Thanks for coming out, Kyu.

(June 25, 2009 at 1:49 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: So you're saying there is a distinction between providing (copyright) and accepting (stealing)?

Yes, the distinction is that breaking copyright involves the transfer of something that is protected by copyright law (i.e. sending a copyrighted song to a person). Stealing is the illegal acquirement of something that is not yours.

People who download songs illegally are not breaking copyright (the people who upload / distribute are), but they are stealing.

Wikipedia states copyright as "Copyright gives the author of an original work exclusive right for a certain time period in relation to that work, including its publication, distribution and adaptation". Hence someone that interferes with the publication, distribution, and adaptation is breaking copyright law. This does not apply to downloaders (they are not doing any of the above); it applies to the people who are uploading the file (since they break publication / distribution).

Quote:That would still mean downloading is crime (stealing) which was what my argument with Meatball was about.

And I agree with you, stealing in any form is wrong.

Quote:Not trying to be funny Adrian but I couldn't give a rat's arse about copyleft ... it isn't law, it has no bearing on the concept and is adopted by a bunch of idealists who STILL rely on the normal theft laws to protect other things they own.

Well why wouldn't they rely on normal theft laws? Haven't I just spent the last few posts explaining to you how copyright laws have nothing to do with the illegal acquisition of things? Copyright (and copyleft) is about distribution, theft covers illegally acquisition.

In other words, for example, a software under a copyleft license can be distributed, modified, etc by anyone according to what the license stipulates. However the original acquisition of the software is still protected by standard laws against theft. If you don't pay for the software, you are stealing it.

@ the OP:

Illegal downloading for the win.
I like to watch a few lengthy bits of media including an American talk show. The talk show lasts just under an hour, which means I can't stream more than one episode from megavideo without a subscription (72 minute viewing limit). For this reason, I have to go to torrents and download the file. Thing is, the files for the talk show tend to be in the region of 500mb. You can imagine how much that would clog up my hard drive. For that reason, I delete them after viewing. It's effectively the same as streaming so I don't feel too bad about doing it.

Quote:And that makes it correct?

Kyu

Kyu, Yes, it makes me right....How can you even question that. You read the words I wrote, and by it coming from me it has came to be.......

I wish I had that much power of influence from thought and speech....LOLOLOL

(Sorry brotherman, you made that one to easy not to resist..... )

(June 25, 2009 at 4:49 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 25, 2009 at 4:06 pm)Meatball Wrote: I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

... and because of that you are a criminal (and it is morally wrong).

Kyu

Actually, that's not true. Someone can argue that something shouldn't be a crime whilst still following the law. I'm for the legalization of drugs for various reasons, but I do not take drugs whilst they are still illegal (and to be honest, I probably wouldn't take them if they were legal either).

Speaking of downloading. My ipod is downloading Michael Jacksons number ones as we speak.

(June 25, 2009 at 6:10 pm)Meatball Wrote: Thanks for coming out, Kyu.

Obviously an insult but I've no real idea why.

Kyu

---

(June 26, 2009 at 1:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Actually, that's not true. Someone can argue that something shouldn't be a crime whilst still following the law. I'm for the legalization of drugs for various reasons, but I do not take drugs whilst they are still illegal (and to be honest, I probably wouldn't take them if they were legal either).

Leaving aside the copyright vs theft argument (coz I'm bored of it) and copyleft (because I still couldn't give a toss) I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. Are you taking a stand against my position on crime and morality? I'm for either, 1 the legalisation of drugs or 2 the criminalisation of all currently legal drugs (alcohol & tobacco being the main ones) because I broadly speaking cannot see the difference between some of the "milder" drugs (such as marijuana) and the current legal ones (Outside of custom and practice ,... and trust me I absolutely love beer and I am still drawn to cigarettes despite having mostly given up for about 5 years).

Kyu

(June 26, 2009 at 3:28 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Are you taking a stand against my position on crime and morality?

No, I'm taking a stand against you saying that because Meatball is arguing against a crime, he is a criminal.

There is a difference between thinking a crime is illogical or wrong, and actually committing the crime in question. Like in my example, I will argue about the issue of drugs being a crime, but I will not break the law by taking them.

(June 26, 2009 at 3:50 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(June 26, 2009 at 3:28 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Are you taking a stand against my position on crime and morality?

No, I'm taking a stand against you saying that because Meatball is arguing against a crime, he is a criminal.

If he downloads music illegally then he is a criminal ... it is also morally wrong.

Kyu

(June 26, 2009 at 3:57 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: If he downloads music illegally then he is a criminal ... it is also morally wrong.

I had no problem with this, I agree with you. What I objected to was this:

(June 25, 2009 at 4:49 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 25, 2009 at 4:06 pm)Meatball Wrote: I'm not arguing that it's not a crime. I'm arguing that it shouldn't be a crime.

... and because of that you are a criminal (and it is morally wrong).

Kyu

Someone who argues that something shouldn't be a crime is not necessarily a criminal, as my example showed. If Meatball is actually downloading music, then of course, he is a criminal, but saying that "because he argues that it shouldn't be a crime, he is a criminal" (which is what you said in the above quote) is wrong.

It flies in the face of freedom of speech, and is counterproductive since no new laws (or repeals) could be implemented if this was the case. I mean, say a bunch of 16 year olds wanted to reduce the drinking age to 16. They are well within their right to call for such a law, but they are not breaking any (not even drinking laws) simply by suggesting the law change. Unless it can be proved that you are actually breaking the law, you can talk about how it needs changing all you want.