£1 = $1? Phawwww not enough

[IBM]

As i can't afford software that puts me in the catagory of not breaking the law because i am not harming a company that would not get a sale from me in the first place.

You bloody Pikey....software's not some essential aspect of life you smug little sod. You don't need MP3s to survive! If you can't afford it, you do without, you thieving twit. You think you're entitled to something because it's readily available online? You're not!! You work harder, you better yourself, you get better jobs, you earn better wages, and when you've got some money in the bank, you pay for it like everyone else with half a brain/conscious/moral consideration.

You're right, people are going to gang up on you, because you're such an idiot it's like shooting ducks in a barrel.....

[IBM]

Ohh i dont have £400, i guess ill stay poor..

I'm just hoping you run out of enough money to not be able to pay your internet connection bill....

[finlay666]

I'm just hoping you run out of enough money to not be able to pay your internet connection bill....

2nd-ed!

I can't see how as you pay VAT on software it can be seen as a essential thing...last time I checked things which were not essential you didn't pay VAT on...ergo you don't need software to survive

I do hope you formatted your hard drive actually, and your brain too if that isnt too much trouble please

and j1979 I do think that attempt at sarcasm was rather poor, Clunk can do far better humour while asleep!

[j1979]

I'm just hoping you run out of enough money to not be able to pay your internet connection bill....

the internet is free where i live. local wifi provided free to all within 100meter radius, by some hippies that live on the next street and pay BT wholesale. They ask nothing in return but i do some free work for them. quid pro quo

[IBM]

So what are you going to do for the record companies whose music you steal?

[Tumble]

Oh my god, ive seen the light, Ive formated my Hard drive.

i no longer have a problem paying £100s on a sofware package that costs £10,000 to develop and sells 1m copies.

i will no longer download software, ride my bike on the pavment, as of june i will not smoke in a public place, i will not eat food on public transport, i will not read the bible without first asking is it wrong that the descendants of moses will not gain financially from it.

i am indeed a changed man. i will rejoce in the fact that im being ripped off if i pay for something that costs so much to buy, yet so little to produce. i will just not listen to music unless its played with full copyright blessing of the owner of the intellectual property. Although this means that 99% of night clubs are no longer accessible to me. I will frown upon young people who ware hoodies, hanging around and talking. I now disagree with Marie Louise De La Ramee "Petty laws breed great crimes"

I rejoice in the fact that we will soon have to carry an identity cards, be filmed 100 times a day and have our conversations tapped. I do not agree with George Orwell that too much is controlled.

and i cant wait until its illegal to fart in public, because i causes distress to others.

It must therefor be fair to make the rich richer and keep the poor uneducated because they can't afford new books and software.

Yes i see now it is right, to be capitalist and the strongest should pray on the weak..

i will now go out and spend £400 that i dont have on a software package that could help lift me out of poverty.

Ohh i dont have £400, i guess ill stay poor..

While your out getting all this software, buy a spell checker too. It's painful.

[Stringent]

And companies wonder why so much of their stuff is pirated. With these stupid costs, they will just fuel the piracy problem.

[Agent]

the internet is free where i live. local wifi provided free to all within 100meter radius, by some hippies that live on the next street and pay BT wholesale. They ask nothing in return but i do some free work for them. quid pro quo

So downloading illegal software on somone elses connection?

This just gets better and better.

[badass]

I think you were missing the original ‘tongue in cheek’ intention of my first post. I am not naive enough to think that physically stealing someone’s property can be directly compared to copying intellectual property.
But then again, I don’t agree with the second analogy of ‘aggravated burglary with arson’ being comparative with stealing a car either. Stealing a car (presumably without anyone being around) is a different ball game. I doubt any court would hand down the same sentence for those 2 crimes.

If you have a look at the last few pages, I think you can see why stupid comparisons were made when replying to certain comments, though

If Clunk can pick up online sarcasm, I’m sure you can

Ah. I see - so after all of that we actually agree and I missed the sarcasm
For the record, I do see tham all as totally different crimes that are nevertheless all immoral and illegal.

[Saracen]

Well on that basis, copyright infringement and theft are not the same either.
Legally they are totally different. One is a criminal offence, one is a civil offfence and you CANNOT go to jail for it.

Erm, you can go to prison for copyright infringement.

Broadly, I agree with the thrust of your remarks, but you're wrong on that point.

Until relatively recently, copyright infringement was only a criminal offence if done in the course of a business. But the 1988 Act was amended a few years ago and the criminal aspects of it broadened.

It is still primarily the case that the criminal aspects only apply to commercial expolitations, but not entirely exclusively so. For instance, s.107 VERY clearly includes aspects of infringement that carry criminal penalties for non-business activities.

Broadly though, private users still face civil action rather than prosecution. But "infringement" covers a fairly wide range of activities. For instance, copying a CD onto your MP3 player is very different in scope from copying thousands of CDs onto a website and making those copies available to the public.

