It's a distinctly different crime than stealing. In copying something, the original is still there. Are you denying them money? Yes. But it's not the same crime.
It's a distinctly different crime than stealing. In copying something, the original is still there. Are you denying them money? Yes. But it's not the same crime.
Even though the owner did not physically produce the copy, you are making and taking the copy without permission.
I'm not arguing on how it should be looked at in regards to punishment for the crime. I'm saying it's still stealing.
First of all, the guy made no copies of anything. He simply linked to streams. He's no more guilty of doing that than, say, Google or Bing.
Making money off online advertising is not a crime, AFAIK (for now, anyways)
The government is not the copyright holder. If Disney feels that their copyrights are being stepped on, they're free to sue and then the justice system gets involved and determines if the claim has merit, etc.
That's how it always has worked.
Why do we need to foot the bill for the investigation, or give up our privacy rights for something we have nothing to do with. It's not like we're assigned part of the copyright.
I still don't see what we, taxpayers, get out of this for spending a shitload of money and giving up our rights...
The protected class gets the benefit of a law addressing one of their major complaints and presumably will give their votes to their political benefactors. Also, may stimulate more interest in securing copyrights, since the state will apprently bear the cost of certain infractions.
But it's not stealing. It's copying. There's an obvious difference. Why you keep insisting that there isn't is curious.
You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
The legal environment created by the ACTA treaty may tend to encourage this view.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-19-2011 at 04:30 PM. Reason: ACTA, not DMCA; fever of 103F
but he wouldn't have made money from the online ads had he not redistributed the content (without permission) which he did not produce himself.
I'm not sure how you can compare that to Google.
From your view of it not being theft, that's a fair assessment.The government is not the copyright holder. If Disney feels that their copyrights are being stepped on, they're free to sue and then the justice system gets involved and determines if the claim has merit, etc.
That's how it always has worked.
Why do we need to foot the bill for the investigation, or give up our privacy rights for something we have nothing to do with. It's not like we're assigned part of the copyright.
Imo, it's still theft, and therefore have no problem with government enforcement.
If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.
Pretty much the same thing with music or videos.
If I understand what you are referring to, then yes I would think so.You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.
Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a fucking idiot. Good luck.
Instead of finding another way to monetize, it's time to lawyer up.
Soon enough, if not already, the general legal nostrum of presumed innocence will become presumed guilt, with leniency allowed for all good citizens. The incessant American desire to criminalize non-violent 'crimes,' as well as to protect individual rights to the point of absurdity and standardize each individual has played no small role in this outcome.
Except he didn't redistribute anything. He didn't host nor copy any videos.
Linking is exactly what Google does, and monetizes it through online ads, which is no different than what this guy did.
It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.
You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?
Last edited by ElNono; 03-19-2011 at 05:06 PM.
No, you're copying purportedly without authorization. Stealing means 'property' exchanging hands.
Under some circumstances copying without authorization is actually legal.
You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.
And BTW, the FBI already has a department for dealing with cybercrime, which includes investigating online fraud, identity theft and any other crime such as copyright infringement.
Again, what warrants the expense of a separate overlapping department that conducts investigations on behalf of these media behemoths, and specifically what's in it for the taxpayers to be supporting this expense?
Wouldn't hosting and viewing illegal streams be kinda like "stealing" cable TV service? Seems like they should be punishable in a similar way although its hard to be a fan of giving more power to the man.
Not sure about the viewing part, but the person streaming is certainly at fault. I have no problem with the authorities going after the person streaming, as I have no problem with the copyright owners having their day in court.
I just don't think it justifies it's own office, task force, and the requested penalty necessarily matches the crime. A student found photocopying a text book for school is automatically a felon?
That's covered by fair use.
But it's theft!
The charge claims that he intercepted and then streamed live sporting events without authorization.
Does Google do this?
Legally? Ok, I looked it up.It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.
Turns out it hasnt always been civil cases in regards to copyright infringement. There is such a thing as criminal copyright infringement, which is what he was arrested on a charge of.
It also turns out there has been was an amendment that was put in back in 1982 which had provisions for felony charges for first time offenders.
Enforcement agencies and prosecutors also apparently regularly refer to it as theft.
Looking back, I barely recognize it was a direct question you were asking.You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?
Disney et al are tax payers.
They get justice.
It's not the same though. If I sit in a store, and reproduced a book with a pen and notebook, should that be a felony?
Just because it is EASIER to reproduce things doesn't mean the principle is different.
The obvious difference in pirating opposed to stealing is that, in the former, the owner of the property STILL has that property.
The usefulness of said property may be greatly reduced by pirating, but that doesn't mean the two are the same.
Does Google receive permission from each site it links to?
Great, then there's probably a good reason for it being legal.
I can now tell the difference in a legal sense.You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.
but I think they are mostly the same thing in a colloquial sense.
Why are you so upset about this?
no, and I havent said or implied it should.
I agree but I was changing the media for effect, not the difficulty level.Just because it is EASIER to reproduce things doesn't mean the principle is different.
do they stream sports video without the consent of the site owner the way this other guy did?Does Google receive permission from each site it links to?
He did no such thing. Obviously, you're not familiar with what the site was/is. Did you even bother to go to the site and look?
He merely provided links. Exactly like Google.
Good. Stop referring to it as theft then. Do you understand it's a different crime? There's many different penalized copyright infringement offenses, including criminal copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, etc. None of which are prosecuted under 'theft'.
What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?
Justice was never denied to them prior to the installation of this IP czar position and the added policing of the government for their interests...
I'm sure every special interest group would like the government to take over their policing for infractions. Heck, why restrict it to special interest groups? The government should be obliged to investigate, pursue and incur on the expense of filing lawsuits and defend them for every person out there.
You really don't see what's wrong with this?
Last edited by ElNono; 03-20-2011 at 12:04 AM.
Dude do you often make such short sighted inferrances after a couple of replies?
I infer by your defensiveness that you are probably a frequent copyright infringer.
I think it's important to call things by what they are. Otherwise, they get lost in the oversimplification. Copyright law is a much more complex topic that just 'theft'.
I have no problem with punishing those that infringe copyrights. I also think that the government shouldn't socialize what inherently a claim by a private party. Lastly, I think it's a major waste of money considering the rest of the world is not even close to the same page on this issue. IE: In countries like Spain, sites akin to channelsurfing are legal, backed up with court rulings on the matter.
Thus my classification as the 'war on drugs'... a money pit where there are really few interested parties in really addressing the problem.
No, I'm not familiar with the site at all but federal authorities clearly are.
If a federal prosecutor is agreeing to prosecute the complaint in federal court then there is most definitely something there.
Who are you to say he is innocent of this charge?
Who the hell are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?Good. Stop referring to it as theft then. Do you understand it's a different crime? There's many different penalized copyright infringement offenses, including criminal copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, etc. None of which are prosecuted under 'theft'.
Fuck you.
No, but they realize it really is though.What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?
What other special interest group would you be referring to?Justice was never denied to them prior to the installation of this IP czar position and the added policing of the government for their interests...
I'm sure every special interest group would like the government to take overr their policing for infractions. Heck, why restrict it to special interest groups? The government should be obliged to investigate, pursue and incur on the expense of filing lawsuits and defend them for every person out there.
You really don't see what's wrong with this?
Criminal infringement has been enforced for almost 30 years. I really don't see this as some slippery slope today.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
