 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Just one thing The music industry and Hollywood (which saw record profits (pdf) last year despite piracy)
Doesn't make priracy ok. That's like saying because wal-mart makes $300 billion a year it's ok to shoplift. Just because Bill Gates is worth $50 bil I can break into his house and steal his HDTV? Not like it's going to break him to get another one.
You can make an argument about how the studios need to change their ways without justifying theft because they dare make profits. | |
|
 | | Re: Just one thing Piracy isn't the same as shoplifting. Don't open that can of worms. | |
|
 | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Just one thing said by NeoandGeo:Piracy isn't the same as shoplifting. Don't open that can of worms. You totally missed my point. Go back and re-read. | |
|
| | | | Re: Just one thing I didn't miss your point. You are saying piracy is the same as theft. It is not. | |
|
| | | | | Re: Just one thing said by NeoandGeo:I didn't miss your point. You are saying piracy is the same as theft. It is not. Absolutely agree. It is a simple non-sequitur trying to muddle the issue. | |
|
| | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by NeoandGeo:I didn't miss your point. You are saying piracy is the same as theft. It is not. Actually no that wasn't my point. Jesus is everyone stupid or just being myopic today? Shall I color it crayon so the little ones can understand?
OP statement
The music industry and Hollywood (which saw record profits (pdf) last year despite piracy)
In other words the OP is inferring that since Hollywood is making so much money even with people pirating movies that piracy isn't such a bad thing.
My point is that how much money someone makes or not shouldn't be relevant if it's ok to pirate. And if you go back and re-read my examples they CLEARLY point that out. I said NOTHING about whether or not downloading and stealing are the same thing. Only someone that illegally downloads stuff and feels the need to justify it would be so defensive.
So in order to be clear my whole point is the author is infering
A) If the movie indutry was losing 50% then piracy is bad.
B) Since the movie industry is making $10 bil so piracy is ok.
I disagree with that line of thinking. If downloading movies is wrong then its wrong. If it's not wrong then it's not wrong. I really can't fathom who anyone can disagree with that. | |
|
| | | |
1 edit | Re: Just one thing Noone is saying it is right, you're pointlessly bitching, and I was simply pointing out the stupidity in your analogies.
Go have your period somewhere else and stop worrying about things that do not concern you. | |
|
| | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Just one thing said by NeoandGeo:Noone is saying it is right, you're pointlessly bitching, and I was simply pointing out the stupidity in your analogies. No my analogies are not stupid if you actually bother to get the point instead of justifying your activities.
Go have your period somewhere else and stop worrying about things that do not concern you.
Who is having a period bitching about my posts? Um YOU. Sorry last time I checked I'm free to post here like YOU. This doesn't concern me? Exactly how does it concern YOU? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Just one thing They were analogies comparing two different things. To properly use an analogy you you have to make sense. Maybe try a little harder next time?
Continue crying. | |
|
| | | | | | | BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Just one thing said by NeoandGeo:They were analogies comparing two different things. To properly use an analogy you you have to make sense. Maybe try a little harder next time? Continue crying. I am comparing the same thing ninny. LEARN TO READ AND UNDERSTAND CONTEXT. Clearly you don't so I'm done with you. say hello to my ingore list because you are too obtuse to even bother to TRY to get my SIMPLE point even a small metally deficient child would understand. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Just one thing So instead of making an analogy that actually works, you decide to ignore reason. Sounds about right. | |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
 ·Cox HSI
| Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. If someone steals a car, you deny the deal the ability to sell that car to someone else. When someone infringes on copyright, the copyright holder is not denied their ability to sell the property to someone else. And just because someone pirates a copyrighted work does not mean that person would have purchased it if piracy is not possible. There is only lost revenue if the person would have otherwise purchased the work. | |
|
| lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Just one thing I agree the acts are not the same but the bottom lines of theft or copyright infingement are essentially the same. Whether you call it theft or copyright infingement, there has been an acquisition of property, either physical or intellectual, without payment to the rightful owner. | |
|
| | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
| Re: Just one thing No they are not the same. A pirate who downloads a copy of something did not deprive the copyright holder the right to sell that same product to some else.
And even then ONLY if the pirate would have otherwise bought a copy of what he/she downloaded was there lost revenue.
Theft and copyright infringement aren't even remotely the same. | |
|
| | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Just one thing I said the acts are not the same. Forget what I said about the bottom line.
Now, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the difference between an owner not being compensated for an audio CD that is acquired by theft and an owner not being compensated for songs that are acquired by electronic means.
