3 ms·

Sure, and when I don't hire you, that means that you won't have money to buy food, so you will starve. So, I am not murdering you in the sense that I am shootin

Sure, and when I don't hire you, that means that you won't have money to buy food, so you will starve. So, I am not murdering you in the sense that I am shooting you, but I am murdering you in the sense that I am not hiring you. Words have commonly accepted definitions, and copyright or contract violation simply does not fall under theft. "I think it's bad, theft is bad, therefore, it's theft" just is an incoherent argument. Just as not hiring you is not murder, even if it in the end were to somehow contribute to you dying.

6d6b73 10y ago
Oh, so if you go to a dealer and took the car that you never wanted to buy because it's too expensive, only for a one drive, without asking anyone you were not stealing because this would not deprive anyone of any money?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
  If you use someone's property without authorization, but don't intend to deprive them of it permanently, that indeed in most jurisdictions is not theft, that is criminal conversion. It's really not that difficult, you can simply look up what these terms mean instead of inventing your own definitions. "Depriving someone of money" is not the definition of theft. And it not only isn't, it would be a braindead definition if it were. Suddenly, buying from your competitor would be theft. Accidentally dropping your dishes would be theft. Pretty much everything would be theft under that definition.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    > Accidentally dropping your dishes would be theft. And not dropping them would be, as well!
  - 6d6b73 10y ago
    Is it still "criminal conversion" when you decide after that one ride that you want to keep that car in your garage, but not drive it anymore? You will return it some other day.. Maybe in 2020. After all it's just a copy of that prototype that the manufacturer created. It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Is it still "criminal conversion" when you decide after that one ride that you want to keep that car in your garage, but not drive it anymore? You will return it some other day.. Technically, you still haven't committed theft, since the intent must be present at the time of the taking. OTOH, in practical terms (aside from the fact that its still a crime either way), the fact that you did keep it is something that a prosecutor will often have very little trouble convincing a jury is clear evidence that you intended to keep it when you took it. > It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right Criminal conversion (in the general case) or joyriding (sometimes a separate offense in the automotive case) is not "all right"; just because it is a different criminal offense than (general or auto) theft, its still a crime, which is kind of the opposite of "all right" from the perspective of the legal system.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
      > It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right? WTF? "It's not theft, therefore it's alright" ... where did you pick up that logic?
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  You're getting closer, but for the analogy to work then you had consent from the dealership, and the car manufacturer is suing both of you. Except you're not actually being sued by the manufacturer either, you're actually being sued by the manufacturer's delivery company.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Oh, so if you go to a dealer and took the car that you never wanted to buy because it's too expensive, only for a one drive, without asking anyone you were not stealing Well, sure, that would be joyriding rather than vehicular theft. Still a crime. [0] [0] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Grand-theft-auto.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...

6d6b73 10y ago

Oh, so if you go to a dealer and took the car that you never wanted to buy because it's too expensive, only for a one drive, without asking anyone you were not stealing because this would not deprive anyone of any money?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
If you use someone's property without authorization, but don't intend to deprive them of it permanently, that indeed in most jurisdictions is not theft, that is criminal conversion. It's really not that difficult, you can simply look up what these terms mean instead of inventing your own definitions. "Depriving someone of money" is not the definition of theft. And it not only isn't, it would be a braindead definition if it were. Suddenly, buying from your competitor would be theft. Accidentally dropping your dishes would be theft. Pretty much everything would be theft under that definition.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  > Accidentally dropping your dishes would be theft. And not dropping them would be, as well!
- 6d6b73 10y ago
  Is it still "criminal conversion" when you decide after that one ride that you want to keep that car in your garage, but not drive it anymore? You will return it some other day.. Maybe in 2020. After all it's just a copy of that prototype that the manufacturer created. It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Is it still "criminal conversion" when you decide after that one ride that you want to keep that car in your garage, but not drive it anymore? You will return it some other day.. Technically, you still haven't committed theft, since the intent must be present at the time of the taking. OTOH, in practical terms (aside from the fact that its still a crime either way), the fact that you did keep it is something that a prosecutor will often have very little trouble convincing a jury is clear evidence that you intended to keep it when you took it. > It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right Criminal conversion (in the general case) or joyriding (sometimes a separate offense in the automotive case) is not "all right"; just because it is a different criminal offense than (general or auto) theft, its still a crime, which is kind of the opposite of "all right" from the perspective of the legal system.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
    > It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right? WTF? "It's not theft, therefore it's alright" ... where did you pick up that logic?
Nullabillity 10y ago
You're getting closer, but for the analogy to work then you had consent from the dealership, and the car manufacturer is suing both of you. Except you're not actually being sued by the manufacturer either, you're actually being sued by the manufacturer's delivery company.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Oh, so if you go to a dealer and took the car that you never wanted to buy because it's too expensive, only for a one drive, without asking anyone you were not stealing Well, sure, that would be joyriding rather than vehicular theft. Still a crime. [0] [0] http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal/Grand-theft-auto.htm http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/crime-penalties/federal...