>If you were going to buy something, but instead >found an illegal way to get the thing you were >going to buy, then you have comitted theft.
Ehh, wouldn't the illegal activity be that "illegal way", whatever it would be called??? Or do you know want to call EVERY illegal activity theft?
Again, the theft part work if it is a physical property and you actually take it, then it is indeed stealing and covered by theft laws. If you get hold of it in whatever other way, it might be illegal but under some other laws and not called theft either. You might buy it from someone you know have stolen it. Then you would be doing an illegal activity which is not theft (sorry, I am not english and don't know the proper english word here) but it would still be illegal. Same if you find a way to copy something. If it is covered by copyright, it would be called copyright infringement and so on.
>if you download something that you did not pay >for (but must be bought in order to aquire it >legally), how is it not stealing?
Because the laws governing copying calls unauthorized copying "copyright infringement". The laws that cover stealing will not apply and does not cover the situation at all!!!
Besides, you "must be bought in order to aquire legally" is simply not correct. If a friend of mine buys a book or a CD with music, he can give it to me (say he doesn't want it any more), I aquired it, legally, yet did not buy it. In addition, in some countries, it would even be OK for that friend to actually copy it to me and it would still not be a copyright infringement.
On the other hand, copyright infringement can still occur even if you don't have to buy or pay anything to quire it. Say someone give away a copyrighted work for free, for example, a guide written to cover a specific game. Copying it and distributing copies of it would STILL be copyright infringement (and stealing by those who says it is the same thing), even if no one was deprived of an income or profit, even if you don't have to pay anything to aquire it, legally, and so on.
So there are a LOT of differneces between stealing and copyright infringement, and yes, in some cases one might feel they they might be one and the same, but for the most part they are not. So why not call it by the proper name and there will be no missunderstanding. If you keep telling people what you said above, anyone considering giving away a book might actually think it is stealing when it clearly is not.
>In this case a theft, or a deprevation of >profits, is experienced by the owner of the >work.
No, the illegal action commited is still copyright infringement. Why do so many try to twist it into something else? You can still not in your case go about to the police and courts charing the other one for theft. Just because it in some cases might be quite similar, does not turn it into something else, so call it by the proper words. Just because a cat in some cases might look exactly like a dog, does not turn the cat miraculously into a dog and there is no reason to start claiming that whe it looks like a dog, it actually IS a dog.
Besides, depriving someone of profit is not illegal at all in itself.
>Most common definitions (in actual laws, as >opposed to dictionaries), include "or use of the >property" in that statement.
Cool, so now we can see people calling the police and charging you for theft??? So one can now be tested under normal criminal laws for stealing? That is probably welcome by some. I would say the courts would laugh at you.
That aside, why not simply call things for their proper word? The illegal action is *copyright infringement*. That is what the laws says and how it works. Just because you might feel that in some cases it might be similar to theft does not change that fact. So why using the wrong terminology?
>Depriving someone of the use of their property >is also considered theft in almost all >jurisdictions.
THat is one of your problems, when copying something, the other STILL has their property since you have created new property in the act of copying.
>Theft does not consist solely of taking a >physical thing from someone so they don't have >it any more. Never has, never will.
Laws regulating theft is about physical things. So deal with it if you want to discuss legal issues. And as I said, why not call it the proper way? Otherwise you WILL end up with situations where the "stealing" similarity does not work no matter how you try to define it.
>I think the arguement for stealing is sound. If >by stealing you imply taking something without >paying for it.
You are not taking it, you are copying it!!!
Besides, with your argumentation, me buying a CD second hand from someone is stealing. Me giving away an old CD is stealing. Me borrowing a CD is stealing. Me taking a chair someone else doesn't want any more is stealing. Me sitting on someone elses chair is stealing. Me asking for directions to the closest store is stealing. Just about anything would be stealing.
>You have deprived the storefront of their >proceeds by not purchasing the music you wanted. >What would you call the above mentioned action?
I would call it copyright infringement. Which is not legal by the way. Why not call things by their proper words????
Remember that depriving someone of income is not illegal or stealing either. In that case me buying a new music CD instead of the book I always wanted (because someone talked me into chaning my mind and not getting the book because it is not good) would suddenly be stealing from the book publisher/store since I suddenly deprived them of an income. Or perghaps it is the CD maker that stole since their action deprived the book seller of an income suddenly.
