While I feel you might be mocking the folks that use this when calling pirating a movie "stealing", your point is still valid. Saying "stolen" serves only to sensationalize what happened. Saying "rips off" or "copies" would be more accurate.
As to why some people apparently feel more comfortable saying "stolen" in this case versus people sharing MP3s: There's an obvious qualitative difference between people sharing files, and someone passing work off as their own, especially when profiting from it. From what I can tell, it's the whole plagiarism part that really pisses people off.
I think it's twofold. You've got it right that the plagiarism is probably the biggest reason, but the other reason is that they're using this "stolen" material for their own personal gain. If I download some MP3s and listen to them myself, there's no personal gain (besides the literal gain of having the MP3, of course). If I download some MP3s and put them in my product, now I'm illegally benefitting from someone else's work. I would be willing to call that stealing the MP3s even if I'm not trying to pass the MP3s off as my own creation.
Because if you copy my MP3 for yourself then you are a single person who is not going to pay me (ie one potential lost sale). Not a huge deal. You probably wouldn't have paid for it if you couldn't pirate it anyway.
If you then go out and sell that same MP3 then every sale you make is a sale that _I_ should have been paid for. The people you are selling to are willing to part with money and instead of it coming to me, the original author, it is going to a 3rd party.
Because the pirate that's selling the MP3 didn't go through any of the effort to make it. They are benefiting from the work of others, without giving them any credit.
When the copy is free, there's a non-zero cost associated with making that copy. 20 years ago, it was the cost of a cassette tape. Even now, there is a bandwidth cost associated with giving away a copy.
Because then I feel like I should be making that money. Also, there's the possibility (probability?) that in order to make money off of it, you're making it look like you made it, which my ego does not appreciate.
I'm not saying I wouldn't care. I would be a bit disappointed that you chose to pirate instead of purchasing. But I wouldn't be mad about it. Once you start trying to pass it off as your own, or trying to benefit from it, that's when it becomes something worth being mad about.
Based on your comment history you're probably just being sarcastic.
That said, I agree with your point even if you probably don't: using the wrong word in the wrong place is not a good thing. Conflating copyright infringement with theft is bad even if you empathize with the person whose copyright was infringed.
You could presumably define "theft" as owning something without paying the price that has been set for it (in this case, infinity). The bottom line is that you're using this word to talk about a type of ownership which you've judged to be a social ill. Despite what RMS may say, it seems reasonable to associate this with the historical judgments about ownership that are tied up with the word "theft".
Also, we need to expand the meaning of words by analogy, otherwise we're left with calling things Thing A and Thing B.
You could define it like that, but you wouldn't be entirely correct. Depriving the original owner of whatever is stolen is innate in the concept of "theft"[1][2]. That is the primary reason society has had laws against theft for so long--not because we're afraid of everybody having a pony, but because my stealing a pony deprives its original owner of it.
Since copyright infringement does not stop the original "owner" from using the property in question, calling it theft seems intellectually dishonest. All the historical judgments are based around this idea--the reason theft is inherently bad and punished by so many societies is that the person stolen from does not have use of his property any more. Extending these to something that does not deprive the original owner of anything is not reasonable.
Besides, the idea of "owning" information involves having exclusive control over its distribution. Given this parallel, somebody just having an unauthorized copy does not own the information as they have no exclusivity or control over it whatsoever. If somebody with such a copy could then enforce that others could not use the information, it would be akin to owning it, but it would also be a very different story!
So your definition of theft would probably have to be amended to "using something without paying the price..." since just having a copy of something confers no ownership. But then this definition suddenly becomes very broad--much more broad than the commonly accepted meaning of theft. For example, trespassing would fall under "theft" as you're using somebody's land without their permission or "paying the price".
Expanding words by analogy is a good thing, granted. However, this assumes that the analogy is reasonably accurate. There are clearly harmful examples of expanding words by poor analogy: the oft-repeated mantra that "evolution is just a theory" only exists because the analogy between the common use of "theory" and the scientific use is fundamentally flawed.
So expanding words' meanings by analogy is good assuming the analogy is not relatively misleading or clearly biased. The analogy between theft and copyright infringement is both, so this use should not be encouraged.
If I had my way the usage of analogies and semantic bickering would be strictly forbidden in threads pertaining to copyright infringement. There is a real discussion to be had about the situation at hand, but instead the top sub-thread is the exact same circle jerk that happens in every other copyright related thread.
I wonder how long we have until someone makes a car analogy?
I'm a game developer. I dream about the day the gaming industry could move forward these silly slap-fights and actually work together on reusable assets for everyone, free of IP. (in fact, that's one of the motivations behind my startup)
While I don't like that Armed Heroes used other's copyrighted work without permission. It's sad that these assets were not released under Creative Commons in the first place. Armed Heroes should've taken the "high road" and released their own assets under CC instead of using other's. IMHO, those who are hypocrite on this subject are simply missing the bigger picture.
I cannot think of a single good thing that would happen to gaming if every single game had creative commons assets from day one. You'd end up with endless identical looking games.
