Just a few questions:

What's the best Mac torrent software?

What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
well as movies, music, etc.

Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
software?

Thanks for your help.

-- 
Gavin

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
> 
> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?

I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of an
adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be your
accomplices.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Just a few questions:
> 
> What's the best Mac torrent software?
> 
> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
> 
> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

Yeah, good one Chris!

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/>
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Mike Rosenberg wrote:

> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > I'm looking
> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > 
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> > Mac software?
> 
> I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
> comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
> on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of
> an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be your
> accomplices.

I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
my opinion it's ALL overpriced.

And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.

Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?

-- 
Gavin

Andy Hewitt wrote:

> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > Just a few questions:
> > 
> > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> > 
> > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm
> > looking for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > 
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> > Mac software?
> > 
> > Thanks for your help.
> 
> Yeah, good one Chris!

???Chris???

-- 
Gavin

In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?

Your questions were answered.  You were called a thief, which fits, and 
told to fuck off.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

Gavin wrote:
> Just a few questions:
>
> What's the best Mac torrent software?
>
> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
>
> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
>
> Thanks for your help.
>
> --
> Gavin


Don't you think software developers deserve to be paid?

Do you want Microsoft employees (who work so hard -
www.microsoft.com/mac ) to starve

Stay away from alt.hackintosh

There's tonnes of freeware anyway that's very good.

> Just a few questions:
>
> What's the best Mac torrent software?

Azureus. Download it from here:
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php?os=1

> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.

http://www.mininova.org

There's currently 153 mac torrents available there. Everything from a 
cracked version of Ableton Live to Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Toast 
Titanium.

> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?

This site often comes up with the goods:
http://www.serials.ws/mac/

> Thanks for your help.

You're welcome!

Have fun with your illegal software.

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.

Right.  As I said, there's nowhere near as much of an adrenalin rush.
Either way, though, you're using software without paying for it,
depriving the developer of their money.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

TonyK wrote:
> > Just a few questions:
> >
> > What's the best Mac torrent software?
>
> Azureus. Download it from here:
> http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php?os=1
>
> > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> > well as movies, music, etc.
>
> http://www.mininova.org
>
> There's currently 153 mac torrents available there. Everything from a
> cracked version of Ableton Live to Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Toast
> Titanium.
>
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> > software?
>
> This site often comes up with the goods:
> http://www.serials.ws/mac/
>
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> You're welcome!
>
> Have fun with your illegal software.

sweet

what about mp3s? any place you can get them. Don't really fancy iTunes
(you have to pay for it)

In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, 
> so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac.

OK, so you're a self admitted crook.  Rationalize it all you want, but 
the bottom line is that you are a thief, period!

> In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.

And that gives you the right to steal it?  Do you steal food that's 
overpriced?  How about a car?  How about a computer?

> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.

Unless the software is free or shareware, it is exactly like shoplifting.

> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?

How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <howard-533B21.17131601102006@news.supernews.com>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> > Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
> 
> Your questions were answered.  You were called a thief, which fits, 
> and told to fuck off.

You predict the future?  I didn't see anyone telling him to fuck off 
before I did. <g>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, 
> > so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new
> > Mac.
> 
> OK, so you're a self admitted crook.  Rationalize it all you want,
> but the bottom line is that you are a thief, period!
> 
> > In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
> 
> And that gives you the right to steal it?  Do you steal food that's 
> overpriced?  How about a car?  How about a computer?
> 
> > And downloading software is nothing like shoplifting.
> 
> Unless the software is free or shareware, it is exactly like
> shoplifting.
> 
> > Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
> 
> How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!

Thanks but I wanted an answer not a flame war.

-- 
Gavin

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows,
> > so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac.
>
> OK, so you're a self admitted crook.  Rationalize it all you want, but
> the bottom line is that you are a thief, period!
>
> > In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
>
> And that gives you the right to steal it?  Do you steal food that's
> overpriced?  How about a car?  How about a computer?
>
> > And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
>
> Unless the software is free or shareware, it is exactly like shoplifting.
>
> > Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
>
> How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.


hey atleast he's not a rapist!

What's worse - rape or software theft?

In article <1159738649.110237.83010@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 ChrisHollandisback@yahoo.com wrote:

> what about mp3s? any place you can get them. Don't really fancy 
> iTunes (you have to pay for it)

iTunes is free, you crook.  Go pay for your software like any honest 
person would do, and stop stealing.

It is unsurprising that a hate mongering homophobic bigot like you is 
also a thief.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

TonyK wrote:

> > Just a few questions:
> > 
> > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> 
> Azureus. Download it from here:
> http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php?os=1
> 
> > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm
> > looking for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> 
> http://www.mininova.org
> 
> There's currently 153 mac torrents available there. Everything from a
> cracked version of Ableton Live to Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Toast
> Titanium.
> 
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> > Mac software?
> 
> This site often comes up with the goods:
> http://www.serials.ws/mac/
> 
> > Thanks for your help.
> 
> You're welcome!
> 
> Have fun with your illegal software.

Exactly the answers I required.

Thanks!

-- 
Gavin

ChrisHollandisback@yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> TonyK wrote:
> > > Just a few questions:
> > > 
> > > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> > 
> > Azureus. Download it from here:
> > http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php?os=1
> > 
> > > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm
> > > looking for Mac sites that have full software packages available
> > > to download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > 
> > http://www.mininova.org
> > 
> > There's currently 153 mac torrents available there. Everything from
> > a cracked version of Ableton Live to Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Toast
> > Titanium.
> > 
> > > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites
> > > for Mac software?
> > 
> > This site often comes up with the goods:
> > http://www.serials.ws/mac/
> > 
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > 
> > You're welcome!
> > 
> > Have fun with your illegal software.
> 
> sweet
> 
> what about mp3s? any place you can get them. Don't really fancy iTunes
> (you have to pay for it)

Just get your mp3's off the mp3 newsgroups dude.

-- 
Gavin

In article <1159739729.446886.120490@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
 ChrisHollandisback@yahoo.com wrote:

> hey atleast he's not a rapist!
> 
> What's worse - rape or software theft?

Rape.  I suspect that you're a rapist.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> > Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm looking
> > > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > > 
> > > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> > > Mac software?
> > 
> > I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
> > comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
> > on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of
> > an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be your
> > accomplices.
> 
> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
> I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
> my opinion it's ALL overpriced.

Oh, so you're a long-time criminal and you've decided to infest Macs now 
instead of Window.  How nice.

> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.

Rationalize it any way you like, you're still a thief and a slime either 
way, buddy.

-- 
Tom "Tom" Harrington
MondoMouse makes your mouse mightier
See http://www.atomicbird.com/mondomouse/

In article <xn0erysatll3qv000me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> > How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!
> 
> Thanks but I wanted an answer not a flame war.

then you never should have admitted to being a thief.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Your questions were answered.  You were called a thief, which fits,
> > and told to fuck off.
> 
> You predict the future? 

He inferred it (correctly) from my post.  ;-)

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Thanks but I wanted an answer not a flame war.

You got the answers we feel you deserve.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

<ChrisHollandisback@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What's worse - rape or software theft?

I have to agree with you, rape is definitely worse.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Tom Harrington wrote:

> In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> > 
> > > Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm looking
> > > > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > > > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > > > 
> > > > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites
> > > > for Mac software?
> > > 
> > > I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
> > > comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're
> > > intent on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.
> > > It's more of an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't
> > > ask us to be your accomplices.
> > 
> > I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows,
> > so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new
> > Mac. In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
> 
> Oh, so you're a long-time criminal and you've decided to infest Macs
> now instead of Window.  How nice.
> 
> > And downloading software is nothing like shoplifting.
> 
> Rationalize it any way you like, you're still a thief and a slime
> either way, buddy.

Whatever. 

And I didn't come here to get flamed, I only asked for an answer to my
questions. If you can't answer them, don't bother replying. Ok?

Anyway, it's not as if I'd *ever* even consider buying 95%+ of it
anyway so there's not much loss to anyone (if any).

-- 
Gavin

Tom Harrington <tph@pcisys.no.spam.dammit.net> wrote:

> > And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
> 
> Rationalize it any way you like, you're still a thief and a slime either
> way, buddy.

And may I just point out to the OP that you, along with quite a few
others in comp.sys.mac.system, are software developers yourselves.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Exactly the answers I required.

Great, one scumbag found another.  Now piss off!

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Andy Hewitt wrote:
> 
> > Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Just a few questions:
> > > 
> > > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> > > 
> > > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm
> > > looking for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > > 
> > > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> > > Mac software?
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > 
> > Yeah, good one Chris!
> 
> ???Chris???

Yup, keep reading this thread, you'll find him :-)

-- 
Andy Hewitt
<http://www.thehewitts.eclipse.co.uk/>
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <xn0erysatll3qv000me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > > How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!
> > 
> > Thanks but I wanted an answer not a flame war.
> 
> then you never should have admitted to being a thief.

Let's hope there's never a famine, because your family will starve.

-- 
Gavin

Gavin wrote:
> Just a few questions:
>
> What's the best Mac torrent software?
>

IMO best torrent software for the Macintosh is Bits On Wheels

> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
>

Just look on the regular torrent sites in the MAC section.


> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
> 

Look for Serial Box.

> Thanks for your help.
>

Gavin wrote:
> 
> And I didn't come here to get flamed, I only asked for an answer to my
> questions. 

You're a scumbag.  If you weren't stealing you wouldn't get flamed.

Greg
-- 
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

Mike Rosenberg wrote:

> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > Exactly the answers I required.
> 
> Great, one scumbag found another.  Now piss off!

I will soon. But before I go, if I'd never have paid for a legitimate
piece of software what difference would/does it make me downloading it
for free anyway?

-- 
Gavin

kev242@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> Gavin wrote:
> > Just a few questions:
> > 
> > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> > 
> 
> IMO best torrent software for the Macintosh is Bits On Wheels
> 
> > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm
> > looking for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > 
> 
> Just look on the regular torrent sites in the MAC section.
> 
> 
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> > Mac software?
> > 
> 
> Look for Serial Box.
> 
> > Thanks for your help.
> > 

Thanks for your help, I'll take a look.

PS There's a lot of anal retentives in these groups, isn't there?

-- 
Gavin

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
> "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
>> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, 
>> so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac.
> 
> OK, so you're a self admitted crook.  Rationalize it all you want, but 
> the bottom line is that you are a thief, period!
> 
>> In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
> 
> And that gives you the right to steal it?  Do you steal food that's 
> overpriced?  How about a car?  How about a computer?
> 
>> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
> 
> Unless the software is free or shareware, it is exactly like shoplifting.

When you steal something the person you stole it from no longer has it.
When you copy a copyright work without permission the person who has
been granted a monopoly on copying it still has their copy and can still
sell copies. If you can't see the difference there is something
seriously wrong with your cognitive abilities. Is copyright violation
immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Are you depriving someone of potential
income? Yes. Do I condone it? No. Is it theft? No.


Tim

In article <michelle-404FFF.14522201102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <howard-533B21.17131601102006@news.supernews.com>,
>  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> 
> > > Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
> > 
> > Your questions were answered.  You were called a thief, which fits, 
> > and told to fuck off.
> 
> You predict the future?  I didn't see anyone telling him to fuck off 
> before I did. <g>


I did - albeit in a literary way - on 13 July 2004:


> From: Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.comp.sys.mac
> Subject: Re: Dixons sales assistant: "You can't write documents on Macs"
> Organization: �
> References: <cd86ae07.0407121459.45a3ee78@posting.google.com>
> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
> Reply-To: orpy@idea-digital.com
> X-Posed-Liar: Tony Blair
> X-RaySPEX: I was reared with appliances, In a consumer society...
> X-No-Archive: yes
> X-Face: j6Dff#%,whmk,Z5{TE[1.ooSI)'>um[V4q@<O*)YeWmc9a6=c@SO|jg&tjk34
>         =w}R2QLJhY1Jpw=!Y>}6'2P^KFIm-#hD04~7EHjn}:,tES>:/-~L"#93cm]|a$u(r)5U
>         P7VdK[&3oI(d}8]*WLD%$R4|EJH<<`xvjZ$bb's}:Iq$F8Z74F6
> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:15:00 +0100
> 
> In article <cd86ae07.0407121459.45a3ee78@posting.google.com>,
>  chris.holland16@btopenworld.com (Chris) wrote:
> 
> > "Well - there's not much software. They don't run Windows - they've
> > got a different operating system. So if you want it for university it
> > won't be very good - you can't write things like documents on Macs. If
> > you have a look at the shelf over there - that's all the pc software
> > we sell... there is hardly any Mac software on the other hand"
> 
> So I'm counting 1, counting 2, counting 3. But the words run through my 
> head and the saleswoman's eyes roll back in their sockets and she drops 
> to the floor.
> 
> And, sure the world just might be a better place without certain people. 
> Yeah, the world could be just perfect, with a little trimming here and 
> there. A little housecleaning. Some unnatural selection.
> 
> 
> I need to get some help with this aggression...
> 
> -- 
> Martin

-- 
Martin

Tim Auton wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> > In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
> > "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using
> Windows, >> so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have
> this new Mac.
> > 
> > OK, so you're a self admitted crook.  Rationalize it all you want,
> > but the bottom line is that you are a thief, period!
> > 
> >> In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
> > 
> > And that gives you the right to steal it?  Do you steal food that's 
> > overpriced?  How about a car?  How about a computer?
> > 
> >> And downloading software is nothing like shoplifting.
> > 
> > Unless the software is free or shareware, it is exactly like
> > shoplifting.
> 
> When you steal something the person you stole it from no longer has
> it.  When you copy a copyright work without permission the person who
> has been granted a monopoly on copying it still has their copy and
> can still sell copies. If you can't see the difference there is
> something seriously wrong with your cognitive abilities. Is copyright
> violation immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Are you depriving someone
> of potential income? Yes. Do I condone it? No. Is it theft? No.
> 
> 
> Tim

Nice to see _some_ rational thought. However most of the time I'm not
depriving someone of income because even if piracy didn't exist I
wouldn't buy it anyway.

-- 
Gavin

> >
>
> Look for Serial Box.
>
> > Thanks for your help.
> >

Yep, it's Serial Box (play on the breakfast cereal - cereal box)

There's a new release every month

You should also install little snitch to stop the app 'phoning home'

In article <xn0eryqi8j4vam000me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Just a few questions:
> 
> What's the best Mac torrent software?
> 
> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
> 
> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

Please take this elsewhere. Asking for help in finding serial numbers 
and cracks IN A FORUM WHERE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS ROUTINELY PARTICIPATE is 
both rude and stupid.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.

In article <xn0erysn5lxsys003me3@privacy.net>, Gavin <me3@privacy.net>
wrote:

> Anyway, it's not as if I'd *ever* even consider buying 95%+ of it
> anyway so there's not much loss to anyone (if any).

If you'd never pay for it anyway, then it clearly has no value to you. 
If it has no value to you, you have no reason to want it.

So, you don't want pirated software and therefore didn't ask for our
help in getting it.

Glad we got that cleared up.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <xn0erysn5lxsys003me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> And I didn't come here to get flamed, ...

Then you should've lurked a bit and noticed what a phenomenally stupid 
place this was to post such a question.


> Anyway, it's not as if I'd *ever* even consider buying 95%+ of it
> anyway ...

Then don't use it.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.

In article <xn0erysvbm9nyn005me3@privacy.net>, Gavin <me3@privacy.net>
wrote:

> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> 
> > Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Exactly the answers I required.
> > 
> > Great, one scumbag found another.  Now piss off!
> 
> I will soon. But before I go, if I'd never have paid for a legitimate
> piece of software what difference would/does it make me downloading it
> for free anyway?

Well, it prevents you from sleeping at night, assuming you have a
conscience.

Sleep deprivation is very dangerous if you are operating a motor
vehicle.  You could kill someone, or yourself.

So don't pirate software.  The life you save could be your own.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <xn0erysrrm4hpb004me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > In article <xn0erysatll3qv000me3@privacy.net>,
> >  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > > How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!
> > > 
> > > Thanks but I wanted an answer not a flame war.
> > 
> > then you never should have admitted to being a thief.
> 
> Let's hope there's never a famine, because your family will starve.

I'm sorry. I apologize on behalf of the group. We didn't realize that 
the software you were using without permission was critical to your 
family's survival yet didn't actually assist you in deriving income.

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.

In article <mn.0d477d6a9ee723f3.36041@thanks.no>,
 TonyK <nospam@thanks.no> wrote:

> This site often comes up with the goods:
> http://www.serials.ws/mac/

It's pathetic that some people feels the need to post (or for that 
matter use) fake serial numbers for $5 shareware.

G

-- 
What I write is what I mean. I request that anyone who decides to respond
please refrain from "disagreeing" with something I didn't write in the first
place.

In article <xn0erysykmef16006me3@privacy.net>, Gavin <me3@privacy.net>
wrote:

> PS There's a lot of anal retentives in these groups, isn't there?

Is "anal retentive" a code word for people who behave ethically?

Yes.  Yes, there certainly are a lot of ethical people in this group. 
Nice that you noticed, even if you don't care to be one yourself.

-- 
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA                <http://www.jerrykindall.com/>

        Send only plain text messages under 32K to the Reply-To address.
        This mailbox is filtered aggressively to thwart spam and viruses.

In article <011020061612340910%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
Jerry Kindall  <usenet5@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>[...]

You're just feeding a troll.  He has no interest in discussing the
matter, he's just trying to disrupt uk.comp.sys.mac as he has been for
months.

Please think twice before following up any article from privacy.net.

-- Richard

Richard Tobin wrote:

> In article <011020061612340910%jerrykindall@nospam.invalid>,
> Jerry Kindall  <usenet5@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> 
> You're just feeding a troll.  He has no interest in discussing the
> matter, he's just trying to disrupt uk.comp.sys.mac as he has been for
> months.

Do you guys always make false accusations like these towards new
posters? I'm no troll and I have no intentions of disrupting any group.

> Please think twice before following up any article from privacy.net.

Oh, ok. After reading that it looks like *I* just fed a troll. Sorry
people.

> -- Richard

Your sig sep's broken. But you knew that already, didn't you, troll?

-- 
Gavin

Richard "Troll" Tobin wrote:

> He has no interest in discussing the matter

I know I'm feeding the troll again, but what's the point in trying to
discuss it when all you're met with is flames?

-- 
Gavin

Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article <xn0eryqi8j4vam000me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > Just a few questions:
> >
> > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> >
> > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> > well as movies, music, etc.
> >
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> > software?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> Please take this elsewhere. Asking for help in finding serial numbers
> and cracks IN A FORUM WHERE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS ROUTINELY PARTICIPATE is
> both rude and stupid.
>
> --

Dude,

they are trolls (well i am aswell I suppose)

They know exactly how to do it. They are posting here to piss you off &
see your response.

Anyone who is bent enough to steal software will do it anyway.



