I'm glad you cleared that up, in your previous post you had mentioned bands playing the work and radio performances
Could you point me toward the misunderstanding? I'd like to edit it for future readers.
In the biz a "cover band" is a band that "covers" the hits at a bar or other venue.
Yes, that's a cover band. What I'm referring to are covers, the songs. Say you're Britney Spears and you want to do a cover of, say, Oasis. You can do so on your next CD, so long as you pay this royalty to the songwriters of that Oasis song.
Please tell me which courts call this stealing.
"In either case, to categorically refuse to extend copyright protection to a three-dimensional manifestation of Winfield's witch is to allow a competitor theoretically to
steal Winfield's precise expression of its creative vision..." Winfield still has his expression.
Winfield v. Gemmy, 147 Fed.Appx. 547, 553 (2005).
"Thomas Whitehead will do no jail time for pirating a million dollars worth of “access cards” and selling them on the internet to persons who used them to
steal satellite television service from DirecTV." DirecTV hasn't lost anything there.
U.S. v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991, 994 (2008).
"In addition to the increased costs for protection from burglary, wire-tapping, bribery, and the other means used to misappropriate trade secrets, there is the inevitable cost to the basic decency of society when one firm
steals from another." In that case, the harmed company still had everything it had before; the only thing it lost was an exclusive right.
Kewanee Oil v. Bicron, 416 U.S. 470, 487 (1974).
"With or without right, the earlier trademark was in widespread use and well known, and the obvious intent and necessary effect of imitating it was to
steal some of the good will attaching to it and to defraud the public." With a trademark, the infringement doesn't prevent the first company from using it; it still has everything it had before, save the exclusive use of the trademark.
Ubeda v. Zialcita, 226 U.S. 452, 454 (1913).
There's a few examples, including IP beyond copyright. 'Steal' is a casual term, not a legal charge. It is not a term of art, and it is a statutorily-defined term only when the cause of action arises under that same statute.
Since when is stealing not a crime?
Since always. The crimes are: theft, theft of service, larceny, unjust enrichment, misappropriation, fraud, and so on.
Steal is a word that has many uses and definitions, only one of which is synonymous with 'theft', a legal term of art with a carefully-constructed definition.
Steal, theft, they mean the same thing in the eyes of the law
No. You cannot be charged with stealing. In Britain, the Theft Act (why you're using the 1968 version is unclear, since the applicable law is from 2006) codifies a variety of 'stealing' offenses into a single statute.
Sorry, but wrong. 'Fair use' also grants the average Joe a right to make copies for himself, amongst other groups of people who copy music.
No. Fair use, under US copyright law, allows no such thing.
The property being "stolen", for want of a better word
isn't the copyright, it's the intellectual property, the music/film/whatever.
The intellectual property is the copyright, not the intellectual work. This is something anti-IP trolls do not understand, Stallman included. Your IP exactly comprises the set of property rights you own. The ideas in the "music/film/whatever" are not property in any sense.
Here's an article that explains it better than I can:
The Register is incorrect. The first clue is the wanton switching from a legal term of art (theft) to a lay term of no legal significance (stealing). Your own theft act has to add the section because it is so frequently misused. The explanation of the fair use doctrine is also laughably incomplete.
Your ridiculous car-copying hypothetical assumes that if such a copying device existed, that you would have a legal right to reproduce any object you wish with it. We have never observed that to be the case with the introduction of any new technology; there's no reason to think it would start now. If such a device existed, the car company would undoubtedly retain an exclusive right to the production of its vehicles. In fact, copyright would be one of the mechanisms they would use. Your duplication of the car would in any case still be illegal.
Downloading music isn't theft, by anyone's definition of the word.
No kidding. Wantonly flipping in and out of theft and stealing, though, is the construction of an untenable strawman. Stealing is a simple term: it is the taking of something to which you are not legally entitled. There's nothing else to it. Stealing is not theft, but theft is stealing.
In fact, if you turn to your own citations to Britain's Theft Act, look to section 3, Making off without payment: "(1)Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence."
When Metallica [tells] you that downloading films is stealing, they are using the wrong word.
No, but you are. Stealing is a descriptive word. It is not in the United States, nor anywhere else, a criminal or civil charge.
You build up an argument that it is neither theft nor larceny. That is true. You cannot in the last sentence change the word to 'steal' and expect the argument to continue to hold.
