Those in the US who illegally download copyrighted material or make illegal copies to pass around to their friends are raping the Goose that lays the golden eggs.
Funny, I though that copyright holders were only recieving less, not having things (they don't have yet) taken away from them.
I'll bet you probably run Windows but because/. focuses on FOSS it is users of FOSS that get the blame for all the theft of copyrighted materal.
Creating new crimes are wek? As far as I know these people who AE caught are done under COPYRIGHT laws for copyright INFRIGNEMENT. Theft implies loss. Does it make it right? Not really (and if I don't say this, people will jump on me thinking I encourage piracy when I am only making a distinction) but it isn't theft. Legally, the owner of property has to be deprived of it first.
This is quite unfortunate for the BitTorrent developers whose brilliant technology is being portrayed as another avenue for petty theft.
P>The media not understanding how BitTorrent works is one thing I will never agree with, but the term "petty theft" was applied not only by the feds and media people(s) who mis-understand the technology, but the feds and media people(s) who know the crime was copyright infringement, but though these inaccurate terms were better for publicitity insetad of being truthful.
Government shuts down Web site used to steal "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith."
If copies of star wars were "stolen" via "websites" then why do these "sites" still have the copy? Because it isn't stealing, it is copyright infringement. Fucking idiots.
"The theft of copyrighted material is far from a victimless crime,"
"far from a victimless crime"? Try not even a crime. If there is anything these people are doing, it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Imagin the balls these people, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, have by calling a crime that hollywood invented, one that is not only a splicing of a real crime, but a mis-representation of a real crime.
What if the phone book clearly marked who was selling drugs and you made this book available to everyone on the internet even kids and not only that most of it is used to call drug dealers to pretend to buy drugs but really to steal movies illegaly!!!
1. The Torrent Serarch Engine does not call out specific torrents, legal or illegaly.
So again, in what way is this tool useful outside of pirating music?
Explain to me in simple english how it is useful for pirationg music. Do you mean by just allowing people to copy music from their IPods to their HDs? Why not use that logic to outlaw CD rippers, since they must contribute to piracy by allowing music to be copied to your computer.
This plugin sounds like the equivalent of an autopick, except there isn't any legal reason to use it.
Have your computer HD crash, then get back to me on that one.
Copying files is just that - copying. Why is it that people are using euphimisms to discribe copying that have absolutely nothing to do with copying in the first place
Piracy isn't good, but calling copying theft makes it even more confusing.
Explain to me why again it is wrong to rip your music off the IPod back on the computer again? What about HD crashes, or the [music] files on the computer being accidentally deleted?
The university presses depend on books sales and other licensing agreements for most of their revenue, making copyright protections essential to their survival."
Unless I read this incorrectly, this goes completely against what copyrights were intended for. Copyrights were not about ensuring that the creator wuld make money, but instead that the legal monopoly they provide will encourage them to create and be creative, and/or bring further reasearch and information public. With copyrights lasting beyond what is needed, sometimes for 100yrs+ easily now, and the fact that people now care more about using copyrights for financial gain instead, we can say goodbye to conventional copyrights... for now.
incidentally I cant condone copyright theft but I just dont approve of grandstanding by "industry officials" making up figures and numbers to fit their arguments. Thats our job !
Copyright theft?
So by downloading pirated files I am being told I somehow "stole" the legal copyrights to that work?
Sorry, but the righ term is copyright infringement. When I downloaded that illlegal song, as far as I know the company/artist still has the copyright.
You have no right to music. You have no need to purchase it. You want it, so you have to play by the rules of those who control it. Don't like it? No one is forcing you to buy it
The problem isn't really as clear cut as you put it, considering you left out music/software that is legally free, like that from independent musicians and freeware/open source software developers.
Attitudes tend to change greatly when it's YOUR work being stolen.
I have created work, and I don't give a rat's ass when it is shared... oh wait, the ones who give the biggest fuck are those who try to ride their asses on the rich mobile off of a COUBLE of works in a way that prevents the furthering of creativity.
Cut the "stolen" emotional grab already, it won't sway me, I had work I made copied, yes, but that never deprived me of the work I had originally.
It's BS.
Not everybody cares, if they do, not all do it in the same way as YOU do with the plea to emotions.
Taking something without paying for it should generate a strong emotional response. It's wrong.
