I'm saying that the rights of the creator do not extend over the work itself but are limited to the distribution, making additional copies, and derivative works. It's not ownership in any traditional or legal sense of the word.

Again, my point is that IP is not the same as real property

EDIT:
Which is not to say that it isn't deserving of protection or that indiscriminate copying is morally acceptable. Instead, I wish to assert that arguments which conflate the two and base positions for IP by making analogies to physical property and the laws and morals governing it, are going to be essentially weaker than those which deal with IP within its own terms. Hopefully then we can work together to better clarify how these issues might be viewed.

 

[Regis27]

Before that, I'd like to say that I wasn't necessarily accusing you of stealing, even though my wording may have been poor. You said the issue of whether stealing is wrong or not is a moral issue and therefore I shouldn't try to argue it, so I replied with something more satirical than anything, that I would follow your advice, and if you (a generic you, not you specifically) didn't think stealing was morally wrong, then "steal away," as I can't argue the point.

ZiggyP,

Actually I was hoping that my comments would encourage you do make even a stronger argument regarding the morality of the issue. I wasn't trying to say: "you have your morals, and I have mine, so just give up 'cuz that's that." In fact, I think the moral issues are the most important thing for us to discuss, since the legal issues are relatively settled.

 

[charlituna]

Oh, look at you macrumors people, sitting on your clouds of judgement, handing down life lessons to all the sinners

you'd really snitch out your own family?

given that I am the owner of the main computer of the house if a sibling or a parent was pirating for personal use (ie, downloading) I'd cut them off.

but if they were doing it as a 'commercial' enterprise yeah I'd snitch on them. I am an artist and everyone in my family is aware that a decent amount of what I earn is on a share of sales. So when they pirate they are stealing from me and my friends. If turning one of them in means I loss a relationship with a family member because he/she thinks I am the jerk for reporting them and refuses to acknowledge that there was any wrong doing, so be it.

as for the recent trojaned torrents, I have no pity for the people that downloaded those files. If they wanted the software they should have bought it. In regards to iwork the whole "I wanted to try it first" game doesn't fly since Apple posted a trial version for that very reason.

I hope the uploaders are caught and dealt with according.

 

[mithrilfox]

If you're going to pirate, at least don't pay for it. Don't create a business out of stealing.

 

[DiamondMac]

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

Gotta agree.

I wouldn't turn anyone in

 

[charlituna]

If you're going to pirate, at least don't pay for it. Don't create a business out of stealing.

regardless of whether you pay the pirate for it, if you are pirating you are denying income to the creators who have a right to it. That's too much different than blantant stealing.

the only thing paying a pirate is doing is encouraging the behavior. But what those harmed by that action need is for more folks to step up and actively discourage it by helping shut it down.

if you were someone being denied rightful income by some behavior you would agree.

 

[jshelton]

Jesus said it best, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

 

[mithrilfox]

regardless of whether you pay the pirate for it, if you are pirating you are denying income to the creators who have a right to it. That's too much different than blantant stealing.

Pirating software is illegal, and in a sense it is stealing. That's fact.

However.. no, pirating is not necessarily denying income to anyone. It depends on if that individual would have purchased the item had they not pirated it. In most cases, I find that the piraters I speak to clearly didn't "really" want the software/game, and instead opted to pirate it and dink around for a bit, and then quit.

Therefore, each pirated copy is *not* a loss of income. Make no mistake, it's still stealing and still illegal, but let's not pretend that pirated copies equal a 1-for-1 loss of sales; they don't.

the only thing paying a pirate is doing is encouraging the behavior. But what those harmed by that action need is for more folks to step up and actively discourage it by helping shut it down.

Not necessarily true. If someone is willing to pay money for pirated software, they have a much higher chance of having been willing to pay for the real thing. If someone says, "no, I won't pay $5 for it much less $50," they probably don't consider the software important enough to pay for (or they're just an outright thief).

if you were someone being denied rightful income by some behavior you would agree.

I would and I do. I just don't misrepresent the situation for any purpose or it loses it's power when truth comes and rolls it over.

 

[jlynnm628]

need software

okay, I know the answer is out there. I honestly just want to back up my dvd for my personal use because i am sick of scratches and other damage. It is obvious to me there are people in this forum that know how to compress and burn a dvd 9 to a dvd 5. I have looked all over. I have found a couple of programs I can pay for but none have good reviews. I have mac the ripper, handbreak, final cut express and premier pro. Can anyone recommend an easy to use, cheap or free program for compressing and burning?

 

[és:]

^Yes

People that download a few songs or DVDs... no.

 

[xUKHCx]

^Yes

People that download a few songs or DVDs... no.

I prefer (speakers on)