I think you make a good point, but I'll take it one step further. Let's face it, an IT job is the modern day equivalent of a janitor in the eyes of management. You can be very successful, but you'd have to put in un-Godly hours and sacrifice too much. You'd be successful careerwise, but unhappy in your life.
Since the only reason you're working in the first place is to make money, you should think outside the "go to college, get a good job" box. Find something and start your own business. I think he/she should skip the CS degree, get a job in construction, and after a few years become a contractor. Essentially get into some field for a few years to learn the trade (and make it a trade that EVERYONE needs. Plumber, electrician, etc.) and work hard for a few years to gain knowledge into doing the job and keeping an eye on how to run a company of that type.
Don't spend your life working for someone else. It's a horrible experience now, and it's only going to get worse as corporations expand their control. Start your own company and work it from a young age and you'll be much better off by the time you're 30.
I think this comment clearly demonstrates why the polarized arguments about the iPhone are pointless. To say the iPhone is a rehash of a Treo is only true if you consider all email applications equal, or all browsers equal. Yes, it's the interface, but not becauase it's "nicer", but rather because it's the first phone interface that is intuitive and usable. I could hand one to my daughter (5) and she could figure it out. No other phones are like that and that is why people are excited about the iPhone. It works the way a phone should work.
As for the folks who think an iPhone is only used because it's "cool", I would say that's a SMALL slice of the market. I don't doubt there is a segment of people who buy it because they want to be trendy, but more folks are buying an iPhone because it works they way they ALL should have worked for years.
I agree. I want to own my music, not rent it. And in reply to Mike's ridiculous statement about Apple finally "getting it", I'd say they "got it" long before anyone else and that is why iTunes has been such a success. The record companies are the ones who don't get it, they want you to pay them over and over again for the same content. iTunes understood consumers enough to know that we want to buy it and own it.
Hahaha! I could have wrote your post myself, it's so close to what I would have said!
On a side note, does anyone know where a disillusioned American can move to before our ailing Constitution is completely dead and I'm not allowed to leave?
Heck I'm an American and your response is pure poppycock. Let's examine a few fallacies. . .
"Why didn't we take out Saddam and his regime then? Because the president at the time recognized his Constitutional limits under his edict to act."
-His Constitutional limits prevented him? Duh! If he was following our constitution he wouldn't have been there in the first place because Congress had not declared war. Our leaders don't give one whit about the Constitution unless it somehow personally threatens them with jail time. Our Constitution has been a paper tiger for quite a while now.
"I'll play along and postulate that you don't like our military protecting the agribusiness that feeds so much of the world."
- So it's OK for us to invade someone because we feed part of the world? That's about the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.
"George W has a clear history of not tolerating anyone who hurts his dad."
- Sooooo we invaded a country because Bush Jr. wants avenge his daddy. The same daddy who (contrary to your quote above) was NOT hurt by Saddam. Again, the stupidity of this justification can not be measured with today's technology.
"Our invasion there was many things, but it wasn't random, neither was it without reason. And I don't mean reason as in have a reason or have an excuse, I mean reason as in a reasoning process was involved. It may have been GIGO, it may have been immoral, but it was perfectly predictable. Random and without reason is never predictable."
- You silly philosophy lesson is a nice attempt to minimize what everyone is saying, but unfortunately it sounds like a complete diversion because you fail to address what everyone is saying. Our invasion was completely without reason. Don't try and pull some amateur psych explanation to justify it. The only reasoning process involved in this invasion was how to dupe the public into thinking this was justified. You obviously fell for it.
"Are you even aware that the popular belief was that America didn't oust Saddam because we lost the war there in the '90s?"
- Oh, well, then by all means lets invade them and kill Saddam so we can save face and say we won! How does the popular Arab belief that we lost have anything to do with the fact that Iraq posed no threat to us? Let them believe what they want, I don't care.
One thing is becoming quite clear. George Bush has killed far more people with his policies than Osama bin laden, and Bush's policies are no more valid than bin Laden's.
"religion ultimately represents an abandonment of the brains that God gave us."
-I don't understand your reasoning on this one. If there is a God and he DID give us brains then you should probably be working to please him rather than assume you know it all. If there isn't a God then you should probably remove your reference to God in your rebuttal.
