There are certain "wrongful" acts that are crimes, i.e. if you do them the police can come after you and you can be prosecuted by the state. There are others which are torts, such as breaching a contract, trespassing on somebody's land, or causing somebody injury due to negligence (as opposed to on purpose or recklessly). Here, the state does not get involved except to provide a forum for resolving the dispute. You cannot be arrested or prosecuted for committing a tort, but the person harmed can take you to court, usually for an award of damages (i.e. monetary compensation) and/or an injunction (a court order not to do something). Tort is a private law area while crime is a public law area.
(Of course, many things are both crimes and torts, such as assault. If you do this you can be prosecuted and sued. But these will be separate cases, brought by different parties, and with different standards of proof.)
Copyright infringement is principally a tort, which means the production company can sue you for any loss they believe they have suffered as a result of your violations. There may be circumstances in which it is also a crime, but this is probably only the case (a) in a few countries, and (b) if you're making lots of money from it.
If you download the odd movie, the police will not come knocking on your door. A production company is also very unlikely to sue you unless you are a big-time distributor of files.
In the law I'm studying (Scots), pure information cannot be stolen, because the definition of theft involves (a) physical property, and (b) intentionally depriving the owner of its use. If you steal a DVD from a shop, you are taking something physical away from its owner, who then cannot use it. Neither of these is the case if you download a video file of the film. So the annoying adverts equating downloading with theft are simply wrong. I can't speak for other countries, but I bet that at least one of these requirements for theft applies pretty much everywhere, which would preclude unauthorised downloading from being theft.
(Of course, many things are both crimes and torts, such as assault. If you do this you can be prosecuted and sued. But these will be separate cases, brought by different parties, and with different standards of proof.)
Copyright infringement is principally a tort, which means the production company can sue you for any loss they believe they have suffered as a result of your violations. There may be circumstances in which it is also a crime, but this is probably only the case (a) in a few countries, and (b) if you're making lots of money from it.
If you download the odd movie, the police will not come knocking on your door. A production company is also very unlikely to sue you unless you are a big-time distributor of files.
In the law I'm studying (Scots), pure information cannot be stolen, because the definition of theft involves (a) physical property, and (b) intentionally depriving the owner of its use. If you steal a DVD from a shop, you are taking something physical away from its owner, who then cannot use it. Neither of these is the case if you download a video file of the film. So the annoying adverts equating downloading with theft are simply wrong. I can't speak for other countries, but I bet that at least one of these requirements for theft applies pretty much everywhere, which would preclude unauthorised downloading from being theft.
Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
—Nous disons en allemand : le guerre, le mort, le lune, alors que 'soleil' et 'amour' sont du sexe féminin : la soleil, la amour. La vie est neutre.
—La vie ? Neutre ? C'est très joli, et surtout très logique.
Why is downloading "illegally" really illegal?
- 19/01/2011 03:30:57 PM
2001 Views
you can't legally record and distribute TV shows
- 19/01/2011 05:21:06 PM
1559 Views
Re: you can't legally record and distribute TV shows
- 19/01/2011 09:52:48 PM
1620 Views
Many shows (especially sports) forbid the duplication of said show in a statement or the credits.
- 20/01/2011 03:22:10 AM
1477 Views
I haven't been able to read the credits for TV shows in years.
- 20/01/2011 03:51:40 AM
1382 Views
Ignorance of the law is not a valid defence *NM*
- 21/01/2011 01:21:25 PM
728 Views
How do you figure that?
- 21/01/2011 02:08:13 PM
1447 Views
Re: How do you figure that?
- 22/01/2011 08:33:04 PM
1976 Views
A lot of it's volume.
- 19/01/2011 05:32:03 PM
1464 Views
Your argument lacks merit.
- 19/01/2011 05:50:11 PM
1446 Views
Both terms lack accuracy in this case really.
- 19/01/2011 06:37:29 PM
1744 Views
We need to distinguish between a crime and a tort.
- 19/01/2011 10:17:30 PM
1603 Views
Very interesting.
- 19/01/2011 10:28:35 PM
1626 Views
Another scrabble word for you is "delict". That's what we call tort in Scotland.
- 19/01/2011 10:37:08 PM
1478 Views
It won't get you very many points.
Very nice legal overview, also I like Scotland's approach a lot
- 19/01/2011 11:21:47 PM
1404 Views
The case that decided information can't be stolen dates from 1987.
- 20/01/2011 09:35:31 AM
2200 Views
Unfortunately, damages can result in thousands of dollars for one song
- 22/01/2011 08:19:40 PM
1319 Views
Here's the US answer on the VCR thing, and how it relates to today's copyright problems
- 19/01/2011 11:35:31 PM
1548 Views
Re: Here's the US answer on the VCR thing, and how it relates to today's copyright problems *NM*
- 19/01/2011 11:37:56 PM
1225 Views
Re: Here's the US answer on the VCR thing, and how it relates to today's copyright problems
- 20/01/2011 12:49:55 AM
1774 Views