Actually, it is illegal, it's just down to the police and CPS to use their own discretion as to whether offenders are charged with criminal offences. The problem is that it's extremely hard to prove the case in a court of law, and this makes the CPS extremely hesitant to bring charges. If they bring a case to court and it collapses, then it has cost a lot of money for a wasted process. There was one case that I remember, a 17yr old boy, who was charged and taken to court. The CPS dropped the case though, due to insufficent evidence. I think that as the media giants place more and more pressure on the government, we will eventually be seeing more criminal cases of piracy coming to the fore. Regardless of whether I agree with piracy or not, there is always the remote possibility that you can be caught. Even if it doesn't go to court, out of court settlements could cost many more times the price of the item that was pirated. At the end of the day, is it really worth the risk? I would rather go to a shop with my hard earned moolah, pay up, and enjoy whatever it was I bought. As I said though, my personal preference isn't going to be shared by everyone. EDIT: I also find it extremely interesting that some see piracy as a right, and not something which is wrong. They justify their actions by placing their own valuations on the material they are considering pirating. It's like walking into a toffs shop, not liking the prices and then deciding to shoplift to teach the greedy shopkeeper a lesson. It really is.
What was he charged and taken to court for? Because as far as I know downloading a copy of a game, music, movie etc is no more a criminal offence than making a copy of a cd or dvd you already own. Except it isn't.
Care to explain how it isn't then? There have been some here who have said they pirate because they don't want to pay the prices that are being asked for the items. So they resort to illegal (or unlawful if you still wish to water it down) activity, to obtain the item. As far as I can see, it is exactly the same. Regards the charges the boy faced, I am trying to find the article I read about it, it was a good while ago. I'll post back with the link if I manage to find it.
It's not the same because there's a massive difference between obtaining a copy of an item and taking the original. In your example, i.e. shoplifting from a shopkeeper who's prices you find to high, you have taken a physical item which he is now unable to sell. That's not the case with copyright infringement and as much as you'd like to make it out to be the same it isn't. The only thing which could potentially be considered to be hte same is the decision making process, but i'd argue that given the difference in how the item is obtained and what you actually obtain then that decision making is also different. If you could i'd appreciate it. I doubt he was pulled up in front of a court for simply downloading stuff off the internet. I'd expect he was involved in some sort of copying/selling operation.
With both resulting in a loss for the owner of said property. This circle keeps spinning here At the end of the day (no really it is), we are not going to agree on this. I consider piracy to be no better than shoplifting. That's coming from someone who has pirated but never shoplifted too. I also think that price is absolutely no justification for piracy, nor is the quality of an item, be it music, games or apps. Try b4 u buy is also a non runner for me. I'm not going to see it from your perspective, and you aren't mine Will definitely post the article up, it's doing my napper in now trying to remember where I read it.
How can you lose property when someone obtains a copy of that property? You still have the original, all the other person has obtained is a copy.
So piracy is not a problem then, because we are not talking about physical materials? It isn't the loss of the property I am talking about, it's the loss of revenue. I did make that clear.
Where did I say that? That's a few times now you've altered what i've said to try and argue your point. How about responding to the point i've actually made rather than changing it to something you want to respond to?
What planet are you on? Come back to earth for a mo please! Notice I didn't say loss of property, I said a loss for the owner of the property, meaning a financial one. Here's your reply: So it seems you are not reading what I write properly.
Agree completely. Clearly, stuartpb is misinterpreting the discussion points we have brought up. I can't tell, however, if he genuinely is misunderstanding us, or if he is twisting our words on purpose. stuartpb, I'd suggest that you start over and re-read some of what Krazeh and I have posted with a clear mind. Neither of us has at any point in the discussion attempted to justify piracy. We've tried to analyze it from an economic perspective to try to determine how much of a negative financial effect it has on the game devs, and we've discussed how secondhand games are, to the game dev's accounting department, no better than a pirated game. You've continuously attacked a position that neither of us has attempted to defend, nor wishes to defend. You haven't been attacking the position that we are in, only the position that you want us to be in.
My apologies, I did misread you. If it is the case that you're talking about a financial loss then the two acts are still different. Shoplifting causes a real tangible loss to a retailer/producer, they have lost a physical item that they are now no longer able to sell to anyone. Copyright infringement causes a potential loss of revenue which only becomes real in cases where someone who would have actually paid money ends up not doing so, and it doesn't prevent the retail/producer selling the original item from which the copy was made.
did people read my bit about second hand market,newer pc games can no longer be bought secndhand if they have been used.
I give up, as I said we will not agree. I see piracy as an act of theft, that's my own personal take on it. I also believe that there are substantial losses to companies from theft. Again my personal opinion. We won't agree so let's agree to disagree before this thread goes south any more than it has. I have explained my opinions enough I believe, and we are just going over old ground now.
I agree completely with those two statements, and have never posted anything to the contrary. I don't think Krazeh has either. That's our point - you think that we disagree with those two statements. We don't. We disagree on how to quantify that loss.
Thats just plain greed, so what, If my brother in law buys a car, I cant buy it from him because the car company is losing out on revenue because I didnt buy a new one? I see no difference between that and second hand game sales, ridiculous argument. Not everyone wants to buy that car straight off the lot, same applies with games.
Okay, just to be clear: according to you non-commercial copyright infringement is theft, downloading copyrighted works where allowed to do so by local laws is theft, buying second-hand is theft, and above all not spending your money on a particular product but instead getting the other one is theft. Did I get them all?
Everybody cannot afford apps which costs high rather very high and are licensed for only 1 year. Whereas one can get a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so on years of license for free through the P2P clients. So who would waste so much money on those apps.? I won't. And I am sure that many people would agree with this.
not a justification to pirate though just cause you cant afford it. as discussed earlier there are plenty of alternatives to premium pieces of software such as photoshop > gimp. MS office > open office etc
No you didn't, not even close and you failed miserably I never said second hand sales were theft, piracy or anything of the sort. I also never said anything about downloading in countries where it is allowed. Above all, I never mentioned anything of the sort about not buying one product for the other is theft. Now then captain spaceman, shall we discuss what I did actually say? Please feel free to quote me where I am supposed to have made the claims you mentioned above, this should be interesting! **Edited by myself.**
