Illegal Downloading

[Ultimaja]

Also stop with the cussing and flaming of people. No need for it, this is just a discussion thread!

I don't have five people responding to me out of 'good conversation'.

If I wanted to flame, I'd call someone an asshole. That is flaming. Have I flamed? No.
You all know why your stalking me on these threads giving me a hard time and shit. Why don't you go the fuck on somewhere.

 

[greenyxi]

Can we calm it down some? Continued misuse of this thread will result in the closure of the thread along with infractions if it continues.

Thank you

 

[Sheechiibii]

Well as far as I'm concerned illegal downloading is morally wrong. Do I illegally download? Sometimes, and justify it because I only download something illegally if I wouldn't have otherwise bought it. Often I'll go on to buy something that I previously downloaded illegally because I like it more than I expected. Usually the stuff I download illegally I end up deleting anyway cause I don't like it enough to keep it. Does that make it right? No it doesn't, I'm still wrong for taking something and using something without paying for it.

 

[Seagoat]

I never have and never shall. I'm afraid I have this thing called morality. Seems fairly rare these days

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

Mild bump, but I just found this thread and wanted to weigh in.

Contrary to popular belief, piracy isn't theft. The definition of theft is "taking with the intent to deprive", meaning that you are depriving the original owner of the item in question. A digital copy of a digital item is, by definition, not theft.

If someone owns a car, and you break into that car and drive off with it, the original owner no longer has a car.
If someone owns a car, and you press a button to clone that car and drive off with it, the original owner still has a car.

It is also impossible to say that 1 download = 1 lost sale. You have no way of knowing whether someone would have bought a copy if the pirated version was unavailable.

With that cleared up, piracy, like theft, is illegal. For good reason, too; if everyone copied rather than purchased either a copy or a licence to watch/play/read a copy, then it would become financially unviable to continue producing whatever's being produced.

The problem with the "piracy = bad" logic is "hidden" in the above sentence; buying something digitally sometimes doesn't give you a copy, it merely gives you a licence to possess a copy. To look at it a different way: Let's say you buy a computer. You decide that it doesn't have powerful enough components, so you buy additional components to make your computer more powerful. Now let's change it up; you rent a computer indefinitely for a one-time fee. By the terms and conditions you agreed to, you are not allowed to modify the computer in any way, shape or form. If you do, it may be repossessed by the company that owns it.

There exists two prevalent business models on the Internet: Buy to own, and buy to rent indefinitely. For the longest period of time, if you purchased music on iTunes, you were not allowed to play this track on any device that was not authorised by Apple. Surely you can see that, in that case, you didn't actually own a copy of the piece of music, you were merely licencing the right to play it on certain devices.
If you buy a game on Steam, then you implicitly agree to the fact that you are only allowed to play the game while the Steam service is operating and is in working order. If Valve ever decides to close their doors, you will no longer own those games you have purchased, as they will become unplayable.

Am I going to sit here and claim that people who pirate games are justice warriors that are sending a signal to these corporations that their evil business practices must stop? No. But I am saying that an argument could be made that a percentage of pirates do so for that reason. It's also not a stretch of the imagination to say that in their minds, they are perfectly justified in their actions, because they believe it's morally wrong to support those kind of business practices.
Of course, a different argument could be made that in that case, they should just boycott the game in its entirety, rather than download it.

Another important aspect to consider is the fact that in this day and age, demo versions of big games are few and far between. Even if the demos are there, you can never be sure whether you are actually seeing the "real" game, or whether it's essentially the same as a movie trailer, where all the best parts of the movie are packed into one short sequence.
If you accept that line of thinking, then it's not a stretch to say that some people download pirated copies in order to get a better view of the reality of the game.

It can also be exceptionally difficult to find trusted reviews. If government policies can be, if indirectly, bought by lobbyists, then is it really such a stretch to imagine that some reviewer was paid off too? I don't think so. Even if you find a honest reviewer, you have to make sure his or her tastes line up with your own. If someone hates RPGs, their review is going to be of less use to you because their inherent bias will shine through. Likewise if someone loves RPGs, only the bias will go the other way.
Therefore, the only way to know if you will like the game, is for you to try it yourself. Maybe you can't afford the £40 for a new game, however.

When it comes to movies and television, the fact is that in today's world, scheduled broadcasting is out of date. No longer is it so that "everyone" works 9-5 and they have the rest of the evening off to watch TV or go to the movies. The Internet has made it possible for the whole world to work together, so sometimes people work odd hours, outside of what scheduled broadcasting will allow. If you also happen to live in an area with poor internet connections (thus making streaming services like Netflix useless), to my knowledge you have no way of keeping up to date with your favourite TV shows as they are being broadcast, except to download them, the same for movies when they hit the cinemas.
Waiting for the DVD/Blu-Ray release is not exactly feasible, because in those ~6 months, everyone that was able to watch it live will have stopped talking about it. In this case, downloading it until such a time as it becomes available legally is the only way to be socially included.


