http://buffetoblog.files.wordpress.c...let-abused.jpg

:upsidedow

Nahhh... Not my toilet...

I dont 'WIPE' either... :upsidedow

No, the point is, and gosh you do struggle with this don't you, is that:

Theft /= Piracy

Theft = Bad

Piracy = Bad

HTH

Your pal

Damian

xoxoxo

Is it piracy is the real question though, right? I dont think having a copy of a work you've paid for and own is piracy at all. If you distribute something without rights to distribute, you're pirating IMHO.

Sorry Damo, but I DID LOL at this :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

It's sweet he thought I drew it for him, and didn't realise I just got it from the internet.

It's quite a famous pic for explaining to people that struggle with reading what the difference it.

But laugh away, everyone should be happy. It's Friday and I've finished my work for the day and am off to do a gig at a comedy club later.

:)

Its quite a famous pic created by people that would like to have us believe that the cuddly little pirates are not really common thieves.

Damian actually thinks that a cartoon he pinched from someones website is a legal definition laid down in the statutes through acts of Parliament and legal precedent.

Now thats sweet.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Copyrights has some limitations in different jurisdictions, but you are talking about other forms of property and violations. Things like plagiarism, patents and trademarks.

Copyright itself isn't about how unique the work is. It's about who holding and granting the rights. And that's the point: If you are not granted the permission from the copyright holder (or by the limitation such as time or fair usage), then you can't ask the public opinion. This is not ethical question, but a technical one.

If you bought it before I see no problem downloading it, especially in the case of just wanting to change formats.

Without trying to sound all philosophical, I think it depends on what you believe you are purchasing when you buy music. Are you buying the physical disk/tape/memory that holds the songs, or are you buying access to the intangible music itself?

'Music' can't be lost/broken/worn out, but the object that holds it can. If you are downloading the music again, are you really pirating it, since you owned it in the first place? Guess it depends on what you believe you've purchased, or what the seller believes he's sold.

Even though this thread suffers from "I already made my mind up 15 years ago and Im sticking with it itis" it's interesting enough to throw in a few wrinkles. (No Paul, not you!)

1) Were any of the previous legally owned copies destroyed or otherwise rendered unusable by any subsequent party that might get ahold of them?
Or were all previous copies somehow passed on to someone else through whatever means?

2) Any of those original incarnations stolen? (Because a backup would presumably apply to theft as well as destruction)

3) Were you 'forced' into buying all of those albums repeatedly, even though you only wanted one or two songs, while the technology existed to make that possible and economical for all?

4) Do you think using a VCR or PVR is wrong and/or illegal?

5) If you buy a console video game, should you be able to sell the used game after you are done playing it to someone else?

6) Do you think the fact that rights holders waging war against consumers by ^^ trying to outlaw such things as 4) and 5) (and many other examples) might give you a little moral high ground?

A person might feel justified for downloading a copy from TPB or wherever being that they had legitimately purchased 6 original versions previously over a 30 + year period.

Although over those 30 years, back up copies could have been made on 2 occasions mitigating 3 of those purchases and also preventing them having to make an mp3 purchase.

Vinyl (purchase 1)
Vinyl replacement (due to wearing. purchase 2)

Tape purchase (depending on circumstances, this could have been backed up from vinyl if you owned a cassette deck)
Tape replacement (use back up)

CD purchase (purchase 3)
CD purchase replacement (use CD back up)

MP3 purchase (use CD back up)

My view is that you should buy the MP3 versions for $10 and make a back up :)

Media devices are going to change and provided they continue to use a common software, then with this purchase (and the myriad of cost effective storage devices) you should be ensured an excellent copy and interchangeable back up for years.

I simply don't feel that a person should be able to download copies of all media they have ever purchased simply due to format and /or device changes (which are optional). Just because a new device allows portable listening for example (such as an mp3 player) and you bought a record 30 years ago, I don't believe in those scenarios it justifies downloading a copy.

Same for loss of media or media transport malfunction.

