And I’m sorry for the hijack too, but it is. And we have commercials here where artists explain how downloading their songs without paying is theft. That’s the word they use. That’s the word common people and particularly the target audience understands. That’s what normal people use, outside court. Ever listened to the rap-song ‘I’ve got the power’? “Copyrighted lyrics so they can’t be stolen, and if you try to steal them your voice will sing” etc.
Common use. Theft.
Hey, I didn’t steal your car, I just borrowed it. Sure, I pulled a heist with it, but it’s back in your garage now, right?
Copyright infringement is theft, it just didn’t quite fit the current legal definition of theft and so it was dealt with elsewhere. You may choose to disagree, you may argue legal terms and civil versus criminal court, but that’s a matter of legal definition, not of the general idea.
I’m sure many people here understand the term copyright infringement, even if English is their second language, but is it necessary to make that distinction? Because I’m even more sure that most people think of these things in terms of theft, and rightly so. Besides, theft is quite a bit shorter to type. Wanna bet which term will survive in common use for this matter?
I had a great idea: instead of syrofoam peanuts, which are messy, why not pack bags with partially inflated plastic bags to cushion them? I told this idea to some guy at Amazon, and next thing I know, Amazon was shipping all their packages this way.
So what? I’ve seen commercials where one company says it’s “the best in the business.” Does that make it so?
This anaolgy has absolutely nothing to do with file-sharing and copyright infringement. We’re talking about intellectual property law. Since you never answered my question, I’ll ask it again: Do you think people should be arrested for file sharing and charged with theft?
If we’re going to have a reasonable debate about the Supreme Court ruling, yes. The reason you want to continue to call copyright infringement “theft” is because “theft” has a much more visceral, emotional meaning than “copyright infringement” and you hope to tilt the ensuing debate by associating the lesser crime with a greater crime. How many people have had something stolen from them? How many people have had their copyright infringed? They can relate to the former, but not the latter.
Bricker, did you patent that idea? Because if you did, then you can sue them. But you can’t have them arrested for theft.
And since you’re a lawyer, let me ask you this. If you were in court and the opposing attorney said “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, jaywalking is murder. It doesn’t fit under the current legal definition of murder, but it is murder!”, how would you respond? If a client of yours were brought before a criminal court for breach of contract, how would you respond?
Copyrights are a subset of property rights, and infringing them is an appropriation of property rights. “Theft” is thus a perfectly reasonable way to describe making illegal copies in an informal context, and I fail to see why it is “inflammatory” to describe it as such. Appropriation of property rights, both physical and intellectual, is illegal. Since the two have far more parallels than they do distinctions, it is therefore hardly misrepresentative to use a common informal term for both. Undoubtedly, copyrights are a weaker form of property rights than those pertaining to physical ownership, but I fail to see why this minor distinction prompts such a vehement reaction. You make a rather dubious analogy to the differences between murder and jaywalking. To me, this argument is rather more like punching someone in the street, then quibbling about whether it was assault, battery, or whatever else when they complain that you “beat them up”.
Revtim, I’m unaware of a prominent free speech argument made in favour of copyright infringment as a whole; however such arguments have been made in defence of P2P programs and such copyright protection avoidance programs as DeCSS (the DVD decryption prog). For example, someone (I forget who) wrote what they claimed was a functional P2P app in 15 lines of Perl code, the point being that such apps were so trivially written that to ban them constituted a violation of free speech. Similarly, I believe someone wrote a haiku describing the basic DeCSS algorithm, and versions of the routine have been printed on t-shirts, etc.
No (although I do believe they should face some penalty under the law), but this is entirely irrelevant, since we are not talking about what people should be charged with, but what terms are reasonable to use on a public messageboard in an informal discussion in which everyone knows exactly what’s being discussed. As I said, I believe “theft” is a perfectly reasonable term to use in this context, since it conveys pretty much all of the meaning I want it to. I don’t care what the specific charge is termed in a court of law; call it “Geoff” for all I care. This pedantic insistence on legally precise terms is more or less entirely pointless, and in my humble opinion is borne not of a desire for terminological accuracy, but because file sharers want to make themselves feel better about what they do. Nonetheless, they are appropriating property rights, and a poop by any other name will smell as bad.
