| reply to fAcEtIOUs
Re: Damn! said by fAcEtIOUs:said by FBGuy:this firefox extension works awesome! That is, if you support tools aiding thievery. Not theft. Copyright infringement. Two completely different things that the uneducated keep getting wrong.
Theft does not equal copyright infringement and copyright infringement does not equal theft.
0 does not equal 15 not matter how hard you try to prove that and 15 does not equal 0 either. |
|
 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by Aozora:said by fAcEtIOUs:said by FBGuy:this firefox extension works awesome! That is, if you support tools aiding thievery. Not theft. Copyright infringement. Two completely different things that the uneducated keep getting wrong. Theft does not equal copyright infringement and copyright infringement does not equal theft. 0 does not equal 15 not matter how hard you try to prove that and 15 does not equal 0 either. Actually, I use to think this too. You are wrong.
»www.copyright.gov/title17/92appf.html
US Code Title 17: Appendix F, Title 18, Chapter 113 (Stolen Property)
If you read my link, you'll notice that you can be prosecuted both in Civil AND Criminal court and IMPRISONED.
So, no matter how hard to try to justify your actions, you are committing theft. A good attorney could even argue that this Firefox plugin is harming Amazon so you'd get slapped with multiple offenses. |
|
| Theft removes the original.
Copyright infringement makes a copy of the original.
They are different. |
|
1 edit | reply to Matt
said by Matt:Actually, I use to think this too. You are wrong. » www.copyright.gov/title17/92appf.htmlUS Code Title 17: Appendix F, Title 18, Chapter 113 ( Stolen Property) If you read my link, you'll notice that you can be prosecuted both in Civil AND Criminal court and IMPRISONED. So, no matter how hard to try to justify your actions, you are committing theft. A good attorney could even argue that this Firefox plugin is harming Amazon so you'd get slapped with multiple offenses. So you are saying that if I buy some brand chair at some store and I buy wood and make an exact model chair that I STOLE the second chair?
Please, no matter who made the law and if it calls it theft it is retarded. Any good lawyer will argue what I am saying. You might have to pay damages for something that they will come up with, but it is not stealing. It is not the same thing. You have to be pretty messed up to actually believe it is the same. Yes, it is copyright infringement but like I said it is not stealing.
I bought a CD-R and I made one IDENTICAL to that of the album of Green Day or whatever. I bought the laser to craft said songs onto said CD. Is that stealing?
I did not go to a store and take the copy off the shelves. If I went to the store and took that CD, that would be stealing as I am stealing the CD material that is theirs along with the booklet and such.
If I make an image of a character in World of Warcraft and paint it exactly like on the box art on Photoshop. Did I STEAL IT? How did I steal it? I did not steal it. It is fanart and I have to abide by copyright and not sell world of warcraft art for profit. Nothing on the other hand prohibits me from making art for entertainment or from sharing it with others as long as I am not making profit of the copyrighted character.
Like I said, this idea people have that copyright infringement is theft is dumb. |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | You stole the design of the chair, yes.
Sorry, but theft isn't just related to a PHYSICAL, tangible product. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, period. In the case of a computer program, song, or movie, you are taking the profit the creator would have gained.
It doesn't matter if you don't think the price is fair, or the restrictions put on the medium is unfair or unjust. It doesn't give you the right to download it for free.
»www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=···aq=f&oq= |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to NeoandGeo
said by NeoandGeo:Theft removes the original. Copyright infringement makes a copy of the original. They are different. Please show me where theft states the original has to be removed in ANY statute. A gimped image from the internet, while clever and humorous, is not the law. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Aozora
said by Aozora:So you are saying that if I buy some brand chair at some store and I buy wood and make an exact model chair that I STOLE the second chair? Yes, some say that. It gets even worse.
If you buy a watch, decide to sell it on the second-hand market, put a photo up on eBay of the watch, and the maker of the watch doesn't like the terms of your offer, he may sue you for -- COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!
There have been two cases of this now, one in France where the watchmaker won and one in the USA where he lost. These were not fakes, one case was a watch maker and the other was a maker of crystal, IIRC. Neither liked being left out of the distribution channel.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Matt
said by Matt:Please show me where theft states the original has to be removed in ANY statute. A gimped image from the internet, while clever and humorous, is not the law. »law.justia.com/california/codes/···2.9.html
compare to
»law.justia.com/california/codes/···3.5.html
But having just scanned the NC laws ...
»www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegi···_14.html
...I could see why you have some confusion. Theft is not a term used consistently (Larceny is the word NC uses) and § 14‑72 doesn't define it well enough to answer this argument.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | From your first link defining Larceny in California: defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property ...
Larceny is defined as a form of theft. (See here for example: »www.lawyershop.com/practice-area···lossary/)
That seems pretty clear to me.
Additionally, it's widely accepted that Identity Theft is a real and valid crime ... but it's not like you disappear off the face of the Earth when your identity is stolen, yet the definition of that is not in question.
While I don't agree with the strong-arm tactics of most copyright holders, the fact of the matter is it is stealing if you upload a copy to another or obtain a downloaded copy for free from another source. You are depriving the creator of money because you did not buy it. You are stealing. Plain and simple. |
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | said by Matt:From your first link defining Larceny in California: defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property ...Larceny is defined as a form of theft. (See here for example: » www.lawyershop.com/practice-area···lossary/) Huh? How does copyright infringement fall under "defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property"? It's none of those.
