Waves goes after pirates in a big way

[sdfalk]

If I choose to give something to somebody for free, that's my choice.
If I choose to sell something to somebody that I made that's also my choice.
If that person chooses to steal it, that's there choice.
I can then choose to prosecute them....cause they stole "it"

I've gone to friends house and installed DP on their Mac and demoed it
for them.
They got a sense of how it operated vs other sequencers, and then I
proceeded to remove it from his computer.
If that friend had tried to ask me for a copy of DP without paying for it,
I would have slapped him one time, wagged my finger at him while
sharply intoning "NO!!" "BAD FRIEND, BAAAADDD FRIEND"!!
"You naughty intellectual property infringing bastard you"

If Linux wants to give away there OS they can do so
If Apple and Micropoo want to charge for it, they can do that to.

If I work long and hard to pay for something that I find valuable, that
can be turned around to benefit the work I do, and someone else
doesn't?
You can put any amount of spin on it you'd like..you can delve as deeply
into the minutia, the "grey area" of this discussion as you'd like..
I don't care THAT much, but stealing •••• is stealing ••••.
I was in a studio in Calgary awhile back, and the guy who ran it used
nothing but OpenSource Software under Linux.
His main Daw of Choice?? Ardour..more power to him.
It's a mighty fine Daw.
He told me it helped him keep his costs down...
I replied "Costs for opensource software?" "I thought this was free."
The punchline "Yeah, but I throw money at him (and the other developers)
as often as I can, otherwise I'd feel like a thief.

Anyway..I've got a cold so I'm a bit crabby..feel free to flail away

[bongo_x]

But if a kid is using some software that he never would have, or could have bought, then it's hard to see how the developer lost anything. There is no lost sale. No lost sale, no theft.

What are you talking about? Of course there's one lost sale -- to this kid!

If he wasn't going to buy it, there's no lost sale. Most kids that have pirated software are just doing it for the hell of it, they would never buy the product. If you take it away from them they will not go buy a copy to replace it, they will just shrug and go play Halo. BTW, no one really has much of an excuse for this anyways since there are now free open source solutions.

It's more like a kid going to Guitar Center and buying a guitar pedal just to use once and returning it before the 30 days are up. Not the right thing to do, but not really theft.

Incorrect. Places like GC offer the option to return-after-30. It's a contract agreed upon by seller and patron. They have given you permission to sustain temporary ownership limited to a month. Thereafter, closed sale.

No such agreement is in place for software that's pirated.

You're way too literal in your reading. My point was not that it's the same thing, rather that it's wrong, but not stealing. Just like when people abuse the Guitar Center policy.

It's an intellectual property concern. If I steal and use your screenplay to make a movie without your permission or sale, that's theft. Whether or not you've sold (or even had the potential of selling) the movie doesn't matter.

This "no harm, no foul" is a victimless crime rationalization.

I didn't understand this part.

bb

[sdfalk]

chrispick wrote:
It's an intellectual property concern. If I steal and use your screenplay to make a movie without your permission or sale, that's theft. Whether or not you've sold (or even had the potential of selling) the movie doesn't matter.

This "no harm, no foul" is a victimless crime rationalization.


I didn't understand this part.

bb

Yeah..I can see that

[bongo_x]

chrispick wrote:
It's an intellectual property concern. If I steal and use your screenplay to make a movie without your permission or sale, that's theft. Whether or not you've sold (or even had the potential of selling) the movie doesn't matter.

This "no harm, no foul" is a victimless crime rationalization.


I didn't understand this part.

bb

Yeah..I can see that

I think you've been trying to insult me, but I'm not sure how.

As I said, people like to get really worked up about this, but many don't really want to hear any of the discussion of how we're going to work this out. Or bother really reading and thinking about someone else's part of the discussion before firing back some knee jerk response.

