Stage 9 gets cease and desist order from CBS

[marsh8472]

I’m not the one ignoring the value of the artist and their work to create the original. Just because it’s “cheap” to copy doesn’t mean it was cheap to create. Why do you insist on devaluing art and artists?

I'm sure there are other ways to compensate people like that if society insists on keeping artists around. Like with netflix, I have a netflix account. Am I capable of getting all of that stuff for free without paying netflix every month? Sure. But it's more convenient for me to have access to netflix. I imagine everyone's subscriber costs get distributed to IP owners based on view counts.

Listen, I’m not the one that brought up Webster in an attempt to claim that intellectual property wasn’t really property. That was you. It’s not my fault, nor circular, that Webster also supports my argument.

But you are the one that insists on calling it stealing and not moving on from our disagreement in definitions. Yeah they're just words. Calling it stealing adds no new information to the conversation.

Yes. Stealing is wrong. You might be doing it for “right” reasons—like to feed your family. But because it’s essy isn’t. You are stealing the livelihood out of someone else’s pocket—their ability to feed their family and all you can muster is a shrug.

Well what makes stealing or copying wrong? The answer is in the question. It depends on how you define wrong and if you include stealing or copying along with absolutism in your definition. I don't.

That is true of every single law. So... what’s your point?

The first amendment and anything else you were talking about is an artificial right. That was the point.

If you go out to eat and don’t pay for it, what would that be?

Do you honestly think that buying a book is the same as “tipping” the author?

Buying a digital book and paying for it mentally feels like tipping the author to me except for the laws that say you're supposed to pay whatever they want for the digital book. When I go out to eat, I tip. Because I see them doing a service and it's more personal. But in the case of making a digital copy, people wouldn't even know a digital copy is being made and it's not costing them any time or money for others to get a copy. At best they are losing potential money which assumes people would have paid for it to begin with.

1. Patent law is different. Patents run out long before copyright.

Same idea though

1. Patent law is different. Patents run out long before copyright.

2. Do I wish that pharmacutical companies do better when it comes to poorer countries, of course. Do I think it’s ok to make illegal knock offs? No. Because it’s dangerous for one and illegal as well.

3. It can take 10 of millions of dollars to make that first pill. If they can’t recoup it, why would they spend 10s of millions of dollars? They have 15 years to make as much back as possible. No government has the resources to spend that sort of money and maybe come up with something.

1. big deal, not much difference
2. It's okay to do something illegal if the law is unjust.

The IP laws exist because of this statement in the constitution "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.". That doesn't make it right or wrong. I consider the while thing amoral. It's just a rule to me that I don't have to agree with and there are other ways to promote science and useful arts if they really need promoting.

3. The government could tax people instead if they wanted and compensate creators that way

Actually, you're infringing upon the content creator's First Amendment rights to control their speech (art is free speech after all) by stating that anyone can copy it without creator consent.

Never mind depriving a person fro making money off of their labor. You are asking the artist to work for free.

The first amendment encourages the flow of information. Copyright laws put limitations on the flow of information. Their choice in profession is not my fault. Artists is one of the worst professions to go into.

 

[fireproof78]

The first amendment encourages the flow of information. Copyright laws put limitations on the flow of information. Their choice in profession is not my fault. Artists is one of the worst professions to go into.

By that argument, all free speech should be unhindered and not disrupt a flow of information. Except, the Supreme Court has not ruled that to be the case, and that there are limits.

It doesn't change the fact that the current law and copying of another's work is infringing upon their free speech rights.

 

[marsh8472]

By that argument, all free speech should be unhindered and not disrupt a flow of information. Except, the Supreme Court has not ruled that to be the case, and that there are limits.

It doesn't change the fact that the current law and copying of another's work is infringing upon their free speech rights.

