It depends on the product, though. And self-publishing... well, that's even worse. In that case, the creator would be directly screwed. If you're dealing directly with the public, with no publisher to buy your work and act as a middleman, you're going to take the loss yourself. (And it could also indirectly affect the creator, even with a publisher. If nobody is actually buying the product, the publisher might think it's a dud... and won't bother buying any more of the creator's work in the future. How do you track the popularity of a stolen product? There's no way to know how many units are out there.)



So the ends justify the means? What if the ugly sofa is also horribly uncomfortable? Does that magically make stealing it wrong because the furniture store can't make a profit as a result of the original theft?

I can't believe we've gotten to the point of saying that stealing is okay if it somehow benefits the victim.

I'm not saying it's ok, just discussing the issue

For me, it could even be just one instance. You'd still need to prove that that one person would have ever actually purchased the product, to be able to claim that you lost the potential value of that item. Plus, companies have a certain amount of theft already built into the price, and additionaly, most companies have loss insurance.

I'm not saying this makes piracy right, I'm just saying you can't make the claim that the total value of the piracy is the total value that has been lost.

Not to be repetitive, but... even though they aren't physically taking anything out of the creator's inventory, they're STILL taking something that doesn't belong to them--something that someone else created--and they're doing so without paying for it. I'll admit that it's a different kind of theft, but it's theft nonetheless.



I already covered the portion about copying things (why in the world would you copy an ugly sofa?! You're weird :giggler in my response to jooxis, but imitating something and taking an entire product outright aren't really the same thing.

And just to clarify: I understand what you and everyone else is saying when you point out that individual instances of piracy aren't as damaging as individual instances of shoplifting. Shoplifting removes physical inventory, so the company is losing manufacturing costs, shipping costs, packaging costs, etc., and that isn't the case with piracy. But at the end of the day, they are absolutely both forms of theft, because someone is ending up with a product they don't deserve without paying a cent for it.

So would you say that, a friend letting another friend use their legally bought game to install on their pc/mac and play, is theft?

File sharing practically is already "perfectly legal". Here and there the RIAA will sue some unfortunate person to set an example but the fact is a huge percentage of internet users have at some point downloaded copyright material, tons of it even, without any repercussions... especially in countries outside North America, where no actual fear of getting caught exists. And guess what? Companies, artists, developers still rake in millions and millions. So there's no need to exaggerate the toll piracy will take on the industry.



Again, you're sort of distorting reality - the people behind the big-selling products which are being pirated are faaar wealthier than those they accuse of "stealing" from them. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's right - but it needs to be said, it seems. You make it seem like it's a case of the wealthy stealing from the poor, when it's more like the other way around, if anything. Anti-filesharing bands like Metallica, who blow millions of dollars on their music videos are not exactly "trying to put food on the table" so you can't expect to win sympathy by using those words.




I know I said it before also, but they aren't taking they are replicating - two words that are distinct from each other. By using the word "taking" you are trying to pack in some implications which simply aren't true

My country is a good example for this debate, a relatively poor developing country where laws are rarely enforced and many products which are available in the Western world are simply not imported here.

Almost 100% of the bands I listen to do not have their CDs shipped to stores here. The selection of legal, buyable music available here is very, very modest. I couldn't find a damn famous BEATLES album to buy for my boyfriend for his birthday and I went to the best supplied "music stores". This is simply the situation for people living here. And by the way, Amazon does not ship here either. What are you left with?
In order to buy a CD that I really wanted, I had to have a friend from Germany or the US order it from Amazon and then ship it to me by regular mail (and pray to God it doesn't get stolen along the way, which is not unlikely) which takes weeks and costs a lot more than it normally should. It's ridiculous. So what do you do? Just decide not to ever enjoy music because your morals prevent you from downloading it?
Now the hard-core capitalist could just argue that music is a luxury that only those who can afford it deserve to enjoy it, but really - how realistic is that?

And I agree with HP, as I stated before, that the industry must adapt to this. I think that selling something which can be replicated easily should never be done. Anything that comes in a file format can be hacked and copied and distributed for free and there's no practical way to prevent this. Ridiculous lawsuits against file sharers that have been made in recent years only make the public more bitter towards "greedy companies" and people seem even less eager to pay for their products.

I think companies should earn their money by endorsement deals, product placement, product-based merchandise, concert tickets (for recording artists), etc... and they already earn money by these means. And I believe society is slowly going in that direction, as we all start to realize that enforcing anti-piracy laws is futile and a battle already lost due to the digital age.

See, IMO, the solution is not necessarily to go with side-businesses related to their main product, but to still sell their main product at a reduced price through more accessible means. If you sell your game for $10 online instead of $60, you'll probably get MANY more people willing to buy it (enough to make up for the price difference) and probably a lot of people who would pirate it at $60 would go ahead and pay $10 for it.

If you look at the gaming industry, it's changing to allow for a much bigger market share of casual gaming - people can and do put down $5-20 on smaller games at a much higher rate than some of the "big name" games. Some areas of the industry are realizing this, but not as much of it as you'd think.

