Downloading to be made illegal?
Discussion
Jinx said:
ATG said:
The Mars Bar exists, but the copy doesn't? Are you seriously suggesting that is a substantive point?
[i]Substantive/[i]1. having independent existence; independent.
2. belonging to the real nature or essential part of a thing; essential.
3. real or actual.
4. of considerable amount or quantity.
5. possessing substance;
yep that is exactly my point - you are not stealing anything substantive....ATG said:
The data I am going to copy exists prior to copying it, and the copy of the data clearly exists and is in my possesion afterwards. If you are uncomfortable with the term "theft" as you have defined it, would you be happier with "stealing"?
The basic legal definition of theft is ‘the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it’.A download is not depriving anyone.
I am perfectly happy with the term "copyright infringement"
As for your pedantic concern with the term "theft", I ask again, would you object to calling it "stealing"?
ATG said:
Substantive in the sense of do you actually think your point has any substance. Answer: no.
Lost your sense of humour today ATG? Some good points in the Telegraph blog linkATG said:
As for your pedantic concern with the term "theft", I ask again, would you object to calling it "stealing"?
It is a copy. Yep that's right a copy of the "thing" . No one is being deprived of anything. Can you not see the difference between taking something and copying something?Jinx said:
ATG said:
Substantive in the sense of do you actually think your point has any substance. Answer: no.
Lost your sense of humour today ATG? Some good points in the Telegraph blog linkATG said:
As for your pedantic concern with the term "theft", I ask again, would you object to calling it "stealing"?
It is a copy. Yep that's right a copy of the "thing" . No one is being deprived of anything. Can you not see the difference between taking something and copying something?You seem unwilling to answer the following simple question: if you don't like the word "theft" would you settle for "stealing"? Third time I've asked it. Any chance of an answer?
ATG said:
Sense of humour perfectly intact thanks. Why does pointing out holes in your argument imply a loss of a sense of humour? Your fixation with the difference between taking an object and taking data (by making a copy of it) still makes no sense.
You seem unwilling to answer the following simple question: if you don't like the word "theft" would you settle for "stealing"? Third time I've asked it. Any chance of an answer?
My "substantive" comment was slightly in jest - as the material in question was not "substantive" (by definition ho-hum You seem unwilling to answer the following simple question: if you don't like the word "theft" would you settle for "stealing"? Third time I've asked it. Any chance of an answer?
) but if you want to get pernickety......Why does making a copy = taking an object; I can make a copy of the Mona Lisa and leave the painting or scan a photograph and leave the original?
I have quite happily mentioned a few terms that I feel are appropriate - theft and/or stealing are not any of them. Whilst those that are aggrieved at a perceived loss of prospective revenue may feel entitled to use those terms; I for one don't equate copyright violation with theft/stealing. Whilst it is illegal it is a different offence. Would you equate murder with theft (it is theft of another's life after all? )
buggalugs said:
JustinP1 said:
buggalugs said:
JustinP1 said:
buggalugs said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm
They're talking about a law to obligate ISP's to terminate your contract if you do an 'illegal download' whatever one of those is.
Personaly I'm not sure that it's the governments job to support an industry's business model but I guess they have deep pockets, and took a lot of politicians out to lunch or something.
They bleated on that cassette tapes would kill the industry, and VHS FFS. Nobody banned those did they? And the world did not end.... and we all enjoyed the use of these things for a very long time. How is this any different?
Support an industry "Business model"!?They're talking about a law to obligate ISP's to terminate your contract if you do an 'illegal download' whatever one of those is.
Personaly I'm not sure that it's the governments job to support an industry's business model but I guess they have deep pockets, and took a lot of politicians out to lunch or something.
They bleated on that cassette tapes would kill the industry, and VHS FFS. Nobody banned those did they? And the world did not end.... and we all enjoyed the use of these things for a very long time. How is this any different?
Looking at it bluntly its theft, and the industry is asking the government for legislative support.
Look at it this way: Lets say for the sake of argument you work hard all week making a commodity - food, plants, beer, whatever. You sell some and you do OK, however recently you have not been doing so well, in fact you don't have much money to do it any more. You find that in the night, those items you were spending your own money to produce were being stolen, blatantly. As much as you can try you can't stop the thieves though. You are running close to the breadline and often losing money and working for nothing, and you don't know how long you can last...
