I'm not sure if those figures are entirely correct.
My band has tracks up on iTunes, apparently we get almost every cent of every track sold (each one sold @ $1.69 I believe).
My band has tracks up on iTunes, apparently we get almost every cent of every track sold (each one sold @ $1.69 I believe).
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.Bertster7 wrote:
It can be, but is not restricted to that. Definitions of what is stealing are broad and to claim that internet piracy is not stealing is just silly.Finray wrote:
Stealing is removing the object from the person(s) possession.Morpheus wrote:
?Winston_Churchill wrote:
For one, its not stealing. Pirating != Stealing. I'm not saying its morally perfect, but its not stealing.
How so?both involve taking what is not rightfully yours.... so...stealing
Main Entry: 1steal
Pronunciation: \ˈstēl\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): stole \ˈstōl\; sto·len \ˈstō-lən\; steal·ing
Etymology: Middle English stelen, from Old English stelan; akin to Old High German stelan to steal
Date: before 12th century
intransitive verb 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
File sharing Piracy is copying the object and distributing that copy.Unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another persons property (a mens rea of dishonesty just means they haven't done it because they don't have the mental faculty to realise they shouldn't - children, mental people etc.). Intellectual Property is still property.The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
Not viewing, unorthorised acquisition and ownership of property.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.Bertster7 wrote:
It can be, but is not restricted to that. Definitions of what is stealing are broad and to claim that internet piracy is not stealing is just silly.Finray wrote:
Stealing is removing the object from the person(s) possession.
File sharing Piracy is copying the object and distributing that copy.Unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another persons property (a mens rea of dishonesty just means they haven't done it because they don't have the mental faculty to realise they shouldn't - children, mental people etc.). Intellectual Property is still property.The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
You don't just stream every mp3 or movie you've watched on your pc, do you?
You never own the material - you just copy it. If you claimed ownership of it, that'd be a whole different can of worms, but you don't typically claim ownership of anything you download. Unauthorised acquisition, or copying in normal speak, is also not stealing. When you talk of 'unauthorised' acquisition, the 'unauthorised' part is only so because it is deemed to be so by law. The same system of laws also recognises that this doesn't constitute theft.Jaekus wrote:
Not viewing, unorthorised acquisition and ownership of property.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.Bertster7 wrote:
It can be, but is not restricted to that. Definitions of what is stealing are broad and to claim that internet piracy is not stealing is just silly.Finray wrote:
Stealing is removing the object from the person(s) possession.
File sharing Piracy is copying the object and distributing that copy.
Unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another persons property (a mens rea of dishonesty just means they haven't done it because they don't have the mental faculty to realise they shouldn't - children, mental people etc.). Intellectual Property is still property.
You don't just stream every mp3 or movie you've watched on your pc, do you?
then how come i can't boot into windows 7 at the moment? i copied it . . .
Because you did not purchase a license. The license is tangible, the program is not. If you pirate a license, that would be theft.burnzz wrote:
then how come i can't boot into windows 7 at the moment? i copied it . . .
Of course you own it. It's just silly to say otherwise.mikkel wrote:
You never own the material - you just copy it. If you claimed ownership of it, that'd be a whole different can of worms, but you don't typically claim ownership of anything you download. Unauthorised acquisition, or copying in normal speak, is also not stealing. When you talk of 'unauthorised' acquisition, the 'unauthorised' part is only so because it is deemed to be so by law. The same system of laws also recognises that this doesn't constitute theft.Jaekus wrote:
Not viewing, unorthorised acquisition and ownership of property.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.
You don't just stream every mp3 or movie you've watched on your pc, do you?
Do you own your copy of BC2, if you bought it via Steam?
Also, have a read up on copyright law (I studied it about 10 years ago as part of my music business studies). It clearly states (read in bold, 5th paragraph):
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringementCopyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.
