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".
Thread beginning with comment 438871
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: piracy is theft
by nt_jerkface on Wed 1st Sep 2010 07:56 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: piracy is theft
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 1st Sep 2010 08:17 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: piracy is theft
by bert64 on Wed 1st Sep 2010 09:01 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 Parent Score: 5

RE: piracy is theft
by sorpigal on Wed 1st Sep 2010 14:29 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 Parent Score: 3