In that situation would you be asking the government to give the authorities 'teeth' to protect *your* business model? Or is that example fine by you?
We're not talking about some poor humble shopkeeper having his stock stolen.
OK, so if you dont steal a physical item, then its not stealing? And items that do not have weight in your had are 'virtual' and irrelevant?
Consider my previous analogy, where it was *your* work that was being stolen. This time instead of your cakes, trees, or beer that you have worked hard to produce, you work in IT from home and the 'potential customer' lists that you spent your day working on and selling to business were copied from under your nose, and given out to the companies for free?
Is that right, or is it stealing?
Or is it technologies fault, and just a matter of evolution, as the burglars now have jamming devices which mean they can sneak into your house at night, and take your work without your alarm going off...
So that would be your fault for not keeping up with the burglars? Or would you ask the government for help?
At least, thats my perception anyway.
I'm not sure what the way forwards is. Perhaps bands that can sing can make a bigger percentage of their income from touring? The moves by some bands to try to reduce the number of middle men involved must also be a good thing surely.
If an album does not 'recoup' ie cover the costs, and make profit, there is no second album for that artist. Simple as that.
What a record label fundamentally does is lend a new artist money to make a record, in the hope that the sales will cover this cost and make a profit for both of them.
That is what funds the best albums made today. Good studios are £2000 a day before any gear is hired or engineers or a producer, and an album takes months to produce. Record labels believe in that the output of an artist will be significantly good to give them a budget to meet their artistic needs. A good studio, good instruments, good producer, good equipment, and time to make the best album they can.
If you take the record label out of this, this goes. They act like a bank would to a small business. A small business would never be able to meet the mass market without a bank lending money to them. Take this facility away, then you stop small businesses from running at anything but the lowest level with the funds they can scrape together.
Exactly the same is true with music. Take away the record label, you will be searching the net for 'records' made in someones bedroom that they transmit at MP3 quality. Touring is only a moneyspinner for the top 1% of artists, for the rest it is a loss leader.
The bottom line is, if you want to reduce the music industry to that, then by all means advocate that it is right to download, but believe me it is not a sustainable possibility if you want to listen to good quality, well recorded, well funded music.
I have downloaded music and video, I have subsequently bought more music and video than ever before, because I know that what I am buying is worth having. I have also deleted most of what I've downloaded as it is absolute tosh.
How is the ban going to cope with BBC iplayer and 4oD as these use peer to peer technology.
How is the ban going to cope with BBC iplayer and 4oD as these use peer to peer technology.
Surely this cannot work in any way?
Assuming you are not stupid enough to download from an obvious place, the data itself cannot be distinguished as being anything at all when incomplete or in pieces (torrents for example). The only way would be for the ISPs to store a copy of what you send/recieve and have a team running them and cross-referencing them over the legality.
IMO the internet is too big to be policed, and file-sharing is the same...
Assuming you are not stupid enough to download from an obvious place, the data itself cannot be distinguished as being anything at all when incomplete or in pieces (torrents for example). The only way would be for the ISPs to store a copy of what you send/recieve and have a team running them and cross-referencing them over the legality.
IMO the internet is too big to be policed, and file-sharing is the same...
Setting aside everything else, It does seem impossible to implement as they describe it.
Coming soon to a country near you: Even more new laws that make it all too possible... bend over boys!
UNLESS what they're going to do is rely on the copyright holders to make complaints. I think the effect of this would be to slipstream the current process of dealing with infrigements, where they have to go through a big legal song and dance with each and every infringer to identify them and do the ceace and desist thing, making examples of the odd one. Maybe with this new law all they'd have to do would be to fire off an email to your ISP and get you perma-banned just like that? It's a pretty scary thought, and how easy will it be to appeal if they make a mistake?
Coming soon to a country near you: Even more new laws that make it all too possible... bend over boys!
UNLESS what they're going to do is rely on the copyright holders to make complaints. I think the effect of this would be to slipstream the current process of dealing with infrigements, where they have to go through a big legal song and dance with each and every infringer to identify them and do the ceace and desist thing, making examples of the odd one. Maybe with this new law all they'd have to do would be to fire off an email to your ISP and get you perma-banned just like that? It's a pretty scary thought, and how easy will it be to appeal if they make a mistake?
