Views on copyright

Skullette · July 4, 2013

Most likely because expressing pro-piracy views is against the site rules. Despite my chaotic nature, I respect site makers and mods and will not post all my thoughts on this matter. I can say this though: concept of copyright should be scrapped completely and remade with all technological, sociological, economical and other aspects of XXI century in mind.

I don't see anywhere in the rules where discussing or being pro Piracy is against the rules. You just can't give or get help with Piracy on this site.

Piracy is not provided here. It's not our business where you get a game, but you will not get help with piracy here, and helping somebody else pirate is strictly against the rules. Keep it to yourself.

So don't give any info on how to pirate crack or otherwise compromise games, music or DVD's etc and keep to discussing the political and legal aspects of Piracy and you should be safe.

My view is the Copyright process is outdated and I also believe that it needs to be remade with all technological, sociological, economical and other aspects of XXI century in mind. Opps... my bad did I just Pirate Shendar's comment ???? well not exactly it is actually Plagiarism not Pirating. Guess I have to return my peg leg now. ..

Plagiarism is considered dishonest if passed off as one's own work, unlike what I done above (reading the post above one can easily tell that it was taken from the original poster as a joke, thus no attempt and subterfuge was made.) Where Pirating is theft. Plain and simple. You can rationalized it any way you want. It is theft. Taking a penny is theft. Same principle as stealing millions of dollars. However the level of theft is different. The "damages" are different thus the punishment should be different. This is where I see problems. Someone steals a song worth 0.99 cents from Apple or copies a DVD for personal use. The punishment can be thousands of dollars (each offense) and many years in jail. It is likely in some countries that an individual that pirated copyrighted materials can and would stay in jail longer than a violent criminal. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. This is the problem. This is where the laws are skewed to protect the owners of the property or idea unfairly. Punishments shouldn't be punitive in nature unless they are heinous and evil in nature. Rape, Murder, Violence, incest, child abuse, child neglect, attacks during robberies etc. Punishment should be more appropriate if needed at all.

There you have another comment in all it glory...

In this case, it is not 'rationalizing'. My parents are students of law, and I have learend that there are 'legal' definitions for words, and there are 'regular' definitons for words, and sometimes they are very different. This is why lawyers go to school so long, and have many books, is to make clear these distinction, as sometimes they are not the same.

The legal definition of 'stealing' is...

"STEALING. This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.

2. In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter. Stark. on Slan. 80; 12 Johns. Rep. 239; 3 Binn. R. 546; Whart. Dig. tit. Slander."

The legal defintion of theft is...

"The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

"larceny n. the crime of taking the goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the intent of keeping them. It is one form of "theft." Some states differentiate between grand larceny and petty larceny based on the value of the stolen goods. Grand larceny is a felony with a state prison sentence as a punishment and petty larceny is usually limited to county jail time. "

Legal defintion of property -

"Personal property can be divided into two major categories: tangible and intangible. Tangible property includes such items as animals, merchandise, and jewelry. Intangible property includes such rights as stock, bonds, patents.

Real property is land and ordinarily anything erected on, growing on, or affixed to it, including buildings and crops. The term is also used to declare any rights that issue from the ownership of land.

To have possession, an individual must have a degree of actual control over the object, coupled with an intent to possess the object and exclude others from possessing it. The law recognizes two types of possession: actual and constructive.

Actual possession exists when an individual knowingly has direct physical control over an object at a given time. For example, an individual wearing a particular piece of jewelry has actual possession of it. Constructive possession is the power and intent of an individual to control a particular item, even though it is not physically in that person's control. For example, an individual who has the key to a bank safe-deposit box, which contains a piece of jewelry that she owns, is said to be in constructive possession of the jewelry.

(now, i hope I dont have to put more of the legal definiton and parameters of property, as it gets more deep, more boring, and more tedious, yet it is quite obvious the legal definition of property is one of tangible, physical objects- and these tangible physical objects are PHYSICALLY REMOVED, the object itself. The legal defintion of plagerism, however, fits more to the definitions of what we are discussing here, as it involves INTELLECTUAL property- ideas, stories, and other media.)

See how legal distinctions are made even between larceny, theft, and your commoner term of 'stealing?)

Here it clearly states that property must be TAKEN (aka, removed, and no longer there) FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SALE (again, to copy and sell is ILLEGAL, altho it doesnt match the parameters set as 'theft, larceny, or stealing' as per its legal definition- I also want to point out that is says that STEALING is wrong, not 'copying'. File sharing is not taking property, it is copying property, and not illegal in the sense of the definitons listed above, but I first have to clear up the LEGAL definition of 'property', so that you will see that includes tangible, physical objects (land, a car, a pair of jeans, ect.) When you get into the discussion of the legalities of COPYWRITE, however, you in realm of INTELLECTUAL property, and that has legal distinctions in its definition, just as there were distinctions in the terms above. (and note in the words listed that were synonmously used, PIRACY was not among them.)

File sharing is no different than half the avatars used here. Is it illegal for you to use a picture someone else created as you avatar without EXPRESS permission from the creator, website you got it from, ect?? If this is true, you are all criminals. (and you can rationalize it any way you want.) The pictures for the avatars here (most of them) where image files, and those files are copied (by you) without permission or purchase, USED by you the same way, and possibly used by others as well. All criminals.

Now, the legal definition of piracy-

"U.S. law developed chiefly in the eighteenth and nineteenth century ... to criminalize piracy, originated in the U.S. Constitution, which was followed by the first federal law in 1790 and crucial revisions over the next sixty years. (Note from me, this is the old defintion for sea piracy)

Apart from its traditional definition, piracy also refers to copyright violations. Committed both in the United States and abroad, this form of piracy includes the unauthorized storage, reproduction, distribution, or sale of intellectual property—for example, music CDs, movie videocassettes, and even fashion designs. The term has been applied, in particular, to the piracy of computer software, which is highly susceptible to theft because of its ease of duplication. Estimates of the cost to copyright holders ranges in the billions of dollars annually. U.S. law protects copyright holders under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.S. § 109 [1993]), and a 1992 federal law makes software piracy a felony (Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233, codified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 2319 [1988 & 1992 Supp.]). Since the 1990s, a number of international treaties and conventions, as well as diplomatic initiatives, have sought to forge greater cooperation among nations to combat such piracy."

