News Parliament passes Digital Economy Bill

Last time I looked the definition of theft was "to dishonestly appropriate` property that belongs to another, with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it".

Go to school. Read a book. Sh!t - just use google. Either way, work it out. Theft is theft. Piracy is not theft.

 

Ok, is the intention to deprive the copyright holder of his due compensation, i.e. money for his product, any different than stealing a retail version of it from the store? Does it really matter who the victim is? Wrong is still wrong. If it costs too much don't buy it, when enough stop buying...

Show me how Piracy does not deprive the copyright holder of his just due for whatever his creation might be? They are fundamentally the same but muddied with unique terminology.

 

+1. Completely agree with you. This has less to do with socialism and more to do with greed (capitalism)

Yes, theft is theft. However, as a few have already pointed out, copyright infringement is not theft. The record companies have tried to appropriate the term theft (and pirate) in order to provoke a more visceral reaction in people, but COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.

It is, however, an offence in most developed countries.

Frankly, though, the suggestion that it is killing music and artists are dying of starvation because of thieving pirates is a bit insulting when virtually everybody who is part of the RIAA MPAA etc is far wealthier than your average citizen. Piracy is bad. No question about it. However so is being a money-grabbing scumbag.

 

So you guys have never "Borrowed a CD from a friend and copied it? Or have you never copied an album that you own so that you can have a copy in your car as that too is copyright infringement!!

I thought so you have done these things before, well congratulations you are both pirates!

I have pirated for years but the companies have had their fair share of cash out of me. I have lost count of how many new bands albums that i have downloaded and loved, so I have gone out and bought their albums.

I buy on average 5 albums a month, I have a monthly cinema pass and go to watch as many films as i can. I have about 50 Blu Rays sat in my living room, not too mention the 200 DVDS and I have bought hundreds if not thousands of computer games in my time!!

Everything I pirate in some way I pay back for and I do this so that I can try new things without having to splash out cash for something that I might not like. How many films, cd's or dvds have you tried to return to a shop to get your money back once said item has been opened because it has been utter garbage...

 

whilst we are quoting from dictionaries

infringement - an action that breaks a rule, law, etc

copyright - the legal right to control the production and selling of a book, play, film, photograph or piece of music

theft - (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it

i suppose it depends which dictionary you read, but copyright infringement is tantamount to theft

tantamount - being almost the same or having the same effect as, usually something bad

 

and the next thing you know we'll have a CCTV camera in each and every room of our homes...

 

Indeed, it is obvious that viewing a music video on youtube (which if not supported by the artist is copyright infringement) has almost the same or has the same effect as going to the store and stealing the CD for that music.



For those that saw the above video: You are a thief! So is the uploader and youtube for facilitating this theft AND if you live in the UK, strike 1!

 

You plan to kill Satan? Are you Kratos?

 

Watched "1984" with John Hurt for the first time a couple weeks ago. Well, after successfully avoiding slitting my wrists (most depressing movie EVER), I realized that in fact, despite being warned for decades, the UK is heading for that kind of society full steam ahead. I'm starting to wonder if your government is using "1984" as a freaking playbook.

 

You stupid person!,

Depriving multi millionaire copyright holders their 'Just dues' yet they own what 3+ super expensive sports cars when they can only drive 1 at any one time! They have more money than sense you!! What are they being deprived of exactly? Their 4th or 5th house in the country, can they live in all 5 at once can they f*ck.

None of them are deprived, heck they probably don't even know what that word is/or means! they will never be deprived again even if they never sell another copy or even 1 more mp3 via i-tunes, now go and take your pathetic comments elsewhere you pr*t.

 

I watched it 3 times looks like i'm f*cked then! Bothered? NOPE!

 

Don't give them ideas.

 

Just because they are wealthy, does not mean it is okay. Is it okay to steal from them then (I know piracy isn't theft before that comes up)? Then why is it okay to break other laws that are in place to protect them. The law may be an ass, but the law is the law and is there to protect everyone, wealthy included. This kind of populist b******t really irritates me.

 

So long as you continue to call it theft, I will continue to find it very difficult to take you seriously.

You are, however, right. When you acquire/consume any media (yes, that includes youtube et al) without the copyright holder's express permission you are infringing upon that person's rights. Regardless of whether that person is rich or poor, that is wrong.

The majority of people here do not object to enabling copyright holders to control distribution/access to their media. However, as some have already pointed out, there is already legislation in place which allows them to do that, without being as open to abuse as this new law.

Some of us are simply uncomfortable with setting a precedent which allows the government to restrict your access to the internet, particularly without a judicial and appeals procedure finding you guilty. This is (like the anti-terror legislation) a "shoot-first, prove later" law.

Imagine if your telephones were cut off (for a number of years) because someone claimed that they received prank calls from one of your numbers. Would that be okay? Wouldn't you at least want them to prove their allegations in a court of law? Even if they did find you guilty, would that be a fitting punishment?

The internet is fast becoming more than a commodity (just like phones) and being unable to access it will have a far greater impact on somebody's life than the copyright infringement they committed had on the artist.

On a slight side note, do you think small, independent artists will be taken as seriously by the isp's as the major labels?

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was using theft as a separate example to copyright infringement, and trying to put forward that crime against the wealthy does not make it right. In other words, Robin Hood was a c**t.

 

Not all torrents are illigal, this is were this becomes problematic

As for those saying those who don't pirate have nothing to worry about your wrong

Somebody in every bodys famillly will pirate at one point or another

 

Try reading the book....it's even worse

 

having read the copyright designs and patents act 1998, section 107 and 198 relate to copyright infringement, if you obtain copyright material for your personal use, it is excluded from copyright infringement. If however you share that copyright material, you are then commiting copyright infringement.

creative works = copyright works = interlectual property

theft - (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it, does the copyright works not belong to someone else, yes it does so therefore you have comitted theft.

at the very least you are handling stolen goods, In English criminal law, handling stolen goods (formerly, under the Larceny Act 1916, known as receiving stolen goods) takes place after a theft or other dishonest acquisition is completed and may be committed by a fence or other person who helps the thief to realise the value of the stolen goods.

 

at the end of the day, its upto the courts to decide, if any crime has been commited

 

I think you guys are confusing Capitalism with greed. Don't feel bad, we've all been brought up to think that they're the same thing.

Ravenheart, just because someones richer than you doesn't give you the right to steal from them. Chances are they've worked damn hard to get there.

That being said, I'd rather download a movie than buy the DVD and have to sit through unskippable anti-piraism ads. Funny how legitamite consumers are the ones that suffer most.

How about watching a show on tv and losing 20mins of your life to blaring advirtisements? Ok I get that ads create revenue to indirectly finance shows, but why incresase the volume? And why increase the frequency of ads towards the end of a movie? It's unneccessary, and it's greedy, and it's screwing people that watch the shows legally. How about f**k you and I'll just download it.

Through the Internet consumers finally have an alternative, can voice their opinions through their actions. This is Capitalism, freedom of choice where the best product wins. And this is what the media industry is trying to quash.