7 comments on “Well yes Richard

  1. IP infringement is not theft. Theft requires permanent intention to deprive; the Guardian haven’t been deprived of anything. That’s why we have separate laws dealing with IP infringement.

    It’s not even *metaphorically* theft, as you could just about, tenuously claim for someone who (e.g) buys a Linux laptop cut-price and then downloads a pirate copy of Windows onto it rather than paying the extra GBP50 for Windows as default.

    The opportunity cost to the Grauniad of Ritchie approvingly quoting their article and linking to it is zero; there is no conceivable way in which they could lose out compared to the situation where he’d never written the post. He probably hasn’t sought permission, but since he’s someone in their good books, if he were to seek permission I’m sure they’d be happy to grant it.

    So, erm, no: it’s not legally theft, and it’s not morally theft.

  2. But I was going to rush out to buy a copy of the Guardian so I could read the editorial, or I was going to visit their whizzy website and after reading said words of wisdom cast my eye over the accompanying adverts and provide some CPM comfort to the coffers. But now I don’t need to and so the Ghost of CP Scott has been permanently deprived.

  3. I’ve been thinking for some time, when viewing the photo RM uses on his blog, but hesitated to say it.

    The Germans have a word for him : Begriffstützig

    It translates roughly as Unable to grasp a concept. Just look at his picture.

    Dictionaries translate this as dull or obtuse, but these simply do not convey the full import of the word.

    Alan Douglas

  4. Well John B, the cost to the community if I choose to smoke a joint tonight is also zero, but in my jurisdiction it is a criminal offense, and if I were caught, I could go to jail. Copyright infringement is not theft, nor (in any area I know of) a criminal offense, but it is something that could be pursued in a civil court. That’s why when I write a paper I seek and publish the original author’s permission for reproducing information.

    They could well lose out. Many newspapers such as the Guardian license their content for newspapers such as ours in the colonies. That’s why at the bottom of the website it says:
    “You must not reproduce any part of guardian.co.uk or the material or transmit it to or store it in any other website or disseminate any part of the material in any other form, unless we have indicated that you may do so.

    If you wish to use our content other than as permitted by these Terms of Service, then you need a licence to do so. If you operate a news aggregation service that charges a subscription fee to its users, then you need to approach the NLA directly to discuss your licensing requirements.”

    Don’t forget Richie is the man who believes we don’t only have to obey the law, we have to divine and obey the original intentions of the lawmakers.

  5. A couple of points. Firstly Mr Murphy uses a blogging tool known as wordpress (see the icon in the bottom left hand corner of his page. Section 2 of WordPress t&c state that using the software Mr Murphy warrants that “the downloading , copying and use of the Content will not infringe proprietary rights, including but not limited to the copyright, patent, trademark or trade secret rights, of any third party”.

    So Mr Murphy is in breach of his agreement with his software supplier. In addition if anyone wished to they could complain to Automatticc who reserver the right to remove infringing material.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.