If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Running a 5K when you can't
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in
: OK, but I'd say that if law is the basis for determining morality in any way, then it's only fair to use the language of the law in the appraisal of ones morality. The law does not say that you've committed theft (it doesn't even come close to saying it), it says that you've violated the DMCA. The argument is whether violating they DCMA can ever be called "theft", and whether that theft is immoral. Whatever the language the law uses, it seems reasonable to use the common definition of "theft" to decide whether it's applicable in this case. In this case, the violations of the DCMA reduce the amount of money the music producers can make either now or in the future. Here is where I have a problem with this: there are a lot of actions that reduce the amount of money you can make (now or in future). These include antitrust violations, securities fraud, insider trading, illegal business practices by a competitor, contractual breaches (which are very similar to many technical license violations) and libel. Some of these aren't even criminal offences. I wouldn't refer to any of these as theft (would you ?) I think it's misleading to use "theft" to describe anything that interferes with ones ability to make income. There are many things, both legal and illegal that hurt ones ability to make income. The word "theft", even in the common sense, would seem to imply a fairly direct and quantifiable financial impact on the victim. In the case of simply piracy, one can say that they copied a product that they're legally required to pay $X- for. This is analogous to a theft of service. At worst, the illegitimate transfer of media is analogous to a terms of service violation. I agree with your last statement: "theft" implies a fairly direct and quantifiable financial impact. When you copy a book that's for sale and give it to someone else, the loss to the author is clear. When you copy music into another form, instead of buying the CD in addition to the tape, the loss is direct and clear. In both cases the "taking" is of an intangible but I think it's justified to use "theft" to describe it. I'm done. This horse isn't just dead, it's flayed, chopped, hashed, and we're all standing around with horseflesh up our nostrils. Hugh -- Help! My myofibrillar material is disorganized! |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Running a 5K when you can't
Hugh Beyer wrote:
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in : OK, but I'd say that if law is the basis for determining morality in any way, then it's only fair to use the language of the law in the appraisal of ones morality. The law does not say that you've committed theft (it doesn't even come close to saying it), it says that you've violated the DMCA. The argument is whether violating they DCMA can ever be called "theft", and whether that theft is immoral. Whatever the language the law uses, it seems reasonable to use the common definition of "theft" to decide whether it's applicable in this case. In this case, the violations of the DCMA reduce the amount of money the music producers can make either now or in the future. Here is where I have a problem with this: there are a lot of actions that reduce the amount of money you can make (now or in future). These include antitrust violations, securities fraud, insider trading, illegal business practices by a competitor, contractual breaches (which are very similar to many technical license violations) and libel. Some of these aren't even criminal offences. I wouldn't refer to any of these as theft (would you ?) I think it's misleading to use "theft" to describe anything that interferes with ones ability to make income. There are many things, both legal and illegal that hurt ones ability to make income. The word "theft", even in the common sense, would seem to imply a fairly direct and quantifiable financial impact on the victim. In the case of simply piracy, one can say that they copied a product that they're legally required to pay $X- for. This is analogous to a theft of service. At worst, the illegitimate transfer of media is analogous to a terms of service violation. I agree with your last statement: "theft" implies a fairly direct and quantifiable financial impact. When you copy a book that's for sale and give it to someone else, the loss to the author is clear. Only if you assume the book would've been purchased (by you or the other guy) if it hadn't been copied. When you copy music into another form, instead of buying the CD in addition to the tape, the loss is direct and clear. Once again, explicitly this time, the assumption that you would make the additional purchase exists. In both cases the "taking" is of an intangible but I think it's justified to use "theft" to describe it. Weird. I'm done. This horse isn't just dead, it's flayed, chopped, hashed, and we're all standing around with horseflesh up our nostrils. It twitched. Hugh |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Running a 5K when you can't
In article , Hugh Beyer wrote:
Donovan Rebbechi wrote in : I agree with your last statement: "theft" implies a fairly direct and quantifiable financial impact. When you copy a book that's for sale and give it to someone else, the loss to the author is clear. When you copy music into another form, instead of buying the CD in addition to the tape, the loss is direct and clear. In both cases the "taking" is of an intangible but I think it's justified to use "theft" to describe it. I'm done. This horse isn't just dead, it's flayed, chopped, hashed, and we're all standing around with horseflesh up our nostrils. Thanks for clarifying your position. Yeah, it was a long discussion. Weren't we discussing a 5k race or something ? Oh, it was 4 miles and it's already finished (-; Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Running a 5K when you can't
In article , T wrote:
Hugh Beyer wrote: I'm done. This horse isn't just dead, it's flayed, chopped, hashed, and we're all standing around with horseflesh up our nostrils. It twitched. [snip] I think Hugh has adequately clarified his position. The arguments you brought up are arguments I've already made in the post prior to the one you responded to, so it doesn't serve any purpose to repeat them, IMO. If you read his post more carefully, he is implicitly responding to those arguments. Cheers, -- Donovan Rebbechi http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Running damages knees or joints? | dolce | General Discussion | 17 | January 12th, 2004 03:32 AM |
All this talk about running..... | Beverly | General Discussion | 9 | January 12th, 2004 12:31 AM |
New challenges i'm running | Sarah Beth | General Discussion | 0 | January 7th, 2004 10:05 PM |
running vs. swimming | Jennifer Austin | General Discussion | 16 | October 21st, 2003 02:15 AM |
Walking vs Running | Joe3000 | General Discussion | 11 | September 27th, 2003 12:35 AM |