TorrentSpy ordered to pay $110m damages

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Should we stop trying to catch and punish criminals on the grounds that more will simply appear to replace the ones who are caught? That's what it sounds as if you're suggesting!

That's the message I get, from many people here: Let anarchy reign, and wait 'til someone gets around to dropping the bomb and putting all of us out of our misery.

A future to look forward to.

[HarryT]

But deadly or not, the government in its wisdom has decided that tobacco is a legal drug to manufacture and sell. You can't shut down a company for producing a legal product. Everyone who buys it KNOWS that it will harm them, if used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. If you want to shut down the tobacco companies, you need to persuade the government to outlaw the drug, not punish the manufacturer who is acting in accordance with a flawed law.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you want to shut down the tobacco companies, you need to persuade the government to outlaw the drug, not punish the manufacturer who is acting in accordance with a flawed law.

It just goes to show that our legal system (UK) is corrupt.
The government can't pretend to be surprised that the people don't respect it.

[HarryT]

I'm not sure that "corrupt" is the appropriate word. It's more to do with the fact that, in both the US and the UK, about a quarter of adults still smoke, and it would be political suicide for any political party to propose banning such a widely-used drug as tobacco, dangerous though it is.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Should we stop trying to catch and punish criminals on the grounds that more will simply appear to replace the ones who are caught? That's what it sounds as if you're suggesting!

Yes, of course we should in some cases. What is considered to be criminal changes all the time. And in practice you stop catching criminals before tha law is changed.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That's the message I get, from many people here: Let anarchy reign, and wait 'til someone gets around to dropping the bomb and putting all of us out of our misery.

A future to look forward to.

Yes, because if you do not catch people that walks on red then the bombs will drop. Of course it must be that way.

[b0rsuk]

Why do people associate copyright infringement with theft ? Last time I checked theft was depriving people of property for personal gain. Copyright infringement was copyright infringement.

When I take someone's book without someone's permission, that's theft. (-1, +1)

When I copy that book using a photocopier, it's copyright infringement. (0, +1)

I've found an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...he_end_of_.php

I think we are witnessing the beginning of the end of a major era in world history. It may take fifty years, it may take a hundred, but the age of copyright is drawing to a close. I don’t know if this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it’s inevitable. And I say this as the author of two books and over 75 columns like this one, all copyrighted.

Just 550 years ago this year, a guy named Johann Gutenberg figured out how to make large quantities of metal type in a hurry. He didn’t invent printing—the Chinese had been doing that with wooden blocks for centuries—but he did find a way to make it fast and efficient. Gutenberg changed the world and helped to bring on the Renaissance.
(...)

When enough people feel that it’s OK to do a thing, that thing ceases to be wrong in their own cultural context. You can complain about moral relativism all you like, but the facts are inescapable: that’s how people behave. When the photocopier came along, people simply didn’t think it was wrong to copy a few pages out of a book, even though it was against the law and the authors would have preferred that they buy the whole book. So eventually, the Fair Use doctrine evolved with respect to copyright materials. The law changed. It’s now OK to photocopy parts of books for educational, non-commercial use. In effect, the authors and book publishers had to give some ground in the face of the overwhelming tide of public opinion.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, of course we should in some cases. What is considered to be criminal changes all the time. And in practice you stop catching criminals before tha law is changed.

Also in practice, you change laws to make it easier to catch the criminals.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by b0rsuk

Why do people associate copyright infringement with theft ? Last time I checked theft was depriving people of property for personal gain. Copyright infringement was copyright infringement.

When I take someone's book without someone's permission, that's theft. (-1, +1)

When I copy that book using a photocopier, it's copyright infringement. (0, +1)

I've found an interesting article on the subject:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/featur...he_end_of_.php

What do you call Identity Theft?

Dale

[b0rsuk]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

What do you call Identity Theft?

Dale

Pretending to be someone else.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

What do you call Identity Theft?

I do not understand this argument. Do you conider "Christian Science" to be a science?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by b0rsuk

Why do people associate copyright infringement with theft ? Last time I checked theft was depriving people of property for personal gain. Copyright infringement was copyright infringement.

It's been discussed a few times around these parts.

For the record, simply depriving someone of their legal property without permission, whether you gain from that act or not, constitutes theft. Gain is largely irrelevant. (In such case, the question becomes: Is an e-book considered a copyright holder's legal property?)

The general consensus among MR members (if I may be so bold) is that the inherent and practical differences between physical property and electronic documents still need to be addressed by the world at large, and an agreement reached, as to what should be bound under copyright infringement and/or theft, or if new rules need to be applied, to enact an acceptable global stance on the matter.

IOW, it hasn't really been decided.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

What do you call Identity Theft?

Dale

Fraud.

[b0rsuk]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

It's been discussed a few times around these parts.

For the record, simply depriving someone of their legal property without permission, whether you gain from that act or not, constitutes theft. Gain is largely irrelevant.

The reason I emphasised the "personal gain" part is that merely depriving someone of his property without permission is close enough to simple destruction of property. Unless you're a jerk, there's no fun in doing that ;-).

The general consensus among MR members (if I may be so bold) is that the inherent and practical differences between physical property and electronic documents still need to be addressed by the world at large, and an agreement reached, as to what should be bound under copyright infringement and/or theft, or if new rules need to be applied, to enact an acceptable global stance on the matter.

IOW, it hasn't really been decided.

I see. These articles support my point of view:

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458.shtml
(IP is neither Intellectual nor Property)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...14250290.shtml
(Differences between copyright and physical property)

In other words, I don't think any consensus can be easily reached. Copying digital data costs very little, and there's no scarcity of goods. On the other hand, it's nice when book authors get something for their effort. On the third hand, was the world really worse before MTV ?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Fraud.

There are lots of things that are fraud but the term Identify Theft is a particular kind of fraud. Fraud is theft by deception according to the law. If some one stole your identity what would you say happened to you? The identity hasn't really been stolen in the same sense that works you depend on for lively hood haven't been stolen. Maybe the fact that they emptied your bank account and destroyed your credit is merely a matter of infringing a bit on your copy right. Is that the way you would like to view it. Selling a work that someone else wrote is also fraud in that you didn't have permission but I think the idea of theft makes the severity of the crime more obvious.

Dale