Generally, as soon as you start doing the latter type of thing, you are venturing into criminal offence territory, even if you aren't doing it commercially. For instance, if you make a copy of a work available to the public either knowing or having reason to believe it's an infringing copy, then section 107.(1)(e) says anyone who

distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to prejudicially affect the owner of the copyright.

commits an offence.

That's not the only such example, but it makes the point.

Generally, for simple personal and private copying, you're right, it's civil not criminal. But the edges have been blurred in recent years and some things are now criminal that didn't used to be, and what's more, carry some heavy penalties. That above situation, for example, has a maximum of 10 years and/or a fine, upon conviction on indictment. No limit is placed on the fine by the act. On summary conviction, the limits are a (maximum of) six months inside and a Level 5 (currently £5000) fine.

Of course, what's not defined is what "prejudicially affect the owner of the copyright" means. By how much, exactly, do their interests have to be prejudicially affected? £5? £50,000? What? That is rather left to the courts to decide.

And, of course, anyone operating as part of a business is in a very different situation. Suppose someone works as a self-employed web designer and uses a pirated copy of Photoshop CS3.

Well, S.107(1) says

A person commits an offence who, without licence of the copyright owner,
.
.
(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act which infringes a copyright ...

.... an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.

I've edited out other provisions of that section to try to make it more readable as it applies to that particular situation.

The same possible penalties apply to that as mentioned earlier, so that self-employed web designed could face 10 years inside and a substantial fine.

I'm certainly not aware of the CDPA being used in such a heavy-handed fashion, and it would (IMHO) be totally inappropriate and very much an overreaction if it were, but you said you "CANNOT" go to jail for copyright infringement. You can, I'm afraid to say. It may not have happened, and it may never happen, but it could.


As for the differences between theft and copyright infringement, well, in my view they parallel the differences between physical property and intellectual property. Clearly, the legal definition of theft can't be applied to IP very easily because (at least in the UK) an act is only theft if it conforms to the very specific requirements of the Theft Act, such as the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of their property. It's hard to see how you can physically deprive someone of an intangible, permanently or otherwise.

But, if you consider the IP rights as being the right to benefit from the ownership of that IP right, then copyright infringement can be viewed as the intent to permanently deprive the IP rights owner of the benefit they should have accrued from the person doing the infringement's use.

But the IP rights to an article essentially confer the rights owner with the right to control when and where, and for what remuneration, that article is copied. Anyone copying that article, unless doing so either with permission or under the cover of a statutory exemption, is depriving the rights owner of the benefit of controlling the use of that article.

So as the Theft Act says you can't permanently deprive the property owner of their property, the Copyright Act says you can't permanently deprive them of the right to benefit from that article being copied (and/or used).

Theft and copyright infringement are legally different things, and it's certainly technically inaccurate to refer to copyright infringement as theft because it doesn't meet the legal criteria. But there are parallels between the two, even if they can only be pushed so far. Given the differences in the nature of physical property and IP rights, "theft" is probably as good an analogy as anything.

[j1979]

So downloading illegal software on somone elses connection?

This just gets better and better.

no its free, some poeple in the world think that sharing is a good thing. But right wingers like you dont seem to see that.

[this_is_gav]

no its free

It's free yes, but do they know what you're using their connection for, because if they don't you're royally screwing them, as they're the ones who'd be held responsible. All of a sudden perhaps it makes sense why this doesn't bother you...

some poeple in the world think that sharing is a good thing.

Sharing is great... you don't share stuff that doesn't belong to you though

[redlight]

no its free, some poeple in the world think that sharing is a good thing. But right wingers like you dont seem to see that.

I am a a fairly left wing socialist and theft of intellectual property being allowed is not in any manifesto that I know of.
The right wingers (if that what they are) are correct you are a thief. You should be locked up but not for piracy but for introducing some misguided notion that IP theft is justified by politics. Property is theft and all that crap was dropped years ago.

[j1979]

So what are you going to do for the record companies whose music you steal?

like i said about on page 2 of the thread. I do not consider it stealing. because:

1. Software is Infinite. you can never take away the original.

2. A car is made from finite materials and if you steal it the original has been taken from the person who payed for it. (IE Stealing)

it is basic economics. the software and music industry has vastly over valued its self.

it is not something that is done for financial gain!

and you can gang up on me Lord of the Flies style all you want but this is my opinion. And the infinite/finite argument is fact no mater how my times "Agent" cries about it.

[j1979]

I am a a fairly left wing socialist and theft of intellectual property being allowed is not in any manifesto that I know of.
The right wingers (if that what they are) are correct you are a thief. You should be locked up but not for piracy but for introducing some misguided notion that IP theft is justified by politics. Property is theft and all that crap was dropped years ago.

yes you sound left wing??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????
????????????
????????

[j1979]

I am a a fairly left wing socialist and theft of intellectual property being allowed is not in any manifesto that I know of.
The right wingers (if that what they are) are correct you are a thief. You should be locked up but not for piracy but for introducing some misguided notion that IP theft is justified by politics. Property is theft and all that crap was dropped years ago.

socialists think everything should be shared you moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!