Is this a pirate site?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It could conceivably be a trademark infringement, if the visual appearance of the car is a registered trademark.

Only if you tried to sell it and claimed it was an original. Building your own car for personal use doesn't fall under trademark law. As long as you make it clear that it's a clone, and not an original, when you sell it, it's not a problem either. I've seen lots of auctions where people were selling clones.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's the reality of piracy, yes, but I don't think it's the image of it in popular culture, which is more shaped by 1930s Hollywood "swashbuckling" films with Errol Flynn!

Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Very true, and don't you think that many of the people who use the word "piracy" do so because the image of the pirate as an "outlaw" has a certain romanticism in popular culture, and makes the act of taking someone's intellectual property without paying for it sound less sordid than it actually is?

Agree entirely - I suspect many of those who are happy to see themselves as "pirates" imagine themselves to be making some kind of stand against "the man", global capitalism, money grabbing corporations or some other bogey man. Another reason why we might want to give up the "pirate discourse" and replace it with something more helpful in understanding and unpicking the issues, (not sure the "theft discourse" is it though ).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, I would say just the opposite. Pirates were known for murdering, looting, and raping... etc, and were generally executed when caught. Not sure that really applies to copyright infringement.

Of course it does!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

The file sharers, I believe.

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

[bill_mchale]

Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.

1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).

2. Most of us also agree that there would be no ethical issue with making a digital copy of said work from your own purchased physical copy via scanning (or if you are a masochist manually typing it yourself).

3. The original question converges on whether it is illegal to download a copy of a book that you own a physical copy of. In other words is it unethical to take that short cut since the copy is being distributed illegally?

I think there is another aspect to consider that might shed some light on the discussion. Lets say you bought a book in paperback and decided to make a copy of it? You determined that it was difficult to scan the paperback without damaging it so you go to the public library and find a hardback copy. Would it be unethical to use that edition to make your copy? I see it as something of a halfway point between what is surely ethical and what may not be ethical.

BTW, one last point... earlier the argument was made that downloading from the site in question encouraged the owner of the site. That might be so, but downloading without actually paying him will actually increase his costs.... In a weird way, to many people using him for free could actually force him to shut down... Kind of ironic huh?

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Absolutely. You can do it already. There are various ways that an independent enthusiast can build their own clone of some popular collector cars, completely legally. The original company has no say in it, it's not a crime.

What law did you think it would fall under?

Actually, it might be. It depends on a number of factors. The most important being whether the replica is being passed off as the original car in question. In this hypothetical we are talking about an exact replica of the original car, which would include the use of the trademarks.

To put it in simple terms, if a new company was to start producing 2010 Toyota Camry's (it being the year 2010) you can be sure that Toyota would sue them and would win.

--
Bill

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean by "felony" - I don't think we use that word in Britain. If you tell me what it means, I'll tell you whether or not speeding is one!

Link: Felonies vs Misdemeanors

Felonies are "big crimes;" misdemeanors are "small crimes." (I think the federal/local split mentioned is inaccurate, but I am not a lawyer.)

Felonies are punishable by more than a year in prison, or by death. Misdemeanors are punishable by less than a year in jail (if it's more than a year, it's prison; they're different places) and/or a fine.

Infractions are smaller still--not punishable by incarceration at all, and often have small fines attached. Most infractions are local ordinance violations, and very few people believe they have anything to do with morality. (Parking violations are infractions. Doing business without a license can be an infraction.)

Parking in the wrong place: Infraction
Speeding; Reckless driving: Misdemeanor
Injuring or killing someone while driving: Felony

Exact details vary by state; there are also federal felonies. (DMCA violations are federal.)

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The file sharers, I believe.

The term "piracy" to refer to something that's unauthorised goes back a long time, at least 50-odd years to the days of "pirate radio stations" in the late 1950s. Did you have those in the US? Here in Europe, they were ships which anchored in international waters, and broadcast pop music, without getting permission from the countries to which they were broadcasting to use the radio frequencies in that way. Hence the "nautical connection".

It goes back a bit farther than that...1897 for this NYT article (which is out of copyright!)

[guyanonymous]

And once again - blame Canada

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

I suspect the concept comes from Bloom County's Oliver Wendell Jones, who popularized the idea of the "digital pirate" hacker. (I'd post links to images, but a quick search didn't turn up any of Oliver with his bandana and cutlass.) The pirate-as-Robin-Hood image appealed to hackers (break into rich corporate/oppressive government sites, liberate the data), and the pirate-as-criminal concept appealed to law enforcement personnel.

Almost nobody is objecting to the term "piracy;" they're arguing over the "true meaning" of piracy in this context. The memetic dispute is whether it means "dangerous criminals/thieves and looters" or "people living outside the law"--who are acting under their own code of ethics, rather than one inflicted on them by a society they perceive as stifling or outright oppressive.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.

1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).

2. Most of us also agree that there would be no ethical issue with making a digital copy of said work from your own purchased physical copy via scanning (or if you are a masochist manually typing it yourself).

3. The original question converges on whether it is illegal to download a copy of a book that you own a physical copy of. In other words is it unethical to take that short cut since the copy is being distributed illegally?

I think there is another aspect to consider that might shed some light on the discussion. Lets say you bought a book in paperback and decided to make a copy of it? You determined that it was difficult to scan the paperback without damaging it so you go to the public library and find a hardback copy. Would it be unethical to use that edition to make your copy? I see it as something of a halfway point between what is surely ethical and what may not be ethical.

BTW, one last point... earlier the argument was made that downloading from the site in question encouraged the owner of the site. That might be so, but downloading without actually paying him will actually increase his costs.... In a weird way, to many people using him for free could actually force him to shut down... Kind of ironic huh?

--
Bill

I suspect the "morality" involved with self-scanning is not morality, but throwing roadblocks in the path. To do a good scan/OCR/copyproof of a book takes 24-40 hours of labor. Most people won't go to that level of work, and if a few misguided people do, well, as long as they don't make that labor available for free (i.e. by uploading it), the moralists can live with it. They can't do too many books anyways....

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

should we de-criminalise speeding simply because a lot of people do it?

...Simple speeding (without other factors like running someone over) is not a criminal offence, it's a traffic offence. This is not a coincidence, and you don't get a criminal record for simply having points on your driving licence!

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Who are the ones that started pushing the terminology "piracy" to refer to copyright infringement. The industry or the file sharers. That'll give you your answer as to which image was being sought.

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

It goes back a bit farther than that...1897 for this NYT article (which is out of copyright!)

So, Shaggy was right - the "pirate discourse" is obviously an industry plot - always has been!

[guyanonymous]

We need a fist shake emoticon!

May be used to indicate rage at:

a) pirates
b) DRM
c) copyright
d) patents
e) 'the man'
f) industry
g) publishers
h) authors
etc...