For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is also commonly referred to as piracy. An early reference to piracy in the context of copyright infringement was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel The True-Born Englishman that "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]. The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]
The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[4][5] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it is pejorative and unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity,[6] though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.[7]
Duplication of a CD or other recorded media containing copyright material without permission of the copyright holder may be a form of copyright infringement, dependent on local laws.
Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material and sharing of recorded music over the Internet, often in the form of MP3 files, is another form of infringement, even after the demise of Napster and a series of infringement suits brought by the RIAA.
Copyright infringement is theft, regardless if I print off a bunch of CDs and sell them, or if I distribute the same via digital media.
You're trying to separate physical reproduction and electronic reproduction as two different things, when they really aren't.
Last edited by Jaekus (2010-04-19 17:22:56)
No. I don't. Nor would I if I had bought the physical DVDs. You don't buy the product - you buy a license to use it.Jaekus wrote:
Of course you own it. It's just silly to say otherwise.mikkel wrote:
You never own the material - you just copy it. If you claimed ownership of it, that'd be a whole different can of worms, but you don't typically claim ownership of anything you download. Unauthorised acquisition, or copying in normal speak, is also not stealing. When you talk of 'unauthorised' acquisition, the 'unauthorised' part is only so because it is deemed to be so by law. The same system of laws also recognises that this doesn't constitute theft.Jaekus wrote:
Not viewing, unorthorised acquisition and ownership of property.
You don't just stream every mp3 or movie you've watched on your pc, do you?
Do you own your copy of BC2, if you bought it via Steam?
The source you linked specifically outlines how copyright law distinguishes between infringement and theft. Read the section "Comparison to theft."Jaekus wrote:
Also, have a read up on copyright law (I studied it about 10 years ago as part of my music business studies). It clearly states (read in bold, 5th paragraph):Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringementCopyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works covered by copyright law, in a way that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.
For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is also commonly referred to as piracy. An early reference to piracy in the context of copyright infringement was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel The True-Born Englishman that "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]. The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]
The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[4][5] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it is pejorative and unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity,[6] though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.[7]
Duplication of a CD or other recorded media containing copyright material without permission of the copyright holder may be a form of copyright infringement, dependent on local laws.
Unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material and sharing of recorded music over the Internet, often in the form of MP3 files, is another form of infringement, even after the demise of Napster and a series of infringement suits brought by the RIAA.
Copyright infringement is theft, regardless if I print off a bunch of CDs and sell them, or if I distribute the same via digital media.
You're trying to separate physical reproduction and electronic reproduction as two different things, when they really aren't.
What point are you even trying to make here?
Theft, infringement, it's still breaking the law.
If you're just arguing semantics I think you're missing the point of the thread.
Theft, infringement, it's still breaking the law.
If you're just arguing semantics I think you're missing the point of the thread.
Last edited by Jaekus (2010-04-19 17:50:26)
Whether or not copyright infringement is stealing was never the point of the thread. It is a somewhat off-topic area of discussion.Jaekus wrote:
What point are you even trying to make here?
Theft, infringement, it's still breaking the law.
If you're just arguing semantics I think you're missing the point of the thread.
Theft and infringement are two very different things. To argue that it's still "breaking the law" would be missing the point of the discussion, as it doesn't address whether or not law is being broken, but whether or not copyright infringement is stealing. You can't just bring walls of text, and practical examples to the thread arguing that infringement is theft, and then throw it off as being irrelevant and semantic when you can't maintain your position.
Copyright infringement is not theft. Nor is it stealing. Copyright law, and intellectual property in general rests in the very concept that the material and property is intangible, and cannot be stolen.
I think it's a little stupid to think the definition of stealing is so narrow that it doesn't encompass this. Viewing is different to obtaining a copy of something, which you can watch whenever you choose.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.Bertster7 wrote:
It can be, but is not restricted to that. Definitions of what is stealing are broad and to claim that internet piracy is not stealing is just silly.Finray wrote:
Stealing is removing the object from the person(s) possession.
