UK ISP's must block The Pirate Bay

[mattnunn]

davepoth said:

mattnunn said:

Okay, well the dictionary has theft as the act of stealing.

Stealing has several entries, second being

to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

Now you're obviously stuck fast to the legislative definition of theft as laid down in the theft act 1968, right?

I'm not lawyer, but I am married to one, and I can tell you language, common thinking and normal people are pretty far removed from the language of legislation and legal speak.

I think your OH will tell you that statute has precedence over the dictionary in court; the dictionary is only used when the justices wish to determine the meaning of a phrase that has no defined legal meaning.

To put it another way the dictionary has no force unless you intend to throw the book at someone.

So what are you saying? You want to live in a world outside of common experience and peoples moral values, where everyday language are an irrelevance to the way we act, you want to live in a world were legislative law and statute are all that matter.

I find your position confusing, we can agree that downloading films may not breach the 1968 theft act - is that the foundation of your decision to then go out and do something you admit to knowing may be wrong? This is bizarre, seems to me you're just trying to justify doing something that's wrong - and you're doing it very badly.

Tell me why do you feel entitled to download a film via bit torrent or whatever?

[hairykrishna]

mattnunn said:

I didn't I said you were paying for the value you yourself place on it, if I said content it was in the context of the useage experience.

How does your argument address the potentially big gulf between the value I might place on something and the value the distributor places on it?

[0000]

mattnunn said:

Someone once said of the modern world "They know the price of everything and the value of nothing".

I thought it was said not about the modern world, but about cynics.

But maybe you paid more for your Oscar Wilde, which is what's important to you it seems.

[samwilliams]

hairykrishna said:

How does your argument address the potentially big gulf between the value I might place on something and the value the distributor places on it?

Well, that's the case where you don't get the item in question - those are the decisions everyone makes every day when deciding what to purchase.

[mattnunn]

hairykrishna said:

mattnunn said:

I didn't I said you were paying for the value you yourself place on it, if I said content it was in the context of the useage experience.

How does your argument address the potentially big gulf between the value I might place on something and the value the distributor places on it?

It doesn't. I suspect that argument would boil down to simple economics. They are the sellar, the set th price, what you can be sure of as the consumer, in my experience, if you can delay your gratification, you will almost certainly pay a smaller price.

[Oakey]

Are you also against the second hand market?

[hairykrishna]

mattnunn said:

hairykrishna said:

mattnunn said:

I didn't I said you were paying for the value you yourself place on it, if I said content it was in the context of the useage experience.

How does your argument address the potentially big gulf between the value I might place on something and the value the distributor places on it?

It doesn't. I suspect that argument would boil down to simple economics. They are the sellar, the set th price, what you can be sure of as the consumer, in my experience, if you can delay your gratification, you will almost certainly pay a smaller price.

Yes, but you were arguing that because, by wanting to consume a movie/TV show, we had assigned some value and it was therefore theft because we were depriving the distributor of said value. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

It seems to me that there is a lot of stuff out there which I would like to watch for the price of a few pennies which I would never pay the asking price for. Would the economics of the situation not dictate that they need to provide it at a much lower cost?

[mattnunn]

Oakey said:

Are you also against the second hand market?

No, why?

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion over the minutia of copyright law because i neither have the knowledge or interest in arguing it's rights or wrongs.

Are you suggesting it would be illegal or theft to sell a second hand CD to someone?

[hairykrishna]

mattnunn said:

Are you suggesting it would be illegal or theft to sell a second hand CD to someone?

The licensing on many games now classes that as infringement - the contract agreed to does not permit second hand sales. So presumably theft in your terminology.

[Oakey]

mattnunn said:

Are you suggesting it would be illegal or theft to sell a second hand CD to someone?

The games industry are trying their very best to make it illegal, yes.

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/court-ruling-could-aff...

ETA: Also, I'm sure the small print on CD's and DVD's, etc also say you can't resell the product.

Edited by Oakey on Wednesday 16th May 16:17

[0000]

mattnunn said:

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion over the minutia of copyright law because i neither have the knowledge or interest in arguing it's rights or wrongs.

Brilliant. You come in here saying copyright infringement is theft and then refuse to discuss why it isn't. You're right; you don't have the knowledge.

[fluffnik]

mattnunn said:

I mean I may be an idiot

You have made a compelling case on several occasions.

[mattnunn]

hairykrishna said:

mattnunn said:

hairykrishna said:

mattnunn said:

I didn't I said you were paying for the value you yourself place on it, if I said content it was in the context of the useage experience.

How does your argument address the potentially big gulf between the value I might place on something and the value the distributor places on it?

It doesn't. I suspect that argument would boil down to simple economics. They are the sellar, the set th price, what you can be sure of as the consumer, in my experience, if you can delay your gratification, you will almost certainly pay a smaller price.

