That's funny, that is what happened to me as well. My finger went kind of weird as well when I tried to poke the black hole.TsunamiWombat said:
Illegal downloading is not theft - its something new
- Thread starter Morderkaine
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As defined by law, it is theft of intellectual property, plain and simple. You're not stealing a physical thing, but you're depriving your victims -- the retailer, the record company and the artist -- of profits they would make had you paid for the purloined item.
Seems the original poster is trying to justify their downloading. I'd say they could use a lawyer, and the "logic" displayed here definitely justifies paying the legal fees. Seek help.
Seems the original poster is trying to justify their downloading. I'd say they could use a lawyer, and the "logic" displayed here definitely justifies paying the legal fees. Seek help.
Nope. "Infringement" seems to be the most popular legal term.DangerChimp said:
"Theft" is chiefly a term for a set of criminal-law concepts: larceny, robbery, burglary, &c. I think fraud narrowly skates into the category, but I can't remember.
Most cases of copyright infringement are issues of civil law. The main exception, until recently, was anti-bootlegging efforts -- that's what that "FBI Warning" on videos was about. Recent changes driven by the MPAA/RIAA have pulled government into prosecutions of other activities potentially related to infringement.
The only use of the word "theft" in relation to copyright law that I'm aware of -- and here I will stress that I am not a lawyer(*) -- occurs in the "No Electronic Theft Act" of 1997. It's in the title. That's because Congress feels like its job isn't done without bullshit grandstanding, so most of our laws have trashy names like that.
-- Alex
__________
* - But I still know more than you.
Alex_P said:
Oops. Looks like you're wrong. As far back as 2005, the Justice Department itself has referred to large-scale illegal downloaders as thieves, citing intellectual property law. Check out the Trowbridge and Chicoine case here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/jan/19/piracy.news). The five-year prison term these guys faced also is indicative of the attitude that has formed towards illegal downloaders unless they settle directly out of court with the record companies.
This quote seems at least a little relevant to what you're talking about:
"As today's pleas demonstrate, those who steal copyrighted material will be caught, even when they use the tools of technology to commit their crimes," the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, said. "The theft of intellectual property victimises not only its owners and their employees but also the American people, who shoulder the burden of increased costs for goods and services."
I don't feel at all guilty for getting Silent Hill 1 free through torrents, because they never released the game for PC, but someone made a PC compatible rip. Basicly, when you make a game console-exclusive & charge half a grand for a console, you deserve to get shit on.
Downloading games is theft, but not the kind that every one says.
when you download a game without buying it(unless it it free) you are stealing ideas and thoughts of gamming desiginers, many say they want to try the game before they buy it( but if there is not a demo, it is like sneeking into a musaim without paying and looking at a magnificant piece of art. yes it does not hurt the artice neither musaim ,but now those two people don't know if you saw it, or even liked it.
you are without permission and it makes you look like losser, because you have money and your to lazy to get it.
it has been proven that video gamming prices are up 30% because people download the game illeagaly.
it is like adobie Premier pro it is $1200 because a lot of dip shits thought "I'm not going to pay $500-600 for this!"
when you download a game without buying it(unless it it free) you are stealing ideas and thoughts of gamming desiginers, many say they want to try the game before they buy it( but if there is not a demo, it is like sneeking into a musaim without paying and looking at a magnificant piece of art. yes it does not hurt the artice neither musaim ,but now those two people don't know if you saw it, or even liked it.
you are without permission and it makes you look like losser, because you have money and your to lazy to get it.
it has been proven that video gamming prices are up 30% because people download the game illeagaly.
it is like adobie Premier pro it is $1200 because a lot of dip shits thought "I'm not going to pay $500-600 for this!"
The thing is Ragdrazi, that law I quoted was passed in 1992 and yet my local library continues to lend books for free. I don't think that having to pay people for the fruits of their labour is really that unreasonable, do you?Ragdrazi said:
Also, in the exemption that American laws enjoy is this paragraph:
"(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure."
Which would suggest that if a library were to offer identical duplicates of a work, they'd be in trouble.
You are right I have no respect for you and your attempt to justify your illegal actions, nor should I. You are breaking copyright laws no matter how you put it. Turn yourself in and see if your bullshit argument holds up in court. If it so fantastic then you should have no problem getting off. Torrents do not have authorization to distribute and you can not compare them to libraries because of the fact that libraries have been authorized to distribute and you don't return the things you steal through torrents. Again, you are a thief and a bain on the economy and I have no respect for you as I have no respect for someone who shoplifts.Ragdrazi said:
Well, the word "illegal" should mean something to you. I mean, what if you spent millions of dollars making a movie/game and distributing and advertising it, and then nobody pays for it. You don't earn profit from something that was meant to gain profit. That's what illegal downloading is, it's taking profit from someone who deserves it.
Although, when I make music, I will support not paying for my albums.
In my opinion, entertainment should not have to be payed for. It should be for the love of doing what you're doing, a lesson that Disney should learn. But as much as I wish it were free, it's still illegal, and therefore I don't.
Although, when I make music, I will support not paying for my albums.
In my opinion, entertainment should not have to be payed for. It should be for the love of doing what you're doing, a lesson that Disney should learn. But as much as I wish it were free, it's still illegal, and therefore I don't.
I'm not sure where you're from Ragdrazi, but where I'm from, patronising people and calling them myopic is not being respectful.
To address the points you raised, firstly, on European libraries being charged a fee for taking books out, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You see it as the library being penalised, I see it as people being fairly paid.
Your second point however, while not truly deceitful, is a lie by omission. To paraphrase the law you quoted, libraries in the US may indeed make and distribute copies of copyrighted works. Specifically, they may make one copy for lending purposes and it must carry a copyright notice in the front. They may also make up to three copies for security purposes and up to three copies to replace an deteriorating work, or an obsolete format.
They are expressly forbidden from distributing copies for any kind of direct or indirect financial gain, and if a digital copy is made of a work, they are expressly forbidden from distributing it outside of a lending environment.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do there Ragdrazi. Did you think I wouldn't check?
To address the points you raised, firstly, on European libraries being charged a fee for taking books out, we're going to have to agree to disagree. You see it as the library being penalised, I see it as people being fairly paid.
Your second point however, while not truly deceitful, is a lie by omission. To paraphrase the law you quoted, libraries in the US may indeed make and distribute copies of copyrighted works. Specifically, they may make one copy for lending purposes and it must carry a copyright notice in the front. They may also make up to three copies for security purposes and up to three copies to replace an deteriorating work, or an obsolete format.
They are expressly forbidden from distributing copies for any kind of direct or indirect financial gain, and if a digital copy is made of a work, they are expressly forbidden from distributing it outside of a lending environment.
I'm not sure what you were trying to do there Ragdrazi. Did you think I wouldn't check?
This is simply not true. Although I agree with the rest of the post.Morderkaine said:
What stops you from buying the software that you pirated? Nothing. They don't even loose the chance to sell it. I own 3 legal copies of C&C Generals, even though the first copy I ever had was a pirated one. People buy stuff after they pirated it. People go to see concerts of bands they pirated music from, they buy their cds, they buy games which they pirated.
So actually piracy in a way is beneficial for the company.
But why do we have a problem with piracy? People abuse it. Simple as that.