If you really believe that file trading is theft, then shouldn’t you advocate similar punishments? If copyright infringement is theft, shouldn’t the offenders be treated as criminals and jailed like theives are? Or are you just calling copyright infringement “theft” as a rhetorical device to obscure the real issues, which are whether and/or how copyright law should change in response to new technology?
(The ironic part of this increasingly tiresome hijack is that after reading the court’s opinion on this case, I pretty much agreed with it. It was a narrow interpretation of existing law and precedent that did not really a) overturn the Betamax decision or b) rule on the ultimate legality or illegailty of file trading software and the practice of file trading. I think within existing law, it was a good decision, but that doesn’t mean I ultimately think that the existing laws don’t need changing.)
Except that not everyone who shares files is infringing copyright. So your term is misleading and smears innocent people. Not that you can be bothered with trivialities like that.
Yes, I do. I’m lazy, and I don’t want to type or say copyright infringment when theft will do just fine.
I don’t believe file trading is theft. I believe copyright infringment is theft. And I believe people who abuse file sharing software for copyright infringment are stealing, whereas I think those who write file sharing software are just writing and distributing file sharing software.
Over here, most thieves aren’t jailed, they are fined. Some are just warned. All depends on how much they steal.
I’m not sure copyright needs to change. I think licencing will change though, to suit modern technologies. What might happen is that file sharing software will be asked to facilitate copyright protection, just as makers of media players are being forced to now.
Well, clearly file sharing software that promotes illegal file sharing will and should be dealt with in court. I believe that all file sharing software will need to do is indicate any small amount of goodwill towards copyright holders, like explicit statements urging its users not to abuse the software for illegally sharing copyrighted files.
Since you asked me what I want, well, what I really want is people to voluntarily donate money to artists they support and whose music they like, and that this is enough for the business to live by. But I’m not too confident that will happen. Second best thing would be that they provide us with a system in which we can pay easily and fairly, which leaves us ample room to use but not abuse modern technologies. If I pay one or two euros for a song on iTunes, I want to be able to put it on my computer or my PSP/mp3 player, or my phone, or whatever, so I can listen to it through whatever device that suits me. iTunes is close to that currently, so I think it might work. Hopefully things only get better in that respect, and not worse.
No, they aren’t a subset of property rights. Perhaps you think that because you’ve heard the phrase “intellectual property”, but the fact is, copyright, trademark, and patent law have nothing to do with property. The fact that there’s somewhat of an organized campaign to make it seem like they do does not change reality.
Copyright is simply a monopoly over certain uses of a given chunk of information, limited both in time and in scope. Property, on the other hand, can only be in one place at a time, it does not stop belonging to its owner after a set amount of time, and there is no fair use defense for appropriating another’s property like there is for using another’s copyrighted material. It’s simply ridiculous to equate information with property.
As for the debate over terminology: IMO, calling copyright infringement “theft” is like calling abortion “murder”. It may be justifiable using certain loose definitions of the word, but it’s totally inaccurate in a legal sense, and it distracts from the real debate by equating the act in question with a different act that both sides agree is wrong. It adds nothing to the thread but needless hostility.
If we’re civilized enough here on the SDMB that we can discuss abortion using neutral terms, we should be able to discuss copyright the same way.
That is exactly the sort of triviality I am concerned with, your needless sniping notwithstanding, and I apologise if I gave the impression that I think file sharers of all stripes are thieves. I think only those who share copyrighted works are thieves, and I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this. However, I believe this was patently obvious from the get-go, and that only a dedicated picker of nits would choose to believe that I was referring to file-sharers of unrestricted files. Please, by all means, substitute “copyrighted file sharers” wherever I have said “file sharers”. I myself have received numerous legal software updates via BitTorrent, and would neither describe myself as a copyright infringer or thief, nor would wish that such uses be restricted by current court decisions. Fortunately for me, I am entirely in accordance with the Supremes on this matter. I do note from earlier threads that you are not so rigourous regarding your usage of copyrighted works, however - tell me, how’s the Britney and Christina porn selling these days?
