[Bobboau]

But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"

law == right?

so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?

[BloodEagle]

But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"

law == right?

so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?

No. It would be wrong to break it, however.

--------------

The dictionary definition of larceny is theft, as I pointed out.

A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.

The term theft is sometimes used synonymously with Larceny. Theft, however, is actually a broader term, encompassing many forms of deceitful taking of property, including swindling, Embezzlement, and False Pretenses. Some states categorize all these offenses under a single statutory crime of theft.

The unauthorized taking and removal of the Personal Property of another by an individual who intends to permanently deprive the owner of it; a crime against the right of possession.

Larceny generally refers to nonviolent theft. It is a common-law term developed by the royal courts of England in the seventeenth century. In the United States, most jurisdictions have eliminated the crime of Larceny from statutory codes, in favor of a general theft statute.

[...]

[Bobboau]

how does one 'take' something immaterial.

[Kosh]

how does one 'take' something immaterial.

Telepathy?

[Blue Lion]

But to answer the overall question "Whichever is legal"

law == right?

so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?

I would be wrong to argue against it as illegal, so yes?

There are things that are illegal that I wish were legal (prostitution for example, I think it's between the two people)

There are legal things I wish were illegal but they are, so I can't do a damn thing.

[Blue Lion]

how does one 'take' something immaterial.

Telepathy?

I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.

I don't know why we have things like copyrights, trademarks and patents. None of these things deal with the theft of a physical object so obviously there would be no need for them!

I don't know why we even bother with Good Old Games, right? Let's give away Freespace 2 to everyone! It's completely legal right? No chance of a lawsuit? Zero?

[Inquisitor]

so in other words if I can get a big enough lobby to change the law you will be wrong to argue against it?

If you find a way to protect the rights of the content creator and still allow you to get their stuff for free. I'll be singing your praises.

If I do something illegal, I expect to pay a penalty. Just because you believe something should be legal, doesn't mean that you can willfully disobey the law without expecting a penalty.

As for how to take something immaterial, I believe the content I create IS materially valuable. I pay developers and artists to help me create that content, it takes time, effort, money for materials, money for tools. We have an office, that takes money for rent. I have to feed my family, put clothes of my son and pay the rent on my living quarters.

Not that anyone here is pirating the works my company makes, nor am I under any illusions as to the quality of some of the products we've made in the past, we're not a multi-million dollar studio with huge resources, and we make niche stuff, but for the sake of argument...

It is offered for sale to defray those costs, pay those people, buy those tools and maybe some margin that lets me make the rent and feed my son. You did not pay for it, you decided my work was not worth paying for, but worth enjoying. You broke the law. Period. Its great that you don't agree with that position, but I happen to think that people who decide they want my stuff and don't compensate me for it are criminals. I very much consider it theft, unless *I* choose to give it away for free. You don't get to choose for me. The current legal structure agrees with me. Perhaps I would still argue that it should be illegal if the current legal position were reversed, more likely I would not make stuff. I personally can't afford to be that generous.  

As much as you want it to be free, and for your actions not to have consequences, that is not the case. Copyright laws exist to protect me, and people like me, and for better or worse, they don't differentiate between "classes" of people. I enjoy the same protection under the law as EA or Warner Brothers.

As it turns out, we don't make enough extra money to pay me, so I have to keep playing rent-a-cop day by day. We do make enough money to pay the rents of the current full time staff, barely.

Are you still going to take my stuff? Is it still not theft? Should I not bother, lay those people off and tell them to flip hamburgers? Maybe my stuffs not good enough to be for sale. I would rather not have that decided for me by lazy bastards who would rather just "not pay for it, its not real, so why should I have to?" I want to fail because my stuff is not good, not because someone decided it just shouldn't be for sale.

If you want to knowingly break the law, and are willing to take the penalty, that sounds like a great venue to make your case. Maybe you will win.  The Pirate Bay folks have yet to prove that out.

[Kosh]

I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.

Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.

[Blue Lion]

I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.

Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.

The only thing being stolen in that example was fuel. What part about that was not theft? There was no IP in that example at all.

[Kosh]

I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.

Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.

The only thing being stolen in that example was fuel. What part about that was not theft? There was no IP in that example at all.

Which is a physical object. That example in the given context was obviously to equal it to theft, since you were comparing having a computer but pirating the software for it. The link between copyright infringement and theft (of an object) was quite blatant.

[Inquisitor]

Call it "bob" for all I care.

The semantic argument just gets you out of justifying your actions. Fine, its not theft, its "bob." You bobbed it. Bobbing is against the law.

So, you get in a taxi, the driver takes you 2 blocks, you jump out without paying. Whats the difference? That service isn't material, really, is it? Hell, he may even be getting paid an hourly wage of some sort. You just harmlessly "bobbed" it.

After all, he'd be burning that gas anyway, idling at the stand or looking for another fare. And your feet hurt, you'd rather not walk. And that 2 bucks will come in handy when you get to the pub.

[Blue Lion]

I know! It's weird we'd have a set rules that protect people and their intellectual property.

Not really, I'm just calling BS on your equating it to theft, like your jetliner example.

The only thing being stolen in that example was fuel. What part about that was not theft? There was no IP in that example at all.

Which is a physical object. That example in the given context was obviously to equal it to theft, since you were comparing having a computer but pirating the software for it. The link between copyright infringement and theft (of an object) was quite blatant.

No, the comparison was "is it ok to take stuff if you buy something and can't afford the stuff that goes with it"

Your argument again proves it has nothing to do with it being needed for the first object. (fuel for a plane, software for a computer). Your point hinges on the fact the software isn't physical.

Unfortunately for you, current law almost everywhere regards intellectual property as property. You can take it without consent, but you have to pay for it.

The judge isn't going to care if you can touch the rights or not when you're in court with MGM or someone for having all their movies.

Are you saying we're reading the law wrong or you are somehow above it?

[Kosh]

The semantic argument just gets you out of justifying your actions.

Nope, just clarifying some things to the copyright nazis.

Unfortunately for you, current law almost everywhere regards intellectual property as property. You can take it without consent, but you have to pay for it.

I still wouldn't be taking it, I would be taking a copy.

you are somehow above it?

No, but that's yet another ad hom.

[Inquisitor]

I still wouldn't be taking it, I would be taking a copy.

No difference, even by the arguments presented here. since its immaterial to begin with, a copy is the same thing as the original.

[Blue Lion]

I still wouldn't be taking it, I would be taking a copy.

Making a copy IS taking it. That's why copyright laws exists. It exists specifically to deal with property that isn't physical. A fact you keep sidestepping.

There is no way to take an original of something that's immaterial. So taking a copy is just like stealing. So says copyright law. They don't make you pay a lower rate or something cause it's "just a copy".

No, but that's yet another ad hom.

Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.

You're running around trying to come up with any reasoning you can for stealing and it's getting sad.

The law disagrees with you. At least the other people had the sense to argue breaking the law was better. You're just arguing it isn't there.

[Kosh]

Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.

I'm not, you just aren't capable of seeing anyone elses viewpoint but your own, which is sad.

[Blue Lion]

You're arguments have been so far (with some overlap)

"I wasn't going to buy it anyways"

"All the stuff I've bought like computers are needs"

"It's not stolen, it's copying"

and finally

"The Supreme Court case that says you can't be busted for transporting intellectual property means it's ok to copy it"

None of these arguments holds any water. Not one will work as a defense in a copyright case.

If any of these defenses worked, there would be no copyright law. We would offer Freespace 2 on this very site (we don't).

People wouldn't go to Best Buy or WalMart and buy DVDs or games. One guy would buy it, upload it to the net and everyone would get it for free.

People don't do that cause they'll get in super trouble.

[Blue Lion]

Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.

I'm not, you just aren't capable of seeing anyone elses viewpoint but your own, which is sad.

