Huh. I guess I'm too used to the GameFaqs boards, where such loopholes don't exist. Of course, they have much tighter language and behaviour standards over there - the people in question here would be cooling off with a 10 day purgatory, if not banned outright.

I feel it will be a big mistake for me to wade into this thread, but I would like to try and clear up one misunderstanding regardless.

Piracy (of the software/music/film downloading variety) is not theft. It's copyright infringement, which while still being a crime is a different one.

Theft, or stealing is the act of taking something such that the previous owner is deprived of its use. And the only way Internet piracy could fall into this definition is if you consider the money that might have changed hands for genuine product. I say might because it's reasonable, in my experience at least (and I believe there are independent studies to back this up too,) to consider that many people pirate that which they would not pay for at any price; you would have to prove that they would have paid had they not pirated for a theft conviction to reasonably stick, tricky even if true.

It's still wrong that people pirate, but industry attempts to paint it as theft are done so as to make the damage to their bottom line appear worse. Music piracy reached the levels it has not through an innate desire among a massive group of Internet users to rip off the music industry, but rather from a failure of music industry to correctly identify and exploit customer demand for a modern distribution system. I want to buy my music online, but will only do so when I can get it DRM free (and in MP3 form, sorry iTunes,) until then I generally choose to do without — but many others choose to punish the music industry. Big music is especially deserving of such punishment as it has for a long time put the screws to the creators, meaning only the biggest of big artists (or those with older contracts) make meaningful amounts of money off their album sales. Most get their best income from tours, and sales of other merchandising which can be dealt with by more reasonable distributors outside of what is best exemplified in the RIAA.

Jafo wrote:
Unfortunatly history (being the RIAA's litigation exploits in the USA) tells us this is unlikely.

That is not a legal or legitimate 'choice' to be had.

Ferrari does not provide [for me] an affordable/acceptable product...so I shall punish the company by 'taking' what I would otherwise never pay for.

It's a pathetic argument...and touted every single time the issue of copyright/ownership/property rights/piracy/et al is raised.

The 'choice' is simple....either abide by whatever rules are in place....lobby to alter those rules if deemed 'unfair' or break said rules and suffer the consequences.

That's it.  There IS nothing else....

But in this case you are taking a physical object, one that they cannot then sell. The choice I described is arguably much closer to an act of civil disobedience — an important tool in fighting perceived injustices of government or other similarly large organisations. Although I don't doubt for a second most prolific music downloaders don't do such acts from this angle.

What's your view on buying a game, but then using a no-cd crack such that you don't have to deal with often invasive copy-protection mechanisms?

The laws I belive are a step in the right direction on internet usage.

Getting yourself caught and convicted of the same crime 3 times and then punished for it is nobody's fault but the individual's own.

The issue of privacy comes to mind for me concerning on how information is gathered and processed and by who.

One example is Blizzard who uses a "warden" program for World of Warcraft to police users and keep constant check on players in order to discourage cheating or piracy. It sounds great in theroy but then again in order to play the game you have a program that has unrestricted access to your personal PC at all times. It raises the question on what the program deems "suspicious" programs or information and what it reports back to blizzard.

Back on topic,
Goverments, and not just goverments, companies and parents acting with responsibility need to take control.

The internet is not a wild-western, free to do whatever you want, non political zone. The internet is just another medium for information exchange and entertainment not unlike books, radio, or television. All of which fall under a code of conduct and governing laws.

Its not an issue to be debated imo.

Stealing is wrong,

Piracy is stealing.

It looks self explanatory, thats my 2 cents.

Well, the CEO of Stardock just bought a new Porshe 911 Turbo. So, the industry can't be hurting THAT badly...

But if piracy isn't stealing, then it should't be called piracy. It should be called .... taking someone else's ideas and not paying for them even though they cost something. Or TSEIANPFTETTCS for short.

OK....say you contact a plumber to install some taps...which he does....but you do not pay him.

Do we call that 'theft', 'fraud', 'breach of contract', or just plain 'being an arsehole'? ['you' may also never have intended to pay him at all].

Then....equating it with that downloaded 'content' you'd otherwise never actually BUY ....where's the difference?

Either way, a service/product has been obtained without appropriate payment/consent.

"might" doesn't enter the equation.  The facts are self-evident....you have something you have no contractual/legal title to, which, when obtained legally results in a profit/income to the legal owner/vendor/tradesman.

This has already been tested and proven....years ago [about 20, as I recall].  The copyright 'thief' was sued for the value of lost profit to the copyright holder...in this case around $60,000 AUD....[it was an Architectural copyright]....

Not a problem...provided the no-CD is not a way to then have someone else make use of 'my' game purchase CD.

I have several no-CD cracks installed...but I also have the games themselves [no point otherwise]...their use is PURE CONVENIENCE and nothing to do with copyright violation or 'stolen' IP.

'Civil Disobedience' is Jay-walking.

Taking something without due payment is theft.

I suppose you're right.

Regardless you've provided the one glimpse of humor in an otherwise totally boring and inane thread.

Thanks.

Now back to our regularly schedule program of who the heck cares.

By the way, currently it appears that Thoreau and Locke have squared off with Descartes waiting in the wings for rebuttal. Can anyone tell who's winning?

Understand here, I'm not trying to say piracy is not wrong; just that it is not theft, and as such punishments should not be decided as if it was automatically equivalent.

This has nothing to do with my dislike of these proposals. I have no problem with there being reasonable and workable laws against online copyright infringement. These proposals do not qualify. But I only entered this thread to try and clear up what I view as an important misunderstanding, I'd have an even harder time in the climate of this thread trying to explain my issues regarding these proposals. I will say that they mostly relate to RIAA's litigation scheme in the USA, and my belief that these proposals will do nothing to prevent the same situation occurring in Europe.

I am a plumber (currently an aprentice, about a month from my journeyman license) that works for a company and that actualy happens from time to time.

Our solution to this problem?

We just get our good ol' buddy the SawZaw and start cutting what we installed out of the house. (Instant results!!!!)



Look at piracy as 2 parts of the same whole,

Making copies without consent, and then distributing the copies.

Making copies without consent = copyright infringement.

Making copies without consent with intent to distribute and sell = piracy = theft.

The problem is many people, including myself, make no distinction between stealing a ditigal product and a physical product. In either case, you are taking something without consent. In my opinion, the penalty for the theft of digital product should be slightly less than that of physical product - but that difference should only account for the logistics and packaging required to shelf the product. 

Your right about that, people have a hard time with the concept of theft over something intangible.

Punishment should go case by case tho. First time offenders should get warned and then repeat offenders should face restrictions, fines then possible jail time.
In my opinon at least.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/473/207/


This is a case that went before the U.S. Supreme Court

The defendant used the arguement that copyright infringement (piracy) was not theft in itself.

The Supreme Court ruled that under the law, piracy and theft, the terms are interchangeable.