Is online piracy theft?

[rpm]

Is online piracy theft?

You wouldn’t steal a car! You wouldn’t steal a movie! Piracy is stealing! Piracy is a crime! (But is it really?)

 

[[)roi(]]

Denying the artists and publishers of revenue for music, movies, etc... can only be seen as theft; sure it's in a different form, but theft nevertheless.

The same as mixtapes of the past were theft, online internet copying is still theft as it in principle opposes paying for content.

 

[rpm]

Denying the artists and publishers of revenue for music, movies, etc... is theft; in a different form, but theft nevertheless.

Such a difficult argument...but what if the free distribution of their music is profitable to them? Does it still amount to theft?

 

[[)roi(]]

Such a difficult argument...but what if the free distribution of their music is profitable to them? Does it still amount to theft?

How can that ever be profitable...?
Even services like Hulu (ad serviced), pay for content provided free to its consumers.

Surely by pirating you deny the artist and the publisher of the freedom of choice re distribution. For example had they chosen to distribute on youtube they could derive ad revenue from Google, via standard piracy mechanisms they derive nothing.

Of course correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[[)roi(]]

Btw I still however believe that DRM and regional distribution / content restrictions are counter to sound retailing principles and consumerism.

Treating your paying customers like thieves is only going to encourage more to piracy.

Open everything up, allow everyone access at reasonable and affordable prices, simultaneously distribute all new content everywhere at the same time and the industry will find that most people given the choice will choose not to pirate.

South African in many ways is closed to much of this due to its antiquated laws, and its indirect support of monopoly moguls like Multichoice, Ster Kinekor and Numetro by way of its incompetence in poper governance.

 

[NomNom]

I always live by the fact that I wouldn't buy the content anyway. If a Pc game is good enough I buy it. The problem with most games these days is that there is no demo anymore so there is no way to test the game out if you like it or not.

Ofcourse some things are simply not justified in paying for the most noteworthy is Photoshop the price tag is outrageous which leaves people to pirate it, rather cut the cost to something much more reasonable and get more people to buy it = more profit.

I have bought every single Windows since Windows 95 because I feel that paying for it was justified. My anti-virus is bought also because I feel a bought anti-virus is much better than a free alternative.

 

[[)roi(]]

I always live by the fact that I wouldn't buy the content anyway. If a Pc game is good enough I buy it. The problem with most games these days is that there is no demo anymore so there is no way to test the game out if you like it or not.

+1 I agree with you, the lack of game demos could equate to fraudulent retail, for example: the itunes store provides no facility for demos; so I'm quite sure there are many cases were customers are unhappy about their purchases.

Standard consumer protection laws should allow a reasonable period for returns even in this case.

 

[ld13]

Btw I still however believe that DRM and regional distribution / content restrictions are counter to sound retailing principles and consumerism.
Open everything up, allow everyone access at reasonable and affordable prices, simultaneously distribute all new content everywhere at the same time and at the same reasonable price the industry will find that most people given the choice will choose not to pirate.

+1 Heckyea. Steam ripped a big hole in my bank account to date. If you create awesome content, I will buy it. Klaar, oor en verby.

Re: Free distribution being profitable for artists.
It will probably not be directly profitable, but it sure creates awareness that cannot be bought ... leading to more sales etc etc in the medium to long term. Piracy via torrents et al is the 'radio taping' of today.
Some interesting (somewhat biased?) reading:
BitTorrent Piracy Boosts Music Sales, Study Finds
Pirate Bay Boosts “Sharing is Caring” Into The Music Charts

 

[[)roi(]]

...Re: Free distribution being profitable for artists.
It will probably not be directly profitable, but it sure creates awareness that cannot be bought ... leading to more sales etc etc in the medium to long term. Piracy via torrents et al is the 'radio taping' of today.
Some interesting (somewhat biased?) reading:...

I beg to differ; the choice should always remain with the artist and/or content owners. When others make this choice, like with mixtapes, it should not be seen as anything other than theft.

For example:
if I extracted money out of your bank account, money that you worked your ass off for, and I invested this and made a ton of money, and then I return only the original amount to your account; surely you would think this is theft. If the money analogy doesn't work for you replace it with a car, house, paintings, ...

 

[SpoonTech]

I buy quite a lot of music online from various stores. But I will NEVER buy music with DRM. Its frustrating, if I want to make CD's for my car, or copy onto a Nokia phone, or onto a media server running linux, I can never just plug and play with DRM.

Its like buying a book, and saying you can only read it on one couch in your house, and may not take it in your car, on holiday or wherever else.

Also, say I miss an episode of a series, lets say Game of Thrones on DSTV (which costs R600+), and I want to watch it later, I can watch on the MultiChoice site at ****ty bitrates and resolution, or one could get it by pirate means, in HD in a very small space of time.

If we had Netflix and Spotify in this country, and some way to stream good quality rugby and football, I would gladly use the money I'm paying for DSTV and use those services instead. But as always, SA is left out of the loop. There is no way to get the kind of content offered by pirate networks, so if its not available here in SA, then how can you blame the pirates for acquiring it elsewhere.

