OK. So, in Law, a person who was, say, intercepting cash that was being sent to the artist for his material (and then burning it) would be guilty of, what? By "intercepting", I mean for instance picking it up from the artist's mailbox or off his front porch. In Law, a person that has side-stepped the mechanism for making payments to the artist by pirating his music would be guilty of, what? In Law, is intellectual property the same as other property? Does the Law even recognise Intellectual property in the same way? Is it impossible to permanently deprive someone of their intellectual property, as far as the Law is concerned?
[trollery deleted] So what is the consensus? It's OK to download pirated copies of copyright material, for as long as we can, with a clear conscience, until such time as the mechanisms for releasing such material and enforcing copyright have caught up with the realities of the day. Is this what has been agreed?
Not agreed by me. My position is that it's OK to download music tracks, or record them off broadcast, with a clear conscience until such time as the mechanisms for enforcing copyright have been abolished, thereby catching up with the realities of the day. What is not OK is falsely describing as "theft" something which patently is not theft.
I still believe there is what the Americans call a "disconnect" in your logic. For the purposes of this argument, I will accept your legal definition of "theft". However your apparent inability to see wrongdoing for what it is simply because the action cannot be categorised in a legal sense is a minor puzzle. To help me work out the puzzle, could you let me have your opinion should, contrary to your assumption above, the mechanisms of copyright "catch up" with the realities of the day, rather than be abolished as you suggest? I don't think that is an unrealistic proposition. You seem to be suggesting that because you can do a thing, you are allowed to do that thing. I can liken this to the idea of someone having a password or passcode to a resource that they are not entitled to use. For instance, just because you know the passcode to a locked room, that does not entitle you to access to that room. I realise you will then argue that there is a specific law or regulation that governs this issue, trespass law or some such, but please, don't go there.
Do you guys also watch youtube videos or old songs? Or tv programmes? Ever record top 40 off the radio? Kids downloading music is the sumday eve top 40 with a tape recorder and building mix tapes off our youth
Where on earth does this spring from? I have certainly never suggested any such thing. What you refer to as "wrongdoings" such as theft, fraud and murder are wrong because they are and always have been unethical as well as illegal; they are criminal offences, and there are good reasons for them to continue to be criminal offences in the future. Surely we can all agree thus far ... ? Copyright in musical performances is an entirely different matter. First, there was no such thing until about a century ago, and it arose then solely as a result of technical developments. Second, copying copyright musical recordings for personal use is not and never has been a criminal offence. Third, there is no clear ethical basis for imposing a monopoly on copying - the whole scheme is based on expediency, not morality. Fourth, when something is widely, repeatedly and freely disseminated over the whole world, it is utterly unrealistic to try and enforce payment for the very same thing. Fifth, the proponents of enforcement have destroyed their own credibility by using tendentious, inaccurate, and inapplicable expressions like "property", "theft" and "piracy" whilst excusing their own pursuit of their financial self-interests. Do you not see that these copyright issues are entirely different from criminal matters?
You seem to be advocating the downloading of pirated material. It certainly seems to be possible currently to download such material. You seem to be suggesting that because you can download such material, you are allowed to do so. Is this not clear? Nearly. I seem to recall from previous discussions that it was agreed that there is no guaranteed link between ethics and laws. Still, I'm sure that we agree that regardless of the legal position on theft, fraud and murder, such acts are unethical. Laws regarding the cloning of human DNA did not exist a century ago - possibly for analogous reasons. Shall we ignore them? Indeed. Odd, that, when compared to the already established link between the crime of theft and dealing in stolen goods. It is illegal to distribute pirated material but it isn't to receive it. Your opinion. There is no clear ethical basis either way - unless you take into account the fact that an artist is entitled to certain protections under copyright law. The law not only protects the artist's source of income, it protects the consumer in the long run. See if you can work out how. There are many, many things disseminated over the whole world that are unrealistic or very difficult to exercise control over - e.g. narcotics, racism, terrorism, Burger King. Shall we give up on those, too? Actually, I have no real objection to what you say here. It's very much beside the point though. I'm being to see why you think so. Speaking from a standpoint of ethics (since I have temporarily accepted your legal definition of "theft"), there is little moral difference between an artist who is starving because his royalties were stolen in an act of theft and one who is starving because he never received royalties due to his material having been pirated. Starving is starving. The law currently allows for the principle of intellectual property, in part, in order to safeguard an artist's livelihood. Just because the law is unenforceable doesn't suddenly mean that circumventing the law is no longer illegal or immoral.
No. Again and again you keep trying to put into my mouth words which I have not said. I have set out my position as clearly as I can; if you want to know what I think, read my posts. You may take it that if you yet again attribute to me things I have not said, they certainly do not represent my views. Your insistence on using tendentious and prejudicial terms like "pirating" does you no credit.
@pete. In your opinion does "distribution" include friends sharing copied tracks where no money changes hands ? If I buy a CD, rip it for my personal use and give a copy to a friend is that still a civil matter ?
Head of the Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (PIPCU), Detective Chief Inspector Daniel Medlycott said: "Our creative industries are incredibly important; not only are we recognised worldwide as producing great films, TV and music but these industries are playing a large part in supporting our country financially, contributing a huge £71.4bn to the UK economy and supporting 1.7 million jobs. "The vast majority of people who work in the music and film industries are not making vast amounts of money and we have a responsibility to protect the industries they work in." BPI director of content protection David Wood said: "Counterfeiting criminals who believe music piracy is a low-risk activity that carries no penalty are flawed in their views. "Put simply, it is illegal and it will not go unseen by the eyes of the law.
Maybe if they charged a few quid for the download rather than as much as a cd it would help....greed is prevalent in the arts too..
i wonder how much the two lawyers made sending letters back and forth or slowing down and charging for court time, while arguing over the the definition of theft. suckers.
You need a textbook for teaching. Is is ok to buy a copy, scan it and disseminate the PDF to your students and colleagues - perhaps put it on the web for the free use of all? You couldn't have done this until the scanner was invented, or the photocopier was invented, or the printing press was invented. It's ok for a writer to spend a year writing a book which can then be easily copied. He should be aware of this and realise that he is wasting his time. If not, more fool him. Why should patents exist? After all, once you've discovered something and used it for yourself, why be dog in the mangerish about other people using it? Why should you expect your work to bring you repeat income? If the idea has been publicised on the net and many people are aware of it, anyone should be able to use it. It's not theft as you aren't depriving the inventor of his idea.
The guys quoted are putting only one side of the issue, to suit themselves. There is another side to it though. Would you care to find out opposite arguments (of which there are plenty) and post those for our instruction?
Entertaining red herring. If an invention is patented, all the details of the patent are available to the public. Anyone can take a copy and anyone can make something for themselves exploiting the ideas in the patent. A million people can freely take copies of the patent, and freely make a million devices based on the patent for their own use. What they cannot do (and this is the purpose of patent law) is sell devices the value of which derives from a patent registered to someone else. I expect that at some point copyright law will be brought into line with patent law, which would be more sensible.
