"...The whole "if copyright infringement is wrong and theft is wrong, then copyright infringement is theft" idea. That's not what he is explicitly saying, of course, but it is one of the foundations for his arguments."
It's the foundation of my arguments? Surely you can offer proof of that then. What's that? You can't? Come on krell, lets have links.
Apparently making up outright lies in order to have something to argue against is the only tactic you know.
"Loss is necessary for theft to have occured, since taking is necessary for theft (same dictionary definition I have offered before) to have occured. Loss is a necessary component of taking: if it's not lost, it certainly was not taken."
Absolutely not, but thanks for finally choosing a dictionary definition. It's a shitty, incomplete listing of definitions but it will do.
The very first definition makes no mention of loss:
"theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Neither does this one:
"theft n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
What is "something"? It certainly includes "property or services". Just how are services "lost"? From Brittanica: http://www.answers.com/theft&r=67
"In law, the crime of taking the property or services of another without consent. Under most statutes, theft encompasses the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Larceny is the crime of taking and carrying away the goods of another with intent to steal. Grand larceny, or larceny of property of substantial value, is a felony, whereas petty larceny, or larceny of less valuable property, is a misdemeanour. The same principle applies to grand theft and petty theft, which need not necessarily involve the "carrying away" of property and may include the theft of services."
As you can see, "carrying away" is not required for theft. Otherwise it would be hard to argue theft of services.
Loss is not required to be suffered in order for there to be theft. What is required is for someone to take, without permission, property or service. This is clearly the meaning Breyer is using and one that you are failing to understand. This kind of theft is differentiated from larceny (which is the theft of physical property). Funny thing here is that so many, yourself included, believe that larceny is the only kind of theft there is.
"Look dude, legally, copyright infringment is not theft. You cannot be prosecuted for theft if you infringe copyright. By the way, I'm in the UK here, not the US, but our laws in this regard are very, very similar."
Note, however, that the decision only regarded whether theft laws applied to copyright infringment. It said nothing about whether copyright infringment was or wasn't theft.
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court. Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."
The US Supreme Court most definitely consider copyright infringment to be a form of theft. It does not consider laws pertaining to theft to be applicable.
"You might be making some kind of emotional, "but morally speaking it looks like theft to me" argument, and that's nice and all, and it probably reflects the fact that you care deeply about starving artists or something."
Haha, no. It's amazing how people assume my personal feelings on the matter based on my arguments. I recognize that IP theft IS theft. That doesn't make me an RIAA shill.
"BUT: it's just your emotional opinion."
No, my emotions have nothing to do with it.
"It has no legal or ethical bearing,"
My opinion doesn't, but Breyer's does in the US.
"...and it's not even a particularly accurate one (as the "thief" gains nothing that is lost by the victim)."
and that is irrelevant.
"Why do you persist in banging this drum so loudly?"
and why have you joined in arguing against me?
"It doesn't change the FACT that copyright infringement is *not theft*, by any accepted definition of these terms..."
You are starting to sound like krell. The FACT is the copyright infringement IS theft (at least in the US as declared by SCOTUS). As for any accepted definition of these terms, who declares what's "accepted"? Offer up a definition and debate it.
"...by the vast majority of people and I believe every single laywer on the planet."
Haha, that's an easy one. Justice Breyer is a lawyer and he disagrees with you.
If I've made them up then you should have no problem refuting them. I eagerly wait your reply as I'm sure it will be as well thought out as your other arguments.
Explain to me now how intellectual property rights aren't property? After all, I can sell my rights to others and they are part of my estate. I'm really curious to see your response.
"You are also free to leave the thread... Or are you?"
I'm not asking anyone to leave the thread nor am I asking anyone to change the subject. This thread is about krell's insistence that infringement isn't theft. You are a newcomer to it.
"If you are a paid propagandist then perhaps you are not?!"
There you go with the insinuations again.
"Fuck off now and we might believe that you are NOT in the pay of the RIAA."
Now vulgarities and insinuations.
"Continue this ridiculous crusade on the English language and I think it will become apparent to all readers, just who puts the bread on your table..."
Of course, because being right couldn't possibly be my motivation.
"accept that you haven't mentioned the RIAA..."
So you're not only a potty-mouthed thief but now an admitted liar as well. And to think you would call my motivations into question...
"if the quadcore hinders the clock of the FSB compared to what it could be, it's highly relevant."
