When is piracy morally justifiable?

[Onnes]

19 minutes ago, Lucyfish said:

Welp, Sony just ran off with $75 of mine. Bought a video editing program that doesn't work, they refuse a refund and want to charge me an extra $30 for tech support.

You should make a thread on this. I'd be interested to know what the issue was.

[Saxon]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Yes. Due to having to break into someone else's property.

What? How so? That software package is now mine, and on my property. How is it theft to modify something I have fully bought and paid for, and brought to my own place?

That's not actually theft. Using those to later steal money or to break into personal data storages is the theft. Passwords, credit card details, and activation keys are just information. It's some bits of data that everyone "steals" into their head just by seeing it once. How is seeing and remembering a string of numbers without actually using them to steal money or personal information "theft?"

I do pay fairly to watch any film. I just avoid paying unfairly for all films. Yes, it's a business, and it needs to keep figuring out how to be run as a business in a world without enforceable copyright (like iTunes, Spotify, and even Microsoft in China did). Only idiots think that in such a world donations would be the only way to make money, and those businesses will likely be the first to die.

Hence copying a DVD or piece of software, which are explicitly laced with code that is meant to prevent copies being made, is breaking into a digital platform to harvest information. 

You agreed this act is theft. 

 

Deliberately harvesting private or secret information is theft, because they mean that you have access to other people's private and secret content, including their projects and ideas, like new software solutions. Think of it like a crook making a copy of your house key, so that he could wander in any time he chooses; it is still a nasty thing to do, and you shouldn't have to wait for him to take advantage of his access. 

 

Your idea of 'fairly' is 'I steal whatever I like'.  

Those of you who abuse the internet in order to steal other people's creative content, like parasites, are ultimately going to ruin it for the rest of us. 

 

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Hence copying a DVD or piece of software, which are explicitly laced with code that is meant to prevent copies being made, is breaking into a digital platform to harvest information. 

You agreed this act is theft.

For the love of fucking god, it's not the same.  I'm not even defending Rassah, but god damnit, the vast, vast, VAST majority of piracy is a violation of CIVIL LAW.  It is not a criminal act, you can not be arrested for it, if someone called the cops about my 21TB storage server they'd just be like 'Uhh, okay, cool, we can only deal with criminal law violations, infact it'd be a CRIME for us to get into that, try calling the copyright owners?'

You have BOTH been doing this through this entire thread, confusing criminal and civil law, citing violations of civil law as 'the state making citizens into criminals!' or 'It's just like thieft!' it's not.  You should KNOW this, I learned the difference in 11th grade high school law class, it was the FIRST CHAPTER OF THE TEXT BOOK.

Hell, if you rent a movie and NEVER return it, even that's not theft in the eyes of the law, that's a CONTRACT VIOLATION.  All they can do is SUE you.  (Or, more realistically, they'd bill your credit card that you signed up with, and you'd then try to sue them back because for some crazy reason you didn't think you owed them, but they'd be all 'Contract says so!', but I digress).

Sorry, no, they are NOT the same, I'm not saying it's not wrong or not illegal, but it's not a CRIME.  That's WHY the police can't kick your down because you torrented something.  It's not a criminal act, it's just a violation of civil law!  And you two numbskulls have been going on this egotistical debate of legal moral bullshit while someone being ignorant of one of the most basic concepts of all legal systems!  WHY ARN'T YOU SMARTER THAN AN 11TH GRADER!?

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

For the love of fucking god, it's not the same.  I'm not even defending Rassah, but god damnit, the vast, vast, VAST majority of piracy is a violation of CIVIL LAW.  It is not a criminal act, you can not be arrested for it, if someone called the cops about my 21TB storage server they'd just be like 'Uhh, okay, cool, we can only deal with criminal law violations, infact it'd be a CRIME for us to get into that, try calling the copyright owners?'

You have BOTH been doing this through this entire thread, confusing criminal and civil law, citing violations of civil law as 'the state making citizens into criminals!' or 'It's just like thieft!' it's not.  You should KNOW this, I learned the difference in 11th grade high school law class, it was the FIRST CHAPTER OF THE TEXT BOOK.

