Online piracy

[sin_x]

no, you are correct. But section 27, under penalties conveniently ignores that sub-section.



So he knows the work infringes, but he imports it only for his own personal or private use. He has no intent to distribute, so he takes advantage of the loophole in the penalties section. Section 27 gives him a loophole to import AS LONG AS IT IS FOR HIS OWN PRIVATE OR DOMESTIC USE. That is the loophole we are talking about. There is no penalty mentioned for such use, EVEN IF HE KNOWS THE WORK TO BE INFRINGING.

Smoke and mirrors, pal.

At the end of the day, you may claim that there is no legal precedent to clearly define piracy as illegal, but that just means that there is also no legal precedent to define it as legal. You are bending the law to suit yourself, and all you are saying is : "I will break the law, until I get caught."

 

[LazyLion]

Smoke and mirrors, pal.

At the end of the day, you may claim that there is no legal precedent to clearly define piracy as illegal, but that just means that there is also no legal precedent to define it as legal. You are bending the law to suit yourself, and all you are saying is : "I will break the law, until I get caught."

so you admit that the law is unclear. Thanks. That is what we have been saying all along.

 

[milomak]

i would just like to add that these industries that suffer at the merciless hand of the pirate continue to report increased profits year after year despite this dastardly scourge.

 

[sin_x]

so you admit that the law is unclear. Thanks. That is what we have been saying all along.

And at the same time, you admit that:

You are bending the law to suit yourself, and all you are saying is : "I will break the law, until I get caught."

You are not a pioneer/revolutionary/freedom fighter. You are exploiting/breaking the law for your own personal gain. The fact that there is a loophole is just a convenient excuse, and as I have stated previously, if that loophole was closed, you would simply find another excuse to justify your behaviour.

Are you willing to go to court to prove your claims?

 

[LazyLion]

And at the same time, you admit that:

You are not a pioneer/revolutionary/freedom fighter. You are exploiting/breaking the law for your own personal gain. The fact that there is a loophole is just a convenient excuse, and as I have stated previously, if that loophole was closed, you would simply find another excuse to justify your behaviour.

Are you willing to go to court to prove your claims?

I admit nothing. You have no idea who I am or what I do in my spare time. I am just an interested legal third party.

The fact that you are willing to label me as something shows me that you have an agenda, and are probably working for one of these organisations that have an interest in changing the law to suit their own financial motives.

I don't claim to be anything other than a poster on a message board. I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone. What are you going to do about it?

 

[sin_x]

I admit nothing. You have no idea who I am or what I do in my spare time. I am just an interested legal third party.

The fact that you are willing to label me as something shows me that you have an agenda, and are probably working for one of these organisations that have an interest in changing the law to suit their own financial motives.

I don't claim to be anything other than a poster on a message board. I don't have to prove anything to you or anyone. What are you going to do about it?

And you know nothing about me. The beauty of the internet.
I'm not going to do anything about it. We have a difference of opinion, so what. I am not trying to change your mind at all, I am simply telling you what my viewpoint is, and you are telling me what yours is. Use it, don't use it.

What I don't understand is why piracy advocates can not just answer simple questions posed to them. There is always a way to deflect attention away from the simple truths, a legal loophole, a bleedin-heart speech about justice and entitlement, a new excuse....

Here is a question for you. Is copyright infringement justifiable (regardless of what the law says)?

 

[LazyLion]

What I don't understand is why piracy advocates can not just answer simple questions posed to them. There is always a way to deflect attention away from the simple truths, a legal loophole, a bleedin-heart speech about justice and entitlement, a new excuse....

They are not just going to agree with you, no matter how much you may want them to. Especially when you have completely failed to prove your point and have misunderstood key issues of legal aspects.

Here is a question for you. Is copyright infringement justifiable (regardless of what the law says)?

Yes, frequently. Best example is when governments of the world ignore copyright laws to produce much needed medicines at a lower price for their citizens. South Africa mulled doing that in the early 2000's with the ARV drugs.

Another example is when the copyright owners lobby the government to extend copyright periods beyond 50 years and 70 years. Some content owners are actually asking their governments to extend copyright to 120 years.... well beyond the death of the content creator.

 

[Juice]

Here is a question for you. Is copyright infringement justifiable (regardless of what the law says)?

