OT: Which is better: XP or 2000? > Another Piracy Discussion

[JayBdey]

Then lets petition to remove the crime of copyright infringement since it's the same as stealing right?

Stealing would refer to taking something and thus depriving the owner of the use of it. Copyright Infringement is the crime of making a copy of something. It doesn’t deprive the owner of use of the original, but it is taking their software/music with out you owning the license.

It's a small difference, but enough to merit a different crime.

[Fyron]

Again with the crime definitions... Both the crimes of theft and copyright infringement involve stealing something. They are different forms of stealing, but they are still stealing. Refer back to my post with the definition of "steal". Stealing a loaf of bread gets you charged with petty theft. Stealing a car gets you charged with grand theft auto. Both crimes are different, yet both involve stealing. Just like stealing ideas is still stealing them.

[Phoenix-D]

Fyron, I said legal and ethical, not dictionary. Stop posting that, I saw it the first time and it isn't relevent.

[Loser]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Fyron, I said legal and ethical, not dictionary. Stop posting that, I saw it the first time and it isn't relevent.

Ethically it is stealing. It is taking what you have no right to take, which comes directly from the dictionary definition. Performing such an action is not morally correct.

Legally it is stealing. Copyright infringement is stealing "ideas" and such that are not your own. Again, the dictionary definition makes this clear.

[tesco samoa]

Fyron you have to rember the spirit of law is written so there is 100% understandment between all parties involved. If we took the M-W 1a) to court we would have a few problems

1) I download something and realise I downloaded something and delete it. I did not break 1a) As there was no intent to keep or make use of wrongfully. There are many different ways of taking this apart in a court of law.

Say the person who created the said item wishes for people to listen to it in what ever format they want and does not care about being paid. But they also to happen to have this release done by Blue Note in 1973 and it is not availble for purchase since it is backcat. I download it and I am still breaking your 1a) and what they want in the laws now.

THis is the beauty of Law and the theory behind it. And why it should lag behind society current thoughts. As it must stand the test of time. And when it needs to be changed. It must be changed exactly in a way that benifits what came before it and what benfits its society that it helps support. Not quite in the spirit of Hart and Holmes. but along those lines...

Geo good point.

But the question would be what are they trying to stand up to and make a point for. If it is just because they wish to listen to some songs here and there or is it because they wish to debate the structure of copyright and the errosion of public content or something else. Public content benifits a society. As societies can on benifit from the free flow of culture and ideas. It helps with the evolution of society and its art.

[Fyron]

I will stand by my assessment that JayBdey was just trying to divert the actual conversation so he would not have to admit that he is wrong about only the law mattering and the fact that "steal" is a very narrow term according to him.

Legality did not enter the discussion until rather late, after he failed to convince me of his wrong point of view.

Of course laws have to be narrowly defined. I never said they didn't. But, laws are not what was being discussed until the diVersion, and I still take issue with the assessment that only what is legal matters.