I'm not sure where you're from Ragdrazi, but where I'm from, patronising people and calling them myopic is not being respectful.

To address the points you raised, firstly, on European libraries being charged a fee for taking books out, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You see it as the library being penalised, I see it as people being fairly paid.

Your second point however, while not truly deceitful, is a lie by omission. To paraphrase the law you quoted, libraries in the US may indeed make and distribute copies of copyrighted works. Specifically, they may make one copy for lending purposes and it must carry a copyright notice in the front. They may also make up to three copies for security purposes and up to three copies to replace an deteriorating work, or an obsolete format.

They are expressly forbidden from distributing copies for any kind of direct or indirect financial gain, and if a digital copy is made of a work, they are expressly forbidden from distributing it outside of a lending environment.

I'm not sure what you were trying to do there Ragdrazi. Did you think I wouldn't check?

Morderkaine:
the only thing that company loses is the CHANCE to POSSIBLY sell that game to me, a chance they may never have had in the first place.

This is simply not true. Although I agree with the rest of the post.

What stops you from buying the software that you pirated? Nothing. They don't even loose the chance to sell it. I own 3 legal copies of C&C Generals, even though the first copy I ever had was a pirated one. People buy stuff after they pirated it. People go to see concerts of bands they pirated music from, they buy their cds, they buy games which they pirated.

So actually piracy in a way is beneficial for the company.

But why do we have a problem with piracy? People abuse it. Simple as that.

Ragdrazi:

SteveDave:
You are breaking copyright laws no matter how you put it. Turn yourself in and see if your bullshit argument holds up in court. If it so fantastic then you should have no problem getting off. Torrents do not have authorization to distribute and you can not compare them to libraries because of the fact that libraries have been authorized to distribute and you don't return the things you steal through torrents. Again, you are a thief and a bain on the economy and I have no respect for you as I have no respect for someone who shoplifts.

You know, I'm picturing you right now. Picturing you. You live in Boston. And you're on a wharf right now. Well, not ~right now~... more like, two hundred and thirty-five years ago. I see you waving your arms over your head, and you've got this high squeaky voice going "No! No! Don't throw that tea into the harbor! That's so bad and wrong and stuff! You're a bane on our colonial economy. I really like the word bane! Like way too much!"

See, Steve, we had this problem nationally with bumping up against laws that weren't right. So, we understood that law is not always correct. We also believed law should be made more correct. Should be pushed in that direction. That was meant to be a part and parcel of participatory democracy. Law has to be tested, it has to be questioned, and if it fails it has to be fought. And that's... well... it's a lot of fun throwing tea out.

You are not revolutionary. You steal from the owners of the intellectual property just like the British stole from the colonials through heavy taxation. The first copyright laws were enacted in 1787 and have been tested throughout our history. Again use you bullshit argument in court and see if it stands. You say the law is unjust and should be brought down, well see if the judicial system agrees.

You are a fucking bane on society, so go to jail or get a job. Capatilism is great and it is people like you that impead its progress and hurt prosperity.

Well apparently 1992 was the year a law was passed that allowed artists fair payment for their lending rights. That's what changed. I don't see this as infringing on my freedom and you're not going to change my mind on this, just I'm not going to change yours.

Incidentally, they don't let libraries break the law at all. There are provisions under the law to accommodate libraries and those provisions are very specific.

Morderkaine:

A definition of theft : The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

This is a *spectacularly* poor definition of theft, btw, especially since only GRAND theft is FELONIOUS. A much better, simpler, and more comprehensive definition would be:

Obtaining property without the consent of the owner.

Simple. It doesn't matter whether the act is felonious. It doesn't matter whether it's "personal" property or property owned by a group of people. It doesn't matter what you intend to use it for or whether you're trying to "deprive" the original owner of the property.

This thread = pointless.