File sharing Piracy is copying the object and distributing that copy.Unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another persons property (a mens rea of dishonesty just means they haven't done it because they don't have the mental faculty to realise they shouldn't - children, mental people etc.). Intellectual Property is still property.The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
1, 2 and 3 all apply in this instance.steal
/stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3.
to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4.
to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5.
Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6.
Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7.
to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.
–verb (used without object)
8.
to commit or practice theft.
9.
to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight.
10.
to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by.
11.
Baseball. (of a base runner) to advance a base without the help of a walk or batted ball.
–noun
12.
Informal. an act of stealing; theft.
13.
Informal. the thing stolen; booty.
14.
Informal. something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40.
15.
Baseball. the act of advancing a base by stealing.
—Idiom
16.
steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.
The whole notion that stealing has a narrow and precise definition is pure nonsense.
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men. It seems pointless and semantic to argue to either effect. The pertinent aspects are that copyright infringement isn't theft, and that the laws establishing property rights to the media being discussed specifically recognise that the property cannot be stolen.Bertster7 wrote:
I think it's a little stupid to think the definition of stealing is so narrow that it doesn't encompass this. Viewing is different to obtaining a copy of something, which you can watch whenever you choose.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.Bertster7 wrote:
It can be, but is not restricted to that. Definitions of what is stealing are broad and to claim that internet piracy is not stealing is just silly.Finray wrote:
Stealing is removing the object from the person(s) possession.
File sharing Piracy is copying the object and distributing that copy.
Unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another persons property (a mens rea of dishonesty just means they haven't done it because they don't have the mental faculty to realise they shouldn't - children, mental people etc.). Intellectual Property is still property.1, 2 and 3 all apply in this instance.steal
/stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3.
to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4.
to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5.
Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6.
Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7.
to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.
–verb (used without object)
8.
to commit or practice theft.
9.
to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight.
10.
to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by.
11.
Baseball. (of a base runner) to advance a base without the help of a walk or batted ball.
–noun
12.
Informal. an act of stealing; theft.
13.
Informal. the thing stolen; booty.
14.
Informal. something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40.
15.
Baseball. the act of advancing a base by stealing.
—Idiom
16.
steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.
The whole notion that stealing has a narrow and precise definition is pure nonsense.
What if I saw a painting, liked it, painted the exact same one for myself and hung it in my room. Is that stealing?
Imo,music Companies just need to find a scapegoat on how shitty their music is becoming.
No you couldn't. What would your basis for that be?mikkel wrote:
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men.Bertster7 wrote:
I think it's a little stupid to think the definition of stealing is so narrow that it doesn't encompass this. Viewing is different to obtaining a copy of something, which you can watch whenever you choose.mikkel wrote:
Well, if you sneak into a cinema without paying, you're "using" another person's property, but the crime is trespassing, not theft. You aren't deemed to have stolen anything, despite using facilities without permission. I think it's a little facetious to argue the definition of stealing to be so broad that it encompasses the unauthorised viewing of property.1, 2 and 3 all apply in this instance.steal
/stil/ Show Spelled [steel] Show IPA ,verb,stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.
to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.
to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3.
to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4.
to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5.
Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6.
Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7.
to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.
–verb (used without object)
8.
to commit or practice theft.
9.
to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight.
10.
to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by.
11.
Baseball. (of a base runner) to advance a base without the help of a walk or batted ball.
–noun
12.
Informal. an act of stealing; theft.
13.
Informal. the thing stolen; booty.
14.
Informal. something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40.
15.
Baseball. the act of advancing a base by stealing.
—Idiom
16.
steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.
The whole notion that stealing has a narrow and precise definition is pure nonsense.
"If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is" - that is the dictionary definition of stealing. It is what stealing is. It's not my interpretation of it. It is fact. It's not subjective. It's not what you feel stealing ought to be defined as, it is what it is defined as. It couldn't be much more clear cut.
