Piracy is theft

ProDarwin said:

I always find it helpful to look at the extremes. 

What would happen if there was 0% piracy?  A game studio would sell X games.

What would happen if there was some piracy?  At best, they will still sell X games.  Most likely they will sell <X games though, so they have lost money as a result.

What would happen if there was 100% piracy?  They will sell 0 games.

There is a flaw in this logic. Limited piracy could result in >X sales.

I have purchased video games and RPG books that I would not have otherwise if I were not able to pirate them first.

I like tabletop RPGs (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons). D&D puts out lots of supplemental books. Not all are of equal interest to me. Especially adventure modules. I am the group's Dungeon Master most of the time. I like being able to use premade adventures and modules when they fit. There's really no way to know if they will, unless I can flip through them first. Generally, the easiest way for me to do that has been to pirate the book in question, skim it to see if it is usable material. Then decide whether or not to buy it.

If I were not able to preview if the $30+ book is going to be useful to me, I am not going to buy it. If I can preview it, I am far more likely to. Sometimes, piracy is the easiest or only practical way to do that.

Error404 said:

In reply to ProDarwin :

Sure, so long as you start with the assumption that every pirate is able to afford and purchase said video game. What if it's not available for sale in my region and I pirate it? 0 loss of sale. Or lets say I download a Veyron that I will never be able to afford? 0 loss of sale. Or a football game where I'm outside of the allowed viewing range with no reasonable avenue to view said game? I wasn't going to buy a cable subscription and an overpriced bundle to compensate for an out of date business model so yea, I stole the game but so did the refs and I wasn't going to fork over money anyway. 0 loss of sale and, arguably, 0 harm. The appropriate argument is the licensing. So I buy a new car that comes with heated seats. I use the heated seats. Then the heated seats stop working because I now have to pay a subscription to use the thing that I bought. The only reason that the heated seats weren't stolen from me is that I don't have the wealth afforded by my class to employ an army of contract lawyers.

None of this is going to convince anyone because, whether we like it or not, this is not a black/white issue that can be solved like an algebra problem.  

1) If a given pirate can't afford the video game (or Veyron), then the given pirate doesn't get to play it.  If enough pirates can't afford it, the business needs to either reduce the price for more volume or decide that boutique software is their thing.  Bugatti has clearly decided that boutique vehicles are their thing.  That is their decision to make - NOT YOURS.

2) If it is not for sale in your region, that is for licensing reasons, which are again agreements put in place to protect revenue.  The fact that you are on the wrong side of that agreement does not grant you the right to piracy.

3) Ditto.

4) Catastrophically bad business practice, agreed, but if your agreement of sale includes the manufacturer's right to change the vehicle's abilities then it is what it is.  If car manufacturers abuse this the market will punish them (or not, if it doesn't bother enough people).

Duke said:

GameboyRMH said:

Duke said:

GameboyRMH said:

Duke said:

Here's why piracy IS theft:

[words]

The way you 'punish' publishers for putting out what you consider unfinished or bad products is by NOT BUYING THEM.  If it's not good enough to play, then don't play it.  If it is good enough to play, then pay for it.

The problem with this is that it relies on the assumption that anyone who pirated a thing would have paid for it if they were unable or unwilling to pirate it. An extreme example to demonstrate it:

As a purchaser, you get to buy it or not, your choice.  You don't get to tell the seller how much they should charge by any other means.

As I stated in my example, if the seller puts out a bad - or even just overpriced - product, then sales suffer accordingly and the seller fails to make money.  BUT that's their risk and their decision to make.

If it's not worth the asking price, don't buy it and don't use it.  End of story.

Sounds like we may now be in agreement that piracy doesn't necessarily equal theft, for any traditional definition of theft.

Also, what do you think about this device?

https://gizmodo.com/a-pirate-bay-founder-built-a-machine-that-copies-100-mp-1749109965

We are not at all in agreement.  How in the name of trees did you ever arrive at that conclusion?

If you use a product or service that the creator / owner charges money for, without paying and outside of established fair use, then you are stealing that product or service.  Period.  Full stop.  End of story.  If there is any ambiguity left in that statement please show mer where so I can assassinate it.