In summation:
* Piracy is not the same as theft
* Piracy does not equal lost sales 1:1
* Pirates aren't (necessarily) morally bankrupt arseholes
* The content industry has consistently failed in a rather spectacular manner to understand the needs and desires of their customer base
* There are limited, or no, viable alternatives to obtaining the content in some cases

Am I saying piracy is justifiable? That depends on the person. Nobody has the right to say that it's universally morally wrong, all you have the right to say is that it's illegal. Which it is, for good reason. What is not illegal, however, is trying to see things from a different perspective rather than sitting on a high horse

 

[Kyreaan]

Copying data without permission is intellectual property theft. I'll remember your argument if someone hacks DragonByte Technologies.

Intellectual property - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

Copying data without permission is intellectual property theft.

No, it isn't. IP theft specifically refers to trade secrets, see your own page for the source. IP theft is considered theft because, unlike a game/movie/ebook/music track, someone copying this data causes measurable damages.

If someone copies a product and releases it, any sales from that product are liable to be reclaimed (plus more) in damages.

If someone copies a product and uses it privately, the scale and effect of the crime is so insignificant it's not even comparable.

I'll remember your argument if someone hacks DragonByte Technologies.

>implying DBTech hasn't had intrusions and intrusion events before
>implying DBTech modifications are closed source
>implying we haven't had a serious problem with fraudulent PayPal transactions in the past
>implying we haven't had pirated copies of all our modifications released on piracy sites since day 1


You can do better than two straw man arguments

 

[Kyreaan]

No, it isn't. IP theft specifically refers to trade secrets, see your own page for the source. IP theft is considered theft because, unlike a game/movie/ebook/music track, someone copying this data causes measurable damages.

If someone copies a product and releases it, any sales from that product are liable to be reclaimed (plus more) in damages.

If someone copies a product and uses it privately, the scale and effect of the crime is so insignificant it's not even comparable.

You didn't read Wikipedia. Intellectual property is more than trade secrets. Copying data without permission causes the creator to lose money, so it was categorized as intellectual property theft. The ACTA was signed in May 2011.

>implying DBTech hasn't had intrusions and intrusion events before
>implying DBTech modifications are closed source
>implying we haven't had a serious problem with fraudulent PayPal transactions in the past
>implying we haven't had pirated copies of all our modifications released on piracy sites since day 1

You lost money, so you got the idea.

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

You didn't read Wikipedia. Intellectual property is more than trade secrets. Copying data without permission causes the creator to lose money, so it was categorized as intellectual property theft. The ACTA was signed in May 2011.

If you notice this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement it says the Supreme Court ruled that not all instances of copyright infringement results in commercial loss and therefore does not easily equal theft.

Can we stop pretending all cases of piracy is theft now? Cool.

You lost money, so you got the idea.

No, I didnt. As I stated before, I have no way of knowing whether the ones who downloaded a copy would have paid for it. Until you can show me evidence that they would have, I'd like to ask you to refrain from making claims you can't back up with facts

 

[Galadín]

Piracy doesn't necessarily have to equate itself to theft (in your view of it) in order to be an illegal act.

If you notice this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement it says the Supreme Court ruled that not all instances of copyright infringement results in commercial loss and therefore does not easily equal theft.

Also, the above statement is a little disengenuous purely because not all copyrighted material has a commercial value so of course there is no commercial loss, hence why it isn't considered theft in a commercial view point but that doesn't mean Kyreaan's point is any less true in the incidences that it applies to. (i.e. Intellectual property is more than trade secrets. Copying data without permission causes the creator to lose money, so it was categorized as intellectual property theft. The ACTA was signed in May 2011).

Put it this way, if I a made a piece of art available for viewing on the interent but have no intent to sell it, that doesn't mean that people can just go ahead and copy it. It was my idea and hence my intellectual property, just because money never changed hands doesn't make the copying any less of a theft of my intellectual property (i.e. my art piece).

In other words this copying is "taking with the intent to deprive" in terms of a person's right to their own intellectual property.

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

Piracy doesn't necessarily have to equate itself to theft (in your view of it) in order to be an illegal act.

Just because it isn't theft, doesn't mean it's not illegal, I believe I made that quite clear. It's very much illegal, and immoral, but it's not theft.

