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.

Ratbarf wrote:HAve you been written up?

Nope. I just have a decent reason to be almost certain about it.

Fafnir wrote:If you think government approved monopolies over ISPs are bad in the US, you should see Canada. Up here, the principle absolutely does not remain. The big three (Rogers, Bell, Telus) telecom companies end up effectively managing the same government body that is meant to regulate them.

Again, I can almost assure you that the CRTC smacks those guys around quite often, and that ISPs in Canada most certainly do not have a monopoly (except in some remote regions). For example, I can think of at least 3 ISPs other than those 'big three' that operate in Ontario.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

That wasn't my main point, simply an aside to illustrate how many people feel about the actual value of music.

Which is a shame, because I do believe music, at least, good music, does have value. Artists put a lot of time and effort, real work, into creating their artwork.

Of course, with the current system, almost all of the money that goes into paying for an album tends to go to lining publisher's pockets.

The real issue here, at least concerning music, is that we're reaching a point of critical mass where the publisher, at least, for the most part, will no longer be necessary. Since everyone will have the tools to publish their work online, there won't be much of a need to sign on for suffocating contracts with corporate monoliths anymore. You already see that happening with platforms like Bandcamp and Soundcloud.

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
Citation needed

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

Click on "Criminal Offenses."

That's for bootlegging and doesn't apply to the piracy you're referring to ITT.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
They are two separate and distinct things.

Theft of intellectual property is still theft. It doesn't matter that nothing physical was stolen.

That wasn't my main point, simply an aside to illustrate how many people feel about the actual value of music.

Funnily enough, I bet you'd come up with the same majority opinion if you asked a bunch of pirate gamers about the "actual value" of games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's for bootlegging and doesn't apply to the piracy you're referring to ITT.

Try reading it again.

 Seaward wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
That's for bootlegging and doesn't apply to the piracy you're referring to ITT.

Try reading it again.

I've got professional experience reading statute, thanks. I'm good.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
They are two separate and distinct things.

Theft of intellectual property is still theft. It doesn't matter that nothing physical was stolen.

No matter how much you wish it to be so, 2 + 2 is not going to equal 5 to anyone other then you.

To put it differently, I know 9 people who disagree with you on this exact point.

 Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
They are two separate and distinct things.

Theft of intellectual property is still theft. It doesn't matter that nothing physical was stolen.

Theft=/=Infringement

It's as much theft as lending a CD to a friend is theft. They may rip the CD onto their computer, but nothing was stolen.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I've got professional experience reading statute, thanks. I'm good.

So if you upload a pirated game for download, you don't think you could be subject to criminal penalties?

Interesting, considering it says the exact opposite.

 Seaward wrote:
Funnily enough, I bet you'd come up with the same majority opinion if you asked a bunch of pirate gamers about the "actual value" of games.

Quite possibly. I just recall it as an interesting factoid.

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I've got professional experience reading statute, thanks. I'm good.

So if you upload a pirated game for download, you don't think you could be subject to criminal penalties?

Interesting, considering it says the exact opposite.

I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, including the definitions.

 Ouze wrote:
No matter how much you wish it to be so, 2 + 2 is not going to equal 5 to anyone other then you.

To put it differently, I know 9 people who disagree with you on this exact point.

Dowling's a pretty narrow decision relating strictly to charging under that particular statute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, including the definitions.

Citation needed.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Funnily enough, I bet you'd come up with the same majority opinion if you asked a bunch of pirate gamers about the "actual value" of games.

Quite possibly. I just recall it as an interesting factoid.

It's also worth keeping in mind that most people view their music as a single collection of 3-minute songs.

Something like a game, which usually contain at least several hours of use, tend to feel more substantial, and may demand more of a sense of value.

I would imagine that people who listen to music on an album-by-album basis, as opposed to song-by-song, would consider their music to have much more inherent value.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Quite possibly. I just recall it as an interesting factoid.