"Bull. It's entirely possible to provide a good user experience without having total control, practically every other tech company does it all the time."
-BULL. Show me one cellular handset maker that does it because I haven't seen it.
"Nice job Steve. Should have just sold it by itself, and give the USERS a choice of their providers."
While I understand the desire to use it on any carrier the truth of the matter is you would NOT have the same experience if they'd have taken your advice here. No visual voicemail. No at home activation. No synching with your computer (music/video/pictures). Etc. Etc.
The carriers effectively crippled most useful handset features in the US market and it would have been the same if Apple hadn't done the deal with AT&T.
I don't see that it gets any tougher at all. There's no such thing as an easy sale. Either the people want it bad enough to get one or they don't. Many folks are tied into 2 yr contracts already and can't just jump ship to get the iPhone they want (note that contracts are an issue with ALL carriers).
It doesn't take a year or two for developers to release good software. I predict it will take less than 2 months. We're not talking about an Office rewrite. These are apps that are probably already half way (or more) done because developers are anticipating the SDK release. These are also phone apps, so they're probably fairly simple in comparison to desktop apps.
In the US market the idea of "forced to exclusivity" is not ludicrous. Even overseas the idea isn't ludicrous. In the US market they had to break the oppressive carrier status quo mandates to get the features/experience they wanted. The European market is more open in some ways, but would still require some expensive work on any carrier's part to get the features/experience to work right too. Hence the exclusivity.
It's about the experience. If they didn't exercise some CONTROL then you wouldn't have the EXPERIENCE. Despite your idiotic interpretation to the contrary.
Your post is 100% right on the money. Exclusivity was done because of necessity, in order to get the features/experience the way Apple wanted it. It's surprising how the "enlightened" Slashdot crowd can't seem to understand that.
I guess I should clarify before I get flamed. I don't agree with the MAFIAA techniques, ancient business model, and disdain for their customers. I would say that I support people stealing their content as a way of changing their business model. With that said I just think we should be up front and honest about the fact that it is stealing and not try to hide behind some esoteric definition that says someone has to be deprived of something or discussions about copyright. Call a spade a spade. It's stealing. And right now I'm all for it in order to force the cartels to respect their customers.
"Making a copy of something, without harming the original is not stealing. It never was."
Just making the copy, no, it's not stealing. But if you make that copy of your friend's CD, then take it, without due authority of the owner, then it's stealing. As I said before, I'm not talking about copyright or some other aspect of the law. I'm talking about the commmon sense morality of stealing. I think the dictionary definition listed below would still qualify as most everyone's common sense understand of stealing.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
While I'll agree that no one has been deprived of their property I have to say that your definition of stealing doesn't hold water. The dictionary definition of stealing says nothing about depriving someone of their property, but only of taking something that isn't yours without due authority. Stealing is a common sense and moral issue, irregardless of how the law has to wrap it for the purposes of enforcement. While I am completely opposed to the MAFIAA cartels, taking copies of music/movies is still stealing.
"I haven't - I have spent the last 3 days disputing the your idea that copyright infringement is stealing."
-I never said copyright infringment is stealing from a legal perspective. It's stealing from a moral perspective. How the law wraps that moral concept doesn't interest me. That's an argument YOU made and argued. I said taking something that you don't own without permission is stealing. Argue against yourself about copyright infringement since you're the one who brought it up.
"Looks like you did make that statement after all."
-If you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission it is stealing. Please consult a dictionary.
"I'm sorry, the law disagrees with you. You own the song but the law places a restriction on what you are allowed to do with it because you don't own the copyright."
-You don't own the song or you could do whatever you want with it.
"You have made the declaration that copyright infringement is stealing, and then have accused me of stealing. By your own definition, you appear to have accused me of either copyright infringement or stealing (or both)."
-It is stealing. If you infringed on a copyright then you stole something.
"As an easy starting point, how about the laws that allow anyone in the UK to be held without charge on suspicion of terrorism and the laws that allow the US to commit acts of torture. Also the laws that allow British citizens to be extradited to the US despite breaking no British laws and there being no evidence presented against them by the US authorities."
-Yes of course. And these laws (whether you agree with them or not) aren't influenced by the moral idea of not allowing people to harm others, or commit murder? Moral base concept influences the creating of laws.
