Piracy is theft

hybridmomentspass said:

What if you bought a NES way back when, sold it years ago, and now want to relive  the old days? You paid full retail, which reimbursed them at the time. 

Does Nintendo still sell a NES console? Can I go buy a N64 and goldeneye so I can stay up all night with pizza and Jolt! cola? 

If they dont sell it/offer it, is it still theft? 

Yes, it is still theft.

You bought your NES and the game at retail.  You own it and can play it.  No problem.

You then sold your ownership rights and rights-of-use to whoever bought your used system.  They new owner gets to play but you do not.  It's a physical game system and the right to play it goes with that system.  If you are the original purchaser you can sell or give that system away as you see fit.  Still no problem.  What you can't do is duplicate the game or system so that whoever buys it gets to play and you do too.  Even if it is physically possible (which it is) it is not moral or legal.

If you sold your original system and disposed of it (by sale, gift, or trash) then you also disposed of your right to play it.  You need to legally acquire a physical replacement in order to reacquire the right to play the game.

Duke said:

Yes, YOU ARE.  You are stealing revenue from the creator by using their product without paying for it.  To put it another way, you are stealing their talent, creativity, work, and capital investment.  You are benefiting from the fruits of their labor without reimbursing them for that labor.

 

No, see theft has a definition, and it's the taking of property. Revenue is not property. NOTE again I'm saying that this is independent of whether or not you think piracy is wrong. I just think it devalues something to define it wrong and discuss it in the wrong terms.

Definition of theft

1a : the act of stealing specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Piracy is copyright infringement, which is distinct from theft. The creator's labor is not stolen, as that labor has been spent, and their labor does not increase or decrease based on how many copies of the software is made. They do not go out and type the program again so you can have a copy. They do not physically transfer the bits to your computer. That's why we have to treat it differently from theft, because it is not theft.

Murder and arson are both wrong, but I do not go around claiming arson is murder. Because they are different things, that we treat differently, despite both being wrong.

In reply to yupididit :

GameStop isn't making additional copies, they're simply trading in physical media that already exists. No different than a used car dealer having a bunch of corollas on the lot without a deal with Toyota. It's all in how you define what entity can own and distribute the item in question, be it physical or digital. It happens a LOT less frequently in the "real" world because it's a lot harder to clone a car, but it does happen. Look at all the times Marinello has shut down the Chinese Ferrari shops. 

RevRico said:

Duke said:

Aaron_King said:

Piracy is theft, just like borrowing a music CD from a friend and making a copy is theft.  The thing I don't have an issue with is when I can't purchase the "thing" that I want in the first place.

That's why abandonware is a thing.  No entity exists to retain ownership of the intellectual property rights.  But Nintendo still exists as a company and it is up to them whether they decide to continue selling (or allow others to sell) their back catalog of products.  Just because someone really really wants a game that is no longer sold does not justify piracy if the owner of the game still exists and has decided not to sell it any more.

If you want the game, source a used copy.  Then the original purchaser is legitimately selling you their rights of ownership and use.

 

So where do you draw the line with abandonware? 

Redneck Rampage was an Interactive Arts company. Bought by Sierra, bought by Sega, absorbed into EA briefly, sold to Take 2 eventually.

Which company would you consider the owner then? Interactive Arts because it was released by them? Take 2 because they wound up with whatever was left of the licenses over 15 years after interactive arts shut down? Some company in the middle that an artist moved to while retaining their image copyrights? The music license holder? The original president of Interactive?

I'm sure in legal documents one of those companies could prove to be the owner.  Unless they suddenly resurrect that IP, the only way you will know is if they decide to enforce the copyright by tracking people down and suing them.  Its extremely unlikely, but it is possible.

Before it winds on any further, and after reading all the stuff that posted while I was typing, I'm more convinced than ever that the issue is that the medium and business practices have far outpaced the shorthands that we've used for living memory to talk about ownership and rights.

More thoughts:

When you play another artist's song on your guitar is it piracy? Theft? Does your answer change if you are playing it in front of other people at a gig? Change again if they paid and/or you are getting paid? Those of you that do paying gigs, do you send money to the rights holders? 

RevRico said:

Duke said:

That's why abandonware is a thing.  No entity exists to retain ownership of the intellectual property rights.

So where do you draw the line with abandonware? 

Redneck Rampage was an Interactive Arts company. Bought by Sierra, bought by Sega, absorbed into EA briefly, sold to Take 2 eventually.

Which company would you consider the owner then? Interactive Arts because it was released by them? Take 2 because they wound up with whatever was left of the licenses over 15 years after interactive arts shut down? Some company in the middle that an artist moved to while retaining their image copyrights? The music license holder? The original president of Interactive?

The owner is the last company that bought the rights to the original product.

