Searching \ for '[OT] Olimex Board lost in the mail' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=olimex+board+lost
Search entire site for: 'Olimex Board lost in the mail'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Olimex Board lost in the mail'
2009\01\03@221033 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> contacted Olimex, I was told that it was a copy protection feature, and I
>> had
>> obviously made many copies of the firmware for all my friends.  When I
>> replied
>> that this was the first time I had even tried to update it, the reply was
>> that
>> Sparkfun must have stolen the firmware and sold me an illegitimate copy.
>> Fortunately, I had purchased this product through Sparkfun and they made
>> good
>> on it.

> This is EXACTLY why people pirate stuff. People don't like to be
> treated like criminals.

[[(you = = one) below]]

Even if they are :-).
If you buy something that is stolen then you are a received of stolen goods.
If you don'y know that it is stolen then if 'the man' comes knocking you MAY
get off being prosecuted but the stolen goods are still stolen and your
having paid for them still gives you no title to them and said 'the man'
[tm] will take them with him when he goes.

Dealing with software makes it both easier to steal and harder to know what
is going on. IF Sparkfun had in fact made illegitimate copies and this was
the source of your woes then Olimex's complaint would be a legitimate one,
even though you had not been guilty of illegal copying. How Olimex deals
with this is up to them and it may be bad for customer relations to refuse
to supply a replacement and to then 'talk to' Sparkfun rather than just
turning uyou away. Their choice.

But, the [implied] argument that you can then feel justified in going and
stealing a copy from somewhere else is somewhat [only] analogous to going
out and stealing another car when your one breaks down because the dealer
has ripped you off and refused to honour the warranty arrangement as you
understand it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah ... copies ... no harm ... property ... rights ... rich xxx
... etc. But failure to recognise at least SOME forms of software copying as
theft leads to an interesting perspective on things.



             Russell

2009\01\03@225155 by Rolf

face picon face
apptech wrote:
> [snip]

> Yeah, yeah, yeah ... copies ... no harm ... property ... rights ... rich xxx
> ... etc. But failure to recognise at least SOME forms of software copying as
> theft leads to an interesting perspective on things.
>
>
>
>               Russell
>
>  


With all due respect... repeat after me... copyright infringement is not
theft.

copyright infringement is not theft.
copyright infringement is not theft.
copyright infringement is not theft.
copyright infringement is not theft.

also, repeat after me:

copyright infringement is not a crime.
copyright infringement is not a crime.
copyright infringement is not a crime.
copyright infringement is not a crime.

also,

piracy (related to software/music) requires redistribution of (and
likely requires charging for) said software, not just usage of it.

Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
is piracy.
Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
is piracy.
Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
is piracy.
Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
is piracy.

When it comes to software, it is all about copyright, and the license
attached to the software. It so happens that lots of software programs
have no restrictions on downloading such software, but, instead, have
license terms restricting the usage, rather than downloading of such
software. For example, downloading windows is not a problem, but
cracking it with an unofficial 'key', or bypassing the key in some way
is against the license terms and thus is copyright infringement.

Further, using the software contrary to the license terms is not theft,
it is copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a civil issue,
not a criminal one. If you infringe copyright, the rightful owner sues
you and you may have to pay damages. If you commit theft, the
state/country charges and prosecutes you and you may go to jail. If you
live in the US, and you circumvented a copyright protection mechanism
then you may fall foul of the DMCA, which is another issue all together.

So, in order for there to be theft involved somewhere, you would have to
remove the software entirely from the owner's premises and deny them
access to it. Downloading, copying, etc. is not stealing, at worst it is
copyright infringement, and is a civil issue.

I suggest that you all read up some more on copyright infringement, and
then hire the opinion of a lawyer as it pertains to you in your
jurisdiction.

I in no way imply that copyright infringement, theft, murder, etc. is
OK, only I want people to stop being steamrollered by massive publicity
drives suggesting that downloading music, software, etc. is theft. It is
not.

Get your facts straight.

