[Luis Dias]

Yeah, that's the same thing in Portuguese

[Vertigo 7]

Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.

And you saying that it's stealing doesn't mean it actually is stealing. It means that you say it's stealing, which doesn't really mean much. I can say the Moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so unless I define cheese as being the stuff that Moon is made of. This is called circular logic.

We're not discussing what online piratism is defined as by law or copyright holders. We're discussing whether it actually fulfills the generally agreed upon definition of stealing. So far it seems it's failing hard. Exploitation of the data without creator's consent for distribution would be a more accurate description.


Look at it this way.


If I buy something, do I or do I not own it?

If I own something, am I or am I not able to do what I like with it?


Is there a legitimate or valid reason to prevent borrowing a film, audio CD or a game to a friend or aquaintance?

If you say yes, then you are essentially arguing for media licensing - you would have to buy a specific license to watch a movie, listen to music or play a game, and moving that license from person to another would be copyright infringement because that other person wouldn't pay anything to the creators. This would never be approved, so it really isn't available as an option, although the entertainment industry definitely would love this.

Technically it would be even worse copyright infringement if you sold your license to someone else - second hand media products would all be copyright infringements in this sort of system, since the licenses would be personal. You'd have to buy the license for everyone watching the film at your home to be strictly legal about it.


If your answer is no, there is no legitimate reason to prevent borrowing a film to friend or aquaintance, then we get into a quagmire of problematic definitions.

If you can borrow a physical copy of a product to a friend, what makes it different from sharing it digitally?

You can say "ah, but now the product is duplicated, so you are getting twice the product you paid for!"

And I'll counter by saying that isn't really relevant, as the media experience can't be forgotten just by transferring physical custody of the media. You have watched the film, and you know what happens in it - and now you're borrowing the film to a friend, so they'll experience it as well. You can also watch the film with one, two, three, or N other people. This has the exact same effect as duplicating the physical media by making a digital copy - N amount of people get to see the film which is the end result of "piracy".


So the question becomes, are the media corporations selling films, DVD's, licenses to watch the film, license to use the DVD in one device at a time, or what? They don't seem to have clear definitions for what exactly it is that I buy when I go to a shop and buy a CD, or DVD? Computer games are pretty clear, being software they have always been license based products rather than something you "own", but audio/video medias are suffering from distinct lack of definition of what exactly you get for your money.


To be logically consistent, categorical criminalization of peer-to-peer distribution of films, music and games would have to mean that they should demand that no media should be possible to borrow or give to a friend, much less sell second-hand. But they can't do that because the law protects the customers' rights to the product they have purchased; you CAN sell your films, audio CD's and games second-hand if you want, and there's nothing the entertainment industry can do about it - although they are trying really really hard.


Try to look at the situation comparing the ends, not means. It's true that peer-to-peer piratism is illegal and an unapproved channel of distribution for the product. But fundamentally, is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people? Or watching the film with a lot of people at the same time? Is the difference between private and public use? But then, what makes that difference? Is there some invisible numerical line that says you can only have N amount of people see this particular physical copy of the media? What would that difference be and how should it be enforced?


End result from both is that the media experience is not limited to the original buyer of the product. But what is it that makes one way of sharing your purchase with others illegal, while the other is not?

Well, over here, movies are licensed for private viewing in our homes, being defined by law as a private residence. If i were to take that movie to... hell i donno a park and set it up on a projector, id be in violation of the agreement and face fines and or jail time. As far as i know, in our own homes theres no limit to how many people we have watching a movie. However, the second i make a copy of that movie and hand it over to a buddy, i've just committed a crime, weither or not the ends are the same. SOME distributors allow you to make 1 backup copy to keep for yourself in the event your original becomes damaged. Again, all of this *SHOULD* be spelled out in the license agreement, if its not clear, again contact the distributor.

Thats what makes it legal or illegal is the license agreement. In the case of software, its printed in the manuals as well as the installer presenting you with it. In movies, some times its on a slip, often its on a lil 10 second thing at the beginning of the movie.

