Copyright Infringement and Theft

79 posts

Flag Post

How come so many people cannot understand the basic differences between copyright infringement and theft? Copyright infringement is this: when you download something you are only making a copy and the original copy still exists.

Theft is this: You go to a store and shoplift a game/CD/whatever meaning there is actual theft. I do not get how so many people cannot understand the difference.

 
Flag Post

So…
Is your point copyright infringement should not be punished?

 
Flag Post

Copyright isn’t about preventing someone to make profit from your work for a certain period?

Beacouse causing damage.. hence lowering sells can’t be demonstrated.

also you can steal ideas not only objects.. the fact is you can’t demonstrate u stole an idea if you don’t have bought a tribunal.

 
Flag Post

If you had a cloning machine that can clone fruits, then who would buy fruits? It would put fruitsellers out of business. Therefore we should ban cloning machines, or at least ban the cloning of fruits.

Same logic for CopyInfinge.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:

So…
Is your point copyright infringement should not be punished?

No, but they really should only target uploaders and bootleggers.

Originally posted by TheKnifeGrinder:

Copyright isn’t about preventing someone to make profit from your work for a certain period?

Beacouse causing damage.. hence lowering sells can’t be demonstrated.

also you can steal ideas not only objects.. the fact is you can’t demonstrate u stole an idea if you don’t have bought a tribunal.

You can’t steal a music album online since the actual original copy still exists. It is just being copied. Causing damage can’t be proven but a lot of people do think pirates harm the industries. They assume every download is a lost sale which is just asinine. Many people download something they never would have bought in the first place hence there is no lost sale in that case. There would only be a lost sale if the person pirated something they would have bought instead.

 
Flag Post

I thought this was going to be a thread about Instagram selling user’s pictures to advertisers

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Causing damage can’t be proven but a lot of people do think pirates harm the industries. They assume every download is a lost sale which is just asinine.

Exactly what i wrote. You copied my post i will sue you. lol

Also would like to add about the steal of idea, it’s impossible to demonstrate.. hence it is asinine as well.. u can’t copyright an idea.. look at what happened to a korean industries and the ipad industries about some non-sense interface.. the amerikan tribunal made win the apple.. that’s happened beacouse i dunno maybe laws in usa or that tribunal made a mistake i dunno.

EDIT: 75 years of copyright (after the dead of the author) is super-asinine as well! i would say 10 years (after the first publish) and i am generous..

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheKnifeGrinder:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Causing damage can’t be proven but a lot of people do think pirates harm the industries. They assume every download is a lost sale which is just asinine.

Exactly what i wrote. You copied my post i will sue you. lol

Also would like to add about the steal of idea, it’s impossible to demonstrate.. hence it is asinine as well.. u can’t copyright an idea.. look at what happened to a korean industries and the ipad industries about some non-sense interface.. the amerikan tribunal made win the apple.. that’s happened beacouse i dunno maybe laws in usa or that tribunal made a mistake i dunno.

EDIT: 75 years of copyright (after the dead of the author) is super-asinine as well! i would say 10 years (after the first publish) and i am generous..

I was using your post to make my point. I’m surprised more people aren’t commenting in it. I just see too many people call copyright infringement theft.

 
Flag Post

How come so many people cannot understand the basic differences between copyright infringement and theft?

How come so many people cannot understand the similarities between them?

OK, so let’s widen the scope of this a little. How about industrial espionage, with particular emphasis on doing it the modern way, via a cyber attack. Now the original information still exists on company A’s computer system, even though company B now has an unauthorised copy of it. Do you consider that to be theft, or is everything tickety-boo because company A still has the original? Bear in mind that it may have cost them a couple of billion dollars to do the product research, and company B can now produce the same item without having invested a penny into developing it.

Now while you can argue that many people downloading music wouldn’t actually have bought the song or album, many others downloading it would have bought it. In that case it clearly does represent a lost sale, and by extension it is a theft. The music industry has always been sensitive about this. As long ago as the sixties, radio presenters were instructed to talk over the beginning and end of the songs they played to prevent others such as travelling DJs from recording the song and using it to earn money without having paid for the goods.

Now I find a lot of the DRM nonsense we have to put up with to be deeply annoying, and an infringement of our rights to make a back-up copy for instance. But the problem is not with the principle but with its implementation. Much like government agencies, they are struggling to keep pace with constant changes in technology, and haven’t really figured out how to protect themselves without being unfair to their consumers. So at the moment they are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. But they don’t owe you a living, and they don’t owe you a bunch of freebies. Deal with it, and stop whining every time you can’t get something for nothing.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by beauval:

How come so many people cannot understand the basic differences between copyright infringement and theft?

