Guile or trickery are not required. Theft is simply the taking of something tat one does not have any lawful permission to take. Period. Anything more than that is just specious rationalization . If you reallywant to bring up deprivations, I have already explained what copyright violation (for many practical pulses irrevocably) deprives for the rights-holder: The *value* of those rights which is maintained only so long aas people voluntarily respect them.. Of course if you want to argue that people ought to have no obligation to respect such rights, then you are a copyright abolitionist, which is another matter entirely.
If 30% of the calls to 911 were legitimate emergencies, what percentage of those emergencies would have been reported as promptly if there had been a requirement that a phone used to call 911 only be from a registered phone? If that percentage is not very high, then it's my opinion that they may have to simply factor in such non-emergencies into the "cost of business" as it were.
Of course, if that percentage actually works out to be something quite high, then I don't really see a huge problem with it.
Those rights, however, have a value to them.... a value which is diminished each and every time those rights are deprived. It is that value they are *actually* losing, and in fact can never fully recover. That this value happens to be valueless to the pirate is irrelevant.
I'm not "sneaking" the word theft in there.... when somebody takes something that they have no lawful permission to take, it *IS* theft... plain and simple. Some people don't like that word because theft implies a sense of morality to it, and because most people like to think of themselves as moral, and of course doing immoral things would make an otherwise moral person feel guilty. Since they don't really feel guilty about piracy, they conclude that it can't actually really be theft in the first place. There's a name for that... It's called circular reasoning.
1. I copy a CD borrowed from a friend. The studio still has as many copies of the album as they had before.
What the studio does *NOT* have in this case is precisely as much exclusivity to control who is allowed to copy that content as they would have had if you had not made the copy... since in this case, you would have done so without permission, costing them a measure of the exclusivity of control that they were lawfully supposed to possess. It's a right they may still technically always have, buts its value is still measured in what amount of control they have to actually exercise they right... and again, "exclusive" means nobody else is doing it, so it stands to reason that if anyone else is, then they don't really have that exclusivity... even if they still supposedly have that right on paper. In practice the only exclusivity that the consumer can lawfully deprive the copyright holder of is in the realm of copies that would be considered fair use, or fair dealing, which are typically for the personal and private use of the person that made the copy, and not for any form of public usage, whether it is commercial or not (publicly shared folders on one's personal hard drive, for example, particularly if they are shared outside of one's own household, would qualify as public use, even not commercial use, and copyrighted content in such a location may well be infringing if one has not received any permission to make copies for public use).
And if the cable company did not disconnect the cable after I cancelled the service, then I sure can watch TV without paying.
I was referring to if you take it upon yourself to hook up your own cable, actually... which is how cable theft generally occurs... or else using a neighbor's paid cable line, either with or without their knowledge.
And yet another "it's not tangible, so therefore it has no value" excuse. I think I already called this in my original post above as a predicted response by people who can't think of original arguments and are only left with specious ones.
Copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right of the copyright holder to determine who is allowed to copy (lit. "the right to copy"), and if someone does that without permission, by the very definition of exclusive, those rights are being deprived. One is no less stealing them from a copyright holder by committing piracy than a person who gets cable television without paying for it is stealing from the cable company.
Whether the person being stolen from will ever happen to notice what is being stolen is irrelevant.
Plain and simple, stealing is taking something... anything... without permission.
If by "scarce" you mean of finite quantity, then it is.....a copyright holder is supposed to have exclusivity to control who can copy a work, and since "exclusive" means that nobody else is doing it, by very definition the degree of exclusivity that the copyright holder otherwise would have had when copyrright infringement occurs is compromised. Theoretically, that exclusivity would only be completely gone when everyone in the world had a copy of the work, but in practice, the value that is associated with the exclusivity is such that it would be considered worthless long before then.
The exclusive right to copy a work has *ALWAYS* existed.... if the creator doesn't publish in the first place, then their exclusivity on controlling the work is entirely natural. Before the printing press, exclusivity on controlling who could copy a work was a fortuitous side-effect of the fact that copying something was so labour-intensive and error prone, that it was not generally in would-be pirate's best interests to pursue it. As copying got easier after the printing press, some mechanism for keeping that exclusivity was needed, even it could only operate within a legal framework, and operate so long as people respected that law... which is what led to the creation of copyright.