And on that note, if you are that stupid, please ALWAYS USE LITTLE
SNITCH to make sure the app can't 'phone home' and send private data
(whether you have bought the software or not)

ChrisHollandisback@yahoo.com wrote:

> 
> Gregory Weston wrote:
> > In article <xn0eryqi8j4vam000me3@privacy.net>,
> >  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Just a few questions:
> > > 
> > > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> > > 
> > > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm
> > > looking for Mac sites that have full software packages available
> > > to download as well as movies, music, etc.
> > > 
> > > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites
> > > for Mac software?
> > > 
> > > Thanks for your help.
> > 
> > Please take this elsewhere. Asking for help in finding serial
> > numbers and cracks IN A FORUM WHERE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS ROUTINELY
> > PARTICIPATE is both rude and stupid.
> > 
> > --
> 
> Dude,
> 
> they are trolls (well i am aswell I suppose)

Well, *you* may be.

> They know exactly how to do it. They are posting here to piss you off
> & see your response.

If I knew how to do it on the Mac I wouldn't be asking here, dipshit.

> Anyone who is bent enough to steal software will do it anyway.

"bent" as you put it is going into a shop and stealing the software off
the shelf.

-- 
Gavin

In article <michelle-404FFF.14522201102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> You predict the future?  I didn't see anyone telling him to fuck off 
> before I did. <g>

See?

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <1hmjj8o.zzcvlp1yhj6siN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
 mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> He inferred it (correctly) from my post.  ;-)

Yep.  I kin reed between the lynes.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

Mike Rosenberg wrote:

> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> > software?
>
> I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
> comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
> on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of an

I really love Google's context-sensitive ads. The ad that came up next
to this thread was:

Stolen Vehicle
Buy Stolen Vehicle on eBay
Stolen Vehicle for sale!
www.ebay.com

ROFLMAO.

In article <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> Is it theft? No.

Yes.  If you're using something I created and charge for without paying 
for it, you're a thief.  We've argued this before in comp.sys.mac.*.  Go 
read the archives.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <xn0erysn5lxsys003me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> And I didn't come here to get flamed, I only asked for an answer to my
> questions. If you can't answer them, don't bother replying. Ok?

You got everything you paid for.  Enjoy.  We don't owe you shit.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <xn0erz8y3qya26005me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> > Anyone who is bent enough to steal software will do it anyway.
> 
> "bent" as you put it is going into a shop and stealing the software 
> off the shelf.

Same thing as downloading it from a pirate site.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <bitbucket-39F3CA.23300901102006@news.demon.co.uk>,
 Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

> > You predict the future?  I didn't see anyone telling him to fuck 
> > off before I did. <g>
> 
> 
> I did - albeit in a literary way - on 13 July 2004:

Yeah, but not in comp.sys.mac.system <g>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> When you steal something the person you stole it from no longer has 
> it. When you copy a copyright work without permission the person who 
> has been granted a monopoly on copying it still has their copy and 
> can still sell copies. 

That is the typical software thief's rationalization.  When copy that 
software instead of buying it, you have robbed the seller of a sale.

It is amazing what mental gyrations you crooks go through to rationalize 
your criminal actions.

> If you can't see the difference there is something seriously wrong 
> with your cognitive abilities.

If you can't see that they're the same, it is your thinking that's 
screwed up.

> Is copyright violation immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Are you 
> depriving someone of potential income? Yes. Do I condone it? No. Is 
> it theft? No.

It most certainly is theft; as you said, it is illegal.  It is illegal 
because it is theft.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0erytcemydbs008me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Nice to see _some_ rational thought. However most of the time I'm not 
> depriving someone of income because even if piracy didn't exist I 
> wouldn't buy it anyway.

You crooks are so predictable; that's always the next response.  If you 
wouldn't buy it anyway, then you don't need it.  If you don't need it, 
you shouldn't steal it.

You can't afford a BMW, and they're too expensive anyway, so you would 
never buy one.  But by your rationalization, you would steal one.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0erysykmef16006me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> PS There's a lot of anal retentives in these groups, isn't there?

Nope, just a few of you.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0erysvbm9nyn005me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> I will soon. But before I go, if I'd never have paid for a legitimate 
> piece of software what difference would/does it make me downloading 
> it for free anyway?

Because if a scumbag like you downloads it, you will share it with 
others who would have bought it if they couldn't steal it with your help.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0erysrrm4hpb004me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> > > > How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!
> > > 
> > > Thanks but I wanted an answer not a flame war.
> > 
> > then you never should have admitted to being a thief.
> 
> Let's hope there's never a famine, because your family will starve.

Not at all.  But if there's a famine, many other families will starve 
because of you.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0erysn5lxsys003me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> And I didn't come here to get flamed, I only asked for an answer to 
> my questions. If you can't answer them, don't bother replying. Ok?

Tough shit, fucktard.  You came here, proudly proclaiming that you're a 
thief, and you expected to be welcomed with open arms?  You're not only 
a crook, but you're an idiot as well.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <efpki1$11su$1@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
 richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:

> You're just feeding a troll.  He has no interest in discussing the 
> matter, he's just trying to disrupt uk.comp.sys.mac as he has been 
> for months.

But, but, but... He just got his Macintosh a few hours ago; he said so 
himself.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <xn0erz8ozql2v0004me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> > He has no interest in discussing the matter
> 
> I know I'm feeding the troll again, but what's the point in trying to 
> discuss it when all you're met with is flames?

*YOU* are the troll, asshole.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <xn0erytcemydbs008me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
> > Nice to see _some_ rational thought. However most of the time I'm not
> > depriving someone of income because even if piracy didn't exist I 
> > wouldn't buy it anyway.
> 
> You crooks are so predictable; that's always the next response.  If you
> wouldn't buy it anyway, then you don't need it.  If you don't need it,
> you shouldn't steal it.
> 
> You can't afford a BMW, and they're too expensive anyway, so you would
> never buy one.  But by your rationalization, you would steal one.

Sort of. Except by stealing a BMW, someone else wouldn't have it. When
this guy downloads software, everyone who had it before still has it.
Sucks for the developer, though.

In article <1hmjw4a.56qqo51azl0cgN%nono@way.com>,
 nono@way.com (Preacher) wrote:

> Sort of. Except by stealing a BMW, someone else wouldn't have it. 
> When this guy downloads software, everyone who had it before still 
> has it. Sucks for the developer, though.

Yup; money has been stolen from the developer, the distributer, and the 
retailer.  And since someone who steals software will most likely pass 
on copies to other thieves, that's even more money stolen from those 
victims.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-FCFF21.19032301102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
>  Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > When you steal something the person you stole it from no longer has 
> > it. When you copy a copyright work without permission the person who 
> > has been granted a monopoly on copying it still has their copy and 
> > can still sell copies. 
> 
> That is the typical software thief's rationalization.  When copy that 
> software instead of buying it, you have robbed the seller of a sale.
> 
> It is amazing what mental gyrations you crooks go through to rationalize 
> your criminal actions.
> 
> > If you can't see the difference there is something seriously wrong 
> > with your cognitive abilities.
> 
> If you can't see that they're the same, it is your thinking that's 
> screwed up.
> 
> > Is copyright violation immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Are you 
> > depriving someone of potential income? Yes. Do I condone it? No. Is 
> > it theft? No.
> 
> It most certainly is theft; as you said, it is illegal.  It is illegal 
> because it is theft.

IANAL, but isn't legally copyright infringement, NOT theft, which is a 
tort.  Would you kindly stop parroting the vile retoric of the RIAA and 
MPAA?  This guy _IS_ asking advice on doing something illegal, a 
violation of the intellectual property laws of most countries (and 
unethical and scumbagworthy), but it's NOT theft.

No amount of berating him of being a pirating douchebag is going to 
change his opinion of himself.  Recall the line in PIRATES OF THE 
CARRIBEAN--"You cheated" "Hello?  Pirate!"  Asking him to leave or 
plonking him is really all we can do (other than report his posts to his 
ISP, in the hopes of having his internet access revoked).  But he hasn't 
really broken most End User Agreements.  Flamebating isn't really 
included in most agreements.

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...

In article <xn0erz8ozql2v0004me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Richard "Troll" Tobin wrote:
> 
> > He has no interest in discussing the matter
> 
> I know I'm feeding the troll again, but what's the point in trying to
> discuss it when all you're met with is flames?

You really don't get it.

It's like walking into a police station, telling them you want to break 
into a bank, and then asking them where to get the tools and help in 
stealing.

This is not a file sharing newsgroup, and you are continually throwing 
your crap in everyone's face, and you are surprised at the responses.

Saying that you are an idiot is an insult to idiots.

In article <vilain-68CC3B.21240701102006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
 Michael Vilain <vilain@spamcop.net> wrote:

> IANAL, but isn't legally copyright infringement, NOT theft, which is 
> a tort.  Would you kindly stop parroting the vile retoric of the RIAA 
> and MPAA? 

No, this isn't just copyright infringement, and is theft.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

"Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote in message 
news:xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net...
> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
>
>> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I'm looking
>> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
>> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
>> >
>> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
>> > Mac software?
>>
>> I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
>> comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're 
>> intent
>> on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of
>> an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be 
>> your
>> accomplices.
>
> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
> I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
> my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
>
> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
>
> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?

Downloading software is exactly like shoplifting.  Go ask Mommy or 
Daddy.

Steve

"Steven de Mena" <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote in message 
news:I_Odnczjkq4GAr3YnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote in message 
> news:xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net...
>> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I'm looking
>>> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
>>> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
>>> >
>>> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
>>> > Mac software?
>>>
>>> I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
>>> comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
>>> on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of
>>> an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be your
>>> accomplices.
>>
>> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
>> I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
>> my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
>>
>> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
>>
>> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
>
> Downloading software is exactly like shoplifting.  Go ask Mommy or Daddy.
>
> Steve
>
>
www.thepiratebay.org 

On 2/10/06 03:15, "Michelle Steiner"  wrote:
> 
>> You're just feeding a troll.  He has no interest in discussing the
>> matter, he's just trying to disrupt uk.comp.sys.mac as he has been
>> for months.
> 
> But, but, but... He just got his Macintosh a few hours ago; he said so
> himself.

Yeah, yeah... He says a LOT of stuff just to get a reaction.  Just ignore
him and his tribe of sock puppets.

In article <C1466943.3E7D4%stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com>,
 Stimpy <stimpy1997uk@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> You're just feeding a troll.  He has no interest in discussing the 
> >> matter, he's just trying to disrupt uk.comp.sys.mac as he has been 
> >> for months.
> > 
> > But, but, but... He just got his Macintosh a few hours ago; he said 
> > so himself.
> 
> Yeah, yeah... He says a LOT of stuff just to get a reaction.  Just 
> ignore him and his tribe of sock puppets.

I guess that my sarcasm wasn't as obvious as I thought it was.  Oh 
well... <g>

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <2YKdnVNOv6lyAr3YnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@adelphia.com>,
 "MuahMan" <muahman@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Steven de Mena" <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote in message 
> news:I_Odnczjkq4GAr3YnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote in message 
> > news:xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net...
> >> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > I'm looking
> >>> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
> >>> > download as well as movies, music, etc.
> >>> >
> >>> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
> >>> > Mac software?
> >>>
> >>> I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
> >>> comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
> >>> on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of
> >>> an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be your
> >>> accomplices.
> >>
> >> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
> >> I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
> >> my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
> >>
> >> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
> >>
> >> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
> >
> > Downloading software is exactly like shoplifting.  Go ask Mommy or Daddy.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> www.thepiratebay.org 


 Why am I not surprised that Mr. Pratt would know the warez sites?

On 2006-10-01 14:07:19 -0700, "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> said:

> Mike Rosenberg wrote:
> 
>> Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm looking
>>> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to
>>> download as well as movies, music, etc.
>>> 
>>> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for
>>> Mac software?
>> 
>> I don't know about uk.comp.sys.mac, but you'll find that in
>> comp.sys.mac.system the prevailing sentiment is that, if you're intent
>> on stealing software, you should resort to shoplifting.  It's more of
>> an adrenalin rush anyway.  Oh, and in general, don't ask us to be your
>> accomplices.
> 
> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
> I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
> my opinion it's ALL overpriced.

That doesn't mean you're entitled to something for nothing, you snotty 
little prick.

-jcr

In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
 "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows, so
> I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac. In
> my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
> 
> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
> 
> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?

You know Gav, me ol' china, privacy.net isn't going to protect you from 
a court order.
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

In article <Steve-1F2CDC.00271202102006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
Steve  <Steve@IHATESPAM.com> wrote:

>You really don't get it.

Stop feeding the troll.

-- Richard

In article <xn0erytcemydbs008me3@privacy.net>,
"Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Nice to see _some_ rational thought. However most of the time I'm not 
> depriving someone of income because even if piracy didn't exist I 
> wouldn't buy it anyway.

Don't think for one minute I agree with your criminal actions, you
rancid fucktard.

(This message is in reply to a reply. I never saw Gavin's original
message. I assume he's using news.alt.net.).


Tim

Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> In article <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
> Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Is it theft? No.
> 
> Yes.  If you're using something I created and charge for without paying 
> for it, you're a thief.  We've argued this before in comp.sys.mac.*.  Go 
> read the archives.

Yep, looks like you have. As usual the arguments that copyright
violation is theft seem to be "it is", "you must be a thief if you can
see the difference" and "the copyright holder is losing out so it's
theft".

Fortunately the law does see the difference between copyright violation
and theft. It also offers the same protection to copyright holders
whether or not profit is their prime motivation - you seem to be making
a distinction, at least in terminology.


Tim

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:59:40 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <1159739729.446886.120490@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>  ChrisHollandisback@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
>> hey atleast he's not a rapist!
>> 
>> What's worse - rape or software theft?
> 
> Rape.  I suspect that you're a rapist.

[copy-pasted response]

Chris Holland is the uk.comp.sys.mac resident troll. He suffers from ADHD
and has had to be on medication to control it. He posts incendiary remarks
to ucsm and also posts requests to troll groups to attack ucsm, simply
because he is bored and his affliction means he desperately needs to do
something 'exciting'.
 
Ignoring him will mean that he will eventually get bored of trolling and
find another outlet for his hyperactivity. I understand that he has seen a
psychologist and psychiatrist in the past, and on their advice has found
that medication helped with his concentration at university, but he's found
that the medication wears off by the evening. This would explain why he
often posts late at night.

I hope for his sake and ours that he has another word with his psychologist
and actually mentions the fact that he posts things like the above in order
to get a reaction. I hope that in time they can find a more healthy outlet
for his need of attention.

In the meantime, please don't respond to trolls.

	-zoara-

-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:10:48 -0400, Howard S Shubs wrote:

> If you're using something I created and charge for without paying 
> for it, you're a thief.

Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
depriving the owner of something. If theft were the only crime, then
copying copyright material would not be a crime, a position that I am sure
you would not want to be in since then your only redress would be civil
action.

Fortunately, copying and distributing copyright material *is* a crime, it's
just not theft.

Gavin wrote:

> Just a few questions:
>
> What's the best Mac torrent software?

I've used the standard BitTorrent Mac client to download Debian ISO
images in the past, and had no problems with it once I opened up the
relevant ports on my router. Admittedly that was just for a handful of
..ISO files from a known working seed.

In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> depriving the owner of something.

I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
clearly incorrect.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <4oc7v3-6ll.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> Fortunately the law does see the difference between copyright violation
> and theft. It also offers the same protection to copyright holders
> whether or not profit is their prime motivation - you seem to be making
> a distinction, at least in terminology.

If you're using something I created and DON'T charge for, then assuming 
I make it available freely, it's not theft.  It's all dependent on the 
licensing terms.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <17pl91wfh42r9.1rxozrkaddvek$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> Chris Holland is the uk.comp.sys.mac resident troll. He suffers from ADHD
> and has had to be on medication to control it.

ADHD is not an excuse for being rude like this, sorry.  If he claims 
that, he's full of shit.  In fact, from what you're saying, he's full of 
shit either way.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <4oc7v3-6ll.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> > Yes.  If you're using something I created and charge for without 
> > paying for it, you're a thief.  We've argued this before in 
> > comp.sys.mac.*.  Go read the archives.
> 
> Yep, looks like you have. As usual the arguments that copyright 
> violation is theft seem to be "it is", "you must be a thief if you 
> can see the difference" and "the copyright holder is losing out so 
> it's theft".

Software theft is theft in and of itself, regardless of copyright laws.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=79760226281+6+0+0&W
AISaction=retrieve>

3848.  (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this
chapter to provide local law enforcement and district attorneys with
the tools necessary to successfully interdict the promulgation of
high technology crime.  According to the federal Law Enforcement
Training Center, it is expected that states will see a tremendous
growth in high technology crimes over the next few years as computers
become more available and computer users more skilled in utilizing
technology to commit these faceless crimes.  High technology crimes
are those crimes in which technology is used as an instrument in
committing, or assisting in the commission of, a crime, or which is
the target of a criminal act.
   (b) Funds provided under this program are intended to ensure that
law enforcement is equipped with the necessary personnel and
equipment to successfully combat high technology crime which
includes, but is not limited to, the following offenses:
<snip irrelevant portions>
   (5) Software piracy and other unlawful duplication of information.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> > depriving the owner of something.
> 
> I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> clearly incorrect.

You are both using different definitions of theft - so you are both 
right/wrong :-)

Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems 
are concerned. The laws underlying intellectual property are completely 
different to those covering goods and chattels and *stuff*.

However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
*stuff*.

IANAL and all that...

[1] That probably isn't true as I would think that ancient leasehold and 
copyhold rights pose similar problems to intellectual property. After 
all, somebody can't really *steal* large immovable items like land and 
property - they deprive you of your rights to enjoy the use of it.

-- 
Martin

In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>, Howard S
Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> > depriving the owner of something.
> 
> I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> clearly incorrect.

Perhaps there is a difference between English  law and US law. 
Here in the UK the legal definition of theft includes a requirement to
deprive permanently.  (see link below for reference).
http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml

That is one reason that for the creation of an  offence of taking a
vehicle without consent (TWOC) - i.e. the perpetrator sometimes n
avoided conviction by claiming that  he intended to return the vehicle,
thus not intending to deprive permanently.  So the TWOC statute avoided
that problem.

Also, I think that earlier in the thread someone (Michelle??) referred
to making unlawful copies of software as 'robbing'.  That is also wrong
because (according to English law) the offence of robbery requires the
use of violence or the threat of violence. 

Under certain circumstances (here in England) breach of copyright might
be a criminal offence, but the offence is not that of theft.

Kit

In article <bitbucket-5A97DB.14584402102006@news.clara.net>,
 Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

> In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>,
>  Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> >  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> > > depriving the owner of something.
> > 
> > I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> > clearly incorrect.
> 
> You are both using different definitions of theft - so you are both 
> right/wrong :-)
> 
> Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems 
> are concerned. The laws underlying intellectual property are completely 
> different to those covering goods and chattels and *stuff*.

   Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
in the Constitution. 
 Article 1, Section within the part on Powers of Congress
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for 
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their 
respective writings and discoveries"

In article <021020061519595226%kitzyme@yahoo.com>,
 Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>, Howard S
> Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> >  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> > > depriving the owner of something.
> > 
> > I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> > clearly incorrect.
> 
> Perhaps there is a difference between English  law and US law. 
> Here in the UK the legal definition of theft includes a requirement to
> deprive permanently.  (see link below for reference).
> http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml

  If you use a person's (say) computer program and do not pay him or her 
what she would have been paid had you actually bought the program, then 
you deprive them of that income permanently. Seems like a reasonable 
definition of theft. 

>

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:14:18 -0400, Howard S Shubs wrote:

> In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
>> depriving the owner of something.
> 
> I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> clearly incorrect.

Bwhahahahahaha... I'm clearly incorrect unless I have a reference? So in
summary you're not sure, but you want to leave it to me to prove your case
for you?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In the UK, The Theft Act 1968 Section 1.

1. Basic definition of theft
(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other
of it; and �theft� and �steal� shall be construed accordingly.

and 

 S. 96 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 

An infringement of copyright is actionable by the copyright owner.

[Note that an infringement of copyright is actionable (a civil tort) not a
criminal offence.]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

UK summary:

http://lawblog.uea.ac.uk/archives/copyright_violation_.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm

Summary of US position:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

In uk.comp.sys.mac Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <021020061519595226%kitzyme@yahoo.com>,
>  Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>, Howard S
> > Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> > >  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> > > > depriving the owner of something.
> > > 
> > > I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> > > clearly incorrect.
> > 
> > Perhaps there is a difference between English  law and US law. 
> > Here in the UK the legal definition of theft includes a requirement to
> > deprive permanently.  (see link below for reference).
> > http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml

>   If you use a person's (say) computer program and do not pay him or her 
> what she would have been paid had you actually bought the program, then 
> you deprive them of that income permanently. Seems like a reasonable 
> definition of theft. 

'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
other of it'

from the webpage above. Since the income is not yet the property of
the programmer it's not theft by that definition.

-- 
Edd
(who naturally agrees it's still illegal, wrong and all that)

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:38:02 GMT, Kurt Ullman wrote:

> If you use a person's (say) computer program and do not pay him or her 
> what she would have been paid had you actually bought the program, then 
> you deprive them of that income permanently. Seems like a reasonable 
> definition of theft.

Depriving someone of income is not theft.

Making illicit copies of copyright works is not theft.

Neither act is morally justifiable, either act may attract criminal or
civil penalties, but they are not theft.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:58:44 +0100, Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com>
wrote:

>In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>,
> Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>> > Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
>> > depriving the owner of something.
>> 
>> I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
>> clearly incorrect.
>
>You are both using different definitions of theft - so you are both 
>right/wrong :-)
>
>Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems 
>are concerned. The laws underlying intellectual property are completely 
>different to those covering goods and chattels and *stuff*.
>
>However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
>like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
>consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
>*stuff*.
>
>IANAL and all that...
>
>[1] That probably isn't true as I would think that ancient leasehold and 
>copyhold rights pose similar problems to intellectual property. After 
>all, somebody can't really *steal* large immovable items like land and 
>property - they deprive you of your rights to enjoy the use of it.

Hi Martin Orpen you 158.152.13.62 fuckwit!

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:17:40 -0400, Howard S Shubs wrote:

> In article <17pl91wfh42r9.1rxozrkaddvek$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
>> Chris Holland is the uk.comp.sys.mac resident troll. He suffers from ADHD
>> and has had to be on medication to control it.
> 
> ADHD is not an excuse for being rude like this, sorry. 

I agree.


> If he claims that, he's full of shit.

As far as I know, he hasn't claimed that, but he has claimed that he gets
bored easily and likes winding 'boring' people up. Not here, not there, but
elsewhere.


> In fact, from what you're saying, he's full of shit either way.

He is. So just ignore him. And all the other trolls as well.

	-z-


-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:58:44 +0100, Martin wrote:

> However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
> like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
> consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
> *stuff*.

No, politicians and those who run recording companies (companies BTW that
specialise in making money by abusing the rights of the creator of
copyright works) refer to it as copyright theft. "Greater legal minds" do
not refer to it as copyright "theft", other than possibly as a loose social
shorthand.

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:35:36 GMT, Kurt Ullman wrote:

>    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
> in the Constitution.

Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".

On 2006-10-01 23:53:04 +0300, "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> said:

> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

You have been reported to http://www.bsa.org , hope your trolling was 
worth your legal troubles in future.

Have a nice day

Ilgaz

Gavin wrote:
> Just a few questions:
> 
> What's the best Mac torrent software?
> 
> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
> 
> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
> 
Excellent troll.  I really can't tell if this is on purpose or not.

I mean, if you can post to USENET, you can probably find Google.  With 
Google you can find nearly every private and public torrent site you 
could possibly want.  And each has a fully searchable "Mac software" 
section.

So, I'm leaning toward troll.

Well done, however.

Ilgaz �cal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You have been reported to http://www.bsa.org , hope your trolling was
> worth your legal troubles in future.

Okay, I think the guy is scum and I've said as much.

I've seen you threaten scumbags before, and I'd like to ask you exactly
what you think it really going to happen now that you've reported him.
I mean BSA now has a first name that may or may not really be his, an
email address from privacy.net that's probably incorrect, and not even
an IP address in his headers.  How do you suppose they'll track him down
and what legal troubles do you expect will ensue?

Look, I agree the guy's a scumbag and deserves to suffer some
consequences, but making empty threats accomplishes nothing.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift

In article <1qhqmbcsz2ro7$.1cheituk2cpl4.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:58:44 +0100, Martin wrote:
> 
> > However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
> > like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
> > consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
> > *stuff*.
> 
> No, politicians and those who run recording companies (companies BTW that
> specialise in making money by abusing the rights of the creator of
> copyright works) refer to it as copyright theft. "Greater legal minds" do
> not refer to it as copyright "theft", other than possibly as a loose social
> shorthand.

I take your views with a large pinch of salt Steve - especially as you 
have already made it very plain that you don't have much of a clue about 
UK/US Law - but are happy to tell people what is legal and illegal.

My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
terms applied to it.

You need look no further than the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to see how 
mere *access* to intangible property is now a criminal offence - no 
matter whether you use it, copy it or destroy it.

But, you're the security expert so maybe you can tell me if downloading 
and running an application by altering the code and/or entering user 
names and passwords which were obtained by unauthorised means would 
constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (1990)?

-- 
Martin

Kurt Ullman wrote:

> >    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
> > in the Constitution.

Steve Firth:
> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".

It does, actually, unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
doubletalk.Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
permission or compensation will always be theft. You can't repeal the
truth.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

In article <tmp3pxpdmtwe.8nzidm2618vw$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:35:36 GMT, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> 
> >    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
> > in the Constitution.
> 
> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".

     No, but the rest of the legislation does (under another part of the 
same article about Congress can enact laws needed to enforce these 
provisions).  If it isn;t theft, how come the FBI keeps getting 
involved?

In article <bitbucket-5A97DB.14584402102006@news.clara.net>, Martin
<bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

> Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems 
> are concerned. 

The Wikipedia claims first documented use is from 1845:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#History

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <michelle-D23C8A.06554902102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <4oc7v3-6ll.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
>  Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > Yes.  If you're using something I created and charge for without 
> > > paying for it, you're a thief.  We've argued this before in 
> > > comp.sys.mac.*.  Go read the archives.
> > 
> > Yep, looks like you have. As usual the arguments that copyright 
> > violation is theft seem to be "it is", "you must be a thief if you 
> > can see the difference" and "the copyright holder is losing out so 
> > it's theft".
> 
> Software theft is theft in and of itself, regardless of copyright laws.
> <http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=79760226281+6+0+0&W
> AISaction=retrieve>
> 

But I see several kinds of software theft.

1. Stealing the executables or using downloadable ones outside of the
   license terms.

   1a. Cracking or using a hooky license key.
   1b. Using a product like Oracle for production purposes when you can
       get it free *for development purposes only*.

2. Stealing source code. This can include taking source code you
   have personally written when working for a company when the
   contract you had with them said that anything you develop when they
   are paying you belongs to them.

3. Stealing good ideas. Much more fuzzy, and can end up in protracted
   lawsuits etc.

1. and 2. rank extremely high as theft with me.

3. is a very grey area. There are instances of people outright stealing 
the "look and feel" of something, and at the other end of the scale, 
those determined to ensure that their source code looks nothing like the 
original.

-- 
Paul Sture

MuahMan wrote:

>>> And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
>>>
>>> Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
>> Downloading software is exactly like shoplifting.  Go ask Mommy or Daddy.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
> www.thepiratebay.org 
> 
> 
http://www.amule.org/

Dunno about stuff other than music, but I saw loads of software there. 
Bit of a bugger to get the firewall (if you have it on!) and router set up.

Also gnutella, I think it's called. But if you won't pay for acquisition
http://www.acquisitionx.com/faq.php
your mileage may vary. If the thing you want is there, gnutella is 
faster than most. WWW is useless. you need P2P. You can get just about 
anything.

And you should pay for software, it is not in the same league as music, 
not anything like it. Music is a total rip-off on both sides, but 
software is generally pepole working hard and mostly getting well paid 
for it.

http://www.pure-mac.com/p2p.html

Andy

Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:
> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> 
>> >    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
>> > in the Constitution.
> 
> Steve Firth:
>> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".
> 
> It does, actually, unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
> doubletalk.Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
> permission or compensation will always be theft. You can't repeal the
> truth.

The 'property', if such a term even applies, is the monopoly on
exploitation, not the work itself. Otherwise we're talking about owning
thoughts, ideas and their intangible expressions, which is an wholly
unnatural and terrifying concept and one to which I am entirely opposed.

There is no natural monopoly on ideas and their expressions, they can
(in the absence of copyright and patents) be duplicated with virtually
no cost and without harm to to the originator. This is entirely
different to physical items. The monopolies afforded by copyright and
patents are wholly artificial, unlike the monopoly on physical items,
each of which is unique, even though it may be nearly identical to other
items - particularly in this age of mass production. These time-limited
artificial monopolies are good things; they encourage people to create
works and invent things. I'm all for them as they provide a net benefit
to society, though beyond a certain point further extensions in scope
and duration of these monopolies reduce rather than increase the
benefits. Copyright and patents should be encouraged, respected and
enforced. But don't confuse these artificial monopolies, these legal
devices to encourage the creation and dissemination of ideas for the
benefit of all, with the ownership of the protected works. Nobody owns
ideas and their intangible expressions - not me, not you, not the
creator or their employer. Nobody.

As to the distinction being '"New Age" doubletalk', copyright and
patents are far more recent notions than the ownership of property. Use
of the term "intellectual property" is more recent still.

As the US constitution has been brought up, you might be interested to
read what a chap called Jefferson had to say on the subject of
'intellectual property':

"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for
the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space,
without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which
we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement
or exclusive appropriation.  Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a
subject of property.  Society may give an exclusive right to the profits
arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may
produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will
and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from
anybody..."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1813

He speaks of inventions, thus some of you will probably dismiss his
words as irrelevant, claiming copyright and not patents is the subject
at hand. I doubt Jefferson, with his eloquent description of the nature
of ideas, would think his sentiments so irrelevant to this discussion.


Tim

On 2006-10-02, Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:

> Steve Firth:
>> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".
>
> It does, actually, unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
> doubletalk. Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
> permission or compensation will always be theft. You can't repeal the
> truth.

So don't call it theft then. In legal terms copyright
infringement is *not* theft, it is copyright infringement.
And in moral terms there are stong counter arguments that
predate any "New Age" conceptions.

"If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly
owned if it is not shared." - St. Augustine (attributed)

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <bitbucket-5A97DB.14584402102006@news.clara.net>,
 Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

> 
> IANAL and all that...
> 
> [1] That probably isn't true as I would think that ancient leasehold and 
> copyhold rights pose similar problems to intellectual property. After 
> all, somebody can't really *steal* large immovable items like land and 
> property - they deprive you of your rights to enjoy the use of it.

But they *can* deprive you of rights to land and property if you don't 
have access rights to cross someone else's land to get to it.

Proven UK law, and it's not just pedestrian or vehicular access either, 
since it can include getting power and water into a house, waste water 
disposal, and long lasting maintenance of pipes and cables too.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <1v97ft4bx78d$.192xadfztkyke$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> Bwhahahahahaha... I'm clearly incorrect unless I have a reference? So in
> summary you're not sure, but you want to leave it to me to prove your case
> for you?

In other words, IANAL, I don't know or care about UK law, but US law, 
though there's certainly a historical link between them, and I'm 
certainly open to needing to call it something other than theft, as long 
as the term is clear.


> [Note that an infringement of copyright is actionable (a civil tort) not a
> criminal offence.]

So, what do you call it, then?


> Summary of US position:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28/copying_is_theft_and_other/

Thanks!

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <021020061519595226%kitzyme@yahoo.com>,
 Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> wrote:

> That is one reason that for the creation of an  offence of taking a
> vehicle without consent (TWOC) - i.e. the perpetrator sometimes n
> avoided conviction by claiming that  he intended to return the vehicle,
> thus not intending to deprive permanently.  So the TWOC statute avoided
> that problem.

Sounds like they need (needed?) to fix their definition.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <1v97ft4bx78d$.192xadfztkyke$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 09:14:18 -0400, Howard S Shubs wrote:
> 
> > In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
> >  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> >> Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
> >> depriving the owner of something.
> > 
> > I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
> > clearly incorrect.
> 
> Bwhahahahahaha... I'm clearly incorrect unless I have a reference? So in
> summary you're not sure, but you want to leave it to me to prove your case
> for you?
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> In the UK, The Theft Act 1968 Section 1.
> 

And Scottish law?

Please get yer facts right.

-- 
Paul Sture

Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> In article <4oc7v3-6ll.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
> Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Fortunately the law does see the difference between copyright violation
>> and theft. It also offers the same protection to copyright holders
>> whether or not profit is their prime motivation - you seem to be making
>> a distinction, at least in terminology.
> 
> If you're using something I created and DON'T charge for, then assuming 
> I make it available freely, it's not theft.  It's all dependent on the 
> licensing terms.

I was specifically thinking of software with licenses like the GNU GPL
or Creative Commons. While no money is demanded for a copy, there are
conditions - they are not 'freely available' in every sense. Without
meeting these conditions you have no legal right to disseminate copies
of the work. Doing so is copyright violation, yet it does not fit your
reasoning you have provided for copyright violation as theft. To me,
copyright violation is copyright violation, irrespective of whether the
consideration demanded is money, recognition, sharing of source code or
anything else. I don't apply different terminology as that would imply
there is some legal or moral difference, where I see none.

If you don't consider a GPL violation theft (I not making an accusation,
merely a statement of my uncertainty about your position), I hope you at
least consider it equally as serious as copyright violation where the
violated licensing terms require payment of money.


Tim

Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <bitbucket-5A97DB.14584402102006@news.clara.net>, Martin
> <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:
> 
> > Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems
> > are concerned. 
> 
> The Wikipedia claims first documented use is from 1845:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#History

Sounds pretty recent to me. 

        -z-

-- 
THONK BOKE

In article <howard-D219E1.21104801102006@news.supernews.com>,
Howard S Shubs  <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>In article <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
> Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Is it theft? No.
>
>Yes.  If you're using something I created and charge for without paying 
>for it, you're a thief.  We've argued this before in comp.sys.mac.*.  Go 
>read the archives.

My arranging my pattern of bits to match your pattern of bits -- whether
you ordinarily charge for that service (or a product embodying it) or
not -- is not theft. 
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <michelle-5ABB41.18570401102006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <xn0erz8y3qya26005me3@privacy.net>,
> "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> > Anyone who is bent enough to steal software will do it anyway.
>> 
>> "bent" as you put it is going into a shop and stealing the software 
>> off the shelf.
>
>Same thing as downloading it from a pirate site.

Certainly not.  Downloading software from a pirate site is a Federal
felony with penalties including serious prison time.  Stealing it from a
shop is likely a state misdemeanor, carrying less jail time.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <bitbucket-5A97DB.14584402102006@news.clara.net>,
Martin  <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

>You are both using different definitions of theft - so you are both 
>right/wrong :-)
>
>Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems 
>are concerned. The laws underlying intellectual property are completely 
>different to those covering goods and chattels and *stuff*.
>
>However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
>like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
>consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
>*stuff*.

To commit an act fairly (if imprecisely) called "copyright theft"
you'd have to pass yourself off as the copyright holder.  Merely
making an unauthorized copy wouldn't qualify.  The RIAA uses the term
"copyright theft" to mean copyright infringement, and the judges they
have bought have cut and pasted their arguments into decisions, but I
wouldn't be willing to call any of them greater legal minds than even
Gavin. 

Anyway, the damage done by overzealous protection of so-called
intellectual property demonstrates there's something much different
about it.

>[1] That probably isn't true as I would think that ancient leasehold and 
>copyhold rights pose similar problems to intellectual property. After 
>all, somebody can't really *steal* large immovable items like land and 
>property - they deprive you of your rights to enjoy the use of it.

Stealing land and stealing copyright can both be basically
accomplished via fraud.  But the parallels to real property end about
there.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <paul.sture.nospam-5594B3.19491802102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
Paul Sture  <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
>
>But I see several kinds of software theft.
>
>1. Stealing the executables or using downloadable ones outside of the
>   license terms.
>
>   1a. Cracking or using a hooky license key.

Not theft.  Until fairly recent, not even copyright infringement.  May
STILL not be copyright infringement, but it is a violation of the
DMCA (in the US).
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> > In fact, from what you're saying, he's full of shit either way.
> 
> He is. So just ignore him. And all the other trolls as well.

Hear hear. Just check which news-servers these clowns are using, 
that should give everyone a pretty big clue.

-- 
^�^

Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> (This message is in reply to a reply. I never saw Gavin's original
> message. I assume he's using news.alt.net.).

You hit the nail on the head there, Tim. I've seen only 
one Altopia user ever who was worth white-listing.

-- 
^�^

In article <39GdnSw_ac5G6bzYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> >But I see several kinds of software theft.
> >
> >1. Stealing the executables or using downloadable ones outside of the
> >   license terms.
> >
> >   1a. Cracking or using a hooky license key.
> 
> Not theft.  Until fairly recent, not even copyright infringement.  May
> STILL not be copyright infringement, but it is a violation of the
> DMCA (in the US).

Possibly about to become a criminal offence (fraud) in England and 
Wales. I say "possibly" because the Fraud Bill is so vague it's hard to 
be sure what it might cover.

-- 
Jacques

Gavin <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> And I didn't come here to get flamed, I only asked for an answer to my
> questions. If you can't answer them, don't bother replying. Ok?

Blatant troll, with all the marks of a troll, too. 
Back to Altopia with you, begone, shoo!

