...loaded up Gradius before the (Korean??? Good English grammar, though...) attendant could come back and switch it to Duck Hunt. Good game, albeit illegal.
Damn I love Duck Hunt, I do wish I could have been able to shoot that damn laughing dog, after 10 or so games he gets REALLY annoying.
[mod -1 offtopic if you want to, this just brought back memories]
Downloading music without paying for it is illegal even if you intend to go buy the album if you like it.
Bullshit, if this is true, then why are sites like DMusic allowing artists to put up their music up for free then?
Seriously though, this is a phrase just asking for it. I mean, the actual issue is not whether payment or lack of makes downloading illegal, or whether or not the copyright status = copyrighted since indie artists for example allow downloads of their songs for free, but still copyright them for example, but the issue really is permissions. In my example the artist gave permission, in the case here that is doubtful, but it doesn't matter to your interpretation of the law since it would be illegal anyways!
I don't know why the message didn't follow through (or got deleted if it did), but I replied here stating that I was still working on posting here, including paragraphs and that I will re-post this with proper formatting whenever I get the chance.
I Apologize for the lack of paragraph tags/formatting of paragrapsh.
The only problem is this: nobody is stealing from anybody else, the cime is piracy and copyright infringement. Nintendo can't nessecarily arrest for this.
Four people were arrested in the crackdown on the theft of popular games such as "Donkey Kong," "Mario Brothers," "Duck Hunt," "Baseball" and others, according to a release by federal authorities and papers filed in U.S.
These guys seem like they wouldn't know theft if it bit them in the rear end.
The crime is copyright infringement, not theft.
Why are the police not involved if it is theft? Why is the IP "stolen" still in Nintendo's posession?
Because what is going on is a violation of copyright laws/contracts.
This may not make it right, but this statement proves that our English language is being twisted to support agendas and make things sound worse/different than they really are.
[quazi-philosophical rant ahead:]
I am one of possibly few left growing up being taught that stealing (or theft if talking legal terminology) requires loss. That in order for something to be stolen somebody has something, but somebody else took it away from you, depriving you of it, while gaining him/her possession of said item. Slowly this concept is being replaced rapidly every day with a different, easier to use concept. Now people are growing accustomed to the idea that theft/stealing doesn't require the "owner" to loose things they had "stolen," or that loosing something you don't even have but wish you had is theft. This surfacing ideology really scares me from a philosophical viewpoint. Before I try to reason why this is scary, I will first attempt to identify reasoning behind this. I think the answer as to why the definition was changed in the mindset of possibly millions is due in part from the pushing of certain agendas on people, which shall be a basis on my explanation.
The agenda pushing is in part from the recording and movie industries attempt to show people a negative side to file-sharing, mainly that it can be used to violate copyright. Either through thinking copyright infringement was too light of a word to stir up support, or possibly because they though copyright infringement was too complex for somebody to explain, they instead went with calling unauthorized duplication of data theft or stealing. This brings in another factor right into the issue, that is that they might be too lazy to try and define in a balanced way fee from biased the basic ideas behind copyright laws without resorting to toying with the sometimes fragile world of emotions.
The flaw with the decision here is, if you followed the definition of theft/stealing I was taught, duplicating pieces of data, simple 1's and 0's, without depriving them of the same bits of data doesn't fall under this definition. Sure copying something copyrighted without permission in some cases is wrong, but why not call it what it really is, and try to make it wrong in it's own sense instead of "stealing" stealing. The only thing that somebody would possibly be deprived of is the potential to earn some money. The potential meaning they have a chance, but fate can work in or out of their favor, but is not required under law to fall in their favor. I shall close this explanation of this piece with a fitting analogy. If we follow the mindset of the industries at work in media (music and movies), maybe it can be considered theft to tell people that a particular movie, or CD, or book is bad/not worth spending money on because you decrease the value of it to those people who want to buy it. The only flaw here might be that freedom of speech is protected under law here in the U.S, but there have been cases where the justice system has failed us on protecting the first amendment.
You the reader have probably been reading through this and wondered where the reasoning for the redefining being scary will come into play. The English language is very rich in words and phrases. There is more than one way to describe one act, but only one way to describe it accurately. To me, what we were taught in elementary school, piled on to what "copying" is, and adding on to that what is being fed into our brains from debates on controversial i
While you are technically correct, if your "rules" are in violation of law, then you are in violation of law and can be held responsible for it. Furthermore, as a property owner, you give up the right to make some "rules" if you choose to be a landlord or otherwise use your land in a commercial application. i.e., my landlord cannot drop by at any time of the day simply because he owns the land. It's illegal (statewide). As a citizen, those are my "rules", and they better damn well be followed. Deal with it.
This is what I have been trying to say, and you summed it up perfectly.
Why, then, are strippers not suing the shit out of strip clubs?
What I am talking about is forced, this in many cases is not a case of being forced against their will.
you tell me to do something however that violates my human rights
If I tell you to do something you don't want to do, then leave.
Are you hiding something?
