Looks like they got raided

Your meme arrow made me think you weren't being serious.
Plus you really didn't really see a argument so I didn't bother.

I used it to mock you.

What argument? You made a statement, I questioned its validity.

Considering how Megaupload was guilty of breaking various laws and still managed to come back, I'm pretty sure this is a minor setback at worst.

Wicked burn I guess?

Sure.

So back to the point, do you have any reasoning behind your statement? Or are you going to hide your logic from scrutiny?

http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/2157989


I like to think of it as, copying without permission. I can assume most people on this site, including you, have saved a pic, copyrighted or not, from the internet to your hard drive, and then uploaded it here as an avatar. Neither creating it, paying the owners, or even asking for permission. Are they all thieves?

No, I would not, because in most of those cases the users are acting legally under fair use. Unless the author of the work clearly expresses under proper licensing that users are not to copy and distribute works for either commercial and non-profit use there is no question about whether or not it can be considered theft under law.

Piracy, on the other hand, is a different story. These are companies that clearly state the licensing attached to their products and even include terms within the primary distribution source(s) that void anyone of any permission to copy and distribute their work. Further, software is often illegally deconstructed to provide users methods to bypass measures that have been put in place to prevent people from using their product, should they somehow manage to obtain a copy outside of the official distribution sources. If a person downloads this software from an unofficial source, the blame lies on the person distributing it (unless he states that what he is doing is illegal); however, if a user unknowingly downloads it from an unofficial source yet knowingly bypasses security measures to gain access where he would otherwise be denied, the blame lies on both of them and they are both committing theft.

Sounds like you're describing sharing and copying without permission, not stealing.

[edit] you are right though, the picture one can fall into fair use. Doesn't explain why you ignored the other part of my post.

Sounds to me like you're hiding childishly behind semantics to avoid coming with up a response to your point I so easily shot down.

Every country and legal system has a different definition for theft and stealing that change over time, when making reference to any legal issue it is more appropriate to pay respects to those terms and not that of what you would find in the OED. The reality of the situation is that Canada, the U.S.A. and most European countries all have piracy fall under their definition of "theft", which means you are committing theft (stealing something) when you pirate something. There is no way around that.

They're already setting back up.

I use it for getting H-games that aren't available in English sometimes :B

Again, you're copying/duplicating something, often modifying it in the process. Original is still there. You're not "taking anything", you're not removing anything, you're not putting anyone in a state where they "Disposses" something. The real world equivalent is again, just making a duplicate of an existing item, like using a 3d printer to mass produce shitty figurines and toys.

Honestly, even calling it piracy is pointless. It's file-sharing.
Also I'm not avoiding anything, what you described was modifying something in a way someone didn't like. You can argue this is ethically/morally wrong but it's not stealing.

wtf guys, arguing about stealing, really?

Looks like my edit didn't make it in time, read my post again. In short, under law in most countries piracy falls under the definition of theft, when we're dealing with legal matters it's more sensible to pay respects to those definitions instead of what you would find in a formal dictionary like the OED. Even more so when you consider the relation to computers & technology, which evolves at an incredibly rapid pace, a field where formal dictionaries haven't even begun to list the many terms associated with it that have been coined in recent years.

Edit: again it's just hiding behind childish semantics, all the author of that article is trying to do is give the act a different term to make it seem less morally reprehensible.

ooh, are we discussing semantics?



If he had used this definition for take it would make more sense:

4. Accept or receive (someone or something)

He is entirely right in saying that it is theft/stealing tho:

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

We have legal dictionaries for a reason. Use them.

Yeah, my bad.

'Takes personal property'

It's not taking, still. It's copying. That statement you quotes mentions nothing of copying as being theft. The 'taking and converting' almost covers it, but no dice. That's still taking something, and altering it, leaving no original. vs copying something, which is making a copy of the original (so you're not 'taking' anything), and converting it to your use. Very close, but no cigar.

>You think I'm talking about the product specifically

What is stealing the sale Drifter? The effect on the market is what copyright law and fair use is all about.

When you illegally obtain copyrighted material you are dispossessing the owner of any profit he would have made had you obtained it legally. That is theft.

Edit: Actually, I just realized this, but even aside from stealing the sale, you have no backing for what you said. You just added a bunch of shit to the definition that didn't exist. "Taking and converting" doesn't say anything about dispossession if you use the definition for take that I noted literally in the same post.

Get your head out of your ass.

>Implying a pirate ever intended to own the product prior to torrenting the item
>Implying that there was ever going to be any money made from that person regardless of torrenting
Stealing a sale implies there was going to first BE a sale
But, notice how your description of the word does not actually mention robbing somebody of a 'potential profit'

As for your edit, I didn't change the definition in the slightest. 'taking and converting' was literally said in your definition.
'the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use'
Taking property, and converting it to your own use. I shortened it right down, for ease of use.

Why not? I'm bored and I'm getting sick of studying for finals.



OR maybe, he recognizes it as something completely different? Cry "y-your semantics" all you want though.



That was fairly reasonal response, although depending on how one defines the word "take", one can again argue that sharing bits of modified information isn't taking anything. That POTENTIAL SALE bit bothers me though. Possibly depriving someone of potential sales isn't a crime because of it's ambiguity, and one could easily claim that file sharing could increase potential sales.

Oh damn, never thought of it that way.