Online piracy

[Juice]

I actually don't know what the bus problem would constitute but that is an interesting point you have raised there. It isn't theft IMO. AFAIK in the case of theft there generally needs to be a desire to permanently deprive the other party of whatever was stolen. I also highly doubt it is actually a criminal offence and hence it isn't a crime.

Interesting, again. People don't go to jail for fare evasion, but they will be fined. I think in the case of piracy, most people are fined for the piracy, and they'll only go to jail rarely or as an alternative to paying the fine. Has that not been the case? I'm asking, because I'm not entirely sure. I don't think anyone's gone to jail for the actual piracy, though they are trying to lock up a bunch of people like the Pirate Bay who facilitate piracy. I guess it depends on where you are and which laws prevail.

Juice

 

[porchrat]

Interesting debate. If I take someone's Rolex, that's an obvious one. But if I meticulously and faithfully make a copy of someone's Rolex, the person who currently owns the Rolex doesn't suffer. However, I now have a Rolex (for all intents and purposes) that I did not pay for. So I got something of value for nothing. Personally, that just doesn't seem fair, either to the Rolex company, or the guy who bought his Rolex. Eventually, Rolex will just stop making watches, because there's no way on earth they will ever be able to compete, pricewise, against the pirates.

I agree, but don't call copying the Rolex theft. It is against the law, but it isn't theft. The Rolex name is a trademark. You shouldn't violate that trademark, but it isn't theft.

Here's an interesting point of view. Piracy, and the advocates of piracy, are really interested in digital socialism. I think the article actually made a reference to that. But there's a fundamental issue with socialism as a structure. It removes the motivator for production. Like it or not, we live in a largely capitalist world driven by capitalist principles. Call it corporate greed, economics, whatever, it is what it is. No-one these days is going to produce content (music, games, movies) 'for the love of it'. They expect to be rewarded for their effort. At the moment, the industry appears to be able to afford piracy. The contributions of the many are subsidising the losses of the few. But if this piracy movement gains critical mass? When the composers, developers and directors can no longer afford to cover the costs of their production, how will they produce content? How on earth could James Cameron be able to afford to make Avatar at a cost of $500,000,000 if no-one was going to spend the money to watch it??

You're either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Consider the following urban legend:



Socialism has failed numerous times as a system of government. China manages it work out of desperation largely by bullying and subjugating their population. What makes you think that digital socialism will fare any better?

Juice

Socialism is fatally flawed. China is socialist only by name. I would argue that elements of China are far more free-market orientated than the USA for example.

I agree with you 100%. I never said I was pro getting something for nothing, I hate socialism and yes piracy is a lot like digital socialism. However I cannot abide by someone calling copyright infringement theft because you know what, it is actually mislabelling and I feel that someone who steals a loaf of bread in order to survive is, while not entitled to it, is almost justified while there isn't really a justification for copyright infringement as there alternatives and you won't die without it.

There are also often FAR bigger awards granted in copyright cases than there are in the case of theft. In the case of theft generally the value of something physical can be measured... and that is what is awarded if it is decided that theft has occurred. In the case of copyright infringement you have copied intellectual property and the value of that is often far harder to quantify, hence bigger awards.

This "piracy is not theft" thing isn't a point of view it is legal fact.

 

[Juice]

"Eventually, Rolex will just stop making watches, because there's no way on earth they will ever be able to compete, pricewise, against the pirates."

Again logic fail of note, rolex would drop pricing to compete.

As noted above, Rolex can NEVER compete with a pirate. Rolex has overheads that a pirate will never have. Their minimum input cost exceeds the pirate's every time. Rolex aside, how much does it cost, for instance, to rip that MP3 and burn it to CD or make it available for download from russianloopholewebsite.ru? Compared to the cost of producing, marketing and distributing the music? Let's see: sale price = production + marketing + distribution vs sale price = distribution. Hot damn! Now what happens when everyone just Torrents the songs? Sale price = ZERO. How do you compete with that?