-- 
^�^

In article <bitbucket-A978B4.17262702102006@news.clara.net>,
 Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

> > > However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
> > > like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
> > > consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
> > > *stuff*.
> > 
> > No, politicians and those who run recording companies (companies BTW that
> > specialise in making money by abusing the rights of the creator of
> > copyright works) refer to it as copyright theft. "Greater legal minds" do
> > not refer to it as copyright "theft", other than possibly as a loose social
> > shorthand.
> 
> I take your views with a large pinch of salt Steve - especially as you 
> have already made it very plain that you don't have much of a clue about 
> UK/US Law - but are happy to tell people what is legal and illegal.

I do have a clue about English law, at least, and Steve is absolutely 
right.
 
> My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
> getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
> terms applied to it.

Intellectual property *is* property. You can even steal it -- but not by 
just infringing it.

> You need look no further than the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to see how 
> mere *access* to intangible property is now a criminal offence - no 
> matter whether you use it, copy it or destroy it.

The Computer Misuse Act is about access to computers, not access to 
intangible property.
 
> But, you're the security expert so maybe you can tell me if downloading 
> and running an application by altering the code and/or entering user 
> names and passwords which were obtained by unauthorised means would 
> constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (1990)?

No. But it might, arguably, be an offence under the new Fraud Bill.

-- 
Jacques

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:19:56 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> Kurt Ullman wrote:
> 
>>>    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
>>> in the Constitution.
> 
> Steve Firth:
>> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".
> 
> It does, actually,

No, it doesn't, actually.

> unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
> doubletalk.Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
> permission or compensation will always be theft.

No, it can be theft or robbery or burglary. Each is a separate offence, and
duplicating a copyright work deprives no one of property, real or
otherwise. Indeed it ensures that someone has slightly more property than
they did before the copying.

> You can't repeal the truth.

You can't give some people a clue even by hitting them with a very large
clue stick.

In article <o038v3-hcm.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:
> > Kurt Ullman wrote:
> > 
> >> >    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
> >> > in the Constitution.
> > 
> > Steve Firth:
> >> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".
> > 
> > It does, actually, unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
> > doubletalk.Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
> > permission or compensation will always be theft. You can't repeal the
> > truth.
> 
> The 'property', if such a term even applies, is the monopoly on
> exploitation, not the work itself. Otherwise we're talking about owning
> thoughts, ideas and their intangible expressions, which is an wholly
> unnatural and terrifying concept and one to which I am entirely opposed.
> 
> There is no natural monopoly on ideas and their expressions, they can
> (in the absence of copyright and patents) be duplicated with virtually
> no cost and without harm to to the originator. This is entirely
> different to physical items. The monopolies afforded by copyright and
> patents are wholly artificial, unlike the monopoly on physical items,
> each of which is unique, even though it may be nearly identical to other
> items - particularly in this age of mass production. These time-limited
> artificial monopolies are good things; they encourage people to create
> works and invent things. I'm all for them as they provide a net benefit
> to society, though beyond a certain point further extensions in scope
> and duration of these monopolies reduce rather than increase the
> benefits. Copyright and patents should be encouraged, respected and
> enforced. But don't confuse these artificial monopolies, these legal
> devices to encourage the creation and dissemination of ideas for the
> benefit of all, with the ownership of the protected works. Nobody owns
> ideas and their intangible expressions - not me, not you, not the
> creator or their employer. Nobody.
> 
> As to the distinction being '"New Age" doubletalk', copyright and
> patents are far more recent notions than the ownership of property. Use
> of the term "intellectual property" is more recent still.
> 
> As the US constitution has been brought up, you might be interested to
> read what a chap called Jefferson had to say on the subject of
> 'intellectual property':
> 
> "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for
> the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his
> condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by
> nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space,
> without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which
> we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement
> or exclusive appropriation.  Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a
> subject of property.  Society may give an exclusive right to the profits
> arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may
> produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will
> and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from
> anybody..."
> 
> - Thomas Jefferson, 1813
> 
> He speaks of inventions, thus some of you will probably dismiss his
> words as irrelevant, claiming copyright and not patents is the subject
> at hand. I doubt Jefferson, with his eloquent description of the nature
> of ideas, would think his sentiments so irrelevant to this discussion.


Nicely put Tim.

As Chomsky has pointed out many times, Jefferson warned us of the danger 
posed by "banking institutions and monied incorporations" and how 
ascribing the power of "immortal persons" to corporations would 
undermine democracy.

But he had no idea how bad it would get. Wonder what he'd make of how we 
live today?

Even our own genetics are now subject to "exclusive appropriation" - and 
we don't have anything like the kind of "globalisation" that he 
envisaged...

Regards

-- 
Martin

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:26:27 +0100, Martin wrote:

> In article <1qhqmbcsz2ro7$.1cheituk2cpl4.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:58:44 +0100, Martin wrote:
>> 
>>> However, greater legal minds than our own seem to be happy to use terms 
>>> like "copyright theft" and "identity theft" - which suggest that they 
>>> consider intellectual or intangible property to be similar to the usual 
>>> *stuff*.
>> 
>> No, politicians and those who run recording companies (companies BTW that
>> specialise in making money by abusing the rights of the creator of
>> copyright works) refer to it as copyright theft. "Greater legal minds" do
>> not refer to it as copyright "theft", other than possibly as a loose social
>> shorthand.
> 
> I take your views with a large pinch of salt Steve - especially as you 
> have already made it very plain that you don't have much of a clue about 
> UK/US Law - but are happy to tell people what is legal and illegal.

A statement made without basis in fact.

> My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
> getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
> terms applied to it.

Your point was incorrect.
 
> You need look no further than the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to see how 
> mere *access* to intangible property is now a criminal offence - no 
> matter whether you use it, copy it or destroy it.

The Computer Misuse Act pertains to unauthorised access to a computer. Not
to making copies of the data on that computer.
 
> But, you're the security expert so maybe you can tell me if downloading 
> and running an application by altering the code and/or entering user 
> names and passwords which were obtained by unauthorised means would 
> constitute an offence under the Computer Misuse Act (1990)?

The offence is intentional unauthorised access to a computer. The rest of
your stipulations are merely window dressing.

You also appear to believe that I have stated that it's OK to make illegal
copies of copyright material. I have said no such thing. In fact I have
clearly stated the opposite. What I ahve said is that copyright
infringement is not theft. I also provided references to supporting
information, you OTOH have provided only "big gob" drivel.

In article <haberg-0210061949050001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
 haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) wrote:

> In article <bitbucket-5A97DB.14584402102006@news.clara.net>, Martin
> <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:
> 
> > Intellectual property is a recent thing[1] as far as our legal systems 
> > are concerned. 
> 
> The Wikipedia claims first documented use is from 1845:
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property#History

Well, considering that the use of the simplest legal terms like 
"defendant" and "plaintiff" predate this by nearly 800 years then I'd 
consider that relatively recent :-)

-- 
Martin

In article <mail-20867F.23001702102006@news.plus.net>,
 Jacques <mail@removethisword.jacques.vispa.com.invalid> wrote:

> > My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
> > getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
> > terms applied to it.
> 
> Intellectual property *is* property. You can even steal it -- but not by 
> just infringing it.

Err, wasn't Steve's point that you *couldn't* steal it?

Perhaps you can post more than a single sentence to explain your 
statement?

Regards

-- 
Martin

Martin wrote:

> As Chomsky has pointed out many times, Jefferson warned us of the danger 
> posed by "banking institutions and monied incorporations" and how 
> ascribing the power of "immortal persons" to corporations would 
> undermine democracy.
> 
> But he had no idea how bad it would get. Wonder what he'd make of how we 
> live today?

Jefferson... Jefferson... would that be the same Jefferson who authored
the Constitution who and considered copyright so important that he
included it in Section 8? "The Congress shal have Power To... promote
the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries..."

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

Steve Firth:
> >> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".

Davoud:
> > It does, actually, unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
> > doubletalk. Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
> > permission or compensation will always be theft. You can't repeal the
> > truth.

Ian Gregory: 
> So don't call it theft then. In legal terms copyright
> infringement is *not* theft, it is copyright infringement.
> And in moral terms there are stong counter arguments that
> predate any "New Age" conceptions.
> 
> "If sharing a thing in no way diminishes it, it is not rightly
> owned if it is not shared." - St. Augustine (attributed)

OK, "Old Age" doubletalk. For my enlightenment, what are the moral
counterarguments that suggest that taking another's property, real or
otherwise, without permission or compensation is not theft?

And tell St. Augustine that the work that I do is intellectual and
copyrighted and that I sell it for money. When it is "shared" (New Age
doubletalk for "stolen") its value is diminished.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

In article <1lxbkqsa0se46$.1q6n2bmfo570h$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:19:56 -0400, Davoud wrote:
> 
> > Kurt Ullman wrote:
> > 
> >>>    Yep. Intellectual property (at least in the US) has its own listing 
> >>> in the Constitution.
> > 
> > Steve Firth:
> >> Which still does not make the act of creating an infringing copy "theft".
> > 
> > It does, actually,
> 
> No, it doesn't, actually.
> 
> > unless you are an adherent of "New Age"
> > doubletalk.Taking another's property, real or otherwise, without
> > permission or compensation will always be theft.
> 
> No, it can be theft or robbery or burglary. Each is a separate offence, and
> duplicating a copyright work deprives no one of property, real or
> otherwise. Indeed it ensures that someone has slightly more property than
> they did before the copying.

     Duplicating a copyrighted work deprives the copyright holder of the 
money they would have gotten had that work been purchased. Burglars, 
too, under this scenario, would have slightly more property than they 
did before.

Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
> 
>> As Chomsky has pointed out many times, Jefferson warned us of the danger 
>> posed by "banking institutions and monied incorporations" and how 
>> ascribing the power of "immortal persons" to corporations would 
>> undermine democracy.
>> 
>> But he had no idea how bad it would get. Wonder what he'd make of how we 
>> live today?
> 
> Jefferson... Jefferson... would that be the same Jefferson who authored
> the Constitution who and considered copyright so important that he
> included it in Section 8? "The Congress shal have Power To... promote
> the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
> to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
> Writings and Discoveries..."

Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independednce, not the
Constitution. He was not even present when Constitution was written - he
was minister to France at the time and was in Paris.


Tim

Martin wrote:
 >
 > IANAL and all that...
 >

Yes, obviously you are anal, or obsessed with anuses.  But the correct
way to say that would be 'I am anal.'

On 2006-10-03, Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
>> As Chomsky has pointed out many times, Jefferson warned us of the danger 
>> posed by "banking institutions and monied incorporations" and how 
>> ascribing the power of "immortal persons" to corporations would 
>> undermine democracy.
>> 
>> But he had no idea how bad it would get. Wonder what he'd make of how we 
>> live today?
>
> Jefferson... Jefferson... would that be the same Jefferson who authored
> the Constitution who and considered copyright so important that he
> included it in Section 8? "The Congress shal have Power To... promote
> the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
> to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
> Writings and Discoveries..."

Yes, *for limited Times*.

Over the years Congress has extended the term of copyright
from 28 years to 56 years and then to the life of the author
*plus* 50 years (in 1976). In 1998 (shortly before certain
Disney copyrights were due to expire) Congress extended
copyright protection by an additional *twenty* years. In
the two years prior to that extension, Disney contributed
over a million dollars to federal political campaigns.

If corporations can buy retroactive extensions then terms
are effectively unlimited - and if Jefferson came back and
saw what was going on he would not be a happy bunny.

But then there are lots of things he would not be happy about,
like the fact that citizens are not allowed to grow cannabis
for their own use etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

On 2006-10-03, Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:
>
> OK, "Old Age" doubletalk. For my enlightenment, what are the moral
> counterarguments that suggest that taking another's property, real or
> otherwise, without permission or compensation is not theft?

If I copy something of yours then I have not *taken* anything, I
have made my own copy. Call it copying and then we can discuss
the moral issue of whether copying is wrong. I know that it can
legally be wrong (though it is certainly not "theft" in *legal*
terms), but morally? Is there a missing 11th commandment - "Thou
shalt not copy"? The protection afforded by copyright is artificial
and arbitrary - I am generally law abiding and so I respect the
rights of copyright holders, but it doesn't mean I accept that
those rights should exist.

Imagine that that someone broke your hand. Would you accuse them
of assault or theft? Surely by your argument it is theft, because
you won't be able to type the next 100 pages of your novel and
will therefore be deprived of some income. But that is silly, the
fact that you were incidentally deprived of income by the act of
someone breaking your hand, or of copying your novel, does not
make those things "theft". They would be assault, or copyright
infringement, and if you won a case you would be compensated for
lost income either way.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <39GdnSw_ac5G6bzYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> Not theft.  Until fairly recent, not even copyright infringement.  May
> STILL not be copyright infringement, but it is a violation of the
> DMCA (in the US).

To my understanding, theft of services is theft.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

Odor Fierceness wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>  >
>  > IANAL and all that...
>  >
> 
> Yes, obviously you are anal, or obsessed with anuses.  But the correct
> way to say that would be 'I am anal.'
> 

Stop twisting poster's words!


-- 
Macbeth

'Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft.
That will just be a completely unintentional
side effect.'  - Linus Torvalds

In article <9b68v3-1gm.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> I was specifically thinking of software with licenses like the GNU GPL
> or Creative Commons. While no money is demanded for a copy, there are
> conditions - they are not 'freely available' in every sense. Without
> meeting these conditions you have no legal right to disseminate copies
> of the work. Doing so is copyright violation, yet it does not fit your
> reasoning you have provided for copyright violation as theft.

Ah, I see where you're twisting it in order to sound vaguely reasonable, 
now.  I don't believe I ever claimed that copyright violation was theft, 
though I believe it is too.  I claimed that stealing my work was theft.  
There's a significant difference.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <4oduatFe7qvgU1@individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:


> Imagine that that someone broke your hand. Would you accuse them
> of assault or theft? Surely by your argument it is theft, because
> you won't be able to type the next 100 pages of your novel and
> will therefore be deprived of some income. But that is silly, 
     You got that right. One of the silliest arguments in this whole 
thread.. and that is saying somethin'

Davoud:
> > OK, "Old Age" doubletalk. For my enlightenment, what are the moral
> > counterarguments that suggest that taking another's property, real or
> > otherwise, without permission or compensation is not theft?

Ian Gregory: 
> If I copy something of yours then I have not *taken* anything, I
> have made my own copy.

If you want to buy the right to use my intellectual property in some
way please contact me and we will discuss terms and permissible uses.
If you want to copy an image from my web site (e.g.) and look at it in
the privacy of your home, be my guest. Do me a favor, though: don't
show the image to anyone who is not a member of your immediate
household. If you think that someone else might be interested in the
image, please direct them to my web site.

> Call it copying and then we can discuss
> the moral issue of whether copying is wrong.

I'll call it copying if you don't do anything but look at it yourself
in the privacy of your home. Decorate your wall with it and I'll call
it theft because you took without compensating me a property that I do
not offer without payment.

> Imagine that that someone broke your hand. Would you accuse them
> of assault or theft?

Both, in a sense. S/he will pay the penalty for the assault, and s/he
will compensate me for lost income. 

> But that is silly, the
> fact that you were incidentally deprived of income by the act of
> someone breaking your hand, or of copying your novel, does not
> make those things "theft". They would be assault, or copyright
> infringement, and if you won a case you would be compensated for
> lost income either way.

Copying my novel in such a way as to deprive me of income is theft. I
don't care what the law calls it, or what your
church/synagogue/mosque/coven/whatever calls it. "Copyright
infringement" is simply a name for a kind of theft. Other kinds of
theft include burglary, armed robbery, shoplifting... It's theft
because it belongs to me and if you want to /use/ it you have to pay me
for it.

Davoud

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig *dawt* com

On 2006-10-03, Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:

> Copying my novel in such a way as to deprive me of income is theft. I
> don't care what the law calls it, or what your
> church/synagogue/mosque/coven/whatever calls it.

So you only care what you call it - fair enough. If you want to
call it theft or rape (violation) or whatever, then that is up
to you. Clearly it leaves no further room for productive discussion.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <bitbucket-5A1AF6.23582602102006@news.demon.co.uk>,
 Martin <bitbucket@idea-digital.com> wrote:

> > > My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
> > > getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
> > > terms applied to it.
> > 
> > Intellectual property *is* property. You can even steal it -- but not by 
> > just infringing it.
> 
> Err, wasn't Steve's point that you *couldn't* steal it?
> 
> Perhaps you can post more than a single sentence to explain your 
> statement?

Steve's point, as I understand it, is that infringing copyright is not 
theft of the copyright. This is true. But copyright is a kind of 
property, and can therefore (in English law) be stolen. However, to 
steal it you would have to "appropriate" it with the intention of 
permanently depriving its owner of it. This could only happen in special 
circumstances -- for example if you were a trustee, and the copyright 
formed part of the trust property, and you sold it cheap in return for a 
kickback. The point is that in this case the original owner would no 
longer own the copyright, because by exercising your power to sell it 
you would have deprived him of it. But simply infringing his rights is 
not, in itself, theft of those rights.

Regards

-- 
Jacques

In article <howard-78B24F.22293702102006@news.supernews.com>,
 Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:

> In article <39GdnSw_ac5G6bzYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
>  russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> 
> > Not theft.  Until fairly recent, not even copyright infringement.  May
> > STILL not be copyright infringement, but it is a violation of the
> > DMCA (in the US).
> 
> To my understanding, theft of services is theft.

That reminds me of years ago when British Telecom were trying to 
prosecute people for abusing their service to obtain free phone calls.

I can't remember the history of how they arrived at this, but they ended 
up prosecuting individuals for "stealing electricity", and that was 
(still is?) the offence which would hold up in court.

Um, one instance has just sprung to mind. This was someone using a 
public callbox to give a friend an alarm call every morning, and then 
hanging up before it cost him any money.

-- 
Paul Sture

On 3 Oct 2006 06:15:29 GMT, Ian Gregory wrote:

> On 2006-10-03, Davoud <see@below.net> wrote:
> 
>> Copying my novel in such a way as to deprive me of income is theft. I
>> don't care what the law calls it, or what your
>> church/synagogue/mosque/coven/whatever calls it.
> 
> So you only care what you call it - fair enough. If you want to
> call it theft or rape (violation) or whatever, then that is up
> to you. Clearly it leaves no further room for productive discussion.

I find it interesting that the people on each side of the argument tally
strongly with the people on either side of the ocean. I wonder whether it's
a nuance of language, or a phenomenon of social convention?

	-z-



-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:31:52 GMT, Macbeth wrote:

> Odor Fierceness wrote:
>> Martin wrote:
>>  >
>>  > IANAL and all that...
>>  >
>> 
>> Yes, obviously you are anal, or obsessed with anuses.  But the correct
>> way to say that would be 'I am anal.'
>> 
> 
> Stop twisting poster's words!

[copy-pasted response]

Please don't feed the troll.

Remember, these people are desperately trying to get attention the only way 
they know how. They lack the skills (whether due to age or immaturity) to 
gain any sort of positive attention, so the only way to get the attention 
that they desperately crave is to post something provocative. 

