If I don't have it anymore (the money from the sale I didn’t get when you stole my stuff), and have to find a way to replace it (by making something that can’t be pirated), that means it was stolen (from me, digitally).
How about that.
That's a consistent theme for you on these boards: frequently wrong, but seldom in doubt.
The opposite is true, but that’s just the delusions leaking out. No one who actually has a livelihood based on making things would be defective enough to steal from others who do the same.
You are still describing a completely different thing. If I take the chair, the actual chair is gone. That's theft. I'm talking about leaving the chair where it is, and making a copy of it.
Who said anything about communism? This has nothing to do with politics or anyone's equal share. I'm talking about the meaning of a word. Now we can add synonym to the list of words you don't understand.
I've created plenty. It's what I do for a living. Much of it is readily found on torrent servers, by all means help yourself.
Let me explain again my point ( not sure using non digital examples works).
You go into a shop where there are 10 blank DVDs for $1. Also there are numerous movies on DVDs. You take 10 of these worth $50 and pay $1 because you only want to pay for the analog real life item. That's theft.
Here's another example of "not stealing" by your logic. You illegally enter a cinema. Now you going to watch the movie doesn't take it away from the producers of the content, they still have copies, but you still stole a viewing.
Let me explain again my point ( not sure using non digital examples works).
They DON'T work, and that's precisely my point.
You go into a shop where there are 10 blank DVDs for $1. Also there are numerous movies on DVDs. You take 10 of these worth $50 and pay $1 because you only want to pay for the analog real life item. That's theft.
That may well be a form of theft (probably conversion), but it's not relevant to the argument -- because those movies will still be actually missing.
Here's another example of "not stealing" by your logic. You illegally enter a cinema. Now you going to watch the movie doesn't take it away from the producers of the content, they still have copies, but you still stole a viewing.
Now you're getting warmer. Sneaking into a movie theatre is much closer to what I'm talking about. You're still wrong about it being theft though. Absolutely nothing was stolen. That doesn't mean an offence hasn't occurred though, clearly one has. Trespassing perhaps, perhaps other charges related to what methods were used to gain unauthorized entry, but absolutely not theft.
No one who actually has a livelihood based on making things would be defective enough to steal from others who do the same.
You're still using that word in the wrong context, but either way, that statement is nonsense. Creative people "steal" from each other all of the time. They often get sued for it too.
They DON'T work, and that's precisely my point.
That may well be a form of theft (probably conversion), but it's not relevant to the argument -- because those movies will still be actually missing.
Now you're getting warmer. Sneaking into a movie theatre is much closer to what I'm talking about. You're still wrong about it being theft though. Absolutely nothing was stolen. That doesn't mean an offence hasn't occurred though, clearly one has. Trespassing perhaps, perhaps other charges related to what methods were used to gain unauthorized entry, but absolutely not theft.
No. You've clearly stolen a viewing and the law ( and morality) would agree. Tresspass is another violation but not the only one.
And you are being stupid about the DVDs. I said you compensated for the cost of the DVDs. You were a thief of content. By your insane logic a digital copy still exists somewhere and therefore there was no theft.
Still going further to demolish the "copy still exists" argument were you to steal a digital copy of the coca cola formula and sell it on you would be jailed for industrial espionage even if you left a copy behind. It's not necessary to copy and then delete the original file to be a thief.
If someone demands payment for work in digital format and you copy it you are stealing. Leaving the content producer with a copy doesn't negate the theft.
Not even close.
You're still using that word in the wrong context, but either way, that statement is nonsense. Creative people "steal" from each other all of the time. They often get sued for it too.
Yes they do. For copyright violation. Or intellectual theft.
Here is the actual law rather than your made up nonsense
Creative people "steal" from each other all of the time. They often get sued for it too.
YOU’RE EQUATING YOUR THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DUE TO STUPIDITY, LAZINESS, AND LACK OF MORALITY TO APPLE’S IMPLEMENTATION OF A BITMAP GUI AS AN OPERATING SYSTEM?!
