Major Copyright Judgement

[GreyICE]

I do like to think that I can read a complete sentence, but I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

ETA: did you write that as an incomplete sentence for humorous effect? Like "Why I'm arguing with someone who can't even read a complete sentence is beyond me!" would be the complete form? I must not get this joke...

Wildy has an ongoing problem where he responds to one sentence in a paragraph like the rest doesn't exist. In his last response, he chose to reply to the first few words in a sentence like the rest doesn't exist.

Honestly, I think he's just looking for an argument and taking every excuse to find one. I would have described this, but I realized its generally pointless.

ETA: Avalon caught it Glad I wasn't completely opaque there.

 

[Gate2501]

Ahhh, I see now, thank you for clearing up my confusion.

I definitely would agree that a larger percentage of users pirate for PC than they do console, and I also would admit that this is due to countermeasures and fully controlled software platforms, like the PS3 or 360 OS. Especially now that they update them frequently to bust modders, we are forced to block out updates and running newer games become problematic, and it becomes a lot of trouble.

Flash carts and flashable mod chips are the best ways to pirate on console currently, but still dangerous if you value multiplayer.

 

[Belz...]

Wrong. Theft is taking something away from someone else. If you don't remove it from anyone, that's copying, not stealing.

From dictionary.com:

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Old English thiefth
: LARCENY; broadly : a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent

Taking something doesn't mean the other person no longer has it. The point is, intellectual property IS property and you can't have it legally without consent.

You're creating a distinction where there isn't any.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Taking something doesn't mean the other person no longer has it.

Yes, actually, it does. It's the difference between taking and copying.
Since you gave a definition of theft as larceny, try to prove larceny where the victim still has possession of the object. Guess what? Unless you no longer have it, it's not larceny.

You're creating a distinction where there isn't any.

You're eliminating a distinction where one exists.

Theft means B has it and A doesn't. Where A has it and so does B, B didn't steal it from A, B copied it from A. There's a difference.

And, most of the time, we encourage copying -- in fact, our entire civilization is based on it. How many of the things that you do every day did you do first, and how many did you learn to do from somebody else?

 

[GreyICE]

Ah, the good ol' semantic argument. That the crime of theft is taking something away, and it's hard to define what you're taking away when you're stealing IP.

The answer, of course, is to examine what IP has done. When a company spends valuable research money to discover a new medicine, and another company 'copies' that medicine, the original company is left with millions spent on research that doesn't benefit them at all. That's theft, we define it as such.

When an author researches, writes and rewrites, and finally publishes a book, and another person 'copies' parts of that book to make their book, that's plagiarism. That's theft, we define it as such.

When an author writes a short story, and a filmmaker turns it into a movie without paying the author, that's theft. We define it as such.

We never go 'oh, well, he just copied the author's work and turned it into a film, but there's no problem there' or 'oh hey, I hate companies that research life-saving medication actually having an incentive to do that.'

But a bunch of people on the internet start stealing stuff, and suddenly they are in some sort of moral middle ground.

No, they're thieves. They steal intellectual property, same as any other IP theft.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You're wrong. There's a difference between "theft" and "copying". Patent infringement might be wrong and illegal. Copyright infringement might be wrong and illegal.
Neither of them are theft, just as neither of them are murder.

 

[funk de fino]

Ah, the good ol' semantic argument.

I have had this argument before with this poster. It ends up being a repetition of semantics and technicalities.

It thieving and he knows it. I wonder how his god would judge that one?

 

[PhantomWolf]

From dictionary.com:



Taking something doesn't mean the other person no longer has it. The point is, intellectual property IS property and you can't have it legally without consent.

You're creating a distinction where there isn't any.

I was about to post the same, but decided to check it out first. Now having just read up on the case law, unfortunately AvalonXQ is correct, the SCOUS determined that copyright infringment was not theft a while back when the Presley Estate took a man to court for selling bootleg Elvis records.

That doesn't mean that copying isn't a crime, in fact if infringment is found to have happened, the party infringing can be in a lot of trouble.

The law gives copyright holders a lot of power. Then can seize your computer. They can get an injunction ordering you to stop. They can get statutory damages in excess of $150,000 per copy or actual damages based upon the total number of copies that can be attributed to the P2P posting (so you can be held liable for all the subsequent downloads). You can be forced to pay their attorney's fees and costs.

They can subpoena your name, address, telephone number, and subscriber information from your ISP even without filing a lawsuit, and find out all of the music you have been downloading, and possibly the websites you have been visiting.

And, yes, you can go to jail for infringement, even if you just downloaded a single song, so long as the "value" of the copies made of the work over a six month period exceeds $1,000. So, if you assume that the individual "song" has a value of $2 (one-tenth the cost of the $20 CD), a mere 500 downloads are enough to make you liable. And these downloads don't necessarily have to come from your machine. If another person downloads the song from you, you may be responsible for the downloads that person permits.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It thieving and he knows it.

