By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales Discussion - US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus

Kasz216 on 18 April 2010
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
 

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.

 

Wow you really don't want to answer my question that I've put at the end of my posts 3 times.  It's really not that hard of a question nor does it really ask for controversy.  Just a simply question out of curiosity to compare opinions of the people to what U.S. law says. 

And maybe if you had read that question, or at least taken time to think about it you would have seen how it was relevant.  Wow it must be amazing to know that somebody's post serves to be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces.  The reason I brought up the act, is to show that the government, or the law Kluutru and others have referred to, identifies the copying and/or distributing of copyrighted material whether for monetary gain or not is illegal.  As you so graciously reposted:

"PREVENT THEM FROM BEING COMPENSATED . . . no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense"

But that's why I said it because legally, this is what the law says AGAINST.  Wow what a shocker I brought up something relevant.  The law is arguing that whether monetary gain or not from the one that copied or distributed the material, is depriving the said copyright holder of something.  But I guess that is simply irrelevant. 

 

Actually... from your own link again.

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

It needs to be $1,000 or more to count as criminal copyright.  So no, if you somehow break the copyright of something which has no value... you wouldn't be charged with Copyright infringement.


Additionally, you still aren't argueing against anything we've said.  

Note where i said "Potential lost profit or benefit"

Either way.. the point you were trying to argue that nobody was argueing against is wrong under the law you provided.

Right and that serves what purpose?  Almsot absolutely none to this current situation.  But thanks for bringing it up and I'll make sure to have it when all of a sudden we have a product that has no value (in this scenario) and when 1 or more doesn't equate to $1,000.  Hmm sounds pretty silly when you actually state what is said.  Guess they included it as more of a technicality.

And no the point I was arguing is that under the law, there isn't a difference between whether or not monetary gain or not is occurring.  Either way, the law considers you are deprving the owner of the copyright of something.  Whether it is a potential loss, actual loss, compensation, product, consumers, lolipops, stubborn posting, etc.  There is no difference under the law. 

And I'm sorry if I'm being a little snarky, but dealing with such silliness at 4 in the morning is a little more than I can take.

Actually, there is... as stated... you need to make a monetary gain of 1,000 to be charged.

And if you do so... you face penalties different then for theft BECAUSE you are not depriving them of a limited object.

If you were this WOULD NOT be it's own law.

That in of itself proves the point... otherwise this would be a subsection under theft.  Instead it's treated like OTHER copryright infringment.  Like making fake purses or books. 


Because it is different... and a different crime... it is it's own completly different part of criminal law.



Around the Network
Slimebeast on 18 April 2010
NJ5 said:
Slimebeast said:
NJ5 said:
Zucas said:
Slimebeast said:
Yes piracy is theft. You steal a service, someones creation.

For technical reasons in the law piracy is not defined as theft. But the law doesn't own the meaning of words, they have their definition of words and phrases.

Whether piracy hurts the economy or not is not interesting in my opinion. Someone steals something and lets other people pay for it, it's wrong.

Well to be fair, there isn't too much difference in copyright infringement and theft.  Really, it only seems to be the resulting penalty that differs too much because they insinuate the same moral concept: that which isn't yours doesn't belong to you without compensation or consent.  Personally, I think the main reason has to do with the idea of theft being associated with a physical loss which is rather outdated for our society. 

It's not only about a physical loss. Physical or not, much of piracy doesn't cause a loss at all (which is one of the things pointed out in the article by the new study).

 

To the overall economy on average, no.

But it's like distribution of wealth - one guy can afford a medium PC with 10 purchased games, while the other guy pirates the 10 games and can afford a high-end PC with the $500 extra he saved from not buying any of the games.

I meant that many of the things which are pirated would not have been bought if they were not pirated.

So yeah, one can say it is wrong to enjoy a product one hasn't paid for. But being wrong, and having a financial impact on anyone are two very different things.

Furthermore: While a teenager, I played around with very expensive pieces of software that I would never have touched if it wasn't for piracy. Because of that, I am now more likely to actually buy similar products.

 

It's still distribution in wealth in other ways - and thus having financial impact.
(btw I just wanted to give another angle of how piracy affects stuff)

You distribute wealth from one sector to another sector in an economy - from the software makers pockets into other pockets (which are whatever the pirate chooses to spend his money on - maybe he buys hardware, maybe he decides to work less and stay at home playing WoW on illegal servers all day).

You don't have to comment that "not every pirated sale is a lost sale" because that's pretty obvious. We knew that already. But even if theres only 1 lost sale for every 10 pirated games, that's still lost sales and means financial impact on someone.



