For all you idiots who keep arguing that copyright infringement is theft
 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/473/207.html

the supreme court disagrees with you

and i disagree with the supreme court

and with you anyways

The supreme court (and therefore the law) defines copyright infringement as not being theft, no amount of wishing is going to change that fact.

So posting a blurb of legalese makes you look smart? This bullshit probably makes lots of sense to a double-talker like you.

Not exactly bro.

They define copyright infringement as being more than theft!


In other words copyright infringement could involve conversion, fraud AND THEFT!

:1orglaugh

want to bet.


I will bet you 25k I can produce a case where a person convicted of one count of conspiracy to transport stolen property in interstate commerce, eight counts of interstate transportation of stolen property, and three counts of mail fraud appealed and reversed of all those charges.

Neither is copying money. Go ahead Gideon. Do it.

The culture of entitlement from amoral people like yourself with no understanding of macroeconomics or fairness for that matter has now reached its zenith. Theft has a range of meanings. If one purposefully accesses a pay service like HBO for example without paying for it one is not actually removing a physical object nor is one depriving others from that service. Yet the law commonly defines that as a "theft of services". And rightly so. Even if the criminal who does so dubiously claims that they "weren't going to pay for it anyway". As if that is an excuse.

who cares if it is theft ? it is illegal and you are a douchebag.

end of story.

I will bet you $25k that the following URL doesn't have any video content :

http://megaupload.com

:1orglaugh

Sounds to me like you condone content theft defending the definitions.

1. copyright infringement is not content thef

2. If i said murder was not theft would you say so stupid as argue that means i believe murder is ok.

I only object to morons who are copyright infringement is theft, mainly because such a misrepresentation ignores fair use as authorization.

you take my bet first, then i will take your bet once the supreme court rules on that trial.

Gideongallery helped OJ set up his cable TV.

:1orglaugh


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8719276/

You might have a point about the supreme court.
I mean, it's made up of old motherfuckers who can't use a laptop.

BUT, why was it appealed and reversed? Just because these 2 things happen, does NOT mean it didn't happen. It could mean the evidence was gathered wrong, not enought and so on.

OJ
casey anthony

LOL

Do I know what the court said the reason for the reversal was, NO, but you also did not post it.

This is Fair Use, he watched it on a 30% smaller TV, LOL

But yet you post an illegal copyrighted video on GFY? :upsidedow :1orglaugh :helpme

Do you not know GFY yet? Just saying :thumbsup


I can't believe a handful of people try to irrationally put words in peoples mouths or twist what has been said :(

I agree copyright infringement is not theft, but I think with a car, TWOCK is the usual acceptable law broken... (taking without the owners consent)

Copyright infringement should come under the same law... Miss use of property belonging to others :2 cents:

where did you see copyright infridgement is not theft? I saw only does not EASYLY equal theft.....

Would you mind timewarping that episode of law and the idiot to show some authority to that statement ?

This guy is such a bizarre fucking retard. Copyright infringement is against the law... period. That's not a disputable fact. Calling it "theft" or not, is semantics and irrelevant to the fact that its illegal.

murder is not manslaughter

That video is authorized.

Try clicking the link under the video :

https://youtube.com/cthru?c2b=ama...=Nx64_N4AA 04


Nice try though.




BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

read the ruling

the link is in the very first post

nuff said.

Try and check the entire ruling, the following legal amendments / notes and guidelines :2 cents:

Reproduction is fine, add distribution/time morphing / whatever you wish to call it and it's conspiracy charges. Teach others how to do it and it's conspiracy to commit racketeering.

Have you ever been in a court before ? It sounds like you think it's 1 way communications.

You would also know it's not sufficient to just quote a case you have to quote the similarity / reference point used, unlike on TV all judges are not "very well familiar with case x"

Also you should read more about 18 U.S.C. § 2318, looks like it should be useful too. The funny part about that one is actually that you wouldn't need to be found guilty in copyright infringement but instead it's counterfeit labels, packaging and / or documentation. IE: you produced a copy of your legally obtained software, music to bypass 18 U.S.C. § 2314, now you are instead trafficking counterfeit/illicit labels and packaging. It's easy to build on the charges here (file names, digital signatures, COPYRIGHT NOTICE, CREDITS TO).

That's actually interested as it appears to cover a lot of the "safe harbors"

the supreme court doesn't rule the world - and since i am not american i am allowed to disagree

No its not authorized you idiot, its uploaded by a normal user, any authorized music from any major label is always stored on VEVO. Nice try pirate.

Of course copyright infringement is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Doesn't make you less of an asshole for doing it, though.

Best answer, that seems to have gone unnoticed. :thumbsup

The law protects individuals from double jeopardy - being tried for the same offense twice. For that reason there are distinctions in the type and degree of offense committed, such as murder/manslaughter and petite/grand larceny.