That's the conflict that exists between the First Amendment and copyright. It's not infringing on their speech, they're allowed to talk as much as they want. Unless you mean get credit for their speech. Anyway I've never been very good at persuasion. I don't know if I'm not articulating the points good enough or if it's just people being obstinate. You could look at other people's arguments about why copyright law should be abolished here if you're interested: https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-intellectual-property-rights-be-abolished

 

[fireproof78]

That's the conflict that exists between the First Amendment and copyright. It's not infringing on their speech, they're allowed to talk as much as they want. Unless you mean get credit for their speech. Anyway I've never been very good at persuasion. I don't know if I'm not articulating the points good enough or if it's just people being obstinate. You could look at other people's arguments about why copyright law should be abolished here if you're interested: https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-intellectual-property-rights-be-abolished

Already did. I don't find them substantive enough to justify devaluing someone's work to the point that copying should not cost. Because, as repeatedly reiterated by others in this thread who do participate in the art world, the cost of producing a work does not end when the work is done. Creators are attempting to recoup their cost of their time and money by offering it on the open market. Making an unauthorized copy deprives them of that opportunity, and takes power and control of their property away from them, thus infringing upon their 1st amendment right.

Ultimately, it boils down to a desire to have something for free. Well, art isn't free and copyright affords authors the opportunity to benefit from their property and resources invested in that creation.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'm sure there are other ways to compensate people like that if society insists on keeping artists around.

How magnanimous of you. Who would decide who gets paid what? Who decides who is worthy? The government? Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment?

There's already a system in place for compensating artists: PAY FOR IT.

Like with netflix, I have a netflix account. Am I capable of getting all of that stuff for free without paying netflix every month? Sure. But it's more convenient for me to have access to netflix. I imagine everyone's subscriber costs get distributed to IP owners based on view counts.

Again, how magnanimous of you. Netflix is free. They would like to make money on their service and they have to pay for the content. As it should be.

But you are the one that insists on calling it stealing and not moving on from our disagreement in definitions. Yeah they're just words. Calling it stealing adds no new information to the conversation.

Words have meanings. You are the one that brought Webster into it, and, I guess, don't really like the face that Webster also supports my argument, so, you want to move away from it.

Calling it stealing DOES provide new information to the conversation, it provides context and consequence from your desire to take something from an artist without paying for it.

Well what makes stealing or copying wrong? The answer is in the question. It depends on how you define wrong and if you include stealing or copying along with absolutism in your definition. I don't.

What makes stealing wrong? Seriously?
What makes copying wrong, depends on the context. If it's done without permission, then it's stealing. This isn't hard.

The first amendment and anything else you were talking about is an artificial right. That was the point.

Great. Remember your point about IP law being artificial and so doesn't count? So, I guess copyright law has as much validity as the First Amendment, we can agree on that, yes?

Buying a digital book and paying for it mentally feels like tipping the author to me except for the laws that say you're supposed to pay whatever they want for the digital book.

Aw, you "feels" like that to you. You should talk to an author and see how THEY feel about it. Because it's NOT tipping. It's paying for their work.

When I go out to eat, I tip. Because I see them doing a service and it's more personal. But in the case of making a digital copy, people wouldn't even know a digital copy is being made and it's not costing them any time or money for others to get a copy. At best they are losing potential money which assumes people would have paid for it to begin with.

So, because you don't see the writer doing the work, it doesn't feel like anything to you?
But, let's go back to this idea of copy has no real value. Would you go into a CD store and take a CD? It's just a copy. A copy of thousands and thousands of copies. It may have cost a cent to make that copy, due to how large of a copying process... Would you take that? It IS just a copy after all.

1. big deal, not much difference
2. It's okay to do something illegal if the law is unjust.

What is unjust about copyright?

The IP laws exist because of this statement in the constitution "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.". That doesn't make it right or wrong. I consider the while thing amoral. It's just a rule to me that I don't have to agree with and there are other ways to promote science and useful arts if they really need promoting.

What is amoral about it?
Authors, musicians, artists want to make a living from their work. You take it without paying for it. Is that not amoral? You literally make it harder for them to earn a living, to pay for food, for rent, because it's convenient for you... an yet, you think the ARTISTS desire to be paid is amoral.

Seriously?

3. The government could tax people instead if they wanted and compensate creators that way

The NEA existed for quite some time... However, again, it goes to my first point, who in the government gets to decide who would be compensated? That, again, would violate the First Amendment, unless the compensated EVERYONE. And how much do they compensate?

The first amendment encourages the flow of information. Copyright laws put limitations on the flow of information. Their choice in profession is not my fault. Artists is one of the worst professions to go into.

What flow of information is being halted by copyright? How does copyright laws put limitations on the flow of information? What information have you NOT being able to get legally?

The First Amendment encourages the flow of information, but, it doesn't say it has to be FREE.

And, you know why being an artist is one of the worst professions to get into? Because sometimes you toil with only your conviction that you can be successful, you work hard, and then some twat comes along and says, "Hey, this is cool, you mind if I steal it? It's just a copy."

 

[Tuskin38]

That's the conflict that exists between the First Amendment and copyright. It's not infringing on their speech, they're allowed to talk as much as they want. Unless you mean get credit for their speech. Anyway I've never been very good at persuasion. I don't know if I'm not articulating the points good enough or if it's just people being obstinate. You could look at other people's arguments about why copyright law should be abolished here if you're interested: https://www.debate.org/opinions/should-intellectual-property-rights-be-abolished

You don't need to keep spamming that link

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't know if I'm not articulating the points good enough or if it's just people being obstinate.

There's a 3rd option.

 

[urbandefault]

Anyway I've never been very good at persuasion.

But you do have a knack for understatement.

 

[marsh8472]

Already did. I don't find them substantive enough to justify devaluing someone's work to the point that copying should not cost. Because, as repeatedly reiterated by others in this thread who do participate in the art world, the cost of producing a work does not end when the work is done. Creators are attempting to recoup their cost of their time and money by offering it on the open market. Making an unauthorized copy deprives them of that opportunity, and takes power and control of their property away from them, thus infringing upon their 1st amendment right.

Ultimately, it boils down to a desire to have something for free. Well, art isn't free and copyright affords authors the opportunity to benefit from their property and resources invested in that creation.

In a free market a person's work can easily be duplicated once it's created the first time. That makes it a risky investment. It's unfortunate for them that technology allows the work to be copied so easily. Not everyone wants the painting, some are content with getting a picture of the painting but they don't like it's so easy. Maybe with advancements in AI someday the creation process will be pretty easy too then you won't need to worry about compensation then.

How magnanimous of you. Who would decide who gets paid what? Who decides who is worthy? The government? Wouldn't that be a violation of the First Amendment?

There's already a system in place for compensating artists: PAY FOR IT.

Yes the government would decide this as they are right now. Yes people can pay for it if they want.

Again, how magnanimous of you. Netflix is free. They would like to make money on their service and they have to pay for the content. As it should be.

Netflix is not free. I agree to pay them because they are running servers to serve me.

Words have meanings. You are the one that brought Webster into it, and, I guess, don't really like the face that Webster also supports my argument, so, you want to move away from it.

Calling it stealing DOES provide new information to the conversation, it provides context and consequence from your desire to take something from an artist without paying for it.

I was using webster as a source but words can have multiple sometimes contradictory meanings. You can categorize it as stealing using pointy definitions but that's just equivocation to me. I wouldn't say copying is as bad as stealing. Ask any car owner which would they rather want: for someone to jump in their car and drive off with it or to use a magic wand and create a duplicate of their car and drive off in the duplicate car.

Needing "permission" is inherently circular because there's no way to define what "permission" is in general without using some form of the word like "allow", "permit", "authorize" which is a semantic primitive. This is why laws rarely try to define the word.

Permission: “The right or ability to do something that is given by someone who has the power to decide if it will be allowed or permitted” Merriam-Webster.

Technically I have download rights and the ability to download publicly available copies online without paying. It's not like I stole an internet service, copied data onto a stolen media, or hacked anything right? A user who shares a file on a network can grant me permission to it. In that sense I was giving implicit permission to download the copies. But you wouldn't consider these acceptable definitions of permission because that wouldn't make it stealing anymore. So your correct definition permission is determined by the original author because of copyright law. In other words might makes right.

Great. Remember your point about IP law being artificial and so doesn't count? So, I guess copyright law has as much validity as the First Amendment, we can agree on that, yes?

Yes but as a matter of personal preference I don't mind the First Amendment.

What is amoral about it?
Authors, musicians, artists want to make a living from their work. You take it without paying for it. Is that not amoral? You literally make it harder for them to earn a living, to pay for food, for rent, because it's convenient for you... an yet, you think the ARTISTS desire to be paid is amoral.

Seriously?

Yes it's just a system that we currently have in place to make creating things more profitable than it would be in a purely free market. It is what it is, neither moral or immoral to me. There are other ways to create systems that may work better. Right now it doesn't seem very cost effective to pay for something when you can get a copy for it for free. From a purely self-interest standpoint, one would have to be a fool to pay for a copy if it's less expensive and often times even easier to just get a copy elsewhere for free.

