"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a0e0037$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:42:27 -0600, somebody wrote:

> > Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one
> > with the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.

> <sigh>  I see no point in continuing this discussion.  I've explained it
> several times already, and you refuse to understand.  Don't know how I
> can explain it any more simply.

How about answering the four or five questions I asked above with simple yes
or no?

Post a reply to this message

On 5/15/2009 9:21 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Where the record labels, MPAA, etc get into "stealing" is not the
> stealing of the work, but they contend that every time someone infringes
> their copyright, they are denied profits (ie, the profits are stolen).
>
> In order for that argument to hold water, you have to assume that
> everyone who infringes the copyright of the rights holder would have paid
> for the product, otherwise there's no theft of profits (since there would
> have been no purchase made without the infringement).

This makes me wonder if a person who has downloaded, say, 100,000,000 
songs off the internet without paying for them, was sued, could they 
defend themselves by saying they wouldn't have paid for the music anyway?

Certainly they would still be guilty of copyright infringement, but I 
don't think there would be any theft involved.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/15/2009 12:36 PM, somebody wrote:
> You own a car.
> I take it away without your permission.
> Is it theft?
>
> Let's follow your reasoning above:

Let's look at this with a better example, since cars are such a poor 
analogy (they aren't generally covered by copyrights).

You purchase (legally!) a CD of my music.
You make a copy (illegally!) of said CD.
Is it theft?

No.  Because you haven't taken anything away from me.
I originally owned the copyright.  I still own the copyright.  You 
didn't take it.
I never owned the copy of the CD you purchased.  So that isn't theft either.

I still retain the copyright after you have made your copy.  Nothing has 
been taken away from me, so it isn't theft.

It IS infringement of the copyright, and I CAN sue you for it.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On 5/15/2009 9:13 AM, Darren New wrote:
> A
> license gives you permission to make copies, not copyright.

Speaking of licenses, my favorite definition of a license is "a promise 
not to sue." :)

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> On 5/15/2009 9:13 AM, Darren New wrote:
>> A
>> license gives you permission to make copies, not copyright.
> 
> Speaking of licenses, my favorite definition of a license is "a promise 
> not to sue." :)

Surprisingly, laws work a lot better when you actually make them more like 
math. When you say "this law cancels that law", it works better than when 
you say "this law allows X" or "that law prohibits Y."  In part, because if 
you have "allows" then you have an implicit denial (the exception proves the 
rule). And if you have "prohibits" then it doesn't really prohibit - it just 
allows you to recover some sort of damages.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:04:21 -0700, Chambers wrote:

> This makes me wonder if a person who has downloaded, say, 100,000,000
> songs off the internet without paying for them, was sued, could they
> defend themselves by saying they wouldn't have paid for the music
> anyway?

I can honestly say that I wouldn't want to be the test case for that, 
because it'd be difficult to prove that they wouldn't have.

Well, scratch that, it might be easy to prove - look at their income, 
look at how much the songs would retail for, and see if they could 
possibly have afforded it.

> Certainly they would still be guilty of copyright infringement, but I
> don't think there would be any theft involved.

Theft probably would be difficult to prove, infringement would be easy 
enough to prove and given the ability to have unreasonable punitive 
damages assigned for the infringement activity, any theft charge - even 
if proven - would be inconsequential.  The infringement charges would be 
more than enough to bankrupt the perp.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:14:52 -0600, somebody wrote:

> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> news:4a0e0037$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:42:27 -0600, somebody wrote:
> 
>> > Ah, I see. That argument hit a dead end, so we are back to square one
>> > with the arbitrary "non-physical" defense.
> 
>> <sigh>  I see no point in continuing this discussion.  I've explained
>> it several times already, and you refuse to understand.  Don't know how
>> I can explain it any more simply.
> 
> How about answering the four or five questions I asked above with simple
> yes or no?

Because we've been round and round on the same topic already.  Answering 
the questions is not a matter of a "simple yes or no" because you will 
then ask questions about my answers and the cycle will start all over 
again.

And I'm tired of repeating myself.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> It's exactly the same situation with copyright. I did not wish for you to
> have copies of my work, and I had the right to not have you copies of my
> work. You have illegally taken away my ability to exercise those benefits
> and rights. What is being taken away is not the piece of paper (car title or
> copyright statement), but whatever rights are granted to the rightful owner
> *on* that piece of paper.

	Hmm... So let's say that I administer a gym run by the city (it's
public). I don't like you, so I don't let you in. I have illegally taken
away your ability to exercise your benefits and rights.

	Is that theft?

	I don't serve a white person in my restaurant because of his race. Is
that theft?

	

-- 
Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming
only things that are good for you.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> This makes me wonder if a person who has downloaded, say, 100,000,000
> songs off the internet without paying for them, was sued, could they
> defend themselves by saying they wouldn't have paid for the music anyway?
	
	Downloading is one thing. Sharing is another. If he did both (and
that's how it works with most p2p), then that excuse has little bearing.


-- 
Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming
only things that are good for you.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a0ecfce$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > It's exactly the same situation with copyright. I did not wish for you
to
> > have copies of my work, and I had the right to not have you copies of my
> > work. You have illegally taken away my ability to exercise those
benefits
> > and rights. What is being taken away is not the piece of paper (car
title or
> > copyright statement), but whatever rights are granted to the rightful
owner
> > *on* that piece of paper.

> Hmm... So let's say that I administer a gym run by the city (it's
> public). I don't like you, so I don't let you in. I have illegally taken
> away your ability to exercise your benefits and rights.
>
> Is that theft?

No because it doesn't involve anything I own.

> I don't serve a white person in my restaurant because of his race. Is
> that theft?


No because it doesn't involve anything I own.

Post a reply to this message