And in some ways, I view the whole 'stealing' vs 'copyright infringement' argument in the same light as the 'garbage man' vs 'sanitation engineer' or 'secretary' vs 'administrative assistant' job title argument.
I'm not patronizing you, but when someone bumps in with 'copyright is not stealing,' from my point of view it's someone derailing the argument for the sake of some slight satisfaction that they have better grammar than everyone else.
It's not grammar, it's law. Your ignorance of the law doesn't change the law. Your opinion is irrelevant. According to the law, which is the only thing that matters since these are legal constructs, copyright infringement is not theft. It's infringement on the limited and temporary rights given by the public to the copyright holder.
I'm operating under the assumption that iPeon is a US citizen (from the context of his posts). If not, then he (or you) has to answer to the respective laws of his country. That said, "I don't like the law so I'll just break it," isn't an effective way of instituting a change in the law. And usually people that break the law to prove a point are happy to accept the consequences because it's usually some sort of political statement which is more effective when people see the action vs. the consequences (or how far from common sense a law can be interpreted to be by the judicial system).
You're assuming that the intention in breaking the law is always to change it. I think it's justified to break any unreasonable or immoral law, whether or not an ultimate goal of changing that law is involved.
Quote:
Whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, if you are participating in it and the laws of your country say it's illegal then you are technically a criminal. If that is the case then you are a criminal, but not a thief. This is all by definition. It's not some sort of personal attack on you.
Those terms are accurate. The ones you defended initially, weren't.
Quote:
And to you 'irl' example, I'll pose my own. Suppose that you see a huge muscular dude with a face that looks like it was run over by a truck. You might not tell him that he's ugly for fear of getting beat up, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
My remark was not about the original truth of iPeon's argument but rather your attitude. I just thought you probably do not act like this IRL and maybe do not realize it. I also go out of line like that sometimes and a little nudge and a day makes me see it. Even online you are not going to convince people with your arguments if you insult them first. In this case the term whose use you defended also muddled up the argument itself - doubly counterproductive.
Quote:
Ok. I was using the term rather loosely. My responses were that way because I'm used to arguing with people that come at me with arguments about "Copyright is not stealing and anyone that says so is a mouthpiece for the MPAA/RIAA because they are trying to make people think that copyright infringement is that same as stealing millions of dollars from the bank." And in some ways, I view the whole 'stealing' vs 'copyright infringement' argument in the same light as the 'garbage man' vs 'sanitation engineer' or 'secretary' vs 'administrative assistant' job title argument.
Both on legal and moral level, there is a huge difference between stealing and copyright infringement. It's intellectual laziness to fall back on 'theft' just because 'copyright infringement' isn't catchy.
Whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, if you are participating in it and the laws of your country say it's illegal then you are technically a criminal.
Wrong. Copyright law is civil law, not criminal law. By definition, copyright infringement is not a crime and does not make one a criminal.
Again, you can't just go around making up your own definitions to suit your argument.
Wrong. Copyright law is civil law, not criminal law. By definition, copyright infringement is not a crime and does not make one a criminal.
Again, you can't just go around making up your own definitions to suit your argument.
The FBI and the "Justice and Homeland Security Department" disagrees with you...
from the linked article:
Quote:
People trying to access the elitetorrents.org Web site on Wednesday were greeted with a warning about the penalties for copyright infringement ... The message also said: "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Individuals involved in the operation and use of the Elite Torrents network are under investigation for criminal copyright infringement."
and
Quote:
The action was the first criminal enforcement against individuals who are using cutting-edge BitTorrent software (search) to obtain pirated content online, Justice and Homeland Security Department officials said.
It is unlawful to reproduce or distribute copyrighted material, such as movies, music, software or games, without authorization - even when done for free over the Internet.
Individuals who willfully distribute or download copyrighted material risk criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2319. First-time offenders convicted of criminal felony copyright laws will face up to five years in federal prison, restitution, forfeiture and a fine.
honestly.... I can't believe how STUPID *anyone* can be to host a BT server in the USA. That's just asking for it.
I'm sure all these site admins "know eachother" and have contacts in the .tk and .ru and maybe even .se (where the Pirate Bay seems to have lots of fun taunting every and all legal papers sent to them... it's actually quite hilarious to read TEH answers... so immature its funny).
Criminal statutes are only for large scale, primarily commercial infringement. It doesn't really apply to downloaders and still has conditions that largely keep it from being used in anything but big operations. What they cited were just the penalties; what you are looking for is 17 USC 506. That's why bills are being pushed to extend criminal penalties specifically to downloaders and refine what's in 17 USC 506, which would be a continuation of the misguided effort to expand criminal laws designed for trafficking operations and apply them to individuals.
So I'll refine my statement: the majority of copyright law is civil law, not criminal, so unless you are a trafficker, by defintion you aren't a criminal.
but, doesnt Bittorrent "make" you into a trafficker seeing that you upload as you download?
I'm sure the argument is starting to be made, but considering the newness of the technology, the law hasn't fully accounted for it. This also shows why this legal approach to copyright issues today is fundamentally flawed. There will no doubt be more technologies also doing so in the future...
Quote:
Originally posted by wmccurdy
Borrowing a CD from a friend is not stealing if you meerly listen to it. It is theft if you make a copy of it.
not it is not.
I understand that you are trying to say that copyright infringement indirectly deprives the copyright holder of compensation and that supposedly makes it equivalent to theft, but at that point you are making a contorted argument that has all sorts of problems, like relying on indirect and unsubstantiated assumptions.
the problems (i have) with the terms 'theft' and 'stealing' are that they imply the initial owner/posessor lost something in the transaction. when i think of 'stealing' and 'theft', i think of an item being in my hand, then not in my hand. theres a disconnect, for me, with 'stealing' and 'copying the songs off my friends cd and giving the cd back to him'. if i had a genuine intention to buy that cd, then i could see it maybe as 'not paying for a cd i would have otherwise', but its not like the riaa ever had that $15 (or whatever a cd costs) and i went into their bank account and took it back.
at the water cooler i overheard a funny thing. someone said that some version of ep3 on p2p networks had intentionally wrong subtitles/dubbing. completely maligned with the movie, and possibly subtitles/dubs from a different movie. i thot that was pretty funny.
as to the criminality, a week or a few weeks ago, Bush signed into law an act of Congress which makes it illegal (criminally, methinks) to knowingly distribute or possess a pre-released movie (i'm iffy on details, look it up). it was abuzz on /. for a day.
Comments
Originally posted by pyr3
And in some ways, I view the whole 'stealing' vs 'copyright infringement' argument in the same light as the 'garbage man' vs 'sanitation engineer' or 'secretary' vs 'administrative assistant' job title argument.
/clap
/cheer
Same crap, just a different way to conceal it.
For that you also get a smiley face -->
Originally posted by pyr3
I'm not patronizing you, but when someone bumps in with 'copyright is not stealing,' from my point of view it's someone derailing the argument for the sake of some slight satisfaction that they have better grammar than everyone else.
It's not grammar, it's law. Your ignorance of the law doesn't change the law. Your opinion is irrelevant. According to the law, which is the only thing that matters since these are legal constructs, copyright infringement is not theft. It's infringement on the limited and temporary rights given by the public to the copyright holder.
Originally posted by pyr3
I'm operating under the assumption that iPeon is a US citizen (from the context of his posts). If not, then he (or you) has to answer to the respective laws of his country. That said, "I don't like the law so I'll just break it," isn't an effective way of instituting a change in the law. And usually people that break the law to prove a point are happy to accept the consequences because it's usually some sort of political statement which is more effective when people see the action vs. the consequences (or how far from common sense a law can be interpreted to be by the judicial system).
You're assuming that the intention in breaking the law is always to change it. I think it's justified to break any unreasonable or immoral law, whether or not an ultimate goal of changing that law is involved.
Whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, if you are participating in it and the laws of your country say it's illegal then you are technically a criminal. If that is the case then you are a criminal, but not a thief. This is all by definition. It's not some sort of personal attack on you.
Those terms are accurate. The ones you defended initially, weren't.
And to you 'irl' example, I'll pose my own. Suppose that you see a huge muscular dude with a face that looks like it was run over by a truck. You might not tell him that he's ugly for fear of getting beat up, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
My remark was not about the original truth of iPeon's argument but rather your attitude. I just thought you probably do not act like this IRL and maybe do not realize it. I also go out of line like that sometimes and a little nudge and a day makes me see it. Even online you are not going to convince people with your arguments if you insult them first. In this case the term whose use you defended also muddled up the argument itself - doubly counterproductive.
