Quote:
Originally Posted by Morlac
No call for insults.
I argue the following with the full understanding that none of this even applies to the argument at hand -- which deals with copyright and digital copying, not the movement of physical items.
You feel that way because your son has a relationship with you. Say that a stranger off the street found an unaccountable urge for a dictionary (perhaps he was stuck on a hard crossword puzzle?) and walked into your home to use your dictionary. Would you feel the same way?
Or perhaps you feel that way because a dictionary has low intrinsic value. Say that your son took your laptop instead. Still feel the same way?
Or perhaps the factor is that your son lives with you. Say that he took it with him as he was moving to Australia to go to university. He'll be back eventually, he's just borrowing it, right?
No, it does not necessarily mean that it "must include" those characteristics. I'd wager that many thieves justify their theft with the notion that they are only borrowing and fully intend to return the item/money/whatsit ... someday. A car thief probably does not have that intention. Someone who embezzles money from their employer or takes things from family and friends to pawn to support a drug/gambling habit certainly might fully intend to return it someday. Shall all theft cases await (a) the death of the owner, or (b) the destruction of the item, or (c) the end of time, so that we may best judge whether the owner has been "permanently deprived" of their property?
There are almost always exceptions in the law. That doesn't mean that the law itself is invalid or that simplified statements of the law are valueless.
Your first case concerns lost or abandoned property in a public place. Say I leave my book on my front lawn (say it's in a plastic bag so weather isn't an immediate concern). It's not "abandoned" -- it's on my property. It may be lost, but again, it's on my property. You have no right to come onto my property and help yourself to the book.
The second is not so much a matter of the act not being considered theft as the authorities and/or the owner choosing not to prosecute. There's a difference.
I'm not quite sure what the evidentiary value of your anecdote is meant to be. Clearly you were unhappy and upset when your property was taken from you. Clearly the police did not give you the kind of action you expected or wanted in response to the theft. Would it be better if the thief intended to mail your camera back to you in six months after he'd had an opportunity to take some pictures that would win him a contest prize that would allow him to pay for the operation that might save his second cousin's life?
|
1. It is enough to give one proof that falsifies the thesis to show that it is invalid. Since there are quite a few instances when taking something away without permission is not theft, it cannot be argued that taking something away equals theft.
2. As for insults: I have written that I
cannot believe that people are so brainless. In the next paragraph I elaborated on that, saying that when emotions come to the fore, reasoning suffers.
3. The argument that someone related to me cannot steal from me is simply not valid, as well as the argument that someone unrelated to me always steals whenever he takes things away from me without my consent. Once more, an example to the contrary: if my son takes a bank note from my wallet and spends it on a candy, he has certainly stolen that money.
As I have said, there are multiple situations when one can take the property of another person without being accused of theft and any student of law will know this, so I don't think I have to elaborate on that.
4. The anecdote was just dark irony, not an argument. It was meant to show that in real life philosophical arguments do not matter very much.
5. As for legal terms concerning lost/abandoned property or using someone's property without their consent, they can differ. In my country (Poland) these cases do not fall into the category of theft. Actually, our Penal Code has a separate category for theft (par. 278), appropriation (par. 284), temporary taking someones car (par. 289) and still some other crimes against property. Copyright infringement certainly does not belong to any of these categories.
6. As for thiefs' statement that they only wanted to borrow the appropriated property, they might be lying or they might be saying the truth. If they say the truth and can prove it (for example, they left a note to the owner), they certainly won't be prosecuted for theft.
7. Finally, if the thief that had stolen my camera returned it to me after 6 months, with the pictures I took in Rome intact, I would not consider it theft but appropriation. If indeed the camera was needed for a life-saving purpose and this was the only way s/he could get it, I wouldn't bear a grudge against him (unless his act of appropriation meant I couldn't use the camera for a similar noble purpose).