Whirlpool

blogs.theage.com.au/razor

Read the judgement here. www.smlawpub.com.hk/cases/2005/1024.htm

Monday, November 7, 2005
Bit Torrent - fast way to jail?

Those Bit Torrent feeds might be more difficult to find in future, after a Hong Kong magistrate jailed a 38-year-old man for three months for uploading three Hollywood movies. The judgment is here.

Chan Nai-ming's choice of an online identitity - "Big Crook" - certainly wouldn't have helped his case - believed to be the first prosecution for sharing movie files (Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality) on Bit Torrent.

It seems Chan Nai-Ming's ISP gave his details to the Customs and Excise officers, who raided his home, causing some debate on the issue of privacy.

And an associate professor of computer science and law at the University of Hong Kong suggests that downloaders are also exposed to criminal action, given that the technology means that anyone downloading these files is also simultaneously uploading them.

Edit: Damn, clicked the wrong button. :P

Is it a case of if or when this starts happening here?

Personally, I don't have a problem with those trading in copyrighted materials being prosecuted.

mortimer writes...

Is it a case of if or when this starts happening here?

Personally, I don't have a problem with those trading in copyrighted materials being prosecuted.

Probably a case for people to move to file transfer protocols which are, in practical purposes, untrackable (by use of encryption, onion routing, etc).

hugorune writes...

Probably a case for people to move to file transfer protocols which are, in practical purposes, untrackable (by use of encryption, onion routing, etc).

I've never used those torrent thingy's so I'm very much in the dark about how it all works and how you can be detected. As the article states though, this guy's nick was asking for trouble. :P

Perhaps just going around the internet calling yourself "big crook" is a fast way to jail...

mortimer writes...

I've never used those torrent thingy's so I'm very much in the dark about how it all works and how you can be detected. As the article states though, this guy's nick was asking for trouble. :P

Whoever uses these torrents are basically giving out their IP to a tracker.
If someone views the tracker details, bingo... you're a target.

Alternatively, all a person have to do is to start the torrent. Your IP is listed out for everyone else to see.

It's very easy to detect. Well.. it maybe more difficult, but won't stop some people.

mortimer writes...

Personally, I don't have a problem with those trading in copyrighted materials being prosecuted.

Neither do I. And its not before time either.

Is it a case of if or when this starts happening here?

Hopefully it is "when" & hopefully the answer to that is soon. If the BSAA gets off its backside & starts some serious prosecutions happening then so much the better for the owners of royalties who are being constantly ripped off.

Dunno... I personally think the economic exploitation going on by senior corporate figures and financial institutions is more damaging than the small amount of (alleged) lost revenue in sales. You've got actual theft (cartel operations and corruption) going on vs hypothetical theft. But that's just me (shrugs).

Damn. There is only one person who should be going to jail for Daredevil, and it isnt this guy.

Mark Steven Johnston, I am looking square at you - imdb.com/title/tt0287978

hugorune writes...

You've got actual theft (cartel operations and corruption) going

Cartel behaviour is not theft. If so, then people engaging in said behaviour would be changed with theft. Hint: they arent.

I mean, if you really want to play straws, the increased prices paid by consumers as a result of cartel behaviour is only a hypothetical loss anyways.

skycamefalling writes...

I mean, if you really want to play straws, the increased prices paid by consumers as a result of cartel behaviour is only a hypothetical loss anyways.

Yep, but it's a financial gain, not just a loss to consumers, as well. Which is a level of crime over and above up/downloading copyrighted material. It's like the difference between a consensual sex affair outside a marriage, and rape, you know.

hugorune writes...

Yep, but it's a financial gain, not just a loss to consumers, as well.

Unjust enrichment might be unjust, but it isnt theft. The only argument against cartels is the consumer detriment, which is all only a theoretical loss.

However, unlike movie studios and recording cartels, losses due to cartels can be defined and demonstrated. RIAA/MPAA (and wannabes like ARIA) just plumb make things up. BSAA, you belong in there too.

Seriously, 'uh we lost $10 billion because of pirates last year! we wont quantify that or explain how we got it, but its true, honest!'

Copyright infringement is illegal, and if you engage in it you run the risk of punishment. Personally, I think criminal penalties for IP matters are ridiculous, and do NOT belong in this country. There are civil remedies, thats enough. It isnt a matter for the police, it isnt a matter for the government, and it isnt a matter for prisons. Screw you, ARIA.

It's like the difference between a consensual sex affair outside a marriage, and rape, you know.

And here I was thinking only MPAA and RIAA people used silly analogies and emotive words like 'theft' instead of 'copyright infringement' :)

skycamefalling writes...