The pertinent aspect is the meaning of the word in a literal, not legal (which, as has been pointed out earlier, varies around the world), context.mikkel wrote:
It seems pointless and semantic to argue to either effect. The pertinent aspects are that copyright infringement isn't theft, and that the laws establishing property rights to the media being discussed specifically recognise that the property cannot be stolen.
It's stealing someone elses idea.Winston_Churchill wrote:
What if I saw a painting, liked it, painted the exact same one for myself and hung it in my room. Is that stealing?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-04-20 13:24:21)
So you would find it appropriate to charge someone for copyright infringement for something like that?Bertster7 wrote:
It's stealing someone elses idea.Winston_Churchill wrote:
What if I saw a painting, liked it, painted the exact same one for myself and hung it in my room. Is that stealing?
No.Winston_Churchill wrote:
So you would find it appropriate to charge someone for copyright infringement for something like that?Bertster7 wrote:
It's stealing someone elses idea.Winston_Churchill wrote:
What if I saw a painting, liked it, painted the exact same one for myself and hung it in my room. Is that stealing?
I haven't made any wild statements about what I think should or shouldn't be done. I've just said what stealing means.
It would be plagiarism anyway, not copyright infringement. How many paintings are copyrighted?
Wait, I called you on arguing semantics on the same point, but now you're pulling the semantics card? Isn't that a bit of a double standard?mikkel wrote:
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men. It seems pointless and semantic to argue to either effect. The pertinent aspects are that copyright infringement isn't theft, and that the laws establishing property rights to the media being discussed specifically recognise that the property cannot be stolen.
Also, from the paragraph from the Wiki link above:
A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[59]
Last edited by Jaekus (2010-04-21 06:51:59)
I have no idea to be honest lol. But I would find nothing at all wrong with doing such a thing.Bertster7 wrote:
No.Winston_Churchill wrote:
So you would find it appropriate to charge someone for copyright infringement for something like that?Bertster7 wrote:
It's stealing someone elses idea.
I haven't made any wild statements about what I think should or shouldn't be done. I've just said what stealing means.
It would be plagiarism anyway, not copyright infringement. How many paintings are copyrighted?
My bad, I misread that example when I went through it.Bertster7 wrote:
No you couldn't. What would your basis for that be?mikkel wrote:
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men.Bertster7 wrote:
I think it's a little stupid to think the definition of stealing is so narrow that it doesn't encompass this. Viewing is different to obtaining a copy of something, which you can watch whenever you choose.
1, 2 and 3 all apply in this instance.
The whole notion that stealing has a narrow and precise definition is pure nonsense.
Within traditional context, sure, but I disagree with the application of the term when it deals with acquiring property which cannot be subject to theft. I'd prefer verbosity to ambiguity whenever possible, especially when applying traditional terms to modern situations. It is also my impression that Winston didn't argue against every conceicvable definition of 'stealing', but rather the definitions that deal with tangible property.Bertster7 wrote:
"If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is" - that is the dictionary definition of stealing. It is what stealing is. It's not my interpretation of it. It is fact. It's not subjective. It's not what you feel stealing ought to be defined as, it is what it is defined as. It couldn't be much more clear cut.
The article, and subject of the thread is American-centric. It doesn't really, in that context, matter how copyright law varies elsewhere. Am I really to understand that all of this is nothing more than one big argument about how broadly or narrowly applicable a dictionary definition of a word is, when that word was obviously applied to a specific definition. In tech?Bertster7 wrote:
The pertinent aspect is the meaning of the word in a literal, not legal (which, as has been pointed out earlier, varies around the world), context.mikkel wrote:
It seems pointless and semantic to argue to either effect. The pertinent aspects are that copyright infringement isn't theft, and that the laws establishing property rights to the media being discussed specifically recognise that the property cannot be stolen.
