1) You claim "AllofMP3" is pristine/lossless. I understood it was MP3, which is lossy. Which is it? What is their file format?
2) You claimed that AllofMP3 is "people with no costs taking things that aren't theirs". Do you have evidence of this? Did they actually steal the CD's they use as source? If, instead, they duplicated files without authorization, then they "made copies without authorization", and took nothing. Taking something and making something are two different things.
How does that help your case? There is no "getting" when copying is done.
"If it moves into your posession, it's taking, and if it's without right or permission, then it's theft.
That's what we've been saying all along. Thanks for describing the situation with taking and theft: which has nothing to do with file duplication at all. (i.e.: if it does not move into your possession, it can't be theft. No taking).
"Ever heard the phrase "take a copy"?
I've never, ever heard it used in situations involving MAKING copies. "Take a copy" is used for situations involving actual taking of copies already made (such as a newspaper from the top of s stack). If you take a copy of a CD, it might be theft. If you make a copy of a CD, it never can be.
"As for your car thing, the building and driving it obviously isn't theft, but yes you can steal designs for a car"
Yes. You can steal them if you swipe them from the draughtsman's desk. He's going to be pretty sore when he sees his plans missing. But if his plans are still on his desk, no theft has taken place.
I am guessing that these anime, if they are for sale at all, are released with DVD region codes for a region other than your own. A sure indication that they don't want money from selling them to you anyway. If they did, they would have sold copies region-free or copies specifically for your region as well. They just can't whine about "lost profits" when they clearly don't want your money anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong (and the anime companies DO sell DVD's for your region)
This news item does not involve theft. I suggest doing some research into the FBI "UCR" crime reporting files, and other sources of data which distinguish the many different kinds of crimes out there. You will quickly learn that there are many other types of crimes (or possible crimes) out there which are not theft. Copyright infringement isn't t he only one.
"Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you..."
No. Duplication of files does not meet the definition of appriation or theft of files. If you want to get it straight, you shouldn't change the subject to something entirely different in your summarization.
"What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it."
Nobody is creating the original work all anew when they make a copy of it, not even the "authorized publishers". They're just creating a copy, authorized or not. So what is your point?
Reminds me of a situation where the file server was located under a long desk/table. I think it was one of those old AST machines with a huge sensitive reset button on the front. They complained that the server kept resetting. It did not take much looking at the badly scuffed (with lots of black shoe marks) front of the server to find out what users idly swinging their feet did.
When I had an old AOL account (don't laugh, it was a gift), the dial-up number went "24/7 busy" for days. I dialed the number on the regular phone to verify that it was a regular old busy signal. I called AOL to complain that the dial-up pool was stuck or had some similar problem. I went through several technicians and managers that insisted on digging into all the details of my AOL modem settings. They never listened when I insisted "but it doesn't matter what my modem does: the number is BUSY!!!!". I even offered helpful examples like "This is like you trying to have me check the oil in my car when I am telling you that I can't travel because there is a tree fallen in the road". I never could convince them: they were certain that the answer to their busy signal lay in buried in the Hayes commands configured inside my AOL setup
However a day or two later the "stuck" modem was fixed and I was able to dial in. I guess they found some cooperative kid with a Packard-Bell who changed his personal modem settings....
"Your kid reads Slashdot?? Him seeing the word "shit" is the least of your problems."
Especially when Aunt Doris comes to visit. Your little tyke comes out into the living room, and instead of singing "I'm a Little Teapot", he turns and happily shows everyone the new goatse trick he learned online.
I wonder sometimes if you type this without even thinking about it. If I copy your CD or download a copy of something on your server, how am I possibly getting your CD or the original copy on the server "in my possession"? Thank you anyway, for your sentence. It is central to the common-sense realization that it can't be theft without that necessary part of the definition: taking.
"UNLESS you consider the works to be public domain"
Irrelevant. File duplication of public-domain files never involves taking or possession either. (Well, there is possession, but you are possessing something you created, and no taking was involved in the act of possession).
"you're still taking something "without right or permission"."
Again, the use of words without any regard given to meaning. The key word you use is "take". "Take" is a necessary part of "theft". However, the definition of "take" is not met at all with copyright infringement, because nothing is taken.
"And I supposed "stealing" a car would involve hacking into..."
Am I stealing your car if I build an exact copy of it which I drive around? According to your "faith-based" definition of theft which actually involves no theft or taking, it probably would. This is very analagous to the music-duplication situation.
" The word "stealing" isn't defined as depriving somebody of something without permission, it's defined by the action of the taking."
I'm glad you agree that taking is so important to the definition of theft. Hopefully, this is an admission that an act that involves creating a copy of something without even touching (or TAKING it) can never be theft.
"Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean"
Looking up word definitions should dispell any of your lingering problems of "belief" concerning words. It really should not be so hard to consult actual authority instead of relying on incorrect opinions or beliefs.
Butchering children? Certainly. There's no such thing as a safe abortion: a person always dies. This is certainly a matter of biology. Also, anyone can be called a "blob of meat". Perhaps you are also an unthinking one: you seem to be ignorant on this matter. You seem to be as biologically informed as any of those "intellectuals" who calls for genocide because their victims are "inferior", not human.
The big box method? It's much less a matter of undercutting the competitors than it is providing the products at a fair price (which is often less than other places that overcharge and rip you off). The service is often much better, too. The "jack up the prices" part? Doesn't work that way. If you decide to overcharge, someone else will come along and steal away your customers with a fair price as well.
It adds more to point out the real, factual differences between these types of stem cell research (as I have done) than it does to say "I don't like abortion". In fact, I did not get around to saying whether or not I liked what had been described in a factual manner.
Because one involves butchering children. One does not have to be a "fundy" to recognize that an individual human being is an individual human being. In fact, it is all a matter of biology. Souls and God don't have anything to do with it.
"In a world where content that someone's invested millions in can be appropriated for nothing by teenagers..."
Except the content is not being appropriated. Look up the word: "To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission". The only part that applies is "without permission". Possession does not fit very well, and the part about exclusive use certainly does not apply.
Where? Find one single line, or even one word, where one of your opponents has justified or defended theft. I bet you can't. You are now engaging in a straw-man attack: condemning people for something they never did. It's really easy to attack your opponents for loving theft. Makes them look real bad, right? Your tactic might actually work unless someone bothers to find out that your opponents never defend theft, and theft/stealing is not even being discussed or mentioned except when you try to change the topic 100% from the subject of copyright infringment to the subject of theft.
"and where people are free to consume whatever they want without paying. Thats called communism, look it up sometime."
I don't know about you, but I've never consumed a song. If you look up the definition of "consume", you will find that you are yet again using a word without any regard to its actual meaning. All the definitions of consume involve something being used up during its use. The word does not fit at all: making a copy of an MP3 file does not use up ("consume") anything except the time used up by the person listening. MP3 downloading and peer to peer are in fact a usage model that involves the opposite of consumption: they create more copies, they do not destroy. Or look at it this way: if hamburgers were "consumed" the way music files were "consumed", eating a hamburger would result in the creation of extra hamburgers on your plate. All of which, either way, has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of communism.
There, we have three words, "theft", "consume", and "communism" which are not involved in the subject at all.
....if the guys on the streetcorners were selling copies that THEY CREATED THEMSELVES of the clothes and speakers. Otherwise, it your example involves theft, and nothing like that is involved.
"you go to a website, download the music yourself and choose to listen to it. Then you insist you shouldnt have to pay for it."
Why pay for free files? Especially when the artists refuse to sell the files themselves? They don't even want the money, really. If they did, they'd be selling Beatles MP3 files, recorded concerts that fans give away but the artists refuse to sell, or files from "out of print" albums, but they are not. If an album is out-of-print, but there is enough demand to give away copies on the Net, it is certainly just another clear example of the artists not even wanting the money.
"Anything else is just quite desperate intellectual willy-waving to justify stealing "
That is really quite a huge leap. The discussion involves (possible) unauthorized duplication of music files. It does not involve "stealing" in any way. You might have instead said "Anything else is just quite desperate intellectual willy-waving to justify copying". There's a case to be made for that. The topic certainly has nothing to do with stealing.
"Im presuming you dont create digital content for a living, because if you did, you'd look upon things a bit differently"
If I did, I wouldn't be so dumb as to flat out refuse to sell my work or sell it in a crippled useless format.
"What you are advocating is communism"
Is this some sort of version of Godwin's law? Where anyone you don't like is Stalin? Why wreck your arguments by bringing in entirely unrelated matters. We're talking about duplicating files, not commies or stealing.
'so you turn to name-calling. Classic neo-con tactics.....You look like an idiot'
Does this name calling by you mean that you, too, are a neo-con? You must be a better "neo-con" than I am, because I have not turned to name calling, despite such strong temptation. Welcome, my brother! I bet you know the secret neo-con lodge handshake, too!
I'm reminded of a year or two ago when the US appointed an official to oversee occupied Iraq. The objection was actually raised in the US that this was "culturally insensitive" because the man being appointed to the post had Jewish friends. The same sort of logic was used in years past to oppose appointing an African-American ambassador to serve in Apartheid-era South Africa.
To some, racial hatred is a valid cultural trait to be cherished in the tapestry of cultural diversity.
'I don't think you get around Godwin's law that easily, you lost the argument.;-)'
He lost it even before he invoked the ghost of Hitler. He used the term "unilateral" to describe a situation involving several nations. That is a good example of throwing a word around without having any idea what it means.
Slashdot Mirror
1) You claim "AllofMP3" is pristine/lossless. I understood it was MP3, which is lossy. Which is it? What is their file format?
2) You claimed that AllofMP3 is "people with no costs taking things that aren't theirs". Do you have evidence of this? Did they actually steal the CD's they use as source? If, instead, they duplicated files without authorization, then they "made copies without authorization", and took nothing. Taking something and making something are two different things.
"Nup, take = to get into your posession."
How does that help your case? There is no "getting" when copying is done.
"If it moves into your posession, it's taking, and if it's without right or permission, then it's theft.
That's what we've been saying all along. Thanks for describing the situation with taking and theft: which has nothing to do with file duplication at all. (i.e.: if it does not move into your possession, it can't be theft. No taking).
"Ever heard the phrase "take a copy"?
I've never, ever heard it used in situations involving MAKING copies. "Take a copy" is used for situations involving actual taking of copies already made (such as a newspaper from the top of s stack). If you take a copy of a CD, it might be theft. If you make a copy of a CD, it never can be.
"As for your car thing, the building and driving it obviously isn't theft, but yes you can steal designs for a car"
Yes. You can steal them if you swipe them from the draughtsman's desk. He's going to be pretty sore when he sees his plans missing. But if his plans are still on his desk, no theft has taken place.
I am guessing that these anime, if they are for sale at all, are released with DVD region codes for a region other than your own. A sure indication that they don't want money from selling them to you anyway. If they did, they would have sold copies region-free or copies specifically for your region as well. They just can't whine about "lost profits" when they clearly don't want your money anyway.
Correct me if I am wrong (and the anime companies DO sell DVD's for your region)
This news item does not involve theft. I suggest doing some research into the FBI "UCR" crime reporting files, and other sources of data which distinguish the many different kinds of crimes out there. You will quickly learn that there are many other types of crimes (or possible crimes) out there which are not theft. Copyright infringement isn't t he only one.
"Misappropriating and/or "stealing" things that don't belong to you..."
No. Duplication of files does not meet the definition of appriation or theft of files. If you want to get it straight, you shouldn't change the subject to something entirely different in your summarization.
"What we're talking about is the work that goes into such a creation, which no, you absolutely are not creating anew when you copy it."
Nobody is creating the original work all anew when they make a copy of it, not even the "authorized publishers". They're just creating a copy, authorized or not. So what is your point?
I think you should have asked to speak to his manager, and report a customer service outrage.
Reminds me of a situation where the file server was located under a long desk/table. I think it was one of those old AST machines with a huge sensitive reset button on the front. They complained that the server kept resetting. It did not take much looking at the badly scuffed (with lots of black shoe marks) front of the server to find out what users idly swinging their feet did.
My Hotmail account works like that: using Microsoft's settings, the spam goes into the inbox while the good stuff goes into the junk folder.
However a day or two later the "stuck" modem was fixed and I was able to dial in. I guess they found some cooperative kid with a Packard-Bell who changed his personal modem settings....
"Your kid reads Slashdot?? Him seeing the word "shit" is the least of your problems."
Especially when Aunt Doris comes to visit. Your little tyke comes out into the living room, and instead of singing "I'm a Little Teapot", he turns and happily shows everyone the new goatse trick he learned online.
I wonder sometimes if you type this without even thinking about it. If I copy your CD or download a copy of something on your server, how am I possibly getting your CD or the original copy on the server "in my possession"? Thank you anyway, for your sentence. It is central to the common-sense realization that it can't be theft without that necessary part of the definition: taking.
"UNLESS you consider the works to be public domain"
Irrelevant. File duplication of public-domain files never involves taking or possession either. (Well, there is possession, but you are possessing something you created, and no taking was involved in the act of possession).
Again, the use of words without any regard given to meaning. The key word you use is "take". "Take" is a necessary part of "theft". However, the definition of "take" is not met at all with copyright infringement, because nothing is taken.
"And I supposed "stealing" a car would involve hacking into..."
Am I stealing your car if I build an exact copy of it which I drive around? According to your "faith-based" definition of theft which actually involves no theft or taking, it probably would. This is very analagous to the music-duplication situation.
" The word "stealing" isn't defined as depriving somebody of something without permission, it's defined by the action of the taking."
