Talk:Federation Against Copyright Theft

Terminology

Would it be worthwhile pointing out that it's not possible to steal a copyright - so FACT is somewhat inappropriately named? Their adverts repeatedly refer to theft, whereas they are looking to prevent violation of copyright. Just a thought. StripeyBadger 12:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well actually it's theft of copyritten material, not theft of copyright OrangeDog 12:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi OD, I'm not really convinced it's theft, though a more eloquent explanation of the controversy around this than I could give is on the Intellectual Property page. The use of the term 'theft' by FACT seems a little arbitrary. StripeyBadger 13:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it's probably somewhat of a backronym, given that "Federation" isn't really used in Britain much, but hey, it's their choice OrangeDog 16:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

how about information about one of their anti piracy propaganda pieces where they claim that piracy funds things like organised crime and terrorism? --124.168.213.202 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, the comment is not supported by either of the sources quoted, and that makes it a clear-cut case of WP:SYNTH. To justify commenting on the name, a reliable source that makes the assertion is required. Groomtech (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't actually true! It is possible to steal a copyright by, for example, manipulating a person into transferring one. Harper Lee was the victim of a case of literal copyright theft in 2007. Obviously, this isn't quite the focus of FACT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DpEpsilon (talk • contribs) 06:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that ‘copyright’ cannot be stolen. Although, in England the theft act is not used there does not appear to be any bar on doing so by reference to the elements of the offence. Section 1 “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it… Section 4(1) "Property" includes money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property. Ron Barker (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

While, on first glance, the Theft act would seem to cover copyright infringement, Oxford v Moss ruled that information could not count even as intangible property. This is why we have the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which creates the offence of copyright infringement. In order to "steal" someone's copyright, arguably you would need to assume you had the copyright to the extent of not allowing the rightful owner to copy the material - something like Copyfraud. But then, I am not a lawyer. -Duke 06 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.175.163 (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible source on terminology here: http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/10/copyright-infringement-is-not-theft.html Elder pegasus (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV problems with this page

Reading through this page I see a pretty significant BIAS into discrediting FACT and the things they do. It really needs someone to write the other side of the arguement to give this article a more NPOV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.25.116 (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Their 'infommercials' also precede movies/films in many UK cinemas, and their propagandist tinge has recently reached newly amusing and incompetent depths of quality. The latest seems to claim that watching a 'pirated' (itself an over-emotive and inaccurate term) copy deprives hard-working, working class British workmen in fluorescent Hi-Vi of an honest living. Well, yes, but so does shoplifting, buying goods from China, or growing your own vegetables. Their noddy, gauche and ham-fisted prominence somewhat undermines their efforts IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.250.180 (talk) 23:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

They compared copyright infringement to stealing cars, handbags and physical DVD's from a video store. They also put their adverts on LEGALLY OWNED DVD's, which cannot be skipped, compared to pirated versions where that ad is removed...defeating the entire fucking purpose. So if you have a problem with the facts of their idiocy being pointed out in a fair manner and ignorantly want to call it "bias" or "NPOV", then go ahead. However it will be ignored as it's accuracy can be confirmed and it provides no POV pushing in the article other than sourced statements about facts surrounding FACT. Come back when you have an argument. 203.59.35.207 (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

I have removed some synthesis, original research, and ironically enough, some probable WP:COPYVIO in the form of Youtube links. WP:RSReliable secondaary sources]] are needed to back up these claims, not editors' opinions. Groomtech (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The IT Crowd

Is it really worth pointing out that one of FACT's commercials was parodied in a episode of The IT Crowd? This information does not relate to FACT at all.60.230.161.159 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)Sam

Other ads

Pretty sure there were a load more anti piracy ads than that, especially that one with the sweaty devil with the branding iron, and also Disney's own ones? Also isn't that You Wouldn't Steal a Car one actually an MPAA one? --82.4.77.68 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Did FACT pay Melchior Rietveldt royalties for using his music?

I know BREIN didn't because they lost in court, but this article makes no mention of FACT's "wouldn't steal a car" adverts using stolen music. 94.193.180.6 (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federation Against Copyright Theft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601062450/http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/anton-vickerman-sentencing-remarks-14082012.pdf to http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/anton-vickerman-sentencing-remarks-14082012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Opening statement in summary

I made a change to the opening statement of the summary in order to make the language more precise. It was reverted by Objective3000 citing WP:NPOV. I don't necessarily agree that it was not written with a neutral point of view, I don't think it is unreasonable to say that FACT was established to enforce their members' copyrights, rather than their intellectual property in general.

Additionally, "protect and represent the interests of its members' Intellectual Property (IP)" does not make sense semantically. Intellectual Property is property. It does not have interests. If we wanted to retain the term "intellectual property", we could reword the opening to be "[...] established to represent the interests of its members and their Intellectual Property (IP)."

I am not going to make another change myself to avoid starting an edit war.

To disclose my point of view, I am generally fine with the state of copyright law, but I think people have a tendency to forget how to use words properly when talking about it. DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 00:21, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see from logic, the stated goals, and WP:RS, the organization's goals are to protect and represent the interests of its members' Intellectual Property. The mechanisms used are another matter not suitable for the lead. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Would it be suitable to change the lede to read "[...] established to represent the interests of its members and protect their intellectual property (IP)" to fix semantics (and capitalisation), or is it correct to say that intellectual property has "interests" in some sense of the word? DpEpsilon ( talk | contribs ) 03:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)