Pirate Bay owners sentenced to prison

Remove all ads!

Reduction of sales due to piracy is not depriving someone of something? Even if one percent of pirated software results in a loss of sales there is a loss involved. This is not a victimless crime, no matter how much you try to convince yourself otherwise.

Think back just over the past few years and remember how many software companies have either gone under or were bought by other companies. How about the entire BG franchise -- do you think doubling the sales figures would have helped? How about ten times the sales figures? Some of these smaller companies with great ideas simply go under because of lack of revenue -- and piracy is a huge part of that.

If you don't like the prices (or the quality of translation) you can simply choose not to purchase the product. If you use intellectual property you do not have a right to it is illegal. Whether it is playing a pirated game, plagiarizing someone elses work, or taking proprietary information from one company to another -- it is illegal.

If you don't want to pay for games, download freeware or abandoned software. But the average pirate won't -- the quality drop is just too high. There's a reason for that. Even game developers have families and children -- whi they need to feed and support. Freeware, and waiting for someone to send you a little something, just doesn't cut it. The most creative tend to work for the companies who will pay them, or they start their own company. THe loss of revenues from piracy directly contributes to the loss of those companies -- such as Origin, who did not have adequate capital to keep up with demand and so sold out and their products have not been the same since.

 

That is the exact kind of argument when I made this post:

 

If we cannot get anybody in jail for stealing games, music, film or other files, then what? Where does it stop? We have to say this is it. It has to stop, it really has to.

 

Victimless crime is not quite correct, I agree. The problem is that the actual damage is hard to quantify. The damage done largely depends on how optimistic or pessimistic the company calculates its sales prospects.

I hold that in an effort to maximise profits, the industry is prone to exaggerate the damages in order to push for more extensive copyright protection. They have incentives to do that: They get more protection under the law and improve their legal options, which is in their interest, and at the same time they cover themselves towards the shareholders if their profits don't live up to expectations - those software pirates deprives us of the profits that would otherwise have made them successful. And they can raise prices and blame it on the pirates.

As for the benefits of actually purchasing software, I agree. Where there is money to be made, the products tend to be better, not necessarily, but frequently.

 

But it won't, it will never stop. The genie is out of the bottle the only option is to change the way we think and for the creators to find new ways to get paid for their work. The old way is gone. Sending people to prison for making it possible for other people to not steal but COPY things is not appropriate in my eyes and I am doubtful if the verdict will stand in a higher instance. As have been mentioned before, google does pretty much the exact same thing that piratebay does.

 

It hasn't been done because the industry has been more focused on hunting their customers with blowtorches and running around like headless chickens than actually utilizing the new technology. Something that just struck me recently when the public libraries came up and that might work is if the internet somehow turned into a big public library. Somekind of ultra site with massive bandwidth capacity and with a small member fee or just an extra fee added to your ISP bill where everything is available at good speeds and the money handed out after how much it is downloaded. That is just an idea that struck me during this discussion. Where there is will there are ways. Sure it may cut out the middle man but is that such a bad thing? What I am seeing is the middlemen who are crying the most, not the actual creators but the middlemen whose main task is to tack on extra costs on the product.

Also Tal, things does not become true just because you say so. Your way or arguing is a bit like "I have already said it is like this so it is like this" which it may not be. Considering that you are the end authority on this site it can be a bit intimidating especially for new people who do not know you so well.

 

Tal - While I agree with most of what you are saying, I would like you to also consider that the industry itself is not really all that honest. This is - in some ways - like crooks stealing from crooks.

I ask you to consider Jimi Hendrix, Moby Grape, Boston, or even consider drummer Micky Waller:

Or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Artists'_Coalition

Please don't misunderstand, because I agree with some of what you are saying. But I have little sympathy for the industry - they are mostly predators.

 

Well, it might help if you changed your avatar to something less threatening. Maybe a bunny? Or a cuddly puppy?

(And for the record, I don't really want to cuddle with you. Unless, of course, there's a rebate involved. )

 

My beef is exactly what Macaulay was talking about. Unreasonable laws were established, and now a great number of folks don't care about violating them. I realize you think a culture of entitlement is to blame, but you're wrong. Bad law preceded and caused the culture of entitlement. What's worse is that even if the law were amended back to sanity, it'd still take a couple generations for folks to respect the law once more.

I was imprecise. People are not being deprived of something they already have. Which is a significant difference.

Certainly, it is not always--or even mostly--a victimless crime. But in the case of a high school student who has spent literally all of his money and games and then illegally downloads more games? There is no victim. There is no harm being caused. There is not even a loss of sales. It's still wrong, sure. But at that point it's such a minor infraction that it doesn't give me the slightest twinge of guilt.

I'm not saying piracy is fine and dandy and doesn't hurt the entertainment industry. It isn't and it does. I am saying that piracy is not the same as theft. Also, piracy is a really stupid label to apply to copyright violations.

Splunge, the problem with your analogy is that it's inexact. When you pirate--like a Somali--you are not taking something away from someone. You are--without their permission--duplicating their design.

