Re: Nikon raw (*.nef) support?
- From: Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 00:23:32 +0200
Marc Sabatella <marc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stealing does deprive the owner of the use of the thing stolen
(e.g. if you steal my car, I cannot drive to work). Unauthorized
copying does not deprive the owner of the use of the thing copied
(e.g. if you have a "Star Trek Car Duplicator"(tm) and copy my
car and drive of in the copy, I can still drive to work).
The damage done is thus not the deprivation, but the loss of
Ah. So if you go to a computer store and run off with a copy of the
application from the store shelf, that doesn't count as stealing
In the store I would have to take a physical box, of which I
would deprive the store. Theft.
I would note, then, that you are changing your claim that is about
depriving someone of the *use* of the item, I see (again, the store had
no intention of "using" the item").
The store had the intention to hand over the box to some
customer for money. I'd call that use, yes.
But I will grant that this new
dinstinction you are now inventing, because your old one fell apart so
quickly, is indeed one *can* be made. So I would next challenge you to
demosntrate that this actually does have anything to do with the
definition of stealing. That is, a reference from any actual dictionary
would be nice here.
steal /sti:l/ [...]
1 [I, Ipr, Tn, Tn·pr] ~ (sth) (from sb/sth)
take (another person's property) secretly without permission
or legal right; take (sth) dishonestly [...] => Usage at rob
2 [Tn, Tn·pr] (fml) obtain (sth) quickly or stealthily,
esp by a surprise or trick [... steal ak iss from sb ...]
3 [Ipr, Ip] ~ in, out, away, etc [...]
4 (idm) steal a 'march (on sb) [...]
steal the 'scene/'show [...]
steal sb's 'thunder [...]
1 (US sl) instance of stealing, theft
2 (infml esp US) good bargain, easy task [...]
Oxford English Dictionary.
More importantly, however, you've yet to demonstrate, or indeed to
suggest in any whatsoever, why this should make even the slightest bit
Because the law defines crimes (e.g. premediated murder, murder,
manslaughter, fraud, ...) to have a very specific meaning.
You might as well try to limit the definition "theft" as
only applying to objects whose names started with the letters "A-M" (and
the same act, when applied to items beginning with "N-Z", would
presumably be called something different). Sure, you *could* make such
a distinction. But what would be the point? Would there be a single
situation in which theft of an A-M object would be wrong but the
pilfering (or whatever word you deem appopriate of an N-Z object would
Ah, making a difference by the name of the object makes no sense.
That's a very nice straw man you built there.
A difference in the value however (petty theft (or petit larency)
versus grand larency) or the method (larency versus fraud versus
armed robbery with assault and battery and hostage-taking) does
- Prev by Date: Re: Would you pay $6,100 for a Mk III?
- Next by Date: Re: Nikon raw (*.nef) support?
- Previous by thread: Re: Nikon raw (*.nef) support?
- Next by thread: Re: Nikon raw (*.nef) support?