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

Zucas on 18 April 2010
Khuutra said:
Zucas said:
Khuutra said:

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. 

Zucas, I'm not sure you're cleear on what I'm arguing. I acknowledged in the first place that piracy is wrong and illegal, but not all illegality is equivalent and one act being illegal does not make it the same as another illegal act.

More, the scene of piracy has changed immensely since 1997 - the provisions under these laws mgiht not even apply to torrenters, sinc distribution of the media happens without expectation of any compensation (including access to more media as a result of distribution) and thre's still a limit as to the absolute value of distributed works. You read that article, you know as well as I do that the law in 1997 was written in reference to bootleggers and people who try to falsely claim copyright.

It represents an oversimplified view on what constitutes piracy (Youtube on the whole is guilty of infringement of copyright here, by sheer virtue of hosting videos of concerts), it doesn't apply to cases wherein ther is no expectation of compensation, and - oh yeah - it still doesn't equate piracy with theft.

It's possible I might have misinterpreted what your intentions are.  Entire point of my response was simply to show that the law doesn't see a difference between potential losses and actual losses when it comes to distributing copyrighted material for monetary gain or not: either way it is against the law (although for not monetary gain there are other little technicalities mainly for the reason of private distribution such as a gift of a burned CD to a friend which Kaz in all his silliness still doesn't seem to understand).

I really wasn't trying to make an argument that the law says copyright infringement is theft (which Kaz in all his close-mindedness refuses to understand) but more or less say that potential and actual losses aren't really differentiated under in the law.  Although, I would say that the charges you get for copyright infringement are pretty strict when compared to theft, although not as strict as high-profile theft.  So I just probably misunderstood what you said.  But it was nice for me able to show what the actual law is before other people start discussing it with no knowledge.  As I said earlier, shold be a rule that when summarizing uncommong knowledge, a source should be provided.  Oh well but no you didn't miss much other than that, just Kaz on his own crusade to prove his random assertions.



Around the Network
Khuutra on 18 April 2010
Zucas said:

It's possible I might have misinterpreted what your intentions are.  Entire point of my response was simply to show that the law doesn't see a difference between potential losses and actual losses when it comes to distributing copyrighted material for monetary gain or not: either way it is against the law (although for not monetary gain there are other little technicalities mainly for the reason of private distribution such as a gift of a burned CD to a friend which Kaz in all his silliness still doesn't seem to understand).

I really wasn't trying to make an argument that the law says copyright infringement is theft (which Kaz in all his close-mindedness refuses to understand) but more or less say that potential and actual losses aren't really differentiated under in the law.  Although, I would say that the charges you get for copyright infringement are pretty strict when compared to theft, although not as strict as high-profile theft.  So I just probably misunderstood what you said.  But it was nice for me able to show what the actual law is before other people start discussing it with no knowledge.  As I said earlier, shold be a rule that when summarizing uncommong knowledge, a source should be provided.  Oh well but no you didn't miss much other than that, just Kaz on his own crusade to prove his random assertions.

The fact that both are against the law does not make the two of them equivalent.

And yes, potential and actual losses are differentiated under the law, or at least it's ehading in that direction: that's the entire point of the article used to open this topic.



Imphamis on 18 April 2010

RELEASE TEH BOGUS!



 

                      "The Common Cold Isn't So Common During The Cold"     

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

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. 

Zucas, I'm not sure you're cleear on what I'm arguing. I acknowledged in the first place that piracy is wrong and illegal, but not all illegality is equivalent and one act being illegal does not make it the same as another illegal act.

More, the scene of piracy has changed immensely since 1997 - the provisions under these laws mgiht not even apply to torrenters, sinc distribution of the media happens without expectation of any compensation (including access to more media as a result of distribution) and thre's still a limit as to the absolute value of distributed works. You read that article, you know as well as I do that the law in 1997 was written in reference to bootleggers and people who try to falsely claim copyright.

It represents an oversimplified view on what constitutes piracy (Youtube on the whole is guilty of infringement of copyright here, by sheer virtue of hosting videos of concerts), it doesn't apply to cases wherein ther is no expectation of compensation, and - oh yeah - it still doesn't equate piracy with theft.

It's possible I might have misinterpreted what your intentions are.  Entire point of my response was simply to show that the law doesn't see a difference between potential losses and actual losses when it comes to distributing copyrighted material for monetary gain or not: either way it is against the law (although for not monetary gain there are other little technicalities mainly for the reason of private distribution such as a gift of a burned CD to a friend which Kaz in all his silliness still doesn't seem to understand).

I really wasn't trying to make an argument that the law says copyright infringement is theft (which Kaz in all his close-mindedness refuses to understand) but more or less say that potential and actual losses aren't really differentiated under in the law.  Although, I would say that the charges you get for copyright infringement are pretty strict when compared to theft, although not as strict as high-profile theft.  So I just probably misunderstood what you said.  But it was nice for me able to show what the actual law is before other people start discussing it with no knowledge.  As I said earlier, shold be a rule that when summarizing uncommong knowledge, a source should be provided.  Oh well but no you didn't miss much other than that, just Kaz on his own crusade to prove his random assertions.

Actually they are.... if you again go back and re-read your link... copyright holders can file a petition to show how much they "lost" and then the person is required to make restitution.

That is the EXACT point of what this GOA statement.  No longer can copyright holders make blind claims that "Because this guy downloaded $4,000 worth of merchandise, he must pay me $4,000."


So the law DOES treat potential and actual loses even soley from piracy differently... to get paid back companies MUST prove actual loses.