Juice

 

[porchrat]

Interesting, again. People don't go to jail for fare evasion, but they will be fined. I think in the case of piracy, most people are fined for the piracy, and they'll only go to jail rarely or as an alternative to paying the fine. Has that not been the case? I'm asking, because I'm not entirely sure. I don't think anyone's gone to jail for the actual piracy, though they are trying to lock up a bunch of people like the Pirate Bay who facilitate piracy. I guess it depends on where you are and which laws prevail.

Juice

It isn't a fine, it is damages that have been awarded in a civil case. Fines are what the state gives out in criminal matters.

Also you don't go to jail as an alternative to paying the "fine". When you are found guilty of copyright infringement you are ordered by the court to pay the other party a certain amount of money. This is a "court order". When you don't pay you have failed to comply with court order and failure to comply with a court order is a criminal offence and that is why you go to jail... it isn't an alternative it is a separate violation of the law.

AFAIK just because you failed to comply with the court order and have now been sent to jail doesn't mean you don't still owe that money.

 

[Juice]

This "piracy is not theft" thing isn't a point of view it is legal fact.

Hmmm. A rose by any other name... I think we may have dragged it down to the level of semantics, but I appreciate your point and I like your style

I'll grant you that piracy is not theft by any means. Maybe it's LIKE theft and maybe not.

However, does it answer the question: to pirate, or not to pirate?

Juice

 

[killadoob]

As noted above, Rolex can NEVER compete with a pirate. Rolex has overheads that a pirate will never have. Their minimum input cost exceeds the pirate's every time. Rolex aside, how much does it cost, for instance, to rip that MP3 and burn it to CD or make it available for download from russianloopholewebsite.ru? Compared to the cost of producing, marketing and distributing the music? Let's see: sale price = production + marketing + distribution vs sale price = distribution. Hot damn! Now what happens when everyone just Torrents the songs? Sale price = ZERO. How do you compete with that?

Juice

Ya shame dude have you seen how music artists are suffering? i feel sorry for them when i see those crap cars they drive and the houses they live .

Shame i feel really bad when avatar smashes records and makes billions, piracy must be killing the industry.

Your logic is the most fail logic ever . Wake up dude.

 

[sin_x]

It is not a crime nor is it the same as your bus analogy. It is like seeing someone's ferrari and cloning it. Nobody has lost anything.

Oh, so because it's only illegal (and not a crime) that makes it ok?
Dude, your logic is not the only thing that has failed here...

 

[Juice]

Your logic is the most fail logic ever . Wake up dude.

Wow. It's obvious you haven't read half of what I wrote with any understanding. Shush now, the grown-ups are talking.

Oh wait, I can't argue at that level. You'll beat me with experience.

Artists, by their own admission, do not make money from music sales. They make money from concerts. That being said, however, it should be noted that an artist would not be the mega rock star they are if not for the exposure they've enjoyed through normal distribution and marketing channels. Again, it's worth pointing out that the archaic distribution and marketing channels employed by the recording industry are no longer sufficient in the digital age and the litiguous recording industry has not been doing itself any favours. They're an outmoded and largely superfluous intervention and they need to reinvent themselves in a hurry, or they will perish.

For Avatar, I might point out the part in my previous post where I spoke about it, but you didn't read it then and you're probably not going to attempt to re-read it anyway. Let's not waste each other's time any further on that score.

Still, the question remains: just because you're not hurting anyone, should you pirate? Here we can have a long and lengthy debate about morals and doing the right thing, but I won't bore you. You do what you do, and I'll do what I do. Your choice, as it is mine. I won't preach non-piracy to you, as long as you, and the people like you (like the writer of this article) don't preach piracy to me. It's like a religious or political argument and, while fun for a while, there's really no point.

Juice

 

[killadoob]

Illegal?

It is not a crime, once you figure that out life will seem good again.

Civil
Criminal

Now go read young padawan.

Ok so artists do not make money via cd sales? bwhahahaha then if that is true surely they would want tons of people pirating and getting their name out there so they can become huge and sell out concerts?

Hmmm interesting thought. You guys have no argument, go look at record sales and go look at how much money movies make when they are released, piracy is not damaging them. If anything piracy can make a mega star out of someone who has not sold many albums.

 

[sin_x]

Illegal?

It is not a crime, once you figure that out life will seem good again.

Civil
Criminal

Now go read young padawan.

Wait, so you are saying that copyright infringement is NOT against the law?

