Valve calls pirates 'underserved customers'

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Had a feeling you'd reply and use the same tired argument. That pirates are somehow trying to use this as justification for pirating. Well guess what, i'm not a pirate. I'm just pointing out that you can't link to an article that simply states how piracy cases can "at the discretion of a judge", be tried as criminal cases, and then say that the two are the same exact thing.

Sure I can, as there is no question whether or not piracy is a crime, the only thing in question is whether or not it is stealing or theft. There is no interpretation or discretion needed by a judge, as the crime and punishment is statutory, the only tired argument is whether or not its stealing which is why it isn't surprising you and others bring up a tired argument like Downling vs. US.

They aren't the same thing, plain and simple. Those who want to argue otherwise might as well be arguing about how breaking the law is the same no mater what way you break it. Like I said above.

But at the end of the day it is still a crime and the punishment is not impacted by semantic distinctions between the two.

Simple question for you. Is the word copy a synonym of the word steal?

No, but it doesn't have to be. However, piracy, copyright infringement and theft are synonymous with stealing.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
But at the end of the day it is still a crime and the punishment is not impacted by semantic distinctions between the two.

Right. The crime is punishable by the decision of a judge or a jury, not the meaning of a word. So by writing what you do above you contradict yourself when you try to say the two are the same thing.

I'm not arguing that copyright infringement isn't a crime, i'm simply pointing out that there is a distinction between copying bytes of data and stealing a physical product of some sort.

No, but it doesn't have to be. However, piracy, copyright infringement and theft are synonymous with stealing.

When you copy bytes of data, what exactly are you stealing? You aren't, you are copying bytes of data. Which is why the term copyright infringement exists, to make the distinction between it and theft. If they were the same then why would that term exist?

Copyright infringement and theft are synonymous with breaking the law, not stealing.

The simple fact that copyright infringement can be tired as either civil or criminal in court proves that there is a difference. If you can't understand that then there is no use arguing with you any longer.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Right. The crime is punishable by the decision of a judge or a jury, not the meaning of a word. So by writing what you do above you contradict yourself when you try to say the two are the same thing.

I'm not arguing that copyright infringement isn't a crime, i'm simply pointing out that there is a distinction between copying bytes of data and stealing a physical product of some sort.

No, because in this case, breaking the law is the same regardless of how you break it, directly refuting your claims:

They aren't the same thing, plain and simple. Those who want to argue otherwise might as well be arguing about how breaking the law is the same no mater what way you break it. Like I said above.

The punishment isn't contingent on your definition or perception of the word's meaning, which means they are the same as the punishment is constant regardless of what you want to call it: copyright infringement or theft.

When you copy bytes of data, what exactly are you stealing? You aren't, you are copying bytes of data. Which is why the term copyright infringement exists, to make the distinction between it and theft. If they were the same then why would that term exist?

Copyright infringement and theft are synonymous with breaking the law, not stealing.

The simple fact that copyright infringement can be tired as either civil or criminal in court proves that there is a difference. If you can't understand that then there is no use arguing with you any longer.

Again, you're basing this argument on a 23 year old ruling from Dowling vs. US, however, I've already shown the physical appropriation argument falls short in the current technological climate and apparently the US Government and legal system agree as well with 2 amendments directly amending eletronic theft and copyright infringement in the last decade. Do electrons have mass? Simple question, yes or no.

Here's another example for you. What do you consider EFT theft, ie. Electronic Funds Transfer? If you managed to bypass a bank's security, you could steal millions of dollars without physical touching or moving any actual money. Its just moving or copying bytes of data right? Think that'll hold up in court?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I spoke about the ethical side earlier in this thread regarding how useless it is to argue about it and I truly believe that what I said in some form is the future. The future is not going to involve letting piracy roam free and it is not going to involve massive amounts of enforcement. I'm not saying that it won't be either of those from an ethical standpoint nor am I saying that either could or could not work. What I am saying is that those potential futures just isn't how our market works. What will work is a solution that meets somewhere in middle and also finds ways to profit off of that middle ground in a creative and unique way that has yet to be tried. See my previous post for an example.

Not sure where you addressed the ethical side of piracy, this?

