Online piracy

Also since black markets have existed since the beginning of time. Can't we then say that there is something wrong with our models for making money? Can a market exist without a black market? Is a black market a symptom of an unhealty market? Then the issue shifts from piracy to something else.

A black market is more prevalent in a more constrained, regulated market. I would venture to suggest that most people don't want to be evil and break the law. They'd weigh up the black market price and the legitimate price, the warranty, the quality, the risk of being caught and all the various factors and the make a call to say whether to go legit or not.

It would depend on the reason for the black market as to whether its really a sign of an unhealthy market. Look at prostitution. Amsterdam vs. our street walkers. If we were to put "black market" prostitutes into Amsterdam I think it wouldn't fly... (not that i'm an expert on prostitutes)... unless the prices are substantially different - and then you'd have to investigate why that is the case.

If its really a free economy, then other market entrants would flock to an opportunity for profit. the more entrants, the lower prices become as they try to compete. Unless government interferes, or theres a monopolistic (or oligopolistic) situation, there shouldn't be any reason for a black market to start. interference could be tax, import restrictions or tariffs, outlawing the good or service etc.
 
A black market is more prevalent in a more constrained, regulated market. I would venture to suggest that most people don't want to be evil and break the law. They'd weigh up the black market price and the legitimate price, the warranty, the quality, the risk of being caught and all the various factors and the make a call to say whether to go legit or not.

It would depend on the reason for the black market as to whether its really a sign of an unhealthy market. Look at prostitution. Amsterdam vs. our street walkers. If we were to put "black market" prostitutes into Amsterdam I think it wouldn't fly... (not that i'm an expert on prostitutes)... unless the prices are substantially different - and then you'd have to investigate why that is the case.

If its really a free economy, then other market entrants would flock to an opportunity for profit. the more entrants, the lower prices become as they try to compete. Unless government interferes, or theres a monopolistic (or oligopolistic) situation, there shouldn't be any reason for a black market to start. interference could be tax, import restrictions or tariffs, outlawing the good or service etc.

You had to point that out. :D

So in most cases a black market exists because the current system is not catering for everyone. hmm
 
does the porn industry ever chase people for copyright infringement?
 
Yes, and that is why it is my opinion that piracy is not a "crusade to break the shackles of digital oppression". It is a way for cheap people to get free ****.

Note the 'cheap people' and 'free'. By your own admission these people are cheap and would not have spent the $ anyway at the current price. No-one loses.

Piracy advocates love claiming that they are giving copyright owners free PR, but what they don't realise is that they are helping content producers keep prices artifically inflated.

They are giving content producers free PR. Secondly, higher revenues no not necessarily translate into higher quality and thirdly, no-one said that cheaper prices and alternatives would make the revenues lower. The big wigs want easy money.

Anybody who was really, genuinely out to make a difference would not see piracy as the only weapon in the war against greed.

Piracy on its won does not cost the downloader much. What he should be doing is pirating the junk and buying INDIE. Ideally he should boycott all Hollywood junk. Sadly, since Hollywood junk is made for the lowest common denominator most people will want it, and INDIE can be just as junk.
I'll say it again: If you believe it is too expensive, don't buy it. move along.

That's you. Sharing does not hurt revenues because its too expensive and maybe you'll get a taste for a new series that way and buy something when you become more affluent. Completely ignoring the junk will still make the MPAA/RIAA consider you a downloader, meanwhile you don't bother with their garbage.
 
WTF? Don't tell me you don't bother to read reviews etc before you download a game or movie?

I can tell you that most movies end up being disappointments. This isn't just about Hollywood but also goes for many productions from Europe. Sadly most reviewers this day are either paid shills or are idiots. That's the problem with the movie industry. A few guys like Roger Ebert for Hollywood are OK but those are few and far between and even he sometimes labels duds as good.

If food tastes bad, you can ask for a refund, if a movie sucked, can you walk out halfway and ask for a refund? I doubt it.
 
Not wanting to necessarily bump this discussion back up again, but I thought all the pro-piracy members on the forum would find this story interesting :

It's been 18 months since O'Reilly, the world's largest publisher of tech books, stopped using DRM on its ebooks. In the intervening time, O'Reilly's ebook sales have increased by 104 percent. Now, when you talk about ebooks and DRM, there's always someone who'll say, "But what about [textbooks|technical books|RPG manuals]? Their target audience is so wired and online, why wouldn't they just copy the books without paying? They've all got the technical know-how."