Hmmm, there is a legal distinction between piracy and theft, to use your terms but in a proper, LEGAL context.

(this all came from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com)

btw this is to educate everyone who says piracy/file sharing is stealing/thieving not just the qouted person.

in my personal opinion, to pirate something, copy it and SELL it could be considers stealing due to it acually taking sales from the devs. File sharing how ever does not do that. yes there are some people who pirate just cuz they dont want to caugh up 50$ out of there who knows how big budget, but that is not the file sharers fault. but MOST who pirate FREE files are broke. And no just becouse you have a computer that is good enough to run skyrim does not mean you can pay for skyrim. Your finacel state could change in a blink of an eye.

for instance some personal info;

five years ago my afther was a foreman at a mechine shop. and we rescued HORSES (anyone who owns horses would/should know the exspences of them. NOT CHEEP) but now both my parents are uninploied and been that way for a while, and my grandmother is the one who purches this current computer (wich can run skyrim) and she sometimes has to help with the bill. ATM i can not afford a copy of skyrim. Not even preowned. Yet i have a comp that can play it. so the type of your equptment does NOT garintee your CURRENT finical situation can afford a suplie of games.

so far no one has made a valid LEGAL argument on if Piracy is theift or stealing (other than this post) as there is piracy is clearly outlined in its legal defenitions (By lawers) and is seperate from the LEGAL deffenition of theft and stealing as property canNOT be copyed. (real property can not be copyed) For instance a radio station buys a song from the company one time! yet they make money for playing music over and over again that they only payed for once. are all their listener criminals?

as you can see there is much merkyness in the pirates waters.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

Martin Luther King’s celebrated “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” this quote is a portion.

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers."

i'd hope Martin Luther King would be a good enough source.

there is how ever a difference between legal and lawful.

There is actually a difference between Legal and Moral. Hitlers might of been seen as "legal" in the country at the time however it wasn't morally correct.

Cold blooded murder isn't a morally correct thing to do

Definately. Just becoz its legal dont mean it is moral.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

Every single piracy groups (Reloaded and Fairlight to take the most common ones) will put a nice phrase saying "if you like the game please support the devs" but this is nonsense, why on earth would you buy the game after you got it?

I personally try my best to support the companies that offer good games by buying the actual games and I do regret that there is no more demo games like we had before and that allowed us to actually try the games before throwing a 50 bucks in it.

As for piracy itself, while giving money to editors (no matter which ones) makes me puke, the system is as it is and it wont change overnight, still if you pirate it is not only editors you are stealing from but also artists / devellopers and so on.

Saying that you cant afford a game like Skyrim when you have a computer allowing you to run it (or any other modern game) is BS, if you can spend 200+$ in your GPU you can certainly spend 50 on the game itself.

I think i covered that it is piracy NOT theft (larceny, or stealing) by the legal definitions of stuff. And no, it is not BS, I dont know your current finances (or those of your PARENTS? hint) but things change for people, and of late in the blink of an eye, one goes from having MUCH to unable to even pay bills.

And you go a bit far in your assumptions that it is NOT this way or that, many people have told me that they have purchased a game they pirated (in fact, I shall invite one of them to this discussion to validate) becoz they loved it so much, wanted all the extras, online play, ect. Perhaps more demos WOULD help to combat people's desire to try something before they have to buy... some have LIMITED funds, and want to make sure that they will really like a game before investing $60-$20 for it.

(just to be sure you are aware, i am defending FILE SHARING, not the copy/sell form of piracy).

Thulas · July 4, 2013

Perhaps more demos WOULD help to combat people's desire to try something before they have to buy... some have LIMITED funds, and want to make sure that they will really like a game before investing $60-$20 for it.

(just to be sure you are aware, i am defending FILE SHARING, not the copy/sell form of piracy).

That point again. And why should the lack of money allow you to do something without having the right to do so? And if you want to make sure that investment will be worth, then there are still the legal ways to do that; as I said before.

You never said anything about permission or the right to share a file. Or at least not that I had noticed, since reading a post full of copy/past-quotes isn't that interesting to read. I agree that filesharing is good, as long as was allowed from the owner of the file.

Definately. Just becoz its legal dont mean it is moral.

Oh, don't make me laugh now.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

forgot to reply to this, i was more concerned with the piracy part.

Martin Luther King’s celebrated “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” this quote is a portion.

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal.” It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers."

i'd hope Martin Luther King would be a good enough source.

there is how ever a difference between legal and lawful.

MLK makes a serious mistake there. As I said, it wasn't legal in any way, since the vote was neither free nor secret. Keep in mind that incite to murder and warmongery aren't that legal either.

But again, making everything look like it would be legit was done by every power-politican yet in history.

I decided to let my mom reply to this, due to her schooling (med school and other college, and shes still learning) and her knowledge in these subjects. I dont want to bend any rules of debate, or forum technicalities, but she is hesitant to create an account she mite not use much, shes involved in schooling rite now for her A+ certification and she pretty much dont have alot of time for forums right now. I will likely learn something in this discussion as well, which would prolly amaze her as she says i NEVER LISTEN. :3

"Really? REALLY? Okay, when you are the recipient of a nobel peace prize (oh, and you didnt go bomb innocent civilians rite after it), when they have made your birthday a national holiday, and have many things, MANY things named after you, in recognition of your oppression, your murder, (for standing up to racial injustice) and your work to better mankind, end racism and bigotry... then YOU can fault MLK. Im afraid that you have not showed HOW or WHERE he was mistaken, so to simply take your opinion on its own merits... I think I will give MLK a bit more weight than you. Also, I can show how Hilter changed things to make it legal, tho that would mean a long, boring class on the pre-nazi Germany, nazi Germany, and post-nazi Germany after the Allies had thrown out much of his changes.

Yes, it was legal. Obviously, you are not a student of history, if you do not know that Hilter legalized everything he did before he did it. Inciting murder and warmongery has actually gotten us where we are as a super power, WANNA GO THERE?? I can dox...