How come so many people cannot understand the similarities between them?

OK, so let’s widen the scope of this a little. How about industrial espionage, with particular emphasis on doing it the modern way, via a cyber attack. Now the original information still exists on company A’s computer system, even though company B now has an unauthorised copy of it. Do you consider that to be theft, or is everything tickety-boo because company A still has the original? Bear in mind that it may have cost them a couple of billion dollars to do the product research, and company B can now produce the same item without having invested a penny into developing it.

Now while you can argue that many people downloading music wouldn’t actually have bought the song or album, many others downloading it would have bought it. In that case it clearly does represent a lost sale, and by extension it is a theft. The music industry has always been sensitive about this. As long ago as the sixties, radio presenters were instructed to talk over the beginning and end of the songs they played to prevent others such as travelling DJs from recording the song and using it to earn money without having paid for the goods.

Now I find a lot of the DRM nonsense we have to put up with to be deeply annoying, and an infringement of our rights to make a back-up copy for instance. But the problem is not with the principle but with its implementation. Much like government agencies, they are struggling to keep pace with constant changes in technology, and haven’t really figured out how to protect themselves without being unfair to their consumers. So at the moment they are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. But they don’t owe you a living, and they don’t owe you a bunch of freebies. Deal with it, and stop whining every time you can’t get something for nothing.

Many? That’s total bullshit. Most people who would have downloaded something would not have bought it in the first place. There are also many people who download something to try it out first because they don’t want to waste their money on a POS. The people who pirate something they would have bought is the minority. Also what you mentioned still is not theft even if they do that. It is copyright infringement. Do you seriously not get the difference between taking and copying something?

 
Flag Post

Are you just making a semantics argument? Because I’m not seeing a point otherwise.

There are cases where copyrights should be respected. Theft is, in some cases, too strong of a word. But it still has similarities and is not entirely inappropriate.

 
Flag Post

And why should you be able to download it if you wouldn’t have bought it anyway?

 
Flag Post

Many? That’s total bullshit.

Prove it. Give me some numbers or stop trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

And why should you be able to download it if you wouldn’t have bought it anyway?

Exactly.
If simply downloading something that you didn’t really want in the first place is alright then why is simply taking something that you didn’t really want not. In both cases the creator does not get any revenue for the amount of work he has put into it.

I do see that there is the difference of a physical copy being in existence with “traditional” products, while there isn’t with intellectual property. But how does this justify circumventing the legal way of acquiring it?
Is work that leads to intellectual property worth less and is it therefore OK to simply take it without the creator’s agreement?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
But how does this justify circumventing the legal way of acquiring it?

Playing devil’s advocate here, I’ll use download if there is no legal way of aquiring it.

As a case in point, another poster here sent me a link to a digital-only magazine running a very interesting series of articles on something along the lines of my core interests. I signed up for the magazine, only to discover that none of the formats they offer, my computer could read. I needed an android or iphone to view their content. Be nice if they’d said this prior to signing up… Anywho, I ended up using an ‘illegal’ download to access the content I had paid for, as it was the only way to get it in a usable format – in this case, a pdf my computer could deal with.

I often download out-of-print books the same way. Also quite a few foreign language films with fansubs. Usually Korean or Japanese, which were never released in local markets. Never released officially at all with English subs.


With software, I will sometimes download it before I purchase it, to determine if it is worth buying in the first place when the company does not offer a demo. However, unlike what most who do this likely end up doing, if I find the software is crap/useless for what I had planned to use it for, I delete it. If I find it useful, I still delete the thing then buy it.

The rationale is simple. If I’m likely to be making money out of my use of the software, it’s sensible to encourage the developers to continue to develop it. Plus I sometimes get to claim it back against tax.

Besides, treat others how you’d like to be treated, and I like to be paid for my work.


Unlike Kegfarms however, what I would not do, is break into a hospital database and copy patient records to sell on to third parties for fun and profit. Whilst there is no doubt that confidential data is greatly beneficial to certain parties, and thus very valuable, there is something so vile about the practice, that I would steer well clear.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ketsy:

Are you just making a semantics argument? Because I’m not seeing a point otherwise.

There are cases where copyrights should be respected. Theft is, in some cases, too strong of a word. But it still has similarities and is not entirely inappropriate.

It is completely inappropriate By your logic A person who steals a loaf of bread is the same as as a murderer. TAKING something is not the same as COPYING something. Which copyright should be respected? Don’t you mean to say all copyright should be respected? Not really sure how you can pick and choose.

