Copyright Bill Makes It Easier to Target Illegal Filesharing

Piracy is not a theft. :wave:

Dowling v. United States

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
Click to expand...
 
TXgolfer said:
So would you support an artist who chose to sue/hold criminally liable an individual who downloaded media without permission???
Click to expand...

The artist is within his/her civil rights to sue the individual (provided that the individual wilfully ignored artist's Cease & Desist Order).

criminally liable? under what legal ground? (beside profiting on artist's work)
 
Jiro said:
Piracy is not a theft. :wave:

Dowling v. United States
Click to expand...

Like I said, court of law DOES NOT FIND piracy stated as theft. I kept telling people earlier but no one would listen in the other thread that it would not stick in the court of law. This is precisely one of the cases to why.

Ah well. :roll: Lessons be learned. Continue or game over?
 
0.jpg
 
.........Nine !!!!!!!!!
........Eight !!!!!!!!
.......Seven !!!!!!!
......Six !!!!!!
.....Five !!!!!
....Four !!!!
...Three !!!
..Two !!
.One !
0

bisonlose.jpg

​
 
Note: Photos are not pirated, they are emulated and I own the original cartridge.
smile.png
 
TXgolfer said:
This has nothing to do with what I am talking about......No problems with p2p at all.....
Click to expand...

better example -

you built a nice custom-made car and you are dang proud of it because you are the only one with that car in the world. Your neighbor likes it very much so he copied it for himself. Your neighbor's friend likes his car (which looks exactly like your car) so your neighbor built a copy for him.

Is it a moral issue? yup but it is not illegal.
 
TXgolfer said:
That was the debate for another thread . One that was closed......In fact the OP of this thread specifically asked that we not debate Piracy vs. Theft in this thread. Therefore I will not offer a rebuttal to your post
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Everyone knows both acts are illegal anyway. Doesn't matter how you splice the hair, it's still illegal...
 
Jiro said:
The artist is within his/her civil rights to sue the individual (provided that the individual wilfully ignored artist's Cease & Desist Order).

criminally liable? under what legal ground? (beside profiting on artist's work)
Click to expand...

This doesn't answer my question
 
Jiro said:
better example -

you built a nice custom-made car and you are dang proud of it because you are the only one with that car in the world. Your neighbor likes it very much so he copied it for himself. Your neighbor's friend likes his car (which looks exactly like your car) so your neighbor built a copy for him.

Is it a moral issue? yup but it is not illegal.
Click to expand...

It could become a legal issue if the original builder had a patent and sold those cars for profit.....
 
souggy said:
Thanks.

Everyone knows both acts are illegal anyway. Doesn't matter how you splice the hair, it's still illegal...
Click to expand...

Yep....in fact I feel like I have been watching a pirated copy of My Bodyguard this entire thread.....:lol:
 
TXgolfer said:
That was the debate for another thread . One that was closed......In fact the OP of this thread specifically asked that we not debate Piracy vs. Theft in this thread. Therefore I will not offer a rebuttal to your post
Click to expand...

I think his reply was for the other guy.. looking back at the previous posts I can see the "stealing" / "theft" thing and touches on revenue/money being lost, mentioned once again. Notice he did not quote you.

In all fairness, they got to stop bringing out this issue or their opinion on "stealing" money and the whole jazz.

Personally I've complied with the OP's wishes.


As far as moral issue goes, I don't mess with that. Don't see the point of correcting someone else's beliefs in right and wrong (generally speaking) nor imposing it on them. All minds are not created equal. You might want to imply common sense, but since most of the things pirated involve virtual reality in some form.

Who's to judge that virtual reality (even if just entertainment) must come with a price tag?

Piracy has begun since the beginnings of mankind. Doesn't make things right that it happens, but it'll happen anyway.

It won't ever truly go away. Even if the US becomes radically informed to a side-wing stance on everything, piracy will move completely to the black market.

There's no use trying to justify whether it's right or wrong or not, it's just one of the things that will be there eternally, and eternally since everyone knows what it is now.
 
TXgolfer said:
It could become a legal issue if the original builder had a patent and sold those cars for profit.....
Click to expand...

He is talking in the sense from "one citizen" to another in his example.

Aside from assuming a legal stance on his example (I know you prefer reality examples, which as I said before, won't work because it's not the same thing as virtual reality), both of you as citizens really have no say other than a mouth of what they think of the other person's character.


Legal issues, is up to the discretion of whoever patented of that particular design, as in that particular artist or person.

The RIAA/MPAA act more of like an angry mob that are unrelated to the artists (or the person who designs that particular car). They are just more like vigilantes that want a piece of anything that disagrees or smells repugnant to them, and prosecutes them in court about it.
 
As I've stated in this topic and the other, there are articles that show even if prices are slashed in half or more, the ratio of people pirating that particular software STILL remains the same.

One example that doesn't even need sources - look at O/S'es. Even if windows drops the price of its Professional retail from its $270.00 MSRP to $40.00, there will STILL be the same amount of people pirating it. This is a no brainer.

Office 2007 from it's $450 price tag drop to say $100, STILL same amount of piracy will be done. Most of them are probably out of country anyway the business software department in MS rakes money in mostly from other businesses and corporations, they can't really pirate stuff without getting into trouble like the average citizen can.

It will stay in the current era's method of content distribution no matter how you see fit.
 
Back
Top