"You were the one who made the quote "
-I quoted something from the Bible which was an example of a moral concept that addressed stealing that was not a law. I did NOT say that my religion mattered to anyone else. But YOUR response tried to imply that I said that. Why do you persist in making stuff up? I think you're claims of libel have to be based on the fact that I made a false statement, but this clearly demonstrates you lie because I never said my religion mattered to anyone else.
"But there is no dispute about that. The dispute is as to whether copyright infringement constitutes stealing. The law says it doesn't, and the concept of copyright does not predate the law."
Then why have you spent the last 3 days disputing it? As I've said several times I've never been talking about the law. When you disputed that copyright infringement was not stealing you were disputing an argument that I never made. It's called a straw man argument. I simply said stealing is taking something you don't own without permission. Then you started your ridiculous diatribe about the law. You want to debate law then do it yourself. I was, and always have been, talking about stealing. Again, you're attempting to narrow the argument to an area I'm not talking about in attempt to save face.
"Legally you own the disc and the song"
-Just the disk not the song. If you owned the song you could do whatever you want with it.
"Again, the law disagrees with you. Defamation laws cover both express and implied statements. The context of your statements clearly made an implication."
-As for clearly making an implication, no, it did not. If you choose to misrepresent what I say then I can't be held responsible for YOUR misrepresentation. You've consistently misrepresented what I've said in attempts to use a straw man argument. That's called lying. That's why I can truthfully call you a liar. If you think you've got a case then sue me for libel.
"I'm sure I can point to quite a few laws which I would consider to be nothing to do with morals at all."
-Such as.
"The teachings of your specific religion are of little importance to many people."
-Who said they were? That doesn't change the fact that the concept of stealing is a moral concept and predates the law.
"What purpose does your overly broad definition serve?"
-It is the common sense definition of stealing as demonstrated by all 3 dictionary references supplied by both you and me. Not one of those references refers to the law. I don't need the law to understand the concept of stealing therefore it is not necessary to bring the law into the discussion.
The law quite clearly states that if you go into a shop, hand over some money and receive an object in return for the cash then you own that object."
-In this case you own the disk, but you DO NOT OWN THE SONG. If you own the song then start selling it to other people, publish it on your cheesy web site and publicize it so people can download it or buy it. See what happens. If you owned it then you could do that. But you don't own it.
No, I'm afraid I didn't make it up - information which extend beyond your knowledge is not necessarily "made up".
-True, but in this case it is made up because it's obviously not true.
"Sure I can - it was quite clearly implied by the context of the statement. (And yes, defamation laws cover both express and implied untruths)."
-No, I can only be accountable for what I said. Not what YOU implied that I said. Again, what is the case number of the libel suit you'll be bringing against me?
"Theft and stealing are both the same legal construct."
-If I was talking about legal constructs, but I'm not. STEALING is a MORAL construct. The laws you want to delve into are based on the moral construct. If it weren't for the moral construct then we'd feel no need to create the law, now would we? But the point remains, I'm not talking law, I'm talking common sense morals. Stealing is taking something without permission from the owner.
"Morals define right and wrong - not specific concepts such as stealing. "
-Thou Shalt Not STEAL. It's a moral concept.
"I'm pretty sure your morals don't match mine."
-I'm not sure you have any so we'll never know.
"You have failed to answer the question I asked."
-What question is that?
"You do, however, own the song (yes, this is the legal position)."
-You don't own the song. You have purchased the right to listen to it. If you owned it then you'd have the right to sell the song to whoever or give it away for free. You don't have that right because you don't own it.
"I'm afraid you are wrong here as well. Unless you were presented with a licence to sign at the time of purchase, you have been sold the CD and contents (but not the copyright thereof), not a licence to use it in a specific way. Again, this is the legal position."
-You may own the physical media, but you don't own the song. No, it's not a legal position. You made it up.
"In the above examples you were quite clearly talking about copyright infringement despite your incorrect use of the word "stealing". However, whether you were accusing me of being a theif of a copyright infringer, the statement was libelous and defamatory."
-If you're taking something that you don't own and without permission from the owner then you are stealing. If I didn't say "you are infringing copyrights" then you can't say that is what I meant. Jeez, you put the words in my mouth and then accuse me based on the statement you just made up? And I'm still waiting for the libel suit? When again will that be filed?