Legal means administrative powers. Legal refers to such terms as acts and statutes, NOT 'law'. Note, they do not pass 'laws' anymore, tho they are SERIOUSLY MISTAKENLY REFEREED TO AS SUCH. Patriot Act, Freedom of Information ACT, - name a LAW passed. They are acts and statutes because they are NOT law in the sense of LAW as defined in its ORIGIN of English Common Law. Law concerns only the restriction and adjustments needed for the greater good. Laws pertain to being attacked, having your food, PROPERTY (meaning something real, something you cant copy, something taken and not there anymore) safety, violated- this is the realm of LAW, aka COMMON law, aka magna carta law.

Today, law has become legalities. Lawful has become LEGAL. There is a distinction. Legal does not have the MORAL parameters that 'LAW' has. Legal deals with the oversite of MONEY, aka fines, licenses, permits... these hold no REAL danger to an individual, but now the legalities and the laws are intercombined, (and was also this way in pre-nazi and nazi Germany) that meant that things could most CERTAINLY be legal, yet have no morality or moral justification behind it per se.

Here is an article on a few historical lawfails.

http://www.examiner.com/article/the-worst-laws-ever-passed

The discussion about the legalities of nazi Germany is off topic, to be techinical, there has already been a long, indepth discussion as it is that will bore the pants off half the people here, tl:dr I KNOW- tho it was necessary to cover the legal definitions being thrown around.

However, if you would like to get into it, and no one gripes about it being off topic and/or boring, I can certainly help with info and dox on whether or not Hilter did what he did legally at the time or not, OR I can share this info with you via pms. You seem a smart enuff person, Im sure you can handle the load of info.

I have contributed this part to this discussion, I am her mom, student of history, law, and computer science. (also Ima horse trainer). I wish you all safety, blessings, happiness and whirled peas. "

Skullette · July 4, 2013

Perhaps more demos WOULD help to combat people's desire to try something before they have to buy... some have LIMITED funds, and want to make sure that they will really like a game before investing $60-$20 for it.

(just to be sure you are aware, i am defending FILE SHARING, not the copy/sell form of piracy).

That point again. And why should the lack of money allow you to do something without having the right to do so? And if you want to make sure that investment will be worth, then there are still the legal ways to do that; as I said before.

You never said anything about permission or the right to share a file. Or at least not that I had noticed, since reading a post full of copy/past-quotes isn't that interesting to read. I agree that filesharing is good, as long as was allowed from the owner of the file.

Definately. Just becoz its legal dont mean it is moral.

Oh, don't make me laugh now.

Did you read the distinctions of the terms used? Did you note the difference in the term, and definiton of stealing, larceny, theft, and piracy, and how piracy is not listed with the other terms refering to theft? And yes, I pointed out alot that to copy and sell is bad, but to copy and use (such as you did, got permission to use that avatar?) is not 'bad' or even illegal. To copy and sell, however, is WRONG (moral) and ILLEGAL (legal).

In using any image without express permission from its creator/owner/distrubutor, then how is your avatar (or any other used before) any different than using a 4GB file?

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/peer-to-peer-file-sharing%20/

this is the definition of file shaing. it specifies DISTRUBTION, and that means making money. note, it does not say 'sharing AND/OR distribution, but rather the distribution part being the part making it illegal. Distrubution by its legal definiton does not mean to 'hand out', or to 'share', it specifically deals with money.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/peer-to-peer-file-sharing%20/

edited to add

google images is the bigest pirateimage bay there is.

Endiness · July 4, 2013

This thread would've been so much better if it were for ideas on how copyright laws should be remade, than this. Only argument is that people shouldn't be punished/less sever punishment for copyright infringement because most people who do it can't afford it? Don't be mad when someone says, "So What?". Copyright infringement is illegal, and I don't know what else can be said about it. If you want sympathy, then you might want to look elsewhere, and probably not an online outlet at that. This thread is starting to look like flame/troll material.

Last I heard Let's Play videos are legal, so feel free to watch all the games you can't afford in their entirety on youtube if you want to. If you like what you see, and can afford it, than support the developers. If not, then move along.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

This thread would've been so much better if it were for ideas on how copyright laws should be remade, than this. Only argument is that people shouldn't be punished/less sever punishment for copyright infringement because most people who do it can't afford it? Don't be mad when someone says, "So What?". Copyright infringement is illegal, and I don't know what else can be said about it. If you want sympathy, then you might want to look elsewhere, and probably not an online outlet at that. This thread is starting to look like flame/troll material.

Last I heard Let's Play videos are legal, so feel free to watch all the games you can't afford in their entirety on youtube if you want to. If you like what you see, and can afford it, than support the developers. If not, then move along.

This topic is about peoples personal opinion and views on listed subjects (copywright, piracy, ripping, ect) and we have discussed personaly views and many have said it needs to be redone and if they so chose to go into more detail then that is their right. but i keep seeing pirating (file sharing) as stealing and i thought i would correct the incorrect asummsions of the legal deffenitions of the terms. if how ever they belive in there personal opinion it is still stealing then fine, but most have said thing like "its stealing no way around it" and i dont think they mention it was there personal opinion i belive they where talking in legal terms. if i was wrong forgive me atleast hopefully some may be educated on the terms now. also i was decussion about how legal was not moral and the subject of hitler came along and even in that there has been no personal attacking (trolling) I/(me and my mom sence mom is more educated on the subject of law and history) have gived dox on the matter. so still not trolling, more education.

i never said anything about sympathy and i was not seeking it. there is logic and facts behind the reality that the system creates poverty, and 80% of crime is directly related to that poverty. Pointing a collective finger at an individual with few options rather than addressing the predatory results of a maligned system is not seeking sympathy, or most philosphers and those such as MLK and Ghandi, and presently Aaron Swhartz and Manning are just seeking sympathy.

atm, far the only troll mention has been by you. i hope you are not here to troll, this discussion, while passionate, is now in the stages of definitions and doxing, and no character assinations have come out, nor personal attacks (other than possibly your accussasion of me using this thread to 'seek sympathy.') Moving along.

i have given legal defintions for the terms used. If you can debate or argue with them, please do, this is how I learn things, and gain new insight. I cant play a game on youtube, cant get a feel of how the fighting is, or how the movement of the game feels, only one dimensional, powerless spoilers, which doesnt show me gameplay AS A PLAYER but does usually ruin the surprises the game may have in store for me.