I'm not so clear on it. I could go buy a turn table and convert the LP's to mp3. I think the key again is distribution. A pirate distributes copies. Owning your own copy is not crossing the line. If it is, it's ridiculous.

I have stuff on Beta tapes, on 8 track tapes, on cassette, on 5.25 floppy, on 3.5 floppy both 720k and 1.5mb, zip drives, thumb drives, SD chips and other memory cards who's names I forget. The data is still what I own, not the format of storage. Am I pirating if I take Commander Keen which I bought on floppies and copy them to a thumb drive? Why is music different? You can literally "play" any file by opening the speaker port and timing it with the clock tick interrupt to make sound. Virtually no difference except the quality of sound, lmao. (incidentally very similar method was used in many early ID software games to make the game sounds)

I could hand write every book I own if I wanted to and it's not illegal. It becomes illegal when I try to distribute it IMHO. WHAT you are doing with your copy is the key I believe.

But, consult a lawyer.

Thanks fotr all the replies. Interesting to hear your opinions :)

FWIW, I'll happily get it via iTunes, as its so straight forward, and I actually do loath the idea of using TPB.

I simply dont wanna support them at all, but in this case, because of the genuine situation, of 6 previous copys purchased, wether or not I felt 'justified' in going against my usual moral compass...

But its actually easier to use iTunes lol

What are 'Bolocks'? You must have bought a Chinese rip-off. You never bought a Sex Pistols album in your life, you fucking poseur.



Young, beautiful Sid spits on you from beyond the grave.

VJO LIVES!

Definition: Piracy

Noun:
The practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
A similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking.

The OP is in the UK, it is illegal to back up your own CDs or DVDs here.

Fuck the ethics and morals and legalities, just make sure you use the right terminology. Because that's the most important thing of all when discussing piracy.

Because the essence of what you are buying and selling is a digital number, obtaining that number without permission is stealing. The thief did not have the number and now does.

As a spy breaks in and steals secrets. (he may just copy them)

Saying it is not because the original remains is pedantic, as after all, when a copy is sold the original remains too. The number of copies grows with the number of sales so it cannot be compared to 10 apples which are either stolen, sold or remain but are always 10


If there was a replicator to copy paintings, a thief copies a painting value 1 million dollars and makes an identical copy, he still leaves the owner the original, but now as there are two, the value is halved. The thief has stolen value of half a million dollars.

This is so over simplified that its completely wrong. You need to give your head a shake.

So simple but beyond you to point out the falacy....

I wasn't going to waste my breath, and I'm still not.
It's "fallacy", by the way.

Your perfect painting copy machine is a stupid and flawed analogy. I was going to try to work with it , but its too messy, sorry.

It's as simple as this though. 2 instances of a particular object, does not reduce the value of them by half (divided by the # of instances). For example, if I have a gold bar and Im the only in the world with the special gold bar perfect replicator, and I take my 2 gold bars down to the currency trader guy or whoever deals in raw gold, then those people that end up with my gold bars are quite happy to pay the original face value X 2 for both of my gold bars.

Now, if you flood the market with gold bars, eventually you will drive down the price, and you could start to argue that I was actually "stealing" value from all the other people with original gold bars. But it would be more on the order of some small (like .0000x ) of the original value per gold bar.

What if though, I only gave my gold bars to people who weren't interested in buying a gold bar (or could never afford it), and signed an agreement with me to never SELL their gold bar once given to them. That they would ONLY use their special gold bar for personal use. No loss from this, right?

Or, what if because of my invention, someone became a "replicated gold bar collector" and wanted as many of my gold bars as he could get, just to put in his closet and look at them every day. (But only because they are free and special). Because he's only interested in my special gold bars, he would never have bought any of anyone else's gold bars and so had no economic incentive to pay for them. Therefore he was never a participant in the market and would never be so. (Again, no "loss" of value).

Not as eloquent as I would have hoped, but I haven't spent a lot of time trying to come up with the perfect analogy. Regardless, your painting 50% value thing is just dumb and tells me you have no idea about supply, demand, scarcity, economics, etc.

