OSNews

Don't worry it's the same nearly everywhere else..

If something's the same just about everywhere else, it's usually because of the United States' heavy influence on the world. I also am embarrassed (and downright pissed) at times to be an American.

I'm sure things will change worldwide eventually, give it 300 years or so...

I'm not surprised you equate piracy to legal. "

What a nice libelous statement from you, thanks.

I never once said copyright infringement was legal - never once, not ever.

Copyright and how it is applied has very much to do with technology, especially networked technology and audiovisual applications. How a government handles such things and what the implications may be to us, the technical audience, is very important. Therefore I do feel such discussions are right at home here.

Agreed.

I actually would prefer read this stuff:

"Commodore USA to relaunch Amiga brand with series of AROS desktops"

instead of non-sense politics.

That just got out, and it's 2:15 at night here. Be patient.

... and you are not sleeping yet!... you would be a good software programmer

If piracy is theft then Katrina should have been a capital crime.

Amen! Let's go arrest the Coriolis effect RIGHT NOW.

After reading that Hyperion is taking legal actions against Commodore USA, I actually prefer read about Obama guvernment policies.

What a dirty world, my God!

However, I think the real term you're looking for is "Copyright Infringement"... as the term "Piracy" is sufficiently ambiguous and shouldn't be used in the first place.

Edited 2010-08-31 22:34 UTC

I couldn't agree more! No matter that some individuals in "the scene" have embraced the pirate label; no one downloading music, software or movies is doing so with a clipper ship and guns blazing.

Real piracy still exists too, in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, all along the coasts of Africa, and even in the Caribbean Sea. It's a real and serious thing; lives are sometimes lost and it always involves violence of some kind as well as physical theft. I feel that labeling copyright infringers as "pirates" is just as silly as labeling computer criminals "hackers", though for different reasons.

Unfortunately, the label has been maintained for so long I fear it will remain indefinitely.

Sneaking into a concert is breaking and entering, not theft. If you stand outside ArenA stadium in Amsterdam during a concert, you can hear the music - without paying. Is that theft too?

If you'd walk past my house now, you could hear me playing The Velvet Underground's "Heroin". Is that theft too?

If I open my window while driving, people can hear me playing albums. Is that theft?

Edited 2010-09-01 08:26 UTC

Well, in the UK you can't even do that, it would be at least "copyright infringement":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029...

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml

Bloody ridiculous!!

The act of sneaking in the B&E is one thing, but recording a performance without permission is a different matter once you get inside. I'm thinking wiretapping-related laws in the US, YMMV in Netherlands.

Bands and other acts know that music will leak out from the venue, but you're paying to visually seeing the band up close (relative to your tickets), seeing the stage performance (lighting, etc...) and music in high quality, rather than hearing muffled sounds in the distance.

Edited 2010-09-01 12:21 UTC

Hah! If only. I would gladly pay the $100+ CDN ticket price for a lot more acts ... if they would actually spend 10 minutes (or more!!) getting the acoustics right, instead of just flipping every dial to 11 and going for coffee.

There's nothing worse than going to a concert and not understanding a thing they are saying, or even being able to figure out what song is playing, because there's 120,000 Watts of pure noise being pumped off the stage.

I'll spend $20 CDN on a CD with good acoustic (although those are getting harder and harder to find) levels and listen at home, thank you very much.

Yes it is theft just like skipping out on a taxi cab or a massage session. Sneaking into a movie theater is also theft.

You're taking a service without paying for it.

Not sure why you were voted a 10. It's called theft of services and every Western country has a statute for it.



No because they are charging to get into the concert.

Do you really not see the difference?

I could care less about what any scientist or astronaut says, the word is definitely flat.

You see, it's easy to believe your opinions as fact if you disregard what the professionals tell you.

Sneaking in to a concert doesn't involve any taking, so by your own definition it's not stealing.

You say that "When you take the work of others without payment you are stealing" bur this definition is obviously overly-broad: Many things are given away without payment and if I take them I am not stealing. I don't mean to be pedantic here but if you cannot even define theft in a way which doesn't trip over lawful actions that you probably agree with then how can it possibly be a correct definition? If you wish to dispute the legality of taking things without payment for which no payment was requested or desired then we can have a different discussion, but I will presume that you have the sense not to come out against libraries or free samples.

Stealing is when you have something and I take it FROM you. "Stealing" of information is a misnomer. In the USA theft is normally defined at the state level, so let's look at what California says about it (since we may presume that many recording artists and movie studios are based out of California).

California Penal Code § 484:

I have taken the liberty of placing in bold the relevant portions, as I understand it. The portions about fraudulent representation and pretense don't seem to apply to copyright infringement and look like they're intended to make cheating and conning fall under theft.

So far it looks like your definition is not very good, and my off-the-cuff definition is holding up. Dare we press on? The rest of section 484 concerns renting, leasing and card fraud so without objection I'll skip on a bit.

§ 485 is similarly unrelated to copyright infringement, dealing with lost property. § 486 and 487 divide theft into grand and petty and specifies what counts as grand theft. In all cases the language does not allow for non-physical items to be included.