-Are you dense? I'm not talking about law. The dictionary says to TAKE. Idiot.
"You seem to be talking about theft (a legal construct) and copyright (also a legal construct). "
-No, it is YOU who have talked about those, not me. I said STEALING. Idiot.
"The term "stealing" refers to a legal concept."
-No, it's a MORAL concept. Idiot
"What purpose does your overly broad definition serve?"
-I've repeatedly said it's a common sense definition of stealing. Idiot.
"The law disagrees with you. If you go into a shop and buy a CD then you are the legal owner the CD and the contents."
-No, you buy the CD, but you DO NOT OWN THE SONG TO DISTRIBUTE AS YOU WISH. You have a license to use it, but you do not own it. Idiot.
"During this discussion you have, on several occasions, accused me of theft and copyright infringement. Unless you can present evidence for these accusations they constitute libel. You have also repeatedly called me a liar."
-I never talked about copyright infringement (please quote where I accuse you of copyright infringement), nor have I accused you of theft (please quote where I call you a thief). I do think you're a liar. If you think you've got a case for libel then then sue me. Idiot.
"It seems that you are misusing the verb "to take"."
-In what way am I misusing the verb "take"? You make a copy of someone's copyrighted media file and you TAKE the copy with you. You have TAKEN the copy. You don't have permission to TAKE the copy. Irregardless of whether the other person still has their copy you have TAKEN a copy without permission. That is stealing. I'm not talking law statutes here, so don't waste time with that argument in an attempt to save yourself. I'm talking common sense. Quit trying to fool yourself. Quit trying to avoid the reality of the situation. STEALING=Take something (in this case a copy) without permission.
"The definition of a crime is given by the law which makes it a crime. Were it not for the law it would not be a crime. "
-Since when did I ever say I was defining a crime? If I'm on another planet where no laws apply and I take something (even a copy of something) without permission then it is stealing and there's no way to avoid that reality. Your attempt to narrowly define this to save face is ridiculous.
"No, the owners of the thing I copied (for example, the original CD) may well have given permission even though they are not the copyright holder."
-No, the owner in this case is the copyright holder. The consumer does not own the media file, they have only purchased the right to view/listen to it.
"I see, so you're basically declaring yourself to be right because the definitions used by the rest of the world mean little to you?"
-Here are the 3 definitions: OED: 1 take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. 2 give or take surreptitiously or without permission. -----You took something (a copy of a media file) without permission. SO YOU STOLE IT!
Websters: 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice -----You took the property of another (the copy of the media file) wrongfully. SO YOU STOLE IT!
dictionary.com: steal 1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. -----You took the property of another (the copy of the media file) without permission. SO YOU STOLE IT! 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. -----You appropriated (the copy of the media file) without right or acknnowledgement. SO YOU STOLE IT!
All 3 definitions of the word "steal" agrees with what I've been saying all along. All 3 definitions quoted agree that stealing is taking something without permission. NONE of the definitions say anything about depriving someone of something. You've made that up to try and salvage your erroneous argument.
"The dictionary definition you cited isn't exactly from a well recognised dictionary. Both the OED and Websters provide definitions that support my interpretation, as do the legal definitions."
-Not from a well recognized dictionary? That's a nice try to dicredit the definition I supplied, but fortunately the ones you supplied are all the same as mine. See above where ALL 3 definitions support my argument and NONE of them support yours. And again, this isn't a law school discussion, it's a common sense definition of stealing.
"I suggest you work on your debating skills. During this discussion you have continually spent almost as much time making baseless libelous accusations"
-Libelous? Is this another of your quasi-law discussion? Since it's libelous I challenging you to sue me. Go ahead Professor, sue me for libel. . . . I
'm so sorry, it's just that I feel like I'm having this debate with the idiot stepchild of Forrest Gump and it's naturally frustrating to try and point out the obvious to someone. It's even more frustrating when the Child Gump tries to respond, ends up supporting my own argument with the definitions he supplied, and then says the definition supports him instead. How exactly should I debate that
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the same NASA that the cheesy global warming proclamation came from last week? How could we possible doubt them?
