Go right ahead. Add him to the "Foes" page of your SlashDot account and configure it to mod all his articles down to -1. Voila, you don't have to hear it anymore.
You missed the point, but he got it.
Foe'ing him is the same as filtering spam. Moderating and removing his ability to speak to me is also the same. If I don't want certain people to send me certain types of information it's my responsibility to limit my freedom. It's not my responsibility to limit others freedom.
This was my whole point, in a very round about way.
You're misinterpreting his point. There is a difference between public and private free speech. Slashdot is a public forum, so we can say what we like. But we can't break inside your house and make you be a captive audience.
An email address is a public thing, so people can say what they want?
Don't get me wrong, I think SPAM is bullshit. I don't think there should be criminal laws against it though. I'd be happy being able to send a nice bill for my time, but I'm really not that motivated.
If you don't want people emailing you, setup a whitelist. I filter my spam out, and I get a lot of it. It's no big deal. Even at the corp. offices we get a holy crapload of spam and it gets filtered very reliably.
Windows Update is a mixed blessing where each time it is run the user is gambling that it won't break his system.
This happens incredibly infrequently, especially considering the amazingly large amount of systems that run Windows.
I use Windows Update consistently for my Windows box, and it works great and reliably. The FUD surrounding the "user is gambling" anecdotes is amusing though. I can only remember them releasing one patch that was truly borked.
But, if you believe the safest route to Windows is to leave it unpatched behind any firewall I hope you are never in charge of any networks. I'm sure even your non-Windows machines are amazingly insecure and waiting to be exploited.
Anyone who listened to George Borshukov's talk about virtual cinematography and the Matrix Reloaded at SIGGRAPH 2003 knows how much work went into modeling the characters for all the virtual cinematography scenes
Ok, well here's the deal. They looked like crap. Just go download the Quicktime trailer of Matrix Reloaded, and pause it on the scene where the Agent jumps on the front of the car (A Dodge Intrepid, I think?) -- he looks like he's gumby wearing a suit. Shrek was more realistic and had more depth than most of the CG models.
Also, some of those Burly Brawl shots are just head replacements, so look for those Agent Smiths that don't quite have the right face and then come back and tell me that all those CG bodies look fake.
It did look cheap. There was so many, "This doesn't fit" moments in that fight that it was impossible to even be entertained if you could suspend your belief. They should have cut that scene in half, and spent twice the effort.
The Archos is big, it's heavy, when I had one it was USB 1.0 so it took FIVE HOURS to fill with music
For 6GB, five hours isn't incredibly unreasonable.
and the batteries would lose their ability to hold a charge very quickly.
I've not had this problem. I have had mine for two years, and I still have my original batteries. I haven't listened to it for a few months though, but I was listening to it a lot and never had a problem with battery life. I still get 10+ hours out of it.
After sending it back three times, I finally just gave up on the damn thing. Thankfully, that was because the iPod came out, and I got one as a Christmas present.
Were you playing with the firmware? I have not heard much about anybody having these problems. I think that Rockbox is a better firmware for it anyway, but as I've said, I have had mine for 2 years and it works very reliably. I know several people who have them, and have no issues either.
Grandparent: But I think they're being a little loose with the word damage here. Lost revenue cannot be revenue that you didn't get, that you never would have gotten. (Emphasis mine)
They aren't illegal. I don't call you a "per", I call you a "person". Just like the standard American-English language calls them "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens".
Speaking of which, what the fuck is an "alien"?
When in doubt, the dictionary has the answer!
An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
A creature from outer space: science fiction about an invasion of aliens.
Ecology. An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.
For accuracy's sake the best thing to call them would be undocumented immigrants.
Welcome to American-English 101. I'll be your professor today.
Now imagine the power of being able to capture the votes of P2P users. Think anyone out there is looking at buying some advertising banners on a P2P product?
You are forgetting one thing: You have to be over 18 to vote.
a) In case you haven't noticed, I don't take this shit seriously.