§ 488:

So even if you're right then "piracy" is "petty theft."

§ 489 and 490 talk about punishment, prison terms and so forth. It also goes in to a few specifics which do not apply, including recording films in a movie theater. In this case it's clear that the crime is "interfering with and obstructing those attempting to carry on a lawful business" and not theft.

I could go on but by now I think my point stands:

Copyright infringement != theft.

Or, in other words, you're wrong.

I'll just note, to clarify, that the reason I mentioned petty theft is that the california code mostly defines grand theft as beginning at things valued $100 or $400, depending on the type of item. This suggests that multi-thousand dollar damages for "theft" of an MP3 would be inappropriate since an MP3 is not included in any of the things indicated as being grand theft.

It's called theft of services, look it up. You took their time and effort without compensating them. It's theft.

It's just as much theft as going to a therapist for an hour and then skipping out on the bill. Just because there was no of transfer physical property does not mean that theft did not occur.



Yes some people give away things for free. Not sure how that negates anything I have said.



I already stated that my belief is based in principle, not law. By showing me a bunch of penal codes you only show that you missed the point.

Just because Cuba legalized theft when they seized private property does not mean that their actions were principled or that theft did not occur.

Piracy can be just as destructive to a producer as theft, or do you deny this?

You're taking the intellectual property of others without payment, and that is theft. I could care less about how some state classifies it. It's just as unprincipled as material theft.

My position is based on principle and as such you cannot tell me I am wrong. You can only disagree with me and explain why.

I don't make a moral distinction between theft of material property or intellectual property. Both can destroy a business and both involve taking without permission. I could care less about any legal distinction anymore than I care about legal distinctions between theft and larceny. It's all the same area of unethical activity: theft.

You are wrong, because you don't understand the difference between taken something and making a copy of it and as such the basis of your "principle" is wrong.

And yes we can tell you, you are wrong, because reality matters.

No taken something implies that something has been removed. Illegal copying takes nothing.


Good thing that illegal copying is not taking anything from anyone.


With the nature of the product theft is impossible, unless the medium it's stored on is stolen.

Since you're not dealing with legal definitions, but with man-on-the-street definitions, I'll counter you.

Maybe "theft" is limited to your definition, but "stealing" certainly is not.

Plaigerism, the unauthorized use of others' words without attribution, is considered often referred to as "stealing words".
Corporate espionage where one company obtains the business secrets of its competitor is "stealing business secrets".
A student obtaining the questions and answers to an exam before taking the test is said to have "stolen the test".

In these cases, the offended party still possesses the original items, but stealing has indeed occurred, in the colloquial sense.

And of course, there are phrases like "stealing a kiss", which are about unauthorized action rather than change of possession of an item, yet the word "steal" is still used.

Even a student simply copying answers from the brainiac sitting next to him while the test is in progress is often said to have "stolen the answers".

And since this is a tech blog, we've all seen the claims that a company that adopted (even loosely) the ideas of another's previously released product "stole" the ideas.


As for piracy of IP, the actual "theft" in question is is the "theft" of the copyright holder's ability to exercise his/her legal rights wrt the IP in question as he/she sees fit. It's like sneaking in to a movie theater to whatch a movie free of charge. I'd say that a person that did that stole from the movie theater, even though the movie theater didn't have any items removed from their possession. Downloading a movie, song, software, video game, etc, and using it without authorization (for example, without due payment), is the same as sneaking into the theater (only the latter at least takes some courage! lol), so I'd say stealing has occurred just like it did in the sneaking into theater case.

And colloquially, "steal" = "theft". I don't see why people get outraged when someone says "piracy is theft"; we know that the phrase means unauthorized use rather than removal from possession.

The classic wrongs are lie, cheat, steal, harm, kill. So I guess "piracy = cheating" would be preferrable to "piracy = theft" for some, but I don't think the distinction makes much of a difference (again, I'm not talking of legal definitions). Maybe people sleep better at night thinking of themselves as cheaters rather than stealers or theives, so they cling to the distinction between theft/steal and cheat.

Edited 2010-09-01 09:30 UTC

Yes, copyright infringement is colloquially referred to as stealing. This is not a very profound statement, though. To say that copyright infringement is theft sounds like it is presenting a moral argument against copying per se, but in reality fails to do so, IMHO.

To go through your list:
* Plagiarism is misleading, or essentially lying. It is essentially claiming authorship when this is not the case.
* Espionage generally involves tactics such as becoming an employee and then breaching confidentially, or trespassing.
* Obtaining test answers in advance, much like plagiarism, is misleading, or essentially lying.
* "Stealing a kiss" might refer to unwanted physical contact.
* Copying test answers, again, much like plagiarism, is misleading, or essentially lying.

Copyright infringement might prevent the copyright holder from receiving potential income, if the copyright holder would have received income had the copyright infringement not taken place. However such income is only expected in the first place because copyright law grants the copyright holder the legal right to it. Had there been no such law, there would have been no such expectation of income. Justifying copyright law on the basis of lost income, then, is a circular argument.