And here I was thinking only MPAA and RIAA people used silly analogies and emotive words like 'theft' instead of 'copyright infringement' :)

*shrug* Well, I've got no qualms about stupid analogies when we're discussing stupid topics. I mean, in all seriousness the idea that a guy could be sent to jail for uploading one movie is nonsensical. It's daft, overdramatic. It's like cutting of an adolescent's hand because he was touching himself.

If someone was making money by selling downloaded pirate DVDs, yes I'd suggest a jail sentence. For this? Come on... at least it's in Communist China, not in a (nominally) free country such as Australia. Although I bet civil libertarians in Hong Kong are seething. Still, while the West is content to help the Chinese government oppress it's citizens, such is life.

Corporations can kiss my arse, they make enough money.

i don't understand why copyright infringement isn't a civil issue. Copyright infringement is the failure to pay royalties for music. If someone refused to give money to ascap for music in a bistro, they would get sued wouldn't they? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make it a criminal matter.

aqueas writes...

i don't understand why copyright infringement isn't a civil issue.

It is.

If someone refused to give money to ascap for music in a bistro, they would get sued wouldn't they?

Yes.

Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make it a criminal matter.

Its a policy issue. If you are making $50,000 and then someone sues you for $10,000 damages, you arent exactly going to stop doing it, are you?

I like how his wife let them in and he was at the computer at 7 am in the morning.

poor bastard. Though some might say he deserved it for uploading daredevil. What was he thinking?

I always think a common sense approach is needed. A nice easy sanity check on the prosecution. Did the accused make any financial gain from this? Yes= Big fine, no=slap on the wrist.
It is one thing ripping off copyright and selling it for a profit that is rightfully someone elses, and something else entirely to make a copy/backup of something purely for your own pleasure where you are not denying anyone of a living ior taking anything from someone else (although some would argue "potemtial" loss, it is really miniscule compared to what is claimed.)

skycamefalling writes...
It is.

no... it isn't. The aim of civil court in Australia is to reverse everything. So if someone stole $20 from you in civil court you give the $20 back. The aim is to make stuff the same as it was before.

But there are FINES for copyright infringement. Police officers stroll around swap meets looking for people to ARREST for copyright infringement. It isn't a civil thing at all.

aqueas writes...

But there are FINES for copyright infringement. Police officers stroll around swap meets looking for people to ARREST for copyright infringement. It isn't a civil thing at all.

Once again, it IS a civil issue. There are ALSO criminal provisions.

I can draw you a picture if you would like :)

skycamefalling writes...
Once again, it IS a civil issue. There are ALSO criminal provisions.


**sigh** having fun with semantics aren't you Obviously when i said "why isn't it a civil issue" i also meant "why is it a criminal issue"

No need to be a smartass I think you know what I meant.

XIII-Train Heartnet writes...

Whoever uses these torrents are basically giving out their IP to a tracker.
If someone views the tracker details, bingo... you're a target.

Alternatively, all a person have to do is to start the torrent. Your IP is listed out for everyone else to see.

Thanks for that. I understand it a lot better now. :)

Cheers,

aqueas writes...

Police officers stroll around swap meets looking for people to ARREST for copyright infringement.

They are arresting people who are profiting from pirated goods. That's the criminal offense.

Copyright infringement, in terms of people downloading videos, are civil cases. You don't profit from it, in monetary terms, other than "saving" your dollars.

aqueas writes...

**sigh** having fun with semantics aren't you Obviously when i said "why isn't it a civil issue" i also meant "why is it a criminal issue"


Its not semantics, and I wasnt being a smartass. Saying 'why isnt it a civil issue' implies that, uh, it isnt a civil issue. And thats exactly how I understood it.

Perhaps 'why is it a criminal matter' would have been more accurate. and quicker. and clearer.

Downloading using P2P is dangerous, from a piracy point of view. However, the ISP's give huge download limits and other companies manufacture the hardware that makes piracy very easy eg the DVD recorder. It would seem to me that in concert, these companies tempt some punters, then others rush to prosecution when the punter yields to the temptation.

The other thing is if we looked at all the avenues of copyright infringement eg copying movies from the local video store, these are just as illegal, yet almost impossible to police. Therefore, the easy target is the P2P user who can be more easily identified.

Somehow there needs to be some sense in this whole copyright thing. The studios may find bigger and better methods to defeat the pirates, but you get the feeling they are losing the war, because those intent on breaking copyright seee it as another challenge.

mortimer writes...

Is it a case of if or when this starts happening here?

Nah, this is The Lucky Country mate, not China.

vespa writes...

It would seem to me that in concert, these companies tempt some punters, then others rush to prosecution when the punter yields to the temptation.

Please. Thats the worst reasoning I have ever heard.

'Well, Woolworths sold me the stocking AND the knife, and the bank ALWAYS has so much money on hand - seriously your honour, they tempted me into it'

skycamefalling writes...

