Piracy is not theft

hMA29589382-0001.jpg (37 KB)

  • Leave a comment ?

    23 Responses to Piracy is not theft

    1. the problem with this, of course, is that the little piggy is not important.
      the money that the farmer would have made by selling the little piggy to you is what you’ve stolen.
      This poster is basically telling the farmer that he should let you use his piggy to make your own piggy copy for free and make his living off of people who don’t know how to copy piggies.
      In a nutshell:
      You came to the farmer without a piggy.
      Only through the farmer’s work were you able to obtain a piggy. (Knowing how to copy the piggy count- no amount of copying skill could produce a piggy unless the farmer provided the original)
      You left with a piggy.
      You pay the god damned farmer.

      Reply

      • Edit:(Knowing how to copy the piggy *doesn’t* count)

        Reply

      • So by your logic If I pay the farmer, that’s fine – so if I pay the farmer and then make a dozen piggy copies and distribute them to my friends for free there’s no problem with that. I’m just a nice, community spirited guy.

        In fact, I suspect that’s where the farmer got the piggy in the first place. The farmer bred the piggy’s mom and made a copy. I bought the copy.

        If you were a record company or a software company you’d argue that you deserve the profit from all the piggy copies I made as well. And the copies made from them as well, forever. And with copyright laws the way they are now, if someone renews the copyright it can stay active virtually forever. So someone who eats pork a thousand years from now could be paying a royalty to the heirs of your fictional farmer.

        Example – the movie “Casablanca” was made in 1942, everyone involved in the film is dead. The film still generates millions in royalties, despite the fact that no one profiting had anything to do with the original film. If they re-package it occasionally as a new “box set” that can keep making money for generations. Functionally forever.

        How many times does the farmer and his children deserve to be paid for that pig?

        Reply

        • Buy two piggies and put the work into breeding them and you of course are entitled to distribute the copies. If you buy one of a unique item (a song or film) that belongs to one person or group, and them arrange so that no one else you know has to purchase it, then you’re preventing the owner from making that profit.
          Now, whether or not it is a legal process is irrelevant to my point. If you used your VCR to let your friends watch a movie they would have otherwise had to pay for then the company loses that potential money.
          Something like Casablanca is an interesting point, and one I don’t have any real investment in. Perhaps that’s how “public domain” ought to work. I don’t know, unless there are inheritance issues to be hashed out.
          TL;DR
          My only point is this:
          “Stop pretending “Piracy is some sort of harmless, maligned fairy web-magic . You’re getting stuff for free that you’re supposed to pay for.”

          Reply

          • Potential Profit != Profit Loss

            Not everyone who watched a streaming copy of Ghost Rider or Step Up 2 would’ve paid to see it in theaters. Incentive to watch or copy something is heightened by the ease of the process. You can’t just say, “every viewing we didn’t profit from is a loss” because with a greater barrier to viewing, there’s not a direct 1=1 correlation.

            Digitization and profit from intellectual property (because the production is paid for by investors before it’s made, so we’re paying speculators who want additional profit on multiple “viewings,” an intangible product at best, plus merchandising, etc. derivative products) make arguments like this very murky and really just bad logic.

            This type of product is less about paying the producer and more about undercutting the additional profit margins of those that re-sell something for an “experiential” product (like a ticket to a theme park). you even have to alter the perspective between movie and TV productions being sold through various formats and things like video games or computer programs. Hell, computer software is a whole different thing because it has such utility beyond a closed text like a movie or book.

            I don’t debate people need to be paid for work, but the arguments usually don’t talk in the realm of actual economics. People still profit by work, they’re just unhappen that they’re profit margins aren’t greater, and that’s a debatable point in a free market.

            Reply

    2. Everyday you copy something that’s not yours:
      – using language,
      – knowledge how to use stuff like silverware, or toilet paper, when doing your homework, using wikipedia you use some other “farmers” pig too,
      – you break “EULA” of various recipes when you change them,
      – being inspired by someone is “stealing” from them too,
      Doing stuff yourself, that other people can do for you for money, also could classify as “stealing” from them.

      So just take a step back, breathe in, and out, and think using your brain, not mp3Police\AV industry propaganda.