It sounds like you're arguing that piracy is legally theft? Which is true in many jurisdictions, a legal fact I don't dispute. I'm arguing that this is a highly artificial and contrived definition of theft which would be alien to most people who are not IP lawyers.

I think that device is an irrelevance that only highlights the logical fallacy of the "piracy is victimless so it is not a crime" argument.  There is no logical way to assume that 100% of piracies would not have been a sale anyway.  If that was true, people would never bother to pirate things in the first place.  The whole point of piracy is I want this thing but I don't want to pay money for it.

It would be quite nearly as illogical to assume that 100% would have been a sale. And it's another assumption, or at least a massive oversimplification that would only work from a legal perspective, to think that the point of piracy is "I want this thing but I don't want to pay money for it" -  it could just as well be an attempt to try something before buying it when the sale involves a contract that doesn't allow for trial use.

I think what we have here is a conflict between legality and ethics/morals/culture. If the world's top 20 economies legally define touching both pinky fingers to the tip of your nose at the same time as public indecency, I'd still argue that it isn't really an indecent thing to do.

In reply to ProDarwin :

Personally, I think copyright and IP should factor the amount of labor utilized to create such property. 

I don't think I should be able to copyright something I just thought up in a few minutes. Or really, existed prior to my wanting to patent it, but I'm the only one who has tried. 

Knolly bikes tried suing another bike brand because it's design had an offset bottom bracket, something they believed was unique to its brand identity, and was outlined, at least somewhat, in its patented suspension linkage. Although the offset bottom bracket design is nothing new, it put the industry on guard about design details that might not be specifically mentioned in patent filings, but may have some legal enforcement behind them depending on what patent lawyers and judges you're sitting with. 

It'd be like patenting a car design, and slying saying "our design includes four wheels" and then later trying to sue other manufacturers for producing cars with four wheels. 

In reply to Beer Baron :

I disagree. 
 

You are discussing a marketing strategy. If the owner of the product chooses to give you the right to have free previews, that's THEIR CHOICE.

If they don't allow it, that's their choice too. If it leads to a decrease in sales and revenue, it's THEIR LOSS. 

You don't get to decide how to market their product, even if you are right that it will increase sales. 

Beer Baron said:

If I were not able to preview if the $30+ book is going to be useful to me, I am not going to buy it. If I can preview it, I am far more likely to. Sometimes, piracy is the easiest or only practical way to do that.

Irrelevant.

Agreed, I firmly believe that demos and previews are a great business model.  But if they are not offered, you don't get to arbitrarily make your own.  Even assuming that 100% of "preview" piracies result in either a purchase or deletion.

You guys are missing my point.  I used Jeep because that was the example given, but it demonstrates my intention to point out how difficult it is to quantify loss with regard to monetizing things that do not physically exist.  How about this I make a pizza, I cut it in half, but instead of two halves, I somehow have two whole pizzas now.  The original pizza is still whole, the clone is whole, and both are indistinguishable from each other.  This is not possible with a tangible asset, like a pizza or a Jeep, but it is with digital media.  There is no component of damaging a brand name or depriving a worker his wages here.  Does a counterfeit good harm the original's perceived value? Sometimes, but that wasn't the point I was making.

"Piracy is Theft" is a reasonable thing to say in a forum rant.

When we get to the nuts and bolts of legal definitions, it is probably not the right term.

At the same time, that fact does not undermine the fundamental idea that making unauthorized copies is without further detail is a harm to the originator.

This is about the point at which we take a breath and recognize that "Piracy is Theft," while a reasonable exasperated exclamation, is not a good opening line in an earnest bid to discuss a new framework for valuation and compensation around works which have no effective cost of duplication but a broad spectrum of temporal viability, marketability, reasonable expectation of compensation, and dozens of other considerations, many of which do not align tidily with the same framework we've used to discuss the cost of the things which have been historically bought and sold. A specific arrangement of ones and zeros is not a pork chop, not a pork future, nor is it a Jacuzzi.

It also touches on another recent fascination of mine; an idea which I think could revolutionize modern discourse, and yet an old idea: That two things which appear to be in conflict can both be valid. In this thread, that's most visible in ideas which are not actually in conflict, but are held by parties who are arguing with one another:

• Piracy of digital artifacts, broadly, involves the taking of something without compensating the creator or owner who expected compensation. I don't think anyone's arguing otherwise.
• Piracy and Theft both have legal definitions, and it may be the case that Piracy isn't, strictly speaking, Theft. This does not contradict the first bullet point.

