UK's Terrifying Anti-Piracy Plans Leak

[S0ULphIRE]

It's stupid to say just because nothing physical is being stolen that it's somehow justified. Owning a piece of software is just the same as owning a piece of hardware. Both can be stolen, and both have rightful owners. It's also stupid to say you're just 'copying' the information. That's the same as stealing it.

However I definitely don't think this plan is the right way to go, it'd be like throwing out anyone who walked into a shop who looked 'suspicious'.

Yes, there should be jail time for people convicted of pirating software. Don't bring in other issues like meth, just look at it as a standalone issue.

 

[Apokalipse]

It's stupid to say just because nothing physical is being stolen that it's somehow justified. Owning a piece of software is just the same as owning a piece of hardware.

In what way is it the same?

Both can be stolen

Stolen implies that something goes missing from a person's posession.

and both have rightful owners.

see:

The concept of ownership of information is a relatively new one in human history. And it's rather arbitrary to say that it's wrong for us to copy it.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

In what way is it the same?

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it is impossible to steal software as you cannot touch it.

Stolen implies that something goes missing from a person's posession.

Exactly. Let's say I've pirated borderlands. The game is the intellectual property of its creators. They allow other people to create copies ON THE CONDITION that they are compensated.
I have the game, but they have no money from me. Therefore it can be said that the money I legally owe them is missing from their possession I purposely and with conscious forethought copied the game without giving them said money, the same as if I was stealing a toaster.

 

[Apokalipse]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that it is impossible to steal software as you cannot touch it.

The only way to actually steal software would be to transfer it to your own storage while removing it from theirs.
Merely reading something and copying the information is not stealing.

Also, what do you think is one of the most basic functions of the human brain? memory.
If I remember something, that means I'm making a copy of that information and storing it in a storage medium composed of neurons and electrical pathways. It's a basic function of the human brain to copy information. And some people are attempting to arbitrarily define that function as being wrong.

Exactly. Let's say I've pirated borderlands. The game is the intellectual property of its creators.

"intellectual property" is an intellectually dishonest concept.

They allow other people to create copies ON THE CONDITION that they are compensated.

First of all, they do a lot more than that. They attempt to force you to agree to a multitude of terms and conditions on top of you actually handing money to them.
Second of all, it's much more sensible to suggest that you're paying them for their time and effort, and not the information itself. Because information is intangible and priceless - information doesn't physically exist, at least under the scientist's definition of existence.

But the biggest problem is that the industries in place are all too often set up in such a manner that the creators of the information aren't even the ones holding the rights, and aren't the ones where most of the 'compensation' get paid.

No, it's the glorified middlemen who guard those doors and hold those keys - and at the same time, they are the ones who try to dictate exactly by who and how the information can be used. They won't negotiate on terms or price. And that is a problem.

The only option for people who don't agree with the terms, price, or the fact that it's these middlemen who are trying to control it all - is to take your own initiative and copy it on your terms.
Is it our fault that the legal system doesn't want to allow us normal people to have a say on the terms of how information should or shouldn't be used?

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

Exactly. Let's say I've pirated borderlands. The game is the intellectual property of its creators. They allow other people to create copies ON THE CONDITION that they are compensated.
I have the game, but they have no money from me. Therefore it can be said that the money I legally owe them is missing from their possession I purposely and with conscious forethought copied the game without giving them said money, the same as if I was stealing a toaster.

This is, in somewhat true, but there are also costs that shouldn't be factored in, such as the cost of the materials that are physical, shipping, advertisments, and so on. But in the end, these companies are factoring in random figures to bring out incredibly un-realistic values in the software and music that is pirated.

 

[Apokalipse]

This is, in somewhat true, but there are also costs that shouldn't be factored in, such as the cost of the materials that are physical, shipping, advertisments, and so on. But in the end, these companies are factoring in random figures to bring out incredibly un-realistic values in the software and music that is pirated.

Basically, arbitrarily imposing non-negotiable terms and conditions in the use of intangible and priceless commodities.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

So what's the root of your argument? That when you download the latest game or movie release you're not stealing it? You can sugar coat it all you want, but saying "I'm not stealing, I'm copying it on my own terms" just doesn't work.

