Pirate Bay loses trial: defendants face prison time, hefty fines

@garbo the child

"So, by this definition, I can take your Aston Martin for a joy ride, return it, and walk away without charge. So, theft is NOT theft if thief returns stolen property?"

Very confused circular reasoning - so what is your point? By definition theft is theft otherwise it is not theft by definition. Your description of a joy ride however is not a description of theft if you intended to return the car. Which by the way is why you called it a joy ride in the first place! This does not make it legally acceptable - it just does not make it a theft! For the same reason that vandalizing your car is not the same as stealing your car.

If you continue to read up about deprivation of artefact usage you might eventually discover a more appropriate definition to be used instead instead of theft. But theft it is not and so a person who borrows your car without your permission and returns it later is NOT a "thief" and the property was NOT "stolen". There is a reason for why "intention of permanently depriving" some one of property is specifically mentioned.

You should not call some one a thief who has not stolen anything... Life is not black and white in world of adults.

Those who think it is theft

I'm still waiting to hear what the "thing" is that you used to have before someone downloaded a copy of something, and that you don't have afterwards.

Re: Those who think it is theft

"I'm still waiting to hear what the "thing" is that you used to have before someone downloaded a copy of something, and that you don't have afterwards."

Indeed. Still, I don't think that simplistic corporate propaganda employing the term "permanent joyride" has the same shock value as that employing the term "theft", so I guess we should continue to expect more of the same.

making a living from art

***"It is NOT TRUE that people have to make a living from their art" You're right. However I'd argue the world would be poorer place culturally if this became the norm. ***

What does it mean to "make a living from their art"? Does this mean to make a living on copyright revenue from intellectual property"? Or does this mean payment for practicing "artistery" (exhibition, show, writing on demand etc)? Perhaps the time for making money on collecting "intellectual property" is over? Just like the transformation to an industrial society changed the world, the way we live and the way we make a living - perhaps now it is time for the "knowledge society" to change the world?

*** Sure professions have died out over time but nearly always due to lack of demand. This is NOT the same as people not having to pay. There IS obviously still demand for things like music, movies, games, etc otherwise people wouldn't be downloading them. Thing is its now possible for people to get what they want for free. ***

In life there are many things which many of us would not pay for but which we often assume to have. Free in this case usually means that we are not prepared to pay in monetary terms for what we want. There are quite a few examples of things which are got without them being simple financial transactions. Some of which would in many countries be both immoral and illegal if they were treated as financial transactions indeed. "Having Sex" is a an example of activity which by many is viewed as immoral to pay for - even if most people appear to expect to engage in it "for free". This "having sex" is often incorporating some surrounding and contextual cost but is not itself usually charged as "a service". We could ofcourse say that in Sweden (where paying for sex is illegal and prostitution appear to be somewhat less common then in the UK) the availability of and appetite for "free sex" has brought the market for prostitution to a grind (more so I would suggest then the criminalisation of it). In any case I would argue that in Sweden there is plenty of demand for Sex and the limited access to prostitutes would not appear to have had a negative effect on the average persons sexual enjoyment. Neither quality or quantity appear to have been negatively influenced.

*** This isn't a problem if we find a way of recompensing artists fairly (e.g. through advertising, donations, indirect sales generated by publicity, etc). Otherwise we all lose out, as less art ends up being produced due to artists having to make a living by other means. Warm fuzzy feelings don't pay bills. ***

I do not believe that we as a society would necessarily loose out. Does anyone really believe that the Swedes loose out in their personal sexual practices and entertainment because paying for sex is unacceptable and illegal? I would suggest that it would appear that Swedes have a much more vigourous (and possibly more entertaining) sex life than we have here in the UK. In any case, making a living by "other means" might not be as bad considering that those "other means" might be very different from what we can imagine when looking at the world of today. And who knows perhaps fuzzy feelings might pay the odd bill...

