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 412943
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Will you please stop slandering me? I profess the strict letter of Dutch law, and in doing so, I am being perfectly honest and legal. The act of downloading is not illegal in the jurisdiction I live in and have lived in all my life. You are accusing me of criminal activity (namely, piracy, the act of illegally distributing copyrighted content), even though I have done no such thing, and even though I am not promoting any such activity.

If I were to live in the US, you'd have a point. However, since I do not, will you please respect the law of other countries?

I don't take kindly for being branded a criminal, especially not by someone as clueless about copyright such as yourself. Beach of copyright might be considered "theft" in the US, but the US is not the world, and it most certainly isn't The Netherlands.

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

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

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


Uhm...No. We did not need to change copyright laws when tapedecks came around and we don't need it now. Distributing content without the permission of the copyright holder was a clear infringement then and and it still is one now.
What needs to move with the times is not the copyright law, but the large behemoth organizations that are trying to modify it for their own purpose.

Edited 2010-03-10 15:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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


I think copyright should be designed in such a way that it promotes the arts - not in a way that it promotes making money, something which has NEVER been the intent of the concept of copyright.

Considering how content providers are abusing copyright - yes, I'd rather see it reduced greatly, just to make sure we kill off the big content providers, and then rebuild the whole concept from the ground-up.

We live in a capitalist society, and in such a society, business models should be able to die. The old-world, pre-internet business model of the content providers has failed, and we should not use laws to try and keep them erect.

When we discovered a massive natural gas reserve in The Netherlands in the '60s (one of the biggest in the world), we allowed the coal mines in the south to die. The changing market had rendered the coal mining model obsolete, and as such, it died out. It's harsh, but that'd how mankind progresses. The content providers' old business model - like the coal mines - should simply die out. It has no life in it any more, and abusing legislation to uphold a failing business model is something I'd expect from a communist country - not from the west.

Reply Parent Score: 2

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

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?


\begin{rambling}

Not necessarily. I don't think content producers have any reasonable expectation to be compensated every single time someone views their work, on into eternity. I also don't think it's the government's job to guarantee by law the profitability of a certain segment of industry.

It's the job of a copyright regime to ensure that content production is profitable enough that people will want to produce content, not that it's profitable to the highest degree possible. It's actually quite important that content producers stop deriving income from their product as quickly as possible, so that they have an incentive to keep producing more, new material, instead of sitting atop their existing IP and collecting licensing fees on unto the heat-death of the universe.

So... no. People don't have an inherent right to make money from their creative product, or to control its distribution. We, the people of free democracies with copyright regimes, are nice enough to put in place a legal regime that allows content producers to make enough money that it'll be profitable to produce media. That's it. We certainly do not owe them money every time we consume that media, anywhere, forever.

\end{rambling}

Edited 2010-03-10 17:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3