For interesting reads, try:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Comparison_to_theft

Finally, again, things get very interesting in different contexts. For
example, in Canada there is a special levy placed on blank media capable
of storing music (Cassettes, CD's, DVD,s etc.). This levy is intended to
be in lieu of royalties to musicians, and is entrenched in Canadian
copyright law and allows any Canadian to copy any music on to such media
just so long as the copies are not resold. This allows us to create many
copies of music, and give them away as gifts, or use them in our cars,
etc. Doing such a thing in the USA would undoubtedly be construed as
copyright infringement, but, it is not in Canada.

Rolf

2009\01\04@000359 by solarwind

picon face
On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Rolf <spam_OUTlearrTakeThisOuTspamrogers.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2009\01\04@015043 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
>> ... etc. But failure to recognise at least SOME forms of software copying
>> as
>> theft leads to an interesting perspective on things.


> With all due respect... repeat after me... copyright infringement is not
> theft.

You can black board your lines 100 times, or 1000, if you think it will make
the point clearer.

I'll just repeat mine once more, with a *little* more emphasis added.

>> ... etc. But failure to recognise at least ***SOME*** forms
>  of software copying as theft leads to an interesting perspective on
> things.

ie if one believes that it is not ever possib;e to commit theft by copying
software, then one's perspective on other things will be, at least
interesting, Also, a person who believes this from the cockles of their
heart will probably also be the sort of person that one should be wary of
formong a trust based relationship with in other areas. I am unable to speak
for present company, not having as yet the reqired 30%+ or so data required
for making a good decision.

But, in some cases

> copyright infringement is not theft.

is a canard / porky / evasion / untruth / damn lie.
As is

> copyright infringement is not a crime.

although "crime" can be defined as required to make this vanishingly hard to
make so.


> also,
> piracy (related to software/music) requires redistribution of (and
> likely requires charging for) said software, not just usage of it.

Not relevant to the main point, and not *necessarily* true.

> Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
> is piracy.

Humpty Dumpty definitions at work. ie "pirating" is in itself a euphemism
which has an inexact meaning and which can be somewhat bent to one's will
and purpose.

__________

Cutting to the chase, to some extent:

IANAL, or anywhere near.

Individual A produces a copyright work. Be it literary, software or
whatever.
Individual A contracts with individual B, who signs a legally binding
contract, to transfer a COPY of said work from A to B in exchange for a
consideration AND subject to certain restrictions *which are agreed to by B*
in the contract.

If B transfers a copy of the work to C in abrogation of the terms of the
contract, whether for a consideration or not, then (i) B & C are parties to
theft. Also, by at least some sensible definitions (ii) a crime has been
committed. What C DOES with the product after the transfer does not alter
the basic facts.

If you find somebody who disagrees violently with these facts, especially
the first one, then unless you are in reasonably good agreement with them on
this point, you may wish to consider the widom of doing trust-based business
with them .

FWIW - I am not saying what I think of such theft, whether it is abhorrent
or whether it is more or less acceptable in various circumstances - just
that it IS theft. It corresponds to depriving somebody of their rightful
capital without payment of due consideration. Some may agree with this but
consider that such deprivation is sometimes OK, often OK, or even perhaps
invariably laudable.

It seems to me, but I may well be wrong, that the arrangement above forms
part of the foundation of the capitalist system and that acceptance of its
abrogation is an indication of ones disagreement with at least some of the
basic tenets of capitalism. I may, I say again, be wrong, of course :-).


   Russell


{Quote hidden}

Aye.


2009\01\04@023731 by Forrest W Christian

flavicon
face
Rolf wrote:
> With all due respect... repeat after me... copyright infringement is
> not theft.
But it is wrongful appropriation.   No, it does not fit the legal
definition of theft, but it definitely fits the moral definition of
stealing.  
> copyright infringement is not a crime.
>  
No, but it *is* against the law.   It just carries a civil penalty
instead of a criminal one.  
> piracy (related to software/music) requires redistribution of (and
> likely requires charging for) said software, not just usage of it.
>  
Ok, if I take a legal copy of software (or music) that I own, and make
it available for downloading, under current case law, I am not liable
for copyright infringement until someone downloads it.   However, once
someone downloads it, there is no requirement that money changed hands.
> Copying software is not pirating it, selling copies of others' software
> is piracy.
>  
This is *not* exactly what you said above.   I would agree with you on
this one point if you said, "Copying software is not pirating it,
distributing copies of others' software is piracy".