It's not, and I know it.
You people who insist that copyright infringement is theft clearly don't understand that there are more than one crime, so why don't you just claim that all copyright violators are murderers? Your argument works exactly the same way and is exactly as accurate.

 

[GreyICE]

You're wrong. There's a difference between "theft" and "copying". Patent infringement might be wrong and illegal. Copyright infringement might be wrong and illegal.
Neither of them are theft, just as neither of them are murder.

Oh come on, we're going the straight semantic route? Fine.

steal
  /stil/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, sto⋅len, steal⋅ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

theft
  /θɛft/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [theft] Show IPA ,
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft

 

[AvalonXQ]

And, again, copyright infringement does not qualify under that definition.
Show me ONE CASE where a copyright infringer has been convicted of larceny. You can't, because larceny and theft require that the victim is DEPRIVED OF HIS GOODS.
There is a difference between copyright infringement and stealing, whether you understand enough about the law to recognize it or not.
No conversion, no stealing, end of story.

 

[funk de fino]

It's not, and I know it.
You people who insist that copyright infringement is theft clearly don't understand that there are more than one crime, so why don't you just claim that all copyright violators are murderers? Your argument works exactly the same way and is exactly as accurate.

I forgot he also loses the plot and start calling people murderers. Man of god my erse.

 

[GreyICE]

And, again, copyright infringement does not qualify under that definition.
Show me ONE CASE where a copyright infringer has been convicted of larceny. You can't, because larceny and theft require that the victim is DEPRIVED OF HIS GOODS.
There is a difference between copyright infringement and stealing, whether you understand enough about the law to recognize it or not.
No converstion, no stealing, end of story.

Oh come on. If I work for 18 hours to get something done, and another person tells everyone that he did that, then he stole the credit.

Could you convict him in a court of law of theft? No. It's a different charge, if it could be proved at all.

Your pointless inability to recognize this is humiliating to you.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Your pointless inability to recognize this is humiliating to you.

Your continuing inability to understand the difference between removing something from someone's possession (theft) and doing them harm by constructively denying them some benefit (any sort of legal damage) isn't exactly a credit to your legal or philosophical understanding.
Trying to convince people that copying is theft, cheapens the severity of theft.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Oh come on. If I work for 18 hours to get something done, and another person tells everyone that he did that, then he stole the credit.

And if a friend of mine wants a song and I make him a copy from my CD, neither of us has stolen anything.

 

[GreyICE]

Your continuing inability to understand the difference between removing something from someone's possession (theft) and doing them harm by constructively denying them some benefit (any sort of legal damage) isn't exactly a credit to your legal or philosophical understanding.
Trying to convince people that copying is theft, cheapens the severity of theft.

In many cases stealing IP is more serious than theft. If a drug company starts making generic versions of a new drug on the market, they're undercutting tens of millions of dollars in research, and imperils a company that researches lifesaving drugs. This can negatively impact millions of people, and cost them a fortune.

But you say this is less severe than a kid swiping a tube of lipstick from the store?

 

[AvalonXQ]

In many cases stealing IP is more serious than theft.

Many crimes are often more serious than theft. That doesn't make them theft.
I've never said that copyright infringement isn't a crime; I've said it isn't theft. Because it isn't.

 

[GreyICE]

I agree. Many crimes are often more serious than theft. That doesn't make them theft.

And now you're deliberately pretending something I wrote wasn't addressed to you.

Whatever. You're wrong, and everyone knows it. IP is a serious theft, and the fact that the legal system treats it differently than physical theft does not change that its theft. The legal system defines embezzlement, insider trading, cartel conspiracies, fraud, etc. all differently. This makes it easier to write statute and determine precedent for all of them.

They're all forms of theft. Just like IP theft. You happen to like this form of theft, while you probably think the lawyer that steals from the bank accounts of retired people is scum, so you define the two differently.

 

[funk de fino]

Many crimes are often more serious than theft. That doesn't make them theft.
I've never said that copyright infringement isn't a crime; I've said it isn't theft. Because it isn't.

Lets see what your God says about that.

Many people go to jail for manslaughter when we all know it was murder.

Technicalities and semantics aside, downloading is stealing.

 

[AvalonXQ]

They're all forms of theft. Just like IP theft.

You're wrong. Copying is different than theft. Under certain circumstances, it may be criminalized -- but the essence of theft is that it deprives you of what is stolen. If you're left with the original article, then while the resulting behavior may be harmful, it's something other than theft and should be treated separately (as it is under the law).
Copyright infringement and patent infringement are not theft any more than they're assault, and your constant assertions to the contrary don't change that.