Originally posted by: Xavier434
We can all argue till the end of time about the ethics behind piracy, but let's face the facts. The only thing that is really going to benefit both devs and publishers when it comes to piracy is a solution that involves a clever way of profiting off of it.

For example, this idea is at least a good start and I am sure there are ways to reduce the abuse.

Originally posted by: ja1484

Most of the people I've known that have pirated titles has mainly been due to financial reasons - they want to play a game hella band, but just can't spare the scratch.

I think they could dent piracy again by giving a 20% discount with proof of fulltime student status or something like that. Only problem is potential for abuse.

Finding a compromise doesn't change the ethics of piracy, most understand it is fundamentally wrong to pirate or steal. I'm not sure how much of a price discount will matter, like the World of Goo guy talking about his 90% piracy rates, then talking about price competing to lower piracy rate. This of course despite World of Goo's retail price of $20. How do you price compete with free?

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
No, because in this case, breaking the law is the same regardless of how you break it, directly refuting your claims:

Please do explain. If copyright infringement can be tried in either a civil or criminal case, then how is it the same?

If I embezzle money from a corporation is that the same as stealing a purse from some woman off the street? In the eyes of the law?

Originally posted by: chizow
Again, you're basing this argument on a 23 year old ruling from Dowling vs. US, however, I've already shown the physical appropriation argument falls short in the current technological climate and apparently the US Government and legal system agree as well with 2 amendments directly amending eletronic theft and copyright infringement in the last decade. Do electrons have mass? Simple question, yes or no.

The question has no meaning to the augment, so i'm not going to answer it. I'm not basing my argument off a 23 year old ruling, i'm basing it off of the difference between the two "activities". Steal a physical object vs. copy computer data.

Originally posted by: chizow
Here's another example for you. What do you consider EFT theft, ie. Electronic Funds Transfer? If you managed to bypass a bank's security, you could steal millions of dollars without physical touching or moving any actual money. Its just moving or copying bytes of data right? Think that'll hold up in court?

Not at all the same thing. Unless you can tie an actual value to a pirated copy of software, then it's essentially worthless. The value would be determined by a judge or jury. Stealing numbers from a bank has a real value associated with it with can't be disputed. The comparison is flawed.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Please do explain. If copyright infringement can be tried in either a civil or criminal case, then how is it the same?

If I embezzle money from a corporation is that the same as stealing a purse from some woman off the street? In the eyes of the law?

The only distinction is scope or monetary value assessment, however, the crime is the same regardless of what you want to call it, copyright infringement or theft.

The question has no meaning to the augment, so i'm not going to answer it. I'm not basing my argument off a 23 year old ruling, i'm basing it off of the difference between the two "activities". Steal a physical object vs. copy computer data.

LOL, it has direct meaning to the argument if you're going to hide behind the 23-year old ruling in Dowling vs. US, where they came to the conclusion a physical misappropriation requirement wasn't satisfied with phonograms.....

Stolen data is a physical object if electrons have mass and also reside on a physical medium, which are also physical objects. If data wasn't a physical object, it simply could not exist. This again just shows why laws are constantly being revised and why prior rulings are superceded or overturned.

Not at all the same thing. Unless you can tie an actual value to a pirated copy of software, then it's essentially worthless. The value would be determined by a judge or jury. Stealing numbers from a bank has a real value associated with it with can't be disputed. The comparison is flawed.

Rofl, now your arguments have clearly passed into the nonsensical. The value is obvious, the retail price of the software, which is why end-user piracy crimes are rarely prosecuted or enforced. That does not necessarily translate into an actual sale, but the value of pirated software is easily established.

EFT doesn't satisfy your physical object requirement either, its just copying bytes of data, yet its clearly theft and stealing, is it not?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: chizow
Stolen data is a physical object if electrons have mass and also reside on a physical medium, which are also physical objects.

This has to be one of the most retarded things I have ever read.

edited to fix quoting fail

 

[BenSkywalker]

Please do explain. If copyright infringement can be tried in either a civil or criminal case, then how is it the same?

Very poor point, killing someone can be tried either in a civil or criminal case also.

Steal a physical object vs. copy computer data.

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

Based on the definition of the word, pirating games is stealing.