Where do you get the gall? Tell us so we can steal it from you.
[quote name="asdasd" url="/t/184242/minimum-ios-app-store-price-rises-to-1-19-in-canada-0-79-pounds-in-the-uk-and-0-99-euros-in-the-eu/40#post_2659876"] No. You've clearly stolen a viewing and the law ( and morality) would agree. Tresspass is another violation but not the only one. [/QUOTE]
Again, not stolen, nothing is missing.
[QUOTE]And you are being stupid about the DVDs[/QUOTE].
You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that.
[QUOTE]I said you compensated for the cost of the DVDs. You were a thief of content. By your insane logic a digital copy still exists somewhere and therefore there was no theft.[/QUOTE]
No. In your example, you put down $1, and took $50 worth of actual DVDs. That means you literally stole at least 9 of those DVDs. Whether there is or is not a digital copy elsewhere has no bearing.
[QUOTE]Still going further to demolish the "copy still exists" argument were you to steal a digital copy of the coca cola formula and sell it on you would be jailed for industrial espionage even if you left a copy behind. [/QUOTE]
Espionage, break and enter, possibly hacking offences, sure. Not theft.
[QUOTE]It's not necessary to copy and then delete the original file to be a thief. [/QUOTE]
By definition, yes it is. Theft requires a loss.
[QUOTE]If someone demands payment for work in digital format and you copy it you are stealing. [/QUOTE]
Nope.
[QUOTE]Leaving the content producer with a copy doesn't negate the theft.[/QUOTE]
It's not theft. Nothing goes missing. All the original files are still on the server for someone else to buy.
That is a fascinating argument and may well be .... or may well have been true (I am not sure how fast the law can keep up with technology.) Then again selling a forgery of a Rembrandt is a crime isn't it? So we know selling a replica made manually is illegal, so why not a fake one made digitally? Why wouldn't stealing a digital replica of anything be also?
Perhaps the definition of 'theft' needs updating.
BTW I assume Identify theft is not a crime in your definition? After all the original is still intact.
I don't think the argument here is that a crime wasn't committed, just that the crime wasn't theft, because theft has a particular definition that hasn't been met. There are other crimes to cover the other situations that have been mentioned, copyright infringement, industrial/economic espionage, counterfeiting etc.
Lots of people getting hot under the collar over a definition.
That is a fascinating argument and may well be .... or may well have been true (I am not sure how fast the law can keep up with technology.) Then again selling a forgery of a Rembrandt is a crime isn't it? So we know selling a replica made manually is illegal, so why not a fake one made digitally? Why wouldn't stealing a digital replica of anything be also?
You're correct. It most certainly is a crime, it's just not theft.
Perhaps the definition of 'theft' needs updating.
No. People just need to stop misusing the language. There are lots of words that already describe the offences they are talking about.
BTW I assume Identify theft is not a crime in your definition? After all the original is still intact.
Of course it is, depending on the circumstances, people are just using the wrong word to describe it. Just making a copy of someone's ID isn't theft of any kind. It's a completely different offence. Using that ID to take other people's money or property? Now it's theft.
That is probably the weakest of the arguments against downloads. There was no revenue there to lose. Bringing this back around to the original post (and my comment on it). If a person objects to the price of something, and declares that they will not pay it anymore, the seller doesn't get any money from them anymore either. That situation remains the same if the person does nothing, or if they go ahead and download it. The seller's revenue is identical either way.
The RIAA and MPAA try to make similar arguments with respect to "billions" of dollars lost to downloads. It's as if they think the 13 yr old kid with millions of songs on his iPod would have (or even could have) paid for that music had he not downloaded it. His actions prove he wouldn't have.... because he didn't. The revenue to the sellers is identical.
I don't think the argument here is that a crime wasn't committed, just that the crime wasn't theft, because theft has a particular definition that hasn't been met. There are other crimes to cover the other situations that have been mentioned, copyright infringement, industrial/economic espionage, counterfeiting etc.