I think you make a good point, but I'll take it one step further. Let's face it, an IT job is the modern day equivalent of a janitor in the eyes of management. You can be very successful, but you'd have to put in un-Godly hours and sacrifice too much. You'd be successful careerwise, but unhappy in your life.
Since the only reason you're working in the first place is to make money, you should think outside the "go to college, get a good job" box. Find something and start your own business. I think he/she should skip the CS degree, get a job in construction, and after a few years become a contractor. Essentially get into some field for a few years to learn the trade (and make it a trade that EVERYONE needs. Plumber, electrician, etc.) and work hard for a few years to gain knowledge into doing the job and keeping an eye on how to run a company of that type.
Don't spend your life working for someone else. It's a horrible experience now, and it's only going to get worse as corporations expand their control. Start your own company and work it from a young age and you'll be much better off by the time you're 30.
I think this comment clearly demonstrates why the polarized arguments about the iPhone are pointless. To say the iPhone is a rehash of a Treo is only true if you consider all email applications equal, or all browsers equal. Yes, it's the interface, but not becauase it's "nicer", but rather because it's the first phone interface that is intuitive and usable. I could hand one to my daughter (5) and she could figure it out. No other phones are like that and that is why people are excited about the iPhone. It works the way a phone should work.
As for the folks who think an iPhone is only used because it's "cool", I would say that's a SMALL slice of the market. I don't doubt there is a segment of people who buy it because they want to be trendy, but more folks are buying an iPhone because it works they way they ALL should have worked for years.
I agree. I want to own my music, not rent it. And in reply to Mike's ridiculous statement about Apple finally "getting it", I'd say they "got it" long before anyone else and that is why iTunes has been such a success. The record companies are the ones who don't get it, they want you to pay them over and over again for the same content. iTunes understood consumers enough to know that we want to buy it and own it.
Damn you man! How dare you expose the Linux fanbois!
Hahaha! I could have wrote your post myself, it's so close to what I would have said!
On a side note, does anyone know where a disillusioned American can move to before our ailing Constitution is completely dead and I'm not allowed to leave?
Heck I'm an American and your response is pure poppycock. Let's examine a few fallacies. . .
"Why didn't we take out Saddam and his regime then? Because the president at the time recognized his Constitutional limits under his edict to act."
-His Constitutional limits prevented him? Duh! If he was following our constitution he wouldn't have been there in the first place because Congress had not declared war. Our leaders don't give one whit about the Constitution unless it somehow personally threatens them with jail time. Our Constitution has been a paper tiger for quite a while now.
"I'll play along and postulate that you don't like our military protecting the agribusiness that feeds so much of the world."
- So it's OK for us to invade someone because we feed part of the world? That's about the most idiotic statement I've ever heard.
"George W has a clear history of not tolerating anyone who hurts his dad."
- Sooooo we invaded a country because Bush Jr. wants avenge his daddy. The same daddy who (contrary to your quote above) was NOT hurt by Saddam. Again, the stupidity of this justification can not be measured with today's technology.
"Our invasion there was many things, but it wasn't random, neither was it without reason. And I don't mean reason as in have a reason or have an excuse, I mean reason as in a reasoning process was involved. It may have been GIGO, it may have been immoral, but it was perfectly predictable. Random and without reason is never predictable."
- You silly philosophy lesson is a nice attempt to minimize what everyone is saying, but unfortunately it sounds like a complete diversion because you fail to address what everyone is saying. Our invasion was completely without reason. Don't try and pull some amateur psych explanation to justify it. The only reasoning process involved in this invasion was how to dupe the public into thinking this was justified. You obviously fell for it.
"Are you even aware that the popular belief was that America didn't oust Saddam because we lost the war there in the '90s?"
- Oh, well, then by all means lets invade them and kill Saddam so we can save face and say we won! How does the popular Arab belief that we lost have anything to do with the fact that Iraq posed no threat to us? Let them believe what they want, I don't care.
One thing is becoming quite clear. George Bush has killed far more people with his policies than Osama bin laden, and Bush's policies are no more valid than bin Laden's.
"religion ultimately represents an abandonment of the brains that God gave us."
-I don't understand your reasoning on this one. If there is a God and he DID give us brains then you should probably be working to please him rather than assume you know it all. If there isn't a God then you should probably remove your reference to God in your rebuttal.
