Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:09 UTC
Legal Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people, the Obama administration has a dark side. Joe Biden and many others on staff come straight from the RIAA camp, and it shows. Today, the Obama administration disregarded every US law relating to theft and copyright by stating that piracy is "flat, unadulterated theft".
Order by: Score:
*facepalm*
by umccullough on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:14 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Sometimes I'm embarrassed that I live in this country...

Reply Score: 14

RE: *facepalm*
by _xmv on Tue 31st Aug 2010 23:35 UTC in reply to "*facepalm*"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

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

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: *facepalm*
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 1st Sep 2010 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE: *facepalm*"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: *facepalm*
by dimosd on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:46 UTC in reply to "*facepalm*"
dimosd Member since:
2006-02-10

Sometimes I'm embarrassed that I live in this country...


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

Reply Score: 2

v RE: *facepalm*
by tyrione on Wed 1st Sep 2010 19:05 UTC in reply to "*facepalm*"
RE[2]: *facepalm*
by umccullough on Wed 1st Sep 2010 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE: *facepalm*"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"Sometimes I'm embarrassed that I live in this country...


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.

Reply Score: 2

osnews not political news
by jhking on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:15 UTC
jhking
Member since:
2009-04-21

I understand how US administration vs. copyright winds up here, but how about we keep our opinions about this or the prior US administration off this site. I'm happy to discuss politics but here would only be the place if its proper policy regards tech.

Reply Score: 2

RE: osnews not political news
by WereCatf on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:26 UTC in reply to "osnews not political news"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.

Reply Score: 16

RE: osnews not political news
by ebasconp on Wed 1st Sep 2010 00:19 UTC in reply to "osnews not political news"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Agreed.

I actually would prefer read this stuff:

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

instead of non-sense politics.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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

Reply Score: 1

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

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 ;)

Reply Score: 6

Darkmage Member since:
2006-10-20

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

Reply Score: 2

diskinetic Member since:
2005-12-09

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

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: osnews not political news
by ebasconp on Wed 1st Sep 2010 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: osnews not political news"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

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!

Reply Score: 2

And getting into a car accident is murder...
by Yamin on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:30 UTC
Yamin
Member since:
2006-01-10

We have different words because they do mean different things. There should not be a value judgment just because we use a different word.

Theft - removing a possession from its lawful owner without their permission.

Piracy - using something which you do not have permission to use while not impacting the use of the lawful owner.

Note, the above are not legal or formal definitions, but my lame attempt to provide the distinction.

This does not preclude piracy from being harmful. It is still a crime. It is just not theft.

Reply Score: 17

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

We have different words because they do mean different things. There should not be a value judgment just because we use a different word.

Theft - removing a possession from its lawful owner without their permission.

Piracy - using something which you do not have permission to use while not impacting the use of the lawful owner.


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

Reply Score: 10

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

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.



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.

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sneaking into a concert is also theft even though you didn't leave with anything material.


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

Reply Score: 11

Arawn Member since:
2005-07-13

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!! ;)

Reply Score: 1

LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

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

Reply Score: 1

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

and music in high quality, rather than hearing muffled sounds in the distance.


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.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Sneaking into a concert is breaking and entering, not theft.


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.


If you stand outside ArenA stadium in Amsterdam during a concert, you can hear the music - without paying. Is that theft too?


No because they are charging to get into the concert.

Do you really not see the difference?

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I could care less about what any president or court says


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. ;)

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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:

(a)Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft.


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:
Theft in other cases is petty theft.

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.

Reply Score: 6

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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.

Reply Score: 3

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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


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.


Many things are given away without payment and if I take them I am not stealing.


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


Copyright infringement != theft.

Or, in other words, you're wrong.


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.

Reply Score: 2

m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

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.

Reply Score: 2

m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

You are taking the hard work of others without paying for it.

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

When you take the work of others without payment you are stealing.

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

That's simply the nature of the product.

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

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

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

Reply Score: 3

james_gnz Member since:
2006-02-16

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.

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:
for the Encouragement of Learning
(UK Statute of Anne / Copyright Act 1709)
or
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
(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.

