Stamp Out Piracy Awareness Week

[dma]

Because politicians and headline writers NEVER try to spin words to promote their agenda!

How can I argue against such logic. It really isn't theft at all, then.

Yesterday, (Thanksgiving, here in the States), I found one game of mine on a pirate site, downloaded to the tune of 4000 times in the past 24 hours.

I feel much better now knowing it's only an infringement on my copyright, and in no way represents any sort of real theft or actual loss. I mean, if only 1% of those people had actually paid for it, if they could get it in no other way, that would only have been 800 bucks for the day.

I feel silly now, crying over $800, and actually think that maybe I should give away 4000 copies on my own site, you know, just for publicity. I'm sure it would probably help sales too.

In the meantime, I think I'll go get a real job, dealing drugs... society has proven to me what's important, and what they'll pay for...

[luggage]

If it was actual theft then why did they pass a new law for it? I'm presuming here, but hasn't the US got a law that already covers theft? Just saying like. If you've ever had to start proceedings for copyright infringement you'll see how different (and more expensive) it is than straight forward theft.

I like your guess at how much you 'lost' from those downloads though. I mean, if you had 4000 downloads from your site and expect a 1% conversion rate that would be $800 yes? But we're talking pirates here and there's been some discussion on what proportion of folks who pirate a game would have bought it if it wasn't so easy to get hold of them. By your reckoning it's 100%?

Not sure why people get so aggressive about this. I've not seen anyone say they support piracy, just differing opinions on how much value they put on their own time. Everyone has the right to an opinion - regardless if they've released games or not.

[Adrian Cummings]

Sure freedom of speech I agree is the main thing in public I can't knock that.

But all considered it does not change the fact that if you do this for a living and have to pay the bills, eat and everything else from your earnings from what you create like any artist pretty much, then it is human nature to become more aggresive about your produce when approached by the somewhat rather twisted opinions of some about what is and is not moral regards the piracy of your work.

When it comes to my own content for example... if you copy it illegally then my regard for you is lost as a fellow human and personally I'd get angry and want to see you legally made to pay for it in any way possible and at worst case I like to 'illegally' kick you in the nads for the sheer rita hayworth of it!

Is that wrong to feel that way? - that's freedom of human 'emotion' speaking perhaps? I for one am not a souless android, so no I would'nt just sit here and take it... I'd kick yer arse 'legally' any way I could LOL

[papillon]

Eh, my stance tends to be that like most controversies, everybody on every side of it is wrong, and only I am right.

I don't want to argue over whether it is or isn't theft. I don't want to argue over whether it does or doesn't cost me anything. Anybody frothing about these things is missing the point really.

The simple message that *I* want to communicate to people is this:

Support the game-makers in order to get more games.

It doesn't matter whether it's 'theft' or not. It doesn't matter whether the game maker is a big company who will never notice your little bit of piracy. It doesn't matter that it doesn't technically cost the game maker anything if you copy and distribute the game.

What does matter is that you're not contributing to the success of the game. You're not saying "This is a good game, there is a market for it, please make more." You're not helping the game-maker keep going. You are not supporting the game that you claim to like.

(In some cases. Some pirates crack things just to prove that they can. Some people download lots of cracked games out of curiosity. But some people specificaly request cracked copies of games because they "like them so much". And this needs a brain alteration.)

Getting hung up on it being *theft* allows people to feel righteously indignant that you're accusing them of something they're not, in their mind, doing. And the 'theft' isn't really the main issue. The part that matters is to SUPPORT GAMES YOU LIKE.

[Adrian Cummings]

Actually my brain is already over cooked by this thread so for me I'll leave it to the rest of you to hack out whilst go and chill out and another few million pirate torrents get swapped on peer to peer every second of every day etc. :P

Just remember to support StampOutPiracy.com at the end of the day, as I'm sure you'll need someone just like them soon enough if you do this for a living!

[Desktop Gaming]

By the way, the people getting jumped on for saying "copyright infringement isn't theft" are technically correct. Just like I would be correct if I said "murder isn't theft".

Its theft of somebody's life.

[dma]

If it was actual theft then why did they pass a new law for it?

You didn't read it, did you. It was an amendmant to the law which covered a loophole allowing prosecution of individuals even if they weren't profiting from distribution of copyrighted materials.

If you've ever had to start proceedings for copyright infringement you'll see how different (and more expensive) it is than straight forward theft.