You can argue that you have friends over watching a movie is the same thing as giving them a copy of it, but sorry... its not, no matter how much you want it to be. And stating that, doesn't make it so =p

[Luis Dias]

To add to Vertigo's examples, we have for instance AutoCAD. AutoCAD's licence does not allow you to, for instance, sell your own copy to another person. The licence is personal and not "exchageable". In a strong sense, no one ever buys a copy of AutoCAD, they "borrow" it from the developers.

Same seemingly happens in the e-book market, where personal copies (buys) of the book 1984 were "nuked" by Amazon when people had already bought them to their Kindles, due to a copyright shenanigan. That was humorously ironic.

[Vertigo 7]

To add to Vertigo's examples, we have for instance AutoCAD. AutoCAD's licence does not allow you to, for instance, sell your own copy to another person. The licence is personal and not "exchageable". In a strong sense, no one ever buys a copy of AutoCAD, they "borrow" it from the developers.

Same seemingly happens in the e-book market, where personal copies (buys) of the book 1984 were "nuked" by Amazon when people had already bought them to their Kindles, due to a copyright shenanigan. That was humorously ironic.

Yup, while most license agreements with software are pretty much cookie cutter copies of each other, there are instances where they're not the same and have some very specific things. Pretty much in all cases of software and movie, you never own the software or video, you're licensed to use/view it only. Some allow you to have the software installed on 1 device and if you move it to another device, you are required to uninstall it from the previous one first, others you aren't licensed to install it ever again (rarely). it all depeneds on what that lil box says that you 9 times out of 10 click "i agree" to with out reading it.

*edit
perfect example, adobe allows you to install photoshop on 2 machines under 1 license

[NGTM-1R]

To add to Vertigo's examples, we have for instance AutoCAD. AutoCAD's licence does not allow you to, for instance, sell your own copy to another person. The licence is personal and not "exchageable". In a strong sense, no one ever buys a copy of AutoCAD, they "borrow" it from the developers.

The record of this when it goes to court, however, is sharply erratic. Circuit and District court rulings have run both ways several times just in the last five years, so the legal ground for this theory of ownership is shaky.

[Herra Tohtori]

Well, over here, movies are licensed for private viewing in our homes, being defined by law as a private residence. If i were to take that movie to... hell i donno a park and set it up on a projector, id be in violation of the agreement and face fines and or jail time. As far as i know, in our own homes theres no limit to how many people we have watching a movie. However, the second i make a copy of that movie and hand it over to a buddy, i've just committed a crime, weither or not the ends are the same. SOME distributors allow you to make 1 backup copy to keep for yourself in the event your original becomes damaged. Again, all of this *SHOULD* be spelled out in the license agreement, if its not clear, again contact the distributor.

So sharing with friends and aquaintances is private use while p2p sharing is public?

But isn't this merely a volume difference?

Also, EULA's typically don't have all that much weight in courts.

Thats what makes it legal or illegal is the license agreement. In the case of software, its printed in the manuals as well as the installer presenting you with it. In movies, some times its on a slip, often its on a lil 10 second thing at the beginning of the movie.

So you're arguing that the distributor can legitimately* dictate any terms they wish to the customers via license agreement?

It doesn't work that way.  Users' rights are protected as well, although the degree to which EULAs are held varies regionally. A contract made before the purchase has more power, but a contract you see after the purchase while installing software or starting to watch a film has much less credibility, as far as I know.

You can argue that you have friends over watching a movie is the same thing as giving them a copy of it, but sorry... its not, no matter how much you want it to be. And stating that, doesn't make it so =p

There are small differences, mainly in that you can use a multiplied product at many locations simultaneously, but I take a more ideological view on the matter; as soon as a person has watched a film, they have seen it. They might watch it again, but re-watching stuff doesn't really add much to the experience (YMMV). If you look at it from intellectual property standpoint, you could consider that by purchasing a DVD, a customer fains a license to watch the film, and by watching a film, a customer absorbs the intellectual property (learns what happens and sees how it unfolds). What has been seen, can not be unseen.

