This is SOPAthetic.

I agree with trying to end piracy. I don't care who you are or what your situation is. You are not entitled to free stuff, and illegally downloading copyrighted material otherwise paid for is petty theft.

I do think, however, that this SOPA garbage is a bad attempt to stop the problem with a bandaid fix. Instead of just screwing internet piracy, you're just screwing everyone..

You think exactly as I do sir or madam. The only *valid* reason I would ever see for *piracy* is the widespread lack of demos, and with PC digital gaming, you cant rent or try it out unlike our console brethren. I bet if more games always had a trial version, that could cut down on piracy a bit. Now that I think of it, that was the only reason I ever wanted to pirate. Luckily I didn't.

Well I mean, people try to throw the argument out "well I didn't steal anything physical." But..you screwed the owner out of *insert however much said item cost*, didn't you? That's theft. If you have to pay for it, and you get it without paying for it, that's stealing. I would love to think that our society has evolved past petty theft, but sadly, that is not the case. If you want something that cost currency, buy it. You are not special.

But what the government doesn't understand (I think they do, they are just ignorant goons) is that SOPA will not end piracy, at all. It will encourage it even more.

People's attitude is that "well I'm just one person...." and " they are making millions anyways!" Both those attitudes are poisonous. Looking at last years charts, Crysis 2 was the most pirated game with about...3 million pirated copies was it? How many of those people thought the attitudes mentioned above? Nobody deserves a free pass. Why do I have to pay 60 dollars for my copy of Crysis 2 but you can get it for free? SOPA will do nothing because it mainly goes for sites like Youtube. CoD montages aren't what hurts people. It's sites like Arrrrr Ye Matey!. Pirates never work in the open anyways. They deal in the shady part of the internet, not on youtube or any of the sites that millions of people go on to.

First, piracy is not theft. Second, assuming every download is necessarily a lost sale is bogus.

Uh, what? I laughed. Please explain that ridiculous statement. How exactly is piracy not theft? The downloading of something you'd otherwise pay for, for free. Lol? I hate to use the cliche meme, but "can't tell if serious or just stupid."

How is it not theft? You took something that wasn't yours. Most of the time it IS a lost sale. Some people do pay for the stuff later and while I applaud them for doing so, most people never do. Some people may say "well, they'll buy the sequel!" but no, they pirate that too. Please, enlighten me how this isn't "stealing". Also, why isn't it considered stealing then? What's the difference between a digital copy of Avatar and stealing a CD of Avatar?

Piracy is a violation of copyright. Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without their permission and with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of this property.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Theft


Going to need a citation on that one. Preferably from a source without any vested interest in the results of such a study.
Taking an Avatar DVD prevents the owner of that DVD from reselling or otherwise making use of the DVD. Piracy does not.

piracy is just a fancy word for stealing what isn't yours, and stealing equals theft

and wikipedia is not a scholarly source, once you go to college you'll probably hear that several times even though you should be hearing that in high school as well

Precisely. Piracy is theft, pure and simple. Anyone who disagrees is more than likely someone who actively pirates material and just doesn't want to admit it.

And I really laughed when his rebuttal included a link to Lolpedia. He probably made the page himself.

So I suppose your argument is that since the files are hosted and shared amongst willing participants, it's taking property with permission?

If I stole a bucket of water from someone's well, then shared the water with everyone in my village, is everyone in my village also responsible for the theft of the water, or am I alone responsible?

Of coarse everyone is responsible. They are all participating in a crime. They all took the water. It wasn't their water. It was someone else's water.

And the idea of someone stealing once and then duplicating the item and selling it, that is still theft every time someone downloads it. Those "copies" of the original would have been replaced with "new" and "paid for".

slyme: The thing is, this "copyright" is being morphed into a physical package, much like perfume or chocolate. When you sell something, it's an exchange of goods. Just because it's digital doesn't mean it's up for grabs. Why don't we all pirate then, since it's not all "lost sales"?

