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.:
@Lorne-Kates Congratulations on understanding exactly none of the point.
No, he totally got that you're being an idiot. Just like everyone else, probably including yourself.
-
@anotherusername said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
It does not, by the way, automatically carry a license to publicly or commercially use it. You're only allowed to do that if the license explicitly grants you those rights. This is why a lot of software will have a "free for personal use" or "for personal use only" license -- they can charge more for a commercial license.
I actually have to read license agreements now because of this very reason. Because I want to have a hobby with a potential side income (making apps and games) I need to make sure that the software I use to create stuff gives me the right to actually sell my creations too.
For example, back when I went to uni, purchasing an education license for Adobe software prohibited commercial use (but they still wanted $200 for Photoshop). But now with Adobe CC you're allowed to sell your creations, even with an education license, meaning I can actually motivate having a personal subscription for Adobe CC. (Taking advantage of that half price for working in the education sector~)
But yeah. Working with software requires actually reading and understanding licenses. Otherwise it can get painful.
-
@Atazhaia said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I need to make sure that the software I use to create stuff gives me the right to actually sell my creations too.
Just use pirated software, you won't be bound by the license then
-
@TimeBandit Correct! I don't know whether copyright infringement or license infringement carries worse penalties, but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
-
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
It's not an agreement situation. You have to seek explicit authorization to access the computer; otherwise, it's illegal to access it.
So when
you downloadedno, sorry, the server sent to you a data file containing software, software which was protected by copyright law and owned by someone and of which fact you understood or should've understood, I take it you sought explicit authorization to access the data stored on that computer? And did you, in the course of seeking said authorization to access the data, seek to find out whether or have any reason to reasonably believe that the server of which you sought access was either owned, operated, or in any way authorized by the rightful owner of the data, so as to make an authorized, legal copy and send it to you?
-
@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, but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
But the bonus of agreeing to the software license is that it allows you to use punctuation. And more than once sentence!
-
@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.:
@TimeBandit Correct! I don't know whether copyright infringement or license infringement carries worse penalties, but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
Whoa there, hold on. You're seriously trying to tell me you think that if you make a profit off of copyright infringement, the court can't or won't take into account the amount of money you actually made from the infringement?
If you are found to be criminally liable for copyright infringement, the court is able to bring punitive fines against you. And I assure you, they will take your profits into consideration when determining how much of a fine is "punitive".
-
@anotherusername That's a big if. The copyright infringement wasn't what made you the money; the works you created were. Criminal copyright infringement is for things like making copies of MS Word and selling them, not writing books on a copied version of MS Word.
-
@pie_flavor You literally framed it in terms of "the amount of money you stand to make or have made off" the infringement. And the court will consider that for copyright infringement too.
-
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
No one here believes you even know what "verdict" means at this point.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
Sure, that must be why you used the exact word "penalties" to describe what you were talking about.
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I don't know whether copyright infringement or license infringement carries worse penalties, but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
No one here believes you even know what "verdict" means at this point.
Only still reading this for the
-
Why should you go to jail for a crime someone else noticed?
-
@topspin With this thread, you need that Weird Science popcorn picture I posted elsewheres...
-
@anotherusername 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.:
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
Sure, that must be why you used the exact word "penalties" to describe what you were talking about.
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I don't know whether copyright infringement or license infringement carries worse penalties, but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
I was talking about the verdict in response to you talking about criminal copyright infringement. I am telling you that any special penalty you'd get under criminal copyright infringement is irrelevant if you wouldn't be convicted of criminal copyright infringement.
-
@topspin I hadn't listened to one of those before... Hearing his name (as opposed to reading it) makes all the difference in the world!
-
@anotherusername 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.:
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
Sure, that must be why you used the exact word "penalties" to describe what you were talking about.
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I don't know whether copyright infringement or license infringement carries worse penalties, but the latter is probably with respect to the amount of money you stand to make or have made off the creation and the former isn't because using a copyrighted tool to make creations isn't covered under copyright.
@pie_flavor The damages from a civil copyright suit come in three parts (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504)
- An injunction and confiscation/destruction of the infringing material. This is standard, and happens whenever infringement is found.
- Actual damages + disgorgement of profit. Meaning you pay them whatever they should have gotten from selling you a license + any money you made connected to your infringement. And yes, it follows down to things you made using illicit tools.
- Statutory damages. These run from $200/infringement (for cases of unknowing infringement) to $150,000/infringement for willful infringement. These damages are not available to unregistered copyrights, but all the other types are.
So yeah. Even if you don't get criminal penalties (jail time), you're still looking at cost of software + profits + up to $150,000 per offense. And they're pretty generous with what counts as a separate claim of infringement.
-
@Benjamin-Hall hooray, relevant facts and logic! I love it when someone finally posts those.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall hooray, relevant facts and logic! I love it when someone finally posts those.
None of which you've yet provided. You've given lots of bluster and conclusory statements, lots of assertions without any evidence whatsoever.