Obviously the "get tough" method the RIAA and record companies used didn't work, and now they've pretty much killed the record industry. I may be facing a major lifestyle change soon! So it's not going to work any better when Waves does it.

We've all got to figure out how this business is going to work in the real world, besides the "burn them at the stake" approach.

bb

[sdfalk]

Hmmm
Nope.. not trying to insult you, just making an observation.
I did get his final point, and you didn't.
That surprises me.
As far as my response goes...I 've heard this debate over and over and over again.
You can believe whatever you want, and I can disagree with you.
Nothing knee jerk about it

[arth]

Since they never had that money, no, it's not theft. You don't end up with less than you had -- you end up with less than you hoped. They're depriving you of an income potential, but so are people who organise a boycott of your store -- but you wouldn't say they are stealing from you, now would you?

A reduction in potential sales is not theft. Copying something without the rights to do so is a crime in its own right, and should be punished for the crime it is. But piracy is no more theft than rape is murder.

Are you kidding? Of course piracy is theft. Check a dictionary. All definitions pertain.

Someone makes something. Someone else takes it without permission or fair recompense. That's thievery. That's piracy. One and the same.

Except that they don't take anything, they copy something. There's no reduction of inventory, which taking something implies.

Potential profit doesn't factor into the argument. I don't know why you think it does.

Because that's the only thing that the owner can be said to be deprived of? Other than that, it's just a breech of copyright laws.

Show me what, exactly, gets taken when Jane copies a program from Jill, made by Joe. What else does Joe lose except a potential sale? Please be specific.
He still has his master. He still has exactly as many copies as he has made less those he has sold. He won't run out of copies because of Jane and Jill's actions. So I can't see any loss here except for a potential sale.
Feel free to elucidate why you think it's a theft, without just begging the question again.

Lastly, it's called intellectual property for a good, specific reason. Because the owner has fair claim to ownership. Others do not unless permission or exchange is committed.

The action of copying doesn't transfer ownership -- the owner will still have the works in his possession. If someone broke into your studio and stole all your originals and copies of a song you made, yes, that would have been theft, because you would then no longer have them.
But someone pirating doesn't deprive you of your property - he produces an unauthorised copy. Your property rights are intact, but your copyrights have been broken.

That doesn't make it right, and I have in no way tried to justify pirating -- it's wrong, and it's a crime. However, it is not theft; it's a copyright violation. Which may not be any "better", but it's not the same, neither in reality, nor in the eyes of the law.

Calling it "theft" is to cry wolf, and can only do harm. Call it what it is, and don't accept it any more than other crimes.

[chrispick]

Except that they don't take anything, they copy something. There's no reduction of inventory, which taking something implies.

Can I copy your novel and use it?

Don't worry. You won't see any reduction in your manuscipt inventory. You'll still have what you have now.

And it's not thievery, by your admission. It's just copying. I'm sure the law looks at it that way because I'm not taking physical material from you.

I wonder what the word "copyright" means, and if it has anything to do with rights regarding copies and who can do it and how and when and...

Oh, I don't know.

Anyway, can I copy and use your Social Security number? I won't literally take it. You'll still have it to use yourself, of course.

[James Steele]

It's more like a kid going to Guitar Center and buying a guitar pedal just to use once and returning it before the 30 days are up. Not the right thing to do, but not really theft.

Yeah, that's pretty bogus though. I had a friend who worked at a GC for a while back when ADATs were still popular and he'd tell me they were guys the knew that would buy two ADAT machines and some other stuff, record a project with it, and then return it. Some people really scammed on that deal. But I guess GC has to factor that in.

[arth]

Except that they don't take anything, they copy something. There's no reduction of inventory, which taking something implies.

Can I copy your novel and use it?

Don't worry. You won't see any reduction in your manuscipt inventory. You'll still have what you have now.

And it's not thievery, by your admission. It's just copying. I'm sure the law looks at it that way because I'm not taking physical material from you.

