SURELY they are greedy for wanting to get something faster, possibly cheaper, but still legally?
No, they are greedy for taking something faster, cheaper and illegally.
You mised this piece right here though (emphasized):
Tell that to the non-pirates [meaning those who don't use file-sharing programs for illegal purposes] who want to find things that they can't find in stores (out of print_, those who want to have "on demand" access, or those who are just too lazy to get out of the house to go to a store...
And the above by Travelsonic is why you will never win a debate with an illegal file-trader.
And that ladies and gentlemen is why an Ananomous Coward will never win a Slashdot brand name debate. I never made a statement about my file-sharing habits, which means that he/she assumed> I did illegally when I never said anything related to it meaning I either do, don't, do often, or don't do often, but either way you don't know.
Don't make me pull out the dictionary definition of an opinion. ^_^
Seriously though, a dictionary is NOT an absolute truth, otherwisethere would only one, where everybody would get their source, but alas we have multiple brands, with slightly different
meanings for words. I think dictionaries are not only mae up from common usage and research, but also, despite how small this might actually be, writer's interpretation as well.
I disagree with what you state about debating dictionzary definitions. Words can have ambiguous meaning, or are understood differently from others. Why should the people who understand it in way X not debate it with people who learned it in way X? I mean, aren't those who don't want to argue over word meanings sometimes the same people who use them in the wrong context as well? Or those who are 100% ignorant to the meaning of words, correcting these people == good IMO.
The thing I have been trying to state, with much failure as it all turns into mindless rambling, is that dictionary definitions are not universal, they aren't all agreed upon (which might lead to different dictionaries being produced), but when talking in a discussion about legalities and illegalities, dictionary definitions don't matter, it's what the law states that matters mainly because what they say (and what is enforced based upon that) differs from the common dictionary sometimes, while other times dictionaries also provide legal definitions as well.
McDonald's are trialling a new breakfast meal made of Spam in their restaurants in Hawaii. (Story dated 2002.) In that case, Spam would definitely be an increase in the food quality.
The industry's method of distribution is only "obsolete" to those who want to find some way of justifying their illegal and unethical greediness.
Tell that to the non-pirates who want to find things that they can't find in stores (out of print_, those who want to have "on demand" access, or those who are just too lazy to get out of the house to go to a store, SURELY theyare greedy for wanting to get something faster, possibly cheaper, but still legally?
However, the answer to bad laws is to get them changed.
I must state that this becomes harder to do, if in fact the laws are "bought" then that means the corporations have tighter control over laws than we think, and civil disobedience is one way to change it when times are very dire.
It's every last slashbot bleating that it's their natural born right to donwload whatever content they wish, simply because technology enables them to do so with ease and with little risk of discovery that has led to the current climate of distrust and litigation in the media world.
Not all slashdot posters and viewers have that mindset you speak of, whereas we are more filled with trollish people who like to generalize and unjustly accuse.
At the risk of sounding like the schoolyard bully pleading with the teacher... who started it?
RIAA/MPAA IMO
People like you don't like DRM, or region-locked DVDs, and all that crap.
And if it weren't for people like you being so blatantly selfish, the rest of us wouldn't now have to put up with it.
I am sorry, but I MUST protest your generalizations. Not everybody who hates DRM supports/commits acts of copyright infringement, and either way, I think that judging by the way they act [they being the RIAA/MPAA] to new technologies now, I doubt piracy would matter being that either way we would still be here because they didn't change the business model fast enough. "the media industries defend their business the only way they know how."? Even when the tools for rebuilding and the knowledge is right in their faces?
And the above by Travelsonic is why you will never win a debate with an illegal file-trader. Oh not because you can't support your arguments. But because whatever you come up with will be dismissed out of hand.
If it is factually wrong, you are right it will be dismissed. Like the other respondant to your post stated, you pick grounds on points that either are 100% factually/legally wrong, or are opinions. Focus on facts if you want to win, otherwise you are picking a battle that like the others who do the same, will never win.
Because those who use it are too stupid to realize that ideas are intellectual though, raw concepts that once you revela to the world are too ambiguous to claim as your own, And if it was copied, you still have the idea in your head, thus violating common usage of "theft"?
You use a bad example, copyrights only apply to implementations of ideas. Raw ideas don't fall under copyright law.
So your logic prohibits somebody being for some of, and against the rest of a law? I find some of copyright law ok and tolerable, but the rest should be reformed.
You can't have it both in part, and in whole, you know that right? They are partially right. They are right that copyright infringement isi llegal, and that sharing content illegally (without permission if it is needed) is illegal, but the programs are not automated, people have to use them to abuse them.