If the reality of the situation were both ethically and fundamentally as easy as you are claiming then the problems surrounding it wouldn't last this long or be as conflicting.

Really? Is that why we never have any crime in our society? Noone gets killed, raped or beaten? Noone has physical items stolen from them? There is nothing conflicting in the slightest about piracy really, I don't see how anyone can even imply that there is. Those with a moral code see it as wrong. Others, well, some pedophiles feel justified.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
Stolen data is a physical object if electrons have mass and also reside on a physical medium, which are also physical objects. If data wasn't a physical object, it simply could not exist. This again just shows why laws are constantly being revised and why prior rulings are superceded or overturned.

Your statement is an opinion not a fact. Show me a court case where that was argued and ruled upon.

Rofl, now your arguments have clearly passed into the nonsensical. The value is obvious, the retail price of the software, which is why end-user piracy crimes are rarely prosecuted or enforced. That does not necessarily translate into an actual sale, but the value of pirated software is easily established.

The value is based upon an a decision by a judge or a jury if a copyright infringement case is brought to court and is depended on the scope of the crime, not by you or your opinion of what it should be worth.

If you steal a retail copy of game then you stole $50 worth or merchandise or whatever it's valued at in the retail market. That's cut and dry. If you copy the DVD that your friend bought at a retail establishment, would your copy still be valued at $50? Maybe, maybe not.. The punishment or restitution of the copyright infringement would then need to be determined in court. So until a value is determined, it is essentially worthless, like I said previously.

I know you will continue with your incoherent babbling, and that's fine. The problem is that you try and pass off your opinion as fact, and you have a pretty convincing way of doing it, i'll give you that. If I was an outsider just starting to read this thread, I would look at your posts and probably think you knew what you were talking about. Thing is, everything you've said up until this point is an opinion.

Unless you can link to a court decision that clearly states that copyright infringement is the same exact thing as theft of a physical object in the eyes of the law, then everything you've said up until this point is essentially meaningless and can only be taken as the opinion of some random forum poster.

Let me know when you find that court decision and we'll talk more.. :thumbsup:

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
This has to be one of the most retarded things I have ever read.

edited to fix quoting fail

No, hiding behind a 23 year old ruling that has long since been superceded by amended law would be retarded. I'll give two more examples where Dowling vs. US physical misappropriation ruling falls flat on its face in the current cyber crime environment, besides the obvious EFT scenario I've already mentioned:

1) Credit card information theft. You hand over a credit card and someone uses a portable card reader to swipe your credit card info. They don't physical steal your credit card, they don't deny you use of it, they don't take any physical money from you. Just some 1s and 0s on a magnetic strip. Yet it is clearly theft.

2) Identity theft. No one actually steals anything physical from you. You are still you, you're not denied access to yourself, but they have access to your SSID, DOB, Name, Address, vitals and anything else that could be used to falsely represent themselves as you. Yet it doesn't satisfy the antiquated decision of Dowling vs. US for physical property, does it?

If you're going to hide behind a Dowling vs. US and claim that no physical property was stolen, then it should be simple enough to answer, do electrons have mass? Are the two examples above theft?

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Your statement is an opinion not a fact. Show me a court case where that was argued and ruled upon.

No, the above statements I made are fact, electrons do have mass and physical media are also physical objects. The only opinion would come from a judge based on common law, which is what all opinions are by definition (hence the term: opinion, judgment, or ruling).

The value is based upon an a decision by a judge or a jury if a copyright infringement case is brought to court and is depended on the scope of the crime, not by you or your opinion of what it should be worth.

If you steal a retail copy of game then you stole $50 worth or merchandise or whatever it's valued at in the retail market. That's cut and dry. If you copy the DVD that your friend bought at a retail establishment, would your copy still be valued at $50? Maybe, maybe not.. The punishment or restitution of the copyright infringement would then need to be determined in court. So until a value is determined, it is essentially worthless, like I said previously.

I know you will continue with your incoherent babbling, and that's fine. The problem is that you try and pass off your opinion as fact, and you have a pretty convincing way of doing it, i'll give you that. If I was an outsider just starting to read this thread, I would look at your posts and probably think you knew what you were talking about. Thing is, everything you've said up until this point is an opinion.

