Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Khuutra said:
KylieDog said:
When you buy a game you are not just buying a disc you are buying the data on the disc with a right to use what they want you to and how. When a game is pirated that data is stolen and you have no right to use it, hence theft.
|
Legally speaking, that isn't the case. Theft is defined as the removal of someonne else's goods or services without compensation - you on't actually remove anyone's goods or services, or prevent them from being compensated. That's the difference between pirating and walking out of a restaurant without paying, or going into a movie theater without paying: no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense, which is why there's a legal difference.
Copyright infringement in the case of game piracy is more about gaining the advantages of creation without paying for it: the idea is that you don't have the right to experience somethign without paying for it, even if you're not depriving someone else of recompense or that same experience.
Piracy is illegal and wrong, sure, but it's distinct from theft.
|
Well not anymore. That would been true before 1997. It used to be to constitute copyright infringement that there had to be a motive of financial gain. Aka the scenarios that have been discussed. But under the No Electronic Theft Act, it amended the the idea to including copyright infringement without financial gain. Most arguments used to be, is if they don't use it for monetary gain, then the company isn't losing anything. But apparently that has been reversed to showing that there is a notion that something is being lost, and now there is virtually no legal difference.
Thus under current U.S. law, it is completely illegal to take and/or distribute something whether physical or digital when it is copyrighted, even if it isn't for the use of personal financial gain. That means, under U.S. law, ALL FORMS of piracy that we know of today is completely illegal.
|
It's actually still not defined as theft. That was merely the name of the act. The Healthcare bill made got rid of private student loans and increased the US student loans the government gives out. That doesn't make student loans healthcare.
|
Well I was more deeming it to be considered theft based on the consequences of committing the act rather than the name itself. But I more care about what ya'll have to say considering this, being it disregards everything ya'll have stated about the situation currently. Piracy is illegal in America, and it comes with a hefty penalty. And it associates the distribution of copyrighted material even without pursuit of financial gain a crime. Obviously they consider something is being lost on the part of those who own the copyright. I mean most of the defense of piracy is based on the exact opposite of this.
|
I never said it wasn't illegal or that it didn't have penalties... neither did Khuurtra.
Also, uh... I think you need to re-read what you posted.
The 5 year and $2,500 fine ONLY applies if you copies AND it has a value of $2,500 or more. Also, once again... it's not on an equal measure punishment wise, either in stature or in actual execution when given out.
|
No but you did both argue incorrectly what the law stated. Really, I shouldn't have to go look it up to see if you guys are correct. Should be a rule that when summarizing things that aren't common knowledge, a legitimate source should be provided. Otherwise, it allows for such misconceptions and falsehoods to spread.
And sorry I'll just take that part out.
And I never said that you guys didn't think it was illegal. I'm just saying that the U.S. law systems sees that there is something lost when someone distributes copyrighted material, even when it isn't for monetary gain. I'm saying that seeing as most think piracy is ok just for that reason, I'm rather curious what many responses are.
|
Except... we didn't. Your still wrong. Your argueing a point no one made.
You didn't read what was said correctly. Khuutra said.
"Theft is defined as the removal of someonne else's goods or services without compensation - you on't actually remove anyone's goods or services, or prevent them from being compensated. That's the difference between pirating and walking out of a restaurant without paying, or going into a movie theater without paying: no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense, which is why there's a legal difference."
Nothing you posted refuted that... at all. Once again, like I said... what is being counted as loss is "potential gain of sales or benefit" not a loss of limited resources without recompense.
You can actually read that in the actual link you posted.
