Re:

From: Howard (alicebt_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 10/15/04 

Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:46:23 GMT

"Default User" <first.last@boeing.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:I5n773.8yu@news.boeing.com...
> Howard wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not missing the point at all.
>
> Yes, you are.

No, I'm avoiding the issue, by attempting to steer the discussion back to
right vs. wrong.

>
>> It's wrong. Period.
>
> Which is exactly what I said. Are you unable to read for comprehension?

Sorry, I guess I thought you were defending JKop's interpretations.

>
>> Using any
>> kind of analysis to "justify" a wrong action is irrelevant.
>
> Where did I do that?

I didn't suggest you did.

>
>> It's
>> still wrong. It's theft, according to law (and according to any
>> reasonable ethic, as far as I'm concerned).
>
> That depends very greatly. Most instances of copyright violation are
> not consided theft in any legal sense.
>
>> You are free to argue
>> what the actual cost of a specific instance of piracy is to a given
>> company, but the fact is that software piracy does cost the sotware
>> industry a vast amount of money.
>
> But you can't demonstrate that with simplistic formulas.

I never suggested I could. Determining losses to any degree of certaintly
is incredibly difficult, and likely impossible to verify. Of course, that
doesn't neccessarily diminish the losses, does it?

>
>> A serious problem with your analogy is that when everyone else sees
>> you sneaking your friend into the drive-in, they do it, too.
>
> Exactly. But you still can't just multiply the sneakers-in but the
> price of admission. It's much more complicated.
>

Again, I never said you could.

>> It's illegal. And it most definitely reduces sales.
>
> Yes, but at what rate?

I have no idea. My only intent is to minimize it, and I try to do that by
pointing out to those who do it that it's wrong and they should stop.

>
>> Argue the point all you want. You're still just rationalizing. It's
>> wrong. It's illegal. And it hurts MY business. So stop it!!!
>
> Are you really this dense? Do you think that objecting to a false
> analogy means a rejection of all the points?
>

No, on both counts. :-) But I feel that r's analogy is misleading, in that
it appears to justify the theft.

> Show me ANYWHERE in my message where I said copyright violation was
> acceptable. Stop putting words into my posts that aren't there.
>

Again, sorry if I seemed to suggest that. It wasn't my intention. I was
addressing JKop, primarily, and any who would use the "justifications"
presented to defend their actions.

-Howard

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Petrol Station rip off
    ... It is only theft if there is a dishonest appropriation with ... and/or you had no intent to permanently deprive then there's no theft. ... The concept of permanently depriving is not ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Petrol Station rip off
    ... If you honestly appropriated the fuel ... and/or you had no intent to permanently deprive then there's no theft. ... The concept of permanently depriving is not ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Petrol Station rip off
    ... If you honestly appropriated the fuel ... and/or you had no intent to permanently deprive then there's no theft. ... The concept of permanently depriving is not ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Honeypots Illegal?
    ... It is NOT trespassing and it is NOT theft of communications, ... My analogy was both relevant and appropriate, ... YOu think that a lawyer talking about the law would be a bad thing, ...
    (comp.os.linux.security)
  • Re: Supermarket Crime?
    ... You have committed theft. ... If they mistakenly miss charging for something, with no prior intent ... But if they miss charging for something due to deliberate action on ...
    (uk.legal)