the problem with trying to "DEFINE" this term is as with anything else: interpretation.
By definition the word FELONIOUS can mean of or relating to FELONY why by law is a crime punishible with 12 months or more of imprisonment if found guilty of said crime.
All states within the United States of America have a law which some commonly call BRCSP, bying,receiving,concealing stolen property.
Property has been changed to INCLUDE intellectual or NON-TANGIBLE things.
The bottom line is that when someone produces something, they do so for their FINANCIAL GAIN and when you "share" it with someone you violate the law. Any moron that thinks it's PERFECTLY OK to do so wouldn't have a problem with me going into his bank account and taking his/her paycheck weekly; going into the garage and stealing the vehicle; taking his/her lunch JUST BEFORE it's been touched.
Come on people.. THINK!!! What dipped-in-crap for brains thinks it's ok to take, use etc. other people's things without permission or proper monetary compensation.
Smart like Rock. Fast like tree!
Quote:
Originally posted by sberlin
actually, leeware, this is the definition of theft, from dictionary.com :
---
\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.
---
note that theft requires "every part of the property stolen must be removed." when a song (or anything else that has a copyright) is copied, nothing is removed, it is simply duplicated. that is why copyrights exist: to prevent unauthorized duplication.
people cannot steal or thieve a copyrighted piece unless they physically remove the media from the store it's being sold at, which is a crime in the sense that you're depriving the store of its ability to sell something it purchased.
the digitalization of media has simply enabled people to spread information without having to worry about the initial creation being depleted. it's a way of providing never-ending resources.
copyrights are artificial limits on resources, a way of maintaining a capitalistic view on resources, where the ruling class can limit what the peasants can use. now, this is done under the auspices of 'allowing greater innovation and invention', but this use is patently absurd in the current context of copyrights.
no one is stealing when they are copying. to say that someone is stealing is insane, because they are actually creating. to use a quote i once heard somewhere, "if i have an apple and you have an apple, and we exchange apples, we each have one apple. if i have an idea and you have an idea, and we exchange ideas, we each have two ideas." this is the same with digital media, we can copy the apple so we both have two apples -- no one is losing.
the RIAA and associates are simply using a business model that cannot survive in the current world. they need to use true innovation and invention to come up with a better plan, instead of simply trying to change the definition of words and make everyone thieves.
in 1991 the Supreme Court ruled, in Feist vs Rural Telephone Co., that collections of facts cannot be copyrighted. now how is it that collections of facts, such as a definitive proof that 'using X will achieve Y in the fastest possible way' can now be copyrighted so that people can be put in jail for using that fact without permission from the copyright holder? through a *******ization of law -- allowing loopholes for those that show 'business models depend on it'.
it's as if we're allowing companies and theories to take on the importance of an actual life. killing a business model or using a theory without consent has taken the same kind of ire as killing a person or enslaving an individual. why can't the distinction be seen anymore?
just my thoughts. feel free to copy, theorize on, mutate, individualize, or do whatever you want with them. i won't sue you. |