Humor (sort of): Do you do these ILLEGAL things? An informal poll.

[Vyvyan Basterd]

There are shades, though, like the other laws. E.G. Shoplifting is a lesser crime than grand theft auto.

Oh, definitely. I'm not advocating anything severe. I would prefer people police themselves over this and realize what they are doing is wrong.

But to address the "some places it is legal component"...some places it is legal to download files. It's not legal to share them, but it is entirely legal to download them. I'd say that this meets your criteria for the "not absolute" component.

I'd be curious to see examples of this. Because my views are based on the assumption that downloading illegally produced files is against the law. I really can't imagine a case where Person A is breaking the law by putting up a file for download, but Person B who downloads that file is not breaking the law.

 

[Leif]

"Arkansas:
(If male) beat your wife more than once per month."


I told my first wife she was all upset about nothing!

 

[El Mahdi]

I hope this doesn't come across as offensive, but I'd honestly prefer it if you refrained from comments regarding my sense of humor. Please.

Fair enough. And I apologize for the way I handled that. It was uncalled for. At the same time, overly serious comments about my sense of humor (or my self-admitted lack thereof ) is what started this. I'll extend you that basic courtesy, as I should have from the start. Please, extend me the same courtesy.

I would have pm'd you this, but you don't have private messaging turned on.

If one doesn't get a joke, or doesn't find it funny, the best thing to do is the internet version of not laughing, which is just not posting or replying to it. Taking something seriously on a thread tagged "Humor" (or even "sort of" Humor) kind of defeats the purpose of the thread. A "No Response" to a joke of mine (or anyone else) is more than okay. Especially as I'm quite used to the occasional blank stares from my wife at some of my attempts to make a joke.

However, if a joke is obviously offending, then by all means report it. But I'm fairly sure nothing in my first post on this thread would be deemed by anyone as offensive (quite possibly "not funny", but not offensive).

To everyone else (especially Aberzanzorax), I apologize for side tracking the thread. Please, carry on with your requisite ENWorld semi-serious silliness (at least that's one of the reasons I'm here).

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Regarding places downloading may be legal... Well, here's what I found on Wikipedia (I know, not the BEST source).

Spain
The record industries efforts to criminalize file sharing were disappointed when Judge Paz Aldecoa declared it is legal to download indiscriminately in Spain if it is done for private use and without any profit purpose,[49][50] as a police chief of the technology squad has publicly said "No pasa nada. Podéis bajar lo que queráis del eMule. Pero no lo vendáis." ("It's ok. You can download whatever you want with eMule. But don't sell it.").[51] There have also been demonstrations where the authorities has been informed that copyrighted material was going to be downloaded in a public place, last one took place on the 20th December 2008[52]. The downloading was done and no legal measures could be taken against it.[53][54][55][56][57]
Moreover, torrents sites have been found legal in several court cases[58], and the Spanish Supreme Court recently ruled that personal data associated with an IP address could only be disclosed in the course of a criminal investigation or for public safety reasons (Productores de Música de España v. Telefónica de España SAU).[46]

[edit] Copyright law in Canada

Main article: File Sharing in Canada
Interestingly, Canada stands out by authorizing, at least until the projected copyright reform[59] proposed by Bill C-61[60], downloads on peer-to-peer networks under the "private copying" exception. However, bill C-61 never became law because of an election in late 2008. The Conservative Party that tabled Bill C-61 have promised to do another similar bill in the future.
It is to be noted that Canada does not explicitly condone piracy. However, the federal police do not actively search for copiers that do not make profits from their illicit activities.

Copyrighted content on file sharing networks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Brown Jenkin]

As far as theft (and I don't want this thread to get taken over by the whole "is pirating theft" argument that has killed several other threads). Pirating is theft in the sense that it is taking something that isn't yours. It's theft in the way we commonly use theft. It is not theft in the very specific way that "theft" is defined legally. (Like the common use of the word insane is very different than the legal use of that word).

Not to derail much more but remember that downloading and file sharing is covered under civil law and not criminal law. Theft is a crime covered under criminal law. Fire sharing is a copyright violation and covered under civil law. To compare it to any other criminal law is apples and oranges. For comparison you would need to compare it to things closer to contract law, divorce law, or probate law.

 

[Caerin]

Not to derail much more but remember that downloading and file sharing is covered under civil law and not criminal law. Theft is a crime covered under criminal law. Fire sharing is a copyright violation and covered under civil law. To compare it to any other criminal law is apples and oranges. For comparison you would need to compare it to things closer to contract law, divorce law, or probate law.

Copyright infringement can be criminal as well as civil. There are two main ways to determine criminal copyright infringement; the actual monetary value involved in the infringement (in the case of commercial motives), and since 1997's No Electronic Theft Act, the exchange of copyrighted materials.

