Copyright Law and stuffs

[Plu]

I don't think anyone wants to argue that it's legal, and whether or not it's "right" is iffy (I've never seen a really solid argument on how it can be theft if there is no resource nor monetary loss on the side of the victim, for example. And in most cases of piracy, this is exactly what is happening. Yet the main argument is still "its theft", which is weird to me.)

What matters is that people pirate, will continue to pirate, and that the public on pirating is still on the side of "yeah, just pirate it". Since what is considered right and wrong is mostly still a matter of public opinion (or did we suddenly start believing in objective morals? :P) I guess it's just a grey area, not a case of "wrong".

[AllPurposeAtheist]

If the law needs changing then by all means change it, but copyright and patents exist for very good reasons. I'd prefer they change, but making theft legal ain't happening.

[Plu]

You keep calling it theft, though. But you haven't really convinced anyone that it is. I don't call downloading something I wouldn't have bought otherwise stealing. Nothing is lost on the side of the company I pirate it from.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Wrong..The burden of proof that it's theft isn't on me. Law is pretty clear what constitutes theft. The burden is for you to convince legislators theft isn't theft in this case.
You want it free and I get that. I want a free steak and a big titted waitress to serve it in her knees in the nude.  =D> ...err... *on* her knees.  :-k

[Plu]

Theft:

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Piracy doesn't apply because you don't deprive the rightful owner of the property.

Larceny:

Larceny is a crime involving the unlawful taking of the personal property of another person.

Piracy might apply... except...

Larceny is a crime against possession. Furthermore, it has two elements which must be met, the actual taking of the property, even if momentarily (actus reus) and the culpable intent to deprive another of their property (mens rea).

It doesn't meet the second requirement...


Saying "it's theft because the law says so" is nice, but the problem is that even the law isn't very clear on the whole issue. The whole story is very, very complicated, and the fact that you're approaching it as simple-minded as you do is one of the major reasons that it doesn't fly with most people. Normal property laws (like you're trying to apply) simply don't work for it. Trying to apply them it's exactly what made this mess.

There is no common, lawful definition of "theft" that involves "the act of copying something without taking any resources from the company in question."
In fact; digital distribution should have its own lawbook because it's 100% incompatible with physical theft laws. An idea and a digital object are simply not comparable to a physical object.

Question for you. If someone bought (legally) all the materials to build a Ferrari, and then bought said Ferrari in his own garage, using his own legal tools, would you then call that Ferrari "stolen"? Because that's effectively what copying digital content is. You are just rebuilding something someone else built, using your own (legal) materials. It's just that the proces for copying digitals things is much easier. (At least until 3d printers get a bit better, then we'll get some more interesting questions like these.)

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm not a legal scholar so I'll stick with my humble, simplistic views.  
I'm not gonna call the cops on anyone or anything, but till this is all settled,  and someday it probably will I'll error on the side of caution and not steal copyrighted materials not because I'm a prude, but because I have an allergy to iron bars in lieu of doors. If you feel so confident then open a piracy store at the local shopping mall and let us know how that turns out.  :-?

[Plu]

Even the "humble, simplistic views" should be able to conclude that it's not exactly following any of the general definitions of "theft" and deserves a term of its own.

And if I lived in a country by the corporations, for the corporations, I'd also be a lot more careful than I am now. But while saying that piracy is illegal is perfectly correct, saying that it's theft is very much iffy at best and saying that it costs companies money is, according to all the research done on the topic, simply a lie.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Meh..the same could be said of property rights as in land.  If you own a big empty field me pitching a tent and living on it deprives you of nothing, but law does look at property rights and would very likely evict me. At issue is also intellectual property. A line needs drawn so it's not so murky. I'm pretty sure that if you spend years perfecting a new bit of software that changed how everyone lives and your ability hinges on being able to market it then someone else copies it and distributes it free all around the world with you receiving nothing you're not going to be all that happy.

[Plu]

If you own a big empty field me pitching a tent and living on it deprives you of nothing, but law does look at property rights and would very likely evict me.

Which, assuming an empty plot of land that isn't being used for anything, sounds really dumb and up for improvement to me. Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's automatically good and just.

[Johan]

Even with all the piracy going on, the entertainment industry is still running record profits. It's not cutting into the salaries of workers.

I bet these folks would disagree.

//http://m.aux.tv/news/100455-7-royalty-cheques-that-ll-make-you-lose-your-faith-in-the-music-industry

[Johan]

Theft:

In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Piracy doesn't apply because you don't deprive the rightful owner of the property.

Oh for fuck sake. The property is intellectual. The owner of any intellectual property has rights to it. Those rights are generally reserved. If you acquire someone else's intellectual property without access rights being granted, you are committing theft. This really isn't all that hard to understand.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Then we're being purely subjective about the whole thing. I'd love to decide which laws I have to obey and which ones I don't and to a degree we all make those choices every day.  People also go to jail and court making choices that they don't agree with. I know I've done just that more than one time.  #-o

[Plu]

Even with all the piracy going on, the entertainment industry is still running record profits. It's not cutting into the salaries of workers.

I bet these folks would disagree.

//http://m.aux.tv/news/100455-7-royalty-cheques-that-ll-make-you-lose-your-faith-in-the-music-industry

There are two problems here... the first is that this article is about royalty checks from paid services, not piracy. The second is with this piece of the article:

Last year, David Byrne and Thom Yorke decried the injustices of services like Spotify and Pandora, claiming that they devalued the work of musicians. And they weren't wrong: Cracker / Camper Van Beethoven frontman David Lowery shared the above pic, which displayed that "Low" was streamed more than 1.1 million times on Pandora. The payment? $16.89.

The problems wasn't with piracy, it's with a company that decided to pay less than $20 for a song that was streamed over a million times. That means the problem basically lies with the big corporation that sets the rates. Even youtube pays out considerably more for that.

(Even the article itself says "lose faith in the music industry")

[SGOS]

//http://m.aux.tv/news/100455-7-royalty-cheques-that-ll-make-you-lose-your-faith-in-the-music-industry

There are two problems here... the first is that this article is about royalty checks from paid services, not piracy. The second is with this piece of the article:

Last year, David Byrne and Thom Yorke decried the injustices of services like Spotify and Pandora, claiming that they devalued the work of musicians. And they weren't wrong: Cracker / Camper Van Beethoven frontman David Lowery shared the above pic, which displayed that "Low" was streamed more than 1.1 million times on Pandora. The payment? $16.89.

The problems wasn't with piracy, it's with a company that decided to pay less than $20 for a song that was streamed over a million times. That means the problem basically lies with the big corporation that sets the rates. Even youtube pays out considerably more for that.

I think you may have understated your case.  The article painted an uglier picture of corporate greed than I expected.  I suspect the article had a bias.  But as with most corporations, it sounds like the music industry will fuck over anyone smaller than themselves to line their pockets at anyone's expense.  It's Capitalism in America.  

When it comes to justifying piracy laws, the industry will point to poor starving musicians as if they give a rat's ass about the musicians themselves.  I've always suspected it's really all about corporate board rooms and executive take home bonuses.  The laws are put into place for a reason, and I would suspect the real reason is to protect corporate profit rather than fairness and sharing.  All laws justify themselves as fairness issues, but you know as well as anyone else, they are mostly about campaign contributions from wealthy donors.

Still, the laws are real and personal piracy is a risk.  Even if you reject the moral arguments, it's a risk.

[Plu]

Oh my, I think I really have understated my case...

This paints an even grimmer picture, where many artists basically earn nothing at all, even when they score a huge hit.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201007 ... 0186.shtml