Now of course there's a huge amount of context that the two bullet points don't address. And which needs addressing. And which cannot be addressed by insisting that either of the above bullet points covers everything, or suggesting that the owners/creators generally are overcompensated so it doesn't matter, or... any of hundreds of other specifics which we actually have to understand and address in order to come up with a better framework.

I think NFTs are a startling example of how misguided our existing context is: Rather than any recent innovations in reasonable valuation and payment for digital artifacts, we've got innovation in how to pretend that digital copies have the same type of scarcity as gold or original oil paintings.

Going back to the original thing that started this thread, no longer made video games, I understand that downloading these games is illegal but I fail to see how it is morally wrong. The company is no longer making money of these games so downloading isn't affecting their bottom line (and therefore their employees).

This seems to be getting way deeper than the use an emulator comment.

Using a Commodore 64 emulator and downloading a catalog of abandonware may be theft by someones defination, but it doesn't deprive anyone in this system.

Games were made 2 decades ago.  The company that made those games already made their money. If they were to keep making money from them, then they would be available.  But, they arent selling them because there is no money to be made.  

Although in public domain, how many people are rushing out to buy copies of Zork? Not too many.  Distribution would probably cost more than revenue made. It's in public domain because the owners just dont want to deal with it.

So, getting a copy of Zork isnt theft.

But somehow some random game, no longer sold, ownership is unknown, and no attempt to collect revenue, is now theft because it's not in public domain?

That doesnt add up to me

Duke said:

Beer Baron said:

If I were not able to preview if the $30+ book is going to be useful to me, I am not going to buy it. If I can preview it, I am far more likely to. Sometimes, piracy is the easiest or only practical way to do that.

Irrelevant.

Agreed, I firmly believe that demos and previews are a great business model.  But if they are not offered, you don't get to arbitrarily make your own.  Even assuming that 100% of "preview" piracies result in either a purchase or deletion.

 

His comment is somewhat relevant... there is a theoretical situation where piracy can increase sales, but its not realistic.

I do fully support playable demos or returnable games.  Publishers (foolishly, imo) have moved away from that model.

93EXCivic said:

Going back to the original thing that started this thread, no longer made video games, I understand that downloading these games is illegal but I fail to see how it is morally wrong. The company is no longer making money of these games so downloading isn't affecting their bottom line (and therefore their employees).

It's rare that the rights didn't get passed on to someone or purchased by somone.  Rodgers and Hammerstein have been dead for decades, but MTI purchased the rights, which means I can't perform Oklahoma without licensing first.  Elvis Pressley died 40 years ago, but the rights were passed on to his family.

Unless the rights-holding entity has decided it is no longer profitable to hold onto the rights and has released them, (open rights, open domain, or royalty-free) someone owns the rights to it.  Atari has been defunct for decades, but someone owns the rights to the games (Konami, maybe?)

Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:

93EXCivic said:

Going back to the original thing that started this thread, no longer made video games, I understand that downloading these games is illegal but I fail to see how it is morally wrong. The company is no longer making money of these games so downloading isn't affecting their bottom line (and therefore their employees).

It's rare that the rights didn't get passed on to someone or purchased by somone.  Rodgers and Hammerstein have been dead for decades, but MTI purchased the rights.  Elvis Pressley died 40 years ago, but the rights were passed on to his family.

Unless the rights-holding entity has decided it is no longer profitable to hold onto the rights and has released them, (open rights, or royalty-free) someone owns the rights to it, which means I can't perform Oklahoma without licensing first.  Atari has been defunct for decades, but someone owns the rights to the games (Konami, maybe?)

Atari is actually still around, in name at least, I'd assume they still own the rights to games they developed - plus they've bought out a lot of other studios. If not them, then either Warner or Namco which had equal shares in the company.

Namco was the name I was looking for... not Konami

93EXCivic said:

Going back to the original thing that started this thread, no longer made video games, I understand that downloading these games is illegal but I fail to see how it is morally wrong. The company is no longer making money of these games so downloading isn't affecting their bottom line (and therefore their employees).

