Yes, one can call it some grinding, but then, killing once you explore new areas is hardly grinding, and and very often found myself having to just kill to level so I could do new quests. Usually there were alternatives, like visiting completely new areas.
I am the type who like to do all quests though, even if I am way above in level to get anything out of it. I actually like to see the story that is many times told through the quest series and such, gives a background to each area, what has happened there.
Despite livig in Europe, I was able to play all beta (but had very little time all fall) and I think they have added many new quests and even lower level areas have been polished and worked on to have more of things in them, so even if there were some gaps of levels were you had very little in the quest way, I think that should be gone now with very little grinding actually needed, as long as one is willing to travell arround.
Was EQ2 a world wide release, or limited like WoW too? The numbers for WoW should rise a lot when they release it in Europe and Korea (or is it allready released in Korea?)
>Taking something that someone else produced with >the expectation of payment, no matter how crappy >you might think it is, is still stealing.
You are not taking something someone else produced, you are making a new copy that happens to be identical to something else. That is why we need copyright laws and why theft laws does not work out. However, they are still very different. The issue with copyright is NOT if you pay or not, that is irrellevant really (it might affect the penalties though), it does NOT determine if we have copyright infringement though. Geting something without paying for it is NOT copyright infringement either (or theft). If I give a chair to a friend, he got it without paying, neither theft, nor copyright infringement.
Same with a book or mucis CD, I can give it to a friend and he got it without paying, not theft not copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is about the creation of something new, and when that is not allowed.
For normal physical things, that does not apply, I can make a fence identical to yours and it is not theft (nor copyright infringement. If I make a new copy of your book you wrote, then it is copyright infringment (but not theft), regardless of any payment. you might even give away copies of it for free and not demand payment, it is STILL copyright infringement if I make a copy of it.
By your argumentation, giving something away, regardles of if there is copyright infringement or not is theft and should be illegal. If I give away (or sell) my car, the one who made it did not recieve payment but might expect or want to, there is nothing illegal with it though.
So how do you define free then? By that argumentation everything is just free! Since I am not a native english speaking person I am not fully aware of every exact possible meanings and such of words, but to me, "free" is something you get without having to do anything in compensation. In this cases you do. I know that here in Sweden, the word "gratis" which is basically free, is regulated to not be allowed to be used in situations were anyone has to do anything to get it. So one can't say, buy this vacum cleaner and get a free (gratis) toaster. Similary you would not be allowed to say, buy this game and get to play for free on the net, and so on. Seems reasonable to me. If it was free, I should be able to download and use the content in the original case even if I don't have a game, or if not, what would you call that if not free? What word exist for that?
>The person responsible for the downloading his or >her Internet connection is the one that may be >assumed to be using the file trading software.
Forgive me for not being a native english speaking person, but to me this sentence doesn't make sense. Anyway, the person who use a computer and download something may not at all be the same who has an internet connection. That is what I tried to say.
>If the person responsible for the connection >knows that his friend used the computer to >download or trade the stuff, then that person may >ask the court to change the defendant to >reference his or her friend.
He might not know who it was, How would I know if it was my wife, my doughter, a friend of theirs, or perhaps a freind of mine that used my computer?It is not up to some random (well not completely random) accused person to find the real guilty person. At least not were I live, perhaps you have laws that makes it the responsability of the accused to find the real person if he is innocent.
In whatever one that is appropriate. There must be some.
>And if it's the FBI that should be doing this, >how many FBI agents do you think would have to be >working on this -- and this alone -- full-time? >Seems a waste of resources given that this isn't >really a main goal of the FBI.
I have no idea no idea how many agents they or any other police might have available, but then, one can say that about any illegal activity. One can't have a situation were one say "hey, there is no way the police will have resources to handle this illegal activity, so lets people handle it themselves, passing a law that allowes them to do so".
>I don't think that the BSA should be able to >-automatically- get names........and the ISP >insists on fighting,
What do you mean inist on fighting? They just say, go through the law enforcement authoroties as one do with any other illegal activity were two OTHER parties are involved. They don't opose that. That is what it is all about. Why should they be able to get it at all dirctly from the ISP? That means I should as well if I suspect someone, somewere might infringe on my copyrights, right? Should it only be copyright? What about robberies? If I suspect my stolen gods might be in a house, should I then be allowed to request information about the owner of the house regarding it? To identify who it might be and so on? Should every single person suddenly be allowed by law to work as police when they are involved in illegal activities? That is what it is all about, the ISP just said, that it should be handled by law enforcement. I feel that it is approproiate.
>Similary, MMOG maker do release free content >regulary. Hell, even WoW just recently added a >brand new dungeon (Maraudon) with new quests. >Free.
How is that free? You pay a monthly fee to cover that sort of things. Sure, the fee cover other things too, but "adding new content" is one of the main things poping up all the time as a justification for the fee. So how can it then suddenly be free?????
Barrels per day is really not everything. How much oil there is to be pumped up in the future can be a much more interesting thing to look at. Doesn't matter if you would pump more oil than anyone else if it would only last for a year, then there would be no more oil to pump there.
Wouldn't the problem be that they want to be able to do the police work themselves, skipping out the police. If they suspoect someone being guilty, report to the police and let them handle it and check. That is who you do with any suspected ilegal activity.
Yes, the key here is the POLICE. They are the ones comming on and verifying if there is an illegal activity. That is why we have law enforcement and courts and so on, to handle those things. What BSA wants is for them to be able to go to ISP and do the police work.
That would of course require that anyone claiming copyright (most have probably written something sometime) should be able to to the same. And why stop at copyright infringement. If I suspect music comanies of some illegal activity (with some appearant to me evidence), should I then be allowed to go to theor bank and ask for info? Should I be allowed to enter their offices to search for what really happened and who did it? That is a very dangerous direction to move in. If an illegal activity is going on (or suspected), it should be the police who handle it, or the two parties can resolve it between them, but not dragin in others (like the ISP), that is thw work for law enfocement if needed.
>Discovering the names of people possibly involved >in a crime is part of due process.
So, isn't that allready possible with todays laws? File with the police and they can investigate if there is reasonable suspicion. Appearantly BSA seems to argue that THEY should be able to act police and directly go to ISP and demand infromation. That is hardly how it should be. Similary, just because I suspect someone might have commited a crime, I can't simply demand infromation on them from the bank, ISP or whatever, should I? Or perhaps I should even be allowed to search a companies office if I suspect they might have done something illegal to me? Would that be OK?
>B) The word "may" is used. But let's face it: >they know exactly who is trading what, and >whether it's illegal or not.
How do they know who is trading? It doesn't have to be the one signed up with the ISP, if can be his wife (or her husband), it can be someone else in the family, or a friend visiting and so on. Do they also want to make the law so in copyright related criems you are suddenly legally responsible foer what anyone else do? What is next, the buyer of clothes is registered so he can be the one guilty when there is a bank robber using them (regardles of it is him or not actually doing it)? If someone uses my car for illegal activity, should I be responsible? Like if he runs over and kill someone? That seems insane.
>When you download a song via a P2P application >the artist gets nothing. Now please explain how >this is not taking somethign from someone else.
If I give away a CD or boonk to someone, the artists get nothing. When I invite home a friend to me and he listen to my CDs, the artist gets nothing. When someone sits outside my house and hear music through my open window, the artist gets nothing. When I sell my CD to someone, the artist gets nothing. I have not even started to discuss cases were in many countries you actualy can make copies not only to yourself (for example to have in your car without the artist getting money) but also to family and close friends, and the artost gets nothing!
Copyright is NOT about the creator getting money. Copyright infringement does NOT occur when someone has or access the work without paying. Copyright and copyright infringment is about creating NEW copies when you are not alowed to (and usually only the copyright holder is allowed to). In addition it covers public performance, distribution (only first step, then that right is lost, hence why one can sell used CDs for example) and similar things.
So using any argumentation based on lost revenues, similarities to theft and so on, is pretty pointless since that is not about copyright. That is what copyright makes possible, but that is another thing. Just because you can't make something you want, does not turn it illegal or wrong.
Isn't one of the "problems" with the DMCA that it in fact adds a new right to the copyright holder? The right of access!! Access has never been an exclusive right to the copyright holder that one would need permission to do. But since the circumvention of protection for access is not allowed, it basically gives the copyright holder this new right.
If it only had been circumvention of protections that deal with the copyright holders right only, it would not have been as bad. Looking at much of the DRM and systems on for example music CDs they are very often access controls, not copying prevention systems. The same applies to DeCSS and DVDs for example, it is about access, not about any right copyright holders have (encryption for example can never prevent copying, it is all about access).
>Then the argument "But it's close enough!" crops >up. Then what is the definition of >"close-enough"? Who decides when something "is to >close"? The industry? The courts?
The law and ultimately the courts will decide what is close enough and what applies. I think the issue of taking pictures of something is actually covered in many copyright laws, no idea bout US for example, though.
>Did you pay for it? No. >Do you now have it? Yes. >Did you take it without permission? Yes.
As allready pointed out, you did not "take" anything, you created something new, which happened to be identical to something else. That is not taking!!
If you pay for it or not is actually quite irrelevant. As is the permission for you geting it is also in much irrelevant. I assume you talk about the permission of the copyright holder. However, the copyrigth holder typically only control the very first distribution. So if I buy a book, I can then give it to you (without you paying) and without having the permission of the copyright holder. There is no copyright infringement in such a case (we didn't create a new copy), despite you managung to check "yes" to whatever you want, INCLUDING depriving someone of a potential income.
>You can justify your crime all you want, but it >still boils down to your decision to deprive >someone of potential earnings.
Sorry, in most cases and countries it would NOT be a crime! In addition, depriving someone of a potential earning is NOT illegal to do or we could do nothing since basically everything one do deprives someone of an income. See the example above for a good case.
Copyright is all about creating of something new, not taking something (copyright also includes things such as public performance but lets leave that aside for now). You create a new copy of something. This is not theft amd theft can hardly be applied to it, since you have not taken anything. You made a new fence for example, admitedly identical to other existing fences but still a new one. No one will come screaming that you stole anything, they still have their fence for one. This is why theft laws doesn't work on cases were you copy something, it is NOT taking, it is about creating something new.
That is one of the reasons one need copyright laws, or we could just stick to theft laws. Copyright laws dictate that for some things, you can't create a new copy of something unless enough time has passed since the original was first created. The issue of money and payment is NOT an issue, the person who hold the copyright can give away his work for free, you can STILL not copy it since it would be copyright infringement, despite no earnings deprived! There are excepctions in most countries so that you can under correct situation actually make copies without creating a copyright infringement (and despite it being a potential loss of earning).
No matter how one twist it, trying to compare it to theft and trying to set up criterias similar to the result of a theft, it won't be the same, and there will always be many cases and trivial cases were it does NOT work, so why doing it all the time? It only leads to the wrong conclusions, like depriving someone of income is a criteria for copyright infringement, it has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement.
So use the criterias for copyright infringement when you want to decide if there is one, and don't claim that it is identical to theft in some cases and then start to make comparions to theft (typically using completely other criterias) to see if it is a copyright infringement.
>If he is downloading copyrighted works without >the owner's permission, it is theft. Alwas was, >and always should be. (And please, no nitpicking >over the use of the word 'theft' instead of >'copyright infringement').
It is not nit picking, it is correcting a very wrong and bad analogy or naming of something. You don't call the police and report a murder when someone steal your car do you? Doesn't matter both are illegal. Using another illegal activity as the name, makes people draw wrong conclusions, they start to use any sort of reasoning on what is theft to automatically be copyright infringement as well for example, which usually ends up bad as it is often trivial to have a situation which would be theft by all reasoning but by the same reasoning would not be copyright infringement. So why NOT use the proper terminology?
> But I see nothing wrong with granting (for a >limited time) the rights to charge for creative >works to the creator, and denying the rights to >leechers to avail themselves of those works >without payment.
The payment in itself has really nothing to do with copyright infringement and what is allowed or not (although with calling it theft it is easy to get there). If I own a book and no longer want it and give it away, someone suddenly got it without paying, still not copyright infringement. If I buy a music CD and play it while I have people in my house, they get to listen to it without paying, still not copyright infringement and so on. Copyright is in much about creating something new and when you can't do that (regardless of money issues, even something that you can get for free still have copyright and you can't create new copies of it, despite no one losing out money wise for example).
As someone pointed out, the proper illegality or action would be copyright infringement. The issue of payment or not is realy not of that much importance in regard to copyright infringement or not (it can affect the remidies and such of course).
Making someone not getting payed is not in itself illegal. If it was, me going to the movies instead of buying a book because someone said the book stinks is not suddenly illegal or bad because the ones selling the book sudenly did not get any money.