You don't even understand what you are writing.

You are just making up situations to hide the exact point I am making. You make gold cheaply the price will fall. You copy a unique painting its value is lessened. You copy a digital piece of work you are stealing the value of it.

The original can remain unchanged but its value destroyed.

Sorry you didn't comprehend anything I said.
Thanks for coming out.

There's a DVD in a store. If you walk in and steal it, you are depriving the store the ability to sell that DVD.

That is theft.

Copyright infringement is when you download a copy of a DVD, and there is nothing physical moved, removed, or stopped being able to be sold.

It's that simple.

And either way you're taking someone's work without paying for it, taking food from the creator's table.

Once you own it though, it's silly of the UK to not allow a back up. If you have a daily hard drive auto-backup and it copies your mp3 folder, you're breaking the law? Not nice.

Has there ever been a prosecution?

Has anyone ever even been arrested, charged or even cautioned?

The spy "I did not steal any secrets, they are still there."

Ethically, I feel that when you buy a CD or DVD you are buying both a licence and a physical media. If you media becomes damaged, you need another copy of the media but not another licence. Legally, depends on where you live...

Fortunately I'm legally allowed to make backup copies which I do to my NAS device.

Yes its simple.

But why is it so important to you to prove the definition ?

Why will you argue tooth and nail that piracy is not theft ?

(whilst grudgingly admitting that it is wrong and it is actually some other type of undefined crime.)

Why so fucking pedantic about the description ?

I dont actually agree with your definition, but it really is not the important issue here.


:)

It's not really all that important. But when people misuse legal terms, it's important to explain why they are wrong.

Because it isn't theft. It's copyright infringement.

Nothing grudging about it. It is wrong. And it is a clearly defined crime called copyright infringement. Sorry you find this so hard.


Because it is a legal term.


Fortunately the dictionary does agree with my definition, as does every legal body in the world.

But you try and change the definition single handedly if it helps you feel better.

Yes but the question was why is it so important to you

Why is is so important for you that everyone here is absolutely convinced that the precise technical term for with holding the correct due license compensation for copyright material is not actually theft ?

Are you pitching yourself for some kind of public defender of Pirates position ?



I also note now that you claim to have a thorough knowledge of the precise legal definitions of "every legal body in the world". Thats quite a remarkable skill.

I prostrate myself in awe at your vast and superior knowledge and debating skills.

Tell me Damian which actual official legal website did you download your "piracy is not theft" cartoon from ?

Was it official UK .gov material, or it is from the official US justice dept web archives ?

kepp digging Damian, your foolishness is a welcome distraction from my work.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Why is calling it by an incorrect term so important to you that you call me names?

No, just a defender of using the right words. I also constantly correct people when they misuse the word irony. Constantly. Why don't you have an issue with that?

Find one that disagrees.

Just one. I will donate a crisp 20 to the charity of your choice.

As you should. But I'm trying to help you. All you need to do is find one of these astute counterpoints you claim there are loads of. Obviously, we've established you can't, so I will allow you to borrow one of the "loads" you say are in this thread.

One of these http://www.google.co.uk/search?clien...Nce28QPrl9jDDA

Which website did you download your cartoon from.

Keep failing to answer any of my questions, or make a counterpoint. Call me some more names. That always makes it look like you haven't lost an argument. Really.

http://www.devtopics.com/wp-content/...acyistheft.jpg



We were burgled;

they infringed all my money and cameras.

Demonstrates exactly what you don't understand. (Although I loved the pic, thanks for the chuckle)

One infringement does not equal one lost sale. That's the crux of the "theft vs infringement" debate.

A much better analogy for digital piracy is sneaking into a theater to watch a movie. You are not stealing a copy of that movie, and the theater is free to show the movie to others. But you are stealing revenue that the theater would have earned had you rightfully purchased a ticket.

So when you pirate music, video or software, you are stealing income from the seller. You are receiving something of value without paying for it.

nobody on gfy downloads music from torrents, free download sites, etc., and have never done so. Didn't you know this?