No, it isn't. You didn't 'call' me on arguing semantics on the same point. We were discussing whether or not copyright infringement is theft in the legal sense, and what you 'called' me on was explaining to you the very significant difference between copyright infringement and theft.Jaekus wrote:
Wait, I called you on arguing semantics on the same point, but now you're pulling the semantics card? Isn't that a bit of a double standard?mikkel wrote:
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men. It seems pointless and semantic to argue to either effect. The pertinent aspects are that copyright infringement isn't theft, and that the laws establishing property rights to the media being discussed specifically recognise that the property cannot be stolen.
The quoted reply is suggesting that it is both pointless and semantic to apply the entire spectrum of definition to the use of the word in a sentence, when the use of that word was apparently limited to the definitions applicable to the context of the topic.
The difference should be immediately apparent.
Let's make a deal. When you address the vast bulk of the section of the article from which you took your quotation, then I'll tell you why the part you chose to quote has absolutely zero relevance to our discussion. Also please decide whether or not you wish to take part in this debate. You can't go from participating, to dismissing, and then back to participating. Particularly not without addressing the points you omitted to address in your dismissal.Jaekus wrote:
Also, from the paragraph from the Wiki link above:A British Government's report, Digital Britain, characterizes online piracy as a form of theft: "Unlawful downloading or uploading, whether via peer-to-peer sites or other means, is effectively a civil form of theft."[59]
Last edited by mikkel (2010-04-21 09:37:37)
I would disagree. There are two articles in the OP, one of which is German.mikkel wrote:
My bad, I misread that example when I went through it.Bertster7 wrote:
No you couldn't. What would your basis for that be?mikkel wrote:
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men.Within traditional context, sure, but I disagree with the application of the term when it deals with acquiring property which cannot be subject to theft. I'd prefer verbosity to ambiguity whenever possible, especially when applying traditional terms to modern situations. It is also my impression that Winston didn't argue against every conceicvable definition of 'stealing', but rather the definitions that deal with tangible property.Bertster7 wrote:
"If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is" - that is the dictionary definition of stealing. It is what stealing is. It's not my interpretation of it. It is fact. It's not subjective. It's not what you feel stealing ought to be defined as, it is what it is defined as. It couldn't be much more clear cut.The article, and subject of the thread is American-centric. It doesn't really, in that context, matter how copyright law varies elsewhere. Am I really to understand that all of this is nothing more than one big argument about how broadly or narrowly applicable a dictionary definition of a word is, when that word was obviously applied to a specific definition. In tech?Bertster7 wrote:
The pertinent aspect is the meaning of the word in a literal, not legal (which, as has been pointed out earlier, varies around the world), context.mikkel wrote:
It seems pointless and semantic to argue to either effect. The pertinent aspects are that copyright infringement isn't theft, and that the laws establishing property rights to the media being discussed specifically recognise that the property cannot be stolen.
When saying something is or isn't stealing, the meaning of the word is quite important. Dictionary definitions give you exactly that, the meaning of the word. It is perfectly reasonable and correct to call illegal downloading stealing. The argument of "Ah, but it isn't stealing because you duplicate it, so it doesn't deprive anyone of anything" doesn't really hold much water.
Under the British legal system copyright infringement is a civil offence. Illegal downloading however is a criminal offence, since you make a copy of it (streaming is not covered by this), for distributing these copies you can be charged with distribution of stolen goods.
