Canada must be a little bit more free than the US, as it's illegal to prevent you from backing up software, music or anything else you purchase on CD, copy protection on CD's is actually illegal here.

There was a global study done recently (by the BSA, business software alliance) that claimed of $80 billion in software installed on PC's in 2003 worldwide, only $51 billion was legally purchased.

They therefore claimed $29 billion as a loss to piracy for 2003 worldwide.

I wrote them to dispute the claim & they never replied which forced me to write a letter to the editor, that was published in two of Canada's largest newspapers. They failed to adjust the $29 billion figure to account for reality, which is. Of that $29 billion worth of illegal software in use, how much would consumers really purchase if that was there only way of obtaining it. The conclusion was 10% to 15% or $3 to $5 billion globally, that tends to paint whole new picture of the piracy problem, industry groups like to twist the facts around in the hope of having some government bow to there wishes, hey it works you got the digital millennium act in the states.

http://www.bsa.org/globalstudy/

A lot of people here are making some valid points.

Things are happening fast in this world, technologically and laws need to be able to change and adapt to that fact. A lot of things are being made possible that were not possible from year to year. I live in Canada and I'm probably communicating to people in all parts of the world (Hello, eh!), people in different Countries with different laws. Therein lies the problem. I hear some people are being taken to court for file sharing in the US and the people are actually being found guilty, while in Canada people are found innocent.

There is one thing I don't like being made illegal. INFORMATION and it's distribution. The public should be able to obtain any information that they want. When you get right down to it, that's what everything is. Music, Games, Software, Video's, etc.... Broken down to zero's and ones.

This has gone on ever since information was put on paper. It is my understanding that the Church tried to control who could or could not get to read the bible. So I say to you guys... say NO to any kind of governmental control over information.

I will put it differently for the "sloo000oow PEOPLE", the internet is "PUBLIC DOMAIN"

It is illegal to tap someone's phone

However it is not illegal to intercept an unencrypted signal out of the air (cell phone or wireless router)

In order to commit a crime by downloading copywrighted material you would have to "HACK" into someone's system (equivalent to stealing the candy bar)

Or, sell the material, or distribute (P2P)

It is not even "PIRACY" unless you are selling it for profit

So, it is not illegal (only potential civil liabilty) for peeps to have these programs on the comps

But it is illegal for the store owner to resell it w/ out permission

But I do agree it is unreasonable for peeps to think he is going to reload there programs (It would be illegal for HIM to do it because he would be PROFITING from it)

I thought it was "common knowlege" not all companies (policies, posted disclaimers, or rules) are enforceable in court

The dry cleaners claims no resonsibility for damage to your cloth's on big signs clear as day, but if they are negligent you can sue them and win

Violating Microsofts licensing agreement (or anyone else's), doesn't in, & of itself does not constitute a crime (In the UNITED STATES of AMERICA)

I don't know about the rest of the world, but when I went to Cass PUBLIC high School here in Detroit, Michigan in the United States of America Year of our Lord 1982' Civil Law, & Criminal Law were MANDATORY CLASSES

I think this new generation's education is primarily from watching television

Or maybe people around the world don't understand the "CONCEPT" of INALIENABLE, INDIVIDUAL, CIVIL RIGHTS (upheld by our "SUPREME COURT")

Contrary to "POPULAR BELIEF" the digital millennium act does not infringe upon individuals right to "FAIR USE"

OCGW

PEACE


OCGW

PEACE

NO ONE has been found guilty in the U.S. for file sharing, there is no guilty, or not guilty in a civil court

You can only be found guilty in a criminal court

In a Civil court you are responsibile, or not responsible

If you want to keep your money safe, hide it in a book, it is the last place anyone will look

REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAADDDD, & pay ATTENTION to DETAIL

OCGW

PEACE

I'm sorry OCGrandWizard Keeper of "Xtreme". I didn't mean to state that as a fact. It's just that I thought I heard that in the news a while back that some of the people that were charged, settled out of court, being charged hefty fines. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We are just havin' fun

But, yes some people, & companies have been sucessfully sued in civil court for "MONETARY DAMAGES", those bas***ds even sued a 9 year old girl!!

