Ownership takes things away from others. Copying shares it.

http://pulsedmedia.com/clients/aff.php?aff=006

They have a ton of different options. Both 100mbps and 1gbps servers. And, they dont get all their servers from OVH like a lot of resellers, they get servers from many different providers to always have the best and fastest speeds. Currently they have a 1TB HDD, 2GB ram server for only 21.95€/Mo, unmanaged! And with your choice of OS!

They also have a starter version with 70GB HDD, 250MB Ram unmetered for only 11USD a month as well as a 8TB hdd, 8gb ram server for 150 USD a month!

Check them out…

http://pulsedmedia.com/clients/aff.php?aff=006

So according to you my response is warped, crap, and easily shot down by a law student. It is lies, deception, and stupidity.

You care to step up to the plate and logically dissect my argument to show all those flaws, or will you continue to commit Ad Hominem, weak Appeals to Authority, Appeal to Ridicule, and other logical fallacies?

No, copyright is setup to give financial incentive to content creators (artists). When artists sign to labels, they are trading most if not all of that potential income for the ability to be publicized widely. Then they turn around gross 150 million touring for a year, a much larger percent of that coming back to them.

The artists are in contracts for the publicity, which is why (if they are smart) they will love getting their music pirated. However, once they have signed a contract saying that their royalties will be paid in part to someone else, then the artists no longer have the right to stand up and declare that they are the copyright holders and are okay with their works being shared.

If royalties are going to labels and not artists (as mutually agreed upon in their contract), then the labels are the ones who should be deciding whether or not file-sharing is okay.

The relevant words Infodocc used was directly lifted from the actual sentence, regarding which particular crimes has been committed.

My argument was that the judicial term theft, or the expression “copyright theft was not to be found in the sentence. It wasn’t. It was something completely different. I then chose to translate that somewhat to point out that the British language media translation of the case was way of.

If you feel that you can translate in an even more exact manner, please do so, but you should agree that “Ihnen wurden insgesamt 130 Verstöße gegen das Urheberrechtsgesetz und 98 Fälle des Ausspähens von Daten nach § 202a StGB zur Last gelegt.

Zudem verwirkliche die angedrohte Veröffentlichung der privaten Fotos gegen Erstellung eines „Shout Out“ den Straftatbestand der Nötigung nach § 240 StGB.” does not say “copyright theft”.

> “Nowhere therein are the charges and sentencing specified as being “copyright infringement” those are words which you have added.”

I have not claimed otherwise, it was on the contrary you who claimed that they had been sentenced for “copyright theft”. There’s no support for that claim in the actual sentence or the original German news reports.

> “The world and his friend are reporting the convictions as “Copyright theft”. You may wish to pretend that they are not but the fact is they are”

I have not denied how the world chooses to report it. But as i said, which words the media outlets chose to report it with, does not equate that the actual crime that was committed was “copyright theft” according to any legislation.

We are discussion the actual judicial facts, and those do not support your initial claim, that uploading or downloading copyrighted works through illegal filesharing is theft in accordance to the judicial or correct use of the word, or the UK Theft Act.

> “I refer you to my earlier links in relation to the charges, conviction, sentencing and summary explanation of the rationale of same in relation to Anne Muir. You asked me to provide you with proof of a conviction in the UK and the opinion of a judge in relation to the conviction.”

You did not provide me with reference to a conviction that sentenced a person filesharing for theft according to the UK Theft Act. That was what i asked for.

The sentence you brought up was regarding a contravention of section 107(1)(e) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Not theft according to the UK Theft Act.

The later expressed opinion of the judge in the case does not change that fact.

> “You, on the other hand, can provide nothing substantive to back up your opinion that there is no such crime as copyright theft..”

The burden of proof does not lie upon me, since i’m not the one who claimed that it exists as a judicial term or crime. You claimed that, you have zero sentences to back that up.

> “..even when presented with the published qualified legal opinion of the presiding judge in the case in point.”

You mean the case where someone was convicted of was a contravention of section 107(1)(e) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, as opposed to theft?

And no, it was not a legal opinion, the legal opinion of the judge can be found in the actual sentence. The latter expressed words was the judges personal thought, and those in turn had no support in the actual sentence.