So, because you don't see the writer doing the work, it doesn't feel like anything to you?
But, let's go back to this idea of copy has no real value. Would you go into a CD store and take a CD? It's just a copy. A copy of thousands and thousands of copies. It may have cost a cent to make that copy, due to how large of a copying process... Would you take that? It IS just a copy after all.

Taking a CD from a store is different because you're taking something physical and there was work put in to create that particular copy of the CD. But if the CD was available for download it's not costing anything except alittle bandwidth.

 

[urbandefault]

Technically I have download rights and the ability to download publicly available copies online without paying.

So, you're advocating piracy?

 

[Professor Zoom]

In a free market a person's work can easily be duplicated once it's created the first time. That makes it a risky investment. It's unfortunate for them that technology allows the work to be copied so easily. Not everyone wants the painting, some are content with getting a picture of the painting but they don't like it's so easy. Maybe with advancements in AI someday the creation process will be pretty easy too then you won't need to worry about compensation then.

It's all about ease... That's a ridiculous reason to take from artists.

Yes the government would decide this as they are right now. Yes people can pay for it if they want.

The government DOESN'T decide now. Again, you are ignorant of how copyright works. The government offers legal protection for copyright. But, they don't decide who does and doesn't get one. They don't decide who does and doesn't get paid.

This is one of your problems in your arguments, you consistently don't understand how it works and aren't willing to learn.

I was using webster as a source but words can have multiple sometimes contradictory meanings.

Yep.

You can categorize it as stealing using pointy definitions but that's just equivocation to me.

You literally picked definitions to support your argument. It's not my fault that I found definitions IN THE SAME DICTIONARY that supported mine. It's not equivocation.

I wouldn't say copying is as bad as stealing. Ask any car owner which would they rather want: for someone to jump in their car and drive off with it or to use a magic wand and create a duplicate of their car and drive off in the duplicate car.

Sure, if we're coming up with ridiculous examples.

Needing "permission" is inherently circular because there's no way to define what "permission" is in general without using some form of the word like "allow", "permit", "authorize" which is a semantic primitive. This is why laws are rarely try to define the word.

Ugh. You're terribly wrong.
You're also basically saying I don't need your permission to take your computer because there is no such thing as permission. So, don't come and complain when I take it.

Permission: “The right or ability to do something that is given by someone who has the power to decide if it will be allowed or permitted” Merriam-Webster.

Oh, so it's not circular? Choose a lane.

Technically I have download rights and the ability to download publicly available copies online without paying.

No... lol.

It's not like I stole an internet service, copied data onto a stolen media, or hacked anything right? A user who shares a file on a network can grant me permission to it.

Not if they don't have the legal right to share it.

In that sense I was giving implicit permission to download the copies.

No. You really weren't. It makes you feel better. But, no you really weren't given permission at all.

But you wouldn't consider these acceptable definitions of permission because that wouldn't make it stealing anymore. So your correct definition permission is determined by the original author because of copyright law. In other words might makes right.

lol.

Yes it's just a system that we currently have in place to make creating things more profitable than it would be in a purely free market.

No. It doesn't make it "more" profitable. It makes profit ABLE to happen. In your Libertarian dream of No IP, there would be ZERO profit.

It is what it is, neither moral or immoral to me. There are other ways to create systems that may work better. Right now it doesn't seem very cost effective to pay for something when you can get a copy for it for free. From a purely self-interest standpoint, one would have to be a fool to pay for a copy if it's less expensive and often times even easier to just get a copy elsewhere for free.

Wait, so now it's NOT immoral? Up above, it was amoral/immoral. But, now, when it's about taking money out of the pocket of an artist, it doesn't matter to you? Again, pick a lane. Either copyright is amoral or it isn't. If it isn't, then, what basis do you have to get rid of it? If it IS, then, how is it moral to take money out of the pocket of an artist?

Taking a CD from a store is different because you're taking something physical and there was work put in to create that particular copy of the CD. But if the CD was available for download it's not costing anything except alittle bandwidth.

But, it's just a copy. It's not even the original music. It's a copy of a copy of a copy.
And you don't think there was work in creating the digital file?
Costing a little bandwidth, so there IS a cost? So at what point does the cost of the digital copy make it ok to steal it?