So, my perspective is about the end state of matters, not the actual action of watching the film. The end state is that a person has seen the film, and how it came to pass is of little importance to me.

Did he watch it in film theatre? Maybe he purchased a DVD, or maybe borrowed it from a friend? Maybe used a library? Maybe he recorded it off public broadcast television? Or maybe he forgot to watch or record it from TV, got pissed off and DL'd it instead?

Does the method of aquisition really matter if there were also legitimate means of watching the film with just as much (none) payment from the customer to the creator? The sum that the public broadcast TV paid in royalties won't change based on viewer count. The sum that the library pays for the license to lend the film doesn't usually change based on number of lenders. The copy will generate a fixed amount of revenue regardless of how many times it's lent, and same applies to the public broadcast TV.


Now, music is a different animal. Some albums are more resistant to re-using, meaning you can listen to them to infinity and beyond; the listening experience is an integral part of it; just having listened to it doesn't really cut it as human brain can't usually properly memorize all the aspects of a piece of music (there are exceptions to this; I can listen to certain pieces of music in my head for example), while films in my opinion are more about the abstract ensemble of storyline, cut, video and audio. For some reason, I find that I can't watch films too many times without them losing their appeal, as I know what's going to happen already. Again there are exceptions, as some films are like gifts that keep on giving, but most films I wouldn't watch again (whereas most music albums I own I can listen to over and over again).

These are just my opinions on the matter.

Personally, I can see one extremely good way to decrease piracy: Download ticket integrated to film theatre tickets. You go to the movies, watch a film, and at home you can use your ticket to download a copy of the film.

It's going to hurt DVD sales a bit, but I can see it increasing the appeal of going to the movies. With this, you could increase the price of a movie ticket a bit, and I should remind that digital distribution - once the infrastructure is up - is a lot cheaper than physical copies. With the increased revenue from the ticket prices, I think they could break even or even go over the potential loss in DVD sales revenues, and the carrot might increase the total box office sales of the film.


You know what's a curious thing? There are no torrents for Star Wreck 6: In The Pirkinning - Imperial Edition, and even the original DVD release only has a few seeders and handful of leeches. I don't think this is a result of obscurity or lack of quality - it is quite popular in the Internets, so something else must account for the lack of p2p sharing going on. I myself own the original DVD, and don't plan on getting the IE version; I only checked the torrent availability to prove a point.

My personal belief is that the reason for this lack of torrents is two-fold: Respect toward the work itself, and respect towards the creators. Like I said before, they released low quality video versions of the film at the same time as DVD release; the DVD sold pretty well despite the release of the free-to-download videos. Well enough to get Universal interested in distributing a modified version (Imperial Edition) and that one doesn't have a single torrent out there.



Right or wrong, I don't think there are easy ways to "win the fight" against piracy. Instead, I think the entertainment industry needs to adapt and learn to use the internet as a tool, not the enemy. There will always be illegitimate file sharing going on - I don't think there will ever be any way to stop it aside from internet kill switch (aand then people would be sharing the datas on physical medias - flash memory and optical disks.

The question is, should they try to eradicate it or make it harder and crackdown on random people demanding ludicrous damages repayments (which those people will never be able to pay), or should they concentrate on mitigating the peoples' need or will to share or download stuff illegally.


*legitimate: Rightful, not the same as legal. Just to point out the difference.

[Ghostavo]

Yeah, that's the same thing in Portuguese

Not quite, "borrow" doesn't technically exist in Portuguese.

What we use is "lend" and adapt it to the situation. Example, if A borrows B from C, we cannot actually literally say "A borrowed B from C", we can only say "C lent B to A", or more as it's more usually said, "A asked C to lend B".

[Vertigo 7]

Well, over here, movies are licensed for private viewing in our homes, being defined by law as a private residence. If i were to take that movie to... hell i donno a park and set it up on a projector, id be in violation of the agreement and face fines and or jail time. As far as i know, in our own homes theres no limit to how many people we have watching a movie. However, the second i make a copy of that movie and hand it over to a buddy, i've just committed a crime, weither or not the ends are the same. SOME distributors allow you to make 1 backup copy to keep for yourself in the event your original becomes damaged. Again, all of this *SHOULD* be spelled out in the license agreement, if its not clear, again contact the distributor.

