Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:Then you should probably stop using it to justify yourself if you know its incorrect. Also, everyone knows what feth is censoring, its censored for a reason.

Yes

ShumaGorath wrote: a new form of crime that wasn't possible 30 years ago..

Isnt it interesting? Just like all smart criminals , best methods of doing business are ones that dances around the line.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No, Yes, Yes, and Yes in that order. See, answering questions is easy.

Game rentals, used games, and viewing content rented by others is functionally identical to pirating said content. The creators do not receive any money, you are enjoying the content they labored to make. You are paying a middle man who makes his salary on "cheating" these companies of their "hard earned dollars". You are every bit as guilty of "cheating the artists" as I am, especially with buying used games. A racket that the game industry has been trying to shut down for decades precisely because it is no different from pirating their games from the standpoint of the game companies themselves.

Not that into music, so I don't have much of a collection. Renting Games - I have to trust the place I hire it from has paid for it through the proper channels, like the DVDs. Buying a used game...only on Console. Don't do much PC Gaming, and when I do it's first hand. And yes I have, again trusting that the source of the rental has paid for the requisite license.

I don't think you understand how rental places or content licensing works.

nonsense.

2nd hand market is completely different from downloading. If someone has uploaded whatever, they still have their copy. Net result, is more copies on the market, for which the creator has received only a single payment. As I said, I have to trust that my source (Blockbuster if you're interested) has paid the premium for a rental copy.

So your excuse is blind trust?

nonsense.

2nd hand market is completely different from downloading. If someone has uploaded whatever, they still have their copy. Net result, is more copies on the market, for which the creator has received only a single payment. As I said, I have to trust that my source (Blockbuster if you're interested) has paid the premium for a rental copy.

Your source went chapter 11 and liquidated most of its locations.

Not in the UK. No idea about the company structure, but I think it's a seperate entity?

And not blind trust. Blind trust would be renting off a scrote in the pub who assures me it's all legit. Not going into a national chain with a lot to lose if it breaks the rules. Informed trust, if you like. Or even, justified trust.

What's the difference between downloading to listen with the intent to buy or erase after deciding if ou like it or not and:

Mr Mystery wrote: Borrowing off friends

Borrowing off a friend, still a single paid for copy. If you erase it, more or less the same. Unless you're part of a file share network, in which case someone else could download it from yourself, creating yet another copy.

Might be splitting hairs I know, but there you go.

Still only one paid copy even though two people are enjoying it.

daedalus wrote:More interesting to me is just WHAT makes this such a widespread and largely public opinion?

If people don't see any harm being done, and are not at risk of being punished, why would they act differently?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Dude, that can be applied to just about anything.

People at the top of the food chain eat the most.

Why single out movies and videos? Why not Cars? TVs? Laptops? Why not just decide someone somewhere in the chain may or may not be making too much money, which is of course an arbitrary sum decided by yourself, so you're going to have your cake and not pay for it?

Yes, it can be applied to just about anything. People use their judgement to apply it where they feel it is appropriate.

And this is the big thing. Piracy exists, and it is almost entirely risk free. As such, the only that stops people doing it is their morals. If a person can't see something morally wrong with a specific act of piracy, then why wouldn't he do it?

Now, you can make all sorts of about what if everyone stole everything on Earth, but that's all nonsense. If you want me to stop all my downloading, you have to tell me why it is wrong for me to download Watership Down. Now, I've never seen this movie, and if I couldn't download it I would likely forget that it ever existed, I certainly wouldn't buy it. But it's there, for easy download, so I do it. If I like it a lot, I'll track down a DVD copy. Explain to me why that is wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:It's not a slippery slope fallacy I'm suggesting. I'm asking an honest, open question. At what point do you find obtaining goods without paying for them questionable?

The point at which the company would have been better off and more capable of delivering products in the future if I hadn't obtained the goods without paying. With downloaded products, this translates to 'if there was no piracy option available would I buy the product?' With physical property this translates to 'if I couldn't take this, would I be willing to pay for it?', and also 'if I took this would I be depriving someone else of the option to buy it legally?'

You set the parameters of what you find acceptable and why you find it so, I'm asking what makes you stop there.

Everybody sets their own parameters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:So it's okay as long as you say it is?

That's the only reason anything is ever okay, or not okay. The only person who makes your moral choices is you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Borrowing off a friend, still a single paid for copy. If you erase it, more or less the same. Unless you're part of a file share network, in which case someone else could download it from yourself, creating yet another copy.

Might be splitting hairs I know, but there you go.

Thing is, if you buy a game, use it until you're bored of it and then lend it to a friend, you've still depriving the company of money if your friend would otherwise have bought the game. This is something that companies have said is theft, just the same way as downloading, so according to those companies you're just as much a thief as the rest of us.

Anyone in this thread a Buddhist? He taught a specific issue exactly related to this thread topic but i sort of forgot how he word it...
Some conversation he had with a butcher.

sebster wrote:Thing is, if you buy a game, use it until you're bored of it and then lend it to a friend, you've still depriving the company of money if your friend would otherwise have bought the game. This is something that companies have said is theft, just the same way as downloading, so according to those companies you're just as much a thief as the rest of us.