 

[Sonic2k]

my thinking exactly

 

[[)roi(]]

...There is no way to get the kind of content offered by pirate networks, so if its not available here in SA, then how can you blame the pirates for acquiring it elsewhere.

Hence I appropriate much of the blame for the current situation on the media moguls; treating your paying customers like criminals is wrong; the other half is all our govs fault; their ineffectiveness with sound governance has made SA a third class territory.

 

[Ipwn 4]

http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/you_wouldn_t_download_a_car_Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg
contains a word you shouldn't use....

 

[Valis]

Denying the artists and publishers of revenue for music, movies, etc... can only be seen as theft; sure it's in a different form, but theft nevertheless.

The same as mixtapes of the past were theft, online internet copying is still theft as it in principle opposes paying for content.

Wow, you come across as incredibly ignorant on this subject! I recommend you read the following articles linked and educate yourself

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070118/013310/infinity-is-your-friend-economics.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061026/102329.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061213/234018.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-free-is-saying-you-cant-compete-period.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070125/004949.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20061129/010043.shtml

Now I know that it is lot to digest, but trust me, it will stop you from sounding like a fool when discussing this subject in future

Happy reading!

 

[[)roi(]]

Wow, you come across as incredibly ignorant on this subject! I recommend you read the following articles linked and educate yourself ...

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. An example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

 

[km2]

Denying the artists and publishers of revenue for music, movies, etc... can only be seen as theft; sure it's in a different form, but theft nevertheless.

"Denying potential revenue" and trying to squeeze in the idea that you didn't actually steal their product, you "stole their chance to make money from you"... and that somehow that's equivalent to theft feels like a weak argument at best.

If I was in a store and saw someone looking at an item and I said "hey, you shouldn't buy that, there's a better product but it's only available if you buy it somewhere else", and they took my advice, the shopkeeper coudln't say that I stole his product simply by denying him of potential revenue.

 

[[)roi(]]

...If I was in a store and saw someone looking at an item and I said "hey, you shouldn't buy that, there's a better product but it's only available if you buy it somewhere else", and they took my advice, the shopkeeper coudln't say that I stole his product simply by denying him of potential revenue.

The difference is that you deny the artist revenue; purchasing from a different retail channel does not deny revenue...

Torrents and the like downloads should therefore never be equated with a purchase or revenue generation.

 

[km2]

The difference is that you deny the artist revenue; purchasing from a different retail channel does not deny revenue...

Torrents and the like downloads should therefore never be equated with a purchase or revenue generation.

I'm not equating piracy with a purchase, I'm saying denying revenue can't be equated with theft.

As I understand the argument one side says:

1. Theft is depriving someone of their item.
2. Piracy only makes a copy, leaving them with their original item.
3. Therefore piracy is not theft.

It sounds like you're saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong here, or somehow strawmanning it up):

1. Theft is depriving someone of their item.
2. The item they're being deprived of is not the software, but rather the "potential revenue they could have received from the software if you'd bought it"
3. Therefore you stole their potential revenue. They had potential revenue before from you, and now it's gone because you won't pay for it.

To me that argument is just.... yuck.

And I say yuck because defining crimes based on "potential" is a slippery slope.

1. If I see someone in a music shop about to buy a Paroltones CD and I say "no, buy this Roxette CD instead" and they do. Did I just steal that potential revenue from the Parlotones by steering money away from them to Roxette? It was a sure sell before, but by my actions I took that potential revenue away from them.

2. If I pirate a game to see if I like it, and if I do I buy it, is that denying them potential revenue? The potential revenue remains even though I pirate it, because they'll get their money from me if the game is fun.

3. If I pirate software like AutoCAD because I want to mess around with it a bit, I haven't denied them potential revenue at all. There was no chance in hell I was going to buy it before at how ever many thousands it cost and I have no real use for it, but I just wanted to mess around with it. Would that be ok because no potential revenue was denied?

 

[inferno]

They are just pissed because they can no longer exploit us by using underhanded methods like not releasing demo's (because they know their game is ****.

 

[[)roi(]]

I'm not equating piracy with a purchase, I'm saying denying revenue can't be equated with theft.

As I understand the argument one side says:

1. Theft is depriving someone of their item.
2. Piracy only makes a copy, leaving them with their original item.
3. Therefore piracy is not theft.

Let me try again, hopefully this time is less unambiguous vs my past posts.

Copying without a resulting purchase = theft, as it denies the artist of revenue, or gives someone access to something they could not afford.

Copying with subsequent purchase = not a theft, yet I believe its treading a thin line of acceptability re the mechanism used.

Btw if you think of "depriving someone of their item" as depriving them income from their art -- it should be easier to see how this would be construed as theft.

As I said before, depriving the consumer of their rights should also never be acceptable.

Hence as consumers we should have the right to preview music, games, ... and failing that, to have the right to return (within a reasonable timeframe) if these are not what the pertain to be.