So sharing with friends and aquaintances is private use while p2p sharing is public?

p2p sharing would involve making an unauthorized copy for distribution, and would there for be illegal unless the terms of the agreement said otherwise

But isn't this merely a volume difference?

Doesn't matter, the distributors licensed you a copy for private use only and as far as ive ever seen, explicitly state that making copies for distribution is unlawful

Also, EULA's typically don't have all that much weight in courts.

maybe, maybe not... i haven't heard of any cases where the courts ruled in favor of the defendants on these issues

Thats what makes it legal or illegal is the license agreement. In the case of software, its printed in the manuals as well as the installer presenting you with it. In movies, some times its on a slip, often its on a lil 10 second thing at the beginning of the movie.

So you're arguing that the distributor can legitimately* dictate any terms they wish to the customers via license agreement?

It doesn't work that way.  Users' rights are protected as well, although the degree to which EULAs are held varies regionally. A contract made before the purchase has more power, but a contract you see after the purchase while installing software or starting to watch a film has much less credibility, as far as I know.

yes, users rights are protected, but so are the distributors rights. The whole purpose of the EULA is to protect the distributor/manufacturer from lawsuit in the event of damages resulting from use of the product and to specify how the software is licensed for use. Obviously the EULA would be scrutinized in court, but for the most part, pretty much any part of the EULA would hold up against a piracy claim. Its not rocket surgery.

You can argue that you have friends over watching a movie is the same thing as giving them a copy of it, but sorry... its not, no matter how much you want it to be. And stating that, doesn't make it so =p

There are small differences, mainly in that you can use a multiplied product at many locations simultaneously, but I take a more ideological view on the matter; as soon as a person has watched a film, they have seen it. They might watch it again, but re-watching stuff doesn't really add much to the experience (YMMV). If you look at it from intellectual property standpoint, you could consider that by purchasing a DVD, a customer fains a license to watch the film, and by watching a film, a customer absorbs the intellectual property (learns what happens and sees how it unfolds). What has been seen, can not be unseen.

So, my perspective is about the end state of matters, not the actual action of watching the film. The end state is that a person has seen the film, and how it came to pass is of little importance to me.

Did he watch it in film theatre? Maybe he purchased a DVD, or maybe borrowed it from a friend? Maybe used a library? Maybe he recorded it off public broadcast television? Or maybe he forgot to watch or record it from TV, got pissed off and DL'd it instead?

Does the method of aquisition really matter if there were also legitimate means of watching the film with just as much (none) payment from the customer to the creator? The sum that the public broadcast TV paid in royalties won't change based on viewer count. The sum that the library pays for the license to lend the film doesn't usually change based on number of lenders. The copy will generate a fixed amount of revenue regardless of how many times it's lent, and same applies to the public broadcast TV.


Now, music is a different animal. Some albums are more resistant to re-using, meaning you can listen to them to infinity and beyond; the listening experience is an integral part of it; just having listened to it doesn't really cut it as human brain can't usually properly memorize all the aspects of a piece of music (there are exceptions to this; I can listen to certain pieces of music in my head for example), while films in my opinion are more about the abstract ensemble of storyline, cut, video and audio. For some reason, I find that I can't watch films too many times without them losing their appeal, as I know what's going to happen already. Again there are exceptions, as some films are like gifts that keep on giving, but most films I wouldn't watch again (whereas most music albums I own I can listen to over and over again).

Now, these are just my opinions on the matter.

Personally, I can see one extremely good way to decrease piracy: Download ticket integrated to film theatre tickets. You go to the movies, watch a film, and at home you can use your ticket to download a copy of the film.

It's going to hurt DVD sales a bit, but I can see it increasing the appeal of going to the movies. With this, you could increase the price of a movie ticket a bit, and I should remind that digital distribution - once the infrastructure is up - is a lot cheaper than physical copies. With the increased revenue from the ticket prices, I think they could break even or even go over the potential loss in DVD sales revenues, and the carrot might increase the total box office sales of the film.


