The next 'war on drugs'... [Archive]

Blake

03-19-2011, 05:13 PM

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)

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.

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.

From your view of it not being theft, that's a fair assessment.

Imo, it's still theft, and therefore have no problem with government enforcement.

Blake

03-19-2011, 05:24 PM

But it's not stealing. It's copying. There's an obvious difference. Why you keep insisting that there isn't is curious.

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.

You're saying that dloading a pirated track would be the same thing as stealing the master copies of those recordings.

If I understand what you are referring to, then yes I would think so.

greyforest

03-19-2011, 05:39 PM

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.

Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a fucking idiot. Good luck.

Marcus Bryant

03-19-2011, 05:46 PM

Instead of finding another way to monetize, it's time to lawyer up.

Marcus Bryant

03-19-2011, 05:54 PM

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.

ElNono

03-19-2011, 05:55 PM

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.

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.

From your view of it not being theft, that's a fair assessment.

It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.

Imo, it's still theft, and therefore have no problem with government enforcement.

You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?

ElNono

03-19-2011, 06:00 PM

If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.

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.

ElNono

03-19-2011, 06:04 PM

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?

Cane

03-19-2011, 06:32 PM

ElNono

03-19-2011, 06:53 PM

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?

Winehole23

03-19-2011, 07:03 PM

That's covered by fair use.

ElNono

03-19-2011, 07:09 PM

That's covered by fair use.

But it's theft!

Blake

03-20-2011, 12:27 AM

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.

The charge claims that he intercepted and then streamed live sporting events without authorization.

Does Google do this?

It's not debatable. You still have to show why it's called copyright infringement instead of simply fitting into theft.

Legally? Ok, I looked it up.

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.

You're obviously wrong. The question you dodged and still won't answer is what's in it for the taxpayer?

Looking back, I barely recognize it was a direct question you were asking.

Disney et al are tax payers.

They get justice.

LnGrrrR

03-20-2011, 12:33 AM

If you take a book and copy the contents without paying for it, you are stealing the intellectual property.

...

If I understand what you are referring to, then yes I would think so.

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.

LnGrrrR

03-20-2011, 12:35 AM

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.

LnGrrrR

03-20-2011, 12:38 AM

Does Google receive permission from each site it links to? :lol

Blake

03-20-2011, 12:44 AM

Under some circumstances copying without authorization is actually legal.

Great, then there's probably a good reason for it being legal.

You need to read up more on the differences of theft and copyright infringement, then come back once you can tell the difference.

I can now tell the difference in a legal sense.

but I think they are mostly the same thing in a colloquial sense.

Why are you so upset about this?

Blake

03-20-2011, 12:46 AM

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?

no, and I havent said or implied it should.

Just because it is EASIER to reproduce things doesn't mean the principle is different.

I agree but I was changing the media for effect, not the difficulty level.

Blake

03-20-2011, 12:49 AM

Does Google receive permission from each site it links to? :lol

do they stream sports video without the consent of the site owner the way this other guy did?

ElNono

03-20-2011, 12:56 AM

The charge claims that he intercepted and then streamed live sporting events without authorization.

Does Google do this?

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.

Legally? Ok, I looked it up.

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.

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'.

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.

What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?

Looking back, I barely recognize it was a direct question you were asking.

Disney et al are tax payers.

They get justice.

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?

Blake

03-20-2011, 12:57 AM

Dude I tried this a couple times and inferred that he was a fucking idiot. Good luck.

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.

ElNono

03-20-2011, 01:02 AM

Great, then there's probably a good reason for it being legal.

I can now tell the difference in a legal sense.

but I think they are mostly the same thing in a colloquial sense.

Why are you so upset about this?

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.

Blake

03-20-2011, 01:20 AM

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.

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?

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'.

Who the hell are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?

Fuck you.

What they refer to it is immaterial. Do they file their claims under theft?

No, but they realize it really is though.

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?

What other special interest group would you be referring to?

Criminal infringement has been enforced for almost 30 years. I really don't see this as some slippery slope today.

greyforest

03-20-2011, 01:22 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.

How am I supposed to watch a Spurs game when I'm out of state and it's not nationally televised?

If I watch a broadcast stream, you would call me a thief, and compare my actions to stealing something from a store.

I am inferring that you are a fucking idiot for thinking that, and arguing that potentially marking a person a FELON for such an action is a horribly slippery slope.

:toast

Blake

03-20-2011, 01:33 AM

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 would agree.

I think the law should refer to a lot of infringement as 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.

There is no way copyright infringement enforcement could come anywhere close to being the money pit the war on drugs is.

In fact, I don't see much of a financial strain in this type of enforcement at all.

Blake

03-20-2011, 01:40 AM

How am I supposed to watch a Spurs game when I'm out of state and it's not nationally televised?

there it is.

how about you pay for it through something like League Pass.

you are a fucking idiot.

ElNono

03-20-2011, 01:53 AM

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?

The fact we only have allegations up to this point? I though everybody was innocent until proven otherwise... Was this guy found guilty of anything yet?

Who the hell are you to tell me what I should not refer to it as?

Fuck you.

I'm the one that exposes your ignorance and immaturity. I'm glad at least I got you to look up the difference between theft and copyright infringement. You can thank me later.

No, but they realize it really is though.

What they realize is that they need to file their cases under the proper crime. When they don't file under theft, they're telling you everything you need to know.

What other special interest group would you be referring to?

Any. Pharmaceuticals, Technology, Agriculture... why should Monsanto spend one buck investigating if anybody is infringing on their patents and suing them? The government should do that for them, right?

Criminal infringement has been enforced for almost 30 years. I really don't see this as some slippery slope today.

That is exactly my point. This is an expansion to provide a solution for something that was not a problem. As I said, justice was never denied to them prior to this.

ElNono

03-20-2011, 02:00 AM

There is no way copyright infringement enforcement could come anywhere close to being the money pit the war on drugs is.

In fact, I don't see much of a financial strain in this type of enforcement at all.

You must think lawsuits are cheap. Do you even know how we got to this point?
Media companies have been spending multi million dollars filing lawsuits against alleged infringers for the past few years with variable levels of success. It's been a major money pit for them, thus it's not surprising they lobbied Uncle Sam to pick up the tab now that they couldn't make a dent.

It's not gonna work though, and we're going to be stuck with the bill.

ElNono

03-20-2011, 02:04 AM

I would agree.

I think the law should refer to a lot of infringement as theft.

There's very likely a reason why it doesn't though...

Beau

03-20-2011, 02:07 AM

ElSísí :tu

greyforest

03-20-2011, 03:00 AM

there it is.

how about you pay for it through something like League Pass.

you are a fucking idiot.

This didn't exist until 2009.

You conveniently didn't acknowledge the rest of my quote.

LnGrrrR

03-20-2011, 06:32 AM

ElNono is making all my points for me.

Just because people call it theft, doesn't make it "theft" in a legal sense. For obvious reasons, you can't just start redefining legal definitions.

And again, if copyright law has worked before, why the change?

Blake

03-21-2011, 12:03 AM

The fact we only have allegations up to this point? I though everybody was innocent until proven otherwise... Was this guy found guilty of anything yet?

He is most definitely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's a far cry from you saying "He did no such thing."

Who are you to come to the conclusion that "he did no such thing" when the feds say he did?

I'm the one that exposes your ignorance and immaturity. I'm glad at least I got you to look up the difference between theft and copyright infringement. You can thank me later.

I claimed ignorance early on in this thread. Never claimed maturity anywhere on this board at any time.

Fuck you and your continued condescending tone. I'll thank you now for giving me a reason to read up on the subject.

Funny thing is, the more I read up on it, the more of a conclusion I come to that it is theft in the colloquial sense, no matter how it is legally described.

What they realize is that they need to file their cases under the proper crime. When they don't file under theft, they're telling you everything you need to know.

So you have come to the conclusion that because it is legally called something different than theft that it is not at all theft in any other sense.

Goody for you.

And fuck you for trying to shove that opinion down my throat.

Any. Pharmaceuticals, Technology, Agriculture... why should Monsanto spend one buck investigating if anybody is infringing on their patents and suing them? The government should do that for them, right?

I admit to it not being an easy call, but again, I look at it as theft.

If someone robbed a bank, I would not expect the bank to spend one buck investigating who did it.

I have no problem in theory with a government agency investigating a complaint for copyright infringement on that large of a scale.

That is exactly my point. This is an expansion to provide a solution for something that was not a problem. As I said, justice was never denied to them prior to this.

Just curious and I can't find it myself, how many people do you think are guilty of illegally streaming something like NBA League Pass?

Blake

03-21-2011, 12:12 AM

This didn't exist until 2009.

Irrelevant to you stealing it in 2011.

You conveniently didn't acknowledge the rest of my quote.

You didn't ask me to acknowledge your entire quote, but I'll be glad to.

If I watch a broadcast stream, you would call me a thief, and compare my actions to stealing something from a store.

The law wouldn't call you a thief, but yes, I do.

You are enjoying the full benefit of something that you know you should be paying for.

You are stealing.

I am inferring that you are a fucking idiot for thinking that, and arguing that potentially marking a person a FELON for such an action is a horribly slippery slope.

I don't see any potential for you to get marked as a FELON for illegally watching a Spurs broadcast.

ElNono

03-21-2011, 12:41 AM

He is most definitely innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

That's a far cry from you saying "He did no such thing."

Who are you to come to the conclusion that "he did no such thing" when the feds say he did?

I was familiar with the site, and the report of the investigator (which, BTW, does not claim to have proof this alleged infringer was producing the actual streams).

Now, that he linked to third party infringing streams, knowingly, is probably enough to try him for contributory copyright infringement. A lesser crime, but still punishable. Then again, Google does much of the same thing (to the point of starting to get interested in some of these cases, see IsoHunt vs MPAA), so the question is, are we going to measure everybody with the same stick?

So you have come to the conclusion that because it is legally called something different than theft that it is not at all theft in any other sense.

No, it's the fact that it's a much more complex type of 'crime', which actually carries much more stiffer penalties than theft (or even rape).

Just curious and I can't find it myself, how many people do you think are guilty of illegally streaming something like NBA League Pass?

You mean people streaming or people watching said streams?

As far as people streaming, it's hard to gauge. You only need one or two reliable persons, and that basically covers it. It's hard to know how many would pop up if those go down, but so far it looks like there's no shortage of them. Which is expected as the hardware is cheap, and the vast majority of countries see it as a petty crime, if they see it as a crime at all. NBA League Pass International is available to a lot of countries, so any of them can source a low quality stream.

As far as watching, your guess is as good as mine, but I would suspect in the millions, easily.

greyforest

03-21-2011, 01:02 AM

Irrelevant to you stealing it in 2011.

BRILLIANT logic that you have.

Here's a hypothetical: say someone watched a broadcast stream before 2009. How could they be "stealing" a service that's otherwise unobtainable and impossible to pay for?

Blake

03-21-2011, 11:40 AM

I was familiar with the site, and the report of the investigator (which, BTW, does not claim to have proof this alleged infringer was producing the actual streams)

Now, that he linked to third party infringing streams, knowingly, is probably enough to try him for contributory copyright infringement. A lesser crime, but still punishable. Then again, Google does much of the same thing (to the point of starting to get interested in some of these cases, see IsoHunt vs MPAA), so the question is, are we going to measure everybody with the same stick?

Seems to me that Google is winning most of the infringement lawsuits that are being brought against them.

It also seems like they are making a very active effort to make sure they try to avoid infringement.

Do you have a specific example of what Google is doing compared to what McCarthy was/is doing?

No, it's the fact that it's a much more complex type of 'crime', which actually carries much more stiffer penalties than theft (or even rape).

I don't follow you here.

I am under the impression that copyright infringement carries a max penalty of 5 years, $250k fine.

Grand theft easily has a max stiffer penalty in most/all states.

You mean people streaming or people watching said streams?

As far as people streaming, it's hard to gauge. You only need one or two reliable persons, and that basically covers it. It's hard to know how many would pop up if those go down, but so far it looks like there's no shortage of them. Which is expected as the hardware is cheap, and the vast majority of countries see it as a petty crime, if they see it as a crime at all. NBA League Pass International is available to a lot of countries, so any of them can source a low quality stream.

As far as watching, your guess is as good as mine, but I would suspect in the millions, easily.

I would suspect in the millions as well.

Due to the sheer volume of people/dollars that we are talking about, I don't have an issue with law enforcement stepping in, investigating such complaints, and enforcing criminal copyright infringement.

Blake

03-21-2011, 11:43 AM

BRILLIANT logic that you have.

Here's a hypothetical: say someone watched a broadcast stream before 2009. How could they be "stealing" a service that's otherwise unobtainable and impossible to pay for?

They are watching a broadcast, even though it's unobtainable? wut?