Copyright law was originally justified:
(UK Statute of Anne / Copyright Act 1709)
or
(USA Constitution)

And this remains the only coherent (non-circular) argument for it, IMHO. As such, copyright infringement is wrong because it is a violation of democratically agreed law. This is an important distinction because it means we have a right to democratically change it. If we didn't, then it wouldn't be a democratically agreed law, and there would be no moral justification for it at all.

I just saw an ad wrt "identity theft", a phrase that is another example of the term "theft" or "steal" used in a situation where there isn't necessarily a removal of possession from the rightful owner. Just throwing it out there.

I think the distinction is highly important. The people speaking of copyright infringement in terms of "theft" tend to do so because they are being intentionally inflammatory and wish to dramatize the extent to which they have been victimized. It is more accurate to say "cheating" as you note and this is also less inflammatory. In the public consciousness a thief is a very bad sort of person who is doing a great deal of harm and the owners of the copyrights would like to borrow the negativity the public feels toward such persons. Infringing on copyright is, however, not a very harmful activity--certainly not on the same order as "regular" theft!--so I contend that to equate the two is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.

If we're to have a proper debate over the role of copyright and the rights of the public vs. the rights of the author it is best to remain clear and honest on all sides. One way in which the "traditional media" side likes to bolster their position is by using poisonous, loaded language like "theft." By choosing the language for the debate they instantly start with a strong emotional advantage that they do not necessarily deserve. When I see someone using such language I must assume that he is doing so either out of ignorance, having been suckered by this kind of debate-framing language, or malice, intending to sucker more people and limit the scope of the debate to the questions and attitudes where he knows he can score points easily. It is for this reason that I take great exception to the use of such terms and will always speak against them, deny their appropriateness and attempt to replace them with "copyright infringement" or other accurate and appropriate terms wherever I can.

That's one of the areas where I have a real problem with modern copyright law, and the DMCA specifically. Fair use has been thrown out the window; long gone are the days when one could legally make a "working" copy of software, music or especially movies so the original can be archived. Back in the old days (the 80s for me) I remember even my cartridge-based TRS-80 games had a clause in the beginning of the manual stating I could make an archival copy.

Nowadays, the discs themselves are copy-protected and we have to violate the DMCA just to exercise fair use. It's greedy bullshit and it sucks, but when even the most progressive president we've had in years is against copyright reform, what can we do?

Either that or drugs, illegal gambling or child pornography. At the moment it seems popular among politicians in the EU to want to fight child pornography using internet filters or data retention. Of course the pro-copyright lobbyists are aware of this and are trying to take full advantage of it.

The frightening thing about this is that most often than not the politicians have absolutely no idea what they are in fact trying to push through: they don't understand how the filtering system works, they don't understand its limits, and they refuse to listen to criticism. Once the filtering system is in place there is absolutely nothing stopping large corporations from gaming the system to their own ends.

A politician pushing for something he doesn't understand is a lot worse than a politician who doesn't do anything. It's like firing a nuke without knowing the direction it's aimed at.

Edited 2010-08-31 23:17 UTC

in this respect, our new boss is same as the old. Most media OWNERS are Republicans so Rep Presidents see Copyright as a business-ownership thing, like giving away other corporate favors. Democrats are on the other side because artists, authors, musicians tend to be focused on people-issues (Democrat) and copyright violations take away their pay.

Both sides like the control copyright offers as well. Republican publishers use their "ownership" to quash or belittle things they don't like. Democrats like the platform for popular people to sway opinion.

I agree...this posted article and header is too politically *hot*. This action by the administration is consistent with its constituency and policies. RIAA and other "big hollywood" interests are very solid democrat. Time to move along.

Sadly, I doubt it will be within my lifetime that we have a Libertarian or other freedom-loving party member as President, and even then Congress will still be full of the usual greedy, ignorant rats.

The U.S. democratic system is great when it works, but getting it to truly work for the people is the problem. If nothing else, I think political lobbying should be outlawed; the people may vote in the representatives but the corporations spend millions to change the way those representatives think and vote. It's not fair to the people.

@Berend de Boer - if I could mod you up I would. It's amazing how the Dems claim that the Repubs is all about protecting the rich. Meanwhile, the rich are all rallying for the Dems - there is a reason why. Obama is nothing but a shill for big money and has done more damage before his 1st term is up than the previous administration did in two entire terms. And no, I wasn't a fan of the previous administration either. The dollar is weaker (while Obama continues to have more money printed and spent for his lobbyists), unemployement is horrible (but it's okay, but it's "change" right?).......

You're talking about me? I must confess! I only use both pirated and open source softwares, hear downloaded mp3s, read magazines achieved dubiously, use internet without paying and watch DvDrip movies

Edited 2010-09-01 04:55 UTC

Taxes are lower, not higher. As reported in right-leaning Forbes (as in Steve Forbes) Magazine:

More than two-thirds thought that taxes are higher today, and only 4% thought they were lower; the rest said they are the same.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it's hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama's stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year's $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama's policies.


