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

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator 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.

Fyron..he admited it was wrong in the FIRST POST he brought the "not stealing" idea up in.

EDIT: word-level typo.

---

Umm... I did not say that he was unwilling to admit that stealing was wrong.

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... whatever. I fail to see why I am being singled out for this harrassment when there are others in this very thread being more stubborn than I am. The definition of "steal" is not an opinion.

Neither is the legal use of the term..which is what I was arguing about. Especially since you can commit copyright infringement without doing anything that could possibly be said to be stealing; borrowing an out of print book from a library and making a photocopy of one page, for example.

[PvK]

One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.

I offer the usual quote from Thomas Jefferson on this topic:

Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possess the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lites his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in-nature, be a subject of property."

PvK

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's try this again...

Definition of "steal" from www.m-w.com:

quote:

---

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice
2 : to come or go secretly, unobtrusively, gradually, or unexpectedly
3 : to steal or attempt to steal a base
transitive senses
1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully b : to take away by force or unjust means c : to take surreptitiously or without permission d : to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share : make oneself the focus of
2 a : to move, convey, or introduce secretly : SMUGGLE b : to accomplish in a concealed or unobserved manner
3 a : to seize, gain, or win by trickery, skill, or daring b of a base runner : to reach (a base) safely solely by running and usually catching the opposing team off guard

Look at 1a. It would imply that downloading a song you have no right to own is stealing it. "to take or appropriate without right or leave" directly applies, as you have no right to take that music, as you did not pay for it. "with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully" also applies because you have no right to make use of or to keep the illegal copies of the song. How this does not add up to theft (which is just stealing in a different word) is incomprehensible to me.

---

[ December 04, 2003, 01:41: Message edited by: PvK ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JayBdey:

Stealing would require me to take something, thus depriving the owner of use of the original. If I steal a car the car is gone, the owner no longer has it. But If I download some software, someone who payed for it doesn't loose their ability to use it. I have only made a copy. One more copy exists, at no cost to the maker (admittedly, at no profit either)

[/QB]

---

Thus, his narrow definition of stealing that is contradicted by the real definitions of stealing...

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Ok... whatever. I fail to see why I am being singled out for this harrassment when there are others in this very thread being more stubborn than I am. The definition of "steal" is not an opinion.

Neither is the legal use of the term..which is what I was arguing about. Especially since you can commit copyright infringement without doing anything that could possibly be said to be stealing; borrowing an out of print book from a library and making a photocopy of one page, for example.

---

Copyright infringement was only being used in reference to stealing music and software by downloading them... which was claimed to not being stealing them.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Thus, his narrow definition of stealing that is contradicted by the real definitions of stealing...

The definition of "stealing" isn't so much the question as the definition of "property" is. See my previous post.

PvK

[Phoenix-D]

Originally posted by PvK:
[qb] One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.QB]

Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.

EDIT: oh, and Fryon I misread that. Sorry.

[ December 04, 2003, 01:45: Message edited by: Phoenix-D ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
One objection to this is that "property" should not include "intellectual property", a modern abomination championed by media cartels. Whether an idea, song, or any piece of infomation, even the digital representation of a motion picture or a computer program, can ever be "property", is an open legal and societal question. The mainstream and corporate western convention may have said so recently, but technology is tending to make it impossible, impractical, and extremely counter-productive, to view as property. Once our society finds a better way to reward creators and allows free distribution of published content, we can stop jealously hoarding our music, literature, software, ideas, etc., and take full advantage of them.

Which would require the copyright owners relinquishing their rights to their creations to the public domain, which makes downloading them for free no longer an issue of theft at all. It still does not change the fact that music etc. can be copyrighted, thus making acquiring it illegally be stealing it.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
...
Like what, PvK? I as of current see no reliable way to ensure creators get paid for their work other than to not allow access unless they ARE paid.
...

We've had at least one other long thread about my suggestions for other ways, which were accepted by some, and balked at by others who started calling me a communist or a taxmonger or whatever. There are many possible approaches which will be more or less accepted by people with different views. So far in this thread, we're still bogged down trying to stiffle the cries that corporations should be allowed to publish data in copyable form yet we should still enforce any unauthorised act with that data. Maybe we should dig up the old thread on suggestions before dumping them on this thread as well.

PvK

[Fyron]

Originally posted by PvK:
The definition of "stealing" isn't so much the question as the definition of "property" is. See my previous post.

PvK

We seemed to be operating under the assumption that it qualified as property, so then the issue became whether acquiring wrongfully was stealing it or not. But since music, etc. is property under current models...

Now, whether they should be "property" or not is an entirely different debate. One that I believe you will see I am inclined to agree with you on (at least partially)...