BT ordered to block pirate links

[synaesthesia]

I don't think it's right to compare physical theft with copyright infringement; it appears to be the comparisons between the two that cause confusion and is also not helped by those damned "You wouldn't steal a car..." adverts. It just appears to be a case of ignorance on the most part that people don't realise that however you compare or classify it, it's still against the law.

 

 

I somehow suspect that all of this may be moot sooner than we think - with economies going the way they are, film studios spending money they don't actually have to make films that won't ACTUALLY recuperate the expense, people not being able to afford to go see the cinema/rent or buy the DVD etc; something has to give. It won't be as sensationalist as "Hollywood goes Bust!" but a large rethink is required.

 

The same issue is an age old problem in schools which most of us hit regularly - people's unawareness of copyright laws. Perhaps one of the first things students should learn in secondary education is awareness of it so they are better set for their coursework etc later on. "Please sir, I want this Lady Gaga video embedded in my Powerpoint presentation." "No, it's illegal" "But sir, without it, I fail my coursework!" Doesn't have to be IT related also - how many times is that photocopier used in the library without the prior consent...

[Guest Guest]

Have you got a business idea/model for the companies to given them a similar total income?

 

Same as you really, no physical media, on demand/easily downloadable, no adverts, fair price = people can't be bothered to pirate stuff. But i think its gone too far for that to work in the short term. People have changed the way they consume media, and because they changed a long time ago but the industry didn't imo the industry will have a hard time clawing them back - bad habits die hard etc.

 

Its daft really, we have became a throw away society, which the industry played a large part in orchestrating. Take music; radio hammers 6 songs for weeks on end, when the song eventually gets released people are already getting bored of it so only want the song for a few more weeks. Now if the song was released at a reasonable price rather than being a radio exclusive more people might buy it. The daft bit is that this could be a good thing for the industry as if it was downloadable content it would cost them next to fa to sell the song and they would have a constant rolling program of songs being bought.

[GrumbleDook]

I don't think it's right to compare physical theft with copyright infringement

 

And this is where the misconception starts and should end. The definition of theft does not state it is a physical object ... only that it is property belonging to another and that the their is or is attempting to deprive the other of it permanently. If you dishonestly make a copy then remember that the copy is also the property of the original owner.

[synaesthesia]

That appears to be true, having raised an eyebrow and then gone to find a few definitions

[localzuk]

That appears to be true, having raised an eyebrow and then gone to find a few definitions

 

It depends - possession usually refers to an object in most dictionaries I've looked in. No mention of abstract ideas (which is what a copyright is).

[GrumbleDook]

It depends - possession usually refers to an object in most dictionaries I've looked in. No mention of abstract ideas (which is what a copyright is).

 

Acts of Law do not specifically respond to dictionary definitions (which they have no control over) but tend to be specific to the information within the law itself ... within the definition of Theft it specifically makes reference to where the definition of Thief and Steal may be defined or determined *outside* of the Act of Law ("Thief and Steal will be construed accordingly") and this does not happen with the terms 'Property', 'Appropriation', 'Intention', 'Depriving' or 'Dishonest'. In fact there are clear guides about how to equate dishonesty, and it can be interesting to look at the difference of this when looking at shoplifting compared to other forms of theft. Selection, concealment and failure to pay are important criteria.

 

A digital copy is not abstract either, it is a definitive object which has strict criteria and a fixed reference point ... the original.

[Guest Guest]

And this is where the misconception starts and should end. The definition of theft does not state it is a physical object ... only that it is property belonging to another and that the their is or is attempting to deprive the other of it permanently. If you dishonestly make a copy then remember that the copy is also the property of the original owner.

 

But how can one argue that "I" have deprived "you" of something permanently when you still own the material, I've just copied it. I've deprived you of the money you may of made - but then that goes back to the misconception of 1 pirate copy = 1 lost sale.

 

Now if I copied your idea and patented it I would be depriving you of it permanently.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Guest

[localzuk]

Acts of Law do not specifically respond to dictionary definitions (which they have no control over) but tend to be specific to the information within the law itself ... within the definition of Theft it specifically makes reference to where the definition of Thief and Steal may be defined or determined *outside* of the Act of Law ("Thief and Steal will be construed accordingly") and this does not happen with the terms 'Property', 'Appropriation', 'Intention', 'Depriving' or 'Dishonest'. In fact there are clear guides about how to equate dishonesty, and it can be interesting to look at the difference of this when looking at shoplifting compared to other forms of theft. Selection, concealment and failure to pay are important criteria.