Hell, if you rent a movie and NEVER return it, even that's not theft in the eyes of the law, that's a CONTRACT VIOLATION.  All they can do is SUE you.  (Or, more realistically, they'd bill your credit card that you signed up with, and you'd then try to sue them back because for some crazy reason you didn't think you owed them, but they'd be all 'Contract says so!', but I digress).

Sorry, no, they are NOT the same, I'm not saying it's not wrong or not illegal, but it's not a CRIME.  That's WHY the police can't kick your down because you torrented something.  It's not a criminal act, it's just a violation of civil law!  And you two numbskulls have been going on this egotistical debate of legal moral bullshit while someone being ignorant of one of the most basic concepts of all legal systems!  WHY ARN'T YOU SMARTER THAN AN 11TH GRADER!?

Rassah doesn't care what the law is; he thinks it's just a piece of paper. I'm trying to persuade him that it's wrong because taking something without permission is stealing, rather than explain the legal nuanced to him. Do you get it? 

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, Saxon said:

Rassah doesn't care what the law is; he thinks it's just a piece of paper. I'm trying to persuade him that it's wrong because taking something without permission is stealing, rather than explain the legal nuanced to him. Do you get it? 

Cool, now if you could stop confusing criminal and civil law as well, that'd be super.

[Saxon]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

Cool, now if you could stop confusing criminal and civil law as well, that'd be super.

Well, since you're being so polite about it. 

[MalletFace]

Since it was mentioned, only under cases spelled out in Section 506 of Chapter 5 of Title 17 is infringement of copyright tried under criminal law. Any other case is civil.

Quote

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of Title 18, if the infringement was committed

• for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
• by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
• by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

Title 18 is federal criminal law, by the way.

Edited January 1, 2016 by MalletFace

[Rassah]

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

Hence copying a DVD or piece of software, which are explicitly laced with code that is meant to prevent copies being made, is breaking into a digital platform to harvest information. 

You agreed this act is theft. 

Don't I own the plastic and aluminum medium (DVD disk) that this code is sitting on? So how am I stealing by breaking into the thing I already own?

I know you hate these, but here's another analogy. A car sales shop sells cars with one square wheel. The shop also sells a round wheel for $200 which you can replace your square one so you can go faster than 10 kph. I use my own tools to retool the square wheel into a round shape, bypassing the need to buy a round wheel from the car shop. How did I just steal from the car shop?

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

Deliberately harvesting private or secret information is theft, because they mean that you have access to other people's private and secret content, including their projects and ideas, like new software solutions.

OK, but it's not a crime until you actually use those to gain access to (break into) that private and secret content. Knowing fEdIJ53d7Dzd$Y is not a crime.

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

Think of it like a crook making a copy of your house key, so that he could wander in any time he chooses

Yeah, it's not a crime to make copies of keys. Anyone is allowed to do it. Using them for breaking into someone's property is the crime. But the DVD I buy (or in the more current example, into my car's computer) should not be, since I actually own the thing I'm breaking into.

What about this do you not understand?

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

Your idea of 'fairly' is 'I steal whatever I like'.  

I don't actually steal stuff. Seriously, people REALLY trust me with their stuff and their money. I probably have more of other people's under my control than many of you earned in your lifetime. So I seriously do NOT "steal whatever I like." I just don't consider this theft.

I repeat, I do not consider this theft.

I do not steal and then try to justify my theft, I DO NO consider duplication of information theft.

 

8 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

For the love of fucking god, it's not the same.  I'm not even defending Rassah, but god damnit, the vast, vast, VAST majority of piracy is a violation of CIVIL LAW.  It is not a criminal act, you can not be arrested for it

ThereThere's scary FBI warnings about $250,000 fines and jail sentences, and Kim Dotcom got arrested, again, as did the ThePirateBay founder, so apparently some of it is criminal. To the point where US law enforcement will go after foreign citizens in other countries.

 

[AshleyAshes]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

ThereThere's scary FBI warnings about $250,000 fines and jail sentences, and Kim Dotcom got arrested, again, as did the ThePirateBay founder, so apparently some of it is criminal. To the point where US law enforcement will go after foreign citizens in other countries.