So much for that theory. -

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/22/oreilly-drops-ebook.html

:D
 
This thread seems like a good place to ask, in a thread here, maybe even this one, someone posted a quote from somewhere that stated that in SA copying music/movies etc would be legal for ones own use, so long as it's not sold or profited from, can anyone confirm or post the link to that post/thread?

I did search but was unable to find it, maybe someone remembers?
 
From: http://elc.co.za/article.php?subaction=showfull&id=1175875740&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7&

The big software piracy secret: it's not a crime!
While watching the trailers at the cinema, an advert against pirating of music, videos and software was flighted. The punchline being: "theft is a crime, piracy is theft" ... obvious implication, piracy is equal to crime. So what is the big secret? It's really simple: pirating software/movies/DVDs/music for individual use is a copyright violation, but it is not a crime! When I say it is a copyright violation, that means that the owner of the copyright has a civil action against the copyright violator, and the criminal justice system, police cyber inspectors or whatever have nothing whatsoever to do with it. So what does this mean? It means that if you have "pirate" software on your computer, the worst thing that could happen to you is that the owner of the software, for example Microsoft if it is a pirated copy of Windows, may institute legal proceedings against you to recover the damages it may have suffered as a result of your actions. There is no crime, so no fines, no arrests or anything else.

Unfortunately it appears that advertisements in the media have served to confuse things even further. In fact I have even heard people talk of the police arresting parties with obvious copies of software on computer disks at roadblocks and similar urban legends. While at my local police station the other day, I asked similar questions about piracy and copyright, and ended up having a interesting discussion with several police officers in charge office, all of whom were completely confused by the legal principles involved. So, is there a crime of piracy? Yes there definitely is, and it is covered by Section 27 of the Copyright act which introduces criminal penalties for certain specific breaches of copyright: 27 Penalties and proceedings in respect of dealings which infringe copyright:

(1) Any person who at a time when copyright subsists in a work, without
the authority of the owner of the copyright-

(a) makes for sale or hire;

(b) sells or lets for hire or by way of trade offers or exposes for
sale or hire;

(c) by way of trade exhibits in public;

(d) imports into the Republic otherwise than for his private or domestic use;

(e) distributes for purposes of trade; or

(f) distributes for any other purposes to such an extent that the owner of the copyright is prejudicially affected, articles which he knows to be infringing copies of the work, shall be guilty of an offence.

In essence, these can be summed up as anything to do with reproducing for sale or selling copyright materials a criminal offence, but having copyright material for private or domestic use is definitely not a crime.

And in section 6, the Act outlines the penalties:(6) A person convicted of an offence under this section shall be liable-

(a) in the case of a first conviction, to a fine not exceeding five thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or to both such fine and such imprisonment, for each article to which the offence relates;

(b) in any other case, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand rand or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or to both such fine and such imprisonment, for each article to which the offence relates.


But even in a careful reading of sections (a) to (f), there is no mention of breach of copyright for personal or domestic use, so the section does not apply in this regard. In essence, criminal copyright violations are only those where they are done for the purposes of selling, hiring or business-related, or freely distributed according to section (f), "to such an extent that the owner of the copyright is prejudicially affected". It would therefore be enormously difficult to show that Microsoft had been prejudicially affected by my loaning out of my Windows disks to a friend, whereas if I was handing out hundreds of free copies to the public that would be a different story.

So to sum up, software piracy is not automatically crime. It is only a crime when copies are made for hire or purchase or some other business-related profit-making activity. Where one user "pirates" software for private or individual use, it is only a civil violation, not a criminal one. So, what is the legal effect of a civil violation? It's really quite simple actually: the owner of the copyright has a legal action against the copyright violator, and he may sue the copyright violator to recover his financial losses that he would otherwise have made, e.g. the value of the software licensing fee! So should I have a pirated piece of software on my home computer, which I'm using for private use and not distributing copies of for sale or hire or anything else similar, the worst that can happen to me is the owner of that software can sue me for the license fees I should have paid for the software! (Plus legal fees if one were stupid enough to go to court.)

So there you have it, the big secret is out: software piracy is not a crime when done for private or individual use, and the worst that can happen to the software pirated, is he or she may be sued for the value of the license he or she should have paid. So if I return to the movie advert, piracy is not theft, because theft is a crime, piracy is a copyright violation, and only under certain circumstances is this copyright violation a crime. Needless to say I still enormously enjoyed watching Star Wars episode III, and not worrying about the cyber inspectors finding all my pirated software on my home computer. One thing that must be noted however; when one comes to file sharing, e.g. Kazaa/Napster and so forth, that is a different kettle of fish entirely.
 
