Looks like they got raided

5th time's the charm.

The burns are so sick, it's like Hanako caught the flu.

So when you explain to me how that sentence implies dispossession given the definition of take I'm using you might have something, until then your argument is fallacious because that sentence doesn't imply dispossession.



One can argue that, but one can also argue the alternative, and the alternative seems to be the accepted standard that my legal system uses, so I give it more credibility. That's all subjective though.

It's not ambiguous though, there are certain cases where the product may in fact not be for sale (ex. media companies holding onto an old work) and in that case I do not believe it is theft. There are also other cases where that product might not be available in your specific region (unlicensed anime).

Otherwise, if it is for sale, you are stealing the sale. This makes quite a bit of sense even in relation to physical objects.

Take a boxed movie that's in a store, you walk in there and steal it. Technically from your view the person is really only taking the $2/$3 box and a 2 cent disc; this is theft but it's not like he's stealing the movie as the original source is still owned by the production company and the store can get another copy. Do you think that person should then only be charged a small fine for the $3.02 or should they be charged for the full fine associated with the price the movie was going to be sold for?

'take
teɪk/Submit
verb
1.
lay hold of (something) with one's hands; reach for and hold.
"he leaned forward to take her hand"
2.
remove (someone or something) from a particular place.
"he took an envelope from his inside pocket"'

All being verbs, of course, as it is a verb we are dealing with here.
Now, first version; You aren't physically grabbing hold of it, and removing it.
Second version; You aren't removing it from a place, either physically or metaphorically.

Let's use relevant ones from the oxford, as the above is from google;

'[WITH OBJECT]
1Lay hold of (something) with one’s hands; reach for and hold:
he leaned forward to take her hand'

That isn't happening

'1.5Dispossess someone of (something); steal or illicitly remove:
someone must have sneaked in here and taken it'

There was no dispossession.

'2. [WITH OBJECT AND ADVERBIAL OF DIRECTION] Remove (someone or something) from a particular place:
he took an envelope from his inside pocket
the police took him away'

Again, not taking removing something. It's making a copy, not removal at all, as the original still exists.


Now, since I have yet to find a definition of take that fits your description, I believe it's on your court to find a definition that shows taking as 'to make a copy'





One can argue that, but one can also argue the alternative, and the alternative seems to be the accepted standard that my legal system uses, so I give it more credibility. That's all subjective though.

It's not ambiguous though, there are certain cases where the product may in fact not be for sale (ex. media companies holding onto an old work) and in that case I do not believe it is theft. There are also other cases where that product might not be available in your specific region (unlicensed anime).

Otherwise, if it is for sale, you are stealing the sale. This makes quite a bit of sense even in relation to physical objects.

Take a boxed movie that's in a store, you walk in there and steal it. Technically from your view the person is really only taking the $2/$3 box and a 2 cent disc; this is theft but it's not like he's stealing the movie as the original source is still owned by the production company and the store can get another copy. Do you think that person should then only be charged a small fine for the $3.02 or should they be charged for the full fine associated with the price the movie was going to be sold for?[/quote]

That's a horribly broken example, and you know it.
You're physically TAKING an object, you're not copying it. You're physically taking the original (whether or not it's a copy from the source, is irrelevant, as copying something, is copying something which was the original, which was copied from the source) and the person is left with nothing. It's not stealing from the original creator in this instance, but stealing from the store, as they currently own it, and have paid for it.

Copying means you make a clone/ an identical copy of the original, leaving the original owner with the original copy, so nothing was taken. You aren't removing it, you are not physically putting your hands on it, you are not taking it in any way, other than taking a copy (or to be realistic, copying a file) from another persons computer.
The fact that you are physically removing the original item, is theft. Had you made a duplicate there, and taken it (the copy), you would not be stealing, but copying it and moving on.



Edit;
I'll be back in a few hours, to see if there is a reply. Bed time xoxo

Whoops, I walked in the wrong bar again....

It's not a broken example, the fact is that the original source is left untouched and that the product being stolen is simply a copy of that. yes, he is dispossessing the owner of the object (I never said otherwise, yet you seem to make it out like I did), but from your and Cruz's point of view he would only be dispossessing him of the box and disc as the data on the CD is only a copy of the original.




