Copyright laws: Sharing / copying TV programmes / software.

[TA Guy]

So, supply me with an example of where piracy has been proven to benefit the pirated.

I'm pretty much of the opinion the only reason you can download music on the web from iTunes etc now is because the music companies were forced into persuing the line of distribution by the piracy of P2P programs.

Even tho that was technically possible long before popular P2P, they had no incentive whatsoever to do that before P2P. They made huge profits and wielded huge amounts of power (via lobbying). And they had the whole thing tied up in copyright laws really designed for something completely different and corrupt politcians happily accepting the latest freebie to Florida to 'Investigate', with the aid of a sunny beach, loadsa babes in bikinis and 7 course dinners, the latest claim that CD's are too expensive. LOL LOL LOL.

I respect the law as much as the next person, but sometimes it's an ass.

[El Salsero Gringo]

So, supply me with an example of where piracy has been proven to benefit the pirated.

Well now that's an interesting, if misleading question. One might as well ask how cheap imported coal from Poland helped the UK coal mining industry - or how the motor-car helped the horse trade. Both these industries tried (with or without government help) to throw up barriers to progress - both lost - and here we are, very much better off for it.

In the long run, it matters not one whit how much a technical advance or social movement benefits or disadvantages a single pressure group. What counts is what it does for all of us together.

[straycat]

From the Theft Act (1968):

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."

1968. Hmmm. Anyway. Morally, it is theft. Legally, it can be called a few things, including copyright theft - but however you choose to paint it, it is a criminal act.

Putting this in a little more personal perspective. I consider many of the music companies to be thieves. I consider the whole suing-p2p-filesharers thing to be a useless hypocritical waste of time and money. I consider much of the IP debate (the aforementioned patenting of the 1-click idea, for example) to be ridiculous.

I just don't see how that gives me a personal right to steal from others (and yes, I'm going to continue using that word in this context)

Anyway - I think I'll follow Beowulf's example at this point. My blood isn't boiling, but I've said all I want to say.

No cake though - I'm trying to lose weight.

[El Salsero Gringo]

1968. Hmmm. Anyway. Morally, it is theft. Legally, it can be called a few things, including copyright theft

Well, no, actually, legally - and (in my opinion) morally - it can't be called any kind of theft - copyright or whatever. That, once again, is pandering to the vocabulary of one pressure group.

Anyway - I think I'll follow Beowulf's example at this point. My blood isn't boiling, but I've said all I want to say.

In other words, "La la la, I'm not listening"? Very cute.

[bigdjiver]

...In the long run, it matters not one whit how much a technical advance or social movement benefits or disadvantages a single pressure group. What counts is what it does for all of us together.

That is pretty much how some of the arguments for slavery and the fuedal system went. "You suffer, but we prosper."

[Beowulf]

Well, no, actually, legally - and (in my opinion) morally - it can't be called any kind of theft - copyright or whatever. That, once again, is pandering to the vocabulary of one pressure group. In other words, "La la la, I'm not listening"? Very cute.

No..more a case of "trying to tell someone it's white when they're convinced it's black" we'll just have to agree to disagree.. just remind me NEVER to send you any of my software.. which is obviously of no worth what so ever anyway and I'm so wrong to ever consider that (a) I wrote it therefore I might to get soemthing for it.. (b) be it theft or WHAT_EVER You want to call it, you seem to think you have the all software should be free and us lowly software developers should be thankful that people like you actually want to use it.

Just go to prove what I've always suspected.. people look at us software developers and think what we do has no worth. I'm sitting here looking at the dilbert cartoon behind my desk..

Pointy haired Boss "I saw the code for your computer program yesterday. It looked easy.. it's just a bunch of typing and half the words were spelled wrong. And don't get me started on your over use of colons!"
Dilbert "They remind me of you sir.."

Very very apt.

and anyway.. if i wanted to do the whole "La la la, I'm not listening" thing.. I do it easier than that.. clicks ignore user.. how CUTE is that?

I hope you are happy in your job and some low life doesn't come on line to tell you how pointless your whole life is.. have a f***ing good one.

[bigdjiver]

... And they had the whole thing tied up in copyright laws really designed for something completely different and corrupt politcians ...

Hogarth got miffed at people copying his work, and suggested a copyright law to Pitt, and was ignored.
Hogarth moved on to drawing cartoons atttacking political corruption.
Cheap copies became widely available.
We got our first copyright law.