A discussion, or telling someone they are wrong and obviously incapable of understanding the discussion past repeating what others say, isn't serious.
I was taking it seriously, and personally. You didn't seem to notice even after I asked nicely to stop with the personal stuff you kept up with the emotional slashes and barbs. But I will agree with you on this one too, lets not take this shit seriously.
Your own series of inadequacies is not my problem. My problem is when you make threats against me and my family. Which you did. Calling you an idiot is not in the same ball park as posting an address and phone number, promoting murder, arson and rape. That's called harassment, along with several other things.
You bullied me with the Star Wars Kid comment, you bullied me with the 'How do you get up in the morning?' bit, and you bullied me with the comments about my parents. You were being a bully, particularly after I asked you nicely to stop.
You posted in a thread I started. You had already posted inflammatory comments about me and the ideas I discussed. I posted insults dealing with your intellectual capabilities. That isn't bullying you, it's called "flaming" and you are (outside of usenet) in the hotspot for it.
Personally, I am going to go forward with a new perspective here in Slashdot : I am here to discuss and glean from the discussions on things I do not know much about.
Then let me give you some advice. This isn't an anonymous place where you can post anything you want and not have it come back to bite you. Say what you mean, but know what you are saying. Don't get offensive when someone is saying something you don't agree with, research it and post contrarian points that are actually thought out.
but I can agree to keep it purely on topic and focused, leaving the real life counterparts to our online personas out of the discussion.
There is no separation. You are who you are, and I am who I am. The words I write here come from me. I'm not a nice person. I don't have to be a nice person. I will chew you up if you cross me, and anything that happens on here contrary to my well being is a far cry from what happens in reality. My mother said I could grow up to be anything I wanted to be, so I became an asshole.
I care as much about you as I do about making an example out of people who post threats about my families well-being. If you called me and said the same thing, I would treat it the same. If you said it in person, I would treat it the same. You see, the point of my action against you is not to gain anything. It's to show you a little thing called consequences.
You crossed a line, and threatened me. Now, you reap the consequences of that action. You cannot justify what you did, no matter how hard you try.
Insults are not, and will never be, the same as a threat to a persons well-being.
It is very clear what the purpose of copyright is and the process of works 'released into the public domain' should make it very clear that the public always owned it.
There is a huge difference between a public release, public domain, and public ownership. Again, as I said before, back it up with some sources. Don't say, "Re-read copyright law", show me the actual section that backs up what you are saying.
You posted personally identifying information, as well as telling people and making suggestive remarks about causing death to myself and severe trauma to my family.
B) I asked nicely to knock it off.
I said either don't post, or present a valid argument. You responded with threats.
Deal with the consequences to your actions, I have already begun the process. It may take several weeks to track down your information, but expect to be summoned to court. I hope for your sake that you are already on the west coast.
Retain the female, keeping her prisoner and having her brutally gang raped by the black officers and beaten daily for four weeks, sever both of her achilles tendons and sever the tendons on the back of her hands rendering her phalanges inoperative and a complete invalid.
Ok, since you have just made a public threat against my well being I am notifying the proper authorities along with requesting your information from the Slashdot administration where I will be pursuing legal action against you for harassment, and threats.
We may have differing opinions on a few of these topics, but I am a professional in this industry and I invite you do also be a professional representative of the industry.
Define professional. Provide me with some actual code that you have released. Or any copyrighted information. Or any law schools or seminars you have attended.
If you have opinions that do not match up with mine I encourage you to express yourself on the merits of your opinion without dragging personal slurs into the forum. I am going to ask you individually to be nice, and allow me the opportunity to do the same.
I appreciate your sentiment, but you are being an idiot. You are trying a completely unrelated analogy to prove a very weak argument. In case you haven't noticed (which I suspect you have, due to your parroting nature) this is Slashdot. A site on the internet, therefor flamewars are almost a necessity.
If you are the kind of guy that looks back and says '... if he had only asked me nicely...' then see this for exactly that : I am asking nicely : lets keep it professional, and check the personal 'tudes at the door.
