somebody's paying those folks in the third world a hell of a lot less than their labor is worth, and they're powerless to do anything about it.
And that's different from how things were 500 years ago?
the human damage of colonialism far outweighs whatever microscopic worth the entire enterprise may have.
It certainly does NOT. Although there were many injustices in the European conquest of the world, on the whole it brought us modernity which has quite nearly improved everything for everyone.
Just consider that today there are 25x as many humans alive as in 1500, each living an average of 20 years longer, and in more comfortable conditions throughout. Places we today call "humanitarian disasters" were just run-of-the-mill brutality a few centuries ago.
There is still an elite-peasant disparity, but the percentage of people making up that elite has gone up.
Q. which resources would you divert and where would you divert them to?
A. Almost anyplace besides spenting $150 million each time the ISS needs a new load of CHON/H2O/O2 (food/water/air).
If you want to keep the money in the space program (instead of any of the many worthy on-planet causes), then focus on building robotic ships that can go to Mars, come back, and erect a nuclear power plant there.
Not only would that pave the way for humans to come live in prepared habitats, but (more importantly), all of the improvements to the fields of AI/robotics/software will have immediately profitable application to life on earth.
a) Sailors in general hardly ever travelled far enough to need it.
b) A solar evaporator is big. The deck of a 1500s galleon has only about enough space to hold evaporators for maybe 15 people- and only if those people are not working strenuously. And if you don't need to do other things on deck.
It's actually healthier to drink raw urine than it is seawater...
No. Submarines never have to travel more than 5 km away from a position where they can shut down, drift, and let the crew wait a week for rescue. Existing manned spaceships go more than 40,000 km distant from any rescue. Any proposed interplanetary rocket would need to survive 3,000,000,000 km from recovery.
And then there's velocity- submarines move what, 30 knots? A rocket needs to survive trips 1000x as fast.
plus the ability to perform most repairs at sea...
That ability actually counts against the submarine's "extremeness". NASA would love it if they could have an extra 20% crew just sitting around waiting for damage-control. (That 20% number is a statistic for the USN as a whole, so it may be lower on subs than surface ships)
But for just sheer competence and excellence of engineering
The issue is the magnitude of the challenge, not the quality of the solution. The space shuttle contains much bad engineering, but that doesn't mean it's problem was easier than what submarines face.
So say I was sailing to America from Europe and dropped you off in the North Atlantic 500+km offshore you'd be able to sustain yourself in the native ocean environment?
Yes- for about 30 hours. Which doesn't sound like much, but is enough for the boat to turn around and recover me, and is 216000 times as long as I'd last on the surface of Mars, but only 1/5696 as long as I'd survive on the American coast.
but we have come a long way technologically
Exactly why the analogies are invalid. Because in 1492, robots weren't even an option.
Wrong. Robots can better deal with many kinds of problems, because they can simply turn off for 10+ hours in a cold, unoxygenated environment and then reboot perfectly fine. Or even just scratch the whole mission, losing 0.3% of the money and without causing a nationwide week of mourning
Yes, and to practice interplanetary travel doesn't require humans on the ships. Once robots have gone to & from Mars a few times, then consider sending an astronaut.
Cheaply obtainable without leaving earth orbit. Or even leaving earth's gravity...
Yes, but putting humans into space now (or anytime in the next 20 years) doesn't help that goal- it only diverts resources from it. Trying to continue manned spaceflight today is equivalent to European explorers reaching for America by swimming west into the Atlantic, rather than heading inland to build an improved technological basis
Combined those are compelling reasons for humanity to engage in space exploration
Yes, but "space exploration" doesn't imply "manned space exploration".
If NASA puts a 30 year moratorium on manned spaceflight, then at the end of that time our space travel technologies will be enormously more advanced than if the same money had been spent on keeping 5 people breathing on the ISS the whole time.
With the success of iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, and the iPod, Apple is laughing all the way to the bank.;)
Uhm, that's basically just one interconnected product there. And since iPod+iTunes is now the most profitable part of Apple, it's hard to justify them remaining an unprofitable computer company with a small sideline in consumer audio.
