Criminal? Criminal like a fox!

[Templar]

This is my continuation of a thread that ran totally off topic on the Star Wars board.

Originally posted by 1138:
Well, that's the thing. It is illegal. Sure, you can claim it's not. I could also claim that the notion of gravity doesn't exist. Obviously people are going to take that opinion with a grain of salt becuase it's pretty obvious that gravity exists.

You're taking his words as a personal attack on your character when he's not implying that. He is simply stating that what you talk of doing is illegal. Once again, legality, morality, and ethics are all entirely different. If you engage in illegal activities, you are a criminal. It doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.

Thank you for noting the difference between darktivity and myself...

And thank you for pointing out that I may, indeed, not necessarily be a bad person...

But my point is...

If I download "Blister in the Sun" (the original version) from Napser in front of a cop, will I get arrested? Fined? Warned? And if not, then why am I a criminal? Becuase that's your intrepretation of the law? Because its the court's opinion? I didn't hear the court say "the people are at fault". Maybe you listened more closely than me, but I just didn't get that.

So yeah, I do take it personally. When you say that I am a criminal...becuase I don't see how what I've done is a crime, and therefore it becomes a personal attack. By Chromy's definition everyone in America is a criminal...isn't that a bit harsh?

So is it illegal? Maybe I'm totally wrong here, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'll be darned if anyone's gonna talk out of their arse and call me a criminal.

[Taxi]

First of all, we discussed a lot of this same kind of thing here.

I think you are reading too much negative connotation into the word "criminal." Strictly speaking, everybody who breaks a law commits a crime, and is therefore a criminal. (Webster says criminal (n): one who commits a crime.) I have gotten a speeding ticket, therefore I am a criminal. I don't think it's going to keep me from getting a job, however. I don't think the term "criminal" is necessarily derogatory.

So, like, don't take it personally.

------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Forum Administrator

[This message has been edited by Taxi (edited 03-22-2001).]

[manigrasso]

Although I disagreed with the usage of Napster, there is STILL a distinct difference between downloading a song, and copying a movie.

When radio stations play a song, the artist makes a royalty. Internet downloading of the song was difficult if not impossible to monitor, so that the artist received no royalties. But some arguments have been along the lines of "the availability of the song can only help the song, which means the song gets MORE radio play, and more people buy the CD, which means MORe money for the artist." This doesn't happen every single time, but it's one of the arguments used to defend the actions of Napster: that it does more good than harm.

But if you copy a movie, entirely, then you have the movie. The artist, in this case, Lucas, makes no money, and won't make money, not from you, and not from anyone who copies the movie from you. It's not like you're copying your favorite scenes from a movie, perhaps making you want to buy the video or DVD when it's available. You can't employ the same argument here.

YES, I know Lucas makes more money than God, but that's not the issue. He created these films, he should reap ALL the profits from them, if that's what he wants. When any one of us makes a movie, we can opt to give it away if we want.

And to answer your earlier question, if a cop sees you downloading a song or movie, I don't know if he can arrest you, or fine you, or give you a summons to appear in court, but there ARE legal repusrcussions, it would be one of the three. Hopefully the cop near you isn't up to speed on copyright laws. Since most cops never have to deal with it, chances are you'll get away with it, but I wouldn't chance it.

[Chromy]

As I said in the other thread, I'm making no statements about your moral standing. Just saying that copyright infringment is against the law, and breaking the law makes you a criminal.

Owning, not just selling or distributing copyrighted material without owning a licence to that material is illegal.

However, is the FBI going to kick down your door and throw you in the klink? Most likely not (however, I did read that some guy did get arrested a while ago... he had some 1500 pirated songs on his computer)

Do law enforcement officers download illegal MP3's? Probably.

However, the more bootlegged material you have, the more likely someone is going to call you on it... The person that is going 5 MPH over the posted limit is a lot less likely than the person going 60 over. I wouln't take a police officer into my home and proudly show him my 20,000 mp3's and bootleg video collection...