Eish, no, don't do that. Justifiable? How many subjective justifications do you want? Piracy advocacy is rich and fertile with subjective justifications. Prices too high. Content starvation. Spurious laws. Poverty. It's free advertising to the copyright holder. Megalithic greedy moneymongering corporate cockroaches. Unfair international media zoning practices.

All of these are perfectly justifying of piracy.

Juice

 

[sin_x]

They are not just going to agree with you, no matter how much you may want them to. Especially when you have completely failed to prove your point and have misunderstood key issues of legal aspects.



Yes, frequently. Best example is when governments of the world ignore copyright laws to produce much needed medicines at a lower price for their citizens. South Africa mulled doing that in the early 2000's with the ARV drugs.

Another example is when the copyright owners lobby the government to extend copyright periods beyond 50 years and 70 years. Some content owners are actually asking their governments to extend copyright to 120 years.... well beyond the death of the content creator.

I have never expected people to simply agree with me. All I expect is rational, logical argument, not deflection and cover-up.

Your examples (and the examples posted by others dealing with apartheid) deal with human rights, and are simply not relevant. Those laws were wrong because people suffered. You and your ilk suggest that music/games/movies copyright is wrong because they can't get free *****. That is a weak argument at best.

Let me simplify the question yet again. Is it right for you to download a copyrighted music album without paying for it? Is it also right for you to then make that download available (share) to other internet or offline users, so that they too can get a copyrighted work without paying for it?

Please see the question in the context of this forum, i.e. Music, games, movies and software piracy, and please give a relevant answer.

 

[LazyLion]

Let me simplify the question yet again. Is it right for you to download a copyrighted music album without paying for it? Is it also right for you to then make that download available (share) to other internet or offline users, so that they too can get a copyrighted work without paying for it?

Please see the question in the context of this forum, i.e. Music, games, movies and software piracy, and please give a relevant answer.

I dunno, I am not a lawyer. What does the law say?

 

[Juice]

Let me simplify the question yet again. Is it right for you to download a copyrighted music album without paying for it? Is it also right for you to then make that download available (share) to other internet or offline users, so that they too can get a copyrighted work without paying for it?

Again, you're asking for subjective answers when you're really looking for a black and white yes or no. Right? By whose judgement? Right and legal are not the same thing and 'right' is mostly left to the judgement of the individual and that's where the wheels come off entirely.

You believe Piracy is wrong, as do I. Others believe that it's not and justifiably so. It's a circumlocutive argument without a happy ending.

Juice

 

[sin_x]

I dunno, I am not a lawyer. What does the law say?

Again, smoke and mirrors.
Typical.

 

[sin_x]

Again, you're asking for subjective answers when you're really looking for a black and white yes or no. Right? By whose judgement? Right and legal are not the same thing and 'right' is mostly left to the judgement of the individual and that's where the wheels come off entirely.

You believe Piracy is wrong, as do I. Others believe that it's not and justifiably so. It's a circumlocutive argument without a happy ending.

Juice

Well, yes. The piracy advocates are very keen to voice their opinions when they don't have to put their name next to it, but when it boils down to yes or no, the silence is deafening.

 

[LazyLion]

Again, smoke and mirrors.
Typical.

Not really. At the end of the day what you and I think is irrelevant. Only what the law says really matters. Sorry, but you will have to grin and bear it.

 

[porchrat]

Of course you get penalised if you board a bus without a ticket and you get caught.

The difference here is that there is a finite number of seats on the bus. If the freeloaders occupy all the seats, the paying customers can't get on and pay the bus fare - and the company loses money. Secondly, it costs money to convey a person. The bus is heavier and requires more fuel and suffers more wear and tear from being used. I just killed your comparison, please admit defeat once and for all.

Hypothetically, if I were to download a Britney Spears MP3 from some warez/mp3z site I would not be stopping a legitimate user from purchasing that song from iTunes or CNA. Secondly, I am not using the company's server and causing an expense, I am using a warez server and Sony BMG - owner of the song - does not spend a cent. You could argue expenses if you hack into iTunes and are able to download music for free - then Apple must pay traffic costs.

I generally don't come here over the weekends so I only caught this response after reading back a little.

Why are you so aggressive about that post?

Did you not read the previous posts about the bus fares??

That post was off topic and was only dealing with what skipping out on a bus fare would actually be classified as legally and whether or not it was criminal or civil. It had nothing to do with the piracy discussion other than someone previously was using it as an analogy and it raised a question about what fare dodging constituted, I was merely trying to help to answer that question.

