Life is riddled with a procession of minor impediments

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

But sadly factually inaccurate, as copyright violation isn't theft, it's a violation of archaic rights to reproduce work that the law hasn't updated to remain relevant to emergent technologies.  Apple and Netflix have proved people are happy to pay for stuff they can get for free via torrents, the various creative industries just have to stop playing the victim and work for their buck like everyone else.

Whilst I agree with you about the need for technological catchup, I don't agree that copyright violation isn't theft. Creators are people too.

[Jim_Campbell]

I don't agree that copyright violation isn't theft. Creators are people too.

It's not theft. In the same way theft isn't murder, and burglary isn't mugging. You may think copyright violation and theft are equivalent but they're not the same and it's factually inaccurate to say that it is.

Cheers

Jim

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

It's not theft. In the same way theft isn't murder, and burglary isn't mugging. You may think copyright violation and theft are equivalent but they're not the same and it's factually inaccurate to say that it is.

I believe that illegally downloading movies/games/comics/anything is actual stealing. You can quibble about that if you like (and I know you do like to quibble) but I am not going to agree with you.

[Richmond Clements]

It's not theft. In the same way theft isn't murder, and burglary isn't mugging. You may think copyright violation and theft are equivalent but they're not the same and it's factually inaccurate to say that it is.

I believe that illegally downloading movies/games/comics/anything is actual stealing. You can quibble about that if you like (and I know you do like to quibble) but I am not going to agree with you.

You chaps seem to be heading for an arguement, even though you both agree..!

[Jim_Campbell]

I'm not the one insisting on using a word that means one thing to describe another. I can believe that abortion is murder (I don't) but the words have different meanings until such time as the law changes I would be objectively wrong to say that they are same.

Jim

[Theblazeuk]

Two counts of extreme pedantry - that's 5 in the cubes.

[The Legendary Shark]

I agree with Jim.
.
If Person A purchases a DVD and then lends it or sells it on at a car boot sale to Person B, that would not be seen as theft. If Person A decides to rip the DVD and make the movie (eg) available online then also no theft has occurred when Person B downloads it. Person B has downloaded data only, nothing physical, and this is the equivalent of lending.
.
Now, if Person B downloads that movie, burns it to disks and sells them as originals then that's fraud.
.
In fact, the most guilty parties in "illegal" downloading are the ISPs and 'phone companies who charge for the bandwidth required to download these files - they are the only ones really making any money out of it, the overwhelming majority of torrenters do it for free and it actually costs them (time, money, risk) to be involved.
.
File sharing is not automatically theft.
.
Copyright is an archaic system that needs to be revised as a matter of some urgency. I like the idea that if you invent or create something then you control it for 10 years. After that, you get another 10 years where anybody who is capable can produce/reproduce your creation but you are entitled to a percentage of the profits. Beyond that, 20 years and 1 second after you've filed your patent/copyright, it expires and your idea belongs to the world in the same way as the wheel or spoons.

[Professor Bear]

I believe that illegally downloading movies/games/comics/anything is actual stealing.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, but that does not make it so in law.

A simple test of whether downloading is theft is to look at America's private prison system: if they could get away with charging millions of people - many of them non-white and thus preferred customers for the average supermax - with theft, they'd pack their jails and rake in the cash from doing so, but they don't because they can't because downloading is not theft.  That's why people get done for various other crimes - fraud, tax evasion, etc - rather than being charged with the specific crime of theft in copyright cases, and this is why it takes literally years to shut down somewhere like the Pirate Bay.

[JOE SOAP]

I believe that illegally downloading movies/games/comics/anything is actual stealing.

You are free to believe whatever you wish, but that does not make it so in law.

A simple test of whether downloading is theft is to look at America's private prison system: if they could get away with charging millions of people - many of them non-white and thus preferred customers for the average supermax - with theft, they'd pack their jails and rake in the cash from doing so, but they don't because they can't because downloading is not theft.  That's why people get done for various other crimes - fraud, tax evasion, etc - rather than being charged with the specific crime of theft in copyright cases, and this is why it takes literally years to shut down somewhere like the Pirate Bay.

What that really says is it's more cost prohibitive to chase people than it being specifically illegal or not so why bother chasing after the little people.

[M.I.K.]

Beyond that, 20 years and 1 second after you've filed your patent/copyright, it expires and your idea belongs to the world in the same way as the wheel or spoons.

You can sod the sod right soddin' off with that soddin' idea, ye soddin' sod!

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

You chaps seem to be heading for an arguement, even though you both agree..!

Since we fell out in the Political Thread, Jim has tended to disagree with me whether he actually agrees or not. See also the discussion regarding Fiends of the Eastern Front.

Here he's confusing a moral standpoint with legal terminology, but I suspect he knows that full well.

I also presume that, despite not using the T word to describe illegal downloading, he wouldn't encourage everyone to illegally download Dept of Monsterology 101, or indeed any other creative works, even those he was not directly involved in originating.

[Professor Bear]

You could always try asking him directly instead of talking around him.

[The Legendary Shark]

I take it you're not a fan of the limited copyright/patent idea, M.I.K. May I ask why?
.
I like the idea because I think it would free up creative resources and allow for faster development, especially in poorer countries. This idea could be especially useful for the manufacture of inexpensive drugs, for example, by and in the countries that most need them but have the meanest economies.
.

[M.I.K.]

Theoretical situation...

Creative bloke comes up with brilliant concept and characters, of which he retains copyright. Submits detailed synopsis to film company. Film company thanks him but doesn't use ideas straight away, (they seldom do).

20 years later film company releases film with plot and characters suspiciously similar to creative bloke's idea.

Bloke says "Hold on, that's my idea!"

Film company says "Yes it is. So what? We've also got loads of other old ideas from hundreds of other folk we've been holding onto for 20 years as well. What are you going to do about it?"

Bloke can't do anything about it.

Film company makes billions of dollarpounds from film, plus various bits of spin-off merchandise.

Bloke doesn't see a penny.

Bloke dies penniless after contracting food poisoning from a mouldy turnip he fished out of a skip or something.

That's why.

[The Legendary Shark]

A simple time-limited option contract would take care of that, with built-in fees and penalties. Also, said company wouldn't last long with business practices like that - word soon gets around and their ability to attract new scripts would evaporate. The more honest companies would survive and thrive. Capitalism in action.