BF2S Forums Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music'

Dilbert_X wrote:

A CD is just a mechanism for selling copyrighted material, the fact that its tangible is irrelevant, it costs a few cents to produce the same as operating an online store to sell music probably costs a few cents per album to operate.

Taking someone elses personal property, without paying the asking price, is theft - whether its intellectual property or physical property.

Dowling v US

The courts disagree.

Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218 wrote:

interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ...

The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Yes, you may be hurting their profits, but you aren't stealing, you are infringing.  It's still wrong, but it's a distinction that must be made.  Besides, you have an unauthorized copy of their property, not the ONLY copy of their material.  The owner is deprived of nothing material, as they still have their property.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-09-09 19:21:26)

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

A CD is just a mechanism for selling copyrighted material, the fact that its tangible is irrelevant, it costs a few cents to produce the same as operating an online store to sell music probably costs a few cents per album to operate.

Taking someone elses personal property, without paying the asking price, is theft - whether its intellectual property or physical property.

This.

Well, I sure am glad you've bothered to read what I've said about this.  Or what the courts have said.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Citing a court case doesn't exactly strengthen your case all that much since the courts are as often wrong as they are right.

Oh I see. 

My whole case was that in the eyes of the law, it's not theft.  If citing a court case from the highest court in the US doesn't carry any weight in that argument, then obviously there is a problem with what you're arguing.  Now, if you had said 'it should be theft', then that would be an opinion and a different matter altogether.  But you stated it as fact and it's wrong.  That is how it is.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So if you crash a concert without buying a ticket is that a crime?
Its not as if you listening to the soundwaves reduces other people's enjoyment, and you're not walking out with something in your pocket.

Or should music companies employ people to come round to your house to throw you at a wall , same as they employ bouncers at venues?

Two different scenarios.  Would you be charged with theft for sneaking into a concert?  Or would it be trespassing, since you aren't authorized to be there?  If you stole admissions tickets from someone, then that's theft.  If you trespass, well, that's obvious.  If you hang out outside the venue and hear it there, then nothing can really be done.

Apples and oranges, really.

JohnG@lt wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

This.

Well, I sure am glad you've bothered to read what I've said about this.  Or what the courts have said.

I did read what you have to say on the matter. I just happen to agree with Dilbert (rare as that is). Citing a court case doesn't exactly strengthen your case all that much since the courts are as often wrong as they are right.

you are wrong again.

what 'makes' judicial precedent and legal rules? CASE-LAW. it is the exact matter of court-rulings (and the citation thereof) that MAKES LAW EVERY SINGLE DAY. the drafting up of legislation in statutes, acts and bills is a lengthy and bureaucratic process that is only undergone for the more important laws-- and they can be veto'd by the democratic process. normal, every day civil/tort and criminal law is decided in the court-rooms. the decision in the above-cited case is absolutely relevant and entirely strengthens his case, because in normal legal proceedings a judge will look at this previous decision and, 99% of the time, FOLLOW IT. judges can exercise judiciary discretion to overturn/update a previous decision-- but they must cite a very well-reasoned argument and must exercise their full judicial rights in doing so. this is quite rare.

"the courts are as often wrong as they are right" is a load of bullyshit. the judges make the law. their decision sticks, whether you agree with it or not. when debating and discussing a legal-matter, referring to court decisions is exactly the 'normal' routine to make. nine times out of ten the court decision is binding precedent and is the last say on the matter-- assuming that no appeal was followed through, and/or that appeal was flattened.

wrong.

and courts interpret the ways laws are meant to be understood.  we live in a common law system.  the word of the court is final until reversed by another court.

eleven bravo wrote:

youre wrong dude.  the court could find legislation to be against the consitution for example.  its the way its been done in this country since 1802

You are right, they do have override powers, but they do not have the ability to legislate from the bench. Well, they can, and do, but they will more than likely have their ruling overturned.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

wrong.

What you are advocating is judicial activism. Perhaps that's how it works in England, but it's frowned upon here. Judges do not write laws, they are supposed to simply interpret whatever Legislators put down on paper.

dude stop TALKING OUT YOUR FUCKING ASS. FIVE PAGES NOW and you STILL dont have a clue about law.

STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT.

england AND america use a case-law / common law system. look this up: stare decisis.

'debating' with you is infuriating because you keep on insisting that your view is correct even when you are TEXTBOOK-WRONG.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Some people believe that access to water is an innate right. There's nothing stopping these people from traveling to a spring on public land and gorging themselves on free water. If they try to break into the Poland Spring plant for water it is theft. If they steal a Poland Spring bottle out of a store, it's theft.

And rightly so--they are directly depriving poland spring of water they could sell.  Poland spring takes a material loss.  Is this clicking yet?  What object is lost to the owner when an unauthorized copy is made?  Nothing!  Their potential to make money is hurt, and thus, they can pursue the matter in civil court.

JohnG@lt wrote:

There's nothing in the world preventing you from taking a piece of music and repeating it. They even have books full of guitar tabs for you to play. Taking a song that was written by an artist, produced in a studio, marketed by a record company and sold by either an online music source like iTunes or a physical hard copy purchase of a CD and downloading it without paying for it is theft, sorry.

It's theft if I actually steal something.  It's infringement when I make copies.  What is so hard to understand about this?  You may believe it equates to theft, but your beliefs are a far cry from how the legal system actually treats it.

SenorToenails wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Some people believe that access to water is an innate right. There's nothing stopping these people from traveling to a spring on public land and gorging themselves on free water. If they try to break into the Poland Spring plant for water it is theft. If they steal a Poland Spring bottle out of a store, it's theft.

And rightly so--they are directly depriving poland spring of water they could sell.  Poland spring takes a material loss.  Is this clicking yet?  What object is lost to the owner when an unauthorized copy is made?  Nothing!  Their potential to make money is hurt, and thus, they can pursue the matter in civil court.

JohnG@lt wrote:

There's nothing in the world preventing you from taking a piece of music and repeating it. They even have books full of guitar tabs for you to play. Taking a song that was written by an artist, produced in a studio, marketed by a record company and sold by either an online music source like iTunes or a physical hard copy purchase of a CD and downloading it without paying for it is theft, sorry.

It's theft if I actually steal something.  It's infringement when I make copies.  What is so hard to understand about this?  You may believe it equates to theft, but your beliefs are a far cry from how the legal system actually treats it.

Then the legal system is wrong, just as it is when it allows eminent domain to occur for something as frivolous as a sports arena. We've steadily allowed property rights to erode over the past two centuries. It doesn't make it right just because they ruled that way.

The Chinese don't even understand the concept of property rights, its all new to them.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

What you are advocating is judicial activism. Perhaps that's how it works in England, but it's frowned upon here. Judges do not write laws, they are supposed to simply interpret whatever Legislators put down on paper.

dude stop TALKING OUT YOUR FUCKING ASS. FIVE PAGES NOW and you STILL dont have a clue about law.

STOP TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE ABOUT.

england AND america use a case-law / common law system. look this up: stare decisis.

'debating' with you is infuriating because you keep on insisting that your view is correct even when you are TEXTBOOK-WRONG.

Uzique, it would help if I gave a shit what you have to say but I don't. You're like a fly buzzing around. Go back to playing with your barbies and qualudes.

here then, here's the official description that puts what im saying in a different voice for you:

The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to the common law legal tradition of English law.[11] Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder[12] and general search warrants.[13]

As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[14] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[15]

jesus John, you are so immature to debate against. the MINUTE you are wrong you start off with personal attacks again-- completely irrelevant, off-topic points. it's embarrassing to see, really. as soon as i told you that you were wrong about 'victimless crimes' - "uzi you're a drug addict lolol" - as soon as i tell you that you're point-blank wrong about american law and judicial rights- "uzi go play with your barbies lololol".

ive said this before in D&ST and i'll say it again: you are the worst posturer of 'intelligence' on these forums. you enter every thread with a know-it-all swagger and, the more you post, the more you reveal that you just don't have a clue what you're even talking about. the basic latinate fundamental parts of english/american common law system is a basic-level thing that i was educated about age 17. it's really not difficult or hard to grasp. just swallow your pride for one minute and go through the hassle of reading a fucking wikipedia page.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-09 19:58:51)