Now, releasing the assets under CC after 5 years or so I could get behind. Let the culture remix your work after it has had a chance to stand and be judged, appreciated on its own.
One nice thing about free assets is that you would be able to modify and remix them. So you could take some existing model of a car, change the dimensions a bit, change the shading, exaggerate some of its features and get a cartoon car that looks completely different.
Another thing is that you would not have to reinvent the wheel each time. Sure, you expect the important bits of each game to be unique. But do you really care that the wooden crates or doors from one game are reused in another? Being able to take an existing model of something unimportant and tweak it to match your atmosphere would save a lot of pointless work.
Just having access to such a library would not stop a good game development team for making a creative, distinctive game. It would just save them from having to make a whole bunch of boring models of limited utility. They would still make all the core models--characters, exotic settings and so on--for each particular game.
Besides, I think game studios already share assets between similar games in their own lineup. This would just make the sharing global, giving everybody access to more material to start from.
My main objection comes from the fact that I do both development and design, and I've seen a lot of developers act like art can be reused just the same as code, with no ill effects. But humans are excellent pattern matchers, and we do pick up on these things.
Personally I mostly enjoy games for their story and atmosphere, and the few times I've recognized a reused asset (e.g. a sound effect) it's been really distracting. It's like the Wilhelm Scream in movies... once you know about it, you can never stop noticing it.
A better idea would be to make an open library for procedural generation of assets, so that you can make infinite variations of every item, and tweaking is easy. We already have e.g. SpeedTree, but these things are so valuable they always end up being commercial rather than free.
> the few times I've recognized a reused asset (e.g.
> a sound effect)
The "pig farm" sound effect from WarCraft II... I've heard that one a lot. From tv shows to films to other games. The only one I can pull off the top of my head of Ghost in the Shell: Stand-Alone Complex Season 1.
But mods generally fall into two categories... those that take place within the existing game's world, and total conversions. In the case of total conversions, what's being reused is typically the engine, not the assets, and in the other case, you're deliberately trying to fit in.
Re-usable assets are not the answer. Procedural generation of assets using re-usable blueprints under creative commons to enable rapid generation of unique variants of an existing object are the answer. Combine this with more powerful editing tools with the ability to mold blueprints together, and the uniqueness, creativity and soul of an artistic vision can be preserved while drastically decreasing development time.
I think his comment is tongue-in-cheek - noting that when it comes to piracy we like to get pedantic about the difference between infringement and theft, but when we're holding the short end of the stick we'll gladly assign whatever label we please.
The article state that they gave notice, and that Apple hasn't done anything yet. It's interesting to see what Apple bans from the app store without a thought, and what they're reluctant to do anything about.
I've been on the receiving end of an app related copyright notice before. (I used the 'NFL' trademark without permission - I'm not American and thought it was the name of the sport and couldn't be copyrighted). Apple forwarded me the notice via email and asked me to respond and take action. I responded to the NFL guys, fixed the problem and never had to remove the app.
So Apple gives the developer a chance to respond (i.e. it will probably take a few days to see any action). If they didn't we would end up with the mess like they have with DMCA notice takedowns on YouTube.
yes, otherwise someone unscrupulous could just file complaints against all their competitors and effectively lock them out of the App Store for a period of time.
We don't really know how long it takes for Apple to apply all the bans that we hear about (and the others we don't hear about), but it would be interesting to find out how this process works.
This situation reminds me of the notice Apple sent to retailers not to sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
The company is based in China, and when it comes to IP and copyright China typically doesn't care. Sure they could file against them in Canada but it will get them nowhere.
Speaking from direct personal experience with DMCA takedowns in the app store specifically, Apple threatens the developer with removal of the app from the store but does not actually do it for at least the first 30 days of the complaint.
In order to qualify for safe harbor protections, Apple must take down content "expeditiously." So I'm under the impression that they actually waive the DMCA harbor entirely, and decline to process requests. IANAL, and Apple has much better lawyers than I do, so it's possible that "expeditiously" means something other than what I think it means.
Let's say you wrote a game. Someone could copy the assets, release their own game and claim infringement against you. You're saying Apple should pull your game until you can disprove infringement? That doesn't sound reasonable.
You may not like it, but that is the way the law is written. It is why so many people disagree with the way the DMCA works.
There are many documented cases of large companies using DMCA takedown requests to suppress material that they just don't like, with no valid legal claim on it.
No it isn't [0]. The way DMCA works is that someone files a claim, Apple pulls the app, the defending party files a counter-claim, Apple restores the app. Now it's between the two parties. It's not Apple's role to be the judge to which one must disprove infringement.
Has anyone ever actually been punished for false DMCA takedown notices? I know it hasn't happened in any of the false takedown notice cases I'm familiar with.
The only requirement is that the DMCA claiment swear, under penalty of perjury, that they are authorized to make the demand (they are the copyright holder or authorized agent). No other penalty / liability against the notice server is provided for in the statute.
Unless I'm misremembering, that was not a part of the original statute & was added later. The criticism I gave was fairly common immediately following passage of the DMCA.