Lots of people getting hot under the collar over a definition.
If a person objects to the price of something, and declares that they will not pay it anymore, the seller doesn't get any money from them anymore either. That situation remains the same if the person does nothing, or if they go ahead and download it. The seller's revenue is identical either way.
The revenue never existed. You can't lose something that doesn't exist.
At most you could say the opportunity for revenue was stolen, but that's not really true either, since the downloaded could conceivably pay for the thing at a later date - some people use this argument to justify piracy on a trial and reward basis.
The revenue never existed. You can't lose something that doesn't exist.
At most you could say the opportunity for revenue was stolen, but that's not really true either, since the downloaded could conceivably pay for the thing at a later date - some people use this argument to justify piracy on a trial and reward basis.
wrong. The theft is the viewing or using a digital item which the producer has demanded payment.
The fact that it exists somewhere else is not an argument. Stealing a copy of, say, a Harry Potter book prior to its release and allowing it to be downloaded will get you in jail for theft.
I mean the FBI link used the word theft. Unauthorised use of or copying of digital items is theft.
Comments
Again, it doesn’t matter. You can just make another one. There is no permanent state of “gone”. This is your delusion.
No one had to. If you were capable of reading comprehension you wouldn’t be asking this.
No, but we can add theft to yours.
0% chance of that being true.
It does matter. If I don't have it anymore, and have to find a way to replace it, that means it was stolen. If it's still there, it wasn't.
That's a consistent theme for you on these boards: frequently wrong, but seldom in doubt.
How about that.
The opposite is true, but that’s just the delusions leaking out. No one who actually has a livelihood based on making things would be defective enough to steal from others who do the same.
Let me explain again my point ( not sure using non digital examples works).
You go into a shop where there are 10 blank DVDs for $1. Also there are numerous movies on DVDs. You take 10 of these worth $50 and pay $1 because you only want to pay for the analog real life item. That's theft.
Here's another example of "not stealing" by your logic. You illegally enter a cinema. Now you going to watch the movie doesn't take it away from the producers of the content, they still have copies, but you still stole a viewing.
The law of course agrees.
They DON'T work, and that's precisely my point.
That may well be a form of theft (probably conversion), but it's not relevant to the argument -- because those movies will still be actually missing.
Now you're getting warmer. Sneaking into a movie theatre is much closer to what I'm talking about. You're still wrong about it being theft though. Absolutely nothing was stolen. That doesn't mean an offence hasn't occurred though, clearly one has. Trespassing perhaps, perhaps other charges related to what methods were used to gain unauthorized entry, but absolutely not theft.
Not even close.
You're still using that word in the wrong context, but either way, that statement is nonsense. Creative people "steal" from each other all of the time. They often get sued for it too.
No. You've clearly stolen a viewing and the law ( and morality) would agree. Tresspass is another violation but not the only one.
And you are being stupid about the DVDs. I said you compensated for the cost of the DVDs. You were a thief of content. By your insane logic a digital copy still exists somewhere and therefore there was no theft.
Still going further to demolish the "copy still exists" argument were you to steal a digital copy of the coca cola formula and sell it on you would be jailed for industrial espionage even if you left a copy behind. It's not necessary to copy and then delete the original file to be a thief.
If someone demands payment for work in digital format and you copy it you are stealing. Leaving the content producer with a copy doesn't negate the theft.
Yes they do. For copyright violation. Or intellectual theft.
Here is the actual law rather than your made up nonsense
http://m.fbi.gov/#http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/white_collar/ipr/ipr
YOU’RE EQUATING YOUR THEFT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DUE TO STUPIDITY, LAZINESS, AND LACK OF MORALITY TO APPLE’S IMPLEMENTATION OF A BITMAP GUI AS AN OPERATING SYSTEM?!
Where do you get the gall? Tell us so we can steal it from you.
