If copyright infringement was garden variety theft then it would fall under the criminal code. It does not until it reaches an enterprise level. Even the law does not meet your definition of theft.
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
473 U.S. 207
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful [473 U.S. 207, 218] appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
RIAA and others like to call copyright infringement "theft" however the Supreme Court on more than one occasion has said it is not theft. It is no more theft than another company competing against another. You could say two companies selling the same product is stealing from the other but that is the nature of competition. The only difference is what the government considers authorized and unauthorized competition.
I question these terms of service postings that simply state by viewing this website you agree to their TOS.
This is ridiculous and should not have any kind of force of law. Simply viewing something does not imply agreement. I could just as well create a website that states by reading this notice you agree to send me all your worldly possessions.
This is the rub with making copyrights last so long and that is the worthless offspring mooching off their old man's work. If there is any natural copyright it should never exceed the life of the originator. The worthless offspring can live off the interest and inheritance of the creator but they should not be kept courtesy of the United States government.
I could not agree more. There have been court decisions that say copyright holders MUST consider fair use before taking any action but they increasingly are ignoring that and taking action no matter what. There needs to be a risk in filing lawsuits.
The burden of proof needs to be on the copyright holder and they should be required to explain why the use of their work does not fall under fair use.
If they cannot meet their burden they should be made to pay ALL attorneys fees plus ALL expenses incurred by the victim as well as punitive damages. Filing a frivolous copyright claim should carry just as high a penalty as copyright infringement itself.
If we the people do not have the right or authority to do something then we also do not have the authority to grant such power to the government. When the government takes on authority above what the people can grant we have tyranny.
It is being argued that Righthaven is also guilty of UPL because they are sharing to what amounts to a contingency fee with both Stephens Media and MediaNews Group. Their are rules barring lawyers from sharing fees with non-laywers. Doing so has been ruled in other cases to be an UPL on the part of the non-lawyer since they are essentially getting paid for legal services that they are not licensed to perform.
It may only be $5000 but the net effect is going to be devastating to Righthaven. Judge Hunt also gave a lot of ammunition to current and past victims. Righthaven regardless of whether they stay in business or not will be fending off a swarm of lawsuits for years to come. If they go bankrupt then Stevens Media and MediaNews group will be on the hook so don't be surprised if these media companies artificially prop up Righthaven to shield themselves from liability.
Yeah at first we thought they bought the copyrights outright as well and then we found out they do not control the copyrights at all. They are only assigned the bare right to sue which is what the courts have rejected as a sham.
They are not even a lawfirm however they have set up a contingency fee arrangement with their media partners which amounts to an unauthorized practice of law.
I would have liked to see the fine be higher but just the fact Righthaven has now been sanctioned by a Federal Court for lying is a really big deal.
It is shocking to me this is not getting more coverage in the press. You have two major newspaper conglomerates that have been implicated in illegal dealings with Righthaven. This should be as big as a scandal as the Murdock hacking scandal but the main stream media is ignoring it. I suspect the news media is protecting its own and will have to be brought in kicking and screaming.
One thing the Movie and Music industry does not understand is that piracy is competition. The only way to really fight it is to out-compete by giving better and higher quality and more convenient offerings. The dirty little secret is that "free" is not what drives most people to pirate sites it is availability and convenience that does.
The industry has put all their eggs in fighting piracy through litigation, onerous laws, and consumer unfriendly policies that do more to drive people away from them than entice people to take the legitimate route.
When the pirates are meeting the demand of consumers while the legitimate counterparts are putting up road blocks and hassles people are going to go to the pirates. It is human nature and no laws or pleadings or calling people thieves or "educational" campaigns are going to stop it.
You would have been happy in the old Soviet Union. What is ironic is the average Russian today enjoys more freedom on the Internet than the average American.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
Justice Bryer is not the Supreme Court and is on the dissenting side more often than not.
Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
If copyright infringement was garden variety theft then it would fall under the criminal code. It does not until it reaches an enterprise level. Even the law does not meet your definition of theft.
Re: Re: Unauthorized Competition
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)
473 U.S. 207
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES
It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: "`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, `is an infringer of the copyright.' [17 U.S.C.] 501(a)." Sony Corp., supra, at 433. There is no dispute in this case that Dowling's unauthorized inclusion on his bootleg albums of performances of copyrighted compositions constituted infringement of those copyrights. It is less clear, however, that the taking that occurs when an infringer arrogates the use of another's protected work comfortably fits the terms associated with physical removal employed by 2314. The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful [473 U.S. 207, 218] appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=473&invol=207
Unauthorized Competition
RIAA and others like to call copyright infringement "theft" however the Supreme Court on more than one occasion has said it is not theft. It is no more theft than another company competing against another. You could say two companies selling the same product is stealing from the other but that is the nature of competition. The only difference is what the government considers authorized and unauthorized competition.