If that company then dissolved without assigning the rights to some other entity, then the product becomes abandonware.

But if that company still exists, then they still own the property.  The number of intermediate owners is irrelevant and if they choose not to do anything with the product that is 100% their business, not some self-appointed freelance distributor.

Javelin said:

More thoughts:

When you play another artist's song on your guitar is it piracy? Theft? Does your answer change if you are playing it in front of other people at a gig? Change again if they paid and/or you are getting paid? Those of you that do paying gigs, do you send money to the rights holders? 

see dculberson's post above.

Copyright infringement.

In reply to dculberson :

I've said it before and I will keep saying it no matter how many dictionaries you throw at me:  Pirates are stealing revenue.  Revenue is property.  Therefore piracy is theft.

If someone hacks your debit card and steals your pay from your bank account, that is theft.  Your revenue is your property.

Duke said:

If that company then dissolved without assigning the rights to some other entity, then the product becomes abandonware.

But if that company still exists, then they still own the property.  The number of intermediate owners is irrelevant and if they choose not to do anything with the product that is 100% their business, not some self-appointed freelance distributor.

Agreed.  The titles I mentioned earlier are not actually abandonware.  Sometime owns the IP, they are just sitting on it.  Hopefully they decided to publish again.

There are tons of examples of true abandonware out there though.  Most of its is truly old stuff that has been left to expire. 

If I subscribe to the GRM magazine and scan my copy to a webpage so everyone here can read it for free, that's cool right? It's piracy, not theft. 

I have proudly hoisted the black flag (yo ho) in the past and I have zero compunctions about doing it again. The last time I sailed the high seas I think it was for textbooks. To reference those old movie theater messages; yes, I would download a car. 

SV reX said:

Maybe there needs to be a marketplace for retired and outdated intellectual property. When publishers tire of marketing a product, their rights expire.  They have broken their contract with the original artist to market the property, and the property would be turned over to this marketplace. The marketplace would then continue to return revenues and residuals to the original artist.

Its an idea that could work really well, except for one thing. Piracy. No one would buy the old products because they are too easy to steal. So, the artist/ creator still gets screwed, and the "consumer" is still a thief. 

I think a lot of people would buy them.  I would much rather buy something than deal with the world of piracy, and I bet many feel the same way.

I bet the big hurdle is the company says "we miss out $X per year in sales of these old titles, but the cost of publishing them/marketing them again is $20X, so why bother".

If something pleasant is too easy to do without cost, obvious consequence, or  regular enforcement, it is going to be done. The businesses that adapt thrive. Note Apples success of the Ipod and Itunes despite a free method (Napster) being available.

In reply to ProDarwin :

Sure, and I don't have any issue with sharing of products that are truly abandonware.

For instance, Balance Of Power came out in 1984.  You haven't been able to buy since probably 1988.  BUT - its creator has waived copyright and it is now in the public domain.  Sharing that far and wide is not an issue in any way, because the legitimate owner of the IP rights has given them away to the public at large.

Same with Zork.  Zork was given to the public domain and you can legally play it on dozens of emulator sites with a clear conscience.

Ok, so I see what dculberson (and some others) are saying:

Definition of copyright infringement

But honestly in this context, it's a bit of a semantics argument. 
 

I don't think the point is what the legal definition of the words "theft" and "copyright infringement" are.  The point is that copying someone else's work that you are not paying for is BAD. 

No one has the right to copy artistic works because they think it is overpriced, or because they used to own it, or because distribution has been discontinued, or for any other reason if the owner of the intellectual property is not being compensated. 
 

Yes, you are correct. Copyright infringement does not meet the legal definition of the word "theft" (or "piracy").  But arguing that point in this context is endorsing the alleged right to copy artistic works, and that is a fallacy. No such right exists.

Error404 said:

I have proudly hoisted the black flag (yo ho) in the past and I have zero compunctions about doing it again. The last time I sailed the high seas I think it was for textbooks. To reference those old movie theater messages; yes, I would download a car. 

Then you're a thief.  Whether or not your conscience can live with that is up to you.  I'm not the police and it's not my duty to punish you.

But I will call a spade a spade when I see one.

I don't have anything to add here, just observing. 

Javelin said:

More thoughts:

When you play another artist's song on your guitar is it piracy? Theft? Does your answer change if you are playing it in front of other people at a gig? Change again if they paid and/or you are getting paid? Those of you that do paying gigs, do you send money to the rights holders? 

This has a standard answer. You need to personally obtain rights if *recording* a cover, but live performance, even paid, is covered by blanket licensing that sort of venue should carry.