It could be, but this isn't hypothetical. We know how much the effect is (and it's not dramatic). Meanwhile, not all cores in the AMD design have the same pathway to memory.
"Barcelona is that."
When that arrives it will be part of the discussion. Until then it is not competition for current products.
"The exception being that in the short term we see Intel clocking down FSB for quad-core."
They also clock down the fastest speed of the cores (as AMD does). Intel's quad FSB speed isn't clocked down. It's simply one step below their fastest dual core offering (as are the clocks of the cores themselves). You are overstating the performance impact.
"This meshes with a lot of predictions that multi-die design would be a greater load on the bus."
That is clearly the reason and I don't think Intel is trying to hide it. It hasn't been demonstrated how much one speed step on the FSB effects quad performance. All we can judge is what the overall performance is. Odds are that it is better than AMD considering that AMD won't have quadcore for quite a while.
No doubt today's quadcore will not be as good as next year's. An MCM quadcore today is better, however, than none at all unless such a product can't be made to do what you need. AMD's architecture scales well in larger MP configurations but that isn't interesting to a large part of the market.
"But does loss to one person mean theft by the person causing the loss?"
No but, in this case, yes.
"See the example about a vandal breaking a window."
Not all loss is theft.
"You have a situation of destruction..."
The only destruction is exclusivity. Both the thief and the owner now can distribute.
This argument is simply a counter to the claim that the owner loses nothing so theft did not occur. Some would argue that compensation is what was stolen but money obviously did not change hands. The opportunity for compensation is obviously lessened when the owner loses control over distribution and that constitutes a clear loss.
None of this matters because loss is not necessary for theft to occur (it is only part of some kinds of theft). Legal definitions of theft aren't really interesting because copyright infringment contains its own law and other laws have been ruled not to apply. What you, krell, claim however is that you go by "dictionary" definitions of words. Since dictionary definitions of "theft" don't always mention loss this subject is moot. You have yet to offer a dictionary definition of "theft" to discuss. Are you afraid?
"Where does it say that? You just MADE THAT UP!! Nice work!:D The Dictionary doesn't say anything about STEALING RIGHTS, you made it up!"
IP rights ARE property, laurie. Open your mind and you might learn something.
"Once again you made that up. No where does it mention COPYING, PIRACY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. You... Make... It... Up... As... You... Go... Along..."
So your argument is that, since I disagree with you, I must be making it up.
"Yes, quite acceptable and NO mention of Piracy or Copying meaning Theft."
I have explained it before so I don't need to do it again. Why don't you research just what "intellectual property" is. If IP can't be stolen there would be no such term as "IP theft".
"Aside from the usual correction of the "copyright infringement = theft" liars"
Haha, among them at least one justice of the SCOTUS. Now, among the "copyright infringement != theft" liars there is krell and who else?
"No one has yet to step up to the challenge and show one thing stolen via Grokster, old Napster, or any p2p."
And, according to you they never will since you conveniently ignore evering thing presented that disagrees with your world view. Meanwhile, you have never done anything besides persent arbitrary, incorrect statements as fact. You can't even be bothered to define "theft" and cite a reference.
The fact is that this is how you argue, krell. There's never an argument, only declarations that you are always right. Why don't you explain how Breyer is wrong (I mean besides claiming that he's corrupt or ignorant as you have already done).
Part of my property is my right to control it (after all, I can sell those rights). When I own copyright, I don't just own the content but also the right to control distribution and derivative works. When copyrighted material is illegally copied, I have not lost the original so it is not "theft of goods" but I have lost my right to control distribution. What has been stolen from me is not the content itself but my control over it. Illegal copying is not "theft of goods" but it is "theft of intellectual property". Theft is theft (as you say).
"Copyright infringement is illegal as it is, why continue these childish ways of making copyright infringement look like something completely different?"
That is not the argument. First, the ones trying to make copyright infringement look completely different are the ones that argue that it is not theft. Second, from a standpoint of what laws are being broken, copyright infringement has it's own law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_Sta tes
Just because illegal copying isn't "theft of goods" does not mean it is not theft in general.
"Copyright infringement does not equal theft any more than 1 equals 2."
No, that's wrong. Copyright infringement is a form of theft. Breyer said so.
"...and to try obsessively to make the one thing into the other you're completely missing the point."
Actually, the ones trying obsessively are those arguing against me. Just because many on/. believe as you do does not mean you are in the majority or that the commonly accepted opinion is your own. As I said, a US Supreme Court justice agrees with me.