Ignore them and they will get bored and move on. Responding to them doesn't 
help (however rational your response), it only makes the problem worse. 
You're giving them attention, which is what they want. 

Remember, these people are just like this: 

<http://www.ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20060821>

They will very likely respond to this post with similar childish abuse. 
Don't bother wasting your time on them.

	-zoara-


-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:01:21 -0400, Davoud wrote:

> I'll call it copying if you don't do anything but look at it yourself
> in the privacy of your home. Decorate your wall with it and I'll call
> it theft because you took without compensating me a property that I do
> not offer without payment.

You seem to think that the person you are responding to Has copied
something that you have created or wants to Ian made it clear that he has
no interest in making copies of such material. He does however understand
copyright and is making a valid point.

Despite your views, making a copy of anything on your website is not theft.
Decorating a wall with it is not theft.

Neither in fact is a criminal offence although both are actionable in a
civil court.

Making (say) wallpaper based on your design and selling it is a criminal
offence but it is still not theft.

In article
<paul.sture.nospam-059F23.21171802102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>, Paul
Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------------
> > In the UK, The Theft Act 1968 Section 1.
> > 
> 
> And Scottish law?
> 
> Please get yer facts right.

A very trivial fact since Scottish law affects so few people that it
isn't even worth considering in a discussion of copyright, which is of
international significance. Scotland is a conquered territory given the
privilege of being allowed to call itself part of the UK.  Yes, I know
about the Act of Union, but in fact Scotland was conquered ('pacified')
by England after the 'Union', when the Jacobites were defeated. 

Scotland is a peripheral pseudo-nation from which for centuries all
forward-looking and intelligent inhabitants have fled.  Historically
its most useful export has been cannon-fodder for the British army. 
The fact that Scotland has its own set of laws is of no more
significance than the laws of Botswana.

Kit

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:58:26 +0100, Martin wrote:

> In article <mail-20867F.23001702102006@news.plus.net>,
>  Jacques <mail@removethisword.jacques.vispa.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>> My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
>>> getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
>>> terms applied to it.
>> 
>> Intellectual property *is* property. You can even steal it -- but not by 
>> just infringing it.
> 
> Err, wasn't Steve's point that you *couldn't* steal it?

No, that was not what I said.

> Perhaps you can post more than a single sentence to explain your 
> statement?

Perhaps you could start reading the material you rant about?

Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > And Scottish law?
> > 
> > Please get yer facts right.


> A very trivial fact since Scottish law affects so few people that it
> isn't even worth considering in a discussion of copyright, which is of
> international significance. Scotland is a conquered territory given the
> privilege of being allowed to call itself part of the UK.  Yes, I know
> about the Act of Union, but in fact Scotland was conquered ('pacified')
> by England after the 'Union', when the Jacobites were defeated. 
> 
> Scotland is a peripheral pseudo-nation from which for centuries all
> forward-looking and intelligent inhabitants have fled.  Historically
> its most useful export has been cannon-fodder for the British army. 
> The fact that Scotland has its own set of laws is of no more
> significance than the laws of Botswana.

The fact that we English are likely to be governed by a Scot when (if?)
Warmonger Bliar finally relinquishes the levers of power is not though,
both Brown and Reid being Scottish. 

The Scots have their own parliament, let them be content with that.

FU set: ucsm

-- 
^�^

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:17:18 +0200, Paul Sture wrote:

> And Scottish law?
> 
> Please get yer facts right.

Who gives a fuck about the haggis munchers?

In article 
<paul.sture.nospam-41AB18.12231703102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>,
 Paul Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:

> Um, one instance has just sprung to mind. This was someone using a 
> public callbox to give a friend an alarm call every morning, and then 
> hanging up before it cost him any money.

I don't think I have any friends that dedicated to my well being, but 
it's a good idea. Except, we get unlimited local calling (always have) 
where I live.
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie@sometimes.sessile.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:52:00 +0100, snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe)
> wrote:
> 
> >FU set: ucsm
> 
> Oi Sn!pey! Hello mate, but stop that. ucsm has nothing to do with the
> thread except being subjected to a troll crosspost. Don't do the
> troll's work for them, just don't reply.
> 
>       Cheers - Jaimie

Hiya Jaimie, long time no see. Don't worry, I'll be good.
I think I'll subscribe to ucsm for a while though, just for a look.

FU set: bit-bucket.

-- 
^�^

Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> In article <9b68v3-1gm.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
> Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> Ah, I see where you're twisting it in order to sound vaguely reasonable, 
> now.  I don't believe I ever claimed that copyright violation was theft, 
> though I believe it is too.

I'll show you where I belive you claimed copyright violation was theft.
I'd just repeat your post, but you snipped most of the post (mine) which
you were replying to, so here's some of what you snipped to provide the
necessarry context:

My message <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk> ended with:
----- start quote -----
Is copyright violation immoral? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. Are you
depriving someone of potential income? Yes. Do I condone it? No. Is it
theft? No.
----- end quote -----

You cut out all but the last question and my answer to it and replied:

----- identifying headers -----
Message-ID: <howard-D219E1.21104801102006@news.supernews.com>
From: Howard S Shubs <howard@shubs.net>
----- start message -----
In article <7tr5v3-gt9.ln1@bertha.auton.me.uk>,
 Tim Auton <tim.auton@uton.borg.invalid> wrote:

> Is it theft? No.

Yes.  If you're using something I created and charge for without paying
for it, you're a thief.  We've argued this before in comp.sys.mac.*.  Go
read the archives.
----- end message -----

So, in response to "Is [copyright violation] theft? No." Your answer
started with "Yes.". I hardly think it's twisting your words to think
that "yes" was you saying that copyright violation was in fact theft.


Tim

In article <1ra05ffclt6qz.e8rmxn547lzh$.dlg@40tude.net>,
 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:58:26 +0100, Martin wrote:
> 
> > In article <mail-20867F.23001702102006@news.plus.net>,
> >  Jacques <mail@removethisword.jacques.vispa.com.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >>> My point was that the status of intellectual property appears to be 
> >>> getting closer to that of ordinary property - including a blurring of 
> >>> terms applied to it.
> >> 
> >> Intellectual property *is* property. You can even steal it -- but not by 
> >> just infringing it.
> > 
> > Err, wasn't Steve's point that you *couldn't* steal it?
> 
> No, that was not what I said.
> 
> > Perhaps you can post more than a single sentence to explain your 
> > statement?
> 
> Perhaps you could start reading the material you rant about?

Yeah Steve, you lecture me on the law - you being such a fucking 
expert...

Please note that I haven't claimed that using hooky software is theft. 

My posts pointed out that the terms being used showed that intellectual 
property was undergoing changes in its legal status.

ISTR asking you a question, *expert*.

-- 
Martin

Davoud wrote:

> If you want to copy an image from my web site (e.g.) and look at it in
> the privacy of your home, be my guest. Do me a favor, though: don't
> show the image to anyone who is not a member of your immediate
> household. If you think that someone else might be interested in the

You can't enforce a restriction like this, and it is questionable
whether a legal system that permits you to _claim_ such a right
(regardless of its enforceability) is meaningful. I guess you love the
idea of TPMs and can't wait for everyone to have to get explicit
separate permission from you before they can read your website from
their laptop as well as their desktop.

This is a very short step away from the attitude of music and video
licensors, who want every consumer to pay every single time they use a
piece of media.

If I buy a DVD of a movie, I have the right to put it in my home DVD
player or in a portable DVD player. If I subsequently buy some other
device that's capable of playing movies (but not DVDs), I should have
the right to transcode the DVD into the format that my new player
accepts. (This is even more applicable in the common instance where the
DVD publisher refuses to make media available in a useful format).

I'm an author too; I make about 40% of my income from writing. I am
vehemently opposed to DRM in all forms, and legislation that either
makes it compulsory or criminalizes fair-use DRM circumvention.

In article <1159878929.182817.20290@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "larwe"
<zwsdotcom@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I buy a DVD of a movie, I have the right to put it in my home DVD
> player or in a portable DVD player. If I subsequently buy some other
> device that's capable of playing movies (but not DVDs), I should have
> the right to transcode the DVD into the format that my new player
> accepts. (This is even more applicable in the common instance where the
> DVD publisher refuses to make media available in a useful format).

This has been extensively discussed elsewhere, for example, in the
"Motherboard" thread in this newsgroup.

It is clear that statute and common copyright law, as well as the WIPO
copyright treaty
<http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html>, say that
buyer of copyrighted material become the owner of the copy. Nobody owns
the software; the copyright owner just has certain distribution rights. In
particular, the information in copyrighted works is free of use, but not
the work itself, whose distribution is restricted. Computer software is to
be treated as other literary works.

> I'm an author too; I make about 40% of my income from writing. I am
> vehemently opposed to DRM in all forms, and legislation that either
> makes it compulsory or criminalizes fair-use DRM circumvention.

So, in particular, the copy owner has the usual owner rights (like when
buying say a chair), unless there has been a freely signed contract. A
contract forcibly introduced after the signover of the copy ownership is
not legally valid, if copyright and contract law, as well the WIPO treaty
(Article 6), should rule.

And, as for DRM, "Digital Rights Management", those who invented the term
like to pretend that the copyright holder has all rights, and others have
none. But the owner of a copy has rights, and the general public also has
fair use rights to copyrighted material, which could, of course, be a part
of the DRM concept, if those using the term so wants.

What you mention is just copy owner DRM: If the copyright holder
introduces�restrictions on your copy owner rights, you of course have the
right to remove them, at least as far as international and common
copyright law and the WIPO treaty are concerned.

The US copyright law has some stuff in it that prohibits it, but it is in
violation of the WIPO treaty, Article 10. Those living in the US should,
if they so wish, lobby their lawmakers to correct the US copyright law, so
that it is in agreement with the WIPO treaty that the US has signed.

-- 
  Hans Aberg

In article <-MSdnZGItvox8rzYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> >Same thing as downloading it from a pirate site.
> 
> Certainly not.  Downloading software from a pirate site is a Federal 
> felony with penalties including serious prison time.  Stealing it 
> from a shop is likely a state misdemeanor, carrying less jail time.

Difference in degree, not in kind, then.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <031020061136321024%kitzyme@yahoo.com>,
 Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article 
> <paul.sture.nospam-059F23.21171802102006@mac.sture.homeip.net>, Paul 
> Sture <paul.sture.nospam@hispeed.ch> wrote:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > In the UK, The Theft Act 1968 Section 1.
> > 
> > And Scottish law?
> > 
> > Please get yer facts right.
> 
> A very trivial fact since Scottish law affects so few people that it 
> isn't even worth considering in a discussion of copyright, which is 
> of international significance. Scotland is a conquered territory 
> given the privilege of being allowed to call itself part of the UK.  
> Yes, I know about the Act of Union, but in fact Scotland was 
> conquered ('pacified') by England after the 'Union', when the 
> Jacobites were defeated. 
> 
> Scotland is a peripheral pseudo-nation from which for centuries all 
> forward-looking and intelligent inhabitants have fled.  Historically 
> its most useful export has been cannon-fodder for the British army. 
> The fact that Scotland has its own set of laws is of no more 
> significance than the laws of Botswana.

One could say "Thank you for demonstrating why England no longer has an 
empire and is a second rate economic backwater, useful on the 
international scene only as cannon fodder for George W. Bush."  But that 
would be stooping to be an arrogant cod like yourself, so I'll refrain.

In article <021020062023483459%see@below.net>, Davoud  <Davoud> wrote:
>
>Jefferson... Jefferson... would that be the same Jefferson who authored
>the Constitution who and considered copyright so important that he
>included it in Section 8?

No.  Jefferson did not write the Constitution; I believe that honor
mostly fell to James Madison, though obviously it was not a product of
a single author.  Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, a
more radical document.

>"The Congress shal have Power To... promote
>the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times
>to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
>Writings and Discoveries..."

I doubt whoever wrote it meant the "limited time" to be longer than
the lifetime of anyone alive during the writing or discovery.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <howard-78B24F.22293702102006@news.supernews.com>,
Howard S Shubs  <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>In article <39GdnSw_ac5G6bzYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> Not theft.  Until fairly recent, not even copyright infringement.  May
>> STILL not be copyright infringement, but it is a violation of the
>> DMCA (in the US).
>
>To my understanding, theft of services is theft.

No theft of services is involved.  If I legitimately obtain a copy of
a piece of software which is limited in some way, and I remove those
limits, I have committed no theft.  If I do it simply by providing
input to the software, I cannot have committed any copyright violation
either. 
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <031020060101212438%see@below.net>, Davoud  <Davoud> wrote:
>
>If you want to buy the right to use my intellectual property in some
>way please contact me and we will discuss terms and permissible uses.
>If you want to copy an image from my web site (e.g.) and look at it in
>the privacy of your home, be my guest. Do me a favor, though: don't
>show the image to anyone who is not a member of your immediate
>household. If you think that someone else might be interested in the
>image, please direct them to my web site.

Copyright doesn't give you the right to restrict private display.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <4aSdnf8BDoWEYL_YnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> No theft of services is involved.

You've stolen my services if you steal the fruits of my services.  Or 
are you a lawyer?

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:14:04 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <-MSdnZGItvox8rzYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
>  russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
> 
>>>Same thing as downloading it from a pirate site.
>> 
>> Certainly not.  Downloading software from a pirate site is a Federal 
>> felony with penalties including serious prison time.  Stealing it 
>> from a shop is likely a state misdemeanor, carrying less jail time.
> 
> Difference in degree, not in kind, then.

By that logic, surely murder and speeding are different in degree and not
in kind?

	-z-
 
-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

In article <12lb500pabje5$.17s3fwoy3m1uc.dlg@40tude.net>,
 zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:

> >>>Same thing as downloading it from a pirate site.
> >> 
> >> Certainly not.  Downloading software from a pirate site is a 
> >> Federal felony with penalties including serious prison time.  
> >> Stealing it from a shop is likely a state misdemeanor, carrying 
> >> less jail time.
> > 
> > Difference in degree, not in kind, then.
> 
> By that logic, surely murder and speeding are different in degree and 
> not in kind?

No, not by that logic.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 07:37:50 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <12lb500pabje5$.17s3fwoy3m1uc.dlg@40tude.net>,
>  zoara <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>>Same thing as downloading it from a pirate site.
>>>> 
>>>> Certainly not.  Downloading software from a pirate site is a 
>>>> Federal felony with penalties including serious prison time.  
>>>> Stealing it from a shop is likely a state misdemeanor, carrying 
>>>> less jail time.
>>> 
>>> Difference in degree, not in kind, then.
>> 
>> By that logic, surely murder and speeding are different in degree and 
>> not in kind?
> 
> No, not by that logic.

Please elucidate.

	-z-

-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

zoara wrote:

> > In article <-MSdnZGItvox8rzYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> >  russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> By that logic, surely murder and speeding are different in degree and not
> in kind?

I'm sitting here chuckling at this whole thread, because what it boils
down to is the fact that anyone who has ever purchased software simply
paid the fare for a seat on the moral high ground in an argument like
this. As a bonus, they also received a coupon allowing them to be angry
at anyone who got for free what they paid to use. That's really all
there is here, folks; there is no deep truth to be found. Someone who
wants to download software is not going to be deterred from this
activity by a lecture on morals.

All of the points brought up here were brought up in more or less the
same exact words twenty years ago on the 8-bit scene, and have been
used without revision ever since. "Piracy is theft!" "No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!!" etc. etc. etc ad (and well beyond) nauseam. That issue is
entirely semantic, and it is dealt with semantically: legislation
defines what is labeled "theft" and what is labeled "intellectual
property crime".

British computer magazines (in particular) from the late 1980s and
early 1990s contained tacky cartoons of kids buying pirated software or
getting it from their friends, and then having an attack of moral
indigestion and calling in to the Federation against Software Theft
(F.A.S.T. - now defunct, I think). This argument is exactly the same as
those cartoons and won't be any more effective.

I guess everyone who dusted off their halo to weigh in on the "pure as
the driven snow" side of this can now hang it up and let the world
proceed as it always has: sufficient numbers of people pay for
software, music, etc. to keep people releasing them commercially. As
far as what I do is concerned, there is almost nothing I do in my day
job or other activities that I can't do with open-source software. The
only non-free-of-charge commercial software I own (other than operating
systems and a copy of Pages I bought out of curiosity) is Cadsoft EAGLE.

On 4 Oct 2006 08:28:08 -0700, larwe wrote:

> Someone who wants to download software is not going to be deterred from
> this activity by a lecture on morals.

Sure. But that isn't what's being debated.

I agree, however, that the "piracy is/isn't theft" argument has been
repeated ad nauseum, and will continue to be repeated as long as piracy,
copyright infringement and theft exist.

Doesn't stop me getting involved once in a while, though.

	-z-



-- 
iPod killer, coming zune.

larwe wrote:
> 
> I guess everyone who dusted off their halo to weigh in on the "pure as
> the driven snow" side of this can now hang it up and let the world
> proceed as it always has: sufficient numbers of people pay for
> software, music, etc. to keep people releasing them commercially. As
> far as what I do is concerned, there is almost nothing I do in my day
> job or other activities that I can't do with open-source software. The
> only non-free-of-charge commercial software I own (other than operating
> systems and a copy of Pages I bought out of curiosity) is Cadsoft EAGLE.
> 

In most cases I don't think commercial software has much value so the 
only commercial software I own is Photoshop CS.  I tried to the live 
with the Gimp but it still just doesn't cut it but I should check out 
some cheaper alternatives to Photoshop.

Greg

G.T. wrote:

> > job or other activities that I can't do with open-source software. The
> > only non-free-of-charge commercial software I own (other than operating
> > systems and a copy of Pages I bought out of curiosity) is Cadsoft EAGLE.
>
> In most cases I don't think commercial software has much value so the
> only commercial software I own is Photoshop CS.  I tried to the live
> with the Gimp but it still just doesn't cut it but I should check out

I got used to using GIMP as my primary image editing tool under Linux,
and I've since moved to using it on Windows as well. (I don't edit
images on the Mac).

In article <howard-13B147.22273003102006@news.supernews.com>,
Howard S Shubs  <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>In article <4aSdnf8BDoWEYL_YnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> No theft of services is involved.
>
>You've stolen my services if you steal the fruits of my services. 

Not only is that argument false (and obviously so), it's irrelevant.

Of course you snipped the reasoning I provided.

>Or are you a lawyer?

No.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <SeednefXCdWzw7nYnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> Not only is that argument false (and obviously so), it's irrelevant.

I see, so that's your legal opinion.  Got it.


> Of course you snipped the reasoning I provided.

No, I snipped the irrelevant crap you included.  I only included the 
bits I was replying to.


> No.

I'm not too surprised.

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

In article <howard-8B6FC5.23001804102006@news.supernews.com>,
Howard S Shubs  <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> Not only is that argument false (and obviously so), it's irrelevant.
>
>I see, so that's your legal opinion.  Got it.

