Cabal
Premium
join:2007-01-21
Boston, MA
| reply to nasadude
Re: more american competition at it's best
said by nasadude  :don't compete on price, product or service, sue their @sses! Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.)
Just because someone is stealing from your store doesn't mean you business model is flawed. It means you put a big guy with a baseball bat at the front of the store and protect your assets.
--
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru? |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
 ·Comcast
| said by Cabal :Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Just because someone is stealing from your store doesn't mean you business model is flawed. It means you put a big guy with a baseball bat at the front of the store and protect your assets. Bzzzzzzzztttt! Sorry, wrong answer - copyright infringement is infringement, not theft. What got "stolen"? Did the appearance of a clip on youtube make the clip disappear from viacom archives?
I'm not arguing viacom doesn't have the right to take legal action, just pointing out that this appears to be the current, default action that all the big media companies take in these circumstances.
And I'm also sorry, but it does appear big media business strategy is flawed for the digital age. The sooner they realize that and stop suing the bejesus out of anyone that does something they don't like, the sooner they will start making MORE MONEY. |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
 ·AT&T Southeast
| said by nasadude :I'm not arguing viacom doesn't have the right to take legal action, just pointing out that this appears to be the current, default action that all the big media companies take in these circumstances. You might have a point if Viacom didn't first try to reach an agreement with Youtube, and then try to have them set up content filtering, and then demand that they remove everything from the site that belonged to Viacom BEFORE they decided to sue.
This was hardly the "default" action. They gave google plenty of opportunity. |
|
manfmmd
Premium
join:2003-01-14
Earth
clubs:
| reply to nasadude
said by nasadude :said by Cabal :Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Just because someone is stealing from your store doesn't mean you business model is flawed. It means you put a big guy with a baseball bat at the front of the store and protect your assets. Bzzzzzzzztttt! Sorry, wrong answer - copyright infringement is infringement, not theft. What got "stolen"? Did the appearance of a clip on youtube make the clip disappear from viacom archives? I'm not arguing viacom doesn't have the right to take legal action, just pointing out that this appears to be the current, default action that all the big media companies take in these circumstances. And I'm also sorry, but it does appear big media business strategy is flawed for the digital age. The sooner they realize that and stop suing the bejesus out of anyone that does something they don't like, the sooner they will start making MORE MONEY. What got stolen? Copyrighted works. Ask around the DI Forum and ask them if they consider the "theft" of their photographs to be stealing? 99.99% of them will come back and tell you that it IS "theft". Just because the copyrighted works are owned by "BIG BUSINESS", doesn't mean that they're not protected.
--
huh? | AIM | The beauty of ignorance is indescribable. |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| But you can't just throw out the word 'theft', when a COPY does not deprive the original owner of a work. The correct word is 'infringement', and the supreme court ruled that infringement is NOT THEFT. They are two totally different things, and trying to describe it as 'theft' puts a negative connotation on an act that is truly victimless. Let's call it what it is, copyright infringement, not theft. The penalties for copyright infringement are ALWAYS civil, not criminal. Trying to make a civil crime into a criminal crime is just not right.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 100mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Technically I believe Google's responsibility is to comply with a DMCA take down notice. Google themselves did not post the video, a user did. If Viacom submitted a DMCA request and it wasn't followed, then we have a case. --
Go Colts |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to manfmmd
said by manfmmd :What got stolen? Copyrighted works. Ask around the DI Forum and ask them if they consider the "theft" of their photographs to be stealing? 99.99% of them will come back and tell you that it IS "theft". Just because the copyrighted works are owned by "BIG BUSINESS", doesn't mean that they're not protected. Well as much as you would like it to be theft and as much as the media industry would like it to be theft, IT IS NOT THEFT.
The law says it is copyright infringement (assuming it meets the req'ts and is not parody, comment, educational or other fair use). If you want to call it theft, get the law changed.
and a pirate is a person that robs people on the high seas. |
|
jap
Premium
join:2003-08-10
038xx
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Cabal
said by Cabal :Which category does illegally using the copyrighted works of others for profit fall under? (Note: for reference, this is still theft.) Suits are civil, theft is tried in criminal courts.
As of last year, overt filesharing of copyrighted material (within the US) is a crime, but by the endusers sharing the files, not by hosting servers. Hosts are exposed on the civil side if they they fail to exhibit due-diligence in notification and take-down.
People have been abusing the distinction *way* to much of late. |
|
