Slashdot Mirror
FBI Cracks Down on Piracy of Obsolete Game
Alien54 wrote to mention a story detailing an FBI crackdown on pirated...NES games. From the article: "More than 60,000 pirated copies of Nintendo game consoles were seized Wednesday during raids in New York and New Jersey, prosecutors announced. Four people were arrested in the crackdown on the theft of popular games such as "Donkey Kong," "Mario Brothers," "Duck Hunt," "Baseball" and others, according to a release by federal authorities and papers filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Nintendo told the FBI that individuals and companies copy the video games and sell the pirated versions throughout the world, costing the company millions of dollars in lost revenue annually, according to the complaint."
Four people were arrested in the crackdown on the theft of popular games
How many times does it have to be explained that copyright infringement is a different offence to theft?
If somebody put a game up on the Internet where it was downloaded thousands of times, that can cause far more harm than if somebody went into a shop and stole something.
If somebody copied games that you can no longer buy, it can cause less harm than if somebody went into a shop and stole something.
Copyright infringement and theft are fundamentally different actions, with different consequences, governed by different laws. Even the Supreme Court has ruled that copyright infringement is not theft (Dowling vs US, 1985).
There is a perfectly good term to use when somebody copies something illegally. It's "copyright infringement". People who insist upon misusing the term "theft" are only seeking to cause yet more pointless arguments. There is a word for these people too. It's "troll".
False:
The US Constitution specifically states that copyrights are to promote progress; it does not mention any protecting any rights of individuals. In fact, it is explaining why it is allowing congress to take away rights that individuals would otherwise have over their own physical property just because it happens to have information fixed on it that came from somewhere else.Any rights that copyright gives to the creator at the expense of others is a windfall side-effect for the creator. The primary goal as stated in the clause is basically economic stimulus. These rights are a means to an end, not an end in themselves.
Just because you state something does not make it true or even a valid argument.
True, as you've just demonstrated.
Great post. I just wanted to help out with a couple of Supreme Court rulings on the subject:
.
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994)
We have often recognized the monopoly privileges [of copyright] that Congress has authorized, while 'intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward,' are limited in nature and must ultimately serve the public good.
Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)
The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly . . . reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.' To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.
Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127
The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, `lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.'
and I really like this item...
H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909)
The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. . .
In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly.
All putting copyright on a proper legal footing and thoroughly smashing the flawed 'natural property' model.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.