Also, "identity theft" is a crime when it's used for fraud (or actual theft); if you just take my social security number and use it at cocktail parties to impress girls (the equivalent of making personal use of a copyright infringing copy of digital media) I don't know that you'll be eligible for prosecution.
Anyway, I tend to think that people understand the built-in hyperbole in overblown terms like "identity theft" and "war on drugs".
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by B:Huh? How does copyright infringement fall under "defraud any other person of money, labor or real or personal property"? It's none of those. So when you download a song for free instead of purchasing it for .99 on iTunes or buying the album for $9.99 from Best Buy, you're not defrauding someone out of that .99 or $9.99? |
|
|
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Absolutely not! Defrauding someone of potential money from my pocket for something they don't know happened? If I choose not to call and hire you to paint my portrait, and either paint it myself or hire someone else, have I "defrauded" you?
If I take a photograph of your artwork in a museum and hang it on my wall, then I have probably infringed your copyright, but I haven't "defrauded" you of anything. I haven't even met you.
Not a lawyer; obviously. 
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by B:Absolutely not! Defrauding someone of potential money from my pocket for something they don't know happened? If I choose not to call and hire you to paint my portrait, and either paint it myself or hire someone else, have I "defrauded" you? If I take a photograph of your artwork in a museum and hang it on my wall, then I have probably infringed your copyright, but I haven't "defrauded" you of anything. I haven't even met you. Not a lawyer; obviously. -- B Respectfully, you are are out of your mind.  |
|
BPremium,MVM
join:2000-10-28 | Dude, you're the one still trying to shakily jump from copying > fraud > larceny > theft to justify your opinion (or choice of words, at least) re: copyright infringement. But I didn't call you crazy for those crazy leaps.
I think we both know this argument has been hashed through many times before us.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_···to_theft
»www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/theft.html
If I'm "out of my mind" then the overwhelming majority of lawyers and the general public (not to mention Thomas Jefferson) must be too.
Look I'm not arguing that copyright infringement isn't often wrong or illegal, I'm simply pointing out the strangely wrong-headed and incorrect stubbornness of your use of the word "theft". While it's certainly pedantic on the one side for us to insist on distinguishing between theft and copyright infringement, it's worse than pedantic -- it's intentionally dumbifying (SM) and misleading -- to insist that they're the same. It seems to be an attempt to blur a legal and common sense distinction between two very different "bad" things.
-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function |
|
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:said by Aozora:So you are saying that if I buy some brand chair at some store and I buy wood and make an exact model chair that I STOLE the second chair? Yes, some say that. It gets even worse. If you buy a watch, decide to sell it on the second-hand market, put a photo up on eBay of the watch, and the maker of the watch doesn't like the terms of your offer, he may sue you for -- COPYRIGHT VIOLATION! There have been two cases of this now, one in France where the watchmaker won and one in the USA where he lost. These were not fakes, one case was a watch maker and the other was a maker of crystal, IIRC. Neither liked being left out of the distribution channel. Now I am not allowed to sell things I buy? This just shows how moronic our society is as a whole. Next thing you know, I may be in court facing thought crime or as put by George Orwell "crimethink". |
|
4 edits | reply to Matt
said by Matt:You stole the design of the chair, yes. Sorry, but theft isn't just related to a PHYSICAL, tangible product. Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you, period. In the case of a computer program, song, or movie, you are taking the profit the creator would have gained. It doesn't matter if you don't think the price is fair, or the restrictions put on the medium is unfair or unjust. It doesn't give you the right to download it for free. » www.google.com/search?hl=en&fkt=···aq=f&oq= Copying the design would fall under COPYright infringement and not theft by the way. Also, for non-profit purposes you cannot claim I stole any design as I copied and copying for non-profit purposes cannot fall under copyright infringement. I under the circumstances stated for copyright infringement, would not owe the damn designer a penny.
I would only be under copyright infringement if I actually made profit of his design which in my case I did not.
I owe a big $0.00 for those chairs.
Back to what I said, it falls under copyright infringement but IT IS NOT THEFT as I stole nothing and theft and copyright infringement are not the same.
I did not steal the second chair. You say I stole the design. I stole it how? I payed for one chair. I myself managed to create 3 other chairs identical to it but not by the designer of the chair. So now you say I have to pay him for his design? Just because he discovered a look of a chair or item? Even though I created them from scratch right?
Really? So who the hell is paying the discoverer of the atom for his discovery? Matter is in everything therefore EVERYONE is stealing his discovery even as they breath air. Hell, you even have to pay him for paying him money.
Please, get off your thinking. It is clearly wrong. You cannot predict the future. To claim you do is arrogant and stupid. Claiming to be omniscient and or at the level of a God or above is beyond dumb. Also to claim that I would have bought it violates EVERY SINGLE basic rule of economics. So now you are going to say any knowledge and basic logic is not to be followed. Of course, I would assume so from someone who thinks that thinking they are above a God like level is reasonable and fine. |
|
