The effect of piracy on price?

[badass]

the term theft doesn't exclusivly relate to physical possessions, nor to the actual loss of something.

Theft, as defined in law:

"To dishonestly appropriate with the intention to permanently deprive"

Thus blowing your whole argument out of the water.
To steal something from someone, you permanently deprive them of that which you stole. Since they are still in possesion of it, you cannot logically have comitted theft.
Copyright infringement and theft are 2 different things.
Movie and recording studios are the ones that want you to think that they are the same.
If you think they are logically the same thing, then picture this.
What would someone rather you do to back up your CD?
1. Steal another copy from the shop
2. Make a spare copy of your CD and play that, keeping the original in good condition

Or, another comparison:
1. A person sneaks into and out of a warehouse owned by Sony and takes a copy of some album.
2. A person copies said album from a friend.

They ARE 2 different crimes with a different type of criminal and a different effect on the victim and the law recognises it as such.

[Spud1]

I know, thats why I again took the time to point out I was not referring to theft in legal terms

As a side issue the whole thing depends on how you look at it, namely what you consider to have been 'stolen'. Again if you look purely in terms of physical objects then, because the content would be simply 'copied', nothing has been taken. However, you have to consider the actual results of that copying - you are permanently depriving the copywrite holder of the money that is entitled to them.

So, as I have said, while its not strictly theft in a legal sense, you ARE stealing money from the rights holder..theres no way around that.

[dangel]

you ARE stealing money from the rights holder..theres no way around that.

Only if you infer that the infringement always results in a direct loss of sale..

[Spud1]

Only if you infer that the infringement always results in a direct loss of sale..

Thats true, but while I accept that it is not *always* the case, in the majority of cases the person who pirates for example, film A, would only be able to view that film by paying for it in some manner (be that a friend buying a ticket or the dvd, or paying your TV sub fees or whatever). Somewhere along the line if you want to watch that film you pay for it.

So in the majority of cases its logical to assume that it has resulted in a loss of sales. Whether or not you would have even considered purchasing said film in the first place (which is the argument that almost every pirate comes up with, the old 'well I was never going to buy it anyway so theres no lost sales') is totally irrelevant - the only legal way for you to watch said film is to buy it, so if you watch it without paying its a lost sale

[dangel]

So in the majority of cases its logical to assume that it has resulted in a loss of sales. Whether or not you would have even considered purchasing said film in the first place (which is the argument that almost every pirate comes up with, the old 'well I was never going to buy it anyway so theres no lost sales') is totally irrelevant - the only legal way for you to watch said film is to buy it, so if you watch it without paying its a lost sale

That's a deeply flawed arguement if I ever heard one - just read that back to yourself It's _absolutely_ relevant as to whether they would of purchased the film in the first place - because that _directly_ translates into a lost sale. Merely watching something because it was free/was bored/why not/i'm broke doesn't by comparison as they would of just given it a miss otherwise. Just look at the pie-in-the-sky figures the MPAA/RIAA come out with to show the effects of piracy - they're just not realistic - but their logic is completely comparative to your own..

[Spud1]

Well to be honest - after re-reading what I wrote it still makes perfect sense to me, although I do fully understand where you are coming from as I used to think exactly the same

To deal with your second points first; The fact that you will *probably* pay for it in the end anyway doesn't matter - unless the licence/copywrite holder allows you to of course I can't just walk into a shop, copy or take a movie and then say i'll pay for it later (whether i actually would or not)..the world doesn't work like that.
With respect to cancelled shows and the like...well there it does get complication I agree, and the line of whats legal/whats not does blurr immensely.

Back to my original point though, that it doesn't matter if you intended to buy it or not, its still a lost sale.

I guess here it depends on which viewpoint you take. I'm going to switch from movies to applications here since I can come at that from a more personal perspective

If I write an application, and I sell it to people at $30 a go, I don't give away any free versions to anyone - if someone wants to use my application, they pay me the $30 and they can use the application.

So to me, one user is equal to one sale, so 10 sales means I have made $300 (basic numbers here, no profit/loss etc )

What if I suddenly have 20 users though, and I have still only sold 10 copies? That means that there are 10 people who have not paid for my software, but they are using it. So in my eyes I have lost $300, right?