So long as they don't distribute outside of thier organization
Incorrect. That is a very common myth; one that the FSF has even helped perpetuate.
However, the text of the GPL doesn't contain any exception allowing you to distribute something "inside an organization". If you distribute it at all, it must be under the terms of the GPL, meaning each recipient is allowed to redistribute to whomever he wishes.
(Just imagine for a moment if you purchased a $299 Microsoft product and then gave copies to everyone in your company. I think they'd nail you for unauthorized distribution!)
no obligation to share back thier changes.
Technically, the GPL never requires anyone to "share back"- only to permit those who are given the binaries to obtain & redistribute the source code if they wish. Some licenses did include a "share back" restriction, meaning that the original author must be given a copy of any modification- those licenses were obviously quite unpopular.
in the real world they're almost always disciplined and methodical to the point of anal-retentiveness.
Maybe this is a case of bad news attracting more attention, but in chats with theater air controllers active in the 1999-2002 US/NATO wars, many fighter pilots are gung=ho and anxious to shoot. It's what they've trained for, and once over the battlefield they don't want to come home without using the hard-fought skills. Becoming a fighter pilot is highly competitive- to make it, you have to want it- and I wonder how much "wanting it" means "wanting to bomb people".
Several more fratricide events have been caused by pilot over-agressiveness than have been reported by journalists (and even more near-misses).
Attack helicopter pilots are even more aggressive- beyond whatever personal tendencies they might have, they are vulnerable. Planes are fast and high, while helos are low, slow, and too unstable to bail out. The only projection an apache has from DI is to gun them down first. (The operators of air-defense artillary are vulnerable in the same way, inducing more trigger-happiness)
You are making a circular argument. First you claim that programming is NP hard, so it's easily verifiable. Then here you explain that it's NP because it's easy to verify.
But that's just untrue. Verifying the correctness of nontrivial software is HARD. It's hard to the tune of 2^(memory), which for even a 256k PDA brings you into "heat death of the universe" durations.
If you think that it's as hard to check code for correctness as it is to write the code in the first place, you can't be a developer, or you're not thinking clearly.
That crack makes it seem like YOU'RE not really a developer... at least not of any kind of software that would lend insight on national security demands.
A good design jumps out at you when you see it,
Wrong. A secure design does NOT jump out at you. Subtle flaws in rarely-exercised capabilities aren't easy to spot. Are you claiming that you can just glance over the SSH source code and tell me that I should never use the "-1" commandline option, because that'll invoke a predictable CRC sequence?
History has proven you wrong. The amount of published software that has turned out to be flawed has empirically demonstrated (as if there was any doubt) that perfection is harder than adequacy.
The ability to quickly reboot is a standard feature of most all military field computers. Warfighters do it VERY frequently. Even the avionics computer of a modern fighter can be rebooted in midair. For a g-g gunnery computer to stay up for even 24 hours is not likely.
But after 36-48 hours of heavy real-life usuage,
Good thing that normal military tests I've observed last for 200-400 hours, then! The SUTs run longer in on the test range than they will in the field...
It would pass verification and testing without fail everytime.
The word "verification" has a special meaning for military software-types. It requires that the code (source code AND binary) has gone through such an exhaustive correctness analysis that the budget for originally writing the program can often be exceeded.
PS. Everything I've just said has been violated by the horrendously dysfunctional F-22 Raptor project. The Pentagon had better delay that plane a few years to go back and test it right.
Why pay for music when I can get it for free? Why pay for movies when I can get them for free?
The concept is basically right, but it's misapplied. The public is addicted to free music and movies because they've been getting them for free on TV and radio for decades. THAT's why P2P is not viewed as wrong by the public- "because TV is free anyhow"
Suddenly because they gave away IE, the world is on track to become evil purveyors of stolen... things.
That's not what was meant at all. The Slashdotter's theory was that consumers addicted to free software would look for... wait for it... Free Software.
Can someone please tell me why anal rape is so funny to Americans?
