TsukasaK: TomD9938: Thief...

Idiot...

I paid for my books kiddo. Still have them all these years later.

It's fun to read old notes I made and see what I chose to highlight at the time.

What else do you steal?

Knucklepopper: TsukasaK: Idiot...

It's been a good five minutes and you keep shrieking "ZOMG, YOU DON'T GET IT!" and you still haven't explained the difference.

Or if my simple explanation wasn't good enough for you, here's one from the supreme court.. Dowling v. United States

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

TomD9938:
What else do you steal?

Just because you continue to call it stealing does not make it so.

TsukasaK: Knucklepopper: You still haven't explained it. And no, as a writer and photographer, I consider copyright an important protection.

Theft:
Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner's consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or permanently

You can't steal a digital item. It's physically impossible.

Shiat argument. You say it's not stealing because it's different and when I ask, you just insist it's different.
Why in God's name would the physical manifestation of the item matter? You can justify it all you want but in the end, you're stealing directly from the broker and indirectly from the individual who creates the work, book, song, photo or whatever.

Right, as if every book that is downloaded is read, and that if they couldn't have downloaded it, they would have bought it.

Knucklepopper: Why in God's name would the physical manifestation of the item matter?

Ask the supreme court.

TsukasaK: TomD9938:
What else do you steal?

Just because you continue to call it stealing does not make it so.

You only have to live with yourself I suppose.

Count me out.

s1ugg0: /Professor and author? hmmmmmm no conflict of interest there.

One of my Professors used the class he was teaching to proof read and edit his book. He didn't get it when at the end of the semester everyone handed in a copy of his book, word for word, for the work he set us.

Knucklepopper: TsukasaK: Really? Really? Do you really need me to explain the difference between copyright infringement and theft? Because I think you're just trolling.

You still haven't explained it. And no, as a writer and photographer, I consider copyright an important protection.

I agree that file sharing is wrong and that is why I don't do it anymore. (that and good alternatives like Hulu and Netflix, the music industry lost me legal or not years ago so no mp3s) However I don't understand saying it is stealing. If for no other reason than in all the attention it has received over the past ten years I have never heard of a single arrest for it. That seems to me to indicate it is civil not criminal.

Thoughts?

Knucklepopper: TsukasaK: Knucklepopper: You still haven't explained it. And no, as a writer and photographer, I consider copyright an important protection.

Theft:
Dishonest appropriation of property without the owner's consent, with intent to deprive them of its use, either temporarily or permanently

You can't steal a digital item. It's physically impossible.

Shiat argument. You say it's not stealing because it's different and when I ask, you just insist it's different.
Why in God's name would the physical manifestation of the item matter? You can justify it all you want but in the end, you're stealing directly from the broker and indirectly from the individual who creates the work, book, song, photo or whatever.

stealing what exactly? An idea that can reproduce without limit. No, they get to keep as many of them as they want.

Does this mean we now get to talk about our Kindles and how much we love them? It's the bestest toy ever and falls under the "when you pry it out of my cold dead hands" category. It goes everywhere with me.

/yet if I talk about my gun I get accused of penis envy
//reading The Great Gatsby

TsukasaK: Knucklepopper: Why in God's name would the physical manifestation of the item matter?

Ask the supreme court.

Reread that quote you posted. The Supreme Court is saying infringement is a different kind of theft than theft of physical property. They are not saying it isn't theft.

FlukeBoy: meh.
I haven't bought a new book in 12 years. Even recently released books can be bought used on Amazon or Alibris for less than 1/2 price. I love to hear industry fear mongers rail against current trends, I remember the uproar over blank cassettes and how they were going to ruin the music industry...

Also, what does a library have to do with this, stretchmitter?

More importantly, do people actually prefer to read a book on their computer/Kindle screen? I hate reading long passages on the net...I'd much rather have a real book in my hands, and nothing, ever, will replace that for me.

I think those devices use a screen that is called e-paper or something. It is high contrast or something to make it easier to read.

TsukasaK: Or if my simple explanation wasn't good enough for you, here's one from the supreme court.. Dowling v. United States

Yawn. Dowling again.
and again and again. Even though the defense has nearly never worked against lawsuits. And we'll just ignore that in 2001, the court found Napster to be contributorily liable for faciliating infrignement of copyrights.
But sure, you keep on rationalizing all you like.
Your next argument will be:
"B-b-b-ut the record/book industry is ALWAYS screwing over artists!"

Already been covered...in 2000!

Just use Chegg.com. 10 bucks for most textbooks, and since it's a rental you don't have to worry about buyback or inflated prices. Would have worked for me since, I only wanted to keep a few books after I was done with them, and most of them were classics. I can download most of those classics for 2 bucks on my Iphone.

/currently reading Ulysses for some unknown reason

I'd make some pretty sweet profits, too, if I could charge my customers out the ass and leave them with no other recourse but to take it.

pearls before swine: Reread that quote you posted. The Supreme Court is saying infringement is a different kind of theft than theft of physical property. They are not saying it isn't theft.

What the bloody hell are you on about? That's exactly what it says. Theft as a statute only applies to physical goods.

Read the wikipedia page for yourself: (new window)

That's why you can sue someone for copyright infringement. Because it's copyright infringement, not theft.

This isn't rocket science, buddy. You and your ilk can jump up and down screaming all you want saying ITS THEFT YOUR STEALING!!1, but at the end of the day, you're still wrong.

FlukeBoy: More importantly, do people actually prefer to read a book on their computer/Kindle screen? I hate reading long passages on the net...I'd much rather have a real book in my hands, and nothing, ever, will replace that for me.

It's a different kind of screen. E-ink doesn't have any backlighting or constant refresh like a computer screen, so no eyestrain. It really does feel the same to your eyes as reading a standard book. I can read for hours on my Kindle and find it actually more comfortable since I'm not having to prop up a heavy book (e-readers are really lightweight). Google e-ink and you can read up on the properties and how it works.

liverpoolumd wrote:
"If there was an E-Book reader that let me read any publication.... and a distribution site that let me get PDF's at a reasonable price. id get it TODAY."

I completely agree. When Amazon started offering ordinary mp3s without DRM, I took all my business to them. I'd do the same with books.

Knucklepopper: Even though the defense has nearly never worked against lawsuits. And we'll just ignore that in 2001, the court found Napster to be contributorily liable for faciliating infrignement of copyrights.

As they should have been. Now show me where Napster was found guilty of theft.

The two are distinct and separate offenses. Seriously, it's not that hard to understand.

Knucklepopper: TsukasaK: Or if my simple explanation wasn't good enough for you, here's one from the supreme court.. Dowling v. United States

Yawn. Dowling again.
and again and again. Even though the defense has nearly never worked against lawsuits. And we'll just ignore that in 2001, the court found Napster to be contributorily liable for faciliating infrignement of copyrights.
But sure, you keep on rationalizing all you like.
Your next argument will be:
"B-b-b-ut the record/book industry is ALWAYS screwing over artists!"

So, your argument is that anything that is illegal is theft?

Panty Sniffer: FlukeBoy: meh.
I haven't bought a new book in 12 years. Even recently released books can be bought used on Amazon or Alibris for less than 1/2 price. I love to hear industry fear mongers rail against current trends, I remember the uproar over blank cassettes and how they were going to ruin the music industry...

Also, what does a library have to do with this, stretchmitter?

More importantly, do people actually prefer to read a book on their computer/Kindle screen? I hate reading long passages on the net...I'd much rather have a real book in my hands, and nothing, ever, will replace that for me.

I think those devices use a screen that is called e-paper or something. It is high contrast or something to make it easier to read.

It's not even a screen, it's a grid of tiny capsules that are black on one end and white on the other that are flipped with magnets. It only takes energy to change the image.

Jimsus: I agree that file sharing is wrong and that is why I don't do it anymore. (that and good alternatives like Hulu and Netflix, the music industry lost me legal or not years ago so no mp3s) However I don't understand saying it is stealing. If for no other reason than in all the attention it has received over the past ten years I have never heard of a single arrest for it. That seems to me to indicate it is civil not criminal.

No; judges have fined people for downloading music illegally. Too bad they don't apply the rules more often.

When I went to college the big thing was "course packs" which were basically photocopied textbooks the professor put together. The problem was they were just as long as a textbook and you had to purchase them at the campus copy shop for between $50-100. And you didn't even get the benefit of selling them back at the end of the semester.

The roomies and I had a helluva bonfire at the end of the year with those things.

Knucklepopper: No; judges have fined people for downloading music illegally.

No they haven't. They've only fined people for sharing music illegally. To this day, there has not been one case of a downloader being hit with an infringement claim.

My friend used to steal his textbooks. As in, physically stole them. Fortunately, he did not infringe on copyright, so it's okay.

TsukasaK: This isn't rocket science, buddy. You and your ilk can jump up and down screaming all you want saying ITS THEFT YOUR STEALING!!1, but at the end of the day, you're still wrong.

And that's how self-entitled douchebags (hint :)) justify it.
What a world we live in. People celebrate their most favorite artists and writers, not by purchasing their music and books, thereby supporting the artists' future endeavors, but by stealing them.
Yes, I said stealing. Why? Because it's what it is.

Knucklepopper: Jimsus: I agree that file sharing is wrong and that is why I don't do it anymore. (that and good alternatives like Hulu and Netflix, the music industry lost me legal or not years ago so no mp3s) However I don't understand saying it is stealing. If for no other reason than in all the attention it has received over the past ten years I have never heard of a single arrest for it. That seems to me to indicate it is civil not criminal.

No; judges have fined people for downloading music illegally. Too bad they don't apply the rules more often.

I haven't heard of that. Do you have a link?

Knucklepopper: And that's how self-entitled douchebags (hint :)) justify it.

Ad hominem.

Knucklepopper: Yes, I said stealing. Why? Because it's what it is.

No it isn't.

I hate the head of the English department because of his 'views' on textbook needs. Now, I can understand telling students they need textbooks for class, and then handing out the list on the first day (the list the University releases a month before classes start is wrong every time, and even the profs just ignore it now). The library usually doesn't have the books (though they did have the first year Latin textbook I was looking for), and they usually cost something like $200 a book(English major, Norton republishes their books every year now, and the profs always use the new one).

Now, the head of the English department (a man who teaches American literature by telling everyone that Americans can't write, and then teaching English literature instead), will hand out a list of about 10 books we all 'need'. Usually because there's a short story in one book that we will read. And these are all usually works published pre 1900.

So, instead of spending a ton of cash buying books for an idiot professor that can't work a computer, I downloaded a ton of them. From Project Guttenburg.

And he got upset when I would bring my laptop to class to read over the works instead of a pack full of tomes (yes, we would read out loud in class, it was dumb).

It's not just the dumbass publishers that need to reorient themselves with the 21st Century, there are more than a few profs out there that still haven't discovered the 20th Century!

/had another English prof that gave us the list and told us to get the works 'were we could'
//of course, that was Medieval Lit, so it was easy to download the writing
///in original form, we spent a lot of time translating Chaucer

"biatch biatch moan moan OH IT SEZ TEH NUFFINGS BOUT LIBREEEEREEES"

-->I got the joke. Stop brainfarting.

hockeychick: When I went to college the big thing was "course packs" which were basically photocopied textbooks the professor put together. The problem was they were just as long as a textbook and you had to purchase them at the campus copy shop for between $50-100. And you didn't even get the benefit of selling them back at the end of the semester.

The roomies and I had a helluva bonfire at the end of the year with those things.

Love that. Surprised they got away w/ that since they were selling it. Giving it away for free is usually ok. Partial to the teachers who were fighting with a local company over intellectual property rights. Campus notes (something like that) used to higher students to take daily notes and they sold them. The teacher's sued since they claimed it was their intellectual property. No clue on what happened.

tbyte: I haven't heard of that. Do you have a link?

A link to the cases? There's a few.
Here's one where the woman was fined for sharing music online: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml

Knucklepopper: People celebrate their most favorite artists and writers, not by purchasing their music and books, thereby supporting the artists' future endeavors, but by stealing them.

Because copyright is the only valid system for promoting the development of the arts and it's immoral to not use that one system? I like your ideas, I think I will copy them to all my friends.

Knucklepopper: And that's how self-entitled douchebags (hint :)) justify it.
What a world we live in. People celebrate their most favorite artists and writers, not by purchasing their music and books, thereby supporting the artists' future endeavors, but by stealing them.
Yes, I said stealing. Why? Because it's what it is.

I would agree with you, but I was on this other board talking about my experiences with my Kindle and when someone said "well you can't lend or give away your books after reading" and I responded that's okay with me, because that means more sales for the authors, I got accused of being selfish. Yep, I was selfish because I wanted other people to be able to support themselves off their hard work.

Knucklepopper:
No; judges have fined people for downloading music illegally. Too bad they don't apply the rules more often.

Ok I'm honestly not trying to join in the dog pile and attack you but I don't see how that answers what I brought up. If it is theft why hasn't a cop arrested a single person for it?

TsukasaK: No it isn't.

Justify it.
Name your favorite band or writer, and justify for me how you can steal/download without paying for/share files of their work without paying for, their work. Then explain to me how this supports that work that you claim to appreciate.

Subby linked to wrong article.

Here's a better article on the topic:

Courtesy of slashdot

Knucklepopper: A link to the cases? There's a few.
Here's one where the woman was fined for sharing music online:

Hey dumb shiat, you said "for downloading" music illegally. Sharing is a whole 'nother ball game.

Is your MO always to simply abandoning your points without retraction, and then parrot them later in the thread, ignoring the fact that they have been shredded to pieces?

Troll.

i cant believe Knucklepopper is still going at it.

reminds me of pineapple express:

Saul: Let's roll, man! I'm done with the woods! Let's go! C'mon, man, let's get the fark outta here!
Dale Denton: Okay... Uhh let's go... No... It's not working... the battery's dead.
Saul: Wait...! What do you mean, it's dead?
Dale Denton: What do I mean? I mean the battery's dead. The battery's dead!
Saul: No, no! What do you mean, the battery's dead?
Dale Denton: How can I explain this to you differently? The battery is dead. It ceased to live. It's deceased now. The car needs a battery to start, Saul.

Knucklepopper: tbyte: I haven't heard of that. Do you have a link?

A link to the cases? There's a few.
Here's one where the woman was fined for sharing music online: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/04/national/main3330186.shtml

I bet this was where she went wrong:

During the three-day trial, record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

She was distributing their property, not just downloading

Knucklepopper: TsukasaK: No it isn't.

Justify it.
Name your favorite band or writer, and justify for me how you can steal/download without paying for/share files of their work without paying for, their work. Then explain to me how this supports that work that you claim to appreciate.

Flatland