4 ms·

I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always ha

I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

_jal 6y ago
That does not make it theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is legally distinct. It is also morally distinct - the 'owner' of the 'intellectual property' is not deprived of their ownership if someone violates the transactional model by looking without permission. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is interference with a business model. Please stop saying obviously incorrect things.
- hairofadog 6y ago
  Respectfully, fxtentacle’s point didn’t hinge on the technical definition of theft. I think they’re trying to point out that illicit data transfers are punished harshly when an individual does it but are considered standard practice and even (by some) praised when corporations do it.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  While I agree with you, public opinion probably does not agree with you. And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. I've added a link to one such propaganda video to my original comment.
  - Semaphor 6y ago
    I’m not sure public opinion doesn’t agree. I mean I could believe it, but I wouldn’t take it as a given.
  - _jal 6y ago
    If you agree, why are you repeating it? > And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. Do you echo every pressure group's rhetoric?
  - unishark 6y ago
    Not to pile on here, but you did claim 'everyone'. Apparently people took it more literally than you meant it.
Semaphor 6y ago
That’s not what you said. And FWIW, it’s very often an uploader who has to pay a fine for distributing copyrighted work (not theft). Fines for downloading are pretty rare.
hairofadog 6y ago
While I agree with you in spirit, I believe penalties for downloading usually have to do with redistribution via BitTorrent. People sometimes forget (or never know in the first place) that when you download via BitTorrent you’re also distributing. However, I totally agree with the sentiment, and I’ve long felt this way about petty crimes like shoplifting, which are harshly punished and shamed, while on the flip-side you have crimes like wage theft which goes effectively unpunished and is even defended as legitimate by some.
jeroenhd 6y ago
In many jurisdictions, "theft" specifically implies the taking of goods. When you copy a file, the original file still exists. No items get taken, therefore no theft took place. I am not familiar with American law, but I don't expect it to have a definition where watching illegal movies is considered actual theft. IP companies such as media companies and patent holders often try to spin unlicensed access to media or information as theft because it sounds worse, but in practice the actual crime is "illegal access to intellectual property" or something similar to that.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Moru 6y ago
In Sweden everyone pays a tax on all media like empty DVD's, harddrives, phones and so on. This tax covers the private copying of media like movies and music. It is not illegal in Sweden to borrow a DVD from your friend and copy it. We actually pay a fine to be allowed to do this. The money gets distributed to the content owners by some organisation owned by the record companies. However it is illegal to mass distribute movies on the net, like bittorrent-style to people you do not know personally. Yes it's a bit hard to define friends but if you find yourself burning copies of CD's in bulk, it's most likely not ok. Usually the act of copying is not the problem, distribution is.
algieg 6y ago
That's actually legal in my homeland. There are specific conditions (e.g. personal use without economic goals) but it's generally OK. Note however that this applies to downloading from a server where the transfer goes one way. Torrenting would constitute copyright infringement as it is a two way transfer and counts as sharing copyrighted works.
DanBC 6y ago
> Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine. No. In many places simple copyright violation is not a crime, and so there are no fines. The rights holders can sue for losses. But this isn't a criminal case between the state and an alleged criminal, it's a case between two citizens (although one of them may be a corporate person). There are things that tip copyright violation into a criminal offence: doing it as part of business (selling the DVDs that you've downloaded), doing it so much it materially affects the rights holders.
matkoniecz 6y ago
> I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine. In Poland downloading music, movies and images is legal. (software is treated specially and just downloading may be illegal) And I suspect that "always" is untrue also after limiting to USA.
TylerE 6y ago
That isn't true at all. No one has ever been sued for DOWNLOADING a movie. They get sued for UPLOADING a movie. Important distinction. Mere possession is not a crime - everything is copyrighted, and it isn't the responsibility of someone holding a copy to know if the person that gave them that copy was authorized to to so.

I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine.