[straycat]

Well, no, actually, legally - and (in my opinion) morally - it can't be called any kind of theft - copyright or whatever. That, once again, is pandering to the vocabulary of one pressure group. In other words, "La la la, I'm not listening"? Very cute.

Oh - I'm listening. I just fundementally disagree with you. I'm simply no longer responding. Apart from this post (la la la)

[El Salsero Gringo]

No..more a case of "trying to tell someone it's white when they're convinced it's black" we'll just have to agree to disagree.. just remind me NEVER to send you any of my software.. which is obviously of no worth what so ever anyway and I'm so wrong to ever consider that (a) I wrote it therefore I might to get soemthing for it.. (b) be it theft or WHAT_EVER You want to call it, you seem to think you have the all software should be free and us lowly software developers should be thankful that people like you actually want to use it.

I think you've demonstrating a strong tendency to read into what I wrote what you'd like me to have said so you can argue with and be upset by it. I haven't anywhere said that I support software piracy; and I haven't said anything about software engineers either. I do think your view of economics is a bit suspect though.

Just go to prove what I've always suspected.. people look at us software developers and think what we do has no worth. I'm sitting here looking at the dilbert cartoon behind my desk..

Pointy haired Boss "I saw the code for your computer program yesterday. It looked easy.. it's just a bunch of typing and half the words were spelled wrong. And don't get me started on your over use of colons!"
Dilbert "They remind me of you sir.."

Very very apt.

and anyway.. if i wanted to do the whole "La la la, I'm not listening" thing.. I do it easier than that.. clicks ignore user.. how CUTE is that?

I hope you are happy in your job and some low life doesn't come on line to tell you how pointless your whole life is.. have a f***ing good one.

You forgot to slam the door on your way out.

[bigdjiver]

Wow. Looks like the pigopolists (to borrow a word) have got us all tied up in knots. It's true though - take ownership of the vocabulary and you own the debate too.

From the Theft Act (1968):

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."


If you copy a computer program, you can't possible deprive the owner of it. So much as the great software houses would like you to believe, it's not theft. End of story.

Time we started giving words back their correct meaning; when you do that it's amazing how fast the red mist lifts.

Call it what you like - but that don't make it so.

No, it is a case of Parliament calling it what it likes for legal purposes.
Someone might like to think that they had "borrowed" your car for 8 years, and it is OK if they then leave it in your driveway at the end of that time. I suspect that you would want be to be charged with theft.

If all you can find to agree with your proposition is politicians, then your argument is in deep ....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=theft

[El Salsero Gringo]

No, it is a case of Parliament calling it what it likes for legal purposes.
Someone might like to think that they had "borrowed" your car for 8 years, and it is OK if they then leave it in your driveway at the end of that time. I suspect that you would want be to be charged with theft.

That would be theft, under the act. But that's the bit you're missing (deliberately, I suspect.) It isn't like borrowing someone's car at all. A car can't be duplicated at no marginal cost, like a piece of software can.

If all you can find to agree with your proposition is politicians, then your argument is in deep

Not if the politicians are correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=mwlaw&q=theft

If all you can find to agree with your proposition is online dictionaries...

[Dreadful Scathe]

That would be theft, under the act. But that's the bit you're missing (deliberately, I suspect.) It isn't like borrowing someone's car at all. A car can't be duplicated at no marginal cost, like a piece of software can.

And, in fact, if we are talking about downloads there is no cost at all in this duplication, not even a marginal one. Methinks bigdjiver has been reading "the politicians big book of obfuscation"

No..more a case of "trying to tell someone it's white when they're convinced it's black" we'll just have to agree to disagree.. just remind me NEVER to send you any of my software.. which is obviously of no worth what so ever anyway and I'm so wrong to ever consider that (a) I wrote it therefore I might to get soemthing for it.. (b) be it theft or WHAT_EVER You want to call it, you seem to think you have the all software should be free and us lowly software developers should be thankful that people like you actually want to use it.

Certainly my argument has been about the shades of grey re:piracy - hardly the same as black = white. Where did you get "all software should be free" from? You're spiralling into the vast pit of nonsense from which there is no return. An ever fading "rant rant rant" echoing up from the depths is all that now marks your descent.

Just go to prove what I've always suspected.. people look at us software developers and think what we do has no worth.