Unless you can link to a court decision that clearly states that copyright infringement is the same exact thing as theft of a physical object in the eyes of the law, then everything you've said up until this point is essentially meaningless and can only be taken as the opinion of some random forum poster.

Let me know when you find that court decision and we'll talk more.. :thumbsup:

Again, the value is obvious, the retail price of the game or dvd, which is going to be insignificant for an end-user. Only once you get into those distributing pirated copies for monetary gain or whatever do you get into uncertain judgments for damages.

As for incoherent babbling lol....ya I've already shown pro-piracy/free-use advocates are more concerned about the semantics of the argument rather than the morality of it. Even your own arguments have become so convoluted that you still don't seem to understand piracy is a crime regardless of whether or not you think its copyright infringement or stealing. Just goes to show petty thieves still need to make the distinction in their own minds and will use whatever justifications necessary.

I've already shown 3 examples where electronic theft/copyright infringment has been clearly defined in plain english with the term "theft" including 2 amendments specific to electronic copyright infringement. I have little doubt that a future ruling would no longer need to make a distinction between theft and copyright infringement as the technological climate has clearly changed, and as such, opinons based on law must as well.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
This has to be one of the most retarded things I have ever read.

edited to fix quoting fail

No, hiding behind a 23 year old ruling that has long since been superceded by amended law would be retarded. I'll give two more examples where Dowling vs. US physical misappropriation ruling falls flat on its face in the current cyber crime environment, besides the obvious EFT scenario I've already mentioned:

1) Credit card information theft. You hand over a credit card and someone uses a portable card reader to swipe your credit card info. They don't physical steal your credit card, they don't deny you use of it, they don't take any physical money from you. Just some 1s and 0s on a magnetic strip. Yet it is clearly theft.

2) Identity theft. No one actually steals anything physical from you. You are still you, you're not denied access to yourself, but they have access to your SSID, DOB, Name, Address, vitals and anything else that could be used to falsely represent themselves as you. Yet it doesn't satisfy the antiquated decision of Dowling vs. US for physical property, does it?

If you're going to hide behind a Dowling vs. US and claim that no physical property was stolen, then it should be simple enough to answer, do electrons have mass? Are the two examples above theft?

Well identity theft isn't theft, it's fraud. Obviously you can't steal someone's identity. Same for CC fraud.

Basically you're using the casual (i.e. inaccurate) use of words like theft and stealing to support your argument. Dowling v US may be old, but until a similar case comes before the Supreme Court, the precedent stands. Copyright infringement is not stealing. No matter what Congress calls the laws they make (which, BTW, are probably written by or strongly influenced by special interests -- the use of words like stealing and theft to make copyright infringement sound like a more serious crime is probably no accident), the current interpretation is that copyright infringement is not theft. Congress doesn't interpret the law, the Supreme Court does and has the final say.

And others in this thread have said it, but just to make it abundantly clear, I'm not trying to justify copyright infringement, it's obviously wrong and illegal. But it isn't theft according to the USSC, just give that argument up.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Well identity theft isn't theft, it's fraud. Obviously you can't steal someone's identity. Same for CC fraud.

And fraud and theft are used interchangeably here as well. You'll find fraud and theft are more closely linked than copyright infringement, and that all are synonymous with theft and stealing.

Basically you're using the casual (i.e. inaccurate) use of words like theft and stealing to support your argument. Dowling v US may be old, but until a similar case comes before the Supreme Court, the precedent stands. Copyright infringement is not stealing. No matter what Congress calls the laws they make (which, BTW, are probably written by or strongly influenced by special interests -- the use of words like stealing and theft to make copyright infringement sound like a more serious crime is probably no accident), the current interpretation is that copyright infringement is not theft. Congress doesn't interpret the law, the Supreme Court does and has the final say.

And others in this thread have said it, but I'm not trying to justify copyright infringement, it's obviously illegal. But it isn't theft according to the USSC, just give that argument up.

Once again, Dowling vs. US doesn't even refer to the same SS of the USC, its SS 2314 for Dowling vs US (Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property) and SS 2319 for criminal Infringement of a copyright . I'm sure the 2 direct amendments to 2319 using the term "Theft" in plain English is no accident so pro-piracy/free-use advocates can't hide behind semantics and 23-year old case law that doesn't even apply in this instance.

