Is piracy stealing?

[BlackCherry]

i was saying like a used movie or CD that was not nessesarily copied. but something somebody doesnt want anymore. flea market, yard sale ect.

my point is i know piracy is wrong and illegal. theres no denying that. the thing is the record companys/motion picture studios are bitching cause its taking billions out of their pockets every year.

but if i buy a movie at game stop. heres one copy which happens to be brand new for 19.99 and right next to it is a used copy of the same movie for 9.99 you damn well know im going to buy the used one. who wouldnt want to save 10.00 and stick it in their gas tanks. so instead of me buying the brand new one which would of went into the movie industry pocket. i bought this used one where the movie producer wont see a dime of that used sale. they got the first initial sale.

these companys dont like Game stop or blockbusters

on one hand you got a company shitting a brick cause these people arent buying from them and theyre losing money. and on the other you got a guy buying a used game/movie/cd and the companys arent getting anything for that except the first initial sale.

next thing you know the book world aint gonna like people reading used books at the library. cause its taking money out of their pocket. but this falls under the first sale doctrine and if they bitch about that then there goes that law and good by librarys. you go to a public library and check out a book for FREE. you are not paying for it. so i guess thats stealing

everything i posted takes millions/ bilions out of their pockets.

But with the blockbusters and gamestops, the game/movie has already been purchased at full price at one time. The ones on sale yes go for less money, however the artist/company still gets a cut of that purchase as well either from the buyer end or the consumer end. One way or the other, they get paid from that sale...and in that case, is getting it twice. As for the library, again the publishers and authors are agreeing to that. If an artist were in agreeance with uploading their music, there isn't an issue because they are giving permission for it...just as an author/publishing house does for a library.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

But with the blockbusters and gamestops, the game/movie has already been purchased at full price at one time. The ones on sale yes go for less money, however the artist/company still gets a cut of that purchase as well either from the buyer end or the consumer end. One way or the other, they get paid from that sale...and in that case, is getting it twice. As for the library, again the publishers and authors are agreeing to that. If an artist were in agreeance with uploading their music, there isn't an issue because they are giving permission for it...just as an author/publishing house does for a library.

However Blockbuster, gamestop etc. has paid distribution rights which trickles back down to writers and artists in some sense.

 

[BlackCherry]

However Blockbuster, gamestop etc. has paid distribution rights which trickles back down to writers and artists in some sense.

That's basically what I said...in some form or fashion, that fee gets back to the artist even on the second go...in a sense, they are getting paid twice. :thumbup

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

That's basically what I said...in some form or fashion, that fee gets back to the artist even on the second go...in a sense, they are getting paid twice. :thumbup

Word!!!

 

[Trance97]

Oh shit..

this thread reminds me I have to download a couple songs I heard last night...:24::24:

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Oh shit..

this thread reminds me I have to download a couple songs I heard last night...:24::24:

There's nothing pirate about downloading music from a reputable site, who has paid for distribution etc.

It's the "pirate " sites that are bad.

 

[ConTRo13R]

But with the blockbusters and gamestops, the game/movie has already been purchased at full price at one time. The ones on sale yes go for less money, however the artist/company still gets a cut of that purchase as well either from the buyer end or the consumer end. One way or the other, they get paid from that sale...and in that case, is getting it twice. As for the library, again the publishers and authors are agreeing to that. If an artist were in agreeance with uploading their music, there isn't an issue because they are giving permission for it...just as an author/publishing house does for a library.

From a second hand seller, the seller pockets the money and the artist/filmaker/whoever doesnt see a cut, but that doesnt matter as the item have been purchased before at full cover value with the creator getting the cut of money.

 

[Haus]

these game companys dont get royalties. they get the first inital sale then thats it. same with renting.

 

[SgtSpike]

these game companys dont get royalties. they get the first inital sale then thats it. same with renting.

But what you are missing in your argument is that used CD's/movies/games are a limited resource. EVERYONE can't go out and buy used games, or there wouldn't be any used games to buy. The whole world can't share just 10 or 100 or 1000 copies of a game (well, unless it's a REALLY unpopular game), so many people will buy retail if/when a used copy isn't available.

Let's compare a couple of situations, and assume that total demand for a particular game is 1,750,000 people:

A) 1,000,000 people buy a particular video game on or near launch day, because there are no used copies of the game out yet. 500,000 of them decide to sell it as a used copy. 250,000 of those who buy it used decide to resell it again used, and all 1,750,000 people demanding the game have been satisfied.

B) 10 people buy a particular video game. 1,749,990 people decide to pirate it from that person, because they can, and they want the game

Now, say the total production costs of that game was $30 million, and the selling price was $50/game.

In situation A, the publisher/developer would still make $20 million off the game, even though 750,000 people bought the game used. In situation B, however, the publisher/developer would lose almost all of their production costs, because pirating is unlimited.

In order for used game/music/video sales to work, there has to be many of those already in circulation, which means many people already bought the game brand new. With piracy, only one (or sometimes none) would have to buy the game for it to work, thus it can be far more damaging than used game sales.

 

[NicAuf]

There's nothing pirate about downloading music from a reputable site, who has paid for distribution etc.

It's the "pirate " sites that are bad.

Well one thing I can assure you is that I will never pirate any of Ron White's material. :thumbdown

 

[Haus]

But what you are missing in your argument is that used CD's/movies/games are a limited resource. EVERYONE can't go out and buy used games, or there wouldn't be any used games to buy. The whole world can't share just 10 or 100 or 1000 copies of a game (well, unless it's a REALLY unpopular game), so many people will buy retail if/when a used copy isn't available.