> When it comes to software, it is all about copyright, and the license
> attached to the software. It so happens that lots of software programs
> have no restrictions on downloading such software, but, instead, have
> license terms restricting the usage, rather than downloading of such
> software. For example, downloading windows is not a problem, but
> cracking it with an unofficial 'key', or bypassing the key in some way
> is against the license terms and thus is copyright infringement.
>  
Ummm... I think you perhaps are saying the correct thing, but aren't
100% correct in the way you stated it.   In the US, the Copyright owner
is the only person who can legally permit a copy to be made.   So,
knowningly downloading a copyrighted work *without the permission of the
copyright owner*, is a copyright violation.   So, downloading a copy of
Vista off of a torrent server, without Microsoft's blessing, in and of
itself will expose you to potential civil action for a copyright
violation.   Along with the person who made it available.  It doesn't
matter if you run it or not.
> This levy is intended to
> be in lieu of royalties to musicians, and is entrenched in Canadian
> copyright law and allows any Canadian to copy any music on to such media  just so long as the copies are not resold. This allows us to create many  copies of music, and give them away as gifts, or use them in our cars,  etc. Doing such a thing in the USA would undoubtedly be construed as copyright infringement, but, it is not in Canada.
>  
In the US, due to the Audio Home Recording Act, a similar levy is
collected on blank Audio CD'Rs (not data CDR's) and for Audio CD
recorders (not computer CDR's).   It would be interesting to see if the
RIAA could successfully sue someone for copying onto Audio CDR in the
US.    See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

2009\01\04@040612 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Olin Lathrop wrote:
> solarwind wrote:
>  
>> This is EXACTLY why people pirate stuff. People don't like to be
>> treated like criminals.
>>    
>
> No that's merely a justification.  People pirate stuff because they don't
> want to pay.
>  
I'm quite happy to pay, however when I do so I expect to be able to use
what I have paid for.
I buy a sony dvd with the intention of watching it and putting it on my
shelf, however due to the "copy protection" crap they put on it I am
forced to break the law in order to see it.

Copy protection makes me pirate stuff, stuff that I already own. If
that's not enough to make you feel like a criminal or at least like you
have been ripped off and hard I don't know what is.

I'm already voting with my feet, I do my best not to get sony or EA
products due to their DRM crap. If I buy music online I buy stuff
without copy protection only. Its not up to some bogan in a call centre
to decide if I have in fact formatted my computer or if I'm stealing it.
By the same token I don't "share" stuff I own. I might take a portable
hard disk with stuff on it to a friends party, but I don't let them copy
it, 95% of people are ok with that. Its called ethics people, if
somebody trusts me with their work, I respect that. If somebody treats
me like a criminal even though I've given them money that really pisses
me off.

2009\01\04@041538 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Dealing with software makes it both easier to steal and harder to know what
> is going on. IF Sparkfun had in fact made illegitimate copies and this was
> the source of your woes then Olimex's complaint would be a legitimate one,
> even though you had not been guilty of illegal copying. How Olimex deals
> with this is up to them and it may be bad for customer relations to refuse
> to supply a replacement and to then 'talk to' Sparkfun rather than just
> turning uyou away. Their choice.

In my country consumer law states that if I buy something from X, it is
X's responsibility that I get something that is OK. That Y manufactured
the thingy does not matter. Maybe US law is different, but by Dutch law
the OP should have contacted Sparkfun, not Olimex.

(I sell Olimex stuff too, and when it does not work I expect my
customers to contact me, and I must deal with it. Olimex might assist
me, but if they don't I am still required to deal with the complaint.)

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu

2009\01\04@050748 by Jon Chandler

picon face
When the programmer wouldn't update properly, I contacted Olimex as it
was a technical problem rather than apparently a hardware problem.  The
programmer worked fine but in trying to upgrade it using software
provided by Olimex, it generated an error stating something like "Can't
upgrade any more."  Contacting Sparkfun at this point would have been
like calling Del when Windows had an error.

I am absolutely certain that Sparkfun sold me a new programmer fresh
from Olimex and hadn't cloned the firmware before shipping it to me.  I
suspect that Sparkfun is one of the larger suppliers of Olimex in the US.

