Posted by khobar on 09/28/05 02:38

"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:3prcfeFbt5e0U3@individual.net...
> 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.

I'm not surprised you've given up now that you have the FBI's and the DOJ's
take on the matter.

Paul Nixon

[Back to original message]