Here is how you keep it professional: Present valid arguments, that are backed by some sort of a factual or respectable opinion, without resorting to very defunct analogies.
As soon as you can't offer a professional argument, I don't offer you anything other than insults and laughing at you. In case you haven't noticed, I don't take this shit seriously. This is my way of venting off steam, testing ideas and debate strategies. When it comes to people who just parrot what everybody else is saying without actually providing any new thought or innovation, I just flame them because it's easier than answering the same questions over and over again. I only offer respect in a debate when the other side can provide a well-reasoned and backed stance.
When I started this thread, I provided several dictionary definitions (and I was actually just joking around) backing that copyright infringement can be interpreted as stealing. Providing a bad analogy doesn't offer anything other than "Slashdot Argument Tactics 101." In case you are keeping track, you don't get college credits for that course. You just get to look like that poor Star Wars Kids, except you don't have the hope of being in Episode 3.
Ya think? If they were to distribute unauthorized reproductions : that would be copyright infringement. Just because a piece of artwork has been reproduced doesn't mean it has been stolen, or even that copyright infringement has occured (I was subtle in making that point, you made it blatant in your attempt to talk smack.)
Them taking a picture of your room with a picture in it would be considered a derived work. Also, since it was within plain view (outside of peeping tom laws) it wouldn't be copyright infringement. It wouldn't be, even if they distributed reproductions. You are just an idiot.
Wow - at the rate you are standing up for the RIAA, I would almost guess you for a corporate plant. Wait a minute, I know you... you are the one that had your lips planted firmly around Gator's (GAIN) thick veined meatstick a few weeks ago.
Because I stand up for copyright law I have to be a corporate sell-out? Because I say that Gator fully discloses everythign that they do, that means they aren't spyware? Right.
When you grow up, you will understand that there is a difference between standing up for what you say and believe in and being a cock-sucker. Right now you are just a Slashbot parroting cock-sucker.
When you actually produce some real copyrighted works, you will feel different. You know, like an adult.
The issue here is that under due process the RIAA should have to show "reasonable cause" to a court before being able to subpoena private customer information.
Why not? They did show reasonable cause. They said, "These IP addresses are sharing these files, at these times and we would like to subpoena the information to protect our copyrighted property values."
Why is that wrong? That's what subpoenas are for! It's for finding private personal/customer information to pursue legal action or obtain a witness.
Certainly, I wouldn't try it now, but if precedence says this is ok, I can file just the same request. And the ISPs will just have to bend over and give me the information. Is that a good thing?
You need to understand that they are getting the information from logs on the P2P networks, on how much data is stored and being shared. It's not as if they are just randomly picking IP addresses out of thin air.
Wow. You have just proved yourself to have the comprehension of a goldfish. Your entire lack of ability to provide a counter-argument is astounding. You resort to amazingly inaccurate and largely stupid analogies to try to support your flawed understanding of the argument at hand. Your absence of any breadth of knowledge leaves one wondering how you managed to actually post a response like this. Let me show you how wrong you are.
If someone stands outside your window and takes a picture of the painting you have in your living room they have not stolen from you.
This isn't even copyright infringement. In fact, you couldn't pursue civil action against someone for this. You could file a disturbance report, citing peeping tom laws. This is very different than unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, which is what we're discussing.
They have not stolen from Patrick Nagel (I am assuming you have good taste in art.)
If the person who purchased a Nagel painting were to make exact duplicates and distribute those for free, are they stealing?
They have no doubt committed some moral and possibly legal infractions but stealing isn't one of them.
How do you get up in the morning? I mean, seriously.
Just to get this out of the way : if someone snaps YOUR picture with a camera - that is not kidnapping either.
If someone burns me a CD and sends it to me, THAT is distribution. If I walk over to his house and I take it while he isn't there... he didn't distribute a thing.
It is if he put a sign up on his wall that said, "Please come in and take a CD, they are free!"
No, the person assumed the right of ownership, they did not acquire it. This is a critical difference. If they had acquired right of ownership then the songs would become their own copyright and they could distribute them as they wished.