Also, the above statement is a little disengenuous purely because not all copyrighted material has a commercial value so of course there is no commercial loss, hence why it isn't considered theft in a commercial view point but that doesn't mean Kyreaan's point is any less true in the incidences that it applies to. (i.e. Intellectual property is more than trade secrets. Copying data without permission causes the creator to lose money, so it was categorized as intellectual property theft. The ACTA was signed in May 2011).

As I've tried to say in previous posts, how much money is lost to piracy is impossible to calculate. Nobody can argue that everyone that downloads a pirated version of Photoshop would have paid the eleventy bajillion dollars that program costs. What I've argued, and will continue to argue, is the notion that 1 download = 1 lost sale, which is 100% provably false (as I've just demonstrated, a 16 year old that wants to add blood effects to a picture of an ex is not going to pay several hundred, or thousand, dollars for that ability).

Also, Kyreaan's argument is self-defeating because nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that copyright infringement is theft. Literally the only place where "theft" is mentioned, is under Trade Secrets, because they are (by definition) secret. Anything that is displayed in public or otherwise accessible to the public without committing another crime is considered to not be "secret", and as such any infringement on copyrights held is not considered theft.
On the contrary, I've demonstrated in previous posts, and will continue to demonstrate, that the Supreme Court made an explicit distinction between infringement and theft.

The argument of the "piracy = theft" crowd appears to be that by downloading, you might as well be physically taking money out of the creator's accounts, because if you want something bad enough to download it, you would buy it if the download wasn't available. I strongly disagree with this, and I believe I've proven (in pretty much every post in this thread) that this is factually incorrect.

Also, the Supreme Court made a distinction that even though the pirated works has commercial value, unauthorised copying does not equate to theft:

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft. For instance, the United States Supreme Court held in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property.

A bootlegged copy of a record is an unauthorised copy of a commercial piece of work, yet it's not theft.

If I was to sell the unlicenced work, then that would be closer to theft, although the courts would make a distinction. Whether this distinction is made purely because the laws haven't caught up with the rampant piracy that exists on the internet, is an entirely separate discussion.

I'm discussing what's fact right now, what the courts would label my crime if I was to be tried in a court of law.

Put it this way, if I a made a piece of art available for viewing on the interent but have no intent to sell it, that doesn't mean that people can just go ahead and copy it. It was my idea and hence my intellectual property, just because money never changed hands doesn't make the copying any less of a theft of my intellectual property (i.e. my art piece).

In other words this copying is "taking with the intent to deprive" in terms of a person's right to their own intellectual property.

The difference lies in whether the person sold the work as their own (or simply at a reduced cost). Let's say you had offered print versions of your art on deviantArt, and it costs €20 for a print of some description.
If I download the raw file and give it to a printing studio who can do it for €5 to hang it on my wall, then I have not committed theft. I have committed a crime, and I'd be a scumbag.
If I download the raw file and sell prints for €10, then I've still not committed theft. I've certainly committed a much more serious crime, and these are the criminals law enforcement tend to worry about. Kill the profiteering business, and all that. But, still not theft.


In short: illegal copying for personal use is copyright infringement, not theft, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[Galadín]

You missed my entire point. If a person creates something, they are entitled to the rights to their own intellectual property and the copying or stealing of such property is wrong, regardless if money is involved or not.

Besides, theft isn't and has never been the sole focus of those who fight against piracy, it's also the rights of the individual to their own material that is also at risk. Also being picky over the word "theft" is pretty much disengenuous, obtuse and silly in light of the topic at hand. With the advancement of technology such as it is, many words have added meanings and have morphed to encompass more than what we find in our dictionaries these days, ideas and concepts are being changed faster than can be defined in our language; much the same way our laws are floudering in the sea of advancement.

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

You missed my entire point. If a person creates something, they are entitled to the rights to their own intellectual property and the copying or stealing of such property is wrong, regardless if money is involved or not.

i completely agree, and I never intended to make it sound otherwise.

Besides, theft isn't and has never been the sole focus of those who fight against piracy, it's also the rights of the individual to their own material that is also at risk.

of course, but I noticed that there were some misconceptions regarding the topic at hand and so I wanted to see if I could correct it, that's all

Also being picky over the word "theft" is pretty much disengenuous, obtuse and silly in light of the topic at hand. With the advancement of technology such as it is, many words have added meanings and have morphed to encompass more than what we find in our dictionaries these days, ideas and concepts are being changed faster than can be defined in our language; much the same way our laws are floudering in the sea of advancement.

I disagree with this bit, I think it's important to maintain a distinction between these terms when the topic is law (which this is).