Is it really all that interesting, though? I'd imagine most criminals look for a way to rationalize their behavior.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No matter how much you wish it to be so, 2 + 2 is not going to equal 5 to anyone other then you.

To put it differently, I know 9 people who disagree with you on this exact point.

Dowling's a pretty narrow decision relating strictly to charging under that particular statute.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, including the definitions.

Citation needed.

I just cited it. Go back and read the section that says "definitions", specifically the one for "being prepared for commercial use"

That statute specifically deals with unreleased and limited release content and does not apply to commercially available products.

 Fafnir wrote:
It's also worth keeping in mind that most people view their music as a single collection of 3-minute songs.

Something like a game, which usually contain at least several hours of use, tend to feel more substantial, and may demand more of a sense of value.

I was trying to think of a way to say this in my reply above about the perceived value of games vs music but could not come up with a way of phrasing it so settled for agreeing (since it is probably true that many people would like to pay nothing for games regardless).

 Seaward wrote:

It's theft, plain and simple.

Incorrect. Theft and copyright infrigement are two completely different actions.

Theft is the act that :

Theft Act 1968 (TA) S1(1) TA wrote:.. dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ...

Seaward wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Quite possibly. I just recall it as an interesting factoid.

Is it really all that interesting, though? I'd imagine most criminals look for a way to rationalize their behavior.

Please keep in mind that in a lot of places, it's not even a criminal offense. Downloading pirated media used to be completely legal in Canada until quite recently, and in other countries, such as those where many pirating websites are hosted, it's entirely legal.

SilverMK2 wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It's also worth keeping in mind that most people view their music as a single collection of 3-minute songs.

Something like a game, which usually contain at least several hours of use, tend to feel more substantial, and may demand more of a sense of value.

I was trying to think of a way to say this in my reply above about the perceived value of games vs music but could not come up with a way of phrasing it so settled for agreeing (since it is probably true that many people would like to pay nothing for games regardless).

It's also worth noting that, in the case of videogames, there are platforms like Steam available that make the purchase of digital games very easy and allows for a reasonable system of DRM. I believe Gabe Newell even mentioned on the subject of Piracy that the moment they made their products easily available for purchase to places where piracy was rampant, piracy dropped dramatically and legitimate purchases increased proportionately.

 Seaward wrote:
[

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, including the definitions.

Citation needed.

Here's a citation: My ability to read plain english, FFS.

Uploading a "pirated game for download" your example, would only be subject to that statute if the game 1.) Was uploaded to a site where you made some financial gain from doing so, or B.) the game retailed for over $1,000, or c.) was a game that had not yet been distributed for sale.

Unfortunately, it's become increasingly clear to me that despite your oh-so-brief spurt of reasonability over in the beginning of this thread, you have reverted to being fact-immune, and I've got better things to do then argue with someone who simply pretends that their made-up thoughts are real despite any evidence to the contrary; like clip my toenails, or learn to play the kazoo, or simply stare off into the distance thoughtfully.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I just cited it. Go back and read the section that says "definitions", specifically the one for "being prepared for commercial use"

That statute specifically deals with unreleased and limited release content and does not apply to commercially available products.

Which is largely irrelevant, because I recall from my own torrenting days that screener copies of films were regularly available.

Subsection B would also cover a lot of the piracy being discussed in this thread.

There are very few torrent sites that I'm aware of that wouldn't fall victim to the same sort of prosecution as Megaupload. Therefore, we can conclude that if you're torrenting, you're probably doing it using one of the aforementioned sites, so, again...relevant to piracy as discussed in t his thread.

Wait... I'm confused... is the ISP providers doing the investigation on this?

 Ouze wrote:
Here's a citation: My ability to read plain english, FFS.

Uploading a "pirated game for download" your example, would only be subject to that statute if the game 1.) Was uploaded to a site where you made some financial gain from doing so,

Like, say, if you ran a torrent website supported by ad revenue?

Honestly, what the feth is with you guys? This is not a difficult concept. Do I need to use smaller words? Would you like a pet-related metaphor?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Wait... I'm confused... is the ISP providers doing the investigation on this?

