«

In article <>, Ted <> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:19:46 +1300, "WorkHard" <>
>wrote:
>>impossible wrote:
>>> "Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>> This is
>>>> different from theft, where the thieved-from lose altogether
>>>> what is
>>>> taken.
>>> You're just playing with words. Theft is theft.
>>Ted's one of those people who'd take the air from your lungs if
>>it would benefit him.
>Thinking of selling your air, WorkHard?
>> He'd claim he never stole anything.
>I don't think I'd give you much for it.

A heads up "Ted" ... using data and facts on impossible is a waste of
time - it's like arguing with a religious (or other) fanatic. Nothing
changes except your level of frustration. Suggest you ignore it.

On Oct 13, 12:48*pm, "impossible" <impossi...@nospam.net> wrote:
> "Ted" <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote in message

snip for brevity

> >>>>> Suppose only one person violates the copyright. *It should be clear to
> >>>>> you that the position of the copyright holder is not much changed. *He
> >>>>> has lost a potential sale (maybe not even an actual sale) but he can
> >>>>> still use the monopoly to try to persuade others to buy only through
> >>>>> him.
>
> >>>>It should be clear to you that if the exclusive rights of a copyright
> >>>>holder
> >>>>are compromised in any way -- whether by a single pirate or by
> >>>>millions --
> >>>>then the copyright holder no longer has exclusive control over their
> >>>>property.
>
> >>> Yep. *He didn't have exclusive control in that case.
>
> >>Exactly. And without the exercise of exclusive control, copyright is
> >>rendered meaningless.
>
> > No. *One violation of the copyright doesn't make it meaningless. *If
> > it was totally ignored (that is, every copy made was unauthorised)
> > *then* it would be meaningless.
>
> Exactly how many times does someone have to break into your house , or take
> your car for a joy ride, *before you realize that you've ceased to have
> exclusive control over your property? 7 days a weeks? 24 times a day? I
> meam, really, how "totally" do you your property rights have to be infringed
> before you'd consider calloing the cops?

I note your point that an infringement to the slightest degree is
still an infringement. But there is still a distinction to be made
between copyright infringement and the theft of physical property.
The former is to deny an exclusive right to *distribution* while the
latter is an exclusive right to *possession*. I think this is the
point Ted is trying to make, there is an intrinsic difference between
these types of property.

Suppose for the sake or argument that an alien race was monitoring us
without our knowledge. They log into the internet undetected and
pirate all of our entertainment and take it back to Zeta Reticuli or
whereever they are from. In terms of the theory that copyright
infringement is a harmful act one would have to conclude that the
aliens stole from our producers and thereby committed harm against
them. Yet in reality we would never even know that it had happened.
On the other hand an alien race could not steal, say, everyone's homes
without people noticing. This illustrates the fundamental difference
between physical property and intellectual property. Having physical
property protected is an end in and of itself because the fundamental
value in that case is enjoyment of such physical things through
possession. Intellectual property on the other hand is merely a
*means* to an end: namely, the enrichment of producers thus
incentivizing production of such works in the first instance.

Therefore, the appropriate laws to put in place should be based on
whether or not an incentive to produce is protected rather than simply
assuming that producers should have an exclusive right to distribute.
Personally in the last decade since file sharing took off I have not
noticed a decline in the quality or availability of entertainment
which is commonly pirated on the internet. Well received movies
generally continue to make money, and widely copied music has not
prevented the artists from being multimillionaires. It's worth
remembering that money is often made in ways that you can't duplicate
with file sharing. File sharing is no substitute for a live concert,
it's no substitute for seeing a movie in IMAX 3D and it is no
substitute for software that comes with technical support. I don't
think this necessarily means copyright is not a worthwhile legal
protection but I also do not see the need for unjust laws which punish
people simply for making a technology available or which require ISPs
to monitor their users.


>
> >> That's what makes it a crime.
>
> >>> That's not the same as theft.
>
> >>In the US, it is ***exactly** the same as theft. *See US No Electronic
> >>Theft
> >>Act of 1997, which makes it a crime punishable by up to 5 years in jail
> >>and
> >>$250,000 in fines. Similar laws are in the process of being enacted
> >>throughout the world -- including NZ. '
>
> No reply. I'll take as meaning you've conceded the point. Under the
> prevailing law in most jurisdictions, Infringement of intellectual property
> is considered theft.

Surely no one disputes that copyright infringement is a crime. The
issue is the ethical basis of our laws and whether or not they need
modification.

snip

> > Charities? I didn't mention charities. This seems to be irrelevant,
> > Impossible.
> > And that's definitely irrelevant.
>
> Stop hacking up my posts and you'll be able to follow along better.

Indeed. Plenty of people chop up posts until they are
unrecognizable. I agree people should, where practicable, try to
formulate a coherent response that addresses the overall substance of
their opponents argument rather than addressing points line by line
and thereby failing to properly form a coherent response to the
overarching argument. Each point can still be addressed without
necessarily having to overly hack someone's post apart.


snip endless bickering.


Weihana.

2010-10-13 Ted <>:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:48:43 -0500, "impossible"
><> wrote:
>>"Ted" <> wrote in message
>>news:. ..
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 06:51:19 -0500, "impossible"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>>"Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>>news: m...
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:57:48 -0500, "impossible"
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>"Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:nbj7b6h9qro1946vkf2sg0qu55h241ma81@4ax. com...
>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:36:25 -0500, "impossible"
>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>"Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:c5u5b65hfk7utlegugkq6j32bur4t7tgt4@4a x.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 06:39:18 -0500, "impossible"
>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>"Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:cab5b691gbmb6ead4nqubeb0gs0k2sg7i0@ 4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:02:21 -0500, "impossible"
>>>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Ted" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:u684b61s7te0cfngvk62uo25lksvcgaim ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:17:39 -0500, "impossible"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:

A lot of bla bla

>>>>>>>>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> federal crime to engage in copyright infringement, even where
>>>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> no
>>>>>>>>>>>> monetary profit or other commercial gain from the infringement.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maximum
>>>>>>>>>>>> penalties under this law are 5 years in prison and up to $250,000
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> fines.

Completly *******s in any non thirdworld country.

>>>>>>>>>>When music/video/software pirates post copyrighted works on the
>>>>>>>>>>internet,
>>>>>>>>>>the copyright holders have lost their exclusive right to dispose of
>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>property as they see fit.

No.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>It should be clear to you that if the exclusive rights of a copyright
>>>>>>holder
>>>>>>are compromised in any way -- whether by a single pirate or by
>>>>>>millions --
>>>>>>then the copyright holder no longer has exclusive control over their
>>>>>>property.

There is no property involved.

<crap snipped>

> Breaking and entering and stealing cars is not the same as copyright
> infringement.

Indeed not.
>>>>In the US, it is **exactly** the same as theft. See US No Electronic
>>>>Theft
>>>>Act of 1997, which makes it a crime punishable by up to 5 years in jail
>>>>and
>>>>$250,000 in fines. Similar laws are in the process of being enacted
>>>>throughout the world -- including NZ. '

Not where I live. you can not "steal" abstract things. Plain and simple.
Who cares about your thirdworld laws.

>>prevailing law in most jurisdictions, Infringement of intellectual property
>>is considered theft.

No. That's why we in the developed world has separate laws for theft and
copyright infringment.

> Well it may or may not be, I don't know enough about most
> jurisdictions to say. My assertion is that it isn't the same as
> theft.

It isn't and your assertaion is correct.

> Specifically, it appears to me that your description of it as theft
> is an attempt to make it appear worse than it is.

It's like driving 5/kmh to fast on a 110 road, no one is taking notice.