This is topic jailed for filming in cinema in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007048
Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-22-2014, 12:00 PM:
News from BBC....A 25yr old man has been jailed for 33months after recording Fast & Furious 6...from the back of a Walsall cinema uploaded it and now it has been downloaded 700,000 times.
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 08-22-2014, 12:03 PM:
Good. Theft is theft and people need to stop treating piracy like it's OK because a movie isn't a physical object.
Posted by Alan Plester (Member # 852) on 08-22-2014, 12:41 PM:
Agree with that!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-24-2014, 05:43 AM:
Not that I endorse copyright infringement in any way, but copyright infringement is NOT theft.
Theft is when you take something away and deprive the owner of that what you've taken. Copyright infringement is making copies without permission from the owner of the rights to the thing you're making copies of. You're not taking the original away from the owner.
You might deprive revenue from the copyright owner, but the exact amount of revenue being deprived here is always hard to figure out. If a certain file was copied 700.000 times, it's not like the actual damage is as simple as 700.000*the original price, because a lot of people that downloaded the thing wouldn't have paid for it any other way.
The reason for the rather high jail sentence here probably was due to the fact that the defendant blatantly continued his activities while he was in court. I guess that didn't really count as mitigating circumstances.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-24-2014, 12:07 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
but copyright infringement is NOT theft.
Does it really matter if it is theft or not? The guy was caught.
I don't think you really know how to interpret if it was theft or not.
Anyways, in my area, it is a criminal offense to operate a recording device in a movie theater. Note, it is purposely written as "recording device" because soundtracks are protected too. Whether or not I record a film/soundtrack and then distribute it is irrelevant as it is a criminal offense to operate such device in a movie theater.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-24-2014, 12:21 PM:
"Without the permission of the manager". You can still operate a recording device in a theatre with permission. Otherwise, the folks who made a little documentary about my theatre when I first got my digital cinema setup would have been committing an offence. (I did request that they not record content off of the screen.)
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-24-2014, 12:58 PM:
Yah, but they still haven't thrown anyone one in jail on the production side for the uploading of the PRISTINE copy (not a camcorder copy) of THE EXPENDABLES yet, have they? Just another instance of big guys get treated differently than the schmuck on the street. The petty thief who gets caught grabbing a soda at at the neighborhood bodaga gets 6 months, but the mortgage traders at Goldman Sacks who bilked hundreds of millions out of home-owner's pockets and caused an economic crash, not a single one has gone to jail.
And I'll bet they made a huge deal about this bust of PIRACY IN A MOVIE THEATRE. Funny how you never see big headline stories about piracy at the movie production houses or the studio insiders and their Academy Screener DVDs that seem to so easily get away from them in the blink of an eye. I guess "Piracy is not a victimless crime" only when it's done in cinemas but not when it happens in studios' post production houses or by Academy members.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-24-2014, 04:45 PM:
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Does it really matter if it is theft or not?
Yes it does. If you care about the law, it's also important to know what the law is. If that's not important anymore, we're in banana republic territories.
It seems the content industry did a great job at their propaganda here.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Anyways, in my area, it is a criminal offense to operate a recording device in a movie theater.
Sounds like a place to stay away from. Around here, it's not a criminal offense to operate a recording device in any theater. I actually doubt it is in your area too. It seems the propaganda worked quite well here too.
Using a "recording device" will probably be against theater regulations. Most (all?) studio contracts also state explicitly that you MUST HAVE those kind of regulations to be eligible to play their content. So, the theater management can tell you to shut off your "recording devices" and get the fuck out.
Around here, it's actually even not a crime to record the movie and use it for private purposes, that's still all within "fair use" for personal and educational purposes. It is a criminal offense to publicly share those recordings though.
quote: Frank Angel
Yah, but they still haven't thrown anyone one in jail on the production side for the uploading of the PRISTINE copy (not a camcorder copy) of THE EXPENDABLES yet, have they? Just another instance of big guys get treated differently than the schmuck on the street.
It's pretty amazing how time and time again something like this happens. I'm pretty convinced that leaking a "pristine" version can seriously hurt your sales. But besides that, anybody that watches a crappy "CAM" or how those things are called, cannot be seriously considered a customer anyway.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-24-2014, 11:28 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
copyright infringement is NOT theft.
Theft is when you take something away and deprive the owner of that what you've taken. Copyright infringement is making copies without permission from the owner of the rights to the thing you're making copies of. You're not taking the original away from the owner.
People often float the "excuse" that "they weren't going to buy tickets anyway so what's the harm?" The harm is, the pirate is taking the VALUE of the property. He is having the experience of the copyrighted property without paying for it. Let's say there is an outdoor rock concert and I sneak over the fence and stand just outside the paid area and listen to the music, I'm stealing that ticket money from the performers because I'm experiencing the concert ... even if I never intended to buy a ticket in the first place, I'm not taking any tangible property, but I'm still getting what the ticket offered.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-25-2014, 12:17 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
But besides that, anybody that watches a crappy "CAM" or how those things are called, cannot be seriously considered a customer anyway.
Agreed. These people would not have been prepared to buy a theater ticket if they hadn't been able to see the illegal copy.
According to various news sites that have covered this story, he was trying to sell copies of the file for £1.50 a download, which I suspect explains why he was jailed. Pirating a movie for personal financial gain is IMHO an order of magnitude more serious an offense than doing so for other reasons, however misguided.
It reminds me of the story a year or two ago about the student from Sheffield who was pursued by the law, because he ran a site with direct links to pirate download files of popular movies, albums and so on. Certain elements of the press fulminated with outrage about how his didn't actually pirate the stuff himself, his crimes were victimless, etc. Very little of the coverage mentioned the MPAA's allegation that he'd made a six-figure sum in banner ad revenue from this site, which of course he couldn't have done if it didn't have those links on it. Encouraging people to download pirate movies is one thing, but making serious money out of doing so elevates the crime to a much higher level in my view. It's the same principle whereby murder is considered a more serious crime than manslaughter: the effect on the victim is the same, but the intent (or not) of the offender is a determining factor in the sentence.
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 08-25-2014, 12:29 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Around here, it's not a criminal offense to operate a recording device in any theater. I actually doubt it is in your area too.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)
quote:
Assented to 2007-06-22
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)
SUMMARY
This enactment amends the Criminal Code to prohibit the unauthorized recording of a movie in a movie theatre (camcording).
R.S., c. C-46
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after section 431.2:
Marginal note:Unauthorized recording of a movie
432. (1) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Unauthorized recording for purpose of sale, etc.
(2) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack for the purpose of the sale, rental or other commercial distribution of a copy of the cinematographic work
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Marginal note:Forfeiture
(3) In addition to any punishment that is imposed on a person who is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may order that anything that is used in the commission of the offence be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings are taken. Anything that is forfeited may be disposed of as the Attorney General directs.
Marginal note:Forfeiture — limitation
(4) No order may be made under subsection (3) in respect of anything that is the property of a person who is not a party to the offence.
Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 08-25-2014, 02:38 AM:
It's always fascinating to read posts from people who find creative ways to rationalize downloading and consuming the product of other people's efforts.
I suspect their attitude would be much different, were they themselves the producers of said content.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-25-2014, 05:23 AM:
quote: Leo Enticknap
According to various news sites that have covered this story, he was trying to sell copies of the file for £1.50 a download, which I suspect explains why he was jailed. Pirating a movie for personal financial gain is IMHO an order of magnitude more serious an offense than doing so for other reasons, however misguided.
Selling pirated goods is indeed most definitely more serious than just sharing it amongst your friends. While the first could still be considered "fair use", the latter is more than just a petty crime.
The same goes for sharing it on big-time file sharing fora in a more or less professional way, even if there is no direct financial gain involved.
I'm still wondering why someone would actually do this, if there's no direct financial gain and the potential consequences are dire...
quote: Mike Blakesley
People often float the "excuse" that "they weren't going to buy tickets anyway so what's the harm?" The harm is, the pirate is taking the VALUE of the property. He is having the experience of the copyrighted property without paying for it. Let's say there is an outdoor rock concert and I sneak over the fence and stand just outside the paid area and listen to the music, I'm stealing that ticket money from the performers because I'm experiencing the concert ... even if I never intended to buy a ticket in the first place, I'm not taking any tangible property, but I'm still getting what the ticket offered.
No, you're not stealing, you're depriving them of that money. Stealing would be taking money out of the box office when they're not looking.
Please note, I'm not trying to condone piracy here in any way. Actually, I've even made critical comments regarding copyright infringements on this very forum. (Like quoting an article in full or posting links to "illegal" downloads.)
What I do want to stress is that this fight against "cams" or content recorded in some cinema is a useless fight. There will always be a theater were somebody manages to sneak in a "recording device" and it will find its way on-line. Yet, I doubt that those "cams" hurt the bottom line very much, because those people that watch this stuff, will not spend a single dollar on the real thing anyway.
The same goes for the people that watch a concert by sneaking in outside the paid area. They're not getting the full experience anyway. So you could go to all possible lengths and try to avoid those cheap bastards, but in the end it will not sell an extra ticket anyway.
Then again, I'm convinced that a premature DVD or even Blu-Ray quality leak can quite seriously hurt sales, especially for movies that aren't that highly anticipated. People downloading this content, get the "full product", without paying a dime.
quote: Frank Cox
An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie)
Yeah, your majesty doesn't allow you to record "performance of a cinematographic work" in a movie theater. But, like you put it yourself, filming in the theater itself is NOT prohibited by law. I then add to the fact that even filming said "performance of a cinematographic work" is not automatically a criminal act around HERE, which is not ruled by your majesty, we've got our own...
quote: Jack Ondracek
It's always fascinating to read posts from people who find creative ways to rationalize downloading and consuming the product of other people's efforts.
I suspect their attitude would be much different, were they themselves the producers of said content.
Who in this thread is actually rationalizing "downloading and consuming the product of other people's efforts"?
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2014, 09:12 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
No, you're not stealing, you're depriving them of that money.
Like I said, you not stealing something you can hold in your hand, but you ARE stealing the EXPERIENCE. It's intangible, but it's still something that legitimate customers are paying for.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-25-2014, 09:28 AM:
So, if I buy a ticket...get in...and then I sneak into the boxoffice and take the money back...that would be stealing though the final outcome is identical (presuming I stand in the same place either time)...or does the threshold of "stealing" come in if they count the money before I take it back? That is, if they "know" how much money they have first?
It is STEALING in all examples...it was not your concert/performance/whatever to experience, listen to, watch...whatever you want to call it. Your willingness to ever pay is not relevant, it wasn't yours to make the judgement on in the first place. Your choices are to either purchase the limited license to use the performance as per the license or to forgo it in your life.
Recording the performance is even worse because one is then copying the work and now controlling a product they do not own. Showing it to one's friends is now giving that product away and devaluing it for everyone. Selling it, takes it another step further by showing it has value but likely devaluing it by providing a cheaper alternative to the genuine article as well as depriving the copyright holder any value from their product.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-25-2014, 09:51 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Like I said, you not stealing something you can hold in your hand, but you ARE stealing the EXPERIENCE. It's intangible, but it's still something that legitimate customers are paying for.