I have. In 1996, I had 2 infringements on my copyright by 2 companies. I received settlements from both, without having to go to court. The cost to me? Just some long distance phone calls over a period of about 2 weeks.

I like your guess at how much you 'lost' from those downloads though. I mean, if you had 4000 downloads from your site and expect a 1% conversion rate that would be $800 yes? But we're talking pirates here and there's been some discussion on what proportion of folks who pirate a game would have bought it if it wasn't so easy to get hold of them. By your reckoning it's 100%?

I don't get where you pulled 100% out of, but let me say the game being pirated is a franchise I've had since 1992. I wouldn't still be doing it if it wasn't profitable and if people didn't like it. It's been a proven game for me that consistently sells. So I KNOW that if some of those people weren't able to get a copy of it, they would buy it.

Everyone has the right to an opinion - regardless if they've released games or not.

Of course they do. But I would say that those who have released games, especially good games that actually sell, know a little more about what it feels like to see (as in my case) over 4000 copies downloaded since yesterday on this one particular site, and who knows how many tens/hundreds of thousands before that on this and other pirate sites.

[ChrisP]

I feel much better now knowing it's only an infringement on my copyright, and in no way represents any sort of real theft or actual loss.

See, this is exactly what I didn't say, and I went to some lengths in an attempt to make that clear. Evidently I failed.

I'm not saying it's not an "actual loss", because it is a loss. I'm not saying anything about whether "theft" is worse than "copyright infringement" or vice versa. I'm just trying to encourage proper use of terminology. You can accuse me of being a language nazi if you like; but accusing me of saying that piracy doesn't cause loss of sales is quite wrong, because I never said that.

Getting hung up on it being *theft* allows people to feel righteously indignant that you're accusing them of something they're not, in their mind, doing. And the 'theft' isn't really the main issue.

Well put. This is one reason why I get hung up on use of terminology when it's being deliberately slanted to promote an agenda (however right and just that agenda might be).

To my mind, the anti-piracy movement does not do itself any favours by polarising the debate. We've got plenty of valid reasons to be down on copyright infringement; we don't need to invent more by twisting terminology, especially not when doing so just causes pirates to feel righteously indignant and thus hold on to their misguided opinions more stubbornly.

Its theft of somebody's life.

Nah. Murder is (wilful) destruction of somebody's life. Theft of somebody's life would be like... vampires. Sort of.

[speeler]

I didn't notice this thread until today, but I did blog about copy protection a little while back after cliffski originally blogged about it. I also just added a new comment to point to this thread and to the Stamp Out Piracy website.

[stampoutpiracy]

Thanks Steven - much appreciated. I've added your company to our Supporters section at http://www.stampoutpiracy.com/supporters.htm

Also, well done to everyone who took part last week

[aussiedude]

OK, everyone seems to be putting in their opinion in this forum so I thought I should too.

I'm going to let you all in on a BIG personal secret.




... I download movies.

Now before you report me to police Let me explain why...

Have you ever gone out and bought a movie, got home, watched it, realised the movie was completely crap and really short. I have, lots of times. I've paid full price for the 2-disc versions of movies and when I gotten home discovered the movie had terrible acting, silly special fx and the whole movie was only a hour and 20mins and the rest of whats on the 2 disc's is just 'making of' footage and trailers for other films made by the same people.

So here's what I do now. If I see a movie I like a the store, I take a note of it, I go home and download it, if I like it, I go back to the store AND PAY FOR IT! No joke I really do. In my opinion it's just a way for me to try before I buy.

You may be wondering what happens if I don't like the movie after I've downloaded it? Well, I delete it. Simple. If I don't like the movie and I'm not going to pay for it, I delete it. No point in keeping it if it's a crap movie, and plus the now I don't have a copy of something I don't own. The way I see it, it's like borrowing the movie off a friend and returning it if I don't like it and buying my own copy if I do.

As for Piracy, I believe all forms of SELLING illegal copies should be unconditional stopped. It's the lowest thing anyone can do to copy something and then sell it! As for file-sharing movies/music/games etc... well I do believe that it's wrong most of the time but theres times when it's not. For example, if something has been around for years and has been popular at one point and isn't now, then it might be ok to file-share it (NOT PIRATE THOUGH, NEVER OK TO PIRATE!!). For example if someone downloads a Elvis song today off bit-torrent... I don't really think thats being unfair to the original creator, if even he was still alive.

I think that piracy is wrong in all forms, but I think file-sharing (and there IS a difference!) is very much just a moral debate and every case is different. An example of file-sharing being wrong would be if everyone decided to just file-share a brand new popular fps game made by a small upcoming indie game developer.