'Well, Woolworths sold me the stocking AND the knife, and the bank ALWAYS has so much money on hand - seriously your honour, they tempted me into it'

While we're on the subject of stupid analogies... :)

skycamefalling writes...

Please. Thats the worst reasoning I have ever heard.

May be. Do you really think that the ISP's don't think their punters are downloading squillions of files ? The way they market their services, is 24 gig just for browsing by Joe Average ? When the DVD maker advertises that he can use the machine to store movies, what is Joe Average thinking ?

hugorune writes...

While we're on the subject of stupid analogies... :)

hehe, couldnt resist :)

vespa writes...

Do you really think that the ISP's don't think their punters are downloading squillions of files ?

Probably

The way they market their services, is 24 gig just for browsing by Joe Average ?

For Joe Porn Hound, yes. Otherwise, probably not.

When the DVD maker advertises that he can use the machine to store movies, what is Joe Average thinking ?

I'd wager home movies on that one.

Look, regardless of whether these goods and services can be used in an illegal way, that in no way justifies people using them for that. Petrol can be used for arson, knives for stabbing, toilet paper for throwing at houses. Manufacturers dont rpessure you into commiting crimes.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. No one put a gun to your head and said 'Download Hitch, NOW!'.

(and if they did, taking the bullet isnt such a bad course of action - compared to the alternative...)

skycamefalling writes...

hehe, couldnt resist :)

Yeah, but that analogy is so bad, it's like describing Hurricane Katrina flooding New Orleans as 'a bit of morning dew'

hugorune writes...

Yeah, but that analogy is so bad, it's like describing Hurricane Katrina flooding New Orleans as 'a bit of morning dew'

Well, Americans have been known to exagerate and blow things out of proportion - and to be a bit soft when it comes to the great outdoors...

vespa writes...

Do you really think that the ISP's don't think their punters are downloading squillions of files ?

I suppose as long as clause 52b part ii of the contract absolves them of any legal responsibility from your Bit Torrent piracy binge, they really couldn't give a toss.

It’s not the Bit Torrent software that he used that sent him to jail, it’s the copy write infringements from the movies he uploaded that caused it.

I liken it to web browser software. A user can use the software for illegal purposes or for legitimate legal purposes.

mortimer writes...

Is it a case of if or when this starts happening here?

I'm thinking... could people start using the labels' own DRM weapons against them? Wouldn't it be funny if kids deliberately installed SonyBMG's rootkit and just prefixed all their naughty stuff with $sys$ ?

Oh, man. I think I'd die of irony overdose...

AFAIK with Bittorrent the original uploader's IP is easily shown while with other P2P software it is anonamous

Bah, the Australian legal system isn't retarded like that. They'll just claim P2P is a tool for terrorists and secretly arrest anyone suspected of using a P2P program, then torture a confession out of them and send them to some Middle Eastern country to be shot.

When I wrote that, I felt so tempted to say a 'tool of the devil', not that the Australian government is on a witch hunt or anything....

Oh crap, they're on to me! Goodbye one and all, I'm going somewhere unknown, for an undisclosed period of time, where I am safe.

Ringer writes...

AFAIK with Bittorrent the original uploader's IP is easily shown while with other P2P software it is anonamous

You dont know very far.

They can pry my keyboard from my cold, dead hands!
No law will stop my online freedom to do whatever the hell I can! damnit!

I quit sharing files in any way at the start of this year. Considering the fines they could impose on you - i dont fancy losing my house for a few movies. Just like that guy is alwasy gonna feel like a dick for being jailed for sharing miss congeneality...

Pete writes...

sharing miss congeniality...

I wouldn't mind a piece of miss congeniality !

mortimer writes...

Personally, I don't have a problem with those trading in copyrighted materials being prosecuted.

forum-replies.cfm?t=417404

installed SonyBMG's rootkit and

WHOA great read.

g00nster2004 writes...

WHOA great read.

Yeah, it's a real scandal, but hasn't really made its way into the mainstream media.

More discussion here, if you're interested: forum-replies.cfm?t=421118

Apologies for going slightly OT.

Was at the movies last night and they had the obligitory "you wouldn't steal a car, you wouldn't steal a mobile phone" ad. Usually it ends with the girl interrupting the download on her computer because "downloading movies is bad m'kay", but this one was people turning away from a market stall with some pirate physical discs.

Did they only just realise that the other version was lame and downloading a movie doesn't actually look like that...?

lol

Jason Dean writes...

Did they only just realise that the other version was lame and downloading a movie doesn't actually look like that...?

More like a recognition that the largest pirating problem isn't the internet, but the guys selling fake releases out of the back of their car at a community market.

<Rant on>

Bought a couple of DVD's last week that had that ad on them and you can't skip past it! Pissed off as I bought the bloody things, I paid their tithe, and they still think I'm some sort of pirate!

