Re: Archiving old magazines on website

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

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:35:46 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
Russotto) wrote:

> In article <956616081001456.NC-1.61.joobs@news.free-online.net>, John Burns
> <joobs@grizo.free-onlineNOJUNK.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:49:29 -0600, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew
> >Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> Ain't no such thing as "copyright theft", except in the eyes of Jack Valenti
> >> and the judge who wrote the now-overturned Verizon ruling (who just dictated
> >> Jack's argument).  The real animal is called copyright infringement.
> >
> >Fair point but this isn't a court and I think we all understand what is meant by
> >the term. 
> 
> 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. At the end of the day those who
download mp3s games etc without paying for them are effectively stealing them
(legal definitions aside). Demonize, No - but don't let's make them out to be
some sort of modern day Robin Hoods or martyrs to a cause. They are thieves pure
and simple. 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? Some say the civil rights of the individual are
being infringed but this conveniently forgets about the rights of the copyright
holder.

As an aside in the UK it is unusual for anyone to be prosecuted for theft of a
car invariably they will be convicted with "Taking a vehicle without the owner's
consent" - There are good reasons why this is done but ask the car's owner and
I'm sure he'd say that his car was stolen and the culprit was a thief. Is the
culprit here being "demonized" or is it not just a case of calling a spade a
spade.