Note that since you've snipped the context, this makes no sense.  

>> Of course you snipped the reasoning I provided.
>
>No, I snipped the irrelevant crap you included.  I only included the 
>bits I was replying to.

Without enough context to see what those bits were about.

>> No.
>
>I'm not too surprised.

See?

On 2006-10-02 19:17:21 +0300, mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike 
Rosenberg) said:

>   How do you suppose they'll track him down
> and what legal troubles do you expect will ensue?
> 
> Look, I agree the guy's a scumbag and deserves to suffer some
> consequences, but making empty threats accomplishes nothing.

I can't stand to trolls but there is one thing I would live the hassle 
to contact the devil is: Hiding behind privacy offered by services 
which were intended for "good" (not evil) reasons.

The devil here is BSA,, they have ways to get that morons IP and 
perhaps they may take it serious randomly.

Imagine hundreds of evil lawyers sitting in their office,bored. ;)

Ilgaz

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <xn0eryr19jrabj000me3@privacy.net>,
>  "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I've never paid for one piece of software When I was using Windows,
> > so I'm sure not going to start paying for it now I have this new Mac.
>
> OK, so you're a self admitted crook.  Rationalize it all you want, but
> the bottom line is that you are a thief, period!
>
> > In my opinion it's ALL overpriced.
>
> And that gives you the right to steal it?  Do you steal food that's
> overpriced?  How about a car?  How about a computer?
>
> > And downloading software is *nothing* like shoplifting.
>
> Unless the software is free or shareware, it is exactly like shoplifting.
>
> > Now, does anyone have the answers to my questions?
>
> How about this answer:  fuck off, you god-damned crook!
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Wait, we can steal overpriced cars?  Sweet!  There's a dealership with
Lotuses on display mildly near-by.  I'm comming for you Barbera.

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <vilain-68CC3B.21240701102006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>  Michael Vilain <vilain@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > IANAL, but isn't legally copyright infringement, NOT theft, which is
> > a tort.  Would you kindly stop parroting the vile retoric of the RIAA
> > and MPAA?
>
> No, this isn't just copyright infringement, and is theft.
>
> Anyway, I'm done with this discussion.
>
> --
> Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

I'm not defending his position, so don't get angry or flamey at me -
but when you pirate software/movie/music it is copyright infringement
they get you on, not theft.  This isn't a bad thing (I'm referring to
the classification of the crime, not the crime itself).  They can zap
you a whole lot worse for copyright infringement than they can for
theft.

I'm not arguing about what it amounts to.  Just what the legislation
prohibiting it calls it.

In article <1160198235.788859.323050@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 mike.trioxin@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm not defending his position, so don't get angry or flamey at me - 
> but when you pirate software/movie/music it is copyright infringement 
> they get you on, not theft.  This isn't a bad thing (I'm referring to 
> the classification of the crime, not the crime itself).  They can zap 
> you a whole lot worse for copyright infringement than they can for 
> theft.
> 
> I'm not arguing about what it amounts to.  Just what the legislation 
> prohibiting it calls it.

ASPEN, Colo.--The U.S. Department of Justice is prepared to begin 
prosecuting peer-to-peer pirates, a top government official said on 
Tuesday.
John Malcolm, a deputy assistant attorney general, said Americans should 
realize that swapping illicit copies of music and movies is a criminal 
offense that can result in lengthy prison terms.
"A lot of people think these activities are legal, and they think they 
ought to be legal," Malcolm told an audience at the Progress and Freedom 
Foundation�s annual technology and politics summit.
Malcolm said the Internet has become "the world's largest copy machine" 
and that criminal prosecutions of copyright offenders are now necessary 
to preserve the viability of America's content industries. "There does 
have to be some kind of a public message that stealing is stealing is 
stealing," said Malcolm, who oversees the arm of the Justice Department 
that prosecutes copyright and computer crime cases.
In an interview, Malcolm would not say when prosecutions would begin. 
The response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks temporarily diverted the 
department's resources and prevented its attorneys from focusing on this 
earlier, he said.
A few weeks ago, some of the most senior members of Congress pressured 
the Justice Department to invoke a little-known law, the No Electronic 
Theft (NET) Act, against peer-to-peer users who swap files without 
permission.
Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal 
crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies 
or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of 
the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in 
prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in 
prison.
Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America 
(RIAA), said his industry would "welcome" prosecutions that send a 
message to song-swappers.
"Some prosecutions that make that clear could be very helpful...I think 
they would think twice if they thought there was a risk of criminal 
prosecution," said Sherman, who was on the same conference panel.
Christopher Cookson, executive vice president of Warner Bros. and 
another panelist, said there was "a need for governments to step in and 
maintain order in society."
Swapping files in violation of the law has always been a civil offense, 
and the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have 
the option of suing individual infringers and seeking damages.
But, Malcolm said, criminal prosecutions can be much more effective in 
intimidating file-swappers who have little assets at risk in a civil 
suit. "Civil remedies are not adequate...Law enforcement in that regard 
does have several advantages," Malcolm said. "We have the advantage, 
when appropriate, of opening up and conducting multi-jurisdictional and 
international investigations.
"Most parents would be horrified if they walked into a child's room and 
found 100 stolen CDs...However, these same parents think nothing of 
having their children spend time online downloading hundreds of songs 
without paying a dime."
Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, said he 
was skeptical about the view that peer-to-peer piracy should be a 
criminal offense. "If we have 70 million people in the United States who 
are breaking the law, we have a big issue."
The DOJ already has used the NET Act to imprison noncommercial software 
pirates, which software lobbyists hailed as "an important component of 
the overall effort to prevent software theft."
During his confirmation hearing in June 2001, Attorney General John 
Ashcroft told Congress that "given the fact that much of America's 
strength in the world economy is a result of our being the developer and 
promoter of most of the valuable software, we cannot allow the assets 
that are held electronically to be pirated or infringed. And so we will 
make a priority of cybercrime issues."
The letter from Congress complains of "a staggering increase in the 
amount of intellectual property pirated over the Internet through 
peer-to-peer systems." Signed by 19 members of Congress, including Sen. 
Joseph Biden, D-Del., Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Sen. Dianne 
Feinstein, D-Ca., the letter urged Ashcroft "to prosecute individuals 
who intentionally allow mass copying from their computer over 
peer-to-peer networks."

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Ilgaz �cal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 2006-10-02 19:17:21 +0300, mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike 
> Rosenberg) said:
> 
> >   How do you suppose they'll track him down
> > and what legal troubles do you expect will ensue?
> > 
> > Look, I agree the guy's a scumbag and deserves to suffer some
> > consequences, but making empty threats accomplishes nothing.
> 
> I can't stand to trolls but there is one thing I would live the hassle
> to contact the devil is: Hiding behind privacy offered by services 
> which were intended for "good" (not evil) reasons.
> 
> The devil here is BSA,, they have ways to get that morons IP and 
> perhaps they may take it serious randomly.
> 
> Imagine hundreds of evil lawyers sitting in their office,bored. ;)
 
Bored?
Licking their fingers, you mean.
The whole thing iis nothing but a lawyer feeding machine.
They eat all that it yields.

No performing artist or software writer
ever saw an extra penny from their efforts,

Jan

as a result

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006 15:52:44 +0100, Edd wrote
(in article <efr93s$47o$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>):

> In uk.comp.sys.mac Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <021020061519595226%kitzyme@yahoo.com>,
>> Kit <kitzyme@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>>> In article <howard-72A811.09141802102006@news.supernews.com>, Howard S
>>> Shubs <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <1tzt4n7nixme3$.db1twu4ki4o2$.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>>> Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Not so, theft is a crime defined entirely with respect to permanently
>>>>> depriving the owner of something.
>>>> 
>>>> I expect you have a legal reference for that, as otherwise you're 
>>>> clearly incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Perhaps there is a difference between English  law and US law. 
>>> Here in the UK the legal definition of theft includes a requirement to
>>> deprive permanently.  (see link below for reference).
>>> http://www.swarb.co.uk/acts/1968TheftAct.shtml
> 
>> If you use a person's (say) computer program and do not pay him or her 
>> what she would have been paid had you actually bought the program, then 
>> you deprive them of that income permanently. Seems like a reasonable 
>> definition of theft. 
> 
> 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
> belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
> other of it'
> 
> from the webpage above. Since the income is not yet the property of
> the programmer it's not theft by that definition.
> 
> 

Exactly. I'm still trying to figure out how something can be stolen when the 
person who is supposed to have it, hasn't got it...

Does that make sense...?

On 2006-10-07, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <1160198235.788859.323050@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  mike.trioxin@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I'm not arguing about what it amounts to.  Just what the legislation 
>> prohibiting it calls it.
>
> ASPEN, Colo.--The U.S. Department of Justice is prepared to begin 
> prosecuting peer-to-peer pirates, a top government official said on 
> Tuesday.
[snipped] 
> A few weeks ago, some of the most senior members of Congress pressured 
> the Justice Department to invoke a little-known law, the No Electronic 
> Theft (NET) Act, against peer-to-peer users who swap files without 
> permission.

I can't believe that you of all people Michelle are quoting
that shit in defense of your position. So is an act which takes
away you constitutional rights "patriotic" just because they
call it the "Patriot Act"? What about the "Defence of Marriage
Act"?

People are free to make their own judgment on whether copyright
infringement is morally equivalent to theft, but basing your
judgement on the name of an act bought and paid for by corporate
lobbyists would be foolish to say the least.

I could call the DMCA act "theft" because it deprives people of
their fair use rights, but that would be disingenuous too, so
I don't.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <efr93s$47o$1@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk>,
 Edd <eddedmondson@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> 'A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property
> belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the
> other of it'
> 
> from the webpage above. Since the income is not yet the property of
> the programmer it's not theft by that definition.

Maybe not by the legal definition, but since you are posting from the 
UK, let me educate you how about it works for a software company there.

You issue an invoice, and regardless of whether you get paid or not, or 
even how late you get paid, the VAT and tax authorities assume the 
invoice date as the one you got received the payment, and charge you 
according to that date.

Slow payers erode your cash flow; non-payers are deadly.

-- 
Paul Sture

In article <4opr1hFfrgcmU1@individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> People are free to make their own judgment on whether copyright 
> infringement is morally equivalent to theft, but basing your 
> judgement on the name of an act bought and paid for by corporate 
> lobbyists would be foolish to say the least.

I am not basing it on the name of the act.  I am basing it on the 
content of the act:

"Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal 
crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies 
or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of 
the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in 
prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in 
prison."

Yes, it puts a minimum value, but it does show that at least under 
certain circumstances, it is a crime.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <michelle-2105F1.09000507102006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> "Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal 
> crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies 
> or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of 
> the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in 
> prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in 
> prison."
> 
> Yes, it puts a minimum value, but it does show that at least under 
> certain circumstances, it is a crime.

At least in the good ole US of A

hb.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
> Howard S Shubs  <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
[snip]

If y'all (including the other combatants in this thread)
agree that I certain behavior is illegal, unethical,
and immoral, then what's the point in fighting over
what word to call it?

-- 
Wes Groleau

Pat's Polemics = http://ideas.lang-learn.us/barrett

Tim Auton wrote:
> Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independednce, not the
> Constitution. He was not even present when Constitution was written - he

And even the Declaration was considerably changed
from what he drafted before it was actually signed.

-- 
Wes Groleau

He that complies against his will is of the same opinion still.
                   -- Samuel Butler, 1612-1680

> "Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal 
> crime to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies 
> or music with anyone, even friends or family members, if the value of 
> the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in 
> prison, or if the value tops $2,500, "not more than five years" in 
> prison."

And what determines the "value" ?  If it's the purchase price,
none of the items that started this thread are protected.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    Don't get even -- get odd!

In article <DaYVg.512$2l5.424@trnddc07>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> If y'all (including the other combatants in this thread)
> agree that I certain behavior is illegal, unethical,
> and immoral, then what's the point in fighting over
> what word to call it?

'Cause it's fun!

-- 
Being quick to take offense is not a virtue.

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Matthew Russotto wrote:
> > Howard S Shubs  <howard@shubs.net> wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> If y'all (including the other combatants in this thread)
> agree that I certain behavior is illegal, unethical,
> and immoral, then what's the point in fighting over
> what word to call it?

You Are Humpty Dumpty And I Claim My Five Local Units Of Currency.

        -z-

-- 
THONK BOKE

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Yes, it puts a minimum value, but it does show that at least under 
> certain circumstances, it is a crime.

You are conflating the "piracy is okay/wrong" argument and the "piracy
is/is not theft" argument. This thread concerns the latter, since the
former has a very obvious answer.

        -z-


-- 
THONK BOKE

On 2006-10-01 16:53:04 -0400, "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> said:

> Just a few questions:
> 
> What's the best Mac torrent software?
> 
> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> well as movies, music, etc.
> 
> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> software?
> 
> Thanks for your help.

ok, for torrents, i just use isohunt and for serials I use serials.ws 
there is a mac section

Kevin Walker <walkekev@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2006-10-01 16:53:04 -0400, "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> said:
> 
> > Just a few questions:
> > 
> > What's the best Mac torrent software?
> > 
> > What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
> > for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
> > well as movies, music, etc.
> > 
> > Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
> > software?
> > 
> > Thanks for your help.
> 
> ok, for torrents, i just use isohunt and for serials I use serials.ws
> there is a mac section

Wanker.
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

On 2006-11-18 22:11:51 -0500, jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn 
Genet) said:

> Kevin Walker <> wrote:
> 
>> On 2006-10-01 16:53:04 -0400, "Gavin" <me3@privacy.net> said:
>> 
>>> Just a few questions:
>>> 
>>> What's the best Mac torrent software?
>>> 
>>> What's a good Mac compatible torrent website/search engine? I'm looking
>>> for Mac sites that have full software packages available to download as
>>> well as movies, music, etc.
>>> 
>>> Finally, does anyone know of any good crack/serial/keygen sites for Mac
>>> software?
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your help.
>> 
>> ok, for torrents, i just use isohunt and for serials I use serials.ws
>> there is a mac section
> 
> Wanker.

Its not like he wont find it on his own. So you all know, I purchase 
all my software and am a developer myself. I understand that some 
people will not pay for software no matter how morally wrong it is. I 
dont support it, but I found this WHOLE thread very funny. As a 
developer, and as other developers know, stealing of software is always 
going to happen, and telling one person who allready has done it before 
is not going to change the amount we make as a developer. take a look 
at those sites, they dont offer much help anyways.

Kevin wrote:
>>> ok, for torrents, i just use isohunt and for serials I use serials.ws
>>> there is a mac section

and later

> Its not like he wont find it on his own. So you all know, I purchase all 
> my software and am a developer myself. I understand that some people 

If you purchase all our software, for what do you "use" those sites?

> will not pay for software no matter how morally wrong it is. I dont 
> support it, but I found this WHOLE thread very funny. As a developer, 
> and as other developers know, stealing of software is always going to 
> happen, and telling one person who allready has done it before is not 
> going to change the amount we make as a developer. take a look at those 
> sites, they dont offer much help anyways.

Wouldn't surprise me at all if anti-piracy folk plant
"sting" spyware on such sites.  Or malware, with the
attitude of "serves 'em right; the crooks get what
they deserve."

-- 
Wes Groleau
-----------

    "Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to
     feel smug about.  Why should I disillusion them?"
                             -- Charles Wallace
                             (in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Wouldn't surprise me at all if anti-piracy folk plant
> "sting" spyware on such sites.  Or malware, with the
> attitude of "serves 'em right; the crooks get what
> they deserve."

Under the laws of most countries that would be an offence.
So I don't think they would be that stupid.

You can't pretend that you want to defend the law
and commit lots offences yourself,

Jan

In article <1hp1o8k.1x1etr1e14qahN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> 
> > Wouldn't surprise me at all if anti-piracy folk plant
> > "sting" spyware on such sites.  Or malware, with the
> > attitude of "serves 'em right; the crooks get what
> > they deserve."
> 
> Under the laws of most countries that would be an offence.
> So I don't think they would be that stupid.
> 
> You can't pretend that you want to defend the law
> and commit lots offences yourself,

Planting malware or spyware would be illegal, but posting  a bunch 
"dummy" Torrents or files that simply make it difficult to find the real 
thing is legal, and some musicians do it (well, their people do it).
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hp1o8k.1x1etr1e14qahN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> 
> > Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Wouldn't surprise me at all if anti-piracy folk plant
> > > "sting" spyware on such sites.  Or malware, with the
> > > attitude of "serves 'em right; the crooks get what
> > > they deserve."
> > 
> > Under the laws of most countries that would be an offence.
> > So I don't think they would be that stupid.
> > 
> > You can't pretend that you want to defend the law
> > and commit lots offences yourself,
> 
> Planting malware or spyware would be illegal, but posting  a bunch 
> "dummy" Torrents or files that simply make it difficult to find the real
> thing is legal, and some musicians do it (well, their people do it).

They will find it difficult to get
on the major torrentsearch sites, 
(and to stay there)

Jan

On 2006-11-18 22:53:48 -0500, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> said:

> Kevin wrote:
>>>> ok, for torrents, i just use isohunt and for serials I use serials.ws
>>>> there is a mac section
> 
> and later
> 
>> Its not like he wont find it on his own. So you all know, I purchase 
>> all my software and am a developer myself. I understand that some people
> 
> If you purchase all our software, for what do you "use" those sites?
> 
>> will not pay for software no matter how morally wrong it is. I dont 
>> support it, but I found this WHOLE thread very funny. As a developer, 
>> and as other developers know, stealing of software is always going to 
>> happen, and telling one person who allready has done it before is not 
>> going to change the amount we make as a developer. take a look at those 
>> sites, they dont offer much help anyways.
> 
> Wouldn't surprise me at all if anti-piracy folk plant
> "sting" spyware on such sites.  Or malware, with the
> attitude of "serves 'em right; the crooks get what
> they deserve."

I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions 
at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me 
frankly.

In article <4561cb1f$0$2975$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
 Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:

> I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
> In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
> software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions 
> at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
> offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me 
> frankly.

"I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. In order 
to get around town and stuff, I needed a car. A car was very expensive for me. I 
admit, I did steal a car at those times."

Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it
is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. � Winston Churchill

D.F. Manno wrote:
> In article <4561cb1f$0$2975$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>  Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
>> I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
>> In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
>> software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions 
>> at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
>> offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me 
>> frankly.
> 
> "I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. In order 
> to get around town and stuff, I needed a car. A car was very expensive for me. I 
> admit, I did steal a car at those times."
> 
> Being poor is not an excuse for theft.

But, but, but I'm ENTITLED to the same things everyone else has.  I 
can't afford a Ferrari so I stole mine!

Greg

-- 
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

On 2006-11-20 12:08:29 -0500, "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> said:

> In article <4561cb1f$0$2975$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>  Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
>> I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
>> In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
>> software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions 
>> at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
>> offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me 
>> frankly.
> 
> "I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
> In order to get around town and stuff, I needed a car. A car was very 
> expensive for me. I admit, I did steal a car at those times."
> 
> Being poor is not an excuse for theft.

