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.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
A server sent it to me.
And you wrote it on the hard drive. That's a copy
-
@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.
-
@TimeBandit No. Moving isn't copying. It moved from the server to my hard drive. And intermediate copies made as part of the technical process are exempt, as attempted to be used as a rebuttal to me above.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Moving isn't copying.
You are like the TimeCube guy of software licensing.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Moving isn't copying. It moved from the server to my hard drive.
So the server doesn't have it anymore?
A move is a copy followed by a delete on the original.
Also, you copied it from a server, the server didn't put it on your machine.
YOU SUCK AT COMPUTING
-
@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.
-
@TimeBandit 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.:
Moving isn't copying. It moved from the server to my hard drive.
So the server doesn't have it anymore?
A move is a copy followed by a delete on the original.
Also, you copied it from a server, the server didn't put it on your machine.
YOU SUCK AT COMPUTING
The server made a copy. Then it sent it to me.
-
@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.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I'm saying laws are on the books about this stuff and you're talking about agreements.
Not that you're able to point out any of them, of course.
Actually, we're all making fun of you for saying that since you never saw the license agreement you don't need one and can't be bound by one. It's a pretty epic troll and you should be commended for staying on point for this long.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The server made a copy. Then it sent it to me.
YOU REQUESTED A COPY FROM THE SERVER
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit 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.:
Moving isn't copying. It moved from the server to my hard drive.
So the server doesn't have it anymore?
A move is a copy followed by a delete on the original.
Also, you copied it from a server, the server didn't put it on your machine.
YOU SUCK AT COMPUTING
The server made a copy. Then it sent it to me.
I didn't kill my wife. The hitman did it!
-
@TimeBandit 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.:
The server made a copy. Then it sent it to me.
YOU REQUESTED A COPY FROM THE SERVER
Yes. And requesting is not illegal. Making is illegal.
-
@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.:
@TimeBandit 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.:
Moving isn't copying. It moved from the server to my hard drive.
So the server doesn't have it anymore?
A move is a copy followed by a delete on the original.
Also, you copied it from a server, the server didn't put it on your machine.
YOU SUCK AT COMPUTING
The server made a copy. Then it sent it to me.
I didn't kill my wife. The hitman did it!
More like, I didn't kill that person, the bullet did. And since the gun fired it, it doesn't matter that I pointed it and pulled the trigger!
Or "I didn't make that photocopy, the copier did!"
The person is the but-for cause of the copy. Thus, the person made the 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.:
@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?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit 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.:
The server made a copy. Then it sent it to me.
YOU REQUESTED A COPY FROM THE SERVER
Yes. And requesting is not illegal. Making is illegal.
Both are illegal.
-
@pie_flavor
Are you going full retard?
-
This thread has over 350 posts already, and still growing. I give it a 9 out of 10.
If, at some point, you should come out and say you’ve been everybody, you’ll get a 10/10.
-
@pie_flavor
Dammit! You went full retard! I warned you!
-
@pie_flavor Asking someone to do something you explicitly know is illegal is called Criminal Conspiracy. Congratulations, requesting it IS illegal.
-
@TimeBandit 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.:
Good thing I'm not copying
How did you get it on your computer without copying it?
We've been over this. It's the Magic Server Pixies.
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Magic Server Pixies.
Are they hot?
-
@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?
-
@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?
Oh, you're one to talk!
-
@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.:
@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?
Oh, you're one to talk!
To be fair, he is not repeating jokes. The insane ramblings of madmen are not always funny.
-
@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.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server.
Depends. Did it show a license first?
-
@Luhmann 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.:
loading it from disk should be basically the same as loading it from the server.
Depends. Did it show a license first?
Nope, so you're not bound by any.
-
-
@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.
Yes! On to the pedantic dickweedery over criminal vs civil! Are you no longer explicitly dodging the fact that it's illegal or is this just a feint?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Yes. And requesting is not illegal. Making is illegal.
Christ. This is an argument I expect to have with a 3 year old. Not someone here.
-
@pie_flavor
So why does it matter? All is peachy in your imaginary world.
-
@Luhmann 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.:
Magic Server Pixies.
Are they hot?
Maaaayyyyybeeeeeeeeeeee?
-
@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.
-
@Luhmann 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.:
Magic Server Pixies.
Are they hot?
And do they get addicted to genital issue?
-
@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.
-
@Tsaukpaetra
I hope youcopymove the joke
-
@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.
-
Let's do the math.
At T=-epsilon (before you hit the button), there exists one and only one relevant copy. That residing on the server. If that copy is unauthorized, then any further access other than removal is unauthorized distribution, for which both distributor and receiver are liable.
At T=0, your request for a copy reaches the server.
At T=T1, the server starts to respond. From this point on there are (at minimum) two copies--one on the server and one in transit.
At T=T2, the download is finished. At this point there is a functional copy on your machine and a copy on the server.
The only person involved is the downloader. So that person is responsible.
By your standards, watching a copyrighted video via streaming isn't an infringement, because it only exists in RAM and the server's doing the work. We all know that's bogus. The act of requesting an unauthorized copy is the proximate (but-for) cause of the copy being made. So you're fully, 100% liable. Just like if you pulled the trigger on a gun that killed someone. Yes, they died because they bled out. But you were the proximate cause of that death--without your action they would not have died there or then. The cases are on all fours.
-
@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.:
@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.
Yes! On to the pedantic dickweedery over criminal vs civil! Are you no longer explicitly dodging the fact that it's illegal or is this just a feint?
Pedantic dickweedery is the name of the game when it comes to law. And I am still declaring that it is legal. You cannot really 'conspire' with a thing that does not think for itself.
-
@Benjamin-Hall it's like, if you put a blank paper on top of a stack of pages you pulled from a book and put that into the hopper of the photocopier, you were only making that blank copy and the machine just made those other copies. Jeez...you couldn't even see them there when you hit the button! Also, someone gave the pages to you and they left of the one that says there is a copyright on it.
-
@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.:
@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.
Yes! On to the pedantic dickweedery over criminal vs civil! Are you no longer explicitly dodging the fact that it's illegal or is this just a feint?
Pedantic dickweedery is the name of the game when it comes to law. And I am still declaring that it is legal. You cannot really 'conspire' with a thing that does not think for itself.
But you are failing miserably. You haven't cited a single thing to back up your assertion.
-
@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?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
You cannot really 'conspire' with a thing that does not think for itself.
Indeed. That is why persyns are hold accountable for their actions by law.
Unless you are claiming a Russian hackers started the
movecopy ...
-
@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.
-
@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.:
@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.
Yes! On to the pedantic dickweedery over criminal vs civil! Are you no longer explicitly dodging the fact that it's illegal or is this just a feint?
Pedantic dickweedery is the name of the game when it comes to law. And I am still declaring that it is legal. You cannot really 'conspire' with a thing that does not think for itself.
No, it's not. As I've tried to tell you. The law cares about the intent and meaning of the law, not pedantic wordplay.
If your lawyer made this argument, I would expect an immediate directed verdict (meaning the judge says "jury, you are required to find him guilty") and your lawyer would be sanctioned under Rule 11 (frivolous arguments).
-
@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).
-
@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?
-
@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.
-
@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.