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.:
@ben_lubar I've forgotten how many times this has been posted in this thread. One of them may even have been you already.
Have you gotten the joke yet?
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The server didn't "elect" to send you the file.
Yes it did. I don't believe the protocol mandates that a file response must be generated, so responding with file data would then be an affirmative decision made by the server.
So the responsibility to adhere to copyright restrictions falls on both the requestor and the requestee...?
You requested it; the server is responding to your explicit request. It didn't send you some file of its own accord.
What constitutes my request? Pushing a button or clicking a link? What if said control is labeled in a contrarian manner (e.g. "Click here to not download the file!") ? Does the user then have to peer at any JS on the page to determine the intent of clicking on a link?
Also, URL redirection? It doesn't have respond with the file you expect.
If the software does not perform in the way you expect, then it most likely should be classified as malware, and that might help as a defense against charges of taking part in illegal action. It doesn't suddenly make an illegal action legal.
It might elect not to send you a file that you request (for example, if you fail to provide proper credentials, or if the server is malfunctioning), but servers are generally (Windows updates and spam notwithstanding) not in the habit of sending you unsolicited files.
Is there an implicit caveat in there about ads and annoywalls? If not, I'm going to reiterate that Quora and plenty of news sites inject unsolicited blurs and
overflow: hidden;
s into the files they serve.Those are not illegally served, though, so that provides your caveat.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
If you try to use it, my employer (rather, their client, since my employer is not the owner of the IP) will sue you up, down, backward, forward, and sideways.
You contract with Disney?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@HardwareGeek 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.
If it's meaningless, why are they so careful to define the meaning?
What? If it were meaningful they wouldn't need to define the meaning. They need to carefully define the meaning because it is otherwise meaningless.
No, if a term is not carefully defined, then it might be easily misinterpreted, especially if there are multiple senses of the word.
Also, where a law doesn't explicitly define a word, courts will use the common definition. I read a judgement yesterday in which a judge actually cited Merriam-Webster in his opinion, telling some idiot that a word didn't mean what he was trying to make it mean.
Right. IP is not subject to that.
Do you need a dictionary or two or three or twelve or thirteen?
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit Correct! I don't know whether copyright infringement or license infringement carries worse penalties,
So let's infringe on both just to cover all our bases!
but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation
The penalties will include your profits, due to paying all the lawyer fees if nothing else.
and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
-
@djls45 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.:
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The server didn't "elect" to send you the file.
Yes it did. I don't believe the protocol mandates that a file response must be generated, so responding with file data would then be an affirmative decision made by the server.
So the responsibility to adhere to copyright restrictions falls on both the requestor and the requestee...?
If you're downloading from Red Hat, it falls solely on the requestor.
-
@djls45 said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
If you try to use it, my employer (rather, their client, since my employer is not the owner of the IP) will sue you up, down, backward, forward, and sideways.
You contract with Disney?
No, that sounds more like Sony. Disney adds diagonally to the mix.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor reposting is not a crime.
So long as you close your eyes while doing it.
-
@djls45 said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
-
@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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
-
@Groaner 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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
That one isn't a counterexample to @pie_flavor's non-sequitur. Doing that wouldn't violate the copyright of the camera.
See also:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/qydwa0/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ko-computer---sopa-runaway
-
@ben_lubar 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.:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
That one isn't a counterexample to @pie_flavor's non-sequitur. Doing that wouldn't violate the copyright of the camera.
I wasn't making a counterexample to his point, I was adding on to it since his raising that point reminded me of mine.
See also:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/qydwa0/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-ko-computer---sopa-runaway
A good illustration of the scenario, but contradicts itself in such a way so as to not be a helpful source on the issue.
-
@Groaner 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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Watching the movie on that recording is its own punishment.
-
@djls45 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.:
@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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
Seems like that's up to the owner of the recording media, isn't it?
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
You should totally make @BadAnalogyGuy be your alt…
-
@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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
The work isn't derivative, but your profit is.
Or to put another way - you and @djls45 are both wrong.
-
@djls45 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.:
@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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
What if the someone is a macaque and the camera is a still camera and the result is a photo?
-
@anotherusername then you can sue PETA for lost profits!
-
@anotherusername 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.:
@Groaner 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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
What if the someone is a macaque and the camera is a still camera and the result is a photo?
A macaque isn't a person, so it can't own a camera.
(And in that case, the camera was used as the camera-owner intended to take photos as he desired, so he was essentially just a photographer using an unconventional means of environmental trigger to take photos.)
-
@djls45 said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername 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.:
@Groaner 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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
What if the someone is a macaque and the camera is a still camera and the result is a photo?
A macaque isn't a person
-
@Gąska 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.:
@anotherusername 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.:
@Groaner 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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
What if the someone is a macaque and the camera is a still camera and the result is a photo?
A macaque isn't a person
-
@djls45 said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername 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.:
@Groaner 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.:
If you have illegally acquired the copyrighted tool, then you do not have a license to use it, so anything you create is subject to the courts deciding that you don't own it or hold its copyright.
Stuff created using a tool is 100% not a derivative work of the tool. It contains no components of the tool and does not require the tool to function.
Ooh! Here's another analogy that has yet to be trotted out in this thread:
Suppose one has a video camera set up in their living room, aimed at a TV in such a way that the TV does not comprise the whole frame of the shot, and then plays a movie on said TV.
Rather, someone steals a video camera and then records something with it. What ought to be done with the resulting video?
What if the someone is a macaque and the camera is a still camera and the result is a photo?
A macaque isn't a person, so it can't own a camera.
(And in that case, the camera was used as the camera-owner intended to take photos as he desired, so he was essentially just a photographer using an unconventional means of environmental trigger to take photos.)Note to self: when (not if -- cc @ben_lubar) we get emoji reactions, come back and rate the quoted post