UK's Terrifying Anti-Piracy Plans Leak

[Apokalipse]

Is it stealing? Yes, even though nothing physical has changed hands.

Elaborate. How is it stealing?

The old "1's and 0's" argument means nothing.

I think the argument that making a copy is stealing is meaningless.

Copyrights, while pushed tot he absurd in some case (iBS, anyone?), exist for a very good reason: to protect that which someone creates. It doesn't matter what the copyright or patent in on except in the case of the ridiculous, like trying to copyright the sandwich or some other idiocy.

Even if the intent is good, copyrights are definitely not used in a good manner.
The original intent is to prevent giants from crushing the little guy if the little guy has an idea he wants to sell.
but when it's the giants holding the copyrights/patents (which is most of the time), they only have the opposite effect (for example, Intel and their x86 patent, or the RIAA/MPAA who hold the rights that the artists don't have.)

Like I've said before, typically the actual creators of the content aren't even the ones holding the rights anyway. They're simply paid a small fraction of the actual profits - or even a fixed amount, while the suits make the real profit.
And I don't have any problem with the suits not getting my money. I mean, do they really deserve it?

Basically, downloading a game or song that has not been freely distributed by the author/owner is illegal. whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't matter.

If a government wants to impose a law that doesn't make sense, they'd better be ready to actually enforce it.
If enough people disagree with a law, or the way it is implemented, they'll probably find ways around it - as is the case with the distribution of software. I mean, you can't stop people copying software. You'd need to arrest most of the world's population.

 

[Trotter]

Elaborate. How is it stealing?

Unless the material is open and to be freely distributed, copying it is theft. It doesn't matter f you like it, or if you agree with it. It is taking the fruits of another's labor against their wishes. The property may not be physical, but it is property nonetheless.

I think the argument that making a copy is stealing is meaningless.

Again, what you think doesn't matter. If it were your intellectual property that was being copied/pirated, thereby cutting you out of what money you would have made from it, you would see it as stealing. But, because piracy is a victimless crime (it has a victim even though you don't see them), it is so easy to dismiss it as a crime at all. Sure the record companies and game developers make insane amounts of money... but that doesn't mitigate the fact that piracy is still breaking the law.

Even if the intent is good, copyrights are definitely not used in a good manner.
The original intent is to prevent giants from crushing the little guy if the little guy has an idea he wants to sell.
but when it's the giants holding the copyrights/patents (which is most of the time), they only have the opposite effect (for example, Intel and their x86 patent, or the RIAA/MPAA who hold the rights that the artists don't have.)

Like I've said before, typically the actual creators of the content aren't even the ones holding the rights anyway. They're simply paid a small fraction of the actual profits - or even a fixed amount, while the suits make the real profit.
And I don't have any problem with the suits not getting my money. I mean, do they really deserve it?

"Fair" and "deserves" don't mean anything here. The system is there (and it does work) even if it is abused by some. The holder of the copyright, whether the creator or a company, is still the legal owner(s) of that property. It does not matter if the owner(s) are a suit, a kid, or Santa Claus as they are still the legal owners and are entitled to be compensated for their wares.

I plant a garden each year on my property. I weed it, I water it, and I fertilize it. Nature makes it grow. Come harvest time I expect to have the produce I have worked so hard to help along. If someone else comes in and decides that since nature did the growing and nature is free to all and proceeds to take the vegetables, I will be furious and will take action (legal or vigilante). Why? The vegetables were grown on my land. I am entitled to them because of my ownership. Although nature did what nature does, I own the land and have put in the time and effort to make the garden a success.

If a government wants to impose a law that doesn't make sense, they'd better be ready to actually enforce it.
If enough people disagree with a law, or the way it is implemented, they'll probably find ways around it - as is the case with the distribution of software. I mean, you can't stop people copying software. You'd need to arrest most of the world's population.

The law does make perfect sense. The fact that you don't agree with it is the issue.

The governments are ready to enforce the laws but everyone is up in arms about how the government is going to go about finding who is breaking the laws and I am among this group. I value my privacy and will not surrender it willingly to anyone.

Yes, people will find ways around it, and then the government will go after that, and then people will find another way, and the circle will continue.

 

[Apokalipse]

Unless the material is open and to be freely distributed, copying it is theft. It doesn't matter f you like it, or if you agree with it. It is taking the fruits of another's labor against their wishes. The property may not be physical, but it is property nonetheless.

Under what definitions?

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to argue labels here. I'm doing exactly the opposite; pointing out the difference between separate ideas which people often assign the same label to.

There is a huge difference between copying (causing no material loss in the original source) and taking (causing a material loss in the source), irrespective of what labels they do or don't apply to.

If you want to define a word in such a manner that includes multiple meanings, so be it. But it still doesn't make the meanings synonymous. And it usually only serves to make that word less useful or too ambiguous.

Again, what you think doesn't matter.

As long as my thinking affects my actions, I am pretty sure it does.

If it were your intellectual property that was being copied/pirated, thereby cutting you out of what money you would have made from it, you would see it as stealing.

Actually I wouldn't.
And people copying something doesn't mean I'm being cut out of money people weren't willing to pay anyway.
If people are copying it without payment, that would simply mean they don't agree with the terms with which I were trying to impose.
The solution then, lies in changing the terms, and allowing people to have a say in what those terms are. And I would let them.

But, because piracy is a victimless crime (it has a victim even though you don't see them), it is so easy to dismiss it as a crime at all. Sure the record companies and game developers make insane amounts of money... but that doesn't mitigate the fact that piracy is still breaking the law.

The law is an arbitrary set of rules, which may or may not make sense.
Obviously you'd hope that they do. But if they don't, then it's silly to expect people to abide by them.