 

[frostedflakes]

OK, here's a question. When the state takes somebody to court for electronic identity "theft," do the charges include criminal theft (i.e. the same thing they would charge a shoplifter for)? The answer is no, so it isn't theft or stealing.

 

[Larries]

Just wondering, has RIAA successfully prosecuted anybody in court for illegal downloads of songs? If yes, can the same argument that RIAA used for software piracy?

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
A tangible loss is a tangible loss no matter whether it's physical or digital. Someone is losing money, so you're stealing. Get over it.

A tangible loss is a tangible loss even if the item in question isn't tangible? hmmm

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, European and North American pirates do obviously contribute, it's not simply Asia and Russia that's the problem. It's easy for Valve to say whatever is convenient for them at the time, they made a smart choice back in the day and are now reaping huge benefits. But trying to paint pirating with such a large brush is dishonest in the extreme.

Woa, what the hell are you saying here. Did you just throw a phrase in there because you thought it sounded good? It doesn't make any sense. Plus, statistics prove that US is actually the lowest in piracy - so while it hurts, it isn't as rampant here surprisingly enough.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: chizow

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I spoke about the ethical side earlier in this thread regarding how useless it is to argue about it and I truly believe that what I said in some form is the future. The future is not going to involve letting piracy roam free and it is not going to involve massive amounts of enforcement. I'm not saying that it won't be either of those from an ethical standpoint nor am I saying that either could or could not work. What I am saying is that those potential futures just isn't how our market works. What will work is a solution that meets somewhere in middle and also finds ways to profit off of that middle ground in a creative and unique way that has yet to be tried. See my previous post for an example.

Not sure where you addressed the ethical side of piracy, this?

Originally posted by: Xavier434
We can all argue till the end of time about the ethics behind piracy, but let's face the facts. The only thing that is really going to benefit both devs and publishers when it comes to piracy is a solution that involves a clever way of profiting off of it.

For example, this idea is at least a good start and I am sure there are ways to reduce the abuse.

Originally posted by: ja1484

Most of the people I've known that have pirated titles has mainly been due to financial reasons - they want to play a game hella band, but just can't spare the scratch.

I think they could dent piracy again by giving a 20% discount with proof of fulltime student status or something like that. Only problem is potential for abuse.

Finding a compromise doesn't change the ethics of piracy, most understand it is fundamentally wrong to pirate or steal. I'm not sure how much of a price discount will matter, like the World of Goo guy talking about his 90% piracy rates, then talking about price competing to lower piracy rate. This of course despite World of Goo's retail price of $20. How do you price compete with free?

I wasn't trying to claim that a compromise would change the ethics. All I was saying is that the likely future is putting ethics on the back burner and putting alternatives that produce results up front. I am also not saying that the example presented by ja1484 is the way of the future. I just referenced it because it is a good example that shows how the future will probably result in something that both hits that gray area and is one that has learned how to profit off of the problem.

You ask how one competes with "free". Well, the obvious answer to that is you don't use price as your focal point for competition. So, let's take college students as an example since we all know they are the ones who pirate the most. While we all know that college students pirate a lot of stuff, one thing that far too many strict piracy haters forget is that these same students also buy games too even though they could pirate them. One would have to be fool if they were both aware of that fact and didn't ask why. So, a smart way to view this situation is to gather an understanding about why they choose to buy certain titles over pirating them. The real solution lies somewhere within that information.

The three most common characteristics that I have identified about the titles that they choose to buy is online features, quality, and price. If you can hit it right with all 3 of those categories then the amount of piracy that takes place where the pirate never ends up buying the game later is lessened a lot.