Originally posted by beauval:

Many? That’s total bullshit.

Prove it. Give me some numbers or stop trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

Ironically hilarious coming from somebody who said many people would have bought the product.

Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:

And why should you be able to download it if you wouldn’t have bought it anyway?

Those kind of people don’t actually hurt anybody since there is no lost sale. The people who would have bought something but pirated it instead are the ones who hurt the companies.

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by EPR89:
But how does this justify circumventing the legal way of acquiring it?

Playing devil’s advocate here, I’ll use download if there is no legal way of aquiring it.

As a case in point, another poster here sent me a link to a digital-only magazine running a very interesting series of articles on something along the lines of my core interests. I signed up for the magazine, only to discover that none of the formats they offer, my computer could read. I needed an android or iphone to view their content. Be nice if they’d said this prior to signing up… Anywho, I ended up using an ‘illegal’ download to access the content I had paid for, as it was the only way to get it in a usable format – in this case, a pdf my computer could deal with.

I often download out-of-print books the same way. Also quite a few foreign language films with fansubs. Usually Korean or Japanese, which were never released in local markets. Never released officially at all with English subs.


With software, I will sometimes download it before I purchase it, to determine if it is worth buying in the first place when the company does not offer a demo. However, unlike what most who do this likely end up doing, if I find the software is crap/useless for what I had planned to use it for, I delete it. If I find it useful, I still delete the thing then buy it.

The rationale is simple. If I’m likely to be making money out of my use of the software, it’s sensible to encourage the developers to continue to develop it. Plus I sometimes get to claim it back against tax.

Besides, treat others how you’d like to be treated, and I like to be paid for my work.


Unlike Kegfarms however, what I would not do, is break into a hospital database and copy patient records to sell on to third parties for fun and profit. Whilst there is no doubt that confidential data is greatly beneficial to certain parties, and thus very valuable, there is something so vile about the practice, that I would steer well clear.

Strawman.jpg + trollface.jpg at the bolded. I forgot about the foreign stuff anyway. There are many people in other countries who cannot legally buy anime because of horrible importation fees. Something like Crunchyroll for anime does not cover every country so people like that get completely screwed over by official companies and have to use fansubs.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

It is completely inappropriate By your logic A person who steals a loaf of bread is the same as as a murderer.

How and when did she say that?

TAKING something is not the same as COPYING something.

Not inherently, no, though there are certain cases where they are basically the same. An example being you steal someone’s blueprint/sketch/etc, copy it, and claim it as your own.

Ironically hilarious coming from somebody who said many people would have bought the product.

You’re avoiding the burden of proof. Stop it.

Those kind of people don’t actually hurt anybody since there is no lost sale. The people who would have bought something but pirated it instead are the ones who hurt the companies.

And the people allowing or making the pirated copy.

Strawman.jpg + trollface.jpg at the bolded.

So were you responding to everything in that post, or just a small portion of it?

I forgot about the foreign stuff anyway. There are many people in other countries who cannot legally buy anime because of horrible importation fees.

I’m just being surious here, but which countries are those, again?

 
Flag Post

For sale: 500 RW DVD+R with movies on them. Personal copies from licensed collection. Sold under condition of that movies will not be viewed, but written over. $2.00 each.

 
Flag Post

Originally posted by beauval:

Many? That’s total bullshit.

Prove it. Give me some numbers or stop trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

Ironically hilarious coming from somebody who said many people would have bought the product.

I simply drew a logical conclusion from your statement. Is that the best excuse you could come up with in 6 hours?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if you hacked into iTunes, you would only download material that you didn’t really want anyway? Now you’re really being silly. I’ve been around a bit longer than you, sunbeam, I don’t do gullible.

Since you’re too bone idle to do your own research, here’s some stuff about the cost of music piracy. The figures quoted are estimates, but it’s a serious report and they haven’t just pulled numbers out of the air. Here’s an article about the cost of software piracy. You will note that in addition to the obvious loss of revenue, it also gives companies in countries like China an unfair edge, because they are getting their goodies for nothing. In other words it also damages industry in the west. Hear that splash? That’s another American job just gone down the toilet, because companies in the far east are cheating and undercutting you.

Now stop waffling and show me some stuff which proves all this to be wrong. If you can.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

Unlike Kegfarms however, what I would not do, is break into a hospital database and copy patient records to sell on to third parties for fun and profit. Whilst there is no doubt that confidential data is greatly beneficial to certain parties, and thus very valuable, there is something so vile about the practice, that I would steer well clear.

Strawman.jpg + trollface.jpg at the bolded.

