The Obama Strikes Back: Revenge of the Copyright

[The Rich Port]

Yeah, and then it makes double or triple the money it cost to make it, making the people who worked on it rich enough not to notice another million dollars or so.

Most game devs are not rich in any sense. But honestly, if you're so mad that companies make money, why are you out stealing toilet paper or motherboards?

You mean... Why AREN'T I?

I steal a lot of stuff, either out of necessity or out of desire... But never out of anger.

[Xomic]

Most game devs are not rich in any sense. But honestly, if you're so mad that companies make money, why are you out stealing toilet paper or motherboards?

You mean... Why AREN'T I?

oops

I steal a lot of stuff, either out of necessity or out of desire... But never out of anger.

I'm pretty sure you need toilet paper and desire motherboards. So why aren't you taking them?

More importantly, if the fact that game developing companies and publishers make money isn't causing to to steal for social justice, why bring it up?

[The Rich Port]

I'm pretty sure you need toilet paper and desire motherboards. So why aren't you taking them?

More importantly, if the fact that game developing companies and publishers make money isn't causing to to steal for social justice, why bring it up?

... Who said I wasn't taking them?

[Grave_n_idle]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html

Sigh. Seriously, I voted for Obama under the impression that he would, you know, not be a total dick. I didn't think he'd actually willingly let the Patriot Act and such go, but now they're thinking of expanding measures put in place, so we were told, to fight TERRORISTS for use against people who share files?

Really? Seriously?

Is there some place I can go to get my vote back?

Hysterical bullshit is hysterical, and bullshit.

Just because your source calls it 'sweeping', doesn't make it 'sweeping'.

Bringing streaming in line with other media options, vis a vs copyright protection, is hardly a paradigm shift.

[Rolamec]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html

Sigh. Seriously, I voted for Obama under the impression that he would, you know, not be a total dick. I didn't think he'd actually willingly let the Patriot Act and such go, but now they're thinking of expanding measures put in place, so we were told, to fight TERRORISTS for use against people who share files?

Really? Seriously?

Is there some place I can go to get my vote back?

You mean the guy who as a Senator voted in favor of extending and expanding the Patriot Act....that guy?

[Bosiu]

snip

On point 5. Have you listened to the music of today ?
There is no way the founders would have considered it a useful art.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Copyright violation is theft. If Obama sees a political advantage in wanting to enforce this law more stringently, good for him.

[Republicke]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20043421-281.html

Sigh. Seriously, I voted for Obama under the impression that he would, you know, not be a total dick. I didn't think he'd actually willingly let the Patriot Act and such go, but now they're thinking of expanding measures put in place, so we were told, to fight TERRORISTS for use against people who share files?

Really? Seriously?

Is there some place I can go to get my vote back?

No one who is capable of attaining the Presidency is worthy of being President.

[St George of England]

I'm fine with the copyright crackdown, but isn't it true that wiretapping is illegal in the majority of cases? Wiretapping? What is this, 1984?

Rule 1 of 'ZOMGDEYTAKINR3DOMSAWAY!' Debates: Immediately compare it to 1984.

[Ahh Art Daze Knight]

To my knowledge the FBI has to get a warrent to tap somebody and considering that this news article doesn't tell us that they can get around that I'm going to assume the Bureau still has to. Honestly i've no problem with the government cracking down on people who steal files and such.

The FBI NEEDS a court order but the other agencies do not. There's been wire tapping for decades that aren't used in court but are used to keep track of "subversives" (anybody who has been heard to say any of a few dozen words).

[Ahh Art Daze Knight]

Copyright violation is theft. If Obama sees a political advantage in wanting to enforce this law more stringently, good for him.

It's being backed by Hollywood.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Copyright violation is theft. If Obama sees a political advantage in wanting to enforce this law more stringently, good for him.

It's being backed by Hollywood.

Well if it pays off it pays off; like I said, he shuold enforce the law, especially if it is to his benefit.

[Dyakovo]

Are you saying that it is not literally theft or that it isn't as morally incorrect as theft?

I mean it's not literally theft, and I also think there's nothing morally wrong with it, nor that it is justified for any reason to ban it.

So lif you spent a ot of time and money developing something that would be covered by copyright laws (lets just say its a video game) you wouldn't want any mobetary compensation for your time and effort? You'd just give it away?

[The Cat-Tribe]

*snip*

I was actually unable to find evidence supporting the idea of deterrence, so I'll have to drop that point. My original point, however, which was the idea that copyright infringement is theft because it deprives others of a source of revenue, still stands, as this conservative estimate of $17bn losses to piracy shows.