It's a common mistake.



Actually, Wall St. stopped donating after the passage of financial reform.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/wall-street-donations-shift...

Follow the money to see what bankers think about this administration's policies.

As far as "rich people" benefiting disproportionally from the current administration's policies: that;s just silly talk.



This amounts to "you're not fixing an epic disaster which occurred under the last guy's watch fast enough!" This truly is the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and unemployment is a lagging indicator.



Are you suggesting Hoover-nomics?

How did cutting spending work out under Herbert Hoover leading into the Great Depression?

How did increasing spending work out for FDR?

How does history remember those policies?

If balancing the budget is your concern, then you must favor allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the richest two percent. That is not a "new tax" by the way. It's the current law mandated by the use of reconciliation to pass the bill in the first place, and would save 1 Trillion $.

It's 3.7 Trillion if you allow them to expire for everyone, which pays for TARP (which was not passed by this administration, contrary to popular belief) and The Stimulus.

Also, contrary to other mythology propagated by politicians seeking (re-)election, cutting taxes (surprisingly) does not balance a budget.

Some of you guys sound misinformed on political issues.

P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president?

Edited 2010-09-01 08:33 UTC

"P.S. Did you know Reagan oversaw the largest increase in the Federal Deficit as a percentage of any modern president? "

Y'know, you really can't just go around making stuff up like this and expect a pass.

Go look at the Congressional Budget Office data*. (I hope you're not like other Reagan-haters to whom I've pointed this out, who insist that the CBO just isn't as reliable source of information on the economy as MoveOn?)

Look at 1981 (when President Reagan took office) and 1989 (when he left office).

The deficit grew from 2% to 3% of GDP.

Now look at 2009 (when President Obama took office) and today (the dashed line).

The deficit grew from 3% to 6%, with projections of 9% by the end of 2010.

Yes, sure, the economy is bad - but it was a disaster when Mr. Reagan took office, too (remember 14% inflation and 20% mortgages? No, you probably don't). When he left office, inflation was only 3% and mortgage rates were down to 7%. The economic recovery begun under his watch continued right up until 9/11. Winning the Cold War was just gravy.

Set aside your hatred for a moment and let your inner geek emerge - look at the data. Reagan is remembered so fondly by most Americans** because his policies worked.

Will Mr. Obama's? Too early to tell. I hope so, but I fear he and the lopsided congress will spend us into bankruptcy first.

* See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/MainText.3.1.shtml#1100451. That huge freaking cliff on the right is Mr. Obama's "spend us into prosperity" strategy at work.

** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_t.... Ronald Reagan places 5th, 2nd, 2nd and 9th in recent polls seeking the best president in all of history.

You do realise the US has been bankrupt for years, right?

Morally or fiscally? :-)

We're not fiscally bankrupt until we default, as I understand the term. Call me an optimist, but as we recovered from the Nixon / Ford / Carter fiasco, we can recover from the Bush / Obama fiasco (not to absolve congress by using names of convenience, of course). We just desperately need some competent leadership.

We're not bankrupt yet, but we're so far into the red that if the rest of the world started calling on us to pay our debts, we'd all be learning to speak Chinese in a few years.

Not making anything up. Perhaps it's my fault for trying to be too succinct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_ter...

Change in Debt/GDP (like I said "by percentage")
Bush II (R): +27.2%
Clinton (D): -9.7%
Bush I (R): +15%
Reagan (R): +20.6%
Carter (D): -3%
Ford/Nixon (R/R): -2.8%
Kennedy/Johnson (D/D): -16.6%

So, I guess I stand corrected. Reagan had the second largest increase in debt as a percentage of any modern president. I guess I heard that stat before Bush II's 2nd term was completed, and the Tea Party failed to enlighten me since then.



I will never disparage the CBO. I believe what they say, be it about deficits or how the health care legislation reduces them. I'm never selective about that.



The wars were not on the books before he took office, he inherited the greatest economic disaster since the great depression. Paul Krugman won a Nobel prize in economics, and he supports even a second stimulus.

Still, this is just academic. Perhaps the only thing that Dick Cheney and Paul Krugmen agree on is that "Deficits don't matter". One of those guys won a nobel prize for economics by the way.

Strangely, there was no tea party to "refudiate" Cheney for that statement. Sometimes I wonder if the teabaggers want limited government, or government limited to conservatives



I was born two months later, but I don't remember the Civil War either if you want to look at it that way.



You forgot about the Bush I recession, which was followed by 8 years of prosperity under Clinton.

Also, you forgot to mention that the "Carter Recession" was official in 1982, which was the second year of Reagan's term.

That is a popular myth, which is cogently debunked here:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-recession1982.htm

... and on many other sites

A lot of people make that mistake, though.



I bear neither hatred nor much of an inner geek. I am just interpreting the data and calling it like I see it.

Even Bush Sr. (famously) referred to Reaganomics as "Voodoo-Economics", and as we saw in August '08, the final verdict on that was not pretty.

