Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rob L]

My car analogy was not faulty - you've simply picked up an aspect of it that's totally irrelevant. It's an *analogy*, that clearly doesn't mean it's an identical scenario.

The point was that denying someone use of a thing is NOT a requirement for something to be "stealing". Stealing is simply taking something that you don't own or have entitlement too. And that *is* what we're talking about here.

[kaiynne]

My car analogy was not faulty - you've simply picked up an aspect of it that's totally irrelevant. It's an *analogy*, that clearly doesn't mean it's an identical scenario.

The point was that denying someone use of a thing is NOT a requirement for something to be "stealing". Stealing is simply taking something that you don't own or have entitlement too. And that *is* what we're talking about here.

Actually your car analogy was faulty.  The most relevant aspect of your argument is that a car is analogous to software in this context.  The context you were placing it in I believe to be this; That theft occurs when an object that is supposed to be paid for is used without payment. However, in this context a car is not analogous to software, clearly there are relevant aspects of a car, such as the fact that it is not reproducible with little net cost or that its use is contigent on its lack of use by anyone else at the same time, that make it very different from software.

I think people have such a problem with this distinction because there is no true analogy that can be drawn between Intellectual property and everyday property.  People have been living and dealing with everyday prperty for 1000s of years but we have only been dealing with Intellectual Property for a couple hundred.  It is only in the last 20 years maybe that the ablity to reproduce intellectual property cheapily and easily has been placed in the hands of the majority rather than a minority.

[IlPadrino]

My car analogy was not faulty - you've simply picked up an aspect of it that's totally irrelevant. It's an *analogy*, that clearly doesn't mean it's an identical scenario.

An analogy requires a resemblance between two things that are not the same.  I've pointed out where your analogy is so grossly dissimlar to the case you compare it to that it fails to be a useful analogy.  But, hey, if you like it that much...  OK!   Have at!

Stealing is simply taking something that you don't own or have entitlement too. And that *is* what we're talking about here.

It's not that simple.  Were it so, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?   The "something" makes it complex - there's a difference between taking money or property (the traditional or classical sense of stealing) and piracy of electronic software (i.e. not in its distributable form which has a cost to the manufacturer) which is violation of copyright.

[Rob L]

Of course it's that simple - you can try and change the meaning as much as you like, but that *is* the definition of stealing.

People want to make it more complicated than that simply ease their own consciences. That's *why* we're having this discussion.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between stealing a car and pirating software - clearly that would be a stupid thing to suggest.

As for how faulty my analogy was, that's just silly too - it's not going to be possible to come up with a better analogy: any physical, real world object is going to have the same limitations, that's the whole point. My point was that the deprivation is *not* relevant to whether it's stealing or not. I really don't see why you don't get that.

How about if you took something from someone who was dead? They wouldn't be being deprived of anything...

[TimB]

So , in such a country i really would like to know what is justice , what is the meaning of the word justice.

-=Tim=-

[GHammer]

How about if you took something from someone who was dead? They wouldn't be being deprived of anything...

Try using Elvis' name and see if they would agree.

[JimH]

Zev,
The meaning of justice.....

Be good.  Don't accept less from others.

Religions make this a little more complicated.

Just Be

[modelmaker]

Amen.
copyright 2004  

[IlPadrino]

Of course it's that simple - you can try and change the meaning as much as you like, but that *is* the definition of stealing.

People want to make it more complicated than that simply ease their own consciences. That's *why* we're having this discussion.

I didn't say there wasn't a difference between stealing a car and pirating software - clearly that would be a stupid thing to suggest.

As for how faulty my analogy was, that's just silly too - it's not going to be possible to come up with a better analogy: any physical, real world object is going to have the same limitations, that's the whole point. My point was that the deprivation is *not* relevant to whether it's stealing or not. I really don't see why you don't get that.

How about if you took something from someone who was dead? They wouldn't be being deprived of anything...

It's awfully presumptive of you to define unequivocally the meaning of "to steal" as if you're an heir to the Merriam or Webster family...  as if you're "opinion" is enough to sway the public and dare someone disagree, they'e just being silly.  And it's as if you fail to acknowledge the existence of copyright law as a separate entity to classical theft.  If it's as simple as you'd have me believe, why did Congress pass the DCMA?  Wouldn't existing law be simply enough?

You said "it's not going to be possible to come up with a better analogy"...  Is it possible that a better analogy doesn't exist because you're trying to equate two very dissimilar things?

You'll have to do better than tell me it's just silly to disagree with you.  Rather that repeating my ascertion that your analogy is faulty, I'll give you something to read, Dowlings v. Unites States:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=473&invol=207

IlPadrino

P.S.  Isn't "simple" being a bit overused?

[JimH]

Before I close this thread, how about this definition?

If you take something that I made, without my consent, then I think that is stealing.

U.S. law is also clear on the issue of copyright violation.

If you want to make your own law, then that is quite a different thing.  It doesn't make it right.