Re: Ripping to be made legal

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:01:28 +0100, "Norman Wells" <hex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:59:35 +0100, "Norman Wells" <hex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

He has infringed those rights, but he is not pretending to have
those rights himself.

In respect of the copy he has made, only the copyright owner had the
right to make it. The infringer has inescapably taken up that
right, or assumed it, by copying the work.

"Inescapably" only if your usage of English is idiosyncratic, to say
the least.

You really should wonder why it is that you cannot find anybody else
at all who agrees with your usage.

Infringing a right is NOT the same thing as assuming it. He has not
"taken up" that right, if those are the words you prefer to use.

I think he has. Only the owner of the copyright had the right to make the
copy. In making that copy, the infringer has clearly 'taken up' or 'taken
over' that right in respect of that copy. He had no right to do so himself.
but has assumed that right for himself for the duration of making the copy.

The fact he has DONE it does not mean he has the right to do it,

No, he certainly didn't have that right.

nor that he is claiming to have the right to do it.

Claiming is irrelevant. The Theft Act isn't concerned with 'claiming' but
with 'appropriating'.

You cannot "appropriate" a right without in some way claiming it. You
have to act as if the right belongs to you.

Which goes beyond merely doing something that only the right holder is
allowed to do.


To have "taken up" the right, he would in some way have to be
pretending to have that right himself.

No he wouldn't. 'Pretending' isn't a word used in the Theft Act. You do
not have to pretend anything. All you have to do is 'appropriate', ie
assume, ie take up, take over or take on, any of the rights of the owner.

Whether that word is in the Theft Act is irrelevant.

The theft act talks about "assuming".

In order to "assume" rights, you have to pretend or claim in some way
that they are your rights.




One of those rights was to make the copy concerned. That right has been
taken up, ie appropriated, by the copier.

That is your belief, based on an unusual usage of the English
language.

I don't think anybody else agrees with your definition.



Why do you keep having to rely on words like 'pretending' and 'claiming'
when those words form no part of the relevant law?

Because I am trying to get over to you what the real meaning of
"assuming a right" is.



If he actually claimed to be allowed to make those copies (and was
not trying to rely on any of the exceptions), THEN he might well be
considered to be assuming those rights.

He has taken up or assumed the right to make the copy by actually
making it.

In this country, normal English is the language used in court cases,
except where there is some specific definition of particular words or
phrases.

Your suggestion here is not normal English usage.

Ah, the Great Heney has pronounced, so it must be so.


Please stop your stupid lying about me.


But is there any reason why my 'suggestion' as you call it, is not normal
English? I can't see any at all.

Obviously, or you wouldn't be using it.

Equally obviously, I see it as meaning something else, as I have
explained several times.

In the last thread on this subject, several other people gave similar
opinions as mine as to the meaning. I have not seen anybody agree with
yours.

That tends to imply yours is the unusual usage.

Unfortunately, this isn't the sort of phrase which it is easy to get
any sort of authoritative answer about, one just has to go with what
the majority feel the meaning to be.

I don't see much point in discussing this much further - you think the
phrase means one thing, I think it means another, and neither of us is
likely to persuade the other without some external evidence.

The only one of us who has had anybody else agree is me, but that is
not going to change your mind.


In any normal case of making a copy by downloading a film or music
track or game, there are no exceptions on which he could rely, so
that's a red herring.

I only specified that for pedantic reasons, in that somebody (if
anybody else was still interested) might make a point of my missing
that.

Yes. Of course you did.


Indeed.

Just doing something that only the copyright owner is permitted to
do is NOT assuming those rights. It is breaching his rights.

The owner is not just "permitted" to copy the work, as you put it,
he alone is specifically given the right to copy it. That right is
assumed by the infringer when he makes the infringing copy.

You can say that as often as you like, but I don't think you will
ever find anybody else who agrees with your usage of English here.

The right is infringed. It is not assumed.

No, the right to copy it, which belonged solely to the owner, has
been taken up by the infringer, which means it has been assumed by
the infringer. He has excluded the owner from exercising his
copyright ownership to make that copy.

Wrong on all counts.

So you say.

If you tried to claim the royalties from somebody else's copying,
*then* you would be assuming the rights, and *that* would be
theft.

It may or may not be. It doesn't matter a jot, though, since it's
completely irrelevant to the matter in hand.

It isn't irrelevant, because it is only when you claim to have the
right where it might be theft.

The word 'claim' doesn't appear in the definition of theft.

Nobody has ever suggested it might.

Yet you rely on it for some strange reason.

Nothing remotely "strange" about it.



The relevant
word there is 'appropriates', which is defined in S.4 as meaning any
assumption of the rights of the owner. You don't have to claim
anything. You just have to do it.

Wrong.

Well, it is, but only because it's actually Section 3.

To assume a right, you have to claim or pretend to have that right for
oneself.

Who says, apart from you?

Several other people in the last thread on this subject.


It is not enough to merely do the thing which you have no right to do
(because only another person has that right).

Isn't it?

Doing something is not assuming (or taking on if you prefer) the right
to do it.

Oh, I think it is. If a football arrives unannounced in your garden and you
decide to kick it about or deflate it rather than give it back, are you not
assuming any of the rights of the owner simply by the act of kicking it
about or deflating it?

Not in my opinion, no.

Or do you have to 'pretend' or 'claim', presumably
to someone else, that you have such a right to do so?


Yes. To assume the rights of the owner, you would have to be making
out in some way that you were the owner.

What form would such pretence or claim have to take exactly?


Difficult to pin down exactly, it would depend on circumstances.

But it would have to be something which would make it appear to other
people that you were the owner (of the football in this case, of the
rights in the copyright case).

If you are copying something that you don't own the copyright to, and
are challenged by somebody saying (for instance) "don't you know that
is illegal?", then if you answer "Yes, but I don't care, they'll never
catch me", you are not assuming any rights. You are still doing
something wrong, of course, and are in breach of CDPA.

If you answer "No it isn't, I have a perfect right to copy this", then
you are assuming the rights of the copyright holder (pedantic note -
unless claiming you have the right due to one of the exceptions in the
law).

There are, of course, a whole range of other scenarios possible, but
in order to be assuming the right, you have to make it appear in some
way that you have (or believe you have) that right. Not just do
something in spite of not having the right to do it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Status Symbol: n. Something that you don't want, that you buy with money that you don't have, to impress people that you don't know
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ripping to be made legal
    ... "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates ... of an owner' according to Section 3. ... To "assume the rights" of the copyright owner, ... The infringer has, as a matter of the plainest ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Ripping to be made legal
    ... There is no civil basis on which the retailers could go to court.. ... an owner' according to Section 3. ... To "assume the rights" of the copyright owner, ... therefore had the right to make the copy the infringer has made. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Copying CDs and DVDs to be made legal.
    ... the owner *is* deprived of his rights. ... I'm not an expert on the Theft Act, but I suspect that it renders all ... The act of copying is therefore one of dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another.. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Copying CDs and DVDs to be made legal.
    ... unauthorised copy of a copyrighted work, ... the owner *is* deprived of his rights. ... I'm not an expert on the Theft Act, but I suspect that it renders all ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Ripping to be made legal
    ... exclusive right the copyright owner has to make that copy himself ... English language in ways which nobody else agrees with (and usually, ... The infringer has, as a matter of the plainest ... He has not "taken over" any of the rights of the copyright holder. ...
    (uk.legal)