You know what's a curious thing? There are no torrents for Star Wreck 6: In The Pirkinning - Imperial Edition, and even the original DVD release only has a few seeders and handful of leeches. I don't think this is a result of obscurity or lack of quality - it is quite popular in the Internets, so something else must account for the lack of p2p sharing going on. I myself own the original DVD, and don't plan on getting the IE version; I only checked the torrent availability to prove a point.

My personal belief is that the reason for this lack of torrents is two-fold: Respect toward the work itself, and respect towards the creators. Like I said before, they released low quality video versions of the film at the same time as DVD release; the DVD sold pretty well despite the release of the free-to-download videos. Well enough to get Universal interested in distributing a modified version (Imperial Edition) and that one doesn't have a single torrent out there.



Right or wrong, I don't think there are easy ways to "win the fight" against piracy. Instead, I think the entertainment industry needs to adapt and learn to use the internet as a tool, not the enemy. There will always be illegitimate file sharing going on - I don't think there will ever be any way to stop it aside from internet kill switch (aand then people would be sharing the datas on physical medias - flash memory and optical disks.

The question is, should they try to eradicate it or make it harder and crackdown on random people demanding ludicrous damages repayments (which those people will never be able to pay), or should they concentrate on mitigating the peoples' need or will to share or download stuff illegally.


*legitimate: Rightful, not the same as legal. Just to point out the difference.

Well my opinion is that any one involved in the illegal activity be made to answer for their crimes. Same way drugs are dealt with... Possession and possession with intent to sell... or in this case intent to distribute. If you're hosting... boom you've got intent charges to face, if you're downloading, you've got possession charges to deal with.. point being, unless it was approved to be distributed via p2p, someone passing around a flash drive, what ever, its still illegal. you can not convince me its okay, please stop trying... im really getting tired of repeating myself.

Will it ever stop? nope. people still break into houses even though we have locked doors and alarms etc. But i'm sure not going to say its okay cuz i might invite them in for coffee one day. This whole conversation has reinforced my belief that the internet is just an excuse for people to be cheep lazy bastards. You missed a TV show back in the day... big f'n deal... catch it on a rerun or buy the box set when it comes out. Just cuz the internet is around doesn't mean you should be a tool.

You know, the crazy thing is... every company that produces or sells something expects a certain level of loss due to theft or illegal distribution. Before this internet distribution of **** became rampant, it wasn't a huge deal to them... did they like it? prolly not, but they knew there was little they could do about it because it was pretty much untraceable. Now this **** storm rolled in starting with Nester a while back and they discovered there were waaaaayyyy more losses and hey... look at that, we CAN track these ass holes down now...

I've got no problem in the world with them fining the hell out of the folks doin this ****. Honestly... i wish they would find more of em.

[Luis Dias]

Ah **** you're right.

Not quite, "borrow" doesn't technically exist in Portuguese.

[Ghostavo]

If the EULA are legally binding, then the entire used game market is illegal.

Have loads of fun.

[Vertigo 7]

i can tell you as a former EB/Gamestop manager, the PC used games were pulled many years ago due to licensing issues. AFAIK the EULA for console games doesn't prohibit the resale of the game otherwise the used game market wouldn't exist in retail stores.

[Ghostavo]

Click the last link then, you'll have a surprise.

[Luis Dias]

I'd like to know Vertigo's opinion on this:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1484559.php/Woman_fined_1_9_million_dollars_for_illegal_download

Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for illegal download
Jun 19, 2009, 5:56 GMT

Washington - A court in the United States laid down a 1.9-million-dollar fine against a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs from the internet, CNN reported.

[StarSlayer]

They should be charged for the cost of what the downloaded and or distributed plus some type of nominal fine, punishment should scale with the crime.