"The term "copyright infringement" exists solely to define something that is not something else, i.e. not a dog, not an emotion and certainly not theft. If it were theft, it would simply have been called theft"
Right, because never in the history of language has there ever been one word that describes a subset of another.
"Now, can we PLEASE go back to discussing how this whole "copyright" business has been taken waaay out of context and is now only hurting those it claims to protect?"
"Hmm, you spend an/awful/ amount of time defending the RIAA, I wonder why you would spend so much time on this if you say weren't getting paid or something?"
Funny, laurie, but I haven't defended the RIAA once. Find me a link where I've done that. It clearly upsets you that someone might have the nerve to disagree with you.
"If you cannot see that there is a difference between doing something which deprives the owner of something OF THAT ITEM, and something which DOES NOT, then you are pretty stupid..."
And you are stupid for failing to see that IP theft denies the owner of his right to control his property. As you stated before, you feel justified in taking what you want when you can't purchase on terms acceptable to you. Your willingness to commit theft doesn't mean it's not theft.
""Ever read what the judge had to say?" Why would I bother, the judge is obviously in the pocket of the RIAA."
Haha, why bother even offering an opinion that supported neither by facts, nor research nor effort? I don't give a crap about your prejudices. Why don't you prove that Breyer is in the pocket of the RIAA (and while you're at it, all the judges that joined in the (rare) unanimous opinion)?
"If a JUDGE does not understand the english language, then why would I waste time reading what he has to say?"
Because it should be ample evidence to you that you don't understand nearly as well as you think you do.
"YES, Copyright can GO TO HELL as far as I am concerned."
And you've confused your willingness to steal with redefining what theft is.
"LIMITING MY FAIR USE of said product..."
No content provider is obligated to enable fair use rights. You are entitled to fair use but they don't have to enable it.
"...then the producer of that product can GO TO HELL before I will pay them money for said product."
And that is a choice you are entitled to make. You aren't entitled, instead, to steal it.
"They have effectively broken the law, so SCREW THEM."
No they haven't. You've confused your fair use rights with an obligation on their part to enable them for you. There is no such obligation.
"If not and someone makes something available as a Torrent which I fancy having a look at then what do you think?"
What you said was that you would happily indulge by committing IP theft. I take what you said at face value and that was you would hesitate to steal.
"...when you can download said media WITHOUT the DRM and without the hassle?"
It is not the moral high ground to steal that which you can't buy on terms favorable to you. It's a fact that people will do it but that doesn't make it legal nor does it mean it's not theft.
"...but NOT AS THE EXPENSE OF MY OWN CONVENIENCE TO USE MUSIC I'VE PURCHASED AS I WANT TO."
and there you go. You feel entitled to dictate terms of your purchase and, if you can't have your way, you feel that theft is justified. I got it.
"I know you will deduce from this that I spend all my time online downloading illegal music from bittorrent."
Not at all. I deduce that you're willing to and have some bizarre justification for it.
"Nothing could be further from the truth. 95% of the music I have downloaded I am LICENSED to have as I have purchased tracks on previous forms of media."
That doesn't make those downloads legal though it might give you some moral high ground. I've done the same. Buying a CD doesn't mean that downloading illegally distributed copies of it is legal to do.
"The other 5% is stuff I'm trying out..."
And you have no legal right to do that either. Fair use does not apply to content you haven't been legally distributed.
"...I WOULD download a torrent and try it..."
in violation of law.
"I'm not going to spend £1000 to find out I don't like the O/S!"
so you will steal it instead.
Don't think that you can justify your criminal acts because the ones you victimize deserve it. There are prisons filled with people with your same arguments.
I didn't choose it, Wikipedia did. You are free to choose any definition you choose so long as you cite the source or you can refute this one. You aren't interested though. All you want to do is stomp your feet and pound your chest.
laurie, you're so good at name calling and vulgarities. If only you were good at formulating arguments.
"See my previous post for a link to a Dictionary which quite clearly defines THEFT and makes NO mention of piracy, 'IP theft', the DMCA. It makes it quite clear that THEFT means THEFT of PROPERTY which DEPRIVES the OWNER of said PROPERTY."
Yes, I saw that and stuffed it into the ground. Perhaps if you understood what PROPERTY was...
Funny that you would acknowledge the existance of "IP theft". Thank you for admitting you are wrong.