Reply Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

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.

Reply Score: 3

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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.

Reply Score: 6

Captain Obvious
by Almafeta on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:35 UTC
Almafeta
Member since:
2007-02-22

Tommorow, he is expected to give press conferences about the wetness of water, the brightness of the sun, and hey, what's all this black stuff doing floating about in the Gulf?

Reply Score: 7

Copyright
by Moredhas on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:43 UTC
Moredhas
Member since:
2008-04-10

Let's apply this back to books, shall we? Australian publishers have made a felon of me because i happen to own a kobo (a very nice and affordable ebook reader). The books that I, and likely many others of the OSNews readership read, mostly sci-fi and fantasy the Australian publishers haven't purchased the ebook rights for. If I want to read anything by Peter F Hamilton, I'm forced to either spoof my IP to buy from an American store, doubtlessly infringing not just on Australian rights-holders' copyrights but also on import laws, or outright pirate the ebooks. Piracy is easier, obviously cheaper, and in fact more legal than actually buying a product! Most of the ebooks I've pirated, however, are morally greener because I already own the dead tree forms.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Copyright
by Morgan on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:39 UTC in reply to "Copyright"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Most of the ebooks I've pirated, however, are morally greener because I already own the dead tree forms.


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?

Reply Score: 5

Comment by TasnuArakun
by TasnuArakun on Tue 31st Aug 2010 22:59 UTC
TasnuArakun
Member since:
2009-05-24

> It won't be long now before monitoring software will come pre-installed on all your devices. I'm sure someone will be able to link it to 9/11, which pretty much green-lights everything.

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.

”Child Pornography Is Great,” Anti-Pirates Say
http://torrentfreak.com/%E2%80%9Dchild-pornography-is-g...

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by TasnuArakun
by WereCatf on Tue 31st Aug 2010 23:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by TasnuArakun"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by TasnuArakun
by mabhatter on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 03:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by TasnuArakun"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

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.


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.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Berend de Boer
by Berend de Boer on Tue 31st Aug 2010 23:29 UTC
Berend de Boer
Member since:
2005-10-19

Tom: doing what I think are some great things for the American people

Yep, bankers, Hollywood and rich people love him.

The unemployed middle class is having second thoughts.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Berend de Boer
by bnolsen on Tue 31st Aug 2010 23:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by Berend de Boer"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Berend de Boer
by Morgan on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Berend de Boer"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Berend de Boer
by meridianrebel on Wed 1st Sep 2010 16:00 UTC in reply to "Comment by Berend de Boer"
meridianrebel Member since:
2010-08-30

@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?).......

Reply Score: 2

Screwed again
by coreyography on Wed 1st Sep 2010 00:49 UTC
coreyography
Member since:
2009-03-06

Middle-class, economically productive, self-reliant, single, white male consumer of technology -- about to get screwed again.

Funny how this administration is "pro-little-guy" when it costs me money, and pro-corporation when -- you guessed it -- it costs me money. I ought to get a dinner at the White House for as much as I have, and will have, funded them.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Screwed again
by Michael Oliveira on Wed 1st Sep 2010 04:54 UTC in reply to "Screwed again"
Michael Oliveira Member since:
2005-07-07

Middle-class, economically productive, self-reliant, single, white male consumer of technology -- about to get screwed again


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

Reply Score: 1

RE: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:16 UTC in reply to "Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

Funny how this administration is "pro-little-guy" when it costs me money, and pro-corporation when -- you guessed it -- it costs me money.


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.

Tom: doing what I think are some great things for the American people

Yep, bankers, Hollywood and rich people love him.


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.

The unemployed middle class is having second thoughts.


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.

"Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people..."

Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???


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

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Screwed again
by ricegf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Screwed again"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

"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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Screwed again
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screwed again"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.


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

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Screwed again
by ricegf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Screwed again"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Screwed again
by Morgan on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Screwed again"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 10:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

"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.


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.

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?)


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.

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.


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 ;)

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).


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

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.


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.

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.


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?

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.


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.

