What Happened To 'If You Didn't Pay For It, It's Stealing'?
from the except-when-we-do-it dept
For years, the entertainment industry has pushed a propaganda line in its "education" programs that are used in schools: "if you haven't paid for it, you stole it." Of course, that's not actually true. But, if the entertainment industry wants to claim that, shouldn't it live by those rules too? Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, that's currently involved in numerous lawsuits against file sharing sites, is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker" and that it was confiscated from that hacker. So, clearly, BREIN didn't pay for it. Doesn't that mean it was stolen by their own definition? While the police may have the right to confiscate goods, BREIN is not the police. It's a private industry organization, that claims it's against theft, but doesn't seem to mind participating in "getting things without paying for it" when it has the chance.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-piracy, computers, file sharing, propaganda
Companies: brein
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I didn't pay to read this blog
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid Peasant!
If I physically take your laptop, it's for great justice!
Look at the lights. Tell me how many you see....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Peasant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid Peasant!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Er?
"Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN...is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker""
Unless you're omitting the end of that sentence and it reads something along the lines of "...and he was subsequently arrested for tampering with evidence of a crime, receiving property used in the commission of a crime, and obstruction of justice." then I don't see how this is anything but a perfect example of how govenments around the world are turning towards a form of corporatocracy.
Industry groups with policing authority? What is this, Tank Girl?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er?
Um, even if it did end that way, it' shouldn't make a difference.
"Industry groups with policing authority? What is this, Tank Girl?"
Nope, Judge Dredd. Welcome to Megacity One, citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Er?
Beginning of the article
"The laptop was given to him by one of the parties involved in the case who received it as compensation."
Update to the article. I don't see how that's possible since it is evidence and property used in the commission of a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Er?
Decode "parties involved in the case who received it as compensation". I'm guessing this means one of two things: either it was received as part of a judgment by some company that sued the "hacker," or the "hacker" paid his lawyer with it. Either way, that person then gave it to the idiot.
This is too bad, but not hypocrisy. The same could be done (without raising claims of piracy) with a CD and perhaps with non-DRM digital music (do we know if the first sale doctrine applies to an MP3?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to admire the persistence of those who frequent this site and try to play "lawyer". These same ones who cry "it is not theft, it is infringement" are the very same ones who say "it is not infringement, it is sharing".
Quit wordsmithing and admit what it really is...you have made a copy of something knowing full well that it is illegal to do so without the permission of the rights holder. If you choose not to call it stealing, then so be it. But get off your high horse and admit you have broken the law and what you have done is wrong no matter what feel-good term you may choose to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "How reassuring to note...."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Heh. Take a look upwards... way up... see all the way up over your head? That's "the point" that you missed.
I'll lay it out for you now. It's the copyright industry that has publicly stated "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it." That's obviously ridiculous. There are (as you note) plenty of ways that you could get something without paying for it "consistent with the law."
So the entire point of this post was not to suggest that BREIN *illegally* got the laptop, but to mock the claim of BREIN and its partners that "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it."
Reading comprehension is such a rare thing.
Also nice to see that the linked site continues in its fine tradition of presenting "articles" having absolutely nothing to do with the downloading via P2P of unauthorized content.
Huh? Is there some rule no one told me about?
Hey, why talk about a real issue when you can talk about an irrelevant one?
I am talking about a real issue. Keep up.
I have to admire the persistence of those who frequent this site and try to play "lawyer". These same ones who cry "it is not theft, it is infringement" are the very same ones who say "it is not infringement, it is sharing".
Again, start over. Try figuring out the point first.
Quit wordsmithing and admit what it really is...you have made a copy of something knowing full well that it is illegal to do so without the permission of the rights holder.
This post has nothing to do with that, as you yourself pointed out. So why are you bringing it up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apparently critical thinking is even rarer...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do _not_ agree that it is "wrong." Clearly, your normative framework is different from mine. Mine has the benefit of all of human history less the last 200 years to recommend it, among other things, but we can agree to disagree.
As for whether copyright infringement is "theft" - it clearly is not, because "theft" requires depriving the owner of ownership. The copyright industries have waged an apparently deliberate war on the English language, attempting to inflate the rhetoric. There are some who have a problem with this. In politics, the words you use can make a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez Louise
Mike needs to have a delay added to his "submit" button.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Geez Louise
Ok, again, for the slow pokes. I wasn't saying BREIN did something illegal. I was using *its own logic* back against it.
Didn't realize I needed to spell this stuff out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Geez Louise
Your mom slurpped it up....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise... by Me
Look at me, I can use words like "dildo", "ass", and "fucking," I sure am interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez Louise
Yes, exactly. That's the whole point.
The article says absolutely nothing about how BREIN got the laptop
It says it was taken from the hacker. The hacker was not paid for it. By BREIN's own definition, then, it was "stolen."
Yes, the very point (which wooshed by you, apparently) is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why the laptop may have been confiscated and why BREIN may now possess it. But, it's BREIN and its buddies who state "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it."
The point of the article is to show how sill that is.
I'm not saying that BREIN got the laptop illegally. I'm using its own logic, and showing how messed up it is.
I would have thought that folks around here would be able to figure that out. I guess I shouldn't have overestimated some of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Geez Louise
The point of the article is to show how sill[y] that is."
Kind of scary to see how many people missed that point, isn't it? An indication that the war being waged for the minds of the masses is being lost, perchance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or insulting me, bu either way, the answer to your question is an unqualified hells yes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
PUnky,
won't somebody just steal this [adjective][adjective] blog and Shut mIke the fuck up? He's a [noun] that never invented anything
The only PEople stealing is the [adjective] hacker who [adverb] stole using his laptop.
Why all you lemming techdirt [noun]s go [verb] your [noun]s in the [noun] until they [verb], you [noun]-[adjective]ing [noun]s!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise - Dark Helmet's MADLIBS
won't somebody just steal this [hard][floppy] blog and Shut mIke the fuck up? He's a [banana] that never invented anything
The only PEople stealing is the [boring] hacker who [amazingly] stole using his laptop.
Why all you lemming techdirt [leaf]s go [run] your [iPod]s in the [umbrella] until they [spelunk], you [consultant]-[maroon]ing [calculator]s!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Geez Louise
"It was once confiscated from a hacker" is all the article says. That's it. Not "taken" or "stolen".
Now, it could mean that the police handed it over with out apparent due process, etc. Or, it could mean that the hacker was arrested, his computer confiscated, then, after the trial, sold at auction. Or something else. WE DON'T KNOW.
That's the point, not whatever bullshit you are trying to peddle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise
Um, but we do know: Confiscated means it was not paid for.
And, again, using their own logic, that means it was stolen.
That's the point, not whatever bullshit you are trying to peddle.
David, thanks, but I'm pretty sure I know the point of my own posts. Until we hire you to tell us what the point is, I'll assume that my knowledge of the point is a lot more accurate than yours.
Thanks for playing, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious
They may not have directly paid the police for it, but they most certainly contributed money to a number of campaigns and/or organizations. How else do you think they got the laptop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Kuik added, noting that he couldn’t give out any more info because of the type of people his organization deals with."
When someone asked you where you got a piece of music or a book does that sound like the response someone who used legal means to obtain it would say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YouTube is theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devine Right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is illogical to suggest:
1. The company says "If you didn't pay for it, you stole it."
2. The company has a laptop that was once owned by a "hacker", with nary a mention about how it came into its possession.
3. In view of 1 and 2, the company must not have paid for it and thus stole it.
Sorry, but the logic or this illogic escapes me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't you glad you don't live in Europe
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In techdirt jargon, steal is equated to unlawfully taking away the property of another.
Since this device was likely confiscated within the bounds of law, then certainly the confiscation would be outside techdirt's use of the word steal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, indeed. That's the exact point. Glad you finally got it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So, if I understand correctly, lawfully taking possession(of a device) is the equivalent of unlawfully taking possession (of a content file).
Sorry, but your point is not exactly jumping off the page at me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Heh. Okay, for the really slow pokes, let's try this again:
1. I am NOT saying the laptop is stolen.
2. BREIN and other organizations put out propaganda with the line "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it."
3. That point is obviously false.
4. To prove that it is obviously false, I'm showing that BREIN got a laptop that was taken from someone without paying for it, and no one in their right mind would think it's "stolen."
5. But, based on BREIN's definition, it must be.
Got it? I'm not knocking BREIN for taking the damn laptop. I'm using it as an example of why their claim "if you haven't paid for it, it's stolen" is obviously false.
Can't believe I needed to spell that out again.
So, if I understand correctly, lawfully taking possession(of a device) is the equivalent of unlawfully taking possession (of a content file).
Um. No.
Sorry, but your point is not exactly jumping off the page at me.
Obviously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...
Yes, and its also the "jargon" of something called Copyright Law. You should look up its precepts and understand them before trying to be clever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And...
BTW, I have studied copyright law for more years than I care to count. It is fair to say that I well understand its precepts, doubtless in much more detail than what I presume is the amount of time you have devoted to its study.
Would I be wrong in assuming you are not an attorney, much less one steeped in the copyright law, both from a statutory and historical perpective?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To those who don't get the point
Are you really that dense? My God, my brain physically hurts from reading your stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explaining how you can get a laptop from a hacker.
So, what does the police do with these confiscated items? Well, some items are just destroyed. But if the item itself is legal, then they're sold again to civilians. For example, though the site at http://www.domeinenrz.nl/ which, as you've guessed, is written in Dutch so most of you need a translator to visit it. ;-)
The "Dienst Domeinen" in the Netherlands is responsible for selling these items through all kinds of auctions. Basically, anyone can visit such an auction and place a bid on any item they're selling. Thus, it would be perfectly legal for Tim Kuik to visit such an auction and thus buy stuff that previously belonged to a hacker.
Right now, you can buy an Aston-Martin if you want to. About four years old and only used for 32.118 KM. Then again, they also sell plenty of laptops, so if you need one... Go visit the Netherlands and buy one at the next auction! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Explaining how you can get a confiscated laptop from a hacker - part 2
It's like I accuse my neighbour of a break-in of my house.
I then go with the police in the apartment of my neighbour
and point out various things that I think the neighbour
stole from me.
Great gig if you can get it.
Hazmat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And...Redeauxbag
Of course not dear. Otherwise, you wouldnt be the troll you are.
"BTW, I have studied copyright law for more years than I care to count. It is fair to say that I well understand its precepts, doubtless in much more detail than what I presume is the amount of time you have devoted to its study."
Apparently not, since you fail to understand the difference between theft and infringement, and the legal standing of each. Regardless of how you FEEL about it, they do have different definitions in law, and laws are all about this kind of specificity and differentiation in meaning. You dont need to be a lawyer to understand this, or to be able to discuss it.
"Would I be wrong in assuming you are not an attorney, much less one steeped in the copyright law, both from a statutory and historical perpective?"
Would I be wrong in assuming that you are an arrogant, elitist attorney who thinks he is better than everyone else and that no one should dare discuss a topic unless they have made a career of said topic?
I'm so glad the founding fathers werent someone like you, or we would never have the great country we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do understand the point being made in the above article, however it is my opinion that it is little more than linguistic gymnastics that is disingenuous and intentionally misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing quite like stating a mantra used by rights holders, taking it out of context by ignoring clearly implied (and in many other aricles stated explicitly), and then twisting the mantra to make a point that rights holders most decidedly are not making.
But it is the point they were making. We took it straight from an "educational lesson" that was being given to schools, where there is no implication otherwise. It clearly states "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it." It seems quite reasonable that these groups would live up to their own definition, right?
I do understand the point being made in the above article
Yes, you've proven that time and time again. However, seeing as it's been spelled out for you, in big bold letters, multiple times now, at some point we're just going to have to conclude the problem is you, not us.
Having had these discussions with you specifically in the past, perhaps it is not a surprise that you are unable to comprehend such things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, they would be much easier to comprehend if they were directed to a substantive matter, and not just another attempt to inaccurately flame and mischaracterize copyright law and rights holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, they would be much easier to comprehend if they were directed to a substantive matter, and not just another attempt to inaccurately flame and mischaracterize copyright law and rights holders.
The only one mischaracterizing copyright law is the folks like BREIN who claim "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen." Funny... don't see you attacking them or posting one of your "merely FYI" posts there...
Wonder why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Check
The topic at hand is an argument concerning The acquisition of a hackers laptop, which the term "hacker" in this day in age is probably someone who just downloads music. It is obvious I would like to point out that the article is incomplete and heavily opinionated. So why may I ask is everyone freaking out at each other, and so passionately arguing over such pointless information? I am one who is very fond of intelligent debate, however any debate that strays from logic, That involves heavy name calling and responses based solely on emotional responses to taunts, or that has to present itself with flowery speech or honeyed words to boost personal ego's, Is a total waste of the intellectual time of everyone involved, as nothing productive will come of it(great now i am doing it). It is the fatal sin of bureaucracy.
Too put it in plain speech as all knowledge should be. If someone writes something you disagree with, step back, count to 10, try to see it from the other side of the fence, and if you still disagree then state your opinion but keep things civil. Or as your mothers probably always told you when you were little...Play nice children. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
World's Most Advanced Entertainment Multimedia School!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]