[Blue Lion]

Woah, hold up. Where did I say that I was selling the stuff that I downloaded? I have never made money in such a way.

You read that wrong.

You: Works should be free!
Them: No, we're going to sell them for 20 bucks.
You: I'm going to download them!
Them: No, it's ours and we don't want you to. Buy it if you want it.
You: I'm helping you guys make money!
Them: Wait, you just said it should be free. Now you're helping us sell it?

Uh, again, I never said I was selling the things I downloaded. As for the issue of whether such content should or should not be free, I guess what I've been trying to say is that I don't see any reason why it can't be both. I download content that I like and pay for it, therefore providing incentive to create new content.

If these companies give away their work for free, why would people buy it?

Are you going to go into a store and see two copies of a movie. One labeled "20 bucks" and one labeled "free"?

You really don't see why that might not turn a profit?

[Rick James]

You read that wrong.

Did I?

Why are you helping them earn profits by selling things you think should be free?

Seems rather plain and understandable to me.

If these companies give away their work for free, why would people buy it?

Are you going to go into a store and see two copies of a movie. One labeled "20 bucks" and one labeled "free"?

You really don't see why that might not turn a profit?

The big factor you're missing is that the material has been free on peer-to-peer networks for a long time, and though the technology is known and available to millions upon millions of internet users, sales of movies, games, and music albums are going up, not down. The material has been free on the internet for a while but--here's a shocker--people are still buying, apparently.

[Dark RevenantX]

Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit.  Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.

I love how people assume that people only steal stuff to test it. You download that full copy of a game or movie or song, try it one or two times and delete it to go buy it.

You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)

Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?

I torrented GTA4.  It was reasonably good, didn't run that well, etc you know the rest.  But in the end, I did buy it for the multiplayer.  Not to mention Rockstar has actually made some patches...
The games I torrent and don't buy stay on my hard drive most of the time, but I don't play them more than a few hours.  I probably should delete them, because they haven't been run in months...  This huge hard drive can be useful at times.

Thank you for proving my point. You don't have to buy them and you don't delete them because you play them from time to time.

I played them a couple hours total and never touched them since.  I thought it was clear that I am too lazy to delete anything...

[Kosh]

What is with this strawman? I don't care if it hurts them. I don't care if they write a song or create a movie no one would pay a cent for. A work that was so awful the only way someone would watch it would be for free. If they don't want to give it away, you don't get to have it for free.

That was a perfectly legitimate question, since both are a way of listening to it while paying nothing.

I'm beginning to wonder if BL is just trolling or is serious about any of this.

[Kosh]

I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?

No, that's theft, not copying. The more proper analogy would be you replicated someone elses oil without permission. Get your terms straight. It isn't theft.

It's a work that someone made that you now have.

It's a movie that someone thought up, wrote down, made, edited and distributed. The idea that you didn't take a physical thing from them is irrelevant since you don't want anything physical anyways.

But it still has value, you're taking that value from someone. You would think a college educated person would know this. (Or do you plagiarize all the time too?)

I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?

Copyright is a statutory or common law right of authors, artists, and developers (or other holders of a copyright) to publish their works, and to prevent others from copying their works. Infringement includes the unauthorized or unlicensed copying of a work subject to copyright.

Source

Their works are not their property like their TV, and so are covered under a different part of the legal code.

EDIT: I'll push this a step further and cite a Supreme Court ruling about this very issue:

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Dowling vs. United States (1985)

Now unless you're going to start saying that the Supreme Court's ruling somehow doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your view, that should definitively settle the issue of whether or not copying is theft.

Now loud and clear so everyone can hear it:

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT

[DarkBasilisk]

What is with this strawman? I don't care if it hurts them. I don't care if they write a song or create a movie no one would pay a cent for. A work that was so awful the only way someone would watch it would be for free. If they don't want to give it away, you don't get to have it for free.

I'm beginning to wonder if BL is just trolling or is serious about any of this.

I asked that about you guys side first

[Herra Tohtori]

So, it appears the judge of the trial might have been legally disqualified from judging it in the first place...

Google-translation from Swedish article, english news will undoubtedly spew up as the day progresses.

