A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » General Discussion
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Running a 5K when you can't



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old January 31st, 2004, 11:40 PM
Hugh Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 1st, 2004, 02:35 AM
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 2nd, 2004, 01:26 AM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old February 2nd, 2004, 01:29 AM
Donovan Rebbechi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running damages knees or joints? dolce General Discussion 17 January 12th, 2004 04:32 AM
All this talk about running..... Beverly General Discussion 9 January 12th, 2004 01:31 AM
New challenges i'm running Sarah Beth General Discussion 0 January 7th, 2004 11:05 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.