TOS are unenforceable.
I question these terms of service postings that simply state by viewing this website you agree to their TOS.
This is ridiculous and should not have any kind of force of law. Simply viewing something does not imply agreement. I could just as well create a website that states by reading this notice you agree to send me all your worldly possessions.
Worthless Offspring
This is the rub with making copyrights last so long and that is the worthless offspring mooching off their old man's work. If there is any natural copyright it should never exceed the life of the originator. The worthless offspring can live off the interest and inheritance of the creator but they should not be kept courtesy of the United States government.
Unless you are talking about an East Texas court room I doubt any judge is ever going to hold up banishing people from the Internet.
Re: Re: Re: Copyright scam artists.
Every comment section should have an edit button to fix mistakes and typos.
Re: Re: Copyright scam artists.
I am praying that Access Copyright stops preying on students and Universities.
Re: Make them pay
I could not agree more. There have been court decisions that say copyright holders MUST consider fair use before taking any action but they increasingly are ignoring that and taking action no matter what. There needs to be a risk in filing lawsuits.
The burden of proof needs to be on the copyright holder and they should be required to explain why the use of their work does not fall under fair use.
If they cannot meet their burden they should be made to pay ALL attorneys fees plus ALL expenses incurred by the victim as well as punitive damages. Filing a frivolous copyright claim should carry just as high a penalty as copyright infringement itself.
Government oversteps its authority
If we the people do not have the right or authority to do something then we also do not have the authority to grant such power to the government. When the government takes on authority above what the people can grant we have tyranny.
What is Verizon hiding in their bills?
Makes you wonder what Verizon is hiding in their bills to make it so difficult to find out the details on what is being charged.
Re: Re: Re: Re: But wait...
It is being argued that Righthaven is also guilty of UPL because they are sharing to what amounts to a contingency fee with both Stephens Media and MediaNews Group. Their are rules barring lawyers from sharing fees with non-laywers. Doing so has been ruled in other cases to be an UPL on the part of the non-lawyer since they are essentially getting paid for legal services that they are not licensed to perform.
Punishment will be far more than $5000
It may only be $5000 but the net effect is going to be devastating to Righthaven. Judge Hunt also gave a lot of ammunition to current and past victims. Righthaven regardless of whether they stay in business or not will be fending off a swarm of lawsuits for years to come. If they go bankrupt then Stevens Media and MediaNews group will be on the hook so don't be surprised if these media companies artificially prop up Righthaven to shield themselves from liability.
Re:
Yeah at first we thought they bought the copyrights outright as well and then we found out they do not control the copyrights at all. They are only assigned the bare right to sue which is what the courts have rejected as a sham.
They are not even a lawfirm however they have set up a contingency fee arrangement with their media partners which amounts to an unauthorized practice of law.
Media Conspiracy
I would have liked to see the fine be higher but just the fact Righthaven has now been sanctioned by a Federal Court for lying is a really big deal.
It is shocking to me this is not getting more coverage in the press. You have two major newspaper conglomerates that have been implicated in illegal dealings with Righthaven. This should be as big as a scandal as the Murdock hacking scandal but the main stream media is ignoring it. I suspect the news media is protecting its own and will have to be brought in kicking and screaming.
Re: Re:
One thing the Movie and Music industry does not understand is that piracy is competition. The only way to really fight it is to out-compete by giving better and higher quality and more convenient offerings. The dirty little secret is that "free" is not what drives most people to pirate sites it is availability and convenience that does.
The industry has put all their eggs in fighting piracy through litigation, onerous laws, and consumer unfriendly policies that do more to drive people away from them than entice people to take the legitimate route.
When the pirates are meeting the demand of consumers while the legitimate counterparts are putting up road blocks and hassles people are going to go to the pirates. It is human nature and no laws or pleadings or calling people thieves or "educational" campaigns are going to stop it.
Resistance is the American way.
America has a long history of resisting oppression. We are not about to stop now.
Re: But this is EXACTLY what you wanted
Bob
You would have been happy in the old Soviet Union. What is ironic is the average Russian today enjoys more freedom on the Internet than the average American.
It is the RIAA who are the pirates who plunder the artists.