Funny how that FBI warning doesn't actually cite any specific laws, isn't it?

Kim Dotcom ran an entire service where he literally PAID people money to upload pirated content to MegaUpload so as to generate revenue.  He's also charged with wirefraud, racketeering, and money laundering.  The PirateBay was also a MASSIVE operation.  These are extreme outliers and I did specifically say 'vast, vast, VAST majority' were not criminal, so as long as you're not operating an entire enterprise on piracy, it's not criminal.

If you're going to cry about average citizens being made into criminals, find me an 'average citizen' in a western nation who was criminally charged for piracy, just for downloading a song or a movie, ya know, someone who wasn't involved it organized crime.  Oh wait, there are none.

So I'm going to leave you guys here to enjoy not being able to pass the first quiz in an 11th grade law class, while you all pretend that you're just so wise, clever, and educated as you debate back and forth.

 

Edited January 1, 2016 by AshleyAshes

[Jerry]

This entire thread:

[MalletFace]

6 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Funny how that FBI warning doesn't actually cite any specific laws, isn't it?

They are not required to, but the law is there.

Under Title 18 and Title 17, individual criminal infringements of copyrighted material

• for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
• by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180–day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
• by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution

can be punished with fines up to $250,000 and criminal sentences up to five years. Multiple infringements can cause the fines and sentences to be longer.

Edited January 1, 2016 by MalletFace

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

If you're going to cry about average citizens being made into criminals, find me an 'average citizen' in a western nation who was criminally charged for piracy, just for downloading a song or a movie, ya know, someone who wasn't involved it organized crime.  Oh wait, there are none.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226751&page=1

By the way, practically everybody in these kinds of big cases is charged with money laundering. Money Laundering is like the stupidest crime ever.

[MalletFace]

Thousands of people uploading criminally copyright-infringing content to sites like LimeWire is organized crime as far as the government is concerned. It fits the definition.

Also, I do not see how making money that is not legally yours appear as though it is legally yours should not be a crime, but I am not going on in this thread.

[Saxon]

7 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Funny how that FBI warning doesn't actually cite any specific laws, isn't it?

Kim Dotcom ran an entire service where he literally PAID people money to upload pirated content to MegaUpload so as to generate revenue.  He's also charged with wirefraud, racketeering, and money laundering.  The PirateBay was also a MASSIVE operation.  These are extreme outliers and I did specifically say 'vast, vast, VAST majority' were not criminal, so as long as you're not operating an entire enterprise on piracy, it's not criminal.

If you're going to cry about average citizens being made into criminals, find me an 'average citizen' in a western nation who was criminally charged for piracy, just for downloading a song or a movie, ya know, someone who wasn't involved it organized crime.  Oh wait, there are none.

So I'm going to leave you guys here to enjoy not being able to pass the first quiz in an 11th grade law class, while you all pretend that you're just so wise, clever, and educated as you debate back and forth.

 

I never actually attended 11th grade...

...because I grew up in England, and we didn't have law classes or 'grades'. Can you explain your points, rather than telling everyone else they're stupid because they studied different subjects to you? 

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=8226751&page=1

By the way, practically everybody in these kinds of big cases is charged with money laundering. Money Laundering is like the stupidest crime ever.

...This is NOT a criminal case, this is STILL a civil law case.  Is the concept here to difficult for you to understand?

[MalletFace]

5 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

...This is NOT a criminal case, this is STILL a civil law case.  Is the concept here to difficult for you to understand?

Even reading the name of the case should tell him this:

It is Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum not United States v. Tenenbaum.

In any case of criminal law infringement, the plaintiff is the state or federal government. In civil cases, the plaintiff is a person, organization, etc.

[Rassah]

9 hours ago, MalletFace said:

I do not see how making money that is not legally yours appear as though it is legally yours should not be a crime, but I am not going on in this thread.

The money is legally yours, just earned doing something illegal (like selling drugs or prostitution, yeah, technicalities), but which you hid the source of to make it look like it was earned legally. But I've seen the money laundering charge pop up in seemingly every case where online things were the crime. It's as if the feds throw it in there just in case it sticks, and its not that hard to run afoul of it. Practically everyone who uses cash launders money.

 

As for the case, sorry, it was in federal court and I didn't look closely enough.

Is Japan considered a western nation? There are a few arrests there too. Generally I don't expect arrests for civil cases. But this is a tangent of an otherwise beaten horse topic.

Edited January 2, 2016 by Rassah

[AshleyAshes]

15 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Is Japan considered a western nation?

I see that geography is not a strong point here either...  Though now you've fallen down to being unable to compete with third graders.

To be clear, since apparently this whole 'criminal' and 'civil law' is still such a difficult concept, no, you shouldn't just 'generally not expect' arrests for civil cases.  There are none.  You do not get arrested, detained, or imprisoned for violations of civil law.  That is not a thing.

[MalletFace]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

The money is legally yours, just earned doing something illegal (like selling drugs or prostitution, yeah, technicalities), but which you hid the source of to make it look like it was earned legally. But I've seen the money laundering charge pop up in seemingly every case where online things were the crime. It's as if the feds throw it in there just in case it sticks, and its not that hard to run afoul of it. Practically everyone who uses cash launders money.

It does not matter what you think; under federal law the money is not legally yours if you did not earn it legally. To most people, money earned illegally is not rightfully yours.

It is not used just in case it sticks, and it has specific guidelines to keep people from unintentionally falling under its money laundering penalties..Over three-thousand words of guidelines, actually - all of them in Title 18. It pops up in online cases all the time because the section on money laundering and related crimes in Title 18 also has specific sections on organized and international crime. You might be surprised to find that crimes involving file-sharing are most often international, organized, and profitable. They fall under this part of Title 18 because specific copyright infringements are criminal.

Even though it was originally intended for international drug crimes, it serves well to make large crime particularly unprofitable - not being allowed to profit from crime works that way.

Most people do not fall within these guidelines. If they do, they must have committed a crime that resulted in a profit.

[yell0wf0x]

 

[Saxon]

DVD's actually say 'thanks you for supporting your local cinema industry' , which is code for 'yay you didn't pirate' at the start now, which is pretty sad. 

[willow]

On 1/1/2016 at 2:54 AM, AshleyAshes said:

For the love of fucking god, it's not the same.  I'm not even defending Rassah, but god damnit, the vast, vast, VAST majority of piracy is a violation of CIVIL LAW.  It is not a criminal act, you can not be arrested for it, if someone called the cops about my 21TB storage server they'd just be like 'Uhh, okay, cool, we can only deal with criminal law violations, infact it'd be a CRIME for us to get into that, try calling the copyright owners?'
 

Piracy can be either depending on the situation. Technically copyright law is a civil matter, but you can be put in prison or fined given the circumstances

Quote

Sorry, no, they are NOT the same, I'm not saying it's not wrong or not illegal, but it's not a CRIME.  That's WHY the police can't kick your down because you torrented something.  It's not a criminal act, it's just a violation of civil law! 

not sure how you figure it's not a crime..any offense that is against the law is considered a crime. also not sure how it is in Canada but the police can't kick down your door in the states unless they 1. have reasonable doubt that you did something and 2. they have a warrant permitting them to search your house or arrest you.

but they're really not interested in people downloading Photoshop on Megaupload

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, MalletFace said:

It does not matter what you think; under federal law the money is not legally yours if you did not earn it legally. To most people, money earned illegally is not rightfully yours.

Of course. It's the same law crap. If in reality I grew a plant, someone else wanted that plant, I sold it to them in a motually agreed on voluntarily transaction... But the government decided that this plant is illegal, then the government believes the money belongs to it, not to me. Which, again, is the problem...

Quote

It is not used just in case it sticks...

Even though it was originally intended for international drug crimes, it serves well to make large crime particularly unprofitable.

Most people do not fall within these guidelines. If they do, they must have committed a crime that resulted in a profit.