It is no more wrong to call piracy theft than it is to call it the same if you tap into your neighbor's cable so that you can get cable without paying for it. Either way you are taking something that you have no legally recognized right to take. In the case of cable, it's the broadcasted content itself, and in the case of copyright violation, it's the exclusive right to dictate who may copy the work that the rights holder is supposed to have (ie, copyright literally means "the right to copy"). Since "exclusive" by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, when somebody copies a copyrighted work without permission, they are actually depriving the lawful rights holder of some measure of those rights.
So yes... it is theft. Suggesting that it isn't is just a specious rationalization used by people who don't want to feel guilty about it.
You appear to be stuck on the notion that if copyright violation on a movie, for example, were theft, that it is the movie itself that was being allegedly stolen. It's not. It's the exclusivity that is supposed to be part and parcel of what copyright actually is. If somebody else is copying without the copyright holder's permission, then by the very definition of "exclusive", the pirate is depriving the rights holder of some measure of what was legally recognized as their property, whether or not this property is tangible.
Actually, you do, or at least some amount of it, when it comes to copyrighted works.
Copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right to say who is allowed copy. If someone else is copying without permission, then some percentage of that exclusivity is compromised, and actually *lost* to the copyright holder.
Since "good" refers to something physical, I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.
This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value. Your time, for example, is worth money both to yourself and your employer.
Steal is still the right word... it just so happens that what is being stolen when someone infringes on copyright is of little to no value to the thief, and so they do not even necessarily realize that it has been taken... In my experience, once a pirate has been informed on the matter and *do* realize what they are taking, they will typically make a moral judgement on the matter that goes something to the effect of "oh, well that isn't tangible, so it doesn't count", or else advocate copyright abolition by saying "copyright holders shouldn't be allowed such control", or something still suggest something vague like "well that shouldn't matter". None of this considers the fact that what was stolen was (typically, or else they would not utilize copyright in the first place and would put their work in the public domain) genuinely valued by the copyright holder and was still being taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.
Copyright infringement is theft for the same reason that using your neighbor's cable to get cable in your house as well without paying for it is called cable theft, whether it's with or without your neighbor's permission. Either way, it's taking something that one does not have any legally recognized right to take.
Being man-made is what makes it "artificial"... whether you want to call "it" intelligent or not. If it is considered intelligent, then by definition, it is AI.
And as I said above... what can appear as intelligence to one person can be another person's idea of coincidence or just a smoke-and-mirrors parlor trick.
An artificial reproduction of some kind of intelligence, whether or not that intelligence exists naturally, is by its very definition artificial intelligence, because it is man-made. Something that is artificial is not inherently any less of a genuine article than something that it is not... it is just not something that was produced by nature. The notion that an artificial intelligence might someday be utterly indistinguishable from natural intelligence does not alter that.
Also, I suggested that the entire reason we are dilly-dallying over whether we are getting any closer to AI is because the word 'intelligence' isn't very well defined in the first place. In many cases one person's idea of intelligence simply amounts to another person's idea of a parlor trick. We need a line to be drawn somewhere because without one, we will be arguing forever... even if we were to achieve it, we would never know because we are too busy arguing over what constitutes it.
The problem with the AI goalposts that you notice is because it hinges on a term which itself is not very solidly defined - Intelligence. Some would say animals aren't intelligent because they can't speak. Some would say that monkeys aren't intelligent because you can't teach one to play chess.
Fuck the term 'artificial'.... first define what intelligence is and a clearly defined way to identify it where it exists, one that is objective and unambiguous. Then, when something can do whatever intelligence does by something that is man-made (ie, "artificial"), then you have AI. Simple.
I predict that as heat-death approaches, time will slow down, and by the point of heat death, time will be at a complete standstill, much like approaching the event horizon of a black hole, so from its own frame of reference, the universe will actually seem to last forever.
Point being that when you strap the crate down, it won't go flying anywhere. In the event of a serious accident, the animal may get flung around the inside of its crate, but this will not endanger the lives of anyone else in the vehicle. Most importantly, by not being free to roam the vehicle, the animal cannot interfere with normal vehicle operations.
Slashdot Mirror
Guile or trickery are not required. Theft is simply the taking of something tat one does not have any lawful permission to take. Period. Anything more than that is just specious rationalization . If you reallywant to bring up deprivations, I have already explained what copyright violation (for many practical pulses irrevocably) deprives for the rights-holder: The *value* of those rights which is maintained only so long aas people voluntarily respect them.. Of course if you want to argue that people ought to have no obligation to respect such rights, then you are a copyright abolitionist, which is another matter entirely.
