Cheap Subscription to SuperBike Magazine

How about you tell me what the point of copyright is then?

 

If you make money from copyrighted material and no longer have a market
because of unauthorized copying then you have had your income stolen. You
don't have to loose all of it to have lost some.

You can have your idea stolen.

 

A person makes money from their idea.
Their idea is being stolen and that is what they sell.
That is their goods.
That is the purpose of copyright.

 

I dont HAVE to do anything.

 

So if someone eats your loved one that is not murder or cannibalism if they
choose to call it lunch?

 

A sume has been removed from potential royalty payments.

of money?

No, its just a good description of what we are doing.

Yes I can see by your insults JL that your vision is beyond most normal
folk.
How does that make you feel?
I don't think it helps your argument at all though.

 

77 is better 'cos you get ate more...

 

Not if said 12 year old would never have bought that album anyway. In
that case, net loss is zero.

 

I'm going to assume that's a typo

No if it doesn't exist yet, it hasn't been *removed*. No sums have
moved anywhere.

To remove something requires it to actually exist. It has *possibly*
been prevented from existing (noting Doug's point that it's only
prevented if she would otherwise have actually bought the album. But a
possible theft isn't a crime - you don't get convicted of theft for
*possibly* stealing something. You get convicted of theft for being
proved to have *actually* stolen something.

On the other hand you can get convicted of copyright infringement by
taking a copy of something contrary to the copyright owner's licence.
In which case (if proved) you will get convicted of copyright
infringement, and if you're unlucky extradited to the US.

It's still not the crime of theft. It's failing to comply with a
licencing contract you have foisted upon you when you purchase a CD
(or other copyrighted item).

Perhaps. However it's a fairly important point. Your employers (I can
only assume the only reason someone would pursue such a pyrrhic
argument is because they're being paid to do so) want to try and
equate copyright infringement with theft of goods and chattels, which
is not the same thing. They wish to do so, my good stooge, because
"you stole my property sob sniffle" is a far more emotionally
persuasive argument than "fat record company executive is going to
miss out on his Porsche update this year, he may have to buy a <gasp>
Boxster instead of the 911"

No, no, not at all, I'm about average for this group I think. I'm
certainly not the only one to get the difference between the two
things. I think there's a lot of people who are capable of seeing
beyond the rhetoric, and recognising it as such.

You are legally and factually incorrect in your assertion that
"copyright is theft". It is illegal, but it ain't theft. Does that
matter to me personally ? No not really, however I'm not very happy
with the abuse of the original concept of copyright (and other
intellectual property laws) that a number of large US corporations
have visited upon us. For example. The copyright laws in the so called
"Free trade agreement" (more orwellian double speak) dramatically
reduced the rights of Australian citizens with no benefit to us in the
process. The Disney Corporation in particular have a lot to answer
for. Copyright was always intended to have a reasonable expiry date
and until very recently all copyright acts worldwide did. Disney used
it's muscle in the US to make their stuff damn near indefinite.
Morally indefensible.

Well, if you put a fullstop after your first 3 words then we have
something we can agree on

JL
(and btw why do you put a smiley in so irrelevantly ?)

 

Especially if you breed cows that WANT you to eat them!

 

Ha hah; spoken like a boy who just lost an argument!

 

Cannibalism is the act of eating the flesh of your own species. Were
someone to eat anyone, they'd be cannibals. However, eating someone and
murdering someone are two very different things. It could be murder,
cannibalism AND lunch. They're not mutually exclusive you know.

If however your loved one was slaughtered and pre-packaged at coles, and
whoever it was ate them knowing who they were or not - it would not be
the eater that was the murderer.

I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't know .. just pointing
out that particular straw you're grasping at to support your argument
was a badly stated opinion rather than a question.

 

You'd find in many cases your average 12 year old would still buy music
regardless of whether they can get copies or not - just means that's one
less album they need to *buy*.

 

You are talking courts of law, I am talking real world.

You think.

doctoring.


Go on, do tell.

You think?

Theft doesnt have to have anything to do with the law. Try stealing
something from me and you will find that out.

Is this what you call "rhetoric"?

Wow, so clever!

Its my signature for usenet, notice how it is not "so irrelevantly" but
always at the end.

 

ok
Theft is the act of permanently depriving another of something.
copyright infringement under that definition is not theft.
done dusted you lose go away.

 

So what happened to their (the copyright holder) income?

I lose what and why should I go away?

 

It's to make people who think-up stuff get money.
It's a bit of an odd concept but very popular in the western world.

 

Ahh; so now it's only theft if you make MONEY from the piracy.
No problem for the 99.99% of the rest of us then.

 

It's a different area of law please try and keep up.

Your dignity and your argument

You are annoying

Thats why.

 

Loose. Lose. Learn the difference, loser...