UK's Terrifying Anti-Piracy Plans Leak

[Hefemeister]

oh I can assign a number to it. Pull up my accounting software, get my net worth and there you go.

I am referring to copyrighted materials. Most of this type of information would be copied from a companies database. Intellectual Property Office - Database right

My wife is a photographer. She has a customer that copies a picture she took, and sends it to all of their friends. My wife still has the picture. The customer should have paid her for copies of the picture to send to friends but did not.

Your point is it is not "stealing" (as defined) which is correct. Oxford v. Moss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is that it is illegal.

 

[Apokalipse]

oh I can assign a number to it. Pull up my accounting software, get my net worth and there you go.

Your money has a monetary value. Your information that allows others to access it doesn't, but is guarded to prevent people from stealing your money (i.e. removing it from your posession)

I am referring to copyrighted materials. Most of this type of information would be copied from a companies database. Intellectual Property Office - Database right

I think the term "intellectual property " is intellectually dishonest.

My wife is a photographer. She has a customer that copies a picture she took, and sends it to all of their friends. My wife still has the picture. The customer should have paid her for copies of the picture to send to friends but did not.

Your wife should be paid for the time and effort used to take the picture, and material costs involved. The information itself is a different story.

Your point is it is not "stealing" (as defined) which is correct. Oxford v. Moss - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My point is that it is illegal.

Of course it's illegal. That doesn't mean arguments against copying information such as media and software are valid.

 

[Hefemeister]

Of course it's illegal.

Thank You.

 

[Apokalipse]

Thank You.

That's all you were arguing?
It rather besides the point against the arguments I've made.

 

[Hefemeister]

Yes. I just want to make it very clear to readers of this thread while it may not technically be stealing it is illegal.

Once we determine that fact we are indeed on a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line. Which illegal activities are ok? Jaywalking? Speeding? Drink Driving? Murder?

Yes all laws should be questioned as to their validity. But the fact is at this time it is illegal. It is a personal decision if someone wants to break a law and they can justify it anyway they wish as long as the understand that it is illegal and there can be repercussion from breaking the law.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

lol, wow this went on pretty far

As stated by Apok, this is thrown around so often.... You cannot predict the future, you have no idea if i would have purchased it or not.

To clarify, I'm not saying if you pirated it that it was guaranteed you'd have bought it if piracy wasn't an option.
The fact is you DID get a copy. And where they would have gotten payment they have nothing. In other words, potential loss.

And many people use the "well I wouldn't have bought it anyway so the company didn't lose anything" argument as justification for pirating the software. Honestly, anyone can see that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[kmote]

Your use of 'value' in this context is ambiguous; it has two separate, irreconcilable meanings.

It has a value to people which isn't the same as monetary value.

Nope, replace 'value' with 'monetary value' if you wish. Even so "irreconcilable meanings" would be going too far, if you cannot ascribe a monetary value to a non-monetary value you wouldn't know what anything was worth.

Let me give you an example:
There are two hotels one is a five-star and the other a one-star. You have noticed that each has 60 rooms and only 10 are filled. Clearly the five-star is preferable so you sneak in, steal a key for a room and stay for the week. During your stay you don't increase the running costs of the hotel and you aren't preventing paying customers from staying because the hotel doesn't get even close to full capacity. Why shouldn't that be free? It shouldn't be free because the hotel's product is allowing you to sleep comfortably and by using, but not paying for it, you are de-valuing the product.

 

[Apokalipse]

Once we determine that fact we are indeed on a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line. Which illegal activities are ok? Jaywalking? Speeding? Drink Driving? Murder?

In general, laws should be made to give everybody as much freedom as possible, while only utilising as much control as is necessary.

Yes all laws should be questioned as to their validity. But the fact is at this time it is illegal.

If something is illegal but it doesn't make sense to be so, people should take exception to it.

And where they would have gotten payment they have nothing.

They might not have gotten payment anyway.
Also, like I said before, I think it's a problem that normal people don't get a say in what terms and conditions are applied to media and software - including cost.
And therefore our only option is to cave entirely to the control of the glorified middlemen, or to copy it on our own terms.
Unless the system changes to something that actually makes sense, those are the two options.

Nope, replace 'value' with 'monetary value' if you wish. Even so "irreconcilable meanings" would be going too far, if you cannot ascribe a monetary value to a non-monetary value you wouldn't know what anything was worth.

Monetary value is arbitrarily assigned. But I would suggest that money is not always a valid measurement of value.
For example, the life of a person. do you really think a sum of money is in any way equivalent to the life of a person?

 

[aeroplane22]

As with most piracy arguments, the root issue is long forgotten. We're supposed to be concerned with the rather insane precedence these "laws" and "powers" will set for the population. We can bicker amongst one another forever regarding whether pirating is right or wrong, that doesn't matter. What matters is that we have some (obviously) corrupt individuals receiving some rather powerful laws, that will ultimately trump the justice system.

Let's not forget, they don't really care about music, movies or software. They're in it for the power and the backdoor laws that will let them spy on everyone in the name of "anti-piracy". Every time someone wants to pass a law literally saying: "Let us spy on you for national security.", people question and berate it. Now that "piracy" is involved, no one has a say in anything, and it will just be passed.. if not now, it will eventually.

This is so much more than "intellectual property" preservation, it always has been and always will be. There are many interested parties that want control of the internet, literally, complete control. Taxation, enforcement, etc.

This should be called the "anti-privacy" movement, not anti-piracy.

Just check out Rupert Murdoch's view on free-internet, media and intellectual property and you'll begin to have a greater understanding.

 

[Trotter]

Intellectual property rights don't mean anything if it pertains to what someone wants. However, these same people would raise a hue and cry should their intellectual property be violated... such as a game they develop.

Is it stealing? Yes, even though nothing physical has changed hands. In rape nothing changes hands, it is just an action... and it is wrong on so many levels and illegal. Slander is just words... but it is illegal and will send you to jail. Just because something physical and tangible is not involved does not change the fact that acquiring something that has a cost in a means that circumvents this is still stealing.

The old "1's and 0's" argument means nothing. It is the equivalent of me shooting someone in the head and claiming that I only shot a bunch of carbon and water. in neither case does reducing the subject to the abstract carry any weight. Trying to get all philosophical only works with those of like minds who want to be able to justify stealing someone else's intellectual property, be it a game or a song.

Copyrights, while pushed tot he absurd in some case (iBS, anyone?), exist for a very good reason: to protect that which someone creates. It doesn't matter what the copyright or patent in on except in the case of the ridiculous, like trying to copyright the sandwich or some other idiocy.

Basically, downloading a game or song that has not been freely distributed by the author/owner is illegal. whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, it doesn't matter.

The topic is on possible plans in the UK to prosecute those who are breaking the law. The way it is done may be out of line, but the intent is correct. It is no different that giving a speeder a ticket, or prosecuting a burglar or murderer. If the laws of the land are being broken then the perpetrator should stand for what he has done. Whether you agree with the said laws doesn't mean jack.