Talk:Copyright infringement of audio-visual works

Cleanup, NPOV, Rename

This article is currently of terrible quality and highly POV. It already has the cleanup header; I'm additionally marking it with the NPOV header. The first thing it needs is a rename, which I'll attempt shortly. - Korpios 21:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Music and film piracy to Copyright infringement of audio-visual works, a NPOV term (and keeping in line with the other articles on copyright infringement). - Korpios 21:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changed NPOV header to TotallyDisputed, as accuracy of article is highly questionable at the moment. - Korpios 22:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this article needs some serious cleaning up. I think it would benefit from merging with Movie release types as it deals with similar issues as "first" part of this article. S33k3r 16:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, much of what's here is not useful. A proposed article is in the works at User:IntrigueBlue/Piracy (information), of which this might make a good subpage, in parallel with Copyright infringement of software. — Catherine\^talk 23:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also biased. I like the end, 'stealing is wrong' how about this to balance it out?

This is not stealing in most peoples eyes as you are not taking something away from somebody. If you steal a car the owner can't drive that car anymore, it's stolen, gone. If you cloned that same car you are not preventing the owner from using the original. Making a copy is not stealing because the original is still there. Selling copies for money is totally different. Regardless of your view on this the music/movie industry will never be able to stop this, ever. They can only make examples.

Sounds like something the mpaa would write in there propaganda campaigns Louispq 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently Media Piracy is redirected to this page. Media piracy (or copyright infringement) is not just limited to audio-visual works, but also e.g. books, pictures/photos, software. Article should be renamed to something less specific. Khawaga (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word pirate

The box for the different type of unauthorized movie coping uses the word pirate. For example, see "Cam (Bootleg)" I'm new to wikipedia and I don't know were to put this, but I'm pretty sure pirate/piracy is the wrong term.

I think that the word pirate or piracy should be included, but that it should be accompanied by a discussion in the entry over whether the use of the term is correct for this type of activity. Pirate is used quite commonly and the Piratebay didn't name themselves that for no reason. However, I do agree that using piracy/pirate alone for this is biased. Khawaga (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Many (Many!) years ago I took the first half of a course on UK copyright law. Not a very useful set of qualifications for contributing to this article I know, so I'm not going to, but I do recall that there are legal definitions of 'Pirate', 'Counterfeit', and 'Bootleg'. This isn't exact, but as I recall a bootleg was an item, usually illegal, that was being produced to fill a 'gap in the market' where legal alternatives didn't exist, a counterfeit was an object, again probably though not necessarily illegal, that looked/felt/smelt/whatever just like the real thing, but wasn't, and a pirate was someone who would steal something from you to sell it.

Putting this into an audio-visual setting concluded that 'bootleg' would only apply to recordings of performances that had never been legitimately released, 'counterfeit' is the term for near perfect copies of DVDs, CDs, and any other media that physically exists, and a pirate is the person who buys a product and then sells it to you in another form (Cassette, CD-R, Mp3...). So where that leaves the person who, let's say, buys a CD and puts it on the internet for all to copy, but at no profit to themselves, I don't know. I would guess, however, that it would still be prosecuted as piracy, with the remuneration being nothing more than the pleasure of spreading the material around the world. --213.208.117.47 (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Merger

I suggest we do not merge this. MrMacMan 18:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Don't merge. Pirated movie release types is it's own subject.

Wow.

I don't think I've seen a more NPOV article in Wikipedia than this one. Several viewpoints need covering here, including, but by no means limited to:

• Richard Stallman has stated [1] the following: "What does it mean when they say that if you share with your neighbor, you're a 'pirate'? What are they really saying when they use that term? They're trying to equate helping your neighbor with attacking ships. Nothing, ethically speaking, could be more wrong than that, because attacking ships is very very bad, but helping your neighbor is admirable."
• United States Code states [2] that "Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, commits any murder or robbery, or any act of hostility against the United States, or against any citizen thereof, on the high seas, under color of any commission from any foreign prince, or state, or on pretense of authority from any person, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life." I presume other governments also define 'pirate' similarly.
• Some could argue that using the term 'pirate,' when used in this manner, is even propaganda.
• The FSF (Free Software Foundation) in [3] states "Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as 'piracy.' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word 'piracy' to describe it. Neutral terms such as 'prohibited copying' or 'unauthorized copying' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as 'sharing information with your neighbor.'
• linfo.org states (when using 'piracy' to describe sharing proprietary software) in [4], that "Interestingly, not only the concept, but also the term itself, is highly controversial." and that "As is often the case with controversies, each side claims that there should be no controversy because its view is the only correct one."

Please contact me at (my wikipedia username) at (google mail minus the oogle after the first letter of the search engine) dot (what do the words coma, comb, come, and comic have in common?) if you wish to speak to me personally about this.

^^ Someone needs to let you know that this is the most obnoxious way an email address has ever been given out. Stop it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.180.21.73 (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

--Cogburnd02 07:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)