It really doesn't matter to me much how "most Americans" view Reagans legacy. Most Americans are skeptical or non-believers in climate change, evolution, Obama being a Christian, Obama being American, and under who's watch TARP was passed.

What would a poll about Jim Crow in South Carolina 1960 show?



Again, largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover (R) taught us that not spending is a disastrous policy in such circumstances.

Those who do not understand history are destined to want to repeat it.

Besides, this congress can't get anything passed. Under Reagan about 6% of legislation went to filibusterer. Now it's more like 40%.

Also, TARP was as big as the Stimulus, passed under Bush, and benefited no one but the people who were deregulated into precipitating the crisis we find ourselves in today.



Your assertion that the chart proves Obama is increasing the national debt disproportionately is a misrepresentation of the data.

Obama spent a few billion bailing out GM, and 780 billion on the stimulus whereas bush spent 700 billion on TARP, about another trillion on bail outs, a several trillion on tax cuts, and about a trillion on both wars.

Check out this article on MSN about how the total cost of the Bush era was about 12 Trillion (with a capitol "T") dollars.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/StockInvestingTradin...

40% of Obama's stimulus spending was in tax cuts (republican platform), and if you like the CBO you must agree that health care reform reduces the deficit, so that cannot count against obama by your metrics.

The bottom line here is that blaming Obama for the national debt is about as fair as blaming him for the mortgage meltdown of '08, the wars, the bush tax cuts, and the bush bailouts.



Still don't care much for public opinion polls. Still, by your own reference FDR blows Reagan out of the water in everything but a few recent public opinion polls (see also: biased and unscientific).

FDR's margin of victory increases when you discount the opinions of the laity.

Since the only fact you disagreed with me on was the debt number, which I have just clarified, then can I assume we are in agreement on everything else?

For instance, you must be against extending the Bush tax cuts (the ones increasing the debt which were passed through reconciliation).

Finally, here's another fun fact:

http://ei-forum.com/2008/11/04/stock-market-returns-democrats-vs-re...

The New York Times has published a really interesting chart/study showing that under a Democratic Presidency the average yearly return is better and that a $10,000 investment in the S&P in 1929 would have grown to $11,733 if invested under Republican presidents only and to $300,671 at a compound rate of 8.9% under Democratic Presidents:

By the way, this was in 11/08. The S&P dropped another 10% before Obama was inaugurated.

Edited 2010-09-01 10:49 UTC

"I wonder if the teabaggers..."
"I bear neither hatred..."

Um hm. A most telling slip in your screed.

Why am I not convinced? You're blinded by your own hate.

For example, with every evidence of a straight face, you credited President Clinton for the fiscal situation in 2000, but blamed President Reagan for the fiscal situation in 2008. Didn't they teach you in school that President Clinton served after President Reagan?

Let me guess: You were kidding there, too.

You admitted that your initial swipe at Mr. Reagan was wrong. Your next step is to realize that Mr. Obama's eye-popping deficits are no more in the "don't matter" category than Mr. Bush's - they are a grave danger to our country. Get past the "R's bad, D's good" chant from your non sequitur-laden earlier post. Judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their state.

It's not too late.

Dunno. For instance, I really don't hate bush. When he dodged those shoes and smirked at his assailant I was proud to be an American.



If you read carefully you will see that I blamed Reagonomics (e.g. deregulation and regressive "trickle down"/"voodoo economics" tax policy) for '08, not Reagan himself.



That's a bit of a misrepresentation. I admitted that Reagan oversaw the SECOND biggest increase in debt by percentage of GDP in the modern era, behind Bush II.

At first I thought it was the largest, but turns out Bush II edges him out.

You make it sound like it detracts from my point.



I can't realize that because it isn't true. This is only Obama's debt to the extent that it is also Obama's bush tax cuts, Obama's wars, Obama's TARP, Obama's bail outs, Obama's medicare part D, etc. (in other words, not at all).

Yes, Obama did bail out GM, but they have repaid that loan. Yes, Obama did push for a stimulus but that wasn't some tax-and-spend whim. It was 40% tax cuts and more importantly it was necessitated by the complete and total failure of Reaganomics (not Reagan per se), and what everyone agrees is the greatest economic disaster since the 1920s.

Yes, Obama pushed for health care reform (read: campaign promise), but you cited the CBO earlier, and we both know the CBO scores that bill in the positive, so that can't count against the debt.



Why do you assume that I hate all R's? From Lincoln to Teddy R to Eisenhower to Nixon and Bush I's foreign policy, I have a lot of good things to say about Rs.

There are even a lot of things I like about Bush II, but policy wise I'm in the 80% of Americans that give him a negative approval rating.

That hardly makes me radical.

My point is, blaming Obama for the deficit/debt might fly for a cable news audience, but it is hardly a fair assessment.

Edited 2010-09-01 12:09 UTC

I've heard this argument many times before. Sure, piracy does not make you a thief, but it does make you a douchebag.

So, which would you rather be... a thief or a douchebag? I'll leave it up to you.