Similary, suppose I buy a book, after reading it, instead of just having it, I give it to a friend who wanted it. This of course instantly resulted in a lost sale since he would for sure (lets assume it) have bought the book. Is he now a thief? Am I thief? Was there really any denial of payment? Was there even a lost revenue? And if there was, did anyone comit anything illegal? It was for sure not any copyright infringement. There was similary no theft.
All of this just shows that there is really no point in trying to make up analogies with monetary losses, denied payment and no good of doing theft analogies, since they are all quite different (although in some cases similar). It only causes confusion since if you call it theft, people will instantly make comparison to the effects of a theft and claim anything causing that effect as also illegal, like with lost income or money or that you could possibly otherwise have had.
So try calling things by the proper name, it doesn't turn anything more or less illegal. And avoid trying to make analogies with things since in most cases they simply doesn't work out and for sure doens't help out in most cases.
>That's what the IP, timestamp, and log >information is for. They submit evidence >that "the individual at W.X.Y.Z at AA:BB was >offering copyrighted material"....
That would be "an individual". In most cases there is really no way to tell who that individual is. It can be the person that has registered an account with the ISP, but it can also be someone else in its family, a friend or perhaps someone else. Proving who it actually is would porbably be hard in most cases unless there is cooperation from the person registered with at the ISP.
>A pirate is one who distributes or receives one >or more copies of a commercial, copyrighted work >without having paid the owner of the copyright >(or their assignee) for the right to do so.
Actually, this is not completely correct. First of, recieveing something is not an exclusive right by a copyright holder. Typically possession will not be a copyright infringement. Yes, distribution is a right to the copyright holder, however, it is also one that is consumed after the the first sale (or give away, or whatever). I believe this is what goes under "first sale doctrine" in US and other countries has it stated in their copyright laws and so on.
Thus, I can give a book or a CD I, for some reason, no longer want to have to someone, and there is NO money given to the copyright holder, yet I gave and someone recieved the work. Perfectly legal but according to you, we would both be Pirates!!!
In addition, thje right to create copies is in many countries not completely exclusive to the copyright holder, many countries, even US I believe, allows for various forms of personal copying, and in some cases, such vopies are allowed even for close friends or family. Yet, no money is paid here either and no copyright infringement is done. This is why the "paying money" argument does not work and why it (or loss of revenue/income) is not a good indication of copyright infringement. It is also why any comparison to theft also falls flat.
I could agree with you if define Pirtaes as a subset of copyright infringers though.
>Copy machines can (and probably are) be used to >infringe on copyrighted materials, but they also >have substantial non-infringing uses.
I have never really understood this line of reasoning which you get at when you try to go after a tool or even worse, someone making, providing a tool which in turn can be used for something illegal.
By that reasoning, a site (such as the one in question) could, by adding in links to a bunch of non infringing material, suddenly turn more OK and even be completely legal? Were is the limit? Should it be a 1:1 ration? 10:1? That just seems silly and to me shows that the whole concept of outlawing tools or those who provides them is not good.
>In quite a few EU countries, there's a right to >private copy, so basically if they such >a 'trapped' file and also possess the legal >content of it on a CD,
Actually, in some countries you don't even have to have the original copy or a "legal CD" or such since the personal copies includes copies for family and close friends. In addition, although it can be said to be a loophole, your personal copy does not nessecarilly have to come from a legal original, hence downloading is legal, you are creating personal copies. This tends to get shut down with new versions of copyrigth laws so you need a legal original. Still, you can make a copy for a friend for exaample and that is OK.
>Copyright doesn't give anyone a right to sell a >defective product.
Hmm, lets see were I wrote that it did. Nope, nowere. I dind't even came close to even mentioning defective products. No idea who you are replying too.
> The notice is required for the selling of >defective products, not for the copyright
Don't follow you. Do you say that the copyright notice is required for the selling of defective products???? Still don't see what this have to do with my post you are replying too.
Huh? Copyright is regulated through the law, you don't need to agree to any specific contract when buying, say, a music CD for copyright to have an effect. You can't decide to not acept the copyright "contract" since it is regulated by the law. Hence, there is NO contract or contract situation (related to coprygith) when someone buys a music CD between the buyer and the seller.
Copyright is not a contract you can agree to enter into or not, it is the law and is always in effect, regardless of if there is a notice of it or not.
Other text printed on something does not (at least in most countries) equal a contract that you agree to buy buying something.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, one can call it some grinding, but then, killing once you explore new areas is hardly grinding, and and very often found myself having to just kill to level so I could do new quests. Usually there were alternatives, like visiting completely new areas.
