If instead of "pirates"...

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

thanks Harry. had never seen it before.

It also happens if your browser for whatever reason displays the page before it is done loading. If you hit a bottleneck on bandwidth you can sometimes see the messages built up and disappear by time page is done loading. On my cell phone it sometimes gets stuck with multiple copies of repeated messages when I have a crappy connection.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What exactly do you mean when you say "traditionally"? The use of the word "pirate" to describe someone who copies a printed work without the author's permission goes back to at least 1603 (Thomas Dekker's booklet "The Wonderfull Yeare", in which, attacking the common practice of reprinting works without permission, he says "Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme..."). The term is used in the 1886 International Berne Copyright convention, in which Article 12 states "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."

You really can't write off the use of the term as some modern coinage, I fear.

Wow, highly interesting that "word pirate" originated when "sea pirates" still existed on a larger scale. They probably still exist today.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What exactly do you mean when you say "traditionally"? The use of the word "pirate" to describe someone who copies a printed work without the author's permission goes back to at least 1603 (Thomas Dekker's booklet "The Wonderfull Yeare", in which, attacking the common practice of reprinting works without permission, he says "Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme...")..

The term was meant for people who copied the works for sale: publishers. If wasn't used for readers who wanted to share the books that they read.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The term was meant for people who copied the works for sale: publishers. If wasn't used for readers who wanted to share the books that they read.

That's because the publishers were the ones with the technology to copy books. The Berne Convention certainly doesn't make any distinction when it comes to who is copying the items: pirated works must be seized and destroyed if imported to the territory of a signatory to the Convention; it's there in black and white in Article 12.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's because the publishers were the ones with the technology to copy books. The Berne Convention certainly doesn't make any distinction when it comes to who is copying the items: pirated works must be seized and destroyed if imported to the territory of a signatory to the Convention; it's there in black and white in Article 12.

You were talking about the traditional use of the word pirate when it comes copying books. For 4 centuries that word was used for publishers only, making publishers the traditional book pirates.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What exactly do you mean when you say "traditionally"? The use of the word "pirate" to describe someone who copies a printed work without the author's permission goes back to at least 1603 (Thomas Dekker's booklet "The Wonderfull Yeare", in which, attacking the common practice of reprinting works without permission, he says "Banish these Word-pirates, (you sacred mistresses of learning) into the gulfe of Barbarisme..."). The term is used in the 1886 International Berne Copyright convention, in which Article 12 states "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection."

You really can't write off the use of the term as some modern coinage, I fear.

Interesting I didn't know any of that. In my own experience I can't remember it being used that way until relatively recently - or let's say that if you said "Pirate" 10-15 years ago I'd think eye-patch and parrot before I thought of dodgy videos or whatever.

That said and whilst I think Stallman has a point, names are important and if you can set the terminology then you can set the terms of the debate somewhat, I think the ship has sailed. What has happened is that piracy as unauthorised copying has become both common usage and commonly done. So anyone who claims to be offended by the moral implications is protesting a little too much I think.

Still thanks for coming back with an actual argument rather than "I dismiss this out of hand because I don't like some of the other things your source said."

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You were talking about the traditional use of the word pirate when it comes copying books. For 4 centuries that word was used for publishers only, making publishers the traditional book pirates.

For four centuries readers could only copy a book by hand and no one ever worried about those. 'Pirates' referred to those that illegaly copied books, it was to describe the act of copying, not publishers.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

For four centuries readers could only copy a book by hand and no one ever worried about those. 'Pirates' referred to those that illegaly copied books, it was to describe the act of copying, not publishers.

You forget about the whole "for profit" part.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You forget about the whole "for profit" part.

You forgot that it is "for profit" when somebody is pirating to avoid buying the book. Greed goes both ways.

Apart from the fact that such downloads support those who have made ripping off copyright holders a business. Traffic to their websites increases and they get more money from advertisers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Apart from the fact that such downloads support those who have made ripping off copyright holders a business. Traffic to their websites increases and they get more money from advertisers.

Yes, exactly. A British student is currently facing deportation to the USA because he had a website linking to pirated TV programmes and movies. The specific reason for the deportation is that it's claimed he made $230,000 in advertising revenue from the site.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, exactly. A British student is currently facing deportation to the USA because he had a website linking to pirated TV programmes and movies. The specific reason for the deportation is that it's claimed he made $230,000 in advertising revenue from the site.

If some kid in his bedroom can make that much money just linking to TV shows on other websites, think how much the broadcasters could make with a legal service catering for the same market. These people are so far in the past, even when the pirates show them what to do they still don't get it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You forgot that it is "for profit" when somebody is pirating to avoid buying the book. Greed goes both ways.

Apart from the fact that such downloads support those who have made ripping off copyright holders a business. Traffic to their websites increases and they get more money from advertisers.

You are talking about different people: you have the downloader, the uploader and the owner of the site. The copyright infringer is the one who did the upload and is also the one that you are not taking into consideration.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You are talking about different people: you have the downloader, the uploader and the owner of the site. The copyright infringer is the one who did the upload and is also the one that you are not taking into consideration.

The downloader is breaking copyright law just as much as the uploader. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

[Dulin's Books]

the downloader IS making a copy to their computer (or receiving a copy to their computer), they arent removing the file from the other computer. the downloader IS profiting from the piracy- the amount they other wise would have paid for the book/movie/music/software.. the uploader is also violating copyright by uploading because they dont have a right to distribute it AND retain a copy. whoever is making money through advertising or membership fees is also making a profit from the pirated work. in fact the uploader may be the least culpable if they are not profiting from uploading that one copy.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The downloader is breaking copyright law just as much as the uploader. Don't kid yourself otherwise.

In which countries?

Originally Posted by Dulin's Books

the downloader IS making a copy to their computer (or receiving a copy to their computer), they arent removing the file from the other computer. the downloader IS profiting from the piracy- the amount they other wise would have paid for the book/movie/music/software.. the uploader is also violating copyright by uploading because they dont have a right to distribute it AND retain a copy. whoever is making money through advertising or membership fees is also making a profit from the pirated work. in fact the uploader may be the least culpable if they are not profiting from uploading that one copy.

But the question is who is the one that is called a pirate? Take the classic case of 1984-Amazon copyright infringement. Were the ones getting the book illegally from Amazon pirates? What is Amazon called in this case?