Ragdrazi:

nilcypher:
Well apparently 1992 was the year a law was passed that allowed artists fair payment for their lending rights. That's what changed. I don't see this as infringing on my freedom and you're not going to change my mind on this, just I'm not going to change yours.

Incidentally, they don't let libraries break the law at all. There are provisions under the law to accommodate libraries and those provisions are very specific.

I see, so that's what changed. Nothing about the ideas those generations of people had before 1992 changed. Your answer is a new law got passed, the end. Throw up our hands, law's always right. Ok, that's the sort of thoughtless attitude I've gotten from this thread. I was just expecting a little more depth from you.

And incidentally... yes, I'm quite aware. When I say they are "allowed" to break the law, of course what I mean is that their are provisions giving them exemptions. Exemptions a torrent user doesn't get. And of course I was asking what made libraries different, and the answer I'm getting is "because." Ok.

This is getting a little depressing.

Ragdrazi, you jump to conclusions so fast that I'm beginning to think you're part frog. When have I said that the law is always right? Nowhere. However in this case, I think the law was right. How do authors make a living? The answer is, by selling books. If people aren't buying books because they are borrowing them from the library, I think it's fair that the author should receive some payment for that.

Libraries differ from torrents, wait, let's be more specific here. Libraries differ from illegal torrents in intent. A library is a place where you can borrow a book, read it and then give it back. A torrent is a place where you can take something that you haven't paid for and never give it back, ever. The only similarity is that no money has changed hands in either case.

Can you see the difference, or am I wasting my breath?

Ragdrazi, you're an idealist, and that is an admirable trait, but I don't agree with your ideals. Libraries are not actually free, the cost is merely obfuscated in taxes. The only way your ideal can stand up is that if every book and every library had been donated by well-meaning philanthropists and every librarian worked for free. We pay for libraries and there is no way to dispute that.

Yes, a library will let you renew a book over and over, but you have to actually renew it. It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

nilcypher:
It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

BallPtPenTheif:

nilcypher:
It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

On the contrary. You take retail sales from stores and in turn from developers and publishers.

You are taking the registered rights of a game and using or redistributing that game illegally, That is deemed stealing by the United State congress.

Its not about the Data you idiot, its about the copy rights, and if you take and redistribute without contract from the copy right holders, that is STEALING.

Granted Copy Right laws are not the same in all nations sadly, but here in America taking Copy Righted data illegally is stealing.

The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

You are removing the personal property(the copy rights of the game), with intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.(if you are downloading unintentionally, I would like to see that, I don't think you can do that, whole point of torrents is to steal data. Not to mention ignorance is not above the law.)

man friend's friend got busted by the fbi because he downloaded mad movies and posted them on the internet. the feds were just like, dont do it again

you say that the company doesn't lose anything physically so it isn't stealing? How about the fact that by downloading songs, movies or games makes the company loses the money that they would have made if it was bought legally. Also don't say that the company doesn't need the money because since we are currently in a recession they need all that money and many companies have been forced to lay off employees, EA had to fire 6% of its employees because of losses.

I think renewing a book matters a lot. It is basically you saying to the library, "is it ok if I hang on to this for a little bit longer?" Essentially, it is courteous.

Here's the thing though, I agree with you regarding the cost benefits and efficiency of torrents, provided the works are public domain. I'd love to download the complete works of Shakespeare, and a torrent seems the idea way of doing that. But crucially, no one would lose out there. I think the reason we are having this discussion is that we essentially have different ideas about what is fair.

btw the reason why libraries are different to torrents is because everyone should have a right to literature as literacy is important in the development of a countries economy

What I've learned from these huge arguements: In America so long as you don't download and upload $1000 worth of stuff within six months your fine. Canada is safe, parts of Europe are safe. I'm not sure about details in Europe. In my opinion its not theft, it costs $0 to replace a pirated copy of a product, and unless the original is stolen they make money off that copy, theres no money lost. Its not theft.

nilcypher:

BallPtPenTheif:

nilcypher:
It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

On the contrary. You take retail sales from stores and in turn from developers and publishers.

