• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Major Copyright Judgement

funk de fino said:
Technicalities and semantics aside, downloading is stealing.
Click to expand...

Unless downloading the file erases it from the originating computer, downloading is different than stealing. Just because you can't recognize the distinction doesn't mean there isn't one.
 
But they deprive the IP owner of revenue and benefit that directly accrues as a result of their ownership of the IP. So you're wrong there TOO Avalon.
 
So how about we just all agree that the copying of datafiles, be it games, music or other, that you do not have a licence to copy, for your own personal gain (be it finanical or just entertainment,) or in the aiding of another's personal gain, is illegal and wrong.
 
PhantomWolf said:
So how about we just all agree that the copying of datafiles, be it games, music or other, that you do not have a licence to copy, for your own personal gain (be it finanical or just entertainment,) or in the aiding of another's personal gain, is illegal and wrong.
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree it's illegal.
 
AvalonXQ said:
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.
Click to expand...

Avalon, you keep asking for people to show you a case where a copyright infringer has been convicted of "larceny." Nobody is claiming that copyright infringement is "larceny"--they are claiming that it is "theft." Theft is a word with far less precise legal definition than "larceny." It is used every day to describe acts of "improper taking" that do not deprive anyone of any physical good. No one would be confused by my describing a plagiarist as having "stolen" the essay they copied from their friend, for example--even though the essay remains in the possession of the friend.

But perhaps more to the point, even by strict legal definitions, there can be "theft" where no physical property changes hands: "identity theft" is theft according to statute law in numerous states, but it exactly parallels the case of illegal copying: the owner of the "identity" is not deprived of identity by the person who illegally assumes it. So, you're simply and demonstrably wrong.
 
Yoink said:
Avalon, you keep asking for people to show you a case where a copyright infringer has been convicted of "larceny." Nobody is claiming that copyright infringement is "larceny"--they are claiming that it is "theft." Theft is a word with far less precise legal definition than "larceny."
Click to expand...

I brought it up because they both posted dictionary definitions, and both dictionary definitions used "larceny". Even the dictionary supports my belief and denies theirs; they just don't have the vocabulary to understand that.
Again, copying isn't theft. Copyright infringement isn't stealing. It's clearly illegal; we can debate whether it's wrong. But the litany that "copyright is stealing" is about as useful to this discussion as the litany that "abortion is murder" is to that discussion -- it's demonstrably false and it doesn't help anything.
 
Last edited:
AvalonXQ said:
Nope. It's not stolen, and it's not theft. It's copying.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this, but it clearly deprives the IP owner of revenue that would rightfully be theirs by virtue of their ownership.

Stealing the apples off an apple tree is still stealing, even if the owner still has the apple tree.

This has been explained to you a lot of times at this point.
 
Yoink said:
Avalon, you keep asking for people to show you a case where a copyright infringer has been convicted of "larceny." Nobody is claiming that copyright infringement is "larceny"--they are claiming that it is "theft."
Click to expand...
Got any examples of a copyright infringer being charged with theft?
 
GreyICE said:
You keep saying this, but it clearly deprives the IP owner of revenue that would rightfully be theirs by virtue of their ownership.
Click to expand...

"You should have bought my copy, but instead you made your own copy. Now my copy is sitting here with no one to buy it. Clearly that means your copy is stolen."
Nope, sorry, doesn't work.
Again, I'm not arguing that the IP owner can't recover revenue from the infringer. I'm simply arguing that it's not the same as stealing -- because it's not.
No matter how many times you call it stealing, it's not stealing because nothing is taken away from victim.
 
It is a violation of copyright.

It is not theft, but a semantic argument can be made which equates it to theft very easily. There are certainly some parallels, but it is not the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft

ETA: It definitely is illegal, and in many cases much more severe than theft in terms of the penalties involved, so why would anti-piracy folks even want to call it theft? To paint pirates as ne'er-do-wells with a more emotionally charged label is my best guess.
 
Last edited:
dictionary.law.com said:
theft
n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully) and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.
Click to expand...


