Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 15:25 UTC
Legal "File-sharing site The Pirate Bay must be blocked by UK internet service providers, the High Court has ruled. The Swedish website hosts links to download mostly-pirated free music and video. Sky, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media must all prevent their users from accessing the site." Because, as we all know, protecting failing and outdated business models is more important than upholding stodgy old and annoying concepts like 'freedom of speech'. Repeat after me: we live in the free world, not China. Maybe if we say it often enough, we'll start believing it.
Thread beginning with comment 516337
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

theft.


You just ruined your perfectly valid point.

Reply Parent Score: 9

v RE[3]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:17 in reply to "RE[2]: The two extremes"
RE[4]: The two extremes
by kwan_e on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:25 in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Depriving somebody the profit of their work is theft.


And this is why more and more companies are moving to abolish the practice of resale. Anything can be argued to be "depriving somebody the profit of their work". If I buy a game second hand, it's depriving the game company of the profit they may have had if I bought a new one.

What about the actions of companies who deprive themselves of their own profit? Many media companies don't distribute overseas even though there is almost no cost for them to do so. Research clearly shows people would be willing to pay if something was available.

What about research that shows "piracy" actually increases sales, and that "pirates" tend to buy more than the average person? Should they then be compensated by the media companies for doing the opposite of depriving them of profit?

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[4]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 17:26 in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Depriving somebody the profit of their work is theft. I don't care if legally it's a civil matter, it is still theft.


Not giving me money for OSNews [by becoming a subscriber] is theft. I don't care if that dun' makes any sense whatsoever, it is still theft.

Edited 2012-04-30 17:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:45 in reply to "RE[2]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

What would you call it, then, if it's not theft? "Copying without permission"? "Depriving them of profit for your own gain" (Sounds a lot like theft to me)?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: The two extremes
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 18:49 in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What would you call it, then, if it's not theft? "Copying without permission"? "Depriving them of profit for your own gain" (Sounds a lot like theft to me)?


Uh... What about, I don't know, the actual correct term: "copyright infringement"?

Of course, that doesn't has that nice ring to it that "stealing" does.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: The two extremes
by Delgarde on Mon 30th Apr 2012 22:15 in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

What would you call it, then, if it's not theft? "Copying without permission"? "Depriving them of profit for your own gain" (Sounds a lot like theft to me)?


We call it copyright infringement, because that's the body of law it comes under. "Theft" is *not* the right word, because that's from the body of law dealing with physical property.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: The two extremes
by dylansmrjones on Tue 1st May 2012 14:30 in reply to "RE[3]: The two extremes"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

License violation, contract violation (depending on the exact letter of the law).

But theft it is not. You haven't lost anything. You may have lost a possible income, but one cannot steal something you don't have. They may prevent you from getting some you might have had otherise, but that does not equal theft.

If anything is theft it is "intellectual property".

Reply Parent Score: 3