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.:
that's the reason I never expand the acronym.
Because it proves you wrong?
-
@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.:
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.
Here's a source:
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
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)
Four hundred and fifty posts in and someone finally posts something relevant. I love you all. Okay. We have now determined that downloading a file from the Internet that is copyrighted is copyright infringement. My claim made in the OP still stands.
-
@pie_flavor You are so retarded.
-
@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.:
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)
Four hundred and fifty posts in and someone finally posts something relevant. I love you all. Okay. We have now determined that downloading a file from the Internet that is copyrighted is copyright infringement. My claim made in the OP still stands.
No. It doesn't. If you have an infringing copy, you have an infringing copy. Copyright is strict liability, just like child porn. Possession is enough to cause liability, let alone use. Unless you can prove that it didn't arrive with your knowledge and that you removed it as soon as you realized it existed, you're liable.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Unless you can prove that it didn't arrive with your knowledge and that you removed it as soon as you realized it existed, you're liable.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
My claim made in the OP still stands.
This one?
actually, a lot of cracked software has a custom installer that doesn't show you a license agreement, meaning you're not bound by the terms.
Maybe you're not bound by the term of the license, but you're still doing copyright infringement
-
@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.:
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)
Four hundred and fifty posts in and someone finally posts something relevant. I love you all. Okay. We have now determined that downloading a file from the Internet that is copyrighted is copyright infringement. My claim made in the OP still stands.
No. It doesn't. If you have an infringing copy, you have an infringing copy. Copyright is strict liability, just like child porn. Possession is enough to cause liability, let alone use. Unless you can prove that it didn't arrive with your knowledge and that you removed it as soon as you realized it existed, you're liable.
If someone hands me a DVD, I can use it. If they made it illegally, that's on them.
-
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
without my consent
RAPE!
-
@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.:
My claim made in the OP still stands.
This one?
actually, a lot of cracked software has a custom installer that doesn't show you a license agreement, meaning you're not bound by the terms.
Maybe you're not bound by the term of the license, but you're still doing copyright infringement
This goes back to my Ship of Theseus problem (which no one has heretofore addressed). Cracked software is not a strict copy of the software. It is a derivative work.
-
@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.:
@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.
But that's what you're arguing here, whether "copying" is "using" is "reproducing" etc. You can't be pedantic and say others can't be pedantic; that's not how this works!
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
This goes back to my Ship of Theseus problem (which no one has heretofore addressed). Cracked software is not a strict copy of the software. It is a derivative work.
I would presume it's an illegal derivative work and the people who are distributing it don't have the right to do so. @pie_flavor is still screwed.
-
@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.:
@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.
But that's what you're arguing here, whether "copying" is "using" is "reproducing" etc. You can't be pedantic and say others can't be pedantic; that's not how this works!
OK. There's nothing in those terminology definitions that says you can't use it either.
-
@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.:
@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.
But that's what you're arguing here, whether "copying" is "using" is "reproducing" etc. You can't be pedantic and say others can't be pedantic; that's not how this works!
OK. There's nothing in those terminology definitions that says you can't use it either.
Except that by the time you get to "using" you've already done (at least one of) the others, and therefore the illegality of the prior acts still applies to it.
"But officer, it was totally legal for me to drive this car! It appeared around me suddenly since my eyes were closed while I entered it. Nevermind that it's not my car, I don't have a drivers license, I don't have proof of insurance, and I don't have the title. And this here key? Oh, the guy before me just left it in the ignition, don't mind the destroyed steering wheel column, I found it that way. Yeah."
-
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
This goes back to my Ship of Theseus problem (which no one has heretofore addressed). Cracked software is not a strict copy of the software. It is a derivative work.
I would presume it's an illegal derivative work and the people who are distributing it don't have the right to do so. @pie_flavor is still screwed.
He's talking about the end users, though. I don't think there's any disagreement here that the ones doing the cracking and distribution don't have a leg to stand on.
If in this particular scenario, the end user shares in any culpability, then it is implied the end user is responsible for thoroughly researching not only the product they are downloading, but any potential dependencies which might also have their own restrictions and licenses. I don't think that's practical, when Yoshi can end up in an asset store and then in a game while still being an honest mistake on the part of a non-layman like a developer.