* 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.


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.

** 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.


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

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Screwed again
by ricegf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Screwed again"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

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

Um hm. A most telling slip in your screed.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:15 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Screwed again"
RE[6]: Screwed again
by ricegf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Screwed again"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Screwed again
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Screwed again"
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

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


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.

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?


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.

Let me guess: You were kidding there, too.

You admitted that your initial swipe at Mr. Reagan was wrong.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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

Reply Score: 1

Piracy IS theft
by theeil on Wed 1st Sep 2010 00:53 UTC
theeil
Member since:
2005-09-18

By definition. Piracy: [mass noun] the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. The association of copyright infringement with piracy implies that it's theft.

There's a difference between (a) taking property unlawfully, (b) reproducing material unlawfully, and (c) acquiring unlawfully reproduced material. Why should (c) be treated *worse* than (a)?

Reply Score: 7

RE: Piracy IS theft
by WorknMan on Wed 1st Sep 2010 01:21 UTC in reply to "Piracy IS theft"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

By definition. Piracy: [mass noun] the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. The association of copyright infringement with piracy implies that it's theft.

There's a difference between (a) taking property unlawfully, (b) reproducing material unlawfully, and (c) acquiring unlawfully reproduced material. Why should (c) be treated *worse* than (a)?


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Piracy IS theft
by umccullough on Wed 1st Sep 2010 01:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Piracy IS theft"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

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) ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Piracy IS theft
by nt_jerkface on Wed 1st Sep 2010 07:50 UTC in reply to "Piracy IS theft"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by tonymus
by tonymus on Wed 1st Sep 2010 02:38 UTC
tonymus
Member since:
2006-01-15

"Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people..."

Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by tonymus
by Zifre on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by tonymus"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

"Despite doing what I think are some great things for the American people..."

Oh, you mean like the 1.4 TRILLION dollar annual Federal debt that future generations will be saddled with???

Right, because GWB had no effect on the deficit.

Reply Score: 3

Lighten up
by jhking on Wed 1st Sep 2010 02:55 UTC
jhking
Member since:
2009-04-21

I'll admit, I started this, but my only problem was the first sentence. Since Thom's not getting paid for this (that I know of) lets not do bunches of "The current administration sucks" posts. I don't want to see those or even a bunch of "The previous administration sucks" posts because most US citizens fall into one camp or the other (and I suspect a plurality of the rest of the world's residents would say "They both suck") and I don't want to hear it on a tech site.

Reply Score: 2

piracy is theft
by DonK on Wed 1st Sep 2010 03:58 UTC
DonK
Member since:
2007-02-16

There seems to be a one sided view here. A movie company invests millions to produce a movie (many people btw get employed by such projects) only to have people illegally copy and distribute such content. It makes no difference if the distribution produces financial gains, the fact is that the movie company loses revenue due to such illegal use. Is that fair? We all like free stuff but how many would feel happy if they invested a lot of effort (e.g. to develop music, or a novel, or a program) only to lose on potential revenue due to illegal copying and distribution.

Sure, one can argue that copyrights are violated and I agree, but either way you are stealing revenue from the producers of such content. Don't agree to terms preventing you from playing that music file on a different device than what you paid for? Then don't buy the damm song in the first place. No one is forcing you to purchase them. Grow up kids.

Reply Score: 2

RE: piracy is theft
by umccullough on Wed 1st Sep 2010 05:14 UTC in reply to "piracy is theft"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

but either way you are stealing revenue from the producers of such content


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).

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: piracy is theft
by nt_jerkface on Wed 1st Sep 2010 07:56 UTC in reply to "RE: piracy is theft"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: piracy is theft
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: piracy is theft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Theft denies revenue and so does piracy.


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?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: piracy is theft
by LighthouseJ on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: piracy is theft"
LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

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?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: piracy is theft
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: piracy is theft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure anyone can do that, but most really don't.


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?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: piracy is theft
by LighthouseJ on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: piracy is theft"
LighthouseJ Member since:
2009-06-18

RIAA advocates

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

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: piracy is theft
by ssa2204 on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: piracy is theft"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22



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?


