news.bbc.co.uk — The BBC has clarified one of its scaremongering 'filsharing = paedophilia' industry shill pieces with a complete 180 reversal and the declaration that filesharing is not theft.The snowflakes are settling in Hell right now.
Mar 1, 2006 View in Crawl 4
dogmatixMar 1, 2006
What does "nuf said" mean?Does it mean "I cannot think of a comprehensible arguement and I'm sure that I'm right (even given the over whelming evidence to the contrary) so please insert the best argument that you can possibly think of here and read it back to yourself. QED."?I thought school yard debate rules where for fifteen year olds: congratulations, one correct letter in six.
djdoleMar 1, 2006
My 2 cents to add to all this flame-fodder:Copyright infringement is just INFRINGING...on...a...COPYRIGHT.Copyright infringement is illegal, but it's not the same as STEALING, and is NOT THEFT.After reading into the RIAA’s bullsh1t, people begin to confuse them.Don't confuse the two.Both are crimes, and both are illegal, but both are not the same.(Is murder the same as assault because they both are crimes against a person? No.)The RIAA & MPAA try to equate the two, to validate their beliefs that they are ENTITLED to your money.If ANYONE is entitled, it’s the artist, but it’s the RECORD LABELS who are pressing for all these RIAA lawsuits.If the courts ever rule that the RIAA/record labels are not entitled to ANY of the profits from all these BS lawsuits, (but that the money from judgments should go directly to the artist), then I’d be willing to bet that we would not see ONE more lawsuit.Now the RIAA now wants personal copies (ripping a CD onto your computer/iPod) for personal use illegal too. They want people to pay for EVERY copy, so they can charge PER LICENSE.Regardless of whether or not the person then SHARES the copies.It's all GREED driven bullshiat.- They aren't trying to protect their client's income, because they’re willing to sue the CONSUMER at the drop of a hat.- The RIAA has shown that it doesn’t care WHO it sues, because they figure the person will rush to settle. (Even if the person never TOUCHED a computer.)- They aren't trying to protect the media, because when cassette tapes, VHS, CDs all came out they tried to snuff the new technology like they tried with Mp3s and digital media providers.- They aren't trying to protect their client’s consumers from bad content (because besides the fact that their artists provide that themselves), DIGITAL media can NEVER replicate analog content 100%. (No matter how small the blocks are, they can't truly fill a spherical container. It can come CLOSE ENOUGH, but never 100%. And so will be slightly degraded quality.)I kinda wish someone would pass a law stating that if a party has EXTREMELY more money than another party, that the first party can’t file a monetary suit against the second. Call it the “Robin-Hood” law.Or at least that in court, neither party should be allowed to spend more money on the case than the opposing party is capable of.Call it the “Give the people a f’in FAIR trial” law.
loftxMar 1, 2006
A few points - The original purpose of Copyright/Patents is to encourage the creation of works which will eventually enter the public domain. A copyright or patent give the creator the right to benefit from their work in this period. It is supposed to benefit the public by ensuring the creation of new works - not allow copyright holders to restrict the distribution of their work and make excess profits (excess due to the fact copyright is a legal monopoly, and the monopoly price is higher than it would cost to 'produce' this content).To those who compare intellectual propety to providing a service - you're missing the point. Unlike a service, once information has been 'created', there are no costs at all to anyone wishing to distribute it. Distribution (i.e licencing) must be controlled by law, or the only content created will be that which is 'donated' to the public (think open source).The legal distribution method used is the monopoly on distribution for a certain amount of time as mentioned above, which works fine until copyright owners abuse this monoply as mentioned above. The law is supposed to be a balance between the creatation of content, and the access to it by the public and the exact balance is endlessly debated. It's worth remembering there are also other methods of fostering content creation - e.g everyone who wants to use it pays a tax like the BBC TV licence and now that the enforcement of the monoploy model is becoming more difficult it might be time to look to a different model of content creation.
skinfitzMar 2, 2006
While the BBC has rolled out some pseudo techy to patronise us by saying 'we were wrong' and 'we only had 4 minutes to make the point', the bulk of the audience will be watching TV and may not have web access. IT is for this reason they should make the points made in the web article on TV on the same show.To complain use the complaints procedure:<a class="user" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints">http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints</a>The program was 'newsnight' and was broadcast on 24th Feb 06
skinfitzMar 2, 2006
Who is talking about copyright infringement? The BBC has said that using BitTorrent is illegal.So when I use BitTorrent to get the latest Fedora Core x ISO I am 'infringing copyright'? I don't think so.
jasqwertyMar 2, 2006
LOL @ djdoleRobin-Hood law? Seems I've been right. You're just a bunch of poor, jealous pricks.Listen, let me step you through your logic behind stealing their music, because they 'mistreat' their artists:Actually buy CD: Give artists $x, x>0 (NO!!!!!)Steal the Music: Give artists $0 (YES!!!!!)Yep, sure seems like you give a f**k about the artists.Also, you agree it's criminal activity, so why do you f**king care how it's prosecuted? Yah, the RIAA owns the IP rights, and thus can control the distribution methods, and they don't want you pirating it with the world, and they have legal recourse to force you to do this. If people actually cared that they couldn't copy their CDs, which they still can, then the RIAA would see an actual market shift. Turns out they aren't, because people don't, only a few agnsty teenagers and socialist leaning techno nerds do.
travelsonicMar 12, 2006
"Interesting article, although technically, copyright infringement is theft whichever way you look at it. Why? Simply because the law says it is illegal."This line of reasoning is really bad, not to mention Orwellian level dangerous. Murder, rape, littering, resisting arrest are all illegal, but they aren't theft either.
adamlivMar 16, 2006
Interesting responses - the most intelligent I've seen. Just to clarify, under British law, the 1968 Theft Act states: "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and ‘theft’ and ‘steal’ shall be construed accordingly."So if you don't intend to permanently deprive someone then it isn't theft, though it may be illegal or actionable under other criminal or civil legislation. That's just a simple statement of law - I'm amazed that this is remotely controversial. (And yes I do have a law degree)BestLord Livingston the pseudo techy ;-)
travelsonicDec 15, 2008
Ok, that made no sense.
travelsonicDec 15, 2008
"Anyone who creates content has a right to expect payment when others want to read, watch or listen to it."No such thing as a right to profit.A right to try and make profit, but no gaurentee.That doesn't change the fact that we are talking legalities, and as suchm, no it is not theft,.
travelsonicDec 15, 2008
Simplicity is for the simple minded.