Suggestion for compromise on Wizard's PDFs

[JohnRTroy]

Dowling v. United States

The Grokster case affirms that unlawful copying is as much a crime as theft is, but it carefully avoids calling it theft. Mainly because the Supreme Court already said that copyright infringement was not theft.

Doesn't make it legal, ethical, or moral; but it's not theft.

Well, while it may not be theft in strict legal terms, Congress passed the NET act, or No Electronic Theft act, which was passed after the referenced case as follows.

NET Act: 17 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C. as amended (redlined)

So, if congress titles the bill with theft, the president signs it, even if it's not technically "theft", from what I see, our government equates the severity of copyright infringement as equal to or a type of theft.

 

[Krensky]

Well, while it may not be theft in strict legal terms, Congress passed the NET act, or No Electronic Theft act, which was passed after the referenced case as follows.

NET Act: 17 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C. as amended (redlined)

So, if congress titles the bill with theft, the president signs it, even if it's not technically "theft", from what I see, our government equates the severity of copyright infringement as equal to or a type of theft.

Not so much. Congress can title a law whatever they want, but if you look at 17 U.S.C. §§ 506 on the page you linked, none of the criminal offenses is titled or described as theft. The NET act is titled the way it is because it strokes Congress's recent fetish for giving bills cute acronyms.

 

[jaerdaph]

I think it was more of a "I'm not going to get involved in this debate, but I am going to try to get the last word" sort of thing. (Which we also all do.)

If he had simply ended with "I'm not going to get involved in this debate" there would be nothing to reply to, and consequently no further discussion.

Everyone should get to win the Interwebs at least once.

 

[Wayside]

I'm with you Obryn, I too feel that complaining about the use of the word "piracy" to describe illegal filesharing is off-topic and quite silly.

And also simply wrong. The OED has this use of piracy attested in legal contexts 400 years ago, and that's just the OED. More importantly, it continues to appear in legal contexts today, such as in the majority opinion of Dowling v. United States, which Krensky brought up earlier.

People have called it piracy for over 400 years now. Lawmakers call it piracy. The Supreme Court calls it piracy. Pirates call it piracy. It's piracy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Everyone should get to win the Interwebs at least once.

I like the cut of your jib, sir, and would like to subscribe to your blog.

 

[pawsplay]

And also simply wrong. The OED has this use of piracy attested in legal contexts 400 years ago, and that's just the OED. More importantly, it continues to appear in legal contexts today, such as in the majority opinion of Dowling v. United States, which Krensky brought up earlier.

People have called it piracy for over 400 years now. Lawmakers call it piracy. The Supreme Court calls it piracy. Pirates call it piracy. It's piracy.

Except in the statues, where it's infringement. Frankly, it doesn't matter what the OED has a usage; the OED includes all significant usages of words, including ones that are vague, unhelpful, dated, ambiguous, or pejorative. The OED contains, for instance, a number of grandma-unfriendly words that refer to people.

There is no one arguing that word piracy is not used, so there is no point arguing the case that it is. You are correct, it is a real word that real people use.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And also simply wrong. The OED has this use of piracy attested in legal contexts 400 years ago, and that's just the OED. More importantly, it continues to appear in legal contexts today, such as in the majority opinion of Dowling v. United States, which Krensky brought up earlier.

People have called it piracy for over 400 years now. Lawmakers call it piracy. The Supreme Court calls it piracy. Pirates call it piracy. It's piracy.

Just because a thousand people say something, does not mean it is right. I can start calling dogs cats, start a movement, hack your Kindle's and replace every instance of dog with cat, but Fido is still going to bark, he won't meow.

 

[Umbran]

The semantic argument comes down to this: yes, one can always question whether a word should be used in a given context.

You should, however, ask yourself if making that argument will at all be constructive. In all the world of problems, this is one we should be spending our time and mutual good will on? Really?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The semantic argument comes down to this: yes, one can always question whether a word should be used in a given context.

You should, however, ask yourself if making that argument will at all be constructive. In all the world of problems, this is one we should be spending our time and mutual good will on? Really?

Maybe not, but by that logic, we shouldn't be posting here at all, we should be out feeding the hungry, working on a cure for cancer, fighting wildfires, colonizing Mars, and inventing perpetual motion machines. We can't all do that, so we argue over trivialities on the internet.

 

[Nifft]

The semantic argument comes down to this: yes, one can always question whether a word should be used in a given context.

You should, however, ask yourself if making that argument will at all be constructive. In all the world of problems, this is one we should be spending our time and mutual good will on? Really?

IMHO the fact that most such copyright discussions devolve into semantics or name-calling indicates that the issue is heavily emotionally charged, to the point that people are afraid to legitimize positions that they disagree with.

What's sad to me is that there really is an inherent conflict in the issues dealt with by copyright law, and the laws need to genuinely balance the conflict of author's rights vs. the good of society at large.

Oh well, -- N