I am the type who like to do all quests though, even if I am way above in level to get anything out of it. I actually like to see the story that is many times told through the quest series and such, gives a background to each area, what has happened there.
Despite livig in Europe, I was able to play all beta (but had very little time all fall) and I think they have added many new quests and even lower level areas have been polished and worked on to have more of things in them, so even if there were some gaps of levels were you had very little in the quest way, I think that should be gone now with very little grinding actually needed, as long as one is willing to travell arround.
Was EQ2 a world wide release, or limited like WoW too? The numbers for WoW should rise a lot when they release it in Europe and Korea (or is it allready released in Korea?)
>Taking something that someone else produced with
>the expectation of payment, no matter how crappy
>you might think it is, is still stealing.
You are not taking something someone else produced, you are making a new copy that happens to be identical to something else. That is why we need copyright laws and why theft laws does not work out. However, they are still very different. The issue with copyright is NOT if you pay or not, that is irrellevant really (it might affect the penalties though), it does NOT determine if we have copyright infringement though. Geting something without paying for it is NOT copyright infringement either (or theft). If I give a chair to a friend, he got it without paying, neither theft, nor copyright infringement.
Same with a book or mucis CD, I can give it to a friend and he got it without paying, not theft not copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is about the creation of something new, and when that is not allowed.
For normal physical things, that does not apply, I can make a fence identical to yours and it is not theft (nor copyright infringement. If I make a new copy of your book you wrote, then it is copyright infringment (but not theft), regardless of any payment. you might even give away copies of it for free and not demand payment, it is STILL copyright infringement if I make a copy of it.
By your argumentation, giving something away, regardles of if there is copyright infringement or not is theft and should be illegal. If I give away (or sell) my car, the one who made it did not recieve payment but might expect or want to, there is nothing illegal with it though.
So how do you define free then? By that argumentation everything is just free! Since I am not a native english speaking person I am not fully aware of every exact possible meanings and such of words, but to me, "free" is something you get without having to do anything in compensation. In this cases you do. I know that here in Sweden, the word "gratis" which is basically free, is regulated to not be allowed to be used in situations were anyone has to do anything to get it. So one can't say, buy this vacum cleaner and get a free (gratis) toaster. Similary you would not be allowed to say, buy this game and get to play for free on the net, and so on. Seems reasonable to me. If it was free, I should be able to download and use the content in the original case even if I don't have a game, or if not, what would you call that if not free? What word exist for that?
>The person responsible for the downloading his or
>her Internet connection is the one that may be
>assumed to be using the file trading software.
Forgive me for not being a native english speaking person, but to me this sentence doesn't make sense. Anyway, the person who use a computer and download something may not at all be the same who has an internet connection. That is what I tried to say.
>If the person responsible for the connection
>knows that his friend used the computer to
>download or trade the stuff, then that person may
>ask the court to change the defendant to
>reference his or her friend.
He might not know who it was, How would I know if it was my wife, my doughter, a friend of theirs, or perhaps a freind of mine that used my computer?It is not up to some random (well not completely random) accused person to find the real guilty person. At least not were I live, perhaps you have laws that makes it the responsability of the accused to find the real person if he is innocent.
>The police in which jurisdiction?
In whatever one that is appropriate. There must be some.
>And if it's the FBI that should be doing this,
>how many FBI agents do you think would have to be
>working on this -- and this alone -- full-time?
>Seems a waste of resources given that this isn't
>really a main goal of the FBI.
I have no idea no idea how many agents they or any other police might have available, but then, one can say that about any illegal activity. One can't have a situation were one say "hey, there is no way the police will have resources to handle this illegal activity, so lets people handle it themselves, passing a law that allowes them to do so".
>I don't think that the BSA should be able to
>-automatically- get names........and the ISP
>insists on fighting,
What do you mean inist on fighting? They just say, go through the law enforcement authoroties as one do with any other illegal activity were two OTHER parties are involved. They don't opose that. That is what it is all about. Why should they be able to get it at all dirctly from the ISP? That means I should as well if I suspect someone, somewere might infringe on my copyrights, right? Should it only be copyright? What about robberies? If I suspect my stolen gods might be in a house, should I then be allowed to request information about the owner of the house regarding it? To identify who it might be and so on? Should every single person suddenly be allowed by law to work as police when they are involved in illegal activities? That is what it is all about, the ISP just said, that it should be handled by law enforcement. I feel that it is approproiate.