Literally, no. You are not literally taking a real world sale, and transfering the funds from the store and developer. Have you seen the music industries estimates of money lost due to music piracy? Their figures are in the billions with a bloated cost of $1 per song. In reality though, that theoretical money never existed in the real world economy. Just because someone steals $1,000 in software doesn't actually mean that they ever had $1,000. So the estimated loss is only theoretical and actually bares no real world relevance.

BallPtPenTheif:

nilcypher:

BallPtPenTheif:

nilcypher:
It again comes back to intent, a library book is something you borrow, a file from a torrent is something you take.

Ah ah ah...

Something that you copy. Nobody is taking anything, the file still remains at its initial location.

... and the circle continues.

On the contrary. You take retail sales from stores and in turn from developers and publishers.

Literally, no. You are not literally taking a real world sale, and transfering the funds from the store and developer. Have you seen the music industries estimates of money lost due to music piracy? Their figures are in the billions with a bloated cost of $1 per song. In reality though, that theoretical money never existed in the real world economy. Just because someone steals $1,000 in software doesn't actually mean that they ever had $1,000. So the estimated loss is only theoretical and actually bares no real world relevance.

If someone were to steal $1000 of software, that is $1000 of software they will not buy, that is $1000 dollars that a retailer will not get, and a developer will not get some portion of.

Imagine if a game was pirated 100%. If we follow your argument, aside from the cost of development, no one loses any money, because that money never existed in the real world economy. But that isn't true is it? If nothing gets sold, no one makes any money.

nilcypher:
Here's the thing though, I agree with you regarding the cost benefits and efficiency of torrents, provided the works are public domain. I'd love to download the complete works of Shakespeare, and a torrent seems the idea way of doing that. But crucially, no one would lose out there. I think the reason we are having this discussion is that we essentially have different ideas about what is fair.

What about the many, many permutations of "Complete Works of Shakespeare" doorstops? Or even the works published individually?

With public domain material there'd still be the issue that someone is not getting money they could potentially gain if not for torrents. That is to say, a person might be interested in Shakespeare, but not enough to buy a copy of his works or visit a library.

Molikroth:

nilcypher:
Here's the thing though, I agree with you regarding the cost benefits and efficiency of torrents, provided the works are public domain. I'd love to download the complete works of Shakespeare, and a torrent seems the idea way of doing that. But crucially, no one would lose out there. I think the reason we are having this discussion is that we essentially have different ideas about what is fair.

What about the many, many permutations of "Complete Works of Shakespeare" doorstops? Or even the works published individually?

With public domain material there'd still be the issue that someone is not getting money they could potentially gain if not for torrents. That is to say, a person might be interested in Shakespeare, but not enough to buy a copy of his works or visit a library.

I'm a little confused here. Are you saying that easy access to public domain works is bad, or are you trying to poke holes in my argument?

JMeganSnow:

Morderkaine:

A definition of theft : The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same.

This is a *spectacularly* poor definition of theft, btw, especially since only GRAND theft is FELONIOUS. A much better, simpler, and more comprehensive definition would be:

Obtaining property without the consent of the owner.

Simple. It doesn't matter whether the act is felonious. It doesn't matter whether it's "personal" property or property owned by a group of people. It doesn't matter what you intend to use it for or whether you're trying to "deprive" the original owner of the property.

This thread = pointless.

You're taking one key thing for granted: that the thing being taken is a form of property.

In some ways, "intellectual property" is like good ol' thing-you-hold-in-your-hand property.
In other ways, it's not.

For now, it's mostly expedient to treat "intellectual property" as something that's mostly like vanilla property, because that's what our legal and economic systems are best able to handle. Over time, though -- especially as we crank out more and more and more "intellectual property" but keep passing Mickey Mouse Protection Acts to extend the copyright term -- I don't think the current system of artificially transforming non-rivalrous goods into rivalrous ones is efficient or even tenable.