*** No doubt in such a situation many will try to carry on doing their art because of the enjoyment it brings them and others. However they have the money already (or patrons with money) it likely be at their own expense. Why is this something we want to aspire to? Do we really want to return to the days where art was a preserve of the rich? On a more general level, why should people be expected to give you something (e.g. entertainment) in exchange for nothing? ***

First of all I see no problem in the idea that people do their art because of the enjoyment it brings to them and others. I do however see a lot of issues with the idea that some people appear to do their "art" for the money only. Why should we not want to aspire to the idea that people would only "do art" for its own sake or for the pleasure of it? I do not belive we would be returning to any previous culture - I believe that we are moving on to a new and slightly different one in the future. While this may require some resources it is not necessarily a preserve of the rich. If it ever was, in the 19th century for example an amazingly large proportion of the common Czech population was enjoying in playing, singing and composing music - and ripping each others ideas of in the process. Second I truly believe it is incorrect to assume that people expect everything for nothing in general. In my experience people appear to be prepared to pay for entertainment - people are just not all that interested in paying for the use of "intellectual property". People appear to happily pay for live entertainment for example.

Re: making a living from art

*** What does it mean to "make a living from their art"? ***

Simply to be able to produce art professionally and still have a reasonable chance of making ends meet. Ideally like you say from live performances, writing on demand, etc. However I do still think there is place for copyright protection, not so much for making money directly (e.g. as in the case of royalties) as in helping to ensure an artist doesn't lose money they've already spent.

Producing an album for example still requires a not insignificant initial spend. Assuming its good and generates sufficient demand (e.g. for the purposes of argument enough to breakeven if it was a purely physical product they were selling) its only fair to have a way for the artist to at least cover their costs. If another means of doing this is found then IP protection would become superfluous.

And perhaps you're right, we may well be on the brink of another sea change. It is already possible to record and distribute content digitally much more efficiently than before. In terms of music however I'd argue that some genres (e.g. electronic) lend themselves better to this than others. In many cases there is still a noticeable difference quality for example between a home made EP and one professionally produced in a recording studio.

*** In life there are many things which many of us would not pay for but which we often assume to have... "Having Sex" is a an example ***

I guess the question is whether professional art should become one of these things. Sex is perhaps an unfair comparison though. Its usually sufficiently enjoyable for the parties involved that the contextual costs can be considered marginal rather than "production" related ;)

*** Why should we not want to aspire to the idea that people would only "do art" for its own sake or for the pleasure of it? ***

I wholeheartedly agree! Its just that I don't see how this should necessarily preclude people from making a living out of it. To take a ye olden example, bards were often afforded free food and lodging in return for their services.

*** I believe that we are moving on to a new and slightly different one in the future. While this may require some resources it is not necessarily a preserve of the rich. If it ever was ***

Admittedly I'm looking at this from the point of view of art as profession rather than a hobby, which I recognise is only subset of a much wider scene thats always been around as you quite rightly point out. Obviously there is a lot of professionally produced mainstream drivel. Equally however in other cases I believe the extra time/effort/money spent really shows in the final result. Basically I don't think we want to get to the stage where for example albums are regularly not produced because people lack the initial funding (similar to what happens with some inventions nowadays).

@A J Stiles

"I'm still waiting to hear what the "thing" is that you used to have before someone downloaded a copy of something, and that you don't have afterwards."

Oh that's easy. A source of income, and a way to pay for the cost of production by reselling the product.

@ Matt

*** "I'm still waiting to hear what the "thing" is that you used to have before someone downloaded a copy of something, and that you don't have afterwards."

Oh that's easy. A source of income, and a way to pay for the cost of production by reselling the product. ***

Do not describe it as an inevitable fact when it is not a fact!. You did not loose a source of income. You *PERHAPS* lost a source of *POSSIBLE* income. Just as you *PERHAPS* gained advertisement and so *POSSIBLY* got yet another sale!

Your SPECULATIONS are NOT FACTS, pretending them to be facts is MISLEADING and DISHONEST! It is pure wishful thinking to believe that all copied material would have any straightforward and unproblematic ntaural relationship to sales and loss of income!