>Similary, MMOG maker do release free content
>regulary. Hell, even WoW just recently added a
>brand new dungeon (Maraudon) with new quests.
>Free.
How is that free? You pay a monthly fee to cover that sort of things. Sure, the fee cover other things too, but "adding new content" is one of the main things poping up all the time as a justification for the fee. So how can it then suddenly be free?????
Barrels per day is really not everything. How much oil there is to be pumped up in the future can be a much more interesting thing to look at. Doesn't matter if you would pump more oil than anyone else if it would only last for a year, then there would be no more oil to pump there.
Wouldn't the problem be that they want to be able to do the police work themselves, skipping out the police. If they suspoect someone being guilty, report to the police and let them handle it and check. That is who you do with any suspected ilegal activity.
Yes, the key here is the POLICE. They are the ones comming on and verifying if there is an illegal activity. That is why we have law enforcement and courts and so on, to handle those things. What BSA wants is for them to be able to go to ISP and do the police work.
That would of course require that anyone claiming copyright (most have probably written something sometime) should be able to to the same. And why stop at copyright infringement. If I suspect music comanies of some illegal activity (with some appearant to me evidence), should I then be allowed to go to theor bank and ask for info? Should I be allowed to enter their offices to search for what really happened and who did it? That is a very dangerous direction to move in. If an illegal activity is going on (or suspected), it should be the police who handle it, or the two parties can resolve it between them, but not dragin in others (like the ISP), that is thw work for law enfocement if needed.
>Discovering the names of people possibly involved
>in a crime is part of due process.
So, isn't that allready possible with todays laws? File with the police and they can investigate if there is reasonable suspicion. Appearantly BSA seems to argue that THEY should be able to act police and directly go to ISP and demand infromation. That is hardly how it should be. Similary, just because I suspect someone might have commited a crime, I can't simply demand infromation on them from the bank, ISP or whatever, should I? Or perhaps I should even be allowed to search a companies office if I suspect they might have done something illegal to me? Would that be OK?
>B) The word "may" is used. But let's face it:
>they know exactly who is trading what, and
>whether it's illegal or not.
How do they know who is trading? It doesn't have to be the one signed up with the ISP, if can be his wife (or her husband), it can be someone else in the family, or a friend visiting and so on. Do they also want to make the law so in copyright related criems you are suddenly legally responsible foer what anyone else do? What is next, the buyer of clothes is registered so he can be the one guilty when there is a bank robber using them (regardles of it is him or not actually doing it)? If someone uses my car for illegal activity, should I be responsible? Like if he runs over and kill someone? That seems insane.
>When you download a song via a P2P application
>the artist gets nothing. Now please explain how
>this is not taking somethign from someone else.
If I give away a CD or boonk to someone, the artists get nothing. When I invite home a friend to me and he listen to my CDs, the artist gets nothing. When someone sits outside my house and hear music through my open window, the artist gets nothing. When I sell my CD to someone, the artist gets nothing. I have not even started to discuss cases were in many countries you actualy can make copies not only to yourself (for example to have in your car without the artist getting money) but also to family and close friends, and the artost gets nothing!
Copyright is NOT about the creator getting money. Copyright infringement does NOT occur when someone has or access the work without paying. Copyright and copyright infringment is about creating NEW copies when you are not alowed to (and usually only the copyright holder is allowed to). In addition it covers public performance, distribution (only first step, then that right is lost, hence why one can sell used CDs for example) and similar things.
So using any argumentation based on lost revenues, similarities to theft and so on, is pretty pointless since that is not about copyright. That is what copyright makes possible, but that is another thing. Just because you can't make something you want, does not turn it illegal or wrong.
Isn't one of the "problems" with the DMCA that it in fact adds a new right to the copyright holder? The right of access!! Access has never been an exclusive right to the copyright holder that one would need permission to do. But since the circumvention of protection for access is not allowed, it basically gives the copyright holder this new right.
If it only had been circumvention of protections that deal with the copyright holders right only, it would not have been as bad. Looking at much of the DRM and systems on for example music CDs they are very often access controls, not copying prevention systems. The same applies to DeCSS and DVDs for example, it is about access, not about any right copyright holders have (encryption for example can never prevent copying, it is all about access).
