Much of the horrific videos (read: "Propaganda" for you meat-eating folk)
Not to start a war, but I think the reason it is called propaganda is becauase they purposely choose only the bloody footage, sometimes even manipulating footage (admitted to by Ingrid Newkirk of PETA once), and putting it in a way where it looks like that's all that happens there, yeah it's a propogatic method. They should do what real undercover people do - film, and show the footage uncut, unmanipulated, unedited, that way people will put more trust in the already trust-loosing PETA (especially after the latest campaign they started, which got judged as racist in New Haven, CT.
You can support the 2012 Games by not engaging in the unauthorised use of the Olympic Marks
Yeah? If by "engaging in the unauthorised use of the Olympic Marks" you mean by using them at all, how about you respect the people, and not make such fuchking unreasoanble demands in the first place?
First, "steal an idea" is common vernacular, and so from that perspective physical property need not be lost for it to be considered "stealing".
I really do not see it as common as you do. The term "steal an idea" is from another prespective (and a more commone one as well from what I have seen) a fallical concept that simply is impossible to actually occure, and has no meaning more than emotional confusion. An idea is a raw concept too broad for one's ownership, and oftentimes constructed with many other ideas to create content that is protectable. Raw ideas are not protected under law, and for good reasoning too, IMO.
Regardless, theft of service or signal IS considered theft legally in the state I live in (California) AND, so far as I know, pretty much everywhere else too. Which, IMHO, pretty much leads to the incontrovertible conclusion that stealing a copy of copyrighted works is theft,
Ah, the "It's this here, so it's this all the time" argument. False. Copying a work still falls under copyright infrignement and not theft, because like it's name, you are making an illegal copy and not taking, which differs somewhat from tampering with cable to get free cable, and to this day does not maye it theft, regardless of the asinine attempts at logical reasoning you presented in your post..
They're different types of theft, just like people and squirrels are different types of mammals, but they all fall under the umbrella of "theft", which is, colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have.
No, the definition of theft is not so, and it isn't simply so because of one reason - it's too broad. Nobody on earth would be very quick to all of a sudden accept such a rediculosuly broad definition of theft. If "colloquially, getting something you didn't pay for but which you should have" was the all-too-good-general definition, everybody would be in jail, that in combination of the curent state of lawsuits. ALl it would take is somebody having "good faith" that you should have to pay for something where you dreally don't, and you got my senario.
I'm telling you, your definition is not accurate, mainly because it is too broad.
All of which, as was said away back when, is COMPLETELY off topic of the original issue, which is that the theft of copyrighted works is WRONG, ILLEGAL, IMMORAL, and UNSUSTAINABLE.
Offtopic or not, falsely combining copyright infringement and theft, which is why this whole thing began in the first place is why we are arguing this, and you folk (by that I mean those who bring the topic of "coypright infringemnt VS theft" into a topic to stir up trouble) are only to blame for statring it and trying to switch it up on those who correct you people to avoide the blame.
Illegal, yes copyright infrignemnt (I refuse to call it anything other than what the crime is, and is prosecuted under.), but most of the people arguing the copyright infringement is not theft argument in this topic were aware of and supported this point, unless you people have a really bad comprehension problem. As for immoral, I can think of reasoning for you to fall on that one, since your word is not the absolute word, and apparently much of the world disagrees with you, so trying to force your morals like this will only fail.
BTW, I do not condone copyright infrignement, but I can think of seceral exceptions where I think it an be considered a moral act.
If this little diversion tactic wasn't meant as a diversion tactic, why is it so commonly used?
Because when talking about copyright infringement, or anything legal, or factual for that matter, it is not a good idea to change the topic and start calling it other things (unless an opinion is being made of course) since doing so shows a lack of understanding, ignorance, or some othe
Not all dictionaries however are the same, and the one I seem to follow, an apparently the one the laws are written on relies on loss of property, do it really depends on the one that you read/believe in.
People who actively and vocally advocate the use of the term "infringement" as an alternative every time the word "theft" is mentioned are attempting to play the propaganda game from the other side, as the connotation of infringement implies that one has done little or nothing of consequence.
This is nothing more than what George Carlin calls "being stunningly, and embarrassingly full of shit". It is a lie. The reason that "we" (a collective "we"?) use it is because that's what the law calls it, that is the crime commited, and not theft, and that's why theft is not considered appropriate by many (most) - because it fucking isn't!
I specifically think one should stick to old Basic rather than new Visual Basic to avoid the fact that there are complicated addons like VGL, DirectX, Database access.. not to mention the integrated IDE of sorts
I would hardly call VGL complicated, in fact, when compared to making games in DirectX, VGL makes VB game programming very easy.
If you're in possession of the music, then by law you have to pay for it.
Hmmm... so I broke the law by downloading music from dmusic.com, and didn't pay for it because the artists placed it up there to download for free?
No? Ok then, simply having music does not require payment as independent music artists show, to legally download free music you need to have permission, sometimes given by payment, but your argument clearly excluded a group alltogether.
You have deprived the copyright holder of the payment.
This argument is old and tired. You could potentially hold off giving the artist money, you could not. But who are you to all of a sudden "know" that just on the one basis that somebody downloaded a 'tune? You aren't because you don't know. The person might buy the song on Itunes or Napster, or buy the CD, he/she may not, but that is no reason to continue an attitude perpetuated where all of a sudden entitlement became a nauseating child wanting a lollypop crying affair that it has become. Yes the artist didn't directly make the money he/she wanted, but who is that person to say that he/she won't recieve payment? And if he/she doesn't from one or two people, it it really the end of the world? Shit happens, and I think that if you can only resort to things like what has been displayed by the RIAA/some artists, and don't at least make an honest effort to make it through the challenges provided to you (which will always exist, mind you) they have chosen the wrong field to work though.
If you work for someone, and they don't pay you, have they stolen from you? They haven't taken any possessions from you. Don't know about you, but I'd say 'yes', even though it's technically a contract violation.
The reasoning behind this one you will have to work out on your own...
On the other hand, you have a multitude of excuses for piracy. The "copyright infringement isn't theft" is my favorite, as it in no way justifies breaking of the law.
As much as I like finding the middle ground, it's shit like this - mis understanding the argument - that makes it harder.
If you actually read when the "coypright infringement isn't theft" arguemnt was presented, it was because the crime was factually mis-named, not because they think that makes the crime ok. Most of the time that is, even going to the point of disclaiming that that doesn't change how illegal it is, but instead how the argument of one concept as something else when it is either factually wrong, or a matter of disagreed opinions.
Here is an interesting variant of basic you should look at (if you don't know already)
http://devster.retrodev.com/sega/basiegaxorz/
It's BASIC, but it compiles to work on SEGA Genesis emulators and, given the right tools, a real SEGA Genesis. Easy to do, but sure to give them a real spark of "wow, holy crap this is cool!"
Elaborate please, anybody who has had enough time can really program some killer things, and with addons like VGL (www.angelfire.com/games4/hotrodx/) and DirectX make making games not easier, but more managable and do-able.
I am defending VB because it was the first language I learned for it's simplicity, and sometimes I still use while learning the others (ASM, C, C++, Java,ETC) and think that an absolute beginner should not be rushed into things - start with the basics, which I think this does fairly well.
I hate this killer attitude towards the basic languages displayed in this topic so far. Yes, it is limited, but this article is about beginner programming after all, or is there such a thing as being title-blind?
If history serves my memory correctly, this is bound to fail like all the other DRM schemes. History does after all repeat itself, and usually all it takes is either a really good hacker, or a really lucky foul-up to make the DRM go to hell.
Windows is simply more ubiquitous and easier to use, as is Apple Macintosh, which is why both will remain in schools and Linux will never get in (at least not in any discernable amount).
Anytime soon yes, but never? One day an "easy to use" version will come out with all the loving features of the other linux distros, then things might slightly change.
>our rights are being violated left and right.
What rights ?
You have NO right to take copyrighted material.
Even if you have permission do do so, as in OSS abd independent music? Need I remind you that they are still copyrighted, it is just the licensing is allowing for the distribution.
Has Slashdot suddenly been taken over by low life pirates and thieves ?
Pirates maybe, theives... no, since we are talking about copyright violations and not theft laws. As for it affecting distributing of OSS/independent music, that may not be affected now, but if things get any more out of hand, I have a feeling that what is a potentially (and oftentimes well utilized method) of distibution could be threatened.
I can't believe how many people have zero morals these days *sigh*
Woah, so somebody pirates, and all of a sudden, they loose all of the merit and moral based on one act? Just because one person pirates DOES NOT mean they are not following other morals in other fields.
Are you just trying to justify downloading music for free is legal, because you do not have money or are too cheap to buy the damn CDs?
OR have you become so accustomed to free = illegal that you like so many others have forgotten about the legal and free option: dmusic.com for example? It appears that you like many others have become to accustomed to their montra that the independent artist and the common act if them releasing their music online for free legally has passed over your mind.
Don't be so broad with the phrase "downloading music for free" when talking about legalities, since it is not all legal, and it is not all illegal.
I personally think the government should not dictate things like where video games can be sold, or holding stores responsible under LAW for I.D checks in relation to the games being bought.
Ah yes. Open Source THEFT-WARE. That's what it's all about.
Is this sarcasm? Copyright infringement is infringement, not theft, and even so, it is the people that commit the crime, the software isn't automated you know.
And here's another complex situation: Am I stealing a downloaded movie when it I have a Netflix account and it is available for rent? Technically I have paid for the use of that film.
Nope, possibly copyright infringement, but never theft.
Technically I have paid for the use of that film.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I might be, but is that a detrimental factor in what constitutes theft in the argument you present?
The nature of the change is that downloading copyrighted material without permission will become illegal.
Thank goodness it is only without permission beingoutlawed, and not downloading copyrighted works alltogether like I though at first... oops, mistake in another post I made today.... mybad...
Slashdot Mirror
Not to start a war, but I think the reason it is called propaganda is becauase they purposely choose only the bloody footage, sometimes even manipulating footage (admitted to by Ingrid Newkirk of PETA once), and putting it in a way where it looks like that's all that happens there, yeah it's a propogatic method. They should do what real undercover people do - film, and show the footage uncut, unmanipulated, unedited, that way people will put more trust in the already trust-loosing PETA (especially after the latest campaign they started, which got judged as racist in New Haven, CT.
Yeah, especially since current "cruelty-free" meat actually isn't cruelty free - animals still die for the creation of it!
Yeah? If by "engaging in the unauthorised use of the Olympic Marks" you mean by using them at all, how about you respect the people, and not make such fuchking unreasoanble demands in the first place?
Not all dictionaries however are the same, and the one I seem to follow, an apparently the one the laws are written on relies on loss of property, do it really depends on the one that you read/believe in.
This is nothing more than what George Carlin calls "being stunningly, and embarrassingly full of shit". It is a lie. The reason that "we" (a collective "we"?) use it is because that's what the law calls it, that is the crime commited, and not theft, and that's why theft is not considered appropriate by many (most) - because it fucking isn't!
And factually speaking, that is only an opinion, factually speaking you may be breaking the law but theft isn't the law.
See? Repetitive no-progress arguments (inflammitory?) can/will work all ways.
I would hardly call VGL complicated, in fact, when compared to making games in DirectX, VGL makes VB game programming very easy.
...
Of course it was theft, you took a posession from somebody, deprived it from their usage.
It is not the same as copying anything.... this is another argument that gets really old and really annoying.
As much as I like finding the middle ground, it's shit like this - mis understanding the argument - that makes it harder.
If you actually read when the "coypright infringement isn't theft" arguemnt was presented, it was because the crime was factually mis-named, not because they think that makes the crime ok. Most of the time that is, even going to the point of disclaiming that that doesn't change how illegal it is, but instead how the argument of one concept as something else when it is either factually wrong, or a matter of disagreed opinions.
http://devster.retrodev.com/sega/basiegaxorz/
It's BASIC, but it compiles to work on SEGA Genesis emulators and, given the right tools, a real SEGA Genesis. Easy to do, but sure to give them a real spark of "wow, holy crap this is cool!"
Elaborate please, anybody who has had enough time can really program some killer things, and with addons like VGL (www.angelfire.com/games4/hotrodx/) and DirectX make making games not easier, but more managable and do-able.
I am defending VB because it was the first language I learned for it's simplicity, and sometimes I still use while learning the others (ASM, C, C++, Java,ETC) and think that an absolute beginner should not be rushed into things - start with the basics, which I think this does fairly well.
I hate this killer attitude towards the basic languages displayed in this topic so far. Yes, it is limited, but this article is about beginner programming after all, or is there such a thing as being title-blind?
If history serves my memory correctly, this is bound to fail like all the other DRM schemes. History does after all repeat itself, and usually all it takes is either a really good hacker, or a really lucky foul-up to make the DRM go to hell.
Anytime soon yes, but never? One day an "easy to use" version will come out with all the loving features of the other linux distros, then things might slightly change.
Even if you have permission do do so, as in OSS abd independent music? Need I remind you that they are still copyrighted, it is just the licensing is allowing for the distribution.
Has Slashdot suddenly been taken over by low life pirates and thieves ?
Pirates maybe, theives... no, since we are talking about copyright violations and not theft laws. As for it affecting distributing of OSS/independent music, that may not be affected now, but if things get any more out of hand, I have a feeling that what is a potentially (and oftentimes well utilized method) of distibution could be threatened.
I can't believe how many people have zero morals these days *sigh*
Woah, so somebody pirates, and all of a sudden, they loose all of the merit and moral based on one act? Just because one person pirates DOES NOT mean they are not following other morals in other fields.
Actually, No. They are not. There are laws that govern this field. Ever heard of price fixing?
OR have you become so accustomed to free = illegal that you like so many others have forgotten about the legal and free option: dmusic.com for example? It appears that you like many others have become to accustomed to their montra that the independent artist and the common act if them releasing their music online for free legally has passed over your mind.
Don't be so broad with the phrase "downloading music for free" when talking about legalities, since it is not all legal, and it is not all illegal.
* *
"
\_/
Well? Make up youtr mind man! Which is it? Stole, or copied?
Funny, seems the "money is theirs even though they might not deserve it" argument is the hottest trend in bullshit arguments!
I personally think the government should not dictate things like where video games can be sold, or holding stores responsible under LAW for I.D checks in relation to the games being bought.
Yeah, anybody who confuses the different concepts of copying 1s and 0s and theft must really be confused.
Please explain the "stolen idea" idea to me in english please?
Is this sarcasm? Copyright infringement is infringement, not theft, and even so, it is the people that commit the crime, the software isn't automated you know.
Nope, possibly copyright infringement, but never theft.
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I might be, but is that a detrimental factor in what constitutes theft in the argument you present?
Thank goodness it is only without permission beingoutlawed, and not downloading copyrighted works alltogether like I though at first... oops, mistake in another post I made today.... mybad...