I always believed that file-sharing is the only way that the target audiences can communicate directly to the makers of somethings. If everyone downloads something and doesn't pay for it ever (and deletes it very quickly), that means that the people believe "It's not worth anything and we believe we don't need to pay for it just because we downloaded it once and didn't like it".

I believe if you download something and like and don't support the creator a little a little when he needs it though then your being unfair.

If everyone pays for a game in the first 5 years of it being released and gets it to the number 1 top selling game of all time... and then start mass file-sharing it... I interpret that as meaning they believed that "The Creator deserved some reward for his work, but now that he's got that we don't feel the need to reward him anymore."


...WELL THAT'S HOW I FEEL ANYWAY. In actual fact I like the idea someone before me posted about including ads in games so that the gamers can download the game for free and the game developer gets paid regardless. I've often had thoughts about that myself, but more for MMO games. That could even be added to simple online fps games. I can just picture now a version of Unreal Tournment where theres billboards in some of the rooms with Coca Cola ads on them.

I reckon that would also save money too, no need for a complex DRM software solution or a product-key based system or any of that. Just download the game and install and play.

Hell if the game is paid for with ingame advertising, you could distribute it through file-sharing networks for free! Once you start distributing it, if people like it they'll distribute it for you! File-sharing networks are in many respects like gravity. Been around forever, not really going anywhere and have tonnes of potential power in them and while many see it as burden really it be used to do amazing things if you know how to use it.

A simple programming aspect would be to measure the amount each ad is visible to the player and at the end of match (or game if it's a single player game, like a rpg) and send off that info to a server to work out how much the sponsor need to be charged.

One of the most insane and funniest things about a system like that is... it would work in the opposite of the current problem. The more people file-share the game and the more it pirates sell it (DAM GAME PIRATORS TO HELL!!!) the more money you'd make off the game!


..wow ... I'm so going to do that for my next game.... the only thing is, how would you get sponsors to start with. You could setup the game to receive the ads from a server and have a mini google adwords like program going to accept new sponsers but that wouldn't be making any money until the game gets a large userbase. Unless maybe you have one network for the ads which is common through all the games... hmm... lots to think about... Credit to original person who thought of the idea, it's great.

Sorry I've gone way off-topic.

OK you can continue your discussion now.

[cliffski]

I always believed that file-sharing is the only way that the target audiences can communicate directly to the makers of somethings.

I have an email form on my website and am very active in my own forums. How the hell does someone torrenting my games enable them to 'communicate' with me more than that.

That's a lame excuse.

I also don't buy this idea that pirates selling stuff is worse than people giving it away. either way, you lose me sales. I don't give a damn if you are doing it for money or just to try and wreck my business, the end result is the same.

What's wrong with watching trailers of movies and reading reviews? And how does this approach scale up to important stuff like a house and a car? Do you steal a car for a weekend before you buy it? and squat in a house for six months before buying it?

[Adrian Cummings]

I agree with Cliffski... what a twisted reality we actally live in - jeez is there no end to the lameness of it all!

[Bad Sector]

Have you ever gone out and bought a movie, got home, watched it, realised the movie was completely crap and really short.

No, i usually rent my movies. You should too :-P.

if something has been around for years and has been popular at one point and isn't now, then it might be ok to file-share it

...

I interpret that as meaning they believed that "The Creator deserved some reward for his work, but now that he's got that we don't feel the need to reward him anymore."

The thing is, the creator made the content and he's the one who should decide if he wants to be rewarded any more or not. If you're playing a game and you don't give the author what he wants as an exchange for his efforts to make you the game you play (which can be money, as it is usual, or some other things - at some point i found someone asking for postcards... i thought it was funny, so i sent one :-) but i got no respose...), then you're in the wrong there.

The only reason i will justify copying something is to keep this something around for historical reasons, which can be the case for very old games or for games that had no success at all and in both cases are not sold any more.

I like the idea someone before me posted about including ads in games so that the gamers can download the game for free and the game developer gets paid regardless [...] theres billboards in some of the rooms with Coca Cola ads on them.

Well, i like this idea too, but i don't believe that the income from these ads will be enough for indie developers to make games as you describe them. I'm not really informed about ad-funded games, but i think that they're (currently) limited in small web-based games.

But in general i think ad-based gaming is going to be a good thing for the future, especially for indie game developers, and the game i'm making these days will be funded by ads.

