Continuation

[Disconsented]

Quote:

Technically you can get done for using a private service, the hard part is proving beyond reasonable doubt if it is considered a criminal offense or on the balance of probabilities if it is civil but this can be overcome (unlikely) by using a proxy or similar so they have no proof that said user was in fact using the server.

The point of that was to make a distinction on what level of proof is needed to be able to convict somebody of the offense in question.


I purposely missed out on lots of distinction between criminal and civil law because the point of the statement was to distinguish what level of evidence was needed.

Quote:

Yes, you missed some very important parts in the distinction between a criminal law case about loss versus a civil law case about IP production restriction, but that's a discussion for tech-talk.

[The Last Rydian]

Er, my point for you making this thread was that you said piracy is theft.

[Disconsented]

The Last Rydian

Er, my point for you making this thread was that you said piracy is theft.

Oh right, I said that because I was unsure of 29582351c3 legal knowledge and then continued say that it would be if there was no copyright infringement defined as an offense.

[psychic stalker]

Disconsented

The Last Rydian

Er, my point for you making this thread was that you said piracy is theft.

Oh right, I said that because I was unsure of 29582351c3 legal knowledge and then continued say that it would be if there was no copyright infringement defined as an offense.

That is the least coherent string of words I've seen all week.

[Disconsented]

psychic stalker

Disconsented

The Last Rydian

Er, my point for you making this thread was that you said piracy is theft.

Oh right, I said that because I was unsure of 29582351c3 legal knowledge and then continued say that it would be if there was no copyright infringement defined as an offense.

That is the least coherent string of words I've seen all week.

Again?

Unsure of 29582351c3 legal's knowledge - If copyright infringement isn't defined then it would = theft

Rather vague but do you get it now?

[psychic stalker]

Disconsented

psychic stalker

Disconsented

The Last Rydian

Er, my point for you making this thread was that you said piracy is theft.

Oh right, I said that because I was unsure of 29582351c3 legal knowledge and then continued say that it would be if there was no copyright infringement defined as an offense.

That is the least coherent string of words I've seen all week.

Again?

Unsure of 29582351c3 legal's knowledge - If copyright infringement isn't defined then it would = theft

Rather vague but do you get it now?

Vague isn't the right word.

Badly mistaken is closer.

Copyright is the right of control for the Copyright holder over copies. Therefore, Copyright infringement is the production of disallowed copies. Even if you ignore that definition of Copyright infringement, your use of the word "Copyright" still means something very different from theft.

The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use. The legal definition of theft makes no room for illicitly copying Copyrighted works.

Even if we ignore all of the legal definitions, the intuitive definition of theft is "taking something that doesn't belong to you to deprive them of it." That is, when something is stolen, you don't have it any more.

But when you make a copy of something, the only thing that you've done is increase the supply of a good. The intention of Copyright is to constrain the supply so that the original author has a monopoly on that supply. The authors are the only ones that are permitted to make copies, and so they are the only ones permitted to profit form the first sale.

Theft would be removing copies from the supply for your own profit. Copyright infringement is adding copies to the supply, presumably for your own profit. (Copyright assumes that the motivation for copying is to profit from it. Fair Use exceptions are recognition that there are valid reasons to copy without profiting from them.)

[Disconsented]

We are working off two different meanings of theft here, I am going to go with the one I have heard used by a district court judge during a police report.
Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent
Property can be tangible or intangible, in this case intellectual.

The act is taking,
The intention is knowing what you are taking,
It is prohibited by and amendment within the crimes act. (Not entirely sure where)

That would be theft only if copyright infringement wasn't a criminal offense.

So the case is probably, one of us has missed something, in which case it is usually me or the difference in international law is great enough for this to be happening.

[psychic stalker]

Disconsented

We are working off two different meanings of theft here, I am going to go with the one I have heard used by a district court judge during a police report.
Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent
Property can be tangible or intangible, in this case intellectual.

Which changes nothing. Taking something means removing it from the supply, from its proper owner.

It is not possible to "take" intellectual property unless you remove someone's brain matter, or deprive them of their monopoly right.

Disconsented

The act is taking,
The intention is knowing what you are taking,
It is prohibited by and amendment within the crimes act. (Not entirely sure where)

In the United States, it's prohibited at the state level. Each state has its own statutes forbidding theft. The Codes of Federal Regulations include only a provision that forbids theft of government property.

Copyright is primarily a set of Federal rules, and secondarily of the States.

I don't know where you live, so I can't comment on this so-called "crimes act." (Particularly since it is not relevant to discussions on Gaia, which are covered by US Federal and California State laws.)

Disconsented

That would be theft only if copyright infringement wasn't a criminal offense.

It isn't. It's a Tort Law, not Criminal Law. That is, it's a civil offense, not a criminal one.

It becomes a criminal offense only when the motivation is to sell the illicit copies or, under the Stop Online Piracy Act (or its sibling, PROTECT IP), a felony to stream or make available. Since that bill has not passed yet, it is not a crime to do any of those things. It is a crime only to produce and disseminate forgeries of US Government symbols or seals, or to produce or sell software or devices that can circumvent Copyright protections. It can also be a crime to sell copies of Copyrighted works, given enough volume.

But it is not a crime to merely infringe. It never was.

You can get the pants sued off of you, but you can't go to prison for it. (Yet.)

