I'm no Silvio fan, but "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay competes with"???

Shouldn't that be "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay users steal content from"

They're a brazen lot, these Swedes. One day, someone is going to hammer them with a big legal cluebat...

Why just block the DNS - that is just complete ARSE (A Really Stupid Example).

The ISPs should block access to the IP address range 83.140.0.0/16 which includes PBs hosters (should get their attention).

Obviously the IT-aliens (say it as one word) should be using mininova.org which is better anyway.

read that as labia.org?

Is this a none-too-subtle attempt to call the Italian authorities a bunch of c%&ts??

Paris because... oh, keep up, will you...

If you have a mesh DNS with quick update intervals and swap around ips, then you can't block any of those ips, because you never know what are you blocking.

That that is just the tip of the iceberg...

Interesting to see how different countries deal with content on the internet been illegal in their country but illegal in another.

Not concentrating on the content here but isn't it interesting how this problem could be dealt with. Should a countries legal system be allowed (and able) to block content of certain sites? If not then should the internet be allowed to become a lawless place where it's far to easy to get away with things you shouldn't be allowed to?

It's also interesting to consider when transmitting information becomes illegal because of the copyright, with the varied ways it can be done it seems to me the only possible way of putting it that would legally cover anything is "intent" or "assembly". If it's intent its close to impossible to prove that in court when you need to deal with millions of people and therefor cases, and if it's assembly then the delivery system and the people support the delivery system structure cannot be prosecuted.

Tricky stuff. Possibly the only solution is to offer the same type as thing as the sites at a price that enough people find reasonable to make a profit despite the rest of the people.

ARGGG!

"where did that come from!?"

Shouldn't that be "he owns a lot of companies that Pirate Bay users steal content from"

It's a shame that this propaganda is still proliferated. Copyright Infringement is not Theft. Theft implies that the original owner is deprived of the item. The whole 'piracy = theft' line probably came about because conviction of theft 'had' a chance of a custodial sentence, unlike Copyright Infringement.

Mine's the one that is yours ;-)

The government under Prodi tried to ban TPB as well, so it's not simply that Berlusconi competes with them. It's because he's a politician, and politicians like to ban things they can't tax or regulate.

As the sun rises and as it sets... (at least until they've taxed sunlight)

would that be 'Liberate Apes Before Imprisoning Apes'?

When will countries learn that it's up to the individual citizens what they choose to do? I mean, you could get up to all sorts of nasty stuff if you hung out with the right people in Afghanistan, but is it fair for your country to block your access to getting to that country? Some people might use piratebay for legal, legitimate reasons (I hear it happens) so why be punished for what your government assumes you'll be doing there?

You totally just stole my argument. I'm going to sue.

A rose by any other name...

Just because I got the terminology wrong, doesn't make it any less legally or morally reprehensible.

Mark: may I recommend you stop wearing seatbelts? I read where someone's life was once saved 'cause he wasn't wearing one.

geeez

Theft = stealing something from another.

Producing a copy of something is not theft.

Passing on a copy of something is only theft if money exchanges hands for the copy -- the copyright holder has been deprived of this money.

As far as I know it would be perfectly legal for me to make a copy of a Rolex watch if I had the skill. I could also give this to someone as a gift. If I tried to sell it, however, it would be an offence.

@Geoff Mackenzie: "You totally just stole my argument. I'm going to sue."

I think you'll find I preemptively infringed upon your argument.

You know, I have the sneaky feeling you're just egging us on...

Whether or not it's theft...

The argument from the freetard side of the fence goes like this:

"I have not stolen any physical item, so it can't be theft"

By the same token, helldesk staff should only be paid if they actually do something. If nothing arrives at the helldesk during the day, then they shouldn't be paid: after all, they didn't do any work.

The argument from the pedant side of the fence isn't relevant since it's an unwinnable (and dull) argument anyway.

I guess the biggie is from the legal profession:

If I use a software product/piece of music/film (which I copied) without paying for it, is this something for the civil courts (copyright infringement) or criminal courts (theft).

