Kindle Geographic Restrictions On US Website - Against US Buyers

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Go back and read my post again. It's about implications of people's views. This is precisely what I mean about this being the argument in the first place

I've read it again, and it's still very clear - you equate a belief that unauthorised copying is wrong with a hatred of creative media. You may feel you want to argue that their approach will lead to damage to creative media, but that's not the same as claiming that it is motivated by hatred.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

You are insisting on viewing everything through a black and white moral filter which doesn't allow for the actual situation or people to form reasonable policies.

Oh good grief. You're the one insisting on strict black-and-white legal definitions and ignoring the arguments.

/JB

[DawnFalcon]

No, that's your inference and not mine. I have never claimed unauthorised copying is right, either, and you won't find me doing so. What I actually said was that use of the word "theft" goes alongside the worldview which is basically neo-prohibitionary, has crushed music sales and threatens now to crush other creative media, even when that creative media doesn't want to be associated with it.

And no, I'm pointing out that the argument around the definitions is the argument, trying to go past it into details (on which the dividing lines are drawn) is pointless.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

No, that's your inference and not mine. I have never claimed unauthorised copying is right, either, and you won't find me doing so. What I actually said was that use of the word "theft" goes alongside the worldview which is basically neo-prohibitionary, has crushed music sales and threatens now to crush other creative media, even when that creative media doesn't want to be associated with it.

So you are saying that use of the word "theft" implies hatred of creative media?

/JB

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

try just a little bit harder and you might get it yet.

It really doesn't matter if it's a physical object I own or an item of intellectual property. If you take it without permission, that is stealing.

I think the public idea of theft permits this interpretation. so far as I know the idea of identify theft (a related theft idea) has no other name than theft at least in the news and public. Splitting hairs a lawyer knows that the statute has different consequences but for the public that is not the important issue (unless of course they are trying to beat the rap). Copyright infringement is not listed in the 10 commandments.

Dale

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm speaking in universal terms.

It seems to me that you (& others) who use theft to describe copyright infringement are seeking to redefine theft.

Is copyright infringement just as wrong as theft of a physical object?

I don't believe it is. And so it is useful and proper to have a separate word/phrase for the action. Deliberate blurring of the difference between the two acts is wrong.

Of course, we could just use theft as a general word for a wrong action:

Stealing an object is theft.
Copying an ebook is theft. (of the potential income)
Breaking a window is theft. (of the utility of the window)
Identity theft is theft. (of the credulity of others?)
Breaking the speed limit is theft. (of the safety of others)
Arson is theft. (of the burnt property)
Murder is theft. (of the life cut short)

But, IMO, having different words for different wrong actions is useful. We shouldn't mix them up needlessly.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I think the public idea of theft permits this interpretation. so far as I know the idea of identify theft (a related theft idea) has no other name than theft at least in the news and public. Splitting hairs a lawyer knows that the statute has different consequences but for the public that is not the important issue (unless of course they are trying to beat the rap). Copyright infringement is not listed in the 10 commandments.

Dale

Good point Dale. These terms tend to get thrown around and stretched and applied in various ways (isn't English wonderful? ). Identity theft, music piracy, copyright infringement, .... certainly there are precise legal definitions of the terms, but I personally am more interested in the concepts.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

So you are saying that use of the word "theft" implies hatred of creative media?

It generally implies ignorance of the actual consequences of what they're calling for.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

I think the public idea of theft permits this interpretation. so far as I know the idea of identify theft (a related theft idea) has no other name than theft at least in the news and public.

Indentity theft isn't theft. It's "identity theft".

I did go on to say how copyright theft was separate to copyright infringement.

But I find I'm too late - a quick search for sources to back me up finds that the phrase has already been taken over and lost it's original meaning. Copyright theft (at least on web pages) is now synonymous with copyright infringement. Sigh...

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It really doesn't matter if it's a physical object I own or an item of intellectual property. If you take it without permission, that is stealing.

Is someone who hums an in-copyright tune a thief?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

... but I personally am more interested in the concepts.

I always find it easier to discuss concepts when all parties to the discussion can agree on definitions.

If we discuss copyright theft, and I mean fraudulently passing off anothers work as your own, including registering the copyright (in the US, at least), and you mean copyright infringement, we're not going to get very far.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is someone who hums an in-copyright tune a thief?

Under the letter of UK law, yes. However, it's non-prosecutable.

pdurrant - /agree

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Under the letter of UK law, yes. However, it's non-prosecutable.

They might have infringed copyright, but they're not a thief.

And humming the tune while being filmed might get them (or the film's producers) sued — if the tune is "Happy Birthday to You" and they haven't paid protection money to Warner Bros.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It seems to me that you (& others) who use theft to describe copyright infringement are seeking to redefine theft.
.

I don't want to define or redefine it as term at all -- especially not in a legal definition but as a concept as I already have.

Taking something of mine without my permission.

[CommanderROR]

Now that we have all agreed to disagree on what theft actually is... Why don't we go back to teh geo-restrictions thingy and maybe talk about what could be done to solve the problem? Where should the pressure be applied? Authors, Publishers, Governments or maybe the Vatikan?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by CommanderROR

Now that we have all agreed to disagree on what theft actually is... Why don't we go back to teh geo-restrictions thingy and maybe talk about what could be done to solve the problem? Where should the pressure be applied? Authors, Publishers, Governments or maybe the Vatikan?

I suspect we may need to get Extraterrestrials involved....