I stole your source, The Cat-Tribe, so thanks.

They count everything downloaded as a loss sale which is bullshit. Not everybody is going to buy something after downloading it and other people download something to try it out and if they like it then they buy it.

This is so patently untrue it can only be described as deliberately deceptive. I don't know whether (a) you didn't look at the study and simply made up your answer, (b) looked at the study and didn't understand clear english so made something up, or (c) just lied, but you are clearly wrong.

The study Rokartian State cites clearly says (color and some emphasis added):

The industries’ estimates differ as to how they measure the quantity of legitimate unit sales that would have been made absent piracy. Some industries assume that, absent piracy, consumers of pirated products would substitute legitimate purchases for all or nearly all of the pirate purchases that they now make. By contrast, other industries assume that, absent piracy, consumers would purchase fewer products than they now consume, because they would not substitute legitimate products for all the pirated products. While the number of substitute units need not be identical in each copyright industry, an effort has been made in this study to impose a consistent set of assumptions regarding product substitution across the four industries that are analyzed in this report. Again, this report has taken a conservative approach, and not assumed that each pirated product served to deprive the industry of a legitimate sale. Had this “one-to-one” ratio been maintained in any of the copyright industries, the resulting piracy cost estimates would have been higher than the figures reported here.

For example, contrary to your naked assertion that my source counts one download as one lost sale, the studies on which the study Rokartian States cites relies use a much more defensible, conservative, and sophisticated analysis. For example, in the study regarding music piracy, the relevant section is quoted below (tables not shown, emphasis/color added):

Substitution of Legitimate Product for Pirated Product--Download Piracy

As reported in Table 1, the calculation begins with the IFPI estimate of 20 billion illegal downloads worldwide. For reasons set forth above in connection with the physical piracy estimates, it is further assumed that 66% of all illegal downloads represent downloads of U.S. recorded music. It is then assumed that only 20% (1 in 5) of these downloaded songs would have been purchased legitimately if piracy did not exist. ¹⁵

For the 20% of downloaded U.S. songs that, absent piracy would be purchased legitimately, it is then necessary to derive the legitimate price that these consumers (who formerly downloaded recorded music illegally) would now pay. Since these consumers are all familiar with the Internet and capable of downloading computer files, it is reasonable to assume that most (but not all) of their substitution efforts would occur in the form of legal downloads from legitimate web sites.

For these downloads, we assume a legitimate price of $0.99 per song. (See Table 2) We further assume that 90% of these songs would ultimately be acquired through legitimate music downloads while the remaining 10% of songs would be purchased on a legitimate CD. ¹⁶ The weighted average legitimate price used for worldwide downloads of U.S. music is $2.30. (See Table 2)

As shown in Table 1, the legitimate price of $2.30 times the net return to the record producer (60.72%) times the total estimated song substitutions (2.640 billion) yields total download piracy losses to U.S. firms of $3.703 billion. When combined with the physical piracy losses of $1.630 billion, the total piracy loss to the sound recording industries from global piracy equals $5.333 billion. (See Table 1).
------------------------------
^15. A number of academic studies have attempted to estimate the impact that file sharing has had on sound recording sales. The specific estimate of 20% is taken from Pietz, M. and Waelbroeck, P., The Effect of Internet Piracy on Music Sales: Cross Section Evidence, Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2004, vol. 1(2), pp 78.

^16. Based on confidential survey data, it appears that many consumers of pirated sound recordings also purchase significant quantities of legitimate sound recordings.

Thus, only 2/3 of illegal downloads are counted and, of those, only 20% are considered lost sales of a particular song. My math skills aren't great, but that means (I think) that only 13.2% of illegal downloads of songs are counted as lost sales. Even then, the value of the songs is weighted by assuming that 90% of the songs would otherwise have been downloaded legally for $0.99!

[The Cat-Tribe]

It takes away revenue.

No, no it doesn't. Potential value is not acquired, this is not theft. Not making as much money off an investment because the state isn't interfering on your behalf does not make you a victim of theft.

Perhaps you should respond to my post directed at your argument before you repeat it.

Regardless, I find the idea that I can steal a farmer's crops before he harvests them and his "not making as much money off an investment" because the state doesn't stop me doesn't make him a victim of theft mind-boggling.

[Rokartian States]

If Adobe can't provide enough features to incentivize their product, that's their problem. As I said, though, that's a separate issue entirely.



Source?



I was actually unable to find evidence supporting the idea of deterrence, so I'll have to drop that point. My original point, however, which was the idea that copyright infringement is theft because it deprives others of a source of revenue, still stands, as this conservative estimate of $17bn losses to piracy shows.