Disconsented

So the case is probably, one of us has missed something, in which case it is usually me or the difference in international law is great enough for this to be happening.

No, the case seems to be that you don't understand Copyright law. (And not very many people do.)

[Disconsented]

psychic stalker

Disconsented

We are working off two different meanings of theft here, I am going to go with the one I have heard used by a district court judge during a police report.
Theft is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent
Property can be tangible or intangible, in this case intellectual.

Which changes nothing. Taking something means removing it from the supply, from its proper owner.

It is not possible to "take" intellectual property unless you remove someone's brain matter, or deprive them of their monopoly right.

Disconsented

The act is taking,
The intention is knowing what you are taking,
It is prohibited by and amendment within the crimes act. (Not entirely sure where)

In the United States, it's prohibited at the state level. Each state has its own statutes forbidding theft. The Codes of Federal Regulations include only a provision that forbids theft of government property.

Copyright is primarily a set of Federal rules, and secondarily of the States.

I don't know where you live, so I can't comment on this so-called "crimes act." (Particularly since it is not relevant to discussions on Gaia, which are covered by US Federal and California State laws.)

Disconsented

That would be theft only if copyright infringement wasn't a criminal offense.

It isn't. It's a Tort Law, not Criminal Law. That is, it's a civil offense, not a criminal one.

It becomes a criminal offense only when the motivation is to sell the illicit copies or, under the Stop Online Piracy Act (or its sibling, PROTECT IP), a felony to stream or make available. Since that bill has not passed yet, it is not a crime to do any of those things. It is a crime only to produce and disseminate forgeries of US Government symbols or seals, or to produce or sell software or devices that can circumvent Copyright protections. It can also be a crime to sell copies of Copyrighted works, given enough volume.

But it is not a crime to merely infringe. It never was.

You can get the pants sued off of you, but you can't go to prison for it. (Yet.)

Disconsented

So the case is probably, one of us has missed something, in which case it is usually me or the difference in international law is great enough for this to be happening.

No, the case seems to be that you don't understand Copyright law. (And not very many people do.)

New Zealand by the way.

Take:
To gain possession of (something) by force or effort

Here it has become an criminal offense, (as of October I believe). Previously it wasn't illegal but nor was it legal.

So, by judging by what you have said, it appears the difference in law is great enough, I have also not heard the term "tort" law.

[psychic stalker]

Disconsented

New Zealand by the way.

You guys have the most ******** up Copyright laws anywhere. The recording and movie industries have been using you to pilot-test several very bad laws, including disconnection and a few other penalties for infringement.

You are a unique case in that no other country has similar penalties for Copyright infringement.

Disconsented

Take:
To gain possession of (something) by force or effort

Here it has become an criminal offense, (as of October I believe). Previously it wasn't illegal but nor was it legal.

I don't understand why you're hanging on to this. It's still a very different concept from Copyright.

Disconsented

So, by judging by what you have said, it appears the difference in law is great enough, I have also not heard the term "tort" law.

Tort laws are laws that apply between persons. They differ from Criminal law in that crimes are prosecuted by the Government while Tort is prosecuted by citizens.

Tort is a breach of duty to another person. Crime is a breach of duty against society in general.

[Disconsented]

psychic stalker

Disconsented

New Zealand by the way.

You guys have the most ******** up Copyright laws anywhere. The recording and movie industries have been using you to pilot-test several very bad laws, including disconnection and a few other penalties for infringement.

You are a unique case in that no other country has similar penalties for Copyright infringement.

Disconsented

Take:
To gain possession of (something) by force or effort

Here it has become an criminal offense, (as of October I believe). Previously it wasn't illegal but nor was it legal.

I don't understand why you're hanging on to this. It's still a very different concept from Copyright.

Disconsented

So, by judging by what you have said, it appears the difference in law is great enough, I have also not heard the term "tort" law.

Tort laws are laws that apply between persons. They differ from Criminal law in that crimes are prosecuted by the Government while Tort is prosecuted by citizens.

Tort is a breach of duty to another person. Crime is a breach of duty against society in general.

So Tort is an omission of duty then?

[psychic stalker]

Disconsented

psychic stalker

Disconsented

New Zealand by the way.

You guys have the most ******** up Copyright laws anywhere. The recording and movie industries have been using you to pilot-test several very bad laws, including disconnection and a few other penalties for infringement.

You are a unique case in that no other country has similar penalties for Copyright infringement.

Disconsented

Take:
To gain possession of (something) by force or effort

Here it has become an criminal offense, (as of October I believe). Previously it wasn't illegal but nor was it legal.

I don't understand why you're hanging on to this. It's still a very different concept from Copyright.

Disconsented

So, by judging by what you have said, it appears the difference in law is great enough, I have also not heard the term "tort" law.

Tort laws are laws that apply between persons. They differ from Criminal law in that crimes are prosecuted by the Government while Tort is prosecuted by citizens.

Tort is a breach of duty to another person. Crime is a breach of duty against society in general.

So Tort is an omission of duty then?

It's a breach of duty to a person. An act that causes personal injury.

Things like auto accidents, false imprisonment, defamation, product liability (for defective consumer products), copyright infringement, and environmental pollution, among other things. Things that you sue somebody over.

There's a whole goddamn wikipedia entry on it. I'm not going to waste my time explaining something you could just as easily look up your own goddamn self.