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 Because, as we all know, protecting failing and outdated business models is more important than upholding stodgy old and annoying concepts like 'freedom of speech'.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 516516
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The two extremes
by dylansmrjones on Tue 1st May 2012 14:30 UTC 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

RE[5]: The two extremes
by chmeee on Tue 1st May 2012 16:01 in reply to "RE[4]: The two extremes"
chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

As I had mentioned in my first reply, the letter of the law makes it a civil issue. But, since people around here take license with using the "spirit" instead of the "letter", I chose to use the "spirit" of the law and the act, and in that spirit I do consider it theft. Saying it's simply the "loss of potential revenue" isn't enough. If you say they "may have, but may not have" purchased it instead of committing the copyright infringement, you can only use the "may have", and use it to mean "would have". Saying "may not have" shows they had no intention of purchasing it or even viewing/listening to it, except for the fact that it was available for download. But if there is no interest in the material, why download it? The only reason to download is because there _is_ an interest in the material, of some degree. Therefore, drawing the conclusion that the sale _was_ lost.

Of course, I may be the only one on this site who believes that copyright violation of a commercial work is theft (loss of potential profit due to infringement of work is always loss of actual profit in this view).

My issue with Thom is that he makes copyright infringement appear benign, which it is not. Of course, in engaging in such disagreement, I have joined the special olympics of arguing on the internet.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: The two extremes
by dylansmrjones on Tue 1st May 2012 22:32 in reply to "RE[5]: The two extremes"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You can only steal something if it is material. If it is not material you cannot take it and therefore cannot steal it. The entire concept of "immaterial property" is broken.

If violating copyright is theft, then copyright itself is theft.

Reply Parent Score: 3