At least being a douchebag isn't a crime (yet)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/piracy
the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc.: The record industry is beset with piracy.

It's in every dictionary and everyone knows what he is talking about. Sorry if you don't like the definition but it is commonly accepted.

Right, because GWB had no effect on the deficit.

Wrong.

Stealing revenue and denying revenue are *very* different things.

Stealing revenue suggests that there was a) revenue to be made in the first place, and b) rather than the copyright owner receiving it, the infringer received it instead.

What you're describing is what generally happens when an infringer sells bootleg copies of a copyrighted work. And even then, there's no guarantee that the buyer would have paid full price (there have been plenty of studies that suggest this is true).

Piracy can destroy a market just like wanton theft and that is not debatable.

That is not debatable.

Theft denies revenue and so does piracy. To the producer who loses an investment to piracy it might as well have been theft. The effect is the same.

Explain this to me.

I'm a huge fan of Garbage, including their obscure b-sides, which can ONLY be obtained from the web. One of their b-sides is "Candy Says", a cover from The Velvet Underground. As such, I got interested in The Velvet Underground.

Consequently, I decided to check them out. I downloaded a few of their albums (legal in The Netherlands), and was thoroughly impressed. Since I always buy my music, I went to my local record store, and bought three Velvet Underground albums.

Without me "pirating" these albums to try them out, I would've never spent the money to buy the actual albums. How have I deprived anyone of income here? Hasn't my "piracy" actually earned them money?

If I would not have liked their albums as much, I would've simply deleted the downloaded mp3s, and be done with it. They won a customer through what you call "piracy".

Weird, huh, how the world works?

You think that's how the world, aka the world of piracy works?
Sure anyone can do that, but most really don't.

Weird, huh, how the world works?

How do you know?

RIAA advocates such as yourself claim that every downloaded song/film constitutes a lost sale, something based on absolutely nothing. As such, I think I'm entitled to make a similarly nonsensical claim: namely, that all downloaded music/films are eventually bought.

Both claims have no footing in reality - yet somehow mine is more idiotic than yours?

That's funny, I like that.

I never said every song download is a lost sale, because people that do download music probably wouldn't be able to pay for it all.

Your claim that I am an advocate, and then desperately try to associate me with an assertion I did not make?

Now whose footing is not based in reality?

Edited 2010-09-01 12:28 UTC

Your argument kind of assumes that a bunch of kids are going to turn around and pay for the game or movie they just downloaded? You really believe that?

Well if so, call me at 555-555-1212 with your credit cards ready, because I have some cheap bridges for sale in Brooklyn.

You are as idiotically childish as the same editors at Ars who whine about ad revenue loss (content costs, nothing is for free) then turn around and defend piracy as if content is free, nothing costs.

Maybe you pirate defenders should just shut the f--k up, go produce some actual content, then come back and provide a model whereby you can produce quality without cost. Until then, you are an ignorant and hypocritical child that needs to get out in the world.

Edited 2010-09-02 23:37 UTC

This is easy to say. Saying this is really easy. I can say that piracy increases revenue for artists, you can say it decreases revenue for artists. We're both really good at saying things!

Care to cite some numbers somewhere? I'd prefer a neutral source such as a study *not* funded by a party with a financial interest in one outcome or another. There are some, but not many, of those. I've looked at a few. Care to guess what they say?

tl;dr Links or it isn't true.

Explain how piracy denies revenue?

Certain types of software cannot be localized in parts of Asia because the piracy rates are too high. There aren't enough paying customers to cover the costs. Too many people download or buy the $2 pirated version on the street and deny the producer revenue.

This is not simply a problem in poor areas either. South Korea is a middle income country but has a culture of piracy which disrupts the software market.

Whether you call it denying revenue, cutting revenue or taking revenue the effect is the same. You're reducing revenue by allowing people to use a $0 clone instead of compensating the producer. 100% piracy completely eliminates revenue for the producer and 0% completely prevents losses from piracy.

Call it whatever you want but piracy can be just as destructive as breaking into a business and stealing the cash register. Whether or not you call it theft or denial of revenue is just semantics.

Doesn't that say more about how over-priced things are, if people are willing to go to a shady dealer and pay $2, instead of going into a store and paying $100?

If you go this way, organisms like SonyMusic and the RIAA
a/Steal most of an author's revenue (leaving him less than 3% off a CD's price while the author made most of the material present on said CD)
b/Make you pay a tax on recordable supports as a compensation of private copy right AND now prevent you from making a private copy of your legally-bought CDs. (DADVSI in france, I think in the US it's called DMCA)
c/Claim that those against full monitoring of the web "were the same that sold butter to Germans during the war" (sigh)

In the best interest of authors, we should get rid of those parasites and adopt another economic model where authors freely distribute their records on the web and as a compensation get rewarded through a tax on internet access price, just like we pay in order to listen to music on the radio.

That is not debatable either. Sounds out of fashion, though.