Where is the broadcast stream originating from and does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free?

velik_m

03-21-2011, 12:44 PM

If i invite a neighbour to watch game on my cable, am i stealing?

jack sommerset

03-21-2011, 12:47 PM

What's the hang up here, being called a felon, being arrested, the government, time spent in the slammer and/or fines. Why is this so complicated? Is it because everyone of us downloaded something for free when we should have paid for it but are worried that if the police show up at our door we will face fines/arrest/court/record?? Do you think it's ok for someone not to sell you something illegal but send you to someone who does and/or prosper because of it? What will prevent people from downloading stuff they should have to pay for?

A old saying "A lock door only keeps a honest person honest" Seems to me the internet does not have enough locks and a bunch of "honest" people are doing something they know damn well they shouldn't.

jack sommerset

03-21-2011, 12:48 PM

If i invite a neighbour to watch game on my cable, am i stealing?

No.

LnGrrrR

03-21-2011, 01:23 PM

If i invite a neighbour to watch game on my cable, am i stealing?

Your neighbor is stealing :lol

ElNono

03-21-2011, 01:51 PM

Seems to me that Google is winning most of the infringement lawsuits that are being brought against them.

It also seems like they are making a very active effort to make sure they try to avoid infringement.

Do you have a specific example of what Google is doing compared to what McCarthy was/is doing?

Unfortunately, I can't give you direct examples without risking being sued for secondary copyright infringement. This is the sad state of things.

What I can do though, is give you some reading material if interested:
http://torrentfreak.com/googles-the-largest-torrent-search-engine-isohunt-tells-court-110315/

I don't follow you here.

I am under the impression that copyright infringement carries a max penalty of 5 years, $250k fine.

Grand theft easily has a max stiffer penalty in most/all states.

The 1997 NET Act introduced those penalties. But you also have to add the penalties from circumvention from the DMCA (17 USC 1204), since you're providing an encrypted signal in the clear. For first time offenders, it's $500K, 5 years and for repeat offenders $1M and up to 10 years.

I don't know exactly which state you're talking about, but I don't know of any that fines you over $20K for 1st degree grand theft felony, and in order to be 1st degree you need to steal over $10K in property... an example would be welcome.

I would suspect in the millions as well.

Due to the sheer volume of people/dollars that we are talking about, I don't have an issue with law enforcement stepping in, investigating such complaints, and enforcing criminal copyright infringement.

Historically under copyright law, the enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder (http://books.google.com/books?id=bN3o1uwpKF4C&dq=copyright+infringement+international+acta&source=gbs_navlinks_s). The TRIPs agreement required signatory countries to establish courts for the purpose of providing injunctions, destruction of infringing material and award damages, along with the necessary due process so alleged infringers could defend themselves in court.

Unfortunately, this advent of enforcement from the state has virtually nullified and destroyed said due process. In this specific case, injunctions were issued and executed without the ability of the defendant to challenge them in court, subpoenas issued and executed by providers without notifying the defendant so he could challenge them in court. And as posted in the OP, alleged infringers (that could easily be you or me, since you don't have to be proven guilty of anything), could be subject to wiretaps without the ability to challenge them.

And let me tell you I'm a copyright holder, I've had to deal with piracy of our products, and there's no way in fucking hell you can justify this to me.

greyforest

03-21-2011, 03:01 PM

They are watching a broadcast, even though it's unobtainable? wut?

Where is the broadcast stream originating from and does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free?

Otherwise unobtainable, meaning there was no official way to purchase a legitimate broadband stream. I concede that the service has been made available now, as you pointed out.

"Does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free" is up to you - there was no price. I'm just offering examples in the grey-area, where calling something thievery isn't applicable.

Blake

03-21-2011, 03:03 PM

Unfortunately, I can't give you direct examples without risking being sued for secondary copyright infringement. This is the sad state of things.

What I can do though, is give you some reading material if interested:
http://torrentfreak.com/googles-the-largest-torrent-search-engine-isohunt-tells-court-110315/

interesting discussion below the article.

I find this one response particularly interesting from "Anonymous 4 days ago in response to Mainframe Xaiver:

"....OK. Now go and search for "Avatar".

Google gives me 'About 1,520,000,000 results". The first five pages (at least) contain no links to any infringing content.

How about Isohunt? '4000 items'. All of which are, as far as I can be bothered to look, links to infringing content.

.......

And that's the difference. Google indexes all sorts of stuff, Isohunt and other torrent-indexers only index torrents, and their main problem is that although they can be used to search for legal content it's a sad fact that most of their results lead to "infringing content"."

The 1997 NET Act introduced those penalties. But you also have to add the penalties from circumvention from the DMCA (17 USC 1204), since you're providing an encrypted signal in the clear. For first time offenders, it's $500K, 5 years and for repeat offenders $1M and up to 10 years.

I don't know exactly which state you're talking about, but I don't know of any that fines you over $20K for 1st degree grand theft felony, and in order to be 1st degree you need to steal over $10K in property... an example would be welcome.

the max penalty for first degree grand theft felony is Texas is also 99 years in prison.

Maybe you'd take the 99 years, but me personally, I would take the bill for $1m.

Historically under copyright law, the enforcement of copyright is the responsibility of the copyright holder (http://books.google.com/books?id=bN3o1uwpKF4C&dq=copyright+infringement+international+acta&source=gbs_navlinks_s). The TRIPs agreement required signatory countries to establish courts for the purpose of providing injunctions, destruction of infringing material and award damages, along with the necessary due process so alleged infringers could defend themselves in court.

Unfortunately, this advent of enforcement from the state has virtually nullified and destroyed said due process. In this specific case, injunctions were issued and executed without the ability of the defendant to challenge them in court, subpoenas issued and executed by providers without notifying the defendant so he could challenge them in court. And as posted in the OP, alleged infringers (that could easily be you or me, since you don't have to be proven guilty of anything), could be subject to wiretaps without the ability to challenge them.

I don't like the idea of wiretaps in particular, but if an enforcement officer has enough probable cause and the judge agrees to sign off for the warrant, I would think the court would agree that due process requirements were met.

And let me tell you I'm a copyright holder, I've had to deal with piracy of our products, and there's no way in fucking hell you can justify this to me.

It's pretty obvious by now there's no way to justify it to you, but you haven't really convinced me why I shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as 'theft'.

From Collins Thesaurus, I find this interesting:

piracy

NOUN

1. robbery, Seven of the fishermen have been formally charged with piracy.
stealing, theft, hijacking, infringement, buccaneering, rapine, freebooting,

2. illegal copying, Video piracy is a criminal offence.
bootlegging, plagiarism, copyright infringement, illegal reproduction

http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx

They were very careful to separate the two, yet infringement is listed in both instances.

I wonder if original sea pirates were ever arrested for copyright infringement.

Blake

03-21-2011, 03:11 PM

Otherwise unobtainable, meaning there was no official way to purchase a legitimate broadband stream. I concede that the service has been made available now, as you pointed out.

"Does the viewer have authorization to watch it for free" is up to you - there was no price. I'm just offering examples in the grey-area, where calling something thievery isn't applicable.

No, it's not up to you or me. It's up to the originator of the stream.

Who exactly was the originator of the stream and did they originally put it out there for any/everyone to watch it for free?

greyforest

03-21-2011, 03:21 PM

No, it's not up to you or me. It's up to the originator of the stream.

Who exactly was the originator of the stream and did they originally put it out there for any/everyone to watch it for free?

On a local public broadcast, and not sure how to answer the second question. They didn't know broadband existed, I'd imagine.

LnGrrrR

03-21-2011, 03:40 PM

So Blake, what difference does it make if Isohunt only points to sites which infringe upon rights?

Is Isohunt itself doing anything illegal?

Blake

03-21-2011, 04:00 PM

On a local public broadcast, and not sure how to answer the second question. They didn't know broadband existed, I'd imagine.

You know that disclaimer that goes something like "this event may not be rebroadcast, retransmitted, redistrbiuted etc without the express written consent of the NBA"?

Was that around in 2009?

I'm betting it was.

Blake

03-21-2011, 04:03 PM

So Blake, what difference does it make if Isohunt only points to sites which infringe upon rights?

Is Isohunt itself doing anything illegal?

I don't know, have the courts made a decision yet?

It'll be a tough call, imo.

I don't think it's exactly the same thing as what google does though.

velik_m

03-21-2011, 04:18 PM

"....OK. Now go and search for "Avatar".

Google gives me 'About 1,520,000,000 results". The first five pages (at least) contain no links to any infringing content.

How about Isohunt? '4000 items'. All of which are, as far as I can be bothered to look, links to infringing content.

.......

And that's the difference. Google indexes all sorts of stuff, Isohunt and other torrent-indexers only index torrents, and their main problem is that although they can be used to search for legal content it's a sad fact that most of their results lead to "infringing content"."

What does google return for "Avatar torrent"?

LnGrrrR

03-21-2011, 04:52 PM

I don't know, have the courts made a decision yet?

I'm asking what you think though. What is the difference?

I don't think it's exactly the same thing as what google does though.

What's the difference? One is more specific?

If I look up "how to kill someone without getting caught" on Google, should they be held responsible if they link to websites that profess knowledge in that area?

Blake

03-21-2011, 04:55 PM

What does google return for "Avatar torrent"?

Did you not want to try it yourself?

There are legal torrents, correct?

When I googled "Avatar torrent" there were 3 of these quotes on the first page:

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

ElNono

03-21-2011, 04:56 PM

interesting discussion below the article.

I find this one response particularly interesting from "Anonymous 4 days ago in response to Mainframe Xaiver:

The problem is that Google allows for filtering by file type/extension. So you can make Google return only links to bittorrent files. Obviously, whoever wrote the comment was unaware of that.

Also:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/technology/google-starts-to-censor-torrent-related-search-queries-82317

the max penalty for first degree grand theft felony is Texas is also 99 years in prison.

Maybe you'd take the 99 years, but me personally, I would take the bill for $1m.

You need to steal upwards of $200,000 to even be considered for first degree grand theft in Texas... the bar is way lower in copyright infringement cases. How you like a $1.5 million award for pirating 28 songs? (granted, civil award)

I don't like the idea of wiretaps in particular, but if an enforcement officer has enough probable cause and the judge agrees to sign off for the warrant, I would think the court would agree that due process requirements were met.

I don't have a problem with that as long as the copyright holder was the one doing the hunt for the alleged infringers, and contacted the FBI once they determined the identity of the alleged infringer(s) (which is how it used to work).

The problem here is that this special office is specifically funded to go look for violations even without the copyright holder complaining. We don't live in a country with unlimited money to fund every special interest group desire. It's also a slippery slope... what's stopping Comcast now from requesting the government to assign funds and a department that actively goes out there and makes sure people are not stealing cable? Or Apple requesting that piracy of their apps are actively hunted? Where does it end?

It's pretty obvious by now there's no way to justify it to you, but you haven't really convinced me why I shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as 'theft'.

From Collins Thesaurus, I find this interesting:

They were very careful to separate the two, yet infringement is listed in both instances.

I wonder if original sea pirates were ever arrested for copyright infringement.

Considering you seem to be more interested in the thesaurus discussion than the legal and social implications, I've tried to choose my words carefully (not sure if always successfully). The distinction between piracy and theft with regards to copyright infringement are easier to find in history books, rather than the dictionary:

"Piracy"

The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603. After the establishment of copyright law with the 1709 Statute of Anne in Britain, the term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized manufacturing and selling of works in copyright. Article 12 of the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works uses the term "piracy" in relation to copyright infringement, stating "Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection." Article 61 of the 1994 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) requires criminal procedures and penalties in cases of "wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale". Piracy traditionally refers to acts intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy."

"Theft"

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization. Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement)

Blake

03-21-2011, 05:08 PM

What's the difference? One is more specific?

From what I can tell, apparently Isohunt is more specific.

If I look up "how to kill someone without getting caught" on Google, should they be held responsible if they link to websites that profess knowledge in that area?

No, but I don't think that's a valid analogy.

I would liken what Isohunt is doing to directly aiding and abetting the illegal torrent sites.

I would liken what Google does to being more of a library, to which I bet is a place you can find info on "how to kill someone without getting caught".

LnGrrrR

03-21-2011, 05:15 PM

From what I can tell, apparently Isohunt is more specific.

So that makes it illegal? :lol "Your honor, this website is clearly much better at finding illegal torrents, therefore... it's illegal too. Conspiracy or somesuch."

I would liken what Isohunt is doing to directly aiding and abetting the illegal torrent sites.

You don't think THAT'S a slippery slope?

I would liken what Google does to being more of a library, to which I bet is a place you can find info on "how to kill someone without getting caught".

So, because one site has more info than another, it's legal. Don't quite think that will hold up in court.

Tell me, if I create a search engine called "killsomeone.com" and it only brings up links to murder, death, etc etc, would that mean I'm aiding and abetting a murder, merely because I provided knowledge to someone?

What you're doing, essentially, is criminalizing knowledge.