 

[marsh8472]

So, you're advocating piracy?

no people can do whatever they want.

The government DOESN'T decide now. Again, you are ignorant of how copyright works. The government offers legal protection for copyright. But, they don't decide who does and doesn't get one. They don't decide who does and doesn't get paid.

This is one of your problems in your arguments, you consistently don't understand how it works and aren't willing to learn.

People don't have to register with the copyright officer or apply for patents from the government? So if Stage 9 ignored the cease and desist letter, there would be no interference from the government to help persuade Stage 9 to comply? People don't go to jail for it? Congress decided, it says right in the constitution. They give the power to the authors but the power is really coming from the government.

Wait, so now it's NOT immoral? Up above, it was amoral/immoral. But, now, when it's about taking money out of the pocket of an artist, it doesn't matter to you? Again, pick a lane. Either copyright is amoral or it isn't. If it isn't, then, what basis do you have to get rid of it? If it IS, then, how is it moral to take money out of the pocket of an artist?

Correct it doesn't matter to me on a moral level. People choose their own professions. Picking a profession in an industry where billions of potential revenue is lost each year due to file sharing is their choice. Amoral means not moral or immoral. It's like asking is it moral or immoral that pawns can only move forward? Neither, it's just how the game is set up and I find it amoral.

But, it's just a copy. It's not even the original music. It's a copy of a copy of a copy.
And you don't think there was work in creating the digital file?
Costing a little bandwidth, so there IS a cost? So at what point does the cost of the digital copy make it ok to steal it?

Copying a digital file is almost no cost. Speaking for myself, I already pay for my own bandwidth so it's not technically free to me.

 

[Professor Zoom]

People don't have to register with the copyright officer or apply for patents from the government? So if Stage 9 ignored the cease and desist letter, there would be no interference from the government to help persuade Stage 9 to comply? People don't go to jail for it? Congress decided, it says right in the constitution. They give the power to the authors but the power is really coming from the government.

Actually, no, at least with copyrights--I don't know patent law. You have a copyright at the moment of creation. Registering that copyright will afford you statutory fines if someone violates your copyright. So, it's a good thing to register but not necessary.

If Stage 9 chose to continue, the next step isn't a visit from an officer of the Copyright Office, because there is no such thing. If they chose to continue, then CBS would file a lawsuit. And it would go to a trial.

Again, your questions come from a lack of understanding of how copyright works.

With the jail sentences, you might be thinking of people who take a DVD and then make copies of it to distribute on the internet or make physical copies and sell them. That, yes, you can spend some prison time for.

So, in both cases, the government is enforcing the law. That's the job of a government.

Correct it doesn't matter to me on a moral level. People choose their own professions. Picking a profession in an industry where billions of potential revenue is lost each year due to file sharing is their choice. Amoral means not moral or immoral. It's like asking is it moral or immoral that pawns can only move forward? Neither, it's just how the board is set up and I find it amoral.

So that's your basis for stealing? You just don't care? Then, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Of course, you can't really make a moral argument about removing IP laws. I'm still not sure why you call it "unjust" when, again, you don't care one way or another, so... where is the injustice?

Copying a digital file is almost no cost. Speaking for myself, I'm already pay for my own bandwidth so it's not technically free to me.

But, there IS a cost. It maybe small, so how small before it doesn't matter? If that CD cost the same amount as your bandwidth, could you now... I almost said morally, but, you are amoral, so... could you now take the CD?

If you are looking for anarchy, no laws, able to get your shit for free, that's fine. But, you can't claim some sort of moral high ground here. You just want to get your shit for free and you don't care about anyone else. That's pretty much the definition of selfish and entitled. Or are those words semantically primitive and circular?

 

[urbandefault]

People don't have to register with the copyright officer or apply for patents from the government? So if Stage 9 ignored the cease and desist letter, there would be no interference from the government to help persuade Stage 9 to comply? People don't go to jail for it? Congress decided, it says right in the constitution. They give the power to the authors but the power is really coming from the government.

Copyright exists from the moment a work is created. In order to enforce a copyright through the courts it must be registered. Copyright is not granted by the government, nor is it enforced by it.

Patents must be applied for with the US Patent Office, and are a completely different thing than copyright.

An IP owner is free to pursue enforcement of copyright through the civil courts, not the criminal court system. No one goes to jail for infringement, but an IP owner may be awarded damages to be paid by the violator.