I believe this to be fundamentally untrue. The whole point of copyrights and patents are to recognise the existence of “intellectual property”, and if this bugs you, then I’m very sorry, but it is you who is at odds with reality, and not me. Fundamentally, they allow the assertion that such-and-such an idea/lyric/tune belongs to someone, for the purpose of their exclusive exploitation (or lack thereof). This is the basic concept of property, in case you were not familiar with it. I apologise once more if this is excessively difficult - I am familiar from previous threads with your somewhat unusual approach to ownership of non-physical entities. However, your personal philosophy does not absolve you from rational interaction with those structures your fellow man has seen fit to institute, and unfortunately for you, intellectual property is one such structure.
I am aware that you seem to believe that intellectual property is a nonsense, and that the information should be freeeeee, maaaaan. This is irrelevant. Our legal system has seen fit to recognise intellectual property as a valid and valuable right, and as such, describing infringement of such rights as theft, or “Geoff”, or “filelatio”, or whatever the hell seems appropriate, is entirely apt. You may argue all you like about whether intellectual property rights should exist; but to deny that they do exist is the height of delusion.
I do like your abortion/murder analogy though. That’s quite beautiful, coming from a side that claims the term “theft” is excessively loaded. Would you like to invoke the Nazis any time soon? Just in case you hadn’t already noticed the gaping hole in your comparison, however, I should just like to point out that abortion is, in many circumstances, legal, and thus utterly incomparable to copyright infringement. By all means stop by to query why this makes a difference, as I realise it’s a tricky distinction. For the record, I think a far better analogy would be complaining that describing manslaughter as “killing” is wrong, because manslaughter’s not as bad as murder. Both are undoubtedly killing, however, even if one is less severe. If necessary, I can draw a Venn diagram to illustrate this point; I do like Venns, they’re wonderfully illuminating. And so frequently they involve goats! What more could one ask?
I’ve got a full-time freelance gig for the next few months and haven’t had any time to pursue it, but I really gotta get on it. Besides, it’s not porn, it’s romantic art. And I’ve taken care of the whole copyright issue very nicely. Thanks for asking!
Actually, the point of copyrights and patents, as written in the Constitution, is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”. Perhaps you’d care to share your source.
Surely you’re aware of the many differences between the rights afforded to someone who owns a piece of property and those afforded to someone who holds the copyright to a song or novel. You may choose to disregard those differences, but you do so at the expense of your own credibility.
Actually, I learned it from this groovy cat named Thomas Jefferson.
Copyrights, trademarks, and patents exist. “Intellectual property” does not; the phrase “intellectual property rights” is simply shorthand for copyrights, trademarks, and patents, not evidence that these things really are a form of property - just as silverfish and earwigs are actually insects, not fish or wigs.
Abortion was not always legal, and where it was illegal, it was not always the same as murder. Also, copyright infringement is legal in many circumstances as well; I’m sure you’ve heard of fair use.
That last sentence is precisely why this would be a terrible analogy: killing encompasses both manslaughter and murder under every reasonable definition, while there are widely used definitions of “theft” that do not include copyright infringement.
Indeed; by the mechanism of granting exclusive exploitation, or “property” rights. It ain’t difficult.
I’m pleased that you’ve cottoned on to the concept of collective nouns; I’m perplexed, however, that you think this bolsters your case. Insects exist. Silverfish are a subset thereof. Property rights exist. Copyrights are a subset thereof. Again, I offer the Venn diagram service. It can be awfully helpful, and comes in numerous exciting colours.
No; fair use is not an infringement of copyright, as it is built in to the legal definition of the rights accruing to copyright holders. Much like rambling rights are part and parcel of physical property (in the UK, at least). Perhaps you’re unclear as to what “infringement” means. If it were legal, it would not be infringement. This is pretty trivial stuff.
You’re arguing that copyrights are a type of property right, but you’ve offered no evidence for this claim, nor countered the evidence against it, and it doesn’t seem like you’re about to.
But hey, maybe I should give your logic a shot: “Voting rights exist. Tenants’ rights are a subset thereof.” I could even draw a Venn diagram showing this alleged relationship, with tenants’ rights as a little circle inside the larger circle of voting rights.
Of course, that wouldn’t make it any more accurate, now would it? Tenants’ rights and voting rights are, in fact, unrelated, just as (I contend) copyrights and property rights are unrelated.