[luggage]

And how does this approach scale up to important stuff like a house and a car? Do you steal a car for a weekend before you buy it? and squat in a house for six months before buying it?

You take a car for a test drive and check the service history. Likewise, you have a good look round the entire house and get a full survey done.

[Desktop Gaming]

You take a car for a test drive and check the service history. Likewise, you have a good look round the entire house and get a full survey done.

Just because you've had a look, doesn't give you the right to your own set of keys.

[luggage]

eh? Not sure of the relevance of that. The discussion was 'trying before you buy'. Not 'trying before you steal'.

I was pointing out that you do try before you buy (in a sense) when purchasing major items.

[cliffski]

not really. i had never driven my car at night, on the motorway, in a storm, in snow, or with a full load of passengers. Nor had I ever filled her up with petrol, changed a tire or all sorts of other stuff.
I drove it for 20 minutes. Like most people do. It doesn't vaguely compare with the experience of owning a car for 5 years. Yet some people want the full ownership experience of a $30 game BEFORE they pay anything, whereas with both cars and houses we do not get that. We get a one hour demo at most.

[papillon]

One thing that irritates me is how fileshare gets all filled up with trading files that are *easy* to obtain legally instead of helpfully spreading movies that you *can't* rent or buy.

There are many films and TV shows and things out there which for one reason or another, often legal nargles, cannot be sold. Some of them can't even be broadcast. And this is where piracy becomes a good thing, helping to preserve media that could otherwise be lost.... except that in some cases people don't seem to get it.

Fileshare does not need the DVD rips of (old favorite 80s show that I did actually buy the DVD collections for). Fileshare needs the *broadcast version* before they ripped the soundtrack off... the version that can't be sold. Hrmph. Silly people.

So it irritates me when I see a zillion distributed copies of new movie that you could rent for a tiny price if you wanted to and none of obscure british television play broadcast only once fifteen years ago and tied up in legal nonsense ever since. There ARE collectors who specialise in this sort of media... but they take more work to find and are not using the fileshare system, perhaps because they think the system's full of stinking pirates who don't appreciate them. Which is probably true.

[Ricardo C]

I'm a regular on Mark Millar's forum (Mark's a comic book writer with Marvel Comics), and there's an ongoing discussion about distributing comics via P2P. I thought some of the folks here might be interested in reading it. I even throw in a mention of Indiegamer (ok, not by name, I didn't wanna seem crass)

http://forums.millarworld.tv/index.php?showtopic=75494

[Mikademus]

First I realise that this is a highly emotional topic and thus, as such, may be difficult to discuss in a rational, detached way, as an economist I think that understanding through research and reason is of utmost importance to informed opinions and decisions. Therefore, since the discussion above seems to be between the beliefs that that unsponsored internet downloading is purely detrimental versus the opinion that the situation is more nuanced, I'd like to add some references to support my previous posts, which were unfortunately misunderstood as having taken a pro-piracy stance. If anyone is still interested in discussing this, with some distance in time from the debate as it was, I hope that a less emotional exchange can be obtained.

----

First, let's start by pointing out that the US games industry grew 17% between 2003 and 2006, which is 13% faster than the US economy at large, with the games market grossing $3.8bn. There is no reason to believe that the casual games industry's market grew at a slower pace, and as we know that market is to date worth approx. $2bn.

Already back in 2004 the Harvard Business School study "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales - An Empirical Analysis" showed a zero correlation between P2P music sharing and CD sales (PDF link).

The same year, or perhaps 2005, the Swedish university study I referred to in an earlier post indicated that filesharers of music also purchased more music than non-filesharers. I was unable to find a link to this research however.

This same result was duplicated in a recent (late 2007) Canadian government study, again indicating that music filesharers purchase more music, not less, and that taken as a whole there is no correlation between filesharing and CD sales in Canada. (new article with links to the study).

Related to this, American TV broadcasters are using piracy and BitTorrents to gauge parket penetration and TV show popularity, having found that piracy actually increase air viewing rates, even planting torrents themselves. "distribution of content [through ThePirateBay] will lead to new viewers that wouldn’t have been reached through traditional marketing means. Early signs indicate that these experiments are working" (News article link)

Note that the Canadian study above found that "people who buy large numbers of DVDs, videogames, cinema and concert tickets also buy a higher number of CDs. In other words, consumers of entertainment consume more entertainment, not less." Though not strictly logical (there is no logical material implication) this can be argued to imply that downloaders of games are also more likely to buy games.

