3 ms·

Thanks for your response. Now, on to some points: 1. The so called "illegal downloads" aren't illegal. It's the uploads that are illegal. Hence the downloads c

by batista 15y ago

Thanks for your response. Now, on to some points: 1. The so called "illegal downloads" aren't illegal. It's the uploads that are illegal. Hence the downloads can't "remain" illegal. I'm not sure I follow. If the uploads are illegal, how are the downloads not so? Isn't it something analogous of "possession of stolen goods"? Or, to avoid the word "stealing", like directly benefiting from an illegal activity? The downloaders also violate the copyright of the content owner. 2. The courts do not deem copyright infringement to be "theft". They deem it to be "copyright infringement". The term "intellectual property theft" is also used in court (even more so in other countries). And in the US Legal Code, copyright infringement laws fall under the "stolen property" category: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_1... Specifically, "§ 2319. Criminal infringement of a copyright" is a subcategory of: "CHAPTER 113—STOLEN PROPERTY". FBI also uses it: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/ipr/ipr This might also be relevant: "In Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster, Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Stevens and O’Connor, said, “deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft.” The Supreme Court has been comfortable referring to copyright infringement as theft on other occasions. Lower courts and Congress have also used “theft” to describe copyright infringement on various occasions."

Karunamon 15y ago
>The term "intellectual property theft" is also used in court (even more so in other countries). And in the US Legal Code, copyright infringement laws fall under the "stolen property" category: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_1.. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_1.... You say "category and FBI" I say the only thing that matters is Dowling V. United States, which says unambiguously that they are separate and distinct crimes.
- batista 15y ago
  Is it the "only thing that matters" though? For one, the Supreme Court is known to reverse it's own rulings, from time to time. Second, the phrasing in this case ruling is far from "unambiguous". For example, it says: "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud." Does not easily? How is this unambiguous? "Does NOT" would indeed be unambiguous, "does not easily" leaves the door open. And later on, they say: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.". Why the "run-of-the-mill" qualifier? Are they implying it could still be theft, just not the "run-of-the-mill" kind? IANAL, but calling "Dowling V. United States" unambiguous is stretching it. And I doubt it's the "only thing that matters". (Especially since outside the US it does not matter at all).

by batista 15y ago

Karunamon 15y ago

>The term "intellectual property theft" is also used in court (even more so in other countries). And in the US Legal Code, copyright infringement laws fall under the "stolen property" category: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_1.. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_1.... You say "category and FBI" I say the only thing that matters is Dowling V. United States, which says unambiguously that they are separate and distinct crimes.

batista 15y ago
Is it the "only thing that matters" though? For one, the Supreme Court is known to reverse it's own rulings, from time to time. Second, the phrasing in this case ruling is far from "unambiguous". For example, it says: "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud." Does not easily? How is this unambiguous? "Does NOT" would indeed be unambiguous, "does not easily" leaves the door open. And later on, they say: "Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.". Why the "run-of-the-mill" qualifier? Are they implying it could still be theft, just not the "run-of-the-mill" kind? IANAL, but calling "Dowling V. United States" unambiguous is stretching it. And I doubt it's the "only thing that matters". (Especially since outside the US it does not matter at all).