"Bull. It's entirely possible to provide a good user experience without having total control, practically every other tech company does it all the time." -BULL. Show me one cellular handset maker that does it because I haven't seen it.
"Nice job Steve. Should have just sold it by itself, and give the USERS a choice of their providers."
While I understand the desire to use it on any carrier the truth of the matter is you would NOT have the same experience if they'd have taken your advice here. No visual voicemail. No at home activation. No synching with your computer (music/video/pictures). Etc. Etc.
The carriers effectively crippled most useful handset features in the US market and it would have been the same if Apple hadn't done the deal with AT&T.
I don't see that it gets any tougher at all. There's no such thing as an easy sale. Either the people want it bad enough to get one or they don't. Many folks are tied into 2 yr contracts already and can't just jump ship to get the iPhone they want (note that contracts are an issue with ALL carriers). It doesn't take a year or two for developers to release good software. I predict it will take less than 2 months. We're not talking about an Office rewrite. These are apps that are probably already half way (or more) done because developers are anticipating the SDK release. These are also phone apps, so they're probably fairly simple in comparison to desktop apps.
In the US market the idea of "forced to exclusivity" is not ludicrous. Even overseas the idea isn't ludicrous. In the US market they had to break the oppressive carrier status quo mandates to get the features/experience they wanted. The European market is more open in some ways, but would still require some expensive work on any carrier's part to get the features/experience to work right too. Hence the exclusivity.
It's about the experience. If they didn't exercise some CONTROL then you wouldn't have the EXPERIENCE. Despite your idiotic interpretation to the contrary.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what horrible restrictions are in place on all these devices you mentioned?
Your post is 100% right on the money. Exclusivity was done because of necessity, in order to get the features/experience the way Apple wanted it. It's surprising how the "enlightened" Slashdot crowd can't seem to understand that.
It's stealing because he doesn't own the song. So he doesn't have the authority to just give it to anyone.
I guess I should clarify before I get flamed. I don't agree with the MAFIAA techniques, ancient business model, and disdain for their customers. I would say that I support people stealing their content as a way of changing their business model. With that said I just think we should be up front and honest about the fact that it is stealing and not try to hide behind some esoteric definition that says someone has to be deprived of something or discussions about copyright. Call a spade a spade. It's stealing. And right now I'm all for it in order to force the cartels to respect their customers.
"Making a copy of something, without harming the original is not stealing. It never was."
Just making the copy, no, it's not stealing. But if you make that copy of your friend's CD, then take it, without due authority of the owner, then it's stealing. As I said before, I'm not talking about copyright or some other aspect of the law. I'm talking about the commmon sense morality of stealing. I think the dictionary definition listed below would still qualify as most everyone's common sense understand of stealing.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
While I'll agree that no one has been deprived of their property I have to say that your definition of stealing doesn't hold water. The dictionary definition of stealing says nothing about depriving someone of their property, but only of taking something that isn't yours without due authority. Stealing is a common sense and moral issue, irregardless of how the law has to wrap it for the purposes of enforcement. While I am completely opposed to the MAFIAA cartels, taking copies of music/movies is still stealing.
"I haven't - I have spent the last 3 days disputing the your idea that copyright infringement is stealing."
-I never said copyright infringment is stealing from a legal perspective. It's stealing from a moral perspective. How the law wraps that moral concept doesn't interest me. That's an argument YOU made and argued. I said taking something that you don't own without permission is stealing. Argue against yourself about copyright infringement since you're the one who brought it up.
"Looks like you did make that statement after all."
-If you take something that doesn't belong to you without permission it is stealing. Please consult a dictionary.
"I'm sorry, the law disagrees with you. You own the song but the law places a restriction on what you are allowed to do with it because you don't own the copyright."
-You don't own the song or you could do whatever you want with it.
"You have made the declaration that copyright infringement is stealing, and then have accused me of stealing. By your own definition, you appear to have accused me of either copyright infringement or stealing (or both)."
-It is stealing. If you infringed on a copyright then you stole something.
"As an easy starting point, how about the laws that allow anyone in the UK to be held without charge on suspicion of terrorism and the laws that allow the US to commit acts of torture. Also the laws that allow British citizens to be extradited to the US despite breaking no British laws and there being no evidence presented against them by the US authorities."
-Yes of course. And these laws (whether you agree with them or not) aren't influenced by the moral idea of not allowing people to harm others, or commit murder? Moral base concept influences the creating of laws.
"You were the one who made the quote "
-I quoted something from the Bible which was an example of a moral concept that addressed stealing that was not a law. I did NOT say that my religion mattered to anyone else. But YOUR response tried to imply that I said that. Why do you persist in making stuff up? I think you're claims of libel have to be based on the fact that I made a false statement, but this clearly demonstrates you lie because I never said my religion mattered to anyone else.
"But there is no dispute about that. The dispute is as to whether copyright infringement constitutes stealing. The law says it doesn't, and the concept of copyright does not predate the law."
Then why have you spent the last 3 days disputing it? As I've said several times I've never been talking about the law. When you disputed that copyright infringement was not stealing you were disputing an argument that I never made. It's called a straw man argument. I simply said stealing is taking something you don't own without permission. Then you started your ridiculous diatribe about the law. You want to debate law then do it yourself. I was, and always have been, talking about stealing. Again, you're attempting to narrow the argument to an area I'm not talking about in attempt to save face.
"Legally you own the disc and the song"
-Just the disk not the song. If you owned the song you could do whatever you want with it.
"Again, the law disagrees with you. Defamation laws cover both express and implied statements. The context of your statements clearly made an implication."
-As for clearly making an implication, no, it did not. If you choose to misrepresent what I say then I can't be held responsible for YOUR misrepresentation. You've consistently misrepresented what I've said in attempts to use a straw man argument. That's called lying. That's why I can truthfully call you a liar. If you think you've got a case then sue me for libel.
"I'm sure I can point to quite a few laws which I would consider to be nothing to do with morals at all."
-Such as.
"The teachings of your specific religion are of little importance to many people."
-Who said they were? That doesn't change the fact that the concept of stealing is a moral concept and predates the law.
"What purpose does your overly broad definition serve?"
-It is the common sense definition of stealing as demonstrated by all 3 dictionary references supplied by both you and me. Not one of those references refers to the law. I don't need the law to understand the concept of stealing therefore it is not necessary to bring the law into the discussion.
The law quite clearly states that if you go into a shop, hand over some money and receive an object in return for the cash then you own that object."
-In this case you own the disk, but you DO NOT OWN THE SONG. If you own the song then start selling it to other people, publish it on your cheesy web site and publicize it so people can download it or buy it. See what happens. If you owned it then you could do that. But you don't own it.
No, I'm afraid I didn't make it up - information which extend beyond your knowledge is not necessarily "made up".
-True, but in this case it is made up because it's obviously not true.
"Sure I can - it was quite clearly implied by the context of the statement. (And yes, defamation laws cover both express and implied untruths)."
-No, I can only be accountable for what I said. Not what YOU implied that I said. Again, what is the case number of the libel suit you'll be bringing against me?
"Theft and stealing are both the same legal construct."
-If I was talking about legal constructs, but I'm not. STEALING is a MORAL construct. The laws you want to delve into are based on the moral construct. If it weren't for the moral construct then we'd feel no need to create the law, now would we? But the point remains, I'm not talking law, I'm talking common sense morals. Stealing is taking something without permission from the owner.
"Morals define right and wrong - not specific concepts such as stealing. "
-Thou Shalt Not STEAL. It's a moral concept.
"I'm pretty sure your morals don't match mine."
-I'm not sure you have any so we'll never know.
"You have failed to answer the question I asked."
-What question is that?
"You do, however, own the song (yes, this is the legal position)."
-You don't own the song. You have purchased the right to listen to it. If you owned it then you'd have the right to sell the song to whoever or give it away for free. You don't have that right because you don't own it.
"I'm afraid you are wrong here as well. Unless you were presented with a licence to sign at the time of purchase, you have been sold the CD and contents (but not the copyright thereof), not a licence to use it in a specific way. Again, this is the legal position."
-You may own the physical media, but you don't own the song. No, it's not a legal position. You made it up.
"In the above examples you were quite clearly talking about copyright infringement despite your incorrect use of the word "stealing". However, whether you were accusing me of being a theif of a copyright infringer, the statement was libelous and defamatory."