"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
Yes, this fits. What is stolen are the owners rights to control his work. It is not argued that the work itself is stolen, but the owner has lost his ability to control distribution when his content is pirated.
"an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"
That certainly fits. Property is not always physical. A great example is intellectual property which is, conveniently, being discussed here.
Of course, only one definition need apply. The definition you provided is perfectly acceptable.
In the timeframe Intel offers this, AMD will have no quadcore part at all. Considering that, it's clear that AMD sucks, not Intel. Later on, Intel's "native" version (Yorkfield, discussed in your link) will have cache improvements and a bump in FSB speed. All things considered, the dual die part doesn't look like it sucks at all (except for AMD).
There are three sides to this: Intel's, AMD's, and the truth.
When comparing quadcore approaches, aggragate memory performance of multisocket, multi-memory controller designs is irrelevant. No doubt the AMD approach scales better but that's not important to the argument. When AMD announces a single die processor with multiple integrated memory controllers then it matters. Offsetting AMD's memory throughput advantages are Intel's much larger caches. It's a complicated subject.
Intel's approach gets quadcore to market far faster, and once AMD can deliver quadcore on a single die Intel will be able to do the same. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that Intel MCM approach is substancially inferior performance-wise. AMD's shortterm response, 4x4, is quite a joke by comparison. Anyone worrying about power consumption with Intel's solution isn't concerned with AMD's 4x4 design? I would much prefer a single processor, single memory controller system with 90% of the performance of the AMD dual proc beast. Of course, I pulled that number out of my ass...
Copyright infringment is justified so long as it gets you what you want, right laurie? I noticed you had no responses when called out on your illegimate opinions there. I expect you to be no different here.
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court. Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."
The passage you quoted involves physical goods ("physical identity", "physical taking of subject goods", "goods, wares, [or] merchandise", "physical control"). It states clearly that copyright infringement is not the same as theft of goods but that doesn't mean that copyright infringement is not theft in any manner. It only says that laws involving theft of goods do not also apply. Furthermore, Breyer clearly knew of this 1985 decision when he wrote in 2005:
"...And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
I'm not sure what you think "unlawful taking of property" is but I think it means "theft".
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court. Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."
Note "...has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court."
As you can see, copyright infringment is not "theft of goods" but that doesn't mean it's not theft. The article makes this abundantly clear. The result of the decision is that both offenses would not apply. In this case, "goods" are the copies of the copyrighted works. The copyrighted work itself is also property as are the rights to distribute it and make derivative works from it.
You chose the word, I used it, then you claimed that I was distorting the meaning of the word. You keep dancing around the subject yet not offering any proof of your claims. All you want is distractions for the subject at hand.
If you deny me my right to control distribution then you have stolen from me. Breyer says so, I say so, Infonaut says so here http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=20637 6&cid=16830480. Your response is consistently "you are wrong". It's a good thing you weren't arguing the case in front of the court.
Here's the Wikipedia definition of theft:
"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent."
Notice, krell, that "property" isn't required to be physical. No, it's not "quite a stretch".
"What reasonable person could call a possibly infringement of a right as an example of carrying someone's stuff away?"
What reasonable person wouldn't? What reasonable person would insist that property solely referred to "stuff"?
Slashdot Mirror
as if you understood the english language...
one would think that you'd be calling me an Apple stooge for calling attention to your willingness to steal their software.
OK, here's your quote referring to me:
"...The whole "if copyright infringement is wrong and theft is wrong, then copyright infringement is theft" idea. That's not what he is explicitly saying, of course, but it is one of the foundations for his arguments."
It's the foundation of my arguments? Surely you can offer proof of that then. What's that? You can't? Come on krell, lets have links.
Apparently making up outright lies in order to have something to argue against is the only tactic you know.
"Loss is necessary for theft to have occured, since taking is necessary for theft (same dictionary definition I have offered before) to have occured. Loss is a necessary component of taking: if it's not lost, it certainly was not taken."
Absolutely not, but thanks for finally choosing a dictionary definition. It's a shitty, incomplete listing of definitions but it will do.
The very first definition makes no mention of loss:
"theft: the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Neither does this one:
"theft n : the act of taking something from someone unlawfully"
What is "something"? It certainly includes "property or services". Just how are services "lost"?
