If you don't agree with a law you just "can't" infringe it if the said government can prevent you from doing so. Fortunately there are many many unjust lws that are unenforceable and therefore totally ignored, like this one.
Oh I am quite sure that there are on occasion CEOs who have the high moral standards we classify as "character", The companies themselves have none though, and a CEO change is all that is needed to turn its moral alignment 180 degrees.
I would, and if I wasn't it would be pointless to try and do anything about it anyway. You cannot control information. Nobody can. Once it is out it is out for good.
Obviously they would have to compile and compare to audit, and obviously they shouldn't trust any compiling tool given by the very person being audited...
But then again it would be the fault of those that should be verifying such things. If security is important these checks should be made no matter which manufacturer they choose.
You can't possibly be this naive... US interests brought down four Middle Eastern governments with a fifth on the way, which happens more frequently there than you think.
Martyrdom serves nothing nowadays, because it is too easy to deconstruct martyrs in a World everybody is too eager to think the worst of people, but by all means, keep to your beliefs and be a martyr yourself for all that it is worth.
In our cynical world martyrs don't work anymore. It avails not to sacrifice yourself for the cause. Anonymity is the only real defense against governments these days. And we are best served by efforts to make anonymity more impervious to governments than by martyrs.
Either way, no matter how much technology advances it will always be a limited physical resource of which appropriation can be measured with precision and represents a denial of exactly the same resources to the owner. And no, your original point was not about limited resources, it was about the possibility to apply the concept of theft to abstract property. The example provided, bandwidth, is inapplicable as an example of this "abstract theft", because it is not abstract in the least.
Truth is, there can be no such thing as abstract theft, period, and your wall of text was basically a lot of nonsense based on false premises.
Yes it would be an example of copyright infringement, which is illegal and prone to make you a defendant in a civil lawsuit, which has nothing to do with theft, which is a crime and can put you in jail. Even if you sell copyrighted material in a commercial scale you won't be charged for theft but for selling the stuff, or if you prefer legalese: "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale", which again, although being a crime, is not theft either (there are a few hundreds of crimes involving property besides theft if you are not aware).
Now stop being stubborn, admit you are clueless and go home.
Bandwidth is a physical entity, as explained to you more than once. You rent part of the physical capacity to transfer data, which is limited, very physical, very concrete and very measurable, but you are just too stubborn to even read it, apparently. Therefore there is absolutely nothing abstract in your example.
So it was an example totally unrelated to the subject at hand, which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. The main difference between theft and copyright infringement is that the in the first you are depriving the victim of a known and measurable property by transferring it to your possession, while in the latter you are subtracting nothing and simply undermining his ability to profit in a very indeterminable way, and the "property" is left untouched.
Nope, you do not appropriate anything. To "appropriate" is to take property. In copyright's case the propriety is the "right to lawfully make copies" and you can't acquire this right by copying anything. This is not just semantics it is a deep conceptual and legal difference.
You, in your stunningly ignorance, confuse possession with property. Possession and property are directly related when we are talking about physical goods, on the other hand, possession and property are completely detached when we are talking about copyright for the reasons explained above.
So, no, you are just wrong and too stupid to notice it. By any definition you cannot classify copyright infringement as theft. It may be illegal but it is another infraction that is completely unrelated to theft.
When you buy bandwidth you are buying a service with limited capacity. When you take part of the capacity you actually deprive the seller of this capacity in the same exact proportion. Bandwidth is a physical entity easily measurable and that can actually be stolen. IP can never ever be stolen, no matter how many copies of the idea you make.
Sure by making copies you can undermine the value of the property but in a very indeterminable way and the ownership itself is unaffected no matter how many copies you make. The ownership in this case has nothing to do with the physical possession of copies, unlike your bandwidth example.
The lesson to be learned here is that analogies are always wrong. Try to make arguments without using them and you will see how much clearer the world becomes.
Nope. You can only make a copy. You can never take or appropriate the IP. Here the property is "something" as abstract as the idea that supposedly is owned. You can't take or borrow the property of the idea by coming into the possession of a copy. If that was the case anyone that legally bought a copy would have ownership over the idea because he has a copy. That is just one of the inconveniences of trying to extend ownership to things as intangible as ideas.
Apparently you can't read. Go there and read again until you can fully understand it. It may take a few tries, but if you try hard enough you will get there.
You can't steal ideas, period, but when you start to preach absurd ideas like "intellectual property" you end becoming the hypocrite, as proven here.
And I suggest you follow your own advice and try to put aside enough of your own stupidity to at least try to comprehend what you are reading. Not everything which is given freely is given freely unconditionally.
Slashdot Mirror
If you don't agree with a law you just "can't" infringe it if the said government can prevent you from doing so. Fortunately there are many many unjust lws that are unenforceable and therefore totally ignored, like this one.
Some of them do, due to ignorance, others think that the crusade is good for their careers in itself, regardless of the results.