I completely agree, and I do not "support" theft of software, as it 
hurts me to. But I understand it, and i believe that is key. i was in a 
spot before. but i see it like this.

I was a student in school planning to become a developer. I used alot 
of software suites that I would not have been able to  if i had not 
gotton illegal version's of them. Now, I have choosen alot of my 
software to develope with based on the ones I used back at school. and 
40 corporate versions cost more than 1 student version.

In article <4561cb1f$0$2975$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
 Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:

> I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
> In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
> software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions 
> at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
> offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me 
> frankly.

I was reading today about some student who finds ways around buying very 
expensive textbooks. In one instance he discovered that taking a  book 
out of the library, keeping it all semester, and paying the library 
fines cost him a whole lot less than buying the boot. Software doesn't 
work that way, I know.
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

In article <1hp25f3.1qfai4q7y4e0iN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> They will find it difficult to get
> on the major torrentsearch sites, 
> (and to stay there)

Of course. It works best with Limewire-style sharing.
-- 
W. Oates
 Teal'c: He is concealing something.
 O'Neil: Like what?
 Teal'c: I am unsure, he is concealing it.

Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:

> On 2006-11-18 22:53:48 -0500, Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> said:
> 
> > Kevin wrote:
> >>>> ok, for torrents, i just use isohunt and for serials I use serials.ws
> >>>> there is a mac section
> > 
> > and later
> > 
> >> Its not like he wont find it on his own. So you all know, I purchase
> >> all my software and am a developer myself. I understand that some people
> > 
> > If you purchase all our software, for what do you "use" those sites?
> > 
> >> will not pay for software no matter how morally wrong it is. I dont
> >> support it, but I found this WHOLE thread very funny. As a developer,
> >> and as other developers know, stealing of software is always going to
> >> happen, and telling one person who allready has done it before is not
> >> going to change the amount we make as a developer. take a look at those
> >> sites, they dont offer much help anyways.
> > 
> > Wouldn't surprise me at all if anti-piracy folk plant
> > "sting" spyware on such sites.  Or malware, with the
> > attitude of "serves 'em right; the crooks get what
> > they deserve."
> 
> I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke.
> In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
> software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions
> at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
> offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me
> frankly.

They obviuously think that it's a good idea that students
should also be educated in the ways of the crack,

Jan

D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <4561cb1f$0$2975$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
>  Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> 
> > I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke.
> > In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
> > software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions
> > at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not
> > offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me
> > frankly.

[snip silly repetitions]
 
> Being poor is not an excuse for theft.

Copyright violation is not theft,
it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,

Jan

-- 
"Here we go, round again...."

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hp25f3.1qfai4q7y4e0iN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> 
> > They will find it difficult to get
> > on the major torrentsearch sites, 
> > (and to stay there)
> 
> Of course. It works best with Limewire-style sharing.

No need to add more polution there.
The porn ads should be deterence enough,

Jan

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> They obviuously think that it's a good idea that students
> should also be educated in the ways of the crack,
> 

Are you referring to sex or drugs here ? Either way, in my experience 
most students are perfectly capable of learning about these subjects 
without any additional instruction.

Paul

In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> 
> Copyright violation is not theft,
> it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,

Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc) means that 
the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid for his/her/their 
work. That's theft.
-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it
is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. � Winston Churchill

In article <45620052$0$5600$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
 Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:

> On 2006-11-20 12:08:29 -0500, "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> said:
> 
> > In article <4561cb1f$0$2975$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com>,
> >  Kevin <None@dontemailme.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
> >> In order to do some projects and stuff, I needed software. This 
> >> software was very expensive for me. I admit, I did get cracked versions 
> >> at those times. Now I buy ALL my software. Too many devolpers to not 
> >> offer educational versions of software, and it it quite upsetting to me 
> >> frankly.
> > 
> > "I was a student at one time, and being a student kept me pretty broke. 
> > In order to get around town and stuff, I needed a car. A car was very 
> > expensive for me. I admit, I did steal a car at those times."
> > 
> > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> 
> I completely agree, and I do not "support" theft of software, as it 
> hurts me to. But I understand it, and i believe that is key. i was in a 
> spot before. but i see it like this.
> 
> I was a student in school planning to become a developer. I used alot 
> of software suites that I would not have been able to  if i had not 
> gotton illegal version's of them. Now, I have choosen alot of my 
> software to develope with based on the ones I used back at school. and 
> 40 corporate versions cost more than 1 student version.

So it's OK to steal the car as long as some time in the future I buy one.
-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it
is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. � Winston Churchill

D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> 
> > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > 
> > Copyright violation is not theft,
> > it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,
> 
> Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid for
> his/her/their work. That's theft.

Ignorance is Strength,

Jan

-- 
"Here we go, round again..."

In article <1hp6bur.1xixi1x1duoi9N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > 
> > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > > 
> > > Copyright violation is not theft,
> > > it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,
> > 
> > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid for
> > his/her/their work. That's theft.
> 
> Ignorance is Strength,

That makes you Hercules.
-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@mail.com
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it
is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. � Winston Churchill

"D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> writes:

> 
> Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc) means that 
> the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid for his/her/their 
> work. That's theft.

Well, of course you can take anything don't like, and metaphorically
call it theft.   But legally, copyright violation is not theft.

-- 
    Bill Mitchell
    Dept of Mathematics,        The University of Florida
    PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
    mitchell@math.ufl.edu	(352) 392-0281 x284

On 21-Nov-2006, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> >  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> >
> > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > >
> > > Copyright violation is not theft,
> > > it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,
> >
> > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid
> > for
> > his/her/their work. That's theft.
>
> Ignorance is Strength,
>
> Jan

Not always!

When I told the officer that I was not aware that I had entered a reduced
speed zone, he smiled.

Then he wrote out an expensive citation to help me deal with my weakness.

In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
 "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> 
> > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > 
> > Copyright violation is not theft, it is (you guessed it) copyright 
> > violation,
> 
> Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc) 
> means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being 
> paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.

No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you 
use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.

I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> >  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > 
> > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > > 
> > > Copyright violation is not theft, it is (you guessed it) copyright
> > > violation,
> > 
> > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being 
> > paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.
> 
> No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you
> use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.
> 
> I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
> practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.

It rather removes the incentive to actually have to work to get the
material things we want, if we can just steal them with impunity.
Hmmm... I think I'll work half the usual time I do from now on, and
steal the nice things I enjoy. Wow, why didn't I think of this before?

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <1hp6bur.1xixi1x1duoi9N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
>  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> 
> > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > > > 
> > > > Copyright violation is not theft,
> > > > it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,
> > > 
> > > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid for
> > > his/her/their work. That's theft.
> > 
> > Ignorance is Strength,
> 
> That makes you Hercules.

You clearly don't work in the Ministry of Truth,

Jan

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> >  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > 
> > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > > 
> > > Copyright violation is not theft, it is (you guessed it) copyright
> > > violation,
> > 
> > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being 
> > paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.
> 
> No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you
> use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.
> 
> I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
> practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.

OTOH, those poor students who used the software
without being able to pay for it
may eventually get a paid copy with an honest key,
once they have the money to do so,

Jan

On 2006-11-22, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
>>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
>> > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being 
>> > paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.
>> 
>> No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you
>> use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.
>> 
>> I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
>> practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.
>
> It rather removes the incentive to actually have to work to get the
> material things we want, if we can just steal them with impunity.

Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
People here are not talking about getting material things,
they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
it is not theft. Since nobody here is advocating theft you
need not worry, people will still need to work to get money
to buy the material things they want.

Bec

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> On 2006-11-22, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> >>  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> >> > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being
> >> > paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.
> >> 
> >> No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you
> >> use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.
> >> 
> >> I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
> >> practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.
> >
> > It rather removes the incentive to actually have to work to get the
> > material things we want, if we can just steal them with impunity.
> 
> Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
> People here are not talking about getting material things,
> they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
> ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
> it is not theft. Since nobody here is advocating theft you
> need not worry, people will still need to work to get money
> to buy the material things they want.
> 
> Bec

What utter rubbish. That's the weakest excuse I've heard yet!
"Weeeelll.... it's ok to steal software cause it's just ones and zeros".
LMAO. What a pathetic attempt to try and justify ripping off software
developers and screwing over legitimate users by forcing developers to
charge more and encouraging publishers to use ever increasingly annoying
copy protection.

Pathetic. You need professional help if you actually believe that crap
you've vomiting forth. Give me strength - "only ones and zeros so it
doesn't count" - ??? Get some help. Really. Seriously.

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> >  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > >  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > > > 
> > > > Copyright violation is not theft, it is (you guessed it) copyright
> > > > violation,
> > > 
> > > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being
> > > paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.
> > 
> > No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you
> > use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.
> > 
> > I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
> > practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.
> 
> OTOH, those poor students who used the software
> without being able to pay for it
> may eventually get a paid copy with an honest key,
> once they have the money to do so,
> 
> Jan

Or they'll just keep ripping off developers having gotten cocky about
getting away with it the first time.

If a student needs free or cheap software there's a shareware or free
open source version of almost every type of program available. Why can't
they use one of them?

Regards,
 Jamie Kahn Genet
-- 
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
> People here are not talking about getting material things,
> they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
> ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
> it is not theft.

These are just weasel words. It's theft.
-- 
Peter

On 2006-11-22, Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
>> People here are not talking about getting material things,
>> they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
>> ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
>> it is not theft. Since nobody here is advocating theft you
>> need not worry, people will still need to work to get money
>> to buy the material things they want.
>
> What utter rubbish. That's the weakest excuse I've heard yet!
> "Weeeelll.... it's ok to steal software cause it's just ones and zeros".

What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software
but neither do I condone confusing everybody by conflating
that with theft. You seem to be indirectly suggesting that
anything that is not theft is OK. Can I assume therefore
that you condone torture? Of course not - but that is no
more absurd than your position.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <znu-D78B0F.04071722112006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if 
> you use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't 
> pay.

Oh, so it's the same as if he was employed and his employer decides not 
to pay him.  It's the same as if he didn't work at all.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <1hp7afn.80ub3nvr7abcN@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
 nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:

> OTOH, those poor students who used the software without being able to 
> pay for it may eventually get a paid copy with an honest key, once 
> they have the money to do so,

Why would they do that?  They already have the software.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <4sj2cvF104r9iU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but neither 
> do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 

It is theft of service.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:06:50 +0000, Peter Ceresole wrote:

> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
>> People here are not talking about getting material things,
>> they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
>> ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
>> it is not theft.
> 
> These are just weasel words.

Yes, they are.


> It's theft.

No, it's manslaughter. Or is it murder? Same thing, really.

	-zoara-

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:45:18 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> In article <znu-D78B0F.04071722112006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if 
>> you use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't 
>> pay.
> 
> Oh, so it's the same as if he was employed and his employer decides not 
> to pay him.  It's the same as if he didn't work at all.

Yes, it is. That employer is not stealing anything from the employee.  

Copyright violation is wrong. It is not theft. <ad infinitum>

	-z-

zoara <me17@privacy.net> wrote:

> > These are just weasel words.
> 
> Yes, they are.
> 
> 
> > It's theft.
> 
> No, it's manslaughter. Or is it murder? Same thing, really.

I'll raise your murder and bid 'crime against humanity'. At the very
least.
-- 
Peter

In article <michelle-1792CB.08451822112006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <znu-D78B0F.04071722112006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if 
> > you use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't 
> > pay.
> 
> Oh, so it's the same as if he was employed and his employer decides not 
> to pay him.  It's the same as if he didn't work at all.

No, it's not. He's worse off than if he hadn't worked at all, because he 
has lost the time he spent working.

Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies? Just to 
reiterate, I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. But it is 
very distinct from theft, particularly in the case of non-commercial 
copying. There is no useful purpose served by obfuscating this.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <1hp85v4.do2q3j14payvsN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
 jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz (Jamie Kahn Genet) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> >  "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> > >  nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
> > > > 
> > > > Copyright violation is not theft, it is (you guessed it) copyright
> > > > violation,
> > > 
> > > Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc)
> > > means that the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being 
> > > paid for his/her/their work. That's theft.
> > 
> > No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off if you
> > use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work and don't pay.
> > 
> > I'm not saying it's *right* to do this, mind you. But there are 
> > practical, moral, and legal distinctions between this, and theft.
> 
> It rather removes the incentive to actually have to work to get the
> material things we want, if we can just steal them with impunity.
> Hmmm... I think I'll work half the usual time I do from now on, and
> steal the nice things I enjoy. Wow, why didn't I think of this before?

Nobody is talking about stealing material things. The difference between 
intellectual property and physical goods is precisely what's at issue 
here. Please stop pretending no such difference exists.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Nobody is talking about stealing material things. The difference between
> intellectual property and physical goods is precisely what's at issue
> here. Please stop pretending no such difference exists.

The only difference is in law, and as everybody knows the law is an ass.
It certainly is in this case. There is no real difference between
copyright theft and straight theft.
-- 
Peter

In article <1hp7gdr.h9i0vxqpft0sN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
> > People here are not talking about getting material things,
> > they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
> > ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
> > it is not theft.
> 
> These are just weasel words. It's theft.

No, it's not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft

"1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the 
personal goods or property of another; larceny."

Nothing is carried away when data is copied. The theft of physical goods 
is zero-sum. The copying of data is not. Stop trying to pretend there is 
no difference.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <michelle-97A4BD.08475722112006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <4sj2cvF104r9iU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but neither 
> > do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 
> 
> It is theft of service.

What service?

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <znu-7082CC.12355722112006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1hp7gdr.h9i0vxqpft0sN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
>  peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> 
> > Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
> > > People here are not talking about getting material things,
> > > they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
> > > ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
> > > it is not theft.
> > 
> > These are just weasel words. It's theft.
> 
> No, it's not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
> 
> "1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the 
> personal goods or property of another; larceny."
> 
> Nothing is carried away when data is copied.

Information, I would have thought.

> The theft of physical goods 
> is zero-sum. The copying of data is not. Stop trying to pretend there is 
> no difference.

-- tim

In article <1hp7smp.1ovvzwmj0jgolN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Nobody is talking about stealing material things. The difference between
> > intellectual property and physical goods is precisely what's at issue
> > here. Please stop pretending no such difference exists.
> 
> The only difference is in law, and as everybody knows the law is an ass.
> It certainly is in this case. There is no real difference between
> copyright theft and straight theft.

You have this almost precisely backwards.

The difference between theft of physical goods and copyright violation 
is rooted in the basic functioning of the universe. Physical goods are 
scarce because replicating them requires resources and labor. 
Information is scarce because of a system of government-enforced 
monopolies.

In other words, rather than the only difference being in law, law is 
actually the only thing that causes intellectual property to behave 
anything like physical property at all.

And as everybody knows the law is an ass.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <tim.streater-121CC6.17385122112006@individual.net>,
 Tim Streater <tim.streater@dante.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <znu-7082CC.12355722112006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1hp7gdr.h9i0vxqpft0sN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
> >  peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> > 
> > > Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
> > > > People here are not talking about getting material things,
> > > > they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
> > > > ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
> > > > it is not theft.
> > > 
> > > These are just weasel words. It's theft.
> > 
> > No, it's not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
> > 
> > "1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the 
> > personal goods or property of another; larceny."
> > 
> > Nothing is carried away when data is copied.
> 
> Information, I would have thought.

Carrying something away implies that it's no longer present where it was 
originally. This is not the case when duplicating information.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

On 2006-11-22, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <4sj2cvF104r9iU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but neither 
>> do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 
>
> It is theft of service.

Not by any generally accepted legal definition. Typical examples of
theft of service are tampering with a utility meter so that the true
level of consumption is understated or leaving a resturant without
paying. Some theft statues cover unauthorised computer or network
access on the basis that someone is paying for the bandwidth or
clock cycles that you are using.

But using software without paying for it? That is more like reading
someone else's copy of a newspaper over their shoulder in the subway.
Theft of service? Highly dubious. Yes, the publisher could argue
that he has lost a sale because you should have bought your own
copy instead. If you are happy to be called a thief for reading
over someone's shoulder then fair enough - otherwise, be very careful
about the implications of what you say.

I always pay for the software I use - including all the shareware I
have ever used - even though there was no way for the developer to
know that I was using it. But if you want to force people to pay
for using your software then you have to rely on other laws.
Copyright law, contract law, DMCA etc. There is already enough
confusion without supposedly knowlegable people muddying the waters
still further, and Disney, RIAA etc already have far too much
power without allowing them to get away with subverting the meaning
of "theft".

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies?

Because Usenet is like a ham&cheese omelette - no mushrooms, please.

Don't ask me how they are alike, but I'm sure there must be some way.
:-) Absurd analogies abound anet as all are aware.

-- 
Richard Maine                     | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov            |       -- Mark Twain

In article <4sjgphFvvgjeU1@mid.individual.net>,
 Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> >> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but 
> >> neither do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with 
> >> theft. 
> >
> > It is theft of service.
> 
> Not by any generally accepted legal definition. Typical examples of 
> theft of service are tampering with a utility meter so that the true 
> level of consumption is understated or leaving a resturant without 
> paying.

Leaving the restaurant without paying is theft of food as well as theft 
of service.

> But using software without paying for it? That is more like reading 
> someone else's copy of a newspaper over their shoulder in the subway. 

Not at all.

> Theft of service? Highly dubious.

So you are saying that taking a disk with software on it without paying 
for it, and using the software is not the same as downloading the 
software without paying for it and using the software?

The bottom line is that by doing either, you have stolen the services of 
the people who produced and distributed the software.

Which of the following, if any, is legal?

1.  Buying software, copying it to media and distributing the media
2.  Willingly receiving and using a copy of said software, knowing its 
history
3.  Buying software and sending it point to point, electronically, to 
others to use
4.  Willingly receiving said software, knowing its history.
5.  Buying software and uploading it for people to download and use
6.  Downloading and using said software, knowing its history
7.  Taking software from a store without paying for it.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <znu-BB4002.12363522112006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 
> > 
> > It is theft of service.
> 
> What service?

The service of the programmer and her employer.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

On 22/11/06 5:36 pm, ZnU wrote:
> In article <michelle-97A4BD.08475722112006@news.west.cox.net>,
>  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <4sj2cvF104r9iU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>  Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but neither 
>>> do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 
>> It is theft of service.
> 
> What service?
> 

Someone writes an application.

Someone else comes along and takes it without paying.

-- 
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> No, it's not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
> 
> "1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the
> personal goods or property of another; larceny."
> 
> Nothing is carried away when data is copied. The theft of physical goods
> is zero-sum. The copying of data is not. Stop trying to pretend there is
> no difference.