Sexual assault is now a major component of the US criminal justice system. The understanding is that the strongest prisoners will rape the others. It's an unspoken additional punishment that law-enforcement winks at.
This is related to the way that the Iraqi prison scandal got started (the US MP who was court martialed was a New Jersey prison guard in civilian life, remember). Of course, in Abu Ghariab the prisoners didn't start on their own, and needed some prodding to get the idea...
Imagine being raped in the arse repeatedly for "Stealing" some source code...
Or for growing marijuana... no, it's not fair, is it?
Well, no. There is one other option: strong hardware DRM, with severe criminal penalties for anyone producing a DRM circumvention device...
And actually, that's the way online gameplay is going. Half-Life2 would NOT have obscurity anyway, regardless of the code leak. The hackers would just need a few extra days to reverse-engineer the machine code before writing the cheat-modules.
Instead, most shooting games today are moving towards a solution like PunkBuster, which requires the player to allow a "trusted" 3rd party to remotely inspect your computer's memory to hunt for cheats. (In fact, Punkbuster now requires you to log in as the Windows "administrator" account before playing online!).
But, Punkbuster is doomed to eventual failure. Someone will manage to run it within a completely emulated environment that looks legit, but still allows wallhacking or aimbotting. The only way to prevent that will be strong hardware DRM. (Which is already happening with X-Box and similar)
You know how the U.S. legal system works - prosecutors and defendants sit down and horse-trade.
Yes I do, but apparently you don't. First they charge him with EVERYTHING. Then later they drop some of the charges in exchange for pleas on others. But they never even tried to charge him with theft.
Couldn't you argue without getting all flustered?
I can and did, in several other responses to this thread. I became frustrated, however, because as an AC you're able to go on baselessly attacking me without acknowledging the conclusivereplies I've already posted.
All your arguments have come down to your own say-so, without recourse to any authoritative definition.
Random posts are not the same as an official legal announcement. If someone says it in published advertising, or as part of a legal defense (in one of the thousands of P2P trader lawsuits), let me know.
" Because they aren't stealing. They're infringing on the artists copyright." In other words, it's not stealing, therefore it's OK.
You just twisted that quote far beyond it's actual (tiny) content.
The meaning was not ("Not stealing" -> "OK"). It was ("Not stealing" -> "Not as bad as stealing").
Many things are not stealing: kidnapping, rape, and murder for example. But they're still not OK. They're in fact worse than theft.
The RIAA, by conflating copyright infringement with theft, attempts to convince us that it's just as bad. It's bad, but not as bad.
The legal system works best when the punishment fits the crime. Casual copyright infringment is not as serious as theft, and should be treated less harshly. We have misdemeanors for a reason. ("Piracy" is actually much less damaging to society than driving your car over the speed limit, and that's just a $100 ticket.)
Wrong. They do file lawsuits against downloaders. If they do that less, it's because it's harder to prove.
So possibly technically, downloading music isn't wrong IF you really can prove you had no idea getting free music that you usually had to buy was wrong, the person sharing on the other hand, is illegally distributing it.
No. To transfer music requires cooperation from both the uploader or the downloader. (Unless someone is sending MP3s attached to unsolictied emails or something unusual like that).
It is equally illegal for both of them. If the uploader could really prove that he had no idea sending music for free was wrong, then he'd have the same level of defense as your hypothetical downloader.
it is not open season on distributing that music,
Depends on your legal jurisdiction. In Canda, it nearly IS open season.
Look, moron: Was Kevin Mitnick ever charged with "theft" after he downloaded all that AT&T source code? NO. He was charged with "computer fraud". END OF STORY.
The only allegation that he was a "thief" came because of physical, paper manuals that he took from a dumpster.
You require physical substance in order for theft to occur.
No. I require something to have been removed, which is in accordance with both the English and legal defintion of "theft". If an intangible like a computer program is taken away (copied and then deleted), that can be theft.
Theft is illegal because it deprives the victim of something he had. At no time did the "Half-Life 2 theft" cause Valve to be unable to access their source code.
There are quite intangible assets, just as "rights" and "justice" and "choice" and "freedom" which can be stolen from you very easily.
That's absurd.
You're claiming that if I infringe your rights, that's theft? Nope, sorry, that's "injustice", an entirely different word. And you also claim that if I take your freedom, that's theft too? Wrong again, that's "kidnapping" or "slavery"- different things both in the English language, and in the eyes of the law.
If your position were valid, it would mean that every concievable crime is a form of theft. That might work for poetry ("Cruel assasin; thou thief of life"), but has no place in serious discussion. If you redefine "theft" that broadly, then it's lost all practical meaning.
Legally - as in "in the eyes of the law" - this is exactly the same as breaking in and stealing something.
No real need to argue with a coward. In a few days when the prosecutors announce charges against the arrested individuals, and "Theft" isn't one of them, you'll see that I am right.
The other definition is the "guy in the street definition",
To interpret "guy in the street" (or "pedestrian") word meaning, we must compare with commonly accepted uses of the word.
Here are two sentences that are widely acceptable uses of "steal" regarding intellectual property:
"He stole my invention"
"She stole my song"
In both cases, it is implied that something similar has happened: the victim was working on a project, and was spied on by another person, who went on to publish that idea and claim it as his/her own (preventing the actual author from getting credit for the work). "He/she stole my $INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY" is an accusation of plagiarism, not theft.
And the Half-Life 2 incident never included any attempt to claim authorship of that code.
comes down to "taking stuff without paying".
And then you get into what "taking" means. Ask a pedestrian if something has really been "taken" if the victim still has it... no, that's not "taking". It's more "taking a copy", or even just "seeing".
So it becomes "seeing without paying". And the street guy will think "Oh, I see stuff on TV all the time, and never pay"
The debate would be improved if people argued with the *message* of what was being said, not the *wording*.
It's the MPAA/RIAA/BSA that causes that problem by using by basing their argument on that wording: "Stealing is obviously wrong. Copyright infringement is actually stealing. So copyright infringement is wrong too".
Reminds me of the logic of a certain US president... "Terrorists are obviously evil. You guys are actually terrorists. So you are evil too"
Slashdot Mirror
somebody's paying those folks in the third world a hell of a lot less than their labor is worth, and they're powerless to do anything about it.
And that's different from how things were 500 years ago?
the human damage of colonialism far outweighs whatever microscopic worth the entire enterprise may have.
It certainly does NOT. Although there were many injustices in the European conquest of the world, on the whole it brought us modernity which has quite nearly improved everything for everyone.
Just consider that today there are 25x as many humans alive as in 1500, each living an average of 20 years longer, and in more comfortable conditions throughout. Places we today call "humanitarian disasters" were just run-of-the-mill brutality a few centuries ago.
There is still an elite-peasant disparity, but the percentage of people making up that elite has gone up.
Q. which resources would you divert and where would you divert them to?
A. Almost anyplace besides spenting $150 million each time the ISS needs a new load of CHON/H2O/O2 (food/water/air).
If you want to keep the money in the space program (instead of any of the many worthy on-planet causes), then focus on building robotic ships that can go to Mars, come back, and erect a nuclear power plant there.
Not only would that pave the way for humans to come live in prepared habitats, but (more importantly), all of the improvements to the fields of AI/robotics/software will have immediately profitable application to life on earth.
If you can, why didn't early sailors do this?
a) Sailors in general hardly ever travelled far enough to need it.
b) A solar evaporator is big. The deck of a 1500s galleon has only about enough space to hold evaporators for maybe 15 people- and only if those people are not working strenuously. And if you don't need to do other things on deck.
It's actually healthier to drink raw urine than it is seawater...
Submarines are far more extreme than a rocket.
No. Submarines never have to travel more than 5 km away from a position where they can shut down, drift, and let the crew wait a week for rescue. Existing manned spaceships go more than 40,000 km distant from any rescue. Any proposed interplanetary rocket would need to survive 3,000,000,000 km from recovery.
And then there's velocity- submarines move what, 30 knots? A rocket needs to survive trips 1000x as fast.
plus the ability to perform most repairs at sea...
