So if I buy a book and then loan it to a friend am I a criminal? Who here is arguing that I should be?
Further, if I buy a book, scan it into a pdf and share it with twenty friends...am I a criminal?
No, you're only a criminal if you reproduce the book for your friend.
All those monks who reproduce holy do ents? CRIMINALS!
Indubitably! Because you're reducing the value of the book to those who bought it. As we all know, everything purchased in this world is bought for monetary value alone. I'm always checking the depreciation of my hardcovers for this reason.
Hot tip: Start collecting some Orwells, got a tip from an insider that they're going to be rising this year.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/0...ring-30-songs/Making good on its earlier promises, the Obama Administration went to court this week to defend the unpopular Copyright Act and what critics call as its extremely high per-song fines.
In a recent appeal of a decision that gutted a $675,000 finding against an Internet user who downloaded and shared just 30 songs, the government sided with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in claiming that a judge has no right to reduce the amount, no matter how "excessive" it may be deemed.
The administration said last year that it supported fines in the Copyright Act of up to $150,000-per-file.
I guess 30 songs is rampant.
has a kid ever been thrown in jail after having made a mixtape?
Is 30 songs a "rampant" amount of pirating?
sure.
The valuation analysts use numerous approaches in order to reach a reasonable indication of a defined value for the subject intangible assets on a certain date which is referred to as the valuation date. The most common approaches to estimate the fundamental or fair value of the intellectual property are defined as the following:
1. Cost Approach: The cost approach is based on the economic principle of subs ution. This principle states that an investor will pay no more for an asset than the cost to obtain, by purchasing or constructing, a subs ute asset of equal utility. There are several cost approach valuation methods, the most common being the historical cost, replacement cost, and replication cost.
2. Market Approach: The market approach is based on the economic principle of compe ion and equilibrium. These principles conclude that, in a free and unrestricted market, supply and demand factors will drive the price of an asset at equilibrium point. Furthermore, it provides an indication of the value by comparing the price at which similar property has exchanged between willing buyers and sellers.
3. Income Approach: This approach estimates the fair value of intellectual property by discounting the future economic benefits of ownership at an appropriate discount rate.
4. Direct Approach: The direct approach is based on the current value of shares of intellectual property in an Intellectual Property (IP) Share Market. [1]
5. Compe ive Advantage Valuation[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelle...erty_valuationnot much to argue unless you think the idea of copyright, patent or trademark legislation is worthless.Let's argue it. How does it affect 'original value'?
Ok, we start with 'original value' under IP is just an abstract concept. I agree with that.
This is a strawman. What I think about such legislation has nothing to do with your contention that unauthorized copies diminish the 'original value'.
How does unauthorized copies diminish 'original value'? Give me some examples. Do the prices of original BluRay movies fluctuate based on the availability of pirate copies? Do you have anything that remotely backs up your contention?
no and noone as far as I can tell.
Depends on how you define 'criminal'.Further, if I buy a book, scan it into a pdf and share it with twenty friends...am I a criminal?
The value of the book may or may not be an issue, but for practical purposes, imo, that's the same as petty theft, a class C misdemeanor in Texas.
Making a copy of the book into PDF format is an unauthorized copy, thus copyright infringement. Distributing said copy, for financial gain or not, it's also a violation of copyright law.
Interesting you pretend that's petty theft though...
Compared to the example I gave of what I defined as "rampant", I would say no...... which is probably why there was no jail time.
Was there a fine?
exactly.
I'm not pretending. I'm flat out calling it petty theft.Interesting you pretend that's petty theft though...
Did Marcus Bryant's friends get copies of the book without paying? yes or no.
Was Marcus the one who took the copies of the book without paying for them? yes or no.
apparently so.
Pretty excessive one, imo.
Except it's not, since theft tends to involve taking something. If you would stop insisting upon calling it theft, that would help your case.
Hmmm an excessive fine. I'd agree.
Now, when the lawsuits were up to the people whose music/movies were dloaded illegally, we can agree that it would be in the best interests of said company to only spend mine prosecuting high-volume dloaders, correct? A natural sort of "check and balance".
What's to stop the govt from going after these small-time piraters?
The potential for diminished value is part of the reason for laws protecting 'intellectual property'.
Although it's difficult to prove value in a court of law, common sense (and the courts) say there is a value there that can be lost.How does unauthorized copies diminish 'original value'?
Give me some examples.
..and one example is enough to satisfy the necessity for such protective laws, imo.
...........The analysis is guided by the landmark case Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978). This requires demonstration of demand for the infringed product, plaintiff's production and marketing capacity, plaintiff's profit but for infringement, and the effect of subs ute products on sales, if any.