NJ5 on 18 April 2010
Slimebeast said:

You don't have to comment that "not every pirated sale is a lost sale" because that's pretty obvious. We knew that already. But even if theres only 1 lost sale for every 10 pirated games, that's still lost sales and means financial impact on someone.

Maybe you knew it, but Zucas and other people don't take it into account when they say that piracy is always theft under a broad definition of theft that also includes virtual losses.

IMO it's ridiculous enough to call something theft when nothing is being removed, but to go as far as to call something theft when it can have no impact at all, that's too much.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Zucas on 18 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
 

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.

 

Wow you really don't want to answer my question that I've put at the end of my posts 3 times.  It's really not that hard of a question nor does it really ask for controversy.  Just a simply question out of curiosity to compare opinions of the people to what U.S. law says. 

And maybe if you had read that question, or at least taken time to think about it you would have seen how it was relevant.  Wow it must be amazing to know that somebody's post serves to be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces.  The reason I brought up the act, is to show that the government, or the law Kluutru and others have referred to, identifies the copying and/or distributing of copyrighted material whether for monetary gain or not is illegal.  As you so graciously reposted:

"PREVENT THEM FROM BEING COMPENSATED . . . no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense"

But that's why I said it because legally, this is what the law says AGAINST.  Wow what a shocker I brought up something relevant.  The law is arguing that whether monetary gain or not from the one that copied or distributed the material, is depriving the said copyright holder of something.  But I guess that is simply irrelevant. 

 

Actually... from your own link again.

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

It needs to be $1,000 or more to count as criminal copyright.  So no, if you somehow break the copyright of something which has no value... you wouldn't be charged with Copyright infringement.


Additionally, you still aren't argueing against anything we've said.  

Note where i said "Potential lost profit or benefit"

Either way.. the point you were trying to argue that nobody was argueing against is wrong under the law you provided.

Right and that serves what purpose?  Almsot absolutely none to this current situation.  But thanks for bringing it up and I'll make sure to have it when all of a sudden we have a product that has no value (in this scenario) and when 1 or more doesn't equate to $1,000.  Hmm sounds pretty silly when you actually state what is said.  Guess they included it as more of a technicality.

And no the point I was arguing is that under the law, there isn't a difference between whether or not monetary gain or not is occurring.  Either way, the law considers you are deprving the owner of the copyright of something.  Whether it is a potential loss, actual loss, compensation, product, consumers, lolipops, stubborn posting, etc.  There is no difference under the law. 

And I'm sorry if I'm being a little snarky, but dealing with such silliness at 4 in the morning is a little more than I can take.

Actually, there is... as stated... you need to make a monetary gain of 1,000 to be charged.

And if you do so... you face penalties different then for theft BECAUSE you are not depriving them of a limited object.

If you were this WOULD NOT be it's own law.

That in of itself proves the point... otherwise this would be a subsection under theft.  Instead it's treated like OTHER copryright infringment.  Like making fake purses or books. 


Because it is different... and a different crime... it is it's own completly different part of criminal law.

Ya know we are going to have to just agree to disagree because we are on different sides of the page in this discussion whether my confusion or misunderstanding and no middleground is going to be met.  Also I'm pretty tired and I can barely look at the screen anymore haha.



Kasz216 on 18 April 2010

Or to put it another way.

Theft under US federal law is from

Chapter 31.
section 641 to section 669.


This.. is part of Chapter 25
Counter fitting and forgery.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 18 April 2010
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
Zucas said:
Kasz216 said:
 

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.

 

Wow you really don't want to answer my question that I've put at the end of my posts 3 times.  It's really not that hard of a question nor does it really ask for controversy.  Just a simply question out of curiosity to compare opinions of the people to what U.S. law says. 

And maybe if you had read that question, or at least taken time to think about it you would have seen how it was relevant.  Wow it must be amazing to know that somebody's post serves to be viewed as a whole rather than in pieces.  The reason I brought up the act, is to show that the government, or the law Kluutru and others have referred to, identifies the copying and/or distributing of copyrighted material whether for monetary gain or not is illegal.  As you so graciously reposted:

"PREVENT THEM FROM BEING COMPENSATED . . . no one is actually deprived of limited resources without recompense"

But that's why I said it because legally, this is what the law says AGAINST.  Wow what a shocker I brought up something relevant.  The law is arguing that whether monetary gain or not from the one that copied or distributed the material, is depriving the said copyright holder of something.  But I guess that is simply irrelevant. 

 

Actually... from your own link again.

by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000, shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

It needs to be $1,000 or more to count as criminal copyright.  So no, if you somehow break the copyright of something which has no value... you wouldn't be charged with Copyright infringement.


Additionally, you still aren't argueing against anything we've said.  

