10 Feb
2013
10 Feb
'13
4:22 p.m.
On Saturday 09 February 2013 00:01:23 david wrote:
I am certainly not the person who started using the terms piracy and pirates
to describe unauthorized copying of copyrighted works. Do you mean to say you
have never heard such a term used before in this context?
I have heard rape misused in similar fashions. I threw in treason for good
measure. Someone will find a way to throw that into the discourse soon
enough. Terrorism too soone enough probably.
On 02/08/2013 05:22 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
No, it is not stealing the use of the fountain. It is preventing the use until
it is fixed. And where is anything broken to the point where the copyright
holder (AND anyone else) when a file is copied without permission?
On Friday 08 February 2013 02:38:45 david wrote:
Not good examples to choose. If they sneak onto the field and play ball
and while doing so break the water fountain, it's called vandalism but
is really (underneath it) stealing the use of the water fountain from
both the owner of the field AND anyone else who wants to use it afterward. Using something without agreeing to the terms
(licence) under which the
provider of that something offers it is theft.
Of course it is not theft. It may or may not be illegal, but it is not
theft. If a group of kids sneak onto a field and play a ball game without
the owner's permission, even when the terms of use of the field are
posted, they do not get charged with theft.
But software and hard things like baseball diamonds are too different to
be good analogies.
***Exactly!*** Which is why you should not use a term like stealing which
refers to hard things when speaking of violating copyright. We have perfectly
good and accurate terms to describe such things. Other terms tend to get used
because they are more emotive.
Why must everything be theft, piracy, rape,
treason, etc. Loaded words.
Call things what they are.
You're the one who added "piracy, rape, treason". Why? None of them are
synonymous with copyright.
I consider it theft because it's stealing from the licenser/creator the
ability to control the use and distribution of their creation.
You are not stealing anything from the creator. They had that control before
they showed the work to anyone. Once they put it out in the public realm,
they gave up that ability. Copyright law tries to pretend that they have such
control still and provides penalties (and in my mind, way out of proportion
penalties) for excercising what we would otherwise be free to do in the
natural world, but nothing is stolen from anyone in this situation. Unless
perhaps copyright law steals our Freedom?
If you
don't like the terms that the creator makes their creation available to
people, *go use a creation whose terms you agree with*.
Just imagine that your water heater manufacturer told you you could only take
showers at 83 degrees F for no longer than 4 minutes. Your steak vendor told
you you had to eat it rare. Your musical instrument maker demanded 5% of any
money you earned while playing the instrument you bought from them. Etc.
all the best,
drew