Those people might never have intended to buy my software, but (and this is key I guess) if I *know* about those 10 users, then I know I have lost $300 worth of sales.

Does that make sense? Even if you don't agree that its a valid way to calculate losses, let me know if you understand what I mean as thats more important

[dangel]

as I used to think exactly the same

And then the light of the MPAA came into your life completing you? Joke(!)

Back to my original point though, that it doesn't matter if you intended to buy it or not, its still a lost sale.

Nope - sorry - and I'm not trying to be funny with you (nor provoke you) but my point is the polar opposite - that every copyright infringement doesn't translate into a lost sale. Everything has an intrinsic worth to someone, and therefore there's a magical threshold where the money asked for it is reasonable to said person (even in basic terms of whether than can afford it at _all_). Outside of that they're more likely to look for an alternative - a pirate copy, a cheaper alternative or just (simply) not bothering with it. In the case of a film you're not that fussed about, you might well watch a free copy (illegally) but it's extremely unlikely that you'd buy it. That's not a huge leap really now is it?

Perhaps we'll agree to disagree?

[Spud1]

Perhaps we'll agree to disagree?

For sure

[Saracen]

........and Joe public is gonna say I want Linux, erm well go out on the street and ask how many people know about OS, seems to me that most want the latest whatever it's called.

Thank you. You make my point for me. I have never said Joe Public wants Linux. I said he has an option. It isn't as if he either buys Windows, pirates it or does without a computer. My point is that he wants Windows, and doesn't want to pay for it. Or he wants a film on DVD, and isn't prepared to pay £15-ish for it, or whatever. The mindset is the same. It's just that the pirate won't pay for it, and then goes out of his way to try to justify it with all sorts of self-serving tripe. And occasionally, a pirate is even honest about it.

Well how can anyone argue with your excellent view if living in Utopia, but in the real world..............................

Twaddle. I live in the same world you do. I just don't agree with your world vision. But truth hurts, doesn't it?

***Huh? I fail to see how whether we live in paradise or not comes into this. Greed is greed, utopia or otherwise.**

erm I think you missed my point in that you can have a view on how things should be and as they are. Why should it suprise anyone what humans are capable of and do/and have done.
Most of us are only civilised because we can control our basic instincts, but lets face it........ greed or something for nothing is very difficult to control.

Who does it surprise? Certainly not me. I also also have a very clear view of how things are. That's precisely why I dismiss the self-serving rationalisations that people serve up in an attempt to justify piracy. I'm under no illusions about the extent to which it occurs. But I'm also under no illusions about why it occurs, which as I've said more than once, is because people perceive (correctly) that they can get away with it with a minimal chance of getting caught.

But look back at the points of yours I've been arguing with. You said you pirated WP3.1 because :-

- it was unaffordable
- there was no alternative, so you "had" to use it.
- it was a rip-off

I pointed out, and I note you haven't disputed, that there were alternatives, so you didn't need WP3.1, you just wanted it, and that you can't have a rational basis for saying you were ripped off because you have no way of knowing what WordPerfect's costs were.

[Saracen]

... and would add:- those that take a very high moral high ground on piracy, should make sure they have no skeletons in the cupboard, and haven't taking even a paper clip from their work place...............as theft is theft.

I take whatever I want home from my workplace. Not that that means taking it far, since I'm self-employed and work from home.

[Saracen]

All of these comparisons between copyright infirngmennt and theft are getting boring now. Anyone that believes Copyright infringement=theft has been watching those messages at the beginning of films faaaar too much and has been brainwashed.
Firstly, theft is an improsonable, criminal offence. Copyright infringement is a civil offence, like libel or something like that. It is only finable. Selling illegally copied materials is imprisonable though.

So even the law does not see them as the same thing.

That's not quite true, badass .... assuming we're referring to UK law.

Certainly, in terms of the context of this thread, you're broadly right, in that private copyright infringement is a civil matter, but there's two ways in which you're not quite right.

As a civil matter, it isn't fineable. That applies to criminal matters. There are several things that can result from a civil case, most notably damages, seizure orders and/or injunctions. If a copyright owner were to sue, they could go for an order to seize and destroy infringing copies, an injunction to prevent further activity (and breaching that would not be a bright move, as it's a contempt of the court issuing it) and damages for any losses incurred.

Generally, in the UK, damages only reflect losses incurred, and punitive damages can only be used in a limited set of circumstances, and this isn't one of them. So, providing a pirate is downloading and/or copying for themselves, the likely damages are fairly limited. If you upload and get caught, the arguments over the extent of losses caused get MUCH more 'interesting'.

The injunctions and/or seizure orders aren't generally of much financial relevance, at least in the context of this thread. But legal costs, of course, can be. So perhaps the biggest implication of a potential civil action is what it may cost to fight it .... especially if you were to lose and get the other side's costs awarded against you. All of a sudden, the damages could start to look trivial.

This is the technique used to sue uploaders. They're told they either pay £x'000 in 'compensation', or they can take their chances in court. And generally, a large company can afford the legal fees and Joe Public can't. So choosing to fight is one hell of a gamble.

So you're right - broadly speaking, copyright stuff is a civil matter, though the implications of that can be more far-reaching than it might at first appear. And anyone doing this needs to realise that the rights-owner might not be after money, so while the damages available might be relatively trivial, if they decide to make an 'example' of someone, reimbursement of their losses may not be their aim.

The second aspect is that the criminal aspects go quite a bit beyond selling copies, though that certainly goes into criminal territory .... and if the copies are made up to look like originals, then it goes into counterfeiting territory and the potential jail terms can get quite nasty. So if you're going to copy Vista, or a film or whatever, you'd probably be wise not to try to make it look like the original or to pass it off as such.

But there are quite a few other activities which, if conducted in the course of a business, become criminal when they wouldn't be if done by a private individual. One point is what "in the course of a business" means. These provisions were aimed at commercial or industrial scale copyright infringement, but the fact that that's how they were intended to be used doesn't mean they can't be used more broadly.

I run my own business. Hexus is a business. A self-employed web designer runs a business. If you buy and sell kids toys on Ebay, with the intention of making a profit, you're running a business. Now suppose you infringe copyright in the process of running that business, perhaps by pirating MS Office (since that's been under discussion). You've now put yourself into a grey area where, while criminal charges aren't usually used (and I'm not personally aware of any instances), you COULD find them being used, if the law were so interpreted.

And if they were, and you (or I) ended up with even a relatively trivial criminal record, it could have far-reaching consequences. It can affect employment prospects, it could cost you contracts with customers, it wpould make you ineligible for the US Immigration's Visa Waiver Program (and that would be damned awkward for me, as I travel to and for a lot over the years).

Anyway, as I say, you're broadly right in what you say, but it's not quite as cut and dried as you say, or indeed as it was until relatively recent times.

Copyright law hardened quite a bit in recent times, and there are moves afoot to review it again, and while that might see liberalisation in some areas (such as personal backups of CDs, filns, etc) it looks likely to harden it quite a bit in other areas (specifically including anti-piracy steps). Of course, we'll have to see what, if anything, actually happens.

[excalibur2]

***But look back at the points of yours I've been arguing with. You said you pirated WP3.1 because :-

- it was unaffordable
- there was no alternative, so you "had" to use it.
- it was a rip-off

I pointed out, and I note you haven't disputed, that there were alternatives, so you didn't need WP3.1, you just wanted it, and that you can't have a rational basis for saying you were ripped off because you have no way of knowing what WordPerfect's costs were.***

Well I did mention the alternatives one was Xtgold the other which I was using at the time I can't remember. WP3.1 had a good spell checker which gave it the edge, also you could have two letters open at once (useful in those days of DOS)
Anyway I was not in business and typed about 2 letters a month, so I didn't care if I had it or not, in that I was not going to steal it from a shop or consider borrowing all that money for about 2 letters a month.

And you say WP3.1 wasn't a rip off, erm they thought they could rest on their laurels for DOS and keep their prices high, so they missed the boat with windows and have never recovered......IIRC win 3.1 was crap compared to word 2 so they deserved to go under.

Anyway to wrap this up, the problem with software is:- it's one of the few (if not only) things that you buy but don't own, so it doesn't seem to be theft if you do a copy and give it to a friend.

