Illegal Downloading

[N!ck]

I have no issue with it as long as the person is not profiting from it (although you could claim that the person you are selling to is not paying for the copied article, merely your service, time and effort of putting a disc in a drive and clicking burn added on to the raw material costs).

Although you are not removing the original copy, it is still theft. You are gaining something that you should have paid for for free. Therefore it is theft.

[awelsh]

You seriously don't want me to answer the first question.

That shows your a selfish little <rude word ere>, if you can't afford to pay for it theres various sites like youtube where you can listen to it for free. If you don't listen to it much don't buy it, a little bit of common sense tells you that, mind you going back to the first question.......

Oh **** off, im sorry im not loaded like some. Go and shove your big head up your arse.

Edited by Wayne (Forum Moderator) Please don't be rude.

[Phoenix11]

I dont like it at all.

[Niall!]

If you can't afford something, you don't get it, it's that simple.

If you can't afford a car you wouldn't dare steal a car, you'd live without it.

But piracy isn't theft as my previous post in this thread states very clearly.

[Nick.]

(i.e. programs) You are STEALING their software, it might be only one license, but its STEALING THAT LICENSE which you SHOULD have to pay for it. That IS against the law, if you think its not you're an IDIOT. If your 15 and can't afford photoshop it's really simple, DONT USE IT use an alternative that's cheaper or free.

But if he would never, ever, ever be able to afford Photoshop, why not download it because they would never have his cash anyway so it wouldn't make a difference.

[Nuka-Cola]

stealing is stealing just in this form you are stealing something through you computer. It costs the industries millions every year especcially the music industry.

[Nick.]

stealing is stealing just in this form you are stealing something through you computer. It costs the industries millions every year especcially the music industry.

I'm sure Beyonce isn't missing the 79p I didn't pay for her song, mind you, she does seem very deprived....

Yes, that is Beyonce's house.

[H0BJ0B]

Of course it does :s if you buy a dvd or cd for yourself thats an original from the shop its only for personal use. If you then decide to broadcast it in your shop, taxi office, cinema or anywhere else outside the home that benefits random strangers you are breaking the law. it usually tells you about this on the dvd or cd in the copyright part.

That's different. That's when you BOUGHT the actual original. I'm saying illegally downloading the 'thing' for personal use is just as bad as downloading and playing in a shop for example.

Anyway, not once have I said I'm against it - I download illegally all the time, however I know what effect it has, unlike the guy who I fought against originally saying that the singers and loaded and don't need more money.

[jrh2002]

illegally downloading the 'thing' for personal use is just as bad as downloading and playing in a shop for example.

Openly breaking the law would/should get you a much bigger penalty than having something for personal use. Playing a copy of a cd in public would be fine i assume as long as you have a license to do so.

Under UK copyright law (the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) licences are required if music is to be played in public. The Performing Rights Society (PRS) and Phonographic Performances Ltd (PPL) both issue licences to the owner of the premises. The latter will also issue licences to individuals if they are to hold, for example, a disco, dance sessions or aerobics classes.


British law
In British Law, any modification of data stored on a computer so that unauthorised access is gained to software packages, games, movies, and music would be a criminal offence under §3 Computer Misuse Act 1990. So, if a read-only music CD is placed in a PC drive and the contents loaded into the computer's memory for playing, any application that allows the music to be copied and stored on the machine or an MP3 player would commit the offence in theory but, so far, there have been no prosecutions on this set of facts. More generally, §16 and 20 Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 (as amended by the Copyright and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002) covers copyrighted materials. However this does grant the right to create backup copies of software, so that the original can be kept safe from damage, technically meaning companies must provide either additional discs or the means to overcome any copy protection. People who distribute and download copyrighted recordings without permission are liable to face civil actions for damages and penalties (the largest to date is £6,500, or $12,120.55). As in the United States, the enforcement agencies were able to identify the IP addresses and the ISPs were obliged to disclose the name and address of the owner of each such internet account but legislation was passed recently so that it isn't compulsory to hand over the information.[citation needed]
A 2006 survey carried out for the National Consumer Council indicated that over half of British adults infringe copyright law by copying and ripping music CDs, with 59% stating a belief that copying for personal use is legal.[39] However, ripping music from CDs to another format, such as MP3, is currently illegal. In 2006 The Institute for Public Policy Research called for a "public right to copy".[40] In January 2008 the government proposed changes to copyright law that would legalise copying for personal use.[41]

[edit] Criminal offences


For the most part, the criminal law is only used for commercial copyright infringement with one exception[citation needed], and an offence is committed when knowing or reasonably suspecting that the files are illegal copies[citation needed], and without the permission of the copyright owner, a person:

• makes unauthorised copies e.g. burning music files or films on to CD-Rs or DVD-Rs;
• distributes, sells or hires out unauthorised copies of CDs, VCDs and DVDs;
• on a larger scale, distributes unauthorised copies as a commercial enterprise on the internet;
• possesses unauthorised copies with a view to distributing, selling or hiring these to other people;
• while not dealing commercially, distributes unauthorised copies of software packages, books, music, games, and films on such a scale as to have a measurable impact on the copyright owner's business;
• publishing someone else's original copy work and claiming you have made it. (This is known as plagiarism and is completely different from copyright infringement, but laws concerning it come under the section of copyright law in some countries);
• certain copyrights allow Archival copies of software to be made however these are not to be distributed.

The penalties for these "copyright infringement" offences depend on the seriousness of the offences:

• before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
• in the Crown Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment.

Also note §24 Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 which creates a range of offences relating to the distribution of any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures. When this is for non-commercial purposes, it requires there to be a measurable effect on the rights holder's business.

[edit] Comparison to theft

Further information: Dowling v. United States (1985) Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, for instance in the title of the No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, but differs in certain respects.
Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen property, and writing:

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.' ...
The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

—Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright. That information can be replicated without destroying an original is an old observation,[42] and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In economic terms, information is not an exclusive good; this has led some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws for physical property and intellectual property should be very different.[43]
Conversely, as the above states, "theft" is used colloquially to indicate "wrongful appropriation".[44] The use of the term "theft" to indicate various mental crimes, has a long history in Jewish law, in the tenant of Geneivat da'at (גניבת דעת‎, literally "mind theft"), though this primarily deals with deception or fraud, not copyright.
The debate on whether to call copyright infringement "theft" thus turns on how meaningful this distinction is, and how misleading it is to equate the terms: is copyright infringement essentially theft, or is it fundamentally different in character? More broadly, how similar are physical property and intellectual property?





The penalties for these "copyright infringement" offences depend on the seriousness of the offences:

• before a magistrates' Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are a maximum fine of £5,000 and/or six months imprisonment;
• in the Crown Court, the penalties for distributing unauthorised files are an unlimited fine and/or up to 10 years imprisonment.

See here that that this is on about distributing the copyrighted material and no mention of personal use.

[JackBuddy]

I'm sure Beyonce isn't missing the 79p I didn't pay for her song, mind you, she does seem very deprived....

Yes, that is Beyonce's house.

Huge bands such as Coldplay only actually recieve 15-30p per album. Beyonce is one of the biggest acts in the industry... ever. It's a bit OTT to use her as an example.