 

A digital copy is not abstract either, it is a definitive object which has strict criteria and a fixed reference point ... the original.

 

Ok, let's break down the Theft Act 1968 then.

 

"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

 

The 2 key parts here:

 

Property - according to case law (2 such cases are covered on Wikipedia), this covers all tangible items, but not intangible items, such as information or trade secrets. So, as copyright is specifically just about an idea (be it something abstract itself, or something very clearly defined such as a song), it is intangible.

 

Intention to permanently deprive - A copy at no point deprives the holder of the original of anything. Also, a person copying an item is at no point intent on doing that.

 

So, even within our law, copyright infringement is not theft. The only aspect which lines up is the dishonest part.

 

We can look at the Theft Act 1978 and Theft (amendment) Act 1996 also, but they cover theft of services mainly and wouldn't be relevant, unless you think a song is a service.

 

This is why we have 2 different laws, complete with their own legal definitions - the Theft Act(s) and The Copyright Designs and Patents act 1988 which covers copyright infringement, and doesn't refer to infringement as theft at any point, so far as I can see. Even with CDPA, it only allows someone to be prosecuted for copyright infringement if it is for material gain, or if it causes significant damage to the copyright holder, outside of that it is merely a civil matter alone (something which theft never is).

[SimpleSi]

Well - I'm a lot happier now that I'm not a thief just an infringer

 

Ta

Simon

[GrumbleDook]

Case law on CDPA has allowed for the originator of an item to demand (and received) all copies of the infringed item and for it to be consider their property (e.g. books which are illegal print runs getting pulped). The original (i.e. the proof from which the copy was made) is not the sole property. A copy is consider the property of the originator (under CDPA the publisher, author or other defined person, and under Theft Act 1978/1996 to be the creator, purchasing owner or supplier / controller / owner of service).

 

Laws may be dealt with on an individual basis or in overlap. There is frequent overlap within Law ... and it is rare to find a single Act of Law which precludes consideration for other Acts. The fact that there is the Theft Act does not mean that certain areas cannot also be covered under CDPA.

 

As for the argument about tangible / intangible ... and idea is intangible as it is difficult to measure, yet a copy of an item (whether in digital or hard format) is tangible as it has a direct measurement, the original item. The Medium on which an item is stored makes little difference ... a photocopy is a copy ... so if I have a photocopy of a book I have a physical item which can be compared to the original. If I have a digital item and it is copied and can be compared then it is treated in the same manner.

[localzuk]

Case law on CDPA has allowed for the originator of an item to demand (and received) all copies of the infringed item and for it to be consider their property (e.g. books which are illegal print runs getting pulped). The original (i.e. the proof from which the copy was made) is not the sole property. A copy is consider the property of the originator (under CDPA the publisher, author or other defined person, and under Theft Act 1978/1996 to be the creator, purchasing owner or supplier / controller / owner of service).

 

Laws may be dealt with on an individual basis or in overlap. There is frequent overlap within Law ... and it is rare to find a single Act of Law which precludes consideration for other Acts. The fact that there is the Theft Act does not mean that certain areas cannot also be covered under CDPA.

 

As for the argument about tangible / intangible ... and idea is intangible as it is difficult to measure, yet a copy of an item (whether in digital or hard format) is tangible as it has a direct measurement, the original item. The Medium on which an item is stored makes little difference ... a photocopy is a copy ... so if I have a photocopy of a book I have a physical item which can be compared to the original. If I have a digital item and it is copied and can be compared then it is treated in the same manner.

 

With your last paragraph, you missed the point of what I'm saying though - that in the eyes of the law, a copyright is an intangible issue. Regardless of the end resulting items. All of what you said there is opinion, not based in law.

 

Regarding your other comments, sure, things overlap, but there haven't been any cases that I can find which include the Theft Act(s) when discussing copyright infringement, so again, that would be opinion to mix the 2.

 

As I said, copyright infringement and theft are 2 distinct legal terms, with very different punishments. The prior is only a criminal offence in a limited circumstance, otherwise it is a civil issue, the latter is always a criminal offence. That distinction alone makes it clear cut enough in my view.