I agree. The way forward would logically be the copyright holders searching the net and torrents for infringing files, and firing off an email to the ISPs to give the next warning.
To a small extent that is already in place. Prince has over the last year decided to stop all unauthorised files of his image, music or videos on the net and has employed a team to enforce this.
Of course, a small amount will still remain, however, it will stop 95% of the problem which will be enough to not eradicate the problem but seriously limit its effect on the industry.
To a small extent that is already in place. Prince has over the last year decided to stop all unauthorised files of his image, music or videos on the net and has employed a team to enforce this.
Of course, a small amount will still remain, however, it will stop 95% of the problem which will be enough to not eradicate the problem but seriously limit its effect on the industry.
Unfortunately i have not bought a CD in the last few years that sounds better than MP3.
It would appear that the vast majority of the general CD buying populace have no idea of how a CD should sound and the distorted, blurred noise of there download more than suffices.
(Which is why i have downloaded many MP3s but have not bought a CD for ages).
When i can here music sound like music i will very gladly begin buying them again.
Of the recent Cds i have bought by the time i have ripped, declipped and messed around with them they still sound little better than low grade MP3s.
Its a bit like building a high revving engine and limiting to 3000rpm, exhaust the size of a straw and breathing threw a teabag.
I find i rarely enjoy listening to anything recorded later than the early 90s as the quality is literaly painful.
It would appear that the vast majority of the general CD buying populace have no idea of how a CD should sound and the distorted, blurred noise of there download more than suffices.
(Which is why i have downloaded many MP3s but have not bought a CD for ages).
When i can here music sound like music i will very gladly begin buying them again.
Of the recent Cds i have bought by the time i have ripped, declipped and messed around with them they still sound little better than low grade MP3s.
Its a bit like building a high revving engine and limiting to 3000rpm, exhaust the size of a straw and breathing threw a teabag.
I find i rarely enjoy listening to anything recorded later than the early 90s as the quality is literaly painful.
The_Burg said:
Unfortunately i have not bought a CD in the last few years that sounds better than MP3.
It would appear that the vast majority of the general CD buying populace have no idea of how a CD should sound and the distorted, blurred noise of there download more than suffices.
(Which is why i have downloaded many MP3s but have not bought a CD for ages).
When i can here music sound like music i will very gladly begin buying them again.
Of the recent Cds i have bought by the time i have ripped, declipped and messed around with them they still sound little better than low grade MP3s.
Its a bit like building a high revving engine and limiting to 3000rpm, exhaust the size of a straw and breathing threw a teabag.
I find i rarely enjoy listening to anything recorded later than the early 90s as the quality is literaly painful.
Then if you want to buy something worth listening to try anything engineered by Al Schmidt, any of his modern classical or jazz recordings. If you have more rockier tastes anything engineered my Alan Sides or mixed by Jack Joseph Puig.It would appear that the vast majority of the general CD buying populace have no idea of how a CD should sound and the distorted, blurred noise of there download more than suffices.
(Which is why i have downloaded many MP3s but have not bought a CD for ages).
When i can here music sound like music i will very gladly begin buying them again.
Of the recent Cds i have bought by the time i have ripped, declipped and messed around with them they still sound little better than low grade MP3s.
Its a bit like building a high revving engine and limiting to 3000rpm, exhaust the size of a straw and breathing threw a teabag.
I find i rarely enjoy listening to anything recorded later than the early 90s as the quality is literaly painful.
All modern geniuses in their field. If you cannot tell the difference between the CD of those and MP3s then you either don't know the difference or are listening on something where a CD isnt going to make a difference anyway.
To ATG, Justin and the others who are against the downloading of copyrighted material...
Do you insist on buying genuine dealer parts for your cars? If not, why not? How do you feel about the some factory in China mass producing equivalent car parts then exporting them into Europe for sale at half the original manufacturers price?
I suspect the large majority of people go for non dealer parts and make huge savings. But you're effectivly buying a copy of a genuine part. The manufactures would love the government to make buying copied parts illegal - how would you feel about that?
How is this scenario any different to me making a copy of my newly purchased CD and selling them to mates for a quid? (Just theoretical of course)
Most of the people who download music don't profit from it, so in my eyes they're not even as bad as those nasty no-OEM part manufacturers!
