|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 09/26/05 22:50
khobar wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:3pe752F9so7mU1@individual.net...
>
>>khobar wrote:
>>
>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:3p8v5kF995saU4@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>khobar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:3p2bc8F89n6pU1@individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>khobar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:3p17nrF8790pU1@individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>khobar wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:3om1pqF6hj27U1@individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Karrde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Anonymous" <none> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:JNSdnSsxw7vjxL7eRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"B-Hate-Me" <BHateMe@home> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:AeidnSj-lv9Ry77eRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Nate" <thejedi@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pdCUe.1652$vQ3.154@trnddc08...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Does any one have a copy of the Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith
>>>>>
>>>>>movie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>without a counter display? Every copy i've downloaded so far
>
> is
>
>>>>>just
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>same file with a different name and it has something like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You realize that you've just admitted to committing a felony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>on a global newsgroup......Right?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>copyright infringement is not a felony. you can be sued, but it
>>>
>>>is
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>illegal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Just because it's not a felony doesn't mean it's not illegal. At
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>very
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>least, it's a shitty thing to do. I've heard all of the attempts
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>justify
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>it, but it's still stealing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>OH, FFS! - When is this old chestnut going to be put to bed?
>>>>>>>>>>- It is *not* stealing. The legal definition of stealing is quite
>>>>>>>>>>specific, and does not apply to copyright infringement.
>>>>>>>>>>You may personally think it is morally equivalent to stealing, but
>>>
>>>it
>>>
>>>
>>>>>is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>quite untrue to say it *is* stealing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Please post the legal definition of stealing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In which jurisdiction?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whichever one you were referring to when you said the "legal
>
> definition
>
>>>>>of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>stealing is quite
>>>>>>>specific, and does not apply to copyright infringement."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sorry, I was being sarky ;-)
>>>>>>Obviously the defs are quite long, but Wikipedia boils it down to:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>'In the common law, theft is usually defined as the unauthorised
>
> taking
>
>>>>>>or use of someone else's property with the intent to permanently
>
> deprive
>
>>>>>>the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or
>
> its
>
>>>>>>use.'
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
>>>>>
>>>>>I notice both theft and copyright infringement are "actus reus" which,
>>>>>according to your own source is: "the criminal act which, in
>
> combination
>
>>>>>with the mens rea, produces criminal liability in common law based
>>>
>>>criminal
>>>
>>>
>>>>>law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia, Canada and the
>>>>>United Kingdom." I also note that in copyright infringement, "mens rea"
>>>
>>>need
>>>
>>>
>>>>>not be proven.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, did you notice that copyright infringement is not theft?
>>>
>>>
>>>Your source said theft and copyright infringement were the same thing
>
> (see
>
>>>preceeding paragraph).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Consider this as well: if copyright infringement were legally
>
> definable
>
>>>>>>as theft, why don't the RIAA etc charge their victims with theft,
>>>>>>instead of threatening to sue them for copyright infringement?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The RIAA does not have the authority to bring criminal charges.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They wouldn't need it - they could just report it to the police.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thank you for at least acknowledging that the lack of RIAA charging
>
> their
>
>>>"victims" with theft is not because copyright infringement is not
>
> legally
>
>>>definable as theft as you had first asserted.
>>>
>>
>>I acknowledge no such thing. What makes you think I have acknowledged
>>that? - I merely said that if it *was* theft (it isn't), it would be
>>prosecuted as theft (it isn't).
>
>
> I said the RIAA didn't have the authority to prosecute, to which you replied
> "they wouldn't need it." Of course that simply isn't true. Are you now
> claiming that the RIAA does have the authority to prosecute?
>
>
>>I would like to state now, that the reason that the RIAA doesn't make
>>moves to obtain prosecutions for theft, is that it legally can not to
>>so, because no such crime is commited when a copyright is infringed.
>
>
> State whatever you like - it doesn't change the facts the least little bit.
>
>
>>>And the RIAA *has* reported it to "the police" at their discretion who
>
> have
>
>>>prosecuted.
>>>
>>
>>Now it is your turn to quote a source - I am not aware of any such
>>reporting to ther police for plian infringement.
>>
>>While you are at it, how about finding a legal definition of copyright
>>infringement that states it is legally the same as theft?
>
>
> Your own source provided that sufficiently.
>
>
>>Dude, you are wrong. Copyright infringement is not theft in US or
>>European law, or any other national law that I know of - although it
>>might be argued to be morally equivalent to theft by some.
>>- Give up now, you have lost. - If you don't want to accept these facts,
>> do some Googling on the subject and try to post an authoritative link
>>that shows I am wrong. - Don't spend too long looking though.
>
>
> "There does have to be some kind of a public message that stealing is
> stealing is stealing," said Malcolm, who oversees the arm of the Justice
> Department that prosecutes copyright and computer crime cases.
> "http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,65331,00.html
>
> "Los Angeles, CA- The FBI, in conjunction with leaders from the Recording
> Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Motion Picture Association of
> America (MPAA), the Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA),
> and the Entertainment Software Association (ESA) today announced a broad
> initiative to combat the theft of copyright protected material -- a
> multi-billion dollar a year crime problem."
> http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel04/piracy021904.htm
>
Sorry, I have given up - there are more important things for me to be
doing - read up on this... really, you are very much in the dark.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|