Why not stick to the laws as they are and what they call/define things. Use proper language and definition and there is no reason for confusion, missonception and so on. What is the point anyway to wanting to call it "stealing" instead of copyright infringement, both are illegal activites anyway. Or perhaps we should start calling murder for theft as well, after all you "stole" or "took" the life of someone else?
Actually they will (or should) care about each individual countries law and implementation of the directive which can actually vary a lot and is not nessecarilly as bad as the DMCA. Some countries have gone much further than the directive requires though while they implemented it, but not all have done (or will do) so.
In a related story, a spokesman for a major newspaper is telling that they are initiating legal action against all their readers:
- Yes, we have found that almost all our readers are stealing from us, and we can't just sit and watch it. Just the other day, I saw a guy buying our newspaper and skipping directly to the sports pages!!! What an obvious crime of theft, skipping the ads and the rest of the paper. Even worse, not even on the sports pages did he read the ads. This is a serious issue costing us millions each year. We are losing big money here.
Inspired by the newspaper, the subway company are also investigating in means to cure the common problem of people stealing while riding the subway. A spokesperson have this to tell:
- Yes, we are seeing it everyday and people seem to have no moral problems at all. Just look at the guy over there running down the stairs to catch the train. Do you think he will stop and read all the adds on the platform before boarding it or do you think he will steal from us jumping right onto the train? I bet he won't even read the adds on the train itself despite having ample time.
- We are actually thinking of making a joint action plan with the town government itself. They have found people steal from them too!! Look around you on the streets, do you see all people stopping reading the adds in various places? Of course not, people simply skip them and steal money from their own town, basically it is tax money being stolen here.
In addition to installing files and updating the registry, you also need to insert the cd-key in the proper form into the correct mpq file. Of course, such a thing is possible through third party programs that can access mpq file archieves so no big deal really.
>If they are sticking to the letter of the EULA, >they must honor ALL of it or NONE of it. There >is always a clause stating what you can do if >you refuse to abide by the EULA.
Ehh, if you don't agree to the EULA, it is of course not in effect for anyone, so it is irellevant what it says, no?
The "problem" (or rather one problem) with the EULA is that most seems to treat them as if they apply even before anyone agree to them, and also apply if you do not agree to it. It is thus irellevant if the EULA says you can get a refund if you don't agree to it, since then there is no agreement and the EULA is void. The same applies to the purchase of the software (before you open/install/whatever). It is claimed that it is not a purchase but a license since the EULA says so, but you have not agreed to it yet, so how can it be in force? And if it is, why would you have to agree to it anyway?
>Sure, you own the disc and the packaging, but >you don't own the work contained on that disc - >any more than you own the McDonald's logo >emblazoned on a super-sized Pepsi.
Yes, you do indeed own a copy of the work on the disc and yes, you do indeed own a copy of the logo. You are confusing owning individual copies and holding the copyright or trademark. It is two separate things and one does not imply the other. So one can indeed own a copy, yet not holding (or owning) the copyright.
As with anything you own (be it a book, a movie, a Pepsi or a hammer, you can do pretty much whatever you want with is, as long as you don't violate any laws in so doing. You can for example (usually) not hit anyone in the head with a hammer, since you might be in violation of laws dealing with assaulting (or even killing) the person you hit in the head. There is no law forbidding you from reselling the hammer, using it to eat (if you figure out a way to do so) or even making a copy of it.
The same applies to your book or movie dvd, you can do pretty much anything you want (typically hitting someone in the head with it would be less problematic, you can still use the dvd as a plate to eat (although it works bad). What you can't do that you could with the hammer, is a few things covered by copyright law, they include making additional copies, spreading them, public performance and a few other things. Everything else you are free to do.
So, apart from confusing owning individual copies and owning the copyright/trademark you really have it backward when it comes to the rights, everything not specifically granted as a right to the copyright holder, anyone can do. The things specific given to the copyright holder are not that many and I already covered the main things above.
Re:Balmer: Research it yourselves.
on
Ballmer on Linux
·
· Score: 1
>Copyrights must be enforced by the copyright >holder lest he or she lose rights.
You are thinking of trademarks. Copyrights doesn't have to be enforced, you still keep it.