From Brittanica: http://www.answers.com/theft&r=67
"In law, the crime of taking the property or services of another without consent. Under most statutes, theft encompasses the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Larceny is the crime of taking and carrying away the goods of another with intent to steal. Grand larceny, or larceny of property of substantial value, is a felony, whereas petty larceny, or larceny of less valuable property, is a misdemeanour. The same principle applies to grand theft and petty theft, which need not necessarily involve the "carrying away" of property and may include the theft of services."
As you can see, "carrying away" is not required for theft. Otherwise it would be hard to argue theft of services.
Loss is not required to be suffered in order for there to be theft. What is required is for someone to take, without permission, property or service. This is clearly the meaning Breyer is using and one that you are failing to understand. This kind of theft is differentiated from larceny (which is the theft of physical property). Funny thing here is that so many, yourself included, believe that larceny is the only kind of theft there is.
"Look dude, legally, copyright infringment is not theft. You cannot be prosecuted for theft if you infringe copyright. By the way, I'm in the UK here, not the US, but our laws in this regard are very, very similar."
a tes
Yes, that's right. This was never an argument about the legal definitions as those were settled in the US here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_St
Note, however, that the decision only regarded whether theft laws applied to copyright infringment. It said nothing about whether copyright infringment was or wasn't theft.
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court. Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."
The US Supreme Court most definitely consider copyright infringment to be a form of theft. It does not consider laws pertaining to theft to be applicable.
"You might be making some kind of emotional, "but morally speaking it looks like theft to me" argument, and that's nice and all, and it probably reflects the fact that you care deeply about starving artists or something."
Haha, no. It's amazing how people assume my personal feelings on the matter based on my arguments. I recognize that IP theft IS theft. That doesn't make me an RIAA shill.
"BUT: it's just your emotional opinion."
No, my emotions have nothing to do with it.
"It has no legal or ethical bearing,"
My opinion doesn't, but Breyer's does in the US.
"...and it's not even a particularly accurate one (as the "thief" gains nothing that is lost by the victim)."
and that is irrelevant.
"Why do you persist in banging this drum so loudly?"
and why have you joined in arguing against me?
"It doesn't change the FACT that copyright infringement is *not theft*, by any accepted definition of these terms..."
You are starting to sound like krell. The FACT is the copyright infringement IS theft (at least in the US as declared by SCOTUS). As for any accepted definition of these terms, who declares what's "accepted"? Offer up a definition and debate it.
"...by the vast majority of people and I believe every single laywer on the planet."
Haha, that's an easy one. Justice Breyer is a lawyer and he disagrees with you.
If I've made them up then you should have no problem refuting them. I eagerly wait your reply as I'm sure it will be as well thought out as your other arguments.
Explain to me now how intellectual property rights aren't property? After all, I can sell my rights to others and they are part of my estate. I'm really curious to see your response.
"You are also free to leave the thread... Or are you?"
I'm not asking anyone to leave the thread nor am I asking anyone to change the subject. This thread is about krell's insistence that infringement isn't theft. You are a newcomer to it.
"If you are a paid propagandist then perhaps you are not?!"
There you go with the insinuations again.
"Fuck off now and we might believe that you are NOT in the pay of the RIAA."
Now vulgarities and insinuations.
"Continue this ridiculous crusade on the English language and I think it will become apparent to all readers, just who puts the bread on your table..."
Of course, because being right couldn't possibly be my motivation.
"accept that you haven't mentioned the RIAA..."
So you're not only a potty-mouthed thief but now an admitted liar as well. And to think you would call my motivations into question...
"if the quadcore hinders the clock of the FSB compared to what it could be, it's highly relevant."
It could be, but this isn't hypothetical. We know how much the effect is (and it's not dramatic). Meanwhile, not all cores in the AMD design have the same pathway to memory.
"Barcelona is that."
When that arrives it will be part of the discussion. Until then it is not competition for current products.
"The exception being that in the short term we see Intel clocking down FSB for quad-core."
They also clock down the fastest speed of the cores (as AMD does). Intel's quad FSB speed isn't clocked down. It's simply one step below their fastest dual core offering (as are the clocks of the cores themselves). You are overstating the performance impact.
"This meshes with a lot of predictions that multi-die design would be a greater load on the bus."
That is clearly the reason and I don't think Intel is trying to hide it. It hasn't been demonstrated how much one speed step on the FSB effects quad performance. All we can judge is what the overall performance is. Odds are that it is better than AMD considering that AMD won't have quadcore for quite a while.
