The Evil Dead wrote:
Satan's Anus wrote:
crast wrote:
Satan's Anus wrote:
TheMetalWarrior316 wrote:
Goat wrote:
Record label nonsense, no doubt.
And then they complain about the donwnloading of the albums...
I'd like to know if there is a connection between the number of downloads and the time between recording (or: Leak date) and releasing of an album.
Do you have ANY idea how the machine works? You can't just finish an album and then release it. All kinds of things have to happen first, from setting up marketing to distro contracts to CD manufacturing, and so on. It takes time.
And labels have every right to complain about people illegally downloading.
It's fucking stealing!No it's not.
It's copyright infringement. If you're going to argue about this, use the correct terminology.
lol totally have to agree with that sentiment, SA. I am a dirty DLer, but I don't make myself feel better by trying to split hairs. It's theft. =)
So if it's stealing why do you do it? Are you a thief?
(sorry, Evil Dead, it's nothing personal I just get wound up by this particular argument)
From wikipedia.
Quote:
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
Who is permanently deprived of property by downloading an album?
It may seem like a technical distinction, but you guys are the ones blowing up an extremely commonplace act of copyright infringement into a grave moral offence (i.e. theft). It's pompous high-horsery.
Infringement of copyright is entirely different. For a start, it isn't a criminal offence (as far as I'm aware- I think it depends on the country). Secondly, there are dozens of clauses surrounding it that mitigate it (unlike with theft), including "fair use". For example, if I make an unauthorised copy of a record with the intent of showing it to somoeone else, and getting them to buy it if they like it, you could feasibly argue in a court of law that no offence has been commited at all.
As a matter of fact, I am not condoning downloading albums. However, calling it "theft" is hyperbolic nonsense.
It sounds the same to me, always has.