I should point out, I'm entirely in favour of updating the law to label it "theft" for the very reasons you state. Additionally, when we respond to people who come to our site asking for support and they are running an unlicensed copy, we tend to use the word "stolen" for the reason it's more impactful than "illegal copy".

It would be rather silly of me as a digital content producer to claim I wanted digital crime's punished less severely than physical ones

 

[Galadín]

I disagree with this bit, I think it's important to maintain a distinction between these terms when the topic is law (which this is).

I should point out, I'm entirely in favour of updating the law to label it "theft" for the very reasons you state. Additionally, when we respond to people who come to our site asking for support and they are running an unlicensed copy, we tend to use the word "stolen" for the reason it's more impactful than "illegal copy".

That makes absolutely no sense. If an item is stolen, this means that somebody had to steal it. The act of theft is known by terms such as stealing, thieving, wicksing, and filching. In other words there is no distinction per say between theft and stealing. That's like saying the law should have a distinction between murder with a bread knife from that of a carving knife.

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

That makes absolutely no sense. If an item is stolen, this means that somebody had to steal it. The act of theft is known by terms such as stealing, thieving, wicksing, and filching. In other words there is no distinction per say between theft and stealing. That's like saying the law should have a distinction between murder with a bread knife from that of a carving knife.

I think I was a bit unclear; what I meant was that when responding to pirates, we intentionally use incorrect language (calling it "theft" vs. calling it "copyright infringement") because "theft" is more threatening than "copyright infringement".

In other words, even though both myself and everyone that works at DBTech knows that copyright infringement is (in the eyes of the law) different from theft, we call it theft in order to produce a more serious response from the people we catch trying to waste our time. I brought this up in order to voice my understanding of your point that in common speech, the lines between infringement and theft is more blurred than they are in the eyes of the law.

Does that make more sense?

 

[Galadín]

I think I was a bit unclear; what I meant was that when responding to pirates, we intentionally use incorrect language (calling it "theft" vs. calling it "copyright infringement") because "theft" is more threatening than "copyright infringement".

In other words, even though both myself and everyone that works at DBTech knows that copyright infringement is (in the eyes of the law) different from theft, we call it theft in order to produce a more serious response from the people we catch trying to waste our time. I brought this up in order to voice my understanding of your point that in common speech, the lines between infringement and theft is more blurred than they are in the eyes of the law.

Does that make more sense?

This is not entirely true. The point that Kyreaan posed was about intellectual property theft, which was disputed by yourself as not being theft as there was no loss of income. My point was that using someone else's material is stealing even if there is no commercial loss. Copyright infringment is only an aspect of intellectual property theft.

Futhermore you stated that piracy is not the same as theft. The point Kyreaan and myself made was in light of intellectal property which applies to all creations of the mind (i.e. such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs).Through piracy the individual's exclusive rights to their own creations is deprived/ stolen from them, hence making piracy theft.

 

[Shaissa]

The problem with "piracy" or "intellectual property" or "online theft" is where does it start and end?

Let me give a few examples.

Could you say YouTubers do any of this?
They put songs on YouTube that aren't theirs. They put "Let's Plays" online that they don't have permission for. Movies, and even artwork... Everything. Do all these fall under anything above even if no one is really getting profit from it?

I remember when this became huge with Napster, they made the claim it was like letting friends burn the cd. People that distributed the music everywhere, didn't make money off it (Napster did, but the average person didn't.) Do you fine anyone that downloaded or distributed the music and didn't profit?

Todays day and age it's not so clear when "online theft" has occurred when no money was going around.

Just thought I'd add my two cents to this never ending debate

 

[Belazor et Britannia]

This is not entirely true. The point that Kyreaan posed was about intellectual property theft which was disputed by yourself as not being theft is there was no loss of income. My point was that using someone else's material is stealing even if there is no commercial loss. Copyright infringment is only an aspect of intellectual property theft.

What my point was that I believe there is a clear distinction between IP theft (which only applies to trade secrets, as per the Wiki entry) and copyright infringement. The reason why there is a difference is, like I said before, it's impossible to measure the loss of income as a result of copyright infringement. Theft (traditional sense of theft) and IP theft (trade secrets), is measurable.

All I wanted to accomplish with my OP was to demonstrate the legal difference between infringement and theft, as well as demonstrate that piracy doesn't equate a lost sale, and I feel like I have accomplished that

---
I want the content producing industry to wake up to the desires of their consumer base. Make piracy less attractive by offering cheap, instant downloads of TV shows in full HD the minute they air on the TV, with no region restrictions. Get together with other networks to create a complete directory of all your TV shows where you can pay to rent or pay to own and download to your system, in a format that works on all media players.