No doubt today's quadcore will not be as good as next year's. An MCM quadcore today is better, however, than none at all unless such a product can't be made to do what you need. AMD's architecture scales well in larger MP configurations but that isn't interesting to a large part of the market.
"But does loss to one person mean theft by the person causing the loss?"
No but, in this case, yes.
"See the example about a vandal breaking a window."
Not all loss is theft.
"You have a situation of destruction..."
The only destruction is exclusivity. Both the thief and the owner now can distribute.
This argument is simply a counter to the claim that the owner loses nothing so theft did not occur. Some would argue that compensation is what was stolen but money obviously did not change hands. The opportunity for compensation is obviously lessened when the owner loses control over distribution and that constitutes a clear loss.
None of this matters because loss is not necessary for theft to occur (it is only part of some kinds of theft). Legal definitions of theft aren't really interesting because copyright infringment contains its own law and other laws have been ruled not to apply. What you, krell, claim however is that you go by "dictionary" definitions of words. Since dictionary definitions of "theft" don't always mention loss this subject is moot. You have yet to offer a dictionary definition of "theft" to discuss. Are you afraid?
I said "vulgarities" not name calling:
"This is just the sort of shite argument..."
"The Fucking dictionary..."
No as for no name calling:
"This is just the sort of shite argument I would expect from an RIAA stooge!"
So calling me "an RIAA stooge" doesn't count?
"I carefully "quoted" IP theft as it's your concept. I don't accept it."
Haha! Of course you don't (now). Doing so would be admitting defeat.
If "IP theft" were my concept, how do you explain this? http://www.google.com/search?q=IP+theft&start=0&i
"Where does it say that? You just MADE THAT UP!! Nice work! :D The Dictionary doesn't say anything about STEALING RIGHTS, you made it up!"
/.ers argue with you?!"
/.'ers like you are uneducated.
IP rights ARE property, laurie. Open your mind and you might learn something.
"Once again you made that up. No where does it mention COPYING, PIRACY, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. You... Make... It... Up... As... You... Go... Along..."
So your argument is that, since I disagree with you, I must be making it up.
"Yes, quite acceptable and NO mention of Piracy or Copying meaning Theft."
I have explained it before so I don't need to do it again. Why don't you research just what "intellectual property" is. If IP can't be stolen there would be no such term as "IP theft".
"And you wonder why
I don't wonder.
Krell, there you go putting words into my mouth again. I've never said or suggested any such thing.
"That's not what he is explicitly saying, of course, but it is one of the foundations for his arguments."
It is? Why don't you provide some quotes of mine to back that up? I see lying outright is not beneath you at all.
When dealing with you, this is the definition that I keep in mind: http://www.answers.com/sociopath&r=67
"Aside from the usual correction of the "copyright infringement = theft" liars"
Haha, among them at least one justice of the SCOTUS. Now, among the "copyright infringement != theft" liars there is krell and who else?
"No one has yet to step up to the challenge and show one thing stolen via Grokster, old Napster, or any p2p."
And, according to you they never will since you conveniently ignore evering thing presented that disagrees with your world view. Meanwhile, you have never done anything besides persent arbitrary, incorrect statements as fact. You can't even be bothered to define "theft" and cite a reference.
The fact is that this is how you argue, krell. There's never an argument, only declarations that you are always right. Why don't you explain how Breyer is wrong (I mean besides claiming that he's corrupt or ignorant as you have already done).
Part of my property is my right to control it (after all, I can sell those rights). When I own copyright, I don't just own the content but also the right to control distribution and derivative works. When copyrighted material is illegally copied, I have not lost the original so it is not "theft of goods" but I have lost my right to control distribution. What has been stolen from me is not the content itself but my control over it. Illegal copying is not "theft of goods" but it is "theft of intellectual property". Theft is theft (as you say).
"Copyright infringement is illegal as it is, why continue these childish ways of making copyright infringement look like something completely different?"
a tes
/. believe as you do does not mean you are in the majority or that the commonly accepted opinion is your own. As I said, a US Supreme Court justice agrees with me.
That is not the argument. First, the ones trying to make copyright infringement look completely different are the ones that argue that it is not theft. Second, from a standpoint of what laws are being broken, copyright infringement has it's own law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_St
Just because illegal copying isn't "theft of goods" does not mean it is not theft in general.
"Copyright infringement does not equal theft any more than 1 equals 2."
No, that's wrong. Copyright infringement is a form of theft. Breyer said so.