>Then the argument "But it's close enough!" crops
>up. Then what is the definition of
>"close-enough"? Who decides when something "is to
>close"? The industry? The courts?
The law and ultimately the courts will decide what is close enough and what applies. I think the issue of taking pictures of something is actually covered in many copyright laws, no idea bout US for example, though.
>Did you pay for it? No.
>Do you now have it? Yes.
>Did you take it without permission? Yes.
As allready pointed out, you did not "take" anything, you created something new, which happened to be identical to something else. That is not taking!!
If you pay for it or not is actually quite irrelevant. As is the permission for you geting it is also in much irrelevant. I assume you talk about the permission of the copyright holder. However, the copyrigth holder typically only control the very first distribution. So if I buy a book, I can then give it to you (without you paying) and without having the permission of the copyright holder. There is no copyright infringement in such a case (we didn't create a new copy), despite you managung to check "yes" to whatever you want, INCLUDING depriving someone of a potential income.
>You can justify your crime all you want, but it
>still boils down to your decision to deprive
>someone of potential earnings.
Sorry, in most cases and countries it would NOT be a crime! In addition, depriving someone of a potential earning is NOT illegal to do or we could do nothing since basically everything one do deprives someone of an income. See the example above for a good case.
Copyright is all about creating of something new, not taking something (copyright also includes things such as public performance but lets leave that aside for now). You create a new copy of something. This is not theft amd theft can hardly be applied to it, since you have not taken anything. You made a new fence for example, admitedly identical to other existing fences but still a new one. No one will come screaming that you stole anything, they still have their fence for one. This is why theft laws doesn't work on cases were you copy something, it is NOT taking, it is about creating something new.
That is one of the reasons one need copyright laws, or we could just stick to theft laws. Copyright laws dictate that for some things, you can't create a new copy of something unless enough time has passed since the original was first created. The issue of money and payment is NOT an issue, the person who hold the copyright can give away his work for free, you can STILL not copy it since it would be copyright infringement, despite no earnings deprived! There are excepctions in most countries so that you can under correct situation actually make copies without creating a copyright infringement (and despite it being a potential loss of earning).
No matter how one twist it, trying to compare it to theft and trying to set up criterias similar to the result of a theft, it won't be the same, and there will always be many cases and trivial cases were it does NOT work, so why doing it all the time? It only leads to the wrong conclusions, like depriving someone of income is a criteria for copyright infringement, it has NOTHING to do with copyright infringement.
So use the criterias for copyright infringement when you want to decide if there is one, and don't claim that it is identical to theft in some cases and then start to make comparions to theft (typically using completely other criterias) to see if it is a copyright infringement.
>If he is downloading copyrighted works without
>the owner's permission, it is theft. Alwas was,
>and always should be. (And please, no nitpicking
>over the use of the word 'theft' instead of
>'copyright infringement').
It is not nit picking, it is correcting a very wrong and bad analogy or naming of something. You don't call the police and report a murder when someone steal your car do you? Doesn't matter both are illegal. Using another illegal activity as the name, makes people draw wrong conclusions, they start to use any sort of reasoning on what is theft to automatically be copyright infringement as well for example, which usually ends up bad as it is often trivial to have a situation which would be theft by all reasoning but by the same reasoning would not be copyright infringement. So why NOT use the proper terminology?
> But I see nothing wrong with granting (for a
>limited time) the rights to charge for creative
>works to the creator, and denying the rights to
>leechers to avail themselves of those works
>without payment.
The payment in itself has really nothing to do with copyright infringement and what is allowed or not (although with calling it theft it is easy to get there). If I own a book and no longer want it and give it away, someone suddenly got it without paying, still not copyright infringement. If I buy a music CD and play it while I have people in my house, they get to listen to it without paying, still not copyright infringement and so on. Copyright is in much about creating something new and when you can't do that (regardless of money issues, even something that you can get for free still have copyright and you can't create new copies of it, despite no one losing out money wise for example).
As someone pointed out, the proper illegality or action would be copyright infringement. The issue of payment or not is realy not of that much importance in regard to copyright infringement or not (it can affect the remidies and such of course).
Making someone not getting payed is not in itself illegal. If it was, me going to the movies instead of buying a book because someone said the book stinks is not suddenly illegal or bad because the ones selling the book sudenly did not get any money.