Both covering the same findings by the United States Government Accountability Office.Bertster7 wrote:
I would disagree. There are two articles in the OP, one of which is German.mikkel wrote:
My bad, I misread that example when I went through it.Bertster7 wrote:
No you couldn't. What would your basis for that be?mikkel wrote:
If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is, then as far as I can tell, you could equally use example number three to argue that women are the property of their men.Within traditional context, sure, but I disagree with the application of the term when it deals with acquiring property which cannot be subject to theft. I'd prefer verbosity to ambiguity whenever possible, especially when applying traditional terms to modern situations. It is also my impression that Winston didn't argue against every conceicvable definition of 'stealing', but rather the definitions that deal with tangible property.Bertster7 wrote:
"If you accept such a wide interpretation of what stealing is" - that is the dictionary definition of stealing. It is what stealing is. It's not my interpretation of it. It is fact. It's not subjective. It's not what you feel stealing ought to be defined as, it is what it is defined as. It couldn't be much more clear cut.The article, and subject of the thread is American-centric. It doesn't really, in that context, matter how copyright law varies elsewhere. Am I really to understand that all of this is nothing more than one big argument about how broadly or narrowly applicable a dictionary definition of a word is, when that word was obviously applied to a specific definition. In tech?Bertster7 wrote:
The pertinent aspect is the meaning of the word in a literal, not legal (which, as has been pointed out earlier, varies around the world), context.
The meaning of a word is important, yes, and for a word with several meanings, the specific intended meaning is even more important. As far as I can tell from Winston's initial posts, he specifically addressed the definitions relevant to tangible property. In that sense, copyright infringement certainly isn't stealing. In the sense of 'stealing' an idea, yes, infringement might be considered to be stealing, but in the context of the topic of the thread, that doesn't seem very relevant. The topic concerns the entertainment industry's complaint that it allegedly loses tangible profit to piracy; not that their ideas are being 'stolen.'Bertster7 wrote:
When saying something is or isn't stealing, the meaning of the word is quite important. Dictionary definitions give you exactly that, the meaning of the word. It is perfectly reasonable and correct to call illegal downloading stealing. The argument of "Ah, but it isn't stealing because you duplicate it, so it doesn't deprive anyone of anything" doesn't really hold much water.
This isn't the case in the U.S., but I would still be interested if you could direct me towards the relevant U.K. legislation. I'd like to know what the difference between copying a copywritten material, and infringing on copyright is thought to be.Bertster7 wrote:
Under the British legal system copyright infringement is a civil offence. Illegal downloading however is a criminal offence, since you make a copy of it (streaming is not covered by this), for distributing these copies you can be charged with distribution of stolen goods.
I didn't even really read the article but notice the polarity with this and the OP? Not that I agree with this statement from the GAO.GAO wrote:
Counterfeit or pirated products that act as substitutes for genuine goods can have a wide range of negative effects on industries, according to experts we spoke with and literature we reviewed. These sources further noted that the economic effects vary widely among industries and among companies within an industry. The most commonly identified effect cited was lost sales, which leads to decreased revenues and/or market share. Many industries lose sales because of consumers’ purchases of counterfeit and pirated goods, particularly if the consumer purchased a counterfeit when intending to purchase a genuine product. In such cases, the industry may lose sales in direct proportion to the number of counterfeit products that the deceived consumers purchased. Industries in which consumers knowingly purchase counterfeits as a substitute for the genuine good may also experience lost sales. For example, recording companies have lost sales on a wide scale as a result of pirated music distributed over the Internet and producers of high-end fashion goods have lost sales from purchases of counterfeit goods made to look similar to genuine products.
Lost revenues can also occur when lower-priced counterfeit and pirated goods pressure producers or IP owners to reduce prices of genuine goods. In some industries, such as the audiovisual sector, marketing strategies must be adjusted to minimize the impact of counterfeiting on lost revenues. Movie studios that use time-related marketing strategies—introducing different formats of a movie after certain periods of time—
I think copyright laws seriously need to be looked at. Should ideas be copyrighted? I don't think so. If you really want to copyright an idea, the only real practical way of doing it is to just keep it to yourself. Ideas are constantly being improved and built on, no need to copyright other people's work, no matter how small, as yours.
I support creative commons, copyleft, open source etc. =]
I have a whole bookmark folder dedicated to private torrent sites.
I'm such a horrible person.
I'm such a horrible person.