Secret Copyright Law Reported

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Not these specific laws, maybe, but there are constant pushes by the entertainment lobbies to get laws passed that DO prevent any and all types of copying for any purposes whatsoever. For instance, attempts to end the "fair use" doctrine: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/08...doch-vows.html

and attempts to close the "analog hole" with restrictions built into HDMI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-ba...ent_Protection

The various entertainment industries very much want not only control over every single viewing/listening/reading of their work, they want to be able to TRACK every use. Such as when Circuit City attempted to kill DVD with DIVX:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX

The powers-that-be in the entertainment industry are Orwellian thugs. And no number of laws and filters are going to keep their obsolete business model of artificial scarcity alive.

I'm not claiming that I know what will replace their artificial scarcity, futile copy-locking model. I don't know how content creators will manage to make money in the future. But I do know that the RIAA, MPAA, and their pet politicians will-- in the long term-- fail, dry up, and blow away.

IMO you and others like you are the reason that the powers that be in the entertainment industry have become Orwellian thugs in your eyes. If people like you did not break the law causing losses to the company, they would not have to take the actions that they have.

I know you don't consider it wrong, but IMO it is no different than if you go into a store and shoplift. Or see a car you like and just take one for you and others for your friends. If you did those things, you better believe that those "Orwellian thugs" would be after you.

I realize that on this site, my opinion here is going to be in the minority. However it is my opinion that it is theft and that it does hurt real people.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by scveteran

IMO you and others like you are the reason that the powers that be in the entertainment industry have become Orwellian thugs in your eyes. If people like you did not break the law causing losses to the company, they would not have to take the actions that they have.

I know you don't consider it wrong, but IMO it is no different than if you go into a store and shoplift. Or see a car you like and just take one for you and others for your friends. If you did those things, you better believe that those "Orwellian thugs" would be after you.

I realize that on this site, my opinion here is going to be in the minority. However it is my opinion that it is theft and that it does hurt real people.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I know you don't consider it wrong, but IMO it is no different than if you go into a store and shoplift. Or see a car you like and just take one for you and others for your friends. If you did those things, you better believe that those "Orwellian thugs" would be after you.

I so wish people would stop throwing out these completely wrong and deliberatly misleading examples.

If you copy someones property, you have a copy and so do they.
If you steal someones property, you now have it and they don't.

Copyright infringement (violating licence terms) is a completely different and distinct thing from theft (unlawfully taking something).

Of course, IANAL, blah blah blah...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

I so wish people would stop throwing out these completely wrong and deliberatly misleading examples.

If you copy someones property, you have a copy and so do they.
If you steal someones property, you now have it and they don't.

Copyright infringement (violating licence terms) is a completely different and distinct thing from theft (unlawfully taking something).

Of course, IANAL, blah blah blah...

I wish people would quit trying to muddy the waters with redefinitions of the concept.

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I wish people would quit trying to muddy the waters with redefinitions of the concept.

As I understand it, the legal systems in many countries clearly distinguish between theft and copyright infringment (which is not just copying btw. Things like unlicenced derivitive works and commercial use of educational licenced software also count)

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

True, but claiming copyright infringment is the same thing in every case is an attempt to muddy the waters with redefinitions of the concept

[kennyc]

The legalities are details. It's the concept that matters. The ethics, the morality.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The legalities are details. It's the concept that matters. The ethics, the morality.

The "concept" also includes specific permission for using copyrighted material without the creators permission under certain circumstances. Are you also going to claim that is stealing?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

The "concept" also includes specific permission for using copyrighted material without the creators permission under certain circumstances. Are you also going to claim that is stealing?

This argument is circular. I've been having it with people on here since I joined. Doesn't matter what you say, doesn't matter how logical you are, how obvious your point is, what the actual reailty is, they're still going to think that copying a file is the equivalent of stealing a baby from the cot of a starving mother .

Thankfully their ideas on copyright are about as real as a belief in a flat earth, creationism and a talented Dan Brown.

Share on, you crazy diamonds!!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This argument is circular. I've been having it with people on here since I joined. Doesn't matter what you say, doesn't matter how logical you are, how obvious your point is, what the actual reailty is, they're still going to think that copying a file is the equivalent of stealing a baby from the cot of a starving mother .

Thankfully their ideas on copyright are about as real as a belief in a flat earth, creationism and a talented Dan Brown.

Share on, you crazy diamondds!!

Doesn't make it any less true.

Those who say otherwise are just trying to justify theft.

I'll say it once more just for good measure.


If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

it really is that simple.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

If you take something that is mine without my permission, you have stolen from me and you are a thief.

If you adopt that approach it pretty much makes everyone a thief, and 'stealing' isn't that much of a big deal any more.

Hum a tune - you're a thief.
Download a book from MobileRead - you're a thief (unless you got permission from Kafka to take a copy of 'The Trial').
Have an unauthorised Harry Potter thought - you're a thief. etc. etc.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't make it any less true.

Those who say otherwise are just trying to justify theft.

I'll say it once more just for good measure.


If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

it really is that simple.

Nope, it isn't, no matter how many times you repeat it.

By the way, I have a buggy whip you might want to buy. It's going cheap.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't make it any less true.

Those who say otherwise are just trying to justify theft.

I'll say it once more just for good measure.


If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

it really is that simple.

One, if you still have a copy then nothing was taken.

And two, most of the people here who argue that infringement isn't theft still think infringement is wrong. The only reason we continue to argue the point is that it isn't stealing. It's wrong, but it's a different kind of wrong.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If you adopt that approach it pretty much makes everyone a thief, and 'stealing' isn't that much of a big deal any more.

Hum a tune - you're a thief.
Download a book from MobileRead - you're a thief (unless you got permission from Kafka to take a copy of 'The Trial').
Have an unauthorised Harry Potter thought - you're a thief. etc. etc.

Nope. The permission is granted by MR and the creators/publishers to download.

You have to read what I said, not what you want it to be.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't make it any less true.

Those who say otherwise are just trying to justify theft.

Nope, I'm just expressing my utter distaste for fearmongering.

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'll say it once more just for good measure.


If you take something of mine without my permission, you are a thief.

it really is that simple.

IANAL, but as I understand it, the law explicitly says you are wrong.

See "Fair Use" and parody.

And remember, "take" isn't the same as "copy" no matter how much some people would like us to think so.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

One, if you still have a copy then nothing was taken.

And two, most of the people here who argue that infringement isn't theft think infringement is wrong. The only reason we continue to argue the point is that it isn't stealing. It's wrong, but it's a different kind of wrong.

Thanks for phrasing it better than I ever could