After checking the wording of the law, I see that you are correct on this point. My mistake.
Now my understanding is that the Court ruled that only if the makers of the software encouraged illegal file sharing.
Did they set any benchmarks for what ‘encouraging’ means. Does a site have to say, all your music and movies free! Or if the site has a message board and their users talk about it, is that encouraging?
Or did they just leave it up to lower courts to decide?
Another question.
I know that sometimes a manufacturer gets into legal trouble for what they make.
Tobacco companies have been sued for making a product that makes people, well, die.
Manufacture a faulty crib and you get into big trouble.
Many people want to make gun makers liable for making a dangerous product.
What is the difference between those manufacturers and the people who make this software, or software to break the coding on DVDs and such.
Some of the quotes here provide insight. For example:
“Accordingly, just as Sony did not find intentional inducement despite the knowledge of the VCR manufacturer that its device could be used to infringe, … mere knowledge of infringing potential or of actual infringing uses would not be enough here to subject a distributor to liability. Nor would ordinary acts incident to product distribution, such as offering customers technical support or product updates, support liability in themselves. The inducement rule, instead, premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legitimate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful purpose.”
And the specific evidence of intent in this case:
"Three features of this evidence of intent are particularly notable. First, each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users. StreamCast’s internal documents made constant reference to Napster, it initially distributed its Morpheus software through an OpenNap program compatible with Napster, it advertised its OpenNap program to Napster users, and its Morpheus software functions as Napster did except that it could be used to distribute more kinds of files, including copyrighted movies and software programs. Grokster’s name is apparently derived from Napster, it too initially offered an OpenNap program, its software’s function is likewise comparable to Napster’s, and it attempted to divert queries for Napster onto its own Web site. Grokster and StreamCast’s efforts to supply services to former Napster users, deprived of a mechanism to copy and distribute what were overwhelmingly infringing files, indicate a principal, if not exclusive, intent on the part of each to bring about infringement.
Second, this evidence of unlawful objective is given added significance by MGM's showing that neither company attempted to develop filtering tools or other mechanisms to diminish the infringing activity using their software. While the Ninth Circuit treated the defendants' failure to develop such tools as irrelevant because they lacked an independent duty to monitor their users' activity, we think this evidence underscores Grokster's and StreamCast's intentional facilitation of their users' infringement. [fn 12]
[fn 12] Of course, in the absence of other evidence of intent, a court would be unable to find contributory infringement liability merely based on a failure to take affirmative steps to prevent infringement, if the device otherwise was capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Such a holding would tread too close to the Sony safe harbor.
Third, there is a further complement to the direct evidence of unlawful objective. It is useful to recall that StreamCast and Grokster make money by selling advertising space, by directing ads to the screens of computers employing their software. As the record shows, the more the software is used, the more ads are sent out and the greater the advertising revenue becomes. Since the extent of the software's use determines the gain to the distributors, the commercial sense of their enterprise turns on high-volume use, which the record shows is infringing."*
Well, DVD decryption is already illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 321 Studios found that out the hard way with their DVD X Copy product.
The tobacco companies were found liable, IIRC, not simply for providing a harmful product, but essentially for defrauding the public - covering up evidence of harm, etc. Faulty cribs can be viewed in a similar light. They were selling a product that was less safe than its users reasonably expected it to be.
Holding gun manufacturers liable for gun owners’ actions is the best comparison, I think. A gun is a tool, like a crowbar or a file sharing program, and it can be used legally as well as illegally. So far, AFAIK, gun manufacturers have not been held liable when their customers choose to break the law, and I believe that’s the way it should stay. We shouldn’t place limits on useful technology just because some people use it to break the law.
I don’t generally find it necessary to provide evidence for the utterly apparent, but since you asked, here are the people that call it “intellectual property”:
In short, just about everyone but you (I could provide umpteen more links if you like). Now, maybe you believe that absolutely everyone else in the world is part of this “organised campaign” to “make it seem” like intellectual property is a type of property right, but I submit to you that the acceptance of intellectual property as a type of these rights is so widespread as to make it true, particularly when one considers that property rights are a social construct in any case. There exists an “organised campaign” only in the sense that there’s also an organised campaign to make it seem like water is wet.
