Are you a thief?

Renegade · April 9, 2007

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?
The government does provide the legal tools that allow people to collect unpaid bills. The police will evict you from your property if it a debtor wins a judgment in court. In most cases that is all that the government does for copyright holders. The only time the police get involved is when there is a large scale commercial operation that affects many copyright holders.
There are two aspects of copyright law:

1) The government must have a law that defines the rights of copyright holders. Without such a law it is impossible for copyright holders to enforce their rights even if you accept the principal that the copyright holder must pay for the cost of enforcement. This means the police must be involved if copyright holders get a court order against someone for violating their rights.

2) The public must accept the principal that copyright holders have rights. Laws with criminal penalties make this principal clear even to people who refuse to accept the moral case for copyright.

RW, I agree with most of what you say, except I disagree with your implication that criminal penalties are necessary. Civil awards are more appropriate remediation in this case.

jdobbin · April 9, 2007

No, they rely on the police to enforce criminal statutes, not because "other avenues don't work for them".
yes it is fraud. Being a tangible asset is not the determining factor on if it is fraud or not. Using my ID to obtain credit, denies me credit there and elsewhere I might have obtained. Duplicating a file does not do so, despite the fact that both are intangible.

Those criminal statutes are in place to protect them from theft and fraud just like statutes are in place for intellectual property.

As far as your last statement, I disagree.

Renegade · April 9, 2007

Price can effect things for sure. Most people will go for the free item before they have pay for the very low, low price item.

How do you know? If free photocopies were available do you think people would photocopy books instead of buying them?

Most copyright problems are solved without criminal proceedings. I don't know what your beef is then.

My beef is that it shouldn't even be considered a criminal offence to begin with.

guyser · April 9, 2007

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?

They already do. Highway #407 for instance, cops will pull you over for unpaid 407 bills, target truck without the sensors, and the Ministry will not renew your plates if bill unpaid.

Renegade · April 9, 2007

How is it that we don't expect the police to collect unpaid credit-card bills or unpaid utility bills?

They already do. Highway #407 for instance, cops will pull you over for unpaid 407 bills, target truck without the sensors, and the Ministry will not renew your plates if bill unpaid.

That's true, but it is not the norm. And the Ministry should not become the collections agency for the private 407 corporation either.

jdobbin · April 10, 2007

How do you know? If free photocopies were available do you think people would photocopy books instead of buying them?
My beef is that it shouldn't even be considered a criminal offence to begin with.

Yes, I think people have shown pretty strongly they won't pay for something that they can get free.

I think that people have also shown they will ignore a civil order but will respond to a criminal charge.

Renegade · April 10, 2007

Yes, I think people have shown pretty strongly they won't pay for something that they can get free.

Only if all other things are equal, in most cases they are not. No one I know would go through the trouble of photocopying an entier book, even if it was free to do so, simply because the effort is not worth their time. IOW, the content provider provides additional value by providing the content in a form which is valuable to the consumer.

I think that people have also shown they will ignore a civil order but will respond to a criminal charge.

Who are you talking about? Consuming drugs is a crime yet many igonore the criminal statute.

jdobbin · April 10, 2007

Only if all other things are equal, in most cases they are not. No one I know would go through the trouble of photocopying an entier book, even if it was free to do so, simply because the effort is not worth their time. IOW, the content provider provides additional value by providing the content in a form which is valuable to the consumer.
Who are you talking about? Consuming drugs is a crime yet many igonore the criminal statute.

Considering a whole book can be very expensive, I'd think that photocopying would happen more often if it was free. You think people would buy it just because of nice packaging?

Some ignore criminal laws, most don't.

Renegade · April 10, 2007

Considering a whole book can be very expensive, I'd think that photocopying would happen more often if it was free. You think people would buy it just because of nice packaging?

No they would buy it because it wasn't worth their time to photocopy and they value the end product more than the photocopies.

Some ignore criminal laws, most don't.

Yes, and some ignore civil statutes, most don't.

jdobbin · April 10, 2007

No they would buy it because it wasn't worth their time to photocopy and they value the end product more than the photocopies.
Yes, and some ignore civil statutes, most don't.

You just said you would let yourself be a burden on the system if it let you. I think that tell me everything I need to know.

Why don't you show me a cite that says that people are more likely to obey a civil statute?

Renegade · April 10, 2007

You have this slightly wrong. It is "wrong" that others are a burden on the system. It is equally "wrong" that I am a burden on the system. However, I have no problem taking full advantage of being a burden if the system lets me do so.

This kind of goes back to the thread we talked about when I said people would opt for free whenever they could.

I did not dispute that given identical products, one with cost and one without, that people will chose the one without. What I said is with most of the content being copied, the content being obtained from the internet is not identical to one provided by a licensed provider.

Even if the actual content is the same, brand, convenience, support, and reliability are all differentiating factors.

Renegade · April 10, 2007

You just said you would let yourself be a burden on the system if it let you. I think that tell me everything I need to know.

Excellent. What does it tell you?

Why don't you show me a cite that says that people are more likely to obey a civil statute?

More likey to obey a civil statue than what? Not obey it?

Actually you've make the following claim first:

I think that people have also shown they will ignore a civil order but will respond to a criminal charge.

so can you please show me your cite first.

jdobbin · April 10, 2007

so can you please show me your cite first.

I'm trying to find a file for this article that show civil law has been shown to be effective for property rights only in countries that have been former colonies. The rest have often required criminal law to do the same thing.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g75411004568h54h/

Renegade · April 10, 2007

so can you please show me your cite first.

I'm trying to find a file for this article that show civil law has been shown to be effective for property rights only in countries that have been former colonies. The rest have often required criminal law to do the same thing.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g75411004568h54h/

I am interested in the article if you can find it. It is interesting to understand why the difference between former colonies and others.

jdobbin · April 10, 2007

I am interested in the article if you can find it. It is interesting to understand why the difference between former colonies and others.

I've read the journal once before in regards to why China and has been more of a source of counterfeit goods compared to India. I am having no luck finding it online though.

theloniusfleabag · April 10, 2007

Dear Renegade,

QUOTE(jdobbin @ Apr 9 2007, 09:06 PM)
I think that people have also shown they will ignore a civil order but will respond to a criminal charge.

so can you please show me your cite first.

I don't know that it would be possible to show a cite that would respond to this statement. However, I would say that it makes sense, in a roundabout (if imperfect) way. For example, in some of the Nordic countries after WWII, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, were accused of collaborating with the Nazis. They were given a choice, a 'civil suit' (where they paid some monetary fine) or criminal charges. The vast majority paid the money. I think most people would prefer civil vs. legal procedings, especially if they think/know they may be guilty. If the fine is too much, they can declare bankruptcy. But for something that they may be able to buy their way out of, any time in jail is too much of a price to pay.

jbg · April 10, 2007

IMV, they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, in the same way that software companies originally focused on copy-protection to enforce their copyright. They will do more to alienate their consumer base than any monetary win they may get. They would do far better with a combination of working to change attitutdes and lowering prices. It would seem that since the price of many CDs have come down to under $10, they have at least acknowledged that this may be an avenue worth persuing.

Couldn't agree with you more. When a group such as "Greenday" manages one listenable song on a CD, in one case "Good Riddence", no one will spend $21 USD for one good track and say 10 tracks of rubbish.

Riverwind · April 10, 2007

IMV, they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, in the same way that software companies originally focused on copy-protection to enforce their copyright.

Software companies are moving towards online databases with activation keys. Some games will not run without internet connections that are used to verify the license key. This trend will continue in the future as the cost of managing these online databases drops. I don't particularily like it when my computer software 'phones home' but I don't have many choices in some cases.

IOW - it is a mistake to say that software companies have abandoned copy protection - they have simply moved on to different types of protections which are much harder to circumvent.

Charles Anthony · April 10, 2007

Software companies are moving towards online databases with activation keys.

More power to them! I welcome it.

IOW - it is a mistake to say that software companies have abandoned copy protection - they have simply moved on to different types of protections which are much harder to circumvent.

They have taken more of the cost of enforcing their copy-protection themselves.

Renegade · April 10, 2007

IMV, they are shooting themselves in the foot by doing so, in the same way that software companies originally focused on copy-protection to enforce their copyright.
Software companies are moving towards online databases with activation keys. Some games will not run without internet connections that are used to verify the license key. This trend will continue in the future as the cost of managing these online databases drops. I don't particularily like it when my computer software 'phones home' but I don't have many choices in some cases.
IOW - it is a mistake to say that software companies have abandoned copy protection - they have simply moved on to different types of protections which are much harder to circumvent.

No I did not mean to suggest that they have completely abandoned all copy protection. They have abandoned the restrictive copy protection mechanisms they used in the past. It is all a question of degree of determining what are reasonable means to protect their right to be compensated for their work.

IMV, activation keys are reasonable and acceptable. Rootkits, copy-protection which prevents consumers from making legitimate backups, and throwing people in jail are not.

Renegade · April 10, 2007

I don't know that it would be possible to show a cite that would respond to this statement. However, I would say that it makes sense, in a roundabout (if imperfect) way. For example, in some of the Nordic countries after WWII, thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, were accused of collaborating with the Nazis. They were given a choice, a 'civil suit' (where they paid some monetary fine) or criminal charges. The vast majority paid the money. I think most people would prefer civil vs. legal procedings, especially if they think/know they may be guilty. If the fine is too much, they can declare bankruptcy. But for something that they may be able to buy their way out of, any time in jail is too much of a price to pay.

TFB, if we accept the presumption that criminal penalties are more effective, why not have every statue covered under criminal law instead of civil law? Why have civil law at all?

theloniusfleabag · April 12, 2007

Dear Renegade,

TFB, if we accept the presumption that criminal penalties are more effective, why not have every statue covered under criminal law instead of civil law? Why have civil law at all?

I am no lawyer, but many things are not worth sending someone to jail over, when a fine may suffice. As with the music industry, they possibly demand charges of theft (there are classifications of say, theft under $500, or grand theft auto) but could also pursue a 'civil suit' where they are basically suing for damages (lost revenue, etc). Sometimes an action can lead to both (OJ Simpson won the criminal suit but lost the civil suit, wacky enough), but to keep court costs to a minimum (and jail costs as well) there was a distinction made as to whether someone should go to jail overy petty crimes anymore, as was the case long ago.

jbg · April 12, 2007

...but could also pursue a 'civil suit' where they are basically suing for damages (lost revenue, etc).

Exactly what they are doing in the US now. Suing your customers is ultimately a bad strategy, but desparation and panic have set in.

theloniusfleabag · April 12, 2007

Dear jbg,

Suing your customers is ultimately a bad strategy, but desparation and panic have set in.

Generally, 'shoplifters' aren't called 'customers'...

Renegade · April 12, 2007

I am no lawyer, but many things are not worth sending someone to jail over, when a fine may suffice. As with the music industry, they possibly demand charges of theft (there are classifications of say, theft under $500, or grand theft auto) but could also pursue a 'civil suit' where they are basically suing for damages (lost revenue, etc). Sometimes an action can lead to both (OJ Simpson won the criminal suit but lost the civil suit, wacky enough), but to keep court costs to a minimum (and jail costs as well) there was a distinction made as to whether someone should go to jail overy petty crimes anymore, as was the case long ago.

tfb, this is exactly my point. I don't know for certain whether criminal penalties are more effective than civil ones, but irregardless, IMV, violating someone's copyright is not an act that should be consided a criminal offense, despite what the music industry thinks. I'm fine with the fact that the copyright holders have the ability to sue, and even that public resources are used to enforce judgements. IMV, The ablity to redress for damages is sufficient protection for the copyright holder.