It gets tiring when someone keeps making outrageous statement after outrageous statement, all the while insisting that it isn't up to him to prove that the wild assertions are true.
"The only destruction is exclusivity. Both the thief and the owner now can distribute."
How can there be a "thief" in the above sentence if nothing was stolen? If the so-called "thief" is not taking exclusivity, but is actually destroying it so neither person has it?
"The opportunity for compensation is obviously lessened when the owner loses control over distribution and that constitutes a clear loss"
Replace "obviously" with "possible". Copyright infringements can sometimes cause such a "lessening", but quite often do not. Therefore, no "clear loss."
"Since dictionary definitions of "theft" don't always mention loss this subject is moot"
They do mention it: see the word "taking". When something is taken or carried way, a loss occurs at the place/person it was taken from. 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.
Wonderful. I did a google search for King George Bush, and found 32,000 hits. I guess that means that he really IS a monarch (guess the Constitutional description of federal offices was wrong!!!)..... using your logic that a high number of google hits makes an assertion true, no matter how false it is.
He just said "rights are property". His quote, no need to paraphrase. An excellent example of his willingness to make up meanings of words as he goes along, and to willingly confuse differing concepts in an attempt to mislead.
"Krell, there you go putting words into my mouth again. I've never said or suggested any such thing"
That is an entirely false statement. I did not put words into your mouth on the only way it can be done on slashdot: through a fake quote. Talk about outright lying.
"but I have lost my right to control distribution"
Yes, something is lost, whether or not we call it property. But does loss to one person mean theft by the person causing the loss? See the example about a vandal breaking a window. Yes, he has caused loss of the window, but you cannot call him a thief because the window was not taken. The vandal just does not have the window. Similarly, the copyright infringer in what you describe does not gain the exclusive control that the copyright holder loses. You have a situation of destruction, not a situation of transfer from one person to another. Because typically a copyright infringer (p2p, etc) does not have any exclusive control over the content.
"Well said, I knew there was a logical flaw in the "copyright is theft" argument"
Thanks. There's more than one flaw in the "copyright is theft" argument (such as the extremely vague and mushy definition of "property" it relies on), but the strongest one hinges on the "taking" part of the definition of "theft". Dfghjk repeatedly argues that someone's rights of exclusivity are being stolen by the infringer. If these rights were really being taken (necessary for theft) by someone (rather than being wrecked), wouldn't the copyright infringer show some gain in rights of exclusivity?
It's a strange (and nonexistent) definition of "theft" he uses when the so-called "thief" actually does not end up with what is supposedly being stolen (right of exclusivity).
The person you are arguing with is confused about subsets and equations. 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.
Discussing theft in a copyright infringement discussion is typically off-topic. However, Sherman (in the news item) dropped two intentionally misleading references to theft. Aside from the usual correction of the "copyright infringement = theft" liars, discussion of this does now related to the news item, even if it is not the main subject. No one has yet to step up to the challenge and show one thing stolen via Grokster, old Napster, or any p2p.
"It's the exclusivity that's stolen, not the right itself."
Let us return to that place where those who abuse the definition of "theft" fear to tread: the dictionary. Definition of theft "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Aside from the gross inapplicability of the idea of "carrying off" to a possible diminishment of a right, let's look at the "taking" requirement. You are arguing that exclusivity is stolen, right? If this is true, then how come the copyright infringer does not gain any exclusivity???. If he's taking it, he'd gain it, right? Of course he doesn't.
The word "theft" once again is proven inapplicable. Even if we assume that this right is a property, the act of infringing on it does not constitute the right being taken from one person by another. Rather, it constitutes the destruction or damage of the right.
In a real-world analogy, crimes where you wreck something but don't steal it are often called "property destruction" crimes. They are never called theft. A vandal smashing a window is doing something similar (in the analogy) to what you describe when talking about damage to the exclusivity right. The vandal certainly can't be accused of stealing a window.
"There have been huge flame wars on SF discussion newsgroups on this subject."
Then excuse me for the trollish behavior of not knowing the conventions, customs, and history of an SF discussion newsgroup I'd never heard of before:)
That's an interesting claim, not heard often. We all know by now that it is impossible to steal merely by infringing a copyright. But is copyright itself theft? I doubt it.
