Do people still use paysites 2 (55)

It's interesting topic and it's now full, so I will start new one:

In my view (and not only in my view, since the law recognizes it as two different things) it's not the same thing.

If you are victim of theft, you ALLWAYS lost something.

You might be victim of copyright infrigment and do not loose even a potential income.

Example: I made something for free and I posted it on the internet for everyone to use, also for free.

Then someone took it and placed it on one of the sited when one has to pay for download quota.

So in that case someone earns on my work - as people pay HIM to download MY stuff.

But what I lost? Nothing, I wasn't planning to get any income of it at all.

So this is what distinguish theft from copyright infrigment: theft causes you real loss, copyright infrigment only barr you from having some potential income, if any.

So these are two completely different things.

Saying that, I agree that abusing someones copyright is wrong. But it's not true that if you have moral standard, you will consider the two things as theft.

It's like saying "if you have moral standards, you will consider verbal abuse as murder".

Also, I don't like opinions like this:

This is not a proper discussion, it's saying "if your opinion is different than mine, you don't have any morals".

Well, I say that theft and copyright infrigments are two different things, both bad, for sure, but it's a two different levels of evil. And I don't like anyone to tell me that I don't have any moral standards...

And as for English, my dictionary says that infringement is something completely different from theft. But then maybe I have wrong dictionary...

But hey, the definition given by Open Source shows perfectly what I mean:

If I download something from the net, the owner still has it. Becase it's not material, it's just electronic copy.

This is why "theft" does not fit in here.

You don't deprive the owner of the original work, but you deprive them of the income that you ought to have paid. So it's still theft in most people's eyes. Crooks will always try and justify their actions with spurious arguments, but fortunately the law doesn't agree with you.

This has already been covered in the original thread, and I'm not sure that this new thread will achieve anything unless it says something new.

1. Basic definition of theft (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'theft' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.

(3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

2. 'Dishonestly' (1) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest- (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or (b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or (c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.

(2) A person's appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding that he is willing to pay for the property.

3. 'Appropriates' (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor's title, amount to theft of the property.

4. 'Property' (1) 'Property' includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. (2) A person cannot steal land, or things forming part of land and severed from it by him or by his directions, except in the following cases, that is to say- (a) when he is a trustee or personal representative, or is authorised by power of attorney, or as liquidator of a company, or otherwise, to sell or dispose of land belonging to another, and he appropriates the land or anything forming part of it by dealing with it in breach of the confidence reposed in him; or (b) when he is not in possession of the land and appropriates anything forming part of the land by severing it or causing it to be severed, or after it has been severed; or (c) when, being in possession of the land under a tenancy, he appropriates the whole or part of any fixture or structure let to be used with the land. For purposes of this subsection 'land' does not include incorporeal hereditaments; 'tenancy' means a tenancy for years or less period and includes an agreement for such a 2 tenancy, but a person who after the end of a tenancy remains in possession as statutory tenant or otherwise is to be treated as having possession under the tenancy, and 'let' shall be construed accordingly. (3) A person who picks mushrooms growing wild on any land, or who picks flowers, fruit or foliage from a plant growing wild on any land, does not (although not in possession of the land) steal what he picks, unless he does it for reward or for sale or other commercial purpose. For purposes of this subsection 'mushroom' includes any fungus, and 'plant' includes any shrub or tree. (4) Wild creatures, tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in course of reducing it into possession.

5. 'Belonging to another' (1) Property shall be regarded as belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest). (2) Where property is subject to a trust, the persons to whom it belongs shall be regarded as including any person having a right to enforce the trust, and an intention to defeat the trust shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive of the property any person having that right. (3) Where a person receives property from or on account of another, and is under an obligation to the other to retain and deal with that property or its proceeds in a particular way, the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the other. (4) Where a person gets property by another's mistake, and is under an obligation to make restoration (in whole or in part) of the property or its proceeds or of the value thereof, then to the extent of that obligation the property or proceeds shall be regarded (as against him) as belonging to the person entitled to restoration, and an intention not to make restoration shall be regarded accordingly as an intention to deprive that person of the property or proceeds. (5) Property of a corporation sole shall be regarded as belonging to the corporation notwithstanding a vacancy in the corporation.

6. 'With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it' (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, where a person, having possession or control lawfully or not) of property belonging to another, parts with the property under a condition as to its return which he may not be able to perform, this (if done for purposes of his own and without the other's authority) amounts to treating the property as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights.