<Rant off>

Jason Dean writes...

Did they only just realise that the other version was lame and downloading a movie doesn't actually look like that...?

I dunno, I still have issues with them saying that downloading movies is stealing. No, it isn't, that has been covered MANY times in this forum before. It's a copyright violation, its piracy, its not stealing. I guess that word has more impact, though.

I feel bad for this guy though.

Murderer: "What are you in for? I killed mah in-laws!"
'Big Crook': "Uploading Miss Congeniality"
Murderer: "....you're mine."

hugorune writes...

Probably a case for people to move to file transfer protocols which are, in practical purposes, untrackable (by use of encryption, onion routing, etc).

One such untrackable p2p program is I2PHEX a Gnutella clone which runs on the I2P network www.i2p.net

FrankO writes...

One such untrackable p2p program is I2PHEX a Gnutella clone which runs on the I2P network www.i2p.net

I'd be careful when you claim it to be untrackable. If that were the case, no data could be exchanged in any way. If you can send and receive data to and from a location, it can be tracked. This may well be a very difficult one to track, however.

Muad'Dib writes...

forum-replies.cfm?t=417404

"Dib mam, Muad'Dib. I'm with the search police. People aren't using the search and I'm looking into it. That and keeping my post count up."

;)

Tex Zero writes...

"Dib mam, Muad'Dib. I'm with the search police. People aren't using the search and I'm looking into it. That and keeping my post count up."


Hardly, forum etiquette is posting to an existing thread and this thread is on the same page.

forum-replies.cfm?t=417404

randomguy writes...

I'd be careful when you claim it to be untrackable. If that were the case, no data could be exchanged in any way.

The ip addresses can be harvested but you have no idea what the data contains or where it came from. The I2p network is used for more then just p2p. There is also IRC, email, blogs and websites. Who is using p2p and who is using IRC? There is no way to find out, the whole I2P network is encrypted. There is no way the record companies can state that this IP address is sharing this song.

If Australian law EVER reaches a point where people are sentanced to serve time in jail over sharing a few copyrighted products (I mean average Joe, not organised crime), while drink drivers who have maimed and killed others walk free ....

well I think those who have pushed to have such laws put in place should really look at what its important to our society. I mean people have been copyrighting others work since the dawn of the pen! The internet is just another medium, like the video recorder and photocopier.

To all you FOOLS who think people should stop sharing files - I hope you feel confident with our system of law, when someone you love is killed by a drink driver or a pyschotic who is FREE because his spot in JAIL is taken by a 23yo UNI stundent who shared his copy of Office 2003.

twits

I agree.

You are causing more danger to society by speeding in your car than by downloading a DVD.

Arrrrrr share ye ol' loots my fellow pirates!

Argh! Bittorrent ............! Is it The End of The World?

plod writes...

You are causing more danger to society by speeding in your car than by downloading a DVD.

And both are still illegal. The only people who seem to have a hard time accepting this are those who are doing it. Just because you do something doesn't make it right or legal.

mortimer writes...

believed to be the first prosecution for sharing movie files (Daredevil, Red Planet and Miss Congeniality) on Bit Torrent.


be spewing getting done for sharing thoes crap movies

The Reader writes...

Is it The End of The World?

End of the MPAA's and RIAA's world, if you believe them.

webdev1 writes...

And both are still illegal. The only people who seem to have a hard time accepting this are those who are doing it. Just because you do something doesn't make it right or legal.

why didnt you respond to my post?

what you have stated (although true) is niave when comparing to real crime. copyright theft is not tangible..

If I download somthing that I never planned to buy.. well,,

As if it makes it right to download a movie, thinking that you wouldn't have bought the movie.

There are a lot of things I wouldn't buy but would happy to have them for free. But we don’t just take anything based on that logic.

I think fair arguments are:

You couldn't watch/buy it without downloading it due to distribution of the show. While it still doesn’t make it right, to me its not a big deal and they really need to fix the distribution model to stop people downloading.

Releasing 6 - 12 months before available locally, in today's broadband world you are just asking for trouble. Point being there is legitimate arguments that there distribution needs to be fixed to stop downloading and losing money.

I wasn't going to buy it anyway isn't one of them.

Call it what you will, but i like to try before i buy. I don't have money to waste of games/movies/music etc that i don't like. If i download a movie and its good i'll buy it for sure, same with a game, music etc.

It's just that so much of the stuff coming out these days is crap.

The Nibbleman writes...

Call it what you will, but i like to try before i buy. I don't have money to waste of games/movies/music etc that i don't like. If i download a movie and its good i'll buy it for sure, same with a game, music etc.

there are demos for games and previews for movies. In my experience, watching a preview for a movie gives me a pretty good idea about that movie. There are also reviews etc..

While what you are saying may work in a perfect honest world, I hardly think that the industry would survive if this option was available to every consumer.

Downloading due to no availablity should eventually give them a kick up the butt to fix the problem, downloading because you dont want to pay for it up front is in a different league.

14zero writes...

previews for movies

Oh yes 30 seconds worth of the best parts of the movie! Sorry but it doesn't do it for me. Lots of movies look good in the preview but end up being shit.

I hardly think that the industry would survive if this option was available to every consumer.

Sure? It's doing alright at the moment isn't it? Everyone i know has had some part in piracy, even if it's just 1 movie or 1 music cd. So many people don't even know what they are doing or have received is wrong.

The issue is more the fact that MPAA/RIAA et al are not moving with the digital age. Thier methods are very "old world" and were fine 20 years ago.

People are not willing to wait 6-12 months for the DVD release of a movie or up to 2 year for a TV series on DVD. Particularly when the TV series has only partly shown, been pre-empted, aired very late at night or not shown at all on FTA here.

Most fans turn to channel BT to ensure some form of continuity rather than put up with the crap FTA deal out.

These profit driven dinosaurs need to move in the direction that technology is taking us all and the best way to do this (reducing piracy in the process) is to sell HQ versions of TV eps and/or movies at competitive prices. iTunes has proved the concept even though RIAA want more money per licensed DL (thus turning users back to piracy again).

Greed seems to be the overriding factor here, not protecting intellectual rights.

A fantastic and most apt quote from the SF TV series Babylon 5 goes....

"The avalanche has already started....It is too late for the pebbles to vote"

MPAA/RIAA/ARIA need to take a long hard look at how they operate and adjust to the expectations of the customers of their clients. Or like the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, they will become extinct.

sabredog writes...

Or like the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, they will become extinct.

In fact, the area that must really be threatened is the Sanitys of the world. The studios will survive (but probably not as we see them today), but the local record store will essentially disappear, except for niche market ones.

The Nibbleman writes...

Sure? It's doing alright at the moment isn't it? Everyone i know has had some part in piracy, even if it's just 1 movie or 1 music cd. So many people don't even know what they are doing or have received is wrong.

let's say this policy was accepted by people on a mass scale, I dont think you would have a product to try before long..

sabredog writes...

People are not willing to wait 6-12 months for the DVD release of a movie or up to 2 year for a TV series on DVD. Particularly when the TV series has only partly shown, been pre-empted, aired very late at night or not shown at all on FTA here.

exactly right, people are not willing to wait. And why should they, the technology is there.

Saying that, surely they know this and they are just hanging on for as long as they can.

The ideal situation would be the tv stations could their distribute shows based on individual demand.

Menin Gate writes...

what you have stated (although true) is niave when comparing to real crime.

Naive or not, it is correct. The act is still just as illegal.

The only people I ever hear really complaining about all this is:

(1) The owners of copyrights being "pirated" & the associations supporting them &

(2) the illegal "pirates" who upload/download this stuff. You guys whinge because no-one wants to understand your mis-guided excuses for breaking the law.

14zero writes...

let's say this policy was accepted by people on a mass scale

Where the hell have you been living? It is being done on a mass scale.

I sure hope you don't commit any crimes yourself!. NOT ANY, AT ALL, IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY!. If you speed ever in your car, even if it's by 1km/k your BREAKING THE LAW!. If you ever receive more change than you are due by the girl in the shop and you're aware of it , and don't return it you're STEALING!
Are you getting the message?
Before you open your ignorant mouth , do a little time in Her Majesty's hotel , and tell me what the experience was like. do you know what it's like to have your freedom taken away? do you have kids? a job? a life? I'd say you've got your head firmly planted somewhere.

webdev1 writes...
(2) the illegal "pirates" who upload/download this stuff. You guys whinge because no-one wants to understand your mis-guided excuses for breaking the law.

In open public forums to boot.

I once drove at 89 km/hr in a 70 zone.

webdev1 writes...

the illegal "pirates" who upload/download this stuff. You guys whinge because no-one wants to understand your mis-guided excuses for breaking the law.

Don't get me wrong, I think most people understand that it is breaking the law. Realistically I think it has gone beyond the law in terms of TV shows.

Whether it is against the law or not, I believe it will eventually lead to a shift in the distribution model of these shows

nytro writes...

I'd say you've got your head firmly planted somewhere.

If you were addressing all the above towards me - I would say that you are just one shining example of an ignorant law-breaker trying to flame someone else to ease your conscience - if you have one of course.

I'd say you've got your head firmly planted somewhere.

That is you speaking out from there :(

No matter what you say you are still conducting "illegal" activities by downloading/uploading "pirated" stuff.

do a little time in Her Majesty's hotel

Been there, done that. You obviously haven't. They'd really like you - give you an "attitude adjustment" to say the least.

do you have kids? a job? a life?