If you belive there should be a thread on how or why copywright laws should be changed. by all means you are welcome to make one. OR if you wish, you can start such discussion here. as it also falls into what i originaly suggested, by putting personal opinion on copyright.

how ever sence in discring our opinion has been using legal terms with specific definitions i belived i should point out the true/ accurate meaning of such LEGAL terms. Terms were being used inaccurately, as you can see piracy is not listed with the terms used with stealing, pointing that out as our debate here is about legalities, (moral or otherwise) and there are very distinct boundries for those terms, and piracy was not with the terms for stealing. LEGALLY. Now, if you wish to continue using the term 'piracy,' or 'stealing', just realize you are not within its definate boundries that lawyers and the legal system uses when appliyng these terms.

Thulas · July 4, 2013

then YOU can fault MLK.

Everyone has the right to stand his oppinion against anyone, regardless of what they have accomplished.

Also, I can show how Hilter changed things to make it legal, tho that would mean a long, boring class on the pre-nazi Germany, nazi Germany, and post-nazi Germany after the Allies had thrown out much of his changes.

Now we are talking. I absolutely agree that he created laws to make things legal, the Ermächtigungsgesetzt vom 23.03.1933 is the best example for that; to be allowed to pass laws without permission of the Reichstag that don't even need to accord with the constitution is the ultimate tool to make even genocide legal (though ne never acutally did that).

But here comes the punch line: the events that led to the Ermächtigugnsgesetzt were highly illegal and at some points actually anticonstitutional. If you take a look at the vote to pass the Ermächtigungsgesetzt there is in fact one point that seems to makes it legit; more than 2/3 in the Reichstag voted for the new law. But the problem was, that the internal regulations were changed shortly before (I quess you have the date for that more present than me). Representatives that weren't present during a vote were counted as if they had been there, which made the minimal presence of representatives needed to successfully vote for a law reachable for the NSDAP. With the Reichsbrandverordnung (28.02.1933) they were able to arrest political opponents to keep them away during the vote; since they couldn't vote against it but still were counted as present, this fitted perfectly into their plans. But the Reichsbrandverordnung was only a pretense to spread terror among the other presentants; either they voted the way the NSDAP wanted them to or they had to face physical harm, being arrested or even worse.

This leads to the conclusion that the vote wasn't free, which makes it illegal.

But the thing I have to wonder about right now is on how valid the "spirit of the constitution" is here. It clearly was a democratic one, but I am not sure if impinging it has a greate value in this discussion, probably you'd know that better.

I wish you all safety, blessings, happiness and whirled peas. "

Pollite, aren't we? I though these kind of people are an extincting species. But please take these blessings back, I don't belieave in such things (though I still am religeous).

Skullette · July 4, 2013

then YOU can fault MLK.

Everyone has the right to stand his oppinion against anyone, regardless of what they have accomplished.

Also, I can show how Hilter changed things to make it legal, tho that would mean a long, boring class on the pre-nazi Germany, nazi Germany, and post-nazi Germany after the Allies had thrown out much of his changes.

Now we are talking. I absolutely agree that he created laws to make things legal, the Ermächtigungsgesetzt vom 23.03.1933 is the best example for that; to be allowed to pass laws without permission of the Reichstag that don't even need to accord with the constitution is the ultimate tool to make even genocide legal (though ne never acutally did that).

But here comes the punch line: the events that led to the Ermächtigugnsgesetzt were highly illegal and at some points actually anticonstitutional. If you take a look at the vote to pass the Ermächtigungsgesetzt there is in fact one point that seems to makes it legit; more than 2/3 in the Reichstag voted for the new law. But the problem was, that the internal regulations were changed shortly before (I quess you have the date for that more present than me). Representatives that weren't present during a vote were counted as if they had been there, which made the minimal presence of representatives needed to successfully vote for a law reachable for the NSDAP. With the Reichsbrandverordnung (28.02.1933) they were able to arrest political opponents to keep them away during the vote; since they couldn't vote against it but still were counted as present, this fitted perfectly into their plans. But the Reichsbrandverordnung was only a pretense to spread terror among the other presentants; either they voted the way the NSDAP wanted them to or they had to face physical harm, being arrested or even worse.

This leads to the conclusion that the vote wasn't free, which makes it illegal.

But the thing I have to wonder about right now is on how valid the "spirit of the constitution" is here. It clearly was a democratic one, but I am not sure if impinging it has a greate value in this discussion, probably you'd know that better.

again, my mom responded,

"This is actually proof to its legality, (however not its morality of course). The very fact that new legalities introduced ARE STILL LEGALITIES, and the fact they violate a constitution, while it certainly shows they should be never instituted in the first place, if they are they should be overhauled quickly and without delay- does NOT change the fact they are legal. Even today, in the USA, legalities are being passed that violate our constitution and the rights laid out therein. Such as HR 347 recently signed that makes it a FELONY to IMPEDE the FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS of a FEDERAL INSTITUTION. This makes it a very serious crime to impede on the money making of the state- while it seems to address some financial RIGHT of the state, it also is in direct violation of our right to free speech, as well as our right to peaceful assembly, as to say, hold a peaceful, sign carrying protest on the steps of a federal building a FELONY. A felony to exercise your constitutional right? This is happening in MANY forms even now. Yet, this does NOT CHANGE THE LEGALITY OF HR 347, it is now a 'law' even tho it is in clear violation of constitutional rights. In fact, it was the switch from constitutional rights to the 'civil' rights movement that actually exacerbated the issue, changing our rights from constitutional ones to civil ones, but that goes into completely interpretative debates on law theory that would put the other readers to sleep faster than a tv evangelist.

I dont see where it is proven that it was not a vote considered legal at the time. Here in America, black males had the right to vote before females, and before black males could vote only white males could vote. Does this throw out all legalities, history and validation for laws simply because it was a closed voting? No. It only shows that just because it has been made legal by no means makes it moral. In fact, it is the inherent fallacy of law to be able to maintain a moral as well as administrative balance with the shifting mores that society has, that MAKES laws changeable and malleable. This is not a bad thing, but it can also show that there are times when just because it is a law, does not mean it is 'right'.