My viewpoint is "The law is the law"

What opposing viewpoint do you have to that?

[Rick James]

Well I'm just flabbergasted why you keep refusing to admit that these laws apply to you.

I'm not, you just aren't capable of seeing anyone elses viewpoint but your own, which is sad.

My viewpoint is "The law is the law"

What opposing viewpoint do you have to that?

While it is true that nobody should simply accept individuals "stealing" their work--just as nobody should have to accept a company demanding that its business model works when it doesn't--big corporations, end users, and everyone in-between must learn to accept new market realities. The means with which we distribute information and communicate with one another continue to grow at a hectic pace, and taking hard-line measures against file-sharing in the interests of a small number of large corporations is a frightening possibility to comprehend, considering the ramifications for net neutrality as well as internet privacy and freedom of speech.

Law governing intellectual property is meant to compromise between the interests of individual artists and society in general. If the balance tips in either direction, the system in its entirety will collapse. Bad legal decisions on piracy may end up doing more damage than the piracy itself. The law has, thus far, done nothing to stem the tide of "illegal" downloading. The verdict against The Pirate Bay, though it has caused many smaller torrent sites to shut down, has also caused the users of those sites to simply migrate to larger trackers--most notably The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party in Sweden saw an incredible 20% surge in its membership following the verdict, and other Pirate Parties around the world continue to garner support.

Does all this not show you that a very large segment of society is demanding reform in the way we think about intellectual property?

[Blue Lion]

While it is true that nobody should simply accept individuals "stealing" their work--just as nobody should have to accept a company demanding that its business model works when it doesn't--big corporations, end users, and everyone in-between must learn to accept new market realities. The means with which we distribute information and communicate with one another continue to grow at a hectic pace, and taking hard-line measures against file-sharing in the interests of a small number of large corporations is a frightening possibility to comprehend, considering the ramifications for net neutrality as well as internet privacy and freedom of speech.

You said quite a lot there, but really didn't say much at all.

"Stuff changes and we have to change with it" is a great line but it doesn't say much.

Are you saying people shouldn't be taken to court for copyright violations?

How does the fact that it's faster or easier somehow change the idea of who owns it?

A guy who owns the rights to a movie has the same rights to it if our fastest mode of transport is pony express or broadband.

If you want to make the argument that the internet should force these companies to offer their works online... they do. A quick glance at MGM and Warner Bros websites show me I can buy works in a digital format right now.

However, this is not the argument. The argument is that these companies should somehow just accept people downloading works.

This ignores that once they do this and downloading works for free becomes "legal", no one will buy it. Why would people buy a work when these companies say it's ok to pirate a copy for free?

The people who pirate now like to have schmoes like me buy the work (and keep the company profitable) while they don't pay. Once it becomes ok to pirate, no one will do anything else and the companies will collapse.

Law governing intellectual property is meant to compromise between the interests of individual artists and society in general.

This is why we have things like fair use and independent works.

If the balance tips in either direction, the system in its entirety will collapse. Bad legal decisions on piracy may end up doing more damage than the piracy itself. The law has, thus far, done nothing to stem the tide of "illegal" downloading. The verdict against The Pirate Bay, though it has caused many smaller torrent sites to shut down, has also caused the users of those sites to simply migrate to larger trackers--most notably The Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party in Sweden saw an incredible 20% surge in its membership following the verdict, and other Pirate Parties around the world continue to garner support.

Are you arguing that by not going after people who pirate material, it'll go down? Really?

If the RIAA and such say "That's it, no more cases. We're not chasing a person again for this" that pirating will go down?

All the pirates are gonna say "Wow, how cool of them, let's delete all our works and go buy them all right now!"?

Answer: No.

Does all this not show you that a very large segment of society is demanding reform in the way we think about intellectual property?

They want it reformed because they want the work for free. They want to do what they're doing, just with no legal ramifications. Everyone wants the companies to make money but no one seems to want to be the one to pay for it.

What do you think copyright law should be? And how will companies turn profits in those conditions?