33 month sentence for piracy.

[aliceBB]

It's not theft. The original owner has not been deprived of the property as others have said that's the important point. All that counts is what the actually loss of revenue is, and the effect on the victim.

 

I think it would help if you read the whole thread, including my explanation of why I used that term. Someone who considers him or herself a bit of a legal whizzkid has already challenged my use of the word, but it's a semantic objection, rather than an intellectual or moral one.

[Obelix]

I think it would help if you read the whole thread, including my explanation of why I used that term. Someone who considers him or herself a bit of a legal whizzkid has already challenged my use of the word, but it's a semantic objection, rather than an intellectual or moral one.

 

No it's a legal objection as well as a moral one as well and he is right, and you are sadly quite wrong. I'd suggest you stop digging your pit ever deeper.

[aliceBB]

Pun unintentional).

No it's a legal objection as well as a moral one as well and he is right, and you are sadly quite wrong. I'd suggest you stop digging your pit ever deeper.

 

Keep your wig on. (Pun unintentional). I've already acknowledged that it may not be not the correct legal term for film copyright infringement, as you would discover if you bothered to read the thread, rather than jumping in somewhat pointlessly with your size 15s to give me a kicking. However, that is hardly the point, since the OP asks whether or not, in our view, we think the punishment was' too harsh' for the crime in this case.

 

In answering that question we are surely being invited to comment on our view of the relative seriousness (or otherwise) of the offence - a subjective matter, but primarily a moral one. My view - which is all I was expressing - was that the crime was serious because in my opinion it was theft or tantamount to theft, and I explained why. There was no obligation to agree with me, and although I am all for clarity in use of English, I still think that in this context, to nitpick about precise legal definitions to the exclusion of the wider picture is to miss the point of OP's question.

 

If OP had intended the discussion to remain confined to the strictly legal aspects of the case, all anyone could usefully have said on this thread is that whether or not the sentence was too harsh will be down to an appeal judge (if it is appealed) and not to us. Or possibly cited a few precedents demonstrating how 'harshly' or leniently others convicted of similar offences have been treated...which would have made for a pretty short thread.

[charmer]

Pun unintentional).

 

Keep your wig on. (Pun unintentional). I've already acknowledged that it may not be not the correct legal term for film copyright infringement, as you would discover if you bothered to read the thread, rather than jumping in somewhat pointlessly with your size 15s to give me a kicking. However, that is hardly the point, since the OP asks whether or not, in our view, we think the punishment was' too harsh' for the crime in this case.

 

In answering that question we are surely being invited to comment on our view of the relative seriousness (or otherwise) of the offence - a subjective matter, but primarily a moral one. My view - which is all I was expressing - was that the crime was serious because in my opinion it was theft or tantamount to theft, and I explained why. There was no obligation to agree with me, and although I am all for clarity in use of English, I still think that in this context, to nitpick about precise legal definitions to the exclusion of the wider picture is to miss the point of OP's question.

 

If OP had intended the discussion to remain confined to the strictly legal aspects of the case, all anyone could usefully have said on this thread is that whether or not the sentence was too harsh will be down to an appeal judge (if it is appealed) and not to us. Or possibly cited a few precedents demonstrating how 'harshly' or leniently others convicted of similar offences have been treated...which would have made for a pretty short thread.

 

You are being ridiculous and possibly even libelous. When discussing legal terminology you have to be accurate, it is not an issue of semantics.

 

If I saw you drink driving I couldn't accuse you of being a paedophile and say "well in my view that is peadophilia", let's just agree to disagree you peado".

 

You are wrong, just apologise and stop defending yourself. You, and the people defending your innacurate, libellous claims, are just making yourselves look stupid. Everyone is wrong sometimes, even me. I was wrong once, May 2012 I think it was. I was sure that New York was on a similar line of latitude to London! Silly me

[PeteMorris]

Well personally, I think he should have got 5 years...not necessarily for breaking the law by copying the film.

 

But for actually filming it on a camcorder in the cinema, and worst of all being stupid enough to upload it to facebook to sell...How thick can you be?

[melthebell]

and selling it at £1 a go, or 3 for a fiver, he's never going to get rich lol

[aliceBB]

You are being ridiculous and possibly even libelous

So sue me

 

When discussing legal terminology you have to be accurate, it is not an issue of semantics.

 

If I saw you drink driving I couldn't accuse you of being a paedophile and say "well in my view that is peadophilia", let's just agree to disagree you peado".

First, we were not discussing legal terminology per se, but whether, in the case under discussion, the punishment was warranted in view of the nature (not the name!) of the crime. Second, your example is silly, flawed. The term 'theft' or 'stealing' is applied in society generally to apply to any action which involves depriving someone of something of material, or potential material value. That applies both to stealing someone's silver spoons and to hacking into someone's computer, ripping off their new novel and selling copies of it. The fact that the word 'theft' does not appear in the charge and conviction in this case does not alter the fact that in my view copying and redistributing a copyright piece of film art was tantamount to theft and therefore deserved as harsh a sentence as theft.

 

It is impossible to imagine how it is possible to construct an intelligent argument for a comparable degree of substantive similarity between drink driving and paedophilia. All you can say, I suppose is that they are both likely to wreck lives.

 

There's something in 'The Kite Runner' (I think) which says you can reduce all laws/commandments to 'Do not steal', as this covers virtually all offences. If you lie, you are depriving someone of the truth, if you are abusive, you deprive them of dignity, if you kill, you are stealing life from them. If you think of it from that perspective you might perhaps see where I was coming from.

 

You are wrong, just apologise and stop defending yourself. You, and the people defending your innacurate, libellous claims, are just making yourselves look stupid. Everyone is wrong sometimes, even me. I was wrong once, May 2012 I think it was. I was sure that New York was on a similar line of latitude to London! Silly me

..............................

[charmer]

So sue me

 

First, we were not discussing legal terminology per se, but whether, in the case under discussion, the punishment was warranted in view of the nature (not the name!) of the crime. Second, your example is silly, flawed. The term 'theft' or 'stealing' is applied in society generally to apply to any action which involves depriving someone of something of material, or potential material value. That applies both to stealing someone's silver spoons and to hacking into someone's computer, ripping off their new novel and selling copies of it. The fact that the word 'theft' does not appear in the charge and conviction in this case does not alter the fact that in my view copying and redistributing a copyright piece of film art was tantamount to theft and therefore deserved as harsh a sentence as theft.

 

It is impossible to imagine how it is possible to construct an intelligent argument for a comparable degree of substantive similarity between drink driving and paedophilia. All you can say, I suppose is that they are both likely to wreck lives.

 

There's something in 'The Kite Runner' (I think) which says you can reduce all laws/commandments to 'Do not steal', as this covers virtually all offences. If you lie, you are depriving someone of the truth, if you are abusive, you deprive them of dignity, if you kill, you are stealing life from them. If you think of it from that perspective you might perhaps see where I was coming from.

 

..............................

 

 

I can't sue you as I am not the person you are libelling. You really should stop, you are making mistake after mistake.

 

Whilst the analogy was extreme, it is so to effectively and decisively explain why you are wrong. Theft is legal terminology and is not synonymous with stealing. It is a clearly defined legal term to be used within the defined situation. AliceBB of SF fame does not have the authority to change this.

 

I would stay away from using fictional books to shape your view of the legal world if you want to appear as anything other than laughably ignorant.

[PeteMorris]

Moderator Note:

 

Any chance you could stop the bickering please?

 

Ta muchly......(I don't care who started it...lol)

[aliceBB]

Ha! Fine by me, Pete.