This is the usual bullshit and sophistry trotted out whenever this
subject comes up. If our moral sense has been totally corrupted by legal
nonsense, I guess it's time to wave goodby to honesty and fair dealing
and join the savages. Probably too late to worry about this, but I hate
the corruption of morals and language involved.
-- 
Peter

In article <michelle-CB9EDE.11190022112006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <znu-BB4002.12363522112006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 
> > > 
> > > It is theft of service.
> > 
> > What service?
> 
> The service of the programmer and her employer.

Nope. They don't do any additional work on behalf of each copy created.

Seriously, stop drawing inaccurate analogies. It's very simple. All you 
have to do to show that copyright violation is a type of theft is to 
show that authors actually lose something other than merely *potential* 
income when a work is copied.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

On 2006-11-22, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Which of the following, if any, is legal?
>
> 1.  Buying software, copying it to media and distributing the media
> 2.  Willingly receiving and using a copy of said software, knowing its 
> history
> 3.  Buying software and sending it point to point, electronically, to 
> others to use
> 4.  Willingly receiving said software, knowing its history.
> 5.  Buying software and uploading it for people to download and use
> 6.  Downloading and using said software, knowing its history
> 7.  Taking software from a store without paying for it.

Potentially none of them, but number 7 is the odd one out because
it is the only one that would fit any generally accepted legal
definition of theft. It is also the only one that I would call
theft and plenty of people agree with me. Rape is not legal either
but I don't call it theft, I call it rape. The laws that my be
violated in your examples 1. to 6. have names - they are not theft.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <michelle-BBE7A6.11182622112006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <4sjgphFvvgjeU1@mid.individual.net>,
>  Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > >> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but 
> > >> neither do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with 
> > >> theft. 
> > >
> > > It is theft of service.
> > 
> > Not by any generally accepted legal definition. Typical examples of 
> > theft of service are tampering with a utility meter so that the true 
> > level of consumption is understated or leaving a resturant without 
> > paying.
> 
> Leaving the restaurant without paying is theft of food as well as theft 
> of service.
> 
> > But using software without paying for it? That is more like reading 
> > someone else's copy of a newspaper over their shoulder in the subway. 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> > Theft of service? Highly dubious.
> 
> So you are saying that taking a disk with software on it without paying 
> for it, and using the software is not the same as downloading the 
> software without paying for it and using the software?
> 
> The bottom line is that by doing either, you have stolen the services of 
> the people who produced and distributed the software.
> 
> Which of the following, if any, is legal?
> 
> 1.  Buying software, copying it to media and distributing the media
> 2.  Willingly receiving and using a copy of said software, knowing its 
> history
> 3.  Buying software and sending it point to point, electronically, to 
> others to use
> 4.  Willingly receiving said software, knowing its history.
> 5.  Buying software and uploading it for people to download and use
> 6.  Downloading and using said software, knowing its history
> 7.  Taking software from a store without paying for it.

The first six may or may not be illegal. You haven't specified what the 
licensing situation is with the software. But, assuming the first six 
are license violations, they're illegal. They're copyright violation. 
The last one is illegal because it's theft.

Just because two actions are both illegal doesn't mean they're the same!

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <znu-2FC62F.12455622112006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Carrying something away implies that it's no longer present where it was 
> originally. This is not the case when duplicating information.

Theft of services is the legal term for a crime which is committed when 
a person obtains valuable services � as opposed to goods � by deception, 
force, threat or other unlawful means, i.e., without lawfully 
compensating the provider of said services.

<snip>

Some theft statutes also cover unauthorized computer or network access, 
or use of computer software without paying for it, or usage beyond the 
contractual service restrictions. These laws have been used to prosecute 
hackers and spammers.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <znu-7F0493.12252022112006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > No, it's lack of income. The author of the work is no worse off 
> > > if you use a work and don't pay than if you *don't* use a work 
> > > and don't pay.
> > 
> > Oh, so it's the same as if he was employed and his employer decides 
> > not to pay him.  It's the same as if he didn't work at all.
> 
> No, it's not. He's worse off than if he hadn't worked at all, because 
> he has lost the time he spent working.

Just as if he had been programming software and people started using it 
without paying him for it.

> Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies? Just to 
> reiterate, I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. But it 
> is very distinct from theft, particularly in the case of 
> non-commercial copying. There is no useful purpose served by 
> obfuscating this.

I wonder why someone who hides behind a fake email address is so 
vehement in insisting that software theft isn't theft.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <1hp7s9j.1ggnjswyj7nndN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

> I'll raise your murder and bid 'crime against humanity'. At the very 
> least.

Just so long as you don't bid "crime against nature".

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <znu-F29718.13450922112006@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > > > > do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with 
> > > > > theft. 
> > > > 
> > > > It is theft of service.
> > > 
> > > What service?
> > 
> > The service of the programmer and her employer.
> 
> Nope. They don't do any additional work on behalf of each copy 
> created.

"Additional work" has nothing to do with it.

Stop rationalizing your defense of software theft.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

ZnU wrote:
> In article <1hp7gdr.h9i0vxqpft0sN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
>  peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> 
>> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
>>> People here are not talking about getting material things,
>>> they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
>>> ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
>>> it is not theft.
>> These are just weasel words. It's theft.
> 
> No, it's not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
> 
> "1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the 
> personal goods or property of another; larceny."
> 
> Nothing is carried away when data is copied. The theft of physical goods 
> is zero-sum. The copying of data is not. Stop trying to pretend there is 
> no difference.
> 

Morally and ethically there isn't a difference.

Greg

-- 
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

In article <michelle-53FF16.12213022112006@news.west.cox.net>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <znu-F29718.13450922112006@individual.net>,
>  ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > > > > > do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with 
> > > > > > theft. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > It is theft of service.
> > > > 
> > > > What service?
> > > 
> > > The service of the programmer and her employer.
> > 
> > Nope. They don't do any additional work on behalf of each copy 
> > created.
> 
> "Additional work" has nothing to do with it.

You snipped my post.

Once again, all you have to do to show that copyright violation is a 
type of theft is to show that authors actually lose something other 
than merely *potential* income when a work is copied.

You have not done this or offered any argument as to why this is an 
unreasonable request. All you have done is make unsubstantiated 
statements and play word games.

> Stop rationalizing your defense of software theft.

Yes, rationality obviously hasn't got a place in your thinking on this 
subject.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <12m995i86erep62@corp.supernews.com>,
 "G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <1hp7gdr.h9i0vxqpft0sN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
> >  peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:
> > 
> >> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Money is still generally required to get *material* things.
> >>> People here are not talking about getting material things,
> >>> they are just talking about copying a specific sequence of
> >>> ones and zeroes. Such copying may or may not be wrong but
> >>> it is not theft.
> >> These are just weasel words. It's theft.
> > 
> > No, it's not: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
> > 
> > "1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the 
> > personal goods or property of another; larceny."
> > 
> > Nothing is carried away when data is copied. The theft of physical goods 
> > is zero-sum. The copying of data is not. Stop trying to pretend there is 
> > no difference.
> 
> Morally and ethically there isn't a difference.

I'd argue that there's really a pretty obvious moral difference between 
depriving someone of actual property and copying something they created 
without paying for it, particularly if you wouldn't have paid for it 
even if you couldn't have obtained a copy for free, which is very 
frequently the case. (How many 14 year-olds would spend $10,000 on music 
if they didn't have access to P2P software?)

Note that I'm not saying copyright violation isn't sometimes immoral, 
mind you. I'm just saying there's a morally relevant difference here, 
the same way there's a moral relevant difference between cheating on 
your taxes and committing mass murder.

It's also worth remembering that copyright isn't absolute. Copyrights 
expire. Is it immoral to copy works with expired copyrights? If it's 
not, then that suggests that copying works without compensation to the 
owner of the intellectual property rights is *not* always immoral.

To really analyze the morality of copyright law, though, you have to go 
deeper. What is the proper end goal of copyright law? Remember, it's not 
an inherent function of the universe -- it's a system created by 
society, enforced by the government. What justifies its existence?

Well, copyrights exist to promote the creation of information for the 
benefit of society. There's a legitimate debate about how copyright law 
should be structured to achieve that goal.

Merely insisting that copyright violation is theft obscures all of this 
complexity, and prevents useful discussion on that subject.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

In article <dfmanno-D7E1AC.15533521112006@news.isp.giganews.com>,
D.F. Manno <dommanno@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1hp45ga.xfvcke1hnx481N@de-ster.xs4all.nl>,
> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
>
>> D.F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> > Being poor is not an excuse for theft.
>> 
>> Copyright violation is not theft,
>> it is (you guessed it) copyright violation,
>
>Violating copyright by using pirated software (or music, movies, etc) means that 
>the programmer (or musician, artist, etc.) isn't being paid for his/her/their 
>work. That's theft.

Most programmers work on salary, so they're getting paid either way.  Most
musicians get ripped off by their record companies and don't see any
royalties, so they don't get paid either way.  Similarly for movies;
they rarely make a profit on paper.  So not only is your logic flawed,
your premises are too.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <1hp8cto.wucdqf1fd1flrN%jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz>,
Jamie Kahn Genet <jamiekg@wizardling.geek.nz> wrote:
>
>What utter rubbish. That's the weakest excuse I've heard yet!
>"Weeeelll.... it's ok to steal software cause it's just ones and zeros".
>LMAO. What a pathetic attempt to try and justify ripping off software
>developers and screwing over legitimate users by forcing developers to
>charge more and encouraging publishers to use ever increasingly annoying
>copy protection.

What encourges publishers to use increasingly annoying copy protection
is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  Copy protection was far
rarer before then, since the unprotectors kept winning in the 1980s.

Anyway, arranging my bits in the same pattern as your bits isn't theft
in any normal sense of the word.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <1hp7smp.1ovvzwmj0jgolN%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>, Peter
Ceresole <peter@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > Nobody is talking about stealing material things. The difference
> > between intellectual property and physical goods is precisely
> > what's at issue here. Please stop pretending no such difference
> > exists.

> The only difference is in law, and as everybody knows the law is an
> ass. It certainly is in this case. There is no real difference
> between copyright theft and straight theft.

Someone has a master program from which they make and sell copies;

Case 1: I take that master program from them and they can no longer
make copies to sell, so removing the earning potential of the program's
owner;

Case 2: I make one copy of that program without paying for it (but
would not have bought the program) so not removing the earning
potential of the program's owner.

Are you really saying that there is no /real/ difference between these
two cases?

And case 3: I take the life of the program's owner, so removing his
future earning potential.

Still no difference? All three cases just "theft"?

-- 
David - toro-danyo atcost uku fullstop co fullstop uk
http://www.toro-danyo.uku.co.uk/

In article <michelle-97A4BD.08475722112006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <4sj2cvF104r9iU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but neither 
>> do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with theft. 
>
>It is theft of service.

Except that there is no service.  And no theft.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <znu-7F0493.12252022112006@individual.net>,
ZnU  <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies? Just to 
>reiterate, I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. But it is 
>very distinct from theft, particularly in the case of non-commercial 
>copying. There is no useful purpose served by obfuscating this.

Sure there is.  If you claim copyright violation is theft, you don't
have to come up with a reason that it's wrong to arrange a pattern of
bits in the same way another pattern of bits is arranged.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <ZdydnYbyKovlKfnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> In article <znu-7F0493.12252022112006@individual.net>,
> ZnU  <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies? Just to 
> >reiterate, I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. But it is 
> >very distinct from theft, particularly in the case of non-commercial 
> >copying. There is no useful purpose served by obfuscating this.
> 
> Sure there is.  If you claim copyright violation is theft, you don't
> have to come up with a reason that it's wrong to arrange a pattern of
> bits in the same way another pattern of bits is arranged.

I'm not exactly sure I'd call that a *useful* purpose....

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:

> Case 1: I take that master program from them and they can no longer
> make copies to sell, so removing the earning potential of the program's
> owner;
> 
> Case 2: I make one copy of that program without paying for it (but
> would not have bought the program) so not removing the earning
> potential of the program's owner.
> 
> Are you really saying that there is no /real/ difference between these
> two cases?
> 
> And case 3: I take the life of the program's owner, so removing his
> future earning potential.
> 
> Still no difference? All three cases just "theft"?

How silly. 3 is murder.

But the other two are equivalent. In both cases you are taking something
that is not yours to take.
-- 
Peter

In article <michelle-BBE7A6.11182622112006@news.west.cox.net>,
Michelle Steiner  <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <4sjgphFvvgjeU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> >> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but 
>> >> neither do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with 
>> >> theft. 
>> >
>> > It is theft of service.
>> 
>> Not by any generally accepted legal definition. Typical examples of 
>> theft of service are tampering with a utility meter so that the true 
>> level of consumption is understated or leaving a resturant without 
>> paying.
>
>Leaving the restaurant without paying is theft of food as well as theft 
>of service.
>
>> But using software without paying for it? That is more like reading 
>> someone else's copy of a newspaper over their shoulder in the subway. 
>
>Not at all.
>
>> Theft of service? Highly dubious.
>
>So you are saying that taking a disk with software on it without paying 
>for it, and using the software is not the same as downloading the 
>software without paying for it and using the software?

That's correct, it's not the same.

>The bottom line is that by doing either, you have stolen the services of 
>the people who produced and distributed the software.

No, in one case I have stolen the fruits of their labor -- ordinary
theft, not theft of services.  And in the other I have violated
copyright.

>Which of the following, if any, is legal?
>
>1.  Buying software, copying it to media and distributing the media

Obviously a violation of the reproduction and distribution right.

>2.  Willingly receiving and using a copy of said software, knowing its 
>history

Likely a violation of the reproduction right each time you use it, as
17 USC 117 wouldn't apply.  But merely receiving the media isn't
illegal; this is not a case of receiving stolen goods.

>3.  Buying software and sending it point to point, electronically, to 
>others to use

Same as 1).

>4.  Willingly receiving said software, knowing its history.

Mostly the same as 2), only likely one more violation when you receive the
software (because a copy would be made at your behest at that point).

>5.  Buying software and uploading it for people to download and use

Same as 1) again

>6.  Downloading and using said software, knowing its history

Same as 4).

>7.  Taking software from a store without paying for it.

Theft, finally.  But no copyright violation, and in this case the
offense is committed against the retailer, not the people who wrote the
software.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on Usenet.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <1hp81cr.vegt0a1enhse8N%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

> David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Case 1: I take that master program from them and they can no longer
> > make copies to sell, so removing the earning potential of the program's
> > owner;
> > 
> > Case 2: I make one copy of that program without paying for it (but
> > would not have bought the program) so not removing the earning
> > potential of the program's owner.
> > 
> > Are you really saying that there is no /real/ difference between these
> > two cases?
> > 
> > And case 3: I take the life of the program's owner, so removing his
> > future earning potential.
> > 
> > Still no difference? All three cases just "theft"?
> 
> How silly. 3 is murder.
> 
> But the other two are equivalent. In both cases you are taking something
> that is not yours to take.

Same thing in the latter case. The thing you're taking there just 
happens to be the rest of someone's life. Therefore, murder is identical 
the theft, and we should execute shoplifters.

See the kinds of silly conclusions you can come to if you sweep 
meaningful differences under the rug and play silly word games?

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

On 2006-11-22, G.T. <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>> 
>> Nothing is carried away when data is copied. The theft of physical goods 
>> is zero-sum. The copying of data is not. Stop trying to pretend there is 
>> no difference.
>> 
>
> Morally and ethically there isn't a difference.

So you are saying that morally and ethically there is no difference
between me reading a newspaper over your shoulder and me taking that
newspaper from you by force? If so then I strongly disagree, and if
not then you are being inconsistent.

Of course in your analogy I would not be stealing from you by reading
your newspaper, I would be stealing from the writers, publisher,
printer, distributors etc. But berhaps you have shares in the
multinational that owns the printing company, so I am stealing
from you after all. But then I am not really because they already got
paid to do the print run and it doesn't make any financial difference
to them how many copies of that edition are actually sold, but then
again if sales figures are low they might be asked to print less
of the next edition, so I have stolen from you after all ... oh dear
this is getting so confusing.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Same thing in the latter case. The thing you're taking there just 
> happens to be the rest of someone's life. Therefore, murder is identical
> the theft, and we should execute shoplifters.

God, the sheer bullshit that comes up whenever this subject arises is
quite amazing. Whenever legal definitions come up, people lose their
moral sense, and their marbles. I think it must be the geekness
surfacing.
-- 
Peter

In article <1hp81mn.16ikogmfez270N%peter@cara.demon.co.uk>,
 peter@cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Same thing in the latter case. The thing you're taking there just 
> > happens to be the rest of someone's life. Therefore, murder is 
> > identical the theft, and we should execute shoplifters.
> 
> God, the sheer bullshit that comes up whenever this subject arises is 
> quite amazing.

Yes, that was exactly my point.

> Whenever legal definitions come up, people lose their moral sense, 
> and their marbles. I think it must be the geekness surfacing.

-- 
"Those who enter the country illegally violate the law."
          -- George W. Bush in Tucson, Ariz., Nov. 28, 2005

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> Stop rationalizing your defense of software theft.

No-one's defending it, they're just trying to explain that your
terminology is incorrect. <ad infinitum>

        -z-

-- 
THONK BOKE

Richard E Maine <nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies?
> 
> Because Usenet is like a ham&cheese omelette - no mushrooms, please.
> 
> Don't ask me how they are alike, but I'm sure there must be some way.
> :-) Absurd analogies abound anet as all are aware.

Analogies are like vegemite sandwiches in a paper bag.

        -z-



-- 
THONK BOKE

In article <ZdydnYbyKovlKfnYnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> >Look, why do people insist on making these absurd analogies? Just to 
> >reiterate, I'm not saying copyright violation is a good thing. But 
> >it is very distinct from theft, particularly in the case of 
> >non-commercial copying. There is no useful purpose served by 
> >obfuscating this.
> 
> Sure there is.  If you claim copyright violation is theft, you don't 
> have to come up with a reason that it's wrong to arrange a pattern of 
> bits in the same way another pattern of bits is arranged.

Two different issues entirely.  Stop trying to make them the same.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <o7-dnWRsD6WCKfnYnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
 russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:

> >> What excuse? I do not condone running unlicensed software but 
> >> neither do I condone confusing everybody by conflating that with 
> >> theft. 
> >
> >It is theft of service.
> 
> Except that there is no service.  And no theft.

Programming is not a service?

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.

In article <4e89efba9bnospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid>,
 David <nospam@nomaps.amnops.invalid> wrote:

> Someone has a master program from which they make and sell copies;
> 
> Case 1: I take that master program from them and they can no longer 
> make copies to sell, so removing the earning potential of the 
> program's owner;
> 
> Case 2: I make one copy of that program without paying for it (but 
> would not have bought the program) so not removing the earning 
> potential of the program's owner.

Oh, you removed the earning potential of that one copy.  You didn't pay 
for it, so you removed the earning potential from your copy--and from 
all the copies you will make and distribute.

> And case 3: I take the life of the program's owner, so removing his 
> future earning potential.

The mental gyrations and rationalizations that people go through to 
justify software theft is absolutely amazing.

-- 
Support the troops:  Bring them home ASAP.