All I am saying is that if you do something that is illegal, or violates human rights, not things that follow laws and are security related, then the person is under no obligation to follow then. Tell them to dance naked - prepared to be told to go fuck yourself.
Yes, its "right" to steal music without compensating the artists, distributors, and other people involved in distributing it, but its not right to take GPL code and not release the source code to your program that uses the code.
"steal" music?
Funny, I though that all the things in this discussion were copyright/IP/GPL violations?
DO NOT mistaken this as justification, or as me saying this is o.k, but I wonder why correlation there is between violations and theft?
If you're on *my* property you've got exactly two choices:
a) follow my rules, or
b) get the hell off my property
If you tell me to do something however that violates my human rights, like forcing me to dance around naked, then I have a third choice: Sue the shit outta you.
Although this is NOT what you mean, the broadness of the statement allows for this kind of questioning.
Most dictionaries that I checked define theft as taking property or services without paying for them.
Funny, all the dictionaries I looked in never mentioned payment, or lack of for that matter, to qualify as theft.
Either way, I think that logic should come into definitions and morals. I am one of possibly few left growing up thinking that stealing.theft requires loss, and that now people are growing accustomed to the idea that theft/stealing doesn't require the "owner" to loose things they had "stolen" really scares me from a philosophical viewpoint.
). If you distribute an authorized copy, you have violated the copyright holder's (possibly valuable) right. In other words, you may have taken something of value from somebody else. Sounds like theft, doesn't it?
Not to me, because when I was a kid, I was taught that theft required loss of the item in question, not of something related to that item. In this case, the music file is still in posession.
Using that train of thought, it is theft to tell people that a particular movie, or CD, or book sucks because you decrease the value of it to those people.
It is illegal copying, but it isn't theft (to me), and I think that when theft laws come into play I believe the law agrees that the item "stolen" has to actually be gon, not a trait or mindset about an item.
When you start to get into P2P, you reach more of a gray area in terms of right and legal.
What is right and wrong VS legal and illegal however conflict quite often
The problem is, it isn't necessarily wrong to take someone's music without paying.
Your examples are good, but I have one more: Indie artists who put their music up on their websites, on sites like Dmusic.com, even on P2P networks, and it is legal if the artist still retains the copyright (didn't give it to a lable yet).
The RIAA says downloading music is "stealing". Surely theft is criminal?
To answer your question yes, but "the RIAA" isn't law. Lawyewrs and judges and policemen are more reliable than them. (Hint: The crime is copyright infringement:))
You are just trying to be argumentative. Clearly the parent meant that if you downloaded a copyright song without permissionBLOCKQUOTE>
He stated that
generally p2p file-sharing is theft. There was nothing "clear" about it. Either way what I posed was legal fact, which applied to what you stated, downloading without permission.
"Technologically savvy users are merging these technologies to "Skypecast", using Skype's service to distribute recordings across the internet for free. This allows expert users to run their own mini-radio stations, which can be accessed by any Skype user.
Does anybody think that this has potential for indie artists promoting their music through this?
When you can get something for free, you don't respect it: listen to the song once, play the game a few times, then forget it on your harddisk along with the thousands of other downloaded songs and download some other stuff.
I am guilty of that sometimes, of course it depends on what is downloaded.:) Other times, I listen to a song hundreds of times easily in a month if it is good enough.
... it becomes a really tough for anyone trying to make money by selling music.
Good, it should become harder, because people need to work hard if they want to achieve the money goals they try to dream about, instead of riding their asses on a CD or two. (In other words, they should work for the money, make music, perform it whenever possible too, sell merchandice, etc instead of worrying so much about making millions that they can make, and doing not alot of things that can get them there, which is quite common.)
Do you think they will ever get in the habit of paying for music in any significant way?
I download alot of music and buy many CDs each year, so I guess that answers your question from one vewpoint.
No, doing it without permission is copyright infringement. In order for the theft laws to be in play you must have a loss of property, otherwise, it simply isn't legally theft. Copyright infringement is still a crime, but not theft because there is no loss of property, and the holder of copyrights still has some control over the "property" which was downloaded.
Morals are another bag of beans, but I will not get into it because morls are subjective.
If you're listening to an mp3 of a copywrited song and you didn't pay for it... well you're in the wrong.
This is just plain fucking stupid:
If I downloaded a copyrighted song from a website where the band placed it (website, or Dmusic.com for example), I had permission to do it, but to you I would be in the wrong for "not "paying for it"
If I had one of those "free download" winners from a contest, where I had permission to download a song onn a pre-selected list, I would still be in the wrong to you for "not "paying for it"
It doesn't matter that whether you've stolen from someone rich or someone poor... you've stolen somthing
No you haven't for the reasons in #1, UNLESS you are strictly talking morals, which I personally disagree but won't make any comments on because morals are subjective.
Re:Calculus (Score:0)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 08, @08:52AM (#12174937)
Anybody takig points off me for handwriting better expect a good (verbal) slapping.
I want my calculus graded by how well I know calculus, not my ability to coordinate hand movements.
If I can't deduce what your hieroglyphs mean, you'll get zero points. If you want more, please be welcome to visit my office during the reception hours to decrypt your handwriting
What about people with weak muscle tone, where their handwriting being bad is from physical issues, as opposed to other causes? *NUKED*
Compensating someone because you've stolen their property (which is ostensibly the rationale here) doesn't make stealing their stuff moral.
I feel that laws should follow morals, but morals should follow logic as well.
When you download a sonmg anywhere, you make a copy, leaving the original with the user/website/FTP you downloaded it from.
When I was taught the immorality of stealing, I was always taught using examples that involved taking something away and depriving them of whatever was stolen, and when the item was duplicated it was either copying, or plagiarism (when you claimed the work as your own). I was also taught through research that copyright infringement and theft were reconized under various laws here, in the U.K, in Canada, and possibly more countries.
I feel now that I was the last of that generation to learn it in such an unmurky way, and this post shows it. IP can be duplicated, infringed upon, and fraudulently claimed as one's own, but I myself refeuse to believe it can be stoln based upon what I have been taught as a little child. Of course morals and opinions ARE subjective, so I won't respond in a way that attacks your viewpoint, but I am just expressing my own viewpoint, and I think I am doing it in time considering the number of people here who mis-undrstand whatever I get at.
Slashdot Mirror
Dmusic.com is your friend. RIAA free music is abundant here as well as emusic.com.
Bullshit, if this is true, then why are sites like DMusic allowing artists to put up their music up for free then?
Seriously though, this is a phrase just asking for it. I mean, the actual issue is not whether payment or lack of makes downloading illegal, or whether or not the copyright status = copyrighted since indie artists for example allow downloads of their songs for free, but still copyright them for example, but the issue really is permissions. In my example the artist gave permission, in the case here that is doubtful, but it doesn't matter to your interpretation of the law since it would be illegal anyways!
I don't know why the message didn't follow through (or got deleted if it did), but I replied here stating that I was still working on posting here, including paragraphs and that I will re-post this with proper formatting whenever I get the chance. I Apologize for the lack of paragraph tags/formatting of paragrapsh.
The only problem is this: nobody is stealing from anybody else, the cime is piracy and copyright infringement. Nintendo can't nessecarily arrest for this.
These guys seem like they wouldn't know theft if it bit them in the rear end. The crime is copyright infringement, not theft. Why are the police not involved if it is theft? Why is the IP "stolen" still in Nintendo's posession? Because what is going on is a violation of copyright laws/contracts. This may not make it right, but this statement proves that our English language is being twisted to support agendas and make things sound worse/different than they really are. [quazi-philosophical rant ahead:] I am one of possibly few left growing up being taught that stealing (or theft if talking legal terminology) requires loss. That in order for something to be stolen somebody has something, but somebody else took it away from you, depriving you of it, while gaining him/her possession of said item. Slowly this concept is being replaced rapidly every day with a different, easier to use concept. Now people are growing accustomed to the idea that theft/stealing doesn't require the "owner" to loose things they had "stolen," or that loosing something you don't even have but wish you had is theft. This surfacing ideology really scares me from a philosophical viewpoint. Before I try to reason why this is scary, I will first attempt to identify reasoning behind this. I think the answer as to why the definition was changed in the mindset of possibly millions is due in part from the pushing of certain agendas on people, which shall be a basis on my explanation. The agenda pushing is in part from the recording and movie industries attempt to show people a negative side to file-sharing, mainly that it can be used to violate copyright. Either through thinking copyright infringement was too light of a word to stir up support, or possibly because they though copyright infringement was too complex for somebody to explain, they instead went with calling unauthorized duplication of data theft or stealing. This brings in another factor right into the issue, that is that they might be too lazy to try and define in a balanced way fee from biased the basic ideas behind copyright laws without resorting to toying with the sometimes fragile world of emotions. The flaw with the decision here is, if you followed the definition of theft/stealing I was taught, duplicating pieces of data, simple 1's and 0's, without depriving them of the same bits of data doesn't fall under this definition. Sure copying something copyrighted without permission in some cases is wrong, but why not call it what it really is, and try to make it wrong in it's own sense instead of "stealing" stealing. The only thing that somebody would possibly be deprived of is the potential to earn some money. The potential meaning they have a chance, but fate can work in or out of their favor, but is not required under law to fall in their favor. I shall close this explanation of this piece with a fitting analogy. If we follow the mindset of the industries at work in media (music and movies), maybe it can be considered theft to tell people that a particular movie, or CD, or book is bad/not worth spending money on because you decrease the value of it to those people who want to buy it. The only flaw here might be that freedom of speech is protected under law here in the U.S, but there have been cases where the justice system has failed us on protecting the first amendment. You the reader have probably been reading through this and wondered where the reasoning for the redefining being scary will come into play. The English language is very rich in words and phrases. There is more than one way to describe one act, but only one way to describe it accurately. To me, what we were taught in elementary school, piled on to what "copying" is, and adding on to that what is being fed into our brains from debates on controversial i
Why, then, are strippers not suing the shit out of strip clubs? What I am talking about is forced, this in many cases is not a case of being forced against their will.