Yes, but you were arguing that because, by wanting to consume a movie/TV show, we had assigned some value and it was therefore theft because we were depriving the distributor of said value. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

It seems to me that there is a lot of stuff out there which I would like to watch for the price of a few pennies which I would never pay the asking price for. Would the economics of the situation not dictate that they need to provide it at a much lower cost?

No, unless the market were just you!

We each assign value based on our individual ideals, my missus pays £70 for a haircut, I find that horrificly over valued, she doesn't (although I keep that quiet)

My suggestion to you would be to be critical and choosy about what you consume, really choose the things that you value, discard what you don't and save the pennies - this way will give you the best chance of your ideal being taken up by the market and you being represented well in the market as a whole.

Gorging yourself on things you don't really value is a pretty depressing and souless existence.

And also if you are dissapointed in the experience you feel you have paid well for you can express true righteous indignation and take the moral high ground.

[mattnunn]

hairykrishna said:

mattnunn said:

Are you suggesting it would be illegal or theft to sell a second hand CD to someone?

The licensing on many games now classes that as infringement - the contract agreed to does not permit second hand sales. So presumably theft in your terminology.

Why? I've been talking about the natural justice of exchanging value, nothing to do with the law, i've deliberately tried to avoid talking about the law as it's a pretty adhoc application of a philosophy at any given time, the reason we're having this discussion is because the law, criminal or contract, is always 2 steps behind the real world. (20 years in this case - I remember taping jet set willy on a back to back tape recorder)

Personally I'd feel no guilt or angst about this, I would however downloading something from bit torrent. because in the former the value exchange is completed.

Don't expect to be able to stick it to the man and him not stick it back to you.

[davepoth]

mattnunn said:

So what are you saying? You want to live in a world outside of common experience and peoples moral values, where everyday language are an irrelevance to the way we act, you want to live in a world were legislative law and statute are all that matter.

Well yes, otherwise we get into a whole other argument. Nobody is above the law, and by the same rule, nobody should be under it either.

mattnunn said:

I find your position confusing, we can agree that downloading films may not breach the 1968 theft act - is that the foundation of your decision to then go out and do something you admit to knowing may be wrong? This is bizarre, seems to me you're just trying to justify doing something that's wrong - and you're doing it very badly.

I didn't admit to knowing it may be wrong - I said (and I'm paraphrasing) it's a moral judgement.

mattnunn said:

Tell me why do you feel entitled to download a film via bit torrent or whatever?

I don't feel entitled to download a film at all. All I'm saying is that it isn't theft. That's an important distinction.

"Big Media" is trying to move copyright away from the original intention of allowing the content creator to be the only person with the right to profit (or license others to profit) from their work, and that's what everybody is so angry about. When physical distribution was the only medium it was quite clear cut to go for the guy selling dodgy VHS copies at a car boot sale. He was making a profit.

But now they're up against people who don't want profit; they just want to share. It's so close to free to share that there's no point charging at the point of use, and rather than adjust to that new reality by looking at innovative licensing and working with the ISPs to find a solution that means no suing, they're fighting as hard as they can. Canute couldn't hold back the tide, and neither can they.

[fluffnik]

mattnunn said:

Someone once said of the modern world "They know the price of everything and the value of nothing".

It's very true of big media too...

[mattnunn]

0000 said:

mattnunn said:

I'm not going to get involved in a discussion over the minutia of copyright law because i neither have the knowledge or interest in arguing it's rights or wrongs.

Brilliant. You come in here saying copyright infringement is theft and then refuse to discuss why it isn't. You're right; you don't have the knowledge.

So you presumably accept downloading of the internet is copyright infringment?

How is this not stealing?

[davepoth]

mattnunn said:

I remember taping jet set willy on a back to back tape recorder)

Personally I'd feel no guilt or angst about this, I would however downloading something from bit torrent. because in the former the value exchange is completed.

What The fk?
What the fk?
What the fk?
What the fk?
What the fk?

[Oakey]

mattnunn said:

So you presumably accept downloading of the internet is copyright infringment?

How is this not stealing?

Because they are two very different things with completely different definitions in law?

[mattnunn]

davepoth said:

mattnunn said:

So what are you saying? You want to live in a world outside of common experience and peoples moral values, where everyday language are an irrelevance to the way we act, you want to live in a world were legislative law and statute are all that matter.

Well yes, otherwise we get into a whole other argument. Nobody is above the law, and by the same rule, nobody should be under it either.

mattnunn said:

I find your position confusing, we can agree that downloading films may not breach the 1968 theft act - is that the foundation of your decision to then go out and do something you admit to knowing may be wrong? This is bizarre, seems to me you're just trying to justify doing something that's wrong - and you're doing it very badly.

I didn't admit to knowing it may be wrong - I said (and I'm paraphrasing) it's a moral judgement.

Isn't that ironic, don't you think?

Christ I'll have Morissette on my back.

You flip from "statute law is all that matters, it must be adhered to by the letter" to "it's a moral judgment" so quickly.

If it were to be put in statute that the sharing of copyrighted data on the internet were a criminal offence would you comply?