The analysis considers whether plaintiff would have charged the same price as defendant on defendant's sales and how the defendant's sales may have caused erosion of plaintiff's price on sales it retained due to additional compe ion from defendant. Conversely, plan{tiff may not have lost all of defendant's sales, but for the infringement, because the higher but-for price may have limited but-for sales. Plaintiff may have also lost "convoyed" sales of unprotected products usually sold because of customers' demand for the patented product. In general there are no future lost profits in a patent case because plaintiff will be awarded an injunction against additional infringement. If the patent is close to expiration, however, defendant's entry before expiration may reduce plaintiff's post-expiration sales and cause future damages.
Panduit defines a reasonable royalty as an amount that would enable the licensee to earn a reasonable profit when viewed from the perspective of the beginning of the infringement. Panduit also refers to Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. US Plywood-Champion Papers, 446 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1971) for further guidance. Georgia-Pacific states fifteen criteria to consider in estimating a reasonable royalty rate. Georgia-Pacific's broadest criterion concerns conducting a hypothetical negotiation as if the parties would have been willing to negotiate a licensing agreement when the infringement first occurred. Apart from the hypothetical negotiation, actual royalties received on the patent in suit, if any, or paid by the infringer on similar products are to be considered. Other criteria concern the specific terms of the license, the patentee's licensing policy and the compe ive or complementary business relationship of the parties. The effect of the patented item on convoyed sales is another criterion.........
http://www.experts.com/showArticle.aspx?Articleid=438
I never made the contention that BluRay movie prices fluctuate based on the availability of pirate copies.Do the prices of original BluRay movies fluctuate based on the availability of pirate copies? Do you have anything that remotely backs up your contention?
Nice strawman.
Last edited by Blake; 05-02-2011 at 02:40 PM.
lol
what do you think I've been arguing this whole time?
my whole 'case' has been that copyright infringement of this nature is theft.
If I stopped calling it theft, this thread would have probably died at page 2.
...and yes, that example is an example of theft because Marcus Bryant's friends took something that wasn't theirs' to take without paying for it.
Maybe the fact that no one has agreed with you would give you a hint...
If we go by your idea that duplication is tantamount to theft, then what is the difference between copyright theft and ACTUAL theft?
Probably.
Just curious, and I have no answer myself, but which do you think is financially harder on a company.........a large number of small timers or a small number of high-volume dloaders?
Myself, I don't really have exact figures to what the volume cut-offs should be for small timers, medium timers and big timers......What's to stop the govt from going after these small-time piraters?
but that aside, why shouldn't the govt bring small timers to court if they are caught?
Are they or aren't they breaking the law?
the number, or lack thereof, of people in this thread agreeing with me is irrelevant...
......but I did give a list of reputable names earlier in this thread that do agree with me.
not much, just legal semantics.If we go by your idea that duplication is tantamount to theft, then what is the difference between copyright theft and ACTUAL theft?
A small number. The high-volume dloaders are most likely the ones sharing out those files as well. As well, it's much easier to go after the few high-volume ones than to try and get every single small-volume person.
A few reasons:
1) The government has better things to spend their time/money on.
2) The fines are likely to be exorbitant.
3) Civil liberties will likely be eroded in the name of this law.
Yes, but that doesn't really prove your point. People break the law every day. Have you ever sped on the highway? Park illegally? Etc etc?
Probably, because the fines for said punishments are (relatively) reasonable. If the fine for speeding were suddenly raised to $15,000, would you consider that a "fair" fine? After all, speeders are breaking the law, right? Is that fine sensible?
Which is where it breaks down somewhat. There is a tangible difference in the two cases: in one case, the original owner of the material still has the material, in the other case, the original owner of the material NO LONGER has the material.
You don't think that makes a difference?
I mean 'which might make up the most in possible lost revenue'?
always a good reason.A few reasons:
1) The government has better things to spend their time/money on.
Doubtful that they would be anywhere near as exorbitant as they currently are in civil cases.2) The fines are likely to be exorbitant.
what civil liberty would erode?3) Civil liberties will likely be eroded in the name of this law.
yes.Yes, but that doesn't really prove your point. People break the law every day. Have you ever sped on the highway? Park illegally? Etc etc?
all small time offenses that some people would say "the government has better things to spend their time/money on".
I haven't really argued what would and what wouldn't be a fair punishment.Probably, because the fines for said punishments are (relatively) reasonable. If the fine for speeding were suddenly raised to $15,000, would you consider that a "fair" fine? After all, speeders are breaking the law, right? Is that fine sensible?
I've only argued what should and what shouldn't be illegal and that copyright infringement is basically theft.
Not much of a difference imo, and I explained (to you) why some several pages back.
I also equate a lot of the minor copyright infringement with petty theft, which at the bare minimum in Texas is a class C misdemeanor........about the same level as a speeding ticket.
Do you think that if the person in Marcus' example gets caught after handing out 20 copies of a book, that he/she should be punished for it?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