Oh yes it does get used frivolously. Not just on large crimes. The general tactic is charge someone with some crime, tack on money laundering, claim that any and all assets they have are proceeds of a crime, (illegally) ask the court to put a freeze on all their assets, and then proceed to take them to trial when they have no money to pay for a lawyer. And yeah, you're right, anyone who committed a crime, who then used money they earned from that crime (which, besides things like murder, are usually done for profit) laundered money. And thanks to new laws on hiding money, such as transfer and deposit limits here, or using more than a set limit for cash payments in Europe, your crime can now be simply sending money in an inappropriate way (which you may not have been aware of), the crime you will be charged with will be either tax evasion or just transferring money in an inappropriate way, and money laundering will be tracked on as well. I've just seen this too many times among friends (Bernard von Nothaus, Charlie Shrem, Ross Ulbricht) and when you see it brought up in different situations, you start noticing it pretty much everywhere.

[Rassah]

Interestingly, though, in the project I lead we're building a tool that will automatically obfuscate the path of transactions when people send and receive bitcoins, making "hiding the source of money" happen by default. So we may end up with everyone who uses bitcoin be aiding and abetting others who actually committed crimes to launder their money without knowing about it, or there being any way to prove it. Or be laundering their money themselves if the country has a general law against hiding your transactions (countries are trying to abolish cash for that reason). Wonder how governments will react.

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, willow said:

not sure how you figure it's not a crime..any offense that is against the law is considered a crime.

No, it's not, violations of civil law are not crimes.  A crime is a violation of criminal law, it's the very definition of the legal term.  This is a fundamental concept.  There is no disputing it.

[Saxon]

http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft/pirated-products

'Piracy of intellectual property is a serious crime'. 

https://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

' Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings.'

[Zeke]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Interestingly, though, in the project I lead we're building a tool that will automatically obfuscate the path of transactions when people send and receive bitcoins, making "hiding the source of money" happen by default. So we may end up with everyone who uses bitcoin be aiding and abetting others who actually committed crimes to launder their money without knowing about it, or there being any way to prove it. Or be laundering their money themselves if the country has a general law against hiding your transactions (countries are trying to abolish cash for that reason). Wonder how governments will react.

It means I can buy my 80 kilos pot without government interference. 

And perhaps a rocket Launcher from Nigeria. 

[AshleyAshes]

23 minutes ago, Saxon said:

http://www.ncpc.org/topics/intellectual-property-theft/pirated-products

'Piracy of intellectual property is a serious crime'. 

https://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy_online_the_law

' Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, rental or digital transmission of copyrighted sound recordings.'

Okay, let's go over this slowly.

1) The RIAA is not an academic source on the law.

2) The RIAA here is citing the absolute worst cases of doom where extreme cases of piracy do fall under criminal law.  They obviously aren't going to then mention 'But, honestly, 99.999% of you can only be sued at the worst.  In fact, basically, unless you're running your own streaming site or you built yourself a 300 seat cinema where you project Blu-rays without sufficient license for that, it's totally not criminal'.  You know, they KINDA have an agenda here, and there agenda is to scare the shit out of people who don't know any better.  It's apparently working on you.

3) How about an example?  Surely if this is such a crime, with such long prison sentences and massive fines, SURELY we can find someone in a western nation who was criminally prosecuted for engaging in simple piracy; Downloaded a movie, a game, a music album, something like that.  Oh right, you can't find any, you can at best find the RIAA trying to scare ignorant people.

4) Just saying that there CAN be criminal penalties for some cases of piracy is not being disputed, no one disagrees with that.  It's that they are extreme cases and you can't apply that to the vast, vast, vast, VAST majority of incidents of piracy so you're whole 'Downloading a movie is as bad as stealing a DVD from a store!' is entirely invalid.  It doesn't work that way legally.  That's why you can't find anyone being criminally charged for it.  Because it's not equal to that.

Edited January 2, 2016 by AshleyAshes

[Saxon]

 https://www.rt.com/usa/ip-address-online-piracy-judge-990/

Companies have attempted to prosecute individual people who they alleged downloaded their films illegally, but the prosecutions usually do not go ahead because it's too difficult to confidently identify internet users' real identities. 

In theory, if it was legal to mandate personal identification on the internet, prosecutions would go ahead, because piracy is a crime. This is one reason I am concerned that people like Rassah, who pirate, could ultimately contribute to the end of the anonymous internet, ruining it for those of us who didn't simply use the internet as a free cinema. 