And as far as MLK goes, its not to discredit your right to have an opinion, as my grandaddy used to say... 'opinions are like toilets, everyone has one, and they are all full of .......' But MLK, due to his life, his knowledge, his passion, his stance, most certainly would carry more weight than yours. This is not an insult, it would carry more than mine as well. Appreciate the example you gave, however I showed how that doesnt prove MLK wrong. While it may not have been right, moral or whatever else, what Hilter did at the time was legal, just as the horrors that the American Government has done both openly and in secret has been atrocities of the highest order... HOWEVER, MOST OF THEM WERE, BY DEFINATION, LEGAL."

Thulas · July 4, 2013

Did you read the distinctions of the terms used?

No, not yet. Though they are needed to truly participate during the debate I'll do it later.

And yes, I pointed out alot that to copy and sell is bad, but to copy and use (such as you did, got permission to use that avatar?) is not 'bad' or even illegal.

Though you have a point there and I partially agree, doesn't sharing without permission hurt the copyrights? Or isn't it (lawfully) wrong to give something away without being allowed to do so? Or actually doing anything without permission?

And I really have to wonder how things are with avatars, I quess there actually is a clause for things like that, but what does it say?

In using any image without express permission from its creator/owner/distrubutor,

I don't think that a permission has to be expressively, not everywhere you stumble across the work of an autor has to be written in BIG FAT CAPITAL LETTERS what he or she allowes to do with the work. But again, there probably is a clause for that if not even the copyright itself would be it.

Filesharing isn't as bad as you probably think I see it, since I personaly focus on the files that clearly are illegal, like a "arrrr-I'm-a-pirate"-version of Skyrim.

google images is the bigest pirateimage bay there is.

That's a thing probably worth to think about. Without doubt it is somewhat legal what google does, the question is where the legally ends.

Thulas · July 4, 2013

Does this throw out all legalities, history and validation for laws simply because it was a closed voting?

That's not an easy point, since laws can't be retroactive, which makes the laws not inactive only because when it was passed the right for black women to vote (to take both examples at once) wasn't present back then.

This is actually proof to its legality

I clearly see why you think that way, still I have to disagree. Art. 125 of the constitution back then said, that a vote has to be free. Considering the points I already gave you, the vote for the Ermächtigugnsgesetzt definitely wasn't free, since threatening and forcing you to stay away from the place where the vote finds place clearly hurt the right of free voting.

And this makes it illegal.

HOWEVER, MOST OF THEM WERE, BY DEFINATION, LEGAL.

As I said, you are right that they were made legal, but the path to make it that way clearly wasn't.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

Did you read the distinctions of the terms used?

No, not yet. Though they are needed to truly participate during the debate I'll do it later.

And yes, I pointed out alot that to copy and sell is bad, but to copy and use (such as you did, got permission to use that avatar?) is not 'bad' or even illegal.

Though you have a point there and I partially agree, doesn't sharing without permission hurt the copyrights? Or isn't it (lawfully) wrong to give something away without being allowed to do so? Or actually doing anything without permission?

And I really have to wonder how things are with avatars, I quess there actually is a clause for things like that, but what does it say?

In using any image without express permission from its creator/owner/distrubutor,

I don't think that a permission has to be expressively, not everywhere you stumble across the work of an autor has to be written in BIG FAT CAPITAL LETTERS what he or she allowes to do with the work. But again, there probably is a clause for that if not even the copyright itself would be it.

Filesharing isn't as bad as you probably think I see it, since I personaly focus on the files that clearly are illegal, like a "arrrr-I'm-a-pirate"-version of Skyrim.

google images is the bigest pirateimage bay there is.

That's a thing probably worth to think about. Without doubt it is somewhat legal what google does, the question is where the legally ends.

you will have to read the deffentions provied and the link that they where taken from.

I apologize, i was copy pasting from alot of different definitions (from the same site of legal definitions however) here is the actual link to the definiton of distribution, which involves EXCHANGE OF MONEY... and it says NOT 'and/or' distrubtion but ONLY 'and distrubtion,' which is the part of it that makes it illegal.

the legal definition of the term distribution (and is used in this)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/distribution

so basicly if you do not read the links;

it is only a copywright violation when it is copyed AND sidtributied.

"peer-to-peer file sharing refers to the downloading of a computer file to a user's computer, using software. This then allows the user to make the file available to other users, other "peers." This is a form of copyright violation in most jurisdictions by the unauthorized copying and distribution of copyright material, mostly songs in MP3 or other digitized formats."

"distribution n. the act of dividing up the assets of an estate or trust, or paying out profits or assets of a corporation or business according to the ownership"

so there for file sharing (With out distibution legel term) is NOT illegal.

So if someone say downloaded skyrim from TPB (Thepiratebay; wich is free download) then it would NOT be illegal.

so as long at TPB does not make money off the DOWNLOADS and nither do i, no crime has been commeted, as there has been no distribution/money made. (again legal terms)

Skullette · July 4, 2013

Does this throw out all legalities, history and validation for laws simply because it was a closed voting?

That's not an easy point, since laws can't be retroactive, which makes the laws not inactive only because when it was passed the right for black women to vote (to take both examples at once) wasn't present back then.

This is actually proof to its legality

I clearly see why you think that way, still I have to disagree. Art. 125 of the constitution back then said, that a vote has to be free. Considering the points I already gave you, the vote for the Ermächtigugnsgesetzt definitely wasn't free, since threatening and forcing you to stay away from the place where the vote finds place clearly hurt the right of free voting.

And this makes it illegal.

HOWEVER, MOST OF THEM WERE, BY DEFINATION, LEGAL.