ElNono

03-21-2011, 05:17 PM

IsoHunt is actually a torrent search engine... as you duly noted before, there's legal torrents also and IsoHunt actually links to them...

Blake

03-21-2011, 05:25 PM

The problem is that Google allows for filtering by file type/extension. So you can make Google return only links to bittorrent files. Obviously, whoever wrote the comment was unaware of that.

Also:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/technology/google-starts-to-censor-torrent-related-search-queries-82317

You need to steal upwards of $200,000 to even be considered for first degree grand theft in Texas... the bar is way lower in copyright infringement cases. How you like a $1.5 million award for pirating 28 songs? (granted, civil award)

So you think that copyright infringement punishment can be much more severe than theft.

Why again are you complaining that I call it 'theft'?

I don't have a problem with that as long as the copyright holder was the one doing the hunt for the alleged infringers, and contacted the FBI once they determined the identity of the alleged infringer(s) (which is how it used to work).

The problem here is that this special office is specifically funded to go look for violations even without the copyright holder complaining. We don't live in a country with unlimited money to fund every special interest group desire. It's also a slippery slope... what's stopping Comcast now from requesting the government to assign funds and a department that actively goes out there and makes sure people are not stealing cable? Or Apple requesting that piracy of their apps are actively hunted? Where does it end?

I dont know that it's a special interest group thing when millions of people are involved.

There are a lot of things that government spends our tax dollars on that I would rather they didn't, such as the war on drugs. In a vacuum where money would be no object, this is something I don't have a problem with.

Considering you seem to be more interested in the thesaurus discussion than the legal and social implications, I've tried to choose my words carefully (not sure if always successfully). The distinction between piracy and theft with regards to copyright infringement are easier to find in history books, rather than the dictionary:

I know the differences. I just stated it was interesting that they are there on the same page in the thesaurus.

If you'd rather see a legal opinion, I'll quote one from Supreme Court Justice Breyer from MGM vs Grokster 2005:

....In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say 961*961 this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the "useful Arts." Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. No one disputes that "reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.........

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8647956476676426155

Blake

03-21-2011, 05:33 PM

So that makes it illegal? :lol "Your honor, this website is clearly much better at finding illegal torrents, therefore... it's illegal too. Conspiracy or somesuch."

You don't think THAT'S a slippery slope?

Someone thinks it's illegal other than myself or Isohunt wouldn't be in court right now.

I think the slope is currently slippery everywhere you look regarding copright infringement.

So, because one site has more info than another, it's legal. Don't quite think that will hold up in court.

k, you could be right. we'll see.

Tell me, if I create a search engine called "killsomeone.com" and it only brings up links to murder, death, etc etc, would that mean I'm aiding and abetting a murder, merely because I provided knowledge to someone?

What you're doing, essentially, is criminalizing knowledge.

Is providing such knowledge a crime? Honestly, off the top of my head I don't know.

Seems to me that 1st Amendment Rights come to play there.

ElNono

03-21-2011, 05:58 PM

So you think that copyright infringement punishment can be much more severe than theft.

I'm concerned. I don't think the punishment necessarily fits the crime here, at least in the cases where there's no profit motive.

Why again are you complaining that I call it 'theft'?

I'm complaining (again)? How did you construe a complain from this?

The problem is that Google allows for filtering by file type/extension. So you can make Google return only links to bittorrent files. Obviously, whoever wrote the comment was unaware of that.

Also:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/technolo...-queries-82317

You need to steal upwards of $200,000 to even be considered for first degree grand theft in Texas... the bar is way lower in copyright infringement cases. How you like a $1.5 million award for pirating 28 songs? (granted, civil award)

...

I dont know that it's a special interest group thing when millions of people are involved.

If that office would cater to the million of copyright owners out there, you would have a point. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case (so far).

There are a lot of things that government spends our tax dollars on that I would rather they didn't, such as the war on drugs. In a vacuum where money would be no object, this is something I don't have a problem with.

In a vacuum with unlimited funds, I wouldn't have a problem either.

I know the differences. I just stated it was interesting that they are there on the same page in the thesaurus.

If you'd rather see a legal opinion, I'll quote one from Supreme Court Justice Breyer from MGM vs Grokster 2005:

Ample debate on that one. :lol
Interesting article about that topic here:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/09/15/a-quick-word-on-the-word-theft/

LnGrrrR

03-21-2011, 06:43 PM

k, you could be right. we'll see.

Yup. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. I'd like to think that the court wouldn't considering linking to a site that may commit a criminal act as a criminal act in itself.

greyforest

03-22-2011, 01:37 AM

You know that disclaimer that goes something like "this event may not be rebroadcast, retransmitted, redistrbiuted etc without the express written consent of the NBA"?

Was that around in 2009?

I'm betting it was.

Absolutely.

So let me get this straight - if someone watches an NBA video on youtube not uploaded officially by the NBA, you would say they are stealing.

Agree or disagree?

greyforest

03-22-2011, 01:47 AM

Here's an example:

wqPRdzrjWpU

Uploaded without authorization by lele91ASR. Are the 15,344,048 viewers all thieves to you?

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 03:33 AM

:lol Well played Grey.

Blake

03-22-2011, 09:34 AM

I'm concerned. I don't think the punishment necessarily fits the crime here, at least in the cases where there's no profit motive.

It seems to me that the punishment in the civil suits are the ones that are horribly unjust.

It would also seem to me that an enforcement agency turning their complaints in to a prosecutor would not ever be that gross.

I'm complaining (again)? How did you construe a complain from this?

..

Good. Stop referring to it as theft then.

...

If that office would cater to the million of copyright owners out there, you would have a point. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case (so far).

so there is a potential base of a million copyright owners/taxpayers.

In a vacuum with unlimited funds, I wouldn't have a problem either.

so funding is purely the issue for you regarding the enforcement agency.

Do you have any cost projections of this proposed agency, and a comparison of such cost to the 'war on drugs'?

....or is this an issue where spending $1 on it is spending $1 too much?

Ample debate on that one. :lol
Interesting article about that topic here:
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/09/15/a-quick-word-on-the-word-theft/

an opinion of an opinion. :lol

seems there is ample debate around the internets on the subject.

I don't think I've ever said anywhere who is right or wrong. Again, jmo, for all practical purposes, it's theft.

Blake

03-22-2011, 10:02 AM

Absolutely.

So let me get this straight - if someone watches an NBA video on youtube not uploaded officially by the NBA, you would say they are stealing.

Agree or disagree?

Here's an example:

Uploaded without authorization by lele91ASR. Are the 15,344,048 viewers all thieves to you?

Are we agreeing that lele91ASR is a thief?

You know for a fact that all 15+m viewers are all aware that lele91ASR did not have the authorization to upload that video?

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 11:09 AM

You know for a fact that all 15+m viewers are all aware that lele91ASR did not have the authorization to upload that video?

What does awareness of the law have to do with anything? Do all people who watch streaming broadcast have awareness of the law? And what difference would that make in the eyes of the law anyways?

Blake

03-22-2011, 11:18 AM

What does awareness of the law have to do with anything? Do all people who watch streaming broadcast have awareness of the law? And what difference would that make in the eyes of the law anyways?

Awareness/ignorance of the law is not what we are talking about here.

If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know it is stolen, it absolutely is a solid defense in any court of law to say that you did not know the property is stolen.

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 12:06 PM

Awareness/ignorance of the law is not what we are talking about here.
If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know it is stolen, it absolutely is a solid defense in any court of law to say that you did not know the property is stolen.

And what's to stop every one of those 15M + viewers of that Youtube from using that excuse?

So do you agree that all 15M+ viewers are thieves, unknowingly or not?

ElNono

03-22-2011, 12:28 PM

It seems to me that the punishment in the civil suits are the ones that are horribly unjust.

It would also seem to me that an enforcement agency turning their complaints in to a prosecutor would not ever be that gross.

Uh? This is the government filing civil suits on behalf of copyright holders...

The PRO-IP Act permits the Department of Justice to conduct civil suits on behalf of copyright holders. This provision was initially removed from the bill, but then was approved unanimously in the Senate. Not all Senators were present for this vote.

PRO-IP Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRO-IP_Act)

so there is a potential base of a million copyright owners/taxpayers.

Correct. With a potential multi-million copyrights to 'keep an eye on', and having to litigate.

so funding is purely the issue for you regarding the enforcement agency.

Do you have any cost projections of this proposed agency, and a comparison of such cost to the 'war on drugs'?

....or is this an issue where spending $1 on it is spending $1 too much?

No, I have no problem with the assigned budget for the FBI to pursue criminal cases. If you think I'm against enforcement, you got it all wrong.
What I do not want is for the government to start picking up the tab on civil lawsuits filed on behalf of companies that are quite capable of filing themselves and footing the bill for it. In the Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster case, just attorney fees awarded were $68,685.23, and the infringement claim wasn't even litigated. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand cases and it's easy to see how quickly that can get out of control.

an opinion of an opinion. :lol

seems there is ample debate around the internets on the subject.

I don't think I've ever said anywhere who is right or wrong. Again, jmo, for all practical purposes, it's theft.

Call it whatever you want. I'm concerned in the legal/cost aspect, not the linguistic one.

Blake

03-22-2011, 12:34 PM

And what's to stop every one of those 15M + viewers of that Youtube from using that excuse?

Nothing at all.

So do you agree that all 15M+ viewers are thieves, unknowingly or not?1

if they are unknowing, they are not thieves.

Blake

03-22-2011, 12:53 PM

Uh? This is the government filing civil suits on behalf of copyright holders...

The PRO-IP Act permits the Department of Justice to conduct civil suits on behalf of copyright holders. This provision was initially removed from the bill, but then was approved unanimously in the Senate. Not all Senators were present for this vote.

PRO-IP Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRO-IP_Act)

so the [paraphrase] $1M lawsuit against the 12 year old was a civil suit filed on behalf of the copyright holders?

I was under the impression that this new agency would be responsible for filing criminal charges.

Correct. With a potential multi-million copyrights to 'keep an eye on', and having to litigate.

Against potentially multi-millions of violators with mulit-millions worth of dollars on the line.

Again, the scope of what is happening makes me ok with having an enforcement agency.

No, I have no problem with the assigned budget for the FBI to pursue criminal cases. If you think I'm against enforcement, you got it all wrong.
What I do not want is for the government to start picking up the tab on civil lawsuits filed on behalf of companies that are quite capable of filing themselves and footing the bill for it. In the Capitol Records v. Debbie Foster case, just attorney fees awarded were $68,685.23, and the infringement claim wasn't even litigated. Multiply that by a few hundred thousand cases and it's easy to see how quickly that can get out of control.

K, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what you are getting at.

Is it that the government will be picking up the tab on civil lawsuits if this new proposal passes or is it that the WH's proposal will change what you believe should stay a civil suit and turn it into a criminal charge?

Call it whatever you want. I'm concerned in the legal/cost aspect, not the linguistic one.

I ask because in the war on drugs, I'm concerned with both.

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 01:43 PM

if they are unknowing, they are not thieves.

I don't quite think that theft involves knowing it is against the law. Otherwise, as you pointed out, everyone could just claim ignorance and then get off scot-free.

Are you saying that's your personal definition of theft?

ElNono

03-22-2011, 01:45 PM

so the [paraphrase] $1M lawsuit against the 12 year old was a civil suit filed on behalf of the copyright holders?

I was under the impression that this new agency would be responsible for filing criminal charges.

No, the 12 year old lawsuit was filed BY the copyright holders. See, at that time this new agency didn't exist, so they had to foot the bill themselves, which makes sense, since they're the ones making the claim, and holders of the copyright.

The new agency role coordinates authority already in place on the FBI, ICE, and DHS. It's not all bad, but the civil suits part is certainly alarming (from a cost/legalese aspect)

Against potentially multi-millions of violators with mulit-millions worth of dollars on the line.

Which were already protected by law enforcement and criminal law. Going into the civil realm and suing on behalf of others is novel and absurd. The copyright holder was never impeded from doing so. The only thing that shifts here is who carries the burden on the expense.

Again, the scope of what is happening makes me ok with having an enforcement agency.

There always was an enforcement agency. We got to this point with an enforcement agency in place.

K, I think I'm getting a clearer picture of what you are getting at.

Is it that the government will be picking up the tab on civil lawsuits if this new proposal passes or is it that the WH's proposal will change what you believe should stay a civil suit and turn it into a criminal charge?

It's not a proposal...

On October 13, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

It just took this long to actually deploy and implement it.

The criminal charge was always there, even prior to this law. The copyright holder would contact the FBI and the FBI would investigate and bring criminal charges if necessary.

This law introduces the ability for the AG to file civil suits on behalf of the right holders, which means the government would be bearing the brunt of the cost of said litigation (including attorney fees and related costs if they lose the case), while the proceedings for winning the civil case go to the rights holder. That's pretty convenient.

It's akin to me having the government sue you, and if the case is won, I get the proceedings, while if the case is lost, the government picks up the tab.

