• 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

Gate2501 said:
I refuse to accept it as evidence that infringement = theft.
Click to expand...

Evidence ? We are discussing the definition of the word. It's semantics.

What services are being stolen? Legally speaking, infringement is absolutely not considered theft of services, it never has been.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Whatever. Let's just move on, shall we ?

The car analogy was supposed to illustrate that "no harm" doesn't necessarily mean "ok", a point that was apparently lost to everyone who read my post. Maybe it wasn't clear enough. But here it is.
 
Belz... said:
How about you ? I also suggested renting. If you can't rent it, then that's just too bad.
Click to expand...

Ever tried renting a PC video game? Not so easy ;)

And that's not exactly a wise business model: Anyone that wants to try out the game is just SOL unless they buy the game.
 
Gate2501 said:
No, it is still equivocation.
Click to expand...

The hell it is. You use my creative work and don't pay? That's theft.

Gate2501 said:
I find it cute that you are the first person in this 10+ page thread to drop such a slogan. Where are my freeloader bros.? Oh wait, this is a strawman.
Click to expand...

Oh, did I reference the outside world? My mistake! Didn't mean to rattle your cage like that.


Gate2501 said:
How about we stick to copyright violation. What does farming have to do with this? Yeah...
Click to expand...

Note to self: Some folks confused by metaphors; avoid.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Otherwise if I have empty pockets and I download $1,000 of music, the industry is out the opportunity cost of $0.00. Unlike theft, which is a zero-sum game.
Click to expand...

That's a big if. And a false "if", given that it's not just broke people who are stealing IP. In fact, if you're really broke, how do you have the gadgets?

Fact is, the rise of piracy has had a profound negative impact on actual sales.
 
CatInTheBag said:
I downloaded my entire vinyl collection as MP3s.

I ripped my entire tape collection to MP3.

I infringed copyyrights.

What IP did I steal?
Click to expand...

Are you sure you infringed copyrights?

If I have an LP at home, and I put it on cassette so I can listen to it in my car, but don't sell or distribute it, I don't believe any laws have been broken.

But if so, then I'm with you that those are unjustifiable laws.

However, I don't believe that's the topic here. We're talking about filesharing, no?
 
Piggy said:
Fact is, the rise of piracy has had a profound negative impact on actual sales.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

If piracy had such a profound impact, then why are downloaders not being prosecuted for downloading in general? They can't even close down infamous sites like the PirateBay. Napster is still in business. If it was such a profoundly bad thing then wouldn't the end users be getting sued in every available courtroom?


In the music industry the biggest impact Piracy has had was the creation of iTunes and suchlike. The culture of file sharing and music downloads for reasonable prices exists because of Napster.

Piracy has a negative effect in that some people who would have paid for the media just download it instead.

It also has a positive effect in that some people are exposed to music they might not have heard of before because they downloaded it, or someone they know recommended it after they had downloaded it.
 
Piggy said:
The hell it is. You use my creative work and don't pay? That's theft.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It is copyright infringement.

In criminal law, theft is taking another persons physical property(not to be equivocated with non-rival intellectual property) without that persons consent.

If you are speaking colloquially, call it whatever you like. Your informal language will not change the legal and moral reality of the situation, a situation which is demonstrably different(though it does share some commonalities) from the crime we know as "theft" in ways very relevant to the overall debate.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
You don't need a license to do that.
Click to expand...

There's a reason restaurants no longer sing "Happy Birthday" to you, Piggy.

It's copyright infringement. Did you pay for access to the author's intellectual property or do you have written consent from the author? You dirty pirate, you! :D
 
Piggy said:
That's a big if. And a false "if", given that it's not just broke people who are stealing IP.
Click to expand...

Your average low-middle class pirate likely downloads many multiples of his disposable income worth of stuff, whether he's "broke" or not. The only cost to the corporation is what the person would otherwise have spent on that specific material.

This number is often $0.00 regardless of the income status of the pirate. I'd check things out for free that I wouldn't dream of paying money for, even if I had the money in my hand. In each such case the corp incurs no opportunity cost whatsoever.

In fact, if you're really broke, how do you have the gadgets?
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "why didn't you buy a computer game instead of a computer" paradox. It's a classic!

Fact is, the rise of piracy has had a profound negative impact on actual sales.
Click to expand...

Explain how that's even knowable if you don't mind. Piracy arrived hand in hand with the information age, there are no idyllic pre-piracy sales numbers to reference.

Perhaps the free advertising all these decades has been worth it, perhaps it hasn't. Without a control group we'll never know IMO.

Besides without piracy I think the industry would miss being able to play victim for $20,000 in losses when some college jerk costs them maybe $70. And of course Miller Brewing still gets that $70 making it a greater than zero sum game if you count the gaining of beer and video games by the pirate.
 
Piggy said:
Are you sure you infringed copyrights?
Click to expand...
Depending on jurisdiction, yes.

Piggy said:
If I have an LP at home, and I put it on cassette so I can listen to it in my car, but don't sell or distribute it, I don't believe any laws have been broken.

But if so, then I'm with you that those are unjustifiable laws.
Click to expand...
Not according to some of the posters in this thread. After all, the creator must have ultimate control of their property.

Piggy said:
However, I don't believe that's the topic here. We're talking about filesharing, no?
Click to expand...
It's had its twists and turns. There's been plenty of conflation between calling downloading "theft", and precious little about uploading, which is the tortuous part of filesharing.
 
GreyICE said:
Stealing the apples off an apple tree is still stealing, even if the owner still has the apple tree.
Click to expand...


That's not a good analogy. In the above situation the theft is theft of the individual apples, which the owner no longer has possession of. You're not stealing the tree.
 
BobTheDonkey said:
There's a reason restaurants no longer sing "Happy Birthday" to you, Piggy.

It's copyright infringement. Did you pay for access to the author's intellectual property or do you have written consent from the author? You dirty pirate, you! :D
Click to expand...



Actually that's the perfect example of copyright theft.

It was made up by some kindergarten kids and their teachers in 1893, but then published by the Summy Company in 1935 without the permission of the creators.

It's the 1935 copyright that has since been "enforced".

In actual fact they don't have any legal basis for ownership of the copyright, as the original publication they purchased was illegal.
 
Piggy said:
Are you sure you infringed copyrights?

If I have an LP at home, and I put it on cassette so I can listen to it in my car, but don't sell or distribute it, I don't believe any laws have been broken.
Click to expand...


That would depend on the laws in your country. In France, for example, you have the right to copy work to other formats for your personal use. This is a dilemma for distributors because they cannot sell copy-protected material in France as it would infringe on their customers' rights.

In contrast, until recently it was illegal to copy protected material for any reason in my country, until they recently amended the Copyright Act so that you can make copies for your own personal use.
 
Emperor_Gestahl said:
Edit: Perhaps "a boon to the arts" would have been a more prudent choice of words. I myself prefer a world where all art is laid bare and garbage doesn't fetch the same price as gold. Sure there are individual winners and losers, but that's how it should be.
Click to expand...



The flaw with this reasoning is it assumes people are morally fair, and if they preview a work and decide they like it they will then go out and purchase it legally.

While some people do this, the reality is the overwhelming majority of people are of the "give an inch and they take a mile" variety, and once they've acquired something they like for free, they won't spend money on purchasing the same thing again.

The simple fact is, IF society wants to enjoy the product of artists, society has an obligation to ensure those artists are sufficiently remunerated for that art so that they can continue making it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom