View Single Post
Old 08-28-2011, 01:11 AM   #33
Joseph R
Zealot
Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Joseph R ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Joseph R's Avatar
 
Posts: 136
Karma: 2137000
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Device: iPad, Kobo Glo HD
VydorScope

The argument is that it is not thievery because the bookstores and publishers are not physically "deprived" of a book, unlike what shoplifting would cause to a bookstore; you are, therefore, not stealing because you are not taking private property from someone or a business. Legally, thievery is depraving someone of a property or use of, without consent:

322.(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.



Legally, they have an argument. They are not stealing, but committing "Copyright Infringement"; which part of Constitutional law, and not criminal law.

A search through the CCC give this tidbit:


Unauthorized recording of a movie

432. (1) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Unauthorized recording for purpose of sale, etc.

(2) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack for the purpose of the sale, rental or other commercial distribution of a copy of the cinematographic work

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.





The law only applies to movies, not music recordings nor books. Shows you which lobbies have more power in the Halls of Parliament.

Last edited by Joseph R; 08-28-2011 at 01:14 AM.
Joseph R is offline   Reply With Quote