That ability actually counts against the submarine's "extremeness". NASA would love it if they could have an extra 20% crew just sitting around waiting for damage-control. (That 20% number is a statistic for the USN as a whole, so it may be lower on subs than surface ships)
But for just sheer competence and excellence of engineering
The issue is the magnitude of the challenge, not the quality of the solution. The space shuttle contains much bad engineering, but that doesn't mean it's problem was easier than what submarines face.
So say I was sailing to America from Europe and dropped you off in the North Atlantic 500+km offshore you'd be able to sustain yourself in the native ocean environment?
Yes- for about 30 hours. Which doesn't sound like much, but is enough for the boat to turn around and recover me, and is 216000 times as long as I'd last on the surface of Mars, but only 1/5696 as long as I'd survive on the American coast.
but we have come a long way technologically
Exactly why the analogies are invalid. Because in 1492, robots weren't even an option.
Combined those are compelling reasons for humanity to engage in space exploration
Yes, but "space exploration" doesn't imply "manned space exploration".
If NASA puts a 30 year moratorium on manned spaceflight, then at the end of that time our space travel technologies will be enormously more advanced than if the same money had been spent on keeping 5 people breathing on the ISS the whole time.
With the success of iTunes, the iTunes Music Store, and the iPod, Apple is laughing all the way to the bank. ;)
Uhm, that's basically just one interconnected product there. And since iPod+iTunes is now the most profitable part of Apple, it's hard to justify them remaining an unprofitable computer company with a small sideline in consumer audio.
So long as they don't distribute outside of thier organization
Incorrect. That is a very common myth; one that the FSF has even helped perpetuate.
However, the text of the GPL doesn't contain any exception allowing you to distribute something "inside an organization". If you distribute it at all, it must be under the terms of the GPL, meaning each recipient is allowed to redistribute to whomever he wishes.
(Just imagine for a moment if you purchased a $299 Microsoft product and then gave copies to everyone in your company. I think they'd nail you for unauthorized distribution!)
no obligation to share back thier changes.
Technically, the GPL never requires anyone to "share back"- only to permit those who are given the binaries to obtain & redistribute the source code if they wish. Some licenses did include a "share back" restriction, meaning that the original author must be given a copy of any modification- those licenses were obviously quite unpopular.
in the real world they're almost always disciplined and methodical to the point of anal-retentiveness.
Maybe this is a case of bad news attracting more attention, but in chats with theater air controllers active in the 1999-2002 US/NATO wars, many fighter pilots are gung=ho and anxious to shoot. It's what they've trained for, and once over the battlefield they don't want to come home without using the hard-fought skills. Becoming a fighter pilot is highly competitive- to make it, you have to want it- and I wonder how much "wanting it" means "wanting to bomb people".
Several more fratricide events have been caused by pilot over-agressiveness than have been reported by journalists (and even more near-misses).
Attack helicopter pilots are even more aggressive- beyond whatever personal tendencies they might have, they are vulnerable. Planes are fast and high, while helos are low, slow, and too unstable to bail out. The only projection an apache has from DI is to gun them down first. (The operators of air-defense artillary are vulnerable in the same way, inducing more trigger-happiness)
(i.e. you can verify it fairly easily)
You are making a circular argument. First you claim that programming is NP hard, so it's easily verifiable. Then here you explain that it's NP because it's easy to verify.
But that's just untrue. Verifying the correctness of nontrivial software is HARD. It's hard to the tune of 2^(memory), which for even a 256k PDA brings you into "heat death of the universe" durations.
If you think that it's as hard to check code for correctness as it is to write the code in the first place, you can't be a developer, or you're not thinking clearly.
That crack makes it seem like YOU'RE not really a developer... at least not of any kind of software that would lend insight on national security demands.
A good design jumps out at you when you see it,
Wrong. A secure design does NOT jump out at you. Subtle flaws in rarely-exercised capabilities aren't easy to spot. Are you claiming that you can just glance over the SSH source code and tell me that I should never use the "-1" commandline option, because that'll invoke a predictable CRC sequence?
