record industry bosses over school anti-piracy lessons

[Vonhelmet]

Just for general info:

Civil law - Where individuals sues individuals
Criminal law - Where the state prosecutes individuals

Piracy is a civil act, and the record companies will sue you. It isn't "illigal", as that's a criminal term.

No, illegal is not a criminal term. There is a civil legal code and a criminal legal code. An act can be illegal under any combination of the two.

 

[kylew]

so what

just because you're not likely to face any reprisals doesn't mean you're justified in doing it - its still wrong!

So what? It pulls your whole argument apart then doesn't it?

It's not theft, it's not technically illegal until you start trying to profit off it, and to top it off, you're just continually proving that you don't have a clue what you're on about by posting junk.

As I've said, people who do it need not justify themselves.

Who are you to demand justification for acts that aren't actually illegal?

And for what it's worth, I do spend a vast amount of money on games/software/move and so on.

But I believe that people need to get over the issue of piracy.

 

[D D Danneh]

Of course stealing isn't OK, even if the amount you steal is only a few pence.

But music piracy is not theft. Theft requires the removal of someone else's property with an intent to permanently deprive them of it. Copying music doesn't deprive the copyright holder of that music in the same way that physical theft does, as they still have their copy. That's why people come up with arguments about theft of a right to revenue or whatever, but that's not an item that can be stolen - it is a right stemming from the holding of intellectual property, the copyright, so an infringement of that right is - TADA! - copyright infringement.

I'm not debating about the difference between theft and copyright, but if downloading is OK, and stealing a few pence isn't, where do you draw the line? If it's free, is it fine? If someone invents an awesome idea, and I use it without asking, is it OK, because it didn't cost them anything?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

 

[dowie]

Read your own article. The charges against them have very little to do with copyright infringement. Most of them are related to money laundering and trademark infringement.

found guilty of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of Film Piracy, and conspiring to produce pirate DVDs contravening the Trademark Act and Copyright was sentenced to a total of six years (three years custodial and three years on prison licence).

AFAIK copyright infringement can become a criminal act in the UK if you're selling the stuff or distributing it on such a scale as to have a noticable effect on the business of the copyright owner.

 

[lambda]

.....

 

[RDM]

It's not taking. Please acknowledge my analogy, it appears it's getting ignored because it'd mean people would have to face the truth of what it is.

Alternatively the reason it is being ingored is because of the difference between intellectual and physical property makes the comparison pretty much invalid. no one would create copies of shoes and give them away because to do so would cost them money, quite a bit of money if it was on the scale of music piracy.

I know the legal differences between theft and copyright infringement, I just don't really see much in the way of moral differences. I also find the sense of entitlement to be quite sad.

 

[Vonhelmet]

I'm not debating about the difference between theft and copyright, but if downloading is OK, and stealing a few pence isn't, where do you draw the line? If it's free, is it fine? If someone invents an awesome idea, and I use it without asking, is it OK, because it didn't cost them anything?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

I never actually said downloading was OK, just that it's not theft and calling it such devalues the argument because it's legally incorrect.

Intellectual property law is a minefield, but the upshot of it is that if someone has created something and doesn't want it exploited without their permission, then it shouldn't be exploited.

If someone invents something and doesn't patent it, you can do what you like, just the same as if someone doesn't copyright something - which is actually an act of commission, unlike the act of omission in failing to patent something - then you can do what you like with it.

 

[dowie]

So what? It pulls your whole argument apart then doesn't it?

It's not theft, it's not technically illegal until you start trying to profit off it, and to top it off, you're just continually proving that you don't have a clue what you're on about by posting junk.

I've never said its theft, and frankly you don't appear to have a clue. You're still not justified in simply downloading any tracks you feel like simply because you can or because its available.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So what? It pulls your whole argument apart then doesn't it?

It's not theft, it's not technically illegal until you start trying to profit off it, and to top it off, you're just continually proving that you don't have a clue what you're on about by posting junk.

It is technically illegal, for goodness' sake. Just because it's not a criminal offence doesn't mean it's not illegal.

 

[kylew]

I'm not debating about the difference between theft and copyright, but if downloading is OK, and stealing a few pence isn't, where do you draw the line? If it's free, is it fine? If someone invents an awesome idea, and I use it without asking, is it OK, because it didn't cost them anything?

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Too many feel the overwhelming need to play Devil's Advocate too often in such discussions.

The fact that piracy isn't theft means any comparison to theft is a void statement. Since they're not the same thing, comparing them is going to get you no where.

Stealing a few pence, while technically wrong, is not something anyone will be bothered about.

In fact, if I caught some one stealing pennies, I'd pity them.

But as pirating isn't stealing, it's a comment that shouldn't be made, unless you want to start comparing the validity of opinions of which colour is the best?

 

[kylew]

It is technically illegal, for goodness' sake. Just because it's not a criminal offence doesn't mean it's not illegal.

Yeah, it is illegal, but using technicalities, the illegality of it is based on archaic laws that haven't been adjusted to be able to account for the "digital age".

