That is simply a fallacious argument, built on a false premise, that's used to try and justify theft.
The consumption of media is the product. You buy content because you want that specific content. For example: When Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, people didn't buy the book because they wanted another book, they bought it because they wanted the story contained in it- they wanted that specific information; the story was the product. It's completely irrelevant that there's no physical item changing hands in digital piracy, because the physical item isn't the product, the information is.
You're clearly not getting my point. I'm not talking about piracy, the justification of it, or whether it is theft. I'm not interested in having that discussion or being preached to about it. I'm talking about the ASSUMPTION of the Author's Guild that they LOST 80$+ million in sales. They cannot prove they lost ANYTHING. They base their assumption of lost sales on number of illegal downloads. However, not everyone who downloaded a book would have bought it in the first place. They have no way to tell how many sales they ACTUALLY lost, and it's going to be a lot less than their claim.
At this point, I can't make my argument any clearer, so it's pointless to continue this discussion if you're just going to continue to ignore my point and what I'm saying.
When you take something without paying for it, that's theft. In the case of copyrighted material, it does not matter if you were going to buy it or not- you have it; you have received the value of the product without paying for it, again, that's theft. They were entitled to the purchase price of the material in question, you took it without paying, which means you stole the value of the purchase price.
If a game costs $20, and you download it without paying, then you have deprived the owner of $20; it doesn't matter if you were going to buy it or not, you still took it. Your argument is no different than someone shoplifting a candy bar and then saying: "It's not stealing because I wasn't going to buy it anyway"; one has nothing to do with the other. So yes, the Author's guild is absolutely correct in saying that every pirated copy represents lost revenue, because it does. Whether or not you were ever going to buy a copy of their book is completely irrelevant once you actually take it.
It is not. I was making a comparison for perceived loss vs actual loss.
With real, physical products, you can calculate the money that went into making the product, and so when that product is stolen, you have a concrete value of what the company has lost. It isn't going to be the market price because companies sell at a profit, but it could still be something like a loss of 200$ to the company on an 800$ item that was stolen.
With digital products, there is no money that went into making a single individual copy. So when that copy is pirated/stolen, there is no actual damages UNLESS the person who stole the copy would have bought the product if it was not for them getting a free copy. And there is simply no way to tell who would or would not have bought the product if not for the free version. "Loss" claims on digital products are not concrete, calculable, numbers, and are nothing more than the companies ASSUMING people would have bought the product in the first place, which many would have not. Those numbers are nothing but propaganda and foolish assumptions.
To make sure we're on the same page before I discuss your further points, my point was not the legality of the action, but the semantics (i.e. using specifically the word "theft", as opposed to piracy).
Except that Copyright Infringement has been a recognized form of piracy for over four hundred years,
Great, we agree. Piracy is piracy, as was even shown by the definition I provided.
and US courts have ruled more than once that depriving someone of the full set of rights and benefits of their property constitutes theft.
Interesting read, thank you. However the conclusion specifically states:
The use of an STC to obtain a governmental privilege is a property right under California law, and the protection of that property interest is not preempted by federal law; Rasmussen has stated valid claims for conversion and unjust enrichment.
While I yield that specifically "theft" may not be a wording used in legal texts, neither of these stated valid claims seem to be in line with the act of depriving something from the rightful owner, though I admit I'm not familiar with the term conversion in this legal context.
Making illegal copies of copyrighted material is a clear violation of the exclusive rights of copyright owners, laid out in 17 U.S. Code § 106.
I don't disagree.
---
Actually, writing the above, I believe I came to see your point. I believe it's that while the act of copyright infringement doesn't deprive the right holder of any tangible thing or return, it does deprive them of the rights to that work as they were denied their ability to decide the recipients of such work, correct? I can agree with this assessment and that in this case it can be constituted as theft. However, it may assume we're working in the context of the US legal system, as these definitions may vary. Admittedly, that seems to be the appropriate context for the article at hand.
I believe it's that while the act of copyright infringement doesn't deprive the right holder of any tangible thing or return, it does deprive them of the rights to that work as they were denied their ability to decide the recipients of such work, correct?
That's correct. The Iowa State Supreme Court ruled in the 1940s, and multiple Federal Courts have since agreed that:
"property is not the corporeal thing itself of which it is predicated, but certain rights in or over the thing"
This is why it's irrelevant that no physical item changes hands when it comes to pirating, and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
Hmm, speaking of semantics again, I'd be more inclined to agree they're valid rather than accurate. I feel like accurate would also assume that the revenue would have actually been gained had the piracy not occurred, while valid simply agrees that theft occurred. This might be in the realm of nitpicking though, so maybe it's irrelevant. In the end, I agree with you on the point that software piracy does indeed constitute theft (at least under the current legal framework of the US, possibly in other countries as well).
I admit, it takes some getting used to, but once you understand the underlying concept, the semantics become clear. As a simple example:
You sell a video game for $20 a copy. That means that, for every copy, you are entitled to $20 in revenue. If someone downloads a copy illegally, that's $20 in lost revenue- it's money you are entitled to receive, but since they obtained an illegal copy, you don't get. Whether they would've ever bought a copy legally is irrelevant, they obtained a copy, and that means you should've received $20 in revenue. Since they didn't pay, that's lost revenue.
Yeah, ok, I'm seeing it. I still might not agree with it on principle, however I agree that it's valid reasoning and I'm happy we got these semantics figured out. It had previously been quite confusing to me how that argumentation had been arrived at, so seeing how it works & is valid is always nice!