I wonder what the word "copyright" means, and if it has anything to do with rights regarding copies and who can do it and how and when and...

Oh, I don't know.

Anyway, can I copy and use your Social Security number? I won't literally take it. You'll still have it to use yourself, of course.

Read what I wrote again. Did I any place say that unauthorised copying was excusable? No, I didn't. In fact, I said it was a crime. Which it is. So stop erecting straw men to knock over.

It's just not the same crime as theft. It's possible to have two different types of crime, you know.

[James Steele]

If you take it away from them they will not go buy a copy to replace it, they will just shrug and go play Halo.

Right... but they BOUGHT Halo I'm guessing? Or perhaps not. It boils down to priorities I guess. I remember saving from my part time job for months to buy my first NICE guitar. It was a 78 Ibanez Iceman, in "midnight olive" finish. Beautiful... *sigh*.

[chrispick]

Read what I wrote again. Did I any place say that unauthorised copying was excusable? No, I didn't. In fact, I said it was a crime. Which it is. So stop erecting straw men to knock over.

It's just not the same crime as theft. It's possible to have two different types of crime, you know.

Sure, but that which you site as being different than theft simply isn't. It's all under the umbrella of theft. That's why terms like "software piracy" and "identity theft" are used in legal, business and legislative arenas. It's not just my semantic; it's their's as well.

And I've never stated that you said any crime was excusable. I think you're reading some sort of accusatory tone to my posts (which I don't intend). I'm just talking.

Believe me, I've plenty of friends who've collected illegal downloads. I've used cracked software before. I don't now, and haven't for many years, because I run a business and want to be fully legit in that practice (and I now prefer to be ethical in all my actions anyway). But I know what I did. I stole. You know, theft.

[arth]

Read what I wrote again. Did I any place say that unauthorised copying was excusable? No, I didn't. In fact, I said it was a crime. Which it is. So stop erecting straw men to knock over.

It's just not the same crime as theft. It's possible to have two different types of crime, you know.

Sure, but that which you site as being different than theft simply isn't. It's all under the umbrella of theft.

Um, no, it isn't. At least not here in the US.
Copyright infringement is a civil law crime covered by USC 17.
Theft is a common law crime, covered by state larceny laws, and is a felony if exceeding a minimum value (differing from $5 to $1000 depending on state).
It's not under the same umbrella -- it's not even under the same jurisdiction!

Again, piracy is morally and legally wrong, but since there's neither asportation nor leaving the victim with less than he had, it's not theft. Never has been, and no matter how many times RIAA and BSA claims it is theft, likely never will be. It's a very different type of crime, and one that IMO begs for a very different type of enforcement.

[chrispick]

Um, no, it isn't. At least not here in the US.
Copyright infringement is a civil law crime covered by USC 17.
Theft is a common law crime, covered by state larceny laws, and is a felony if exceeding a minimum value (differing from $5 to $1000 depending on state).

Interesting!

Here's what Wikipedia says:

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated"). The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time. Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity, though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.

[Phil O]

I think to a certain extent, what people are arguing here is the definition of theft. The big two questions are: 1. Does tangible property need to be taken in order for it to be called theft? 2. Does loss have to be realized in order for it to be called theft? I personally think the answer is "no" to both questions.

Also:
First of all, copyright infringement is not the issue here. Read the agreement on your software. The manufacturer is not selling you a copyright (they alone hold the copyright). What they are selling is a license. There is a difference! A license is a permit to do something, own something, or in this case use something. To use something without the license is illegal. In the case of software, if you use the software without the license, it's considered theft. In just about all software license agreements, it says somewhere that USE of the product INDICATES ACCEPTANCE of the terms. If you use it and didn't pay for it, it's theft. The license need not be tangible and the manufacturer doesn't need to suffer a loss, because simply by using the software, you have legally accepted their terms.

Phil

[gearboy]

How about we agree that they are both bad and just leave it at that. ok?