UK government to get tough on file-sharers

The Mad Rapper · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:22

Robbie G said:
In practical terms (forgetting legal terminology), it's stealing.

In practical terms it is not stealing. I suggest you read Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act, 1968 which clearly states:

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Thief and steal shall be construed accordingly.

If a digital file is copied, there is no permanent deprivation of the data, the copyright holder still has it, therefore the criteria of the offence is unfullfilled.

Macro · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:23

lowrider007 said:
Nobody's saying it's not wrong, it's just not theft.

Agreed, although all to often the fact it's not technically "theft" and depriving someone of a physical object is used as a reason to suggest it's OK.

The Mad Rapper · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:24

Robbie G said:
Yes so under both scenarios, the owner is potentially deprived of an economic inflow. To me this is theft. Not being labelled a thief just because you didn't steal an actual object, smacks of self-justification to me. If I was writing a dissertation, but accidentally left my PC on and unlocked and someone saved my dissertation to a USB key and passed it off as their own, they're a bloody thief end of story, and it's not even copyrighted material.

Get off your high horse!

It is no different to reading a copy of a magazine loaned from a friend rather than buying your own. People do that all the time without thinking about it.

Less melodrama TBH :rolleyes:

Macro · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:25

The Mad Rapper said:
In practical terms it is not stealing. I suggest you read Section 1 (1) of the Theft Act, 1968 which clearly states:

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Thief and steal shall be construed accordingly.

If a digital file is copied, there is no permanent deprivation of the data, the copyright holder still has it, therefore the criteria of the offence is unfullfilled.

Frankly this definition (law?) needs updating to take into account the "digital" nature of commerce and possessions now.

If I copied your mp3s and then deleted your copies would it then be theft?

Unfortunately the law as it stands is unable to deal clearly with the environment we now work in.

Amnesia · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:27

Athanor said:
Frankly this definition (law?) needs updating to take into account the "digital" nature of commerce and possessions now.

If I copied your mp3s and then deleted your copies would it then be theft?

Unfortunately the law as it stands is unable to deal clearly with the environment we now work in.

yeah thats cut(not copy) and paste ...clearly you're stealing them

The Mad Rapper · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:28

Athanor said:
Frankly this definition (law?) needs updating to take into account the "digital" nature of commerce and possessions now.

If I copied your mp3s and then deleted your copies would it then be theft?

Unfortunately the law as it stands is unable to deal clearly with the environment we now work in.

If I have the original media then it could be argued not, I can just make more. The law does need to be updated, but until it is, it's the law that is in effect.

Yamahahahahaha · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:29

As with most New Labour policy, this doesn't solve anything.

The problem is the lack of a working system of compensation for artists / labels.

Participant · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:29

krooton said:
Tesco is selling Jaffa Cakes 30p cheaper than Sainsburys. I go to Tesco as a result, depriving Sainsburys of economic inflow....

That's a little bit silly isn't it. I clearly meant illegally depriving someone of economic inflow.

Mad Rapper said:
Get off your high horse!

It is no different to reading a copy of a magazine loaned from a friend rather than buying your own. People do that all the time without thinking about it.

Less melodrama TBH

Of course it's different to borrowing a friend's magazine. One is illegal, the other isn't :confused:

. If you can't see how downloading a film or MP3 from a P2P network is different to borrowing a friend's magazine, then it's fruitless debating further with you. It's COPYright...borrowing a magazine has not reproduced the material.

Things change I've changed · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:31

Athanor said:
If I copied your mp3s and then deleted your copies would it then be theft?

No becuase,

Athanor said:
If I 'copied' your mp3s and then deleted your 'copies' would it then be theft?

Macro · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:31

The Mad Rapper said:
If I have the original media then it could be argued not, I can just make more. The law does need to be updated, but until it is, it's the law that is in effect.

Obviously i'm assuming you don't have original media. Let's say you downloaded the music from a service that does not allow redownloads (or has gone bust and no longer exists). Arguably I have only "copied" the item, but then I have also deprived you of your "item" so does that change from a civil action for loss of revenue to a criminal case of theft? Or does it not count because it's digital in nature rather than physical?

My point being that it's a little more complicated than at first suggested and the law needs to be updated to be relevant.

antijoke · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:32

If only film companies/music companies could join the 21st century with a system like iTunes, whilst it wouldn't wipe out piracy I think it would be a step in the right direction.

I would gladly play £20 a month for all the music/HD films I could possibly want, all stored on quality servers that I can download quickly and burn to cd/dvd or stream to my PS3/360.

dirtydog · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:34

If only the government introduced a tough three strikes policy for real criminals who commit real crimes with real victims...

Macro · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:34

anticonscience said:
If only film companies/music companies could join the 21st century with a system like iTunes, whilst it wouldn't wipe out piracy I think it would be a step in the right direction.

I would gladly play £20 a month for all the music/HD films I could possibly want, all stored on quality servers that I can download quickly and burn to cd/dvd or stream to my PS3/360.

I suspect this will be the future, pretty much anything else is unworkable now

Paul11 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:35

anticonscience said:
If only film companies/music companies could join the 21st century .

this is the problem. film/music companies do not want to move up to new technologies that make it eaiser for the consumer as it costs them revenue

The Mad Rapper · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:36

Robbie G said:
Of course it's different to borrowing a friend's magazine. One is illegal, the other isn't . If you can't see how downloading a film or MP3 from a P2P network is different to borrowing a friend's magazine, then it's fruitless debating further with you. It's COPYright...borrowing a magazine has not reproduced the material.

If you're going to be pedantic, then perhaps I ought to have cited the example where one photocopies an article or receipe and passes that to a friend or family. That happens all the time as well.

krooton · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:36

Paul11 said:
this is the problem. film/music companies do not want to move up to new technologies that make it eaiser for the consumer as it costs them revenue

Sure no physical copy = less cost?

Places like Blockbuster would save on site rental and staffing costs, just needing servers, bandwidth and IT admin.

The Mad Rapper · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:38

anticonscience said:
I would gladly play £20 a month for all the music/HD films I could possibly want, all stored on quality servers that I can download quickly and burn to cd/dvd or stream to my PS3/360.

I'm happy with my current attitude personally. Those movies I am very excited about will be viewed at the cinema at my expense. Those movies I don't care that much about will be obtained from the usual sources, as and when they become available, at no cost to me.

I won't change.

antijoke · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:38

Just think of a future where you could have the option to stream/download the latest blockbuster film in HD for say £5 straight to your home TV whilst it's still on at the Cinema, or purchase the film say two weeks after general/worldwide release to watch whenever you want, why would people want to bother with dodgy cam recordings with that available?

IMHO the music/film companies could do so much more to remove the problem, they are just too stubborn.

Paul11 · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:41

krooton said:
Sure no physical copy = less cost?

Places like Blockbuster would save on site rental and staffing costs, just needing servers, bandwidth and IT admin.

physical copies keep the price artificially high for them (the cost is minimal) although there is cost is rent/rates/electricity/staff etc for a retail outlet

and in your example, there would be no blockbuster.

end users could go directly to the record/film companies and cut out the middle man

The Mad Rapper · 28 Oct 2009 at 11:41

anticonscience said:
Just think of a future where you could have the option to stream/download the latest blockbuster film in HD for say £5 straight to your home TV whilst it's still on at the Cinema, or purchase the film say two weeks after general/worldwide release to watch whenever you want, why would people want to bother with dodgy cam recordings with that available?

IMHO the music/film companies could do so much more to remove the problem, they are just too stubborn.

That's part of the fallacy that is perpetrated by the media companies. The quality of the releases on torrent is amazing now. Even cams are very, very watchable.