We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
VIRGIN users
Comments
-
ChristopheB wrote: »It has nothing to do with "slew". It's do to with conveying the correct information and not misleading people. Theft involves taking something away from someone. Implied revenue doesn't count.
My point still stands, it's still illegal.With your logic why not just say people are murderers instead of thieves both are incorrect when it comes to making copies of media.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense.0 -
My point still stands, it's still illegal.
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense. I suggest you read it again. But I will explain...
You call people thieves for committing a different illegal act altogether "copyright infringement".
I pointed out, quite correctly that you were in fact wrong and that copyright infringement does not equal theft. Different crime altogether.
So in my retort I suggested that if you incorrectly call people thieves a crime that involves taking property from people then using your logic why not label them with other crimes.
Your point was thieves are a menace and I am sure they are but...
theft != copyright infringement. Simple!0 -
ChristopheB wrote: »It has nothing to do with "slew". It's do to with conveying the correct information and not misleading people. Theft involves taking something away from someone. Implied revenue doesn't count.
With your logic why not just say people are murderers instead of thieves both are incorrect when it comes to making copies of media.
Well, think of it like this...
Imagine you've created something after investing hours and hours of blood, sweat and tears. You charge £7.99 per CD to make profit! And re-coup costs.
Now you'd be peed off if all of a sudden, everyone stopped buying your product because someone had ripped your work and stuck it up on BitTorrent for download and then having thousands of people essentially 'steel' your work. It loses Artists loads of money.
Therefore, copyright infringement = theft.0 -
ChristopheB wrote: »It makes perfect sense. I suggest you read it again. But I will explain...
You call people thieves for committing a different illegal act altogether "copyright infringement".
I pointed out, quite correctly that you were in fact wrong and that copyright infringement does not equal theft. Different crime altogether.
So in my retort I suggested that if you incorrectly call people thieves a crime that involves taking property from people then using your logic why not label them with other crimes.
Your point was thieves are a menace and I am sure they are but...
theft != copyright infringement. Simple!
At no point have I said categorically that I consider illegal filesharing theft. I've said no matter what label you put on it, the act of partaking in illegal filesharing is still illegal.0 -
I thought copyright infringement was when you made money from someone else's work?
It is theft, it has the same effect as walking into HMV and steeling CD's. I'm not too sure how they will effectively crack down on illegal P2P file sharing though, how will they track it back to you? How will they know what files your downloading are illegal? I'm watching it on Sky news at the moment... Seem's like it's just scare tactics and it's ironic because monitoring the internet will slow it down, the government want to speed it up.
I think it's an important difference
If you go in to HMV and take a CD. Then you are taking something away from that shop. The CD is physical property. The shop does not have it any more.
By copying something the owner loses nothing. Except implied revenue on the basis that the thief would buy the item instead.0 -
At no point have I said categorically that I consider illegal filesharing theft. I've said no matter what label you put on it, the act of partaking in illegal filesharing is still illegal.
Well yeah I guess it wouldnt be called illegal file sharing then
.
If you look back at the posts my first comment was based on a quote from isofa who equated copyright with theft.0 -
I'm sure, if you were to steel a CD from HMV, you would be after the content of the disk - and not the physical disk.ChristopheB wrote: »If you go in to HMV and take a CD. Then you are taking something away from that shop. The CD is physical property. The shop does not have it any more.ChristopheB wrote: »I
By copying something the owner loses nothing.
Well, you said it yourself. "The shop does not have it any more"0 -
I'm sure, if you were to steal a CD from HMV, you would be after the content of the disk - and not the physical disk.
Well, you said it yourself. "The shop does not have it any more"
Exactly my point if you steal the shop no longer has that property if you copy it they still would.0 -
No it doesn't - it's the same as not buying your CD from HMV - all they lose is a potential sale, you do not take stock or deprive a customer from buying it.It is theft, it has the same effect as walking into HMV and steeling CD's.Nothing I say represents any past, present or future employer.0 -
ChristopheB wrote: »Exactly my point if you steal the shop no longer has that property if you copy it they still would.
No, your missing the point. The shop no longer have it to sell so the Artist's no longer going to get paid.0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards