Whether or not you are a paid RIAA stooge or not, every post in your little crusade against the meanings of words in the English language makes it look more and more like you are on their payroll...
Actually/most/ SLR lenses can be used on "non-native" bodies with the use of mount adapters. Cameras with the 4/3 mount (Olympus, Panasonic) can use Canon, Nikon, Leica, M42, Pretty much any lens with the use of an adapter.
Canon DO NOT stipulate ANYWHERE when you buy a lens that you are only licensed to use it on Canon Bodies.
"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."
You are also free to leave the thread... Or are you? If you are a paid propagandist then perhaps you are not?!;) Fuck off now and we might believe that you are NOT in the pay of the RIAA. 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...
When I commented that you defend the RIAA, you asked me to point out where. I accept that you haven't mentioned the RIAA but it is the RIAA's agenda to make people believe that Copyright infringement == Theft and you are deliberately helping them along with all of your posts. Whether you are simply a misguided individual or whether you are a paid stooge doesn't really bother me.
"It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy..."
"Not sure what your point is there."
My point is that you asked for the impossible, a dictionary definition which states that theft does not equal piracy. Dictionaries DO NOT define what words DO NOT mean, they define what words DO mean.
"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.
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!
"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.
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...
Of course, only one definition need apply. The definition you provided is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, quite acceptable and NO mention of Piracy or Copying meaning Theft. And yet you manage to read in several extra unpublished paragraphs to add your own meaning. And you wonder why/.ers argue with you?!
This is just the sort of shite argument I would expect from an RIAA stooge!
"Show me where a dictionary says that copyright isn't theft."
Show ME a dictionary that says what words DO NOT mean what other words? The Fucking dictionary is a fairly big book as it stands, that is with definitions of what words DO mean. If each word had to include a list of all the other words that DON'T mean the same thing then nobody would ever look in a dictionary!
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.
It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy, but lets be honest, dictionaries DO NOT define WHAT DOES NOT MEAN what, they define what DOES mean what.
Read http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft
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
Where in that definition does it say that Piracy == Theft ?
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?
"Of course, your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't surprise me considering that you've stated your willingness to steal before:"
No, I've stated my willingness to COPY before. Back to the original POINT of what was being discussed. 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 so is the RIAA's pet judge. You are aware that we have DIFFERENT words in the English language for Different Things. Why do you think Piracy is called Piracy and Theft is called Theft? There is a subtle difference. Why aren't ALL crimes called 'theft'?
"Ever read what the judge had to say?"
Why would I bother, the judge is obviously in the pocket of the RIAA. If a JUDGE does not understand the english language, then why would I waste time reading what he has to say?
When media companies act they way they have done in recent years, YES, Copyright can GO TO HELL as far as I am concerned. As I stated in that thread, I WILL NOT buy DRM encumbered CRAP. If I want to get hold of some music, which were I to buy it legitimately, would limit my use of said product, LIMITING MY FAIR USE of said product, then the producer of that product can GO TO HELL before I will pay them money for said product.
We have FAIR USE enshrined in law. Media companies have used DRM and the DMCA to reduce our fair use rights. They have effectively broken the law, so SCREW THEM.
Incidentally I never got round to trying OSX. I went the linux route instead.;) No restricted IP to worry about there!
"Copyright infringment is justified so long as it gets you what you want, right laurie?"
Not absolutely no. If what I want is available unencumbered with DRM or £1000 worth of hardware, then I would buy it. If not and someone makes something available as a Torrent which I fancy having a look at then what do you think?
My point in that previous post was quite simple. If people who buy legitimate media products find themselves inconvenienced by DRM and such shite, WHY would you buy such a piece of shit, when you can download said media WITHOUT the DRM and without the hassle? Sure I'd/like/ to pay the artists who produce music I like, but NOT AS THE EXPENSE OF MY OWN CONVENIENCE TO USE MUSIC I'VE PURCHASED AS I WANT TO.
I know you will deduce from this that I spend all my time online downloading illegal music from bittorrent. 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. The other 5% is stuff I'm trying out - If I like and its available unencumbered with DRM, ie on proper CDs, I may buy, otherwise I will remove downloaded tracks)
I own between 300 and 400 CDs which I've ripped onto my personal computer and that is/my/ music collection. Fully licensed and OWNED by ME.
I never did get round to trying OSX but given that as far as I know the only way to get it still is to buy a new Mac computer, if I wanted to, I WOULD download a torrent and try it. I'm not going to spend £1000 to find out I don't like the O/S!
ps. FUCK the RIAA! Fuckin dinosaurs should be extinct soon!
Just ignore this fuckwad. Frankly/anyone/ arguing that piracy==theft is either in the pay of the RIAA, doesn't understand the English language, or are fools. (And that includes your judge!)
I'd be willing to bet that table is completely meaningless. Does it take into account local taxes? Transportation taxes? In the UK we have pretty low income tax but the tax burden as a whole is massive, thanks to what is known here as Stealth taxes, pretty much all introduced in the last 9 years by Gordon Fucking Brown. (The scumbag).
There is/NO Fsking way/ that the UK is so far down the table in terms of taxes as a whole...
So whats the point of quoting a table which lists only ONE type of tax??
When in the name of all thats holy are these pricks going to stop playing whack-a-mole?
What is this supposed to achieve? Even if they can shutdown an odd software company, how does that stop users already running the network? Fuckwits!
You didn't understand my point.
There are thousands of people out there who would be/quite happy/ to splash out £75 for a copy of OSX to multi-boot their home PCs. I am one of those people.
Most of those people will not splash out £1000 for a new PC for that purpose. I am one of those people.
Many of those thousands of people/will/ download a pirate copy of OSX and Apple will lose those sales. I am probably one of those people.
If Apple give me two choices;
Pay £1000 for a new machine and get OSX
Don't even try OSX
and hackers give me a third option;
get free OSX and run it on your existing hardware
What am I going to chose?
There really should be a fourth choice, apple should sell me a copy of OSX that I can install on my home PC. If they don't they have no-one to blame but themselves for that lost sale.
Its a little like the RIAA giving me the 'choice' of buying a 'non CD' with DRM that stops me ripping music I've payed for to MP3 so I can use it on my MP3 player and play it on my PC. The alternative choice is not having the music I want. P2P gives me the choice of downloading an MP3 of the music I want, which I can then use as I want.
All the time legitimate ways of doing things are made harder than illegitimate ways of doing things, then people will do things the bad way!:)
If you think this is wrong then see what you can do to change basic human nature, you'll be fighting against a couple of millenia of evolution!!
The real point is, OSX IS going to end up on thousands of PCs. The only question is, will Apple take license fees for all of those copies or are they going to force people to get pirate versions?
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not you are a paid RIAA stooge or not, every post in your little crusade against the meanings of words in the English language makes it look more and more like you are on their payroll...
Actually /most/ SLR lenses can be used on "non-native" bodies with the use of mount adapters. Cameras with the 4/3 mount (Olympus, Panasonic) can use Canon, Nikon, Leica, M42, Pretty much any lens with the use of an adapter.
Canon DO NOT stipulate ANYWHERE when you buy a lens that you are only licensed to use it on Canon Bodies.
"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."
You are also free to leave the thread... Or are you? If you are a paid propagandist then perhaps you are not?! ;) Fuck off now and we might believe that you are NOT in the pay of the RIAA. 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...
When I commented that you defend the RIAA, you asked me to point out where. I accept that you haven't mentioned the RIAA but it is the RIAA's agenda to make people believe that Copyright infringement == Theft and you are deliberately helping them along with all of your posts. Whether you are simply a misguided individual or whether you are a paid stooge doesn't really bother me.
"It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy..."
"Not sure what your point is there."
My point is that you asked for the impossible, a dictionary definition which states that theft does not equal piracy. Dictionaries DO NOT define what words DO NOT mean, they define what words DO mean.
"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.
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!
"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.
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...
Of course, only one definition need apply. The definition you provided is perfectly acceptable.
Yes, quite acceptable and NO mention of Piracy or Copying meaning Theft. And yet you manage to read in several extra unpublished paragraphs to add your own meaning. And you wonder why /.ers argue with you?!
There was NO name calling in my previous post.
I carefully "quoted" IP theft as it's your concept. I don't accept it. The definition DOES NOT MENTION IT but still you manage to read it into it.
Thank you!
This is just the sort of shite argument I would expect from an RIAA stooge!
"Show me where a dictionary says that copyright isn't theft."
Show ME a dictionary that says what words DO NOT mean what other words? The Fucking dictionary is a fairly big book as it stands, that is with definitions of what words DO mean. If each word had to include a list of all the other words that DON'T mean the same thing then nobody would ever look in a dictionary!
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.
It doesn't specifically state that theft is not piracy, but lets be honest, dictionaries DO NOT define WHAT DOES NOT MEAN what, they define what DOES mean what. Read http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft 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 Where in that definition does it say that Piracy == Theft ?
Why the HELL does Slashdot eat all of my formatting? I didn't type that in as one huge paragraph...
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?
"Of course, your unsubstantiated opinion doesn't surprise me considering that you've stated your willingness to steal before:"
No, I've stated my willingness to COPY before. Back to the original POINT of what was being discussed. 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 so is the RIAA's pet judge. You are aware that we have DIFFERENT words in the English language for Different Things. Why do you think Piracy is called Piracy and Theft is called Theft? There is a subtle difference. Why aren't ALL crimes called 'theft'?
"Ever read what the judge had to say?"
Why would I bother, the judge is obviously in the pocket of the RIAA. If a JUDGE does not understand the english language, then why would I waste time reading what he has to say?
When media companies act they way they have done in recent years, YES, Copyright can GO TO HELL as far as I am concerned. As I stated in that thread, I WILL NOT buy DRM encumbered CRAP. If I want to get hold of some music, which were I to buy it legitimately, would limit my use of said product, LIMITING MY FAIR USE of said product, then the producer of that product can GO TO HELL before I will pay them money for said product.
We have FAIR USE enshrined in law. Media companies have used DRM and the DMCA to reduce our fair use rights. They have effectively broken the law, so SCREW THEM.
Incidentally I never got round to trying OSX. I went the linux route instead. ;) No restricted IP to worry about there!
"Copyright infringment is justified so long as it gets you what you want, right laurie?"
Not absolutely no. If what I want is available unencumbered with DRM or £1000 worth of hardware, then I would buy it. If not and someone makes something available as a Torrent which I fancy having a look at then what do you think?
My point in that previous post was quite simple. If people who buy legitimate media products find themselves inconvenienced by DRM and such shite, WHY would you buy such a piece of shit, when you can download said media WITHOUT the DRM and without the hassle? Sure I'd /like/ to pay the artists who produce music I like, but NOT AS THE EXPENSE OF MY OWN CONVENIENCE TO USE MUSIC I'VE PURCHASED AS I WANT TO.
I know you will deduce from this that I spend all my time online downloading illegal music from bittorrent. 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. The other 5% is stuff I'm trying out - If I like and its available unencumbered with DRM, ie on proper CDs, I may buy, otherwise I will remove downloaded tracks)
I own between 300 and 400 CDs which I've ripped onto my personal computer and that is /my/ music collection. Fully licensed and OWNED by ME.
I never did get round to trying OSX but given that as far as I know the only way to get it still is to buy a new Mac computer, if I wanted to, I WOULD download a torrent and try it. I'm not going to spend £1000 to find out I don't like the O/S!
ps. FUCK the RIAA! Fuckin dinosaurs should be extinct soon!
Just ignore this fuckwad. Frankly /anyone/ arguing that piracy==theft is either in the pay of the RIAA, doesn't understand the English language, or are fools. (And that includes your judge!)
I'd be willing to bet that table is completely meaningless. Does it take into account local taxes? Transportation taxes? In the UK we have pretty low income tax but the tax burden as a whole is massive, thanks to what is known here as Stealth taxes, pretty much all introduced in the last 9 years by Gordon Fucking Brown. (The scumbag).
/NO Fsking way/ that the UK is so far down the table in terms of taxes as a whole...
There is
So whats the point of quoting a table which lists only ONE type of tax??
Surely any laser will bounce off a well mirrored surface? I hardly think this is going to foil the terrorists!
When in the name of all thats holy are these pricks going to stop playing whack-a-mole? What is this supposed to achieve? Even if they can shutdown an odd software company, how does that stop users already running the network? Fuckwits!
I'm fairly sure if the parachute didn't deploy then the thing wouldn't have wafted far off course...
You didn't understand my point. There are thousands of people out there who would be /quite happy/ to splash out £75 for a copy of OSX to multi-boot their home PCs. I am one of those people.
Most of those people will not splash out £1000 for a new PC for that purpose. I am one of those people.
Many of those thousands of people /will/ download a pirate copy of OSX and Apple will lose those sales. I am probably one of those people.
If Apple give me two choices;
Pay £1000 for a new machine and get OSX
Don't even try OSX
and hackers give me a third option;
get free OSX and run it on your existing hardware
What am I going to chose?
There really should be a fourth choice, apple should sell me a copy of OSX that I can install on my home PC. If they don't they have no-one to blame but themselves for that lost sale.
Its a little like the RIAA giving me the 'choice' of buying a 'non CD' with DRM that stops me ripping music I've payed for to MP3 so I can use it on my MP3 player and play it on my PC. The alternative choice is not having the music I want. P2P gives me the choice of downloading an MP3 of the music I want, which I can then use as I want.
All the time legitimate ways of doing things are made harder than illegitimate ways of doing things, then people will do things the bad way! :)
If you think this is wrong then see what you can do to change basic human nature, you'll be fighting against a couple of millenia of evolution!!
The real point is, OSX IS going to end up on thousands of PCs. The only question is, will Apple take license fees for all of those copies or are they going to force people to get pirate versions?