So basically, all we have to do to change your thought of copyright infringement = theft is to legalize copyright infringement. Not the solution I would have chosen, but if that's what makes you happy... I still think you should not redefine judicial terms in your discussions with other people though. The argument was that if you chose to buy product B in stead of product A, you're depriving the producer of product A of a potential sale. If your about loss of revenue = theft were consistent then product choosing should also be considered theft by you. Since you limit it to those acts that are illegal, then all we have to do to bring you about is not make copyright infringement legal.
Not really; the comparison was based on consistency. IF stuartb believes that copyright infringement = theft because: 1. It is illegal, and 2. It takes away a potential sale, then these comparisons, as idiotic as they are, should be answered affirmatively by stuartb.
The comparisons are crap to be honest, and I was having a very hard time just trying to see your point with them. If you would like to use clearer analogies I will address them (as long as it's not rehashing something I have already addressed). 11 Pages in and I am still being asked the same questions If you don't like my answers, then why bother asking, cos they aren't going to change.
Well, then the complaints that you are inconsistent are valid. You claim that to you copyright infringement = theft, because 1. it takes away a potential sale, and 2. it is illegal. You also claim that used product sales are not theft, because 1. it does take away a potential sale, but 2. it is legal. So, if copyright infringement were to be legal, you would no longer equate it with theft. Either that or your argument is inconsistent.
Of course the comparisons are crap, but that only shows how inconsistent your point of view is with regards to equating copyright infringement to theft!
Certainly, if you so desire. You are hereby found guilty of defending an inconsistent theory, and are thus forbidden from claiming others are wrong when they point that out to you.
If copyright infringement was not an unlawful act, we wouldn't be sat at our PC's trying to discuss the act of unlawful copyright infringement If copyright infringement was a legal act, how could I suggest it was theft? Bloody hell, you like stating the obvious don't you? The no to the above was a silly comment really. I replied in this manner because I have made perfectly clear my position throughout the 11 pages, and you just keep asking the same questions I have already answered. I'm not going to apologise for it, but there's the reason why.
EDIT: As for the sentence an old saying springs to mind "stick it up yer arse and smoke it", but in the most friendly way possible of course
Well, you not only claimed that you personally feel that copyright infringement = theft, but that you also think that the law should reflect that. Based on your arguments you might just as easily claim that copyright infringement should not be illegal, so that the used sale market and copyright infringement become equal under the law, since the impact on society appears to be about the same. What I would love to hear from you is why you choose option 1 (making copyright theft under the law) over option 2 (making copyright infringement legal), and if you choose option 1 why you don't feel the used sale market should be made illegal as well. Here we have 2 aspects of products that have about the same impact on society, yet your solution for one aspect is totally different than that for the other. I have a hard time believing that's only because of the current state of the law rather than a social or moral argument. I usually argue with people who honestly believe both should be made illegal under the law, so your point of view is refreshing though confusing.
god this is getting old now. lets sum up. 1.everyone believes pirating is wrong. 2. pirating is not theft !, its copyright infringement. 3. What we cant decide is how to punish and enforce 4. stuartpb is stubborn 5. This is officially dull now as no real progress has been made for about 12 pages.
I thought I had made myself quite clear why I do not see the second hand market as an illegal act, and why I do see piracy as an illegal one. But just for you I will do so again: The second hand sales market relies on a new product being purchased, so the publisher/retailer/distro all get their cut on this initial sale. This is exactly the same as in any other second hand market, be it cars, books, PC parts etc etc. There has been a legitimate purchase revenue generated. One new unit = one used unit. There is no upscaling of units, so every single second hand unit started out as a legitimate unit and has generated income for the publisher. The pirate market upscales, and often very dramatically. One purchase of one title could be bought, but many thousands of copies could be generated. There is absolutely no regulation, and absolutely no way to positively identify the true scale of the problem. Every copy of the original is an illegal one, and an illegal act is undertaken every time a copy is distributed or obtained. Thus, no income can or will be generated from the many thousands of copies that are in circulation. Also, if we were to take your suggestion just one step further, that the second hand market is illegitimate, then this should apply across the whole retail sector, and not just in the digital media sector. Otherwise digital media companies would be given rights above and beyond every other sector out there. So are you suggesting that it is immorally wrong to buy a used car, or even a used PC?
1. No, everyone believes copyright infringement is illegal. What remains to be seen is if it's wrong for non-commercial circumstances. If it has a positive impact on society, as some studies claim, then perhaps we need to re-examine our view on copyright. 3. Here we have the same split: commercial copyright infringement is generally easy to enforce and punish. Non-commercial infringement is almost impossible to enforce, and the law does not distinguish between the two as far as punishment is concerned, which results in teenagers being hit with multi-million dollar lawsuits. This in turn erodes the respect society has for copyright as a whole, which results in Pirate Parties picking up seats in the national and European parliament, which may in the end lead to the abolishment of copyright. I don't think many here feel that would be a good idea. 4. Aren't we all? 5. I wouldn't go that far; copyright is just a very difficult topic, and as such it takes some time to get everybody's perspective right. Considering the discussions I usually see on this topic, 12 pages is really short.
Not stubborn, refusing to bow to popular opinion yes! There is a difference. Just because the majority here think my opinions are wrong, this doesn't automatically make them (or me) wrong.
To your first point: others have already pointed out to you that as far as games are concerned more people play used games than copied games. As such, the amount of lost sales for used games outweighs that for copied sales, even more so because apparently the used sales buyers were willing to part with money for it. In theory, copies may scale better, but in reality (probably due to the fact that most people do believe in paying for their software) more people use used products than copied products. The current legal status aside, the used market is much more painful for software developers than copyright infringement. As for your last point: I wouldn't argue that point of view, but I regularly argue with people that do feel this way (mostly RIAA/MPAA/BSA representatives). In accordance with the law, there's a first sale right that allows us to sell the products that we have bought to others. In software however, we increasingly see such rights being taken away by linking software to accounts (often combined with TPM/DRM) or by disclaiming said rights in EULAs. Combine this with the EUCD law against circumvention of TPMs, and we are indeed very close to having made the used sale market illegal. No such laws yet exist for physical products, but there already several industries that are pushing for similar laws in their market. That's exactly why it's so important to keep an eye on treaties like ACTA, because with every step in that direction we're losing the general public's respect for copyright law.
So why did you bother posting here to make childish remarks like that? If it's boring you, then YOU have the option not to read, you did know that right?
Opinions are rarely wrong; it just takes us some time to understand yours, which may say more about us than about you.
Can you provide verified evidence of that please? You are making assumptions there without any substance. I would be quite prepared to challenge any law that removes my right to resell items I had legally purchased. I should make that quite clear.