> “Only you can see the word “infringement” in the report and that is because you have elected to include it in a poor attempt to justify your “argument”.”

My argument was that copyright theft wasn’t what they had actually been convicted of. It wasn’t. That’s a fact. I don’t have to justify anything.

> “I think what you meant to say was that the google reports of the convictions for “Copyright Theft” were at odds with the one report you chose to misrepresent and embellish by adding the words “copyright infringement” when those words appear nowhere in either the infodocc report or any translation of same.”

No, what i meant to say was that your claim that they were sentenced for copyright theft was erroneous. As we could see when we looked at what they actually were sentenced of, it was erroneous.

> “You are conveniently overlooking the fact that copyright (and it’s infringement / theft) transcends international borders – don’t tell me you weren’t aware of the fact – it’s one of the pirates bugbears. This is 2011 – plaintiffs can bring proceedings under their home legislation in other countries.”

That does not change the fact they weren’t convicted of the judicial act of theft, or copyright theft.

>> “Isn’t the discussing based around your claim that uploading and downloading judicially constitutes theft according to the UK Theft Act?”

> “Yes, and I have provided quotes from a judge attesting to that fact – did you miss that bit?”

No you did not. The judge did not say that uploading and downloading judicially constitutes theft according to the UK Theft Act.

> “”Theft” is a judicial term and “copyright” is a judicial term.”

From two different legislations yes.

> “Criminal activities (such as downloading) which cross both legislative bodies will attract a criminal charge.”

Never the charge of theft.

> “The terminology of the charge is largely irrelevant it is the crime – not the judicial term which is on trial in the eyes of the law.”

The terminology of the charge or act is exactly what we talk about, and the fact that uploading and downloading judicially isn’t theft according to the UK Theft Act, but only your interpretation of it, which no actual sentence supports, only personal opinions.

> “You have not provided us with what the German sentence actually said but rather your embellished version.

Oh i have, it was “Ihnen wurden insgesamt 130 Verstöße gegen das Urheberrechtsgesetz und 98 Fälle des Ausspähens von Daten nach § 202a StGB zur Last gelegt.

Zudem verwirkliche die angedrohte Veröffentlichung der privaten Fotos gegen Erstellung eines „Shout Out“ den Straftatbestand der Nötigung nach § 240 StGB.”. The relevant parts of what crimes that they were sentenced for are lifted directly from the actual sentence.

> “You asked me specifically to provide you with a “claim from an UK justice official, that supports your illogical claim, that the judicial act of theft occurs when you upload or download copyrighted works through illegal filesharing”.

What I have quoted verbatim is the opinion of the judge.”

Precisely, and the judge does not say that the judicial act of theft occurs when you upload or download copyrighted works through illegal filesharing. He provided a personal analogy saying that she thinks that it is the same. I didn’t ask for any judges personal analogies.

> “Since you seem so au fait with copyright law please point me to the real world legislation (of whatever country you choose) that states that it is legally acceptable to make a copy or copies of a copyrighted work without having acquired the appropriate licence and permission from the copyright holder to do so.”

Well, first of all there are many countries in the world where that is legal, the most well known for Europeans is Spain. Non-profit filesharing is completely legal there.

However, i’m not discussing whether it’s legal or not? I’m discussing the fact that the act of illegal filesharing isn’t something that you can be judicially convicted of for the judicial act of theft.

> “Oh, right – so you were simply trying to split hairs over semantics and back tracking on your original assertion, I see.”

You seem to be confused. Please follow the thread backwards, to your first post, where you brought up the UK Theft Act, as relevant to what crime that actually is committed. As we have discovered, the UK Theft Act has nothing to do with filesharing. Filesharing is never theft according to the UK Theft Act, any other law, or the correct use of the word. This is an indisputable fact.

It can only be theft according to peoples personal subjective opinions, or analogies. Someone’s personal subjective opinion or analogy however, doesn’t decide what is theft, sentences according to the law does that, and those do not support those opinions.

> “The reality is this – people have been convicted, and will continue to be convicted, for a crime which you assert has no legal standing.”

I have never made such claim. Again you seem to have lost the thread, that you yourself started.