-
@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.:
@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.
But that's what you're arguing here, whether "copying" is "using" is "reproducing" etc. You can't be pedantic and say others can't be pedantic; that's not how this works!
OK. There's nothing in those terminology definitions that says you can't use it either.
Except that by the time you get to "using" you've already done (at least one of) the others, and therefore the illegality of the prior acts still applies to it.
"But officer, it was totally legal for me to drive this car! It appeared around me suddenly since my eyes were closed while I entered it. Nevermind that it's not my car, I don't have a drivers license, I don't have proof of insurance, and I don't have the title. And this here key? Oh, the guy before me just left it in the ignition, don't mind the destroyed steering wheel column, I found it that way. Yeah."
Just keep strawmanning what I'm saying, I'm sure that'll convince me eventually.
-
@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.:
@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.
But that's what you're arguing here, whether "copying" is "using" is "reproducing" etc. You can't be pedantic and say others can't be pedantic; that's not how this works!
OK. There's nothing in those terminology definitions that says you can't use it either.
Except that by the time you get to "using" you've already done (at least one of) the others, and therefore the illegality of the prior acts still applies to it.
"But officer, it was totally legal for me to drive this car! It appeared around me suddenly since my eyes were closed while I entered it. Nevermind that it's not my car, I don't have a drivers license, I don't have proof of insurance, and I don't have the title. And this here key? Oh, the guy before me just left it in the ignition, don't mind the destroyed steering wheel column, I found it that way. Yeah."
Just keep strawmanning what I'm saying, I'm sure that'll convince me eventually.
Just keep saying "So sue me and find out." That'll make me stop eventually.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
If in this particular scenario, the end user shares in any culpability, then it is implied the end user is responsible for thoroughly researching not only the product they are downloading, but any potential dependencies which might also have their own restrictions and licenses. I don't think that's practical, when Yoshi can end up in an asset store and then in a game while still being an honest mistake on the part of a non-layman like a developer.
I believe I (more or less) addressed this earlier, but I think that if a single end user were the victim of such a fraud he might only be required to stop using it. Because he has no legal permission to do so. Let's not confuse the fact of illegality with the remedy.
-
@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.:
@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.
But that's what you're arguing here, whether "copying" is "using" is "reproducing" etc. You can't be pedantic and say others can't be pedantic; that's not how this works!
OK. There's nothing in those terminology definitions that says you can't use it either.
Except that by the time you get to "using" you've already done (at least one of) the others, and therefore the illegality of the prior acts still applies to it.
"But officer, it was totally legal for me to drive this car! It appeared around me suddenly since my eyes were closed while I entered it. Nevermind that it's not my car, I don't have a drivers license, I don't have proof of insurance, and I don't have the title. And this here key? Oh, the guy before me just left it in the ignition, don't mind the destroyed steering wheel column, I found it that way. Yeah."
Just keep strawmanning what I'm saying, I'm sure that'll convince me eventually.
This is purely for our own entertainment now. We know that you're hopelessly confused on the subject.
-
@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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
-
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
Make sure you don't look into local building codes. It would be such a drag if you had to follow them.
-
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
You never fail to disappoint.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
You never fail to disappoint.
Failing is what this site is all about, right?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
You never fail to disappoint.
Thank you!
-
@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.:
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
You never fail to disappoint.
Failing is what this site is all about, right?
It's worse than that, actually.
-
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
You just reminded me that my neighbors decided to get their roof re-shingled on at 9AM on a Saturday (being that we're in a row of townhouses, that means I was quite aware of every nail being driven in). I was trying to forget about that. Thanks.
-
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
That (unknowingly) receiving stolen property is a crime seems like a gross violation of the principle of mens rea.
Yes, if you receive stolen property unknowingly, it's unlikely that you would face criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the property is not yours, and will be confiscated without compensation to you. Maybe you could try suing the person who sold it to you; good luck.
On the other hand, if you're acting as a fence and are knowingly complicit in the operation....
Of course, that's the main reason those laws exist, to provide a basis for prosecuting intermediaries.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@djls45 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.:
@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.
