Bittorrent site files charges against media companies

[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.

[Geoffrey S]

That seems to me a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said. No, I find such an application of copyright laws thoroughly counterproductive, and no, I don't believe the laws right now are correct. What I said is that current laws, and I quote:

...are archaic and ineffective, not suitably geared up to mass distribution and the presence of internet.

There is too little clarity, too little account taken of modern technology, and the laws are thoroughly un-enforceable. They need changing, since as things stand now it's clear both the consumer and the corporations lose, the consumer if laws were strictly followed and the corporations in practical reality. I don't favour one or the other side myself since I view access to goods like cds and movies as a luxury rather than a right, but the fact that people download media illegally in large amounts and the lengths that corporations appear to go to in order to prevent that show how flawed current copyright laws are.

Your post implies I'm in favour of giving the corporations virtually unlimited power and time when it comes to copyright. I'm not, I don't see where you get that from, and I find it a curious attempt to project such a view on me. And then you suddenly bring civil rights into it...

[Blodrast]

That seems to me a gross misrepresentation of what I actually said. No, I find such an application of copyright laws thoroughly counterproductive, and no, I don't believe the laws right now are correct. What I said is that current laws, and I quote:

There is too little clarity, too little account taken of modern technology, and the laws are thoroughly un-enforceable. They need changing, since as things stand now it's clear both the consumer and the corporations lose, the consumer if laws were strictly followed and the corporations in practical reality. I don't favour one or the other side myself since I view access to goods like cds and movies as a luxury rather than a right, but the fact that people download media illegally in large amounts and the lengths that corporations appear to go to in order to prevent that show how flawed current copyright laws are.

Your post implies I'm in favour of giving the corporations virtually unlimited power and time when it comes to copyright. I'm not, I don't see where you get that from, and I find it a curious attempt to project such a view on me. And then you suddenly bring civil rights into it...

Oh well, that was what I had inferred from the context, seeing how virtually all the copyright-related laws are laws that restrict rights of the user, and empower the corporations, practically (although a lawyer could argue that the laws empower the "content owners", but for all practical purposes, those are the corporations in most cases).

Also, this is one of the commonly waved arguments of these corporations: the laws are obsolete (they don't consider the Internet as a cheap and efficient distribution medium), and they need to be fixed. It's exactly the same phrasing.

So you can see how I took it to be in the same spirit...

So if I misinterpreted it, my apologies.

The civil rights part: is only partially in reply to you; earlier in this thread people mentioned the laws and all that, and my point was that laws don't always make sense, and sometimes it's not a bad thing to break these laws. And I gave the Rosa Parks example, where she broke the law - which was a stupid and unjust law - much like I consider some of these copyright and IP-related laws (DRM forced upon you, no rights to private copies, etc).
I can understand, for example, that Kukri has to enforce the rules of this forum, but we should still be aware that the fact that something is passed into law does not make it right.

I hope I managed to clear a bit of the confusion...
Also, I wrote that _very_ early in the morning, sorry if it wasn't coherent enough.

[Caius]

I cant believe this.

So, they steal and claim to be attacked? I cant believe this.