Good and valid point.

LunaHound wrote:Anyone in this thread a Buddhist? He taught a specific issue exactly related to this thread topic but i sort of forgot how he word it...
Some conversation he had with a butcher.

Kinda.

I believe it went something like this: The master said: Mask your IP, and realize that when you download phat beatz, you are really only downloading a bit of yourself.

I have a very good memory, especially for numbers and statistics, and can probably rattle off every statline in my SM codex without flipping a page. I could probably do the same if I never had the codex and just played the game by asking my opponent. I have never owned an Eldar Codex but I remember everything about them because the guy who taught me to play played them all the time. Other than points costs (I know most of those too) I have detailed information from that book that is evidently so sensitive that we arent allowed to post exact numbers on the forum. So by playing 6 games against them when I started playing the game, does this mean I stole the Eldar Codex?

Mr Mystery wrote:Again, more denial of any wrong doing.

So where do you draw the line? At what point of obtaining stuff without paying for it do you feel the justification ends?

What about the fact that the person who has pirated Photoshop or such programs is unlikely to buy it in the first place? Abobe would of made zero out of them and therefore lost zero. You could argue that this person may then end up going freelance and pays for it as it's now a justifiable outlay, or gets a job with a company that has to buy another licence.

With regard to films, there is no evidence to prove that every film downloaded means a lost cinema seat or lost DVD sale. Obviously it will impact, but I doubt as much as the film industry likes to make out.

Mr. Mystery, I don't believe you answered my earlier question - have you ever streamed a music video on youtube?

One thing cannot be argued in my opinion, Computer piracy IS theft. Economically you are deriving utility without contributing cost. It just happens to be easy, seemingly victimless and often LEGALLY ill defined.

Perkustin wrote:Computer piracy IS theft.

You can claim such, but legally speaking you would be wrong.

Perkustin wrote:One thing cannot be argued in my opinion, Computer piracy IS theft. Economically you are deriving utility without contributing cost. It just happens to be easy, seemingly victimless and often LEGALLY ill defined.

Refer to my previous post. If the software is something that you couldn't afford to pay for in the first place and wouldn't of purchased it, then it's not a loss to the company. It's not a physical product. As I've said before if you were able to remove complete access to Photoshop, you would wouldn't get a huge increase in legit sales. Your average joe would stop using it or change to something else, not decide to save up / get a loan to pay for it. As someone else has mentioned, it's not like taking a TV without paying, it's data. Somebody has copied that data and stuck it on the internet, where it is copied by downloaders. You've not taken anything physically from Adobe.

So with the danger of repeating myself, if someone downloaded it because they could, it doesn't mean they would buy it if they couldn't. It's not a lost sale or an item disappearing off the shelf.

If however you use it to make money, then I would class it as a loss to the industry, you shouldn't be making money off something you didn't pay for.

Perkustin wrote:One thing cannot be argued in my opinion, Computer piracy IS theft.

Well your "opinion" is wrong because you ignore fact. It is not theft. It doesn't matter how many times ill-informed people say this it's just wrong. People think this way about copyright because of the way that the music/film companies in particular have spent years trying to spin what is a civil matter (copyright infringement) into being the same as theft as though you stole it from a shop, and some swallow it hook line and sinker.

For instance, if you recast GW figures you are taken to court by GW for copyright theft, they don't call the police. It's not right and it's not legal, but it's not 'theft' either.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Perkustin wrote:One thing cannot be argued in my opinion, Computer piracy IS theft.

Well your "opinion" is wrong because you ignore fact. It is not theft. It doesn't matter how many times ill-informed people say this it's just wrong. People think this way about copyright because of the way that the music/film companies in particular have spent years trying to spin what is a civil matter (copyright infringement) into being the same as theft as though you stole it from a shop, and some swallow it hook line and sinker.

For instance, if you recast GW figures you are taken to court by GW for copyright theft, they don't call the police. It's not right and it's not legal, but it's not 'theft' either.

You see what happened there was, he used the literal term 'theft' and you jumped down his neck with the term 'theft' defined by law. If you had went on the read the rest of his post that's quite clear.

I don't understand why people need to try and justify their guilt on this issue. So you stole something, big deal. You're not going to burn in hell. It doesn't exist.

I downloaded all the Codices for my armies before collecting... Simply because GW doesn't offer me a means to form an army list (and thus know what to buy/if the army is my style) without one.

Ofc I buy the Codex when I actually get the army, but I wouldn't have known what the hell to buy for my Eldar or Imperial Guard if I hadn't gotten me a few handy .pdfs...

With piracy in general, Codices is all I've done... But I can empathise for people who'll torrent a game and then buy it if they like it; but that's more a matter of honour.