So, I think it is simply a matter of time till someone takes all of that into consideration and figures out a business plan that profits off of it. Total security is another way to try and do that and I know you love using WoW as an example, but let us not forget all of the other great many MMOs with the same security which have failed. Security is clearly not nearly enough to ensure success and it may not even be necessary as it may seem. Quality and price are extremely important. The bottom line is that the pirates need incentive to buy and they ALWAYS figure out ways to break or workaround security so investing in that endeavor is not a true solution. In an ideal world it works just fine, but the truth is that it acts more like a temporary band aid in the real world.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
As for incoherent babbling lol....ya I've already shown pro-piracy/free-use advocates are more concerned about the semantics of the argument rather than the morality of it. Even your own arguments have become so convoluted that you still don't seem to understand piracy is a crime regardless of whether or not you think its copyright infringement or stealing. Just goes to show petty thieves still need to make the distinction in their own minds and will use whatever justifications necessary.

Ah, I see you're back to the old justification for piracy argument. Well since you failed to comprehend what I was saying the other five times when I specifically mentioned I wasn't arguing that point, i'll just let your ridiculous statement speak for itself .

I've already shown 3 examples where electronic theft/copyright infringment has been clearly defined in plain english with the term "theft" including 2 amendments specific to electronic copyright infringement. I have little doubt that a future ruling would no longer need to make a distinction between theft and copyright infringement as the technological climate has clearly changed, and as such, opinons based on law must as well.

Still waiting on that link to a court decision that clearly states that copyright infringement is the same exact thing as theft of a physical object in the eyes of the law. Ok, lets check the links that you already posted.. yep.. still waiting..

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: ayabe
Also, European and North American pirates do obviously contribute, it's not simply Asia and Russia that's the problem. It's easy for Valve to say whatever is convenient for them at the time, they made a smart choice back in the day and are now reaping huge benefits. But trying to paint pirating with such a large brush is dishonest in the extreme.

Woa, what the hell are you saying here. Did you just throw a phrase in there because you thought it sounded good? It doesn't make any sense. Plus, statistics prove that US is actually the lowest in piracy - so while it hurts, it isn't as rampant here surprisingly enough.

What?

Valve has Steam which is their remedy to piracy and it's worked out very well for them, so well in fact that tons of companies are flocking to it.

What they say about Russia might be true to an extent but that doesn't explain the reasoning for piracy in western markets, at all.

So Valve is essentially making excuses for piracy and trying to make themselves look smart in the process, regardless of how dubious their claim actually is. Doesn't really matter to them, they aren't being hurt by piracy to the extent that others are.

This is just marketing for Steam, plain and simple.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Still waiting on that link to a court decision that clearly states that copyright infringement is the same exact thing as theft of a physical object in the eyes of the law. Ok, lets check the links that you already posted.. yep.. still waiting..

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
OK, here's a question. When the state takes somebody to court for electronic identity "theft," do the charges include criminal theft (i.e. the same thing they would charge a shoplifter for)? The answer is no, so it isn't theft or stealing.

Yes, Congress has clearly removed the distinction between theft and piracy/copyright infringement in their deliberations while drafting the NET Act and Electronic Theft Deterrance Act, and made it clear by defining the acts with "Theft" in the titles.

A Road to No Warez: The No Electronic Theft Act and Criminal Copyright Infringement - By Eric Goldman. There's a free download link at the top above title for the PDF. All following references were from this rather comprehensive paper published in the Oregon Law Review:

Excerpt from Road to No Warez establishing precedence for criminal copyright infringment being the same as stealing or property theft:

However, through the Act, Congress adopted a paradigm that criminal copyright infringement is like physical-space theft,5 specifically shoplifting.6

5- See, e.g., 143 CONG. REC. S12689, S12691 (daily ed. Nov. 13, 1997) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (?[W]e value intellectual property . . . in the same way that we value the real and personal property of our citizens.?).

6- Id. (?Just as we will not tolerate the theft of software, CDs, books, or movie
cassettes from a store, so we will not permit the stealing of intellectual property over the Internet.?); 143 CONG. REC. H9883, H9885 (daily ed. Nov. 4, 1997) (statement of Rep. Goodlatte) (analogizing between online piracy and retail shoplifting, saying that ?[p]irating works online is the same as shoplifting a videotape, book or record from a store? and expressing a desire to prevent the Internet from becoming the ?Home Shoplifting Network.?).

These amended laws clearly redefining copyright infringement as a superset of theft were a direct result of LaMacchia v. US, the last case to successfully invoke Dowling vs US, where Judge Stearns "issued a challenge to
Congress" after dismissal:

Criminal as well as civil penalties should probably attach to willful, multiple infringements of copyrighted software even absent a commercial motive on the part of the infringer. One can envision ways that the copyright law could be modified to permit such prosecution. But, it is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.

