VIRGIN users

[Deleted User]

ChristopheB wrote: »

By copying something the owner loses nothing. Except implied revenue on the basis that the thief would buy the item instead.

They lose the rights that they have to distribute their material to whoever, and in a whatever method they wish to.

ChristopheB

ChristopheB wrote: »

Exactly my point if you steal the shop no longer has that property if you copy it they still would.

As a side note it's kind of an interesting subject copyright. Well for me anyway. Here's a couple of interesting articles you might like


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

ChristopheB

Jaffa. wrote: »

No, your missing the point. The shop no longer have it to sell so the Artist's no longer going to get paid.

Not sure what you mean. If it is stolen yes the item has gone. If it is copied it is still there. The shop can still sell it to whomever is prepared to buy it.

Jaffa.

File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft.

A quote from the BBC article, and it's true. Not all file sharing is illegal. However, look back and read my post 34, How would you feel? It's called piracy.

ChristopheB

anewhope wrote: »

They lose the rights that they have to distribute their material to whoever, and in a whatever method they wish to.

You make a good point and I'm not saying that there is no cost associated with illegal filesharing. But comparing it to stealing from HMV is disingenuous.

[Deleted User]

ChristopheB wrote: »

You make a good point and I'm not saying that there is no cost associated with illegal filesharing. But comparing it to stealing from HMV is disingenuous.

Just because no tangible product is crossing hands, doesn't mean the content is any less valuable.

Jakg

Most of the stuff (like 90%) I download I wouldn't buy anyway - the good stuff I do download, I buy anyway...

What revenue have they lost if I wouldn't buy it anyway and I haven't deprived them of another customer purchasing it?

ChristopheB

Jaffa. wrote: »

A quote from the BBC article, and it's true. Not all file sharing is illegal. However, look back and read my post 34, How would you feel? It's called piracy.

Just because you say something is true it doesn't mean it is. I can quote you article after article. The law differiates between copyright infingement and theft simple as.

Call it priacy if you like. But again you are using a term that conjours images of a far worst crime than copyright infrement.

I understand what you mean from post 34 and I am not making a moral judge either way about copyright infringment. This simple fact is it is not theft and I certainly wouldn't equate it with armed men capturing shipping vessels.

Maybe you have your own moral definition of theft. But under the law of the land it ain't.

In case you still don't believe me more quotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft

Not related but not a bad article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2003/feb/09/theobserver.observerbusiness17

Jaffa.

anewhope wrote: »

Just because no tangible product is crossing hands, doesn't mean the content is any less valuable.

Exactly. Which in essence makes it steeling, there's no denning it.

ChristopheB

Just in case your interested. The term piracy for copyright infringement is an old one. From Wikipedia:

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is occasionally referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, 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 labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]