Supreme court may call piracy whatever they want, as long as they still agree piracy is illegal, I don't care. And I'll keep calling bloodsuckers stealing our content thieves just because it sounds spot on to me.

No, it's quite obvious that they mean copyright infringement is not theft.

"Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft." In copyright law, infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held."

And Gideon,

I know the courts define infringement as something else but I still call it theft.

1) Because you are steal stealing shit, by my definition of the word.

2) To piss off people that like playing semantics when we are talking about a serious issue.

I've told you before, you are right about a lot of things that you catch shit for here but there are no legitimate excuses for blatant theft / infringement like we see in the case of Mega Upload. I 100% agree that they shouldn't be punished for what their users do and they have not been. Their punishment is over things that they did, like making it look like content was removed after a DMCA when in fact they just played some linking games.

I also don't agree with how they handle cases like this. At no point should you have all of your websites completely taken offline *before you are found guilty of anything. They should have appointed someone to run the business (like they do in other Federal cases) and handled things correctly until the court case was decided. They've already been wrong once and ruined someones business over their own stupidity. I'm 100% sure that won't be the case with MU but we have due process for a reason and this is bullshit.

Meanwhile gfyers watching a stolen movie scene on YouTube....

And posting copyrighted goatse images. :1orglaugh

Poor tub girl, her rights were infringed upon thousands of times on GFY alone. We should all send her a few bucks to compensate her.

Youtube is nothing like megaupload.

They have digital fingerprinting which is free to copyright holders - if you want your content blocked from youtube, you can do it fast and stop all new uploads cold.

They ban repeat infringers and remove all files from their accounts.

They make it clear and explicit they're dead serious about copyright issues.

They have revenue splitting option and many copyright holders choose it to monetize their videos when they're posted at YT.

That means if some copyrighted content is posted there, that's only because copyright holders either want it there or simply do not care.

Late signature spot ...

You're right it's not theft, it's much worse than theft. If you walk into best buy and steal a movie you basically took away 10 bucks or whatever from them. If you download a movie and share it with thousands or millions of other people you cost whoever owns the copyright to that movie thousands if not millions.

That's why lawsuits are for thousands of dollars or more when someone is sued for copyright infringement. When someone steals a DVD no one really cares.

I'm sure some fuckturd will come in and say "but everyone they shared with wouldn't have bought it!" The truth is though if only 10% would have bought it that's still a shitload of money in most cases.

cool the double bet is accepted

here is the proof that your wrong

it actually the original case i posted in the begining

so you owe me 25k

if after the supreme court rules on the mega upload case, we will check the site

if videos exist you owe me 50k

if they don't your 25k debt is cancelled

good luck.

but i don't infringe or defend infringement in any way at all

I defend fair use uses of technology that can be used to infringe

just like the original vcr which can be daisy chained together to make bootleg copies, doesn't invalidate my right to use it to timeshift tv shows that i paid for.

the fact that torrents are used to pirate shit shouldn't invalidate my right to use it to timeshift tv shows.

so what's your problem?

Megaupload was in violation of DMCA and as their internal email communication shows, they knew it and they didnt care. therefore they got shut down.

you can still "timeshift" your TV shows somewhere else

He's playing semantics and arguing about related but irrelevant points. One of the main reasons he is so hated here.

MegaUpload obviously breaking the law (from what we've seen).

He's arguing about calling it theft and people assume he's pro MU.

I don't think anybody is saying the technology is unlawful. Just as you can use VCRs to record TV shows and movies for your own use, you can likewise make digital copies for your own use.

As with the VCR, the problem arises when you share those copies with others, especially for some type of financial gain.

The law defines many different kinds of theft. The court ruled that in that particular case, the specific type of copyright infringement that defendant commited didn't fall under "simple theft" as defined by that particular statute.

A dictionary definition of theft:
1. To take wrongfully.

If you take some work you don't have permission to take, you're taking wrongfully. Therefore that's theft under the dictionary definition.

did you read the complaint

most of the smoking guns in that complaint are about as bogus as the smoking gun paul "found" against youtube.

Remember that thread, paul predicted that youtube would go down because of that evidence.

you don't prevent sony/walmart etc from selling vcr (providing the service) that can be used for both infringing and non infringing purposes you go after the actual people infringing.

You do however take down sites like thepiratebay, megaupload that can be used for both legit and infringing activity

That the fucking point

Go after the individual leachers who don't have a fair use right to the content, go after the individual uploaders who don't have a fair use right.

Treat the torrents like you treat a vcr.

in legal terms it isn't, but you still kill someone.

you shouldn't complain then. nobody banned the technology.

yes, i did, unlike you probably

once again - no one took your precious timeshifting away - just a website went down that profited from copyright infringement - run by a already twice convicted self acclaimed "Hacker".

so - what's your problem?

Funny, you have all this comprehension about law and court cases to try and justify your "time shifting" but you have no comprehension of how bets are accepted or proper use of the word "your".

It is theft.