Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4968758" data-attributes="member: 19675">Statements like this are one reason why I took that self imposed vow of non-participation- it was always brought up, regardless of evidence, usually by the same posters.  Which is why, after this response, I'll go back to that vow.Copyright infringement is a form of theft by definition.  As I've posted numerous times on this website in countless other piracy threads, the definition of theft in Black's Law Dictionary includes this language:One of the primary benefits of IP- like any form of property- is the ability to control who can obtain it and at what price.  By infringing on a copyright, you're "exerting unauthorized control" over the IP holder's property since you're not meeting the IP holder's conditions for transfer of the right to use it (IOW, you didn't pay him).  You are "taking property without the owner's consent."(In case you're wondering, there is settled case law stating that "exerting unauthorized control" doesn't even require movement of the property at all.  And that involved physical goods: the locking of a door behind which sat- untouched- the property that was to be removed later that day.)And since a definition already exists, most laws dealing with some form of theft don't bother stating "X is theft."  They accept it as a basic tenet of the law that needs not be reiterated, and go on from there.The statement I quoted above was in response to a question to the effect of "if its a theft, why isn't it enforced by criminal law?"The answer to that, is that sometimes it is.  If someone commits a homicide, he is open to both criminal (murder, involuntary homicide, etc.)- possibly at the Federal or State level- and civil prosecution (wrongful death).Similarly, there are both criminal and civil penalties in IP law, but the law prefers that the civil lawsuits proceed first because, among other reasons, whatever moneys that are awarded go directly to the aggrieved party.  IOW, the IP holder.  In a criminal case, those fines go to the Feds because you're being brought into court by the Feds.  I mean, its all well and good to send an infringer to jail and fine him, but it doesn't "make the IP holder whole."  He's still out his due profits, and he can't send his creditors to sue the jailed IP thief for the $$$.Ultimately, though, there will be no legal solution to the problem- the only real solution will come via a change in the ethical viewpoints of would-be infringers.And just so there is no misunderstanding: I have no issue with IP being released in digital formats.  Its not for me, but its ideal for so many segments of the market- both sellers and consumers.  But the only time its legal for someone to download someone's song or book for free is when that someone grants permission.  Downloading of music isn't bad, its downloading music without paying the asking price (whatever that may be).There are all kinds of artists who are trading free or cheap downloads for exposure- its being used as a form of advertising.  And that's fine because they're expressly permitting their work to be used thus.But to simply take someone's work without permission?  Not legal, and not ethical.</blockquote>

Verification