It's absolutely ridiculous how many hoops we have to jump through in order to play back media we've purchased. My desktop does not have a disc reader (optical drive), and neither will the laptop I'm buying next. In other words, it's impossible for me to play back the media I have purchased if I leave the room where my PS3 and PS4 is, never mind if I go on a holiday and have to spend hours on a train. I tried the "Ultraviolet" digital download service that comes with most Blu-Rays these days, but the quality you get is worse than DVD. Streaming services are not a feasible alternative, because not only is my internet connection incapable of handling streaming a movie, but this would not solve the problem of being able to play back the movie on the go.

Why is downloading movies the only method I have of watching movies outside of my living room? Is there a single legitimate reason for why this is the case? No, there isn't. The movie industry is just that far behind the times, and that annoys me to no end.

This is why I download movies and TV shows. Downloading allows me to organise the media and play it back how I want, not how they deem it suitable for me to play it back. If it's a movie I really enjoy, I'll buy it anyway and just leave it on my shelf instead.

Do I think this is right? No
Do I feel justified? Not really
Do I wish there was a legitimate alternative? Definitely

 

[Galadín]

What my point was that I believe there is a clear distinction between IP theft (which only applies to trade secrets, as per the Wiki entry) and copyright infringement. The reason why there is a difference is, like I said before, it's impossible to measure the loss of income as a result of copyright infringement. Theft (traditional sense of theft) and IP theft (trade secrets), is measurable.

All I wanted to accomplish with my OP was to demonstrate the legal difference between infringement and theft, as well as demonstrate that piracy doesn't equate a lost sale, and I feel like I have accomplished that

That's all well and good that you feel that way, but honestly, how many times do I need to say that theft of intellectual property rights is the stealing of a person's right and has nothing specifically to do with commercial loss; it has nothing to do with money!
Copyright infringement pretty much suffers the same way in wake of piracy.

---
I want the content producing industry to wake up to the desires of their consumer base. Make piracy less attractive by offering cheap, instant downloads of TV shows in full HD the minute they air on the TV, with no region restrictions. Get together with other networks to create a complete directory of all your TV shows where you can pay to rent or pay to own and download to your system, in a format that works on all media players.

It's absolutely ridiculous how many hoops we have to jump through in order to play back media we've purchased. My desktop does not have a disc reader (optical drive), and neither will the laptop I'm buying next. In other words, it's impossible for me to play back the media I have purchased if I leave the room where my PS3 and PS4 is, never mind if I go on a holiday and have to spend hours on a train. I tried the "Ultraviolet" digital download service that comes with most Blu-Rays these days, but the quality you get is worse than DVD. Streaming services are not a feasible alternative, because not only is my internet connection incapable of handling streaming a movie, but this would not solve the problem of being able to play back the movie on the go.

Why is downloading movies the only method I have of watching movies outside of my living room? Is there a single legitimate reason for why this is the case? No, there isn't. The movie industry is just that far behind the times, and that annoys me to no end.

This is why I download movies and TV shows. Downloading allows me to organise the media and play it back how I want, not how they deem it suitable for me to play it back. If it's a movie I really enjoy, I'll buy it anyway and just leave it on my shelf instead.

Do I think this is right? No
Do I feel justified? Not really
Do I wish there was a legitimate alternative? Definitely

You could just buy a portable DVD player if your laptop doesn't play DVDs. Or maybe, well, I don't know, get a Blu Ray Drive for your PC? As primitive as the movie industry may seem to you, many people have found feasible and legal ways to enjoy their favourite programmes and films.

 

[Galadín]

The problem with "piracy" or "intellectual property" or "online theft" is where does it start and end?

Let me give a few examples.

Could you say YouTubers do any of this?
They put songs on YouTube that aren't theirs. They put "Let's Plays" online that they don't have permission for. Movies, and even artwork... Everything. Do all these fall under anything above even if no one is really getting profit from it?

I remember when this became huge with Napster, they made the claim it was like letting friends burn the cd. People that distributed the music everywhere, didn't make money off it (Napster did, but the average person didn't.) Do you fine anyone that downloaded or distributed the music and didn't profit?

Todays day and age it's not so clear when "online theft" has occurred when no money was going around.

Just thought I'd add my two cents to this never ending debate

To answer your question, YouTubers, if they haven't obtained prior permission are indeed infringing copyright if they use material in their videos that doesn't belong to them. We all do it, and even though the vast majority of us aren't making money from it, we are still broadcasting material without the consent of the creator hence also inhibiting another to exercise their rights. It's wrong pure and simple but it's a judgement call for all and for many it just boils down to the chances of being caught.