Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Family Entertainment and Copyright Act...WHAT THE HELL?

Family Entertainment and Copyright Act...WHAT THE HELL?
Thread Tools
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 03:47 PM
 
http://news.com.com/Prison+terms+on+...l?tag=nefd.top
File-swappers who distribute a single copy of a prerelease movie on the Internet can be imprisoned for up to three years, under a bill that's slated to become the most dramatic expansion of online piracy penalties in years.

The bill, approved by Congress on Tuesday, is written so broadly it could make a federal felon of anyone who has even one copy of a film, software program or music file in a shared folder and should have known the copyrighted work had not been commercially released. Stiff fines of up to $250,000 can also be levied. Penalties would apply regardless of whether any downloading took place.

If signed into law, as expected, the bill would significantly lower the bar for online copyright prosecutions. Current law sanctions criminal penalties of up to three years in prison for "the reproduction or distribution of 10 or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of $2,500 or more."

The bill could be used to target casual peer-to-peer users, although the Justice Department to date has typically reserved criminal charges for the most egregious cases. (yea sure whatever)

Invoking a procedure used for noncontroversial legislation, the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved the measure, called the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act. Because the bill already has cleared the Senate, it now goes to President Bush for his signature.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:SN00167:@@@R
1/25/2005 Introduced/originated in Senate
2/1/2005 Senate Committee on the Judiciary discharged by Unanimous Consent.
2/1/2005 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
4/12/2005 Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-33, Part I.
4/12/2005 Committee on House Administration discharged.
4/19/2005 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.
4/27/2005 Signed by President.
4/27/2005 Became Public Law No: 109-009 [Text, PDF]

So that's it? No real debate? Just a unanimous vote in the Congress? What the hell is wrong with our elected officials?
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:03 PM
 
This is distrubbing.
     
:XI:
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by budster101
This is distrubbing.
Distrubbing? Is that a 'circle jerk' for geeks?
     
zizban
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Antediluvia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:22 PM
 
So you can go to jail longer for this than for DUI or gun violations? niiiiiiice.
"In darkness there is strength, therefore strength is darkness."
     
budster101
Baninated
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois might be cold and flat, but at least it's ugly.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by :XI:
Distrubbing? Is that a 'circle jerk' for geeks?

Considering it's slang meaning, I'd have to say it was a typo. (All this interest in my grammar, and my signature from others. I'm honoured.)

1. circle jerk
1.) When a group of males sit in a circle, jerking each other off.

2.) *NOT* when a group of males stand in a circle to jerk off onto a cookie or anything of the sort. That retarded frat game is called "Limp Biscuit"... which kind of indirectly explains why the band of the same namesake is so ****ing horrible.

3.) When a bunch of blowhards - usually politicians - get together for a debate but usually end up agreeing with each other's viewpoints to the point of redundancy, stroking each other's egos as if they were extensions of their genitals (ergo, the mastubatory insinuation). Basically, it's what happens when the choir preaches to itself.

4.) A game on MXC that's based on sumo wrestling. Beware the Green Teabagger.



Ironic, your post and the word Jerk.
     
Goldfinger
Professional Poster
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:31 PM
 
Land of the free�

iMac 20" C2D 2.16 | Acer Aspire One | Flickr
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:32 PM
 
That's ****ed up. Can I still backup my DVDs and CDs?
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:50 PM
 
See, now all you bastards who downloaded the Family Guy episode before it was released are going to jail.

-Owl
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by demograph68
That's ****ed up. Can I still backup my DVDs and CDs?
Maybe all those people who say the Demoncrats and Repugnicans are the same are right.

I'm sure the Single Party will be knocking at your door to check for any violations of the Orwell Loves You Act
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:53 PM
 
Jesus, not even the loony lefties like Kucinich voices opposition? Nor the Republican libertarians like Ron Paul? Did ANYBODY oppose this?!
     
OwlBoy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 04:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by demograph68
That's ****ed up. Can I still backup my DVDs and CDs?
From what I see this is for unreleased stuff, so if you own a legal copy your fine...

-Owl
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 05:22 PM
 
Oh the joys....



-t
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 05:32 PM
 
This is just legislators appeasing the big �� and trying to convince themselves they're making a difference. You shouldn't steal you know..

“Building Better Worlds”
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
This is just legislators appeasing the big �� ...
$$$, to be precisely !

