Re: WotLK Private server

On Jun 6, 3:47 pm, "mbga...@xxxxxxxxx" <mbga...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jun 6, 3:29 pm, lcpltom <lcpl...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

The software is not OWNED by anyone. It's a pattern. All the
original company has is a government granted monopoly on the
distribution and reproduction rights of that pattern.

They can't OWN a copy because aside from the physical medium, the copy
is abstract. All that actually exists is a CD with a certain pattern,
and I own that CD.

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.

Actually, I'm not making assumptions, and I'd say that you are the one
with the problem defining abstract. A pattern and a physical
rendition of that pattern are two separate things. One is physical,
the other is abstract.

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.

Most of that will actually go under "service" theft. If you access a
computer system's resources, then you have taken away some processing
capacity of that system. If you piggyback on your neighbor's
wireless, then you are consuming some portion of his bandwidth. Those
things ARE taking something away. Making a copy is not.

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.

My point exactly. The title is reflecting the "spirit" of the law and
NOT the letter. Going by the "spirit" of the law can be a dangerous
path to follow, as it lends itself to emotion, and uneven enforcement.

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?

Because in the case of identity theft (which I still don't define as
theft, but it seems to be one of the boogeymen du jour) you have
actually deprived the person of something. Namely, their credit
rating. You have indeed taken something away from them. If I decide
to make a copy of the latest Britney Spears single, I've taken nothing
from her. She is not diminished in any way by my actions.

Mike

If you make a copy of the latest Spears album instead of buying it,
you deprive her of a sale of that album to you. You get the enjoyment
of her album, she gets nothing from you.

And whether something is abstract or not is irrelevant, the company
that produces the software still owns the software. US copyright law
doesn't create a monopoly of copying and distribution, it defines the
rights of the owner of a product, whether that product is physical or
not. You can claim otherwise all you want, but copyright law says
otherwise. You can put a copy of a program on a CD, and you still own
the CD, but you don't own the software that was put on that CD unless
you already owned it. You can copy Britney's music to a CD, but you
don't own it. Depending on what you made the copy for, you may not
have had the rights to make the copy to begin with. If you give that
copy to someone else, or make the copy from someone else's copy for
your own purposes, then you have distributed it without permission.
And you still don't own the software.

And again, under copyright law, the owner does not have to prove they
have lost something in order to prove a copyright violation has taken
place. The only place where damages come into play is in how much the
violator must provide in restitution to the owner.
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... taking of non-physical property be considered theft, ...
    (alt.games.warcraft)
  • 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: 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: 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: SOD Editor-Retrographer Volunteers
    ... > given act as anything. ... given an official name NO ELECTRONIC THEFT (note NOT a popular name which ... shall be dealt with as theft, and is considered by the congress to be theft ... I would love to see your 38 day old law ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
Loading