You were the one in the other thread that said you saw nothing wrong with the theft of sensitive patient data so long as you only make a copy – and the people who did it, did it to make a profit. You in this thread said it wasn’t theft to perform industrial espionage as you’re only copying the information (to make a huge profit), so putting the two together, you easily get the situation where you personally have no problems with copying patient information by the truckload, to sell to interested parties for personal profit.

Its just a copy, so no harm done, right?

I forgot about the foreign stuff anyway. There are many people in other countries who cannot legally buy anime because of horrible importation fees. Something like Crunchyroll for anime does not cover every country so people like that get completely screwed over by official companies and have to use fansubs.

Not just anime. Korean cyberpunk is impossible to get hold of outside of Asia. Even then, short of the fan works, its in the original language, with a Chinese dub if you are lucky.

anime is often lisenced for distribution abroad by firms who then just sit on the distribution rights if the market is ‘not ready’. This can be a huge pain, as the market will never be ready unless some is released to show potential customers what is on offer. Ironically the illegal fansubbing is itself what has made some markets (including Western Europe) profitable enough to release into. The T-virus anime (whatever its name was) springs to mind there. Hellsing is another.

 
Flag Post

Kegfarms is 100% correct.

 
Flag Post

What’s most annoying is that they take their work off-air, then ban everyone else from ever seeing it. If it’s for profit, why don’t they make your own site, with their ads for their revenue, and freaking stream it from there? I’m pretty sure that would make everyone happy.

 
Flag Post

And more money. The RIAA wants to get the government to help them squeeze money out of a turnip instead of competing or changing with trends. Wouldn’t it be nice if steel workers could have just kept mining ores we didn’t need on government dollars? Then at least we’d have more jobs! Think of the poor musicians’ beneficiaries.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Kegfarms:

It is completely inappropriate By your logic A person who steals a loaf of bread is the same as as a murderer.

How and when did she say that?

TAKING something is not the same as COPYING something.

Not inherently, no, though there are certain cases where they are basically the same. An example being you steal someone’s blueprint/sketch/etc, copy it, and claim it as your own.

Ironically hilarious coming from somebody who said many people would have bought the product.

You’re avoiding the burden of proof. Stop it.

Those kind of people don’t actually hurt anybody since there is no lost sale. The people who would have bought something but pirated it instead are the ones who hurt the companies.

And the people allowing or making the pirated copy.

Strawman.jpg + trollface.jpg at the bolded.

So were you responding to everything in that post, or just a small portion of it?

I forgot about the foreign stuff anyway. There are many people in other countries who cannot legally buy anime because of horrible importation fees.

I’m just being surious here, but which countries are those, again?

They said it by trying to claim taking something and copying something is appropiate to compare. A better example would have been taking somebodies homework assignment instead of copying it. You know absolutely nothing about the burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on the person who makes the original claim. You’re absolutely ignorant if you think people who would not have bought a product but pirated it actually hurt the companies. There is absolutely no lost sale in that case.

Originally posted by beauval:

Originally posted by beauval:

Many? That’s total bullshit.

Prove it. Give me some numbers or stop trying to pass off your opinions as facts.

Ironically hilarious coming from somebody who said many people would have bought the product.

I simply drew a logical conclusion from your statement. Is that the best excuse you could come up with in 6 hours?

Do you seriously expect me to believe that if you hacked into iTunes, you would only download material that you didn’t really want anyway? Now you’re really being silly. I’ve been around a bit longer than you, sunbeam, I don’t do gullible.

Since you’re too bone idle to do your own research, here’s some stuff about the cost of music piracy. The figures quoted are estimates, but it’s a serious report and they haven’t just pulled numbers out of the air. Here’s an article about the cost of software piracy. You will note that in addition to the obvious loss of revenue, it also gives companies in countries like China an unfair edge, because they are getting their goodies for nothing. In other words it also damages industry in the west. Hear that splash? That’s another American job just gone down the toilet, because companies in the far east are cheating and undercutting you.

Now stop waffling and show me some stuff which proves all this to be wrong. If you can.

You really are ignorant. That “$59” billion is complete bullshit. The reports and companies factor in EVERY SINGLE download as a lost sale. They completely ignore people who download something they already own, somebody seeing if it was worth buying, people who wouldn’t have bought the product in the first place, etc. Also I wouldn’t hack into Itunes because Apple sucks.

 
Flag Post

And still all I see is your humble opinion – no links to facts and figures, no links to reports, not even a link to a self-interested pundit with a point of view to sell. Just your opinion. It’s worthless without support. Stop wasting my time with this rubbish.