Bittorrent site files charges against media companies

[HoreTore]

No, I agree that they really need to work on where their finances go. But is that ever a good excuse to steal, that someone's got enough money anyway?

Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is the best excuse ever.

Worked wonders for Robin Hood.

[KukriKhan]

Careful. We were doing fine, until we started advocating theft as social justice.

[Slyspy]

Praise of Robin Hood is not allowed?

Breach of copyright is theft?

[Papewaio]

Breach of copyright is theft?

Breach of copyright certainly can cover theft. Photocoping an entire book, copying a chip layout etc. I don't know of anywhere that condones stealing another's work just because it is made by the sweat of invention. What I do know is that there are worse things then stealing, one of which is corporate sabotage (destruction of information) and vigilantism.

Bittorent in and of itself is an infrastructure for P2P it is no more guilty of copyright theft then a highway can be found guilty of drunk driving.

As for Robin Hood he is more myth then fact... which King signed the Magna Carta after all (and what political pressure was he under to do so?).

[Watchman]

As for Robin Hood he is more myth then fact...

Albeit one well established early on.

[Slyspy]

Breach of copyright certainly can cover theft. Photocoping an entire book, copying a chip layout etc. I don't know of anywhere that condones stealing another's work just because it is made by the sweat of invention. What I do know is that there are worse things then stealing, one of which is corporate sabotage (destruction of information) and vigilantism.

Bittorent in and of itself is an infrastructure for P2P it is no more guilty of copyright theft then a highway can be found guilty of drunk driving.

As for Robin Hood he is more myth then fact... which King signed the Magna Carta after all (and what political pressure was he under to do so?).

I don't know about Sweden (or Australia) but generally breach of copyright is not theft for the simple reason that you are not denying the copyright owner use of his property.

Corporate sabotage of this sort should, if true, be dealt with extremely harshly. But I look at that list and it makes me doubt that the case will get anywhere, though Sony for one has been in trouble over copyright protection before.

Discussion about whether Robin Hood was real or a myth has no bearing here, except to prove that said discussion is, in fact, allowed! John signed Magna Carta because he had to, I'm not sure what you mean.

[Papewaio]

Robin hood was brought up as a good reason to steal.

I was hinting that the facts don't match the reality... King John ended up doing a lot of good by signing the Magna Carta and as such should be remembered as a good guy in history... I also alluded that it wasn't done purely out of altruism... just the barons wanted a bigger cut... but they did allow more freedoms for the rest of the people in the process (I suppose they wanted as much support as possible... maybe this is the first example of pork barreling).

[HoreTore]

Robin hood was brought up as a good reason to steal.

If it was me you were referring to, then no, it was not... I said it was a good excuse to steal, no a good reason to steal...

And that does not imply that doing it is right either. For example, if someone is annoying the hell out of you, then that's a good excuse for kicking his arse. But it doesn't make it the right thing to do...

[Geoffrey S]

I don't know about Sweden (or Australia) but generally breach of copyright is not theft for the simple reason that you are not denying the copyright owner use of his property.

That's what I mean. Current copyright laws are archaic and ineffective, not suitably geared up to mass distribution and the presence of internet. While I can't condone corporate sabotage, that they resort to it is to some extent an illustration of why the relevant laws need a lot of improvement.

[Blodrast]

That's what I mean. Current copyright laws are archaic and ineffective, not suitably geared up to mass distribution and the presence of internet. While I can't condone corporate sabotage, that they resort to it is to some extent an illustration of why the relevant laws need a lot of improvement.

Your comment seems kinda one-sided to me, Geoffrey. Do you feel that the extension of copyrights, potentially to an indefinite term, is "fair" ?

Please do note the distinction between "fair" and "legal". Hopefully many of you are aware that laws today are, in a lot of cases, passed in the favor of corporations, who more or less "own" the law-making politicians, and many things that were legal yesterday are suddenly no longer legal today, just because the nice corporations managed to buy yet another batch of politicians who then passed laws in their favor.
You want me to support my claim ? Sure, here you go:Canadian Heritage Copyright Policy Rocked By Conflict of Interest Concerns (summary: The infamous C-59 Bill got through the Parliament with an amazing speed... and perhaps that is not unrelated to the fact that Patricia Neri, the Director General of Copyright Policy at Canadian Heritage has been removed from her position to become a special advisor to Assistant Deputy Minister Jean-Pierre Blais, because of her intimate personal relationship with "one of Canada’s leading copyright lobbyists. ").

Some more ? Why, certainly: Oda Funding Controversy May Derail Broadcast and Copyright Policy (summary:

With Oda installed as the Conservative Canadian Heritage critic, her riding association last year reported contributions from a veritable who's who of broadcast and copyright lobby groups and companies. These include broadcasters (Corus, Vision TV), cable companies (Rogers, Shaw, and Cogeco), record companies (Sony, Universal, Warner, EMI), and copyright lobby groups (Canadian Recording Industry Association, Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, Entertainment Software Association).

Moreover, as the odds-on favourite to become the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Oda accepted thousands of dollars from broadcasting and copyright interests during the most recent election campaign, with her two largest contributions coming from individuals linked to two industry giants - Rogers and Standard Radio.

).

And the list goes on... so the fact that something is "law" does not particularly impress me, or mean anything.
I'm not advising that we should all break the law here; I'm saying that there is plenty of proof that many laws are simply passed by corrupt politicians to satisfy various lobby groups who practically own them, and that we are all familiar with absurd, ridiculous or unjust laws (whites-only places anyone ?). So the fact that something is law does not make it right, and you can ask Rosa Parks to explain that better.

[drone]

Careful. We were doing fine, until we started advocating theft as social justice.

Well, technically piracy is not theft. But I agree that artists should get paid for their work, and blatant piracy isn't the way to go.

I'm not sure about movies (they cost more to make and finance), but the old way of selling music needs to change. I'd be more than happy to see the artists themselves distributing their work and marketing themselves. With online digital distribution, this should be easy to do, and some bands are taking this step. Cutting out the middleman should have artists getting more of the profits. If a few music execs have to lose their jobs because of it, well, I don't really have a problem with that. There is no law stating that a company has to be profitable, if the series of tubes can make a business model obsolete, so be it.

Considering the extortion campaign currently being run by the RIAA here in the States, it's nice to see them getting nailed for their indiscretions elsewhere. Hopefully, the Swedish police/courts aren't bought out yet.

[TB666]

Considering the extortion campaign currently being run by the RIAA here in the States, it's nice to see them getting nailed for their indiscretions elsewhere. Hopefully, the Swedish police/courts aren't bought out yet.

Not yet. Their attempts to change our constitution so far has been denied.
Hopefully our goverment will resist them.

[Watchman]

Worked wonders for Robin Hood.

The surprisingly widepsread amount of popular support bandits have at times enjoyed has historically really stemmed from a simpler source - the commoners usually hated their overlords enough to be willing to root for about anyone opposing the authorities, whatever his reasons, which pirates and bandits obvioously do sort of by default. (Except of course if they came and murdered *him* on the side...)
That they also tended to pay their assorted contacts, supporters, fences etc. quite well of course didn't hurt.