You are only charged in criminal court

But, it cost them 100 times what they got to pursue the case, They did it to scare people, so maybe it was worth it to them after all

OCGW

PEACE

If you or I walk into a store and pocket a cd or dvd and walk out without paying then we are guilty of physically depriving that store of an item which has had to be physically manufactured at cost and which has been paid for by the store and can consequently no longer be sold to anyone else.Same is true if you take from any individual who owns the item in question - something which is the rightful property of one individual is unlawfully removed from their possession to that of another person.That is theft in law and in my-and I assume most people's understanding also.
If I download a copy of a cd or film or software online I realise I am acquiring something I didn't previously have and which I haven't paid for but the argument that this is theft in the accepted sense and that I am depriving someone else of said item or anything else simply doesn't stand up.
For a theft to occur,surely the item in question has to be physically removed from the possession of the rightful owner into that of another -otherwise how has it been stolen?
I do not dispute that acquiring music,software,films etc by downloading is illegal because laws exist which state as much - but to argue that you are thereby depriving the manufacturer of income by so doing is,in my opinion farcical! It simply isn't true...
The reason that companies etc. make these items available online to begin with is because of the opportunity to mass-market easily without the added costs of mass production - but with the added potential for far greater revenue nevertheless - rather than by selling from a high-street store where only a limited number of people might have access and which would involve far greater cost to the manufacturer in physically producing the items for sale.
The copy which I download doesn't cost the manufacturer a penny to produce! Fact.

The reality is that the copy which I download is something that has been created by the act of downloading - it didn't previously exist and cost the originator of the item's content nothing whatsoever to produce.I fully accept that the content of the item is the work of another and that it is copyrighted but I don't accept that copyright is infringed simply because I download and listen to,or view or play etc and neither am I claiming ownership in any way.

The problem which these companies face is that they are primarily in this for money and they have discovered a medium through which they can operate with minimal financial outlay (compared to having to physically manufacture goods) and it upsets them that people obtain copies - which have cost them nothing to produce - of their original work which has most probably cost them a great deal to produce.They therefore claim that they are owed money and have lost revenue as a result.
Until the realities of this situation are properly taken into account these problems will continue.The concept of theft as it stands is a clear and important one - which essentially revolves around the physical removal of an item from the exclusive possession of a rightful owner to that of another person.This reality simply isn't true where downloading copyrighted material is concerned.That has solely to do with the opportunity and desire for revenue where revenue hasn't been received.
That is not theft.

[quote]
I do not dispute that acquiring music,software,films etc by downloading is illegal because laws exist which state as much -
What laws that exist a*****e?
Show it to us
I am TIRED of You DUMB MOTHER f**kERS SPAMING us every 30 minutes[end quote]


In answer to your unneccesarily virulent remarks where you seem totally to not want to understand my meaning,I am simply pointing out that laws are often made solely to justify the demands of the business community and their desire for money instead of fully addressing the proper complexities of the issues - which is why they end up with so many problems.Why don't you try to understand what you read instead of simply looking to pick an argument?You don't seem to understand the meaning of 'spamming' either!

[quote]REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAADDDD, & pay ATTENTION to DETAIL[end quote]

Evidently,you don't practice what you preach.....
just having fun...

I'm one of those people who belive that comparing copying information (or anything at all) to stealing a physical object is wrong. I Also see the point Sassen makes and agree to it. (perhaps on a level even Sassen would disaprove of?)