I understand what you're saying about removing their copy of the software and taking it yourself. Try thinking about it this way:
There is a company called XYZ which has an infinite amount of cd's. If you take one of them they don't have any less than they started with, but they suddenly are missing the money they would have earned from the sale of that disk.
It does not matter that they have not in effect 'lost' any cd's, you still have it and it used to be theirs. You did not purchase it from them, therefore you must have stolen it.

The same principal applies to software. They have infinite copies of the software, so when you 'take' a copy they don't lose it. However you've still suddenly got a copy of the software that used to be theirs, and you didn't purchase it. In my book, that's stealing.

 

[Apokalipse]

So what's the root of your argument?

My argument is that the arguments made by the people against copying don't work.

That when you download the latest game or movie release you're not stealing it?

Yes, copying isn't stealing.

You can sugar coat it all you want, but saying "I'm not stealing, I'm copying it on my own terms" just doesn't work.

Elaborate.

1. What's your argument to justify the way in which middlemen profit from other people's work?
2. What's your argument to validate the idea that making a copy of information is somehow stealing?

I understand what you're saying about removing their copy of the software and taking it yourself. Try thinking about it this way:
There is a company called XYZ which has an infinite amount of cd's. If you take one of them they don't have any less than they started with, but they suddenly are missing the money they would have earned from the sale of that disk.

No they're not. They're only missing money if they had it in their posession to begin with, and then I took it from them.
Also, who says that people would have payed for it if they could not copy it?

I would posit that at the very least, people would not pay as much as the glorified middlemen charge for it if they had the option to have their input into the terms and conditions.
But then, I wouldn't give any money to the glorified middlemen if I had the option. I'd rather it go to the people who actually had a part in the creation of information - for their time and effort, mind you; not for the information itself.

Unfortunately the legal system doesn't allow that. So what are our options?

It does not matter that they have not in effect 'lost' any cd's, you still have it and it used to be theirs. You did not purchase it from them, therefore you must have stolen it.

Your analogy is still flawed in that you're attempting to compare it to a tangible, physical item that can be physically removed from somebody's posession.
Copying information is not the same as removing something from somebody's posession, no matter how you look at it.

The same principal applies to software. They have infinite copies of the software, so when you produce a copy they don't lose it. However you've still suddenly got a copy of the software that used to be theirs

'used to be theirs' doesn't make sense. 'used to' implies past tense; in the context that they no-longer have the information in question, which simply isn't true.

I'd like to posit my own example of copying information:
A person tells a joke to somebody. That other person remembers the joke.
What's actually happened here? You had one person storing information, and then you suddenly have two people storing the same information.
Is the original person somehow losing something because another person now stores the same information?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

I'd like to posit my own example of copying information:
A person tells a joke to somebody. That other person remembers the joke.
What's actually happened here? You had one person storing information, and then you suddenly have two people storing the same information.
Is the original person somehow losing something because another person now stores the same information?

Lets also assume that he has a sign next to him which reads 'if you ask me to tell you a joke and I do, you agree to pay me for it', and that nobody else in the worlds knows this particular joke.

After hearing the joke, you remember it and don't pay him. By doing this you are...
a. robbing him of immediate gain
b. robbing him of future gain if you then share that joke around for free (e.g. on on thepiratebay)

Property does not have to be physical. Yes in the traditional sense, you cannot 'steal' something and at the same time not remove it from the others possession. Software is a very recent advancement, and it sounds as if you are unwilling to acknowledge that ownership can be placed on it. You see yourself as completely innocent of any crime by copying a piece of software.

Whatever your viewpoint and however much you hate the 'glorified middleman' (Lol, you say that a lot btw) you have to agree with this:

Given that many people DO view the illegal copying of software as 'stealing', new laws or definitions will soon be put into place explicitly defining the grey areas around the distribution of software. Whether or not they end up calling illegal downloading 'stealing' or something else, I guarantee it will be classed as an illegal activity.

 

[Apokalipse]

After hearing the joke, you remember it and don't pay him. By doing this you are...
a. robbing him of immediate gain
b. robbing him of future gain if you then share that joke around for free (e.g. on on thepiratebay)

You keep saying this, but how do you make that connection? what is the logic behind it?
I only see
1. premise
2. conclusion

It should be:
1. premise
2. logic
3. conclusion