Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35424858)

So you decide artwork I produce has no commercial value so you don't need to pay for..whereas I feel it does have commercial value so I want paying before you walk off with it.

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35424872)

Indeed.
Just to go OT slightly, this is currently the 'problem' with the BBC's iPlayer.

You can, quite legally, not pay for your TV Licence but still watch anything (that isn't 'live') via iPlayer. Now, if this remains the case and too many people do that, where's the funding going to come from for new programmes.

Sorry. Just a tangential thought :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35424875)

Maybe it's already been paid for ,maybe the downloader has paid a tv subscription

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35424884)

So presumably, jusging by what some peopel have said, they are not illegal? If the content is not shared or distributed?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35424885)

If you paint a picture and someone decides they like it and takes it off your wall and takes possesion of that painting that is obviously theft ,if someone comes around your house sees the picture decides they like it and takes a HD photo of said picture prints it and decides to sell it to make money that is copyright infringement (assuming you had it copyrighted in the first place) not theft because they haven't stolen the picture merely copied it

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35424885)

If you paint a picture and someone decides they like it and takes it off your wall and takes possesion of that painting that is obviously theft ,if someone comes around your house sees the picture decides they like it and takes a HD photo of said picture prints it and decides to sell it to make money that is copyright infringement (assuming you had it copyrighted in the first place) not theft because they haven't stolen the picture merely copied it

Originally Posted by Milambar (Post 35424886)

One of the options they are persuing is a requrement for a TV Licence to own a PC.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35424885)

If you paint a picture and someone decides they like it and takes it off your wall and takes possesion of that painting that is obviously theft ,if someone comes around your house sees the picture decides they like it and takes a HD photo of said picture prints it and decides to sell it to make money that is copyright infringement (assuming you had it copyrighted in the first place) not theft because they haven't stolen the picture merely copied it

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35424885)

If you paint a picture and someone decides they like it and takes it off your wall and takes possesion of that painting that is obviously theft ,if someone comes around your house sees the picture decides they like it and takes a HD photo of said picture prints it and decides to sell it to make money that is copyright infringement (assuming you had it copyrighted in the first place) not theft because they haven't stolen the picture merely copied it

Originally Posted by Milambar (Post 35424891)

At the end of the day, it can be argued that copyright infringement is also theft. While you have not removed the physical product from the original owner, you have made a copy of it. A copy for which they would normally have charged you, and therefore you deprived them of the income from that copy, therefore it could be argued, that you stole money off them.

Tenuous, I know, but its there.

Originally Posted by smallclone (Post 35424884)

So presumably, jusging by what some peopel have said, they are not illegal? If the content is not shared or distributed?

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35424896)

If anyone did that I'd kick their backside so hard that we could see what they had eaten the day before..I'm also certain there is some law about people doing things uninvited,without permission in your home such as taking pictures unless they are the law and have a warrant that says they can.;)

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35424899)

And that is the BIG argument. Does a copy equal a lost sale.

How many of us have been given a DVD by a friend who says 'You might like this' so we watch it and never buy it?

Originally Posted by carlwaring (Post 35424887)

You subscription might only cover viewing it once, or only via streaming. In which case, if you want to keep a copy, buy it.


There are plenty of ripping programs available to do that :)


Yes, because, as you said, you've already purchased it and can get it again whenever you want to from iTunes.

---------- Post added at 14:41 ---------- Previous post was at 14:39 ----------


A law (being criminal or civil) has still been broken as you would own something you have no right to with paying for it.

---------- Post added at 14:42 ---------- Previous post was at 14:41 ----------


But a law has still been broken. So it is "against the law"; another word for which is...illegal. Glad we got that sorted out :)

Originally Posted by Milambar (Post 35424915)

At the end of the day, in my opinion, if you can't afford to buy a legal copy of something, you have two, maybe three choices.

1) Do without.
2) Ask the rights holder if you may have a free copy (lol).
3) Ask someone whom has a legal copy, if they will let you have theirs. This has to be a transfer of the physical copy, and they must not make a copy for themselves and is only semi-legal.

At no point is it right, to just take a copy, imho.

Originally Posted by Milambar (Post 35424901)

Actually, they could stand outside on the public road, use a very long telephoto, and point it through your window, and theres not a thing you or the police can do about it then. Except draw the curtains. But yeah, NOW we're getting off topic....