DONT DO IT !!!!

lol@ stealing, most mainstream music is broadcasted free...

it's not stealing...

Charlie wrote in post #14990596
lol@ stealing, most mainstream music is broadcasted free...

it's not stealing...

I am going to play devils advocate here and say that you could say that about posting pics on pbase or flikr or anywhere online. Your a photographer and and when you put work online its like your broadcasting it to the masses....for free! Its not stealing....

....personally I dont care too much about digital rights. You digitize it and put it online and its gonna get stolen....ARRRH!

It's not about theft, it's about use and profit from unauthorized use.

Isn't use and profit without authorization theft?

RDKirk's Iron Law of Copyright Discourse:

"As any discussion about any facet of copyright grows longer, the probability of the RIAA being used as an example in arguments opposing copyright and then dominating the discussion approaches 1."

Kronie wrote in post #14990921
Isn't use and profit without authorization theft?

That is a simplification that isn't true.

Use and profit without authorization can be described as unethical. And in many situations (not all) illegal. But you can still not equalize it with theft.

Why? Because theft takes something from the owner. And unauthorized use of a photos or a song does not automatically mean that the rights owner have lost a sales fee.

It's the same thing if I break into the neighbors hours and take his lawn mower and then charge money to take care of other peoples lawns. Then I make sure that lawn mower is refilled and puts it back. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is making profit without authorization. But it is not theft. The neighbor could have made the money himself but lost the chance, so potentially the neighbor even lost money (ignoring any debate about wear and tear on the lawn mower). But still no theft.

So even if you take away someones chance to sell a service, it is still not theft.

Calling a crime the wrong thing will only take a way the focus from the fact that it is still illegal. Copyright violations are illegal but should not be mixed up as theft. It isn't theft unless I relieve you of your originals files/prints. Then I have stolen something from you and you no longer are in possession of the stolen images.

pwm2 wrote in post #14991060
That is a simplification that isn't true.

You can argue this back and forth in the courts forever. theft does not need to be a physical thing. I could argue that you, in stealing my copyrighted material made a sale, stealing my profits.

I am not talking about theft as a police officer sees it but as a judge or jury would see it for damages.

How nice of you to fill up the tank and bring the lawn mower back though!

Poor analogy because that is theft in most states of the US, and is considered a crime in all states.

Well yes - it's definitely a crime. Just as it is a crime to violate a copyright.

But next thing here is that this isn't a US-only forum which means that the specific law for illegal use of a vehicle is quite different depending on where you live.

pwm2 wrote in post #14991301
Well yes - it's definitely a crime. Just as it is a crime to violate a copyright.

But next thing here is that this isn't a US-only forum which means that the specific law for illegal use of a vehicle is quite different depending on where you live.

Which also constrains you from asserting on this forum that it is not theft.

The copyright laws are way more unified all over the world, than the criminal laws about theft.

And copyright violations are not theft.

pwm2 wrote in post #14991060
That is a simplification that isn't true.

Use and profit without authorization can be described as unethical. And in many situations (not all) illegal. But you can still not equalize it with theft.

Why? Because theft takes something from the owner. And unauthorized use of a photos or a song does not automatically mean that the rights owner have lost a sales fee.

It's the same thing if I break into the neighbors hours and take his lawn mower and then charge money to take care of other peoples lawns. Then I make sure that lawn mower is refilled and puts it back. It is illegal. It is unethical. It is making profit without authorization. But it is not theft. The neighbor could have made the money himself but lost the chance, so potentially the neighbor even lost money (ignoring any debate about wear and tear on the lawn mower). But still no theft.

So even if you take away someones chance to sell a service, it is still not theft.

Calling a crime the wrong thing will only take a way the focus from the fact that it is still illegal. Copyright violations are illegal but should not be mixed up as theft. It isn't theft unless I relieve you of your originals files/prints. Then I have stolen something from you and you no longer are in possession of the stolen images.

I don't think this would fly, in ANY country. By that assertion, i can "borrow" your car without your consent, and return it.. and not have stolen it.

I wonder how many cars stolen every year, were intended to be brought back... with a full tank of gas, of course?

Quite a lot of countries have special laws for illegal use of vehicles, as separate from theft of vehicles.

pwm2 wrote in post #14991439
Quite a lot of countries have special laws for illegal use of vehicles, as separate from theft of vehicles.

Not the US. That's grand larceny in every state here, no less than a year in prison if convicted. No, wait, Utah would consider it a high-degree case of "wrongful appropriation"...which would still carry a felony penalty and more than a year in prison.

It doesn't make a significant difference in one's life if one is convicted of "wrongful appropriation" versus "theft" in the US.

However, the US military does make a rather significant distinction between "wrongful appropriation" and "theft." I suspect it's because it's rather easy for a soldier to think he has more use of military property that had been assigned to him than he really has.

I actually sat on a court-martial panel where we convicted a young troop of wrongful appropriation of a case of brand new Rolex Oyster watches from his unit. He then thought better of it and returned them a day later, inadvertently leaving enough evidence to be apprehended. He was being prosecuted for grand larceny, but during the course of the court-martial we discovered his NCOIC was a liar and a skunk, so we had pity on the young guy and convicted him of wrongful appropriation instead. That gave him a "bad conduct discharge" instead of a prison sentence.

Kronie wrote in post #14990851
I am going to play devils advocate here and say that you could say that about posting pics on pbase or flikr or anywhere online. Your a photographer and and when you put work online its like your broadcasting it to the masses....for free! Its not stealing....

....personally I dont care too much about digital rights. You digitize it and put it online and its gonna get stolen....ARRRH!

People view my flickr pics every day, they could be downloading the pics. Maybe I should sue for millions