The person acted as an ostensible authority in the distribution of the object in question. Because they were not assumed to be a reasonable authority, they attempted to usurp ownership and act in a role in which only the owner of the copyright could act. Therefor, they had acquired all of the things that separate a non-owner and an owner, gaining ownership. In other words, ownership of a copyright entitles you do distribution authority, so the difference between an owner and non-owner is only in the abilities to distribute.
Isn't amateur logic just hilarious? It is. I'm not sure if anybody realizes that I'm joking.
Don't mean to be trite, but there are lessons in copyright law that dictionary.com can't teach.
I agree with you. I'm not talking about law, but terminology. From a legal definition, there is no way it could be theft. It is just fun to use definitions to prove things. The law has lots of different definitions of words than what is used in common day speaking.
From command layman terms, it's easy to extrapolate that P2P usage can be stealing. I think the whole thing is bunk, and just enjoy getting the nest riled up a bit.
That's why copyright infringement is not stealing: the owner is not deprived of the the copyright or music or whatever.
That's also why it's civil and not criminal. I was really just having fun, because I know it's possible to prove with dictionary definitions that it is stealing.
I find the whole P2P lawsuits really funny, at other peoples expense.
And in the process, deprived the RIAA of that right! huh? I think what a lot of people are pointing out is that the generally accepted definition of theft requires that the original owner lose ownership of the item.
Yes, but I posted the definitions from the dictionary. The dictionary is usually refered to as a definitive source for the English language. Nowhere did I notice anything about depriving the owner.
That's my point, stealing is not dependant upon depriving the rightful owner of the property. It is just misappropriation of the right of title.
Slashdot Mirror
Go right ahead. Add him to the "Foes" page of your SlashDot account and configure it to mod all his articles down to -1. Voila, you don't have to hear it anymore.
You missed the point, but he got it.
Foe'ing him is the same as filtering spam. Moderating and removing his ability to speak to me is also the same. If I don't want certain people to send me certain types of information it's my responsibility to limit my freedom. It's not my responsibility to limit others freedom.
This was my whole point, in a very round about way.
You're misinterpreting his point. There is a difference between public and private free speech. Slashdot is a public forum, so we can say what we like. But we can't break inside your house and make you be a captive audience.
An email address is a public thing, so people can say what they want?
Don't get me wrong, I think SPAM is bullshit. I don't think there should be criminal laws against it though. I'd be happy being able to send a nice bill for my time, but I'm really not that motivated.
If you don't want people emailing you, setup a whitelist. I filter my spam out, and I get a lot of it. It's no big deal. Even at the corp. offices we get a holy crapload of spam and it gets filtered very reliably.
You are pretty funny for a guy with no rights :)
Windows Update is a mixed blessing where each time it is run the user is gambling that it won't break his system.
This happens incredibly infrequently, especially considering the amazingly large amount of systems that run Windows.
I use Windows Update consistently for my Windows box, and it works great and reliably. The FUD surrounding the "user is gambling" anecdotes is amusing though. I can only remember them releasing one patch that was truly borked.
But, if you believe the safest route to Windows is to leave it unpatched behind any firewall I hope you are never in charge of any networks. I'm sure even your non-Windows machines are amazingly insecure and waiting to be exploited.
Your right to speak (including sending spam) ends at the point where I decide I don't want to hear it any more.
I then, to prove a point, revoke your right to speak as I don't want to hear it anymore.
Thank you, and have a nice lifetime of quiet solitude. I appreciate it.
find it amazing that the slashdot crowd who are usually such virulent defenders of an unfettered internet are more than
We only support freedom if it doesn't bother us.
Anyone who listened to George Borshukov's talk about virtual cinematography and the Matrix Reloaded at SIGGRAPH 2003 knows how much work went into modeling the characters for all the virtual cinematography scenes
Ok, well here's the deal. They looked like crap. Just go download the Quicktime trailer of Matrix Reloaded, and pause it on the scene where the Agent jumps on the front of the car (A Dodge Intrepid, I think?) -- he looks like he's gumby wearing a suit. Shrek was more realistic and had more depth than most of the CG models.