The copyright infringement you so vehemently defend against mischaracterization is an act whereby party “A” unlawfully transfers copyrighted material to party “B” at the expense of the legal owner. So call it “Change we can believe in” or whatever you want, the immutable fact is that the legal owner gets screwed. | |
|
| | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
3 edits | Re: Just one thing Because the audio CD is tangible property that could have otherwise been sold to someone else. The store would be denied TWICE in the case of theft. The store MAY have been denied once in a case of piracy.
When a CD is stolen, the store does not get the revenue for that CD AND the store is deprived of the ability to sell that CD to someone else. In digital piracy no other customer is deprived of their ability to purchase. Copyright infringement isn't theft; it's copyright infringement.
The only conceivable revenue loss from this type of piracy is that which would have come from the pirate. And that would only be the case if the pirate would have otherwise purchased the album. This is particularly true for expensive media like software. Pirates would have otherwise simply gone without instead of spend several hundred on a software title like Office or several thousand on a title like AutoCAD thus there is no revenue loss. | |
|
| | | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | Re: Just one thing said by Z80A:Because the audio CD is tangible property that could have otherwise been sold to someone else. The store would be denied TWICE in the case of theft. The store MAY have been denied once in a case of piracy. Twice or once is not Germain, its a transaction that when executed legally results compensation for the authorized party and when executed illegally denies compensation for the authorized party. In this regard it doesn't matter whether its theft or piracy or the number of perceived times.
In digital piracy no other customer is deprived of their ability to purchase. Non sequitur, its not about the customer's ability to make a purchase. If you stick with this you have to admit taxes deprive people of their ability to make purchases and are therefore unconstitutional
Copyright infringement isn't theft; it's copyright infringement. Agreed
The only conceivable revenue loss from this type of piracy is that which would have come from the pirate. And that would only be the case if the pirate would have otherwise purchased the album. Wrong. You are implying that if a pirate enters a store, commits a theft of an album and then makes it available for download that pirate would only be guilty of theft and not piracy. Whether the pirate paid for the album, or not, doesn't matter. The transfer of copyrighted material is only legal when transacted pursuant to copyright law. You are also implying everyone that gets pirated material would never purchase it, even if there were alternatives they considered acceptable. I don't believe that's the case either. | |
|
| | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Just one thing Please learn to follow a topic. This isn't about whether or not piracy is legal. It is whether piracy=theft. It doesn't. | |
|
| BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Z80A:Copyright infringement isn't theft. It's copyright infringement. And rape isn't murder but both are still wrong. Ever hear a rapist justify raping by saying "Well at least I didn't murder her"
And no I'm not implying pirating a movies is the same as rape or murder. What I am saying copyright infriengemnt is the same level of crime in my opinion as if you walked into a wal-mart and stole a DVD. They may be TECHNICLLY different but they are equally wrong in my book. If my son illegally downloaded a movie I would feel the same as if I caught him shoplifting a DVD from wal-mart. And I would punish him EXACTLY the same. | |
|
| | | | Re: Just one thing I'm not implying, but I will say something completely off the wall so maybe someone will react to my moronic statements.
I can be just like you. Fun, fun. | |
|
| | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 Reviews:
·Cox HSI
3 edits | No, you are saying that rape is the same is murder. It's not.
Speeding is wrong. Tax evasion is wrong. Parking in a handicapped spot in wrong. Cutting in line is wrong. Stealing code from a website is wrong. Extorting thousands of dollars from people is wrong. Abusing process is wrong. Contributing millions to Congress to get favoritism in law making is wrong. Lots of things are "wrong", doesn't make them the same or equal. | |
|
| | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | "They may be TECHNICLLY different but they are equally wrong in my book."
But they're not equally wrong in the law's book; that's why "infringement" and "theft" carry two completely different legal meanings and punishments.
And I can prove this using your own analogy: if Jammie Whatzhername had stolen twenty-four songs from Walmart (roughly the number of tracks on two CDs), as a first time offender, she almost certainly would have been able to get the charges dismissed with a warning.
But instead of stealing the CDs she downloaded them and was charged with infringement (NOT theft). For THAT first time offense she was fined 1.9 million dollars.
So YOU may think "theft" and "infringement" are the same thing and/or equally wrong but every single law and court in the United States on the state and federal level disagrees with you (including congress). | |
|
| | | | Umm, if it's exactly the same, then, by your own definition, the penalty should be exactly the same. If I shoplift a $19.99 DVD, two things happen..
#1: It's a CIVIL penalty, no a criminal penalty
#2: The FINE is the price of the DVD.
Please explain how a fat cat coke snorting megacorp exec is allowed to buy a politician off to make as you quote 'exactly the same crime' a prison sentence?
--
Remember 1 in 4 people are retarded. 25% of Americans are Republican. Coincidence? I don't think so. | |
|
|
|
