Re: Archiving old magazines on website

["John Burns" <joobs@grizo.free-onlineNOJUNK.co.uk>]

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:30:38 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
Russotto) wrote:

> In article <9567223116681464.NC-1.61.joobs@news.free-online.net>, John Burns
> <joobs@grizo.free-onlineNOJUNK.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:35:46 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
> >Russotto) wrote:

> >> Use of the term marks the user as a partisan for propagandist for the MPAA,
> >> RIAA, and other copyright extremists.  Not happy with "piracy" -- a term
> >> which they, in earlier incarnations, invented to demonize copyright
> >> infringers but which has instead become an almost neutral word to describe
> >> infringement -- they switched to "copyright theft".  I won't use it and I
> >> will object to its use.
> >
> >Fair enough but it is only a name and we all know what it describes. I certainly
> >don't see it as "demonizing" but that's my opinion. At the end of the day those
> >who copyright infringe *are* breaking the law - I certainly don't see any need
> >to be politically correct to their practice.
> 
> They are breaking the law, but not laws against theft.

Semantics, Copyright, like larceny laws (theft, fraud, abstraction of
electricity, etc.) are essentialy laws to protect property. If you take that
property without payment or permission then you've stolen it.  (For those who
don't know abstraction of electricity is what you'll likely be charged with for
using a fraudulent phone card).

Legally to prove theft involves certain specific criteria being met and it is
for this reason that many other terms are used and prosecuted with - not because
something wasn't stolen - but merely it is easier to ensure a conviction under
other criteria. (q.v. car theft / owner's consent).

> >At the end of the day those who
> >download mp3s games etc without paying for them are effectively stealing 
> >them (legal definitions aside).
> 
> No, they aren't, and here's where the demonization lies.  Infringement is
> not theft or "stealing".

Rather than it being others trying to "demonize" you appear to be trying to
"decriminalise" that which you accept is a criminal act by asserting it is only
infringement. Be honest infringement really only applies to publishing etc.
something without the owner's consent. Using this term for those who obtain
commercial material (music, games, etc.) illegaly is pretty much a cop out and
is really just an attempt to make it sound as if the offender hasn't really done
anything bad at all. If they took a game or record from a shop you'd call it
theft. Just because they obtained it digitally doesn't change the underlying
event, irrespective of what it is actually called in law.

> >As for the RIAA et al, yes I'd agree that their methods are becoming
> >rather extreme but if you haven't any illegally obtained stuff what have you
> >to fear from (or care about) them?
> 
> ROTFL.  The tyrant's clarion call.  "If you have nothing to hide, you won't
> mind if we search, will you?"

That wasn't what I said so please don't try to insinuate it was. They don't and
can't just knock on your door and search , they do need to obtain a warrant (and
that'd require some reasonable cause). As with the recent spate of paedophiles
targetted for downloading their perverted shit; the police didn't just pick the
names out of a hat, they had tracked their activities first. Granted, we'd all
agree, that it is a much more serious crime but fhe principle is the same. So as
I said, if you haven't done it why do you care about the guilty being caught or
searched? 

The truth of the matter is that those who download illegally invariably don't
just do it once or with only one type of media.  When their computers are seized
and checked they usually have far more illegal software etc. that legal.
Personally I don't care if you or anyone else wishes to do such, that is for you
to decide for yourself. I don't condone it but neither do I condemn it. That
said if you do it then just don't bleat about being called a thief or pirate.

I note you never commented on my car theft / owner's consent analogy - what's
up, too hard was it - or did it make you realise just how silly your whole "it
isn't theft" argument is?