Yes, yes, & yes.

Which is more than I could say for you.

Family & employers would soon be sick of your smart-arse talk. ignorant mouth, got your head firmly planted somewhere

I sure hope you don't commit any crimes yourself!. NOT ANY, AT ALL, IN THE SLIGHTEST WAY!. If you speed ever in your car, even if it's by 1km/k your BREAKING THE LAW!. etc, etc

So you justify breaking a second law because you have broken the first. Mate grow up, stop the "dummy spit", don't go for the "personal attack", & think before you post.

The bottom line is that everyone should try to not break any law.

Obviously your time spent in jail didn't teach you a lesson.

All the things that you mentioned are illegal. Including trading, downloading or uploading "pirated" software, movies, etc. As such you should not break any of the laws. Is that to hard a concept for your angry brain to comprehend???

As I said above:

The only people I ever hear really complaining about all this is:

(1) The owners of copyrights being "pirated" & the associations supporting them &

(2) the illegal "pirates" who upload/download this stuff. You guys whinge because no-one wants to understand your mis-guided excuses for breaking the law.

And you definitely fit into the second category.

Of course as you didn't use any quotes in your reply it is rather hard to know to whom you actually were replying to. If it was not me feel free to ignore the truth of my statements above.

14zero writes...

Don't get me wrong, I think most people understand that it is breaking the law.

I agree there - of course they all know that it is against the law & therefore "illegal".

Whether it is against the law or not

As you said in your first sentence - it is against the law, - there is no "whether" about it.

Personally I think it is indicative of the "I want it now!" generation. People think that if they can get something for nothing (even if it is illegal) then it is a bargain.

It is people with that sort of mind-set that will also buy "hot" items down the pub & elsewhere - thereby creating a ready market for thieves.

And then (to ease their own consciences) they will say what they are doing isn't really bad. They weren't (in the case of "hot" goods at the pub) the actual thief.

Well in the case of uploading/downloading "pirated" software & movies - they ARE the actual thief.

webdev1 writes...

It is people with that sort of mind-set that will also buy "hot" items down the pub & elsewhere - thereby creating a ready market for thieves.

Um... or not? I haven't seen any link between the two, and unless you have some way to prove it (or even suggest it is likely), why not stick to statements you can actually back up?

they ARE the actual thief.

No. No-one is the thief because - wait for it - it's not stealing! It's copyright infringement.

webdev1 writes...

No matter what you say you are still conducting "illegal" activities by downloading/uploading "pirated" stuff.

So what? You telling me you've never J walked?

Being illegal and being morally wrong are two very different things.

Which is more than I could say for you.

Who's the ignorant one trying to flame others now?

The bottom line is that everyone should try to not break any law.

The bottom line is that everyone should carefully consider the consequences of their actions before breaking a law. If they believe their actions are justified, then by all means do it.

So you justify breaking a second law because you have broken the first.

Actually I think he was saying it was hypocritical for a law-breaker to criticise others for breaking laws which serve only to protect large corporations.

Some Guy writes...
The bottom line is that everyone should carefully consider the consequences of their actions before breaking a law. If they believe their actions are justified, then by all means do it.


Umm care to rephrase that? I feel justified today to maim a parking cop, have you given me permission to do that?

Menin Gate writes...
If I download something that I never planned to buy.. well,,

Well indeed, a new excuse to illegally download, I never planned to buy that copy of Star Wars so bugger it I will download it, after all it isn't pirating it as I never intended to buy it in the first place. The merry go round starts up again, round and round we go, new and bizarre reasons to justify illegal downloading, keep it up it is good for a belly laugh.

Some Guy writes...

I haven't seen any link between the two

I didn't say there WAS A LINK. I said " It is people with that sort of mind-set " in other words they can't see that what they are doing is wrong.

Um... No-one is the thief because - wait for it - it's not stealing! It's copyright infringement.

Is - wait for it - "copyright" a law?

Well look at that - it is!

In Australia, copyright law is contained in the Copyright Act 1968 (the Act), and in court decisions that have interpreted the provisions of the Act. The Act is amended from time to time to keep the law up to date.
www.copyright.com.au/about_copyright.htm

9A Application of the Criminal Code
Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code applies to all offences against this
Act.
Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of
criminal responsibility.
www.copyright.com.au/Copyright1968.pdf

Well just look at that. It is not only a law which has its own "Act" but there are provisions in the "Criminal Code" for those who break this "Act".

So whether you wish to be pedantic and call it "copyright infringement" or not - it is still a law & is still punishable under the "Criminal Code" & is therefore still "illegal".

Argue & justify all you want if it makes you feel better :)

Some Guy writes...

Who's the ignorant one trying to flame others now?

Which was as you well know from that reply directed in response to WP member "nytro" post above it & not to you at all.