No.

 Seaward wrote:

It's theft, plain and simple.

Incorrect. Theft and copyright infrigement are two completely different actions.

Theft is the act that :

Theft Act 1968 (TA) S1(1) TA wrote:.. dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it ...

Copyright infrigement is :

CCA 1985 wrote: "the reproduction, distribution, performance, or display of any copyrighted work without permission of the copyright owner or without a compulsory license."

 Seaward wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Here's a citation: My ability to read plain english, FFS.

Uploading a "pirated game for download" your example, would only be subject to that statute if the game 1.) Was uploaded to a site where you made some financial gain from doing so,

Like, say, if you ran a torrent website supported by ad revenue?

Honestly, what the feth is with you guys? This is not a difficult concept. Do I need to use smaller words? Would you like a pet-related metaphor?

Can you sum up your point/position in a sentence so we're all on the same page?

 Seaward wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
I just cited it. Go back and read the section that says "definitions", specifically the one for "being prepared for commercial use"

That statute specifically deals with unreleased and limited release content and does not apply to commercially available products.

Which is largely irrelevant, because I recall from my own torrenting days that screener copies of films were regularly available.

Subsection B would also cover a lot of the piracy being discussed in this thread.

There are very few torrent sites that I'm aware of that wouldn't fall victim to the same sort of prosecution as Megaupload. Therefore, we can conclude that if you're torrenting, you're probably doing it using one of the aforementioned sites, so, again...relevant to piracy as discussed in t his thread.

Subsection B is still subject to the definition of "works prepared for commercial release" so no.

Again, I read this stuff for a living.

In Canada it's legal to download music and videogames as far as I'm aware, as long as the source is an original copy. ie, you can only download or copy a music/movie/game from someone who physically owns it. If I have a CD and rip it and then upload it it's legal. If someone else were to download that copy and then re-upload it that would be illegal.

@Seaward, it really is all about providing a service which is superior or at least as easy as the pirates when it comes to pirating. Since I've gotten Steam I haven't pirated a single videogame, heck I've actually purchased several games that I had previously pirated, because I know that I may as well wait for it to go on sale on Steam and have a legal copy to use for multiplayer and the like whereas when using pirated versions they usually involve extensive workaround solutions to get the multiplayer working. It's the same reason that I no longer pirate movies because I have Netflix. If there was a music version of Netlfix or Steam where the albums were cheap enough I would use it rather than download illegally. That said, I still do buy CDs from artists that I particularly enjoy. I just don't buy the CD's of artists who I enjoy one or two songs of, which isn't really enough to justify buying the whole album.

 Seaward wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Wait... I'm confused... is the ISP providers doing the investigation on this?

No.

Okay then... so unless you're hosting massive torrent sites personally, it's really a moot point then.

 Seaward wrote:
Is it really all that interesting, though? I'd imagine most criminals look for a way to rationalize their behavior.

To go back to your point about the value of a car; it has value that most people can see. Even car thieves can see the value of a car (which is why they steal them a lot of the time, though not the exclusive reason to be sure). Compare a physical object with real world utility to music, or games, which have no intrinsic value and you can see how people, even if they do not pirate music or games, or support that activity, saying that they would not pay for digital media.

Hell, if I was unable to download music (if I did, obviously) I would just listen to the radio for free... which incidentally is what I do. The record companies still aren't getting any money from me no matter how harshly they want to deal with "pirates". I don't think I've bought any music (other than the odd CD my wife wanted) for over 10 years. Hell, I've bought more vinyl than I have CD's - this is all old stuff from the 80's that is second hand, so record companies still aren't getting anything from me even when I actually buy music

Perhaps we should outlaw second hand record shops since they are stealing mone... erm... bread out of the record companies mouths...

 Seaward wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
Seaward, dropping the argument about piracy being wrong, what is your personal limit to DRM?