The only reason, with regards to the older games we're originally were taking about, is specifically because of what Disney has done to the copyright system in the US. To protect their asses and assets, they have lobbied endlessly, and gotten their own copyright lawyers installed as judges specifically for copyright infringements. To the point the US has sent the FBI into other countries to arrest people who have never even been to the United States, for violating US copyright law. 

What did that have to do with old videogames?

Because of the changes that have been made to the laws, media going into public domain now takes like 75 years, because Disney wanted to protect all the stuff they keep in the Disney vault. 

This goes back to a post a few pages ago I made in response to Ransom. We have people making laws they don't understand, about technology they don't understand, because a company is trying to cover their own ass and the hell with everyone else. 

Just another point I'd like to clarify. Sega, Nintendo, Sony, the console creators, don't necessarily own their game libraries. A lot, and I mean a lot, of games are/were owned by their developers who were licensed to produce games for the console. 

That is where a lot of rights and ownership records get murky, and what sort of almost puts emulator roms into a grey area.

Apis Mellifera said:

What does it matter if a library shares a movie 2000 single times versus 2000 downloads in an instant from a piracy site (numbers/potential is irrelevant).

What matters is that the library owns a single license or copy of a given thing and provides it to a serial chain of single users, under the Fair Use clause.  Each user must return the license / media to the library before another user can check it out.  If a user doesn't return the item, it is up to the library to replace it or enforce its ownership rights by retrieving it.  But in the meantime, no subsequent users can use it.

But if 2,000 people download a pirated copy, 1)  all 2,000 pirates can watch it at the same time, and 2) all 2,000 pirates can keep it permanently, without authorization or fair use.

Really, that isn't hard to understand.

Using an adblocker is also theft.

GameboyRMH said:

It would be quite nearly as illogical to assume that 100% would have been a sale.

But I'm not arguing that at all.  Some percentage will be simple lost sales - people who look at the box, the description, the gameplay videos, the press releases, and the publisher's history and say "I'm not paying $X for that."  And then they move on to a competitor's product that they will pay $X for.

The point being that then they are not using the rejected product.

SV reX said:

RevRico said:

Under current copyright law, despite the multiple attempts by industry players to have it changed, you are legally allowed to make, own, and use a backup copy of media you own. Records, VHS, CDs, dvds, games, etc. 

If I have owned things before, I am entitled to backups of them, as the law is written. 

Downloading a Rom instead of buying a bunch of custom hardware to copy a cartridge is still providing a singular backup, which is, in and of itself, 100% legal. 

So I'm failing to see the problem.

I disagree with this. There is a difference between making a backup copy for personal use of something you own, and making a copy of something someone else owns (although you USED to own it)

If I own a game, a copy of music, art, etc and then one day no longer own it, then I have either sold it, given it away, or it was stolen from me. In all 3 cases I no longer own it.  If I want it again, I'm gonna have to buy it again.

If I used to own a hammer but no longer own it, I don't inherit the right to steal someone else's hammer.  I either sold it, gave it away, or it was stolen. In all three cases I'm gonna have to buy a new hammer.

So I buy a hammer, and make a copy of it myself, build a mold, pour it. 

Is it the same hammer or a new hammer?

Now if I break or lose the original, do I need to get rid of my backup copy I made specifically in case I lost or broke the original? 

Is my backup copy a copy if I made it my own? According to the patent office, it isn't because I didn't use the exact metal mix and maybe my mold was a little off, which are enough changes to get a new patent. According to copyright though, it could be considered a copy of the original hammer, which was lost or stolen. 

I promise, I'm not trying to start anymore arguments or be insulting, but it's really been a long time since I've given this stuff any thought, so it's nice to revisit it in a conversation style. Technology has changed immensely, but laws and rules haven't. 

Duke said:

hybridmomentspass said:

Duke said:

hybridmomentspass said:

What if you bought a NES way back when, sold it years ago, and now want to relive  the old days? You paid full retail, which reimbursed them at the time. 

Does Nintendo still sell a NES console? Can I go buy a N64 and goldeneye so I can stay up all night with pizza and Jolt! cola? 

If they dont sell it/offer it, is it still theft? 

Yes, it is still theft.

