Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Mar 2010 16:58 UTC
Legal We have some very, very good news for Europeans (which happens to include myself): we have the European Parliament on our sides when it comes to battling ACTA. If you may recall, ACTA is basically an attempt by the US to impose upon the rest of the world draconian measures like three strikes laws and the DMCA. All parties within the European Parliament have together put forth a resolution that would effectively tackle ACTA.
Thread beginning with comment 412939
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

No, I want laws to treat people fairly.

Copyright law in The Netherlands is exactly as it should be. Uploading is illegal, while downloading is not,


That amounts to legalized piracy. Even if it is enforced people from outside the country will provide the files.

Letting people download copyright material without permission from the owners is theft. You're letting people steal the work of others without compensation.


But I guess you prefer the three strikes system, which means that all internet activity must be monitored by private organisations. I guess you prefer a system where private, non-government organisations have the same kind of power judges have, allowing them to punish people without due trial.


Private companies don't have the same power the judges have. All ISPs can do is stop providing their own service.

Private companies refuse service for illegal activities all the time. It's a packet delivery service, you don't have a right to using it for illegal activity anymore than you do with other private delivery services.


If that's a world you want to live in, then bugger off to the US, which is currently the paradise you seem to seek, where justice favours the large, rich companies, instead of ordinary individuals.


You're clearly for laws that favor pirates over content producers. What you call "fair" amounts to letting people download all the copyrighted material they want. Just be intellectually honest at least and say you favor pirates over researchers, programmers, artists and musicians.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you should re-investigate what copyright means. I don't think it means what you think it does.

Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on distribution. This means that only the copyright holder may distribute that which he holds copyright over. Downloading is not distributing. Downloading is acquiring. Copyright does not concern itself with acquiring, hence why downloading is legal here, while uploading is not.

I can already predict your next retort (since I've had this discussion with the uninformed a dozen times over): isn't downloading akin to buying goods you know were stolen?

That argument would hold up if it wasn't for the fact that breach of copyright (the uploading) is not theft; hence, obtaining such materials cannot be considered the obtaining of stolen goods.

It's pretty simple, really.

Reply Parent Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You are for allowing people to take the work of others without compensation.

You think it should be legal for someone to download a game that some indy company made without paying for it.

Spin it all you want but at the end of the day the company doesn't care if you stole the game in the store or downloaded it without paying them. You're taking their work without paying for it, that's theft.

You don't think people should be required to compensate the people that make digital products. You support piracy, at least be honest about it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Copyright is a state-granted monopoly on distribution. This means that only the copyright holder may distribute that which he holds copyright over. Downloading is not distributing. Downloading is acquiring. Copyright does not concern itself with acquiring, hence why downloading is legal here, while uploading is not.


So don't you think that copyright law needs reform to take into account the new age of digital distribution?

The core of the matter is you benefiting from others work without any form of compensation going to them. Don't you think that's wrong?

Obviously, the way of the future is home entertainment computers, and it is just a matter of time before they are in everyone's home. At that point, if we were all living under netherlands copyright law, what would be the point of anyone making TV shows or movies anymore, when you realistically couldn't expect to even make your costs back?

Reply Parent Score: 2

danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

That amounts to legalized piracy.


Except that it is not. In recent times it has always been legal in The Netherlands to, say, borrow a CD in the library (or books for that matter), and making a copy for your own enjoyment. As long as it is for personal non-profit use. To compensate artists, there is a levy on blank media, such as CD-Rs and DVD-Rs. A minister of justice has decided that the situation for downloading is the same. Citizens have already paid for this fair-use right via levies.

Even if you do not have a levy system, downloading should be no criminal offense. Copying is not theft, since there no physical object is being stolen. Making a copy is nearly free. Additionally, research in our country has shown that frequent music downloaders are also people who buy music more frequently.

Why the system as it is set up in many countries is wrong can be shown easily. Suppose that I can spend only 50 Euros of my monthly income in music, and I do so. Now, suppose that I also download 500 Euros worth of material monthly. Is 500 Euros the real damage? No, if I stuck to the law, I'd still have spent the same amount of money on music. If I do not obey the law, downloading 500 Euros worth of music does not cost the industry anything. The 50 + 500 situation is clearly more beneficial for society, and should be aimed for.

The entertainment system is broken and old, and kept in tact by draconian laws. It is time to shoot down those laws (including the DMCA, EUCD, and ACTA), and leverage the real potential of the internet - infrastructure that can bring an enormous of culture to every citizen, and gives artists (and not the industry) the opportunity to earn money.

You're clearly for laws that favor pirates over content producers.


Sure, pirates and artists. Not big media. They should reinvent themselves, or disappear with other archaic 20th century business models and technology. The world is far better of without them.

Edited 2010-03-09 22:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Copying is not theft, since there no physical object is being stolen.


Theft is not defined by whether or not something physical was stolen. It's taking something that is not yours without permission. There are plenty of services that can be stolen without a physical object ever taken.


Making a copy is nearly free.


That is why copyright laws exist. For certain types of work all the cost is in the production while the duplication costs nothing. Intellectual property laws recognize this and create a market for these products.


Additionally, research in our country has shown that frequent music downloaders are also people who buy music more frequently.


That type of study could only be done by polling the pirates, which makes the whole thing incredibly stupid.
Maybe CEOs should be polled and asked if they are greedy or not. I would also bet 10:1 that this so-called study was performed by a social scientist, or soft scientist as my friend calls them.

People pirate because they don't want to pay. You can't get around that basic fact. If piracy is socially acceptable and there is no strong legal threat then the majority will do it.


The entertainment system is broken and old, and kept in tact by draconian laws. It is time to shoot down those laws (including the DMCA, EUCD, and ACTA), and leverage the real potential of the internet - infrastructure that can bring an enormous of culture to every citizen, and gives artists (and not the industry) the opportunity to earn money.


Artists are already free to sell their music in any way they see fit. You would just be robbing them of options by eliminating copyright. If fact you would rob the incomes of hundreds of thousands of small artists that make their money by selling their music on itunes and other digital music providers. Providers like Apple would just sell their music as part of a monthly service without compensating them.

Reply Parent Score: 1