-If you're taking something that you don't own and without permission from the owner then you are stealing. If I didn't say "you are infringing copyrights" then you can't say that is what I meant. Jeez, you put the words in my mouth and then accuse me based on the statement you just made up? And I'm still waiting for the libel suit? When again will that be filed?
"the law makes no reference to it."
-Are you dense? I'm not talking about law. The dictionary says to TAKE. Idiot.
"You seem to be talking about theft (a legal construct) and copyright (also a legal construct). "
-No, it is YOU who have talked about those, not me. I said STEALING. Idiot.
"The term "stealing" refers to a legal concept."
-No, it's a MORAL concept. Idiot
"What purpose does your overly broad definition serve?"
-I've repeatedly said it's a common sense definition of stealing. Idiot.
"The law disagrees with you. If you go into a shop and buy a CD then you are the legal owner the CD and the contents."
-No, you buy the CD, but you DO NOT OWN THE SONG TO DISTRIBUTE AS YOU WISH. You have a license to use it, but you do not own it. Idiot.
"During this discussion you have, on several occasions, accused me of theft and copyright infringement. Unless you can present evidence for these accusations they constitute libel. You have also repeatedly called me a liar."
-I never talked about copyright infringement (please quote where I accuse you of copyright infringement), nor have I accused you of theft (please quote where I call you a thief). I do think you're a liar. If you think you've got a case for libel then then sue me. Idiot.
"It seems that you are misusing the verb "to take"."
-In what way am I misusing the verb "take"? You make a copy of someone's copyrighted media file and you TAKE the copy with you. You have TAKEN the copy. You don't have permission to TAKE the copy. Irregardless of whether the other person still has their copy you have TAKEN a copy without permission. That is stealing. I'm not talking law statutes here, so don't waste time with that argument in an attempt to save yourself. I'm talking common sense. Quit trying to fool yourself. Quit trying to avoid the reality of the situation. STEALING=Take something (in this case a copy) without permission.
"The definition of a crime is given by the law which makes it a crime. Were it not for the law it would not be a crime. "
-Since when did I ever say I was defining a crime? If I'm on another planet where no laws apply and I take something (even a copy of something) without permission then it is stealing and there's no way to avoid that reality. Your attempt to narrowly define this to save face is ridiculous.
"No, the owners of the thing I copied (for example, the original CD) may well have given permission even though they are not the copyright holder."
-No, the owner in this case is the copyright holder. The consumer does not own the media file, they have only purchased the right to view/listen to it.
"I see, so you're basically declaring yourself to be right because the definitions used by the rest of the world mean little to you?"
-Here are the 3 definitions:
OED: 1 take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it. 2 give or take surreptitiously or without permission.
-----You took something (a copy of a media file) without permission. SO YOU STOLE IT!
Websters: 1: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
-----You took the property of another (the copy of the media file) wrongfully. SO YOU STOLE IT!
dictionary.com: steal
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
-----You took the property of another (the copy of the media file) without permission. SO YOU STOLE IT!
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
-----You appropriated (the copy of the media file) without right or acknnowledgement. SO YOU STOLE IT!
All 3 definitions of the word "steal" agrees with what I've been saying all along. All 3 definitions quoted agree that stealing is taking something without permission. NONE of the definitions say anything about depriving someone of something. You've made that up to try and salvage your erroneous argument.
"The dictionary definition you cited isn't exactly from a well recognised dictionary. Both the OED and Websters provide definitions that support my interpretation, as do the legal definitions."
-Not from a well recognized dictionary? That's a nice try to dicredit the definition I supplied, but fortunately the ones you supplied are all the same as mine. See above where ALL 3 definitions support my argument and NONE of them support yours. And again, this isn't a law school discussion, it's a common sense definition of stealing.
"I suggest you work on your debating skills. During this discussion you have continually spent almost as much time making baseless libelous accusations"
-Libelous? Is this another of your quasi-law discussion? Since it's libelous I challenging you to sue me. Go ahead Professor, sue me for libel. . . . I
'm so sorry, it's just that I feel like I'm having this debate with the idiot stepchild of Forrest Gump and it's naturally frustrating to try and point out the obvious to someone. It's even more frustrating when the Child Gump tries to respond, ends up supporting my own argument with the definitions he supplied, and then says the definition supports him instead. How exactly should I debate that