Edited 2010-09-01 08:17 UTC

Theft denies revenue and so does piracy. To the producer who loses an investment to piracy it might as well have been theft. The effect is the same.

It just simply isn't all that clear-cut, you know.

First of all, a person who downloads pirated stuff would not necessarily buy anything even if there was no pirated copies available. As such, not all pirates can be counted as lost sales.

Secondly, many times people sample stuff by getting pirated copies and then make the decision to by more and authentic copies. Such pirates would actually count as gained sales.

Thirdly, not all pirated downloads are for unauthorized uses. For example, if a person has already bought a music CD, but the CD has copy-protection which prohibits said person from copying the songs to a mobile music player: in many countries it is legal to bypass the copy-protection in such cases, and often it's just easier to download copies where the protection has already been bypassed and then use those in the said mobile device; the outcome is exactly the same. Of course the industry would want it to be illegal everywhere to bypass such and would want to force people to have to buy copies of those songs for every device they wish to use but it doesn't work like that. Again, these cases can be counted as "lost sales" only, and I mean only, in countries where backups and fair use of legally obtained material is illegal.

Tell that to my 400+ movie collection of which most was bought because I saw the downloaded version first. Or to my PS2 and PS3 which was bought because GTA SA and GTA4 came out on those first and I had become a fan of the series playing illegal copies on my PC.

Illegal copying is not the same as theft no matter how many times people like you spread the lie.

I could use the lie "This is not up for debate" but that would be dumb, since we are clearly having it.

It is people like you that are ruining the arts and sciences. Copyright was put in place to promote the arts and sciences - not as a license to print money. By sucking on big content's popcicle, you are redefining copyright into a license to print money, which will hurt the promotion of arts and sciences more than any downloading will ever do. Just read and listen to anything by Lessig, and how the broken copyright system is holding back education and science. That is going to come back and bite Americans in the ass.

It is short-sighted and an insult to the clever men and women who came up with the concept.

Edited 2010-09-01 08:19 UTC

If you invest money, you take a risk...
If you are investing a lot of money to produce something that can be trivially reproduced while intending to sell it at a HUGE markup relative to its reproduction cost you are taking a massive risk. It's your own fault if consumers wise up and you make a loss.

There are risks in any investment. You, as the producer, must assess those risks before you begin and take in to account those risks when you decide on a price. Don't produce anything if you cannot expect a profit *despite* copyright infringement and don't sell your product at a price where you cannot expect to profit *despite* copyright infringement. If you do you are a fool and I'll take my free copy, thanks.

Also, I'd like to single this out:

You do not have any legal protection for potential revenue and you should not have such protection. If we had this I could say that I might start a band and it might become popular and I might produce an album and it might be pirated by you and I might therefore have lost revenue, so pay up. Once you get in to "potential" it becomes a mad-house, you simply cannot go there.


I sometimes go over to the house of a good friend of mine and listen to his albums. He's not paying anyone a performance fee. I'm not paying anyone. I am, clearly, stealing from the artists. Right?


I agree entirely. I don't purchase them, in those cases. In those cases I infringe some copyright and bypass all such agreements. Glad to know you approve.

Except.. In The Netherlands, and most of Europe, it's not illegal.

Which makes sense. Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on distribution. Downloading is not distributing, and as such, you;re not violating copyright by downloading. Uploading, or making available in any other way, is distributing, and as such, that IS a violation of copyright.

Except, when you steal the book from the bookshop, the book is no longer there.

It's like making a copy of the book at the book shop - they can still sell the book (i.e. they never lost anything)

If the person making the copy of the book never intended to buy it in the first place, how was there something lost here?

If they turn around and sell the copy they made, that becomes slightly more nefarious, but you have to admit, the book was not stolen.

Theft and copyright infringement cannot be compared on equal levels.

Except, when you steal the book from the bookshop, the book is no longer there.

It's like making a copy of the book at the book shop - they can still sell the book (i.e. they never lost anything)
"

You confuse the medium (the book) with the content (the actual text of the book). Stealing a book is the same as downloading content because in both cases the content already exists elsewhere: when you download something, you download a copy of the original, when you steal a book, you steal a copy of the original.



How about lost revenue?

How about lost revenue? "

What if I walk into a library and make a copy of a book rather than checking it out to read it for a week... that's also copyright infringement, and no revenue is technically "lost". What if they check out/borrow the book, and make a copy out of convenience in the future to reference it (when they could just borrow it repeatedly any time they needed anyway)?

These are also illegal copyright infringement, but cannot be treated as theft/stealing (unless they keep the book they borrowed without the owners permission).

Your suggestion that revenue is lost when someone makes an unauthorized copy of a work is a weak argument in the first place - as there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place. That doesn't make it any less illegal, but there is no guarantee of revenue to the content owner to begin with - nobody is forced to purchase a book, and there are already plenty of ways to legally read a book without actually paying for it.

What if the library charges for renting books? then revenue is certainly lost.



It's still theft: the next time you reference the book, you wouldn't have paid the price to read it.