 

I think that it's best to prosecute the owners of file-sharing websites known to pirate large amounts of content, anyway, because that's much less leg work and has wider reaching results. 

Edited January 2, 2016 by Saxon

[AshleyAshes]

10 minutes ago, Saxon said:

 https://www.rt.com/usa/ip-address-online-piracy-judge-990/

Companies have attempted to prosecute individual people who they alleged downloaded their films illegally, but the prosecutions usually do not go ahead because it's too difficult to confidently identify internet users' real identities.

*sighs*

This entire article is referring, again, to a civil law suit.  The closest this article gets to anything being a crime is that the author of the article uses the word 'prosecute', in their own words, not as a quotation of someone else who is the subject of the article, when referring to a civil law suit.

Here is the actual order as written by the judge:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/201180332/ORDER-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss

Carefully note how on the first page there is a 'plaintif' rather than a prosecution, because this is a civil case.

Can you please stop trying to ignorantly and foolishly throw anything at the wall, hoping it will stick, only to get shot down every time?  Please?  Just a tiny bit of research and reading comprehension?

Edited January 2, 2016 by AshleyAshes

[Saxon]

I think you're being rude by telling anybody who disagrees with you that they are 'ignorant and foolish'. 

Copyright infringement is so widely referred to as criminal, that I have significant doubt that your views are correct, and the fact that you would rather call people names, makes me more suspicious that your view could be wrong, and that this is a tactic to deter challenges.  

Edited January 2, 2016 by Saxon

[Onnes]

Are you two really going back and forth around the colloquial vs. the legal definition crime?

[AshleyAshes]

4 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I think you're being rude by telling anybody who disagrees with you that they are 'ignorant and foolish'. 

Copyright infringement is so widely referred to as criminal, that I have significant doubt that your views are correct, and the fact that you would rather call people names, makes me more suspicious that your view could be wrong, and that this is a tactic to deter challenges.  

So, you're reasoning here is 'I think that civil law cases involving piracy are criminal cases, just because they are somehow magically different from all other civil cases'?

And really?  Me being mean here makes you 'suspicious' that they are all criminal?  Then why can't you find an example?  Where someone faced a criminal trial?  Where someone was arrested?  Where someone had to post bail so as to not be incarcerated during their trial for downloading an episode of Mythbusters?  Where someone how has a criminal record, making it more difficult to gain employment in parts of the west, because they thought that downloading all of Cheers would be easier than buying the DVD box set?  If this is a thing, this should not be a difficult challenge.  Why doesn't your inability to find that make you suspicious that that isn't a thing?  This is when your deductive reasoning skills should be kicking in.  At this point you just want me to be wrong because I'm not being nice about it.  Sorry, me being polite or critical doesn't change a pretty simple reality.

But please, feel free to cite another civil law case to 'prove me wrong'.

[Saxon]

8 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

So, you're reasoning here is 'I think that civil law cases involving piracy are criminal cases, just because they are somehow magically different from all other civil cases'?

And really?  Me being mean here makes you 'suspicious' that they are all criminal?  Then why can't you find an example?  Where someone faced a criminal trial?  Where someone was arrested?  Where someone had to post bail so as to not be incarcerated during their trial for downloading an episode of Mythbusters?  Where someone how has a criminal record, making it more difficult to gain employment in parts of the west, because they thought that downloading all of Cheers would be easier than buying the DVD box set?  If this is a thing, this should not be a difficult challenge.  Why doesn't your inability to find that make you suspicious that that isn't a thing?  This is when your deductive reasoning skills should be kicking in.  At this point you just want me to be wrong because I'm not being nice about it.  Sorry, me being polite or critical doesn't change a pretty simple reality.

But please, feel free to cite another civil law case to 'prove me wrong'.

My justification is that I keep finding content that refers to illegal downloads as 'crimes' rather than 'civil cases'. We clearly both agree that mass-distribution or creation of websites and companies that host pirated content does result in arrests. I think that police don't bother to arrest each person who ever makes an illegal download because it would be impractical, but that it is illegal none-the-less- which is why DVD's have warnings at the start that burning illegal copies is a 'crime'. 

