I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?
Let me guess--you're one of those people who thinks that corporate executives should get many years in prison rather than fines because of the economic damage their misdeeds cause.
Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage.
Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage
They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the
It is a crime (often punishable by death) to speak against the state in some countries. Does it make the law moral? Was what China made at Tiananmen Square moral?
It is not stealing, it is copying. If I like your house, and I build one like it, am I stealing your house? The problem here is that many people have lost their way and no longer know what is moral and what is not.
Well, actually, they do have one moral: the one with the biggest stick wins.
<irony> It doesn't matter if it's child abuse or not. Everything crime may be called child abuse.</irony>
It's still a CRIME.
Um, now, they're just making it a crime. It's not a crime yet.
Arguing that copyright piracy isn't stealing is right up there with arguing that America isn't a democracy because it's a republic. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, it's the other way round, the MPAA and RIAA claim that all copyright
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in. That's stealing. It is irrelevant that the property right is an abstract one created by law.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in. That's stealing.
I think the parent was trying to state that copying and stealing are not the same thing in all respects. Among other things when you purchase a movie (not a ticket to view a movie, but the actual picture in whatever media it comes to you) you are given the right to copy that movie within a narrow scope of possible uses. It is perfectly legal to copy a movie for the purpose of backing it up, for example. If you wanted t
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in.
Taking? If there are n copies of a certain copyrighted work and I make one illegal copy there are now n+1 works, not n. Nobody has taken anything. Only a copyright infringement has been done. Analogies from the physical world fit badly to copyrights.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in. That's stealing.
Except that theft deprives the original owner of their property.
It is irrelevant that the property right is an abstract one created by law.
It's highly relevent, because "intellectual property" differs from real property in that it can be trivially duplicated. Pretending that the concepts are equivalent is a fiction.
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in.
Taking is removing. By copying something, you aren't removing a damn thing. No, I'm not arguing semantics or splitting hairs to make it sound less serious. I'm calling it exactly what it is, copyright infringment. The content industries have called copying something its not (stealing) to make it sound *worse* than it really is, and unfortunatly a lot of poeple (like you) have bought their propoganda. Well, they are wrong and you a
Taking is removing. By copying something, you aren't removing a damn thing. No, I'm not arguing semantics or splitting hairs to make it sound less serious. I'm calling it exactly what it is, copyright infringment. The content industries have called copying something its not (stealing) to make it sound *worse* than it really is, and unfortunatly a lot of poeple (like you) have bought their propoganda. Well, they are wrong and you are wrong, which is why we need to correct you
Copyright infringement has long been considered a form of theft
Only by the content industry (which itself was based on "Piracy" [wired.com], stick that in your pipe and smoke it) and those saps who buy their shpeal.
It is only in recent years, when technology made copying easy enough that obeying the law became inconvenient, that people started using the "I'm not taking anything physical so its not theft" argument to try to rationalize wha
Read the law, or at least read a few websites [indymedia.org.uk]. Legally, copyright is theft.
I agree it's not the kind of theft that leaves the original owner without use of it. But if you take money from someone, it's theft. When you copy a song illegally, you've taken money from someone. Argue all you want that you wouldn't have purchased it anyway, but the end result is you have a copy of it. Having that copy without paying the artist/label/writer/whatever, according to the law, means you stole it.
If that would be true there wouldn't be any copyright legislation. It would be just plain stealing. But the thing is that we have a copyright legislation. And it doesn't say that copying is stealing.
You're forgetting the all important third option: Record/Pirate movie for non-personal non-profit distribution. For instance, putting it up on the internet for free download. That can cost a film maker (producers and directors), distributors, actors, and studios much dinero in lost theater, PayPerView, rental, and dvd/VHS sales. And this cost is only likely to increase as the use of high bandwidth internet connections increases. You may not agree with the degree of proposed punishment or the all-things-
You're forgetting the all important third option: Record/Pirate movie for non-personal non-profit distribution.
Quite so. However, the act of distributing it (for profit or not) is a separate act from the act of recording it. If they want to make that a separate crime with its own punishment, that might make sense. Three years in prison for the act of recording it alone, regardless of the purpose, doesn't make sense.