In short, I think of copyrights and patents as a sucky kludge that allows people to be rewarded for their efforts in developing an idea. Keeping them around forever as-is would be a mistake. Tightening them up to the extent that the reward that you get for your efforts is a special dictatorship over your idea and the ability to exercise absolute control over how it's used and collect license fees from everyone around you isn't actually going to do any good, either. We really need a system that focused on rewarding the effort (based on productive effort and not just exertion, of course) rather than property-izing the idea.

So, if you're not taking property, are you stealing?
Given that right now "IP" is kinda-property I'd say that unauthorized copying and distribution is at least... kinda-stealing.
I'm not comfortable completely equating the two because that feels like actually backsliding to a more naive economic and social model, to me.

-- Alex

Alex_P:
You're taking one key thing for granted: that the thing being taken is a form of property.

In some ways, "intellectual property" is like good ol' thing-you-hold-in-your-hand property.
In other ways, it's not.

It is property: anything that requires someone's investment of time and effort is property. That's what distinguishes property from, say, a rock that you found on the ground-the process of making it *valuable*. Saying that it's *not* property is equivalent to saying that it required no time or effort to produce. Video games aren't a naturally-occurring phenomenon, thus they are property.

Now, I'm fully in agreement that intellectual property is *not the same* as most physical property, but there are *lots* of types of property that are like this. Broadcast frequencies, for instance. Distinct rules for each type of property that protect the rights of *everyone* involved are vitally important, but it just doesn't work to say "this is hard because it's not like swapping carrots, so we're going to abandon the entire idea".

I'm aware that current IP laws and the way they're enforced tend to be stupid, but this is because government policy nowadays is based on getting the loudest complainers to shut up, not on any type of rational process.

Not to mention the fact that the current argument is ALSO between, on the one side, a group of paranoid producers and on the other side, a group of hippie communist parasites who want everything for free. The discussion SHOULD be taking place between the producers (who can be hopefully convinced to be less paranoid), and OTHER PRODUCERS who either buy their products or compete with them in a variety of ways. A discussion between a semi-wrong side and a totally wrong side is going to favor the semi-wrong side even if they're pathological idiots. A discussion between a bunch of people who *all* have rights is going to favor a rational and equitable solution.

This is why I favor kicking anyone who pirates for any so-called reason out of the discussion altogether--they are ruining things for everyone.

JMeganSnow:
It is property: anything that requires someone's investment of time and effort is property. That's what distinguishes property from, say, a rock that you found on the ground-the process of making it *valuable*. Saying that it's *not* property is equivalent to saying that it required no time or effort to produce. Video games aren't a naturally-occurring phenomenon, thus they are property.

Now, I'm fully in agreement that intellectual property is *not the same* as most physical property, but there are *lots* of types of property that are like this. Broadcast frequencies, for instance. Distinct rules for each type of property that protect the rights of *everyone* involved are vitally important, but it just doesn't work to say "this is hard because it's not like swapping carrots, so we're going to abandon the entire idea".

I don't think effort alone makes property. Scarcity influences value just as much as effort does.

I don't consider spectrum to be property.

-- Alex

Alex_P:
I don't think effort alone makes property. Scarcity influences value just as much as effort does.

I don't consider spectrum to be property.

What the heck is "spectrum" in this context?

Effort is what determines whether something is property qua property, not the *value* of that property. Quite a lot of property is basically worthless or unsalable, but that doesn't mean that you don't own it.

Think of it this way: suppose you're alone in the wilderness. You gather berries and roots and hunt a few animals to stay alive. Then suppose one day, while you're carrying a haunch of deer and a sack of yams back to your camp, you meet another person. What operating principle would dictate that the yams that *you* dug up and the deer that *you* killed belong to *you*? You invested effort in claiming them and turning them to your purposes.

