New, 14-disc Ron Jones TNG soundtrack box set!
- Thread starter doubleohfive
- Start date
^Yeah. Like I said, the point is that it's wrong no matter what you call it. Infringing a copyright is not a harmless act.
It is not criminal, we have already established that. I agree with it being wrong/
I have never attempted to justify it, merely comment on the legal comparison of downloading a song and stealing a car
You original point was that it was a criminal act the same as stealing a car. I merely highlighted the legal inaccuracy of your comparison. I am not disputing whether it is right or wrong to download a song.
IT'S WRONG. DON'T DO IT. What the hell more needs to be said?!!!
Then you should have said that in the first place rather than comparing it to stealing a car.
Wrong and the law are two different things!
Actually, willful infringement of copyright, in the United States and all countries that have signed the relevant international copyright treaties, is a crime and is punishable under criminal law. Innocent or "accidental" infringement is not and can only be punished with civil penalties. However, in most cases of illegal downloading music, it would be difficult to argue that the infringement is not willful.
Now, having said that, it's true that criminal sanctions are rarely taken against copyright violations unless they are on a massive scale, and it's true that most people would not equate illegally downloading a song with stealing a car. Part of that, of course, is due to the fact that an individual song, if downloaded legally, has a value of maybe 99 cents while an average car has a value in the thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars. Part of it is also the fact that by downloading a song illegally, you do not deprive others of the use of that song, as you do when you steal a car. But neither of those facts negates the legitimate income out of which you cheat the owners of the copyright.
So, if we're splitting hairs, then technically you are correct that willful copyright infringement is not theft. However, you are incorrect in saying it is not a crime. It is, even if it is a crime that is not often prosecuted. However, I think we're all in agreement that it's wrong either way, which is really the main point.
Now, having said that, it's true that criminal sanctions are rarely taken against copyright violations unless they are on a massive scale, and it's true that most people would not equate illegally downloading a song with stealing a car. Part of that, of course, is due to the fact that an individual song, if downloaded legally, has a value of maybe 99 cents while an average car has a value in the thousands, or tens of thousands, of dollars. Part of it is also the fact that by downloading a song illegally, you do not deprive others of the use of that song, as you do when you steal a car. But neither of those facts negates the legitimate income out of which you cheat the owners of the copyright.
So, if we're splitting hairs, then technically you are correct that willful copyright infringement is not theft. However, you are incorrect in saying it is not a crime. It is, even if it is a crime that is not often prosecuted. However, I think we're all in agreement that it's wrong either way, which is really the main point.
Right. A little over $10 a disc may not be that bad of a deal, but these discs are not available for sale individually. I don't get how this set is considered a great deal anyway when you can buy albums on iTunes for $10 and Amazon for cheaper. By not making these discs available for sale individually they are making me buy them all if I want any. There should be that bulk discount figured into the price since I am forced to buy 14-discs (all or nothing). The total deal ($149.95 for 14 discs) is what is preventing me from buying this. Yes, that is a lot of money to plunk down at once, but if I got more for that large sum of money or if the same set cost less money than I might be able to justify this purchase.
Good grief, haven't you ever heard of metaphors and symbols? Maybe if you were more literate, you'd have more understanding of what a gross violation we're talking about here and why I consider it morally equivalent to stealing a car.
And as CoveTom pointed out, you are absolutely wrong to think that it is not against the law. It is, in fact, a crime. It may technically be a different category of crime than theft, but it is nonetheless illegal.
At the front of most Australian DVDs are messages that tell us that video piracy is akin to theft. "You wouldn't steal a handbag..., you wouldn't steal a car...", the ads remind us, so don't pirate DVDs.
At no point have I have said that it is not against the law, merely that it does not fit the legal description of theft. All I am guilty of is highlighting the legal inaccuracy of your statement, I can see you do not appreciate being corrected. Please continue to live in ignorance
I considered it, especially when there were signed copies in stock again, but that much in one go was more than I could afford really. But the main catch is I would have been stung on import duty too. Had it been 7 double CD sets I could have bought 1,2 a month, and they would have been under the limit.
When I am forced to sit through those the only thing that goes through my head is if I made a copy I could remove this bit. Not that I ever have. But it is a strange system that rewards loyal buyers with a notice, those who use other means won't see it.
And as CoveTom pointed out, you are absolutely wrong to think that it is not against the law. It is, in fact, a crime. It may technically be a different category of crime than theft, but it is nonetheless illegal.[/QUOTE]
Actually downloading a song is not a criminal act (as infringing copyright is not a crime), it is the sharing/distribution of the material and for financial gain. criminal procedures are considered for actions such as "wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale"
For infringements of copyright such as downloading a song it is up to the copyright holder to pursue a civil action where the courts could impose injunctions and the destruction of infringing products, and award damages.
And Christopher as I pointed out you were "absolutely wrong" in stating that it is the same as stealing a car, it is not.
Last edited:
Agreed.
One great thing about this collection is the inclusion of rejected tracks that have never been heard before. There's a great one in "Booby Trap." I always really liked the "action music" motif that showed up in a couple of tracks in the episode, and it turns out that there's a whole three-and-a-half-minute cue that develops it much more extensively, one that was rejected in the aired episode in favor of a reuse of action cues from "Where Silence Has Lease" -- which I also quite like, but getting this new cue is even better. The liner notes say it was rejected because it sounded too "Euro-pop" or "French" or something, but I don't get any of that -- I just know I liked the sound of it, and it's great to get more of it.
That was my fear as well, but they came through without duty. Maybe I just got lucky, or maybe they are shipped in such way that duty can be avoided? Normally, even if there's extra duty to be paid, we still have 10 euro "processing cost" or whatever the call it that we need to pay. But even that was absent with this set.
I understand some folks (depending on country) are getting around those fees by asking labels to mark it as a "gift". But appearently the jigs up on that, in some places.
Coincidentally, I was listening to said track as I read your post, entitled "Human Factor." Quite possibly my favorite of the rejected cues.