Ok that's some nice info thanks, don't see why file sharing is a "different kettle of fish" though. It's still non profit, I guess it's complicated by the fact that it's actively distributed.
 
That guy doesn't know what he is talking about. You get sued for damages, which are almost always greater than the license fee of buying the software in the first place. The damages are determined by the court to be deemed fit as relief to the copyright holder, and/or exclusive licensee, and are influenced by things such as the benefit accrued through the copyright infringment by the defendant and the flagrancy of the infringment.

Here is the relevant portion of the Copyright Act, if you are wondering what can actually happen to you. The relief is not that, "Ahh, it's not so bad," because it can, and probably will, be a lot more costly than just buying the stuff, but rather that you probably won't get sued in the first place, unless you're really stupid.

24. Action by owner of copyright for infringement.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, infringements of copyright shall
be actionable at the suit of the owner of the copyright, and in any
action for such an infringement all such relief by way of damages,
interdict, delivery of infringing copies or plates used or intended to be
used for infringing copies or otherwise shall be available to the plaintiff
as is available in any corresponding proceedings in respect of
infringements of other proprietary rights.
[Sub-s. (1) substituted by s. 21 (a) of Act No. 125 of 1992.]

(1A) In lieu of damages the plaintiff may, at his or her option, be awarded
an amount calculated on the basis of a reasonable royalty which
would have been payable by a licensee in respect of the work or type
of work concerned.
[Sub-s. (1A) inserted by s. 21 (b) of Act No. 125 of 1992 and substituted by s.
55 of Act No. 38 of 1997.]

(1B) For the purposes of determining the amount of damages or a
reasonable royalty to be awarded under this section or section 25 (2),
the court may direct an enquiry to be held and may prescribe such
procedures for conducting such enquiry as the court considers
necessary.
[Sub-s. (1B) inserted by s. 21 (b) of Act No. 125 of 1992 and substituted by s.
55 of Act No. 38 of 1997.]

(1C) Before the owner of copyright institutes proceedings under this
section, he or she shall give notice in writing to the exclusive licensee
or sub-licensee of the copyright concerned of the intention to do so,
and the exclusive licensee or sub-licensee may intervene in such
proceedings and recover any damages he or she may have suffered
as a result of the infringement concerned or a reasonable royalty to
which he or she may be entitled.
[Sub-s. (1C) inserted by s. 21 (b) of Act No. 125 of 1992 and substituted by s.
55 of Act No. 38 of 1997.]

(2) Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is proved or
admitted that an infringement was committed but that at the time of
the infringement the defendant was not aware and had no reasonable
grounds for suspecting that copyright subsisted in the work to which
the action relates, the plaintiff shall not be entitled under this section to
any damages against the defendant in respect of the infringement.
[Sub-s. (2) substituted by s. 21 (c) of Act No. 125 of 1992.]

(3) Where in an action under this section an infringement of copyright is
proved or admitted, and the court having regard, in addition to all other
material considerations, to—
(a) the flagrancy of the infringement; and
(b) any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason
of the infringement, is satisfied that effective relief would not
otherwise be available to the plaintiff, the court shall in
assessing damages for the infringement have power to award
such additional damages as the court may deem fit.

(4) In an action for infringement of copyright in respect of the construction
of a building, no interdict or other order shall be made—
(a) after the construction of the building has been begun so as to
prevent it from being completed; or
(b) so as to require the building, in so far as it has been
constructed, to be demolished.

I suppose that I should add that I am not a lawyer, but I do follow a lot of tech news, and I have so far never seen a piracy case where damages were only equal to the licensing fee.
 
Last edited:
That guy doesn't know what he is talking about. You get sued for damages, which are almost always greater than the license fee of buying the software in the first place. The damages are determined by the court to be deemed fit as relief to the copyright holder, and/or exclusive licensee, and are influenced by things such as the benefit accrued through the copyright infringment by the defendant and the flagrancy of the infringment.

Here is the relevant portion of the Copyright Act, if you are wondering what can actually happen to you. The relief is not that, "Ahh, it's not so bad," because it can, and probably will, be a lot more costly than just buying the stuff, but rather that you probably won't get sued in the first place, unless you're really stupid.

um, you didn't read the article very well did you. That was exactly his point. That there is provision for damages, but that is a civil action. The point of the article is that copyright infringement is NOT theft and never will be classed as such.
 
um, you didn't read the article very well did you. That was exactly his point. That there is provision for damages, but that is a civil action. The point of the article is that copyright infringement is NOT theft and never will be classed as such.