I am sorry, I don't understand your above quote. What do you mean by "there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place"? if a library lends books, and charges for them, then borrowing the book and copying it denies the library revenue, which is clearly theft. If a library lends books, but doesn't charge for them, then it means the author and the library has made a deal that suits both, so copying the book is not theft: neither the author or the library expect to make any revenue after this deal anyway.

What I mean is that a book is not necessary to live life - so nobody is required to buy them in the first place.

There is no guarantee that they would have purchased it anyway, even if they did not get it for free illegally.

Thus, claiming that every copied book is a lost sale is wrong - and equating the creation of an illegal copy as theft is also wrong by derivation. Furthermore, since making a copy does not remove the original item from the store, the store owner hasn't actually lost something as a result.

I realize people are pissed that copyright infringement is rampant, and very likely costing people lost revenue - but you can't outright merge the two concepts together and call them one crime... that's simply not the reality of the situation.

Edited 2010-09-03 21:13 UTC

Only if the person who made the illegal copy:
a) would have bought it if he/she didn't make the copy.
b) doesn't buy it afterwards.


Maybe. Not enough to make it theft.


Theft is taken something that belongs to others. Since illegal copying is just making a copy leaving the original there it was, nothing has been taken.

"Piracy" is NOT theft. It can't be.

You do realize that taxes have gone down in the last 24 months, and are now at their lowest level in 60 years, right?

I ask because there seems to be an implication in your statement that someone is "pirating" more of your money than usual through taxation.

Taxes are down ... that's hilarious!

And yes, that's exactly what I was hinting at.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic.

In case you aren't please see this article:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-...

Taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, though I can see how some of the propaganda out there today would lead you to believe otherwise.

It's a common misconception among people unfamiliar with tax policy (e.g. the tea party "antitax movement").

I am sorry that some of us are not delusional robots that need FOX news to tell us how to think. Those of us with more than 2 working brain cells use this great ability that has been around for ages; independent thought. Try it sometime if it doesn't give you a headache.

Sorry for being rude, I just have no tolerance anymore for extreme stupidity, which you seem to suffer from. It is sad that people this woefully uninformed, ignorant, and downright dumb, can vote. It is the one failure of democracy that the idiots are allowed the same vote as those that actually take the time to inform themselves.

You would think a movement centered around taxes would at least spend the whole 2 minutes figuring out taxation levels. Fucking hell, the Idiocracy is here folks, enjoy.

I agree in principal, but in practice it would be reminiscent of the "literacy tests" which were once employed to suppress the black vote.

How could you quantify idiocy without a test of some sort, and how can you solve the problem of the inherent bias of any standardized test?

Probably because I, the main supplier of news on OSNews (99%) live in a country where downloading of copyrighted material is NOT a copyright violation because our copyright law is closer to what it is supposed to be; a temporary monopoly on distribution to promote the arts and sciences - not a license to print money.

So, aside from the fact that I have no moral objections towards downloading, I have no legal blockades either.

As a sidenote, the only thing I download are TV shows, since most of them aren't even broadcast here. I buy all my other stuff (games and music).

Who decides what is "right" and "wrong"? Without getting deep in to philosophy can we agree that it is either a deity or some form of communal decision? Most people in history will agree that the source of right and wrong broadly fall in to these two categories.

If copyright infringement is wrong it must be so because some preponderance of persons has agreed that it is so. At some point, say in one generation from now, when (say) 75% of adults do not believe that copyright infringement is wrong, will it be wrong?

What obligation do you have to preserve the current mores of society against the tide of change? You are under no such obligation and should do so only in as much as you think that such mores ought to exist. By teaching your daughter to believe something that will soon be a minority opinion you are attempting to stem the tide change to the social consciousness. Was that your intent?

I would say that people are valuable, and it is wrong to cause harm. Democratic agreements allow us to benefit by working together. Breaching democratic agreements prevents this benefit. (Deities don't come into it, IMHO.)

That said, I think democratic agreements should only go so far in restricting people's liberties, and I think copyright law as it is oversteps.

I don't think anyone has a moral right to make a living by restricting the liberty of others.


Didn't work very well for Socrates. I think sometimes we need to exercise our democratic rights to change unjust laws.


The situation has changed considerably since copyright law was first introduced. Initially, copyright only applied to books, and printing books required the time-consuming process of setting up a printing press. Thus, copyright law only restricted commercial public distribution. Nowadays the restriction on copying has become a restriction on personal liberty.

How many of these people steal? (I mean actually steal.) Much fewer? Perhaps it is because they can tell the difference between something that is inherently immoral, and something that is a societal convention?


It is sad when people's liberty is lost, and I think we ought to have good reasons whenever we do this.


Out of interest, if your daughter did download copyrighted material from the Internet (and assuming copyright law to be just) how much harm do you think she would actually cause to copyright holders?

Out of interest, if your daughter did download copyrighted material from the Internet (and assuming copyright law to be just) how much harm do you think she would actually cause to copyright holders? "

Even more interesting, would you punish her the same for downloading 10 songs off the Internet, as you would for stealing a CD from Wal-mart?