Given the ubiquity of official warnings that illegal copies are criminal, why are you surprised that I am taking their word over yours? 

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

My justification is that I keep finding content that refers to illegal downloads as 'crimes' rather than 'civil cases'. We clearly both agree that mass-distribution or creation of websites and companies that host pirated content does result in arrests. I think that police don't bother to arrest each person who ever makes an illegal download because it would be impractical, but that it is illegal none-the-less- which is why DVD's have warnings at the start that burning illegal copies is a 'crime'. 

Given the ubiquity of official warnings that illegal copies are criminal, why are you surprised that I am taking their word over yours? 

So, just to be clear here; While massive corporations throw a tonne of legal resources at engaging in civil lawsuits against individuals, seeking court orders to gain access to the logs and data of websites and internet service providers, engaging in as much legal surveillance of bittorrent clouds, that through all this, they were unable to get a single police service 'to bother with an arrest' and that you feel that this is enough to support your view as to why individual acts of piracy are a crime?

Well, hey, as long as you're taking the 'I don't need proof, I just know that the Bible is true' method of belief, there's really no fighting that is there? 

[Saxon]

Comparisons to the Bible are practically the new Godwin's Law. 

I'm confused that piracy warnings on media report that production of unlicensed copies is a criminal activity, when you think that it is a civil dispute. 

Does it change from one to the other depending on how many copies are made, or whether they are distributed?

And how does whether it is civil or criminal influence the discussion Rassah was having? Does it? 

 

 

[AshleyAshes]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'm confused that piracy warnings on media report that production of unlicensed copies is a criminal activity, when you think that it is a civil dispute. 

Well, the media doesn't report on it being criminal, that's why you and Rassah have thus far failed to find any examples of it being criminal outside of extreme and highly organized cases.  When they do report on those very few high profile criminal cases, course they are going to cite the absolute worst case scenarios; That's the interesting and scary part.  Who the cares about saying 'Hey, you might maybe get sued for this, but probably not even that, and in extreme cases you could even go to jail for it, but only if you like, charge admission, show it to a hundred people at once or sell copies and stuff and even then it's not a sure thing!'.  Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?

There certainly ARE acts of piracy that can be criminal, but those acts are not the acts of piracy that most people typically engage in, the acts that you are actually concerned about.  Do you understand now?

This certainly is relevant to your and Rassah's conversation, because Rassah's going on about 'average citizens being made into criminals!  Wah wah!' when that's actually NOT happening and you're all 'It's just like stealing, a crime!' when that's ALSO not what it is.

Like, seriously, if I went into a video store (If they exist anywhere still...) with a baseball bat and stole a movie, that's a crime, that's theft.  If I rented the movie and never returned it?  That's just a breach of contract.  It's not theft, it's not a crime, it doesn't fall under criminal law and all they could do is sue me for it.  Understand?  One is criminal, one is civil, and only one has the cops hunting for you and your baseball bat.  It'd be illegal for the police to arrest me because I didn't return a movie.

[willow]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

No, it's not, violations of civil law are not crimes.  A crime is a violation of criminal law, it's the very definition of the legal term.  This is a fundamental concept.  There is no disputing it.

Full Definition of crime

1. 1 :  an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially :  a gross violation of law

2. 2 :  a grave offense especially against morality

3. 3 :  criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>

 

[Draconas]

this massive stupid argument honestly calls for the following





CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTHERFUCKING DISCUSSION PLEASE

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, willow said:

Full Definition of crime

1. 1 :  an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially :  a gross violation of law

2. 2 :  a grave offense especially against morality

3. 3 :  criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>

 

Care to even cite your source?  And make sure it's a legal dictionary and not just a general one.

2 minutes ago, willow said:

Full Definition of crime

1. 1 :  an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially :  a gross violation of law

2. 2 :  a grave offense especially against morality

3. 3 :  criminal activity <efforts to fight crime>

 

Actually, I'll just cite a legal dictionary for you.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=399

Quote

crime

n. a violation of a law in which there is injury to the public or a member of the public and a term in jail or prison, and/or a fine as possible penalties. There is some sentiment for excluding from the "crime" category crimes without victims, such as consensual acts, or violations in which only the perpetrator is hurt or involved such as personal use of illegal drugs.