"Fair" and "deserves" don't mean anything here. The system is there (and it does work) even if it is abused by some. The holder of the copyright, whether the creator or a company, is still the legal owner(s) of that property. It does not matter if the owner(s) are a suit, a kid, or Santa Claus as they are still the legal owners and are entitled to be compensated for their wares.

People are only entitled to whatever the market is willing to pay, and on terms people are willing to agree with. Systems of government or law only have as much power as people give them.

I plant a garden each year on my property. I weed it, I water it, and I fertilize it. Nature makes it grow. Come harvest time I expect to have the produce I have worked so hard to help along. If someone else comes in and decides that since nature did the growing and nature is free to all and proceeds to take the vegetables, I will be furious and will take action (legal or vigilante). Why?

Because their actions caused an actual, physical loss for you.

The law does make perfect sense.

If it did, then I would think better arguments could be made to support it.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

wait wait wait...WAIT. So all you're arguing is that, using the technical definition of the word, it is currently incorrect to say 'you STOLE that software'? e.g. the same as saying 'I'm RIGHTER than you' would also be incorrect?

From what I gather from your posts you also do acknowledge that copying software without the creators consent is illegal, however you don't agree with this as the current laws do not benefit the actual creators much at all. Am I right?

 

[Apokalipse]

wait wait wait...WAIT. So all you're arguing is that, using the technical definition of the word, it is currently incorrect to say 'you STOLE that software'? e.g. the same as saying 'I'm RIGHTER than you' would also be incorrect?

No, it most certainly is not all I'm arguing. If anything, I despise ambiguous definitions - hence why I've done what I can to clear up the argument such that it is about the meanings and not the labels.
My argument is that the meaning typically used behind the word 'stole' is a different meaning to copying software. The use of labels in the context of my argument is simply a method of expressing that - nothing more.

From what I gather from your posts you also do acknowledge that copying software without the creators consent is illegal, however you don't agree with this as the current laws do not benefit the actual creators much at all. Am I right?

Nor the consumer.
The system could be set-up in much better ways which benefit both the creators and consumers a lot more than the system we have now.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

ok kwl, just thought I'd clear that up

I agree the system is faulty, but as it was made by humans (who aren't perfect) that's really not such a big surprise. Yes it could be better, yes there are wrong decisions made because of it. However the fact remains we'd be a lot worse off without it.

Unfortunately, the way these systems work mean you can't accept one part of the system and completely disregard another part. Otherwise there may as well be no system at all. If you follow one part you must follow the others. You don't have to like it, but it's what's required to live in the country running the system.

You can try to change the rules, or move to a different country or state where the rules are already different, but surely you can see that following only parts of the law you like cannot work.

 

[Trotter]

There is a huge difference between copying (causing no material loss in the original source) and taking (causing a material loss in the source), irrespective of what labels they do or don't apply to.

If you want to define a word in such a manner that includes multiple meanings, so be it. But it still doesn't make the meanings synonymous. And it usually only serves to make that word less useful or too ambiguous.

So drop the word "steal"... you still have an illegal act. It doesn't matter if you agree with a law or not, as telling a judge that you don't agree with a law will get you no leniency whatsoever. Breaking a law is breaking a law, no matter what that law is. you can argue in circles all day long but that will not change that one immutable fact.

The law is an arbitrary set of rules, which may or may not make sense.
Obviously you'd hope that they do. But if they don't, then it's silly to expect people to abide by them.

Silly? Not at all. There are many laws I don't agree with, such as speed limits set way too low or not being allowed to go through a red light if there is no traffic. while I don't agree with them, I must still abide by them.

If everyone decided to stop abiding by the laws of the land and just do whatever they saw fit in their own eyes it would soon break down into pandemonium. Oh, I wouldn't, and most others wouldn't, but there would be a few who would cast aside all restraint and wreak havoc. It is these few that are the cause for the majority of the laws on the books.

If people are copying it without payment, that would simply mean they don't agree with the terms with which I were trying to impose.
The solution then, lies in changing the terms, and allowing people to have a say in what those terms are. And I would let them.

Terms don't mean jack. Don't you get that? If a person can acquire said software/song without paying, they will. A few will go back and buy it to support the one who made it, but the majority won't. Changing the terms won't change that fact.

People are only entitled to whatever the market is willing to pay, and on terms people are willing to agree with. Systems of government or law only have as much power as people give them.

This should be true, but it is not a lot of the time. Take a look at the prices of new drugs sometimes and you'll see that. You either meet the price or you do without. The same goes for anything else. If you can't afford it, or won't pay that much, you don't buy it. you do without it ad the owner does without the money.

Because their actions caused an actual, physical loss for you.

I so wish you would get that bug out of your anus. Illegal is illegal, whether there is a PHYSICAL LOSS OR NOT. Hiding in a geek ivory tower is no defense in the real world. You can preach this all you want but Bubba will still wallow out your pooper in the slammer for it.

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

I will agree that it is illegial to download content with out paying, but, what about people that purchase a game, such as me, that requires steam? Sure, I paid the price for the game, so shouldn't I atleast, in a way be allowed to download the game so I have a virtual format, wheather it breaks the security on the original or not? Something needs to ATLEAST be done about DRM, because, even though 100% of the country has "broadband" nearly 60% are still dial up. That is due to the studies being done are factoring in satelite internet. (See my discussion in the modern warfare thread to get the idea)

 

[Trotter]

Actually owning a game and then downloading a cracked version of it is a murky area. I don't see that as being illegal in and of itself, but if you were sharing it while downloading it would be.

 

[C0RR0SIVE]

Well, I know blizzard has stated that virtual copies of there games are now ok, and legit, and they even offer virtual downloads and a no cd patch for all there big games. I know that you are legialy allowed to make one back up of each CD you own, as long as you have the CD, and all materials.