Absolutely unjustifiable price increase in the UK, the VAT Rate in Luxembourg now stands at 17%, UK rate is 20%. The difference between the old Luxembourg VAT rate and the UK was just 3p yet apple increase the price by 10p.
Apple rips off the Brits once again! Shameless
As I am sure you are well aware, I can buy a bottle of Glenfiddich here in America for a fraction of the price you can buy the same bottle in Scotland. Stop and think about that for a while, then go back and check out Apple's price differentials. I filled up my Jeep today for the equivalent of £1.25 a gallon (that would be an imperial gallon) today as well. Prices do not correlate the world around, life isn't that simple. Excuse me while I pour another single malt and recall why I moved to the States.
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.
Crowley gets it!
No, Crowley doesn't get it, and neither do you.
You have both provided the most cretinous answers possible.
If you take a digital copy of media which should be paid for, you are stealing someone's livelihood. If everyone did the same, that person would earn no money, and would therefore not provide the content in the first place.
If you take a digital copy of media which should be paid for, you are stealing someone's livelihood. If everyone did the same, that person would earn no money, and would therefore not provide the content in the first place.
Studies show the opposite is true. The more people "pirate", the more content they buy.
You have both provided the most cretinous answers possible.
If you take a digital copy of media which should be paid for, you are stealing someone's livelihood. If everyone did the same, that person would earn no money, and would therefore not provide the content in the first place.
Your view is utterly reprehensible.
I don't think you understand what Crowley gets at all.
Your use of the word stealing there, while sort of fine as a common sentence, does not conform to the legal definition of theft. You cannot be charged with something as bland as "stealing a person's livelihood", and copyright infringement of intellectual property is not the same as theft of physical property. That's why it is called copyright infringement, it is different.
Crowley thinks copyright infringement is, broadly speaking, wrong, and he doesn't normally do it, but he can handle the nuance that it isn't theft, as theft is defined in legal terms.
I don't think you understand what Crowley gets at all.
Your use of the word stealing there, while sort of fine as a common sentence, does not conform to the legal definition of theft. You cannot be charged with something as bland as "stealing a person's livelihood", and copyright infringement of intellectual property is not the same as theft of physical property. That's why it is called copyright infringement, it is different.
Crowley thinks copyright infringement is, broadly speaking, wrong, and he doesn't normally do it, but he can handle the nuance that it isn't theft, as theft is defined in legal terms.
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.
Apparantly nobody clicks on links. Here is the first paragraph on the FBI's page on IP infringements.
It’s an age-old crime: stealing.
But it’s not about picking a pocket or holding up a bank. It’s robbing people of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—what’s called intellectual property—everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.
I clicked on the link, but what the FBI say on an information page isn't the same as the law. You can call it stealing, but to my knowledge that's not correct in the legal sense, in a similar way to how saying "she stole my heart" isn't, it's just a vernacular convenience.
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.
I totally understand the language issue, my point is the original meaning was coined when making a digital copy was science fiction so given there is, despite the ludicrous example above, often a tangible loss is involved, it's called sales revenue in many cases. IMHO it is time to consider broadening the definition of the old Germanic word. Laws often lag behind advances in societies.
Steal: the illegal act of taking another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.
Theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
You're simply engaging in misdirection to say, well, yeah, I took it but, hey, look over there - it's still there. Or you can dress it up by saying "copyright infringement" or "industrial espionage" but I don't think that's really the subject matter of this thread.
And if a vendor doesn't want to sell it at a particular price and you don't agree and decide to take it anyway thinking that, well, they weren't getting money from me either way then it's no less a crime.
Comments
Absolutely unjustifiable price increase in the UK, the VAT Rate in Luxembourg now stands at 17%, UK rate is 20%. The difference between the old Luxembourg VAT rate and the UK was just 3p yet apple increase the price by 10p.
Apple rips off the Brits once again! Shameless
As I am sure you are well aware, I can buy a bottle of Glenfiddich here in America for a fraction of the price you can buy the same bottle in Scotland. Stop and think about that for a while, then go back and check out Apple's price differentials. I filled up my Jeep today for the equivalent of £1.25 a gallon (that would be an imperial gallon) today as well. Prices do not correlate the world around, life isn't that simple. Excuse me while I pour another single malt and recall why I moved to the States.
But your wine is extortionate.
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.
Crowley gets it!
No, Crowley doesn't get it, and neither do you.
You have both provided the most cretinous answers possible.
If you take a digital copy of media which should be paid for, you are stealing someone's livelihood. If everyone did the same, that person would earn no money, and would therefore not provide the content in the first place.
Your view is utterly reprehensible.
Studies show the opposite is true. The more people "pirate", the more content they buy.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121126/00590921141/dear-riaa-pirates-buy-more-full-stop-deal-with-it.shtml
http://mumbrella.com.au/pirates-buy-more-content-than-those-who-play-by-the-rules-claims-choice-study-266802
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Another-Study-Pirates-Are-Industrys-Biggest-Paying-Customers-122852
No, Crowley doesn't get it, and neither do you.
You have both provided the most cretinous answers possible.
If you take a digital copy of media which should be paid for, you are stealing someone's livelihood. If everyone did the same, that person would earn no money, and would therefore not provide the content in the first place.
Your view is utterly reprehensible.
I don't think you understand what Crowley gets at all.
Your use of the word stealing there, while sort of fine as a common sentence, does not conform to the legal definition of theft. You cannot be charged with something as bland as "stealing a person's livelihood", and copyright infringement of intellectual property is not the same as theft of physical property. That's why it is called copyright infringement, it is different.
Crowley thinks copyright infringement is, broadly speaking, wrong, and he doesn't normally do it, but he can handle the nuance that it isn't theft, as theft is defined in legal terms.
Apparantly nobody clicks on links. Here is the first paragraph on the FBI's page on IP infringements.
It’s an age-old crime: stealing.
But it’s not about picking a pocket or holding up a bank. It’s robbing people of their ideas, inventions, and creative expressions—what’s called intellectual property—everything from trade secrets and proprietary products and parts to movies and music and software.
I clicked on the link, but what the FBI say on an information page isn't the same as the law. You can call it stealing, but to my knowledge that's not correct in the legal sense, in a similar way to how saying "she stole my heart" isn't, it's just a vernacular convenience.
I totally understand the language issue, my point is the original meaning was coined when making a digital copy was science fiction so given there is, despite the ludicrous example above, often a tangible loss is involved, it's called sales revenue in many cases. IMHO it is time to consider broadening the definition of the old Germanic word. Laws often lag behind advances in societies.
Theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
You're simply engaging in misdirection to say, well, yeah, I took it but, hey, look over there - it's still there. Or you can dress it up by saying "copyright infringement" or "industrial espionage" but I don't think that's really the subject matter of this thread.
And if a vendor doesn't want to sell it at a particular price and you don't agree and decide to take it anyway thinking that, well, they weren't getting money from me either way then it's no less a crime.