Similary, suppose I buy a book, after reading it, instead of just having it, I give it to a friend who wanted it. This of course instantly resulted in a lost sale since he would for sure (lets assume it) have bought the book. Is he now a thief? Am I thief? Was there really any denial of payment? Was there even a lost revenue? And if there was, did anyone comit anything illegal? It was for sure not any copyright infringement. There was similary no theft.
All of this just shows that there is really no point in trying to make up analogies with monetary losses, denied payment and no good of doing theft analogies, since they are all quite different (although in some cases similar). It only causes confusion since if you call it theft, people will instantly make comparison to the effects of a theft and claim anything causing that effect as also illegal, like with lost income or money or that you could possibly otherwise have had.
So try calling things by the proper name, it doesn't turn anything more or less illegal. And avoid trying to make analogies with things since in most cases they simply doesn't work out and for sure doens't help out in most cases.
>That's what the IP, timestamp, and log ....
>information is for. They submit evidence
>that "the individual at W.X.Y.Z at AA:BB was
>offering copyrighted material"
That would be "an individual". In most cases there is really no way to tell who that individual is. It can be the person that has registered an account with the ISP, but it can also be someone else in its family, a friend or perhaps someone else. Proving who it actually is would porbably be hard in most cases unless there is cooperation from the person registered with at the ISP.
>A pirate is one who distributes or receives one
>or more copies of a commercial, copyrighted work
>without having paid the owner of the copyright
>(or their assignee) for the right to do so.
Actually, this is not completely correct. First of, recieveing something is not an exclusive right by a copyright holder. Typically possession will not be a copyright infringement. Yes, distribution is a right to the copyright holder, however, it is also one that is consumed after the the first sale (or give away, or whatever). I believe this is what goes under "first sale doctrine" in US and other countries has it stated in their copyright laws and so on.
Thus, I can give a book or a CD I, for some reason, no longer want to have to someone, and there is NO money given to the copyright holder, yet I gave and someone recieved the work. Perfectly legal but according to you, we would both be Pirates!!!
In addition, thje right to create copies is in many countries not completely exclusive to the copyright holder, many countries, even US I believe, allows for various forms of personal copying, and in some cases, such vopies are allowed even for close friends or family. Yet, no money is paid here either and no copyright infringement is done. This is why the "paying money" argument does not work and why it (or loss of revenue/income) is not a good indication of copyright infringement. It is also why any comparison to theft also falls flat.
I could agree with you if define Pirtaes as a subset of copyright infringers though.
>Copy machines can (and probably are) be used to
>infringe on copyrighted materials, but they also
>have substantial non-infringing uses.
I have never really understood this line of reasoning which you get at when you try to go after a tool or even worse, someone making, providing a tool which in turn can be used for something illegal.
By that reasoning, a site (such as the one in question) could, by adding in links to a bunch of non infringing material, suddenly turn more OK and even be completely legal? Were is the limit? Should it be a 1:1 ration? 10:1? That just seems silly and to me shows that the whole concept of outlawing tools or those who provides them is not good.
>In quite a few EU countries, there's a right to
>private copy, so basically if they such
>a 'trapped' file and also possess the legal
>content of it on a CD,
Actually, in some countries you don't even have to have the original copy or a "legal CD" or such since the personal copies includes copies for family and close friends. In addition, although it can be said to be a loophole, your personal copy does not nessecarilly have to come from a legal original, hence downloading is legal, you are creating personal copies. This tends to get shut down with new versions of copyrigth laws so you need a legal original. Still, you can make a copy for a friend for exaample and that is OK.
>Copyright doesn't give anyone a right to sell a
>defective product.
Hmm, lets see were I wrote that it did. Nope, nowere. I dind't even came close to even mentioning defective products. No idea who you are replying too.
> The notice is required for the selling of
>defective products, not for the copyright
Don't follow you. Do you say that the copyright notice is required for the selling of defective products???? Still don't see what this have to do with my post you are replying too.
Huh? Copyright is regulated through the law, you don't need to agree to any specific contract when buying, say, a music CD for copyright to have an effect. You can't decide to not acept the copyright "contract" since it is regulated by the law. Hence, there is NO contract or contract situation (related to coprygith) when someone buys a music CD between the buyer and the seller.
Copyright is not a contract you can agree to enter into or not, it is the law and is always in effect, regardless of if there is a notice of it or not.
Other text printed on something does not (at least in most countries) equal a contract that you agree to buy buying something.