Provide fast, easy downloads without a whole lot of DRM hoops to jump through, and people -will- pay. Make it more convenient, easier, and more reliable than piracy. With piracy you have to deal with fake stuff, viruses, messing around with cracks and whatnot... People -would- be willing to pay for things that they can get for free if the service offered is substantially better than what the pirates can offer.

Same with movies - if people are watching your new release movie for free two days after its release using a downloaded telesync copy, and millions are doing it... wouldn't you think, "Hmm, maybe these people that will watch this shaky recorded copy with this dude coughing in the background and russian subtitles would be willing to pay $5-10 to download a high quality copy from us instead."?

If their business model doesn't allow for that level of pricing and that sort of distribution, then they need to change it till it does. These industries -must- adapt to new technologies, whether they want to or not. Clinging to the telegraph when everyone has emails and ipods is not going to work anymore.

Or you just release all your games as PS3 exclusives since, to my knowledge, nobody's cracked that format to pirate those games. :P

Yeah, perhaps they should rely more on earning their pay through those means but then not necessarily give away the products for free.
Reducing the prices for PC games is something that I believe will benefit everyone.
But how do you make it more easily available than downloading is a tough one if, in fact, we all want to stick to the idea of owning the "physical product". Delivery boys for games and movies that come to your door? Haha. I don't know, really.
The biggest reason, I believe, that piracy is so widespread is how easy it is. There's no easier way to get what you want than it being a couple of mouseclicks away. It's hard to beat that. And there's the constant temptation of it - do you really want to get out of your pyjamas, outside into the pouring rain, get on a bus to the nearest store and look for the product you want - if they even have it, in which case you'd have to look elsewhere (happened to me many times). When in fact... you don't have to do any of that to obtain it, and FOR FREE might I add.

True, but also the difference in costs depending on where you live is a factor.

Why should I pay almost twice the price for an item just because of where I live in the world when there is no reason for the inflated costs? (e.g. world adventures costs AU$50 to AU$60 here). There is no valid reason for it, here they just rip us off for anything on a CD! (a music CD is normally over AU$30!)

It's the same product, why should it cost so much more? I'm ripped off if I buy something and they're ripped off if I steal it.

(fyi - I bought WA from overseas on ebay for around $30... I'm no pirate!)



Because it's soooo comfortable... mmmmmm... no one notices beige when their butt is that comfy. I could tell you who I copied it from, 'cept that would be thievery!

Exactly, jooxis. It's like with video rentals - it's easier to download the movie in about half an hour than to go to the video store, hope they have the one you want, have to return it, and deal with late fees if you forget. Even services like Netflix, you still have to remember to send them their disks back, and wait for it in the mail. People want convenience - if the companies providing the media can't give it to them, they'll get it elsewhere. Things like Steam are growing in usefulness but even with that... a few days ago we got Napoleon: Total War on a disk from a store and couldn't play it because Steam decided it wasn't available yet in our country - and the prices are still too high to compete with piracy.

Exactly. There are movies that I've seen that there's no way I would have spent $20 in the theater(snacks included) to see.

So skip the movie or the game or the song if the value placed on it by its creator is greater than you are willing to spend. No one is entitled to benefit from other people's labor without contributing to the laborer in turn.

I think you're being inconsiderate towards those who simply can't afford the stuff you mentioned. People need hobbies and it's just a crappy feeling if you can't indulge in anything.
I wanted to see Avatar in cinema and it would have cost me $18, which is an outrageous price. In my opinion, it's not right that actors and the studios earn millions of dollars while so many people who work much harder have to count every penny. Nobody is saying that all the fun stuff should be for free but prices should be reasonable.

I do. I can't remember the last time I actually saw a movie in a movie theater. I'll wait the extra 3 to 6 months, and rent it for $1 from Redbox. Had I seen it in the theater it would have cost $10 to $13.50, just for the ticket. If I wanted a drink and candy or popcorn it would have been $3.75 for the 20oz soda ($1.58 for 2 liters at the market), $5 for a medium popcorn (I get 2 boxes, 4 packages each for $5 at the market) and $2.50 for a regular candybar (I get 2 jumbo sized at my local over-priced mini-mart for that amount, and a bag of 10 jumbo for $3.75 at the market; so about 38 cents each).

I get the added conveniance of watching it in my own home, pausing when I wish, watching it several times in a row, etc. ; all for having a little patience. Now, as I'm only paying $1, I'm certain the movie company isn't getting the same kind of money as if I was at the theater, and the theater is getting $0. Am I stealing the difference in prices? No. The product is already grossly over-valued, and the movie company made it's profits from those who just had to see Edward Cullen (Edward Cullen!!1eleventy1 SQUEEEEELL!!) at the very first second possible. (( BTW: WTF is it with Edward Cullen anyway??!!))

Still not saying that piracy is justified, still saying you can't claim to have lost x amount of money because x number of copies have been pirated. As HP mentioned, if prices were more reasonable, fewer people would be tempted to pirate.

That's just harsh. I think it's because I don't completely agree with the whole capitalist mentality, sorry. "How dare you enjoy something that someone made without paying them MONEY MONEY MONEY even though you are not actually harming them or taking anything from them."