Ok. I was using the term rather loosely. My responses were that way because I'm used to arguing with people that come at me with arguments about "Copyright is not stealing and anyone that says so is a mouthpiece for the MPAA/RIAA because they are trying to make people think that copyright infringement is that same as stealing millions of dollars from the bank." And in some ways, I view the whole 'stealing' vs 'copyright infringement' argument in the same light as the 'garbage man' vs 'sanitation engineer' or 'secretary' vs 'administrative assistant' job title argument.
Both on legal and moral level, there is a huge difference between stealing and copyright infringement. It's intellectual laziness to fall back on 'theft' just because 'copyright infringement' isn't catchy.
Originally posted by pyr3
Whether or not copyright infringement is stealing, if you are participating in it and the laws of your country say it's illegal then you are technically a criminal.
Wrong. Copyright law is civil law, not criminal law. By definition, copyright infringement is not a crime and does not make one a criminal.
Again, you can't just go around making up your own definitions to suit your argument.
Originally posted by giant
I missed this:
Wrong. Copyright law is civil law, not criminal law. By definition, copyright infringement is not a crime and does not make one a criminal.
Again, you can't just go around making up your own definitions to suit your argument.
The FBI and the "Justice and Homeland Security Department" disagrees with you...
from the linked article:
People trying to access the elitetorrents.org Web site on Wednesday were greeted with a warning about the penalties for copyright infringement ... The message also said: "This site has been permanently shut down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Individuals involved in the operation and use of the Elite Torrents network are under investigation for criminal copyright infringement."
and
The action was the first criminal enforcement against individuals who are using cutting-edge BitTorrent software (search) to obtain pirated content online, Justice and Homeland Security Department officials said.
(emphasis mine)
EDIT: straight from the horses mouth: http://elitetorrents.org/
for the lazy:
It is unlawful to reproduce or distribute copyrighted material, such as movies, music, software or games, without authorization - even when done for free over the Internet.
Individuals who willfully distribute or download copyrighted material risk criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2319. First-time offenders convicted of criminal felony copyright laws will face up to five years in federal prison, restitution, forfeiture and a fine.
I'm sure all these site admins "know eachother" and have contacts in the .tk and .ru and maybe even .se (where the Pirate Bay seems to have lots of fun taunting every and all legal papers sent to them... it's actually quite hilarious to read TEH answers... so immature its funny).
So I'll refine my statement: the majority of copyright law is civil law, not criminal, so unless you are a trafficker, by defintion you aren't a criminal.
Originally posted by mattyj
I hate all this 'theft' nonsense.
Anyone who borrows a cd from a friend is stealing, aren't they?
Anyone who borrows a book to read is stealing aren't they?
Just because the above 'acts of theft' ...
Borrowing a CD from a friend is not stealing if you meerly listen to it. It is theft if you make a copy of it.
Borrowing a book to read is not stealing. Making a copy of part/all of that book is.
Under "fair use", you are allowed to make one archival copy for your own personal use. You are not allowed to make one or more copies to distribute.
Originally posted by ZO
but, doesnt Bittorrent "make" you into a trafficker seeing that you upload as you download?
I'm sure the argument is starting to be made, but considering the newness of the technology, the law hasn't fully accounted for it. This also shows why this legal approach to copyright issues today is fundamentally flawed. There will no doubt be more technologies also doing so in the future...
Originally posted by wmccurdy
Borrowing a CD from a friend is not stealing if you meerly listen to it. It is theft if you make a copy of it.
not it is not.
I understand that you are trying to say that copyright infringement indirectly deprives the copyright holder of compensation and that supposedly makes it equivalent to theft, but at that point you are making a contorted argument that has all sorts of problems, like relying on indirect and unsubstantiated assumptions.
at the water cooler i overheard a funny thing. someone said that some version of ep3 on p2p networks had intentionally wrong subtitles/dubbing. completely maligned with the movie, and possibly subtitles/dubs from a different movie. i thot that was pretty funny.
as to the criminality, a week or a few weeks ago, Bush signed into law an act of Congress which makes it illegal (criminally, methinks) to knowingly distribute or possess a pre-released movie (i'm iffy on details, look it up). it was abuzz on /. for a day.
Originally posted by wmccurdy
Under "fair use", you are allowed to make one archival copy for your own personal use. You are not allowed to make one or more copies to distribute.
I guess this would be a specific legal "fair use" in a specific country.
My idea of fair use is quite a bit broader than that.