"You have to look very deep in the book to find hints of criticism of the society portrayed"
I saw the implication of levels of rights being teired, and given to those who earn them instead of "all men being created equal", and its resemblance to the fascistic veneer of a hero-led society. I did read it around the same time Forever War came out, by the way. I also read it in the context of a book club in which we did emphasize the negative aspects of the society.
I actually didn't think my views were that controversial. I didn't intend to piss off with them. I guess I just don't take Heinlein as seriously as others do. I didn't think that expressing the views would get a reaction like coming on here and saying "Babylon 5 really SUCKED!".
I found it myself before you did:). I also found the important fact that the Supreme Court declined to say this when it rendered its decision. The court, as a body, did not agree with Breyer's wording.
One one line you say "But he has had his right to deny you the ability to distribute taken away from him, and on the next you say "taken was your word.... It's been taken from him"
If it's my word, then why do you use it so much? If you want to dispence with the word, fine. That should get rid of any claim of theft, because it is not theft without taking. Not that it is theft anyway: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny (dictionary)". Really quite a stretch, don't you think? Not only the "taking", but the "personal goods or property" part? What reasonable person could call a possibly infringement of a right as an example of carrying someone's stuff away?
See subject. Then see dictionary. Then see the US Supreme Court. The equating of copyright infringement = theft is not present in the Court's Grokster decision.
Thanks for the link. It contained the false statement "In other words, krell, unlawful copying IS the same as the unlawful taking of property and therefore IS the same as theft" which falls apart on an imaginary definition of "taking"
"I have. "vigilante". Remember? We've had this conversation before and i've pointed out you're tactics already."
Oh. I remember. Were you the guy who made up faked quotes from me in order to further your argument? That explains a lot. And to accuse me of such when I only did it jokingly (as in the faked quote where I had you saying you loved to wear a leisure suit). I now remember the guy who did not like dictionaries, and claimed that exercising free speech rights (even if someone did not like the speech) was vigilantism. I'm only right because I'm sticking with the definitions of the words, not ignoring them due to my misinformed opinion. Nice repeat of your arguments, where you support making up the meanings of words as you go.
BR
If there is one thing clear, there is a distinct lack of BOTH vigilantism (with p justice guys exercising their free speech rights) and theft (with p2p services).
"Unauthorized distribution is "taking" the owner's right to control distribution from him."
Tell me, is a bum who sleeps on your driveway a "thief" for preventing your complete control and use of it? Perhaps such a "theft means anything" definition might explain your attaching the word to unrelated concepts such as copyright infringement.
He said "that ``deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft''
Whether or not he is a Supreme Court Justice, he did make a blatantly false statement. Copyright infringment does not meet the definition of "taking". That removes the bridge that he connected copyright infringement to theft with in his statement. Supreme Court justices has been wrong before. There is also a difference between what a term REALLY means and what the government says it means, regardless. Consider the Vietnam War. In US law, it was not technically a war. The facts and the real definitions show it was a war (just like reality distinguishes copyright infringment from theft), even if the government has its own official definition.
(
My argument fits with the facts, because I looked them up before arguing. Unlike some who don't even care what the definitions of terms are.
"Since Justice Breyer clearly doesn't understand words as well as you do, why don't you point out the flaws in his argument?"
Actually, my weakness here is in ASSUMING that it is true that he said that theft happened at Grokster. If he actually said this, he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is lying. I'll grant the possibility that he was misquoted further up.
"A familiar tactic of yours to put absurd words claims into your opponent's mouths"
If it is so familiar, please come up with ONE example of me putting words into someone's mouth (mis-quoting). Besides, it is hard to get more absurd than claiming "copyright infringement is theft". That's as silly as saying that "copyright infringement = rape." I'd also condemn such a silly use, because (like with using the word "theft" without regard to meaning) it ignores the facts. Regardless of what my own opinions are.
I did find it a rather close adaptation. Detail? You aren't going to have actors acting in giant armor suits where you can't see their faces, so I'll grant the moviemakers scaling down the suits. Spirit? I read the same patriotism / fascism into both the book AND the movie. There are other reasons to call me a troll at times, but I don't think my views on "Starship Troopers" are that troll-like. I enjoyed both the book and the movie, but didn't think either was any sort of classic.
Slashdot Mirror
It gets tiring when someone keeps making outrageous statement after outrageous statement, all the while insisting that it isn't up to him to prove that the wild assertions are true.
"So you're not only a potty-mouthed thief"
I see the potty-mouth, but is there even one instance of theft you can point to?
"The only destruction is exclusivity. Both the thief and the owner now can distribute."
How can there be a "thief" in the above sentence if nothing was stolen? If the so-called "thief" is not taking exclusivity, but is actually destroying it so neither person has it?
"The opportunity for compensation is obviously lessened when the owner loses control over distribution and that constitutes a clear loss"
Replace "obviously" with "possible". Copyright infringements can sometimes cause such a "lessening", but quite often do not. Therefore, no "clear loss."
"Since dictionary definitions of "theft" don't always mention loss this subject is moot"
They do mention it: see the word "taking". When something is taken or carried way, a loss occurs at the place/person it was taken from. 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.
"If "IP theft" were my concept, how do you explain this? http://www.google.com/search?q=IP+theft&start=0&ie =utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:e n-US:official [google.com]"
Wonderful. I did a google search for King George Bush, and found 32,000 hits. I guess that means that he really IS a monarch (guess the Constitutional description of federal offices was wrong!!!)..... using your logic that a high number of google hits makes an assertion true, no matter how false it is.
He just said "rights are property". His quote, no need to paraphrase. An excellent example of his willingness to make up meanings of words as he goes along, and to willingly confuse differing concepts in an attempt to mislead.
"Krell, there you go putting words into my mouth again. I've never said or suggested any such thing"
That is an entirely false statement. I did not put words into your mouth on the only way it can be done on slashdot: through a fake quote. Talk about outright lying.
"but I have lost my right to control distribution"
Yes, something is lost, whether or not we call it property. But does loss to one person mean theft by the person causing the loss? See the example about a vandal breaking a window. Yes, he has caused loss of the window, but you cannot call him a thief because the window was not taken. The vandal just does not have the window. Similarly, the copyright infringer in what you describe does not gain the exclusive control that the copyright holder loses. You have a situation of destruction, not a situation of transfer from one person to another. Because typically a copyright infringer (p2p, etc) does not have any exclusive control over the content.
"Well said, I knew there was a logical flaw in the "copyright is theft" argument"
Thanks. There's more than one flaw in the "copyright is theft" argument (such as the extremely vague and mushy definition of "property" it relies on), but the strongest one hinges on the "taking" part of the definition of "theft". Dfghjk repeatedly argues that someone's rights of exclusivity are being stolen by the infringer. If these rights were really being taken (necessary for theft) by someone (rather than being wrecked), wouldn't the copyright infringer show some gain in rights of exclusivity?
It's a strange (and nonexistent) definition of "theft" he uses when the so-called "thief" actually does not end up with what is supposedly being stolen (right of exclusivity).
The person you are arguing with is confused about subsets and equations. 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.
"And you are stupid for failing to see that IP theft denies the owner of his right to control his property"
Where's the connection between denial of a right and theft?
Discussing theft in a copyright infringement discussion is typically off-topic. However, Sherman (in the news item) dropped two intentionally misleading references to theft. Aside from the usual correction of the "copyright infringement = theft" liars, discussion of this does now related to the news item, even if it is not the main subject. No one has yet to step up to the challenge and show one thing stolen via Grokster, old Napster, or any p2p.
I think I have an ancestor who lived in Moria.
""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."
I see you have once again chosen the word "taking."
"It's the exclusivity that's stolen, not the right itself."
Let us return to that place where those who abuse the definition of "theft" fear to tread: the dictionary. Definition of theft "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny."
Aside from the gross inapplicability of the idea of "carrying off" to a possible diminishment of a right, let's look at the "taking" requirement. You are arguing that exclusivity is stolen, right? If this is true, then how come the copyright infringer does not gain any exclusivity???. If he's taking it, he'd gain it, right? Of course he doesn't.
The word "theft" once again is proven inapplicable. Even if we assume that this right is a property, the act of infringing on it does not constitute the right being taken from one person by another. Rather, it constitutes the destruction or damage of the right.
In a real-world analogy, crimes where you wreck something but don't steal it are often called "property destruction" crimes. They are never called theft. A vandal smashing a window is doing something similar (in the analogy) to what you describe when talking about damage to the exclusivity right. The vandal certainly can't be accused of stealing a window.
"There have been huge flame wars on SF discussion newsgroups on this subject."
:)
Then excuse me for the trollish behavior of not knowing the conventions, customs, and history of an SF discussion newsgroup I'd never heard of before
"copyright is theft"
That's an interesting claim, not heard often. We all know by now that it is impossible to steal merely by infringing a copyright. But is copyright itself theft? I doubt it.
