"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[HansTWN]

carld
Writing is work, for which the authors deserve to be paid, unless you want to return to the days when the only things published were royal edicts, religious tracts, and political manifestos.

Originally Posted by Phogg

That time would be before ancient Greece.

Yawn.

Sounds more like the brave new world G.W. Bush had wanted to turn America into.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Can you prove it is theft? I ask because if you can't you're arguing by definition.

So you see absolutely nothing wrong with preventing a man to make some money off years of hard work?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So you see absolutely nothing wrong with preventing a man to make some money off years of hard work?

I did not say that; I merely asked you to prove your statement. Please do not put words in my mouth.

You made a statement along the lines of apples=oranges; please prove it.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Phogg

That time would be before ancient Greece.

Yawn.

Whatever. People deserve to get paid for the work they do, don't like it, don't buy anything.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Can you prove it is theft? I ask because if you can't you're arguing by definition.

It's taking and using something that does not belong to you and which you have no right to, and you're doing it to the financial detriment of the property owner. It doesn't matter if it's intellectual property or physical property, it's still theft.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by carld

It's taking and using something that does not belong to you and which you have no right to, and you're doing it to the financial detriment of the property owner. It doesn't matter if it's intellectual property or physical property, it's still theft.

In copying a file I've "taken" nothing. The person who has the rights to the file (its owner) still has it. I may have violated his copyright, but so long as he has the original nothing has been "taken" becuase he still has it.


There is also a flaw in your statement. Making a copy does not steal the intellectual property. The IP is not each individual copy, it is a government granted monopoly on copying and distribution. I cannot steal the IP by making a copy; I can only steal it by using some underhanded manner to get myself registered as the owner of the copyright.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I did not say that; I merely asked you to prove your statement. Please do not put words in my mouth.

You made a statement along the lines of apples=oranges; please prove it.

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. You said that an author demanding that you do not download his work for free, demanding that he is to be paid for years of work is barbaric. You reduce the monetary value of his work by downloading it for free and sharing it.

Is it theft when obtain all the knowledge that is necessary to copy a prototype of a new gadget and then go ahead manufacturing it? You are taking something away that could be used to make money. And you are making the original worthless (or at least worth a lot less). Would be fine according to your arguments, you are not stealing the prototype itself, just the data.

This distinction between physical and digital items is completely arbitrary. You take something that belongs to someone else and you use it without his consent. You are intentionally inflicting serious financial harm.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

In copying a file I've "taken" nothing. The person who has the rights to the file (its owner) still has it. I may have violated his copyright, but so long as he has the original nothing has been "taken" becuase he still has it.


There is also a flaw in your statement. Making a copy does not steal the intellectual property. The IP is not each individual copy, it is a government granted monopoly on copying and distribution. I cannot steal the IP by making a copy; I can only steal it by using some underhanded manner to get myself registered as the owner of the copyright.

It is very simple --- if the file is not copied without consent, then the original file is worth a lot of money, because the author can sell it. If you distribute the file the original becomes worthless. You stole the value of that original file, not the file itself. Your actions made the file worthless.

Just like pouring poison into someone's drink. Oh no, you still have that drink, I didn't do anything!

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. You said that an author demanding that you do not download his work for free, demanding that he is to be paid for years of work is barbaric. You reduce the monetary value of his work by downloading it for free and sharing it.

Is it theft when obtain all the knowledge that is necessary to copy a prototype of a new gadget and then go ahead manufacturing it? You are taking something away that could be used to make money. And you are making the original worthless (or at least worth a lot less).

This distinction between physical and digital items is completely arbitrary. You take something that belongs to someone else and you use it without his consent. You are intentionally inflicting serious financial harm.

You just put words in my mouth, right there. Perhaps someone else said that, but I did not.

There is also a logical fallacy in your post. You have equated not paying, which is by definition inactivity, with stealing, which is a negative action. To put it simply,

action != inactivity

and thus your argument is flawed.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is very simple --- if the file is not copied without consent, then the original file is worth a lot of money, because the author can sell it. If you distribute the file the original becomes worthless. You stole the value of that original file, not the file itself. Your actions made the file worthless.

So the people behind, say, Open Office, should be considered criminals because their actions devalue the money people are willing to pay for Microsoft Office?

[carld]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

In copying a file I've "taken" nothing. The person who has the rights to the file (its owner) still has it. I may have violated his copyright, but so long as he has the original nothing has been "taken" becuase he still has it.


There is also a flaw in your statement. Making a copy does not steal the intellectual property. The IP is not each individual copy, it is a government granted monopoly on copying and distribution. I cannot steal the IP by making a copy; I can only steal it by using some underhanded manner to get myself registered as the owner of the copyright.

You most certainly have. You've taken ownership of something that you have no right to. That is theft, no matter which way you slice.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

So the people behind, say, Open Office, should be considered criminals because their actions devalue the money people are willing to pay for Microsoft Office?

That's nonsense and you know it. Stealing someone's IP is not in any way the same as releasing a program for free, that's absurd.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is very simple --- if the file is not copied without consent, then the original file is worth a lot of money, because the author can sell it. If you distribute the file the original becomes worthless. You stole the value of that original file, not the file itself. Your actions made the file worthless.

Just like pouring poison into someone's drink. Oh no, you still have that drink, I didn't do anything!

You cannot argue, in the general case, that all files have value that will be diminished if illicitly copied becuase value can only be shown in the individual case. In the general case this is not true.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by carld

You most certainly have. You've taken ownership of something that you have no right to. That is theft, no matter which way you slice.

Theft involves depriving someone of their property. In the case of the illicitly copied file the owner still has it. Thus, it is not theft.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by carld

That's nonsense and you know it. Stealing someone's IP is not in any way the same as releasing a program for free, that's absurd.

But it was argued that the problem with copyright infringement was that it caused financial harm. Yet here we see an accepted way to cause monetary harm. Is monetary harm not the issue at stake? And, if not, then what is?