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

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: piracy is theft
by sorpigal on Wed 1st Sep 2010 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: piracy is theft"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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?

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: piracy is theft
by nt_jerkface on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 03:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: piracy is theft"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26



Explain this to me.


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: piracy is theft
by phoenix on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: piracy is theft"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

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?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: piracy is theft
by Neolander on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: piracy is theft"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

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

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: piracy is theft
by WereCatf on Wed 1st Sep 2010 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: piracy is theft"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

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.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: piracy is theft
by m_abs on Sat 4th Sep 2010 09:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: piracy is theft"
m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

Theft denies revenue and so does piracy.

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: piracy is theft
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:17 UTC in reply to "piracy is theft"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Grow up kids.


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

Reply Score: 5

RE: piracy is theft
by bert64 on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:01 UTC in reply to "piracy is theft"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: piracy is theft
by sorpigal on Wed 1st Sep 2010 14:29 UTC in reply to "piracy is theft"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

We all like free stuff but how many would feel happy if they invested a lot of effort (e.g. to develop music, or a novel, or a program) only to lose on potential revenue due to illegal copying and distribution.

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:
only to lose on potential revenue

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.

either way you are stealing revenue from the producers of such content

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?

Don't agree to terms preventing you from playing that music file on a different device than what you paid for? Then don't buy the damm song in the first place. No one is forcing you to purchase them.

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.

Reply Score: 3

Ironic...
by tylerdurden on Wed 1st Sep 2010 04:16 UTC
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

... I remember there was some legal brouhaha regarding those nifty electoral posters with the effigy of Mr. Obama and a possible copyright infrightment issues.

Also, I suppose Obama's campaign is in no hurry to pay up royalty for adopting (or is it translating) the "si se puede/si podemos" slogan from the UFW.

I would like if some crafty lawyer would finally make sure the words of some US politician come back to bite them in the proverbial ass.

Reply Score: 2

Theft uh?
by robbyn on Wed 1st Sep 2010 06:42 UTC
robbyn
Member since:
2007-05-14

Well this is flat, unadulterated stupidity

Reply Score: 2

Comment by matako
by matako on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:46 UTC
matako
Member since:
2009-02-13

As mentioned by someone over at Ars Technica... AV/SW piracy is technically much closer to counterfeiting than theft. After all it's about making copies, DUH!

Stange how nobody is making that obvious comparison very often. Perhaps it just does not sound bad enough?

Edited 2010-09-01 08:47 UTC

Reply Score: 2

F'ing joke... and the joke is on us.
by Arawn on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:04 UTC
Arawn
Member since:
2005-07-13

This whole matter is a completely imbecilic joke. And it's played on us.

Let's take a look at this. Who's really complaining? The publishers, editors, distributors, etc, represented by huge powerful wealthy entities like the RIAA and MPAA, etc, etc.

Why? They say they are losing money and that way they can't provide the contents to the target audiences.

Really???!!!

How about restrictions on products delivered (or not!) to said audiences? DVD region restrictions, no availability of products on some regions even with demand present??

I already said it once and I will keep saying it. This is not about copyright infringement or theft. Those excuses are just a cover-up for the real agenda, which is absolute control of any distribution means, be it tangible or intangible.

They want to control how the audiences get the products they want us to have!

So, all this debate about theft or not? Smokescreen.


Edit: spelling.

Edited 2010-09-01 09:13 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Yes, it is theft, I fully agree.
by axilmar on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:10 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

The real reason for this debate ("if piracy is theft or not"), is, as always, money.

By pirating, some people are derived of money they would have if their stuff was not pirated.

By pirating, some people enjoy goods that did not pay for.

Piracy is theft.

Let's be honest for a minute. The only reason we, the common folks, say it is not is because we want to justify our behavior, i.e. the illegal downloading of software, songs, etc.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Let's be honest for a minute. The only reason we, the common folks, say it is not is because we want to justify our behavior, i.e. the illegal downloading of software, songs, etc.


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.

Reply Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it's theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.