"...and to try obsessively to make the one thing into the other you're completely missing the point."
Actually, the ones trying obsessively are those arguing against me. Just because many on
"The term "copyright infringement" exists solely to define something that is not something else, i.e. not a dog, not an emotion and certainly not theft. If it were theft, it would simply have been called theft"
Right, because never in the history of language has there ever been one word that describes a subset of another.
"Now, can we PLEASE go back to discussing how this whole "copyright" business has been taken waaay out of context and is now only hurting those it claims to protect?"
You are free to leave the thread.
"Hmm, you spend an /awful/ amount of time defending the RIAA, I wonder why you would spend so much time on this if you say weren't getting paid or something?"
Funny, laurie, but I haven't defended the RIAA once. Find me a link where I've done that. It clearly upsets you that someone might have the nerve to disagree with you.
"If you cannot see that there is a difference between doing something which deprives the owner of something OF THAT ITEM, and something which DOES NOT, then you are pretty stupid..."
And you are stupid for failing to see that IP theft denies the owner of his right to control his property. As you stated before, you feel justified in taking what you want when you can't purchase on terms acceptable to you. Your willingness to commit theft doesn't mean it's not theft.
""Ever read what the judge had to say?" Why would I bother, the judge is obviously in the pocket of the RIAA."
Haha, why bother even offering an opinion that supported neither by facts, nor research nor effort? I don't give a crap about your prejudices. Why don't you prove that Breyer is in the pocket of the RIAA (and while you're at it, all the judges that joined in the (rare) unanimous opinion)?
"If a JUDGE does not understand the english language, then why would I waste time reading what he has to say?"
Because it should be ample evidence to you that you don't understand nearly as well as you think you do.
"YES, Copyright can GO TO HELL as far as I am concerned."
And you've confused your willingness to steal with redefining what theft is.
"LIMITING MY FAIR USE of said product..."
No content provider is obligated to enable fair use rights. You are entitled to fair use but they don't have to enable it.
"...then the producer of that product can GO TO HELL before I will pay them money for said product."
And that is a choice you are entitled to make. You aren't entitled, instead, to steal it.
"They have effectively broken the law, so SCREW THEM."
No they haven't. You've confused your fair use rights with an obligation on their part to enable them for you. There is no such obligation.
"If not and someone makes something available as a Torrent which I fancy having a look at then what do you think?"
What you said was that you would happily indulge by committing IP theft. I take what you said at face value and that was you would hesitate to steal.
"...when you can download said media WITHOUT the DRM and without the hassle?"
It is not the moral high ground to steal that which you can't buy on terms favorable to you. It's a fact that people will do it but that doesn't make it legal nor does it mean it's not theft.
"...but NOT AS THE EXPENSE OF MY OWN CONVENIENCE TO USE MUSIC I'VE PURCHASED AS I WANT TO."
and there you go. You feel entitled to dictate terms of your purchase and, if you can't have your way, you feel that theft is justified. I got it.
"I know you will deduce from this that I spend all my time online downloading illegal music from bittorrent."
Not at all. I deduce that you're willing to and have some bizarre justification for it.
"Nothing could be further from the truth. 95% of the music I have downloaded I am LICENSED to have as I have purchased tracks on previous forms of media."
That doesn't make those downloads legal though it might give you some moral high ground. I've done the same. Buying a CD doesn't mean that downloading illegally distributed copies of it is legal to do.
"The other 5% is stuff I'm trying out..."
And you have no legal right to do that either. Fair use does not apply to content you haven't been legally distributed.
"...I WOULD download a torrent and try it..."
in violation of law.
"I'm not going to spend £1000 to find out I don't like the O/S!"
so you will steal it instead.
Don't think that you can justify your criminal acts because the ones you victimize deserve it. There are prisons filled with people with your same arguments.
I didn't choose it, Wikipedia did. You are free to choose any definition you choose so long as you cite the source or you can refute this one. You aren't interested though. All you want to do is stomp your feet and pound your chest.
laurie, you're so good at name calling and vulgarities. If only you were good at formulating arguments.
"See my previous post for a link to a Dictionary which quite clearly defines THEFT and makes NO mention of piracy, 'IP theft', the DMCA. It makes it quite clear that THEFT means THEFT of PROPERTY which DEPRIVES the OWNER of said PROPERTY."
Yes, I saw that and stuffed it into the ground. Perhaps if you understood what PROPERTY was...
Funny that you would acknowledge the existance of "IP theft". Thank you for admitting you are wrong.
"It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy..."
Not sure what your point is there.
OK, take this: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft
"the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"
Yes, this fits. What is stolen are the owners rights to control his work. It is not argued that the work itself is stolen, but the owner has lost his ability to control distribution when his content is pirated.
"an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property"
That certainly fits. Property is not always physical. A great example is intellectual property which is, conveniently, being discussed here.
Of course, only one definition need apply. The definition you provided is perfectly acceptable.
In the timeframe Intel offers this, AMD will have no quadcore part at all. Considering that, it's clear that AMD sucks, not Intel. Later on, Intel's "native" version (Yorkfield, discussed in your link) will have cache improvements and a bump in FSB speed. All things considered, the dual die part doesn't look like it sucks at all (except for AMD).
There are three sides to this: Intel's, AMD's, and the truth.
When comparing quadcore approaches, aggragate memory performance of multisocket, multi-memory controller designs is irrelevant. No doubt the AMD approach scales better but that's not important to the argument. When AMD announces a single die processor with multiple integrated memory controllers then it matters. Offsetting AMD's memory throughput advantages are Intel's much larger caches. It's a complicated subject.
Intel's approach gets quadcore to market far faster, and once AMD can deliver quadcore on a single die Intel will be able to do the same. Meanwhile, there is no evidence that Intel MCM approach is substancially inferior performance-wise. AMD's shortterm response, 4x4, is quite a joke by comparison. Anyone worrying about power consumption with Intel's solution isn't concerned with AMD's 4x4 design? I would much prefer a single processor, single memory controller system with 90% of the performance of the AMD dual proc beast. Of course, I pulled that number out of my ass...
laurie, you're ability to argue rivals krell! Glad to see you have an open mind. Ever read what the judge had to say?
2 13509
Of course, your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't surprise me considering that you've stated your willingness to steal before:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=157657&cid=13
Copyright infringment is justified so long as it gets you what you want, right laurie? I noticed you had no responses when called out on your illegimate opinions there. I expect you to be no different here.
I don'k know where you are referring to "carrying". If I did I would understand what you are arguing.
Are you arguing that property can only be physical because it can't be property if you can't carry it?
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_Sta tes:
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court. Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."
The passage you quoted involves physical goods ("physical identity", "physical taking of subject goods", "goods, wares, [or] merchandise", "physical control"). It states clearly that copyright infringement is not the same as theft of goods but that doesn't mean that copyright infringement is not theft in any manner. It only says that laws involving theft of goods do not also apply. Furthermore, Breyer clearly knew of this 1985 decision when he wrote in 2005:
"...And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
I'm not sure what you think "unlawful taking of property" is but I think it means "theft".
From the Wikipedia article on Dowling vs United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_Sta tes
"This statement, that copyright infringement was not theft of goods under the federal statute being used to prosecute Dowling, has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court. Rather, the Supreme Court made plain in its ruling that the Copyright Act already contains a criminal provision, making it unlikely that the authors of the statute being used to prosecute Dowling intended for it to cover copyright infringement in addition to theft of goods."
Note "...has since been interpreted by many advocates of file sharing as a declaration that copyright infringement is not "stealing"--though the Supreme Court has never interpreted it this way, nor has any other court."
As you can see, copyright infringment is not "theft of goods" but that doesn't mean it's not theft. The article makes this abundantly clear. The result of the decision is that both offenses would not apply. In this case, "goods" are the copies of the copyrighted works. The copyrighted work itself is also property as are the rights to distribute it and make derivative works from it.
You chose the word, I used it, then you claimed that I was distorting the meaning of the word. You keep dancing around the subject yet not offering any proof of your claims. All you want is distractions for the subject at hand.
7 6&cid=16830480. Your response is consistently "you are wrong". It's a good thing you weren't arguing the case in front of the court.
If you deny me my right to control distribution then you have stolen from me. Breyer says so, I say so, Infonaut says so here http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2063
Here's the Wikipedia definition of theft:
"In the criminal law, theft (also known as stealing) is the illegal taking of someone else's property without that person's freely-given consent."
Notice, krell, that "property" isn't required to be physical. No, it's not "quite a stretch".
"What reasonable person could call a possibly infringement of a right as an example of carrying someone's stuff away?"
What reasonable person wouldn't? What reasonable person would insist that property solely referred to "stuff"?