Sorry, guys. I didn't realize I was submitting a research paper. I assume you've no actual arguments to the contrary then?
Nope. My argument is that piracy does not deprive the owner of their property, it merely makes a duplicate of it. Therefore, it's a violation of a copyright (the right to make copies) and not theft of property.

Technically speaking, when you create a copy of a digital product and illegally sell the copy you are not a pirate, you are a counterfeiter.

A pirate would be someone who intercepts a shipment of discs and then resells them.


Pirates cause actual losses whereas counterfeiters cause hypothetical losses.

I'm really not sure you can say that with a straight face.

Exhibit A:

Someone buys a copy of "Avatar".

That person then makes 100 copies of it, and distributes it online for free on a piracy website.

100 people, who wanted to see the movie, now have that film without doing what person A did in the first place: buy it.

100 people now have a copy of Avatar for free. They stole it, because they did not pay for it. How this does not make sense to you is honestly absurd. They WOULD have bought it. THEY ENDED UP JUST STEALING IT THOUGH. Because they HAD the opportunity to pay, but opted to not. It's honestly quite black and white?

A "hypothetical loss" is still a loss, and it's still theft. You stole a copy of something. Your point of view is irrelevant; look at it from the persons item you stole PoV.

"Hey, you have a copy of my movie!" Says James Cameron. "Did you buy it?" "Nope."

Get the point? James Cameron made a movie, and it's not free to view. You now have a copy of said movie that you did not pay for, yet you are viewing it freely. How do you think he feels about that? Inb4 "BUT LIEK HE'S A BAGIGGITYZILLIONAIRE1111"

Because if no one ever paid for anything there'd be a decrease in authorship (or at least quality authorship would be diminished). But that's merely a hypothetical, and has no real basis in reality. I'm not interested in what would happen if everyone suddenly stopped paying for things. Promoting authorship is purpose of copyright. So far, I've seen little evidence that piracy has adversely effected this.
See, this is a claim that requires evidence.

Then read my post, slyme. It's attitudes like yours that drag this society down, honestly, no offense. All about the dictionary definitions and not about morals and authority. You'd make a superb lawyer with that conscious you've got there.

you wanted to change our opinions based on hearsay written on a website that can be modified at any time by anyone with any opinion, and then you claimed only one response against you held no standing so any response you didn't like doesn't have any standing rather then attempting to hold to your side of the argument with more proof towards your ideals

if you want to have your own opinions thats fine, but don't go around telling people your opinions are superior without backing it up properly

Did you read what I linked to? It was a summary of a US Supreme Court case. It's not exactly a secret. Piracy and theft are two distinct and separate actions. The only reason to use the term theft is to make an appeal to emotion. Those who continue to use the term "theft" after the distinction has been explained are not arguing in good faith. If you think piracy is wrong, then that's fine. But call it piracy or copyright infringement. Theft is something else.

Well, this got off topic and hostile pretty quickly...

Let's get this back on track... and in a polite manner

I have written to all of my Congressmen here in the US. As a politically-connected individual, I will get an actual response from them and I'll post them as soon as I do.

Of course, I mentioned how the video game industry also tries to do the same thing using DRM.

That's a far less interesting and convincing argument.
I suppose that can be acceptable. I believe that the prospect of free water would be enticing enough that anybody would fall prey to its temptation, so therefore they're much less responsible. If it were practical, the goal should be to remove any potential well water thieves, cutting off the supply and temptation of the otherwise non-criminal villagers.
I see two realities in both situations. One, in the context of this discussion. there is no immediate need for water, there may not have even been a want, its theft is purely out of greed. Greed shouldn't go unpunished. Second, holding all those who drink the water responsible would complicate the village; again, in context, it would negatively affect many villages; the potential harm caused by throwing them all in jail/fining them all could very well be more damaging than if they continued to drink stolen water for a lifetime.

Where does Bethesda stand?

Also, this ad is appalling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=w6KfptyKY5I

Something like that would never air over here, it's not advertising, it's fear mongering.

I don't understand why this is so difficult. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm stating a fact: this is what X means, this is what Y is, and this difference means they are not the same.