As I said, you are right that they were made legal, but the path to make it that way clearly wasn't.

mom replies... "Again, constitutions SHOULD be the preeminent source of a country's law, but as I pointed out with one of many possible modern examples, this is still a problem today, legalities infringing on rights is not something that has ever gotten 'better' with the evolution of law as it stands today. And while it is UNLAWFUL in the sense of magna carta law, constitutional law, in the LEGAL arena, it is most definately legal. Again, lawful and legal are not interchangeable, tho today they seem to be. Where things to stay lawful, then legalities that infringe on personal liberties, or oppress a person due to birthrite, would not even come to the forefront. If lawyers were kept out of governments, and not put in charge of countries, then this would probably help stem some of the takeover of a legal system as opposed to a magna carta based system (such as is being employed by Iceland, at the moment, if it doesnt change under the international pressure.)

Thulas · July 4, 2013

I apologize, i was copy pasting from alot of different definitions

Allways be greatefull to who ever ready what you wrote; after all you want him/her to actuall read it, and not being overwhelmed by the masses of text.

so there for file sharing (With out distibution legel term) is NOT illegal.

So if someone say downloaded skyrim from TPB (Thepiratebay; wich is free download) then it would NOT be illegal.

I hardly can belieave that, though, again, I first need to read every bit of the relating content to fix my oppinion here; just a prejudice that needs to be either verified or thrown away.

Could it be true by the way that you thought I ment that filesharing in general was bad and illegal?

Thulas · July 4, 2013

Again, lawful and legal are not interchangeable, tho today they seem to be.

That might be the point where the "spirit of constitution" kicks in, ain't it?

Again, constitutions SHOULD be the preeminent source of a country's law

Though this is offtopic on the second grade, aren't we as citizens supposed to observe our representants? After all the are representants, not masters. They are there because we want them to be there, and if we want them to be gone, we can make them to. And if they pass laws that are anticonstitutional, we have both the right and the duty to fight against it/them. At least this is how democracy is where I am from.

Of course, this has nothing to do with piracy or the events during 1933.

but as I pointed out with one of many possible modern examples, this is still a problem today, legalities infringing on rights is not something that has ever gotten 'better' with the evolution of law as it stands today.

But does it even matter? Todays problems may be related to the ones of history, but the old ones aren't affected by ours. Would be interesting though.

mom replies...

You don't need to write that, I can see that by simply looking on what the post is about.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

I apologize, i was copy pasting from alot of different definitions

Allways be greatefull to who ever ready what you wrote; after all you want him/her to actuall read it, and not being overwhelmed by the masses of text.

so there for file sharing (With out distibution legel term) is NOT illegal.

So if someone say downloaded skyrim from TPB (Thepiratebay; wich is free download) then it would NOT be illegal.

I hardly can belieave that, though, again, I first need to read every bit of the relating content to fix my oppinion here; just a prejudice that needs to be either verified or thrown away.

Could it be true by the way that you thought I ment that filesharing in general was bad and illegal?

from what you said i gather you though downloading skyrim (or anyother game) from someone who either didnt have express permission from the creator, or wasnt the crator was bad/illegal. and yes, to go ahead and read the legal definitions of the terms will help

you expressed if they had the permission it was fine i belive.

Thulas · July 4, 2013

from what you said i gather you though downloading skyrim (or anyother game) from someone who either didnt have express permission from the creator, or wasnt the crator was bad/illegal. and yes, to go ahead and read the legal definitions of the terms will help

you expressed if they had the permission it was fine i belive.

There really is nothing I can say to that atm., because those definitions still need to be read. But my current disposition towards using a cracked or pirated version still is quite low, a fact that probably neither matter nor will be changed easily.

Skullette · July 4, 2013

from what you said i gather you though downloading skyrim (or anyother game) from someone who either didnt have express permission from the creator, or wasnt the crator was bad/illegal. and yes, to go ahead and read the legal definitions of the terms will help

you expressed if they had the permission it was fine i belive.

There really is nothing I can say to that atm., because those definitions still need to be read. But my current disposition towards using a cracked or pirated version still is quite low, a fact that probably neither matter nor will be changed easily.

In the Netherlands, they are going after those who crack the game and upload the cracked versions, but to download and use (without distribution, of course) is 100% legal. To download, to use, is legal, tho you may have a moral issue with it, it is no different than hearing a song on a radio or posting an authorized picture as an avatar.

Perhaps understanding how it is to be without, to not be able to afford such things through no fault of your own, while it is illegal, it is not 'wrong' per se, as you have no other options. The system is wrong, and people are NOT wrong because they are without the options provided the few priviledged. This is a philosophical point, however, not a legal one.

Thulas · July 4, 2013

The system is wrong, and people are NOT wrong because they are without the options provided the few priviledged. This is a philosophical point, however, not a legal one.

Now that's definitely something to talk about; in other words, you think that privileges are a thing that need to be removed, right? If yes, why should they be removed in the first place? Social justice?

Or don't you want a third offtopic?

RitualClarity · July 4, 2013

ritualclarity, on 02 Jul 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

Shendar, on 02 Jul 2013 - 08:13 AM, said:

Most likely because expressing pro-piracy views is against the site rules. Despite my chaotic nature, I respect site makers and mods and will not post all my thoughts on this matter. I can say this though: concept of copyright should be scrapped completely and remade with all technological, sociological, economical and other aspects of XXI century in mind.

I don't see anywhere in the rules where discussing or being pro Piracy is against the rules. You just can't give or get help with Piracy on this site.

Quote

Piracy is not provided here. It's not our business where you get a game, but you will not get help with piracy here, and helping somebody else pirate is strictly against the rules. Keep it to yourself.

So don't give any info on how to pirate crack or otherwise compromise games, music or DVD's etc and keep to discussing the political and legal aspects of Piracy and you should be safe.

My view is the Copyright process is outdated and I also believe that it needs to be remade with all technological, sociological, economical and other aspects of XXI century in mind. Opps... my bad did I just Pirate Shendar's comment ???? well not exactly it is actually Plagiarism not Pirating. Guess I have to return my peg leg now. ..