If 30% of the calls to 911 were legitimate emergencies, what percentage of those emergencies would have been reported as promptly if there had been a requirement that a phone used to call 911 only be from a registered phone? If that percentage is not very high, then it's my opinion that they may have to simply factor in such non-emergencies into the "cost of business" as it were.
Of course, if that percentage actually works out to be something quite high, then I don't really see a huge problem with it.
Kind of like how back before cell phones were ubiquitous, you couldn't generally run down who the heck made a call to 911 from a pay-phone, you mean?
True... but with a phone with an active account, the caller can be held accountable for making a non-emergency call to 911.
Those rights, however, have a value to them.... a value which is diminished each and every time those rights are deprived. It is that value they are *actually* losing, and in fact can never fully recover. That this value happens to be valueless to the pirate is irrelevant.
I'm not "sneaking" the word theft in there.... when somebody takes something that they have no lawful permission to take, it *IS* theft... plain and simple. Some people don't like that word because theft implies a sense of morality to it, and because most people like to think of themselves as moral, and of course doing immoral things would make an otherwise moral person feel guilty. Since they don't really feel guilty about piracy, they conclude that it can't actually really be theft in the first place. There's a name for that... It's called circular reasoning.
What the studio does *NOT* have in this case is precisely as much exclusivity to control who is allowed to copy that content as they would have had if you had not made the copy... since in this case, you would have done so without permission, costing them a measure of the exclusivity of control that they were lawfully supposed to possess. It's a right they may still technically always have, buts its value is still measured in what amount of control they have to actually exercise they right... and again, "exclusive" means nobody else is doing it, so it stands to reason that if anyone else is, then they don't really have that exclusivity... even if they still supposedly have that right on paper. In practice the only exclusivity that the consumer can lawfully deprive the copyright holder of is in the realm of copies that would be considered fair use, or fair dealing, which are typically for the personal and private use of the person that made the copy, and not for any form of public usage, whether it is commercial or not (publicly shared folders on one's personal hard drive, for example, particularly if they are shared outside of one's own household, would qualify as public use, even not commercial use, and copyrighted content in such a location may well be infringing if one has not received any permission to make copies for public use).
I was referring to if you take it upon yourself to hook up your own cable, actually... which is how cable theft generally occurs... or else using a neighbor's paid cable line, either with or without their knowledge.
And yet another "it's not tangible, so therefore it has no value" excuse. I think I already called this in my original post above as a predicted response by people who can't think of original arguments and are only left with specious ones.
Copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right of the copyright holder to determine who is allowed to copy (lit. "the right to copy"), and if someone does that without permission, by the very definition of exclusive, those rights are being deprived. One is no less stealing them from a copyright holder by committing piracy than a person who gets cable television without paying for it is stealing from the cable company.
Whether the person being stolen from will ever happen to notice what is being stolen is irrelevant.
Plain and simple, stealing is taking something... anything... without permission.
If by "scarce" you mean of finite quantity, then it is.....a copyright holder is supposed to have exclusivity to control who can copy a work, and since "exclusive" means that nobody else is doing it, by very definition the degree of exclusivity that the copyright holder otherwise would have had when copyrright infringement occurs is compromised. Theoretically, that exclusivity would only be completely gone when everyone in the world had a copy of the work, but in practice, the value that is associated with the exclusivity is such that it would be considered worthless long before then.
Illegal cable connection: one source - the cable company
internet movie pirating: one source - the copyright holder.
Who you get the cable from or where you download the movie from is immaterial with regards to who one is taking something from.
Okay.... I'll have to give you that one.
The exclusive right to copy a work has *ALWAYS* existed.... if the creator doesn't publish in the first place, then their exclusivity on controlling the work is entirely natural. Before the printing press, exclusivity on controlling who could copy a work was a fortuitous side-effect of the fact that copying something was so labour-intensive and error prone, that it was not generally in would-be pirate's best interests to pursue it. As copying got easier after the printing press, some mechanism for keeping that exclusivity was needed, even it could only operate within a legal framework, and operate so long as people respected that law... which is what led to the creation of copyright.