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
IANAL, but those two words "knowingly" and "materially" are extremely huge caveats that should make it very easy to avoid any liability for carefully crafted false takedown notices.
That's not how the DCMA works however. The purpose of the DCMA is accountability not enforcement (when it comes to the Safe Harbor provision).
Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned.
That said, Apple can do whatever they like with their platform, and show little compunction about doing so.
I'm reminded of all of the cyberpunk Gibsonian/Stephensonian worlds where governments have given way to governance by and for corporations. Welcome to the future.
Without it, Apple is directly liable for copyright infringement. They are making and distributing copies of Torchlight's work without authorization each time someone downloads the app; the fact that some other entity provided it to them does not absolve them of liability for this infringement.
If Apple wants to shed liability for the copyright infringement they are committing they would be required to promptly remove or block access to the alleged infringing content, not simply put the notifier in touch with someone. If they don't remove or disable access, they don't qualify for the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and remain liable.
Even should Apple block access, they do not remove themselves from the equation; you are wrong to say it's now solely in the hands of the two parties as far as the DMCA is concerned. Instead, the alleged infringer now has an opportunity to file a counter-notice disputing the claim of infringement. When Apple receives this counter-notice, to retain their safe harbor protection from liability, they must now promptly restore access to the content.
This serves as protection against excessive damage done by false claims of infringement. Apple and other service providers are not expected to decide the merits of either claim. Simply take down upon notice of infringement, restore upon counter-notice.
Only then is the situation left to the two parties and the courts to resolve.
How exactly is that incompatible with what I've said?
The DCMA assumes that Apple, acting in good faith, will resolve Runic's issue by either taking down the infringing content, or putting them in touch with the supposedly infringing party. The infringing party, if they believe Runic to be incorrect can then counter-file, to ensure the content is not taken down, and then from there Runic and the infringing party are the ones responsible for dealing with the legalities of the issue not Apple.
> How exactly is that incompatible with what I've said?
I believe I just gave a point-by-point of how that's incompatible with what you said. I'll be more explicit:
You said "through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party". I said that putting you in touch with the party is not sufficient under the DMCA; it's not an either/or situation.
You said "from there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out". I said that Apple's responsibility does not end at the takedown notice, they're also responsible for handling the potential counter-notice and restoring access to the content.
Then you made some silly comment about governance by corporations, when the DMCA requires those corporations not decide the merits of either party's claims; in a dispute, it is required to leave the content available and force the parties to court to resolve the situation. If they don't do so, they retain full liability for the copyright infringement.
You didn't say all the other stuff you just edited into your comment, not that it corrects all the issues with your original statement.
This is completely wrong. The Safe Harbor provision gives a content site the ability to be safe from infringement if they comply with the specific rules set forth in the DMCA.
The onus is on the content provider first and foremost. They need to remove the material and then notify the provider of the material. If the provider can show it's theirs it can go back up. If they can't, it needs to stay down. If the DMCA notice is completely wrong, the provider of the material can go after the accuser for monetary damages. If Apple doesn't take down infringing material, the are no longer under safe harbor[1].
That said, Apple can do whatever they like with their platform, and show little compunction about doing so.
You were defending Apple for not taking down the offending material say that they don't have to because the DMCA gives them safe harbor, and that's completely untrue. Apple is complicit in the infringement until they take it down 'expeditiously'.
>Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned.
That's exactly why they would make the DMCA complaint.
For those commenting against IP rights and saying this isn't such a big deal, suppose thousands of people buy this rip-off game. Later the original creators release an iOS version.
What are the chances of someone who bought the rip-off then buying the original creator's game? If anything they're likely to view the legitimate game as the rip-off because it was released later, and say so in App Store reviews.
Novelty has a pretty high value in itself, and that value is being stolen.
The really funny part is where they accuse Runic Games of "borrowing" ideas from Wild Tangent's Fate, which is similar to Torchlight. They even say they could conclude that Torchlight blatantly ripped off Fate. For those that don't know, the reason it's funny is because Travis Baldree, one of the founders of Runic Games, is also the creator of Fate.
I don't know, I think the part where they are caught with a bunch of identical .wav files - even including identically misspelt file names - is pretty good too :)
They're trying to justify their wholesale reuse of audio-visual assets by pointing out that a game created by Max Schaefer, Erich Schaefer and Travis Baldree uses ideas from previous games they created. That has to be a joke.
Not defending the guy because they obviously stole the assets (the file names are the final nail in the coffin) but that's not his argument.
He's claiming that they didn't copy the assets but inspired themselves from them. He's claiming that they (just like everyone else) are building upon the shoulders of giants.
That argument is perfectly valid, until the accusing party pulls your files named after their own bosses (carrying the typos along too). At that point, you've pretty much been proven wrong.
It's a perfectly valid argument if it's over game mechanics or rules. Those are not copyrightable, and while it is ethically questionable, there's nothing illegal about copying mechanics completely while putting a new skin onto the game.
It's less valid if it's copying art or sound assets. Unfortunately, this discussion isn't about mechanics(as tbaltree notes in the thread), it's about the specific art assets.