All assignment of property *rights* ultimately works using this same principle, it just gets progressively more complicated as you progress from "I found it and killed it" to "I cleared the field and dug out the rocks and planted the seeds and weeded and harvested" (which is when land property rights must be organized) to "I built the irrigation system" (water rights) to "I invented a pump" (intellectual property rights). The foundational principle for *how you lay claim to property* is identical even though the way that particular right is exercised may be vastly different.

The primary difference between intellectual property and other kinds of property is the *type* of claim involved. IP is a static claim on a dynamic process of production, whereas the right to a particular piece of physical property is a dynamic claim on a static object. Or, if you want to use business terminology, intellectual property is an *earning* asset while physical property is a *depreciating* asset--continued investment is required to maintain or increase the value of physical property, whereas IP could (in theory, in practice everyone realizes how absurd this would be and ignores the possibility) continue to bring returns forever.

This is why intellectual property rights are and must be *limited in duration*. Think for a minute what it would mean if you had to hunt down the heirs of the guy who invented the wheel and pay them before you could build a bicycle. These would be random people who weren't involved in the original act of effort investment in *any way*, how is it sane for them to have a claim on *your* proceeds?

But you have to *have* intellectual property rights for the same reason, because the ultimate fount of all wealth that exists or has ever existed is an idea that someone invested the time and effort to create. They *own* that idea. Now, figuring out exactly *how* they own that idea and what that means is the job of the government, just like guaranteeing and standardizing all of our property rights is the job of the government. Sometimes they don't get it quite right, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater--especially when the baby is the entirety of civilized existence.

JMeganSnow:
What the heck is "spectrum" in this context?

Broadcasting frequencies.

-- Alex

nilcypher:

If someone were to steal $1000 of software, that is $1000 of software they will not buy, that is $1000 dollars that a retailer will not get, and a developer will not get some portion of.

Imagine if a game was pirated 100%. If we follow your argument, aside from the cost of development, no one loses any money, because that money never existed in the real world economy. But that isn't true is it? If nothing gets sold, no one makes any money.

Again, just because someone pirates $1,000 in software doesn't mean they ever had $1,000. Most pirates steal far more than they can afford. Yes, developers are losing out on a potential sale but the reality of what they would of earned compared to their theoretical losses (cost of game Times numbers illegally downloaded) is only a portion.

And my logic doesn't relegate videogame pirating as a victimless action (I don't know how you came up with that idea). Clearly if someone would have bought the game but pirated it instead, then a sale is lost. That is obvious. But videogame pirates will have terra bytes of software that they can't afford which were purchases that would have not existed in the real world anyways.

I am not pro pirated software but I can objectively understand the difference between theoretical losses and real world losses and I know the semantic difference between stealing and copyright infringement.

Interesting discussion. My own two pence is this.
I think both the "Software pirates are the moral equivalent of kitten stompers" and the "f1ght th3 p0W3r, information was meant to be free, d00d" segments are more than a little lacking.

Illegal file transfer is different from physical theft in several ways. For one thing, in the eyes of the law, if you're guilty of "unauthorized duplication, performance or distribution of a creative work", they can put you in jail for five years and fine you hundreds of thousands of dollars- in the U.S., anyway. Whereas if you five-finger discount a game from a brick-and-mortar store, that's petty larceny, and you're unlikely to do anything more than pay a fine for a first offense.

So, there's that. Now, the other thing that I don't think I've seen brought up in all the almost-there-but-not-quite metaphors is this: if someone steals $50 from your wallet, or even your bank account, chances are pretty good you're going to notice eventually. If someone downloads a hacked game, it's entirely likely the game's creator will never know.

...Except it isn't just one person; it's you, and this guy hawking it in a bazaar in Iraq, and this other guy selling it out of a car in Moscow, and every person in this college's Computer Science Class, and... To a factor of a hundred, until some marketing guy looks at the anticipated sales versus the actual sales and goes, "Now hang on a minute...?!"

