In Switzerland Downloading Copyrighted Materials for personal Use is Legal

[carld]

The argument that piracy isn't theft isn't really an argument, it's just hiding behind the dictionary.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by carld

The argument that piracy isn't theft isn't really an argument, it's just hiding behind the dictionary.

It isn't an argument, it's a matter of fact.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by carld

The argument that piracy isn't theft isn't really an argument, it's just hiding behind the dictionary.

The argument that copyright infringement is theft isn't really an argument, or analogy, it's hiding behind ignorance.

Ignorance that is inexcusable in people who love words/books so much that they frequent a forum all about words/books.

[carld]

More ignorant is purporting to love words/books while somehow performing enough logical contortions to claim that depriving authors of their rights isn't wrong. In fact it's worse than ignorant, it's malicious.

[carld]

Originally Posted by TGS

It isn't an argument, it's a matter of fact.

Maybe if you live on opposite world.

[Quexos]

Nope, it's just an opinion. Merely one side of the story. A religion of economics and capitalism and like all religions, its disciples believe they have the truth and all must live through their beliefs.

Originally Posted by TGS

It isn't an argument, it's a matter of fact.

[Quexos]

That has been proven wrong with the music industry. Of all, the hardest hit by piracy if I'm not mistaken. Well it seems there has never been so much music and bands and concerts and new albums and singles out there, I don't think I hear twice the same track on the radio anymore compared to weeks and weeks of hearing any given successful hit single again and again 20 years ago on the radio.

Originally Posted by miguel1626

That's highly debatable. If you deprive content creators of income, both quantity and quality of available content will decrease.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Quexos

That has been proven wrong with the music industry. Of all, the hardest hit by piracy if I'm not mistaken. Well it seems there has never been so much music and bands and concerts and new albums and singles out there, I don't think I hear twice the same track on the radio anymore compared to weeks and weeks of hearing any given successful hit single again and again 20 years ago on the radio.

Depends on the station you listen to. If you listen to ones owned Clear Channel and the like, you'll hear the same song 2-3 times a day. Really popular stuff seems to get played every hour to two hours.

Originally Posted by carld

The argument that piracy isn't theft isn't really an argument, it's just hiding behind the dictionary.

It is a bad thing to simply state that theft is not the correct word to use? People aren't saying that content piracy isn't bad, just that it isn't theft.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

It is a bad thing to simply state that theft is not the correct word to use? People aren't saying that content piracy isn't bad, just that it isn't theft.

If people aren't saying that content piracy isn't bad (even though lots of people here do), then why keep bringing up the irrelevant argument that it isn't theft? It's just intentionally arguing over a definition in order to muddy the waters and derail the discussion.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That's what they said about music in the 70s. Never happened then, won't happen now.

You've missed my point. I was replying to Giggleton, who mentioned free knowledge. Unless you do think that authors would work for free and never decrease output?

BTW, we're probably on the same side. The copyright trolls around here think that I should be on the death row

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

The argument that copyright infringement is theft isn't really an argument, or analogy, it's hiding behind ignorance.

Ignorance that is inexcusable in people who love words/books so much that they frequent a forum all about words/books.

Originally Posted by carld

If people aren't saying that content piracy isn't bad (even though lots of people here do), then why keep bringing up the irrelevant argument that it isn't theft? It's just intentionally arguing over a definition in order to muddy the waters and derail the discussion.

Look up theft in the Criminal Code and you'll find that it doesn't cover copyright infringement. Theft is a criminal offense whereas copyright infringement is not. Words have specific (and important) meanings, even if that meaning isn't what you would like it to be.

I'm not saying infringement is okay because it's not theft, but I am saying there's no point in having a discussion if you can't at least understand the important distinction.

I'm also intrigued by the unquantifiable harms everyone keeps bringing up to justify stricter copyright; a "devaluing" of creative works is a fun one. It all comes down to "it's harmful because it's harmful".

Edit

I really can't understand the vitriol at suggesting that the word "theft" does not include copyright infringement. It's not an argument, opinion or position, it's merely a fact; theft just doesn't mean what you think it does. Now by saying this, one doesn't condone copyright infringement.

Copyright is an interesting and complex subject, and it's an oversimplification to just say "copyright = theft" and think the conversation is done. There's a lot of subtle nuances to the issue that we can't even begin to get into if the conversation begins and ends there.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Look up theft in the Criminal Code and you'll find that it doesn't cover copyright infringement. Theft is a criminal offense whereas copyright infringement is not. Words have specific (and important) meanings, even if that meaning isn't what you would like it to be.

I'm not saying infringement is okay because it's not theft, but I am saying there's no point in having a discussion if you can't at least understand the important distinction.

I don't think it's an important distinction at all unless you're arguing in front of a jury. The fact that you reference the legal definition in the criminal code just emphasizes my point. In the real world, insisting that copyright infringement is not theft and that that distinction is somehow important, is really just parsing words, ie. hiding behind the dictionary or criminal code as it were. Regardless of how the dictionary or code currently defines it, you're acquiring something that doesn't belong to you and depriving the creator of his rights in doing so.

Also, I'm not trying to justify a stricter copyright. I'm suggesting that people respect author's rights as they exist now.

It's one thing to take an artist's work without paying for it, and realizing that it may be a small wrong, but it's still wrong. It's something else to then go on to say "Well, it's not theft," or "It's free advertising," or "I wouldn't have bought it, rented it, or read it, anyway," or any of the other many justifications I've read here.

Edit: I know full well how the dictionary and criminal code defines theft. What I don't know is why some people are so insistent that the legal definition is what matters in this case, and why making that distinction is so important when it's tangential at best. And I'm not really talking about this thread in particular. I've had this go-round with other people in other threads.

I got a pm a couple of years ago during a similar discussion from someone who said basically "Don't call it theft, you'll have them all over you insisting that it isn't theft." I see it as theft, and I call it theft.

And regarding vitriol, there's plenty of it coming from the other side. As I've said before, I tangled with some pro-piracy posters (now gone) who decided to follow me around the forums and object to everything I said, and insult me at every turn. I ended up leaving the boards for a year because of the harassment.

Further Edit: And if insisting that author's rights are more important makes me a "copyright troll," then I'm happy to be one.

[Ninjalawyer]

Sorry, I'll stop hiding behind facts about word meanings from now on. Maybe we can go the extra step and refer copyright infringement as "murder" or "child prostitution" if we're going to get completely divorced from reality.



Authors rights are important, but shouldn't be more important than rights of the public generally; copyright has always been about balancing the rights of creators against the rights of the public. It has been understood from the beginning that this is the case and that a delicate balancing is needed to protect the public and authors. It's always been a compromise.

[carld]

Or maybe I can just choose not to reply to insults and nonsence.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Depends on the station you listen to. If you listen to ones owned Clear Channel and the like, you'll hear the same song 2-3 times a day. Really popular stuff seems to get played every hour to two hours.

You noticed that too? It drives me nuts. And they play the same song around the same time each day. I wondered why. Then one day the DJ told us on air that the record companies pay the stations to play their songs. Now it makes sense.