Now, the above research do not study the indie/casual games market(s), thus it would be a fallacy to say that they uncontroversially apply to this, but it would also be just as erroneous to say that they do not apply. With an expanding market, which per definition means higher turnover which means more sales, from an economic perspective, it seems unlikely that unsolicited downloads would decrease indie game sales. An alternative explanation might be that more actors wanting in on a potentially lucrative market decrease sales per producer, especially within saturated niches, but a higher supply might also be indicative of a corresponding market growth.

My personal opinion is that if we divide non-purchasers of our games into categories, we probably have
1) l33t kidz, that never buy games, only download
2) "casual" downloaders that purchase as well as download
3) Actual pirates, that in turn sell what they download

Group one is of no interest to us in that they do not represent a loss of sales or income, since they would not have purchased anything in the first place. They may have a market-awareness building effect, and they may constitute a future revenue stream.

Group two are actually our friends in that they contribute to our revenue stream, systematically, sporadically or whatever. They are likely discriminate (picky), but as such also quite likely to build market awareness and reward what they enjoy, and if not an immediate purchaser, a possible near-future one, and as such they should be courted rather than alienated.

Group three are the actual scum whose activities most closely resembles actual theft, and they are the ones that should be gone after by all and any means.

[cliffski]

"unsponsored internet downloading"

Is shoplifting just "unsponsored clothes sampling"?

I did a degree on economics at the London School of Economics. Taking something that is for sale without paying is still theft, no matter how you describe it.

[Bad Sector]

That was clever wording, i thought that "unsponsored downloading" thing was about ad funded games. My lack of good knowledge of the English language helped a bit here :-).

[GolfHacker]

Note that the Canadian study above found that "people who buy large numbers of DVDs, videogames, cinema and concert tickets also buy a higher number of CDs. In other words, consumers of entertainment consume more entertainment, not less." Though not strictly logical (there is no logical material implication) this can be argued to imply that downloaders of games are also more likely to buy games.

Your logic in applying the study to games is wrong. The correct argument would be that people who buy games are also more likely to buy other games. Or you might correctly argue that people who download games are also more likely to download other games, though the study is about those who purchase.

Now, the above research do not study the indie/casual games market(s), thus it would be a fallacy to say that they uncontroversially apply to this, but it would also be just as erroneous to say that they do not apply.

Perhaps, but you didn't apply it correctly. If you're going to draw a comparison, you need to compare apples with apples.

With an expanding market, which per definition means higher turnover which means more sales, from an economic perspective, it seems unlikely that unsolicited downloads would decrease indie game sales.

I didn't study economics in college, but I'm a smart chap and this is just plain wrong. Common sense should tell you that. My experience also verifies this. Case in point: my Fashion Cents sales dropped significantly a year ago. I thought it was because I had announced that a newer version of the game would be coming out soon. But, unbeknownst to me, someone had posted an illegal registration code and download links to all of the add-ons on a warez site. I didn't find out about it until after my bandwidth had grown to the point where my provider raised my dues. Now, I had not been watching my web site statistics, or I would have noticed the increasing referrals from that site (my bad for not catching it sooner) - but the point is that people who were Googling for the game found not only my site but the warez site with the free code and download links right next to it. The drop in sales isn't coincidental - the warez post is dated, and the date is precisely when my sales started dropping. Not only did my sales decrease from this act of piracy, but my expenses increased too. A double whammy!

I'm with Cliffski - piracy is theft, because a pirate steals something from us that he/she didn't pay for. Piracy is no different than shoplifting or stealing. And it is not just copying the software that is illegal; those who download pirated stuff are also guilty - if you're caught, basically it's being caught in possession of stolen property. Stamp Out Piracy points to a number of resources that describe it well.

[dma]

I agree, to say, "Whatever, those people (who pirate) wouldn't have bought it anyway," isn't 100% true in the first place. Surely some of those people, if they had absolutely no other way to obtain the game, would have bought it. In any event, they don't deserve to own something they didn't pay for.

If console games were as easy for the average person to copy as PC games are, sales would plunge drastically for them, especially given their much higher price point over casual games. But since there is really no other choice for the majority of console gamers than to buy their games, guess what they do... they buy them.

People will be honest as long as technology can keep them honest. If it can't, they'll take advantage of that, and their inner child will come out, screaming "Mine, mine, mine!," all the while trying to justify that what they're doing isn't wrong. Deep down though, they know it is. But that's hardly enough for them to change their ways, especially when there's so little chance of getting caught.