 

Then you're wrong -- by every legal statute in the country (in fact, every legal statute in most countries). It is both morally wrong to take someone's intellectual property without permission and it is legally wrong. Intellectual property can be freely given, but it does not have to be. The high school student who spent all his money on games and then illegally downloaded more games is a thief -- plain and simple. It is the same as shoplifting, insurance fraud, robbing a bank, or taking an old lady's social security check out of her mail box. Many people state those things are "victimless" because they are covered by insurance (or the US Government will cut another check once it is proven to be stolen) -- yet the victim is every one of us who ends up paying more for insurance or computer games to cover losses by thieves.

 

And when there is (arguably) no monetary cost as in my example, the difference is...?

 

I can see the points that those against piracy make. They are good points, and I can respect them. But why doesn't it go the other way around? Anti-pirates are disregarding any benefits that free information brings to society. I get it: Any benefits are dismissed as inferior to the percieved injustice.

A comparison: The Israelis didn't have any realistic claim to Israel, but they took it. And now they have it, and it must be accepted. Palestinians fiercely deny the Israeli claim, because they see it as unfair. Which it may well be. And no compromise can be reached until there is acknowledgement, and some acceptance.

You need to start acknowledging the problem. The property owners aren't the only stakeholders here. Our access to information is also inherently valuable. As long as you deny us this, no compromise can be made. Please stop returning with the old argument: "But you stole it. You stole. You stole, you immoral thief!" You're just winding yourselves up. It's been said before, and it doesn't have the impact you want it.
We will return with the Robin Hood argument, that we're stealing from the rich to give to the poor. (It's possible to die of boredom, so perhaps it's a vital service). Then you return with hyperbolism/exaggeration, about stealing from any neighbor who has even a little more wealth than you, etcetera...

But this hard-line stance isn't leading to a solution. You need to engage the pirating community, to work towards a solution. We are potentially a future consumer base, and the carrot mostly works better than the stick. Restricting information hasn't proven an effective incentive, because people are patient and resourceful. Perhaps more feedback options for paying customers will encourage more people to pay. Beating the public into submission won't work for piracy; we're here to stay.

 

I don't see the distinction between information and entertainment in this regard. Information increases the sum of knowledge, entertainment improves society in its own way.

 

Regarding the first point, I'm pretty sure it's you who's mistaken. If copyright violation were theft they wouldn't have needed to make a new law for it, not so?

And what I've been getting at, entirely too indirectly, is that one can make the case that copyright violation is morally and legally (although as far as legality goes, it's a bit unnecessary, sort of like arguing that the sky is blue) wrong without also making the claim that it is identical to theft. Moreover, one should be making that case.

This statement would seem to be in tension with your post back on the first page of the thread.

Splunge

Uh. The victim doesn't have something that they used to have. In this case, Monty cannot sell that third pair of socks. To anyone. Because you took them. So he is worse off, and your actions made him worse off.

If Monty makes a game and you illegally download a copy of it, however, that copy doesn't disappear from his inventory.

Tal

I'm a piracy advocate? I don't think creators should be paid for their work? Oh, I see why you made that leap. Taza said back on page one that (s?)he supports piracy and then I tried to explain stuff to dmc. My mistake. Teach me not to skim a thread and then try to participate.

Okay, how about this: piracy is bad. Please don't pirate. Please pay for your entertainment. Also, please don't hijack freighters and murder their crews.

An example? 95/120 years or life plus 75 is absurd.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be a change

And by a dozen you mean two, arguably three. Unless I'm overlooking something you made one post, Splunge made one, and dmc's arguably covers the same ground. I ignored yours because your rebuttal didn't, frankly, seem substantial. "The only difference is the theft is digital instead of physical"--I don't know what to do with that statement. So I didn't do anything with it.

ETA: And since there's probably room for misunderstanding in that last paragraph, let me be perfectly clear: It was not intended as a personal attack. It was intended as an explanation.

 

I checked the dutch wikipedia entry on copyright, it says among other:

Meaning: The word copyright has no legal implication in Holland. The correct term is "this work is protected by right of author".
More translations:
Copyright infringement is not the same as theft or plagiarism. The comparison with theft is often made. The result of theft is that the owner does not have access to his property; that is hard to uphold in the case of works [...eh, artistic produce..?].
... A victim of copyright infringement can report this crime to the police. Only for infringements that cause grave economic damage, will the officer of justice turn to prosecution.
Home copy or limited personal use: According to dutch law, making several copies for practice, study, or use is not an infringement of copyright. The copy may not be given to a 3rd party, this is considered an infringement of the right of the author. Belgian law has a similar article.

Sooo...
In vague terms, it makes clear that the government tolerates certain small crimes. It's called gedogen in Holland, meaning that the gov't is reasonable. Not a hard-line, anal-retentive, nitpicking, reactionary government, like some countries I could name

Awww yeah baby!

 

For someone who doesn't see the distiction, you seem to explain it fairly well. Entertainment does not amount to knowledge.

But Monty can make 3 new pairs of socks (2 to replace the ones I bought and 1 to replace the pair I stole) with the $12 I gave him, so he can, in effect, sell that third pair of socks. He is in no different position than if I hadn't entered his store in the first place (other than he temporarily has 3 fewer pairs of socks in what is presumably a fairly large inventory).