Let's compare a couple of situations, and assume that total demand for a particular game is 1,750,000 people:

A) 1,000,000 people buy a particular video game on or near launch day, because there are no used copies of the game out yet. 500,000 of them decide to sell it as a used copy. 250,000 of those who buy it used decide to resell it again used, and all 1,750,000 people demanding the game have been satisfied.

B) 10 people buy a particular video game. 1,749,990 people decide to pirate it from that person, because they can, and they want the game

Now, say the total production costs of that game was $30 million, and the selling price was $50/game.

In situation A, the publisher/developer would still make $20 million off the game, even though 750,000 people bought the game used. In situation B, however, the publisher/developer would lose almost all of their production costs, because pirating is unlimited.

In order for used game/music/video sales to work, there has to be many of those already in circulation, which means many people already bought the game brand new. With piracy, only one (or sometimes none) would have to buy the game for it to work, thus it can be far more damaging than used game sales.

i dint say one or the other was more damaging. all im saying is i know piracy is illegal and wrong. but in each case they are still losing money unless they decide to only make a certain amount of the games(limited edition) and do get first sale in all of those games.

totaly off the subject but wanted to know

so if they dont make a certain CD any more. i guess i can download it off the internet and it would be ok??

 

[SgtSpike]

i dint say one or the other was more damaging. all im saying is i know piracy is illegal and wrong. but in each case they are still losing money unless they decide to only make a certain amount of the games(limited edition) and do get first sale in all of those games.

totaly off the subject but wanted to know

so if they dont make a certain CD any more. i guess i can download it off the internet and it would be ok??

Ok, point taken. I was just trying to say that used and pirated are different. Yes, used does do some damage, but piracy does more, because it's essentialy like an unlimited "free" pile of used copies of a CD.

Also, if they don't make a certain CD anymore, you still cannot legally download it, because someone else still holds the copyright to the material. If you contact them and receive permission to download said CD, then you can. But with copyrighted materials, you can only do what the owner of the copyright says you can do. They are still the owner of the music, even though there are many millions of licenses of it out there.

 

[Peter Parka]

Yes it is. I stream football matches off the Internet because it would cost me about 60 quid ($120) a month from Sky to watch a fraction of the West Ham matches I do online. I would happily pay a couple of quid on a PPV basis to watch the West Ham matches on telly. Unfortunately Sky is completely out of touch with their consumers and just determined to rip people off, I'm only stealing from greedy companies and I really dont give a shit if thats stealing or not. Guess I will vote, yes, piracy is stealing. When its off overpaid artists just trying to rip their fans off ect, I couldn't care less if piracy costs them so they can only get a 15 bedroom mansion instead of a 20 bed mansion.

 

[CaseHD]

reminds me of a picture i saw the other day:
Piracy is not stealing!
Stealing - you take the original
Piracy - you make a copy

This goes along with what I think - piracy and stealing are not the same. Stealing robs somebody of their 'item' and its thereafter lost to them. Piracy is sharing without permission. Yes its not exactly morally right, but its not as bad as stealing.

 

[Strauss]

reminds me of a picture i saw the other day:
Piracy is not stealing!
Stealing - you take the original
Piracy - you make a copy

This goes along with what I think - piracy and stealing are not the same. Stealing robs somebody of their 'item' and its thereafter lost to them. Piracy is sharing without permission. Yes its not exactly morally right, but its not as bad as stealing.

So if I walk into a record store and take a CD, its not stealing its only piracy? Because the store only has copies of the original master so I'm only sharing without permission.

 

[CaseHD]

So if I walk into a record store and take a CD, its not stealing its only piracy? Because the store only has copies of the original master so I'm only sharing without permission.

no because its not another copy for you, the store loses its copy in that situation. if you were to rent the video and then duplicate it, that would be piracy. the store then gets its copy back.

 

[Strauss]

no because its not another copy for you, the store loses its copy in that situation. if you were to rent the video and then duplicate it, that would be piracy. the store then gets its copy back.

Except according to you the store only has a copy so I would be just making a copy of a copy.

 

[Zorak]

I'm a case in point.

I once downloaded an album illegally off the internet. A Tim Buckley album. Within a month I had that artists entire back catalogue on CD (except the two albums not available on CD anymore.)
So yes I stole something, but I don't think Elektra or the Buckley estate will mind too much.

There are always going to be people like me who have to have albums in physical format, be it on CD or vinyl.

I know that doesn't account for everyone in this world who 'steals.' But it's the perfect example that the figures branded about by various music authorities about how many billion $$$ they lose each year is bollocks.

 

[CaseHD]

Except according to you the store only has a copy so I would be just making a copy of a copy.

yeah, you're making a copy for yourself, not stealing somebody elses (which would deny them of their copy). Piracy is so easy when things are in digital media. If you could somehow duplicate somebodys tv, would that be stealing? you didn't take their tv, you just made a duplicate. What about when you photocopy something out of a book so that you can have a copy for yourself - is that stealing?

 

[Strauss]

yeah, you're making a copy for yourself, not stealing somebody elses (which would deny them of their copy). Piracy is so easy when things are in digital media. If you could somehow duplicate somebodys tv, would that be stealing? you didn't take their tv, you just made a duplicate. What about when you photocopy something out of a book so that you can have a copy for yourself - is that stealing?

Where the confusion is the concept that a digital recording isn't a physical object say like a car. I think everyone would agree that if I took your car it would be stealing. But, they get confused when it comes to digital recordings because after they make their copy because the original is still in the hands of the person who made it, unlike the car. The difference is that the theft of the music isn't the theft of the digital recording but of the right to play that recording.

As to your book question, it would depend on the nature of the use of the copy (this would also apply to digital recordings), it could be an exemption under the fair use exemptions. BTW, every time you purchase a book part of the fee goes to pay for the book being in the library. Same with blank DVDs and the like.