It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by arbiture
I was not talking about information in general like intelligence agencies or the scientific community, which I believe goes straight into the public domain, but copyrighted property like music, books and that type of intellectual property.
The Berne Convention does include most of the countries of the world but it is up to the interested party to gather evidence and present the lawsuit to start the process and it isn't the governments place to investigate or look into private citizens lives on behalf of those parties.
edit on 17-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by rival
reply to post by CranialSponge
It is still a justification of theft. If an artist gives away material to promote his product take it,
It was free and intended to BE FREE. But taking without permission if theft. One's a gift,
one's a criminal act.
I can't see any better way to explain this, and the point is probably moot, because the message
is falling on deaf ears.
It follows that 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: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. 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.
Originally posted by daskakik
Originally posted by jaduguru
So this is why my games and music and movie rentals cost so much ....
No the reason is that copywright is a monopoly and the copyright holder can charge whatever they like. I'm sure they have number crunchers come up with the highest price that most are willing to pay before they start sharing.
So Piracy is now called "sharing" ? .. ( BTW .. back in the days of cassettes tapes and copy games was called Hacking )
Some governments have enacted laws, like the one in the OP, that state that downloading intellectual property is no different than sharing. And back in the days Hacking was gaining unautherized access to networks not making copies of cassettes. Making copies of an album for a friend was nothing now they are trying to make it a felony.
Kids dont get it ..they never will.
People who create these file sharing tools and the people who have been at it for decades are anything but kids. No need to be condescending.
You see .. its Stealing no matter what you want to call it.
It's not what we call it but what the legal system calls it.
You Kids are going to regret stealing/hacking/sharing .. Your Too Blatant about it.
I somehow Know its not the older ATS'ers that condone this .. You just dont get it .. but you will soon .. and It is not MY fault. You leave no choice.
What? You point out that it has been done since the 70's with cassettes but now, 40 years later, we leave no choice.
edit on 18-12-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)
You Will NOT Buy it if you can just Download it ..
Am I wrong or am I right ?