How did you get that from anything ESG said , or me for that matter. Coincidentally I am currently a software developer. This thread has mainly been about the pros and cons of piracy, not armageddon. Get over yourself you drama queen, as DavidJames would say.*




*if I name drop maybe he'll join this conversation

[David Franklin]

And, in fact, if we are talking about downloads there is no cost at all in this duplication, not even a marginal one. Methinks bigdjiver has been reading "the politicians big book of obfuscation"

I'm slightly pieceing this together as I have one respondant to the thread killfiled, but I think you are misunderstanding bigdjiver's point here. He's not trying to say "borrowing a car without consent" has anything to do with copyright; he is saying that if you follow the definition ESG provided, it doesn't qualify as theft. And thereby arguing that the definition is at the least, overly simplistic. Which is not surprising; if you look at the act there are a few pages of details following the definition.

Now I am not a lawyer, but if you look at sections 4.1 and 6.1 of the 1968 act, it seems to me you could certainly argue the point that if B makes's a copy of A's software, then he has stolen the "right of A to sell a copy of that software to B". On the other hand, we have a separate copyright act, and (as far as I can tell on the 5 minutes I'm prepared to spend on this), the word "theft" does not appear in it. (I don't want to get into huge debates on the 1968 act; I'm perfectly happy to agree copying is not "theft" - I'm just saying it's not nearly so clear-cut as the one-line synopsis of the act might indicate).

In the UK, I don't believe that many software developers are greatly damaged by illegal copying - the vast majority of businesses don't do it, and the vast majority of individuals who do wouldn't pay for a proper copy. It is very different in the far east (since businesses will copy), and I suspect it is very different for shareware developers (since quite a few people would pay if they felt they had to - at least if your product is any good).

[Dreadful Scathe]

but I think you are misunderstanding bigdjiver's point here. He's not trying to say "borrowing a car without consent" has anything to do with copyright; he is saying that if you follow the definition ESG provided, it doesn't qualify as theft. And thereby arguing that the definition is at the least, overly simplistic.

Any sensible person would argue that "borrowing" the car is still depriving someone of the car whether that was the intent or not. Their intent becomes irrelevant. Software downloads simply cannot deprive the owner from doing whatever they want with it, just as a big duplication gun could copy the car without the owner even caring that that had been done.

In the UK, I don't believe that many software developers are greatly damaged by illegal copying - the vast majority of businesses don't do it, and the vast majority of individuals who do wouldn't pay for a proper copy. It is very different in the far east (since businesses will copy), and I suspect it is very different for shareware developers (since quite a few people would pay if they felt they had to - at least if your product is any good).

totally agree.

[El Salsero Gringo]

I'm slightly pieceing this together as I have one respondant to the thread killfiled,

but I think you are misunderstanding bigdjiver's point here. He's not trying to say "borrowing a car without consent" has anything to do with copyright; he is saying that if you follow the definition ESG provided, it doesn't qualify as theft. And thereby arguing that the definition is at the least, overly simplistic. Which is not surprising; if you look at the act there are a few pages of details following the definition.

Whether or not it qualifies as theft is orthogonal to whether or not it is lawful - which is, if not orthogonal, at least oblique to whether it's moral, correct, or good for society.

Several of us on this thread agree that copying software isn't theft. The law agrees that copying software isn't theft. Theft (and 'stealing') are words loaded with negative connotations and agendas and are deliberately pushed upon us by those with a vested interest in controlling the way software and other intellectual property is exploited with a view to gaining money for themselves; not by those whose interests are the good of society as a whole.

Those who claim that copying a piece of software is "theft" would not, I suspect, say that photocopying a page of a book for research was stealing. They might say it was fair use (and I'd agree) but they wouldn't call it "fair use theft". On the other hand, steal part of a car and you're just as guilty of theft as if you'd stolen the whole thing. So there's a clear-cut difference between intellectual 'property' and physical property, and it's silly to apply rules that are written for one (the idea of theft) to the other in situations where they clearly don't apply.

So let's not allow words like "theif" and "steal" be dragged in to an argument about whether a particular form of copying is good, bad or indifferent. Let's call it copying - which it is - and then decide whether, and how, we allow it to happen, and what the results of it are.

[Cruella]

So let's not allow words like "theif" and "steal" be dragged in to an argument

[Beowulf]

[calm mode engaged]

ok I've taken things out of context and blown things out of all proportion and probably picked things up the wrong way here.

I am no angel as I said previously. ESG rubbed me up the wrong way when he mentioned that I was not a fan of Free software/ GNU. I've created a LOT of free software and I did it out of fun and to spread the good will around. I put a lot of effort into my programming and when I developed something that I thought had a $$$ value I decided to put it up on ShareIT. Up until this point I was giving away free software apps similar (and in some ways superior) to other packages people were selling.