ElNono

03-22-2011, 01:52 PM

if they are unknowing, they are not thieves.

FWIW, an old saying is that ignorance is no defense. Technically speaking, it can be, but it's very hard to prove you didn't know in a court of law.

Blake

03-22-2011, 01:59 PM

It's not a proposal...

On October 13, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law.

It just took this long to actually deploy and implement it.

The criminal charge was always there, even prior to this law. The copyright holder would contact the FBI and the FBI would investigate and bring criminal charges if necessary.

This law introduces the ability for the AG to file civil suits on behalf of the right holders, which means the government would be bearing the brunt of the cost of said litigation (including attorney fees and related costs if they lose the case), while the proceedings for winning the civil case go to the rights holder. That's pretty convenient.

It's akin to me having the government sue you, and if the case is won, I get the proceedings, while if the case is lost, the government picks up the tab.

huh?

Bush was strongly against the bill in September of 08 because of that reason.

It was removed from what I undertstand which is why he signed the bill in October of 08.

The Bush administration initially expressed its opposition to the legislation, but one of its more contentious provisions, which would have allowed the Justice Department to pursue civil litigation against copyright infringers, was removed.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10064527-38.html#ixzz1HM9woVnC

Blake

03-22-2011, 02:03 PM

FWIW, an old saying is that ignorance is no defense. Technically speaking, it can be, but it's very hard to prove you didn't know in a court of law.

In most, probably all states, the law says that saying you didn't know is an acceptable defense.

ElNono

03-22-2011, 02:55 PM

huh?

Bush was strongly against the bill in September of 08 because of that reason.

It was removed from what I undertstand which is why he signed the bill in October of 08.

Hrm... I don't know why it said it passed on the Wiki page.
But it looks like you're correct. Any other link indicates it's not been included.

That's a relief.

In most, probably all states, the law says that saying you didn't know is an acceptable defense.

Like I said, technically speaking it's a valid defense. It just can be very hard to prove in court.

Blake

03-22-2011, 02:58 PM

But it looks like you're correct.

Fuck you.

j/k

ElNono

03-22-2011, 02:59 PM

Just cut it out with the 'theft' meme...

j/k

Blake

03-22-2011, 03:37 PM

I don't quite think that theft involves knowing it is against the law. Otherwise, as you pointed out, everyone could just claim ignorance and then get off scot-free.

Are you saying that's your personal definition of theft?

If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know you are in possession of stolen property, then it is absolutely a solid defense, and yes, everyone could just claim they did not know they were holding stolen property and get off scot-free.

Very easy google search, but if you need a link(s), let me know.

boutons_deux

03-22-2011, 03:55 PM

More IP news:

Court rejects Google Books settlement

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-20045967-36.html?tag=topStories1

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 05:15 PM

If you are in possession of stolen property and you do not know you are in possession of stolen property, then it is absolutely a solid defense, and yes, everyone could just claim they did not know they were holding stolen property and get off scot-free.

Very easy google search, but if you need a link(s), let me know.

I know what I'm doing then... torrenting everything I can and claiming complete ignorance. It should work the first time, at least. :lol

Blake

03-22-2011, 07:50 PM

I know what I'm doing then... torrenting everything I can and claiming complete ignorance. It should work the first time, at least. :lol

a bit different from the youtube clip from earlier. youtube actively removes infringed material and makes it clear that uploading such material is prohibited.

If I'm watching TV at home and the TV station is broadcasting a movie they did not have the right to broadcast, am I also liable for their misdeed?

I would think the same logic would apply to youtube. I'm not at all uncomfortable watching that previous clip.

Downloading a full movie for free from a torrent site and copying it to your computer would be a much different thing, imo.

Who would believe you that you really didn't know you couldn't copy a newly released movie for free? You'd have to do a good job of lying and playing dumb.

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 07:59 PM

Downloading a full movie for free from a torrent site and copying it to your computer would be a much different thing, imo.

Who would believe you that you really didn't know you couldn't copy a newly released movie for free? You'd have to do a good job of lying and playing dumb.

I can agree that the onus to verify that one was "ignorant" of a crime would be much harder to prove if you were dloading movies. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Blake

03-22-2011, 08:03 PM

I can agree that the onus to verify that one was "ignorant" of a crime would be much harder to prove if you were dloading movies. My comment was tongue-in-cheek.

I figured, but it still made me think for minute.

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 08:23 PM

ElNono

03-22-2011, 08:32 PM

Google is protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA... that said, they act upon requests from the copyright holder, they don't go on their own witch hunt to verify rights ownership prior to the upload, as obviously that would be too onerous for them.

Obviously, it's never too onerous when it's taxpayer money. :lol

Blake

03-22-2011, 09:36 PM

Just to play Devil's Advocate... what if you were dloading things that you COULDN'T purchase anywhere? Say, for instance, I wanted to watch some games from the 1986 Celtics season. AFAIK, these games aren't available to purchase for viewing anywhere.

Would you consider that theft? Or is theft only applicable in the case of newer releases/when a means of purchasing is available?

ElNono would probably know more about expiration of copyrights, if there is such a thing as an expired copyright any more.

If there is a copyright on the telecast, then availability of purchase is irrelevant.

ElNono

03-22-2011, 09:46 PM

ElNono would probably know more about expiration of copyrights, if there is such a thing as an expired copyright any more.

CTEA (1988) extended them to life of the author plus 70 years for personal registrations and for works of corporate authorship to 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication, whichever endpoint is earlier. Obviously, the estate keeps the rights after the author's death in the first case, the corporation in the second.

If there is a copyright on the telecast, then availability of purchase is irrelevant.

Yeah, not to mention that illegal distribution of certain telecasts also infringe on other rights, like trademarks.

I think the whole thing is very draconian though. Copyright was supposed to reward and entice creation, but the other element (letting items fall in the public domain) was also a crucial part to the benefit of society as a whole.
The system is too broken now, and it's likely to get worse than better.

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 10:57 PM

ElNono would probably know more about expiration of copyrights, if there is such a thing as an expired copyright any more.

If there is a copyright on the telecast, then availability of purchase is irrelevant.

How is viewing of said material considered "theft" if there is no legal way to purchase the material?

Blake

03-22-2011, 11:04 PM

How is viewing of said material considered "theft" is there is no legal way to purchase the material?

how exactly are you viewing said material if there is no legal way to purchase the material?

LnGrrrR

03-22-2011, 11:14 PM

how exactly are you viewing said material if there is no legal way to purchase the material?

You are aware that people upload recorded content (Ie old VHS tapes) to the Internet at times, right?

Blake

03-22-2011, 11:51 PM

You are aware that people upload recorded content (Ie old VHS tapes) to the Internet at times, right?

the old VHS recording is infringement to start.

greyforest

03-23-2011, 12:08 AM

Are we agreeing that lele91ASR is a thief?

So now you don't think people watching the streams are thieves, it's the people providing the stream. You are becoming wiser.

This is not the viewpoint you had earlier in the thread.

Observe:

If I watch a broadcast stream, you would call me a thief, and compare my actions to stealing something from a store.

The law wouldn't call you a thief, but yes, I do.

You are enjoying the full benefit of something that you know you should be paying for.

You are stealing.

I'm sure everyone is well aware they can pay for NBA videos.

They are enjoying the full benefit of something they could be paying for by watching it on Youtube.

Why aren't they all thieves?

You know for a fact that all 15+m viewers are all aware that lele91ASR did not have the authorization to upload that video?

Ahh, so the ignorance of the people viewing streams makes them innocent!!

WAIT A MINUTE...

How am I supposed to watch a Spurs game when I'm out of state and it's not nationally televised?

there it is.

how about you pay for it through something like League Pass.

you are a fucking idiot.

greyforest

03-23-2011, 01:02 AM

BTW

how exactly are you viewing said material if there is no legal way to purchase the material?

Because there's this new fangled thing called "the internet" where anything digital can be archived with very little effort or cost, and then it can be transmitted anywhere on earth.

I already broached the subject:

Here's a hypothetical: say someone watched a broadcast stream before 2009. How could they be "stealing" a service that's otherwise unobtainable and impossible to pay for?

Anyway the point is this:

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'.

Where Blake sees anyone watching 3rd-party Youtube NBA mixes as thieves (IF they know they can buy NBA videos), I simply see a new era of people fully embracing the benefits of modern technology. What once was difficult to copy and share can now be digitized and shared with great ease and little cost. I see the mass media outlets shitting their collective pants over not having a monopoly over the media, and I see them trying desperately to curb the effect of the internet on their bloated coffers by influencing the government to drastically increase the penalty for a non-violent crime.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2011, 01:15 AM

the old VHS recording is infringement to start.

:lol So anyone recording a program is a thief?

Wait, if I DVR a bball game, does that make me a thief?

FuzzyLumpkins

03-23-2011, 01:30 AM

If they want to waste their money than they can go right ahead.

One thing that they are changing is making it so that applications are honored on a first to file instead of a first to invent standard.

That will help clear up a lot of litigation. The office itself is understaffed and too many bad patents are fiated through.

Apple has an entire policy of making vague wording in their patents because oversight is so shitty.

but yeah it pretty much sounds like an unenforceable position.

The real issue is in actual invention not the print media in its various guises coming to grips with the internet.

Blake

03-23-2011, 08:29 AM

So now you don't think people watching the streams are thieves, it's the people providing the stream. You are becoming wiser.

This is not the viewpoint you had earlier in the thread.

Observe:

I'm sure everyone is well aware they can pay for NBA videos.

They are enjoying the full benefit of something they could be paying for by watching it on Youtube.

Why aren't they all thieves?

Ahh, so the ignorance of the people viewing streams makes them innocent!!

WAIT A MINUTE...

Apparently you either didn't read or comprehend some of the previous posts, so to clarify:

watching a youtube or hulu clip is not the same thing as downloading a movie from an illegal torrent site.

Most of it is about "intent".

You clearly were whining earlier about not being able watch the Spurs in your area, so if you go after it and download the broadcast of a game without the NBA's authorization, you are intentionally stealing, imo.

Again, youtube takes an active approaching at removing infringed content.

If a clip of a broadcast is on there, it's absolutely reasonable to assume that it is either it is on there legally or the owner of the content has granted them authorization to rebroadcast it.

I think it's a 50-50 shot that you still won't get it.

Blake

03-23-2011, 08:45 AM

:lol So anyone recording a program is a thief?

Wait, if I DVR a bball game, does that make me a thief?

my mistake.

I should have said "uploading the old VHS recording is infringement to start."

Pretty sure that fair use allows you to record a hard copy of a show for you to watch at a later time as long as you don't rebroadcast or redistribute the copy.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2011, 12:50 PM

I should have said "uploading the old VHS recording is infringement to start."

Not saying it's not infringement. But if said game isn't available to purchase, how is it theft?

Blake

03-23-2011, 01:25 PM

Not saying it's not infringement. But if said game isn't available to purchase, how is it theft?

Again, availability of purchase is not an issue.

If someone says:

"it's not for sale. You also cannot take the content and redistribute it"

..but you do so any way, you're stealing.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2011, 01:28 PM

Again, availability of purchase is not an issue.

If someone says:

"it's not for sale. You also cannot take the content and redistribute it"

..but you do so any way, you're stealing.

Wha about content that doesn't explicitly say that? Say I recorded some show from the 80s that wasn't available on DVD. Are you kosher with that?

Blake

03-23-2011, 02:12 PM

Wha about content that doesn't explicitly say that? Say I recorded some show from the 80s that wasn't available on DVD. Are you kosher with that?

I think it's been established through fair trade laws that it's kosher to record any show at any time as long as you keep it for your own personal use only.

The sharing of the content with others is a different issue.

I also wouldn't make the assumption that because it isn't explicitly stated that it doesn't have a copyright.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2011, 02:40 PM

FuzzyLumpkins

03-23-2011, 02:43 PM

I think it's been established through fair trade laws that it's kosher to record any show at any time as long as you keep it for your own personal use only.

The sharing of the content with others is a different issue.

I also wouldn't make the assumption that because it isn't explicitly stated that it doesn't have a copyright.

You cite fair use after spending pages acting as IPR have some clean overall standard. thats nice.

Even the sampling industry does not have good test cases because the industry went completely scared after De La Soul got sued.

Really there are not a lot of good test cases and for all of your vigor deriding piratebay, they are ever going to be beyond our jurisdiction mainly because of our refusal to play ball regarding them in the Uruguay round of GATT talks.

Fair use itself is a constantly evolving standard. Your broad brush to paint all just sucks. it could quite easily and understandably be brought into the realm of what is now called privacy.

Blake

03-23-2011, 03:16 PM

You cite fair use after spending pages acting as IPR have some clean overall standard. thats nice.

I'm citing the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax, which does it make nice for that argument.

Even the sampling industry does not have good test cases because the industry went completely scared after De La Soul got sued.