 

[Leif]

Not to derail much more but remember that downloading and file sharing is covered under civil law and not criminal law. Theft is a crime covered under criminal law. Fire sharing is a copyright violation and covered under civil law. To compare it to any other criminal law is apples and oranges. For comparison you would need to compare it to things closer to contract law, divorce law, or probate law.

Except for those cases where "fire-sharing" constitutes ARSON, that is.

 

[SteveC]

I think this is a great poll, both as commentary and as well as being a funny reminder of how crazy we have been with our laws over the years. Unfortunately, I unknowingly broke the law by kissing on a train in Wisconsin. Hopefully the statute of limitations has run out by now.

The point I take out of this is that there's always a difference between what the law says and what people actually do...that most of us interpret in our minds whether something is really right or wrong and factor it into a whole calculus (how bad is it, how likely are we to be caught, what's the penalty, etc) to determine our actions. We do the whole cognitive dissonance shuffle for some things and then move on. Note the most: there's no slight intended to our highly lawful ENWorlders!

From what I have seen once the majority of popular culture decides that something that's technically illegal isn't enough of a concern to stop, attempts to stop it will simply fail. Think about all sorts of issues that are politically charged (and that we don't talk about here) where it's entered into the public mindset that the action isn't really wrong, or is at least something we have more important things to deal with...those issues largely fade into the background and are ignored. I live in Madison Wisconsin, and the culture at the University largely ignores drinking despite some horrible results each year.

That's why I think this poll really adds to the discussion, since there are a lot of areas where this has already happened and we don't even recognize it now.

--Steve

 

[Derulbaskul]

1. Speed?

I'm 40 now and have mellowed a lot in the past decade. I rarely speed now except on windy roads... my car is perfectly design for these!

2. Drink underage?

Yes I did but I have made up for it by not drinking at all for most of the past two decades (and completely for the past decade).

3. Smoke cigarettes underage?

Nope. I have never smoked a cigarette but, in the interest of full disclosure, I did smoke some other things two decades ago but will never do again.

4. Jaywalk?

Not so much. I divide my time between two cities. In Singapore I would only jaywalk late at night with great care. The drivers there are appalling so taking additional risks when crossing the road is not my idea of fun.

In Brisbane I rarely go to the city itself now because traffic is so thick. Getting in and out of the city is a nightmare. Jaywalking is not practical there now anyway because traffic is so heavy.

5. Use a chemical (like a cleaner) in a manner not prescribed by use? (Including using at a higher dilution strength than recommended for its use)

Nope.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd be curious to see examples of this. Because my views are based on the assumption that downloading illegally produced files is against the law. I really can't imagine a case where Person A is breaking the law by putting up a file for download, but Person B who downloads that file is not breaking the law.

Part of what the Pirate Bay case is about, for instance, is that torrents are not "files for download," but aggregates of files on multiple computers: bits and pieces that individual users reassemble. So the Pirate Bay isn't hosting anything aside from links. It's pretty clearly not illegal to link to stuff on the internet, and Sweden has broader "fair use" laws, so torrents in and of themselves (and other file-sharing programs) are clearly legal there (just as they are, still, here in the US -- though using them to infringe copyright is illegal).

In addition, the fact of the matter is that the people who download files aren't being brought to court for theft of any sort -- they're being brought for copyright infringement: making illegal copies of something.

Making copies of something certainly has a very sketchy history. No one owns a copyright on the wheel, or fire, or language, or agriculture. Gutenburg doesn't own a copyright on the printed page. King James doesn't have exclusive domain over English copies of the bible. Copyright law is a fairly recent branch of law, and how legally wrong it is to make a copy of something without the original maker's OK has changed a lot over the years.

It has never, to the best of my knowledge, been much of a moral problem for anyone. Making free copies of things is just a threat to those who get paid to make and sell copies of things, so an industry would like to preserve their business model.

The area is very grey, even legally (since copyright law was never made for this kind of massive action against individual citizens), and is a product of recent copying technologies, from the printing press to the photocopier to, ultimately, the computer, which makes copies of things as part of its normal operating process, and can make copies of things we couldn't make copies of before.

I mean, look at the Betamax case.

Copyright laws are not about a collective morality, nor are they an extension of theft. Their original purpose was to support capitalism of art, which is a pretty narrow and recent niche. Michelangelo didn't need copyright protection, y'know? It's not immoral to change a business model. Most human art was produced without it (and without capitalism, too!). Changing these existing business models might have some unfortunate ramifications, and it's clearly not a holistic GOOD, either, but it is not, on any level, on par with stabbing someone in a dark alley and taking their wallet, or even threatening to.

Morally, I'd say it's about on par with smoking marajuana or drinking or jaywalking or speeding, which are also recent, niche, narrow, modern laws that have a very debatable effect on public behavior.