I could also add that internet is a major contrubutor to people wanting to get a PC in the first place. The ability to obtain any material illigal on the internet is a major contrebutor to why so many subscribe to an internet connection, and thus gets themselves a PC. When I talk to someone that isn't a games fanatic og needs a computer as part of their work, the opportunity for piracy is the single most appealing aspect of the whole purchase. It encourages them to buy a really good computer so that they can make use of all those "freebies". (this of course doesen't meen that they will ever be able to make use of these freebies. Contrary to what is claimed repetedly in this thread, illigal sharing isn't two mouseclicks away. For most new PCusers it's like learning to walk again.)

So lets consider the scenario that piracy never existed in the first place. A new cost effective computer capable of running new games, watching videos and playing music costs about 1500-2000$ That usually includes WinXp and a years subscription of antivirus (atleast I hope it does). In addition you'd need to pay 50$(?) for office, 50$ for each game, and the same prices as usual for music and videos. For this you get a media center that plays videos and music no better (and very often alot poorer) than a normal (even a low cost) DVD player, TV and sterio. It's noisy to boot, which isn't a very attractive attribute in a media player. So who would buy it? Some would have it as part of their work of course. The odd child would own one I have no doubt. (Most gamers would use a gaming console instead.) Some few gaming fanatics perhaps.

PCs would NEVER be where they are today without the lure of piracy to drive customers into purchasing high quality hardware. Slowed tecnology development would also mean less people would use a PC as part of their work, slowing PC development even more.
Then there is the internet. Without users the internet is nothing. Without PCs there are no users. Without piracy internet would probably be at a rather undeveloped stage.

So where would this leave the software industry? I make the claim that piracy is RUNNING the software industry! Had there never been piracy not even microsoft would exist. As it works today, piracy perfectly serves the software industry by providing free comercial while also providing them with a -huge- customer base. If anything, we should sue them for not paying us for it! (a joke there..but an apropriate one. The greedy bas***ds deserve the giliotine. Suing a 9year old child?!?)

When it comes to the film and music industry it doesen't look so good, I'll agree. That is, the music industry mainly. Perhaps the time has come to make less music for less profit, or atleast in new(old) ways? Stop having cd sales in the billions and play more live music instead? I'm not saying I'd like that.. But I'm saying adapt, don't prosecute people.


So, in the end, where does this leave the argument that piracy is just wrong no matter what? To me it's just religious ranting.

Hypothetically, if I didn't pay for software I would have more money to spend on hardware.

Hardware is the only reason we can have software.

I side with the hardware, not the software.


These anti-piracy nuts need to stop their rants and get back to work.

I can say I agree with the most Arthur Wilson wrote..

I would add something more.. Like...

We costumers DO WANT to buy apropriate product...
Well packed with eyecandy printowrk that It can look like let say gift.. That you wish to collect it..
Thah If that package cost company 2$ to produce with all expences Than what is left is matter of greede mouth...

In one country for instance You can find DVD movie with cover page for 4$ (to produce cost 1$) CD with Music with copver page for 1,5$ (to produce cost 0,5$).

Now simple Math. If comapnies decide also to sell full package let say DVD for 5$ and music CD for 2$ I can BET that the most of people who previously bought pirated CDs will now buy those originals....
And now question is..
What is better...
* To have price same price for CD music 10$ and for DVD 20$ and large piracy problem with small number number (or almost nill) of sold CDs/DVDs in that country
or
* To have proper price and have almost no piracy and large number of sold CDs/DVDs

And another fact that is pinning eye is that piracy is bigger in country where standard is lower. For example...
One Doctor in USA with his salary can buy let say 2.000 Music CDs per month.. The same doctor in country I mentioun above can buy for his salary arround 40 muzic CDs per month.. Let say that CD price is the same in both country...

Now how can anyone expect to have ni piracy in such area..

that is worst scenario..

.. Than Somewhere I red comment like If you can not afford ferrari of course that you will not buy one..(that comparation is so pointless)..

But I would like to ask.. In this thread..
Does anyone here suggest solution or how to deal with piracy problem. ??
What compromise adopt...??

It is not so dificult to diagnose the problem..
It is harder to find solution for problem..