So once again, judges give opinions based on their interpretation of the law, but the the legislature, your elected officials define it. It is clearly obvious that these specific amendments redefine the laws regarding piracy and copyright infringement to clearly indicate such crimes are viewed the same as physical property theft and supercede any such ruling from Dowling vs. US. The linked article by Goldman also goes into great detail with about a dozen piracy/warez cases successfully prosecuted by the DOJ.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
Ah, I see you're back to the old justification for piracy argument. Well since you failed to comprehend what I was saying the other five times when I specifically mentioned I wasn't arguing that point, i'll just let your ridiculous statement speak for itself .

No I just find it funny people like you continue attempting to make the distinction, when there is none, neither legally nor morally.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
Excerpt from Road to No Warez establishing precedence for criminal copyright infringment being the same as stealing or property theft:

However, through the Act, Congress adopted a paradigm that criminal copyright infringement is like physical-space theft,5 specifically shoplifting.6

5- See, e.g., 143 CONG. REC. S12689, S12691 (daily ed. Nov. 13, 1997) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (?[W]e value intellectual property . . . in the same way that we value the real and personal property of our citizens.?).

6- Id. (?Just as we will not tolerate the theft of software, CDs, books, or movie
cassettes from a store, so we will not permit the stealing of intellectual property over the Internet.?); 143 CONG. REC. H9883, H9885 (daily ed. Nov. 4, 1997) (statement of Rep. Goodlatte) (analogizing between online piracy and retail shoplifting, saying that ?[p]irating works online is the same as shoplifting a videotape, book or record from a store? and expressing a desire to prevent the Internet from becoming the ?Home Shoplifting Network.?).

You're quoting a paper that's attempting to interpret the NET Act, not the actual NET Act itself or the law that residues within the NET Act. Thus it's not a court decision on the actual distinction between the two.

The sections where they reference statements by Sen. Leahy and Rep. Goodlatte are not actually part of the NET Act, but simply statements that they made.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906c.html

http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/onlinecontent.htm

Try again.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: mindcycle
You're quoting a paper that's attempting to interpret the NET Act, not the actual NET Act itself or the law that residues within the NET Act. Thus it's not a court decision on the actual distinction between the two.

The sections where they reference statements by Sen. Leahy and Rep. Goodlatte are not actually part of the NET Act, but simply statements that they made.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906c.html

http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/onlinecontent.htm

Try again.

Uh, wtf? The first link is from a statement made in 1996, before the NET act and doesn't even apply to the referenced statement from Leahy. The second link is dated 2002 where Rep. Goodlatte just restates his position on piracy, which is the same as the testimony given in 1997 on the House floor. Try again.

Both quotes in my post were given as testimony on the House or Senate floor in 1997 while deliberating over the NET act. The corresponding Congressional Records, which are clearly referenced as such as well, dated Nov 4 and Nov 13, 1997.

Once again, this language and the use of "Theft" in the titles of the Acts and amendments redefine copyright theft and supercede any prior ruling, even if it is from the Supreme Court, as judges make judgments based on law, they do not define law.

 

[mindcycle]

Originally posted by: chizow
Uh, wtf? The first link is from a statement made in 1996, before the NET act and doesn't even apply to the referenced statement from Leahy. The second link is dated 2002 where Rep. Goodlatte just restates his position on piracy, which is the same as the testimony given in 1997 on the House floor. Try again.

Both quotes in my post were given as testimony on the House or Senate floor in 1997 while deliberating over the NET act. The corresponding Congressional Records, which are clearly referenced as such as well, dated Nov 4 and Nov 13, 1997.

Once again, this language and the use of "Theft" in the titles of the Acts and amendments redefine copyright theft and supercede any prior ruling, even if it is from the Supreme Court, as judges make judgments based on law, they do not define law.

Ok, so point out where in the NET Act it specifically says that copyright infringement is the same exact thing as stealing physical goods.

Until you can point that out, or point to another ruling that specifically states that, then it can still be argued in court that there is a difference between the two.