-t
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777
$$$, to be precisely !

-t
Universal Studios for instance is a subsidery if Vivendi

I'm sure there are some �� to be found but I concede your point.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
I'm sure there are some �� to be found but I concede your point.
How ? It's American Law. You might not know this, but we have different laws in Europe (not necessarily better ones though )

-t
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 06:05 PM
 
The cover sounds fine, I'm just worried what loops and backdoors congressmen & women will exploit the law in a manner it was not designed to.

In any event, for the most part, I see nothing wrong with it.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 06:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777
How ? It's American Law. You might not know this, but we have different laws in Europe (not necessarily better ones though )

-t
I'm just saying that there are European big money interests in this American law.

What will be interesting to see is how the Merry Cans will enforce this law.

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Goldfinger
Land of the free�
Not free to steal.
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by :XI:
Distrubbing? Is that a 'circle jerk' for geeks?
BWAHAHAHAHAA!!!
     
itistoday
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:05 PM
 
Yeah, doesn't matter, I'm leaving Jesus Land� as soon as I can and flying off to Canada.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by itistoday
Yeah, doesn't matter, I'm leaving Jesus Land� as soon as I can and flying off to Canada.
So you can pay money to steal.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:17 PM
 
I'm buying two flats, one in Ireland and one in Italy... right after I'm not poor.

I don't know what people have to worry about. Just don't steal movies, and if you legitimately rip your own movies from DVDs you own, don't stick them in a Shared folder for everyone to download.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:20 PM
 
Dontcha know ole, busting people for stealing is Nazi like actions!

Head for the hills!
     
Beewee
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:30 PM
 
$17.99 a month will get you all the "free movies" you want. Netflix...*rip* cough.... *burn* cough cough. Oh...and..uh Don't rip movies you don't own and stuff...it's bad and...fuels...terrorism...
     
Kilbey
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Michigan, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 07:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon
I don't know what people have to worry about. Just don't steal movies, and if you legitimately rip your own movies from DVDs you own, don't stick them in a Shared folder for everyone to download.
I agree with you.

What is it with people and wanting to steal so badly? Do they not realize they are hurting the artists they like the most? Very short-sighted.
     
DeathMan
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Capitol City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 09:48 PM
 
I'm pretty sure they have Jesus in Canada too.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by DeathMan
I'm pretty sure they have Jesus in Canada too.
Don't tell SWF.
     
Cody Dawg
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Working. What about you?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2005, 11:20 PM
 
Our country is slowly becoming a Communist Manifesto place.

It's disgusting.

Watch out for the military police.

     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 12:08 AM
 
This is a really bad law, but versions of it were poking around during the last Congress as well, so it hasn't blasted through as rapidly as it might appear.

Incidentally, ripping DVDs, whether you own them or not, is already illegal. Has been for ages.

OwlBoy--
See, now all you bastards who downloaded the Family Guy episode before it was released are going to jail.
No, anyone who downloads it prior to it coming out on DVD has broken the law. Airing on TV isn't usually considered distribution, and the critical date is when it's commercially distributed.

Killbey--
What is it with people and wanting to steal so badly? Do they not realize they are hurting the artists they like the most? Very short-sighted.
Setting aside that it's not stealing, but is instead a different kind of offense, I don't see that it is inevitably short sighted. Copyright is not intended to benefit artists, but rather to benefit the public. While it's preferable to change the law accordingly, there's nothing wrong with simply abolishing or reducing copyright, regardless of the effect it has on artists. In fact, depending on the circumstances involved, doing so may help artists, as well as the public.

The desire of the public to get stuff for free is basically the same as the desire of artists to get paid. In both cases, it is greed. Nothing wrong with it, but there's no real point in trying to adopt moral positions in an amoral field. Copyright is utilitarian, so you would have an easier time looking to whether a given copyright law provides a greater public benefit than detriment, and advocating always moving towards the maximum possible public benefit. This is not the same as the maximum possible authorial benefit, or the maximum scope of copyright protection.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Our country is slowly becoming a Communist Manifesto place.

It's disgusting.

Watch out for the military police.