I greatly anticipate your apology.

 

[sin_x]

Not really. At the end of the day what you and I think is irrelevant. Only what the law says really matters. Sorry, but you will have to grin and bear it.

Yes, I know.
I refuse to grin though.

 

[Juice]

The difference here is that there is a finite number of seats on the bus. If the freeloaders occupy all the seats, the paying customers can't get on and pay the bus fare - and the company loses money. Secondly, it costs money to convey a person. The bus is heavier and requires more fuel and suffers more wear and tear from being used. I just killed your comparison, please admit defeat once and for all.

Sorry, but I'm keen on round 2. I think this analogy has some legs. As mentioned in another post, the industry in its current form can still afford piracy. The free advertising and freeloading is still adequately balanced by actual sales. But there IS a 'finite number of seats'. At some point, it is theoretically possible that the number of people freeloading will exceed what the market can support 'and the company loses money'. Just like the bus company.

Hey, don't blame me. You filled every seat on that bus with freeloaders.

Juice

 

[LazyLion]

Sorry, but I'm keen on round 2. I think this analogy has some legs. As mentioned in another post, the industry in its current form can still afford piracy. The free advertising and freeloading is still adequately balanced by actual sales. But there IS a 'finite number of seats'. At some point, it is theoretically possible that the number of people freeloading will exceed what the market can support 'and the company loses money'. Just like the bus company.

I doubt that will ever happen. The same thing is happening right now with the newspaper industry, and while some still want to cling on to an archaic method of pay and distribution, the majority of modern newspapers are adapting to the internet culture and making money through advertising, reward programs and premium content.

The same thing will happen to the movie and music industry, it will have to adapt to the nature of the internet. That doesn't mean everything will have to become free and ad-supported, but it does mean that distribution models and pricing structures will have to change to accommodate the nature of the internet.

My guess is some sort of content purchase system whereby I buy unlimited access to a particular distributor for a month or a year at a time. Let's say I buy access to the ABC network for $10 a month. That covers me watching Lost and Extreme Home Makeover for the month. It is cheap enough that they don't have to worry about piracy and I get instant fast downloads of high quality or Hi-Def encoded content.

Or Facebook in 2020 begins selling subscriptions to all the American networks for $100 a year. Then I can watch and videos through FB as much as I want.

Common sense really.

 

[Juice]

I doubt that will ever happen. The same thing is happening right now with the newspaper industry, and while some still want to cling on to an archaic method of pay and distribution, the majority of modern newspapers are adapting to the internet culture and making money through advertising, reward programs and premium content.

Then there is that Rupert Murdoch guy who thinks that you should pay for your news on-line, just as you do for your newspaper because the internet model in its current form just isn't making enough money.

Still, all of this is admittedly theoretical and I don't think there's much proof either way. I doubt that piracy will ever gain that much weight to tip the scales into anarchy since you will always have people who will want to do the right thing as it is judged by them; however, as the battle heats up, you can expect that the industry will simply pass the costs of their losses on to their legitimate, paying customers and there are no doubt going to be a whole bunch of people in the middle with slightly more negotiable morals who will slip over to the dark side of the scale.

Juice

 

[sin_x]

I doubt that will ever happen. The same thing is happening right now with the newspaper industry, and while some still want to cling on to an archaic method of pay and distribution, the majority of modern newspapers are adapting to the internet culture and making money through advertising, reward programs and premium content.

The same thing will happen to the movie and music industry, it will have to adapt to the nature of the internet. That doesn't mean everything will have to become free and ad-supported, but it does mean that distribution models and pricing structures will have to change to accommodate the nature of the internet.

My guess is some sort of content purchase system whereby I buy unlimited access to a particular distributor for a month or a year at a time. Let's say I buy access to the ABC network for $10 a month. That covers me watching Lost and Extreme Home Makeover for the month. It is cheap enough that they don't have to worry about piracy and I get instant fast downloads of high quality or Hi-Def encoded content.

Or Facebook in 2020 begins selling subscriptions to all the American networks for $100 a year. Then I can watch and videos through FB as much as I want.

Common sense really.

And until those damn distributors wake up to my way of thinking, I am free to rape and pillage to my hearts content. They are asking for it afterall. I am a crusader, and it is my mission in life to point out their wrongs.

Viva!