No. You've clearly stolen a viewing and the law ( and morality) would agree. Tresspass is another violation but not the only one. [/QUOTE]
Again, not stolen, nothing is missing.
[QUOTE]And you are being stupid about the DVDs[/QUOTE].
You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that.
[QUOTE]I said you compensated for the cost of the DVDs. You were a thief of content. By your insane logic a digital copy still exists somewhere and therefore there was no theft.[/QUOTE]
No. In your example, you put down $1, and took $50 worth of actual DVDs. That means you literally stole at least 9 of those DVDs. Whether there is or is not a digital copy elsewhere has no bearing.
[QUOTE]Still going further to demolish the "copy still exists" argument were you to steal a digital copy of the coca cola formula and sell it on you would be jailed for industrial espionage even if you left a copy behind. [/QUOTE]
Espionage, break and enter, possibly hacking offences, sure. Not theft.
[QUOTE]It's not necessary to copy and then delete the original file to be a thief. [/QUOTE]
By definition, yes it is. Theft requires a loss.
[QUOTE]If someone demands payment for work in digital format and you copy it you are stealing. [/QUOTE]
Nope.
[QUOTE]Leaving the content producer with a copy doesn't negate the theft.[/QUOTE]
Yes it does.
That is a fascinating argument and may well be .... or may well have been true (I am not sure how fast the law can keep up with technology.) Then again selling a forgery of a Rembrandt is a crime isn't it? So we know selling a replica made manually is illegal, so why not a fake one made digitally? Why wouldn't stealing a digital replica of anything be also?
Perhaps the definition of 'theft' needs updating.
BTW I assume Identify theft is not a crime in your definition? After all the original is still intact.
Revenue is missing.
They lost revenue.
I don't think the argument here is that a crime wasn't committed, just that the crime wasn't theft, because theft has a particular definition that hasn't been met. There are other crimes to cover the other situations that have been mentioned, copyright infringement, industrial/economic espionage, counterfeiting etc.
Lots of people getting hot under the collar over a definition.
You're correct. It most certainly is a crime, it's just not theft.
No. People just need to stop misusing the language. There are lots of words that already describe the offences they are talking about.
Of course it is, depending on the circumstances, people are just using the wrong word to describe it. Just making a copy of someone's ID isn't theft of any kind. It's a completely different offence. Using that ID to take other people's money or property? Now it's theft.
That is probably the weakest of the arguments against downloads. There was no revenue there to lose. Bringing this back around to the original post (and my comment on it). If a person objects to the price of something, and declares that they will not pay it anymore, the seller doesn't get any money from them anymore either. That situation remains the same if the person does nothing, or if they go ahead and download it. The seller's revenue is identical either way.
The RIAA and MPAA try to make similar arguments with respect to "billions" of dollars lost to downloads. It's as if they think the 13 yr old kid with millions of songs on his iPod would have (or even could have) paid for that music had he not downloaded it. His actions prove he wouldn't have.... because he didn't. The revenue to the sellers is identical.
Crowley gets it!
There was no revenue there to lose.
Okay, so you don’t know what money is, either.
Again:
If a person objects to the price of something, and declares that they will not pay it anymore, the seller doesn't get any money from them anymore either. That situation remains the same if the person does nothing, or if they go ahead and download it. The seller's revenue is identical either way.
At most you could say the opportunity for revenue was stolen, but that's not really true either, since the downloaded could conceivably pay for the thing at a later date - some people use this argument to justify piracy on a trial and reward basis.
wrong. The theft is the viewing or using a digital item which the producer has demanded payment.
The fact that it exists somewhere else is not an argument. Stealing a copy of, say, a Harry Potter book prior to its release and allowing it to be downloaded will get you in jail for theft.
I mean the FBI link used the word theft. Unauthorised use of or copying of digital items is theft.
wrong. The theft is the viewing or using a digital item which the producer has demanded payment.
I think you're responding to TS, not me. He's claiming that the theft is of revenue.