[nzlug] Re: NZLUG Digest, Vol 31, Issue 7

[Simon Bridge]

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 19:52 +1300, Damian Turner-Steele wrote:
> >
> > From: Simon Bridge <simonbridge at ihug.co.nz>

> To be successfully prosecuted for theft it has to shown that you intended to
> permanently deprive the rightful owner of whatever it is that you stole.
> 
> "So if I take your car and return it before you know it's gone or need to
> use it, that isn't theft? If I fill the tank, and it was only half-full
> when I took it, did I do you a favour?"
> 
> No you committed the offence of taking without consent which is a lesser
> crime. If you returned it with extra fuel you might get a reduced sentence
> (do I need irony tags here).
> 
Now that, I did not know. Reinforces my thinking though... sometimes it
is good to play Devil's advocate.

OT: There's a crime called "conversion" isn't there?

> "Though my ability to make money off it could be diminished - depending.
> For one thing, you didn't pay for it."
> 
> I may not have paid for it but surely the burden of proof requires that it
> is shown that I would have paid for it. The fact that I do from time to time
> buy DVD movies and music Cd's demonstrates that i am happy to pay for
> content and so, it follows that even if I have a copied whatever it cannot
> be shown that I won't in future buy an original for all those lovely
> "extras".
> ______________________________________________

Could there be a basis here for a complaint about all those DVD bits
that insist that "piracy" is the same as stealing a car?

This is where the "research" in the article is misleading... chances are
the claim is that a DVD copied is the retail price of that DVD lost. And
that does not follow.

I think the issues are complex enough without this sort of thing.

BTW: The US has copyright and patents in their constitution explicitly
as a priviledge ... the idea is that the audience gives up some rights
in return for getting better access to the art. Anything like that in
NZ?