Demonoid shut down - Page 18

It's not semantics though, it's a different category all together. Stealing and copyright violation/infringement are two distinct types of crime with clearly defined criteria.

I know stealing sounds better because it implies a behaviour which is typically considered more morally repellant for some reason, probably historical implications concerning thievery, but it does not change the legal definition of internet piracy. You are not being corrected because people are nitpicking at you in order to defend criminal acts, you are being corrected because you are wrong.

Stealing = object is removed, copyright infringement = object is duplicated without permission. Please refrain from using incorrect terminology to make a point, it's dishonest and a tool for populists.

Or maybe they just have different priorities. Don't try to make some economic justification, if you have time to post on a niche sport / hobby website.

On August 12 2012 02:16 Warlock40 wrote:


So did you completely miss my point about how "piracy" has much less to do with copyright infringement than "theft"?

On August 12 2012 02:22 McBengt wrote:


I did not, I simply judged your point to be very poor, vaguely defined and mostly wrong.

You made your postion abundantly clear, don't worry. It's just not very smart.

Don't know about you but my priority is rent. When it won't be maybe then I'll buy stuff, until then I won't. And being good/liking starcraft definitely doesn't pay the bills.

On August 12 2012 02:26 Warlock40 wrote:


Would you care to elaborate? I already made it clear that I understood the definitions. I've seen the cute cartoons a thousand times. Also note that I haven't been "using incorrect terminology to make a point". My point still stands.



Well, I guess my point was that you don't have to be rich to not torrent. Sure, it might make the decision easier, but I would think that someone who is inclined to torrent in the first place would be much less likely to spend disposable income on it anyway.

On August 12 2012 02:14 Alpino wrote:
I'll explain why this is bullcrap in my experience as a recording musician, record collector and owner of a review/download blog(I post only underground Black Metal so none of my files ever gets take down) with 230,000 pageviews and 10,000 pageviews/month.

New artists in this new age have in file sharing their best chance of getting known and listened. Almost all CDs/Vynils I have bought I had already downloaded. Liking those cds I downloaded and reading interviews, etc, basically content from the bands I liked made me want to support those bands by buying their stuff whenever I felt this band deserved it and I had the money. Had I never downloaded those bands I wouldn't have spent my money and my time on them(writing about them). This is bad for the artists and good for the big recording companies who own the more well known pop artists. The internet makes people aware of other kinds of music and this is not good for the big recording companies.

File sharing made my band more known than it would have been without it, made our art more valid because it was listened by more people and made it better because we had more influences and where to draw from. This is bullcrap sometimes hosting sites delete stuff without even contacting bands to know if they actually want to share(normally they want.)

If I didn't download stuff I wouldn't buy stuff, well actually now I'd only buy from a band who supports free-sharing of their songs...I get a lot of thank-you from bands when I post their albums in my blog. FREE-SHARING HELPS ART.

Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant

You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better.

And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example.

The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet.

If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here.

If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject.

On August 12 2012 02:42 McBengt wrote:


Because your personal feelings on the subject are irrelevant, how you choose to define internet piracy has no bearing whatsoever. You are not allowed to redefine a crime simply because you like the sound of the other one better. Your point is based entirely on subjective opinions regarding filesharing, and is thus worthless. If you want to be taken seriously, do your research, use facts, and avoid embellishments and misrepresentations.
And yes, you were using incorrect terminology to support your position, in fact what you did was more or less a textbook example.

The only thing of any interest is what the law says, not random person 1727711 on the internet. When people say things like "but it IS stealing", the implication is that those who correctly refer to it as copyright infringement, and correct those who don't, are trying to weasel themselves out of taking responsibility for their actions, which is blatantly untrue, at least based on that action alone.

If you get busted for running someone over while drunk, you don't get to go before the judge on trial for speeding, you go up for manslaughter. The exact same principle applies here.

If you are opposed to filesharing, that's fine. Just try not to be fundamentally mistaken when debating the subject.

On August 12 2012 03:01 superstartran wrote:



Piracy is theft in that sense that you are "stealing" somebody's intellectual property and distributing it without that person's permission. It may not fit the legal definition of theft, but from a moral standpoint it comes extremely close.

On August 12 2012 03:00 Warlock40 wrote:


Nor should they be. You still haven't addressed my point, that "internet piracy" isn't piracy anymore than it is stealing.



No one is redefining anything, not legally. In terms of parlance, who are you to judge?



How so? You keep saying this but I don't see how I've used this "incorrect terminology" that you keep accusing me of.



Ironic, since much of this thread is random persons 1 through 1727711 complaining about how wrong the law is.