It was especially interesting to me that Olimex wouldn't even consider
the possibility that their copy protection scheme  could have erred in
some way.  I know my software doesn't always behave as I expect it should.

Just for the record. I am a firm believer in copyright laws, and I'm
sorry my comments regarding Olimex opened this argument again.

Jon




Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
{Quote hidden}

2009\01\04@082421 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
On 2009-01-04 05:37:01, Forrest W Christian wrote:

> Rolf wrote:
>> With all due respect... repeat after me... copyright infringement is
>> not theft.
>
> But it is wrongful appropriation.   No, it does not fit the legal
> definition of theft, but it definitely fits the moral definition of
> stealing.  

Ouch... "moral definition" is a contradiction in terms (where are morals
defined?), and whatever you personally may define as moral is liable to
feel quite odd to a considerable number of people. You can be reasonably
certain that some of what feels "moral" now to a majority will feel
quite antiquated and "immoral" to a majority in a few decades. And it's
impossible to tell what exactly, and why. (Just think about the "morals"
of segregation. What only a few decades can do... people forget so
quickly.)


Copyright is a tool for making money. It's not about morals, it's about
economics. (There are of course always the ones who get the two
confused... making money is good, but it's not necessarily moral :)

There is nothing inherently immoral in copying copyrighted material. It
was (and possibly still is) generally considered essential part of
learning any art to copy, copy, copy the masters. Now you could say that
this is "just" copying for education... but that's even worse, in some
respects: if I copy for pleasure, I still remain "dependent" on the
skills of the copyright holder to satisfy my pleasure, but if I copy for
education, I'm on my way (and it may even be my declared intention) to
become a competitor of the copyright holder of the piece I'm copying. So
no copying the masters anymore? No playing songs by the Beatles or B B
King on your guitar anymore? Send the police to the Louvre right now?

Now you can say that this is "fair use". But "fair use" is about as
clear as "morals". There is of course a legal definition, but this has
always been a moving target, there doesn't seem to be a broad consensus
about the details, and what exactly is considered "fair use" seems to
depend a lot on what specific court you're in. And not everything the
courts judge in this respect seems to be considered "moral" by a
majority.


The reason that copying the masters is considered a good thing is
because it is the (current) consensus that this helps create more of
bigger and smaller masters -- which is generally considered a good
thing, for the society as a whole. So all the "morals" of "copying is
bad" are thrown out the window, because "having more masters" is
considered a good thing. It's all about the balance between the
(considered) positive and (considered) negative consequences. The
consequences (and their judgment) change over time, and so does the
balance (and its judgment). No independent "morals" in sight here...
that's Utilitarism pure :)

It may be that for an economy as a whole it is more efficient not to
have copyright laws, or to have copyright laws (or customs, or "morals")
that are substantially different from the ones that are common today.
And being better for the economy as a whole, it may also be better for
the ones who write that stuff that today is protected by copyright (of
which I'm one -- just so that nobody gets any wrong ideas).

Gerhard

2009\01\04@085901 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
On 2009-01-04 04:49:16, apptech wrote:

> IANAL, or anywhere near.

Neither am I...

> Individual A produces a copyright work. Be it literary, software or
> whatever.

Let's say it is software.

> Individual A contracts with individual B, who signs a legally binding
> contract, to transfer a COPY of said work from A to B in exchange for
> a consideration AND subject to certain restrictions *which are agreed
> to by B* in the contract.
>
> If B transfers a copy of the work to C in abrogation of the terms of
> the contract, whether for a consideration or not, then (i) B & C are
> parties to theft.

Are you sure? I mean, you are talking about legalities here, no? Or are
you talking about "morals"? Isn't that more akin to breach of contract,
or maybe fraud?

> Also, by at least some sensible definitions (ii) a crime has been
> committed.

Which "sensible definitions" are these? Isn't this more like a breach of
contract between private parties? This doesn't seem to be generally
considered a crime. B didn't violate the terms of a law, he/she/it
violated the terms of a contract between private parties.

I don't think it is a crime to use the power drill in my condo on a
Sunday afternoon, even though I may have signed a contract that says I
may not.

> What C DOES with the product after the transfer does not alter the
> basic facts.

You didn't state much of a fact here, mostly opinion, and seemingly not
very well supported by generally available material. At least you didn't
cite anything that would support your understanding of these terms.

> If you find somebody who disagrees violently with these facts, ...

I also may disagree profoundly without disagreeing violently. If that is
what you meant, you just found one.

> ... especially the first one, then unless you are in reasonably good
> agreement with them on this point, you may wish to consider the widom
> of doing trust-based business with them .

This all depends, contrary to what you stated above, "violently" on what
C does with this. If B shared my (that is, A's) software with C (even
unbeknownst to and unauthorized by me) to do some testing on a machine
that is only accessible to C, then shares the results with me, which in
turn allows me to improve my product (or not), it may have violated the
letter of the contract between me and B, but not necessarily the spirit.
And it may have been for the benefit of all.

IMO, apparently differently to yours, this is all relevant to whether or
not the sharing constitutes a factual breach of contract.

> FWIW - I am not saying what I think of such theft, whether it is
> abhorrent or whether it is more or less acceptable in various
> circumstances - just that it IS theft.

Well... what kind of "theft"? The legal term (as in laws)? Probably not;
you probably know that it isn't. The "moral" term (as in "the morals of
segregation")? Possibly not; you don't seem to generally subscribe to
"morality". The rhetoric term? That seems to be a distinct possibility
-- but it may undermine the credibility of the statement :)

> It corresponds to depriving somebody of their rightful capital without
> payment of due consideration.

Whether or not it does so depends on very minute details of each
individual case -- see above. If you think that this case sounds
constructed, think again... every other case one may present is just as
constructed. Or a real-world example of exactly one instance, with just
as much relevance for the general case you're stating here.

> It seems to me, but I may well be wrong, that the arrangement above
> forms part of the foundation of the capitalist system [...]

I think you're wrong. The capitalist system (at least in each of its
current manifestations) includes some form of public domain, and some
definitions of manifestations that are considered public domain
independently of what the creator thinks. Furthermore, I don't think
that a system without such a "forced" public domain would be possible at
all. It seems to be necessary for the communication that is required to
establish and maintain a capitalist system.

Gerhard

2009\01\04@113009 by Kevin

picon face
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, solarwind wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Yes, it may not be lost I was just trying to see if others
on the list had any delivery problems.  It has been over
four weeks since the order was mailed. The Olimex website
says, "two weeks to delver to the US or it may take
longer".

The package was sent Airmail for $8.50 Euros. I have to sign
for receipt of the package, but their is no tracking. The
only other option for shipping was more than the boards cost
to make.  As I mentioned before, the last time I order it
took six days for the boards to arrive.

Thanks for the comments, I will post back if the boards
arrive.

Regards,
Kevin

2009\01\04@124808 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>Also, a person who believes this from the cockles of their
>heart will probably also be the sort of person that one
>should be wary of formong a trust based relationship with
>in other areas.

I would agree with this.

I remember a conversation with an old family friend, who was a company
secretary, and accountant for said company. He related how, when meeting a
representative of another company, with a view to doing business, an issue
came up about tax avoidance. There was some discussion about the
requirements of the law, and the other representative made some quip about
'laws are made to be broken', at which point family friend terminated the
meeting and the relationship between the companies.

Whatever relationship is viewed between copying software in a manner that
breaks copyright, and theft, the end result is the law is broken, and the
owners of the copyright have had income stolen from them.

2009\01\04@131823 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Alan B. Pearce
<.....Alan.B.PearceKILLspamspam@spam@stfc.ac.uk> wrote:
> Whatever relationship is viewed between copying software in a manner that
> breaks copyright, and theft, the end result is the law is broken, and the
> owners of the copyright have had income stolen from them.

"... the owners of the copyright have had income stolen from them."

No. Copying something does not necessarily result in loss of income.
You'd have to prove that I was going to buy it if I did not copy it.
That is impossible.

You can't cohesively jam two ideas together (breaking copyright and
theft) and draw a conclusion based on what is not true.
Copyright infringement is often equated with theft, but it is not. The
requirement to call it theft would be that I stole the /copyright/,
disallowing you from further selling copies of your intellectual
property. This is pretty difficult to do.

-
ML

2009\01\04@155134 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Rolf <learrspamKILLspamrogers.com> wrote:
>> With all due respect... repeat after me... copyright infringement is not
>> theft.
>>
>> copyright infringement is not theft.
...


> Beautifully written argument. I might use this topic for an English
> essay sometime.

1. PLEASE trim prior posts, we have all read the stunningly beautiful
argument for ourselves, or are able to. Repeating it all verbatim is not
desirable.

2. It seemed to me a mere statement of opinion, (as do, I know, my arguments
to others :-) ). I found no greatly compelling logic in it and certainly no
great basis for an English essay. FWIW.I conveyed well enough the position
of its presenter, although a little repetitiously :-).

  Russell



2009\01\04@155135 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
The logical inference of the "copyright violation is NEVER theft" point of
view would seem to be that "Intellectual Property" does not exist and/or has
no value. Patent violation would seem to fall in the same class.

Note that, as I previously said, I am not commenting here on the relative
merit or morality of the violation of "IP rights" in any given case, just
that there seems to be a disconnect between reality and "generally held"
opinions on 'rights of ownership' in some areas.


            Russell

2009\01\04@163719 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 18:17 -0500, Olin Lathrop wrote:
> solarwind wrote:
> > This is EXACTLY why people pirate stuff. People don't like to be
> > treated like criminals.
>
> No that's merely a justification.  People pirate stuff because they don't
> want to pay.

Often true, but not always true.

As is often the case with this issue, things are not black and white,
but MANY shades of grey.

There are many cases where people are "pirates" because the content
provider restricts actions that should be lawful, but are blocked due to
overly restrictive copyright protection mechanisms (i.e. in many
countries making a backup of a physical medium is 100% legal, yet
blocked by DRM, meaning to backup you have to circumvent the DRM, which
most consider pirate behaviour. Copying your own DVD for backup purposes
is technically pirate behaviour according to most).

Then there are situations where the consumer wants something, but it's
not available, so they "pirate it", even though they were 100% willing
to pay for it. This was true of the music industry before iTunes (people
just wanted digital copies of songs, there were very few options outside
the US until very recently). Even today most people want digital copies
of TV shows. They're willing to pay for them, but in many jurisdictions
there are no legal ways. So they "rip" their DVDs. Technically the
industry considers them pirates.

TTYL

2009\01\04@172608 by M.L.

flavicon
face

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:50 PM, apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> The logical inference of the "copyright violation is NEVER theft" point of
> view would seem to be that "Intellectual Property" does not exist and/or has
> no value. Patent violation would seem to fall in the same class.

Copyright violation is not theft. Copyright violation is copyright
violation, and theft is theft. This makes no inference as to the value
or existence of the "intellectual property"

>
> Note that, as I previously said, I am not commenting here on the relative
> merit or morality of the violation of "IP rights" in any given case, just
> that there seems to be a disconnect between reality and "generally held"
> opinions on 'rights of ownership' in some areas.
>
>
>             Russell

Mostly only from the people who tell us what we (I) can't do with
things that we purchase rights to. I.e. anything involving the letters
"DRM." Again, Russell, you end your argument by claiming that the
people with whom you disagree have a different reality. This may be
true, however; the "generally held" or "legally held" opinion on
rights of ownership regarding /copyright as theft/ are thus:

[WIkipedia]

Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft,
holding, for instance, in Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg
phonorecords did not (for the purpose of the case) constitute stolen
property, and writing:

   interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft,
conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term
of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an
infringer of the copyright.' ...

   The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to
the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control
over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use.
While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion
of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more
complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft,
conversion, or fraud.
   â€”Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218

The key distinction generally drawn, as indicated above, is that while
copyright infringement may (or may not) cause economic loss to the
copyright holder, as theft does, it does not appropriate a physical
object, nor deprive the copyright holder of the use of the copyright.
That information can be replicated without destroying an original is
an old observation, and a cornerstone of intellectual property law. In
economic terms, information is not an exclusive good; this has led
some to argue that it is very different in character, and that laws
for physical property and intellectual property should be very
different.

[end Wikipedia quote]

So, while most people disagree with you because they live in an
alternate reality, perhaps you should at least say that "my reality is
basically that copyright infringement is theft"

-
ML

2009\01\04@175625 by Rolf

face picon face
apptech wrote:
{Quote hidden}

[snipped]

Russell, for a person of otherwise unmitigated insight, you have been
duped. You have been suckered by the various 'interested parties' in to
believing lies.