How about I come and build another story onto your house for me to live in?
Edit: Rent-free.
Edit edit: I can even pay for the construction, so that won't cost you a penny.
What's your point?
-
@djls45 Oh, you have to disable all your adblockers for that page.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
you have to disable all your adblockers for that page.
The Nope thread is
-
@TimeBandit They don't actually show you any ads, they just fail to load on any blocked by client error.
-
@pie_flavor sounds like a feature!
-
Is this a Thunderdome?
-
@anotherusername
This is more a thunderdome then the Thunderdome
-
@Luhmann what about that one thread where people are talking about emergency alerts about lightning?
-
@boomzilla
A lot of hot air but no boom
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@djls45 Oh, you have to disable all your adblockers for that page.
Still didn't work.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit They don't actually show you any ads, they just fail to load on any blocked by client error.
It showed a single frame of a car advertisement and froze. Waiting produced nothing. Clicking on it went to the automaker's website.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit They don't actually show you any ads, they just fail to load on any blocked by client error.
Someone needs to make an adblocker that runs all the ads in a sandbox but shows nothing to the user and reports everything as a-ok.
And while they're at it, make something that automates opening developer console, removing all the blurry modals and
overflow: hidden;
that news sites and Quora like to abuse.Inb4 blakey or some other ad industry personality denounces these as the actions of a horrible human being.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Inb4 blakey or some other ad industry personality denounces these as the actions of a horrible human being
Like those that go to the bathroom while ads are playing on TV
-
@djls45 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.:
@djls45 Oh, you have to disable all your adblockers for that page.
Still didn't work.
Well, it's supposed to be Dilbert S2E9.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
If in this particular scenario, the end user shares in any culpability, then it is implied the end user is responsible for thoroughly researching not only the product they are downloading, but any potential dependencies which might also have their own restrictions and licenses. I don't think that's practical, when Yoshi can end up in an asset store and then in a game while still being an honest mistake on the part of a non-layman like a developer.
I believe I (more or less) addressed this earlier, but I think that if a single end user were the victim of such a fraud he might only be required to stop using it. Because he has no legal permission to do so. Let's not confuse the fact of illegality with the remedy.
That's the way it works with Steam store keys - sometimes those keys are obtained through less than legal means (like credit card fraud) and then resold. If you happen to purchase such a key you'll likely be out of a game and the money you paid.
But nothing else will happen.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor are we talking about USA or Poland? I assumed USA, since you don't know shit about Poland and its legal system.
We're talking about the USA. There is no law that says you can't bypass software security measures. All laws dealing with unauthorized access solely relate to physical computers, like hacking into servers. You can do whatever the fuck you want with your own computer.
This lapse here? Seriously, did this here law bit, lapse?
Section 103 of the DMCA adds a new chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code.
New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective
protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners
to protect their works.
-
@Gribnit You think that what you wrote is related to what I wrote, but it isn't.
-
@pie_flavor Huh, looks related. Hope you can back up that blanket denial.
-
@Gribnit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor Huh, looks related. Hope you can back up that blanket denial.
In the general realm of 'copyright' and 'protection', it's related, sure.
-
@Gribnit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor Huh, looks related. Hope you can back up that blanket denial.
NARRATOR: He
can'twon't.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I have the legal right to run programs that are on my computer.
Where does that right comes from, if not from the license agreement?
Software is protected by copyright. You need a license to use it.
No, that's a brainworm. I don't need a license to read a book, or listen to a song. A license is required in order to copy it. Software must specifically be written to make the license necessary. Software does not automatically have a license by virtue of being software.
If the copy that you're reading or listening to was made without authorization from the copyright holder, then by law that copy is illegal. The unauthorized copy should be destroyed and you can be held liable for copyright infringement if you knew or should've known that your copy wasn't properly authorized by the copyright holder.
What's more, everything is automatically protected by copyright, so "I didn't know it was copyrighted" isn't a fair excuse. You could try to convince the court that you made an honest mistake in thinking a BitTorrent link you found on warez-world.de was authorized by the copyright holder... but I don't think you'd be very successful in that.