Do you insist on buying genuine dealer parts for your cars? If not, why not? How do you feel about the some factory in China mass producing equivalent car parts then exporting them into Europe for sale at half the original manufacturers price?
I suspect the large majority of people go for non dealer parts and make huge savings. But you're effectivly buying a copy of a genuine part. The manufactures would love the government to make buying copied parts illegal - how would you feel about that?
How is this scenario any different to me making a copy of my newly purchased CD and selling them to mates for a quid? (Just theoretical of course)
Most of the people who download music don't profit from it, so in my eyes they're not even as bad as those nasty no-OEM part manufacturers!
boony said:
To ATG, Justin and the others who are against the downloading of copyrighted material...
Do you insist on buying genuine dealer parts for your cars? If not, why not? How do you feel about the some factory in China mass producing equivalent car parts then exporting them into Europe for sale at half the original manufacturers price?
I suspect the large majority of people go for non dealer parts and make huge savings. But you're effectivly buying a copy of a genuine part. The manufactures would love the government to make buying copied parts illegal - how would you feel about that?
How is this scenario any different to me making a copy of my newly purchased CD and selling them to mates for a quid? (Just theoretical of course)
Most of the people who download music don't profit from it, so in my eyes they're not even as bad as those nasty no-OEM part manufacturers!
Thats not the same at all!Do you insist on buying genuine dealer parts for your cars? If not, why not? How do you feel about the some factory in China mass producing equivalent car parts then exporting them into Europe for sale at half the original manufacturers price?
I suspect the large majority of people go for non dealer parts and make huge savings. But you're effectivly buying a copy of a genuine part. The manufactures would love the government to make buying copied parts illegal - how would you feel about that?
How is this scenario any different to me making a copy of my newly purchased CD and selling them to mates for a quid? (Just theoretical of course)
Most of the people who download music don't profit from it, so in my eyes they're not even as bad as those nasty no-OEM part manufacturers!
If I have bought a car *I have paid for it already*. Even if I buy it second hand, the original buyer has paid full price and from that point the only owner of it it me and no-one has broken any agreement whatsoever. The car manufacturer has got paid in full, and can use that money to pay their staff, or for R&D or whatever.
If I want to repair or modify in in any way I which I am not infringing anyones rights, in the same way if my CD case has a crack in it, I am just going to replace the case, I dont need to send a cheque off to the Universal Group for one of their cases to make my copy 'legit'...!
Edited by JustinP1 on Wednesday 13th February 10:37
Jinx said:
Why does making a copy = taking an object;
It doesn't, but so what? You don't need to involve an object in order to steal. Clearly one can steal, for example, information, or an idea.Jinx said:
I can make a copy of the Mona Lisa and leave the painting or scan a photograph and leave the original?
Yes, because the Mona Lisa is an object whereas a film, or the recording of a piece of music is information.Jinx said:
I have quite happily mentioned a few terms that I feel are appropriate - theft and/or stealing are not any of them.
No you haven't, that is the fist time you've also excluded "stealing". As you seem to like dictionary definitions, how about this one:Steal: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully, to take surreptitiously or without permission
Piracy obvious fulfills those criteria and I'd say it was clear to anyone with an ounce of integrity and a grasp of English that piracy constitutes stealing.
OK, perhaps it's not exactly the same but it is a closer analogy than comparing it to stealing a mars bar from the corner shop! Stealing a mars bar from the shop would be comparable to stealing the original CD from HMV surely? 
I wasn't trying to justify downloading music nor argue about the legalities of it. It is illegal - that's obvious - but the crime is copyright infringement as pointed out, and is not the same as petty theft.
If someone downloads an album that they would never have bought then who exactly has lost out? Not the record company. Not the artist. The people who have paid full price for the album - still have their album - they're just annoyed that someone else has the benefit of something for free and for which they had to pay
Back to the car analogy, what about body panels? How can it be OK for companies to make copied panels? Surely they’ve stolen the OEM’s designs to clone them? This sort of thing happens in every industry and they just seem to get on with it. Cheaper alternatives (copies) are available - some chose to use those - some would rather pay a premium for the original. I don’t see why the music/film industry should be any different.
I wasn't trying to justify downloading music nor argue about the legalities of it. It is illegal - that's obvious - but the crime is copyright infringement as pointed out, and is not the same as petty theft.
