Comics piracy crackdown

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Nothing is being taken, its being copied, to restrict copying is artificial. Pure and simple. Such a system has advantages and disadvantages. I could call taking my right to copy theft or i can call it rape I could probably find a way to call it murder. I'd rather argue why copyright laws as they stand are a problem and why patents need some reform (such as a public interest buyout fee).

You just sit and call people thieves. If you have something to say about copyright use a neutral term and say it because all you're doing right now is starting fights. I picture you sitting there grinning and laughing that you get a chance to fan the flames and piss people off while adding nothing tot he debate. And hey here's a bonus, infringement is descriptive, it doesn't get confused with embezzlement or shoplifting or larceny or fraud.

As I've told you before I will call it what it is. By using the term "Copying" you are just masking the act and making it seem trivial -- it's not. It's a big deal. Times need to change, laws need to change.

[J. Strnad]

Nothing is being taken, its being copied, to restrict copying is artificial.

I'm not sure what "copying is artificial" means.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

I'm not sure what "copying is artificial" means.

It means mother cats never teach their kittens to hunt and monkeys never imitate things they see, that copying anything never happens naturally.

or you could read the whole sentence where it says the act of restricting copying is artificial.

[Goshzilla]

Wait a sec, I was pretty sure Mp3.com was not in the business of piracy, heck from what I remembered, their catalog consisted of just independent artists posted by the artists themselves.

Napster and Kazaa though are completely different, since their users were trading pirated material.

[stustaff]

Im confused Theft means stealing something surely!

if I steal a comic book from a store then that is theft as I have denied them a sale of that item.

if I read the comic book a friend lent me instead of buying it myself thus denying the store a sale is that theft?

if I download the comic instead of buying it myself thus denying the store a sale is that theft?

in the latter two cases I have denied them a sale...IF I would have purchased it from a store.

If i had no plans to buy from the store ever then I have not denied them a sale so what exactly have I stolen?

If i take a photo of a statue in a paid for house/gardens and show it my friend and he doesnt bother going to the place to see it have I stolen the statue?

what about if I tell a joke I heard a comedian tell and then tell all my friends the joke, have I stolen it?

I tend to operate to my own conscience! I watch films and buy DVD's and subscribe to TV, and buy books and comics and Games. but i also borrow things from friends and read/watch downloaded stuff that I could never afford or just because its more convenient.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't care about legal terminalogy, most of it is artificial anyway, defined in a way that it it only applicable in the law.

What I care about is what people do an how it affects others. That's why taking something without permission is theft. Pure and simple. No one needs legal definitions or special definitions or terminology to look at the situation and see if for what it is -- theft.

So when Marvel and DC took people's creations and screwed them out of the money they should have got for them, what would you call that?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by stustaff

if I steal a comic book from a store then that is theft as I have denied them a sale of that item.

You took the physical item, yes. That's the very definition of theft.

if I read the comic book a friend lent me instead of buying it myself thus denying the store a sale is that theft?

No, it's using your friend's property with their permission. Perfectly acceptable.

if I download the comic instead of buying it myself thus denying the store a sale is that theft?

No, but it's possibly (probably) copyright infringement. Whether you were going to buy said item, or not, whether it'd be even legally available to you, or you could afford it, does not matter.

If i had no plans to buy from the store ever then I have not denied them a sale so what exactly have I stolen?

Nothing, but you have still infringed upon the publisher's copyright.

[athlonkmf]

It's a nice and spectacular article. But in reality, what does it matter?

The true distribution of comics is through other channels, and the distributors aren't earning from it. This guy is just stupid for doing what he did (trying to earn a free cookie from the work of others)

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So when Marvel and DC took people's creations and screwed them out of the money they should have got for them, what would you call that?

hmm, hypocrisy? I don't know the details of what you're talking about but if they're using characters they didn't come up with it sounds like fan fiction, do they try to stop other people from publishing fan fiction? I'll take a stab in the dark and guess the full answer will involve Marvel and DC being asshats somewhere in there.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So when Marvel and DC took people's creations and screwed them out of the money they should have got for them, what would you call that?

Not sure specifically what you are referring to, maybe if you fill in the details or give a specific incident.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stustaff

Im confused Theft means stealing something surely!

...

And the key in this is what is "something" and the rights that are associated with "something."

Some people feel that because it is easy to make a digital copy and there is no tangible object "other than a file" and the original still exists then hey, no harm done, copy away. The fact is that that file is property in the same sense as a paper book or video or cable bandwidth and if you don't have permission to take it .....

Just as in the subject and the o.p. the website did not have permission to do what they were doing with the property of the companies and have suffered the consequences.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Nothing is being taken, its being copied, to restrict copying is artificial. Pure and simple. Such a system has advantages and disadvantages. I could call taking my right to copy theft or i can call it rape I could probably find a way to call it murder. I'd rather argue why copyright laws as they stand are a problem and why patents need some reform (such as a public interest buyout fee).

You just sit and call people thieves. If you have something to say about copyright use a neutral term and say it because all you're doing right now is starting fights. I picture you sitting there grinning and laughing that you get a chance to fan the flames and piss people off while adding nothing tot he debate. And hey here's a bonus, infringement is descriptive, it doesn't get confused with embezzlement or shoplifting or larceny or fraud.

Whatever you call it, you are hurting someone and are trying to explain it away, to justify it. You are trying to make the act of hurting someone sound trivial. That is why Kenny gets upset.

Anyway, for the moment these repeated discussions of this subject matter are not advancing any consensus.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So when Marvel and DC took people's creations and screwed them out of the money they should have got for them, what would you call that?

I would call that a case for those hungry lawyers out there.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Some people feel that because it is easy to make a digital copy and there is no tangible object "other than a file"

A file on your computer is not a tangible object, at all. It is data.

and the original still exists then hey, no harm done, copy away.

Actually, it's not quite as simple. It's just that copyright infringement is not "theft", it's, well, infringing upon other people's copyright. And, yes, making a copy (unlawful as it may be) and stealing a tangible object are conceptually quite different and consequently warrant separate terms.

Except, it seems, in your somewhat narrow view of things. Duly noted.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Whatever you call it, you are hurting someone

That is, in some cases at least, open to debate, but let's not go into this here. It's a question of terminology, and I for one feel we should always strive for sharpness in expression. Might just be me, of course.