I'm not sure what your hobbies are aside from miniatures, but assuming you play video games, would you be okay if the new consoles came out with a requirement of always being connected to the companies servers?

Sure. It is not at all difficult to come by internet access in the Western world. Most of the games I play require it already, anyway.

Whereas I have issues with an internet connection require to play my games. Most of the games on my computer require an internet connection because their main function is one of multiplayer game modes. Currently I play (regularly) Hawken, MechWarrior: Online, Dota2, and Path of Exile, Dawn of War 2 Chaos Rising, Rome: Total War, and Baldur's Gate 2 Shadows of Amn. All of them acquired legally. Currently I can't play the first four games without an internet connection because their game modes simply don't really allow it (though Path of Exile could be a nice single player game but it's not). Dawn of War 2 and Rome: Total War I used to not be able to play in offline mode (because the last time I had Steam when I didn't have a solid internet connection was a while ago). I would love to play through Diablo 3 like I played through Diablo 2... by myself as a solo adventure, this is impossible with the way that Blizzard has set the game to work. The same goes with Starcraft 2. If I only wanted to play the campaign modes, I couldn't. This has also lead to a decrease in the starcraft competition scene in Korea because they do most of their competitive starcrafting via lans...

if games gave me an offline mode, I wouldn't care... but forcing me to play a single player game with an internet connection is a royal pain in the butt.. Why would I want to play through the Assassin's Creed 3 storyline while connected to the internet? No one else can join my game... In some cases an internet connection is a must, but other times its just pants on head stupid.

Note: I'm glad to see that Steam has an offline mode now (found this in my research, cause I wondered if they fixed it).

Well the video game industry is pretty much trying to shut down second hand video game stores. Not sure if they've attempted to take legal action on the matter however. Though since I don't actually read the software license it could be illegal for me to sell the license.

@Alfndrate; Steam has had an offline mode for years. at least since 2007 as that was when I first used it and it had it then.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Is it really all that interesting, though? I'd imagine most criminals look for a way to rationalize their behavior.

To go back to your point about the value of a car; it has value that most people can see. Even car thieves can see the value of a car (which is why they steal them a lot of the time, though not the exclusive reason to be sure). Compare a physical object with real world utility to music, or games, which have no intrinsic value and you can see how people, even if they do not pirate music or games, or support that activity, saying that they would not pay for digital media.

Hell, if I was unable to download music (if I did, obviously) I would just listen to the radio for free... which incidentally is what I do. The record companies still aren't getting any money from me no matter how harshly they want to deal with "pirates". I don't think I've bought any music (other than the odd CD my wife wanted) for over 10 years. Hell, I've bought more vinyl than I have CD's - this is all old stuff from the 80's that is second hand, so record companies still aren't getting anything from me even when I actually buy music

Perhaps we should outlaw second hand record shops since they are stealing mone... erm... bread out of the record companies mouths...

The record companies aren't getting any money from you, no. That doesn't mean they're not indirectly getting money out of radio airplay, which is why they allow it in the first place.

Same goes for whatever modern analogue of the radio you want to use. YouTube doesn't take down infringing videos while leaving up record company-approved ones for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
if games gave me an offline mode, I wouldn't care... but forcing me to play a single player game with an internet connection is a royal pain in the butt.

It isn't for me, but I understand that it is, apparently, for some people. I'd personally factor the cost of some sort of ISP plan into my gaming. Or a Virgin Mobile pay-as-you-go wifi USB stick. Whatever.

Would we see these kind of requirements if massive video game piracy wasn't taking place? Of course not. You can blame the publishers all you want, but they're simply responding to market conditions.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Okay then... so unless you're hosting massive torrent sites personally, it's really a moot point then.

Not really. The ISPs are rarely the ones who do the monitoring, and some media companies are more aggressive than others about monitoring their IP. My brother got dinged five separate times for illegal downloading while he was in flight school down in Pensacola. Got one ISP account closed, received warning letters on the subsequent one. I'm a little surprised he didn't get sued. But he was just downloading movies, not hosting anything.