I'm glad you agree that taking is so important to the definition of theft. Hopefully, this is an admission that an act that involves creating a copy of something without even touching (or TAKING it) can never be theft.
"Despite what you believe the word should or shouldn't mean"
Looking up word definitions should dispell any of your lingering problems of "belief" concerning words. It really should not be so hard to consult actual authority instead of relying on incorrect opinions or beliefs.
Butchering children? Certainly. There's no such thing as a safe abortion: a person always dies. This is certainly a matter of biology. Also, anyone can be called a "blob of meat". Perhaps you are also an unthinking one: you seem to be ignorant on this matter. You seem to be as biologically informed as any of those "intellectuals" who calls for genocide because their victims are "inferior", not human.
You are not a politician, I can be sure of that.
The name and profile probably fit some unknowing retired auto worker in Cleveland. The master identity thief has pulled yet another one.
The big box method? It's much less a matter of undercutting the competitors than it is providing the products at a fair price (which is often less than other places that overcharge and rip you off). The service is often much better, too. The "jack up the prices" part? Doesn't work that way. If you decide to overcharge, someone else will come along and steal away your customers with a fair price as well.
It adds more to point out the real, factual differences between these types of stem cell research (as I have done) than it does to say "I don't like abortion". In fact, I did not get around to saying whether or not I liked what had been described in a factual manner.
Because one involves butchering children. One does not have to be a "fundy" to recognize that an individual human being is an individual human being. In fact, it is all a matter of biology. Souls and God don't have anything to do with it.
Except the content is not being appropriated. Look up the word: "To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission". The only part that applies is "without permission". Possession does not fit very well, and the part about exclusive use certainly does not apply.
Where? Find one single line, or even one word, where one of your opponents has justified or defended theft. I bet you can't. You are now engaging in a straw-man attack: condemning people for something they never did. It's really easy to attack your opponents for loving theft. Makes them look real bad, right? Your tactic might actually work unless someone bothers to find out that your opponents never defend theft, and theft/stealing is not even being discussed or mentioned except when you try to change the topic 100% from the subject of copyright infringment to the subject of theft.
"and where people are free to consume whatever they want without paying. Thats called communism, look it up sometime."
I don't know about you, but I've never consumed a song. If you look up the definition of "consume", you will find that you are yet again using a word without any regard to its actual meaning. All the definitions of consume involve something being used up during its use. The word does not fit at all: making a copy of an MP3 file does not use up ("consume") anything except the time used up by the person listening. MP3 downloading and peer to peer are in fact a usage model that involves the opposite of consumption: they create more copies, they do not destroy. Or look at it this way: if hamburgers were "consumed" the way music files were "consumed", eating a hamburger would result in the creation of extra hamburgers on your plate. All of which, either way, has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of communism.
There, we have three words, "theft", "consume", and "communism" which are not involved in the subject at all.
....if the guys on the streetcorners were selling copies that THEY CREATED THEMSELVES of the clothes and speakers. Otherwise, it your example involves theft, and nothing like that is involved.
Why pay for free files? Especially when the artists refuse to sell the files themselves? They don't even want the money, really. If they did, they'd be selling Beatles MP3 files, recorded concerts that fans give away but the artists refuse to sell, or files from "out of print" albums, but they are not. If an album is out-of-print, but there is enough demand to give away copies on the Net, it is certainly just another clear example of the artists not even wanting the money.
"Anything else is just quite desperate intellectual willy-waving to justify stealing "
That is really quite a huge leap. The discussion involves (possible) unauthorized duplication of music files. It does not involve "stealing" in any way. You might have instead said "Anything else is just quite desperate intellectual willy-waving to justify copying". There's a case to be made for that. The topic certainly has nothing to do with stealing.
"Im presuming you dont create digital content for a living, because if you did, you'd look upon things a bit differently"
If I did, I wouldn't be so dumb as to flat out refuse to sell my work or sell it in a crippled useless format.
"What you are advocating is communism"
Is this some sort of version of Godwin's law? Where anyone you don't like is Stalin? Why wreck your arguments by bringing in entirely unrelated matters. We're talking about duplicating files, not commies or stealing.
Does this name calling by you mean that you, too, are a neo-con? You must be a better "neo-con" than I am, because I have not turned to name calling, despite such strong temptation. Welcome, my brother! I bet you know the secret neo-con lodge handshake, too!
To some, racial hatred is a valid cultural trait to be cherished in the tapestry of cultural diversity.
'I don't think you get around Godwin's law that easily, you lost the argument. ;-)'
He lost it even before he invoked the ghost of Hitler. He used the term "unilateral" to describe a situation involving several nations. That is a good example of throwing a word around without having any idea what it means.