[Vertigo 7]

I'd like to know Vertigo's opinion on this:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1484559.php/Woman_fined_1_9_million_dollars_for_illegal_download

Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for illegal download
Jun 19, 2009, 5:56 GMT

Washington - A court in the United States laid down a 1.9-million-dollar fine against a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs from the internet, CNN reported.

further along the story -

  It is the second trial of the case, after a judge ordered a retrial in 2007. In the first trial, Thomas-Rasset was fined only 220,000 dollars.

here you have an example of someone who got busted, slapped with a fine and said no, i dun wanna pay... 2nd court said, too bad, heres moar fine. When i was in the military, if someone got in trouble, they were sent to the old man for punitive action. Now typically, the CO can order a sentance of reduction in rate, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, half months pay x 2 months or some variation there of. If you're stupid enough to try to appeal that and take it to a court martial, the judge can double that sentance and will most likely give you a big chicken dinner to boot. She took a gamble and lost in both circumstances. I have no sympathy for her.

[Grizzly]

Consoles ARE easily to use PCs. And they sell like hell. Why the hell shouldn't I compare them just because consoles are "simpler to use"? That makes no sense at all.

I am quite sure that the PS3 is not IBM compatible, and thus does not deserve the tag 'PC'. A PC is a form of a computer. So is a 'console' (Which is a broad term for many different systems which are all also quite different from one another),

I'd like to know Vertigo's opinion on this:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1484559.php/Woman_fined_1_9_million_dollars_for_illegal_download

Woman fined 1.9 million dollars for illegal download
Jun 19, 2009, 5:56 GMT

Washington - A court in the United States laid down a 1.9-million-dollar fine against a Minnesota woman who illegally downloaded 24 songs from the internet, CNN reported.

further along the story -

  It is the second trial of the case, after a judge ordered a retrial in 2007. In the first trial, Thomas-Rasset was fined only 220,000 dollars.

here you have an example of someone who got busted, slapped with a fine and said no, i dun wanna pay... 2nd court said, too bad, heres moar fine. When i was in the military, if someone got in trouble, they were sent to the old man for punitive action. Now typically, the CO can order a sentance of reduction in rate, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, half months pay x 2 months or some variation there of. If you're stupid enough to try to appeal that and take it to a court martial, the judge can double that sentance and will most likely give you a big chicken dinner to boot. She took a gamble and lost in both circumstances. I have no sympathy for her.

Right. The women just stole a cd worth of songs, and then is charged 22,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that you wanted to pay for such a crime.

[Luis Dias]

here you have an example of someone who got busted, slapped with a fine and said no, i dun wanna pay... 2nd court said, too bad, heres moar fine. When i was in the military, if someone got in trouble, they were sent to the old man for punitive action. Now typically, the CO can order a sentance of reduction in rate, 30 days restriction, 30 days extra duty, half months pay x 2 months or some variation there of. If you're stupid enough to try to appeal that and take it to a court martial, the judge can double that sentance and will most likely give you a big chicken dinner to boot. She took a gamble and lost in both circumstances. I have no sympathy for her.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me!

[Vertigo 7]

Right. The women just stole a cd worth of songs, and then is charged 22,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that you wanted to pay for such a crime.

Why would i want to pay for her crime? Im pretty sure that wouldn't teach her a lesson.

[StarSlayer]

Right. The women just stole a cd worth of songs, and then is charged 22,000 dollars. I find it hard to believe that you wanted to pay for such a crime.

Why would i want to pay for her crime? Im pretty sure that wouldn't teach her a lesson.

That's pretty overzealous, if she attempted to shoplift that same content from Wallmart she isn't going to be paying a 20K fine; more then likely it would be the cost of the item plus a 150 dollar fine and some community service.  Some folks are not even going to have 20K in liquid assets. 

[Vertigo 7]

*shrugs* first court gave her a rather small fine which im sure they didn't expect to be paid in full on the spot. im sure they would have worked out some kind of payment system. The average cost of a home these days is about 250k or there abouts, right? its doable. but still... the court thought that to be a fair fine... and she was tried by jury. At that point she should have accepted it and worked out some payments... but instead she chose to fight it further and the fine increased 5 fold. Now shes screwed for ever. But this whole thing could have been avoided had she not done the deed in the first place and we wouldn't be discussing her.