In this case you are simply wrong.

Theft (larceny), crime, and copyright are all things that are defined by
laws. The respective laws typically have very tight definitions of these
terms. Dictionaries typically closely represent the legal definition of
these terms, but not always. Laws are not morals, though there is
sometimes a correlation.

While I may have been a bit asinine in my attempt to correct your
misconceptions, that does not mean that your misconceptions are not
misconceptions.

You are simply wrong, and worse, you are spreading mistruths as fact and
hence perpetuating the confusion in a legal area already polluted with
fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

You stated: But failure to recognise at least SOME forms of software
copying as theft leads to an interesting perspective on things.

I counter that it is not possible to steal software by copying it.

Further, I challenge you to find a single instance in any legal
jurisdiction where someone simply making copies of any software will be
charged with any crime. Where criminal charges have been laid it is for
other details in the case that do not include the act of copying software.

I respectfully request that you refrain from spreading fear, uncertainty
and doubt until you can substantiate your arguments with fact, not
hearsay and opinion.

While breaching copyright licenses is wrong, it is not a crime.

Rolf

P.S. as a side-bar, did you know that no-one has ever been found guilty
of copyright infringement? This is because 'guilt' is only ever
determined in criminal cases, and copyright is never a criminal case,
but a civil case. In civil cases a jury/judge may find a defendant
liable, but never guilty.

2009\01\04@201051 by apptech

face
flavicon
face
> So, while most people disagree with you because they live in an
> alternate reality, perhaps you should at least say that "my reality is
> basically that copyright infringement is theft"

1. Read my original statement, especially around the term " ... every .. "

2. You, not I, said that most people disagree with me.

3.  Note the possible need (not necessarily related to your latest post) to
distinuguish between the concepts of "crime" and "theft".

4. In my A, B, C parties example.
(i) Would "most people" consider that a wrong / theft / crime had occurred?
 (ii) Would you?


  Russell

2009\01\06@185943 by Jinx

face picon face
> (i.e. in many countries making a backup of a physical medium is
> 100% legal, yet blocked by DRM, meaning to backup you have to
> circumvent the DRM, which most consider pirate behaviour

Apple kills iTunes DRM

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10550774

....Apple gave the record labels that flexibility on pricing as it got them
to agree to sell all songs free of "digital rights management," or DRM,
technology that limits people's ability to copy songs or move them to
multiple computers. Apple had been offering a limited selection of songs
without DRM, but by the end of this quarter, the company said, all
10 million songs in its library will be available that way

> Copying your own DVD for backup purposes is technically pirate
> behaviour according to most

It's illegal in NZ, so is format-shifting. I have no issues at all with making
a "working" copy of eg PC software and putting the original on the shelf.
Or converting my bought music to mp3 for a portable player

2009\01\20@064619 by Jinx

face picon face
> > (i.e. in many countries making a backup of a physical medium is
> > 100% legal, yet blocked by DRM, meaning to backup you have to
> > circumvent the DRM, which most consider pirate behaviour

Are dicey stats leading copyright lawmakers down the garden path?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10552716

The international digital music industry body, the International Federation
of the Phonographic Industry claims that 95 per cent of all music downloads
are illegal, should we be alarmed?

This statistic and other similar figures quoted in the IFPI's "Digital Music
Report 2009" not only give law makers plenty of ammo to police
copyright theft, but is also likely to be subject to intense debate ahead
of the controversial section 92A of the Copyright Amendment Act
coming into force on February 28. Trouble is, there's really no way of
knowing if these statistics are actually correct

.....the IFPI have come up with a more specific set of statistics, estimating
that 40 billion music files were illegally downloaded in 2008, accounting
for a whopping 95 per cent of all music downloads, or 20 unlicensed
downloads for every legit online purchase ....... Unfortunately in the head-
long rush to bring legislation to market, no-one seems to have bothered to
question the validity or the accuracy of the statistics being quoted by the
music industry

Digital Music Report 2009

http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2008.pdf

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2009 , 2010 only
- Today
- New search...