"You have to look very deep in the book to find hints of criticism of the society portrayed"
I saw the implication of levels of rights being teired, and given to those who earn them instead of "all men being created equal", and its resemblance to the fascistic veneer of a hero-led society. I did read it around the same time Forever War came out, by the way. I also read it in the context of a book club in which we did emphasize the negative aspects of the society.
I actually didn't think my views were that controversial. I didn't intend to piss off with them. I guess I just don't take Heinlein as seriously as others do. I didn't think that expressing the views would get a reaction like coming on here and saying "Babylon 5 really SUCKED!".
I found it myself before you did :). I also found the important fact that the Supreme Court declined to say this when it rendered its decision. The court, as a body, did not agree with Breyer's wording.
One one line you say "But he has had his right to deny you the ability to distribute taken away from him, and on the next you say "taken was your word.... It's been taken from him"
If it's my word, then why do you use it so much? If you want to dispence with the word, fine. That should get rid of any claim of theft, because it is not theft without taking. Not that it is theft anyway: "the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny (dictionary)". Really quite a stretch, don't you think? Not only the "taking", but the "personal goods or property" part? What reasonable person could call a possibly infringement of a right as an example of carrying someone's stuff away?
"Copyright is theft...."
See subject. Then see dictionary. Then see the US Supreme Court. The equating of copyright infringement = theft is not present in the Court's Grokster decision.
Thanks for the link. It contained the false statement "In other words, krell, unlawful copying IS the same as the unlawful taking of property and therefore IS the same as theft" which falls apart on an imaginary definition of "taking"
"I have. "vigilante". Remember? We've had this conversation before and i've pointed out you're tactics already."
Oh. I remember. Were you the guy who made up faked quotes from me in order to further your argument? That explains a lot. And to accuse me of such when I only did it jokingly (as in the faked quote where I had you saying you loved to wear a leisure suit). I now remember the guy who did not like dictionaries, and claimed that exercising free speech rights (even if someone did not like the speech) was vigilantism. I'm only right because I'm sticking with the definitions of the words, not ignoring them due to my misinformed opinion. Nice repeat of your arguments, where you support making up the meanings of words as you go.
BR If there is one thing clear, there is a distinct lack of BOTH vigilantism (with p justice guys exercising their free speech rights) and theft (with p2p services).
"Unauthorized distribution is "taking" the owner's right to control distribution from him."
Tell me, is a bum who sleeps on your driveway a "thief" for preventing your complete control and use of it? Perhaps such a "theft means anything" definition might explain your attaching the word to unrelated concepts such as copyright infringement.
He said "that ``deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft''
Whether or not he is a Supreme Court Justice, he did make a blatantly false statement. Copyright infringment does not meet the definition of "taking". That removes the bridge that he connected copyright infringement to theft with in his statement. Supreme Court justices has been wrong before. There is also a difference between what a term REALLY means and what the government says it means, regardless. Consider the Vietnam War. In US law, it was not technically a war. The facts and the real definitions show it was a war (just like reality distinguishes copyright infringment from theft), even if the government has its own official definition. (
My argument fits with the facts, because I looked them up before arguing. Unlike some who don't even care what the definitions of terms are.
"Since Justice Breyer clearly doesn't understand words as well as you do, why don't you point out the flaws in his argument?"
Actually, my weakness here is in ASSUMING that it is true that he said that theft happened at Grokster. If he actually said this, he either has no idea what he is talking about or he is lying. I'll grant the possibility that he was misquoted further up.
"A familiar tactic of yours to put absurd words claims into your opponent's mouths"
If it is so familiar, please come up with ONE example of me putting words into someone's mouth (mis-quoting). Besides, it is hard to get more absurd than claiming "copyright infringement is theft". That's as silly as saying that "copyright infringement = rape." I'd also condemn such a silly use, because (like with using the word "theft" without regard to meaning) it ignores the facts. Regardless of what my own opinions are.
I did find it a rather close adaptation. Detail? You aren't going to have actors acting in giant armor suits where you can't see their faces, so I'll grant the moviemakers scaling down the suits. Spirit? I read the same patriotism / fascism into both the book AND the movie. There are other reasons to call me a troll at times, but I don't think my views on "Starship Troopers" are that troll-like. I enjoyed both the book and the movie, but didn't think either was any sort of classic.