.. but don't hide with your head in the sand denying that 99.9% of the traffic is totally, irrefutably, undeniably -- ILLEGAL. It _IS_.
A) I don't think we as a group deny that a larg group of P2P usage is illegal. B) Don't make up statistics stating that 99.9% of the traffic is totally, irrefutably, undeniably ILLEGAL -- YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW FOR SURE!.
not kid ourselves: the guys who rip stuff illegally like to call it "copyright infringement" because that sounds something that fluffy bunnies might do that couldn't possibly hurt anyone. It's just as emotionally charged as the terms so beloved of the **AA and their ilk, just in the other direction.
This is just plain bullshit (what I highlighted). It is a legal fact, that although people who commit copyright infringmenet have used in defense, I have mostly seen it used by honest people because they know it is a legal fact, nothing more, nothing less.
On a related note, ISTR someone here on Slashdot citing a use of the word "theft" in this context dating back over 150 years in a previous discussion, and another noting that at least one US court has used the word in a formal ruling on copyright infringement.
Whoop de fucking doo, one court used theft and mixed it in with copyright infringement. I can think of two or three that don't and clearly distinguish the two crimes at the same time. Just because the term "intellectual property theft" is used more often, that does not make it a correct term, in fact, it is still wrong as a large misnomer, since no real "theft" but instead violation of rights involved with the "IP" took place.
From dictionary.com:
Theft: The act or an instance of stealing.
Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Property: Something tangible or intangible to which its owner has legal title: properties such as copyrights and trademarks.
I would posit that you are the one that is confused
Don't get full of yourself just yet, copying and taking are two different things, and the law reconizes this when they came up with the legal terms for theft and property/copyright infringement.
Apparently this difference is important enough to Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: theft
Pronunciation: 'theft
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English thiefthe, from Old English thIefth; akin to Old English thEof thief
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
2 obsolete : something stolen
3 : a stolen base in baseball
You're splitting hairs to justify doing something that is clearly ethically wrong, that is pirating movies, music, and software.
REGARDLESS of if he was justifying or just trying to end the "copyright infringement is theft" myth, he is correct.
Now I don't try to justify anything, but just get off your fucking high horse. Piracy is not nessecarily wrong. New movies, new games, yes, but say music, software and games you have permission to share, I say it is definately ethical, but if the video games are like NES/SNES games I personally see no qualm, but you seem to assume piracy is a black and white, either right or wrong thing that everybody agrees to when they clearly don't all unanimously agree with.
I don't see all piracy as right, and I don't see all piracy as wrong, but you seem to try a higher moral ground as if it [what you say] was absolute truth.
Sorry, I can't call it anything else, even if it's a PhD thesis.
So what you are saying is celebrating any form of advancement of file-sharing technologies == "encourageing theft" (or since what we are arguing over involves copying, copyright infringement? Did I read this correctly, or not, and if not, please clear things up.
Sure, you can argue that copyright infringement is not theft...
Argue? It has been clearly been legally established in 1985, and several times in the past decade that copyright infringement, as illegal as it is, is copyright infringement and nothing else. Philosophically it has also been argued against calling copyright infringement anything other than that as well, but that I will leave to open interpretation.
]
...but then don't call people who abuse GPL software "thieves".
People who do lable GPL violators "theives" when also making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft in other posts, well, they are hypocrites.
And yes, copyright infringement is a form of theft.
This is not only legally inaccurate, but also an oxymoron. No copyright infringement is not a form of theft, it is a form of unauthorized distribution, copying. Not taking away property of any sort, or if that is not what meet what your definition is, what is it?P
don't think this has anything to do with privacy. Privacy doesn't include the right to hide your crimes.
It does have to do with privacy. If you were on a P2P network, but either you didn't download anything illegal, or you didn't download anything period in that time period, you should not have to face accusiations of piracy. The way the industry has gone aquiring IP addresses and names, they made mistakes, and this helps end some of that... for now.
I mean, imagine if someone stole your stuff, but the police told you that they would get it back, but they aren't allowed to find out where they live.
Not really the same at all. For one, the crime is copyright infringement, not theft. There is no involvement of stolen/lost tangible/intangible property, and certainly finding crime culprits online and offline are done differently.
By the way, there is no right to steal music or break copyrights.
Sorry, but #1 is #2 not #X, or in your case, theft, need we discuss this again?
You are NOT entitled to have a copy of that song you like so much.
Sorry, but under your logic, you eliminated legal/free music downloads from independent music artists. I knbow what you are *trying* to state, but if I enjoy some music from an artist who encourages downloading/sharing of his songs, I am damn right entitled to make a copy of that artists song(s) if it is his/her request.
If you obtain a copy of a song without providing compensation to the copyright holder, your are breaking law...
