Re: WotLK Private server

On Jun 6, 1:43 pm, "mbga...@xxxxxxxxx" <mbga...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 6, 1:12 pm, lcpltom <lcpl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I may also add, every definition I found for theft did not define it
as necessitating loss, only the taking of something without
permission.

See if you can define "take" to mean not implying loss though. If I
take anything from you, then you no longer possess it. That is not
the case with copyright.

Also, you need to consider that the courts interpret the law, and the
law makers are well aware of this. If the law makers didn't want
infringement to be considered theft, they would not have put theft in
the title. Else the courts might interpret the law as defining theft
as including infringement (as I have). Sure, if charges were filed,
they would be infringement charges, but that doesn't mean its not
theft any more than larceny is not theft.

Lawmakers don't care about what courts think most of the time. Why do
you think they keep passing laws against violent video games that keep
repeatedly getting struck down in courts? Lawmakers enact laws to get
reelected, and to look like they are "doing something". The titling
of laws as such is often, as with so many things in congress, a
political move. Do you think the "Patriot Act" really has much at all
to do with patriotism? No. It's a name given to try and invoke
emotions and make it pass. The titles are just titles, and have about
as much legal bearing as the title of the latest big movie to hit the
theaters. The actual "meat", and the binding part of the law, is
contained within the text, and that's what a court looks at.

You could say Blizzard has lost the security of knowing its
competitors have no way of trying the game in its alpha, quickly
developing a rip off, and releasing it before WotLK comes out. While
they weren't deprived of a physical object, they were deprived of
control over a non-physical object.

"Deprived of control" is not a valid argument. It's still an abstract
idea. Blizzard's misfortunes against companies coming up with clones
of their product are not the government's job to police. If we wanted
to extend that SOE would have sued Blizzard long ago for stealing most
of their Everquest customers.

In any case, the WotLK software was given out without authorization.
Whether you call it infringement or theft is irrelevant to the fact
that its still illegal. As far as calling it infringement or theft, I
still call it theft. Sure it might only be a copy of the software,
but that copy, and all subsequent copies, still belong to Blizzard,
and taking that copy without their permission is still theft.

Again, you're wrong. If I make an illegal copy of software that copy
belongs to me. It may have been an infringment to create it, but walk
into my house and steal a pirated CD of WoTLK. You think it's going
to be up to me or Blizzard to press charges? It's a very important
distinction. Blizzard doesn't own ANY of those copies. Whoever
bought the CD owns them. Blizzard has just been given a government
sanctioned monopoly on the PRODUCTION of those copies.

Mike

But if you create a copy of a program, then take that copy, then you
have taken something away. Just because its not the original doesn't
mean something wasn't taken away. And no, you are definitely wrong
about copies. If you make a copy of a program, that copy still
belongs to the copyright holder. The media that copy is produced on
does belong to you, but what you put on it does not. If you buy
software, you buy the media the software comes on, and a license to
use the software. The ownership of the software stays with the
copyright holder. In reality, of all the software installed on your
computer, you own none of it. All you own is the license to use it.

You're making a lot of assumptions, and show a clear misunderstanding
of the term abstract. As far as the patriot act, the general
definition of a patriot is someone who rises to the defense of their
country. The Patriot act itself was designed to defend the country.
I'd say the name fits. As far as the title of a law being taken into
consideration by the courts, that would be up to the judge.

Looking up the local laws where I live, they list accessing software
without authorization in a Chapter titled Theft and Related Offenses.
I guess since other forms of theft are also mentioned in this chapter,
they must not be theft, since the body of the law doesn't say theft.

Sure, there are some laws out there where the name doesn't lend
anything to what the law is about, such as Megan's Law. But then you
also have to look at why it was named as such to understand the spirit
in which the law was enacted.

And lets go for some more "abstract" items that can be "stolen." What
about your identity? Impersonating someone else is identity theft.
But in the process, the perpetrator may have never actually took any
physical property of the victim. Instead, creditors go after the
victim. So who is the real guilty party here? How can one form of
taking of non-physical property be considered theft, while another
form of taking non-physical property is infringement?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WotLK Private server
    ... law makers are well aware of this. ... infringement to be considered theft, they would not have put theft in ... as including infringement. ... to extend that SOE would have sued Blizzard long ago for stealing most ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • Re: Fantastic legal cheap MP3 download site!
    ... at any rate of basic crimes like theft and murder ... how and why did the law get so far out of sync with what ... unless it involves depriving the other person of the property, ... to treat copyright infringement as theft would mean showing ...
    (uk.comp.sys.mac)
  • Re: Embedded systems publishers
    ... One is personal use copying, involving no money - it is "copyright infringement" and is illegal, meaning you can be sued for it in a civil court. ... In neither case is it theft, but copyright infringement. ... People who sell unlicensed copies of books, software, music, or whatever are not thieves - but they *are* criminals, and should be treated as such by law enforcement and justice systems. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Angus gets caught out :-)
    ... It is not in my opinion ever justifiable to break a law. ... doubt the child would consider it theft :-) ... unless they stole the fish - which they didn't. ... Is there a law making it an offence to release farmed sea fish into ...
    (uk.environment.conservation)
  • Re: WotLK Private server
    ... distribution and reproduction rights of that pattern. ... I guess since other forms of theft are also mentioned in this chapter, ... since the body of the law doesn't say theft. ... You can claim otherwise all you want, but copyright law says ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
Loading