While you probably can, legally, steal something that's intangible, I doubt you can, in the sense of the law, really steal an experience. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote: Steve Guttag
So, if I buy a ticket...get in...and then I sneak into the boxoffice and take the money back...that would be stealing though the final outcome is identical (presuming I stand in the same place either time)...or does the threshold of "stealing" come in if they count the money before I take it back? That is, if they "know" how much money they have first?
That's stealing in the sense of the law. It doesn't even really matter if you take exactly the amount you paid, less or more. Furthermore, you wouldn't be in the theater without buying that ticket and if you were, you were trespassing and not stealing.
quote: Steve Guttag
Recording the performance is even worse because one is then copying the work and now controlling a product they do not own. Showing it to one's friends is now giving that product away and devaluing it for everyone. Selling it, takes it another step further by showing it has value but likely devaluing it by providing a cheaper alternative to the genuine article as well as depriving the copyright holder any value from their product.
It's not that I do not agree with you that copyright infringement, especially the blatant cases should be punishable. But according to logic and the law, it's not stealing... It's potentially depriving others of income. There are other ways to do that too, some are considered legal, like competition for example.
A lot of people regularly copy and paste whole stories from other sources on this forum, according to your theories, they're all naughty thieves. I would watch out for black vans and people wearing sunglasses on cloudy afternoons.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-25-2014, 12:31 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
I'm still wondering why someone would actually do this, if there's no direct financial gain and the potential consequences are dire..
I'd really have to get into politics to explore that one, but Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture will give you the chapter and verse on what motivates people who believe that current copyright law is fundamentally wrong, that it has "mission crept" egregiously from the original concept of the Statute of Anne and Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution (between them, the first modern articulations of what copyright should be and why it is needed), and that it now goes way beyond the intention of those laws, which was to protect the legitimate investment of the creators of intellectual property.
Lessig and his supporters basically argue that civil disobedience towards modern IP law is a justified and necessary way to campaign to restore sanity, and that therefore putting movies on file sharing sites (for example) is morally justified. I'm not saying that I agree with this, but simply stating my understanding of what their point of view is.
For the counterargument, Andrew Keen's The Cult of the Amateur is a very good read.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2014, 01:26 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
A lot of people regularly copy and paste whole stories from other sources on this forum, according to your theories, they're all naughty thieves.
A lot of websites allow you to paste their content as long as it's attributed properly. I think Brad would be fine with just pasting the link to an article, except that a newspaper or magazine article will usually go "dead" after a short time, losing the information and ruining the continuity of the topic.
I also am sure that if any content owner had a problem with something posted here, Brad would take it down without a hassle if asked -- as opposed to making a billion copies and forwarding it all over the world.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-25-2014, 01:30 PM:
Copying and pasting a news story specifically is covered by the "fair use" (US) or "fair dealing" (UK) provisions in copyright law. I couldn't quote you the chapter and verse of the American law, but in the UK it's in Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That's why there are so many sites out there that simply copy and paste material from news agency sites, adding their own banner ads, etc. Once a news story, clearly published as such, is on a page on the public Internet, you can copy and paste it - as long as you are doing so for the purpose of reporting or discussing the story, and you properly attribute the source - however you like.
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 08-25-2014, 01:38 PM:
It is proper practice on this site to post the link AND the text of the story...doing so ensure that the the link can go dead as well as providing the source for the information. It covers all bases.
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 08-25-2014, 02:09 PM:
Afterthought: without wanting to get too political, allowing the right to copy news stories without restriction in copyright law is actually a very important safeguard, even if it is abused by some "regurgitation" sites just to generate banner ad revenue. It prevents the suppression/censorship of news stories, "burying bad news", etc. In short, it would have stopped Winston Smith in 1984 from doing his job!
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-25-2014, 04:34 PM:
I think I got my point across, and sorry for being a bit of a dick, but my whole point is/was: Copyright is a very complicated thing. The guy from the news story is a clear cut example of copyright infringement combined with either brain damage or an overdose of narcissism (or both). Everybody knew what he was doing, was against the law and rightfully so. But there are many cases where it's not as clearly cut. And therefore, copyright infringement isn't the same as stealing. It's covered by entirely different laws, actually quite recent laws mostly, since this is a problem that mostly manifested itself in the last century and got enormous momentum in the digital age and the advent of the Internet.
Copyright is a difficult balance between the rights of the content creators, the distributors and the public at large.
quote: Leo Enticknap
Copying and pasting a news story specifically is covered by the "fair use" (US) or "fair dealing" (UK) provisions in copyright law. I couldn't quote you the chapter and verse of the American law, but in the UK it's in Section 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. That's why there are so many sites out there that simply copy and paste material from news agency sites, adding their own banner ads, etc. Once a news story, clearly published as such, is on a page on the public Internet, you can copy and paste it - as long as you are doing so for the purpose of reporting or discussing the story, and you properly attribute the source - however you like
Different jurisdictions, different laws, different interpretations... Actually, the current situation in the U.S. seem to be vague at best:
quote:
Question: Can I copy an entire news article from a commercial news web site and post the article on my web site?
Answer: The fair use doctrine, as currently interpreted by the courts, probably would not entitle you to do so. Even though news items are factual and facts themselves are not protected by copyright, an entire news article itself is expression protected by copyright.
Google actually got their ass handed to them over this in both France and Belgium. In the Netherlands for example, copying a news article in verbatim, even when quoting the original source, is considered copyright infringement (unless it's being used for private or educational use, which would, again, be covered by fair use...). You are allowed to quote parts of the article and you're allowed to use the facts stated within it. As far as I understood it, this also seems to be best practice for most of the rest of the world where copyright matters at least a bit.
quote: Mike Blakesley
A lot of websites allow you to paste their content as long as it's attributed properly. I think Brad would be fine with just pasting the link to an article, except that a newspaper or magazine article will usually go "dead" after a short time, losing the information and ruining the continuity of the topic.
I totally understand the reasoning behind it. The problem though, is that it's probably not entirely legal (besides from the sites that allow it off course). It's actually a form of copyright infringement (stealing? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
). I'm not the one to judge about this, I'm merely stating the facts here.
quote: Mike Blakesley
I also am sure that if any content owner had a problem with something posted here, Brad would take it down without a hassle if asked -- as opposed to making a billion copies and forwarding it all over the world.
I sure do understand the difference in scope here. Although, it's not really forwarding, most people that download pirated copies do so out of their own free will . If they're using distributed networks like bittorent, they actually not only engage in downloading, they're also contributing themselves to the spreading.
But in essence, although on a far, far smaller scale, it's largely the same. The damage has been done, almost all the intended audience already read the article off of this site and as such skipped the advertisements on the originating site, thereby depriving the owner of the original site of revenue (or did we all just steal a little bit? ).
quote: Steve Guttag
It is proper practice on this site to post the link AND the text of the story...doing so ensure that the the link can go dead as well as providing the source for the information. It covers all bases.
Yeah, it has been pronounced proper practice on this site. And I'm not advocating to stop this "proper practice". But, unfortunately, Brad isn't above the law (yet), so as far as I understand the current law of the jurisdiction this site is operating in, it is actually a form of copyright infringement...
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-25-2014, 05:15 PM:
By Marcel's logic, it would not be stealing for someone sneak into a movie they did not pay for and watch the movie. Again, it all comes down to people thinking it is not theft because there is no physical object taken.
I guess I have a much more loose interpretation of theft: if you take/consume something that does not belong to you without permission or payment, then it is theft. When you watch a movie or listen to music, you are consuming the media. And if you are consuming something that would normally require payment without having paid for it, then you are committing an act of theft. While there are examples you could come up with that would be exceptions, they don't apply to piracy issues.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-25-2014, 05:56 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
By Marcel's logic, it would not be stealing for someone sneak into a movie they did not pay for and watch the movie. Again, it all comes down to people thinking it is not theft because there is no physical object taken.
Yeah, I know it's difficult... But I will try it one more time then...
No, it doesn't matter if it's physical or not. I could steal, for example, a bunch of Bitcoins from you. Bitcoins are no physical thing, they're virtual currency (although their status as real currency is yet being debated). Yet they can be stolen, although being entirely virtual. If I steal them from you, you cannot use them anymore, but I can.
Stealing, by the very definition of the law is taking something away, without the consent of the owner. After it's been taken away, it cannot be used anymore by the original owner. If you sneak into a movie, you do not take anything away other than the air in the auditorium in the sense of the law. You're depriving the exhibitor and content owners of revenue, but since you didn't pay them to begin with, you didn't steal that money from them either...
Sneaking into a theater without paying isn't allowed, but it's no theft, its trespassing and it's being dealt with by different laws.
quote: Justin Hamaker
And if you are consuming something that would normally require payment without having paid for it, then you are committing an act of theft.
You're not consuming them in the sense that they're gone. Once you "consumed" them, they're still there for you and others to consume.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-25-2014, 06:46 PM:
Marcel, let me give you another example: Someone who puts slugs in a video game machine to play without putting in quarters. They are consuming plays on a game machine. They are depriving the owner of the machine revenue while still enjoying the experience of playing the game. The key point is taking something which doesn't belong to them and depriving the owner/agent the revenue to which they are entitled. No matter how you defend it, this is theft and always will be theft.
Here's the definition of steal from Webster's Dictionary: Definition of Steal
And here's the definition from the California penal code:
California Penal Code: Theft
The relevant definition here:
quote:
...or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property...
The definition doesn't require that the stolen item be depleted so it can be used by others after the theft. It's the act of taking which is the theft.
Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-25-2014, 07:01 PM:
I see your argument, but at least here in the US, the law does specifically address this distinction and refuses to split the hairs you want to split. The law comes down on the side of defining such non-physical "consumption" as theft. In fact it is specifically classified here as "theft of service."
Those who believe that somehow if the copying, i.e., infringement, results in "no profit being made...no monetary gain," that fact somehow removes all criminality would better understand the fallacy of that believe if it is explained this way: a man looked out the window and he realized that his car was missing from the curb where he had parked it. He calls the police and reports the stolen car. Hours later the police call back and tell him they found the car and the college kid who was driving it with five of his buddies. The police also reassure him that the car is not at all damaged. The owner tells the cops that he still wants to press charges but they tell him, not to worry, no crime was committed; the college students were already released. "What do you mean no crime was committed...they stole my car!" fumed the owner. The officers explained -- "You see, sir, the driver didn't charge anyone a fare to ride in the car...he made no profit from the joy ride."
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-25-2014, 07:11 PM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
Marcel, let me give you another example: Someone who puts slugs in a video game machine to play without putting in quarters. They are consuming plays on a game machine. They are depriving the owner of the machine revenue while still enjoying the experience of playing the game. The key point is taking something which doesn't belong to them and depriving the owner/agent the revenue to which they are entitled. No matter how you defend it, this is theft and always will be theft.
We could go over this for months I guess. In the example above, technically you probably didn't steal anything. Yet, what you did was wrong. Still, those comparisons are flawed, as they're not about Intellectual property anymore.
If you would've taken the time to read my posts you might have noticed that I'm not defending anybody. Sneaking into a theater without paying is wrong. Copying and especially distributing works of others, without consent of the owners, is wrong.
Shooting somebody in the head is wrong, but it's not stealing either...
The whole idea with infringement on intellectual property is that you didn't take it to begin with, you made a copy of it. You didn't take someone else's money, because there was never a transaction with the content owner...
If we would invalidate the whole copyright law tomorrow, everybody would be able to share all the content there ever was without paying someone a dime. The whole content industry would be in ruins shortly afterwards. That's because the laws regarding theft simply do not cover this. Also notice the name: COPYright. It's the law that regulates copies.
quote: Frank Angel
Those who believe that somehow if the copying, i.e., infringement, results in "no profit being made...no monetary gain," that fact somehow removes all criminality would better understand the fallacy of that believe if it is explained this way: a man looked out the window and he realized that his car was missing from the curb where he had parked it. He calls the police and reports the stolen car. Hours later the police call back and tell him they found the car and the college kid who was driving it with five of his buddies. The police also reassure him that the car is not at all damaged. The owner tells the cops that he still wants to press charges but they tell him, not to worry, no crime was committed; the college students were already released. "What do you mean no crime was committed...they stole my car!" fumed the owner. The officers explained -- "You see, sir, the driver didn't charge anyone a fare to ride in the car...he made no profit from the joy ride."
Your comparison, unfortunately, doesn't really work out.
Copyright infrignment often results in monetary loss for the content owners, that's why there are laws regarding intellectual property and how works under this law can be DUPLICATED in the first place.
Secondly, the act of taking this car without the consent of the owner is theft, even if you bring it back later and even if you did not do any damage and even filled up the gas tank afterwards.
There is no fitting car example for Copyright Infringement. The example would be me making a copy of your car and using that for a joyride. But in that case, I wouldn't harm you in any way, I would possibly harm the creators of the car, I copied their design without paying for it...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-25-2014, 08:38 PM:
So really, then, this whole argument is about two definitions.
Let's turn, then, to the ever-popular dictionary. One of the definitions of "steal" is:
quote:
to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Notice it doesn't say what you're taking. Therefore it can be physical property, an idea, an experience, or anything you are SUPPOSED to be paying for. To watch a movie, say, without paying for a ticket is to "make use of wrongfully."
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-25-2014, 11:27 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
The whole idea with infringement on intellectual property is that you didn't take it to begin with, you made a copy of it. You didn't take someone else's money, because there was never a transaction with the content owner...
This is where you are wrong. When it comes to intellectual property, you never own the actual content. You have purchased a license for the media, with all rights still held by the copyright holder. When you make an unlicensed copy, you are engaging in fraudulent behavior.
To say you never had a transaction with the content owner is an irrelevant point. If you purchase a DVD from Best Buy, you never engaged in a transaction with the studio or persons who hold the rights to the media stored on the DVD. The transaction with the actual rights holder is several transactions removed from you. But if you go and make copies of that DVD, you are engaged in a form of theft.
If you record a movie in a theatre and then upload it to the internet, you are essentially doing the same thing as copying a DVD. The only difference is the source media and the lack of a physical media you are distributing.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-26-2014, 12:14 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
We could go over this for months I guess. In the example above, technically you probably didn't steal anything.
Legally, it is, stealing. It's literally called "theft of services."
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-26-2014, 12:19 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
If you record a movie in a theatre and then upload it to the internet, you are essentially doing the same thing as copying a DVD. The only difference is the source media and the lack of a physical media you are distributing.
Marcel is wrong. I said earlier that he does know how to interpret whether it is theft or not. That is what a judge is for. In the case of camcording a movie in a theater and then selling it, it is theft, end of story.
You don't always have to physically take something from someone for some thing to be considered theft.
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 08-26-2014, 12:54 AM:
So I suppose that no one arguing rabidly that it's all theft - never, ever, ever, EVER rips anything off of any DVD or BluRay? Not even trailers? Not even once? Really?
Oh, BTW, I suppose that they don't have any 35mm or 70mm prints of anything? That's still illicit as well, and also labeled 'theft' - you do realize...
So it seems to me like there's a floating line of distinction with every person.
Just wanting to see if anyone seriously wants to be the one that casts the first stone...
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 01:44 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Notice it doesn't say what you're taking. Therefore it can be physical property, an idea, an experience, or anything you are SUPPOSED to be paying for. To watch a movie, say, without paying for a ticket is to "make use of wrongfully."
I guess if we search long enough, we'll find sufficient definitions to have stealing also encompasses us, dancing together on the moon while singing the latest polka hits. I'm pointing out to what the law makes from all of this. Copyright infringement is not stealing, it's breaking the Copyright law. That doesn't necessarily make it better, depending on what you've done and where you've done it, could have more dire consequences than murder...
quote: Justin Hamaker
This is where you are wrong. When it comes to intellectual property, you never own the actual content. You have purchased a license for the media, with all rights still held by the copyright holder. When you make an unlicensed copy, you are engaging in fraudulent behavior.
If you're copying the content, you're not taking the Intellectual Properties away from the original owners. In addition to that, if you legally purchase a copy, you did more than just purchase a license. There is something called the First-sale doctrine for example. Also, engaging in fraudulent behaviour doesn't automatically equate to theft, it could also just be... fraud.
quote: Chris Slycord
Legally, it is, stealing. It's literally called "theft of services."
Theft of services doesn't apply to intellectual property, it applies to services, it would probably apply to a cinema visit, it does apply to utilities, not paying for your cable but still using it, but it doesn't apply to someone making a copy of a protected work. That protected work isn't considered a service.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Marcel is wrong. I said earlier that he does know how to interpret whether it is theft or not. That is what a judge is for. In the case of camcording a movie in a theater and then selling it, it is theft, end of story.
You don't always have to physically take something from someone for some thing to be considered theft.
Yeah, as long as you can bash someone and add nothing worthwhile to the discussion at all, you're one happy camper.
Besides some oddball judge that was drunk while dreaming up the verdict, judges all over the planet label it for what it is: A violation of the Copyright law and not as theft. A violation of the Copyright law, is in many cases a criminal act and can carry severe consequences, depending on the (supposed) damage you've done.
P.S.: I've told several times now that the fact that it's physical or not doesn't matter at all.
quote: Jim Henk
So I suppose that no one arguing rabidly that it's all theft - never, ever, ever, EVER rips anything off of any DVD or BluRay? Not even trailers? Not even once? Really?
Oh, BTW, I suppose that they don't have any 35mm or 70mm prints of anything? That's still illicit as well, and also labeled 'theft' - you do realize...
So it seems to me like there's a floating line of distinction with every person.
Just wanting to see if anyone seriously wants to be the one that casts the first stone...
There are many cases where you might actually be infringing on Copyright laws, but which would be otherwise considered fair use by the general public. I've mentioned one, like the quotation of full articles on this site, which is in many cases, actually a form of copyright infringement. And no, it's not theft and no, we're not thieves. Theft is also a clear cut thing, copyright sometimes is all but clear.
Also, in the U.S., the governing copyright law actually allows you to make copies for your own personal use, but the D.M.C.A. forbids circumventing any kind of copy protection. Since practically all commercial DVDs and Blu-Rays come with a form of copy protection, you're actually breaking the law once you copy a DVD or Blu-Ray...
Failure to return a print might actually be theft, but you could also spin it as a "mistake".
I'm certainly not the prime expert on anything "IP", but I had my fair dealings with rights holders, content distribution licenses, broadcast licenses, DRM, etc. the last 10 or so years...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-26-2014, 11:57 AM:
Well this topic is starting to devolve into just being silly. We are now arguing just about definitions, but we all seem to agree that using content without paying for it is wrong, whether you call it copyright infringement or theft.
I guess it's kind of like "speeding" and "reckless driving." Speeding isn't necessarily reckless driving, and reckless driving isn't necessarily speeding. But they're both crimes.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-26-2014, 06:06 PM:
It was never my intention to drag this discussion into endless debates about definitions. I've also tried to get other points across, but this particular issue just kept on returning in one way or another.
Also, and this isn't meant personally, sometimes it might help to actually read someone else's post before starting to point fingers. Of course, you couldn't expect anything else from Terry, but I would expect better from others.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-26-2014, 06:24 PM:
Marcel
For me, a major part of the reason for defending this is theft is because it's hard enough to get the public to understand it's wrong. When you define it as theft, that's a rather straightforward concept that anyone can grasp. But when you start using terms like copyright infringement, you cloud the issue and make it more difficult for a layperson to understand it is wrong. It's bad enough that people don't view an unlicensed copy as stolen property.
All that being said, I'm still comfortable with considering movie piracy as theft from both a legal and technical standpoint.
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 08-26-2014, 07:11 PM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
If you're copying the content, you're not taking the Intellectual Properties away from the original owners. In addition to that, if you legally purchase a copy, you did more than just purchase a license. There is something called the First-sale doctrine for example. Also, engaging in fraudulent behaviour doesn't automatically equate to theft, it could also just be... fraud.
So why would someone commit fraud? Mostly to make money from the use of someone else's property, tangible or otherwise.
One way or another, IP and copyright laws are getting stronger. We could argue that is a good or bad thing but the court ruling Samsung vs. Apple is pretty clear.
Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 08-26-2014, 08:15 PM:
In the end, it does absolutely come down to the actual legal definitions, not the defitinitions someone picks up off a dictionary off the internet.
For example, in one jurisdiction represented here, the police had problems getting convictions for people nicking cars, as some nicking of cars did not fulfill all the required legal attributes to be legally prosecuted as theft, and such prosecutions failed, even though the bloke did nick the car!. Thus the lawmakers came up with an entirely new offence of "Taking without owners consent", which had a different set of attributes that were required to be fulfilled for a prosecution to succeed.
In New Zealand, and I believe in a number of other jurisdictions, most copyright infringment is a civil wrong, meaning a policeman cannot arrest one for comitting a crime, as no crime has been comitted, even though a law has been broken. For a civil matter, the arguments are presented in court, and the judge (or jury, in some jurisdictions) will award a sum of money to be handed over between the parties, often called the damages.
On the other hand, do copyright infringment on a big enough scale and it becomes a ciminal offence for which one can be arrested and thrown into a cell.
The law will spell out which approach is appropriate, and if its broderline or grey, then as ever, the courts will make that determination.
Posted by Jim Henk (Member # 3628) on 08-26-2014, 09:41 PM:
As my Civics Instructor (who was a lawyer) said in class: quote:
The courts are not there to deliver justice. The courts are there to deliver a decision.
That's how lawyers are considered good or incompetent. A good or bad argument made in court can and does make the difference in that decision.
Then there are the juries, which are made up of human beings. (12 Angry Men, anyone?)
So clear-cut things - often aren't.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-26-2014, 11:02 PM:
I remember when TELECOMUNICATION'S INC was our Cable TV Provider years ago.Their Scrambling system was a GENERAL INSTRUMENTS/JERROLD inband gated sync system which suppressed the horizontal Sync into the Video around 6DB.So you saw Scrambled Video on the premium channels like HBO,SHOWTIME,ETC. However the Jerrold System let the Audio pass through normally like any other cable channel. When a Boxing Event came on; the Picture was pretty much impossible to watch but the Audio was just like you were listening to your Radio.When the 1ST LEONARD/HEARNS Fight played on SHOWTIME from Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas thousands of Cable Subscribers who weren't paying for Showtime had their TV's, Cable Box's turned to the Showtime Channel and were listening to the Blow by Blow coverage of this Event for free...
Now according to the Rules of Theft of Service at that time; listening to the Audio even though it was passed through normally with out doing anything to your TV or Converter
was considered theft of service. The way I looked at it was if I climbed the Telephone Pole and did something up there to obtain PPV/PREMIUM Channels than that is Theft of Service. However inside my home if I have the intellect to do something to my own TV(not their cable converters) that may enable me to receive these Channels; I don't perceive that as Theft of Service; Just creative Thinking ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
Posted by Sam D. Chavez (Member # 1841) on 08-27-2014, 12:47 AM:
"The more we learn the less we know".
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-27-2014, 01:50 AM:
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Theft of services doesn't apply to intellectual property, it applies to services, it would probably apply to a cinema visit, it does apply to utilities, not paying for your cable but still using it, but it doesn't apply to someone making a copy of a protected work. That protected work isn't considered a service.
So, downloading a movie isn't theft of service but watching it is? To me, that's pretty much the definition of semantics.
Note: I mean that it sounds like you're saying that it's only theft of service once you utilize the service of watching it, so downloading it itself isn't as bad. But this ignores, imo, that people who download are going to watch no matter what.
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 08-27-2014, 02:03 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
I'm still comfortable with considering movie piracy as theft from both a legal and technical standpoint.
I agree with you.
I think a 10-year old can figure out that movie piracy is theft.
Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 08-27-2014, 02:11 AM:
As much as I disagree with Marcel on whether it is or isn't theft, saying/implying that he has less intelligence than a 10 year old adds nothing to the conversation. It's useless.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-27-2014, 02:31 AM:
quote: Justin Hamaker
For me, a major part of the reason for defending this is theft is because it's hard enough to get the public to understand it's wrong. When you define it as theft, that's a rather straightforward concept that anyone can grasp. But when you start using terms like copyright infringement, you cloud the issue and make it more difficult for a layperson to understand it is wrong. It's bad enough that people don't view an unlicensed copy as stolen property.
There are so many things in this world that aren't technically theft and are equally wrong. Personally, I think it's rather disappointing if we really need to dumb down everything to the lowest common denominator.
Also, I'm afraid you're reaching the wrong audience with this anyway. It's not like those pirates don't know what they're doing is wrong.
Furthermore, I do think it's about time the content industry embraces their PAYING audience a bit more. Because frankly, they have been treating them like shit for the last decade and a half. Stuff like unskippable trailers and copyright warnings on DVDs, everything wrapped in 3 layers of DRM and even going as far as installing backdoors on people's computers, all while the pirates got the "good stuff" without the hassle. Combined with lawsuits against single mothers, that all but made them look good. Yeah, you could argue that they did have the right to defend themselves, but the P.R. they got about this wasn't really helping their cause. Combine this with the fact that it took them years and years to get their acts together and come up with some half-decent legal on-line alternatives. Still, many markets remain totally underserved in this aspect. There even was a minister in Belgium that told the press outright that they won't be going after people downloading copyrighted content, unless the content industry comes up with legal, on-line alternatives, because there were almost none...
And if you want to inform your audience about why they SHOULD pay for their content, show them spots what their money actually buys, how it helps to keep the industry afloat, instead of telling them that they're big time criminals if they even dare to take a photo of it. As far as I know, they're not running them in the U.S., but 20th Century Fox attaches a lengthy copyright warning in front of each and every feature around here, telling me, I'm a potential pirate and criminal scumbag. They make me feel like I'm supposed to wipe the movie out of my memory right after the show. (Well, sometimes I might actually want to have that feature.) You're telling this to an audience that already paid for their goods, only a small fraction of them are part of the scumbag group and they already know they're scumbags.
quote: Sam D. Chavez
One way or another, IP and copyright laws are getting stronger. We could argue that is a good or bad thing but the court ruling Samsung vs. Apple is pretty clear.
While I'm certainly in favor for protecting Intellectual Property rights, patent law has been getting out of hand. While I personally don't really care about those big behemoths fighting each other in court over some widgets in some gadgets, many of those overly broad patents aren't good for innovation and business in general in the long term. I've read one example that even if you run a small web-shop, you're already potentially breaking a dozen of patents. Most of which are extremely trivial, yet got rubber-stamped somewhere in the process. If you fight them in court, you're even likely to win all or most of them, but the question is if you could ride that one out as the little guy?
quote: Jim Henk
That's how lawyers are considered good or incompetent. A good or bad argument made in court can and does make the difference in that decision.
It's probably a combination of factors. Even the best lawyer can only do so much against an incompetent judge or jury. Many of those cases involving copyright law also involve computers, networks, etc. Many judges simply don't have the required technical knowledge and you can't really expect that from a jury either.
quote: Steve Matz
Now according to the Rules of Theft of Service at that time; listening to the Audio even though it was passed through normally with out doing anything to your TV or Converter
Cable always has been an interesting beast, because you need to subscribe to it to get the service. To get the service, you accepted their service contract. If this would've been broadcasted over the air, it probably wouldn't be illegal or in breach of anyone's contract.
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I think a 10-year old can figure out that movie piracy is theft.
It's great to know that you managed to substantiate your point of view so much and add so much worthwhile insights into the discussion...
You know, it's not a crime to disagree with someone. You might even say that this is somewhat essential for a discussion... But it would be really great to get some depth into it. But heck, why am I even wasting my time trying to tell you this anyway?
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-27-2014, 03:56 AM:
quote: Mike Blakesley
Let's say there is an outdoor rock concert and I sneak over the fence and stand just outside the paid area and listen to the music, I'm stealing that ticket money from the performers because I'm experiencing the concert ... even if I never intended to buy a ticket in the first place, I'm not taking any tangible property, but I'm still getting what the ticket offered.
A theater I used to work at was really close to an amphitheater. The projection booth had an exit door on either side of the theater with an area outside I could hang out and catch some fresh air. I could hear the concerts quite clearly. One night I hung out in that area on my break(s) like I always did and listened to Van Halen as they played. Now tell me I am a criminal and broke the law. Right now. Do it. Tell me.
Piracy is not cool but as far as movie piracy goes, I'd consider it petty theft. Not something that really matters in the grand scheme of things and certainly not as big a deal as the studios make it out to be. Nobody will ever be changed with leaking the Expendables 3. Ever. Period. They may even know who did it. Any disciplinary actions will happen quietly if at all.
Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 08-27-2014, 04:15 AM:
Joe, I think the distinction here is that you happened to be in a location outside the concert venue but within earshot. You did not have to do anything to hear the music besides open a door. And I'm sure there are people near most outdoor venues with a similar situation. But that is something different from hopping a fence.
quote: Marcel Birgelen
Also, I'm afraid you're reaching the wrong audience with this anyway. It's not like those pirates don't know what they're doing is wrong.
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the guy who sits in the theatre with a video camera, or the person who puts something up on a web site. I'm talking about the 13 year-old kid sitting in their bedroom watching the content. And if they are using one of the streaming sites, there is virtually no distinction between downloading and viewing.
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 08-27-2014, 05:04 AM:
Technically, there is not even a real distinction between downloading and viewing. If you want to stream it, you actually need to download it to your computer. The difference is that with streaming, you don't need to wait until it has been fully downloaded.
Also, the sites that do offer illegal copies of e.g. movies and music, either as download or as a stream, are the least likely to display copyright notices. Heck, even YouTube contained about 80% unlicensed content just a few years ago and still contains a very high percentage of unlicensed material. It's sometimes even close to impossible for advanced users to see the difference between a video that's properly licensed and one that isn't...
So, if we stretch the example of Joe a bit further into the digital realm. If somebody sends you a link to a YouTube video, you click on it and you watch it. In the end, it turns out to be illegal or, let's say "improperly licensed". Does that make you a criminal? Does it make Joe a criminal? He probably also didn't know.
I guess this remains a grey zone, where you cannot expect a layman to know all the nitty gritty details of copyright and how it applies to this video. So it's also hard to hold them accountable for it.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 08-27-2014, 02:41 PM:
Basically my point to all of this is that no, it does not make me a criminal. That's a problem with the venue. They are criminals for letting the soundwaves escape their place of establishment and they should be fined and jailed. Also they should be raped inside the jail and put in the electric chair. Hopping a fence would be trespassing. But I'm betting those soundwaves are still getting outside of the fence just fine.
If anything, the moron who videotaped and uploaded the movie should be fined and receive a sentence of no more than 14 days (if that). Also he should be banned from the theater. Hell he should be banned from the internet as well for providing a shit copy. If you're gonna do something, do it right!
Does piracy hurt the industry? Only if someone is SELLING pirated copies. Otherwise probably not as much as you think it does. It really is a victimless crime.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-27-2014, 02:42 PM:
I think our Prisons are overcrowded enough as it is.There are a lot more people still walking the Streets(sex offenders,child molsters,violent offenders,etc.)that I would rather see taking up prison space than sending some guy to prison for theft of Service.I don't get to worried about a Movie Studio only making
40 million profit on a film than the 50 million they expected...
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 08-27-2014, 03:25 PM:
Forget prison, that's too expensive. If they really want to punish people who do these kinds of crimes, ban them from owning a cellphone, computer or an iPod for a few years. And also flag their Facebook account (and make it undeletable) with a message that the person "has a very small dick" (male) or "is super fat" (female). In other words, get 'em where it really hurts.
Posted by Steve Matz (Member # 1890) on 08-28-2014, 02:43 PM:
The Feds will send you to Prison. We had a guy back in the 80's that lived on the Crow Indian Resevation and was Turning on the old Big Satellite Dish's VIDEOCIPER I & II Scrambler Boards. He did this for a couple years and was even dumb enough to advertise in Video/Electronics trade magazines.
One day 4 FBI Agents came into his business(he also did TV Repair) and proceeded to take everything electronic related on his work bench and storage areas and placed him under arrest.
The problem here was the Feds not only took these descrambler boards but also components that were for Customers TV's that he was repairing.None of it was returned...
Anyway to make a long story short because he had no prior record the Judge just fined him something like 500 dollars and no Jail Time. Well this guy didn't learn his lesson. After about a month he went right back to Turning on these Videochiper Boards and got busted again several weeks later. This time the Judge gave him 3 Years in Federal Prison. In the Federal System there is no Parole and you will do at least 85% of your time and usually the Full Sentence.
If your going to do out right theft of Service don't be an idiot and advertise in Magazines. This Guy had to be a Moron to begin with but he assumed because he was on the Reservation he was immune from being Prosecuted...Guess Again! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2