Comics piracy crackdown

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

There is no harm done when a COPY is made,...

Just to clarify, this is simply wrong. If you do not have the right to make that copy then the owner of the copyright is certainly harmed. You have taken something from the owner without their permission. This is theft as far as I'm concerned.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

About the only thing the various parties seem to agree on is that the laws need to change

I don't. There is nothing wrong with the laws that already exist.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't. There is nothing wrong with the laws that already exist.

Duly noted.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I bought an Astronauts compilation from mp3.com years ago that wasn't authorised, when I asked the singer about it he didn't know anything about it at all.

I think mp3.com was legal under Russian copyright law; they were duly licensed and paying fees to the Russian collecting agency. The problem was the (by nature) worldwide distribution of the files since they only had right for the Russian market. Or I might be thinking of some other, long defunct site. It's easy to mix them up.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Just out of interest though, what is it that people object to about copyright infringement? Is it that some people are getting something for nothing and you're not? It can't be about any perceived loss of income for writers, otherwise libraries and second hand book shops would generate the same level of hatred.

We could also go to the darknet and get something for nothing, so why should we be envious? And again, for the record, I am just a reader, not an author, no connection to authors, or publishers, or booksellers. I see injustice and I speak up, sorry if that offends you.

Authors still get paid from libraries, each library may even buy numerous copies and in many places authors even get a payment for each time someone borrows their books. Libraries are society's way of helping the poor afford books.

And it is the same for lending a physical book to friends or family, for buying a book at a second hand store. It is one single copy, the author has been paid for this copy and that is fine. A perfectly legal use. The problem with ebooks is that an unlimited number of illegal copies can be created and distributed all over the world in seconds. Filesharing is the problem for ebooks, not sharing a few copies among friends. Even with the stinking DRM you have the legal right to 4-6 simultaneous copies, so some sharing is accepted by the industry.

[stustaff]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The reason you are not getting it is that you are limiting you definition of what theft is. You are limiting it to only a physical item. I think it applies to much beyond that, theft of service, theft of intellectual PROPERTY, theft of ideas/concepts etc. In this new digital world where virtually everything is now stored in files on computers we need to change the way we think about property and the intellectual property(there's that word again) laws need to change to account for the brave new world. (there are many other aspects of intellectual property laws that should change as well such as the length, who can hold those rights (corporations should not) etc. etc.)

Anyway I'm going to bow out of that part of the discussion because it's just following the same path all of those threads do. If there are additional information on comics and copyright as per the o.p. I'm still interested in discussing it...

Enjoy!

Actually thats a better way of explaining it I'm more clear on what you mean now and I do see where you are coming from. but for me the word theft could never be used as you mean it! purely due to confusion! Theft for me means taking something from someone and the act of theft means it denies the owner access thats how i know its theft or has been stolen.

If I make a copy of something then the original owner is not denied use of the item, it may still be illegal if i didnt have permission but to me it is not theft anynore than borrowing that book from someone would be.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sounds like the typical legal bullshit. In the case of the original Superman comic it sounds like the creators signed over the rights, so I would not call it theft, but certainly not what I'd call moral or fair-play either. Of course this was the 1930's and this sort of thing was rampant in the music, literature, and other venues.

They were still doing things like that up until the mid to late 80s. If you look up any Alan Moore interviews you will see how badly he was treated.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

So now it is GBH as well as theft and rape? I agree with what others have said -- why not just call it copyright infringement? Everyone understands what that means, and nobody is likely to get confused.

Using a neutral term makes astroturfing difficult, don't those poor forum astroturfers deserve to be paid for their work? Why if there were an accepted neutral term their buisness model might fail and they'd have to go back to gold farming.

okay that was more than a little tongue in cheek, a neutral term shifts things from insulting and demonizing the opposition to debating them and making a valid point doesn't generate the same level of karma or sense of moral superiority.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Tip. Don't trust partisan pollsters if they have a bias on the topic it'll show in the results.

Have you ever met a pollster that is not partisan???

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Sharpness in expression is just the point. "Copyright violation" has lost its edge

I am sorry if it doesn't serve your agenda as well, it's still the expression that's routinely used by professionals, law makers and, in fact, common terminology (or should be, at the very least). I see no reason to use anything else.

since nowadays many tend to think that copying an author's work without his or her consent is fine

Are you seriously arguing that's because we're not calling it theft?

So, lacking a more suitable expression ...

Ah, but we don't, see? We got a perfectly suitable expression.

If you can coin a new phrase, that accurately expresses that such copying is harming the authors and that it is wrong, be my guest.

I quite like the example of "mind rape" somebody came up with a little earlier... Kidding.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

I think mp3.com was legal under Russian copyright law; they were duly licensed and paying fees to the Russian collecting agency. The problem was the (by nature) worldwide distribution of the files since they only had right for the Russian market. Or I might be thinking of some other, long defunct site. It's easy to mix them up.

No, that was allofmp3.com.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Just to clarify, this is simply wrong. If you do not have the right to make that copy then the owner of the copyright is certainly harmed. You have taken something from the owner without their permission. This is theft as far as I'm concerned.

No, you simply do not understand that there is nothing wrong about a copy itself and you do have the right to make it, you may not have the right to read it or distribute it, to transform it to expand on it but no one is harmed in any way by its mere existence, it is possible there could be harm form what is DONE with the copy but there cannot be harm in the act of making the copy.

Think of your bank accounts, no one wants other people digging around in their personal banking. If a million copies of my banking data were on your hard drive i would not be harmed until you looked at it and did something with that information. If you printed it out and filled your basement with copies I would not be harmed unless someone looked at those copies and then did something with what they found but the copies themselves are neutral until they're used for something.

Making a copy isn't even infringement. Copyright is a really really bad name, distributionright while it doesn't roll off the tongue is more descriptive
because rights holders don't and never did have control over the making of copies only what a person could do with them. To think that copying alone could be controlled is absurd, a partial copy enters your brain when it interacts with your sense of sight sound or touch.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We could also go to the darknet and get something for nothing, so why should we be envious? And again, for the record, I am just a reader, not an author, no connection to authors, or publishers, or booksellers. I see injustice and I speak up, sorry if that offends you.

Authors still get paid from libraries, each library may even buy numerous copies and in many places authors even get a payment for each time someone borrows their books. Libraries are society's way of helping the poor afford books.

What is the reason they couldn't be paid the same way for internet downloads? If all these unauthorised download sites can make money from free content, why is it beyond the capability of people who actually have the rights to distribute that content to do the same?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

I am sorry if it doesn't serve your agenda as well, it's still the expression that's routinely used by professionals, law makers and, in fact, common terminology (or should be, at the very least). I see no reason to use anything else.

You were the one who complained of lack of sharpness in expression.

Are you seriously arguing that's because we're not calling it theft?

Do you seriously believe that is what I was arguing? I was arguing that Kenny believes that using the word theft might help to change that cavalier attitude toward copyright infringement.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Have you ever met a pollster that is not partisan???

Not personally but I imagine one could be hired to polls on something they don't give a damn about. I don't give a damn who's running for mayor of Moscow or if they even have a mayor, I think if I spoke Russian I could take pretty unbiased poll on that imaginary election. I think I wouldn't try a poll run by the people for farming root vegetables, on what people think of turnips but if AP ran the poll I'd have little reason to doubt the results. Of course the question then becomes why the hell would I care what people think of turnips?