Plagiarism is considered dishonest if passed off as one's own work, unlike what I done above (reading the post above one can easily tell that it was taken from the original poster as a joke, thus no attempt and subterfuge was made.) Where Pirating is theft. Plain and simple. You can rationalized it any way you want. It is theft. Taking a penny is theft. Same principle as stealing millions of dollars. However the level of theft is different. The "damages" are different thus the punishment should be different. This is where I see problems. Someone steals a song worth 0.99 cents from Apple or copies a DVD for personal use. The punishment can be thousands of dollars (each offense) and many years in jail. It is likely in some countries that an individual that pirated copyrighted materials can and would stay in jail longer than a violent criminal. The punishment doesn't fit the crime. This is the problem. This is where the laws are skewed to protect the owners of the property or idea unfairly. Punishments shouldn't be punitive in nature unless they are heinous and evil in nature. Rape, Murder, Violence, incest, child abuse, child neglect, attacks during robberies etc. Punishment should be more appropriate if needed at all.

There you have another comment in all it glory...

In this case, it is not 'rationalizing'. My parents are students of law, and I have learend that there are 'legal' definitions for words, and there are 'regular' definitons for words, and sometimes they are very different. This is why lawyers go to school so long, and have many books, is to make clear these distinction, as sometimes they are not the same.

The legal definition of 'stealing' is...
"STEALING. This term imports, ex vi termini, nearly the same as larceny; but in common parlance, it does not always import a felony; as, for example, you stole an acre of my land.
2. In slander cases, it seems that the term stealing takes its complexion from the subject-matter to which it is applied, and will be considered as intended of a felonious stealing, if a felony could have been committed of such subject-matter. Stark. on Slan. 80; 12 Johns. Rep. 239; 3 Binn. R. 546; Whart. Dig. tit. Slander."

The legal defintion of theft is...
"The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

"larceny n. the crime of taking the goods of another person without permission (usually secretly), with the intent of keeping them. It is one form of "theft." Some states differentiate between grand larceny and petty larceny based on the value of the stolen goods. Grand larceny is a felony with a state prison sentence as a punishment and petty larceny is usually limited to county jail time. "

Legal defintion of property -

"Personal property can be divided into two major categories: tangible and intangible. Tangible property includes such items as animals, merchandise, and jewelry. Intangible property includes such rights as stock, bonds, patents.

Real property is land and ordinarily anything erected on, growing on, or affixed to it, including buildings and crops. The term is also used to declare any rights that issue from the ownership of land.

To have possession, an individual must have a degree of actual control over the object, coupled with an intent to possess the object and exclude others from possessing it. The law recognizes two types of possession: actual and constructive.

Actual possession exists when an individual knowingly has direct physical control over an object at a given time. For example, an individual wearing a particular piece of jewelry has actual possession of it. Constructive possession is the power and intent of an individual to control a particular item, even though it is not physically in that person's control. For example, an individual who has the key to a bank safe-deposit box, which contains a piece of jewelry that she owns, is said to be in constructive possession of the jewelry.

(now, i hope I dont have to put more of the legal definiton and parameters of property, as it gets more deep, more boring, and more tedious, yet it is quite obvious the legal definition of property is one of tangible, physical objects- and these tangible physical objects are PHYSICALLY REMOVED, the object itself. The legal defintion of plagerism, however, fits more to the definitions of what we are discussing here, as it involves INTELLECTUAL property- ideas, stories, and other media.)

See how legal distinctions are made even between larceny, theft, and your commoner term of 'stealing?)
Here it clearly states that property must be TAKEN (aka, removed, and no longer there) FOR THE PURPOSES OF A SALE (again, to copy and sell is ILLEGAL, altho it doesnt match the parameters set as 'theft, larceny, or stealing' as per its legal definition- I also want to point out that is says that STEALING is wrong, not 'copying'. File sharing is not taking property, it is copying property, and not illegal in the sense of the definitons listed above, but I first have to clear up the LEGAL definition of 'property', so that you will see that includes tangible, physical objects (land, a car, a pair of jeans, ect.) When you get into the discussion of the legalities of COPYWRITE, however, you in realm of INTELLECTUAL property, and that has legal distinctions in its definition, just as there were distinctions in the terms above. (and note in the words listed that were synonmously used, PIRACY was not among them.)

File sharing is no different than half the avatars used here. Is it illegal for you to use a picture someone else created as you avatar without EXPRESS permission from the creator, website you got it from, ect?? If this is true, you are all criminals. (and you can rationalize it any way you want.) The pictures for the avatars here (most of them) where image files, and those files are copied (by you) without permission or purchase, USED by you the same way, and possibly used by others as well. All criminals.

Now, the legal definition of piracy-

"U.S. law developed chiefly in the eighteenth and nineteenth century ... to criminalize piracy, originated in the U.S. Constitution, which was followed by the first federal law in 1790 and crucial revisions over the next sixty years. (Note from me, this is the old defintion for sea piracy)

Apart from its traditional definition, piracy also refers to copyright violations. Committed both in the United States and abroad, this form of piracy includes the unauthorized storage, reproduction, distribution, or sale of intellectual property—for example, music CDs, movie videocassettes, and even fashion designs. The term has been applied, in particular, to the piracy of computer software, which is highly susceptible to theft because of its ease of duplication. Estimates of the cost to copyright holders ranges in the billions of dollars annually. U.S. law protects copyright holders under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.S. § 109 [1993]), and a 1992 federal law makes software piracy a felony (Pub. L. No. 102-561, 106 Stat. 4233, codified at 18 U.S.C.A. § 2319 [1988 & 1992 Supp.]). Since the 1990s, a number of international treaties and conventions, as well as diplomatic initiatives, have sought to forge greater cooperation among nations to combat such piracy."

Hmmm, there is a legal distinction between piracy and theft, to use your terms but in a proper, LEGAL context.