-
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah I never quoted the DMCA or copyright act many times or anything.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Yeah I never quoted the DMCA or copyright act many times or anything.
But you've never made the connection between those texts and what you're saying, and you only do it to say "no, that means <something wrong>." You just dump <legal text> as if its mere existence proves your fact. You'd get a 0 for argumentation in an english or history class for that.
Law doesn't work by trying to find tricky interpretations. Those words do not mean what you think they mean. Go find case law interpreting them the way you do. Actual, on-all-fours judgments.
To put it bluntly, your position is one hundred percent erroneous, and more than that, dangerous. Anyone following your advice is risking substantial and significant penalties, up to and including being sanctioned for making a frivolous argument. The kind that gets a lawyer disbarred under Rule 11.
-
@Benjamin-Hall said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Anyone following your advice is
risking substantial and significant penalties, up to and including being sanctioned for making a frivolous argument.an idiotFTFY
-
@TimeBandit 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.:
Anyone following your advice is
risking substantial and significant penalties, up to and including being sanctioned for making a frivolous argument.an idiotFTFY
QFT
-
@Lorne-Kates said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
100% percent of cracked software isn't talked about in polite company, regardless of everyone's stance.
Not everyone here is from Canada, you know.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
The copyright infringement wasn't what made you the money; the works you created were.
Copyright infringement is like GPL - it spreads on everything you touch afterwards.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall Further proving my point that RAM copies are irrelevant, then, if it's literally impossible to access something without a copy being made.
In particular, I'm interested as to what would happen if someone were to read portions of a copyrighted work and then memorize them.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Copyright infringement is like GPL - it spreads on everything you touch afterwards
Fuck, now my girlfriend is GPL'd
-
@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.:
@Benjamin-Hall Further proving my point that RAM copies are irrelevant, then, if it's literally impossible to access something without a copy being made.
In particular, I'm interested as to what would happen if someone were to read portions of a copyrighted work and then memorize them.
-
@TimeBandit Where can I obtain the source code?
-
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit Where can I obtain the source code?
Oh, that's so much better than where I was going with that... (only stopped because this is still the General category)
-
@Lorne-Kates said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
100% percent of cracked software isn't talked about in polite company, regardless of everyone's stance.
I see you haven't done a stint at a public university in the last 15-20 years or so.
And I say this, of course, as one of the good boys who paid for software.
A giant block of cocaine is illegal. If I steal it, then resell it, it isn't magically not illegal (aka: legal) just because I said so.
A giant block of cocaine is a physical object having certain chemistry that makes it easy to identify.
Digital works are streams of bytes that are slightly more difficult to identify, particularly if there are small changes which change the hash, or if the work is encrypted.
Or better: fertilizer over a certain quantity needs a license to purchase. If I buy a whole bunch of it, I can't turn around and sell it to someone without the same license. And if I go and STEAL a whole bunch of fertilizer-- thus bypassing any license agreements or requirements-- that doesn't give me permission to sell it. It's still illegal (on top of stolen).
You should go check out NurdRage on YouTube. It took him a couple years, but he managed to synthesize Daraprim at a fraction of the cost Martin Shkreli wanted to sell using only domestically-available materials as feedstock.
-
@topspin said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@anotherusername If it's criminal copyright infringement. You're talking about penalty; I'm talking about the verdict in the first place.
No one here believes you even know what "verdict" means at this point.
Only still reading this for the
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Benjamin-Hall hooray, relevant facts and logic! I love it when someone finally posts those.
You could have posted some yourself. Oh, wait...no you couldn't have and kept with your same inane position.
-
@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.:
@Benjamin-Hall Further proving my point that RAM copies are irrelevant, then, if it's literally impossible to access something without a copy being made.
In particular, I'm interested as to what would happen if someone were to read portions of a copyrighted work and then memorize them.
Brain surgery.
-
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Copyright infringement is like GPL - it spreads on everything you touch afterwards
Fuck, now my girlfriend is GPL'd
You should know that the guys at the pub are not including the license notice with her number.
-
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit Where can I obtain the source code?
I don't have to provide the source code since I'm not distributing her
-
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I don't have to provide the source code since I'm not distributing her
Are other people?
-
@TimeBandit 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.:
@TimeBandit Where can I obtain the source code?
I don't have to provide the source code since I'm not distributing her
You're not distributing her, but she's still getting distributed.
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@HardwareGeek said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@TimeBandit Where can I obtain the source code?
I don't have to provide the source code since I'm not distributing her
You're not distributing her, but she's still getting distributed.
But is she being ran?
-
@Tsaukpaetra she ran away from me. Does that count?
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@Tsaukpaetra she ran away from me. Does that count?
Only if you didn't see her like since.
-
@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.
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.
Are you from China?
-
@Gribnit 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.:
@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.
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.
Are you from China?
Worse: California.
-
-
@ben_lubar I've forgotten how many times this has been posted in this thread. One of them may even have been you already.
-
@pie_flavor reposting is not a crime.
-
@Gąska said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
reposting is not a crime.
if the message is not understood