Are you really so stupid you don't realize how troubling your statement would be in practice? Taking something without payment isn't wrong per-se, permissios is what the issue of copyright is about. But back to mymain point, if you made every act of taking without any form of payment illegal, think of all the legal activities that would be illegal.
But yes, it's still stealing. Even if it doesn't apply to you, the fact that this commercial product (yes, Star Wars is a commercial product), because they are only offering it as a *PAY* product, it is only a pay product, and it is not up to the general public to make the decisions for them.
So your argument is that steealing occures when something is simply taken without payment? Am I correct or not? If so, that is a terribly broad definition of stealing which could be used to make non-stealing acts automatically stealing.
Slashdot Mirror
What theivery?
Funny, I though that copyright holders were only recieving less, not having things (they don't have yet) taken away from them.
Creating new crimes are wek? As far as I know these people who AE caught are done under COPYRIGHT laws for copyright INFRIGNEMENT. Theft implies loss. Does it make it right? Not really (and if I don't say this, people will jump on me thinking I encourage piracy when I am only making a distinction) but it isn't theft. Legally, the owner of property has to be deprived of it first.
methinks "The Adventures of Pete & Pete" was a bad influence on me.
I seriosuly don't thimk biology would allow for monkey reproduction to occure that fast. ^_^
P>The media not understanding how BitTorrent works is one thing I will never agree with, but the term "petty theft" was applied not only by the feds and media people(s) who mis-understand the technology, but the feds and media people(s) who know the crime was copyright infringement, but though these inaccurate terms were better for publicitity insetad of being truthful.
If copies of star wars were "stolen" via "websites" then why do these "sites" still have the copy? Because it isn't stealing, it is copyright infringement. Fucking idiots.
Isn't that a thousand monkies working on bananas?
"far from a victimless crime"? Try not even a crime. If there is anything these people are doing, it's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Imagin the balls these people, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, have by calling a crime that hollywood invented, one that is not only a splicing of a real crime, but a mis-representation of a real crime.
I wonder if it is possible to have a near infinite number of copyrighted works available. I think it isn't.
Don't have to get so defensive, blowhole!
What about the inability to (easily or accurately) filter illegal content? -_0
1. The Torrent Serarch Engine does not call out specific torrents, legal or illegaly.
Copyright infringement is copying, not theft.
Explain to me in simple english how it is useful for pirationg music. Do you mean by just allowing people to copy music from their IPods to their HDs? Why not use that logic to outlaw CD rippers, since they must contribute to piracy by allowing music to be copied to your computer.
Have your computer HD crash, then get back to me on that one.
It is not theft!
Copying files is just that - copying. Why is it that people are using euphimisms to discribe copying that have absolutely nothing to do with copying in the first place
Piracy isn't good, but calling copying theft makes it even more confusing.
Explain to me why again it is wrong to rip your music off the IPod back on the computer again? What about HD crashes, or the [music] files on the computer being accidentally deleted?
Your wrong, it's copyright infringement.
Unless I read this incorrectly, this goes completely against what copyrights were intended for. Copyrights were not about ensuring that the creator wuld make money, but instead that the legal monopoly they provide will encourage them to create and be creative, and/or bring further reasearch and information public. With copyrights lasting beyond what is needed, sometimes for 100yrs+ easily now, and the fact that people now care more about using copyrights for financial gain instead, we can say goodbye to conventional copyrights... for now.
Copyright theft?
So by downloading pirated files I am being told I somehow "stole" the legal copyrights to that work?
Sorry, but the righ term is copyright infringement. When I downloaded that illlegal song, as far as I know the company/artist still has the copyright.
Copyright theft? So by downloading that pirated music or movie I "stole" the legal copyright documents in the process?
No, it's copyright infringement. Not murder, rape, manslaughter, and certainly not "copyright theft" (eugh!)
The problem isn't really as clear cut as you put it, considering you left out music/software that is legally free, like that from independent musicians and freeware/open source software developers.
Nope, citation/quoting is exempt under copyright laws, as funny as that would be.
Are you really so stupid you don't realize how troubling your statement would be in practice? Taking something without payment isn't wrong per-se, permissios is what the issue of copyright is about. But back to mymain point, if you made every act of taking without any form of payment illegal, think of all the legal activities that would be illegal.
Now THERE's an idea! (it was a dumb typo on my part. Too bad /. doesn't have post editing.)
... Which brings us to the question of the week: Are the /, editors human?