Really there are not a lot of good test cases and for all of your vigor deriding piratebay, they are ever going to be beyond our jurisdiction mainly because of our refusal to play ball regarding them in the Uruguay round of GATT talks.

Uruguay?

Wtf does this post have anything to do with anything said so far in this thread?

Fair use itself is a constantly evolving standard. Your broad brush to paint all just sucks. it could quite easily and understandably be brought into the realm of what is now called privacy.

I agree fair use iself is evoloving. This is the first time I've used the term "fair use" in this entire thread because it involved this very specific example.

Your post is nothing more than a jab surrounded by a bunch of empty fluff.

My opinion is that your opinion of my opinion sucks.

Blake

03-23-2011, 03:20 PM

But if there's no explicit warning/mention, then couldn't said uploaders claim ignorance of the law as a valid defense?

Nope.

As we can all agree, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

That's different than being ignorant that you are enjoying the benefits of property that was stolen by someone else.

FuzzyLumpkins

03-23-2011, 03:36 PM

I'm citing the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax, which does it make nice for that argument.

Uruguay?

Wtf does this post have anything to do with anything said so far in this thread?

I agree fair use iself is evoloving. This is the first time I've used the term "fair use" in this entire thread because it involved this very specific example.

Your post is nothing more than a jab surrounded by a bunch of empty fluff.

My opinion is that your opinion of my opinion sucks.

Go read about the GATT (General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade) specifically IPR and the Uruguay rounds. its pivotal in how IPRs are used and treated around the world.

Then think about places like Malaysia, Myanmar or an other slew of countries that do not honor our IPRs.

This entire debate is because the print industry is getting thrashed by the freedom of the internet.

My point is that your clear cut black and white this is stealing stance is is at best subject to change; your soapbox stinks of shit.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? What if there is no rhyme or reason to the law?

You cannot see potential logical inconsistency to allowing copying something for free on your DVR but not when its from an internet site especially when the storage format is exactly the same?

I contend that it is the right of the citizen to have clear and interpretable laws. That it is the burden of the state to educate the populace.

LnGrrrR

03-23-2011, 04:17 PM

Nope.

As we can all agree, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.

Er...

That's different than being ignorant that you are enjoying the benefits of property that was stolen by someone else.

Wait wait wait.

Let's clear some things up.

You're saying it's not ok to use "ignorance of the law" as an excuse for the originator of the stream, but it is ok for the people watching said dload/stream.

Do you have any basis for this distinction legally? Why is ignorance of the law ok for people illegally viewing a stream, but ignorance of the law isn't ok for people illegally uploading a video?

Blake

03-23-2011, 04:48 PM

Go read about the GATT (General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade) specifically IPR and the Uruguay rounds. its pivotal in how IPRs are used and treated around the world.

I will when the mood strikes me.

As of now, international copyright laws have not had their place in this discussion.

My point is that your clear cut black and white this is stealing stance is is at best subject to change; your soapbox stinks of shit.

Great. Your soapbox regarding my soapbox is stinkier than shit.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse? What if there is no rhyme or reason to the law?

What law do you believe has no rhyme or reason?

I would think every law has a reason. That's why they were proposed in the first place.

You cannot see potential logical inconsistency to allowing copying something for free on your DVR but not when its from an internet site especially when the storage format is exactly the same?

What internet site are you referring to?

How did they get access themselves to the content that you want to copy?

I contend that it is the right of the citizen to have clear and interpretable laws. That it is the burden of the state to educate the populace.

What is considered to be clear and interpretable can be interpreted in any different way. Semantics of the law can always be argued any which way a citizen chooses to take it.

I am comfortable enough with our justices interpreting the laws in our country's courts.

ElNono

03-23-2011, 05:03 PM

I'm citing the Supreme Court in the 1984 Sony Betamax, which does it make nice for that argument.

Sony Betamax is no longer the gold standard though, after the Grokster case. While the Sony Betamax test hasn't changed, there has been added tests to it after Grokster.

Furthermore, with the advent of the DMCA and the new encrypted media, circumventing the encryption even for making personal copies is a felony.

So the Sony Betamax test should be used with a lot of asterisks these days.

Blake

03-23-2011, 05:06 PM

Er...

Wait wait wait.

Let's clear some things up.

You're saying it's not ok to use "ignorance of the law" as an excuse for the originator of the stream, but it is ok for the people watching said dload/stream.

Do you have any basis for this distinction legally? Why is ignorance of the law ok for people illegally viewing a stream, but ignorance of the law isn't ok for people illegally uploading a video?

Here's an opinion on the uploading:

http://www.askdavetaylor.com/get_into_trouble_for_downloading_illegal_files.htm l

In regards to watching a youtube clip, since they are actively making sure that it is known that infringed uploads are not allowed while removing the ones that are, it's completely reasonable to assume I can watch any clip on youtube in good faith that what I am watching is not an illegal clip.

If you need it, I'll look up some case examples later.

ElNono

03-23-2011, 05:07 PM

I will when the mood strikes me.

As of now, international copyright laws have not had their place in this discussion.

Actually, the core of this country's copyright legalese is entirely based on international IP agreements, like TRIPs (which I did brought up earlier in this thread, IIRC).

They're not a minor topic, because this new IP Czar has attacked international sites directly, even ones that were declared legal in their respective countries (ie: RojaDirecta). This new IP office also assigns new IP attaches to US embassies abroad, so international enforcement is certainly a core issue, and another waste of money (IMO).

Blake

03-23-2011, 05:09 PM

Sony Betamax is no longer the gold standard though, after the Grokster case. While the Sony Betamax test hasn't changed, there has been added tests to it after Grokster.

Furthermore, with the advent of the DMCA and the new encrypted media, circumventing the encryption even for making personal copies is a felony.

So the Sony Betamax test should be used with a lot of asterisks these days.

For the example that LnGrrrR gave, I'm not sure anything has changed regarding copying a broadcast.

Although it seems there is precedent in other situations that would also back up that example, I think I could simply use that ruling in a court of law and it would hold.

ElNono

03-23-2011, 05:12 PM

Viewing the videos is not a crime, and that has nothing to do with knowing/not-knowing the legal status of the video.

Under copyright law, what's penalized is the copy or distribution. The copy happens when you make a copy of the licensed video, the distribution happens when you distribute said copy (upload, stream, email, etc) or even the original licensed video.

Blake

03-23-2011, 05:12 PM

Actually, the core of this country's copyright legalese is entirely based on international IP agreements, like TRIPs (which I did brought up earlier in this thread, IIRC).

They're not a minor topic, because this new IP Czar has attacked international sites directly, even ones that were declared legal in their respective countries (ie: RojaDirecta). This new IP office also assigns new IP attaches to US embassies abroad, so international enforcement is certainly a core issue, and another waste of money (IMO).

Yeah, we base our legalese off of international agreements, but there is no international court of law.

All the examples that have been given in this thread come back to our own court rulings.

ElNono

03-23-2011, 05:13 PM

On the other hand, if you actually store the streamed video, you're making another illegal copy....

Blake

03-23-2011, 05:17 PM

Viewing the videos is not a crime, and that has nothing to do with knowing/not-knowing the legal status of the video.

Criminally, no.

Morally, depends on you.

I say if you know you are watching a pirated movie, you are stealing.

Don't mistake that for me being on a soapbox telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. I don't really care what you do outside of obeying the law. I'm just calling it like I see it.

ElNono

03-23-2011, 05:18 PM

Yeah, we base our legalese off of international agreements, but there is no international court of law.

Well, no, agreements mean that the signatories must implement what was agreed upon in their local legislation. Enforcement is obviously done independently by each country.

They basically describe what the minimum basic requirements of the local law must be. Each country must then implement at least that. Some go further, some don't. Some have stiffer penalties, some don't.

All the examples that have been given in this thread come back to our own court rulings.

Well, I brought up RojaDirecta as an example because their DNS was hijacked at the same time as channelsurfing. This was done by the US, because their domain registrar was in the US.
But RojaDirecta was declared legal in Spain... So it's tricky.

ElNono

03-23-2011, 05:20 PM

Morally, depends on you.

I'm glad we don't legislate morality... although some might disagree :lol

Blake

03-23-2011, 05:25 PM

Well, I brought up RojaDirecta as an example because their DNS was hijacked at the same time as channelsurfing. This was done by the US, because their domain registrar was in the US.
But RojaDirecta was declared legal in Spain... So it's tricky.

huh.

that'll be a good one to watch.

mouse

03-23-2011, 05:35 PM

Hey Blake you want to get off your high horse one day so we can have a beer?

I don't support the idea that coping a movie like "no strings attached" just so you can maybe get laid after 90 minutes of pure hell something to be fined for, in fact you deserve a medal! Besides it's a movie you can't wait to remove from your HD the same as a person going into Wall mart and putting a DVD in their pants. And I will tell you why.

To steal something from someone they have to claim they don't have it anymore. So how can you call the cops that your DVD of Debbie Does Dallas was stolen from your home if when the cops get there they see the DVD still sitting on the coffee table?

Are you going to say.."but officer my neighbor watched my movie and I didn't give him permission" You know how that sounds? Do any of you taint sniffing salad tossers have any idea what the word "theft" means?

As for as "copyrights" go.... I think they should be respected. I have many scripts being copyrighted as we speak and I would hate for some douche bag to steal my movie idea.

(BTW) it's only 20 dollars to do it

But I do think the laws need to separate the felony from the misdemeanor by if the copyrighted material was used to make a profit. Did you take a Spurs Shirt with the same design and sell them at the SBC center? Then yes it's a crime. Do the time. pay the fine.

But if it's some 16 year old kid who is posting a video of his drunk dad dancing on youtube and happens to use the music from Salt N Peppa then use your common sense and realize that is exposure for that band why not spread the music around?

I don't get it I have a band i beg people to share my link with others.

But some cheesy band like Fog hat doesn't want their music heard?

where is the logic.

This is the era of the wireless megabytes and just like cell phones killed the beeper the www killed will the Music CD.

and you can quote me.

Blake

03-23-2011, 07:48 PM

Hey Blake you want to get off your high horse one day so we can have a beer?

probably not... I like it up here.

To steal something from someone they have to claim they don't have it anymore. So how can you call the cops that your DVD of Debbie Does Dallas was stolen from your home if when the cops get there they see the DVD still sitting on the coffee table?

If someone copies your dvd of DDDallas and leaves with the copy, they aren't stealing from you.

They are stealing from the movie company.

Do any of you taint sniffing salad tossers have any idea what the word "theft" means?

As for as "copyrights" go.... I think they should be respected. I have many scripts being copyrighted as we speak and I would hate for some douche bag to steal my movie idea.

so if you don't know what theft means, does that automatically make you a salad tossing taint sniffer?

where is the logic.

most of us ask that every time you post

velik_m

03-24-2011, 12:39 AM

Wow, i didn't realise music industry is losing, sorry, is getting stolen from so much money:
$75 Trillion (http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202486102650&Manhattan_Federal_Judge_Kimba_Wood_Calls_Record_Co mpanies_Request_for__Trillion_in_Damages_Absurd_in _Lime_Wire_Copyright_Case) :wow.
We must do something NOW!

velik_m

04-04-2011, 01:36 PM

Saw this today on slashdot:

"Big Content" Is Strangling American Innovation

11:45 AM Thursday March 31, 2011

Innovation has emerged as a key means by which the US can pull itself out of this lackluster economy. In the State of the Union, President Obama referred to China and India as new threats to America's position as the world's leading innovator. But the threats are not just external. One of the greatest threats to the US's ability to innovate lies within: specifically, with the music and movie business. These Big Content businesses are attempting to protect themselves from change so aggressively that they risk damaging America's position as a world leader in innovation.

Read on... (http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/03/big_content_is_strangling_amer.html)

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 02:21 PM

I say if you know you are watching a pirated movie, you are stealing.

You have a relatively broad definition of stealing, though. Again, if I'm watching an uploaded unauthorized video that can't be legally purchased in any fashion, you'd still consider that stealing, right?

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 02:22 PM

Also, wondering where you draw the line Blake.

Let's say I have an mp3 server at my house, shared with various members of my family. I buy one copy of a CD, and the whole house listens to it. Is that stealing?

Blake

04-04-2011, 04:55 PM

You have a relatively broad definition of stealing, though. Again, if I'm watching an uploaded unauthorized video that can't be legally purchased in any fashion, you'd still consider that stealing, right?

Is there a copyright on the video?

Blake

04-04-2011, 04:57 PM

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 04:58 PM

If you legally purchased one copy of a cd, why would it be stealing?

If I legally purchased a song, dloaded said song to my PC, and then uploaded it to a website, would you say that's legal or not?

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 04:59 PM

Is there a copyright on the video?

Sure, why not? Still don't see how it's "theft" if there original creator of the video is not providing a means to purchase the video legally.

It may not be "legal", per se, but I fail to see how it's theft.

Blake

04-04-2011, 09:36 PM

If I legally purchased a song, dloaded said song to my PC, and then uploaded it to a website, would you say that's legal or not?

a website like facebook?

technically illegal.