To be clear, I think illegal copying is wrong, in as much as it denies content providers just compensation for their work. I think the semantic point as to whether it should be called theft is largely irrelevant. And I think that self-righteously demanding that those who illegally download games recognize their place among the burgulars and muggers and hang their heads in shame is neither particularly productive nor some brave and tremendous blow for justice.

I also think "perceived losses", and the idea that every game downloaded is a lost sale, the exact equivalent of a game stolen from a brick-and-mortar shelf, is delusional at best. Software pirates are morally grey at best and complete misfits at worst, but the content providers- including the MPAA, RIAA, and ISA- haven't exactly decked themselves in glory, either. The very nature of the law presumes, rightly or wrongly, that every downloader is passing the illegally obtained work on to others, and the nature of current copy protection often assumes that every person *legally* obtaining the work is planning to as well.

The net result is often that people who plunk down their hard-earned money are struggling to make their legally purchased games work, and people who download them off torrents for free are getting, in some ways, a superior product.

Both the relevant laws and the copy protection are getting increasingly draconian, and the net effect is mostly that the pirated versions look more and more attractive, the infringers are harder to catch because an absolute interpretation would put their numbers in the high multi-millions, and the people who buy legally feel, quite legitimately, that they're being treated like criminals (perhaps more so than many of the actual criminals.)

If we're willing to allow the powers that be to strip away a lot of reasonable privacy protections and the like, the relevant companies can make a modest hunk of change from a massive number of lawsuits before going out of business from the combination of bad PR and locking up large numbers of former customers. But I rather like to imagine that the games companies would rather be in the business of game-making than lawsuits.

We're overdue for a massive overhaul of the laws that govern this digital age. More sensible laws would not only benefit the public who actually have to live with them, but they might actually be possible to enforce. A few modest suggestions:

We need clear consumer rights, including a strong, firm definition of Fair Use, and an understanding that those rights CANNOT be overwritten by anything written in a EULA. That should include redress for games that are using the public as unpaid beta-testers or won't run at all, and the ability to return software. No one should ever be worried about posting their toddler spinning around to the strains of "She Spins Me Round Like A Record" on YouTube or clips of gameplay in an unauthorized game review or the like. We also need some kind of legal protection for modders, at least those who aren't using illegally acquired assets in their creations. "I feel a need to punish those bad, bad media companies" is kind of a lame excuse, but let's disarm it.

The friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend who downloads a game should be ignored. The guy who makes a torrent of their pre-release beta available a week before release should get nailed to the *wall*. (Not literally, but you get my drift.) Feel free to install draconian measures on your cubicle floor, serial numbers and encryption on your gold master disks, armed guards beside anything that can burn a disk at the factory. Just not on the Internet, please.

Copyright on most works available digitally should be, say, five years. Let's face it: the vast, vast majority of an entertainment product's revenue-generating lifespan is in the first two to three years after release. If a company continues to distribute AND SUPPORT a product, that copyright can be extended, perhaps to as much as twenty years. A lot of old media is lost, but for collectors: after a reasonable interval, the public interest should trump a tiny profit potential. Crack open Windows 95 and see if any of the conspiracy theorists were right. Let Computer Science classes reverse engineer and disect old gaming engines to learn how they work. If you can splice together Beverly Hills Cop and Star Wars into a coherent whole that's more entertaining than either original movie, be my guest.

As far as the companies themselves, my suggestion is this: digital distribution is starting to take off; keep at it. I think a lot of people really will buy the legal version if it isn't too onerous to do so. Knocking a few bucks off in recognition that they *aren't* paying for shipping, packaging, materials, a glossy manual, and the like, would also be appreciated. And if you want to ease off the early piracy, flood the torrents on release with a version that comes complete with a nasty drive-wipe of a virus. (Non-propogating, please.)(Okay, I don't know how popular that last one might be, but I figured I should offer the media providers some sort of sop.)