 

[killadoob]

Depends are you talking about me personally or if i sell the item?

 

[Juice]

Hmmm interesting thought. You guys have no argument...

I think maybe you're missing my point. I'll be as plain as possible.

I don't think piracy is a very nice thing to do. You think piracy is a very nice thing to do.

Juice

 

[sin_x]

Perhaps someone with legal expertise can interpret the following information from http://www.saiipl.org.za/introductio-copyright.htm

Offences

Certain dealings that infringe copyright are stipulated in the Act to be criminal offences. Fines and periods of imprisonment are prescribed. These criminal acts include -

. making for sale or hire, or selling or letting;

. by way of trade offering or exposing for sale or hire;

. by way of trade distributing or exhibiting in public;

. Importing into the Republic otherwise than for private use;

. articles which the person knows to be infringing copies.

 

[LazyLion]

I think maybe you're missing my point. I'll be as plain as possible.

I don't think piracy is a very nice thing to do. You think piracy is a very nice thing to do.

Juice

I don't like it when huge corporations and greedy middlemen inflate prices and rip off the public. I don't like it when traffic policemen take bribes. I don't like it when judges get drunk and crash into walls... but hey it happens.

 

[LazyLion]

Perhaps someone with legal expertise can interpret the following information from http://www.saiipl.org.za/introductio-copyright.htm

an infringing copy is one which the producer has not authorised or licensed.

 

[sin_x]

an infringing copy is one which the producer has not authorised or licensed.

So in other words, a pirated copy? Or am I wrong?

 

[LazyLion]

So in other words, a pirated copy? Or am I wrong?

I dunno. I thought a pirate was guy with a hook for a hand on a boat who says Arrrrrr! a lot.

Who is going to define piracy for you? You want a legal definition? OK, the courts do not recognize the term "piracy" as a legal definition. They prefer to talk about "copyright infringement".

 

[Juice]

I don't like it when huge corporations and greedy middlemen inflate prices and rip off the public.

Wait, two wrongs make a right? We all like to 'stick it to the man' every once in a while, but you're sacrificng the moral higher ground! And I'm sure not all people pirate out of a sense of socialistic altruism. It's got a lot more to do with a misplaced sense of entitlement. You're following revolutionary leaders, not out of a sense of righteous belief in the principles of the movement, but merely for the free beer and the chicks. You're not the Nelson Mandela, you're the Julius Malema!

Juice

 

[porchrat]

Oh, so because it's only illegal (and not a crime) that makes it ok?
Dude, your logic is not the only thing that has failed here...

Thanks super genius... if you could please point out for me where I said that piracy is OK I would be most appreciative. If I have said that then I apologise and I did not mean to, I won't however apologise if you have failed to comprehend basic English and have as a result inferred additional meaning where there is none.

Talk about failed logic. Perhaps you didn't read this post of mine:

I get the impression that Crowley thinks I am using the "Piracy is not theft" thing as a defense for piracy. I am not, I don't think any of us are. There is no denying that piracy is against the law. There are specific laws targeted at just that sort of action for the very reason that legally speaking piracy doesn't fall properly into the definition of theft. I just don't like people making something out to be something it is not.

The Pirate Bay and others dance around the issue saying that they aren't hosting the material etc. and hence are not responsible, at no point do they every make the argument that piracy is not illegal. At the end of the day the individuals that make copies of someone else's intellectual property without permission are breaking the law. They are infringing on someone's copyright or patent.

Next time before you open your mouth please bother to read all of the posts.

I greatly anticipate the retraction of your above-quoted statement.

 

[LazyLion]

Wait, two wrongs make a right? We all like to 'stick it to the man' every once in a while, but you're sacrificng the moral higher ground! And I'm sure not all people pirate out of a sense of socialistic altruism. It's got a lot more to do with a misplaced sense of entitlement. You're following revolutionary leaders, not out of a sense of righteous belief in the principles of the movement, but merely for the free beer and the chicks. You're not the Nelson Mandela, you're the Julius Malema!

where did I say anything about doing wrong?

BTW, you don't have to sign every post. We can tell it is your post by looking at the title bar of the post. Just thought I'd save you some hassle.