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 09:40 PM

a website like facebook?

technically illegal.

So what's the difference between putting a copy of an MP3 on a local server for everyone in the house to enjoy, and putting it out there on the web?

Why would it be legal to use an mp3 server in your home (assuming other besides you use it)?

Edit: And I also meant a personal website, but it doesn't make a big difference for the purposes of the analogy.

Blake

04-04-2011, 09:41 PM

Sure, why not? Still don't see how it's "theft" if there original creator of the video is not providing a means to purchase the video legally.

It may not be "legal", per se, but I fail to see how it's theft.

so there is no way to see the original video unless you download and view it without asking permission.

I fail to see how you still fail to see this is stealing a viewing of said video.

LnGrrrR

04-04-2011, 09:45 PM

so there is no way to see the original video unless you download and view it without asking permission.

I fail to see how you still fail to see this is stealing a viewing of said video.

Is there harm being done to the person who originally made the video? Please define where the harm is perpetrated.

Blake

04-04-2011, 10:02 PM

So what's the difference between putting a copy of an MP3 on a local server for everyone in the house to enjoy, and putting it out there on the web?

Why would it be legal to use an mp3 server in your home (assuming other besides you use it)?

because it's one copy meant to be listened to by the one owner of the purchased song. If others are around when the music is playing then no problem.

The problem would exist if you made the copies for others to where they could take it with them when the leave.

Edit: And I also meant a personal website, but it doesn't make a big difference for the purposes of the analogy.

Then I would say generally speaking, it would be illegal to upload any song at any time onto a website.

That said, if you had your own personal website that you wanted to upload a song on, then the two questions I would have are:

1. are you making money off the song?

2. are you keeping the music company that owns the song from making money?

if the answer is yes to either, then yup, you're stealing.

Blake

04-04-2011, 10:07 PM

Is there harm being done to the person who originally made the video? Please define where the harm is perpetrated.

you are taking intellectual property.

nothing out there says that the owner can't someday decide to sell the video.

...but because you took it without asking, future potential value of the video just depreciated.

ElNono

04-04-2011, 11:45 PM

you are taking intellectual property.

nothing out there says that the owner can't someday decide to sell the video.

...but because you took it without asking, future potential value of the video just depreciated.

Actually, appreciation or depreciation has nothing to do with it. Ultimately, the commercial value is strictly determined by the rights holder, who is the one with exclusive rights of distribution.

There's an interesting report, fairly recent, describing piracy as a market failure, not an legal one. (link (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/956637--geist-canadian-backed-report-says-music-movie-and-software-piracy-is-a-market-failure-not-a-legal-one))

Brand diminishing, etc is in the realm of trademarks. A different can of worms.

Blake

04-05-2011, 08:33 AM

Actually, appreciation or depreciation has nothing to do with it. Ultimately, the commercial value is strictly determined by the rights holder, who is the one with exclusive rights of distribution.

I was answering to the question of what the harm might be to download a video that isn't for sale.

If you want to argue that making a copy of someone elses intellectual property does not affect original value, then i would disagree.

MannyIsGod

04-05-2011, 08:36 AM

If Blake was sheriff, there would have been a lot of teenagers in jail for their mixtapes.

LnGrrrR

04-05-2011, 11:45 AM

If Blake was sheriff, there would have been a lot of teenagers in jail for their mixtapes.

:lol I thought about that earlier.

Blake

04-05-2011, 02:36 PM

If Blake was sheriff, there would have been a lot of teenagers in jail for their mixtapes.

Probably not.

But if I was judge/jury I would most likely find them guilty.

LnGrrrR

04-05-2011, 04:20 PM

Probably not.

But if I was judge/jury I would most likely find them guilty.

Obviously, irreparable harm was done to record companies during the 80's due to the scourge of mixtapes. :lol

Spurminator

04-05-2011, 04:52 PM

Record companies' primary function these days is to force-feed mainstream radio playlists through what amounts to extortion. The more irrelevant they become due to the Internet, the better it will be for music in general.

They're just trying to make a few more bucks before they fall. Fuck 'em and good riddance.

Blake

04-05-2011, 04:58 PM

Obviously, irreparable harm was done to record companies during the 80's due to the scourge of mixtapes. :lol

Actually a mix tape made for personal use would most likely be alright. If you give that mix tape away, it would be wrong.

Lol you still having difficulty with this

MannyIsGod

04-05-2011, 05:05 PM

Not so sure he's having difficulty with it as much as everyone but you just thinks its a stupid position.

Blake

04-05-2011, 07:05 PM

Not so sure he's having difficulty with it as much as everyone but you just thinks its a stupid position.

thinking it's a stupid position would be a stupid position to take.

LnGrrrR

04-05-2011, 07:23 PM

Actually a mix tape made for personal use would most likely be alright. If you give that mix tape away, it would be wrong.

Lol you still having difficulty with this

lol you not realizing the joke about mixtapes in the 80s, since most were given away

Blake

04-05-2011, 09:59 PM

lol you not realizing the joke about mixtapes in the 80s, since most were given away

you made a joke? I don't see it.

please explain the punch line

LnGrrrR

04-05-2011, 10:06 PM

you made a joke? I don't see it.

please explain the punch line

I'm going to guess you weren't around in the 80's.

"Mixtapes" were rather popular, and one gave them to someone they liked in order to express how they felt.

The humor lies in the idea of the fed finding out said 15 yr old gave his sweetheart a mixtape (with copyrighted songs on it, GASP!), and the fed busting him and sending him to jail for years due to it.

Blake

04-05-2011, 10:37 PM

I'm going to guess you weren't around in the 80's.

"Mixtapes" were rather popular, and one gave them to someone they liked in order to express how they felt.

The humor lies in the idea of the fed finding out said 15 yr old gave his sweetheart a mixtape (with copyrighted songs on it, GASP!), and the fed busting him and sending him to jail for years due to it.

No wonder I didn't get it.

I never implied that a 15 year old would deserve jail time for giving away an illegal mixtape to a girlfriend.

It might have been a solid zinger had I done so.

Darn it all to heck.

LnGrrrR

04-06-2011, 01:45 AM

No wonder I didn't get it.

I never implied that a 15 year old would deserve jail time for giving away an illegal mixtape to a girlfriend.

It might have been a solid zinger had I done so.

Darn it all to heck.

You agree that said person is a thief, and youve said thieves deserve jail time.

That's the problem with law Blake. They won't just use the law the way you think they will, to go after the "bad guys". They'll go after anyone that they can, the easier the better, in order to intimate others.

Heck, they already have.

MannyIsGod

04-06-2011, 08:32 AM

Blake

04-06-2011, 02:47 PM

You agree that said person is a thief, and youve said thieves deserve jail time.

I don't believe I said all theft deserves jail time.

If I did feel free to point it out so that I can back pedal accordingly.

That's the problem with law Blake. They won't just use the law the way you think they will, to go after the "bad guys". They'll go after anyone that they can, the easier the better, in order to intimate others.

Heck, they already have.

I would say your issue is with the law enforcement. I won't argue with you there.

The questions you've been asking though have pertained to what is legal and what's not.

Blake

04-06-2011, 03:05 PM

You sure did you just didn't realize it.

I sure didn't.

LnGrrrR

04-06-2011, 03:06 PM

I don't believe I said all theft deserves jail time.

So what limits would you put on it? Feel free to clarify.

The questions you've been asking though have pertained to what is legal and what's not.

Considering the OP was about a real-world instance, I thought we were talking in terms of real-world results, ie. enforcement.

Blake

04-06-2011, 04:42 PM

So what limits would you put on it? Feel free to clarify.

Limits?

Most illegal downloaders that are found guilty in court are fined. From what I've read, the jail time has come to the ones running the websites that have been gateways for rampant illegal downloads.

Some of the fines have been extremely excessive imo, but I can't think of any instance where someone was given jail time that didn't appear to deserve it.

Considering the OP was about a real-world instance, I thought we were talking in terms of real-world results, ie. enforcement.

So to summarize, you think that it should not be illegal to download or copy copyrighted material and I do. Is that it?

LnGrrrR

04-06-2011, 04:54 PM

Limits?

Most illegal downloaders that are found guilty in court are fined. From what I've read, the jail time has come to the ones running the websites that have been gateways for rampant illegal downloads.

What's with the "rampant" qualifier? What makes it rampant?

After all, if I have a website with music on it, but I only get 3 hits a day, does that make me any better than someone who puts up the same song and gets 3,000 hits a day?

Some of the fines have been extremely excessive imo, but I can't think of any instance where someone was given jail time that didn't appear to deserve it.

What about that case where the old lady was being fined millions of dollars because her son used Napster? :lol

So to summarize, you think that it should not be illegal to download or copy copyrighted material and I do. Is that it?

Nice strawman!

I obviously think that, in some cases, downloading illegally should be punished. However, I don't think that we should change the way it's been done, and start having the federal government take on cases. I'm fine with the way it works now, where a company that thinks someone is dloading can go after them for civil losses.

There are some things that, while I might not agree with them, I still don't want a law for. I realize that trying to create a law to prevent these actions will just catch a lot of innocent people and have unintended consequences. Frankly, most big record/movie companies have the pockets to hire lawyers to go after any big fish that is severely hurting them.

Blake

04-08-2011, 09:07 AM

What's with the "rampant" qualifier? What makes it rampant?

This is the example I was thinking when I used the word 'rampant':

http://hothardware.com/News/Pirate-Bay-Founders-Face-Jail-Time-And-Fines/

I have no problem with pirate bay founders going to jail in Sweden.

After all, if I have a website with music on it, but I only get 3 hits a day, does that make me any better than someone who puts up the same song and gets 3,000 hits a day?

No, you are no better or worse than the other person.

The only difference is that the one with the 3k hits is more likely to get caught.

What about that case where the old lady was being fined millions of dollars because her son used Napster? :lol

Excessive fine, imo.

Still an illegal activity.

Nice strawman!

I wasn't making an argument! I think I was pretty clearly wanting clarification on what your stance is!

At this point, I'd rather just get to the point instead of answering some more of your silly examples regarding 15 year olds living in the 80s.

I obviously think that, in some cases, downloading illegally should be punished. However, I don't think that we should change the way it's been done, and start having the federal government take on cases. I'm fine with the way it works now, where a company that thinks someone is dloading can go after them for civil losses.

There are some things that, while I might not agree with them, I still don't want a law for. I realize that trying to create a law to prevent these actions will just catch a lot of innocent people and have unintended consequences. Frankly, most big record/movie companies have the pockets to hire lawyers to go after any big fish that is severely hurting them.

The issue of how illegal downloading should be enforced is a seperate issue from what you've been asking.

To clarify, this is a question to clarify:

Do you agree that the 15 year old giving a mixtape to his girlfriend is illegally infringing on copyrights? Yes or no.

LnGrrrR

04-08-2011, 11:43 AM

Blake: Sure giving a mixtape is illegally infringing on their rights.

Now, how could a law be drafted that would prevent that kid from getting possibly thrown in jail, while still getting the "rampant" piraters?

ElNono

04-08-2011, 11:46 AM

If you want to argue that making a copy of someone elses intellectual property does not affect original value, then i would disagree.

Let's argue it. How does it affect 'original value'?
Actually, could you describe first what you call 'original value'?

LnGrrrR

04-08-2011, 02:22 PM

Let's argue it. How does it affect 'original value'?
Actually, could you describe first what you call 'original value'?

Hehe. Someone's about to open up a can of worms...

Marcus Bryant

04-08-2011, 02:29 PM

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?

LnGrrrR

04-08-2011, 02:48 PM

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?

No, you're only a criminal if you reproduce the book for your friend.

All those monks who reproduce holy documents? CRIMINALS!

Further, if I buy a book, scan it into a pdf and share it with twenty friends...am I a criminal?

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.

Winehole23

04-09-2011, 12:20 PM

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.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/07/obama-admin-675000-is-an-appropriate-punishment-for-sharing-30-songs/

LnGrrrR

04-09-2011, 01:11 PM

I guess 30 songs is rampant.

Blake

05-02-2011, 11:10 AM

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 11:27 AM

has a kid ever been thrown in jail after having made a mixtape?

Is 30 songs a "rampant" amount of pirating?

Blake

05-02-2011, 11:38 AM

Actually, could you describe first what you call 'original value'?

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 substitution. This principle states that an investor will pay no more for an asset than the cost to obtain, by purchasing or constructing, a substitute 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 competition 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. Competitive Advantage Valuation[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_valuation

Let's argue it. How does it affect 'original value'?

not much to argue unless you think the idea of copyright, patent or trademark legislation is worthless.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 11:50 AM

sure.

Ok, we start with 'original value' under IP is just an abstract concept. I agree with that.

not much to argue unless you think the idea of copyright, patent or trademark legislation is worthless.

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?