For prosecuting people for stealing?
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 12:28 AM
 
It isn't stealing per say but rather copyright infringement. Music and entertainment distribution is not a material possession like say a TV or a computer. It can be copied and circulated many times over. I see P2P as a way of rebelling against the ever growing media conglomerates. The notion of simple turning away from the source of such media is increasingly difficult. Commercial entertainment is always trying to find new ways to get inside our minds, especially now with the internet. This is why this story is so important. Is piracy the answer? Of course not. It doesn't benefit the artist at all. But the problem is not the artist, but rather the corporations in charge of the distribution. I believe this problem has escalated from years of deregulation and the softening of the FCC. What we need is a government that will be responsible for once by actually turning away from the interests of these media giants. (Clear Channel, Viacom, NBC Universal, etc.)
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 12:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cody Dawg
Our country is slowly becoming a Communist Manifesto place.
This is not at all the case in terms of communism, at least the false label that we have come to understand. The economy of the USSR was by central planning. Complete ownership of the media and manufacturing were controlled by the state. This was the same way here after the great depression but to a lesser extent. What we have now though is completely the opposite. Media is now owned by just a handful of corporations. Their commercial interests precede their political ambitions. It has basically transformed a system of public values into that of consumption. This just shows how their power in government exceeds that of our own, sad to say.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by demograph68
It isn't stealing per say but rather copyright infringement.
Eh, you are taking something you didn't pay for that costs money.

if the shoe fits.

Don't get me wrong, I am not making any judgments as I have done it myself.

I am just not self-deluding to make myself feel better about it.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:00 AM
 
Zimphire--
Eh, you are taking something you didn't pay for that costs money.
Except that there is no taking. And there is no requirement that it cost money. It is equally as infringing to infringe something where copies cost a lot, as where they are available for free.

There's certainly no need to pretend that this is a delusional position. The wording of the law in question, and all the caselaw, makes it very clear. It's not stealing; it's copyright infringement. It might be illegal, but for a different reason, and under a different law.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:02 AM
 
Taking = Downloading

That isn't your property.

This would be like living in an empty apartment without paying rent.

You'd certainly go to jail for it.
     
Truepop
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:20 AM
 
"prereleased" and "not yet commercially released"

so this law says nothing about software and movies that could be bought already?
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:21 AM
 
Zimphire--
Taking = Downloading
No, downloading is reproducing, not taking. Indeed, you could not infringe on a copyright merely by taking. You might want to look at 17 USC 106. It defines the main rights that compromise a copyright. Reproduction is in there. Taking is not.

That isn't your property.
A creative work is not property at all, much less any particular person's. A copyright pertaining to a work might be property. A tangible copy of a work is certainly property. The work itself -- just doesn't manage it.

This would be like living in an empty apartment without paying rent.
That's trespass. Not theft. You can't steal an apartment.* But you can trespass in it.

*Of course there's adverse possession, but that's legal anyway.

Truepop--
so this law says nothing about software and movies that could be bought already?
Well, it really has several unrelated provisions. We've mostly just been talking about the one. If you google for S. 167, you ought to be able to find a copy of it.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:24 AM
 
I love how far one will go to try to rationalize stealing.

How about this.

You are getting something for free illegally that you legally should be paying for.

meaning no matter how you cut it, you are still breaking the law.

No matter how you cut it you are taking something that doesn't belong to you, that costs money, without paying for it.
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Zimphire
Taking = Downloading

That isn't your property.

This would be like living in an empty apartment without paying rent.

You'd certainly go to jail for it.
A friend copies a CD for me. Is that stealing? Or what if I copy a CD for myself? Am I still stealing? I acknowledged that piracy isn't the answer but as I said, the problem is the lack of competing distributors. What we need is a fair playing field. I think that the more disillusioned a consumer becomes, the more likely they will favor piracy. Off course we all could turn away from such corruption by not tuning in as it were. But that doesn't really work. The public at large seems to have become apathetic unfortunately.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:31 AM
 
Zimphire--
I love how far one will go to try to rationalize stealing.
Who said I was rationalizing anything? I just object to your using improper terminology, especially since it amounts to invective.

To say that copyright infringement is stealing is as grossly inaccurate as it is to say that speeding is terrorism. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, Zimphire, and it's never going to work.

If it is morally wrong, using the proper word doesn't alter that. If it is illegal, using the proper word doesn't alter that either. So your insistance on using the wrong word -- one that the law does not use, the courts do not use, that no one in the field uses -- indicates either willful ignorance or a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue. Either way, it makes you look bad. And, frankly, kind of dumb.