Because, of course, when you're arguing about what is and isn't legal and a crime, you'd use a legal dictionary and not just go to Websters or something, cause that'd just be silly, right?  

[willow]

Just now, AshleyAshes said:

Care to even cite your source?  And make sure it's a legal dictionary and not just a general one.

I got that from Meriam Webster. I can cite a legal dictionary though

Quote

A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it; a breach or violation of some public right or duty due to a whole community, considered as a community. In its social aggregate capacity, as distinguished from a civil injury.

 

"What Is CRIME?" The Law Dictionary. Blacks' Law Dictionary, n.d. Web. 02 Jan. 2016.

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, willow said:

A crime is an act committed or omitted, in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it; a breach or violation of some public right or duty due to a whole community, considered as a community. In its social aggregate capacity, as distinguished from a civil injury.

Just, again, incase you missed it.

"As distinguished from a civil injury"

Did you even read the whole thing before you quoted it?  I mean, come on.  You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?  You could not have managed that by accident.  You're trolling, aren't you?

[willow]

2 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Just, again, incase you missed it.

"As distinguished from a civil injury"

Did you even read the whole thing before you quoted it?  I mean, come on.  You're doing this on purpose, aren't you?  You could not have managed that by accident.  You're trolling, aren't you?

I did but my point still stands that crimes aren't just violations of criminal law like you insisted.

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, willow said:

I did but my point still stands that crimes aren't just violations of criminal law like you insisted.

Except that it says exactly that.  It literally says that crimes are distinguished from ''civil injury".  It literally says 'It's different from civil law'.  Right there.  Reading comprehension, use it.

[willow]

4 minutes ago, AshleyAshes said:

Except that it says exactly that.  It literally says that crimes are distinguished from ''civil injury".  It literally says 'It's different from civil law'.  Right there.  Reading comprehension, use it.

admittedly I got hung up on the semantics of criminal but yes I read the definition.

so are you done being condescending yet or....?

[AshleyAshes]

Just now, willow said:

admittedly I got hung up on the semantics of criminal but yes I read the definition.

so are you done being condescending yet or....?

No, since we agree that you can only be arrested or imprisoned for violating criminal law, it's all good.

Just... I mean geez, you guys should understand this stuff.  You live in a world of laws, they control your world and you have a part in them, so you should have a base understanding of which basic categories of things can't get you sent to freakin' prison.

[Rassah]

7 hours ago, Zeke said:

It means I can buy my 80 kilos pot without government interference. 

And perhaps a rocket Launcher from Nigeria. 

You'll need to wait for OpenBazaar for those, but you'll still need to use Bitcoin. Once OB comes out, rocket launchers for everyone!

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

This is one reason I am concerned that people like Rassah, who pirate, could ultimately contribute to the end of the anonymous internet, ruining it for those of us who didn't simply use the internet as a free cinema. 

I'm actually helping make the internet more anonymous. The internet isn't very anonymous to begin with, but as more and more people get busted for doing things while trying to be anonymous, more and more people create better technologirs to make them more anonymous. Next steps are things like DemonSaw, StorJ, and MaidSafe. Combine that with mesh networks paid by microtransactions, and that's the "anyone can upload anything and share it with anyone, completely anonymously, with no way to stop it" scenario I was talking about. And I'm helping fund a lot of those technologies too.

Governments are great at making things like this more resilient. "The more they squeeze, the more runs through their fingers."

 

Hey @Draconas, have you ever heard of the "back button?" Or are you questing forward all the way to the end of the internet?

Let us know if you are. I'll provide you some links to escape from this dungeon.

[Hakar-Kerarmor]

On 02/01/2016 at 8:28 PM, Draconas said:

CAN WE PLEASE GET BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTHERFUCKING DISCUSSION PLEASE

What if I switch it around a little?

Is ot morally justifiable for a company to restrict sales of a (digital) product or even cease sales alltogether, yet still expect me not to pirate the product?