Actually, just thought of another thing. Back in 2004 there was a lot of criticism of EA for how they treated their employees, and how much the employees were(n't) being paid. EA was benefiting "without contributing to the laborer in turn"; even though at the time EA was doing well financially. It isn't always the person who creates a product that benifits from or is handicaped by piracy. In the case of many EA employees, even though piracy is more rampant now, their pay rates, benefits, and working conditions are better now.

Sometimes, it might be worthwile to see who/what is actually being harmed by the piracy.

Are you advocating slavery, then?

Like it or hate it, our society is based on capitalism. If you want all the bells and whistles that go along with that, then you have to pay for them. That's just the way things are. As such, there should be some sort of compensation. It doesn't have to be monetary. If there is no compensation, and the creator didn't freely give their product away, then it's theft.

I guess I just don't understand the entitlement mentality that so many people have today.



Just because lots of people do it without getting caught doesn't make it legal. That's like saying, "It's okay to go out and kill people as long as you don't get caught. Life goes on for the rest of us, so what's a few dead bodies?"



I'm making analogies, not distorting reality; and you're making assumptions. When I talked about people trying to put food on the table, I was thinking of examples that I've seen over and over again online. Like artists who are trying to sell their prints, but are continually ripped off by people who just take the online sample image, remove the watermark, and sell the image. Or the start-up company I once worked for that provided digital images; one of our employees actually found a site where someone had signed up to get access to our images, and then turned around and tried to sell them as his own. That kind of thing, if not dealt with, could potentially take down a small company (and all the jobs with it).

It doesn't matter whether something is a big seller from a giant company or a small seller from a home-based business. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is, technically, stealing. Who are we to say otherwise? Robin Hood? (Even then, I think he still called it stealing.)

Oh, totally. That's pretty much exactly what I said.



Yes, I realize that that's the way things are. I don't have to like it and I can debate it and say why I don't like it or in what way I don't agree with it.



You missed the point. It has nothing to do with anything anyone said. But let's go through it again:

You said "If file-sharing were perfectly legal, how many people do you think would actually pay someone for their product?"

Based on this, what you meant is: "If people were able to download products without a threat of possible lawsuits or jail time, then who would actually go and buy the product?"

And what I said was that people are able to download products without a threat of possible lawsuits or jail time, as evidenced by the fact that piracy is obviously widespread (people are participating in it) and not many people live in fear that the police will come knocking on their door to check their hard disks, as everyone is aware of how unrealistic it is for these anti-piracy laws to be enforced. So in that sense it is "legal", see, with quotation marks.

And YET, people still DO go out and buy the products even though they know they can get them for free. So I would say that is a flaw in your initial argument.




I never said copying someone else's work as your own and then trying to profit by selling it is justifiable. And it is not the same as using it for your own private enjoyment. Plagiarism is a different topic. So I don't see the relevance of these examples.

Then I guess we're done.

You are taking their time and their effort. Stop pretending you're not.

Edited version: People who download pirated games, music, video, or other digital products and claim their actions don't affect the creator because "they would never have paid for it anyway" are stealing* the creator's time and effort.

*taking from another without consent

Internet piracy =/= Real live theft and never will be. It's apples and oranges. They don't "lose" money they just aren't making any from those people. There isn't any fool-proof way of preventing it so they might as well rethink how they want to do business and come up with a better model.

And by using the word "replicating" you are also trying to pack in some implications that aren't true--namely, that stealing isn't occurring. You're STILL ending up with a product you DID NOT earn the right to use, which is theft. Period.



So basically what you're saying is that you think it's unacceptable for people to expect to get reimbursed for providing the world with products that took time, money, and effort to produce...? That's... kind of alarming. There's a reason the "capitalist mentality" works. "I make something and get something in return" is a LOT more effective than "I make something, and you help yourself to it without even asking." I think what mangaroo said sums my thoughts up pretty well:



It's just a matter of being fair, really.



Nope, definitely not theft. And the reason I say that is because only one of you can use the game at time, regardless of how many different computers it's installed on, because only one of you has the disk at a time. That's how lending out pretty much anything works, right?

Not necessarily true, most downloads for games get extra things to avoid that. Everything that is put up for download in the "piracy" world was put up by someone giving it to the people, so it isn't much different from my example only difference is that there isn't a physical copy being transported.

That's a bone of contention that has been enlivening the community for over 5 years. Nobody really knows for sure the legal aspect of it, because it is a practice known as "booty". EA never enforced their EULA for Sims 2, and that is why nobody discusses the subject and lives. It's one of those "We don't talk about that, ever" things. Still a rather tricky subject in Sims 3 as well, and EA hasn't so far enforced their EULA for that, either...
Perhaps you can ask Pescado at MATY what his thoughts on it are. (insert sarcasm)
Probably 2/3's of the people playing Sims 2 have downloaded from the booty, and they're not talking about it, since it's considered rather not good form to do so.
Although lately the Sims 3 downloads have been rather problematic, since EA has locked down a lot of their stuff-and people have reported that other sites content does not work in their game with EA's stuff.