Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So. A mistake? or blatant copyright infringement? Did Harper pass it of as one of his own and Greer was duped?
Maybe they were just trying to emulate Led Zeppelin 2.
-
Cheers.
-
Tony, can you point me to a setlist for last night?
-
However, Herby said evidence is still limited because of the difficulties of gaining access to Gaza...
-
Proudhon's use of the word is quite legitimate. The idea that "all property is theft" (whether you believe it or not) is specifically about the fact that an item being "property" denies others the use of said property, which is what theft does. Copyright infringement does not have this effect.
I think I'll leave it there. Please excuse my vehemence. It merely stems from my inabilty to understand why such fine and learned fellows as yourselves seem unable to see the points I'm making. ;)
-
Fastest way to get ripped to shreds on the Internet: go on a science fiction newsgroup and state that the addition of the unicorn dream in Blade Runner's director's cut proves conclusively that Deckard is a replicant.
I can imagine. Luckily, that's one problem I'll never have. ;)
-
But, really, what a bunch of geeks: coming near to blows over copyright!
Nearly coming to blows over the meaning of words , is what it is. You can't just decide that a word means what you want it to mean.
-
I'll repeat, I don't think most people care if you call it theft, stealing, infringement, liberating or 'bagel'. Doesn't change what it is.
I think it does matter. If you start producing and selling "Kyle's Lager", and I go around putting up billboards saying that "Kyle's Lager is a fatal poison", will you be happy in the knowledge that my comments on your product "[d]oesn't change what it is"?
The distinction is important because calling it "theft" necessarily implies that copyright infringment is a criminal act, and that copyright infringers are criminals, which is just factually untrue.
[The moral question (ie whether or not it's wrong) is entirely different, and one that I've not yet offered an opinion on (because that's a much harder one).]
-
But if we are only allowed to undestand the concept of theft in a narrow legalistic way, while everything else is up for grabs, then just say it. I'll grab my coat in a flash - after all Mark already invited me and mine to do just that.
Well, I don't subscribe to that invitation, and frankly, I don't understand why you're getting upset by my comments.
-
You say misuse, I say properly understand.
Like Mark said:
Theft is a specific term that applies to a specific act with specific consequences, to wit the removal of property from A by B such that A no longer has access, control or physical ownership.
This is not hair-splitting. It's fundamental to the matter.