Note where i said "Potential lost profit or benefit"

Either way.. the point you were trying to argue that nobody was argueing against is wrong under the law you provided.

 

Right and that serves what purpose?  Almsot absolutely none to this current situation.  But thanks for bringing it up and I'll make sure to have it when all of a sudden we have a product that has no value (in this scenario) and when 1 or more doesn't equate to $1,000.  Hmm sounds pretty silly when you actually state what is said.  Guess they included it as more of a technicality.

And no the point I was arguing is that under the law, there isn't a difference between whether or not monetary gain or not is occurring.  Either way, the law considers you are deprving the owner of the copyright of something.  Whether it is a potential loss, actual loss, compensation, product, consumers, lolipops, stubborn posting, etc.  There is no difference under the law. 

And I'm sorry if I'm being a little snarky, but dealing with such silliness at 4 in the morning is a little more than I can take.

Actually, there is... as stated... you need to make a monetary gain of 1,000 to be charged.

And if you do so... you face penalties different then for theft BECAUSE you are not depriving them of a limited object.

If you were this WOULD NOT be it's own law.

That in of itself proves the point... otherwise this would be a subsection under theft.  Instead it's treated like OTHER copryright infringment.  Like making fake purses or books. 


Because it is different... and a different crime... it is it's own completly different part of criminal law.

Ya know we are going to have to just agree to disagree because we are on different sides of the page in this discussion whether my confusion or misunderstanding and no middleground is going to be met.  Also I'm pretty tired and I can barely look at the screen anymore haha.

Why do we have to agree to disagree?

Theft Under US Federal Law is Chapter 31.  From section 641 to section 669.

 

This is section 506.  Which falls under Chaper 25  Counterfitting and Forgery.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/25

It is... by definition of US law...  not theft. 

I'm right here.  Furthermore they are CLEARLY not treated the same.  In one case, where I am guranteed to be taking away something from a store, if I steal 1 360 game I am treated as criminal.   While if i am infringing on someones copyright.  I need to infringe $1,000 dollars worth of products in 180 days.  I basically need to infringe 1 game every 11 days to qualify as committing a crime the government feels is worth punishing.



Zucas on 18 April 2010
NJ5 said:
Slimebeast said:

You don't have to comment that "not every pirated sale is a lost sale" because that's pretty obvious. We knew that already. But even if theres only 1 lost sale for every 10 pirated games, that's still lost sales and means financial impact on someone.

Maybe you knew it, but Zucas and other people don't take it into account when they say that piracy is always theft under a broad definition of theft that also includes virtual losses.

IMO it's ridiculous enough to call something theft when nothing is being removed, but to go as far as to call something theft when it can have no impact at all, that's too much.

 

And if you could actually prove without a doubt that I said that or even think that, then I'd be humored but becuase you can't then that's just a false assumption. 



NJ5 on 18 April 2010

If I live in a tall building next to a stadium and watch games from my window, am I engaging in "theft"?

By the views of some of the people here, I would be. And that's, excuse my language, fucking ridiculous.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 on 18 April 2010
Zucas said:
NJ5 said:
Slimebeast said:

You don't have to comment that "not every pirated sale is a lost sale" because that's pretty obvious. We knew that already. But even if theres only 1 lost sale for every 10 pirated games, that's still lost sales and means financial impact on someone.

Maybe you knew it, but Zucas and other people don't take it into account when they say that piracy is always theft under a broad definition of theft that also includes virtual losses.

IMO it's ridiculous enough to call something theft when nothing is being removed, but to go as far as to call something theft when it can have no impact at all, that's too much.

 

And if you could actually prove without a doubt that I said that or even think that, then I'd be humored but becuase you can't then that's just a false assumption. 

If you say that piracy is theft, you are in fact thinking or saying that literally. I don't see where the confusion is, but do point it out please.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

bdbdbd on 18 April 2010
Zucas said:
Slimebeast said:
Yes piracy is theft. You steal a service, someones creation.

For technical reasons in the law piracy is not defined as theft. But the law doesn't own the meaning of words, they have their definition of words and phrases.

Whether piracy hurts the economy or not is not interesting in my opinion. Someone steals something and lets other people pay for it, it's wrong.

Well to be fair, there isn't too much difference in copyright infringement and theft.  Really, it only seems to be the resulting penalty that differs too much because they insinuate the same moral concept: that which isn't yours doesn't belong to you without compensation or consent.  Personally, I think the main reason has to do with the idea of theft being associated with a physical loss which is rather outdated for our society.

But that makes absolutely no sense. There is a big difference if something is actually taken away from you and losing potential gains.

 

This is like someone would steal your car compared someone copying your car. What you lose is that you can't sell your car to the guy who copied it.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.