EDIT: the link doesn't address the recording part, and I'm going from possibly inaccurate memory there, but the question was about live performance.

http://www.askamusiclawyer.com/archive/do-i-need-to-pay-to-perform-cover-songs-at-live-music-venues.html

SV reX said:

Yes, you are correct. Copyright infringement does not meet the legal definition of the word "theft" (or "piracy").  But arguing that point in this context is endorsing the alleged right to copy artistic works, and that is a fallacy. No such right exists.

No, that does not follow at all. Saying arson is not murder does not mean I'm endorsing the alleged right to burn someone's house down. I'm saying, for someone so committed to "call[ing] a spade a spade," he seems pretty prone to calling a spade a spatula.

Javelin said:

More thoughts:

When you play another artist's song on your guitar is it piracy? Theft? Does your answer change if you are playing it in front of other people at a gig? Change again if they paid and/or you are getting paid? Those of you that do paying gigs, do you send money to the rights holders? 

If you play a cover song at a gig the venue is responsible for obtaining a blanket license through a performance rights organization.  If you record a cover song then you need to pay a royalty.

Jesse Ransom said:

Before it winds on any further, and after reading all the stuff that posted while I was typing, I'm more convinced than ever that the issue is that the medium and business practices have far outpaced the shorthands that we've used for living memory to talk about ownership and rights.

That's really a big part of it. I'll even go as far as to say that  is  everybody's fault.

We let people that still can't handle checking their own email craft laws and punishments about technology they don't understand, with guidance from people who only have their own interests and profits in mind, even above their own industry peers. 

It's not exclusive to digital media either, but it is a very glaring example of the process. 

Duke said:

hybridmomentspass said:

What if you bought a NES way back when, sold it years ago, and now want to relive  the old days? You paid full retail, which reimbursed them at the time. 

Does Nintendo still sell a NES console? Can I go buy a N64 and goldeneye so I can stay up all night with pizza and Jolt! cola? 

If they dont sell it/offer it, is it still theft? 

Yes, it is still theft.

You bought your NES and the game at retail.  You own it and can play it.  No problem.

You then sold your ownership rights and rights-of-use to whoever bought your used system.  They new owner gets to play but you do not.  It's a physical game system and the right to play it goes with that system.  If you are the original purchaser you can sell or give that system away as you see fit.  Still no problem.  What you can't do is duplicate the game or system so that whoever buys it gets to play and you do too.  Even if it is physically possible (which it is) it is not moral or legal.

If you sold your original system and disposed of it (by sale, gift, or trash) then you also disposed of your right to play it.  You need to legally acquire a physical replacement in order to reacquire the right to play the game.

 

Very interesting discussion.  By this logic, would a Factory Five Cobra (vs. say SuperPerformance) be piracy?  They are generating new physical copies.  

ProDarwin said:

SV reX said:

Maybe there needs to be a marketplace for retired and outdated intellectual property. When publishers tire of marketing a product, their rights expire.  They have broken their contract with the original artist to market the property, and the property would be turned over to this marketplace. The marketplace would then continue to return revenues and residuals to the original artist.

Its an idea that could work really well, except for one thing. Piracy. No one would buy the old products because they are too easy to steal. So, the artist/ creator still gets screwed, and the "consumer" is still a thief. 

I think a lot of people would buy them.  I would much rather buy something than deal with the world of piracy, and I bet many feel the same way.

I bet the big hurdle is the company says "we miss out $X per year in sales of these old titles, but the cost of publishing them/marketing them again is $20X, so why bother".

A lot of things from the 80s to early 2000s have suffered from the fate I described above, or been collected and then abandoned just so another company can say they own it even though no one remembers.

The frequency the gaming industry in particular completely rearranged itself in the early years has left a ton of questions and confusion about who owns what.

A big thing stopping a lot of stuff is the antique music licenses still used in gaming. Because those licenses only last like 7 years, and ownership changes just as frequently, to rerelease something old you need to reup the licenses and that's a monumental undertaking of paperwork sorting. 

Then there's stuff that was liquidated at auction, and has moved into private hands instead of other gaming companies archives. 

The videogame museums are doing a good job of changing laws and rescuing old software, but there's just so much out there and only so much help available. 

dculberson said:

SV reX said:

Yes, you are correct. Copyright infringement does not meet the legal definition of the word "theft" (or "piracy").  But arguing that point in this context is endorsing the alleged right to copy artistic works, and that is a fallacy. No such right exists.

No, that does not follow at all. Saying arson is not murder does not mean I'm endorsing the alleged right to burn someone's house down. I'm saying, for someone so committed to "call[ing] a spade a spade," he seems pretty prone to calling a spade a spatula.

I'm not gonna argue. I think the original post in this thread is crystal clear- the offense was in trying to  justify making unauthorized copies of artistic content.  It didn't have anything to do with naming things.  A crime was being justified.  OP called it a crime.

Who cares if it's a "theft" or an "infringement"?

Peace out.