Personally I find the line of what to download and what not to download blurred. Some things should not be downloaded, namely entertainment media that you can buy in the shops. If its on the shelves there is no excuse. Abandonware however is another case, as are broadcast TV shows.

I have no problems whatsoever with borrowing another persons media and using it. Making an .iso is not a fair option, if it is supposed to be played disk in drive that is what we will do, so one person uses it at a time. But I have a strong dislike of software licences. I consider what I or my friend buys in a shop property no matter what the T&C says. What I have I like to share, to be prevented from doing so I find repugnant.

whatwhat wrote:You see what happened there was, he used the literal term 'theft' and you jumped down his neck with the term 'theft' defined by law. If you had went on the read the rest of his post that's quite clear.

I don't understand why people need to try and justify their guilt on this issue. So you stole something, big deal. You're not going to burn in hell. It doesn't exist.

I'm not personally trying to "justify guilt" on anything. I never said it was right, merely that it isn't theft and that it's not a criminal offence but a civil one, to continually describe it as such is hyperbole. It's not "theft" or "stealing" even in the literal sense, you deprive no one of any property.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

whatwhat wrote:You see what happened there was, he used the literal term 'theft' and you jumped down his neck with the term 'theft' defined by law. If you had went on the read the rest of his post that's quite clear.

I don't understand why people need to try and justify their guilt on this issue. So you stole something, big deal. You're not going to burn in hell. It doesn't exist.

I'm not personally trying to "justify guilt" on anything. I never said it was right, merely that it isn't theft and that it's not a criminal offence but a civil one, to continually describe it as such is hyperbole. It's not "theft" or "stealing" even in the literal sense, you deprive no one of any property.

If the literal meaning of theft was to deprive someone of property then the term Copyright Theft woudlnt exist would it. No it means to take from someone without their consent.

feth em.

Bono can afford it.

"He's got the biggest collection of hatchbacks in the country"

whatwhat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

whatwhat wrote:You see what happened there was, he used the literal term 'theft' and you jumped down his neck with the term 'theft' defined by law. If you had went on the read the rest of his post that's quite clear.

I don't understand why people need to try and justify their guilt on this issue. So you stole something, big deal. You're not going to burn in hell. It doesn't exist.

I'm not personally trying to "justify guilt" on anything. I never said it was right, merely that it isn't theft and that it's not a criminal offence but a civil one, to continually describe it as such is hyperbole. It's not "theft" or "stealing" even in the literal sense, you deprive no one of any property.

If the literal meaning of theft was to deprive someone of property then the term Copyright Theft woudlnt exist would it. No it means to take from someone without their consent.

But legally speaking it's "copyright infringement", and that's the only real authority here on the correct language. "Copyright theft" is an emotive term enthusiastically promoted by groups trying to conflate the nature of the civil offence with the criminal one of theft. That's why the police prosecute you for one, and the copyright holder has to handle the other. Just because some people want to call a spade a bucket doesn't make it so.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

whatwhat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

whatwhat wrote:You see what happened there was, he used the literal term 'theft' and you jumped down his neck with the term 'theft' defined by law. If you had went on the read the rest of his post that's quite clear.

I don't understand why people need to try and justify their guilt on this issue. So you stole something, big deal. You're not going to burn in hell. It doesn't exist.

I'm not personally trying to "justify guilt" on anything. I never said it was right, merely that it isn't theft and that it's not a criminal offence but a civil one, to continually describe it as such is hyperbole. It's not "theft" or "stealing" even in the literal sense, you deprive no one of any property.

If the literal meaning of theft was to deprive someone of property then the term Copyright Theft woudlnt exist would it. No it means to take from someone without their consent.

But legally speaking it's "copyright infringement", and that's the only real authority here on the correct language. "Copyright theft" is an emotive term enthusiastically promoted by groups trying to conflate the nature of the civil offence with the criminal one of theft. That's why the police prosecute you for one, and the copyright holder has to handle the other. Just because some people want to call a spade a bucket doesn't make it so.

The point still remains that the idea that someone needs to be deprived of their own property in order for something to be considred 'theft' is entirely your own definition. And in any case however you want to define theft, Perkustin's post clearly wasn't talking about it on that level as you are, therefore you rebutting him on that basis seems a bit off. Besides, outside of claiming piracy is not theft on a legal level, I really don't know why you need to argue priacy can't be described as theft on a literal level, unless you have some moral issue with the word theft and somehow by disassociating it with piracy you gain something.

whatwhat wrote:Besides, outside of claiming piracy is not theft on a legal level, I really don't know why you need to argue priacy can't be described as theft on a literal level, unless you have some moral issue with the word theft and somehow by disassociating it with piracy you gain something.

It's not what I would gain but what powers music/film companies hope to gain, partly though encouraging common usage of loaded terms like 'theft' in place of infringement, that bothers me. For instance the advert earlier on is widely shown before films in cinemas and on DVD and it basically tells people that downloading is stealing just like stealing a car or TV. That's plainly misleading.

Well that advert was made by F.A.C.T. The Federation Against Copyright Theft. So go figure.