      Reply

    3. The legal definition of “Theft” is “a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent “. Note that second one. “Or services”. That would cover “taking” someone’s intellectual property as well, the service being its creation. Note also that nowhere does it stipulate that the original owner no longer has a “copy” of what was stolen.

      I’m not going to argue the morality of it, but it IS theft. Stop fooling yourselves, because you’re certainly not fooling anyone else.

      Reply

      • Under UK law theft is defined like this “A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;”.

        Please note the “permanently depriving the other of it”. Media piracy is more like fraud than theft as you are making a non approved copy. But fraud doesn’t have an emotional response that gets votes.

        Reply

    4. You’re all talking out of your asses again.

      Just shut up if you don’t know better.

      File sharing is legal because there was precedent set in the late 70’s when the movie industry tried to sue the people making VCRs. They lost and the law said that copying your owned material to share with friends is legal.

      All that’s changed is how you make it available. In order to change the laws on sharing you have to change the lack of laws on the internet. Which I believe Obama is constantly trying to do.

      There you go. Not theft.

      Reply

      • There’s a difference here: Copying VCR tapes to share with friends is limited by time and material resources. With file sharing, you can “share” it with literally millions of total strangers in minutes. The scale makes all the difference in the world here.

        ( By the way, it’s the Republicans pushing for SOPA and shit. So, who’s talking out their ass now? Obama’s actually spoken out AGAINST these changes… )

        Reply

    5. And by that logic I would assume you would also claim that plagiarism is also not theft. Why should we give credit to Faust 1000 years from now if you can so easily and apparently legally rewrite word for word his poetry and claim it as your own? Right? You didn’t destroy or remove the original. All you did was make a copy. Why should he get the credit which you so rightly deserve with your copy?

      The pig example is pure and simple. Its theft. And you’re a fucking idiot.

      Reply

      • Actually, you could, but when you were found out which would be fairly quick in literary circles, you’d just end up looking like a fool.

        Of course, if you credit it that’s fine – so if you copy a DVD it’s ok as long as you mark it “this is a copy of a film originally by X”?

        Reply

    6. somalian pirates are not thieves. fucking white people.

      Reply

    7. Way to COMPLETELY misrepresent (or just confuse) intellectual property with physical property.

      Reply

    8. Napster opened Pandora’s Box, freeing digital media, and changing the entertainment economic model forever. The digital age of availability has enriched and expanded the intellect of mankind. With millions of people sharing, the public agreement of copyright no longer represents the will of the people. In response to this change, Lobbyists buy politicians to extend copyright terms (was 28 years, now 105), and continue lobby to impose internet restrictions. People drank during Prohibition, and the law was eventually repealed. Cheers.

      Reply

      • While the Prohibition thing is accurate, someone still made the booze, and they were paid for the creation of it. If you made beer, gave it to someone else, who then sold it, but you made none of the money from it, how long could you keep making it before you ran out of money?

        It all comes down to this. If you write a book, or a song, get it published or recorded, and made no money from it, despite the cost to you for publishing it, how long would you want to keep doing it before you stopped?

        Reply

        • As I raised earlier, most productions are paid in advance by someone other than the creators, who are also paid a base fee, with additional profits derived from re-sale of an “experience” more than a tangible product.

          That’s why in a digital age you have to stop talking in terms of “I made a concrete thing that has intrinsic value” because digitized media now has an ease of production on an unprecedented scale, and while IP is something people deserve to be paid for, it’s market speculation and demand that puts prices on things. Is a musical performance actually “worth” millions of dollars? The market demand and willingness of people to pay for it sets that price. IP is virtually priceless until demand and peer competition enter into it.

          Reply

        • Though slightly dated, musician Janis Ian said it best.
          www.chrisvreeland.com/FeedingTheMouth/Ian.html
          Media sharing is a form of advertisement, for live concerts, theater, and commissioned performances. Talented actors, writers, athletes, and musicians who love their craft can make a living, from the 7 billion of us (fans) eager to directly support them, and bypass the restrictive corporate middlemen taking the majority of their profits.

          Reply

    9. No, piracy is piracy.
      Those Somalian bastards who attack ships? Piracy.
      Captain Jack Sparrow? Piracy.

      Copying material without permission? NOT PIRACY.
      It’s copyright infringement.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas