Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 58890 times)

Niku · « **Reply #200 on:** July 20, 2009, 09:14:45 PM »

STEAL IT FROM THE STORE

COPS LOVE BABY POLAR BEARS

Thad · « **Reply #201 on:** July 20, 2009, 10:53:30 PM »

Which brings me to another point:

I have complained, repeatedly, over the years that DRM apologists erroneously refer to copyright infringement as "stealing". Copying and redistributing a file that you don't have the right to redistribute is illegal, but it's not stealing.

You know what stealing is? It's when you take something that somebody else owns and remove it from their property.

It fucking-well does not matter if you're the person who sold it to me or if you pay me back for it. If you remove it from my property without my permission, it is theft.

A simple "Sorry, won't happen again" from Amazon is insufficient. They should be sued for theft.

From what I hear, pro-DRM people believe that 80,000 times the sale value of a file is a suitable amount to claim for damages.

(Okay, I'm being glib. This isn't stealing either, because no product was actually taken. It's...what, vandalism? Whatever offense accessing a person's computer without permission and deleting files falls under.)

Rico · « **Reply #202 on:** July 20, 2009, 11:10:24 PM »

Yeah, the stealing/theft/infringement issue is awkward, but I've usually given it a free pass because of how irritated I get when people go "HAHAHA PIRATES COME IN BOATS THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT," since there's written record of it being used like that in the 1830s and a pretty good chance that it dates back to the 17th or 18th century.

Brentai · « **Reply #203 on:** July 20, 2009, 11:57:42 PM »

I would like to know if the whole "Delete their shit now please" idea was actually Amazon or the copyright holders who were twisting Amazon's arm before I pass judgment. Or before I decide who to pass judgment on at least.

Detonator · « **Reply #204 on:** July 21, 2009, 05:33:58 AM »

I'm just wondering why Amazon couldn't reimburse the publishers for the sold books, and then let the people keep what they bought.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #205 on:** July 21, 2009, 06:54:45 AM »

Quote from: Thad on July 20, 2009, 10:53:30 PM

(Okay, I'm being glib. This isn't stealing either, because no product was actually taken. It's...what, vandalism? Whatever offense accessing a person's computer without permission and deleting files falls under.)

Let's put it this way: What do you think Amazon would call it if somebody went into their system and started deleting files?

Quote from: Brentai on July 20, 2009, 11:57:42 PM

I would like to know if the whole "Delete their shit now please" idea was actually Amazon or the copyright holders who were twisting Amazon's arm before I pass judgment. Or before I decide who to pass judgment on at least.

Publisher pressuring Amazon, Amazon too weak to stand up for consumer rights. They totally afraid of losing publishers, but feel they can shed a few consumers if need be.

Quote from: Detonator on July 21, 2009, 05:33:58 AM

I'm just wondering why Amazon couldn't reimburse the publishers for the sold books, and then let the people keep what they bought.

Büge · « **Reply #206 on:** July 21, 2009, 07:31:54 AM »

Quote from: Constantine on July 21, 2009, 06:54:45 AM

Quote from: Thad on July 20, 2009, 10:53:30 PM
(Okay, I'm being glib. This isn't stealing either, because no product was actually taken. It's...what, vandalism? Whatever offense accessing a person's computer without permission and deleting files falls under.)

Let's put it this way: What do you think Amazon would call it if somebody went into their system and started deleting files?

Cyber-terrorism, most likely.

JDigital · « **Reply #207 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:25:25 AM »

I'm baffled that copyright infringement still gets equated to physical theft. The ridiculous alternative is when pirates declare they wouldn't have bought it anyway so it's not a lost sale.

Fredward · « **Reply #208 on:** July 21, 2009, 02:10:33 PM »

Quote from: Rico on July 20, 2009, 11:10:24 PM

Yeah, the stealing/theft/infringement issue is awkward, but I've usually given it a free pass because of how irritated I get when people go "HAHAHA PIRATES COME IN BOATS THIS IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT," since there's written record of it being used like that in the 1830s and a pretty good chance that it dates back to the 17th or 18th century.

PHUN PHACT: Gilbert & Sullivan's second hit operetta, The Pirates of Penzance, was originally conceived of after a rash of pirated productions of their first hit operetta, H.M.S. Pinafore.

Mongrel · « **Reply #209 on:** July 21, 2009, 03:48:59 PM »

FUN FACT: I always confuse those two operettas.

Pacobird · « **Reply #210 on:** July 21, 2009, 04:15:04 PM »

Quote from: Thad on July 20, 2009, 10:53:30 PM

Which brings me to another point:

I have complained, repeatedly, over the years that DRM apologists erroneously refer to copyright infringement as "stealing". Copying and redistributing a file that you don't have the right to redistribute is illegal, but it's not stealing.

The criminal culpability of commiting an illegal act has exactly jack and shit to do with how the victim of your crime is harmed, or if there's even a victim at all, so if you're going Semantic Fu here based on an infringer not depriving someone of physical property, I am going to throw a hearty lol in your direction, friend.

Quote

From what I hear, pro-DRM people believe that 80,000 times the sale value of a file is a suitable amount to claim for damages.

I am pro-DRM and I do not think it is reasonable, no.

However, I do think it should be treated as per the market value of the copyrighted material, with appropriate criminal sentencing. If you've got thousands of dollars worth of pirated media, you should be treated like somebody who stole a car.

But I am guessing we part ways on this.

Detonator · « **Reply #211 on:** July 21, 2009, 04:31:16 PM »

I think DRM and piracy lawsuits are two different heads of the beast, so it's pointless to claim that pro-DRM people must advocate huge lawsuits.

I think DRM will not be as big of an issue, as companies are beginning to legitimately fear the backlash that comes from draconic DRM. I cannot see anybody rationalizing the use of rootkits or system-disabling malware being installed without permission. The producers will see how far the can push the boundries, as they will with any new technology, but I think the trend will curve more towards consumer rights as people learn more about what they face.

Maybe that's just me being overly optimistic.

Pacobird · « **Reply #212 on:** July 21, 2009, 04:34:07 PM »

I think that's just you being overly optimistic.

TA · « **Reply #213 on:** July 21, 2009, 04:51:57 PM »

Quote from: P. Birdy on July 21, 2009, 04:15:04 PM

[The criminal culpability of commiting an illegal act has exactly jack and shit to do with how the victim of your crime is harmed, or if there's even a victim at all, so if you're going Semantic Fu here based on an infringer not depriving someone of physical property, I am going to throw a hearty lol in your direction, friend.

Well, when you're being accused of a specific crime that has the taking and deprivation of use as an element, it's a pretty significant distinction.

Büge · « **Reply #214 on:** July 21, 2009, 05:36:43 PM »

Quote from: Mongrel on July 21, 2009, 03:48:59 PM

FUN FACT: I always confuse those two operettas.

HMS Pinafore was sung by Sideshow Bob.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #215 on:** July 21, 2009, 05:37:40 PM »

Quote from: P. Birdy on July 21, 2009, 04:15:04 PM

However, I do think it should be treated as per the market value of the copyrighted material, with appropriate criminal sentencing. If you've got thousands of dollars worth of pirated media, you should be treated like somebody who stole a car.

But at the end of the day when a car is stolen it is no longer in the hands of the person who had it. They can no longer reap the benefits vis-a-vis having a car, whether for sale or personal use. When a file is downloaded, the owner still has the content to sale or disperse as they see fit.

Also, the reason I (at least) hate DRM is that it is the companies way of saying "You do not own this product you just bought". They deny me my right to enjoy the file as I see fit, while insisting on their right to stop me from using it should they dislike what I do with it.

JDigital · « **Reply #216 on:** July 21, 2009, 06:06:51 PM »

Copyright, says Wikipedia, was originally created to give an author a limited right to return on the profits publishers made on selling his works. It's in part sympathy for the author, who often went poor even though his work was a best-seller, and partly to encourage the creation of new works by ensuring authors a right to part of any profit, as with other craft.

You could say it's ironic now that law intended to protect the little man from financial exploitation by publishers is now used by music publishers to financially exploit the little man.

Mongrel · « **Reply #217 on:** July 21, 2009, 06:07:44 PM »

So it goes.

JDigital · « **Reply #218 on:** July 21, 2009, 08:40:57 PM »

The hard decision is how to handle copyright now that copying is something the average person has the technology to do, often only for personal use. The 1988 copyright laws aren't kitted out for that sort of casual breach of copyright.

Was going to say more about US copyright but it's 5:42am.

Rico · « **Reply #219 on:** July 21, 2009, 09:24:33 PM »

Quote from: Beta Ray Büge on July 21, 2009, 05:36:43 PM

Quote from: Mongrel on July 21, 2009, 03:48:59 PM
FUN FACT: I always confuse those two operettas.

HMS Pinafore was sung by Sideshow Bob.

And Lt. Cmdr. Data.

News:

Author Topic: Another thread on copyright/patent/trademark law (Read 58890 times)