So you jump in on what a person replies to another provocative post all the time? Or just this time in particular because of the subject?

If they believe their actions are justified, then by all means do it.

That is no rational to break any law. How childish of you to even think that it is.

Muad'Dib writes...

The merry go round starts up again, round and round we go, new and bizarre reasons to justify illegal downloading, keep it up it is good for a belly laugh.

Wonderful way these guys can justify their illegal activities isn't it. lol

Just listen to some of the excuses:

it isn't hurting anyone (it does - the companies who employ developers have a right to earn their money from selling copyrighted software & movies, as do their shareholders)

if it feels okay - do it (this is my personal favourite. You could justify doing lots of illegal things with this one)

I'm not a thief (balm for a troubled conscience this one. Of course you are a thief - you have just stole someone else's work - even if it is "just" copyrighted work - you have participating in stealing it if you download or upload it)

I just don't care (well at least you are honest enough to admit what you are doing is wrong - I wont care if you get caught either)

Its alright fellows if it makes you feel better keep justifying breaking the law.

webdev1 writes...

Its alright fellows if it makes you feel better keep justifying breaking the law.

You forgot, I wasn't going to buy it or I wouldn't buy it so therefore I can legally download it, I downloaded it for a mate, the kids broke the DVD, I left my wireless connection unprotected, the kids downloaded it whilst I wasn't supervising their internet access, most Australian are convict descendants so it is in our blood to do this sort of thing, blah blah blah, so in order to justify this illegal act they then feel compelled to reveal their "piratical" activities to all and sundry in a totally public forum.

webdev1 writes...

Well just look at that. It is not only a law which has its own "Act" but there are provisions in the "Criminal Code" for those who break this "Act".

Interestingly, neither the Criminal Code Act or the CCA Guide for Practitioners mention copyright. The provisions you refer to are general provisions that apply to all criminal activity.

Unlike an offence such as shooting somebody, the police do not charge anyone for copyright infringement. It's up to the copyright owner to prosecute. Essentially it's just a litigation process.

- Legend - writes...
Interestingly, neither the Criminal Code Act or the CCA Guide for Practitioners mention copyright. The provisions you refer to are general provisions that apply to all criminal activity.

Still puzzling that they use the word criminal for a purely civil offence, unless they are referring to criminal infringements of copyright, but surely that is covered by a separate act codifying the criminal copyright offences.

- Legend - writes...

The provisions you refer to are general provisions <b. that apply to all criminal activity.

Exactly. that apply to ALL criminal activity

So it is a "criminal activity" because the Act specifies that those provisions do indeed apply.

[Edit: It is easy enough to verify, this is the Copyright Act 1968 Act No. 63 of 1968 as amended. This compilation was prepared on 6 January 2004 taking into account amendments up to Act No. 148 of 2003 www.copyright.com.au/Copyright1968.pdf go to page 25of 485 /Edit]

skycamefalling writes...

Damn. There is only one person who should be going to jail for Daredevil, and it isnt this guy

Good call! :-P

webdev1 writes...
So it is a "criminal activity" because the Act specifies that those provisions do indeed apply.

Good pick up, all offences covered in this act, the criminal code applies, hmm in respect of criminal reponsibility though hmm curiouser and curiouser.

webdev1 writes...

is therefore still "illegal".

I'm not denying that. I'm simply pointing out that it is not stealing, and those who argue it is are missing the point. Copyright infringers are not directly taking anything from anyone. Thieves are.

webdev1 writes...

Of course you are a thief - you have just stole someone else's work - even if it is "just" copyrighted work - you have participating in stealing it if you download or upload it

Wait, I'm confused. If they are stealing the work, then they are taking it away from it's owner. Does the owner of a work no longer posses it if someone makes a copy? Hmm...

Muad'Dib writes...

I feel justified today to maim a parking cop, have you given me permission to do that?

The whole point is that human beings have enough reasoning power to decide if their actions are sensible. You shouldn't need to ask for permission, as you should be able to see whether or not it is a reasonable action.

Laws give us guidelines to live by, but there are exceptions to every rule.

webdev1 writes...

That is no rational to break any law.

Right. So the Danes who smuggled thousands of Jews from Denmark to Sweden during the second world war, to prevent them being processed by the Nazis, were not justified in their actions? After all, what they were doing was illegal.

Some Guy writes...

Right. So the Danes who smuggled thousands of Jews from Denmark to Sweden during the second world war, to prevent them being processed by the Nazis, were not justified in their actions? After all, what they were doing was illegal.

I think there are certain totalitarian supporters on here who would have raised such an objection

Some Guy writes...

I'm simply pointing out that it is not stealing, and those who argue it is are missing the point. Copyright infringers are not directly taking anything from anyone. Thieves are.

Well they are taking something that doesn't belong to them & ethically it is still theft.

