 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Pekka
|
 |
em seu burro dos pais!
Feb 2002 time: 07:22
|
|
Boris, you came for more I see? Oh.. what a fool..
"There is also another thing in the field of logic, and it's called "sufficient condition". If X is sufficient condition for theft, then everywhere you find X you find theft despite any other irrelevant characteristic."
Yeah but we were talkign about analogy. There's also another field in what ever. There's no other field in analogy and that was what I was making my point in.
If you punch a guy in the face and he looses all his teeth as a result is the same as if you kick the guy in the face and he looses the teeth, giving exactly the same result, amount of pain etc. BUt it's still not the same thing. But it would fall into the sufficient condition, depending what we are looking at, damage done, the level of wrong of the act itself etc.. it would be the same in comparison. But it wouldn't be the same thing.
"If X is sufficient condition for theft, then everywhere you find X you find theft despite any other irrelevant characteristic."
Yes as for theft, but that's not how the world works. If you steal food because you would die of hunger instead of stealing the same food because you just wanted it anyway is the same thing, but depending how we look at it. In matter of how criminal it is, we can have different opinions. You seem to be wanting to lump all into the same category. Very communist.
And as far as analogies go, THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
"I don't care if you think that the two examples aren't the same. This debate was about theft. If you think that the examples given were not 1:1, it's IRRELEVANT!"
No it's not since I was debating about the analogies which I made clear from early on. Seems like you have problems with syntax too.
"the idea was to know whether or not there is theft. How should we have interpreted your initial comment that stealing at the supermarket isn't the same as copying a song? Was it meant to habe no implication at all to the subject at hand?"
Hmm let's see, I said it's not the same, because the analogy (OK OK I said the analogue) fails. Thus it's not the same. And I said early that there are problems to it, and that I'm nto saying piracy is right or wrong in this argument.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Correct, but it changes nothing. The owner still doesn't lose anything.
There's something interesting I found on /. a few days ago:
I am not sure if this is true or not. If this is true, this simply says making copies of digital content is not theft. |
that's not current law, at least as far as electronic media is concerned
Basically that case involved the selling and distribution of bootleg elvis videos. SOCUS held that the law at the time didn't apply to the case-that the gov't was going further than congress intended.
the US Congress passed 17 U.S.C. 506 originally in 97, I believe, which closed these loopholes. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/...06----000-.html
This is from a brief reading by me, I haven't looked into this thoroughly, and can't tonight unfortunately.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:22
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Downloading music is not theft. Theft involves the owner losing something.
QUOTE]
what about losing the ability to control one's work and who reaps its benefits?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DRoseDARs

|
 |
"My god, it's full of peas..."
Jul 2002 time: 21:22
|
|
I posted this thread then had to leave for work, but I have time to respond now. I've tried BitTorrent before for "things" and I was very underwhelmed by the experience. Frankly, it's been a few years since I really bothered with p2p in "that" capacity. I get "things" every once-in-a-while, but I'm just not that interested anymore.
No, that's not why I posted this thread. What got my attention was that the FBI and US Immigration officals expended resources on something that should have been left to the MPAA. Obviously, they solved the mystery of who's responcible for the 2001 anthrax scare, have rounded-up hundreds of people in dozens of terrorist cells throughout the country, and have successfully solved the illegal immigrant problem along the US-Mexican border. Clearly, they had too much time and taxpayer money on their hands, so they had to make themselves busy somehow. Being the tool of the MPAA was the logical result.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22. Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|