If you sold your original system and disposed of it (by sale, gift, or trash) then you also disposed of your right to play it.  You need to legally acquire a physical replacement in order to reacquire the right to play the game.

Does Nintendo still sell the NES or SNES? Can I go to them and purchase one? 

What about all of their catalog? If they no longer offer it (Nintendo, sega, etc), is it still theft? Because youre saying it deprives them of reimbursement for their time, that's why I ask. 

You cannot go to Nintendo and buy a new NES/SNES or your favoritest-ever out-of-print Nintendo game.  However, that is irrelevant to the discussion.  What is relevant is that Nintendo still owns and controls the rights to those things.

You are correct that if you go to eBay or the flea market or Gamestop and buy a used NES and a used copy of Goldeneye, Nintendo will not see a penny out of that sale.  However, those systems and games were sold with the understanding that the right to use it went with the system itself.

No matter how many subsequent buyers owned the system, no more than one of those owners could play it at a time.  Each time the system is passed to a new owner, the previous owner loses the right and ability to play that game.  But if someone pirates copies of that game or system, then multiple users can play the game.  the seller doesn't have to forfeit their ability.  It's also irrelevant if the pirate sells copies or gives them away.  Duplication of the original purchase is not in compliance with the terms of the sale.

 

One of your arguments was that by using these emulators or whatever doesnt pay the owners for their time/investment...but if they have no way of earning that money then your argument is invalid. 

red_stapler said:

Using an adblocker is also theft.

Correct.

John Welsh said:

I'm not taking sides but this I see this as a good place for a shot across the bow and a firm reminder of civil discourse.

Learn it, know it, live it: Welcome to the Party

Now I have visions of the Mods here flying around the forum in Marine Attack helicopters.  For some reason this made me laugh.  

GameboyRMH said:

Duke said:

You cannot go to Nintendo and buy a new NES/SNES or your favoritest-ever out-of-print Nintendo game.  However, that is irrelevant to the discussion.  What is relevant is that Nintendo still owns and controls the rights to those things.

You are correct that if you go to eBay or the flea market or Gamestop and buy a used NES and a used copy of Goldeneye, Nintendo will not see a penny out of that sale.  However, those systems and games were sold with the understanding that the right to use it went with the system itself.

No matter how many subsequent buyers owned the system, no more than one of those owners could play it at a time.  Each time the system is passed to a new owner, the previous owner loses the right and ability to play that game.  But if someone pirates copies of that game or system, then multiple users can play the game.  the seller doesn't have to forfeit their ability.  It's also irrelevant if the pirate sells copies or gives them away.  Duplication of the original purchase is not in compliance with the terms of the sale.

It sounds like you're very concerned about the sanctity of intellectual property regardless of any monetary/ethical/moral/practical aspects, which is a view I would simply have to disagree with. Intellectual property is far too powerful already - it locks up culture for amounts of time that can easily exceed human lifespans, ever-increasing along the Mickey Mouse curve, and in this overpowered state it benefits the most popular content creators at the expense of all other creators and consumers (with all of society and culture included as consumers).

Also consider that most people work once and get paid once. If you think about the idea of working once and getting paid an infinite number of times, it's a rather farcical pay structure unseen in the vast majority of professions, and something I would argue is economically unhealthy. Intellectual property as we know it looks like a dire example of regulatory capture IMO.

Realizing that I am two pages back.  There is a compelling argument that culture grows and evolves due to mechanisms that rely on using other peoples' IP, and locking it down is unhealthy.

IMO all IP should not ever change hands.  If you create a character, a song, a book, it is yours, you can't sell it and when you die it becomes public.  Same for patents, a company should not be able to buy the rights to other companies' patents.

Duke said:

red_stapler said:

Using an adblocker is also theft.

Correct.

 

Is putting the commercials on TV on mute theft?

Duke said:

red_stapler said:

Using an adblocker is also theft.

Correct.

 

Are ads themselves not theft then? The extra data they need has to be paid for if they're paying someone to host the ad. That comes out of the consumer through data limits. Or is that "the cost of using a website"?

At $10/GB, that's over a grand in data charges for ADS I would have had to pay for if I used mobile data exclusively or had bandwidth limits on my home internet in just 8 months. Ads for products and services I have no interest in, and don't want to see.