Laws currently standing don't completely apply as well as supposed penalties.

Okay, something's illegal, but what's the point in it being illegal if they're gonna say "well yeah it's illegal, but what can we do? It's only illegal, there's no repercussions that come from committing the act."

 

[Vonhelmet]

Yeah, it is illegal, but using technicalities, the illegality of it is based on archaic laws that haven't been adjusted to be able to account for the "digital age".

It's not a technicality, it's the frigging law. Copyright isn't exactly archaic either. Copyright, patents and trademarks are all still very useful in the modern age, though I will concede that the periods for which they run are vastly too long thanks to certain companies in the US who have far too much lobbying power.

Laws currently standing don't completely apply as well as supposed penalties.

That doesn't make sense. I don't know what you're saying.

Okay, something's illegal, but what's the point in it being illegal if they're gonna say "well yeah it's illegal, but what can we do? It's only illegal, there's no repercussions that come from committing the act."

There are repercussions, in that there are lost sales. Sure, not every download is a lost sale, but there is a measure of lost sales somewhere along the way, even if the fraction is only 1 in every 100 downloads or whatever.

Besides, at the end of the day, consider what would happen if everyone downloaded. How would music production on the scale it exists be funded?

 

[dowie]

Yeah, it is illegal, but using technicalities, the illegality of it is based on archaic laws that haven't been adjusted to be able to account for the "digital age".

what archaic laws

you mean like.... Copyright, etc and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002

 

[Cosimo]

Stealing a few pence, while technically wrong, is not something anyone will be bothered about.

Stealing a few pence or a few pounds is something to be bothered about, what is your address and we can come over and relieve you of a few items.

 

[D D Danneh]

Too many feel the overwhelming need to play Devil's Advocate too often in such discussions.

The fact that piracy isn't theft means any comparison to theft is a void statement. Since they're not the same thing, comparing them is going to get you no where.

Stealing a few pence, while technically wrong, is not something anyone will be bothered about.

In fact, if I caught some one stealing pennies, I'd pity them.

But as pirating isn't stealing, it's a comment that shouldn't be made, unless you want to start comparing the validity of opinions of which colour is the best?

Both pirating and stealing are methods of obtaining a good or property without paying for it. Whether it costs or denies revenue is irrelevant. Why should the law be different for the two? They might be different methods, but both have the same effect and the same cause. If one is "criminally illegal", why isn't the other?

Also, I'm playing devil's advocate because I find it quite interesting, and I like to see people's opinions on it.

Stealing a few pence or a few pounds is something to be bothered about, what is your address and we can come over and relieve you of a few items.

You can have my shrapnel if you like.

Oh wait, now it's not stealing.

 

[kylew]

How does all this waffle help you get round the fact that what you're doing is illegal? Hmm?

What I'm doing personally? As I've not mentioned what I do specifically.

The point is is that it's illegal only in terminology.

It's like saying driving without a license is illegal, but we're not gonna do anything to stop you other than tell you it's wrong and that you shouldn't do it.

Common answer to that would most probably "well why go to the trouble of making it illegal if you're not gonna do anything about it?"

 

[kylew]

Stealing a few pence or a few pounds is something to be bothered about, what is your address and we can come over and relieve you of a few items.

A few pence to a few £ is a big jump don't you think?

 

[Vonhelmet]

What I'm doing personally? As I've not mentioned what I do specifically.

I edited, but clearly you got there first.

The point is is that it's illegal only in terminology.

I don't think you understand how civil law works.

It's like saying driving without a license is illegal, but we're not gonna do anything to stop you other than tell you it's wrong and that you shouldn't do it.

I think suing someone is usually considering doing something to stop them.

Common answer to that would most probably "well why go to the trouble of making it illegal if you're not gonna do anything about it?"

See above.

 

[kylew]

It's not a technicality, it's the frigging law. Copyright isn't exactly archaic either. Copyright, patents and trademarks are all still very useful in the modern age, though I will concede that the periods for which they run are vastly too long thanks to certain companies in the US who have far too much lobbying power.



That doesn't make sense. I don't know what you're saying.



There are repercussions, in that there are lost sales. Sure, not every download is a lost sale, but there is a measure of lost sales somewhere along the way, even if the fraction is only 1 in every 100 downloads or whatever.

Besides, at the end of the day, consider what would happen if everyone downloaded. How would music production on the scale it exists be funded?

There "are" repercussions, but I'm talking about the individual involved.

With regards to the laws, bare with me, I'm heavily sleep deprived.

What I'm trying to say is that the laws that cover copyright currently don't account for the way digital media works, so therefore they don't fully apply as they're completely based around physical goods.

 

[Vonhelmet]

What I'm trying to say is that the laws that cover copyright currently don't account for the way digital media works, so therefore they don't fully apply as they're completely based around physical goods.

No. Copyright is a law based on intellectual property and therefore has always been based around wholly intangible assets.

Maybe you want to argue the point that the laws are catching up with the ease of producing copies? Maybe? Go on, try that one, that's a good argument.