[Rick James]

Hmm, that link appears to be working improperly. Here's the Torrentfreak article on the subject.

The copyright industry likes to have the outcome of processes clear before engaging them so it’s perhaps unsurprising that SR today revealed that the judge Tomas Norström is in league with it on many fronts. The judge has several engagements - together with the prosecution lawyers for the movie and music industries.

Swedish Association of Copyright (SFU) - The judge Tomas Norström is a member of this discussion forum that holds seminars, debates and releases the Nordic Intellectual Property Law Review. Other members of this outfit? Henrik Pontén (Swedish Anti-Piracy Bureau), Monique Wadsted (movie industry lawyer) and Peter Danowsky (IFPI) - the latter is also a member of the board of the association.

Swedish Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (SFIR) - The judge Tomas Norström sits on the board of this association that works for stronger copyright laws. Last year they held the Nordic Championships in Intellectual Property Rights Process Strategies.

.SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) - Tomas Norström works for the foundation that oversees the .se name domain and advises on domain name disputes. His colleague at the foundation? Monique Wadsted.

There are several renowned lawyers and judicial commentators that are attacking Tomas Norström’s decision to take the case, in spite of having a clear conflict of interest.

[Blue Lion]

That was a perfectly legitimate question, since both are a way of listening to it while paying nothing.

I'm beginning to wonder if BL is just trolling or is serious about any of this.

What is it a legitimate question to? Does coming up with a legal way of listening to music make the pirated one ok?

[Blue Lion]

I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?

How come copying songs and movies isn't bad, but copying for a paper somehow is? Neither one hurts the author?

Is quoting without citing a removal of profits from that person? Why can't I just take the quotes then?

Their works are not their property like their TV, and so are covered under a different part of the legal code.

EDIT: I'll push this a step further and cite a Supreme Court ruling about this very issue:

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Dowling vs. United States (1985)

Now unless you're going to start saying that the Supreme Court's ruling somehow doesn't apply because it doesn't suit your view, that should definitively settle the issue of whether or not copying is theft.

Now loud and clear so everyone can hear it:

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT

So I went and looked up the Section 2314 and the law to take a gander at what you said.

Firstly, the guy didn't fight the copyright infringement law so he knew they didn't belong to him. So good luck with that.

Secondly, 2314 deals specifically with the transportation of, not merely the possession of.

Also, in the majority opinion a Justice says this: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." and "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."

Nowhere in this does it say it is ok to hold or use these works. Show me a law where someone took them to court for copyright infringement and it was thrown out because they made a copy.

"Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement"

Why didn't he appeal the copyright if he clearly wasn't doing anything wrong?

[Spicious]

I'm not taking anything from anyone. And frankly how dare you accuse me of plagarism, are ad-homs all you have left at this point?

How come copying songs and movies isn't bad, but copying for a paper somehow is? Neither one hurts the author?

Is quoting without citing a removal of profits from that person? Why can't I just take the quotes then?

You are aware that plagiarism is the act of claiming someone else's work as your own, aren't you?

[Blue Lion]

Did I?

I'm guessing so, since you refuse to answer anything about it.

Seems rather plain and understandable to me.

So you like the way these companies operate, so you're going to help them earn a profit. That way they can continue the way they operate now. That's not anything you've argued before.

Do you want them to continue this way or convince them to change how they do things? If you're helping them earn a profit and are doing it by copyright infringement, they're not going to stop.

The big factor you're missing is that the material has been free on peer-to-peer networks for a long time, and though the technology is known and available to millions upon millions of internet users, sales of movies, games, and music albums are going up, not down. The material has been free on the internet for a while but--here's a shocker--people are still buying, apparently.

Because people don't want to steal. Those people have a conscience. If they don't want me to take it, I don't take it.

If it should be free, why are you glad these people are shelling out large amounts of cash for it?

Why do you think these people are paying money? Does the thought ever enter your mind that "It is the only legal means of doing so"?

Should the work be free or should it be for sale? It can't be both.

[Blue Lion]

You are aware that plagiarism is the act of claiming someone else's work as your own, aren't you?