If someone downloads an album that they would never have bought then who exactly has lost out? Not the record company. Not the artist. The people who have paid full price for the album - still have their album - they're just annoyed that someone else has the benefit of something for free and for which they had to pay
Back to the car analogy, what about body panels? How can it be OK for companies to make copied panels? Surely they’ve stolen the OEM’s designs to clone them? This sort of thing happens in every industry and they just seem to get on with it. Cheaper alternatives (copies) are available - some chose to use those - some would rather pay a premium for the original. I don’t see why the music/film industry should be any different.
boony said:
OK, perhaps it's not exactly the same but it is a closer analogy than comparing it to stealing a mars bar from the corner shop! Stealing a mars bar from the shop would be comparable to stealing the original CD from HMV surely?
I wasn't trying to justify downloading music nor argue about the legalities of it. It is illegal - that's obvious - but the crime is copyright infringement as pointed out, and is not the same as petty theft.
If someone downloads an album that they would never have bought then who exactly has lost out? Not the record company. Not the artist. The people who have paid full price for the album - still have their album - they're just annoyed that someone else has the benefit of something for free and for which they had to pay
Back to the car analogy, what about body panels? How can it be OK for companies to make copied panels? Surely they’ve stolen the OEM’s designs to clone them? This sort of thing happens in every industry and they just seem to get on with it. Cheaper alternatives (copies) are available - some chose to use those - some would rather pay a premium for the original. I don’t see why the music/film industry should be any different.
Its not any different.I wasn't trying to justify downloading music nor argue about the legalities of it. It is illegal - that's obvious - but the crime is copyright infringement as pointed out, and is not the same as petty theft.
If someone downloads an album that they would never have bought then who exactly has lost out? Not the record company. Not the artist. The people who have paid full price for the album - still have their album - they're just annoyed that someone else has the benefit of something for free and for which they had to pay
Back to the car analogy, what about body panels? How can it be OK for companies to make copied panels? Surely they’ve stolen the OEM’s designs to clone them? This sort of thing happens in every industry and they just seem to get on with it. Cheaper alternatives (copies) are available - some chose to use those - some would rather pay a premium for the original. I don’t see why the music/film industry should be any different.
You can either buy the original versions of tracks - or you can buy the licenced 'cover versions' of songs sung by someone else. You sometimes hear these CDs as background music in shops.
Its not a case that the CD buyers are annoyed. It is the case that as people can download tracks illegally, CD sales have dropped dramatically.
So the record company and the artist dont lose out?
Look at it this way, come back to my analogy about if *you* were doing the work. Lets say at the end of this month at your payday, your boss calls you into the office and says, I know you have worked hard this month, but after you supply your work to us, some sods keep stealing it!
As such, your wages are going to be reduced by half. Sorry. Oh yeah, we are working on a fix and stopping these guys, but dont expect more than half for a good while yet... Oh yeah, that new project we had planned for you, we are scrapping that as we are skint too!
I am guessing you wouldnt be pleased! This is what is happening to record labels and artists. Downloaders are not 'Robin Hood' and his Merry men loking after the poor man 'appropriating' what is rightfully theirs from the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. Real people are losing their jobs, and music is becoming more and more one-dimensional.
As I have mentioned before, the argument that the downloaded wouldnt have bought the item anyway is simply not the answer. If they have been bothered to spend their time and bandwidth downloading it, and then spend their time listening to it, then that music MUST be worth something to them - otherwise they wouldnt bother...
Of course, it may not have been enough for them to justify buying an album, but that would have been their loss. Thats simple economics - and the same in any business. It is the consumers decision for example to watch 'Titanic' at the cinema or whether they would prefer to keep their fiver in cash. The real loss to the industry is from the people who would have considered buying the album if they couldn't find it online 'for free'! That of course is backed up by the sales figures.
ATG said:
Jinx said:
Why does making a copy = taking an object;
It doesn't, but so what? You don't need to involve an object in order to steal. Clearly one can steal, for example, information, or an idea.Jinx said:
I can make a copy of the Mona Lisa and leave the painting or scan a photograph and leave the original?
Yes, because the Mona Lisa is an object whereas a film, or the recording of a piece of music is information.Jinx said:
I have quite happily mentioned a few terms that I feel are appropriate - theft and/or stealing are not any of them.
