#5931146, By ploder Are the Net Police Coming for You? (Panorama 15 March at 8.30pm)

  • ploder 15 Mar 2010 21:46:26 243 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    heyyo! wrote:
    ploder wrote:
    If you still doubt this then let me ask you this: What has been stolen?

    A copy of the original material.

    Oh dear. They did not 'steal' a copy. They made a copy.

    FWB wrote:
    heyyo! wrote:
    ploder wrote:
    If you still doubt this then let me ask you this: What has been stolen?

    A copy of the original material.

    Well not just that... money.

    They did not 'steal' any money. They did not put their hands in the pocket of the person who made it and pull out a crisp 20. They made a copy of it. You could try arguing that the rights holder 'lost' money but that would be a flawed argument too as you would have to prove that but for the illegal copying they would have gone out and bought the content.


    Calling it "theft" is "demonizing" it, huh?
    Yes, because people who should know better use the term 'theft' when it isn't true. The intention behind that is to caste people infringing copyright as 'thieves'. They are not thieves, they are people who have copied something without permission.

    This already implies that copyright infringement is somehow less bad
    The issue is not whether it is 'less bad'. It is whether those breaking the law are thieves (ie have committed a theft) They have not.

    The term "theft" does the job well enough, it's criminologically similar.
    But it is not lawful.

    Indeed, theft of a basically infinitely reproducible, as such wortless object like a DVD is indeed much closer related to copyright infringement than it is to theft of a single, irreplaceable object.
    You have confused the issue. It is irrelevant how reproducible a physical object is as the law in that case would deem people counterfeiting them as 'passing off' or some such law related to PHYSICAL objects. Theft also applies to physical objects.

    What people don't understand is that for DIGITAL media the law that applies is copyright infringement. A person is not a thief for making copies of digital media, they are copyright infringer. But that doesn't have the same ring to it now does it?

    It's the same for those adverts on the TV that talk about 'benefit thieves'. There is no such thing, it is BENEFIT FRAUD. The purpose is to demonize and win public support.

    It's not even really jurists, it's only apologists who insist on the big difference between theft and piracy.
    What is a 'jurist'?

    The law's clear:

    Taking physical objects without permission = theft

    Making copies of digital content = copyright infringement

    Bet you don't bat an eyelid when someone confuses murder and manslaughter.
    Actually I do. Murder is when someone has the intention to kill. Manslaughter is when they intended to do harm but not to kill.

    People call it "theft", just get over it.
    I know people call it theft but they are wrong. It is done with the intention of demonizing people and winning public support.

    And the photocopying example is a bad one. Because when you photocopy something, you get a shit version of the original, not the original.
    The quality is irrelevant. All that matters is that it is a reproduction and not the original.

    Oh, I never tire of this argument. \o/
    I do tire, but it is because people have no clue. They insist on demonizing instead of getting to the core issues.
Log in or register to reply