Blake

05-02-2011, 11:50 AM

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?

no and noone as far as I can tell.

Further, if I buy a book, scan it into a pdf and share it with twenty friends...am I a criminal?

Depends on how you define '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.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 11:53 AM

Depends on how you define '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...

Blake

05-02-2011, 11:54 AM

Is 30 songs a "rampant" amount of pirating?

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.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 11:57 AM

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?

Blake

05-02-2011, 11:59 AM

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.

exactly.

Interesting you pretend that's petty theft though...

I'm not pretending. I'm flat out calling it petty theft.

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.

Blake

05-02-2011, 12:00 PM

Was there a fine?

apparently so.

Pretty excessive one, imo.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 12:03 PM

exactly.

I'm not pretending. I'm flat out calling it petty theft.

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.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 12:07 PM

apparently so.

Pretty excessive one, imo.

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?

Blake

05-02-2011, 02:35 PM

This is a strawman. What I think about such legislation has nothing to do with your contention that unauthorized copies diminish the 'original value'.

The potential for diminished value is part of the reason for laws protecting 'intellectual property'.

How does unauthorized copies diminish 'original value'?
Give me some examples.

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.

..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 substitute 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 competition 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 competitive 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

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?

I never made the contention that BluRay movie prices fluctuate based on the availability of pirate copies.

Nice strawman.

Blake

05-02-2011, 02:43 PM

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.

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.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 02:52 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?

Blake

05-02-2011, 02:55 PM

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".

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?

What's to stop the govt from going after these small-time piraters?

Myself, I don't really have exact figures to what the volume cut-offs should be for small timers, medium timers and big timers......

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?

Blake

05-02-2011, 02:58 PM

Maybe the fact that no one has agreed with you would give you a hint...

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.

If we go by your idea that duplication is tantamount to theft, then what is the difference between copyright theft and ACTUAL theft?

not much, just legal semantics.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 03:00 PM

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?

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.

Myself, I don't really have exact figures to what the volume cut-offs should be for small timers, medium timers and big timers......

but that aside, why shouldn't the govt bring small timers to court if they are caught?

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.

Are they or aren't they breaking the 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?

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 03:01 PM

not much, just legal semantics.

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?

Blake

05-02-2011, 03:17 PM

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.

I mean 'which might make up the most in possible lost revenue'?

A few reasons:

1) The government has better things to spend their time/money on.

always a good reason.

2) The fines are likely to be exorbitant.

Doubtful that they would be anywhere near as exorbitant as they currently are in civil cases.

3) Civil liberties will likely be eroded in the name of this law.

what civil liberty would erode?

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?

yes.

all small time offenses that some people would say "the government has better things to spend their time/money on".

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 haven't really argued what would and what wouldn't be a fair punishment.

I've only argued what should and what shouldn't be illegal and that copyright infringement is basically theft.

Blake

05-02-2011, 03:34 PM

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?

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?

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 03:35 PM

Doubtful that they would be anywhere near as exorbitant as they currently are in civil cases.

And your basis for that belief?

what civil liberty would erode?

Off the top of my head, I'm not sure. Perhaps gov't scanning of P2P networks?

I haven't really argued what would and what wouldn't be a fair punishment.

I've only argued what should and what shouldn't be illegal and that copyright infringement is basically theft.

Do you think people would really care much if there was a token fine associated with dloading illegally?

What's got people up in arms is that record companies are trying to extract exorbitant fees using nebulous claims of "loss".

I wouldn't, in theory, be necessarily opposed to the gov't prosecuting such claims if the fines were reasonable and the punishments sensible.

I just highly doubt they will be.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 03:59 PM

Not much of a difference imo, and I explained (to you) why some several pages back.

And I disagree. To someone who purchases a music CD, movie, etc etc. usually the primary value of it is not to wait for it to appreciate value. It's to enjoy the experience behind the music, movie, etc etc. That is not changed by someone copying that material. However, if said CD/video was stolen, that WOULD prevent them from enjoying it.

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?

Sure, I could see that being a punishment. I still would rather have the publisher initiate the charges rather than the gov't, but if the fines were reasonable, I wouldn't necessarily have a huge issue with it.

Blake

05-02-2011, 04:03 PM

And your basis for that belief?

current fines for criminal charges are maxed out at $250k (plus some jail time) for a felony offense.

I haven't dug deep, but I think the max fine for a misdemeanor offense is $100k.

Do you think people would really care much if there was a token fine associated with dloading illegally?

What's got people up in arms is that record companies are trying to extract exorbitant fees using nebulous claims of "loss".

I wouldn't, in theory, be necessarily opposed to the gov't prosecuting such claims if the fines were reasonable and the punishments sensible.

I just highly doubt they will be.

If the claims are nebulous and yet record companies are still winning in a court of law, then blame the court system.

I still see the need for laws and enforcement of them regardless.

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 04:45 PM

current fines for criminal charges are maxed out at $250k (plus some jail time) for a felony offense.

I haven't dug deep, but I think the max fine for a misdemeanor offense is $100k.

I would argue that the vast majority of dloaders should be under the misdemeanor offense, of which 100K would be pretty exorbitant. In my eyes, someone sharing, say, 30 files should be fined no more than $2.5K (and that's in extreme cases.)

If the claims are nebulous and yet record companies are still winning in a court of law, then blame the court system.

I still see the need for laws and enforcement of them regardless.

Fair enough. I just like the current system as it stands, as it seems effective enough.

Blake

05-02-2011, 04:47 PM

And I disagree. To someone who purchases a music CD, movie, etc etc. usually the primary value of it is not to wait for it to appreciate value. It's to enjoy the experience behind the music, movie, etc etc. That is not changed by someone copying that material. However, if said CD/video was stolen, that WOULD prevent them from enjoying it.

To someone who doesn't purchase a music CD, movie, etc etc and instead illegally downloads it, gets to enjoy the experience behind the music, movie etc etc for free.

That person just illegally took that experience from the entertainment company without paying for it.

Theft.

Blake

05-02-2011, 04:56 PM

I would argue that the vast majority of dloaders should be under the misdemeanor offense, of which 100K would be pretty exorbitant. In my eyes, someone sharing, say, 30 files should be fined no more than $2.5K (and that's in extreme cases.)

ok, I would agree.

I would also think that the max 100k fine is also not your standard class C misdemeanor type.

Fair enough. I just like the current system as it stands, as it seems effective enough.

just some fyi, an opinion from a law professor at UC Berkeley:

.......The Internet has vastly expanded the ability for everyone to reach a global audience, but it has also undermined the investments that sustain development of knowledge and cultural resources. Finding the right balance has proven particularly elusive during the Internet Age. Private enforcement has not been able to quell Internet piracy. As the drafters of COICA recognize, public enforcement of copyright law provides a potentially valuable tool in addressing rampant unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works........

http://www.mediainstitute.org/new_site/IPI/2011/022311.php

ElNono

05-02-2011, 05:22 PM

I'm not pretending. I'm flat out calling it petty theft.

What you call it is irrelevant. A willing prosecutor would never sue him for theft. He would be sued under the Copyright act.

Did Marcus Bryant's friends get copies of the book without paying? yes or no.

According to MB's description, yes (with or without paying is irrelevant).

Was Marcus the one who took the copies of the book without paying for them? yes or no.

No, he took no copies, he made them and distributed them (with or without paying is irrelevant).

LnGrrrR

05-02-2011, 05:36 PM

To someone who doesn't purchase a music CD, movie, etc etc and instead illegally downloads it, gets to enjoy the experience behind the music, movie etc etc for free.

That person just illegally took that experience from the entertainment company without paying for it.

Theft.

Except the company still has the recording, which means that it isn't QUITE the same as your classic "theft", whereby the original owners no longer have possession.

ElNono

05-02-2011, 05:42 PM

The potential for diminished value is part of the reason for laws protecting 'intellectual property'.

Then I'm sure such laws spell that out. Can you cite such laws, and specifically where they address the diminished value?
I'm fairly familiar with copyright, trademark and patent law, and the only thing they do is grant exclusive exploitation rights (copy, distribution, likeness, etc) and remedies in case such rights are violated, including guidelines on what the punitive damages should be awarded, or in case of criminal guidelines, what criminal sentences should apply.

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.
..and one example is enough to satisfy the necessity for such protective laws, imo.

You're talking about a completely different thing altogether now. You're now discussing what's the remedial value in case somebody is caught selling counterfeit items. Nice strawman. At no point the value of the 'original' item changed. The reason is that there's only two entities allowed to set what the 'original value' is: The exclusive rights holder, or the government by means of limiting the rights granted to the holder under the premise of price control.

I never made the contention that BluRay movie prices fluctuate based on the availability of pirate copies.

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman at all, and sure you did. Your claim is that illegal copies diminish the original value of the item. That implies that a third party (not the rights holder, or the entity that granted the exclusive rights) can cause the value of the original item to fluctuate.

The example is actually completely accurate. Under your premise, a flood of counterfeit copies of The Green Hornet DVDs from China would cause an original copy of the The Green Hornet DVD to fall in value (diminishing the 'original value'). That's not true at all. The 'original value' is still $24 (or whatever it sells for) which is the price the rights holder put on it.
The rights holder can actually sue for much more than the 'original value', since copyright law stipulates penalties up to a certain amount per copy, which are completely unrelated to the 'original value' of the item.

Blake

05-03-2011, 10:22 AM

What you call it is irrelevant. A willing prosecutor would never sue him for theft. He would be sued under the Copyright act.

The irrelevance of my opinion was and is irrelevant to the formation of my evolving opinion(s).

If it makes you feel better, based on your resume, I do take your opinion into consideration when forming my opinion on this topic.

According to MB's description, yes (with or without paying is irrelevant).

Paying for the copies the right way is the only thing that's relevant.

If they don't pay, they are stealing.

Again, theft.

No, he took no copies, he made them and distributed them (with or without paying is irrelevant).

I mistyped. Yes, "MB made copies."

You are wrong here however: "with or without paying" is absolutely relevant when considering if it is theft or not.

Not sure how anyone would think otherwise.

Blake

05-03-2011, 11:20 AM

Except the company still has the recording, which means that it isn't QUITE the same as your classic "theft", whereby the original owners no longer have possession.

Except that the person that got the experience for free, stole the experience, i.e. the intellectual property.

What's your opinion of someone sneaking into a movie theater? The owner of the theater still holds the original movie, so nothing physical has been taken.

Is it simply trespassing or is it theft?

ElNono

05-03-2011, 11:55 AM

Paying for the copies the right way is the only thing that's relevant.

If they don't pay, they are stealing.

Again, theft.

So, if MB's friends paid him, then everything is kosher?
If the publisher sells the book for $40, but his friends pay him 25c, then they're off the hook?

Sorry, it doesn't quite work that way.

I mistyped. Yes, "MB made copies."

You are wrong here however: "with or without paying" is absolutely relevant when considering if it is theft or not.

Not sure how anyone would think otherwise.

Because the actual infringing activity is the copy and distribution, not wether it was for financial gain or not. If the rationale would be that there needs to be a pofit-motive, then none of the filesharers that are downloading songs for free could be sued. But they are.

LnGrrrR

05-03-2011, 11:58 AM

Except that the person that got the experience for free, stole the experience, i.e. the intellectual property.

What's your opinion of someone sneaking into a movie theater? The owner of the theater still holds the original movie, so nothing physical has been taken.

Is it simply trespassing or is it theft?

Its not quite theft; after all, I can't recall movie theaters arresting people on the charges of theft for sneaking in to the movie theaters.

Maybe I'm wrong though, could you find an example where that did happen?

Blake

05-03-2011, 01:32 PM

Then I'm sure such laws spell that out. Can you cite such laws, and specifically where they address the diminished value?
I'm fairly familiar with copyright, trademark and patent law, and the only thing they do is grant exclusive exploitation rights (copy, distribution, likeness, etc) and remedies in case such rights are violated, including guidelines on what the punitive damages should be awarded, or in case of criminal guidelines, what criminal sentences should apply.

I'm haven't looked up what laws specifically address the concept of diminished value, but the case I just cited showed the court trying to distinguish between lost profits and reasonable royalties.

You're talking about a completely different thing altogether now. You're now discussing what's the remedial value in case somebody is caught selling counterfeit items. Nice strawman. At no point the value of the 'original' item changed. The reason is that there's only two entities allowed to set what the 'original value' is: The exclusive rights holder, or the government by means of limiting the rights granted to the holder under the premise of price control.

No, it's not a strawman.

As in the case cited, the plaintiff needed to show how the price was devalued and/or how he lost profit.

.......An analysis of lost profits is demarcated by three critical dates: incident, valuation and full mitigation. The incident is the latest event that precipitated the loss. The date of full mitigation of damages is the latest date up to which a loss occurs. The date of full mitigation may precede or follow the valuation date.