It is no more wrong to call piracy theft than it is to call it the same if you tap into your neighbor's cable so that you can get cable without paying for it. Either way you are taking something that you have no legally recognized right to take. In the case of cable, it's the broadcasted content itself, and in the case of copyright violation, it's the exclusive right to dictate who may copy the work that the rights holder is supposed to have (ie, copyright literally means "the right to copy"). Since "exclusive" by definition, means that nobody else is doing it, when somebody copies a copyrighted work without permission, they are actually depriving the lawful rights holder of some measure of those rights.
So yes... it is theft. Suggesting that it isn't is just a specious rationalization used by people who don't want to feel guilty about it.
You appear to be stuck on the notion that if copyright violation on a movie, for example, were theft, that it is the movie itself that was being allegedly stolen. It's not. It's the exclusivity that is supposed to be part and parcel of what copyright actually is. If somebody else is copying without the copyright holder's permission, then by the very definition of "exclusive", the pirate is depriving the rights holder of some measure of what was legally recognized as their property, whether or not this property is tangible.
Actually, you do, or at least some amount of it, when it comes to copyrighted works.
Copyright is supposed to be the exclusive right to say who is allowed copy. If someone else is copying without permission, then some percentage of that exclusivity is compromised, and actually *lost* to the copyright holder.
Since "good" refers to something physical, I see you've decided to respond with the predicted "it's not tangible, so therefore it doesn't count" excuse.
This completely ignores the fact that things do not have to be tangible to be considered to have a measurable value. Your time, for example, is worth money both to yourself and your employer.
Steal is still the right word... it just so happens that what is being stolen when someone infringes on copyright is of little to no value to the thief, and so they do not even necessarily realize that it has been taken... In my experience, once a pirate has been informed on the matter and *do* realize what they are taking, they will typically make a moral judgement on the matter that goes something to the effect of "oh, well that isn't tangible, so it doesn't count", or else advocate copyright abolition by saying "copyright holders shouldn't be allowed such control", or something still suggest something vague like "well that shouldn't matter". None of this considers the fact that what was stolen was (typically, or else they would not utilize copyright in the first place and would put their work in the public domain) genuinely valued by the copyright holder and was still being taken without permission. The last 3 words in the previous sentence define theft.
Copyright infringement is theft for the same reason that using your neighbor's cable to get cable in your house as well without paying for it is called cable theft, whether it's with or without your neighbor's permission. Either way, it's taking something that one does not have any legally recognized right to take.
Being man-made is what makes it "artificial"... whether you want to call "it" intelligent or not. If it is considered intelligent, then by definition, it is AI.
And as I said above... what can appear as intelligence to one person can be another person's idea of coincidence or just a smoke-and-mirrors parlor trick.
An artificial reproduction of some kind of intelligence, whether or not that intelligence exists naturally, is by its very definition artificial intelligence, because it is man-made. Something that is artificial is not inherently any less of a genuine article than something that it is not... it is just not something that was produced by nature. The notion that an artificial intelligence might someday be utterly indistinguishable from natural intelligence does not alter that.
Also, I suggested that the entire reason we are dilly-dallying over whether we are getting any closer to AI is because the word 'intelligence' isn't very well defined in the first place. In many cases one person's idea of intelligence simply amounts to another person's idea of a parlor trick. We need a line to be drawn somewhere because without one, we will be arguing forever... even if we were to achieve it, we would never know because we are too busy arguing over what constitutes it.
The problem with the AI goalposts that you notice is because it hinges on a term which itself is not very solidly defined - Intelligence. Some would say animals aren't intelligent because they can't speak. Some would say that monkeys aren't intelligent because you can't teach one to play chess.
Fuck the term 'artificial'.... first define what intelligence is and a clearly defined way to identify it where it exists, one that is objective and unambiguous. Then, when something can do whatever intelligence does by something that is man-made (ie, "artificial"), then you have AI. Simple.
So wait... the universe will end in 2038?
I predict that as heat-death approaches, time will slow down, and by the point of heat death, time will be at a complete standstill, much like approaching the event horizon of a black hole, so from its own frame of reference, the universe will actually seem to last forever.
Point being that when you strap the crate down, it won't go flying anywhere. In the event of a serious accident, the animal may get flung around the inside of its crate, but this will not endanger the lives of anyone else in the vehicle. Most importantly, by not being free to roam the vehicle, the animal cannot interfere with normal vehicle operations.
Actually, yes I do... And doing so has even saved my life twice.