My understanding is that the simple ethics issues are sorted on the criminal side of the fence, and since the ethics here are pretty simple (freetard opinions readily discounted), it's theft.

but that's just my opinion, and as you can tell I'm a paytard

"As far as I know it would be perfectly legal for me to make a copy of a Rolex watch if I had the skill."

Nope, not if you use the Rolex brand name, logo and any other registered trade marks on it. And not if the design of the Rolex has been patented.

Similarly, it would be illegal if I made copies of my favourite CD and gave them away to my friends - or posted the same music on t'internet for anyone to download.

"Passing on a copy of something is only theft if money exchanges hands for the copy". Nope. By passing on an unauthorised copy of something the recipient should have paid the originator for, you are denying the originator funding that is rightfully theirs. In other words, you are taking something that belongs to them away from them without their permission. That's theft.

Actually (caveat IANAL) if you read the "Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988", and look at what the offences are, you have to:

<QUOTE>

(a) makes for sale or hire, or

(b) imports into the united kingdom otherwise that for his private and domestic use, or

(c) possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or

(d) in the course of a business -

(i) sells or lets for hire, or

(ii) offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

(ill) exhibits in public, or

(iv) distributes, or

(e) distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to

affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

</QUOTE>

So if I were to (perish the thought) download something from a site, foreign or domestic, for my personal use, without any intention of using it in my business, or even having it on a business computer, have I committed any crime at all? I think that the words "otherwise that (sic) for his private and domestic use"

My source for this? Well actually FACT's website. It seems to be illegal to BUY a pirate copy, but to download it for free? I would guess not.

I have no idea about Swedish or Italial law (and I wouldn't trust my interpretation of the English law either!)

The middle east is easy:

it was always a slightly unstable spot

you brits mucked it up when you left

then the yanks mucked it up worse

now nobody wants to take any responsibility for cleaning up a mess that has essentially existed since time immemorial.

Or, in El Regspeak:

As soon as the Paletards and the Isratards are left to solve the problem themselves, it will happen a lot faster than while the Yanktards and Eurotards (under the influence of the RIAA^D^D^D^D lobbytards) try to interfere.

A question for the freetards:

If I invade your country and live on your land, is that infringement or theft?

This argument has been raging since the printing press was invented (~ 1439) and the first copyright laws emerged. I don't think it will be resolved in the next few posts!

However my take on things is...

* Copyright infringement is not theft.

* Theft is a criminal offence, copyright infringement is a tort, or civil, offence.

* 'Downloading' copyrighted content is not illegal, 'uploading' is, e.g. no one was ever sued for downloading binaries right? :-)

...that my original, humourous post has been discarded....

Shocked and stunned..!

Oh, yeah, I too thought it said Labia, but that was said in my previous post..

Bloody admins...

Isn't the whole point of democracy and national self-determination that people feel that their voice is heard? No taxation without representation and all that?

Note Hollywood: Sweden doesn't belong to you. They have the perfect right balance commercial and individual legal interests as they see fit. Perhaps they have a secret social engineering plan to reduce the passive entertainment industry in an effort to increase the take-up of physical exercise and reduce the effect of the culture of violence so prevalent in Hollywood films.

As far as I'm concerned, the real argument isn't about infringement vs theft, its about whether government acts mainly in the interests of individuals or in the interests of corporations and how it balances this issue. Its interesting to note that "limited liability" corporations used to be illegal in England because the divorce of financial incentive from liability for action was considered to be dangerous and immoral.

Personally I find trend towards ever larger legal and political systems disturbing because it seems we have to rely on the Irish and the Swedes to stop movements which seem designed to reduce the importance of my vote by drowning it in a sea of votes of people who have no common interests with myself. When the voting system stops working, money takes over government and with money comes corruption.

Arrr, I be hoping Jack Sparrow (or is that Eric the Red?) be leading the revolution!

"Nope, not if you use the Rolex brand name, logo and any other registered trade marks on it. And not if the design of the Rolex has been patented.

Similarly, it would be illegal if I made copies of my favourite CD and gave them away to my friends - or posted the same music on t'internet for anyone to download."

FAIL for not being able to tell the difference between copyright, trademark and patent legislations.

I tend to gravitate to the idea that copyright infringement _is_ theft - theft of _copyright_, but that copyright - not being a natural property right - is quite correctly not afforded the same protections as those property rights protected by larceny laws. Others disagree, but I don't give a monkey's.

Taking something you are not entitled to is morally wrong. Period. However, Copyright Infringement is not a criminal offence in most countries, but a civil one. You are in essence depriving the copyright holder of payments due for the use of a product or service. It's the same as if you get a tradesman in to work on your house and refuse to pay him. In most places, you won't end up in prison, but you can have civil penalties levied against you for failure to pay.

The only reason that copyright infringement is being considered a criminal matter is because the piracy==theft lobbies have been so effective. But in essence, you aren't permanently depriving the copyright holder of his income from said piece of work (as would be the case in theft - if I steal a car, you are no longer able to sell said car). If someone downloads a copy of an mp3, the copyright holder is able to sell further copies of that exact same song without suffering a real loss, rather he has lost a potential sale. Because you can't prove that someone who downloads music would purchase said music in the first place, there's no way to prove a loss in real terms.

Hence, copyright infringement should be a civil matter, not criminal.

It really doesn't matter what ANYONE here says, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT. Theft is legally defined. Copyright infringement is legally defined. They are not one and the same. As a moral judgment, copyright infringement is usually bad, yes. However, if you think it is theft, you are either ignorant or obstinate.

Repeat after me: Legal terms are not defined by consensus, they are defined by law. No one here can redefine copyright infringement as theft. If you still think otherwise, you are a drooling moron.

-Daniel, who is sick to death of idiots.

P.S. - I also can't stand this "freetard" and "paytard" crap. Grow up.

You all are missing the point completely. What Silvio Berlusconi has done is start censoring the web! Plain and simple. He knows China does it, with marginal success and wants to jump in. The purpose being to control what Italians read and hear from the oputside world. He already controls ALL newspapers and half the TV stations. If it looks like it, smells like it nad tastes like it! Ya call it what it is! FACISIM!! Oh...you you nice folks in the US and UK, don't feel left out. Your next.

Pirate Bay don't steal content from Italian corporations.

Pirate Bay merely supply content that Italian Corporations also supply along with many other corporations around the world providing the same mass fed content - albiet without a licence to do so.

It is not theft, it is merely taking part in mass distribution of approved content without permission, and thereby denying these rich corporations some potential - potential, not actual profit.

Nobody took the design or watch from Rolex in this scenario - the only thing Rolex have lost in any physical or figurative way is the potential to make money from their design in this particular instance.

They are being robbed only of potential profit -therefore they have not lost anything.

People being taken to court and being told they are thieves, that they have stolen potential profit, is absurd.

"If I invade your country and live on your land, is that infringement or theft?"

Illegal occupation I would say, infringement if you want to stretch that definition.

If you take any of our resources (by any definition) and therefore deprive us of them (i.e. you have taken them away and we do not have them), it is theft.

If you park your tent on our land, we cannot really say that you have stolen our potential to make profit from our annual turnip crop however.

I download (Freetard) and I buy DVD's (Paytard)

Does this make me a schizophrenic? and who can I sue

If I buy a DVD and never watch it can I have my money back if I don't watch it?

If I damage the disc (which kids frequently do) can I bring it back to the shop for a free replacement as its the license which costs the money?

If I buy a DVD and contrary to what it says on the cover it is rubbish can I sue for mis-representation?

If I buy a DVD for my young daughter (U Cert) and the disc is full of PG Cert Adverts. Can I sue?

If I buy a DVD for my daughter. (I buy a lot seeing as she has taken over the television) does she have to watch an advert about theft and stealing cars and mobile phones?

If I pay money for a DVD why does she have to watch adverts for their latest offering, which cannot be skipped? If I wanted to watch ads we could watch Bob The Builder on television with more sensibly placed ads.

No well I guess I will preview all my discs before I go and spend my hard earned cash on them.

And somebody further up the board ripped off a line from Red Dwarf. I have those disc's as well. except for Season 8 which was rubbish!! I had to pay for thse twice. Once on Video and once on DVD. Can I get a credit for the videos?

Oh and Paris because she reminds me of my next door neighbour