Maybe I should have quoted this part, since I thought it was clear this was what I was talking about:

It's really quite simple actually: the owner of the copyright has a legal action against the copyright violator, and he may sue the copyright violator to recover his financial losses that he would otherwise have made, e.g. the value of the software licensing fee! So should I have a pirated piece of software on my home computer, which I'm using for private use and not distributing copies of for sale or hire or anything else similar, the worst that can happen to me is the owner of that software can sue me for the license fees I should have paid for the software! (Plus legal fees if one were stupid enough to go to court.)

If you read the whole article, it tries to characterise piracy as being, "Well you know, it's not a crime, and the worst that can happen to you is that you just have to pay for the license if you get caught," which is quite simply fantasy imo. Yes, he is right about people being overzealous and that piracy is not a criminal offence, but at the same time he is wrong about the consequences of being sued for copyright infringment (if other cases are precedents). You can't claim any sort of consistency if you're saying that others are wrong about what can happen to you if you pirate, only for you yourself be wrong about what can happen to you if you pirate. You dig?
 
I'd read the disclaimer* and get a proper legal opinion. I'm the cautious type, have read the Act, and I've seen the crazy damages that media companies have pushed for in these cases.

*This article is intended to provide general guidance and does not constitute professional advice relating to specific instances. Should you wish to place any reliance on the information presented in this article we strongly advise that you consult your legal advisor or the Electronic Law Consultancy
 
I'd read the disclaimer* and get a proper legal opinion. I'm the cautious type, have read the Act, and I've seen the crazy damages that media companies have pushed for in these cases.

Those damages have been restricted to the USA mostly. Secondly they weren't for downloading but for uploading. These were people who made songs and movies available in their Kazaa, Bittorrent, WinMX etc (P2P) applications. The damages awarded were not for downloads and no-one was ever sued for downloading a song or a movie.
 
Maybe I should have quoted this part, since I thought it was clear this was what I was talking about:



If you read the whole article, it tries to characterise piracy as being, "Well you know, it's not a crime, and the worst that can happen to you is that you just have to pay for the license if you get caught," which is quite simply fantasy imo. Yes, he is right about people being overzealous and that piracy is not a criminal offence, but at the same time he is wrong about the consequences of being sued for copyright infringment (if other cases are precedents). You can't claim any sort of consistency if you're saying that others are wrong about what can happen to you if you pirate, only for you yourself be wrong about what can happen to you if you pirate. You dig?

It's not a crime. Criminal copyright violations are - say you make 1000 copies of a DVD you rented and then resell or rent those out. That is criminal copyright violation. However, the even there the copyright holder has to actually press charges. This is usually done by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA and in SA RISA/SAFACT/BSA. However, these only protect their customers ie co's which pay them fees. So if I were to release a movie, not become a member of the SAFACT or MPAA and someone pirated it and sold copies of it, the MPAA/SAFACT would not prosecute on my behalf. I would have to do it myself. The cops themselves will not police criminal copyright infrigement. Also if you're a hawker and you're reselling non-SAFACT goods, you're pretty safe because SAFACT won't press charges.
 
It's quite funny. most people who complain about caps and top up 20GB's are usually pirates. :D

Mostly yes but you can be thankful piracy exists or the guys who do not pirate would pay far more for their goods. I think the war on piracy is also about getting rid of it to charge more, we have seen it time and again when a company has comp they charge more. So you think your cd's would still cost 150 bucks if piracy did not exist?

You think pc games would cost 300 bucks? nope they would cost as much as ps3 games. Console is the perfect example of what happens when piracy is low, check ps3 games. 700 bucks a game. Pc games 300/350 with so much piracy. So that is a prime example of low piracy causing inflated pricing.

:D.
 
I see every day, a group of people near the police station by a cafe, sitting on the ground and sorting
the DVD's. Putting them in covers and many plastic bags full of DVDs. All titles you can think of. Police
are passing by and just looking. So they make real money, while a pirate downloads for his own use.
And I remember getting the first Lost Episodes, after season one I purchased the whole set for
around R350 because even so I knew the season I could from the Boxset have it in another Language.
Also purchased the Season Two. Without pirating it I would have never purchased it.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X