History has proven you wrong. The amount of published software that has turned out to be flawed has empirically demonstrated (as if there was any doubt) that perfection is harder than adequacy.
Like a slowly degrading precision value.
The ability to quickly reboot is a standard feature of most all military field computers. Warfighters do it VERY frequently. Even the avionics computer of a modern fighter can be rebooted in midair. For a g-g gunnery computer to stay up for even 24 hours is not likely.
But after 36-48 hours of heavy real-life usuage,
Good thing that normal military tests I've observed last for 200-400 hours, then! The SUTs run longer in on the test range than they will in the field...
It would pass verification and testing without fail everytime.
The word "verification" has a special meaning for military software-types. It requires that the code (source code AND binary) has gone through such an exhaustive correctness analysis that the budget for originally writing the program can often be exceeded.
PS. Everything I've just said has been violated by the horrendously dysfunctional F-22 Raptor project. The Pentagon had better delay that plane a few years to go back and test it right.
Why pay for music when I can get it for free? Why pay for movies when I can get them for free?
The concept is basically right, but it's misapplied. The public is addicted to free music and movies because they've been getting them for free on TV and radio for decades. THAT's why P2P is not viewed as wrong by the public- "because TV is free anyhow"
Suddenly because they gave away IE, the world is on track to become evil purveyors of stolen... things.
That's not what was meant at all. The Slashdotter's theory was that consumers addicted to free software would look for... wait for it... Free Software.
After all, more people won't make things go faster, will it?
Go tell it to Fred.
Can someone please tell me why anal rape is so funny to Americans?
Sexual assault is now a major component of the US criminal justice system. The understanding is that the strongest prisoners will rape the others. It's an unspoken additional punishment that law-enforcement winks at.
This is related to the way that the Iraqi prison scandal got started (the US MP who was court martialed was a New Jersey prison guard in civilian life, remember). Of course, in Abu Ghariab the prisoners didn't start on their own, and needed some prodding to get the idea...
Imagine being raped in the arse repeatedly for "Stealing" some source code...
Or for growing marijuana... no, it's not fair, is it?
Obscurity is the only option in this case.
Well, no. There is one other option: strong hardware DRM, with severe criminal penalties for anyone producing a DRM circumvention device...
And actually, that's the way online gameplay is going. Half-Life2 would NOT have obscurity anyway, regardless of the code leak. The hackers would just need a few extra days to reverse-engineer the machine code before writing the cheat-modules.
Instead, most shooting games today are moving towards a solution like PunkBuster, which requires the player to allow a "trusted" 3rd party to remotely inspect your computer's memory to hunt for cheats. (In fact, Punkbuster now requires you to log in as the Windows "administrator" account before playing online!).
But, Punkbuster is doomed to eventual failure. Someone will manage to run it within a completely emulated environment that looks legit, but still allows wallhacking or aimbotting. The only way to prevent that will be strong hardware DRM. (Which is already happening with X-Box and similar)
You know how the U.S. legal system works - prosecutors and defendants sit down and horse-trade.
Yes I do, but apparently you don't. First they charge him with EVERYTHING. Then later they drop some of the charges in exchange for pleas on others. But they never even tried to charge him with theft.
Couldn't you argue without getting all flustered?
I can and did, in several other responses to this thread. I became frustrated, however, because as an AC you're able to go on baselessly attacking me without acknowledging the conclusive replies I've already posted.
All your arguments have come down to your own say-so, without recourse to any authoritative definition.
For example, this
Random posts are not the same as an official legal announcement. If someone says it in published advertising, or as part of a legal defense (in one of the thousands of P2P trader lawsuits), let me know.
" Because they aren't stealing. They're infringing on the artists copyright."
In other words, it's not stealing, therefore it's OK.
You just twisted that quote far beyond it's actual (tiny) content.
The meaning was not ("Not stealing" -> "OK"). It was ("Not stealing" -> "Not as bad as stealing").
Many things are not stealing: kidnapping, rape, and murder for example. But they're still not OK. They're in fact worse than theft.
The RIAA, by conflating copyright infringement with theft, attempts to convince us that it's just as bad. It's bad, but not as bad.
