#5931323, By ploder Are the Net Police Coming for You? (Panorama 15 March at 8.30pm)

  • ploder 15 Mar 2010 22:37:09 243 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Micro_Explosion. wrote:
    ploder wrote:
    You have misconstrued what I said. If it is a physical copy and he takes it without permission it is theft. Making copies and distributing something in digital form is not theft because the original is not taken. It does not matter how good the copy is. It only matters that it is not in physical form any more ;)

    Are you really so naive as to try to argue that something only has a monetary value if it exists in physical form?

    Whether pirating is copyright infringement or it is theft is irrelevant. That product, in whatever form, has a monetary value due to the time, effort, creativity etc. that has been put into it and just because you don't feel like it, doesn't mean that you have the right to it without that transaction....

    I have not made an argument that something only has monetary value if it exists in a physical form. The monetary value is irrelevant for the purposes of the law. The relevant issue which I am pointing out is that it is theft if a physical object and copyright infringement if it is a digital object.

    AngeleDei wrote:
    Whether its theft or copying, its illegal according to the laws of the land. Argue all you like about semantics, but do it and you are breaking the law.

    Copying or downloading a film means that you are seeing it for free and will not therefore be buying it, so the people who put all the effort and money into the film to create it (for an expected return) get nothing because you refused to pay the amount they deemed their film to be worth.

    I know if I'd made a song or film and had spent a lot of time creating it and marketing it and everyone copied illegal copies of it, then I'd want something to be done to stop them. Not everyone who creates a song or a movie is a huge corporation and even the huge corporations can and do go bust and a lot of people suffer.

    I am not disputing that it is illegal, only that you are calling it something it is not. I suspect that you have heard those with vested interests calling it theft and it has stuck. Again, I suggest this is the case because it is a 'hearts and minds' issue. They are trying to win public support by portraying the suspected copyright infringers as badly as possible.

    I don't think your assumption that people who download something for free won't go and buy it is not a good one to make. Even on this program I think they pointed out that 'pirates' end up spending more than non-pirates. I think that people should be rewarded for their work. However, I do not support the demonization of people and attempts to treat them unlawfully all to serve the interests of one group. I hope I have demonstrated this in my correspondence with the 'lynch mob' here lol.

    FWB wrote: Then it clearly needs a change, because if that doesn't cover the loss of money there's something wrong with it.
    Well, that's one of the issues I have reservations about. When someone makes an accusation then they should be able to prove it. There is no convincing evidence to show that it is the fact that people pirated something which is the cause of the loss in each case. They would actually have to prove this instead of relying on out of court settlements. How do you prove that someone would have gone out and bought a CD for example if they weren't able to copy it? Couldn't it also be the case that they wouldn't have bought it at all?

    FWB wrote: Can you quote the Copyright Act then please.
    Of course:

    here :

    and here:
Log in or register to reply