>When you buy a DVD you are buying the media AND >the right to watch it.
Why would one need a right to watch it? There is no law saying you need to buy such a thing, nor is there any law saying watching it is an exclusive right to the copyright holder.
>I say this because there are plenty of people >who download a song or even an album
I think that the cases here are for people sharing music, not the ones downloading, that is relatively easier to find than people downloading.
As regarding customers allready comiting copyright infringement, I do download music and it is not uncommon that I own such music allready, I just find it more convenient at time than to convert the music myself.
What should be the proper length for a copyright: -Information should be free... no copyrights -1-10 years -10-20 years -20-30 years -30-50 years -50-100 years -100+ years -Life -Life + (1-50 years) -Life + (over 50 years)
If one believe that some copyright is nessecary to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", the the proper answer would be whatever is nessecary and not any more. Claiming that a life time is not nessecary seems strange, so most alternatives of "life + X" seems strage. On the other hand, if someone dies the next day, what then? Depends on if one want copyright to be possible to inherit. A fixed time is probably best though. So how much is needed? Is 10 years enough for most cases? What if you pick 50 years, what would those 40 extra years allow the copyright holder that he can't achieve in the first 10 years which in addition is more valuable for progress than allowing everyone to use the work? Personally I would say that a timeframe of 5-15 years is far more than needed for most cases.
>Oh, and just to put that definitional quibble to >rest: "to steal" is defined as "to take or >appropriate without right or leave and with >intent to keep or make use of wrongfully." To >appropriate without right with intent to make >use of wrongfully. That sounds EXACTLY like >copyright infringement.
Great, we can now get rid of all copyright laws since they are just a duplicate of laws about theft!
>And what you're taking away is the money they >should have received for you purchasing their >product. But maybe you'd like to semanticize >that to 'un-buying' things?:/
Cool, I gave a friend a book the other day that I had allready read. It seems he is now a thief since he has payed nothing (neither to me nor to the publisher/author).
Besides, denying someone some income is NOT illegal in itself.
The very reason we have copyright laws and don't just rely on normal laws for thefts is because there IS a big difference. So why not call things the proper way?
Doesn't this mean that just having the thought of agreeing makes you bound by the contract? Sure, hard to prove but still? Also, what type of "action" is allowed? For example, me sending you a note that if you walk on the left side of the street to going to work to morrow, you agree.... Does the fact that you walk on the left side makes you agree to it? That can lead to absurd situations.
I was actually only commenting (or asking about) what persmissions in the EULA you actually need to agree tom that is, what is GIVEN in the EULA that you don't allready have. I was not commenting on the similarities of a EULA and a GPL or if they are contracts or not.
>A contract in the U.S. generally requires at >least two parties of sufficient mental capacity, >mutual assent, terms definate enough to be >enforced, possibly a signed writing depending on >the subject of the contract.
A question about the mutual assent and how it works in the US. When and how is the mutual assent determined? When I studied contract law here in Sweden, one of the requirements for a contract was that the assent (done on an offer) actually reached the one making the offer.
That is, it is not enough to simply think in your head that you agree, it is not enough to write it down, or even to send it away, as long as the agreement has not reach the other part, you can intercept it and void it and there will never have been a contract.
This is interesting in cases of EULA for example since very often the agreement does not reach the other part (the software company) and a computer program is not a legal entity that can enter into agreements (or work on behalf of the software company).
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you view it), copyright does not give the holder the right to "full usage". It only give the holder the right to a few "uses" which are mainly copying, distribution and public performance. That is it.
Theft is a bad analogy since there are many cases were you for example "take" something (like a possible bussiness revenue) that is not illegal and also many cases were you do not take anything (for example some type of copying something were you have allready bought a copy of it) that is illegal despite nothing at all being taken.
By that reasoning, me giving away a book I have read is stealing (I guess the one I give the book would be the thief). So would all second hand market be. Actually, me selling a car to someone would be stealing as well, since the car manufacturer/designer/creator doesn't get money. Heck, I got an old car from my father last year, I guess I am now a thief!!!
Slashdot Mirror
>If you were going to buy something, but instead
>found an illegal way to get the thing you were
>going to buy, then you have comitted theft.
Ehh, wouldn't the illegal activity be that "illegal way", whatever it would be called??? Or do you know want to call EVERY illegal activity theft?