I stole your source, The Cat-Tribe, so thanks.

They count everything downloaded as a loss sale which is bullshit. Not everybody is going to buy something after downloading it and other people download something to try it out and if they like it then they buy it.

No, they don't. They explicitly claim not to use a one-to-one comparison precisely because it would result in a higher loss estimate.

Are you saying that it is not literally theft or that it isn't as morally incorrect as theft?

I mean it's not literally theft,

I agree. But a rose by any other name is just as sweet.

and I also think there's nothing morally wrong with it,

So you would have no qualms if I walked into your house and stole your computer?

nor that it is justified for any reason to ban it.

Given that I'm unable to prove that deterrence is present in this case, I have no choice but to concede.

[Wiztopia]

It's being backed by Hollywood.

Well if it pays off it pays off; like I said, he shuold enforce the law, especially if it is to his benefit.

There is no benefit to this.

They count everything downloaded as a loss sale which is bullshit. Not everybody is going to buy something after downloading it and other people download something to try it out and if they like it then they buy it.

No, they don't. They explicitly claim not to use a one-to-one comparison precisely because it would result in a higher loss estimate.

and I also think there's nothing morally wrong with it,

So you would have no qualms if I walked into your house and stole your computer?

1) Every single industry does. RIAA, MPAA, ESA, anime/manga industry and so on. Also even if they knocked off what they did in the study there's no way to prove who would have bought something or not after downloading.

2) That would be actual theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Well if it pays off it pays off; like I said, he shuold enforce the law, especially if it is to his benefit.

There is no benefit to this.

No, they don't. They explicitly claim not to use a one-to-one comparison precisely because it would result in a higher loss estimate.



So you would have no qualms if I walked into your house and stole your computer?

1) Every single industry does. RIAA, MPAA, ESA, anime/manga industry and so on. Also even if they knocked off what they did in the study there's no way to prove who would have bought something or not after downloading.

2) That would be actual theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft.

Simply repeating things that are untrue and not addressing arguments showing they are untrue is not debate or discussion.

A parrot could argue more persuasively that your posts.

[Wiztopia]

There is no benefit to this.



1) Every single industry does. RIAA, MPAA, ESA, anime/manga industry and so on. Also even if they knocked off what they did in the study there's no way to prove who would have bought something or not after downloading.

2) That would be actual theft. Copyright infringement isn't theft.

Simply repeating things that are untrue and not addressing arguments showing they are untrue is not debate or discussion.

A parrot could argue more persuasively that your posts.

So you're just full of shit.

[Siorafrica]

I actually had hope for the United States when Obama was elected, however no I see that Obama is just a sell-out to the corporations of the United States. One of the worst Presidents of the United States, although he is dealing with a poisoned political class in the United States.

This. Apart from one of the worst. One's as bad as another except for Bush,Reagan,Fillmore and Grant.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Simply repeating things that are untrue and not addressing arguments showing they are untrue is not debate or discussion.

A parrot could argue more persuasively that your posts.

So you're just full of shit.

Respond to this post and this post before you make such claims. Otherwise, your statement just looks silly.

[Wiztopia]

So you're just full of shit.

Respond to this post and this post before you make such claims. Otherwise, your statement just looks silly.

Both of my statements are true. Copyright infringement is not theft because you are not taking anything. You are making copies.

Even if you state whatever that people wouldn't have bought it/would have there is no way to prove who would have done which one.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Respond to this post and this post before you make such claims. Otherwise, your statement just looks silly.

Both of my statements are true. Copyright infringement is not theft because you are not taking anything. You are making copies.

Even if you state whatever that people wouldn't have bought it/would have there is no way to prove who would have done which one.

Polly wanna cracker?

[Wiztopia]

Both of my statements are true. Copyright infringement is not theft because you are not taking anything. You are making copies.

Even if you state whatever that people wouldn't have bought it/would have there is no way to prove who would have done which one.

Polly wanna cracker?

So you can't counter worth shit it seems.

[EnragedMaldivians]

I actually had hope for the United States when Obama was elected, however no I see that Obama is just a sell-out to the corporations of the United States. One of the worst Presidents of the United States, although he is dealing with a poisoned political class in the United States.

This. Apart from one of the worst. One's as bad as another except for Bush,Reagan,Fillmore and Grant.

Obama gets called one of the worst president ever, halfway through his term, in the context of a discussion about enforcing Copy-right laws. I am genuinely astonished.

I have an essay due in in 12 hours. I think I'll just save time and plagiarlize; it's not really theft after all.