(this all came from http://legal-diction...dictionary.com)

btw this is to educate everyone who says piracy/file sharing is stealing/thieving not just the qouted person.

in my personal opinion, to pirate something, copy it and SELL it could be considers stealing due to it acually taking sales from the devs. File sharing how ever does not do that. yes there are some people who pirate just cuz they dont want to caugh up 50$ out of there who knows how big budget, but that is not the file sharers fault. but MOST who pirate FREE files are broke. And no just becouse you have a computer that is good enough to run skyrim does not mean you can pay for skyrim. Your finacel state could change in a blink of an eye.

for instance some personal info;

five years ago my afther was a foreman at a mechine shop. and we rescued HORSES (anyone who owns horses would/should know the exspences of them. NOT CHEEP) but now both my parents are uninploied and been that way for a while, and my grandmother is the one who purches this current computer (wich can run skyrim) and she sometimes has to help with the bill. ATM i can not afford a copy of skyrim. Not even preowned. Yet i have a comp that can play it. so the type of your equptment does NOT garintee your CURRENT finical situation can afford a suplie of games.

so far no one has made a valid LEGAL argument on if Piracy is theift or stealing (other than this post) as there is piracy is clearly outlined in its legal defenitions (By lawers) and is seperate from the LEGAL deffenition of theft and stealing as property canNOT be copyed. (real property can not be copyed) For instance a radio station buys a song from the company one time! yet they make money for playing music over and over again that they only payed for once. are all their listener criminals?

as you can see there is much merkyness in the pirates waters.

Contact the Record execs and publicly let them know you pirated all your music... see what happens. Your parents can represent you and you can watch most of everything you own being taken away from you.

Laws vary from location to location. Definitions of various actions also vary from location to location, and enforcement of these laws also vary from location to location.

There is a reason why most sites based in USA or other English speaking countries, Germany etc. have rules against supporting in any way Piracy. The legal damages that can be levered to the site and in some countries the operators of that site is massive.

Use of items found on the web like photos used in Avatars can be an issue but only if the owner of the work states it in the website or contacts you and tell you not to use it. Same with mods posted here on LL. Some mods might have an open use clause or other requirements that can be met and then placed here. Like the T3 body used in Sexout. If for some reason the creator contacts the powers that be here on this site and tell them that he/she would like his/her materials removed the mod creator would. If he didn't Ashal or a moderator would most likely remove it themselves.

In most legal cases it isn't about law it is about being a dick. The only problem is when the owner is the dick.

RitualClarity · July 4, 2013

Perhaps understanding how it is to be without, to not be able to afford such things through no fault of your own, while it is illegal, it is not 'wrong' per se, as you have no other options. The system is wrong, and people are NOT wrong because they are without the options provided the few priviledged. This is a philosophical point, however, not a legal one.

I am without. Legaly where I live I am clasiffied as impoverished. I can use Pandora, Hulu, for a few dollars Netflx. With a little effort and doing some odd jobs I was able to save up and get a GTX670 with care waiting for a nice sale on a open box. I have a pay as you go phone. I only use it when needed and most times I can go weeks or months with only using a few dollars when others in my location pays 60 dollars to 100 dollars for phone service. Where I am at it cost 5 dollars for massive amounts ot txt.

I have bought only one game in the last year. Skyrim when it was on a Steam sale. I waited for months .. hell almost a year before getting it but I was alble to get it. Serveral games gotten the year before was because free coupon was given to me with my computer hardware. Also planed and used to the greatest avantage.

I don't have a music collecton. I have maybe about 100 songs from Apple. These songs were gift cards and other things given to me. Some were perks or other things issued becasue of the job I work at. I paid nothing. Had music been my main foucs instead of gaming I would of focused on getting that instead of my upgraded computer from 3 years ago. I will likely start collecting them as soon as I settle on a nice player.

You can get and enjoy many things in your life without the need to resort to piracy. The key is to be content with where you are in life. In most industrial countires you can indeed get things that are needed / desired in time provided you are willing to work for them. This isn't food, Medicine or shelter. What is being debated here are luxuries. Games, Music, Movies. If you were discussing a hungry individual where there is no support available stealing or such then I would stand right behind you .. them. this isn't the case here. You CAN get the things you desire, in time and with effort and prioritization. Sitting there complaining about those that have and using that as a justification for piratcy is wrong.

An individual that I know that is on disability and gets public assistance just got a nice mid range laptop a few days ago. A friend of mine was helping him set it up with all the needed assecories. Email addresss and the such. Yes he never even had an email. He focused and saved and eventually was able to get a laptop. I think it took him about a year of saving to do it. He cannot go out and work, he is disabled. He has no one else to help him. He has to live in his means, yet he was able to even buy a computer.

I am one of those individuals that you mention as a justificaton to violate the laws/rules. I am informing you that I and indeed others in my position can and do obtain various luxuries that they desire without resorting to piracy or copyrite infrigment.

Endiness · July 4, 2013

Make copies of your work
distribute copies of your work;
perform your work publicly (such as for plays, film, dances or music);
display your work publicly (such as for artwork, or stills from audiovisual works, or any material used on the Internet or television); and
make “derivative works” (including making modifications, adaptations or other new uses of a work, or translating the work to another media).

These are things the original author has full rights to do with his/her own work. It's illegal for anyone else to do these things without the author's permission. If you give someone a digital product, without removing from your own system, how does that not count as a copy? You still have it, and now another person has it.

RitualClarity · July 5, 2013

If tomorrow we had laws changed to allow free distribution of digital works without any penalty or controls the world as we know it will change. Games like Borderlands. Bioshock, Fallout series, Call of Duty will stop being made. You will have to live with games created by those that work for free or next to free. Take a look at many Linux game... you will see the difference. Huge epic productions such as the latest blockbusters will also stop.. No more major movies. Maybe some indie movies but nothing that requires the massive effort that a major production requires. Music from major companies and artist.. gone. or massively limited.

Basically only those that work for the joy of the work will continue working and distributing their work hopping for some money from PayPal or public contributions. Most would work on these projects in their spare time as the fact that they might not be able to make a decent or reliable living off the works. Many times these projects and their creators will get burned out and stop before it is completed.

Laws on this is needed. However I will agree that the laws are massively skewed to the favor of those that create the works and any punishments given rarely fit the crime. This is a sad state of affairs.

Pvt. skittles · July 5, 2013

I realize this is a few days old, but I personally don't have an issue with file sharing, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. I've personally pirated several games, all of which I now own. The laws that America was/ is trying to make are rather stupid in my opinion, because they're trying to police an international community. The internet isn't owned by anyone, so laws are difficult to make, and it's even more difficult to make them fair. So I don't see a problem with it as long as the pirates don't make a profit on it.

Sign In

Views on copyright

Recommended Posts

Archived

Recently Browsing 0 members