Oh I am quite sure that there are on occasion CEOs who have the high moral standards we classify as "character", The companies themselves have none though, and a CEO change is all that is needed to turn its moral alignment 180 degrees.
I would, and if I wasn't it would be pointless to try and do anything about it anyway. You cannot control information. Nobody can. Once it is out it is out for good.
Oh, please, go with your psychobabble and your self-righteousness somewhere else.
So?
Oh, another offended Anonymous Coward. How cute.
Obviously they would have to compile and compare to audit, and obviously they shouldn't trust any compiling tool given by the very person being audited...
But then again it would be the fault of those that should be verifying such things. If security is important these checks should be made no matter which manufacturer they choose.
And you certainly have great wisdom and knowledge and are ready to bath us in the light of your unsurpassed righteousness, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
Sorry, but there is absolutely no company in the world that has this thing called "character".
I certainly did.
But US did it earlier, and many many times in the last 5 or so decades. Basically all the governments brought down now were put in place by US.
You can't possibly be this naive... US interests brought down four Middle Eastern governments with a fifth on the way, which happens more frequently there than you think.
Martyrdom serves nothing nowadays, because it is too easy to deconstruct martyrs in a World everybody is too eager to think the worst of people, but by all means, keep to your beliefs and be a martyr yourself for all that it is worth.
In our cynical world martyrs don't work anymore. It avails not to sacrifice yourself for the cause. Anonymity is the only real defense against governments these days. And we are best served by efforts to make anonymity more impervious to governments than by martyrs.
Either way, no matter how much technology advances it will always be a limited physical resource of which appropriation can be measured with precision and represents a denial of exactly the same resources to the owner. And no, your original point was not about limited resources, it was about the possibility to apply the concept of theft to abstract property. The example provided, bandwidth, is inapplicable as an example of this "abstract theft", because it is not abstract in the least.
Truth is, there can be no such thing as abstract theft, period, and your wall of text was basically a lot of nonsense based on false premises.
Yes it would be an example of copyright infringement, which is illegal and prone to make you a defendant in a civil lawsuit, which has nothing to do with theft, which is a crime and can put you in jail. Even if you sell copyrighted material in a commercial scale you won't be charged for theft but for selling the stuff, or if you prefer legalese: "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale", which again, although being a crime, is not theft either (there are a few hundreds of crimes involving property besides theft if you are not aware).
Now stop being stubborn, admit you are clueless and go home.
Exactly, which you can't possibly do with IP. Are you so dense on purpose or are you really this stupid?
Bandwidth is a physical entity, as explained to you more than once. You rent part of the physical capacity to transfer data, which is limited, very physical, very concrete and very measurable, but you are just too stubborn to even read it, apparently. Therefore there is absolutely nothing abstract in your example.
So it was an example totally unrelated to the subject at hand, which adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. The main difference between theft and copyright infringement is that the in the first you are depriving the victim of a known and measurable property by transferring it to your possession, while in the latter you are subtracting nothing and simply undermining his ability to profit in a very indeterminable way, and the "property" is left untouched.
Nope, you do not appropriate anything. To "appropriate" is to take property. In copyright's case the propriety is the "right to lawfully make copies" and you can't acquire this right by copying anything. This is not just semantics it is a deep conceptual and legal difference.
You, in your stunningly ignorance, confuse possession with property. Possession and property are directly related when we are talking about physical goods, on the other hand, possession and property are completely detached when we are talking about copyright for the reasons explained above.
So, no, you are just wrong and too stupid to notice it. By any definition you cannot classify copyright infringement as theft. It may be illegal but it is another infraction that is completely unrelated to theft.
When you buy bandwidth you are buying a service with limited capacity. When you take part of the capacity you actually deprive the seller of this capacity in the same exact proportion. Bandwidth is a physical entity easily measurable and that can actually be stolen. IP can never ever be stolen, no matter how many copies of the idea you make.
Sure by making copies you can undermine the value of the property but in a very indeterminable way and the ownership itself is unaffected no matter how many copies you make. The ownership in this case has nothing to do with the physical possession of copies, unlike your bandwidth example.
The lesson to be learned here is that analogies are always wrong. Try to make arguments without using them and you will see how much clearer the world becomes.
Nope. You can only make a copy. You can never take or appropriate the IP. Here the property is "something" as abstract as the idea that supposedly is owned. You can't take or borrow the property of the idea by coming into the possession of a copy. If that was the case anyone that legally bought a copy would have ownership over the idea because he has a copy. That is just one of the inconveniences of trying to extend ownership to things as intangible as ideas.
Apparently you can't read. Go there and read again until you can fully understand it. It may take a few tries, but if you try hard enough you will get there.
You can't steal ideas, period, but when you start to preach absurd ideas like "intellectual property" you end becoming the hypocrite, as proven here.
And I suggest you follow your own advice and try to put aside enough of your own stupidity to at least try to comprehend what you are reading. Not everything which is given freely is given freely unconditionally.