[excalibur2]

I take whatever I want home from my workplace. Not that that means taking it far, since I'm self-employed and work from home.

Well you know what I mean..........I've pirated this phrase hope there's not a copyright on it:-

"Anyone of you who is without sin can throw the first stone".

[Saracen]

Well I did mention the alternatives one was Xtgold the other which I was using at the time I can't remember. WP3.1 had a good spell checker which gave it the edge, also you could have two letters open at once (useful in those days of DOS)
Anyway I was not in business and typed about 2 letters a month, so I didn't care if I had it not in that I was not going to steal it from a shop or consider borrowing all that money for about 2 letters a month.

You said people were "forced" to use XTGold etc because of the "rip-off" pricing.

...and when you couldn't pirate easily in the old days, we were ripped off by the software companies e.g. a simple program like dos wordperfect 3.1, on a few floppies, was about £350 12 years or so ago. How could Joe public afford that and people were forced to use something like Xtgold to do letters.

Yet the examples of other products I gave, all under £50, demonstrate that there were alternatives and you weren't being "forced" to do anything. And, as you now say, you didn't need it anyway .... so in what sense were you "forced"? No, you just decided you wanted it, could take it and wouldn't get caught, and everything else is just self-justification for that.

And you say WP3.1 wasn't a rip off, erm they thought they could rest on their laurels for DOS and keep their prices high, so they missed the boat with windows and have never recovered......IIRC win 3.1 was crap compared to word 2 so they deserved to go under.

Missing the boat had nothing to do with it being a rip-off. WordPerfect made some wrong decisions, and MS out-marketed them. They screwed up. But WordPerfect was the market leader for a long time for a good reason - it was a very good (and in many user's eyes, the best) product. It was also aimed firmly at business users, not home users doing two letters a month. To suggest it's a "rip-off" because it's pricing didn't suit you, when you weren't the customer they were marketing it at or had developed it for, is ridiculous.

WP was a business class product, aimed at business-class buyers with busoness-class needs and business-class budgets. Of course it's going to look expensive to someone doing two letters a month at home. It wasn't intended for you. That does not make it a rip-off. It just makes it unsuitable for you.

Again, calling it a rip-off is not supported by facts, such as the underlying cost structure of development and marketing, and is just a way of self-justifying pirating it.

what's being requested isn't a holy blemish-free background - it's being honest.

"i pirate windows because it's a rip off" is bull**** that makes you look dishonest
"i pirate windows because i'm greedy" is another matter

Precisely.

[Saracen]

Well you know what I mean..........I've pirated this phrase hope there's not a copyright on it:-

"Anyone of you who is without sin can throw the first stone".

Yes, I know what you mean. The thing is, I don't need pirate software. The firewalls I use are easily available in pirate 'Pro' form, but I use the free version. I've several machines here running XP Pro, all on legit licences. Several more running Win 2000, including Server - again legit. I'm currently using Office 2000 (legit), despite much more recent versions being easily available. I've had every version of Photoshop since v3 - legit again. And so on. I don't install the latest version of everything (like Office) just because I could get it. For what I do, I don't need the latest and greatest. So if the old tool does the job, I'm perfectly content to stick with it.

But throughout this, until you started to raise it, I haven't said what I use, or whether it's legit or not. My comments have also not been about what you use, but rather the reasons to put forward to try to justify piracy. I haven't tried to tell you you shouldn't be pirating. That's for you to decide and I don't care much one way or the other whether you or anybody else does or not. What I've commented on, again and again, is the self-justification put forward for doing so ... like rip-off pricing. That is what doesn't hold water.

[excalibur2]

Saracen: I have already said you are right about piracy and there is no argument against what you say, unfortunately like a vicar preaching in church, the congregation don't always do what he preaches.......and in fact some of the vicars are hypocrites and are just as bad or worse as the congregation.
But If you are short of money in 1993 ish and a friend offers you a copy of WP3.1, how many people would refuse it, well I know you would but what about the others.
You could open a new thread about the weakness of humans..eh

As for WP3.1 prices, you seem to be quite happy agreeing with the haves and have nots........Wordperfect couldn't give a fig about joe public, so instead of bringing out a cheap "cut down" ver for ordinary people all they did is encourage piracy.