underground gamer is offline for good

[o.pwuaioc]

No matter how much you try to paint the companies as being money hungry and only out to attack the little guy, the fact is you're still getting something for free that was intended to be something you had to pay for. You're stealing. And you're trying to paint the company out to be the big bad guy so you feel better about it. If that logic applies, then I guess it's okay to just walk into Wal-Mart and stroll out with a few video games without paying for them, because they're making tons of money off of everyone else that shops there.

Whether you think copyright infringement is morally right or wrong, it's very distinct from theft. With the Wal-Mart case (and poor example, by the way, since Wal-Mart sucks and who cares what happens to them anyway), there is the deprivation of goods of the rightful owners. That doesn't happen with copyright infringement. Copyright holders aren't being "deprived" of anything (considering you have to have something in order to deprived of it). Not only substantially, but even legally this is not theft, as Dowling v. the United States (1985) makes perfectly clear.

[lwcook]

Typically, I only pirate things that aren't available for sale or things I have on dvd that didn't come with a digital copy, but every time I hear about something like this, it makes me want to pirate everything just for spite. I don't think this was widely reported, but the Republican party recently fired someone who was working on a copyright law-related study because he had the nerve to say that current copyright law goes too far (which it does) and we need to roll it back to what it originally was (i.e. copyright lasts for 14 years with a single 14 year extention if you want to renew it).

Honestly, do you really think they care about so called "copyright infringement"? Year after year, the media companies bring in billions upon billions of dollars and independent studies have shown that the actual amount of money lost to piracy every year only equals about one percent or less (usually less). Financially speaking, it's not a major concern and it never has been. No matter what they say, this whole argument has never been about losing money. They're just greedy bastards who can't accept the idea of a free exchange of ideas and information (emphasis on free). That's not even mentioning the studies that show people who pirate tons of stuff tend to spend more money on movie tickets, dvds, music and so forth than people who never pirate anything. If you're gullible enough to actually believe the hogwash the copyright folk spout daily without looking into whether it's true or not, I pity you.

No matter how much you try to paint the companies as being money hungry and only out to attack the little guy, the fact is you're still getting something for free that was intended to be something you had to pay for. You're stealing. And you're trying to paint the company out to be the big bad guy so you feel better about it. If that logic applies, then I guess it's okay to just walk into Wal-Mart and stroll out with a few video games without paying for them, because they're making tons of money off of everyone else that shops there.

Meh, queue same old piracy debate. Not sure it applies because you can't get almost all of the UG content at retail anymore, but whatever. When there is no option to pay for something, how can you get what you want without buying used (which doesn't help the developer anyways.)

UG going down is a huge loss and I hope it recovers. I've downloaded a lot of games and soundtracks I'd never would have experienced otherwise.

[Hobie-wan]

*sigh*

Shall I just lock this now before it recycles all the same posts that every downloading discussion goes? The useful on topic information has already been provided in the thread...

[BurningDoom]

No matter how much you try to paint the companies as being money hungry and only out to attack the little guy, the fact is you're still getting something for free that was intended to be something you had to pay for. You're stealing. And you're trying to paint the company out to be the big bad guy so you feel better about it. If that logic applies, then I guess it's okay to just walk into Wal-Mart and stroll out with a few video games without paying for them, because they're making tons of money off of everyone else that shops there.

Whether you think copyright infringement is morally right or wrong, it's very distinct from theft. With the Wal-Mart case (and poor example, by the way, since Wal-Mart sucks and who cares what happens to them anyway), there is the deprivation of goods of the rightful owners. That doesn't happen with copyright infringement. Copyright holders aren't being "deprived" of anything (considering you have to have something in order to deprived of it). Not only substantially, but even legally this is not theft, as Dowling v. the United States (1985) makes perfectly clear.

I was referring to the pirating that he was talking about in his post as being justified.

[wclem]

I just had a chuckle, the only people getting hurt by UG were the gougers over on Ebay selling games like Earthbound for stupid high prices LOL.

[o.pwuaioc]

I just had a chuckle, the only people getting hurt by UG were the gougers over on Ebay selling games like Earthbound for stupid high prices LOL.

Even then, there are tons and tons of sites out there from where you could download an Earthbound ROM.

[ZeroAX]

I just had a chuckle, the only people getting hurt by UG were the gougers over on Ebay selling games like Earthbound for stupid high prices LOL.

I think SNES roms are easy to find since 1999.

[irixith]

Copyright holders aren't being "deprived" of anything (considering you have to have something in order to deprived of it). Not only substantially, but even legally this is not theft, as Dowling v. the United States (1985) makes perfectly clear.

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

I find the bold part of that (from the case you quoted) to be very interesting indeed. Copyright infringement is indeed more complex. Theft is the action or crime of stealing. Stealing is to take without permission or legal right, without intending to return. In the course of downloading games, movies and music, you are technically not depriving anyone of a tangible good. However, you have still taken it, without permission or legal right, without intending to return it. You get full enjoyment and benefits without the required exchange of currency. You have deprived them of the tangible money that they reasonably expected to make from the product they created.

It's theft even to the most obstinate and obtuse.

That's my take on it anyway. I see no problem acknowledging that it's theft, because it is. Doesn't matter how old or available the product is, if it's not in the public domain, it's not mine for the taking.

[o.pwuaioc]

You have deprived them of the tangible money that they reasonably expected to make from the product they created.

Except one thing: would you have purchased it if you couldn't download it? If so, then technically, you deprived them of nothing.

It's semantics, yes, but I think there is an important decision. I, for one, don't think copyright should last longer than a short period of time during which the artist can be compensated for their work with enough to continue working on something new. You know, how it originally was before Congress was bribed lobbied to keep increasing it, from 14 years to 70 (US law). Even Canada's is way too long. Fifty years after the death of the author?

Some want copyright to last forever. Imagine that. Some publishing company, long after the original author's family line has perished, can sue someone for translating a book into their native language.

Fuck that. I would sooner do away with all copyright before I would have that dystopian nightmare play out.

[wclem]

Sharing for the better of all, what a strange concept I, I, me, me mine