The reason i developed these packages in the first place was because I was living hand to mouth and couldn't afford the software so I wrote my own. I was charging a Pittance for my Shareware app. $5 IIRC, when other similar software packages were going for $50+

I had a cut down version available for free on my website but still people ripped off my one non freeware app. This came at a time when I was having difficulty putting food on the table. I got some sales but was never trying to become the next Bill Gates. I was selling my skill and my time and my effort .. not the random assortment of magnetic flux on a HDD platter !!

So I think you'll understand (or then again perhaps you wont) why I get so hot under the collar on this topic. They were not just Copying my files.. they were going out of their way to dissasemble and hack the protection code I put in.

I closed the site half out of spite and half because I was spending so much time and money trying to keep the hackers at bay I was no longer enjoying it nor could I afford it any more.

This was when I was a software engineer... with the LAUGHABLE annual salary of £8600 a year.. yeah before tax !

My work was unappreciated in the office, I was trying to use my skills to make a little more money and some people decided that they didn't want to pay me the money for them using the software I had written.

so Yes, I flew off the handle, yes I probably am a drama queen primadonna who should let it slip. Probably, so what. I had it tough.. is there a law against feeling bitter?

I'm now paid a good wage for what I do.. I'm still hard up but that's mroe to do with the size of the mortgage I have than anything else. But I'd never go back to writing my own shareware software. I've written that off as a mugs game. I still download and register shareware if I like it.. If I can't find a tool that does what I want I'll write my own (recently finished a little app to search my Zen touch and remove duplicate MP3s according to various search criteria, and update ID3 tags etc.. but it's staying on my HDD) I've been jaded with my own experience.

sorry if I lost the plot .. but you did wave the red rag infront of me.

[Yliander]

That would be theft, under the act. But that's the bit you're missing (deliberately, I suspect.) It isn't like borrowing someone's car at all. A car can't be duplicated at no marginal cost, like a piece of software can.

Just because a piece of software can be duplicated easily once it has been created doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cost

Software developers spend a lot of time & money on developing their software As do car manufacturers for new cars

The difference is that in when you buy a car you pay for the materials you receive as well as something towards the R&D costs and something towards the profit margin

With software you pay for the material you receive – which is rather less than in the car example, R&D and the profit margin.

According to your theory no-one should pay for music as it’s so easily duplicated…..


As to Intellectual property – given the value this has for companies can be immeasurable – some ideas are amazing shifts in perspective – and why should the person who made this shift not be able to claim it as their’s? we let Einstein have his theories..

To develop something that you are granted a patent for is no easy thing – I know this having seen my father going through the process – the upside is that when the company he worked for at the time unfairly dismissed him they still had to pay him patent useable hehehehehe


And that is my incoherent 2 pence worth on this topic

[David Franklin]

Any sensible person would argue that "borrowing" the car is still depriving someone of the car whether that was the intent or not.

It seems to me that the law as quoted would explicitly deny that "borrowing" is theft (the "permanently deprive" bit). Clearly that quote alone does not accurately define what is theft. In which case I see no prima facie reason to say that quote is sufficient to decide whether illicit copying of copyright material is theft.

[META]
Ghod knows I don't often agree with bigdjiver, but I think he made a fairly compelling argument that ESG's quote of the law was insufficient, because it led to absurd conclusions in an area unrelated to copyright law. I think you had no justification to criticise him simply because the area was unrelated - if anything I think it strengthens the argument.
[/META]

[bigdjiver]

Any sensible person would argue that "borrowing" the car is still depriving someone of the car whether that was the intent or not. Their intent becomes irrelevant...

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
From the Theft Act (1968):

"A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."

The politicians are right, when it suits you, wrong when it suits you. Copyright acts have been approved by Parliaments for centuries, with far more expert and thorough argument that we can give it. The theft of Intellectual property is covered by separate legislation because of the huge diversity of instances involved. By its nature intellectual property implies innovation, and it is difficult to legislate for things that have not been invented yet. By making it a civil matter the individuals involved can take their case to a court and have a judge decide.

Software downloads simply cannot deprive the owner from doing whatever they want with it, ...

They might want to earn money from it. And I have no doubt that the vast majority of software pirates want to permanently deprive the author of due payment for their services. The proponents of this argument are saying that you can work for others if they want to pay you, but you work for me for nothing. Please explain why other people should pay if it is alright not to, and if it is alright for everybody not to why that does not imply that the generators of inttelectual propoerty should work for nothing.