Again, the theft part work if it is a physical property and you actually take it, then it is indeed stealing and covered by theft laws. If you get hold of it in whatever other way, it might be illegal but under some other laws and not called theft either. You might buy it from someone you know have stolen it. Then you would be doing an illegal activity which is not theft (sorry, I am not english and don't know the proper english word here) but it would still be illegal. Same if you find a way to copy something. If it is covered by copyright, it would be called copyright infringement and so on.
>if you download something that you did not pay
>for (but must be bought in order to aquire it
>legally), how is it not stealing?
Because the laws governing copying calls unauthorized copying "copyright infringement". The laws that cover stealing will not apply and does not cover the situation at all!!!
Besides, you "must be bought in order to aquire legally" is simply not correct. If a friend of mine buys a book or a CD with music, he can give it to me (say he doesn't want it any more), I aquired it, legally, yet did not buy it. In addition, in some countries, it would even be OK for that friend to actually copy it to me and it would still not be a copyright infringement.
On the other hand, copyright infringement can still occur even if you don't have to buy or pay anything to quire it. Say someone give away a copyrighted work for free, for example, a guide written to cover a specific game. Copying it and distributing copies of it would STILL be copyright infringement (and stealing by those who says it is the same thing), even if no one was deprived of an income or profit, even if you don't have to pay anything to aquire it, legally, and so on.
So there are a LOT of differneces between stealing and copyright infringement, and yes, in some cases one might feel they they might be one and the same, but for the most part they are not. So why not call it by the proper name and there will be no missunderstanding. If you keep telling people what you said above, anyone considering giving away a book might actually think it is stealing when it clearly is not.
>In this case a theft, or a deprevation of
>profits, is experienced by the owner of the
>work.
No, the illegal action commited is still copyright infringement. Why do so many try to twist it into something else? You can still not in your case go about to the police and courts charing the other one for theft. Just because it in some cases might be quite similar, does not turn it into something else, so call it by the proper words. Just because a cat in some cases might look exactly like a dog, does not turn the cat miraculously into a dog and there is no reason to start claiming that whe it looks like a dog, it actually IS a dog.
Besides, depriving someone of profit is not illegal at all in itself.
>Most common definitions (in actual laws, as
>opposed to dictionaries), include "or use of the
>property" in that statement.
Cool, so now we can see people calling the police and charging you for theft??? So one can now be tested under normal criminal laws for stealing? That is probably welcome by some. I would say the courts would laugh at you.
That aside, why not simply call things for their proper word? The illegal action is *copyright infringement*. That is what the laws says and how it works. Just because you might feel that in some cases it might be similar to theft does not change that fact. So why using the wrong terminology?
>Depriving someone of the use of their property
>is also considered theft in almost all
>jurisdictions.
THat is one of your problems, when copying something, the other STILL has their property since you have created new property in the act of copying.
>Theft does not consist solely of taking a
>physical thing from someone so they don't have
>it any more. Never has, never will.
Laws regulating theft is about physical things. So deal with it if you want to discuss legal issues. And as I said, why not call it the proper way? Otherwise you WILL end up with situations where the "stealing" similarity does not work no matter how you try to define it.
>I think the arguement for stealing is sound. If
>by stealing you imply taking something without
>paying for it.
You are not taking it, you are copying it!!!
Besides, with your argumentation, me buying a CD second hand from someone is stealing. Me giving away an old CD is stealing. Me borrowing a CD is stealing. Me taking a chair someone else doesn't want any more is stealing. Me sitting on someone elses chair is stealing. Me asking for directions to the closest store is stealing. Just about anything would be stealing.
>You have deprived the storefront of their
>proceeds by not purchasing the music you wanted.
>What would you call the above mentioned action?
I would call it copyright infringement. Which is not legal by the way. Why not call things by their proper words????
Remember that depriving someone of income is not illegal or stealing either. In that case me buying a new music CD instead of the book I always wanted (because someone talked me into chaning my mind and not getting the book because it is not good) would suddenly be stealing from the book publisher/store since I suddenly deprived them of an income. Or perghaps it is the CD maker that stole since their action deprived the book seller of an income suddenly.