No you haven't, that is the fist time you've also excluded "stealing". As you seem to like dictionary definitions, how about this one:Steal: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully, to take surreptitiously or without permission
Piracy obvious fulfills those criteria and I'd say it was clear to anyone with an ounce of integrity and a grasp of English that piracy constitutes stealing.
now piracy - tell me do you really equate this with Piracy (used to be punishable by the death penalty)?No I don't equate breaking the terms of copyright with theft or stealing no matter what words are used. As I don't call murder "theft of life". By equating the terms you are actually down-playing the importance of real theft and the damage that can do to an individual. So whilst the MET might massage it's figures (petty theft down 500% - we caught a couple of lads downloading stuff with limewire) the real crimes are left untouched.
The reason it is called theft is more to do with emotive labelling than actual consideration of the "crime" - hence the insultingly purile adverts on DVDs (funds terrorists huh? - evidence please) "You wouldn't take a handbag! " Wouldn't you if it was delivered to your door, at a touch of a button, from a huge handbag warehouse in china, where they have no record of how many handbags are there? - that is a slightly better analogy (though still closer to theft than our original case) .
Obviously this is something that bothers you greatly - I apologise that I do not share your moral outrage over this. Yes breaking copyright is wrong - yes it is rightfully illegal but in the scheme of evils it is not high on my outrage meter and significantly lower than theft (actual object) .
Jinx said:
ATG said:
Jinx said:
Why does making a copy = taking an object;
It doesn't, but so what? You don't need to involve an object in order to steal. Clearly one can steal, for example, information, or an idea.Jinx said:
I can make a copy of the Mona Lisa and leave the painting or scan a photograph and leave the original?
Yes, because the Mona Lisa is an object whereas a film, or the recording of a piece of music is information.Jinx said:
I have quite happily mentioned a few terms that I feel are appropriate - theft and/or stealing are not any of them.
No you haven't, that is the fist time you've also excluded "stealing". As you seem to like dictionary definitions, how about this one:Steal: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully, to take surreptitiously or without permission
Piracy obvious fulfills those criteria and I'd say it was clear to anyone with an ounce of integrity and a grasp of English that piracy constitutes stealing.
now piracy - tell me do you really equate this with Piracy (used to be punishable by the death penalty)?No I don't equate breaking the terms of copyright with theft or stealing no matter what words are used. As I don't call murder "theft of life". By equating the terms you are actually down-playing the importance of real theft and the damage that can do to an individual. So whilst the MET might massage it's figures (petty theft down 500% - we caught a couple of lads downloading stuff with limewire) the real crimes are left untouched.
The reason it is called theft is more to do with emotive labelling than actual consideration of the "crime" - hence the insultingly purile adverts on DVDs (funds terrorists huh? - evidence please) "You wouldn't take a handbag! " Wouldn't you if it was delivered to your door, at a touch of a button, from a huge handbag warehouse in china, where they have no record of how many handbags are there? - that is a slightly better analogy (though still closer to theft than our original case) .
Obviously this is something that bothers you greatly - I apologise that I do not share your moral outrage over this. Yes breaking copyright is wrong - yes it is rightfully illegal but in the scheme of evils it is not high on my outrage meter and significantly lower than theft (actual object) .
How would you define "stealing" in such a way that it didn't include illegally obtaining a copy of copyrighted material? I am genuinely intrigued.
ATG said:
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. You might want to mention that genocide is more serious than downloading too?
How would you define "stealing" in such a way that it didn't include illegally obtaining a copy of copyrighted material? I am genuinely intrigued.
[facetious mode]How would you define "stealing" in such a way that it didn't include illegally obtaining a copy of copyrighted material? I am genuinely intrigued.
Ok I'll give it a shot
[suffles though notes on classic argument structure]
Stealing taking without permission from legal owner.
Copying does not equal taking.
Hence copying does not equal stealing......
[/facetious mode]
Copyright - is exactly as it says on the tin. It gives you the right to copy and depending on the terms distribute copies. Those that do not possess this copyright do not have the right to make and distribute copies (even if they happen to have written, produced and performed it) . If they do they are in breach of copyright - not thieves.
TBH ATG I think we are never going to agree on this one - shall we go back to the religious debate?
Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 13th February 13:30
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff