[After a brisk nap]

Actually, you're forgetting that in order to make copies of the game, someone had to acquire it in the first place. Unless they outright stole it, there'd be at least one sale.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Actually, you're forgetting that in order to make copies of the game, someone had to acquire it in the first place. Unless they outright stole it, there'd be at least one sale.

Or they can hack into the companie's network like they did with Valve.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

It seems according to this (see 2319), it is.

There are more than ten occurences of the equation of copyright infringement to theft in bills, acts and codes in US law. It's likely that the laws were written by people acting in the interests of certain groups, and we all know the politicians the US people elect don't read half of what they sign. Anyway...

Originally Posted by DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

Section 2314 does not reach petitioner's conduct. Pp. 213-229.

(a) The language of 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.

(b) The purpose of 2314 to fill with federal action an enforcement gap created by limited state jurisdiction over interstate transportation of stolen property does not apply to petitioner's conduct. No such need for supplemental federal action has ever existed with respect to copyright infringement, since Congress has the power under the Constitution to legislate directly in this area. Pp. 218-221.

(c) The history of the criminal infringement provisions of the Copyright Act indicates that Congress had no intention to reach copyright infringement when it enacted 2314. Pp. 221-226.

(d) To apply 2314 to petitioner's conduct would support its extension to significant areas, such as interstate transportation of patent-infringing [473 U.S. 207, 208] goods, that Congress has evidenced no intention to enter by way of criminal sanction. Pp. 226-227.

The Supreme Court, is kind of final, so if it's held that COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT, legally, in the US atleast, it is not theft. In correct usage of the word, look in your dictionary, it's blatently obvious.

[After a brisk nap]

Besides, I don't think the example Melanie referenced does state that copyright infringement is theft. All I see is that the description of the penalties for criminal copyright infringement (the most serious kind, not your everyday piracy) have been put in a section called "Stolen Property", along with a bunch of other crimes, not all of which we'd call "theft". The description of the crime itself is not under this section. Any conclusion that "copyright infringement is theft" can only be inferred, as no such thing is explicitly stated.

Also, if by "theft" we mean larceny, and we usually do, then copyright infringement is definitely not it. Larceny involves an intent to deprive the owner of his property. At most copyright infringement might be considered a case of criminal conversion.

[Melanie68]

This is why I could never be a lawyer. I read legalese and think I understand it and.....BAM!

*goes off into the corner to cry *








(not necessarily due to this thread)

[After a brisk nap]

Props for looking up the actual law, though. I admire the effort to bring actual hard, referenced facts into the debate.

[Melanie68]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Props for looking up the actual law, though. I admire the effort to bring actual hard, referenced facts into the debate.

Thanks.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Melanie68

This is why I could never be a lawyer. I read legalese and think I understand it and.....BAM!

I considered it a plus.

[RLacey]

What I don't understand is why some people think that it's only morally wrong to pirate games if it equates to literal theft (and, to be honest, we're really getting into a semantic argument here). Murder isn't theft, but it is illegal and I hope that none of you would consider doing it. Incitement of racial hatred isn't theft, but it certainly hurts people and, again, I hope that none of you would consider doing it. If piracy is illegal, and it hurts developers and publishers from a business point of view, then why is it suddenly a law that people feel they can break on a whim?

[Tanukitsune]

I guess the proper word for piracy would be "leeching" instead of theft?

Because you are benefitting from something for nothing in return, that is, to the company that created the game, the stores that sells them or the publishers...

I DO know how P2P works, and I am aware it means something else to the people who use it, but to me, they are ALL leechers...

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by RLacey

What I don't understand is why some people think that it's only morally wrong to pirate games if it equates to literal theft

Who are these people?

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

Or they can hack into the companie's network like they did with Valve.

Or a corrupt game reviewer that got the game for free, or a game store clerk/owner, among others...

[Aj_]

So we've gone from theft and piracy, to murder and racial hatred.

If laws were about stopping anything from hurting profit then resales would be the first to be banned.

[Tanukitsune]

Originally Posted by Aj_

So we've gone from theft and piracy, to murder and racial hatred.

If laws were about stopping anything from hurting profit then resales would be the first to be banned.

Don't make stuff up!

She just discussed semantics!

She was just showing us that are many things that are illegal and not theft, she never said that people who are pirates were worst that murderers or racists....

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

Don't make stuff up!

What did I make up?

I don't need to quote all the occurences of "theft" and "piracy" in this thread.

Originally Posted by RLacey

What I don't understand is why some people think that it's only morally wrong to pirate games if it equates to literal theft (and, to be honest, we're really getting into a semantic argument here). Murder isn't theft, but it is illegal and I hope that none of you would consider doing it. Incitement of racial hatred isn't theft, but it certainly hurts people and, again, I hope that none of you would consider doing it. If piracy is illegal, and it hurts developers and publishers from a business point of view, then why is it suddenly a law that people feel they can break on a whim?

Originally Posted by Tanukitsune

She was just showing us that are many things that are illegal and not theft, she never said that people who are pirates were worst that murderers or racists....

He was making a case of the immorality of Copyright Infringement, he used racism and murder as the other examples of what he considers wrongs.

Semantics is refering to the meaning of language, not the discussion of ethics.

[Tanukitsune]

He( ) never compared pirates to murderers or racists, you gave me the impression that you thought he was saying pirates where no better than murderers...

[Aj_]

He did compare them, look it up, it's pretty clear.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

To consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous; liken.

I underlined the important part for you.

Originally Posted by Stephen Colbert

I'm no fan of dictionaries or reference books, they're elitist. Constantly telling us what is and isn't true, and what happened.

[Tanukitsune]

No he didn't, he just compared other crimes to theft, not piracy, to point out that just becuase piracy isn't theft, it's still illegal....

He didn't compare piracy to theft, therefore, he didn't compare piracy to racism or murder...

[RLacey]

I was making the entirely facetious point that a crime doesn't have to be theft to be both illegal and morally wrong, and was doing so in response to some people's suggestions that piracy isn't morally wrong because you're only hurting rich corporations...

[Dasilva]

I agree piracy is a bad thing, unless you want to get hold of some old games which you cant buy anymore, then I make an exeption.