I'd liek to read your solutions rather that set a new diagnose or repeat old one..

What is cure or is there Manual for how to adapt.

Well, they are adapting, just in a very hostile way. :p
If adapting were to mean ending piracy, it would be like shooting oneself in the head. Buisniss would die.

Quote from Carter:
* *
1983 American Heritage Dictionary - fascism is: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism." End Quote.

Extremely well said!

Dmitri.. That reminds me one one story...

There was new Car Repair Service in neighbour...
Every night one man from Service would go out and make damages to car so their owner would ask for their services ..
Not too much but few cars just to keep business runing ...

That is like "Piracy" and we can live with that but if that man make damage to more cars it would become a neighbourhood problem and they will close the Repair Shop

Actually it is not good example to compare but I think point is obvious ..

if you don't pay for it, it's not given you, youdidn't win it in a contest, and yet you still have it, how is that not theft? remember jennifer aniston in office space? "so it wasn't yours, and now it is yours. how is that not stealing?"

I think that basing the argument of right and wrong on legality is ridiculous. we all know it's wrong.

I also think that comparing costs based on what it costs to manufacture a piece of plastic, be it a CD or DVD, is ridiculous. somebody put work into producing the content on that disc. if you don't buy it, they don't get paid. if some of you really believe that 'information should be shared' or that it costs nothing to produce your copy, go work for free. it's just information that you share with your boss, so give it up.

If you don't have stuff, and you download it without paying for it so you do have it, then you have stolen it. The argument that your copy cost nothing to produce is as stupid as suing a 9 year old - if i'm wrong then show me how to produce it for free. The argument that you didn't steal it because the original is still there is crap - if i'm wrong then how did you get it? you didn't buy it, you didn't borrow it, and the person(s) who gave it to you still have their own copy.

If i were to download illegally, i would do it because i am a broke college student. When i was a mover, i had a relatively high income and low cost-of-living, and i bought a lot (3-4 CDs/week) of music. unfortunately, there was a lot of crap on those cds along with the good stuff.

part of the problem is that bands work their asses off to create music, and often literally go into huge debt to get it to the public. if they don't succeed, they're done, while tommy motola and others stay rich.

another part of the problem is that these damned sheep buy so much crap that the movie and music industry keep s**tting it out. what do the experts say about stopping spam? don't buy their products! so when people think that creed, or lindsey lohan, or britney, or bubba sparx, or christmas with the kranks, or maid in manhattan, or racing stripes, is worth money, what they are saying is, "give me more pablum! spoonfeed me crap that i don't have to think about! warm my heart and tell me fart jokes!"

for every tool, isis, and emperor, there are a hundred 7 mary 3s, maroon 5s, and jessica simpsons. for every fight club, jacob's ladder, and hero, there are too many new york minutes, space jams, and like mikes.

true art will make it through internet piracy, although the institutions that we know will, hopefully, fall. quit rationalizing your thievery and send your favorite band $10, or mail a check to the carpenter at Universal.

OCGW, plain and simple, it is ILLEGAL to distribute AND to download.
Courts have made rulings along those lines time after time after time.

It is not YOUR responsibility to interpret the law, it is the responsibility of the judicial branch, the courts.

They interpret both the letter (technical meaning, which is what you are oding) and the SPIRIT of the law.

It is ILLEGAL to steal.
Downloading media or software without paying is STEALING.
It is ILLEGAL.

NO amount of rationalization, ethical or legal, can change that.
The judges have deemed it illegal and punishable.
As it should be.

Now of course, the industries charge too much for their product, they're greedy a**holes, etc etc.
Welcome to America, where it's everyone's inherent right to be a greedy a**hole.
The court decisions against the industries (for their high prices) were nothing more than a reprimand, and the money lost due to the payments they were forced to make is a drop in the bucket. It was never ruled that they could not sell their products at those prices.

The real issue is that people steal when they can, and with the internet, everyone can.

It is NOT about prices being too high, it is NOT about people not wanting the whole CD, it is NOT about people wanting to test the game.

Jaguar too expensive? You don't steal it off the lot do you?
Don't want the entire speaker system? You don't just steal the receiver/dvd player unit you need do you?
Try before you buy? You don't steal a game and then put it back on the shelf if you don't like it do you?
After you've stolen it, you don't go back to the store and pay them for it, do you?

The real reason people steal is because they can get away with it.
People will ALWAYS steal. The internet makes it easy. Yes, there are some good people who won't steal, but most people will.

The issue is not why people steal, it's human nature for many, many people.
The issue is how to make it less appealing.

So far the industries have tried to make the risk of fines/jail time more real.
It isn't working.
They shut down napster, they're going after kazaa users, they're killing bittorrent tracker sites.
It isn't working.

Eventually, if they're smart, they'll realize that to stop the piracy, and boost their sales, they will need to simply provide better products at a more reasonable price, perhaps with un-piratable content. (Such as a figurine, wall scroll, poster, collectible mug, anything that is not digital. Download the dvd for free? Or get it in the cool packaging with the figurine of Johnny Depp and the life-size poster of the main cast for 20 bucks?

Some people will always choose fhe free version.
This is how it was when people would record songs off the radio onto cassettes, or copy vhs movies (though css thwarted that for almost every single user).

Piracy wil always exist.
The industries will only care about it if the profit loss due to piracy is greater than what it would cost them to go after the pirates.

Marijan:
No, the point is not obvoius. The example is even worse than the comparison to physical theft. You -don't- sabotage a product by copying it. On the contrary, you help promote it. I repeat, the software industry would never be even close to thriving without piracy.

Matt:
Religious ranting.
Air? if you don't pay for it, it's not given you, youdidn't win it in a contest, and yet you still have it, how is that not theft?
The ground you thread on? if you don't pay for it, it's not given you, youdidn't win it in a contest, and yet you still have it, how is that not theft?

If you're gonna compare, how about comparing the act of copying. We first see it in our childern. They copy their parents, then their friends. Sometimes you even hear them arguing about how someone copied what they did. So what's the difference? The difference is the amount of work put into a software product. You could say it's disrespectful to so easily use what someone else created with such hard work. That does not make it theft.

In the end this issue is about base jealousy. If you made something, say like a revoulutionary relaxing chair. You spent a year designing it. Then your neighbor sees it, and is intriuged. He makes himself one just like it. Others do the same. Now, the original creator (unless he's a benevolent soul) will probably feel cheated because all of a sudden alot of people spend a week making something he spent a year making. Also, they are copying what he did. This guy starts getting orders for this chair from all over for people who don't wanna spend a week working on a chair or who don't have the tools for it (making this man potensially very rich). But he just can't rid himself of the feeling he's being cheated by all those who makes the chairs themselves. So he prosecutes them, impoverishing them in the process, making some of them go to jail, and generally fu**s up their life. This happens despite the fact that he'd never have gotten his chaircreating empire established if it wasn't for all those copycats.
This example (although syntetic and fabricated) is good because all you need to do is switch the chair for an appropriate software (say, most games). The only thing that is different is that with softwares you have to have the tools (the PC) regardless of whether you buy the product or copy it. That makes it a very expensive affair to buy anything software related. It also makes the question of whether the PC is worth the costs involved very relevant indeed. Again this boils down to whether we'd like to have advanced computers, or if we'd like the peak of our tecnology to be hand calculators.

Copying is -not- stealing, and patent laws in general is theft of liberty.


If we're gonna stick to religious banter however, what about this one?.. Claiming copying a file is stealing, is like claiming a photographer taking a picture of a mountain is stealing it. If you're a cristian you should be very upset, since the photographer is copying the work of God. I'm sure he keeps some sort of copyright on it..