I don't know what you mean by "Becuase that's your intrepretation of the law"

I think that this aspect of copyright law is pretty cut and dry. If you have something copyrighted that you don't have a "license" for... that's copyright infringment.

Chromy

[This message has been edited by Chromy (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Templar]

Originally posted by Taxi:
I think you are reading too much negative connotation into the word "criminal." Strictly speaking, everybody who breaks a law commits a crime, and is therefore a criminal. (Webster says criminal (n): one who commits a crime.) I have gotten a speeding ticket, therefore I am a criminal. I don't think it's going to keep me from getting a job, however. I don't think the term "criminal" is necessarily derogatory.

So, like, don't take it personally.

First off...I'm gonna let you off the hook, becuase I don't rememeber whether or not you said anything, and I don't care to relive it, so don't take this personally, but when someone says "you are a criminal" there is no "we are all criminals" implicit in that statement. That's right, grouped in there with Ted Bundy and Heidi Fleiss...NOT the forum administrators, or anyone who thinks like he does. Its almost an "I recognize that its illegal so I'm smarter / better / cooler than you are" argument. So, techinally, it is personal.

Secondly I don't recall too much in the way of smiley faces or friendly banter from the admins or anyone else for that matter, I just recall being in the minority and being treated like a punk, simply because I was lumped in with a trouble maker who got under someone's skin. I was trying to raise legitimate issues, and its actually mildly depressing that the best you guys (who claim to have heard it all) can come up with is that I'm a criminal. And criminal may not be degrogatory in some connotations, but I don't think Chromy was trying to say that I was like Abbie Hoffman, enough said.

Finally, I realize you guys are all chummy and all, and you're only human beings, but is it necessary to just stomp out others' ideas out of hand? I mean if that's the point, why not just close this board down and converse among yourselves?

I'm not fully aware that its been proven that downloading MP3's for personal use is illegal.

The more I think about this the more ticked off I get.

[This message has been edited by Templar (edited 03-22-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Templar (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Chromy]

Just to get a neutral 3rd party view of copyright law follow the following two links...

This one is about common misconceptions surrounding copyright law. http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/copyrt_myths.faq

Many of the same points that I've been making... however, rest easy... looks like some (most?) copyright cases are civil cases (ie, you get sued by the holder of the copyright instead of the government) rather than criminal cases. Therfore even though technicaly commiting a crime, you wouldn't be tried as a criminal (Think OJ Simpson Won his criminal trial, but lost his civil trial)

This one is frequently asked questions http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/copyright.faq

The interesting part of this is the seven rights granted in the US to holders of copyrights... among them the right to reproduce,distribute,perform, and display the work.

Chromy

[Chromy]

And one more...


Cpyright law and digital media http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/digital..._and_law.paper

[Templar]

You can talk until you're blue in the face about copyright laws and how you believe that downloading MP3's off Napster is totally illegal, but its not that black and white. Otherwise Napster would have been shut down out of hand, or at least would have had an injunction put on the before the trial started. There's no way something in total violation of the copyright law would have been allowed to operate during the course of a trial. Its a gray area of law that I'm still not sure is fully resolved. You may think that, and I'm not going to begrudge you that, nor am I going to call you a criminal, but I have to disagree.

Plus, someone who goes to civil trial is NOT a criminal...even though OJ is.

Add to that many of your resources are upwards of 10 years old...hardly current events.


[This message has been edited by Templar (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Taxi]

Originally, Templar said:

---

I mean someone practically called me a criminal in the other thread cause I don't see a lack of morality in copying stuff from Lucas.[/quote]

Chromy quoted that, and said:

---

If you are downloading copyrighted mp3's without paying for them you are a criminal.[/quote]You see, the "you" here is the generic "you". It's not an accusation. Maybe he should have said "a person" or "one", but it's pretty standard English these days to use "you" in this case. (Chromy, if I'm wrong, and you really were trying to accuse Templar of being a criminal, then please correct me. )

I think one thing that needs clearing up is "Why the hell do we care?" Personally, I don't give a crap if you copy Star Wars or Metallica or Britney Spears or whatever. But we, as a forum, as a web page, need to make sure that we aren't a place where people can go to talk about performing illegal activities. We'll get shut down. That is what we don't want.

So when a statement like these are made...

SolidSnakeAss:

---

Because as soon as DVD burners become popular people are going to start 'stealing' movies. I will still by all the ones I want, but Star Wars will not be one of those. Will be 'sharing' those. [/quote]

Darktivity:

---

I will do everything I CAN to distribute the ripped trilogy as soon as possible.[/quote]We get a little nervous. (Well, at least, I do, and I don't even get any money for this gig. )

Now, I know that later Templar said

Templar:

---

So if anyone is seriously deranged and was going to copy a movie because I said it was OK: DON'T DO IT. (please).[/quote]So everything is copacetic. I just want to try to explain why you may see Admins and Moderators ask people not to make the kinds of statements quoted above. We want heated discussion. We want debate. Hell, for the most part we want disgreement to some extent, because it makes things more interesting. Nobody likes to read crap from a bunch of "yes-men".

But posting things like "I'm gonna copy this movie" is not okay. Do it, just don't post about it here. (And we certainly don't condone it.) On the other hand, we don't condemn those who bootleg, or use Napster. Just don't try to tell us that you're not breaking any law when you do this, because you are. Go read the copyright laws if you don't believe us.

So, that is our motivation. We hope you can understand that.


------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Forum Administrator

[This message has been edited by Taxi (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Chromy]

Man Pleads Guilty to Internet Piracy of Star Wars Film http://www.cybercrime.gov/spataforeplea.htm

Intelectual property manual http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/03ipma.htm

From this there is a recap of important legislation since 1790... the ones affecting the last 10 years seem to only strengthen copyright law in respect to computers

(1) the Computer Software Copyright Act of 1980, Pub. L.
No. 96-517, § 10, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (codified at 17
U.S.C. §§ 101, 117), which clarified that computer software is entitled
to copyright protection; (2) expansion of criminal penalties for certain works
in 1982 and for all works in 1992; see 17 U.S.C. § 506 and 18
U.S.C. § 2319; (3) the creation of an exclusive right pertaining to digital
audio transmission of sound recordings by the Digital Performance Right in Sound
Recordings Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-39, 109 Stat. 336 (1995); (4) the
criminalization of large-scale copying even in the absence of economic motivation
by the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, Pub. L. No. 105-147, 111 Stat. 2678 (1997);
(5) the 1998 extension of the term of copyrights; see Sonny Bono Copyright
Term Extension Act, Pub. L. No. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998); and (6) the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (1998)
(codified at 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1205)

The reason that Napster is having problems is that they are acting as a facilitator of copyright infringment... this is a grey area (as we are finding out)

This is much in the same vein as the lawsuit against Sony as they released the VCR.. the argument was that a VCR can be used to illegally reproduce and/or archive video.

Chromy

[Chromy]

I meant "you" in the generic sense as in you reading this post

Here is an updated version of the above copywrite myths article. http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

[1138]

Napster wasn't immediately shutdown because they didn't downlaod and store illegal mp3's. They were just a transport fo rdoing so. Whether or not they should be allowed to exist with no restrictions on what get's downlaoded is what that debate is about. Even Napster though acknowledged that those copyrighted mp3's that were downlaoded through it were illegal acts. Like Chromy says, if you don't have the licemse to the material, you can't posses it a copy of it.

Personally, I think the whole "Is Napster illegal?" thing is a misguided argument. I'd rather talk about what should be done to prevent the massive distribution of copyrighted material. Should the RCIA come up with some pay per download scheme, allow distribution of mp3's to drum up CD sales, etc. I don't think they can really prevent Napster and it's derivatives, but I'm sure they can somehow circumvent them or make them irrelevant.

------------------
1138 - DVD File Forum Greeter
They gave us $5 for breakfast. Man, I hope this trial never ends!

[Templar]

Originally posted by Chromy:


The reason that Napster is having problems is that they are acting as a facilitator of copyright infringment... this is a grey area (as we are finding out)

This is much in the same vein as the lawsuit against Sony as they released the VCR.. the argument was that a VCR can be used to illegally reproduce and/or archive video.

Chromy

I'm sorry, did I not say almost these exact same words before?

your own source says:

"There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts are right now deciding if that includes such widescale personal copying as Napster."

So pretty much this says if one had and does download from Napster, well its not known if that's illegal. And when we find out...what was done is still not illegal...part of that ex post facto situation. So...

I know I'm not going to suddenly try to change your mind, but perhaps maybe in a wierd sort of way you can see what hill I'm shouting from.

I totally dig that you have resposibilites to discourage illegal activity. Sorry if any of my comments were inflamatory in that sense.

Funny thing is that my whole point about talking about Lucas had nothing to do with this. I was trying to stress the importance of personal feeling as opposed to law. It was going to be really inspirational in a Thomas Paine "Civil Disobedience" kind of way.

But seeing as you folks would have just replied:

"Whatever, you're just a criminal looking for an excuse to steal."

I don't see the point anymore.



[This message has been edited by Templar (edited 03-22-2001).]

[Chris in OC]

"Personal copying" refers to the practice of copying, say, a CD you bought and on which royalties were paid. This would include, for instance, recording a CD onto a cassette to listen to in your car stereo or walkman. As long you bought the license and the copy is for your personal use only, you have the right to make a copy.

Personal copying does not mean making a personal copy from someone else's collection. This is a violation of copyright law.

[This message has been edited by Chris in OC (edited 03-23-2001).]

[manigrasso]

I think I see a circular logic here. To my knowledge, Chris in OC is right, personal copying means making yourself a backup of something you bought. I don't think personal copying includes, say, borrowing a friend's CD and taping it, but I think the studios know there's no way to stop that. Napster was created under the principle that "the studios never stop copying." But that's because the studios never could, because there was no way to know. With something like Napster, you CAN see that illegal copying is happening, and therefore the studios CAN stop it.

Again this has little bearing on movies, unless you're backing up a movie you bought for your own use. If you copy a movie someone else bought, it is illegal.

Copying a movie from TV, or a song from the radio, is permissable because the TV/radio station paid a fee to broadcast that movie/song, so the cost is "absorbed" by the station. Yes, it seems odd that, if a movie is on video AND HBO, you can tape it off HBO, but not record a friend's store-bought copy, but that's the way it is. Take your chances, if you choose.

[Taxi]

Also, taping off broadcast includes a reduction in quality, which is factored into it. (So the studios got paid, and any copy that was made from the TV broadcast was of sub-perfect quality. They can live with that.)

------------------
Taxi
DVDFile Forum Administrator

[Chromy]

And actually, copying off of TV is only OK for "time shifting" purposes, you can't keep a copy around for archiving, as the TV license is a "watch-once-per-broadcast".

I think that the point that the guy writing that article was that there is a lot of debate surrounding the legality of having someone else make a copy for you of something that you own.

A web site (not to long ago... maybe MP3.com?) was allowing people to "beam" their CD's to the website and registering that in their databases as a title that they own, and then allowing them to download a pre-made mp3 of that song.

A court case ensued, and now the web site must pay for every song downloaded (or something to that effect) Anyone else remember the details of this better?

Chromy

[Lightivity]

Templar said:
"I just recall being in the minority and being treated like a punk, simply because I was lumped in with a trouble maker who got under someone's skin."

I don't know if I'm a little late to this topic, but I must apologize to you Templar, for putting you in the situation you describe above.



[This message has been edited by Lightivity (edited 03-27-2001).]