[papillon]

As usual, you're ALL wrong.

Mikademus - You can't directly compare downloadable games to CDs or DVDs for a very clear reason: the ability to have a physical object in your hands and some pride of ownership. From anecdotal experience if nothing else, people are much more likely to both download unlicensed MP3s and also buy CDs because they can feel a clear distinction between these two things. It's *nicer* to have the CD. The CD is a pretty, shiny object with pictures on, that they can own. OWNING is a good feeling - see the ads about 'own it now'. People like that.

Downloadable games seem to try their darnedest to prevent people from having those good feelings. By wanking on about 'You can't possibly own a game! You only have a license to play it and only for as long as I feel like!' you chip away at the positive feeling associated with buying. And, of course, people don't get shiny physical objects. Instead they get something nebulous that they worry can be taken away from them at any point. (like when they change computers, or go on vacation, or do anything that causes them to use up one of their limited installs...)

I've had people tell me they will not buy my games until there is a box version. (They weren't threatening to pirate, they were just 'Cute game. Tell me when I can buy it for real.') Because THAT is buying, to them. That's what's worth paying for. They get an object that they have control over and can use and resell AS THEY LIKE.

Now, obviously, not everyone feels this way, and lack of physical objects doesn't prevent all sales. But it does mean that there's a big difference in the way people downloading the game illegally feel about it. If you've already got an illegal copy, what incentive do you have to get a legal one? In order to get support / new versions, maybe. Not much else.

Casual pirates still buy games - but they may well only buy the games that they can't get cracked.

[papillon]

I'm with Cliffski - piracy is theft, because a pirate steals something from us that he/she didn't pay for. Piracy is no different than shoplifting or stealing. And it is not just copying the software that is illegal; those who download pirated stuff are also guilty - if you're caught, basically it's being caught in possession of stolen property.

Despite helping to track down piratescum, I also completely don't agree with this statement. But let's skip that for a second. Let's say that I *do* agree with this statement. Piracy is no different from shoplifting.

What does that mean, actually?

Shoplifting is a problem for stores. If there were zero shoplifting, stores would make more profit. So, how can we create zero shoplifting? We can strip-search every customer as they leave the store to be sure they haven't taken anything... we can prevent customers from entering the store and only sell them items on special order...

... how many shops do this? and why not?

Would you be comfortable shopping somewhere that insisted on going through your purse / your pockets and making you account for every item you possessed to prove you hadn't stolen it?

In retail worker communities, there are some posters, usually young and new, who are SEETHING with rage and frustration about shoplifting, especially when their store policy prevents them from doing what they think is right about it - yelling Stop Thief and trying to grab the individual in question. They are morally outraged by the obvious wrong being done in front of them (it IS wrong, after all) and work themselves into fits over it.

... and they have a lot more cause for it than software people do who're frothing about piracy, because in the shoplifting case an actual object IS being taken that can no longer be sold.

... and they're still generally wrong.

Now, who will see what I'm getting at and who will accuse me of being pro-shoplifting?

[dma]

... and they have a lot more cause for it than software people do who're frothing about piracy, because in the shoplifting case an actual object IS being taken that can no longer be sold.

The fact that the object can no longer be sold doesn't matter. Stop thinking in the past in regard to physical items. As time goes by, more and more products will be digital IP works that will be difficult to protect. If people take them, then there will start to be little reason for other people to create them.

Judging from this YouTube video, you can bet Harlan Ellison would be pissed, if he saw his stuff getting stolen.

[papillon]

How big a hammer do you need to have the simple and obvious drilled into your skull?

These two things are NOT THE SAME.

That doesn't mean they're not both WRONG. It doesn't mean they're not both RIGHT. It doesn't mean anything other than that they are NOT THE SAME.

Walking into a cinema and making off with the projector reels is not the same thing as walking into a cinema and recording the movie with your camera phone. That doesn't mean that recording the movie with your camera phone is right, it just means that they're very obviously different and have different effects on the business.

(Also, you might not want to use Harlan Ellison as your example, as the idea of him being pissed will make many people MORE interested in ripping off his stuff. The guy's an ass.)

[GolfHacker]

Despite helping to track down piratescum, I also completely don't agree with this statement.

Ok, I should have said, "Morally speaking, piracy is no different than shoplifting or stealing." I didn't think I needed to preface the statement, because I thought it was obvious given the context in which I said it. You took the comparison much farther than I intended.