You are getting something for free illegally that you legally should be paying for.
Like I said, paying for it is not a factor. There is no material difference between infringing on something that is offered for free, or offered for sale.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by demograph68
A friend copies a CD for me. Is that stealing?
Yes. You are stealing the music that he copied. You didn't pay for it.

You do not own the original. You did not pay. You stole it.

steal:

"To take another persons property without permission or legal right without intentions to return it"

In this case, said property is said music.

While you may not be physically stealing CDs they have stamped, you are stealing the content in the CD.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski
Zimphire--
Who said I was rationalizing anything? I just object to your using improper terminology, especially since it amounts to invective.
You opinion. I call a duck a duck.
To say that copyright infringement is stealing is as grossly inaccurate as it is to say that speeding is terrorism. You're trying to fit a round peg into a square hole, Zimphire, and it's never going to work.
Sorry cpt, many others disagree with you. I think this new law put into place goes to further that.
Like I said, paying for it is not a factor.
Sure it is, not paying for it is illegal.
There is no material difference between infringing on something that is offered for free, or offered for sale.
I guess we agree to disagree.

Again, stealing is stealing.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:38 AM
 
http://www.itworld.com/Net/4087/IWD010413opethics/

We find the same sort of ethical problem when we confront the situation with Napster or any other use of copyrighted material on the Internet -- or even in something as low-tech as photocopying and distributing protected material. Many people don't consider this stealing. Yet these same people wouldn't for a moment consider going into a store and taking a CD or a book without paying for it.


When I talk about people having a lack of common sense, this is what I refer to.

They can simply differentiate the two enough to make one feel better about their actions.

This gets done enough, you start to believe your own manure and you lose any common sense you once had.

The "If you don't use it, you lose it" theory applies here.
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:40 AM
 
Zimphire--
In this case, said property is said music.
Music is incapable of being property. In fact, if it could be property, we would not need copyright. Your dishes are property. You don't have a copyright on your dishes. So if music were property, why would it need a copyright?

you are stealing the content within the CD.
Of course, this is impossible to do. As you said, to steal requires one to take. It requires you to deprive the rightful owner of the thing that has been stolen.

When you make a copy, you do not take the original. You have made a second thing, indistinguishable from the original.

This is why, if I stole a dish from you, you wouldn't have it anymore. But if I copied the dish, you would still have it. And I would have a new, identical dish. You would not be able to claim that I stole yours, because it is essential to the very concept of stealing that you be deprived of the thing in question.

This isn't hard, man.

You opinion. I call a duck a duck.
No, I'm stating a fact. And you're basically calling a elephant a duck. This is, in fact, what I'm complaining about; your misuse of language.

Sorry cpt, many others disagree with you.
No, only the ignorant disagree with me. You know how I'm a lawyer? In specific, I'm a copyright lawyer. And it's not just a job, but it's something I'm interested in personally. Hell, I think it's fun.

Here's a good example of how no one who has actually looked into the issue agrees with you:

The National Stolen Property Act provides for the imposition of criminal penalties upon any person who "transports in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money, of the value of $ 5,000 or more, knowing the same to have been stolen, converted or taken by fraud." 18 U. S. C. � 2314. In this case, we must determine whether the statute reaches the interstate transportation of "bootleg" phonorecords, "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" only in the sense that they were manufactured and distributed without the consent of the copyright owners of the musical compositions performed on the records.

...

Federal crimes, of course, "are solely creatures of statute." Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 424 (1985), citing United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32 (1812). Accordingly, when assessing the reach of a federal criminal statute, we must pay close heed to language, legislative history, and purpose in order strictly to determine the scope of the conduct the enactment forbids. Due respect for the prerogatives of Congress in defining federal crimes prompts restraint in this area, where we typically find a "narrow interpretation" appropriate. See Williams v. United States, 458 U.S. 279, 290 (1982). Chief Justice Marshall early observed:

"The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is perhaps not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment." United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95 (1820).

...

According to the Government, the unauthorized use of the musical compositions rendered the phonorecords "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" within the meaning of the statute. We must determine, therefore, whether phonorecords that include the performance of copyrighted musical compositions for the use of which no authorization has been sought nor royalties paid are consequently "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of � 2314. We conclude that they are not.

...

But these cases and others prosecuted under � 2314 have always involved physical "goods, wares, [or] merchandise" that have themselves been "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." This basic element comports with the common-sense meaning of the statutory language: by requiring that the "goods, wares, [or] merchandise" be "the same" as those "stolen, converted or taken by fraud," the provision seems clearly to contemplate a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods.

In contrast, the Government's theory here would make theft, conversion, or fraud equivalent to wrongful appropriation of statutorily protected rights in copyright. The copyright owner, however, holds no ordinary chattel. A copyright, like other intellectual property, comprises a series of carefully defined and carefully delimited interests to which the law affords correspondingly exact protections. Section 106 of the Copyright Act confers a bundle of exclusive rights to the owner of the copyright," which include the rights "to publish, copy, and distribute the author's work." Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 546-547 (1985). See 17 U. S. C. � 106.

...

It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "'Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, 'is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U. S. C.] � 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by � 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. As a result, it fits but awkwardly with the language Congress chose -- "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" -- to describe the sorts of goods whose interstate shipment � 2314 makes criminal. n8 "And, when interpreting a criminal statute that does not explicitly reach the conduct in question, we are reluctant to base an expansive reading on inferences drawn from subjective and variable 'understandings.'" Williams v. United States, 458 U.S., at 286.
Dowling v. US, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

So when the Supreme Court of the United States says that it's not theft, why precisely should I care when you say it is? Who's probably right? Shall I guess?

Sure it is, not paying for it is illegal.
Even if it were free, and it didn't matter if you paid for it, it'd be equally as illegal. Thus, payment must be irrelevant.
( Last edited by cpt kangarooski; May 4, 2005 at 01:56 AM. )
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
Truepop
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:41 AM
 
I tend to agree with the cpt that making a copy of something is not stealing.

maybe it would work better to compare it to counterfeiting money? I could make a copy of jack's cd or a copy of his $10 bill, either way I haven't stolen anything from him.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski
[Of course, this is impossible to do. As you said, to steal requires one to take. It requires you to deprive the rightful owner of the thing that has been stolen.
The music inside the said CD does indeed belong to someone. You deprive them of the money spent had you actually bought it.
When you make a copy, you do not take the original. You have made a second thing, indistinguishable from the original.
And that copy still has the exact same music that belongs to someone else. The exact same music said person would have made $12.50 or so off you had you decided to buy it. Since you decided to steal it, you just stole $12.50 off said owner.
This is why, if I stole a dish from you, you wouldn't have it anymore. But if I copied the dish, you would still have it. And I would have a new, identical dish. You would not be able to claim that I stole yours, because it is essential to the very concept of stealing that you be deprived of the thing in question.

This isn't hard, man.
I know what you are TRYING to rationalize.

But common sense says otherwise.

Sorry.

Fact is, if this wasn't thievery, they wouldn't be treating it as such.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Truepop
I tend to agree with the cpt that making a copy of something is not stealing.
Cept it is.
maybe it would work better to compare it to counterfeiting money? I could make a copy of jack's cd or a copy of his $10 bill, either way I haven't stolen anything from him.
Cept the counterfeit money isn't an exact duplication of the original. And isn't worth crap.
     
Zimphire
Baninated
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Moon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:49 AM
 
The last word.
Under current copyright legislation, downloading music for free is definitely theft under letter of the law.
http://www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/pirate.shtml

So the proper terminology of music piracy, is indeed theft. AKA stealing.

Now that you know this, I expect you being a person that uses proper terminology start treating it and admitting it as such.

But I doubt you will

But at least you wont get to use the "proper terminology" rant where you act "above" us who call a duck a duck.

I don't see any reason to add fluff. No reason to make excuses.

It is what it is. And that is theft.

Now saying that, I am not pointing fingers, and telling everyone they must stop now or go to jail.

But at least be honest with yourself, and what you are doing.
( Last edited by Zimphire; May 4, 2005 at 01:56 AM. )
     
demograph68
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2005, 01:57 AM
 
I don't see copyright infringement as a euphemistic justification for "stealing." But regardless of how one debates it, it has nothing to do with the big picture. Loopholes are indeed inevitable with the laws that are being put in place. Soon enough it will be illegal for us to block popups or advertising on the internet, no doubt. This problem already occurs on television. In fact, the very entertainment people watch are now merely infomercials. Advertising between a show is not good enough anymore. It's really scary how most people don't even see what's right in front of them. I know I'm going beyond what this thread was meant for but this issue is incredibly important to me and I rarely have the opportunity to express how I feel about it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:24 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,