Attitude towards infringments of local copyright law via the Internet

We should never condone breaking the law. However we should be active in repealing unjust laws, such as the three strikes law and work to replace draconian IP laws that are unjust and drafted to suit the needs of the IP industry. Also working to encourage the use of creative commons licenses and open source software.

@craig: may I site the question that you have brought up to start this discussion:

I’m curious to know, how many pirates will never pay for legitimate channels distributing commercial content even when they are competitively available?

You are asking who is willing to pay for commercial offerings and who prefers to abstain from those offerings. Are you now saying that this question is about who is happy with infringing copy restriction rights? Does that mean you are implying that who doesn't buy something will therefore steel it? Do we have an obligation to buy all things that are offered? Can we not choose to live without them?

Attempting to subvert the discussion with obfuscation is not appreciated.

I agree wholeheartedly. Good night.

@andrewreitemeyer Exactly. We are a political party. It is the core of our job to criticise existing laws where necessary and suggest better laws where possible. This is what parties are about. It certainly implies to rate the value of laws highly.

On another note: Because I am not a native speaker I would like to ask how the term 'illegal' is properly to be used. Is every violation of a legal norm an illegal act? Or does a violation need to to be a criminal act to be called illegal?
With other words: Is an infringement enough to call something illegal? Would you say it is 'illegal' to park for 4 hours in a parking slot where the maximum allowed is 2 hours? Or would that word be reserved for criminal acts?

If the latter, then it would be good to note that, according to the article that @craigmagee is referring to:

Downloading copyright infringing material is not a crime in Australia and won't put you in prison but you can be sued thousands of dollars by rights holders.

I would like to ask how the term ‘illegal’ is properly to be used.

'Legal' means relating to or permitted by the law. 'Illegal' means the opposite - anything prohibited by law.

Is an infringement enough to call something illegal?

'Infringement' does imply illegality, because, by definition infringement means 'the act of breaking the terms of law' - according to whatever dictionary OS X uses.

Sorry, @zl4bv , my OS X dictionary seems to be different from yours:

the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation: copyright infringement | [ count noun ] : an infringement of the rules.

So it might only be an agreement, etc. that is broken; such as a licensing agreement, maybe? Certainly breaking a licensing agreement is not illegal, even though that that the licensee may be able to legally impose fees for breaking the agreement. So laws are involved in requesting legit fees, even though no laws may have been broken. Hence, a copyright infringement might not be illegal, but may trigger the legal right to ask for high contract violation fees? (In the same way a warden can request fees for parking too long in a parking lot, even though parking longer than allowed is not breaking a law, only violates an agreement.)

The heading has already been changed to hopefully suit even the most anal-retentive of people not satisfied with the 'modern' use of the word piracy (which has been used in that context since at least 1603).

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1994/0143/latest/DLM346602.html

I started off with software and music piracy as a young boy 30 years ago, I do not think that it is reasonable to commit 2 months pocket money to a single game that typically isn't anywhere remotely like the depictions in the stores.
Now that I sometimes have spare money, my flat subscribes to sky sports and movies, soho and rialto via vodafone tv. This takes care of those flatmates with older PC laptops with small HDDs, I frequently find that I download movies ahead of their "debut" on sky movies and most music I get is free mashups of songs by highly overrated artists such as Lorde, the main difference is that I get something good to listen to, not what's on the radio.

Software I might pay for if it is quality programs for a reasonable price, I do not pay for overpriced useless software I might use once a month if that.
I typically only buy software via iTunes cards on discount, or steam sales maybe twice a year.

I think the onus is on the companies creating the software and music to find better business models than restricting the price points artificially to meet a physical copy price point. If the product is entirely digital, then there is no real cost of distribution, no need for charging different prices according to national boundaries, or software platform.

@craigmagee

use of the word piracy (which has been used in that context since at least 1603)

Can you please provide a source? I am very interested.

‘the act of breaking the terms of law’

the action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation: copyright infringement | [ count noun ] : an infringement of the rules.

'the act[ion] of breaking the terms of [a] law...'

They are the same definition of the word infringement - I just paraphrased mine for relevance.

I don't see the value of this word definition game. Rather than arguing the definitions of words, could we discuss the application of these words in context of copyright law?