Also, some of those Burly Brawl shots are just head replacements, so look for those Agent Smiths that don't quite have the right face and then come back and tell me that all those CG bodies look fake.
It did look cheap. There was so many, "This doesn't fit" moments in that fight that it was impossible to even be entertained if you could suspend your belief. They should have cut that scene in half, and spent twice the effort.
The Archos is big, it's heavy, when I had one it was USB 1.0 so it took FIVE HOURS to fill with music
For 6GB, five hours isn't incredibly unreasonable.
and the batteries would lose their ability to hold a charge very quickly.
I've not had this problem. I have had mine for two years, and I still have my original batteries. I haven't listened to it for a few months though, but I was listening to it a lot and never had a problem with battery life. I still get 10+ hours out of it.
After sending it back three times, I finally just gave up on the damn thing. Thankfully, that was because the iPod came out, and I got one as a Christmas present.
Were you playing with the firmware? I have not heard much about anybody having these problems. I think that Rockbox is a better firmware for it anyway, but as I've said, I have had mine for 2 years and it works very reliably. I know several people who have them, and have no issues either.
Grandparent: But I think they're being a little loose with the word damage here. Lost revenue cannot be revenue that you didn't get, that you never would have gotten.
(Emphasis mine)
RTFC, troll.
They aren't illegal. I don't call you a "per", I call you a "person". Just like the standard American-English language calls them "illegal immigrants" or "illegal aliens".
Speaking of which, what the fuck is an "alien"?
When in doubt, the dictionary has the answer!
For accuracy's sake the best thing to call them would be undocumented immigrants.
Welcome to American-English 101. I'll be your professor today.
Now imagine the power of being able to capture the votes of P2P users. Think anyone out there is looking at buying some advertising banners on a P2P product?
You are forgetting one thing: You have to be over 18 to vote.
a) In case you haven't noticed, I don't take this shit seriously.
A discussion, or telling someone they are wrong and obviously incapable of understanding the discussion past repeating what others say, isn't serious.
I was taking it seriously, and personally. You didn't seem to notice even after I asked nicely to stop with the personal stuff you kept up with the emotional slashes and barbs. But I will agree with you on this one too, lets not take this shit seriously.
Your own series of inadequacies is not my problem. My problem is when you make threats against me and my family. Which you did. Calling you an idiot is not in the same ball park as posting an address and phone number, promoting murder, arson and rape. That's called harassment, along with several other things.
You bullied me with the Star Wars Kid comment, you bullied me with the 'How do you get up in the morning?' bit, and you bullied me with the comments about my parents. You were being a bully, particularly after I asked you nicely to stop.
You posted in a thread I started. You had already posted inflammatory comments about me and the ideas I discussed. I posted insults dealing with your intellectual capabilities. That isn't bullying you, it's called "flaming" and you are (outside of usenet) in the hotspot for it.
Personally, I am going to go forward with a new perspective here in Slashdot : I am here to discuss and glean from the discussions on things I do not know much about.
Then let me give you some advice. This isn't an anonymous place where you can post anything you want and not have it come back to bite you. Say what you mean, but know what you are saying. Don't get offensive when someone is saying something you don't agree with, research it and post contrarian points that are actually thought out.
but I can agree to keep it purely on topic and focused, leaving the real life counterparts to our online personas out of the discussion.
There is no separation. You are who you are, and I am who I am. The words I write here come from me. I'm not a nice person. I don't have to be a nice person. I will chew you up if you cross me, and anything that happens on here contrary to my well being is a far cry from what happens in reality. My mother said I could grow up to be anything I wanted to be, so I became an asshole.
I care as much about you as I do about making an example out of people who post threats about my families well-being. If you called me and said the same thing, I would treat it the same. If you said it in person, I would treat it the same. You see, the point of my action against you is not to gain anything. It's to show you a little thing called consequences.
You crossed a line, and threatened me. Now, you reap the consequences of that action. You cannot justify what you did, no matter how hard you try.
Insults are not, and will never be, the same as a threat to a persons well-being.
It is very clear what the purpose of copyright is and the process of works 'released into the public domain' should make it very clear that the public always owned it.
There is a huge difference between a public release, public domain, and public ownership. Again, as I said before, back it up with some sources. Don't say, "Re-read copyright law", show me the actual section that backs up what you are saying.
A) I didn't make any threats, and
You posted personally identifying information, as well as telling people and making suggestive remarks about causing death to myself and severe trauma to my family.
B) I asked nicely to knock it off.
I said either don't post, or present a valid argument. You responded with threats.
Deal with the consequences to your actions, I have already begun the process. It may take several weeks to track down your information, but expect to be summoned to court. I hope for your sake that you are already on the west coast.
Retain the female, keeping her prisoner and having her brutally gang raped by the black officers and beaten daily for four weeks, sever both of her achilles tendons and sever the tendons on the back of her hands rendering her phalanges inoperative and a complete invalid.
Ok, since you have just made a public threat against my well being I am notifying the proper authorities along with requesting your information from the Slashdot administration where I will be pursuing legal action against you for harassment, and threats.
We may have differing opinions on a few of these topics, but I am a professional in this industry and I invite you do also be a professional representative of the industry.
...' then see this for exactly that : I am asking nicely : lets keep it professional, and check the personal 'tudes at the door.
Define professional. Provide me with some actual code that you have released. Or any copyrighted information. Or any law schools or seminars you have attended.
If you have opinions that do not match up with mine I encourage you to express yourself on the merits of your opinion without dragging personal slurs into the forum. I am going to ask you individually to be nice, and allow me the opportunity to do the same.
I appreciate your sentiment, but you are being an idiot. You are trying a completely unrelated analogy to prove a very weak argument. In case you haven't noticed (which I suspect you have, due to your parroting nature) this is Slashdot. A site on the internet, therefor flamewars are almost a necessity.
If you are the kind of guy that looks back and says '... if he had only asked me nicely
Here is how you keep it professional: Present valid arguments, that are backed by some sort of a factual or respectable opinion, without resorting to very defunct analogies.
As soon as you can't offer a professional argument, I don't offer you anything other than insults and laughing at you. In case you haven't noticed, I don't take this shit seriously. This is my way of venting off steam, testing ideas and debate strategies. When it comes to people who just parrot what everybody else is saying without actually providing any new thought or innovation, I just flame them because it's easier than answering the same questions over and over again. I only offer respect in a debate when the other side can provide a well-reasoned and backed stance.
When I started this thread, I provided several dictionary definitions (and I was actually just joking around) backing that copyright infringement can be interpreted as stealing. Providing a bad analogy doesn't offer anything other than "Slashdot Argument Tactics 101." In case you are keeping track, you don't get college credits for that course. You just get to look like that poor Star Wars Kids, except you don't have the hope of being in Episode 3.
Understand my stance now?
Ya think? If they were to distribute unauthorized reproductions : that would be copyright infringement. Just because a piece of artwork has been reproduced doesn't mean it has been stolen, or even that copyright infringement has occured (I was subtle in making that point, you made it blatant in your attempt to talk smack.)
... you are the one that had your lips planted firmly around Gator's (GAIN) thick veined meatstick a few weeks ago.
Them taking a picture of your room with a picture in it would be considered a derived work. Also, since it was within plain view (outside of peeping tom laws) it wouldn't be copyright infringement. It wouldn't be, even if they distributed reproductions. You are just an idiot.
Wow - at the rate you are standing up for the RIAA, I would almost guess you for a corporate plant. Wait a minute, I know you
Because I stand up for copyright law I have to be a corporate sell-out? Because I say that Gator fully discloses everythign that they do, that means they aren't spyware? Right.
When you grow up, you will understand that there is a difference between standing up for what you say and believe in and being a cock-sucker. Right now you are just a Slashbot parroting cock-sucker.