Why not stick to the laws as they are and what they call/define things. Use proper language and definition and there is no reason for confusion, missonception and so on. What is the point anyway to wanting to call it "stealing" instead of copyright infringement, both are illegal activites anyway. Or perhaps we should start calling murder for theft as well, after all you "stole" or "took" the life of someone else?
Actually they will (or should) care about each individual countries law and implementation of the directive which can actually vary a lot and is not nessecarilly as bad as the DMCA. Some countries have gone much further than the directive requires though while they implemented it, but not all have done (or will do) so.
>But thanks to the DMCA this is exactly what
>they're *not* going to do.
But thanks to reading the article, one realise it was in the Netherlands and that they will *not* care about the DMCA.
In a related story, a spokesman for a major newspaper is telling that they are initiating legal action against all their readers:
- Yes, we have found that almost all our readers are stealing from us, and we can't just sit and watch it. Just the other day, I saw a guy buying our newspaper and skipping directly to the sports pages!!! What an obvious crime of theft, skipping the ads and the rest of the paper. Even worse, not even on the sports pages did he read the ads. This is a serious issue costing us millions each year. We are losing big money here.
Inspired by the newspaper, the subway company are also investigating in means to cure the common problem of people stealing while riding the subway. A spokesperson have this to tell:
- Yes, we are seeing it everyday and people seem to have no moral problems at all. Just look at the guy over there running down the stairs to catch the train. Do you think he will stop and read all the adds on the platform before boarding it or do you think he will steal from us jumping right onto the train? I bet he won't even read the adds on the train itself despite having ample time.
- We are actually thinking of making a joint action plan with the town government itself. They have found people steal from them too!! Look around you on the streets, do you see all people stopping reading the adds in various places? Of course not, people simply skip them and steal money from their own town, basically it is tax money being stolen here.
In addition to installing files and updating the registry, you also need to insert the cd-key in the proper form into the correct mpq file. Of course, such a thing is possible through third party programs that can access mpq file archieves so no big deal really.
>Uhm, the licences usually say "If you disagree,
> stop now and return the software for a refund".
But if you don't agree to it, it is quite irrelevant what it says, right?
>If they are sticking to the letter of the EULA,
>they must honor ALL of it or NONE of it. There
>is always a clause stating what you can do if
>you refuse to abide by the EULA.
Ehh, if you don't agree to the EULA, it is of course not in effect for anyone, so it is irellevant what it says, no?
The "problem" (or rather one problem) with the EULA is that most seems to treat them as if they apply even before anyone agree to them, and also apply if you do not agree to it. It is thus irellevant if the EULA says you can get a refund if you don't agree to it, since then there is no agreement and the EULA is void. The same applies to the purchase of the software (before you open/install/whatever). It is claimed that it is not a purchase but a license since the EULA says so, but you have not agreed to it yet, so how can it be in force? And if it is, why would you have to agree to it anyway?
>Sure, you own the disc and the packaging, but
>you don't own the work contained on that disc -
>any more than you own the McDonald's logo
>emblazoned on a super-sized Pepsi.
Yes, you do indeed own a copy of the work on the disc and yes, you do indeed own a copy of the logo. You are confusing owning individual copies and holding the copyright or trademark. It is two separate things and one does not imply the other. So one can indeed own a copy, yet not holding (or owning) the copyright.
As with anything you own (be it a book, a movie, a Pepsi or a hammer, you can do pretty much whatever you want with is, as long as you don't violate any laws in so doing. You can for example (usually) not hit anyone in the head with a hammer, since you might be in violation of laws dealing with assaulting (or even killing) the person you hit in the head. There is no law forbidding you from reselling the hammer, using it to eat (if you figure out a way to do so) or even making a copy of it.
The same applies to your book or movie dvd, you can do pretty much anything you want (typically hitting someone in the head with it would be less problematic, you can still use the dvd as a plate to eat (although it works bad). What you can't do that you could with the hammer, is a few things covered by copyright law, they include making additional copies, spreading them, public performance and a few other things. Everything else you are free to do.
So, apart from confusing owning individual copies and owning the copyright/trademark you really have it backward when it comes to the rights, everything not specifically granted as a right to the copyright holder, anyone can do. The things specific given to the copyright holder are not that many and I already covered the main things above.
>Copyrights must be enforced by the copyright
>holder lest he or she lose rights.
You are thinking of trademarks. Copyrights doesn't have to be enforced, you still keep it.