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.

Reply Score: 4

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

"Indeed. Downloading is not violation of copyright, it's theft. Like when you steal a book from a bookshop.


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.

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.


How about lost revenue?

Reply Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

"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.


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.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

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 the library charges for renting books? then revenue is certainly 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)?


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

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.


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.

Reply Score: 2

umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

What do you mean by "there was no requirement that they purchase it in the first place"?


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

Reply Score: 2

m_abs Member since:
2005-07-06

By pirating, some people are derived of money they would have if their stuff was not pirated.

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.

By pirating, some people enjoy goods that did not pay for.

Maybe. Not enough to make it theft.

Piracy is 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.

Reply Score: 2

Semantics ...
by Shakey on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:15 UTC
Shakey
Member since:
2005-10-11

This is another great example of silly political word-games.

My guttural reaction to that headline when I read it was "ummm 'taxes' cough, that feels like piracy too".

Reply Score: 2

RE: Semantics ...
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 12:31 UTC in reply to "Semantics ..."
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

This is another great example of silly political word-games.

My guttural reaction to that headline when I read it was "ummm 'taxes' cough, that feels like piracy too".


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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Semantics ...
by Shakey on Wed 1st Sep 2010 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Semantics ..."
Shakey Member since:
2005-10-11

Taxes are down ... that's hilarious!

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

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Semantics ...
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Semantics ..."
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

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").

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Semantics ...
by ssa2204 on Wed 1st Sep 2010 22:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Semantics ..."
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

Taxes are down ... that's hilarious!

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


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Semantics ...
by FuriousGeorge on Wed 1st Sep 2010 23:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Semantics ..."
FuriousGeorge Member since:
2010-08-26

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.


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?

Reply Score: 1

But... it does make you wonder...
by cjcox on Wed 1st Sep 2010 13:54 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

Regardless of the interesting topic of debating the fundamental differences between property theft and copyrights....

Why do we NOT see articles on OSnews and others about how many people do NOT see a problem with the copying and (notably) distributing of copyrighted works?

I mean... would we even have to discuss the differences between theft and copyright if people were doing the right thing with regards to copyright holders?

Just something to think about... "Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you."

As a teacher, I have done random surveys (nothing official, just raising of hands, etc.) and even in our most "moral" and "conservative" institutions the violation of copyrights is VERY high (>75% of students in Junior High and High School).

The Internet makes is easy... and unfortunately, it has made many of us into abusers.

No... I don't like it that I'm NOT allowed to make personal copies of media like DVDs. I do not like DRM and how it prevents me from making copies.... (though there are illegal mechanisms). And so... I don't like "the man" for putting a heavy weight on my shoulders because "the kid" down the street is distributing 50,000 songs, 400 DVDs and 1000 pieces of commercial software illegally ("kid" believes it's ok because he/she is NOT charging for the "service").

Sometimes we LOSE our freedoms universally due to the irresponsible behavior of a few. This is sad. But again, what I used to see as a "few" is a rapidly growing segment (from my unscientific surveys).

As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??


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).

Reply Score: 5

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

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?

Reply Score: 5

james_gnz Member since:
2006-02-16

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.

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.

Reply Score: 1

james_gnz Member since:
2006-02-16

Regardless of the interesting topic of debating the fundamental differences between property theft and copyrights....

Why do we NOT see articles on OSnews and others about how many people do NOT see a problem with the copying and (notably) distributing of copyrighted works?

I mean... would we even have to discuss the differences between theft and copyright if people were doing the right thing with regards to copyright holders?

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

Just something to think about... "Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you."

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

As a teacher, I have done random surveys (nothing official, just raising of hands, etc.) and even in our most "moral" and "conservative" institutions the violation of copyrights is VERY high (>75% of students in Junior High and High School).

The Internet makes is easy... and unfortunately, it has made many of us into abusers.

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?

No... I don't like it that I'm NOT allowed to make personal copies of media like DVDs. I do not like DRM and how it prevents me from making copies.... (though there are illegal mechanisms). And so... I don't like "the man" for putting a heavy weight on my shoulders because "the kid" down the street is distributing 50,000 songs, 400 DVDs and 1000 pieces of commercial software illegally ("kid" believes it's ok because he/she is NOT charging for the "service").

