I do not understand the argument that piracy is NOT âtheft.â
Itâs taking something of value - something that required time, effort, and money to create - taking that item without permission and without providing compensation.
You can argue about whether harm is actually done or not. Iâve downloaded MP3s and later bought albums from those artists I liked; theyâve made more money on me than they might have otherwise. You might be encouraging Iron Maiden to play in your homeland and make money selling concert tickets. You might argue that without a physical product, there is not a direct cost. You can certainly argue about the punishments, if any, that ought to be imposed.
None of that changes the simple truth that itâs taking something without permission. Itâs not âwatching TV the wrong way,â itâs theft.
How do we define âwatching TVâ ?
Itâs copyright infringement, not theft. Nothing is taken.
While I agree that jail time for piracy is ridiculous, I donât like the phrasing in the article that the pirates are just getting in trouble for watching tv the wrong way. Itâs not like they bought the content fair and square and itâs laden with DRM thatâs making it so using what they paid for is impossible without doing something illegal and someone wants them jailed for breaking the law. Itâs about them accessing the content without paying for it. Itâs as much about âwatching tv programmes the wrong wayâ as if someone snuck into a movie in the theater or snuck into a concert without a ticket and was in trouble for âwatching the movie the wrong wayâ or âlistening to music the wrong wayâ. It doesnât matter where we stand on piracy or sharing or supporting creators or supporting sharing, that kind of wording isnât helpful in finding a good solution for the situation.
They are not âtakingâ anything. They are creating a duplicate copy without permission and/or without the requisite recompense. At no point is the original creator/owner deprived of their intellectual property and is freely able to continue to distribute it as they see fit.
As a content creator myself Iâm not sticking up for piracy here, merely pointing out why copyright infringement is not in any way theft â hence why they are considered two separate offences.
Exactly the example I was going to give. Yes, itâs different than theft, but that doesnât mean itâs okay. In a way, the headline is completely accurate. Pirating content is the Wrong Way. (now you can of course argue what the punishments are etc, thatâs a different matter)
Do they still license televisions in the UK? I recall that in the past they had a van that would drive around looking for the tell-tale signature of a receiver to find those evading the licensing fee.
That video is really great.
The UK requires a license to watch TV. If a specific player allows someone to avoid paying that fee that would be watching TV the wrong way. And yes, the crime is prosecuted, and they have roving TV detector vans to find perpetrators. Prison is a mite harsh for a punishment, though.
[quote=âdoctorow, post:1, topic:20450â]
no wonder theyâre called the Nasty Party.
[/quote]I would suggest that âpartyâ is not the word most commonly used after ânastyâ when describing the tories.
Iâm not sure that the use of the inflammatory term - theft - is any worse than the inflammatory headline of this article. Reasonable minds can differ on this issue and it doesnât help the dialogue to ignore the real issues with the weak argument that because I can watch something on Netflix it shouldnât be wrong to download it on bittorrent.
It comes down to policy choices that are not always easy. How much should the government be required to do to protect content owners from copyright infringement? Should the government limit its efforts to punishing/preventing illegal distribution or should it also punish viewers? Should copyright holders be protected at all? Does the amount of protection available depend on the content?
I think those are all good questions on which reasonable minds can differ. However, rather than deal with the real issues, journalists and politicians way too often take the easy route of inflammatory rhetoric.
Youâre thinking about the cat detector van. Apparently they can pinpoint a purr from 400 yards.
When violence and punishment are the only tools in legislatorsâ toolboxes, our Congresses and Parliaments become nothing more than huge boxes seating hundreds of useless tools.
Copyright infringement is clearly a civil matter not a criminal matter. Prison is not suitable for dealing with copyright infringement - if youâre in jail you canât earn money and youâll find it harder to get work when you leave with a criminal record - youâd be disbarred from a lot of work automatically. If the court imposes a civil penalty and you donât pay that penalty, ultimately you could end up in jail for contempt of court - but not for piracy.
Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft has lighter penalties.
Holy God, how is that even tolerated in this age? Do you have to take a test to get a license? Do you pay a fee? Is this whole world GOING INSANE!?!?!???
Because money and power (aka The Golden Rule).
[quote=âmataband, post:17, topic:20450, full:trueâ]
Do you have to take a test to get a license?[/quote]
Probably not.
[quote=âmataband, post:17, topic:20450, full:trueâ]
Do you pay a fee?[/quote]
Sure.
[quote=âmataband, post:17, topic:20450, full:trueâ]
Is this whole world GOING INSANE!?!?!???[/quote]
Yes.
The licencr fee is the best thing ever. Its why the BBC is ad free and (at least partially) free from commercial concerns.
And it is fabulous value for money. Multiple TV channels, rolling news, a huge network of local and national radio stations, all for less than a single NPR station asks for.
Yeah, the rhetoric is unhelpful to the cause here. Using this mock-exaggeration, Drunk-driving is just âdriving the wrong wayâ, shoplifting is âshopping the wrong wayâ and rape is only âhaving sex the wrong wayâ.
Using that sort of argument to imply that x is not a crime is disingenuous.