They are stealing the chance for the owners of those copyrights to make money.

Whether that is a small one-off software application developer working from his own room, or a huge Fortune 500 company makes no difference.

People here are trying to justify it, (the taking something with a monetary value for nothing, that is "stealing"), by saying they aren't hurting anyone except huge corporations. Well that doesn't cut it.

Whether they are a huge corporation or not doesn't make it right nor does it make it legal.

So the Danes etc, etc, .... After all, what they were doing was illegal.

Hardly a good analogy. The saving of life compared to you saving your money.

And I wont even start on whether Nazi Germany invading other countries & trying to en-slave & kill Jews was a legal act to begin with.

Look I am not hoping to convince anyone who is involved in the criminal activity of "copyright infringement" - that would be a complete waste of time. You have after all somehow got to smooth your conscience, & if comparing Danes & Jews & Nazis is your way of doing it well?

webdev1 writes...

They are stealing the chance for the owners of those copyrights to make money.

And what if the product is only available to you, through downloading?

webdev1 writes...

Hardly a good analogy.

Hang on a sec. You said, and I quote, That is no rational to break any law.. I didn't say it had anything to do with copyright infringement - I simply wanted to point out that there can be rational to break a law. Do you deny that?

They are stealing the chance for the owners of those copyrights to make money.

Which is an intangible concept. Hardly something which can be physically stolen.

the taking something with a monetary value for nothing

The potential to make money has a monetary value now?

webdev1 writes...

Wonderful way these guys can justify their illegal activities isn't it.

I justify nothing. The law is beneath my infinite glory and wisdom and only applicable to those even more worthless than it.

Mishra writes...

I justify nothing. The law is beneath my infinite glory and wisdom and only applicable to those even more worthless than it.

Proof positive, another new excuse, this one is a real pearler, ROFLMAO. Mishra you should put your excuse to the test and fess up to illegal downloading, hand yourself in and use your hemi demi semi god defence. ;)

14zero writes...

And what if the product is only available to you, through downloading?

Then do without it.

Or do the right thing that everybody who doesn't engage in this particular form of illegal activity does - BUY it.

Some Guy writes...

Hang on a sec.

No you hand on a sec. You purposely ignored the And I wont even start on whether Nazi Germany invading other countries & trying to en-slave & kill Jews was a legal act to begin with.

In other words most of the world would dispute that Nazi Germany had any "legal right" in the war.

I simply wanted to point out that there can be rational to break a law.

That particular analogy could hardly be called "rational" by any thinking person. Seems to me like "clutching at straws".

The potential to make money has a monetary value now?

It would if you bought their goods instead of stealing them :(

webdev1 writes...
Or do the right thing that everybody who doesn't engage in this particular form of illegal activity does - BUY it.

Yep and I do that frequently, "Cashies" has heaps of bargains picked up a "Shield series 3" boxed set for 10 bucks. Hadn't even been used.

Some Guy writes...
Right. So the Danes who smuggled thousands of Jews from Denmark to Sweden during the second world war, to prevent them being processed by the Nazis, were not justified in their actions? After all, what they were doing was illegal.

What a bogus analogy, what has Nazi war crimes and the heroic act of Danes smuggling Jews out of Denmark got to do with copyright infringement, totally and utterly outrageous analogy classifying what they did as being illegal, illegal to who? and contravening what Act? Tread carefully, another proof positive to what I said about these copyright threads they descend into ridiculous excuses and sometimes downright offensive statements. The above is case in fact.

webdev1 writes...

Then do without it.

Or do the right thing that everybody who doesn't engage in this particular form of illegal activity does - BUY it.

My answer was to your point that you are

webdev1 writes...
They are stealing the chance for the owners of those copyrights to make money.

If it's not available to you through any other means, then how are you doing that?

webdev1 writes...

Then do without it.

Why? Quentin Tarantino disagrees with you. And he is one of these poor artists being 'ripped off' by copyright infringers.

webdev1 writes...

In other words most of the world would dispute that Nazi Germany had any "legal right" in the war.

So what? At that time, their actions were illegal. If Germany had won the war, they still would be. They did what they did knowing they were breaking the law, but they did it because their morals overruled blind obedience of the law. I'm sure you'll agree what they did was right?

Some Guy writes...
So what? At that time, their actions were illegal. If Germany had won the war, they still would be. They did what they did knowing they were breaking the law, but they did it because their morals overruled blind obedience of the law. I'm sure you'll agree what they did was right?

What Danish law? the Jackboot law? if you want something illegal then those heinous murdering Nazis are the ones to apportion blame to, illegally invaded and wreaked their murderous contemptible idealogy on the majority of Europe and Africa, still relying on a puerile analogy to prove a point. Again what has the pussbag Nazis got to do with copyright infringment?