_jal 6y ago

That does not make it theft. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is legally distinct. It is also morally distinct - the 'owner' of the 'intellectual property' is not deprived of their ownership if someone violates the transactional model by looking without permission. Copyright infringement is not theft. It is interference with a business model. Please stop saying obviously incorrect things.

hairofadog 6y ago
Respectfully, fxtentacle’s point didn’t hinge on the technical definition of theft. I think they’re trying to point out that illicit data transfers are punished harshly when an individual does it but are considered standard practice and even (by some) praised when corporations do it.
fxtentacle 6y ago
While I agree with you, public opinion probably does not agree with you. And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. I've added a link to one such propaganda video to my original comment.
- Semaphor 6y ago
  I’m not sure public opinion doesn’t agree. I mean I could believe it, but I wouldn’t take it as a given.
- _jal 6y ago
  If you agree, why are you repeating it? > And the rhetoric by rights owners has always been downloading==theft. Do you echo every pressure group's rhetoric?
- unishark 6y ago
  Not to pile on here, but you did claim 'everyone'. Apparently people took it more literally than you meant it.

Semaphor 6y ago

That’s not what you said. And FWIW, it’s very often an uploader who has to pay a fine for distributing copyrighted work (not theft). Fines for downloading are pretty rare.

hairofadog 6y ago

While I agree with you in spirit, I believe penalties for downloading usually have to do with redistribution via BitTorrent. People sometimes forget (or never know in the first place) that when you download via BitTorrent you’re also distributing. However, I totally agree with the sentiment, and I’ve long felt this way about petty crimes like shoplifting, which are harshly punished and shamed, while on the flip-side you have crimes like wage theft which goes effectively unpunished and is even defended as legitimate by some.

jeroenhd 6y ago

In many jurisdictions, "theft" specifically implies the taking of goods. When you copy a file, the original file still exists. No items get taken, therefore no theft took place. I am not familiar with American law, but I don't expect it to have a definition where watching illegal movies is considered actual theft. IP companies such as media companies and patent holders often try to spin unlicensed access to media or information as theft because it sounds worse, but in practice the actual crime is "illegal access to intellectual property" or something similar to that.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Moru 6y ago

In Sweden everyone pays a tax on all media like empty DVD's, harddrives, phones and so on. This tax covers the private copying of media like movies and music. It is not illegal in Sweden to borrow a DVD from your friend and copy it. We actually pay a fine to be allowed to do this. The money gets distributed to the content owners by some organisation owned by the record companies. However it is illegal to mass distribute movies on the net, like bittorrent-style to people you do not know personally. Yes it's a bit hard to define friends but if you find yourself burning copies of CD's in bulk, it's most likely not ok. Usually the act of copying is not the problem, distribution is.

algieg 6y ago

That's actually legal in my homeland. There are specific conditions (e.g. personal use without economic goals) but it's generally OK. Note however that this applies to downloading from a server where the transfer goes one way. Torrenting would constitute copyright infringement as it is a two way transfer and counts as sharing copyrighted works.

DanBC 6y ago

> Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine. No. In many places simple copyright violation is not a crime, and so there are no fines. The rights holders can sue for losses. But this isn't a criminal case between the state and an alleged criminal, it's a case between two citizens (although one of them may be a corporate person). There are things that tip copyright violation into a criminal offence: doing it as part of business (selling the DVDs that you've downloaded), doing it so much it materially affects the rights holders.

matkoniecz 6y ago

> I'm not aware of any court case where downloading and watching movies without the rights owner's permission was considered OK. Instead, the downloader always had to pay a fine. In Poland downloading music, movies and images is legal. (software is treated specially and just downloading may be illegal) And I suspect that "always" is untrue also after limiting to USA.

TylerE 6y ago

That isn't true at all. No one has ever been sued for DOWNLOADING a movie. They get sued for UPLOADING a movie. Important distinction. Mere possession is not a crime - everything is copyrighted, and it isn't the responsibility of someone holding a copy to know if the person that gave them that copy was authorized to to so.