Here are the two:

dictionary.law.com said:
copyright
1) n. the exclusive right of the author or creator of a literary or artistic property (such as a book, movie or musical composition) to print, copy, sell, license, distribute, transform to another medium, translate, record or perform or otherwise use (or not use) and to give it to another by will. As soon as a work is created and is in a tangible form (such as writing or taping) the work automatically has federal copyright protection. On any distributed and/or published work a notice should be affixed stating the word copyright, copy or ©, with the name of the creator and the date of copyright (which is the year of first publication). The notice should be on the title page or the page immediately following and for graphic arts on a clearly visible or accessible place. A work should be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office by submitting a registration form and two copies of the work with a fee which a) establishes proof of earliest creation and publication, b) is required to file a lawsuit for infringement of copyright, c) if filed within three months of publication, establishes a right to attorneys' fees in an infringement suit. Copyrights cover the following: literary, musical and dramatic works, periodicals, maps, works of art (including models), art reproductions, sculptural works, technical drawings, photographs, prints (including labels), movies and other audiovisual works, computer programs, compilations of works and derivative works, and architectural drawings. Not subject to copyright are short phrases, titles, extemporaneous speeches or live unrecorded performances, common information, government publications, mere ideas, and seditious, obscene, libelous and fraudulent work. For any work created from 1978 to date, a copyright is good for the author's life, plus 50 years, with a few exceptions such as work "for hire" which is owned by the one commissioning the work for a period of 75 years from publication. After that it falls into the public domain. Many, but not all, countries recognize international copyrights under the "Universal Copyright Convention," to which the United States is a party.

infringement
n. 1) a trespassing or illegal entering. 2) in the law of patents (protected inventions) and copyrights (protected writings or graphics), the improper use of a patent, writing, graphic or trademark without permission, without notice, and especially without contracting for payment of a royalty. Even though the infringement may be accidental (an inventor thinks he is the first to develop the widget although someone else has a patent), the party infringing is responsible to pay the original patent or copyright owner substantial damages, which can be the normal royalty or as much as the infringers' accumulated gross profits.
Click to expand...

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx
 
AvalonXQ said:
"You should have bought my copy, but instead you made your own copy. Now my copy is sitting here with no one to buy it. Clearly that means your copy is stolen."
Nope, sorry, doesn't work.
Again, I'm not arguing that the IP owner can't recover revenue from the infringer. I'm simply arguing that it's not the same as stealing -- because it's not.
No matter how many times you call it stealing, it's not stealing because nothing is taken away from victim.
Click to expand...

Apple trees. The victim still has the apple trees when you're done stealing apples from him. In fact, you might never have bought his apples. They may have fallen off the tree and rotted, or have been eaten by birds, or just never sold.

Yet it's still stealing to take those apples.
 
GreyICE said:
Apple trees. The victim still has the apple trees when you're done stealing apples from him.
Click to expand...

But he no longer has the apples. We don't say you stole apple trees from him; we say you stole apples -- that's what he had before that he no longer has.
If you can find a way to get apples with him still having all his apples... well, then I think we'd call that copying apples, and it wouldn't be stealing them anymore!
Thanks for clarifying the difference between stealing and copying.

GreyICE said:
So if I embezzle $10,000 from your bank account, did I steal from you?
Click to expand...

Is the $10,000 still in my bank account? If so, then no.
 
Last edited:
Actually, that brings up a good question: do you consider counterfeiting money to be stealing as well?
 
AvalonXQ said:
But he no longer has the apples. We don't say you stole apple trees from him; we say you stole apples -- that's what he had before that he no longer has.
If you can find a way to get apples with him still having all his apples... well, then I think we'd call that copying apples, and it wouldn't be stealing them anymore!
Thanks for clarifying the difference between stealing and copying.
Click to expand...
But he might not have apples even if the trees were untouched by thieves. It's only a possibility that nothing happens to the apple between the thief picking it and it going to waste. Apple trees produce a variable number of apples, so it's hard to even say that a single apple is missing, it's identical to if an apple was not missing. And there's no evidence that he'd derive any benefit or gain from the apple trees and what they produce.

But yes, thank you for clarifying the issue.
 
So now you're claiming that nothing is really taken from the farmer because he might not miss it?
How contrived are you going to let your argument get? The definition of theft is that the victim loses what's stolen. If the victim remains in possession of his property, then the crime is something other than theft, period.
 
It really isn't theft. You can make a semantic argument that it is because it does share some commonalities with theft, but there are some very key differences.

This is why the United States Supreme Court has ruled that it is not theft; copies of copyrighted materials are not stolen goods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom