In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
both distributor and receiver are liable.
False.
Where's your authority? Cite your sources. Otherwise you're full of it (but we knew that all along).
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
I didn't agree to the agreement that I am not authorized access, therefore I'm not legally bound to comply with anything.
It's not an agreement situation. You have to seek explicit authorization to access the computer; otherwise, it's illegal to access it.
I don't get it. I'm saying laws are on the books about this stuff and you're talking about agreements. When I talk about agreements, it's because there aren't laws on the books and the agreements are meant to take their place.
but of course, accessing isn't accessing if you do it with your eyes closed.
Have you anything meaningful to add, or are you just going to keep repeating the same jokes?
I'm going to repeat the joke so long as you uphold the idea that copying is not what happens when you obtained a copy of something.
What happens when you buy a CD? Are you copying the CD since you're obtaining a copy of the CD?
Yes, and you are also obtaining a license to use that copy (presuming that the seller similarly has obtained rights to resell that content which was copied and licensed for the intent to sell).
So you're copying a CD whenever you buy a CD. Glad we could clear up that you're willing to stick to insanity.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@mikehurley said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@e4tmyl33t said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor Asking someone to do something you explicitly know is illegal is called Criminal Conspiracy. Congratulations, requesting it IS illegal.
Strange to have something with 'criminal' in the title relating to civil law.
Copyright infringement can be either. It got the impression from this link it could at times be both.
If you do it for significant monetary gain with the knowledge that such an action is criminal, then it's criminal. I'm talking about downloading software you'd never pay for. That doesn't nearly qualify.
Progress! You've admitted it's illegal.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Here's a thought. What if you ran it directly from the download server? Like, the program doesn't actually have to exist on disk, it just has to exist somewhere, and loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server. RAM copies aren't infringement, right?
RAM copies aren't infringement if and only if they exist solely for the purpose of conveying or using otherwise licensed copies and are not accessible to anyone other than the machine itself. So no. If you don't have a license, running the software inherently involves making an unauthorized copy.
What if it were loaded as a memory-mapped file?
Doesn't matter. There is an additional copy that does not meet the ephemeral copy limitations. You are the but-for cause of that copy. The copy is unauthorized. Therefore, you are infringing. The technical details don't matter at all.
No, I mean if the RAM wrote through to the download server. What if the program never existed in your computer's RAM at all?
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
This is an argument I expect to have with a 3 year old
Who knows how old he/she is?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
What if the program never existed in your computer's RAM at all?
Irrelevant.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Here's a thought. What if you ran it directly from the download server? Like, the program doesn't actually have to exist on disk, it just has to exist somewhere, and loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server. RAM copies aren't infringement, right?
RAM copies aren't infringement if and only if they exist solely for the purpose of conveying or using otherwise licensed copies and are not accessible to anyone other than the machine itself. So no. If you don't have a license, running the software inherently involves making an unauthorized copy.
What if it were loaded as a memory-mapped file?
Doesn't matter. There is an additional copy that does not meet the ephemeral copy limitations. You are the but-for cause of that copy. The copy is unauthorized. Therefore, you are infringing. The technical details don't matter at all.
No, I mean if the RAM wrote through to the download server. What if the program never existed in your computer's RAM at all?
Doesn't matter. There is a copy displayed that did not exist earlier, that you caused.
You seem to think that there's a loophole. There isn't. The exact wording really isn't important, nor are the technical details. You are interfering with the right of the owner to receive compensation for use of their copyrighted work. You do not meet any of the exceptions. Therefore you infringe. And the technical means you go to merely prove that you did it with intent to avoid the law, meaning you're at willful infringement (which, since any decent program cost more than $1000 to make, means you're likely liable criminally).
-
Edit: Whoops, accidentally responded to boomzilla.
-
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
This is an argument I expect to have with a 3 year old
Who knows how old he/she is?
He's 19.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Here's a thought. What if you ran it directly from the download server? Like, the program doesn't actually have to exist on disk, it just has to exist somewhere, and loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server. RAM copies aren't infringement, right?
RAM copies aren't infringement if and only if they exist solely for the purpose of conveying or using otherwise licensed copies and are not accessible to anyone other than the machine itself. So no. If you don't have a license, running the software inherently involves making an unauthorized copy.
What if it were loaded as a memory-mapped file?
Doesn't matter. There is an additional copy that does not meet the ephemeral copy limitations. You are the but-for cause of that copy. The copy is unauthorized. Therefore, you are infringing. The technical details don't matter at all.
No, I mean if the RAM wrote through to the download server. What if the program never existed in your computer's RAM at all?
Doesn't matter. There is a copy displayed that did not exist earlier, that you caused.
Where?
You are interfering with the right of the owner to receive compensation for use of their copyrighted work.
I am not. If I couldn't've downloaded it, I still wouldn't have bought it. If I would've bought it, then I wouldn't've downloaded it without buying it.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
I didn't agree to the agreement that I am not authorized access, therefore I'm not legally bound to comply with anything.
It's not an agreement situation. You have to seek explicit authorization to access the computer; otherwise, it's illegal to access it.
I don't get it. I'm saying laws are on the books about this stuff and you're talking about agreements. When I talk about agreements, it's because there aren't laws on the books and the agreements are meant to take their place.
but of course, accessing isn't accessing if you do it with your eyes closed.
Have you anything meaningful to add, or are you just going to keep repeating the same jokes?
I'm going to repeat the joke so long as you uphold the idea that copying is not what happens when you obtained a copy of something.
What happens when you buy a CD? Are you copying the CD since you're obtaining a copy of the CD?
Yes, and you are also obtaining a license to use that copy (presuming that the seller similarly has obtained rights to resell that content which was copied and licensed for the intent to sell).
So you're copying a CD whenever you buy a CD. Glad we could clear up that you're willing to stick to insanity.
We already knew you are willing to stick to insanity, and it doesn't cost me anything to reciprocate.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@mikehurley said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@e4tmyl33t said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor Asking someone to do something you explicitly know is illegal is called Criminal Conspiracy. Congratulations, requesting it IS illegal.
Strange to have something with 'criminal' in the title relating to civil law.
Copyright infringement can be either. It got the impression from this link it could at times be both.
If you do it for significant monetary gain with the knowledge that such an action is criminal, then it's criminal. I'm talking about downloading software you'd never pay for. That doesn't nearly qualify.
Progress! You've admitted it's illegal.
No. I still haven't said it's infringement.
Neither did I. But we've both agreed that it's against the law.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
According to the pie-logic it's completely fine if I gain access to his house and his computer and copy all his personal data off of it and use it however I want, because there are no signs explicitly telling me I can't do that. And even if there would be such signs I can just claim that I did not see them and I am automatically cleared of all wrongdoing.
Nope. It is illegal to access a computer you are not authorized to access.
I didn't agree to the agreement that I am not authorized access, therefore I'm not legally bound to comply with anything.
It's not an agreement situation. You have to seek explicit authorization to access the computer; otherwise, it's illegal to access it.
I don't get it. I'm saying laws are on the books about this stuff and you're talking about agreements. When I talk about agreements, it's because there aren't laws on the books and the agreements are meant to take their place.
but of course, accessing isn't accessing if you do it with your eyes closed.
Have you anything meaningful to add, or are you just going to keep repeating the same jokes?
I'm going to repeat the joke so long as you uphold the idea that copying is not what happens when you obtained a copy of something.
What happens when you buy a CD? Are you copying the CD since you're obtaining a copy of the CD?
Yes, and you are also obtaining a license to use that copy (presuming that the seller similarly has obtained rights to resell that content which was copied and licensed for the intent to sell).
So you're copying a CD whenever you buy a CD. Glad we could clear up that you're willing to stick to insanity.
We already knew you are willing to stick to insanity, and it doesn't cost me anything to reciprocate.
You should go get @djls45 so he can tell me about how property = IP because you can build more stories on land which is like copying.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Here's a thought. What if you ran it directly from the download server? Like, the program doesn't actually have to exist on disk, it just has to exist somewhere, and loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server. RAM copies aren't infringement, right?
RAM copies aren't infringement if and only if they exist solely for the purpose of conveying or using otherwise licensed copies and are not accessible to anyone other than the machine itself. So no. If you don't have a license, running the software inherently involves making an unauthorized copy.
What if it were loaded as a memory-mapped file?
Doesn't matter. There is an additional copy that does not meet the ephemeral copy limitations. You are the but-for cause of that copy. The copy is unauthorized. Therefore, you are infringing. The technical details don't matter at all.
No, I mean if the RAM wrote through to the download server. What if the program never existed in your computer's RAM at all?
You'd better have an appropriate license for doing that! For example:
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
He's 19.
I can see that
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Here's a thought. What if you ran it directly from the download server? Like, the program doesn't actually have to exist on disk, it just has to exist somewhere, and loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server. RAM copies aren't infringement, right?
RAM copies aren't infringement if and only if they exist solely for the purpose of conveying or using otherwise licensed copies and are not accessible to anyone other than the machine itself. So no. If you don't have a license, running the software inherently involves making an unauthorized copy.
What if it were loaded as a memory-mapped file?
Doesn't matter. There is an additional copy that does not meet the ephemeral copy limitations. You are the but-for cause of that copy. The copy is unauthorized. Therefore, you are infringing. The technical details don't matter at all.
No, I mean if the RAM wrote through to the download server. What if the program never existed in your computer's RAM at all?
Doesn't matter. There is a copy displayed that did not exist earlier, that you caused.
Where?
You are interfering with the right of the owner to receive compensation for use of their copyrighted work.
I am not. If I couldn't've downloaded it, I still wouldn't have bought it. If I would've bought it, then I wouldn't've downloaded it without buying it.
Doesn't matter. The right to control distribution is absolute and exclusive except as specifically exempted. You have an unauthorized copy (at minimum in the display memory) that does not qualify for any of the exceptions. Therefore, you infringe. The means are irrelevant. And pointless--that's not how internet downloads work at all. You're scrambling to try to cover your butt since you've been making pants-on-head, gold-fringe-on-flag arguments without citing any evidence.
Pro-tip: don't try that in class. You'll merely get laughed out of the room for being an idiot.
-
@Benjamin-Hall I'm saying there's nothing in the copyright law that would support that. My proof would consist of paste-bombing the entire US copyright code, and waiting for you to search through the several dozen pages for anything that would disprove what I'm saying, but you could do that from copyright.gov too, so there's no need for me to do that.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
(at minimum in the display memory)
In that example? False. The software != the rendered interface.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
My proof
would consist of paste-bombing the entire US copyright code, and waiting for you to search through the several dozen pages for anything that would disprove what I'm saying, but you could do that from copyright.gov toodoes not fit in a post on this forum, so there's no need for me to do that.Filed Under: @pie_flavor's last gasp
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
(at minimum in the display memory)
In that example? False. The software != the rendered interface.
But the rendered interface is also subject to copyright.
And you're making an affirmative claim. Saying "It doesn't say I can't" doesn't support that--copyright law sets the default to
deny
, notallow
.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
(at minimum in the display memory)
In that example? False. The software != the rendered interface.
But the rendered interface is also subject to copyright.
Really? I hadn't heard that one before.
And you're making an affirmative claim. Saying "It doesn't say I can't" doesn't support that--copyright law sets the default to
deny
, notallow
.Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
(at minimum in the display memory)
In that example? False. The software != the rendered interface.
But the rendered interface is also subject to copyright.
Really? I hadn't heard that one before.
It's a work of art, fixed in a medium (just like a digital piece of art). There are also protected images (logos, etc) on that, which you have a copy of. Remember, copyright is instantaneous and unconditional. Creating a work that fits the categories automatically protects it.
And you're making an affirmative claim. Saying "It doesn't say I can't" doesn't support that--copyright law sets the default to
deny
, notallow
.Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
Not in this case, because it reserves all distribution, etc rights exclusively and absolutely. So the law says "unless authorized (or unless you meet an exception), you can do nothing." It then provides certain ways (by acquiring a license from the owner).
But you're not listening--you're playing the "I can't hear you" game I'd expect from a 2-year-old.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
So you're copying a CD whenever you buy a CD.
You're not making a copy. You're buying a copy. The purchase authorizes you to access that data. That is, assuming you purchases an authorized copy.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
So you're copying a CD whenever you buy a CD.
You're not making a copy. You're buying a copy. The purchase authorizes you to access that data. That is, assuming you purchases an authorized copy.
Precisely. You are now smarter than @Tsaukpaetra
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
False.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
TDEMSYR
-
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
Cite the law. Section, subsection, and text. Otherwise, BS.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
So once you've made the illegal copy you can do anything?
Congratulations, you're the next SpectateSwamp!
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
If they were totally different why did they use the same words? Stupid law makers, not saying what they mean...
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
But it's specifically called out as a form of property belonging to the owner in all the relevant cases. Your idea is pure ideology.
At this point, the only appropriate response to you is
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall I'm saying there's nothing in the copyright law that would support that. My proof would consist of paste-bombing the entire US copyright code, and waiting for you to search through the several dozen pages for anything that would disprove what I'm saying, but you could do that from copyright.gov too, so there's no need for me to do that.
Ah, it's the @pie_flavor version of the "can't prove my point, the text is in German" cop-out!
And we already pointed out an exerpt from the copyright law with an official interpretation from one of the most prestigious law schools in the United States so there'd be no point in your doing that anyway. All you'd come back with is "I disagree. You point is invalid."
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
False.
I direct you towards https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
False.
I direct you towards https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
If you feel a bit peckish, DO NOT TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
False.
I direct you towards https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
-
Here's the US copyright offices take on this:
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware. (emphasis added)
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
Cite the law. Section, subsection, and text. Otherwise, BS.
Round and round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows!
The law does not say you can do things. The law says you cannot do things. I can do whatever the law doesn't say I can't do.Here, here's some law for you.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
The law says I cannot reproduce, derive, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or publicly perform over the radio. It does not say I cannot use.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
If they were totally different why did they use the same words? Stupid law makers, not saying what they mean...
... are you seriously asking that? Terminology means almost fuck-all; that's why a giant portion of each bill explains exactly what each word in it means.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Magus said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Nope. I can do anything that the laws don't say I can't do.
And the laws say you can't use other people's stuff unless they say so.
In the case of IP, you can use whatever things you possess but can't distribute or make copies.
Cite the law. Section, subsection, and text. Otherwise, BS.
Round and round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows!
The law does not say you can do things. The law says you cannot do things. I can do whatever the law doesn't say I can't do.Here, here's some law for you.
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
The law says I cannot reproduce, derive, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or publicly perform over the radio. It does not say I cannot use.
Look right above at the official position of the US copyright office. It contradicts you. Downloading is infringement, as is uploading. http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/billy-madison-we-are-all-dumber-for-having-listened-gif.gif
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
But it's specifically called out as a form of property belonging to the owner in all the relevant cases. Your idea is pure ideology.
At this point, the only appropriate response to you is
The copyright itself belongs to the owner. But you are not stealing the copyright when you make copies.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The law says I cannot reproduce, derive, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or publicly perform over the radio. It does not say I cannot use.
It says you can't make a copy
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Except the law specifically puts it as a property right. You may not believe that, but that's the state of the law. Stop letting your emotions cloud your facts. You're as bad as an SJW on this.
Not in the least. They are subject to totally different sets of laws.
But it's specifically called out as a form of property belonging to the owner in all the relevant cases. Your idea is pure ideology.
At this point, the only appropriate response to you is
The copyright itself belongs to the owner. But you are not stealing the copyright when you make copies.
Dude...you're trying to tell the Copyright Office that they're wrong here. Good luck with that.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
property = IP
Property is a superset of intellectual property. Seems to make sense so me...
No. IP has nothing whatsoever to do with property, and that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
False.
I direct you towards https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
Correct. I said IP had nothing whatsoever to do with property, and cited a source. That sentence wasn't about law.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Dude...you're trying to tell the Copyright Office that they're wrong here. Good luck with that.
He can tell them they're wrong all he wants.
They will laugh at him, just like us
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Round and round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows!
Oh, no, we know. You'll be wrong.
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The law does not say you can do things. The law says you cannot do things. I can do whatever the law doesn't say I can't do.
Yes, and we've already pointed out that the law says you can't make unauthorized copies.