The legal system works best when the punishment fits the crime. Casual copyright infringment is not as serious as theft, and should be treated less harshly. We have misdemeanors for a reason.
("Piracy" is actually much less damaging to society than driving your car over the speed limit, and that's just a $100 ticket.)
Which is why the RIAA is not charging downloaders
Wrong. They do file lawsuits against downloaders. If they do that less, it's because it's harder to prove.
So possibly technically, downloading music isn't wrong IF you really can prove you had no idea getting free music that you usually had to buy was wrong, the person sharing on the other hand, is illegally distributing it.
No. To transfer music requires cooperation from both the uploader or the downloader. (Unless someone is sending MP3s attached to unsolictied emails or something unusual like that).
It is equally illegal for both of them. If the uploader could really prove that he had no idea sending music for free was wrong, then he'd have the same level of defense as your hypothetical downloader.
it is not open season on distributing that music,
Depends on your legal jurisdiction. In Canda, it nearly IS open season.
You're wrong and you know it.
Look, moron: Was Kevin Mitnick ever charged with "theft" after he downloaded all that AT&T source code? NO. He was charged with "computer fraud". END OF STORY.
The only allegation that he was a "thief" came because of physical, paper manuals that he took from a dumpster.
You require physical substance in order for theft to occur.
I don't, and the English language doesn't, but the legal system does.
You require physical substance in order for theft to occur.
No. I require something to have been removed, which is in accordance with both the English and legal defintion of "theft". If an intangible like a computer program is taken away (copied and then deleted), that can be theft.
Theft is illegal because it deprives the victim of something he had. At no time did the "Half-Life 2 theft" cause Valve to be unable to access their source code.
There are quite intangible assets, just as "rights" and "justice" and "choice" and "freedom" which can be stolen from you very easily.
That's absurd.
You're claiming that if I infringe your rights, that's theft? Nope, sorry, that's "injustice", an entirely different word. And you also claim that if I take your freedom, that's theft too? Wrong again, that's "kidnapping" or "slavery"- different things both in the English language, and in the eyes of the law.
If your position were valid, it would mean that every concievable crime is a form of theft. That might work for poetry ("Cruel assasin; thou thief of life"), but has no place in serious discussion. If you redefine "theft" that broadly, then it's lost all practical meaning.
Legally - as in "in the eyes of the law" - this is exactly the same as breaking in and stealing something.
No real need to argue with a coward. In a few days when the prosecutors announce charges against the arrested individuals, and "Theft" isn't one of them, you'll see that I am right.
It's interesting you highlight the point that way round.
That's directly from the MPAA's advertising campaign...
It's often made the other way round, i.e. "You called this stealing, it isn't stealing, therefore it isn't wrong"
Do you have any example of that?
To interpret "guy in the street" (or "pedestrian") word meaning, we must compare with commonly accepted uses of the word.
Here are two sentences that are widely acceptable uses of "steal" regarding intellectual property:
- "He stole my invention"
In both cases, it is implied that something similar has happened: the victim was working on a project, and was spied on by another person, who went on to publish that idea and claim it as his/her own (preventing the actual author from getting credit for the work). "He/she stole my $INTELLECTUAL_PROPERTY" is an accusation of plagiarism, not theft."She stole my song"
And the Half-Life 2 incident never included any attempt to claim authorship of that code.
comes down to "taking stuff without paying".
And then you get into what "taking" means. Ask a pedestrian if something has really been "taken" if the victim still has it... no, that's not "taking". It's more "taking a copy", or even just "seeing".
So it becomes "seeing without paying". And the street guy will think "Oh, I see stuff on TV all the time, and never pay"
The debate would be improved if people argued with the *message* of what was being said, not the *wording*.
It's the MPAA/RIAA/BSA that causes that problem by using by basing their argument on that wording: "Stealing is obviously wrong. Copyright infringement is actually stealing. So copyright infringement is wrong too".
Reminds me of the logic of a certain US president... "Terrorists are obviously evil. You guys are actually terrorists. So you are evil too"