>When you buy a DVD you are buying the media AND
>the right to watch it.
Why would one need a right to watch it? There is no law saying you need to buy such a thing, nor is there any law saying watching it is an exclusive right to the copyright holder.
That would depend on if you share the folder you download too. I don't for example.
>I say this because there are plenty of people
>who download a song or even an album
I think that the cases here are for people sharing music, not the ones downloading, that is relatively easier to find than people downloading.
As regarding customers allready comiting copyright infringement, I do download music and it is not uncommon that I own such music allready, I just find it more convenient at time than to convert the music myself.
What should be the proper length for a copyright:
-Information should be free... no copyrights
-1-10 years
-10-20 years
-20-30 years
-30-50 years
-50-100 years
-100+ years
-Life
-Life + (1-50 years)
-Life + (over 50 years)
If one believe that some copyright is nessecary to "promote the progress of science and useful arts", the the proper answer would be whatever is nessecary and not any more. Claiming that a life time is not nessecary seems strange, so most alternatives of "life + X" seems strage. On the other hand, if someone dies the next day, what then? Depends on if one want copyright to be possible to inherit. A fixed time is probably best though. So how much is needed? Is 10 years enough for most cases? What if you pick 50 years, what would those 40 extra years allow the copyright holder that he can't achieve in the first 10 years which in addition is more valuable for progress than allowing everyone to use the work? Personally I would say that a timeframe of 5-15 years is far more than needed for most cases.
>Oh, and just to put that definitional quibble to
>rest: "to steal" is defined as "to take or
>appropriate without right or leave and with
>intent to keep or make use of wrongfully." To
>appropriate without right with intent to make
>use of wrongfully. That sounds EXACTLY like
>copyright infringement.
Great, we can now get rid of all copyright laws since they are just a duplicate of laws about theft!
>And what you're taking away is the money they :/
>should have received for you purchasing their
>product. But maybe you'd like to semanticize
>that to 'un-buying' things?
Cool, I gave a friend a book the other day that I had allready read. It seems he is now a thief since he has payed nothing (neither to me nor to the publisher/author).
Besides, denying someone some income is NOT illegal in itself.
The very reason we have copyright laws and don't just rely on normal laws for thefts is because there IS a big difference. So why not call things the proper way?
That is probably why the article says "petabytes"!
Doesn't this mean that just having the thought of agreeing makes you bound by the contract? Sure, hard to prove but still? Also, what type of "action" is allowed? For example, me sending you a note that if you walk on the left side of the street to going to work to morrow, you agree.... Does the fact that you walk on the left side makes you agree to it? That can lead to absurd situations.
I was actually only commenting (or asking about) what persmissions in the EULA you actually need to agree tom that is, what is GIVEN in the EULA that you don't allready have. I was not commenting on the similarities of a EULA and a GPL or if they are contracts or not.
>A contract in the U.S. generally requires at
>least two parties of sufficient mental capacity,
>mutual assent, terms definate enough to be
>enforced, possibly a signed writing depending on
>the subject of the contract.
A question about the mutual assent and how it works in the US. When and how is the mutual assent determined? When I studied contract law here in Sweden, one of the requirements for a contract was that the assent (done on an offer) actually reached the one making the offer.
That is, it is not enough to simply think in your head that you agree, it is not enough to write it down, or even to send it away, as long as the agreement has not reach the other part, you can intercept it and void it and there will never have been a contract.
This is interesting in cases of EULA for example since very often the agreement does not reach the other part (the software company) and a computer program is not a legal entity that can enter into agreements (or work on behalf of the software company).
Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you view it), copyright does not give the holder the right to "full usage". It only give the holder the right to a few "uses" which are mainly copying, distribution and public performance. That is it.
Theft is a bad analogy since there are many cases were you for example "take" something (like a possible bussiness revenue) that is not illegal and also many cases were you do not take anything (for example some type of copying something were you have allready bought a copy of it) that is illegal despite nothing at all being taken.
>You received something for nothing.
By that reasoning, me giving away a book I have read is stealing (I guess the one I give the book would be the thief). So would all second hand market be. Actually, me selling a car to someone would be stealing as well, since the car manufacturer/designer/creator doesn't get money. Heck, I got an old car from my father last year, I guess I am now a thief!!!