I'm well aware of it. But for some reason throwing in "I didn't come up with this" doesn't fly.

You're not taking money from this author. You're not hurting sales. So what's the problem?

[ssmit132]

Plagiarism is a different issue. It's not the act of copying, it's the act of claiming something as your own. You are allowed to use it as long as you indicate that it isn't your original work.

Also, the library example doesn't work, because the library has to buy the items for you to be able to borrow them. The work is still bought, and after the length of time, it is returned to the purchaser. This applies to both books and music/movies/software.

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT != THEFT

Fair enough, but does that make it any more okay to do it?

[Blue Lion]

Plagiarism is a different issue. It's not the act of copying, it's the act of claiming something as your own. You are allowed to use it as long as you indicate that it isn't your original work.

I'm pretty sure you're required to say exactly who gave it to you and where you got it from. You have to give credit to the author.

Fair enough, but does that make it any more okay to do it?

It's not really fair enough. What he means is copyright infringement isn't larceny, which is the theft of a physical object.

Why are people forced to pay money for copyright infringement if it's not taking something of value?

I mean I agree with you ssmit that it's not right. But the idea that it's not theft because it's not a physical object is completely bunk.

[Kosh]

So I went and looked up the Section 2314 and the law to take a gander at what you said.

Firstly, the guy didn't fight the copyright infringement law so he knew they didn't belong to him. So good luck with that.

Secondly, 2314 deals specifically with the transportation of, not merely the possession of.

Also, in the majority opinion a Justice says this: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." and "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud."

Nowhere in this does it say it is ok to hold or use these works. Show me a law where someone took them to court for copyright infringement and it was thrown out because they made a copy.

"Dowling appealed all convictions besides those of copyright infringement"

Why didn't he appeal the copyright if he clearly wasn't doing anything wrong?

As I said repeatedly, it was an issue of whether or not copyright infringement equals theft, which was the point you made and I have disproven it with a supreme court ruling, which appearently means nothing to you since you disagree with it.

I mean I agree with you ssmit that it's not right. But the idea that it's not theft because it's not a physical object is completely bunk.

So supreme court rulings mean nothing to you because it doesn't fit your preconstructed viewpoint. How does this make you any different from the anti-abortion nazis?

[Blue Lion]

As I said repeatedly, it was an issue of whether or not copyright infringement equals theft, which was the point you made and I have disproven it with a supreme court ruling, which appearently means nothing to you since you disagree with it.

No you proved the Supreme court ruled that the transportation of the works didn't fit the description of the law.

The very fact that they never touched on possession is glaringly obvious.

The guy wasn't transporting a right, so he couldn't be charged with that.

They didn't say he couldn't be busted for copyright infringement, they said he couldn't be busted for the transportation of what is not physical.

That's in the same vein of the TPB guys getting busted not for possession of the material or even in the act of transferring it.

So supreme court rulings mean nothing to you because it doesn't fit your preconstructed viewpoint. How does this make you any different from the anti-abortion nazis?

Did the Supreme Court remove copyright law when I wasn't paying attention? If you have a work and someone takes you to court for copyright infringement and they make you pay money for the value of the work, doesn't that mean "theft"? You know theft, taking someone's property without their consent? (Intellectual Property would in fact be "property". It's in the name)

That's not larceny, which is the act of taking a physical object.

Copyright law specifically touches on (pun!) who owns what when dealing with things that can't really be touched.

[kode]

Copyright law specifically touches on (pun!) who owns what when dealing with things that can't really be touched.

Excuse me while I catch my breath after laughing so hard at that hilarious pun you just did there.

Also, I'll need to get the **** into this authoring business. It apparently means I can sue people for facilitating the passing around of books.

[kode]

I must say that in my brief absense, I have come to a change of heart. I believe it is wrong to even give away what you rightfully bought to others. Preferrably you should only read a book one time and then recycle it. Libraries should start charging for their services, and all proceeds should go to the author associations (which I of course plan to become a member of) to fight the passing around of books second hand, and perhaps a trickle to the makers of the works being abused in these ways. It seems perfectly alright now.

[Blue Lion]

I love strawmen.