A better example would be not going on trial for premeditated murder for running over someone while drunk - the act being much less severe than the charge, but not entirely dissimilar.



I'm not fundamentally mistaken.

On August 12 2012 03:01 superstartran wrote:



Piracy is theft in that sense that you are "stealing" somebody's intellectual property and distributing it without that person's permission. It may not fit the legal definition of theft, but from a moral standpoint it comes extremely close.

On August 12 2012 03:00 Djzapz wrote:

I agree with that at least for the most part. Free sharing helps the artists that need help and deserve recognition and remuneration for their work and talents.

It's detrimental to huge production and publishing companies, the "middlemen" that are a hog on the whole market. Those need to go away, or at least they shouldn't be necessary for an artist's success. They used to be important, now they artificially increase the price of art and benefit some suits that have made millions of dollars off of other people's work.

Torrents can be used for theft, but they can also be used for legitimate sharing. There are a lot of games and songs that I wouldn't own today if torrents didn't exist. Plus, I still would own the more well-known music that I like anyway.

You know perfectly well that internet piracy in no way pertains to actual seafaring pirates, it was a cute moniker that was adopted by the filesharing community as a brand of sorts.

The fact that copyright infringement resembles stealing more than plundering ships on the high seas is apparent to anyone with a brain, and completely beside the point.

I judge you based on the merits of your argument. It has very little.

What people think of the law is, wait for it, also irrelevant! Until it's changed, it is what it is, period, end of discussion, basta etc. It is also binary, you are either wrong or right. You are wrong.

Your example is poor, murder and manslaughter involve more or less the same act in different circumstances. Stealing and copyright infringement are not nearly as closely related in legal terms(again, the only terms that hold any weight).

On August 12 2012 03:27 Zocat wrote:


Interested about the middle paragraph. The same can be said about companies like amazon. Should vendors like amazon go away as well?

On August 12 2012 03:30 Warlock40 wrote:


If you have the right to brand copyright infringement with a completely unrelated term, I don't see how you can justify preventing others from doing the same.



No, that is the point.



It's a simple argument. Theft is no more related to copyright infringement than piracy is.



My impression has always been that the "filesharing community" as you put it has always been free in spirit and against the establishment, so it's nice to see that you respect "the law" so much. But you of all people should know that there should never be an "end of discussion" regarding law. And it's not as binary as you'd think.



It is most definitely not the same act, unless by "same act" you mean "same outcome", which would bring us right back to "copyright infringement =/= theft".

If the whole point was to prove filesharing is more akin to stealing than actual piracy, then...congrats? I mean, I agree with you and everything, it just seems like kind of a superfluous point to make.

Also, you're attributing opinions to me that I have never held or expressed. I did not label the filesharing community pirates, at least no one asked for my vote on the topic, nor am I a part of it. I have no personal vested interest in it.

should have worded the murder/manslaughter argument better, apologies. Same outcome is more appropriate, which again would make it fundamentally different from copyright infringement vs stealing. In the case of murder and manslaughter, someone ends up dead in both scenarios. In the case of stealing, a piece of property is permanently removed, whereas in the case of copyright infringement it is copied. Different outcomes.

On August 12 2012 03:56 Warlock40 wrote:


Then surely you cannot object if people on high horses decide to equate copyright infringement with theft, so long as they understand the legal differences.



You've referred to copyright infringement as piracy in your posts several times.



Fair enough, but they are different outcomes only in degree. As far as the perpetrator is affected, the outcome is the same - he gets something that he didn't pay for. This is what those opposed to file sharing emphasize. Those in favour of file sharing emphasize the opposite aspect - how the "victim" (justifications against evil corporations aside) is affected. I've seen the statistics, I understand that torrented copies don't correspond to lost sales on a 1:1 basis. But the opposite, that torrents don't affect sales at all, is no more truthful. Perhaps a better example would be the difference between assault and murder.

Ultimately my argument was that calling copyright infringement stealing is not merely a matter of semantics, but of actual distinct misrepresentation.

People may refer to copyright infringement in any way they please, freedom of speech is cool like that.

On August 12 2012 04:36 Warlock40 wrote:



This is my view.

I guess what we can agree on is that opponents of file sharing shouldn't rely on hyperbolic metaphors about right and wrong to express their argument.

On August 12 2012 03:37 Djzapz wrote:

The same cannot be said for Amazon at all, they're the perfect minimalist middle man for sales. You can be sure they don't take the same massive cut producers and publishers take. We still need those platforms because they're reasonably prices and like torrents, they give a platform for the artists to be heard and discovered. I never said that we should abolish everything that stands between customers and artists. Artists should always be allowed to decide how to market themselves, but luckily because of the Internet, things are getting better.