"Hi Charlie,

I took a copy of the data from Bassano and put it onto Rockwell, not sure what your new directory structure look like so I left the VHD on the local Administrator's desktop. When you want to set up the domain again give me a call."

If you'd like to continue your horribly fallacious arguments and try to deny common usages for the word take go ahead. I've already argued about whether or not piracy is theft time and time again.

If you want further proof of dispossession and not just from a point of sale I suggest you read:

Canada - Counterfeiting and Piracy Are Theft - Report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

James Rajotte, MP
Chair

This isn't a report by Joe Schmo Undergrad from some random University in Sweden. Not only is it a detailed report by a committee of people, it also includes first-hand witness testimonies about the losses incurred from piracy. It is theft, you can try to relabel it however you want to make yourself feel better about it, but that's not going to change fact, and it isn't going to change the way the legal system sees it in most countries either.

When Cruz and William argues, it makes me remember why I read Greek philosopher books.

Drift, at times the legal definition of something is different to what it means in a literal way.

People can defend piracy (not a theft, but sharing is caring) all they want, be it Cruz, Drift, or even myself. But, according to what I know, in the eyes of Law what we are all doing is theft.

edit: Whoops, looks like William has done the job of all the explaining.

One thing I'd like to say though, without piracy a lot of things wouldn't have realized their potential sale power. Not that it makes piracy legally and socially acceptable, but it is a potent tool that needed to be used in moderation (no one exercise a selective system of operation anymore, it's always "all are equal or nothing" nowadays, makes me sad). Proving whether or not it's right or wrong seems futile if it is already in existence and already a "sharing" tool for the common wealth.

Now for a counter-thesis.

Piracy, if it comes to a point where it affects a significant portion of sales, is detrimental, not to the company, but it's workers. Average joe's like me and you.

To conclude, I believe a tool should not be judge on it's beauty (good or bad, wrong or right) but it's potency, use, and function, also it should always be weilded appropriately.

(Again, agapae is loving every living thing, not treating them all the same, FUCK THE SYSTEM!!! HURRDURR)

Edit: You guys are something else huh (William and Drift)

the talk here is way too real

>being this serious
>on a hentai forum

Why are we arguing about something we all do?

Good things can come our arguments unless you're drunk.

Ya'll niggers need to realise that piracy and file-sharing are two fundamentally different things.

Only thing i'm seeing is sword fighting to see who cock is meater and larger.

@cholr
One is for money and the other is just free stuff. Pirating is for counterfeiting.

I can't argue with that.

It is a horribly broken example. You're literally stealing something. Whether it's a copy or not. Actually copying something is not stealing in any form of the word, as it's not removing the original copy, nor is it taking somebody else's possession. The creators do not own the item after it's been sold, so it's not stealing off them, as they do not own it. The do own the data on it, in which you're still not taking, you're doing no form of removing at all. There is literally no form of 'stealing' at all.

You have yet to show any form of evidence to prove piracy is theft by definition. I've literally taken what you've posted, and shown it does not cover copying, but actually taking an item, which pirating is not. I'm not debating that pirating isn't illegal, I'm debating that it is not stealing, as again, you're not stealing anything. You're making a copy/ clone. Neither counterfeit, nor stealing. Pirating? Yes. Is piracy stealing? Not by definition of any of the words. Is it classified as theft? Apparently it is classed as such, by certain governments, but it isn't by definition of the word

>Now arguing on the definition of piracy

Yup, I'm definitely in the wrong bar.

So here we have you and Cruz, who are trying to define pirating by the actual meaning, using dictionaries and steps of doing it, and we have William and I, who are trying define pirating by the legal definition of it.

Okay. I get your point, but where does this difference leads us? I still believe it is a theft, a theft of an idea, copyright, or patent. It may well be not taken in a literal form, but it is still a theft. Why? You may not take anything in physical form, but a digital form is still a form nonetheless. (1)The idea is taken, (2)You have not obtain any permission from the maker/copyright holder to take possession of it. Is that not stealing? Even if the owner does not lose the original form of the idea/material?

I don't think I'm that insightful, or that I'm being that insightful. I personally believe there's a fundamental difference between stealing and file sharing, and even though fs can potentially have negative effects, it's still not stealing. I understand why someone would disagree with me but I'd rather just not appeal to "law".



You've done this at least 3 times. One would expect you'd learn by now.