Sometimes we LOSE our freedoms universally due to the irresponsible behavior of a few. This is sad. But again, what I used to see as a "few" is a rapidly growing segment (from my unscientific surveys).

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

As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??

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?

Reply Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"As a parent, I have taught my daughter that downloading copyrighted material that she does not have the rights to obtain or own is wrong. But somehow, I do not think you'll see a single article on OSnews even suggesting that it is wrong.... perhaps the "rapidly growing segment" has already grown to consume OSnews as well??


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?

Reply Score: 2

Strength of the argument
by oelewapperke on Thu 2nd Sep 2010 08:22 UTC
oelewapperke
Member since:
2006-10-16

You know, it's brave for people to try convince others here that it's wrong to take copyrighted stuff for free. But let's face it. It's a choice between

a) free stuff ! no limits ! more for me ! more "freedom" for me (at the cost of others)
b) the "right thing"

I mean, in a minute you're going to ask why people become atheists ...

You must have seen the "strength" of their argument here, you complain about it, rightly so. One cannot morally defend the taking of other people's labour and products without compensation. Depending on how exactly it's done, the names for it vary from paedophilia, over slavery, to theft, to "piracy". But it's all a technicality, as the simple truth is that the taking itself is wrong.

It's wrong. However, if you wish to have an easy life, like slavery, piracy sure is a sweet-sounding option. You know, except for the other guys. The same goes for piracy (and for "government theft" like in Cuba. After all, they got national healthcare for that. You know, the national healthcare that people run from)

And if one is atheist ("amoral"), only one's own pleasure matters (which is the real reason for being pro-immigration, ie. slave labour, or as close as you can get to it without sounding like a muslim). Now I'm not saying the two are necessarily related, just drawing a comparison.

You won't convince people to start acting moral all of a sudden. Except, perhaps, with constantly applied violence. So the real question of piracy is :

Are you prepared to create a police state, which makes microsoft/apple DRM seem positively benign and liberating, are you prepared to create one with ridiculous punishments for piracy, or are you pro-piracy ?

Reply Score: 1

appropriate term
by trenchsol on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 04:16 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

I am not native English speaker, but I don't know any other term to describe stealing which is more apppropriate than theft. I've never liked mr. Obama, but, this time he is right.

Reply Score: 2

some great things for the American people
by eydaimon on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 17:39 UTC
eydaimon
Member since:
2006-03-22

"some great things for the American people"

Wow, I must have totally fscking missed those things

Reply Score: 1

Brave new world
by umccullough on Fri 3rd Sep 2010 21:27 UTC
umccullough
Member since:
2006-01-26

Food for thought, to all those who believe content needs stronger copyright restrictions...

We've entered the era where information retention and retrieval is becoming more and more important to humankind.

Imagine that eventually we'll all have some kind of personal information storage/retrieval device that we carry with us (or even have implanted in us!) - perhaps we use these devices to store all the information we encounter on a daily basis, stuff we see, stuff we hear, etc... and then we use these devices to recall information during our standard routine.

The copyright laws that we define today will greatly impact what we can do with the technology tomorrow. Reading a book, watching a video, or hearing a song already makes a copy in our brains that we can bring to the front of our minds whenever we want to recall it. Unfortunately our memories aren't always so foolproof like digital storage, and tend to degrade - but who says it will always be that way?

We have to have a progressive view of this stuff. We have to realize that purchasing a physical item in order to experience content is no longer a reality - humans want to spread information (content), they want to communicate it to each other. It's a natural tendency to repeat what you've heard/seen to another individual. The methods that we do that is often via a digital medium these days, and content/information creators are gonna have to live with it one way or another.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by wowtip
by wowtip on Sun 5th Sep 2010 17:41 UTC
wowtip
Member since:
2005-07-14

Piracy is theft. Ignorance is strength. War is peace.

Reply Score: 1