When you actually produce some real copyrighted works, you will feel different. You know, like an adult.
The issue here is that under due process the RIAA should have to show "reasonable cause" to a court before being able to subpoena private customer information.
Why not? They did show reasonable cause. They said, "These IP addresses are sharing these files, at these times and we would like to subpoena the information to protect our copyrighted property values."
Why is that wrong? That's what subpoenas are for! It's for finding private personal/customer information to pursue legal action or obtain a witness.
Certainly, I wouldn't try it now, but if precedence says this is ok, I can file just the same request. And the ISPs will just have to bend over and give me the information. Is that a good thing?
You need to understand that they are getting the information from logs on the P2P networks, on how much data is stored and being shared. It's not as if they are just randomly picking IP addresses out of thin air.
Wow. You have just proved yourself to have the comprehension of a goldfish. Your entire lack of ability to provide a counter-argument is astounding. You resort to amazingly inaccurate and largely stupid analogies to try to support your flawed understanding of the argument at hand. Your absence of any breadth of knowledge leaves one wondering how you managed to actually post a response like this.
Let me show you how wrong you are.
If someone stands outside your window and takes a picture of the painting you have in your living room they have not stolen from you.
This isn't even copyright infringement. In fact, you couldn't pursue civil action against someone for this. You could file a disturbance report, citing peeping tom laws. This is very different than unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials, which is what we're discussing.
They have not stolen from Patrick Nagel (I am assuming you have good taste in art.)
If the person who purchased a Nagel painting were to make exact duplicates and distribute those for free, are they stealing?
They have no doubt committed some moral and possibly legal infractions but stealing isn't one of them.
How do you get up in the morning? I mean, seriously.
Just to get this out of the way : if someone snaps YOUR picture with a camera - that is not kidnapping either.
Your parents must hang their head in shame.
If someone burns me a CD and sends it to me, THAT is distribution. If I walk over to his house and I take it while he isn't there ... he didn't distribute a thing.
It is if he put a sign up on his wall that said, "Please come in and take a CD, they are free!"
Aside from that, what the hell is your point?
No, the person assumed the right of ownership, they did not acquire it. This is a critical difference. If they had acquired right of ownership then the songs would become their own copyright and they could distribute them as they wished.
The person acted as an ostensible authority in the distribution of the object in question. Because they were not assumed to be a reasonable authority, they attempted to usurp ownership and act in a role in which only the owner of the copyright could act. Therefor, they had acquired all of the things that separate a non-owner and an owner, gaining ownership. In other words, ownership of a copyright entitles you do distribution authority, so the difference between an owner and non-owner is only in the abilities to distribute.
Isn't amateur logic just hilarious?
It is. I'm not sure if anybody realizes that I'm joking.
Don't mean to be trite, but there are lessons in copyright law that dictionary.com can't teach.
I agree with you. I'm not talking about law, but terminology. From a legal definition, there is no way it could be theft. It is just fun to use definitions to prove things. The law has lots of different definitions of words than what is used in common day speaking.
From command layman terms, it's easy to extrapolate that P2P usage can be stealing. I think the whole thing is bunk, and just enjoy getting the nest riled up a bit.
That's why copyright infringement is not stealing: the owner is not deprived of the the copyright or music or whatever.
That's also why it's civil and not criminal. I was really just having fun, because I know it's possible to prove with dictionary definitions that it is stealing.
I find the whole P2P lawsuits really funny, at other peoples expense.
Sparky, I'm talking about people that are distributing. Not the people downloading.
Keep up with the conversation a bit better, ok?
And in the process, deprived the RIAA of that right! huh? I think what a lot of people are pointing out is that the generally accepted definition of theft requires that the original owner lose ownership of the item.
Yes, but I posted the definitions from the dictionary. The dictionary is usually refered to as a definitive source for the English language. Nowhere did I notice anything about depriving the owner.
That's my point, stealing is not dependant upon depriving the rightful owner of the property. It is just misappropriation of the right of title.