So if I download free music from dmusic.com, I am breaking the law, when they put it up for free in the first place? This ladies and gentlemen is what I call a gross misinterpretation of the law. What makes it legal and or illegal is NOT compensation or lack of compensation, but permission, or lack of permission.
... and stealing from the copyright holder. (if you aren't stealing the song, you are stealing the "right" to make copies)
Sorry, I am stealing nothing. To steal, or theft as it is called requires loss of property, and what happens here does not deprive somebody of that property, which is why the issue of downloading copies of music falls under copyright laws instead of theft laws, and no matter what you say, you are wrong. The artist and/or copyright holder still has his/her legal copyright and legal rigth to make copies. You did not take that away.
Did you look up anything law related before typing this? It sounds like to me you pulled EVERYTHING you said out of your ass, judging by how RIAA propogated and legally inaccurate it is.
"Stolen software"? We have been through this debate numerous times. As wrong as copyright infringement is, nothing is "stolen," especially if it is copied. Copying is copying, not theft. Not condoning the piracy in the world, mind you.
You want a dodge viper, but you can't afford it, so you decide to steal it. You are saying that this isn't actually stealing, because you wouldn't have bought it if you didn't steal it. That's just stupid.
Your car analogy is flawed. When you steal a car, they no longer have it, whereas making a copy does not deprive them of that copy, or copyright. Copyright infringement isn't theft because they are different legally, and successfully it has been argued philosophically. Tell me the similarities between making a copy of soemthing, and stealing a car again?
I'm defining stealing as taking what doesn't legally belong to you. This applies to people who make unlawful copies of, or download illegally, music which they do not have the rights to.
I agree with your definition, up until you add in copying, for you are copying something, you are not taking, which I was always taught (as well as countless others) to involve removing or reliveing property tangible or not from one's posession. I still agree that justification is still futile (unless it is of music in which they have permission from, that is another story!) but I think taking and copying are separate, which is why I despise the idea of plagiarism being called a form of theft as opposed to a form of copying and fraud mixed together. (despite the fact that they are still wrong, no shit there!)
Slashdot Mirror
Due Process and no-bullshit attitudes strike again. Way to go Canada!
Aren't you having spam spam spam spam spam spam spam beaked beans spam spam spam and spam though? ^_^
It's JUST an expression.
You mised this piece right here though (emphasized):
And that ladies and gentlemen is why an Ananomous Coward will never win a Slashdot brand name debate. I never made a statement about my file-sharing habits, which means that he/she assumed> I did illegally when I never said anything related to it meaning I either do, don't, do often, or don't do often, but either way you don't know.
Don't make me pull out the dictionary definition of an opinion. ^_^
Seriously though, a dictionary is NOT an absolute truth, otherwisethere would only one, where everybody would get their source, but alas we have multiple brands, with slightly different meanings for words. I think dictionaries are not only mae up from common usage and research, but also, despite how small this might actually be, writer's interpretation as well. I disagree with what you state about debating dictionzary definitions. Words can have ambiguous meaning, or are understood differently from others. Why should the people who understand it in way X not debate it with people who learned it in way X? I mean, aren't those who don't want to argue over word meanings sometimes the same people who use them in the wrong context as well? Or those who are 100% ignorant to the meaning of words, correcting these people == good IMO.
The thing I have been trying to state, with much failure as it all turns into mindless rambling, is that dictionary definitions are not universal, they aren't all agreed upon (which might lead to different dictionaries being produced), but when talking in a discussion about legalities and illegalities, dictionary definitions don't matter, it's what the law states that matters mainly because what they say (and what is enforced based upon that) differs from the common dictionary sometimes, while other times dictionaries also provide legal definitions as well.
Spam eggs sausage and spam anybody?
Tell that to the non-pirates who want to find things that they can't find in stores (out of print_, those who want to have "on demand" access, or those who are just too lazy to get out of the house to go to a store, SURELY theyare greedy for wanting to get something faster, possibly cheaper, but still legally?
I must state that this becomes harder to do, if in fact the laws are "bought" then that means the corporations have tighter control over laws than we think, and civil disobedience is one way to change it when times are very dire.
Not all slashdot posters and viewers have that mindset you speak of, whereas we are more filled with trollish people who like to generalize and unjustly accuse.
RIAA/MPAA IMO
I am sorry, but I MUST protest your generalizations. Not everybody who hates DRM supports/commits acts of copyright infringement, and either way, I think that judging by the way they act [they being the RIAA/MPAA] to new technologies now, I doubt piracy would matter being that either way we would still be here because they didn't change the business model fast enough. "the media industries defend their business the only way they know how."? Even when the tools for rebuilding and the knowledge is right in their faces?
If it is factually wrong, you are right it will be dismissed. Like the other respondant to your post stated, you pick grounds on points that either are 100% factually/legally wrong, or are opinions. Focus on facts if you want to win, otherwise you are picking a battle that like the others who do the same, will never win.
So your logic prohibits somebody being for some of, and against the rest of a law? I find some of copyright law ok and tolerable, but the rest should be reformed.
You can't have it both in part, and in whole, you know that right? They are partially right. They are right that copyright infringement isi llegal, and that sharing content illegally (without permission if it is needed) is illegal, but the programs are not automated, people have to use them to abuse them.
A) I don't think we as a group deny that a larg group of P2P usage is illegal. B) Don't make up statistics stating that 99.9% of the traffic is totally, irrefutably, undeniably ILLEGAL -- YOU DON'T FUCKING KNOW FOR SURE!.
This is just plain bullshit (what I highlighted). It is a legal fact, that although people who commit copyright infringmenet have used in defense, I have mostly seen it used by honest people because they know it is a legal fact, nothing more, nothing less.
Whoop de fucking doo, one court used theft and mixed it in with copyright infringement. I can think of two or three that don't and clearly distinguish the two crimes at the same time. Just because the term "intellectual property theft" is used more often, that does not make it a correct term, in fact, it is still wrong as a large misnomer, since no real "theft" but instead violation of rights involved with the "IP" took place.
REGARDLESS of if he was justifying or just trying to end the "copyright infringement is theft" myth, he is correct.
Now I don't try to justify anything, but just get off your fucking high horse. Piracy is not nessecarily wrong. New movies, new games, yes, but say music, software and games you have permission to share, I say it is definately ethical, but if the video games are like NES/SNES games I personally see no qualm, but you seem to assume piracy is a black and white, either right or wrong thing that everybody agrees to when they clearly don't all unanimously agree with.
I don't see all piracy as right, and I don't see all piracy as wrong, but you seem to try a higher moral ground as if it [what you say] was absolute truth.
So what you are saying is celebrating any form of advancement of file-sharing technologies == "encourageing theft" (or since what we are arguing over involves copying, copyright infringement? Did I read this correctly, or not, and if not, please clear things up.
Argue? It has been clearly been legally established in 1985, and several times in the past decade that copyright infringement, as illegal as it is, is copyright infringement and nothing else. Philosophically it has also been argued against calling copyright infringement anything other than that as well, but that I will leave to open interpretation.
]
People who do lable GPL violators "theives" when also making the statement that copyright infringement is not theft in other posts, well, they are hypocrites.
Generalization.
It does have to do with privacy. If you were on a P2P network, but either you didn't download anything illegal, or you didn't download anything period in that time period, you should not have to face accusiations of piracy. The way the industry has gone aquiring IP addresses and names, they made mistakes, and this helps end some of that... for now.
Not really the same at all. For one, the crime is copyright infringement, not theft. There is no involvement of stolen/lost tangible/intangible property, and certainly finding crime culprits online and offline are done differently.
Sorry, but #1 is #2 not #X, or in your case, theft, need we discuss this again?
Sorry, but under your logic, you eliminated legal/free music downloads from independent music artists. I knbow what you are *trying* to state, but if I enjoy some music from an artist who encourages downloading/sharing of his songs, I am damn right entitled to make a copy of that artists song(s) if it is his/her request.
So if I download free music from dmusic.com, I am breaking the law, when they put it up for free in the first place? This ladies and gentlemen is what I call a gross misinterpretation of the law. What makes it legal and or illegal is NOT compensation or lack of compensation, but permission, or lack of permission.
Sorry, I am stealing nothing. To steal, or theft as it is called requires loss of property, and what happens here does not deprive somebody of that property, which is why the issue of downloading copies of music falls under copyright laws instead of theft laws, and no matter what you say, you are wrong. The artist and/or copyright holder still has his/her legal copyright and legal rigth to make copies. You did not take that away.
Did you look up anything law related before typing this? It sounds like to me you pulled EVERYTHING you said out of your ass, judging by how RIAA propogated and legally inaccurate it is.
NEXT STOOGE!
"Stolen software"? We have been through this debate numerous times. As wrong as copyright infringement is, nothing is "stolen," especially if it is copied. Copying is copying, not theft. Not condoning the piracy in the world, mind you.
Your car analogy is flawed. When you steal a car, they no longer have it, whereas making a copy does not deprive them of that copy, or copyright. Copyright infringement isn't theft because they are different legally, and successfully it has been argued philosophically. Tell me the similarities between making a copy of soemthing, and stealing a car again?
Unfortunately, copyright laws don't work that way per-se.