Often lost profits results from a decline of sales, after the incident, relative to the trajectory that sales would have followed but for the incident. The plaintiff must exert reasonable efforts to offset the loss and mitigate the damages. Such efforts may result in an increasing trend of actual "with-incident" sales reversing the declining trend. At some subsequent point of time, actual sales may increase sufficiently that profits after that point equal or exceed the profits that would have occurred then and thereafter but for the incident. If so, full mitigation of damages would have been achieved......

http://www.experts.com/showArticle.aspx?Articleid=438

Not a strawman at all, and sure you did. Your claim is that illegal copies diminish the original value of the item. That implies that a third party (not the rights holder, or the entity that granted the exclusive rights) can cause the value of the original item to fluctuate.

I sure did not.

Product A with a patent/copyright/trademark =/= all products with patents/copyrights/trademarks

The Bluray example was all you.

Very nice strawman.

The example is actually completely accurate. Under your premise, a flood of counterfeit copies of The Green Hornet DVDs from China would cause an original copy of the The Green Hornet DVD to fall in value (diminishing the 'original value'). That's not true at all. The 'original value' is still $24 (or whatever it sells for) which is the price the rights holder put on it.
The rights holder can actually sue for much more than the 'original value', since copyright law stipulates penalties up to a certain amount per copy, which are completely unrelated to the 'original value' of the item.

...Unless the price of the DVD is cut because sales have dropped.

Have you never seen an item sold below retail value? If you need an example of such an item, let me know.

Of course, if the price is cut, then the item would have to pass the "Panduit test" in order to prove that the item lost value (or that the owner lost profit) because of those illegal copies.

The "Panduit test" being as follows:

The patent owner's actual losses, measured as the loss of profits, is one possible measure of "damages adequate to compensate for the infringement." Proof of lost profits must include two elements: (1) a showing of causation, i.e. that the patent owner would have made additional sales "but-for" the infringement, and (2) evidence for the computation of the loss of profits.13 Lost profits damages may be measured based upon the causation factors set forth in Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre Works, Inc.14 Under the Panduit test, the patentee must prove four factors to establish lost profits.

The four factors are: (1) a demand for the products covered by the patent; (2) an absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes to the patented product or process; (3) that the patentee possessed the manufacturing and marketing capabilities to exploit the demand; and (4) the amount of profit the patentee would have made had the infringement not occurred.

http://www.sristi.org/mdpipr2004/day3/D3S3R1.htm

Panduit was able to show profit loss.

I don't know how a CD/DVD company can do the same.

Blake

05-03-2011, 01:42 PM

Its not quite theft; after all, I can't recall movie theaters arresting people on the charges of theft for sneaking in to the movie theaters.

Maybe I'm wrong though, could you find an example where that did happen?

New York state law:

ARTICLE 165

OTHER OFFENSES RELATING TO THEFT

S 165.15 Theft of services.
A person is guilty of theft of services when:

....

9. With intent to avoid payment of the lawful charge for admission to
any theatre or concert hall...

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article165.htm

LnGrrrR

05-03-2011, 02:13 PM

New York state law:

Ah, interesting. Thanks Blake.

Speaking from a completely non-legal standpoint, I can see the "theft of services" to be somewhat synonymous with illegally dloading music.

I don't think it's comparable to "theft" in the normal understanding of the word (ie taking something) but I can see it reducing the earnings of those who hold IP, thereby making it a specific form of theft. (Though I would rather a better term.)

Of course, there's other issues unique to copyright protection.

Blake

05-03-2011, 02:25 PM

Ah, interesting. Thanks Blake.

Speaking from a completely non-legal standpoint, I can see the "theft of services" to be somewhat synonymous with illegally dloading music.

I don't think it's comparable to "theft" in the normal understanding of the word (ie taking something) but I can see it reducing the earnings of those who hold IP, thereby making it a specific form of theft. (Though I would rather a better term.)

Of course, there's other issues unique to copyright protection.

I've been saying my stance on copyright infringement = theft has been a non-legal one pretty much all along.

ElNono said this:

Stop referring to it [copyright infringement] as theft then.

I told him "fuck you" and here we are. :tu

ElNono

05-03-2011, 08:27 PM

I'm haven't looked up what laws specifically address the concept of diminished value, but the case I just cited showed the court trying to distinguish between lost profits and reasonable royalties.

Which are completely unrelated to your 'original value' claim...

No, it's not a strawman.

As in the case cited, the plaintiff needed to show how the price was devalued and/or how he lost profit.

There's not a single mention of diminished/devalued value in what you posted (I've read both of the quotes you cited, the long and short form. Heck, do a text search).

What you're quoting is what takes place when a rights holder must justify to a judge what the remedy should be for the infringement. Since we established that the 'original value' is really an abstract value fully determined by the rights holder, and a jury can't award an abstract value per infringement, the rights holder needs to explain why it's requesting a specific value per violation (which includes the 'original value' plus any other arbitrary cost they might want to add but have to justify, such as a punitive amount, a perceived temporary loss of market momentum, or other fees).

Throughout the entire process, the 'original value' of the item is still whatever the rights holder decides it is. The counterfeit copies had absolutely no bearing on such value.

I sure did not.

Product A with a patent/copyright/trademark =/= all products with patents/copyrights/trademarks

The Bluray example was all you.

Very nice strawman.

You did not what? Claim that illegal copies diminish the original value of the item? I can quote you on that.

And while patent, copyright and trademark are not interchangeable, the rights afforded to every product under each law is exactly the same.

...Unless the price of the DVD is cut because sales have dropped.

Have you never seen an item sold below retail value? If you need an example of such an item, let me know.

Who 'drops the price' though? Could sales drop regardless of weather there's counterfeit copies?

Correlation does not imply causation...

And the rights holder can sell at whatever value they wish for whatever reason they want. They don't need to compete with counterfeit goods.

The rights holder has exclusive distribution rights. If an influx of counterfeit goods show up, they can simply sue. They retain at all times the ability to set whatever arbitrary 'original value' on their exclusive item (with the government exception I noted previously in another post)

Of course, if the price is cut, then the item would have to pass the "Panduit test" in order to prove that the item lost value (or that the owner lost profit) because of those illegal copies.

The "Panduit test" being as follows:
Panduit was able to show profit loss.

I don't know how a CD/DVD company can do the same.

The "Panduit test" is a four-prong test that's completely unrelated to 'original value' and is to determine damage in patent litigations.

This is how the CD/DVD company goes about arguing the same:

Under Panduit, the CD/DVD company has to prove...
1) There was a demand for the product
2) There was an absence of non-infringing alternatives
3) The CD/DVD company had the marketing and manufacturing capabilities to meet demand.
4) Justify the amount requested for alleged lost-profits due to counterfeit sales.

The 'original value' of the product never changed because of the presence of counterfeit copies. The only entity in control of such pricing is the rights holder. Hope it's a little more clear now.

Blake

05-03-2011, 09:59 PM

Which are completely unrelated to your 'original value' claim...

There's not a single mention of diminished/devalued value in what you posted (I've read both of the quotes you cited, the long and short form. Heck, do a text search).

so you are basically arguing that lost value does not go with lost profits.

k, I've admitted that I can't find any law specifically using the words "lost value", but I'll go ahead and keep looking.

What you're quoting is what takes place when a rights holder must justify to a judge what the remedy should be for the infringement. Since we established that the 'original value' is really an abstract value fully determined by the rights holder, and a jury can't award an abstract value per infringement, the rights holder needs to explain why it's requesting a specific value per violation (which includes the 'original value' plus any other arbitrary cost they might want to add but have to justify, such as a punitive amount, a perceived temporary loss of market momentum, or other fees).

I already read up on how the process works, but thanks anyway.

You did not what? Claim that illegal copies diminish the original value of the item? I can quote you on that.

I did not make the specific contention that BluRay movie prices fluctuate based on the availability of pirate copies.

Again, you came up with that example all on your own.

And while patent, copyright and trademark are not interchangeable, the rights afforded to every product under each law is exactly the same.

I have figured as much.

Who 'drops the price' though? Could sales drop regardless of weather there's counterfeit copies?

Correlation does not imply causation...

Agreed, which is why I didn't use a crappy example such as the Bluray strawman you laid out for yourself so that you might have something to finally kick the shit out of.

The "Panduit test" is a four-prong test that's completely unrelated to 'original value' and is to determine damage in patent litigations.

This is how the CD/DVD company goes about arguing the same:

Under Panduit, the CD/DVD company has to prove...
1) There was a demand for the product
2) There was an absence of non-infringing alternatives
3) The CD/DVD company had the marketing and manufacturing capabilities to meet demand.
4) Justify the amount requested for alleged lost-profits due to counterfeit sales.

The 'original value' of the product never changed because of the presence of counterfeit copies. The only entity in control of such pricing is the rights holder.

I know the process as I thought I pretty clearly laid it out before you did.

What I meant is that I don't know how CD companies in your specific example could prove any kind of tangible loss without more specifics in your example.

They retain at all times the ability to set whatever arbitrary 'original value' on their exclusive item (with the government exception I noted previously in another post)

I finally found the legal definition for you regarding loss of value:

The price erosion theory of damages as used in patent law is the difference between actual costs of goods and potential price. The potential price is the price an item could have realized had there been no competition from the infringers.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-erosion-theory/

this is a fascinating line of work you are in. :tu

I hope I made value loss (i.e. "price erosion") a little more clear for you now. I know it's gotten clearer for me.

ChuckD

05-04-2011, 12:51 AM

Blake

05-04-2011, 09:59 AM

Blake, you're being a tard. DLing music is not theft, although it is infringement. If someone breaks into my house and steals my notebook computer, that's theft, because I no longer have possession or use of it. If someone DLs a song, that artist can continue to sell that song and make money off it.

/thread

If a movie theater still has possession of a film and can continue to make money off of it, in your opinion, what do you call it when someone sneaks into a theater and watches a movie for free?

ElNono

05-04-2011, 10:55 PM

so you are basically arguing that lost value does not go with lost profits.

If you don't understand the difference between value and profits, then there's not much more to discuss.

Agreed, which is why I didn't use a crappy example such as the Bluray strawman you laid out for yourself so that you might have something to finally kick the shit out of.

You made a fairly generic claim (that counterfeit copies diminish original value), but you have yet to back up that claim. The problem seems to be that you can't.

What I meant is that I don't know how CD companies in your specific example could prove any kind of tangible loss without more specifics in your example.

What other specifics you need?

I finally found the legal definition for you regarding loss of value:

Again, you're looking at the remedies that can be taken upon finding infringement. The reason why a rights holder might decide to compete with an alleged infringing party (can do it through pricing, or any other means, such as marketing) is when they might not be sure if the goods offered by said party are counterfeit. But, you already stated in your value doctrine that there's no doubt they're counterfeit.

this is a fascinating line of work you are in. :tu

I hope I made value loss (i.e. "price erosion") a little more clear for you now. I know it's gotten clearer for me.

Well, I'm hoping you now have a better idea of why "price erosion" doesn't support your contention.

At this point, I feel we're going in circles. And mostly it has to do with your lack of understanding of how the pertinent laws apply and your general lack of understanding of the exclusive rights granted in patent/trademark/copyright laws. I was in your boat once, so you're hardly a rare case.
If you ever get sued or threatened to be sued under one of those laws (like it happened to me), I'm sure you and your lawyer will catch up rather quickly. :)

velik_m

05-05-2011, 02:41 PM

You will now have to be careful not to steal from doctors too:
http://paidcontent.org/article/419-can-doctors-use-copyright-law-to-get-rid-of-negative-reviews/

Blake

05-05-2011, 07:33 PM

If you don't understand the difference between value and profits, then there's not much more to discuss.

I didnt say they were the same.

I did imply/say they can go together.

You made a fairly generic claim (that counterfeit copies diminish original value), but you have yet to back up that claim. The problem seems to be that you can't.

If it looked like I said "all counterfiet copies diminish all original value, each and every time", then my bad.

I have found a court case where the counterfeit copies did diminish original value and the posted the info on it.

We must be missing each other's posts somewhere.

What other specifics you need?

An actual case would be fine.

Again, it was your example, not mine.

Again, you're looking at the remedies that can be taken upon finding infringement. The reason why a rights holder might decide to compete with an alleged infringing party (can do it through pricing, or any other means, such as marketing) is when they might not be sure if the goods offered by said party are counterfeit. But, you already stated in your value doctrine that there's no doubt they're counterfeit.

Well, I'm hoping you now have a better idea of why "price erosion" doesn't support your contention.

At this point, I feel we're going in circles. And mostly it has to do with your lack of understanding of how the pertinent laws apply and your general lack of understanding of the exclusive rights granted in patent/trademark/copyright laws. I was in your boat once, so you're hardly a rare case.
If you ever get sued or threatened to be sued under one of those laws (like it happened to me), I'm sure you and your lawyer will catch up rather quickly. :)

If I feel like my product lost value because of counterfeits, it would fall under price erosion theory, and I would have to prove it.

I think I got it but feel free to conitnue to tell me I dont. :)