You're being a little insulting (and a little personal in your insults). I know you have a point to make, but could you please do so without resorting to such insults? /serious request
Right, so as long as the creator has recieved money from the original sale then it's fine for that copy to be passed on and someone else to use the creator's work without paying any recompense? Is there a limit on how many times it can be sold/passed on? I mean how many people are allowed to use a game after it's been paid for once? 1, 10, 100, 1000? And why is there no issue with the creator losing income from them?
Look, the law is quite simple when it comes to theft. You have to have the intention to permanently deprive someone of their property; admittedly in the case of taking a car for a spin it'd be difficult to prove you didn't have the intention of depriving the owner but that's not to say it wouldn't be possible. I never suggested it wouldn't be a crime, just that it wouldn't potentially be the crime you think it is. The fact that it's been returned could be used as a defence against a charge of theft, it'd be tricky to prove that the original intention when taking the car wasn't to permanently deprive the owner and that it wasn't returned due to a change of heart but as I said before not impossibly so. Well that's your opinion but having had some experience of the legal system surrounding theft I do know it's not as simple as you'd like to make out.
By taking the product you implicitly agree to the contract. Otherwise you could walk into a supermarket, take something off the shelf and walk out saying: "Hey, I never agreed to pay for it!". Again, I'd like to see you try that one at your local Tesco. Popcorn's on me. There is no problem because only one person can use that game at a time. Whether one person owns use of the game for 1000 days or 1000 persons own use of the game for one day is pretty much the same thing.
So if you created something, say a game, you'd be happy for a 1000 people to use it after only one purchase being made? As long as only one person used it at a time? You don't think there's any flaw with that argument?
The RIAA thinks there is, which is why they want to outlaw the sale of used games. But basically there isn't. When the publisher sells the game, they licence its use, not how often it is used or who by. This is why Microsoft binds the licence of its software to the PC it runs on, not how often it is run on that machine or how many people use it on that machine (basically because there is no way to control that; you can only control which PC it runs on. But I'm sure MS is working on it). You can even install Office on several machines as long as you only use one instance of it at a time. The right to use means: when you want, how often you want. You can even share --as long as it is only one instance at a time. Because as soon as you run several instances simultaneously on one licence you are in effect creating unlicensed, illegal copies. With films and music it is trickier because in principle the number of people who can watch or listen to one instance of a film/track can be huge, and that could become a loss of potential income. You'll note that with film and music the licence therefore starts to dictate limits on the size of the audience ("Licenced for private and family viewing only. Public and commercial performance is strictly prohibited" etc.).
I'm just wondering why the Banhammer hasn't been swung in this thread. People openly admitting that they are actively pirating, I'm surprised that the powers they be are allowing bit-tech to be associated with this scum. Ban the pirates, they are not a great loss to the community.
I think that the act of walking into to a supermarket probably counts as implicitly entering into an agreement. I don't agree to anything with anybody by downloading from a torrent site. I should probably point out that downloading from torrent sites is not something I'm in the habit of doing. (Despite my beliefs regarding copyright).
That is quite frankly THE most stupid argument I have seen here. EDIT: Nope this takes the biscuit: So if someone comes up to you with stolen property, it would be OK to buy it, as you had not entered into an agreement to purchase from the vendor? Now that really is dumb
To be honest, if you need me to spell it out for you, then you are really in trouble! How about you try and figure it out!
I think he just did. You are basically arguing that accepting stolen goods is OK because you never entered into an agreement with the vendor from who the goods were stolen.
This is rubbish. The act of taking a car without the express consent of the owner is theft of a motor vehicle. The fact that it has been returned can be used to lessen the severity of the sentence, but it cannot be used as a defense. The initial act is what the person would be charged with, regardless of the events afterwards. Where are you getting your legal information from? If you want to know how I know, I had a motorbike at 16yrs old. My "mate" took it without my consent, went for a ride on it and fetched it back..........after I had called the police to report it stolen. He was charged and found guilty of taking a vehicle without an owners consent (theft of a motor vehicle), and rightfully so too.
If I accept stolen goods, that does not mean I have stolen them myself. And although I can see that accepting stolen goods might be wrong, I still see no evidence of a contract. To be honest we are going round in circles here. I can see that some of you might see copyright infringement as wrong (and to be fair, it is illegal, so the law at least is on your side). What I find a little annoying is the continued equating of copyright infringement to theft (here the law is most definitely not on your side). I think that until some of you can get past this sticking point, there's not much point in discussing this further. Also some of the less open minded residents seem to be getting restless (I'm referring to talk of banning - for the crime of [I assume] having a different opinion to them). Anyway, it's been fun (kind of). Bye!
Actually taking a car without consent is a slightly special case and while the offence in question falls under the Theft Act it is different from theft. Specifically it doesn't consider whether there is an intention to deprive the owner of the vehicle or not so can be easier to prove than theft.
Hope you have a safe trip back to "planet elvis is alive and aliens blew me off last night". Why do I say this? See the bold text above!
as i have previously stated, PC games are now generally locked to one owner, and cant be transferred. the same is going to happen to console games, its just a matter of time oh and someone pointed out the microsoft licensing -- anyone actually read the microsoft license for OEM software, except me
It's not contradictory in the slightest, if you took a vehicle and were charged with theft you could use your intentions as a possible defence. If on the other hand you were charged with taking a vehicle without the owner's consent then you couldn't. It's quite simple, what with them being two different offences with different requirements to be met in order to charge and convict someone under them.