First, the bill states that sentencing will be not more than 3 years, fines, or both for a first conviction under this law. At worst, that means one would probably get out on parole much sooner than the full three years. However 3 years is a max sentence and a judge would have leeway under to be determined sentencing guidelines to sentence for less time. Factors would most certainly include: intent to distribute, on what scale, for profit or not, and estimated financial loss based on those findings. Not
Problem I see is that it requires the sentence to be based on a speculation of what your intentions might be.
This is just one of those areas - much like *cough* "music sharing" - that is almost universally an act of theft, that a strong deterrent is required.
It would be invasive to search (actively or passively) audiences for recording equipment. Solutions such as watermarking help identify the most agressive thieves, and prevention measures such as IR blasters or even low-light surveillance cameras provo
The amount of weight an evangelist carries with the almighty is measured
in billigrahams.
You'd get less time... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not standing up for the crime, but isn't the punishment supposed to match it?
Sickening...
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:1)
Let me guess--you're one of those people who thinks that corporate executives should get many years in prison rather than fines because of the economic damage their misdeeds cause.
Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:5, Insightful)
They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
Copying isn't stealing. How many times that has to be told. Don't fall into the rhetoric of big media companies twisting the terms to make breaking the
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
It is not stealing, it is copying. If I like your house, and I build one like it, am I stealing your house? The problem here is that many people have lost their way and no longer know what is moral and what is not.
Well, actually, they do have one moral: the one with the biggest stick wins.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:1)
It doesn't matter if it isn't stealing or not.
<irony> It doesn't matter if it's child abuse or not. Everything crime may be called child abuse.</irony>
It's still a CRIME.
Um, now, they're just making it a crime. It's not a crime yet.
Arguing that copyright piracy isn't stealing is right up there with arguing that America isn't a democracy because it's a republic. The two things are not mutually exclusive.
Actually, it's the other way round, the MPAA and RIAA claim that all copyright
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2, Insightful)
It involves taking something that someone else has a property right in. That's stealing. It is irrelevant that the property right is an abstract one created by law.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:1)
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
Taking? If there are n copies of a certain copyrighted work and I make one illegal copy there are now n+1 works, not n. Nobody has taken anything. Only a copyright infringement has been done. Analogies from the physical world fit badly to copyrights.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
You've taken the copyright owner's control.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
Except that theft deprives the original owner of their property.
It is irrelevant that the property right is an abstract one created by law.
It's highly relevent, because "intellectual property" differs from real property in that it can be trivially duplicated. Pretending that the concepts are equivalent is a fiction.
Bzzt (Score:1)
Taking is removing. By copying something, you aren't removing a damn thing. No, I'm not arguing semantics or splitting hairs to make it sound less serious. I'm calling it exactly what it is, copyright infringment. The content industries have called copying something its not (stealing) to make it sound *worse* than it really is, and unfortunatly a lot of poeple (like you) have bought their propoganda. Well, they are wrong and you a
Re:Bzzt (Score:2)
You are the one engaging in pro
Re:Bzzt (Score:1)
Nope, just the facts, ma'am.
Copyright infringement has long been considered a form of theft
Only by the content industry (which itself was based on "Piracy" [wired.com], stick that in your pipe and smoke it) and those saps who buy their shpeal.
It is only in recent years, when technology made copying easy enough that obeying the law became inconvenient, that people started using the "I'm not taking anything physical so its not theft" argument to try to rationalize wha
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
I agree it's not the kind of theft that leaves the original owner without use of it. But if you take money from someone, it's theft. When you copy a song illegally, you've taken money from someone. Argue all you want that you wouldn't have purchased it anyway, but the end result is you have a copy of it. Having that copy without paying the artist/label/writer/whatever, according to the law, means you stole it.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
Quite so. However, the act of distributing it (for profit or not) is a separate act from the act of recording it. If they want to make that a separate crime with its own punishment, that might make sense. Three years in prison for the act of recording it alone, regardless of the purpose, doesn't make sense.
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
Re:You'd get less time... (Score:2)
This is just one of those areas - much like *cough* "music sharing" - that is almost universally an act of theft, that a strong deterrent is required.
It would be invasive to search (actively or passively) audiences for recording equipment. Solutions such as watermarking help identify the most agressive thieves, and prevention measures such as IR blasters or even low-light surveillance cameras provo