what I meant was the physical part of it (that makes it an actual crime in many people's eyes vs piracy) isn't really anything more than the distribution its basically nothing. The real product I'd be charged with stealing if I took a cd is the same item that piracy takes so how is it really any different? (A movie on dvd and a movie on cd are the same movie(even if it costs different because who can use or would want the vcr one) and its still that movie when it isn't on anything.)
i don't think I'm explaining what i meant well at all...meh it isn't that important anyway

Besides even if I did I'd be waiting my time cause this is the internet and a gaming site whats worse so even if I were clear and articulate people'd just intentionally misinterpret and respond with idiocy like attempting to reduce something awsome that I'd hypothetically say to something foolish and easily mocked rather than actually counter it directly with something that makes sense in defense of the opposite view or something wrong with what i hypothetically say really well lol.
nonspecific you can't copy a painting or put your name on somebody else's book because you'e "Stealing their words" but copying a game is cool cause its not like that took time and work to do. A painting has a physical existence but for software copies are all you have. And if you make software its only value is selling copies. If people take them and try to dodge loopholes about weather its theft you have nothing left to sell so they've stolen that from you.
edit- merged reply into this one so I don't double post.


edit-you can't ninja in a pirate thread or you'll summon a bacon robot or something and nobody wants that

Piracy just put Comet out of business.

Thousands of people were downloading their washing machines.

Because that CD you took has an SKU that will show the item missing from inventory and not paid for. That doesn't happen with a download. That's the difference.

I try not to get involved of these types of discussion online, but funnily enough I had a conversation with friends and colleagues about this the other day.

Lets be plain - theft is theft regardless of how it occurs.

However, if you download an ISO from a torrent site that someone else has copied and then distributed does that not count as handling stolen goods? That is not direct theft but it is definitely a criminal offence with its own penalties (at least in the UK) - if you knowingly buy a knock off DVD from a market stall you aren't charged with theft but I think you are charged with handling stolen goods.

There always has been some low-level 'theft' in the music industry since the creation of magnetic tapes - kids copied albums for each other - it's probably the same today - it's just easier to pass MP3s to each other. I use 'theft' rather than theft because although it is by definition piracy I am not sure about the true legality of the situation. It's also one of those things that society seems to have accepted as happening and not doing any great harm.

DRM can cause more hassle for the paying customer - the pirates and 'thieves' can and will find easy ways to bypass the DRM - cracks and serials are available all over the internet.

People who are willing to pay are still paying (hopefully). What the internet does is make it easier for those who wouldn't have it if they couldn't get it for free to actually get it.

The question I pose is it not better to chase after and prosecute the people benefiting financially from the illegal digital distribution of goods than the student or school kid who downloads albums for their own use? There is a whole industry out there selling hosting, and anonymising services, and other ways of getting access to digital media copies. These are the people that should be targetted first and foremost. Is that not what they used to do before the internet took off - the police tracked down and hopefully caught the people who set up the market stalls and provided the distribution of materials, not the person who bought the dodgy VHS cassette from the stall.

Well hopefully this won't cause a raging war of words but that's my two pence (cents) worth.

James :-)

and this is where people go wrong... if there is ever to be a proper debate on piracy and its consequences this is one of the first things that needs to be cleared up in the common conscience. The problem is that we are been told so many times that piracy is theft that we start believing it.

mmmmmm.... bacon robot.

So you're saying its theft but the only difference is security and detection measures.....thats what birthed drm....
and thats terrible. :)

The chart ends shortly before the outbreak of Somalian pirates which would ruin the whole theory.

except this link says temperature is going down so maybe not

edit- so...I can't find it right away...could have sworn I bookmarked it for exactly this reason

I doubt it. :D

I'm just going to link to some sites with the definition of theft and piracy
Theft: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/theft-larceny-definition.html
"Theft/larceny is typically defined as the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. Most states recognize degrees of theft, such as "grand" or "petty," which usually relate to the value of the property taken.

For example, Dan goes to Victor's music store, puts two CDs in his pocket, and walks out the door. Dan can be charged with theft/larceny. Had Dan stolen Victor's car from the parking lot, Dan would likely be charged with grand theft/larceny."

Piracy: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/internet-piracy
"the practice of using the internet to illegally copy software and pass it on to other people"

There is a difference between the two

Does copyright law exist to serve the IP holder or the tax man?

None. It is not a criminal issue, it's a civil issue.

You can name actual damages due to piracy or gained money on the expense of the rights holder, you pay. But that should all go through the civil part of the courts.

Piracy laws are protecting commercial interests with criminal laws. Which is simply not justified. Every other criminal law surrounding that area needs a damage which has to be proven by a court of law of some kind to the victim. Most piracy laws simply assume a damage.

No, I'm saying that unique stocking number is what differentiates you from physically stealing the album from a store and just downloading a "copy." Unless I'm mistaken the main question I was answering is "Why is the physical CD different from a copy?" And it's that stocking number. The stocking numbers aren't used for security or detection measures but rather as inventory control.

And this.