Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
Thread beginning with comment 451308
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Correction
by ricegf on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Correction"
Member since:

In criminal law, "theft" is defined as "the dishonest taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession" (free dictionary) and "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" (Webster's).

This just doesn't sound like what's happening here; Big Media is not being deprived of any personal property a'tall. IANAL, but I believe you meant to criticize "copyright infringement", which is a very different thing.

Copyright (in the USA) is a privilege granted to an author by constitutional authority for a limited time for the explicit purpose of promoting science and the useful arts. Property rights, by contrast, are considered God-given and inalienable and cannot be legally removed except by due process under the law; they never expire (for example).

Copyright infringement is still wrong, of course, but it isn't theft, no matter how many times Big Media repeats the big lie. And yes, the difference matters - if copyrighted material is "property" and violating copyright is "theft", then control of the material can only be removed after due process - which is, of course, the goal of Big Media. Tried watching "Steamboat Willie" lately? ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[5]: Correction
by MollyC on Sun 28th Nov 2010 02:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Correction"
MollyC Member since:

Frankenfuss is using the term "steal", colloquially. Steal means more than your legal definition of "theft" as it is used in common language. For example, the term "stealing cable" has been widely accepted to mean the act of getting cable TV signals for free without authorization.

Anyway, when people get hung up over the word "steal" when it comes to piracy, I at times will use the word "cheat" instead. Pirates of IP are cheating the creators out of rightful payment, just like one who sneaks into a movie theater to watch a movie for free is cheating the movie theater out of rightful payment.

So I will alter Frankenfuss's original post, thusly:
It's amazing how people here will defend to the death their alleged inalienable right to CHEAT others.

People don't like to be cheated any more than they like to be stolen from. And cheating can be worse than stealing; it depends on the nature of the cheating.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Correction
by ricegf on Sun 28th Nov 2010 03:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Correction"
ricegf Member since:

Frankenfuss is using the term "steal", colloquially.

Possibly, but he did put the word in all caps and then reinforce that use with synonyms. And language is important, particularly in this case where "STEAL" and "thievery" have very different connotations than "copyright infringement".

Nor are Big Media's estimates of lost revenue from copyright infringement even vaguely credible.

So I stand firmly by my post. It's "copyright infringement", not "thievery" or "cheating" or the even more amusing "piracy". Arrrr.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Correction
by Valhalla on Sun 28th Nov 2010 14:03 in reply to "RE[5]: Correction"
Valhalla Member since:

For example, the term "stealing cable" has been widely accepted to mean the act of getting cable TV signals for free without authorization.

And where did this term originate? I'm guessing it was coined by cable companies or reporters, not by ordinary man who I am certain will call it something like 'getting cable for free'. And again in this case it's not stealing, it's accessing something which you have not paid to access.

As for people copying stuff they have no right of copying. I don't know, but I think we as a people reap what we sow. There's a celebration of utter greed in this world, and the corruption in our governments show us that those who are supposed to lead us by example live by the 'grab what you can when you can' principle.

People see their taxes go to saving banks which have lost their money through massive gamblings again in the name of greed. Why would this coming generation feel any reason to 'do the right thing'? I sure as hell can't blame them for copying what they can and use their money on things they can't copy when everyone at the top is grabbing all they can without shame.

What goes around comes around.

Reply Parent Score: 4