If you are not deprived of it, its not theft. Potential money does not count, as you did not have the money and then someone take it from you. The legal definition of theft is pretty clear cut. Your argument is copyright violation, not theft. Also, I see you are now attempting to lash out. I have created plenty, I have had to sign up for the VeRO program on ebay. However, I still know its copyright, not theft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement Citing cases that have actually happened and ruled it not theft are within that link. Direct quote for the lazy.
Theres a new law been proposed where it's no longer against the law to make copies of your own dvds & cd's for your own personal use. So in the UK that right will no longer apply. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...l-will-allow-fans-to-copy-music-to-iPods.html
Just wondering, but what have you created that you've had to protect from people on eBay? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaADQTeZRCY
Wikipedia cites the case it ruled in. facts are facts, regardless of them being on Wikipedia. If it makes you feel better: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207 Also, firmware for cable modems if you must know. Which ended up being on ebay, without being licensed to distribute. Anyway, I assume you are now thoroughly educated in the correct use of "Theft" and "Copyright infringement" as you have only those replies left.
MPAA don't write the laws, as much as they would like to. Law is law, what ever you feel it should be is irrelevant. Edit: Lol at sounding like Judge Dredd
well no, it isn't stealing. In English law, theft is related to the intention to permanently deprive a person of something. Joyrides aren't considered theft, although you should keep in mind that you will be in breach of contract most probably, which is even worse, because Tort damages are often much higher. The contract kicks in when they give you the key, it is expected of you to test the car in a reasonable manner as everyone else does. To appropriate the car for two weeks in a row will certainly attract damages incurred by the fact that they don't have a test-drive car for example, meaning that they need to put another car in its place. That means you ll probably end up paying for it or buying it whether you want it or not.
If you buy a used game pre 2005 who gets the money for it? The person selling it Not the developer/publisher If I download the same game I lose the physical copy and Artwork but I still have something to occupy my time until it gets a reissue on a current system. Contrary to what some of you think of me I do buy games I've played th hell out of emulated when are they released in a commercially viable environment. (Guwange for example and when Radient Silvergun hits XBLA I'm all over that bitch)
Lol, i can't believe this is being discussed. I guess I should be used to ancient topics being rehashed every few months.
I'd have to agree that theft is a bit different from infringing on someone's copyright. It's still braking the law and idea is somewhat similar but it's still different technically. Theft is the act of physically depriving someone else of a said object without their permission. At least that's how the word was classically defined for 100's, if not 1000's of years. Copyright infringement is the unauthorised or prohibited use of works under copyright. It's a new term developed to describe the situations we now face in modern times. I'd say the fuzzy line people tend to draw in the definition is almost the same as how people want to take the definition of "Marriage" (which is the union between a man and a woman) and confuse it with a more modern term, such as a "civil union.". The term of "Marriage" has been universally understood for 1000's of years, and has been developed independently in many cultures worldwide. Why in the world would anyone consider re-defining this term for the sake of not wanting to use a proper term is beyond me.
Copyright infringement is MURDER!!! It murders the copyright holders ability to sell said copyrighted item to those who would possibly have considered a purchase, but most likely would have passed on without noticing. Now that I have proven my case I would like to request the death penalty be applied retroactively to all who have ever so much as copied a floppy.
copyright is a fictional legal thing, but in reality it's much like everyone's ego. It's made to protect an interest. People are those who enforce copyright and push the law to be stricter, and that's because they're worried about losing their interest and its value. There's no clear-cut line though where it's fair and where it's too much, but I believe in a healthy balance of law and lawlessness when it comes to the internet. The reality is that Laws made for the real world don't translate well in this medium, yet I think we'll see things get stricter as they go. DRM and other security measures prove that there is a ton of cash spent to transcode real law to virtual law, using expressions that often don't fit the practical nature of things.
You have a view of piracy where it doesn't help companies at all. I use it as a preview. If I like a film after I download it I normally go out and buy it. The problem with buying films is that sometimes I don't watch them for months after I buy them. By then the return time is long gone (for some places its like a month) if I don't like that film i'm shit out of luck with a shit film. Sometimes its even made me buy films I wouldn't think about buiyng. I thought remember me would be total shit. Downloaded it and watched it, liked it so I went and bought it. I do this for CD's and games too normally. You think Piracy is polarised. Bad people who download and don't pay and Good people who don't download and pay. What about the people like me in the middle? It's also interesting to note I'm an amateur film maker. Maybe in the next view years my view will change eh?
THIS and greed so many laws are attempted to be passed each year to protect what essentially is ego and Greed. Said ego and greed also keeps us from innovative technology such as a digital version of the audio tape so we can record radio. Media Greed also wanted to make it so you can't record movies on your DVR but somebody had the balls to stand up to them and say NO Copyright law helps NO ONE And if it were up to me all copyright law would cover is nobody can make their own stories or creative works out of fictional characters until the 75 year copyright expires and said character is public domain and to prevent plagarism. THAT IS ALL Copyrights should be used for.
I've spent the last three years subtitling Italian films (predominantly from the 60's through to the 70's) I would say 80 - 90% of the films I have subtitled have never been released on VHS or DVD and the ONLY place I could get them (just like everyone else) is on torrent sites. You seem to be quite draconian about your attitude towards piracy... The way I see it, if it wasn't for piracy one huge chunk of Italian cinema would be lost to everyone, even in Italy. The same applies to roms/betas/protos - so much of what goes on here is about preservation. The rules here are quite strict about what is allowed/what isn't. Starting a topic like this here doesn't really do you any favours... Of course a lot of people here pirate games but it's done in the spirit of preservation, primarily. Unfortunately, people with your approach fail to see the grey areas in this argument and see it very much as black and white - It isn't - and talking about it like it is doesn't help anyone. You state that if someone copies your dvd's (or blurays) then you'll immediately contact your lawyer and deal with them... A question - Have you ever done this? Please could you give us some details about what went down? If 'one' person copies your dvd's and doesn't bother to buy it - You know it might just be possible that they didn't like it enough to buy it.
I'm not blaming piracy for anything related to my company. But I think it's funny that you're basically saying that if someone makes a lot of money then it's OK to take their product without paying because they're already rich. And I didn't mean this thread to be HCK and His Company Vs People Who Like Copying on ASSEMbler. I simply meant to point out that taking and using and distributing something you don't have permission to be doing, regardless of how old it is, is wrong. I feel that after browsing countless threads on ROMs and movies and what have you, it seems like the only justification people have for doing this is "Because I want it." There's little caring if it's right or wrong. I don't see anyone saying or pointing out that they have a legal leg to stand on by doing it. The closest anyone got was by arguing that they weren't stealing they were merely breaking copyright law. Why can't people agree that bad things are bad?
My posts were nothing to do with right or wrong, merely using the correct legal definition of what you are talking about. If you are to accuse someone of something, at least accuse them of the right thing. I happen to agree with you otherwise for the most part.
