Group wants online and physical theft to be treated equally

I just posted the article Group wants online and physical theft to be treated equally.

An anti-piracy organization based in the United Kingdom issued a press release stating online copyright infringement and theft must carry the same penalties as physical theft.
The Federation Against…

Read the full article here:  [](

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Just to let you know there is no fair use policy in the UK. If you make a copy for personal use it’s still counted as infringement although nigh impossible to enforce.

When will these fools learn that copyright infringement cannot and should not be compared to physical theft?

If I were to steal a car, I would be taking (unlawful) posession of a definite article. This would deprive the rightful owner of being able to use it or sell it.

If I (unlawfully) download an MP3 of a music track, the rights owner, i.e. the record company, doesn’t lose posession of the rights. Since a recording is intangible, they can still sell it.

I’m not endorsing any of those acts, but out of the two, copyright infringement is clearly the least serious of the two and should therefore be treated as such.

DeadMan: Thanks for reminding me! I had completely forgot about the lack of fair use in the U.K. (And people think U.S. copyright laws are archaic.)

Many anti-P2P people have said jail time should be mandatory even for people who are downloading and sharing copyrighted songs online. Although the RIAA and other music trade groups seem to want monetary compensation, I think actually wanting to lock people up for piracy is simply asinine.

If people think non-violent drug offenders are clogging up the court systems here in the United States, wait until we start sentencing people for pirating music! Unless it’s commercial piracy, I say stick with fines and see what happens…

Unless these morons can PROVE that a person who infringes a copyright for NON-COMMERCIAL use (like a teen downloading an MP3) would have purchased the item if it hadn’t been available “illegally” then I say screw them. How is sharing an MP3 of a song any different from having that song broadcast to the whole universe for free over the radio? Does every listener then run out and buy the song? Or if there were no illegal copies of games and other software, would all of those “pirates” purchase those products? And then there are the folks who “pirate” first and end up buying because of it. How does that offset the supposed losses of non-commercial infringement? There are too many unknowns, and far too little real harm to the copyright holders for non-commercial infringement to be a jailing offense. Hell, I don’t even think it should be a fining offense. At least not until someone can answer all the questions and show with certainty the real damage done.

When supply goes to infinity, price goes to zero (regardless of legality). Back in the days of CD’s, the record industry provided significant value to consumers. Nobody was ever paying for the intellectual property rights. If we had, then replacing a scratched CD would have cost less, but it didn’t. original price - iproperty value = original price…so iproperty was worth nothing when you were selling CD’s…but now it’s worth what, 10 bucks?

Can I sell the rights to all the cds and movies that I paid for that really sucked back to you for 10 bucks then…even for broken CDs’, VHS, right? let’s settle up then :slight_smile: