5 ms·

Legally stealing includes the concept "taking with the intention to permanently deprive". The concept of stealing revolves around physical goods not intellectu

Legally stealing includes the concept "taking with the intention to permanently deprive". The concept of stealing revolves around physical goods not intellectual property. What he did is not stealing (and if you attempted to charge him with theft you would lose in court). The crime is copyright violation not theft. Please be accurate when you are being patronising.

sbuk 11y ago
By taking the license without paying for it, he has permanently deprived AllSIM from the license revenue, ergo it was stolen. And drop the ad hominem. You are attacking me and the manner that you interpreted my statement, it has no bearing on the discussion.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  You are assuming that there would have license revenue, that is, that there would have been a sale. In this case that's possible; in many cases that's completely false (maybe even in the majority of cases). So the "stolen" word is a strange word for an act which leaves the owner with the goods, and does not cost the owner a sale that they otherwise would have had. What it is, though, is taking the owner's software in violation of the owner's terms. That's immoral (arguably), and definitely illegal. What it isn't, though, is stealing in the historic meaning of the term. (Though that may not be a valid argument, as uses of words change with time and new circumstances...)
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    Further to this. Theft has a clear legal meaning. For example in the UK stealing a car is technically difficult to prove since proving intent to permanently deprive is not very easy. This does not stop a law against taking a car without the owners consent which is then punished appropriately.
    - sbuk 11y ago
      Erm, no.
      - JupiterMoon 11y ago
        Well a few minutes with google and wikipedia will set you straight on this. Actually that your legally wrong insistence that copyright infringement is theft actually damages your copyright maximalist stance in the eyes of both legal precedent and public opinion. NB I don't argue that copyright infringement should be legal -- merely that is is a different class of crime than theft.
        sbuk 11y ago
        I have first hand experience of your car theft analogy, my car was stolen and, luckily enough for me, recovered along with the thieves. They were successfully prosecuted. You are, yet again, wrong.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        You are quite slow to grasp simple concepts aren't you. The car theft example is not an analogy it is a fact. I never said that taking a car is legal. However, the crime is "taking without permission" not "theft" (although it is I admit often referred to as theft in common parlance). This is because theft has a clear long standing meaning which for various reasons is often difficult to establish for cars. Therefore a new type of crime (which happens to have the same punishment) was created. The point about how stupid you copyright maximalists sound to the general public when about software 'theft' stands. You weaken you position when you do so and make yourselves subject to ridicule.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        sbuk 11y ago
        Wow.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Copyright infringement is copyright infringement not theft. Two different crimes. Copyright infringement is already a crime. Ordinary people already laugh at the attempts to redefine it as theft -- if you want people to respect intellectual property rights you need to be accurate. You are the one that has repeatedly sworn at me on this page by the way.
- tripzilch 11y ago
  > By taking the license without paying for it What do you think a software license is? A physical piece of paper or something? The student didn't "take" a license, if he could have, and did, there would not even have been a case because he would have had a license! For clarity, not attacking you, just pointing out your completely inaccurate view of intellectual property law, with the intention that other people may not get any ideas this is actually how copyright works. But don't worry, I won't call you out for being patronizing, not when you're the one being taught.

sbuk 11y ago

By taking the license without paying for it, he has permanently deprived AllSIM from the license revenue, ergo it was stolen. And drop the ad hominem. You are attacking me and the manner that you interpreted my statement, it has no bearing on the discussion.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
You are assuming that there would have license revenue, that is, that there would have been a sale. In this case that's possible; in many cases that's completely false (maybe even in the majority of cases). So the "stolen" word is a strange word for an act which leaves the owner with the goods, and does not cost the owner a sale that they otherwise would have had. What it is, though, is taking the owner's software in violation of the owner's terms. That's immoral (arguably), and definitely illegal. What it isn't, though, is stealing in the historic meaning of the term. (Though that may not be a valid argument, as uses of words change with time and new circumstances...)
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Further to this. Theft has a clear legal meaning. For example in the UK stealing a car is technically difficult to prove since proving intent to permanently deprive is not very easy. This does not stop a law against taking a car without the owners consent which is then punished appropriately.
  - sbuk 11y ago
    Erm, no.
    - JupiterMoon 11y ago
      Well a few minutes with google and wikipedia will set you straight on this. Actually that your legally wrong insistence that copyright infringement is theft actually damages your copyright maximalist stance in the eyes of both legal precedent and public opinion. NB I don't argue that copyright infringement should be legal -- merely that is is a different class of crime than theft.
      - sbuk 11y ago
        I have first hand experience of your car theft analogy, my car was stolen and, luckily enough for me, recovered along with the thieves. They were successfully prosecuted. You are, yet again, wrong.
        JupiterMoon 11y ago
        You are quite slow to grasp simple concepts aren't you. The car theft example is not an analogy it is a fact. I never said that taking a car is legal. However, the crime is "taking without permission" not "theft" (although it is I admit often referred to as theft in common parlance). This is because theft has a clear long standing meaning which for various reasons is often difficult to establish for cars. Therefore a new type of crime (which happens to have the same punishment) was created. The point about how stupid you copyright maximalists sound to the general public when about software 'theft' stands. You weaken you position when you do so and make yourselves subject to ridicule.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
        sbuk 11y ago
        Wow.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Copyright infringement is copyright infringement not theft. Two different crimes. Copyright infringement is already a crime. Ordinary people already laugh at the attempts to redefine it as theft -- if you want people to respect intellectual property rights you need to be accurate. You are the one that has repeatedly sworn at me on this page by the way.
tripzilch 11y ago
> By taking the license without paying for it What do you think a software license is? A physical piece of paper or something? The student didn't "take" a license, if he could have, and did, there would not even have been a case because he would have had a license! For clarity, not attacking you, just pointing out your completely inaccurate view of intellectual property law, with the intention that other people may not get any ideas this is actually how copyright works. But don't worry, I won't call you out for being patronizing, not when you're the one being taught.