That is simply a fallacious argument, built on a false premise, that's used to try and justify theft.
The consumption of media is the product. You buy content because you want that specific content. For example: When Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, people didn't buy the book because they wanted another book, they bought it because they wanted the story contained in it- they wanted that specific information; the story was the product. It's completely irrelevant that there's no physical item changing hands in digital piracy, because the physical item isn't the product, the information is.
You're clearly not getting my point. I'm not talking about piracy, the justification of it, or whether it is theft. I'm not interested in having that discussion or being preached to about it. I'm talking about the ASSUMPTION of the Author's Guild that they LOST 80$+ million in sales. They cannot prove they lost ANYTHING. They base their assumption of lost sales on number of illegal downloads. However, not everyone who downloaded a book would have bought it in the first place. They have no way to tell how many sales they ACTUALLY lost, and it's going to be a lot less than their claim.
At this point, I can't make my argument any clearer, so it's pointless to continue this discussion if you're just going to continue to ignore my point and what I'm saying.
This is not a difficult concept to understand:
When you take something without paying for it, that's theft. In the case of copyrighted material, it does not matter if you were going to buy it or not- you have it; you have received the value of the product without paying for it, again, that's theft. They were entitled to the purchase price of the material in question, you took it without paying, which means you stole the value of the purchase price.
If a game costs $20, and you download it without paying, then you have deprived the owner of $20; it doesn't matter if you were going to buy it or not, you still took it. Your argument is no different than someone shoplifting a candy bar and then saying: "It's not stealing because I wasn't going to buy it anyway"; one has nothing to do with the other. So yes, the Author's guild is absolutely correct in saying that every pirated copy represents lost revenue, because it does. Whether or not you were ever going to buy a copy of their book is completely irrelevant once you actually take it.
Well, looking at a definition of theft:
it would not seem to apply to digital piracy, as the rightful owner can't be deprived of the original. I believe this is the point /u/Fuyu was making.
It is not. I was making a comparison for perceived loss vs actual loss.
With real, physical products, you can calculate the money that went into making the product, and so when that product is stolen, you have a concrete value of what the company has lost. It isn't going to be the market price because companies sell at a profit, but it could still be something like a loss of 200$ to the company on an 800$ item that was stolen.
With digital products, there is no money that went into making a single individual copy. So when that copy is pirated/stolen, there is no actual damages UNLESS the person who stole the copy would have bought the product if it was not for them getting a free copy. And there is simply no way to tell who would or would not have bought the product if not for the free version. "Loss" claims on digital products are not concrete, calculable, numbers, and are nothing more than the companies ASSUMING people would have bought the product in the first place, which many would have not. Those numbers are nothing but propaganda and foolish assumptions.
Except that Copyright Infringement has been a recognized form of piracy for over four hundred years, and US courts have ruled more than once that depriving someone of the full set of rights and benefits of their property constitutes theft. Making illegal copies of copyrighted material is a clear violation of the exclusive rights of copyright owners, laid out in 17 U.S. Code § 106.
To make sure we're on the same page before I discuss your further points, my point was not the legality of the action, but the semantics (i.e. using specifically the word "theft", as opposed to piracy).
Great, we agree. Piracy is piracy, as was even shown by the definition I provided.
Interesting read, thank you. However the conclusion specifically states:
While I yield that specifically "theft" may not be a wording used in legal texts, neither of these stated valid claims seem to be in line with the act of depriving something from the rightful owner, though I admit I'm not familiar with the term conversion in this legal context.
I don't disagree.
---
Actually, writing the above, I believe I came to see your point. I believe it's that while the act of copyright infringement doesn't deprive the right holder of any tangible thing or return, it does deprive them of the rights to that work as they were denied their ability to decide the recipients of such work, correct? I can agree with this assessment and that in this case it can be constituted as theft. However, it may assume we're working in the context of the US legal system, as these definitions may vary. Admittedly, that seems to be the appropriate context for the article at hand.
That's correct. The Iowa State Supreme Court ruled in the 1940s, and multiple Federal Courts have since agreed that:
This is why it's irrelevant that no physical item changes hands when it comes to pirating, and why the claims of lost revenue are accurate, even when people claim they wouldn't have bought the item anyway.
Hmm, speaking of semantics again, I'd be more inclined to agree they're valid rather than accurate. I feel like accurate would also assume that the revenue would have actually been gained had the piracy not occurred, while valid simply agrees that theft occurred. This might be in the realm of nitpicking though, so maybe it's irrelevant. In the end, I agree with you on the point that software piracy does indeed constitute theft (at least under the current legal framework of the US, possibly in other countries as well).
I admit, it takes some getting used to, but once you understand the underlying concept, the semantics become clear. As a simple example:
You sell a video game for $20 a copy. That means that, for every copy, you are entitled to $20 in revenue. If someone downloads a copy illegally, that's $20 in lost revenue- it's money you are entitled to receive, but since they obtained an illegal copy, you don't get. Whether they would've ever bought a copy legally is irrelevant, they obtained a copy, and that means you should've received $20 in revenue. Since they didn't pay, that's lost revenue.
Yeah, ok, I'm seeing it. I still might not agree with it on principle, however I agree that it's valid reasoning and I'm happy we got these semantics figured out. It had previously been quite confusing to me how that argumentation had been arrived at, so seeing how it works & is valid is always nice!