EDIT:
Brian,
People following the law and thereby their government like a god, is the reason we have this slight problem with terrorism. Laws aren't in the habit of taking both sides into considerations, and neither are the government. When laws and the "ruling body" are given enough power and they use it, the last option left to the people on the low end of the stick is start killing people. While this might not seem relavant in a discussion about software piracy, it is highly relevant in relation to your "the Law has spoken, obey the Law" post.
I guess the easy way of saying this would have been "go f**k your law!". I'm not saying that though, I'm giving you the long version instead.

P2P serves a purpose, in that you can "try before you buy". It is almost impossible to return ANY copyrighted material. What am I to do if a certain software title does not fit my needs, or if I do not accept the the terms of the EULA? If I download something and I like it, I buy it. If I don't like it, it hits the trash. "Try before you buy" works for every other industry except software. I see no problem with a "test drive" before putting down my money.

Here it is in Black, & White

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_000...-000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1204 Prev | Next

§ 1204. Criminal offenses and penalties


Release date: 2004-04-30

(a) In General.— Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain—
(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and
(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.
(b) Limitation for Nonprofit Library, Archives, Educational Institution, or Public Broadcasting Entity.— Subsection (a) shall not apply to a nonprofit library, archives, educational institution, or public broadcasting entity (as defined under section 118 (g).
(c) Statute of Limitations.— No criminal proceeding shall be brought under this section unless such proceeding is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

This is what is illegal

(a) In General.— Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain—

OCGW

PEACE

Not everyone lives in the US - I live in the UK so US federal law isn't applicable here. I believe people in many countries have been prosecuted by the courts for 'illegal downloading' of software .This is as a direct result of the pressure which big business has applied to their respective governments in attempts to jump on the bandwagon which may have started in the US. Whatever the specific wording of the law,an assumption has been formed in general by the prosecuting authorities that downloading is equivalent to stealing in their attempts to respond to the concerns of the business communities everywhere .As has been pointed out,actually it results in copying and duplicating and not theft as most people understand it - I think that is why so many people do it without feeling guilty.They know there is a difference and for courts to try and equate theft as it previously was defined i.e. the physical removal of items - with copying or duplicating - will continue to cause difficulties with the law in my opinion.

As I said, the judicial branch interprets both the letter, what you posted, and the SPIRIT of the law.
They HAVE ruled many times that downloading copyrighted material is illegal.

There have been court cases.
Rulings.
Kids paying huge fines.

We HAVE to follow our laws because if they aren't followed, then there is no order.
Without order, the government has no control, which leads to anarchy.

Following the law whether or not you agree with it is a GOOD thing, it's what you're supposed to do.
However, you are ALSO supposed to voice your opinion when those laws are written and revised.
Ultimately it is the majority that determines the laws we live by, and, for the good of the majority, everyone, even those who do not agree with them, must follow them.

If it were ok to ignore the law because it was right to do so, even if it was blatantly obvious to everyone, it would weaken the government, create anarchy, and bring the eventual downfall of the society.
WIthout law there is no order.

It's why Socrates drank the hemlock, when he could have easily escaped.

You do what you think is right, but you pay the penalty if it is not in line with the law.
You can try to change the law, or defend yourself, but only through legal means. (Court, petitioning senators and representatives to get the laws changed, petitioning for a pardon from the president of your governor)

If in the end, the judging bodies of your nation determine that you should be punished, then you should ACCEPT the punishment, despite how "right" you think your actions were.

Perhaps some of you will learn that when you grow up. Society relies on order, provided by the govenment, (through protection of property mainly) and ensured by each individual's lolyalty to that government.
Loyalty is not blind faith. Challenging the government is perfectly acceptable, as long as it is done through legal means. If you want to challenge a court ruling, you don't kidnap the judge or bomb the courthouse or rig up a jail break, you appeal to a higher court, you try to get the laws changed.

If people challenge the laws, or choose to ignore them, then we lose order, then everything turns to anarchy.

Well, at least that's the principal the American Government was based on.