Major Copyright Judgement

[Belz...]

Pretty sure, or actually know? Again, it depends on the licensing conditions / jurisdiction. Which was the point that I made.

"Pretty sure". Otherwise I would've said "know".

Have you been deprived of it in the mean time?

Are you saying that it shouldn't be illegal to make illegal copies because it doesn't deprive the artist of the actual songs ??? Or that artists don't care one way or another that they're losing money over to piracy ?

 

[CatInTheBag]

Oh right. You appreciate it so much that you think it would sully your appreciation to actually, you know, pay for it.

Hey, isn't it ironic that the supermarket gets upset if I "appreciate" their products so much I decide I don't want to pay for them, either.

You appear to be conflating things with actual theft again.

 

[Belz...]

Intellectual property, you meant to say. Using intellectual property for which you own the copyright, without paying you for a license to do so. This is what we are dealing with here, a violation of copyright.

This term perpetuates the misunderstanding on display in this thread; the idea that copyright infringement is "theft". All too often IP is equivocated with physical, or personal property. Apologies if you weren't deliberately equivocating between the two.

Physical property and intellectural property are both property. That's why they have the word "property" in their name.

I'm fully aware that there is a certain distinction between the two, but in both cases (theft of apples, illegal copies of video games) the culprit is making use of the owner's property without his consent. I don't know about you, but I call that theft.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if your definition of theft and mine (and Avalon's) don't quite match. Hopefully we agree that piracy is wrong.

 

[Belz...]

There's an irony in an artist being upset with someone appreciating their art.

Not if they plan to make a living out of it.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Oh right. You appreciate it so much that you think it would sully your appreciation to actually, you know, pay for it.

I listened to my neighbour's stereo the other day, and appreciated the music.

It was free. As in beer. I appreciated the music.

Hey, isn't it ironic that the supermarket gets upset if I "appreciate" their products so much I decide I don't want to pay for them, either.

No, because, a) you apparently don't understand irony, and b) appropriating the products deprives the supermarket of those products.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Not if they plan to make a living out of it.

Hence the irony - the art is the ends in itself.

 

[Belz...]

AFAIR, the typical copyright notice says you must not 'lend, copy, re-sell, diffuse...' which is where I got the 'lend to a friend bit' being illegal from.

Well, if it's true I disagree with it. Beside I doubt anyone would prosecute you for lending a DVD to a friend.

And hopefully no one will get the idea of charging me for each time I watch one of my own DVDs

Interestingly, if I'm right that you can make copies for your own use, then what's the difference between converting your vinyl to CD / mp3 (a purpose for which the technology is specifically sold in eg PC World - although all you really need is a straight through cable to your soundcard input slot) and downloading the MP3s someone else has ripped?

"Someone else" paid for it. Thing is, now two people have copies of that work, and one didn't pay for it. My beef with the "lending" bit is that there is still only one copy lying around, and with the "ripping" bit, that still only one person is using it.

 

[Yoink]

You appear to be conflating things with actual theft again.

You appear to think that as long as the word "theft" isn't used in the specific statutes that apply to copyright infringement that this somehow makes it morally acceptable to rip off the artists you claim to admire.

 

[Belz...]

Hence the irony - the art is the ends in itself.

I don't see it as ironic. I'd want people to appreciate my art, but not for free.

 

[CatInTheBag]

"Pretty sure". Otherwise I would've said "know".

Under certain conditions, you would be wrong.

Are you saying that it shouldn't be illegal to make illegal copies because it doesn't deprive the artist of the actual songs ??? Or that artists don't care one way or another that they're losing money over to piracy ?

No. Conversely, an individual making copies is not losing the artist one single penny.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Physical property and intellectural property are both property. That's why they have the word "property" in their name.

I'm fully aware that there is a certain distinction between the two, but in both cases (theft of apples, illegal copies of video games) the culprit is making use of the owner's property without his consent. I don't know about you, but I call that theft.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if your definition of theft and mine (and Avalon's) don't quite match. Hopefully we agree that piracy is wrong.

The semantic argument aside, what about loss?

What is the apple tree owner losing?

What is the artist (or, rather, the distribution company, because, let's face it, the artist is very low in the pecking order) losing?

 

[Yoink]

AFAIR, the typical copyright notice says you must not 'lend, copy, re-sell, diffuse...' which is where I got the 'lend to a friend bit' being illegal from. It makes as much sense as banning down/uploading as anyone who borrows it is less likely to buy it for themselves.

That's complete nonsense. Google "first-sale doctrine."

 

[CatInTheBag]

You appear to think that as long as the word "theft" isn't used in the specific statutes that apply to copyright infringement that this somehow makes it morally acceptable to rip off the artists you claim to admire.

You're misrepresenting me, and you're making an unfounded conclusion.

As pointed out by Gate2501, however, it's not theft. It's identify theft.

Otherwise, why would separate legislation be needed to prosecute it?

 

[Gate2501]

Actually, no. While commonly called "identity theft" the laws used to prosecute it are all for fraud.

Now, using the fraudulent identity to take money from someone's bank account is theft, but the crime of "identity theft" is actually fraud.

Exactly.

"Identity theft" is a term in and of itself, not a two word statement describing an event. You have not literally stolen it and left them a terrible husk of a person without any identity, this is friggin' obvious. You are illegally using their identity in an act of fraud for personal gain.

Though fraud can be considered a type of theft when speaking informally, it is technically an entirely different crime. This is all rather irrelevant to copyright violation, which is not even informally considered to be a type of theft by anyone but the misinformed.

 

[CatInTheBag]

I don't see it as ironic. I'd want people to appreciate my art, but not for free.

You would be missing the whole "art for art's sake" bit then. And failing to understand irony.

How ironic.

 

[funk de fino]

What is the artist (or, rather, the distribution company, because, let's face it, the artist is very low in the pecking order) losing?

Bolded part is irrelevant hogwash.

 

[CatInTheBag]

Bolded part is irrelevant hogwash.

Really? You consider that the artist themselves are fairly represented by the various trade bodies, or, conversely, do you think that the trade bodies, and copyright law in general, favours the larger corporate interest.

Irrespectively, it's not a point on which any of my points has been based.

 

[funk de fino]

Though fraud can be considered a type of theft when speaking informally, it is technically an entirely different crime. This is all rather irrelevant to copyright violation, which is not even informally considered to be a type of theft by anyone but the misinformed.

Sorry mate that is cack.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You download it from a pirate site. You now have it.

You do not have something. You cannot afford it. You steal it from a store. You now have it.

Same outcome from different routes.

Technicalities aside the morality is the same.

 

[funk de fino]

Really? You consider that the artist themselves are fairly represented by the various trade bodies, or, conversely, do you think that the trade bodies, and copyright law in general, favours the larger corporate interest.

Irrespectively, it's not a point on which any of my points has been based.

It is irrelevant to this argument how far down the pecking order they are.

 

[Gate2501]

Physical property and intellectural property are both property. That's why they have the word "property" in their name.

They are both recognized to be a kind of property, yes.

I'm fully aware that there is a certain distinction between the two, but in both cases (theft of apples, illegal copies of video games) the culprit is making use of the owner's property without his consent. I don't know about you, but I call that theft.

Yeah, you are equivocating physical personal property and intellectual property, then declaring copyright infringement to be theft upon this basis.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if your definition of theft and mine (and Avalon's) don't quite match. Hopefully we agree that piracy is wrong.

I really don't find anything morally wrong with it in many cases. Obviously we cannot go about having laws based on subjective criteria, such as the economic state and/or potential of the infringing party. I understand full well why it is illegal, I am not anti-copyright.

It isn't a black and white issue imo.