And the common law R v Gosh test:

... a jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest... If it was dishonest... then the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing was by those standards dishonest. ”

Hence the test for dishonesty must be both subjective and objective. As a result, we have 'the Ghosh test', which jury must consider before reaching a verdict on dishonesty :

Was the act one that an ordinary decent person (normally considered to be the ubiquitous 'man on the top deck of a Clapham omnibus') would consider to be dishonest (the objective test)? If so : Must the accused have realised that what he was doing was, by those standards, dishonest (the subjective test)?

However, all this is irrelevant ...simply because legally - under current British law - it is an intellectual property rights matter... not a criminal one.

It is more what I would describe as a quasi-criminal matter because although it's inherently civil in nature - I think prison can result somewhere along the line - particularly if a fine (or some form of asset seizure) isn't paid or such like..

Although I did hear a sniff that this is going to change

Edited 2 Oct 11, 7:32 PM by Lord_Thanos

If you join a paysite, download their material and distribute it elsewhere you are a thieving scumbag.

If you watch porn on the net knowing it is a file sharing site and the content is probably stolen you are also a thieving scumbag.

We all know what we mean.

"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Anna List Clinic: The Patient Files - restricted access

To be honest I probably agree with you - I couldn't help but reply give the legal nature of the conversation - it is my profession after all

I don't have the benefit of being a lawyer nor "It being my profession", but Criminal liability for making, dealing with or using illicit recordings. and Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles look pretty much like criminal law to this non-lawyer, what with this Guide to offences showing it can be dealt with by either summary or indictment routes .....

Edited 3 Oct 11, 5:12 AM by Badg1Vo

It's not about you, it's a general discussion now

I am quite interested in that subject, that's why I pulled the discussion further.

I am personally on opinion, that using someones intellectual property for own use should not be punished. Because that can lead us to absurd, like suing someone for that he read a crime book borrowed from a friend, as he deprived the author of the income by finding who was a killer without paying for that pleasure

And from what I learned, it's not even here in UK. Unless I misunderstanded something from that legal bits.

But I think that people, who make money on someones elses materials are too safe - all this hosting websites etc, they get off that too easily.

Edited 3 Oct 11, 5:56 AM by Rumburak

See that's the difference.

If i ought not to pay anything, as the stuff was for free, I did not deprived him of anything.

But if I use his material to earn some money so despite he did not lost a single penny, I am abusing his copyrights for my own profit.

This is actually interesting.

Do I understand that correctly that if I do a copy someones work for my own use, I won't sell it, show to public or hire to anyone, I won't use it for business and I will copy it with the computer which wasn't build or adapted for that purpose, I am perfectly legal?

(I am sorry about asking, I don't feel particularly strenght with the language yet when it comes to the legal documents)?

Because if yes, that mean your law is weaker even than Polish one, where also distributing it non-profit is punishable. (so you can go to jail for using p2p networks).

Or p2p networks are falling into "showing to public" category?

An excerpt from a memo sent to me yesterday by what appears to be a very nice lady. Perhaps its something some of us should bear in mind in the future.

By the way, sincere appologies to all PD's and their cameramen. Keep it up.

If I buy a cd/dvd or download digital content, which I've paid for, and subsequently don't like it, then I'm largely stuck with it. It's assumed that once I've opened the packaging that I can copy it, and so generally I'm not allowed to return it just because I think it's rubbish. I'm therefore assumed to be a thief.

If the film, which was so beautifully described in its write up, turns out to be cheaply produced crap, then I'm out of pocket. If the album is one or two decent tracks, coupled with 10 tracks of padding, then it's my tough luck.

The music and film industry have done this for decades with rubbish albums and straight to dvd films, and it's largely a rip off of consumers. So who are the thieving scumbags here?

The only difference is that this sort of thievery is protected in law.

The same of course is true for software, however they tend not to whine to government about it. They strive to provide value by offering an upgrade path when enhancements are introduced, something the film industry could do with adopting when dvd owners want to buy the blu ray version. They provide coded encryption, and at the smaller end of the scale they offer freeware, shareware, trials and different payment models.

The internet provides some huge advantages, particularly when it comes to distribution, for smaller providers, who may not have existed without it, by eliminating costs such as dvd production. It provides access to a much wider, global audience, which would have been too expensive or impractical to otherwise reach.

With these advantages comes some downsides such as leakage through pirating, so no, the system isn't perfect, but neither is it as one sided as some people make out either.