Trademark is another thing entirely. A trademark, once registered, must be vigorously defended by the trademark holder or risk losing the trademark to the public domain.

For someone with so many opinions about IP, you don't seem to know much about it. I'd suggest reading the original CBS/Paramount vs Axanar thread. It's a goldmine of legal information, and entertaining to boot.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Trademark is another thing entirely. A trademark, once registered, must be vigorously defended by the trademark holder or risk losing the trademark to the public domain.

And, to add, trademark and copyright are different things. Just to be super duper clear.

 

[marsh8472]

Actually, no, at least with copyrights--I don't know patent law. You have a copyright at the moment of creation. Registering that copyright will afford you statutory fines if someone violates your copyright. So, it's a good thing to register but not necessary.

If Stage 9 chose to continue, the next step isn't a visit from an officer of the Copyright Office, because there is no such thing. If they chose to continue, then CBS would file a lawsuit. And it would go to a trial.

Again, your questions come from a lack of understanding of how copyright works.

With the jail sentences, you might be thinking of people who take a DVD and then make copies of it to distribute on the internet or make physical copies and sell them. That, yes, you can spend some prison time for.

So, in both cases, the government is enforcing the law. That's the job of a government.

Okay then, the government creates the laws and enforces them so the government does decide afterall.

So that's your basis for stealing? You just don't care? Then, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Of course, you can't really make a moral argument about removing IP laws. I'm still not sure why you call it "unjust" when, again, you don't care one way or another, so... where is the injustice?

I would rather IP laws be removed because of how it's used to abuse people and it doesn't make sense to charge money for copying. The laws are not really enforceable anyway except between large corporations and very blatant violators. It's just more trouble than it's worth, unjustified.

unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

Making someone pay for something that someone can get without paying. I wouldn't expect someone to pay for something I created if they could get it for free also.

 

[Jedman67]

People don't have to register with the copyright officer or apply for patents from the government? So if Stage 9 ignored the cease and desist letter, there would be no interference from the government to help persuade Stage 9 to comply? People don't go to jail for it? Congress decided, it says right in the constitution. They give the power to the authors but the power is really coming from the government.

Had Stage 9 not complied, CBS likely would have filed a lawsuit for damages (considerable amounts of money that Stage 9 didn't have) and an injunction prohibiting them from legally continuing to work on it, and a court would certainly find them in violation.
It's possible they'd have been able to counter under fair-use arguments, but such would not be likely to bear fruit.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Okay then, the government creates the laws and enforces them so the government does decide afterall.

GOAL POSTS MOVED! #Winning.
And who creates the government... people... but, who creates the people... other people... but, who created them... *Mind BLOWN*

I would rather IP laws be removed because of how it's used to abuse people and it doesn't make sense to charge money for copying.

1. Who is being abused?
2. You aren't being charged for copying. You are being charged for A copy.

The laws are not really enforceable anyway except between large corporations and very blatant violators. It's just more trouble than it's worth, unjustified.

It's quite enforceable. You should do some research.
And more trouble to whom?

unjust: not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.

But. You. Are. A. Moral. On. The. Subject. So what do you care?
What is morally wrong with copyright? What is unjust about copyright?

Making someone pay for something that someone can get without paying. I wouldn't expect someone to pay for something I created if they could get it for free also.

That's your fucking CHOICE. Why are you forcing YOUR choice on to others?

 

[marsh8472]

And, to add, trademark and copyright are different things. Just to be super duper clear.

very good, I can see this on google too. Though how one obtains a copyright is a red herring. Trademark, copyright, and patents are all IP rights which is what I'm talking about, because you're to distinguish them is also besides the point.

1. Who is being abused?
2. You aren't being charged for copying. You are being charged for A copy.

1. Stage 9 in this case. They put in a couple of years work for nothing.
2. The right to make a copy hense copyright

It's quite enforceable. You should do some research.
And more trouble to whom?

It's enforceable to blatant violators. Speeding is more enforceable than copyright infringement, everyone speeds and only a small fraction of instances result in law enforcement doing anything about it. Usually all that gets done is the ISP sends the consumer a letter to stop what they're doing. That's what prompted SOPA which didn't go over well. You really need to do some more research on this stuff.

 

[urbandefault]

You really need to do some more research on this stuff.