Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Jsameds

Suspended
Apr 22, 2008
3,525
7,987
"But officer, I was just TRYING this new Big screen TV out... if I liked it, I was going to go back and pay for it, I SWEAR! If I didn't like it I was going to bring it back...."

Stealing is stealing. You can lie about your motives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that as soon as you download something you don't have the rights to without paying for it, you have STOLEN it. It's the same as if you walked into Best Buy and walked out with a TV. You can't do that, why do you think it's ok to do it here?

Oh that's right, because you are doing it from Mommies basement it means you don't have to actually feel as bad as if you were stealing from someone directly (or fear being caught).

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

For the thousandth time it's not theft, it's copyright infringement, even the MPAA say so:

http://advanced-television.com/2012/05/21/mpaas-dodd-more-subtle-anti-piracy-approach-needed/

“We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.” - Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPAA)
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
For the thousandth time it's not theft, it's copyright infringement,

And you'll ignore all arguments to the contrary! Piracy is a type of theft. Piracy is also copyright infringement. Read the rest of the thread, so we don't have to rehash the arguments.

even the MPAA say so:

http://advanced-television.com/2012/05/21/mpaas-dodd-more-subtle-anti-piracy-approach-needed/

“We’re on the wrong track if we describe this as thievery.” - Chris Dodd, the Chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association (MPAA)

How the MPAA chooses to word their PR is irrelevant.
 

Jsameds

Suspended
Apr 22, 2008
3,525
7,987

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
I have read it. It's still not theft since nothing has been taken,

This argument has already been discussed. Intangible property and services are specifically included when discussing the definition of property in relation to theft. The UK Theft Act, 1968, was provided as an example.

If you would like a common law definition of theft, read here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=9183731&common+law+theft#post9183731


It is copyright infringement. No one is arguing otherwise.
 

Radiating

macrumors 65816
Dec 29, 2011
1,018
7
And you'll ignore all arguments to the contrary! Piracy is a type of theft. Piracy is also copyright infringement. Read the rest of the thread, so we don't have to rehash the arguments.



How the MPAA chooses to word their PR is irrelevant.

Piracy is not theft, theft involves stealing physical objects. You are a very confused person.

Accessing a server without permission is a crime though, along with copyright infringement.
 

ericrwalker

macrumors 68030
Oct 8, 2008
2,812
4
Albany, NY
They are not "just" accessing the server. They "obtained" software without paying for it. Aka theft.

Piracy is not theft, theft involves stealing physical objects. You are a very confused person.

Accessing a server without permission is a crime though, along with copyright infringement.
 

Brian Y

macrumors 68040
Oct 21, 2012
3,776
1,064
Again, read the thread before making the same unsupported statements. Theft can involve intangible property or services.

It is *you* who is unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument. Several people have given several arguments as to why piracy != theft, yet you still seem to prefer to go on the attack and tell people to "read the thread".

Every time somebody posts something which backs them up - you just shrug it off with "well that doesn't matter". You said I was dodging around the point, answered the very point you threw at me, and yet you still chose to ignore it. Fighting for the sake of fighting is pointless.

You also seem to keep referring to that one post on MR as god-like, and then go on to quote wikipedia as a respectable source (which happens to go against your point that piracy = theft):

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as theft. In copyright law, infringement does not refer to theft of physical objects that take away the owner's possession, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[6] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985), that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: '[...] an infringer of the copyright.'" The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights.
 
Last edited:

Radiating

macrumors 65816
Dec 29, 2011
1,018
7
They are not "just" accessing the server. They "obtained" software without paying for it. Aka theft.

No, absolutely not. They didn't obtain the software because that would require taking someone else computer and physically ripping out their hard drive. Which would be hard drive theft. They copied a piece of software.

Again, read the thread before making the same unsupported statements. Theft can involve intangible property or services.

No absolutely not. You do not understand how the law works. Again you can't steal bandwidth unless you physically re-rout the cables, and then that would be cable theft. What they did was they gained access to a computer system without authorization, which is a crime. It falls under "hacking" and the pirate's "hacking" caused a loss of bandwidth. Just like you don't "steal customers away" when someone does a DDoS attack on an online store. Nobody is being kidnapped and forced to not use amazon.com.

Get your facts straight.
 

ericrwalker

macrumors 68030
Oct 8, 2008
2,812
4
Albany, NY
Copied, is a form of obtaining. It's also not a legal way of acquiring it, therefore it's stolen software. Keep trying to justify theft.

No, absolutely not. They didn't obtain the software because that would require taking someone else computer and physically ripping out their hard drive. Which would be hard drive theft. They copied a piece of software.



No absolutely not. You do not understand how the law works. Again you can't steal bandwidth unless you physically re-rout the cables, and then that would be cable theft. What they did was they gained access to a computer system without authorization, which is a crime. It falls under "hacking" and the pirate's "hacking" caused a loss of bandwidth. Just like you don't "steal customers away" when someone does a DDoS attack on an online store. Nobody is being kidnapped and forced to not use amazon.com.

Get your facts straight.
 

Brian Y

macrumors 68040
Oct 21, 2012
3,776
1,064
Copied, is a form of obtaining. It's also not a legal way of acquiring it, therefore it's stolen software. Keep trying to justify theft.

It's. Not. Theft. According to the law, if you bothered to read what people had written instead of just trolling, you'd have realised that by now.

If you copy something, you haven't removed it, therefore, by legal definition, it cannot be theft.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
It is *you* who is unwilling to listen to the other side of the argument. Several people have given several arguments as to why piracy != theft, yet you still seem to prefer to go on the attack and tell people to "read the thread".

Every time somebody posts something which backs them up - you just shrug it off with "well that doesn't matter". You said I was dodging around the point, answered the very point you threw at me, and yet you still chose to ignore it. Fighting for the sake of fighting is pointless.

You didn't answer my point. You made up your own definition. I provided an accepted definition of the word "theft", and explained how piracy meets that definition.

If you want to provide your own definition of "theft" that doesn't include piracy, that's fine. Words have multiple meanings. But that doesn't make me wrong.

You also seem to keep referring to that one post on MR as god-like, and then go on to quote wikipedia as a respectable source (which happens to go against your point that piracy = theft):

The post I quoted was from an IP lawyer and specifically addressed the argument. You also have not refuted any of his points.

----------

No absolutely not. You do not understand how the law works. Again you can't steal bandwidth unless you physically re-rout the cables, and then that would be cable theft. What they did was they gained access to a computer system without authorization, which is a crime. It falls under "hacking" and the pirate's "hacking" caused a loss of bandwidth. Just like you don't "steal customers away" when someone does a DDoS attack on an online store. Nobody is being kidnapped and forced to not use amazon.com.

Get your facts straight.

I do actually understand the law. As I have linked to several times, here is the UK Theft Act, 1968 that another poster brought up.

Note where it specifically includes "intangible property".
 

Brian Y

macrumors 68040
Oct 21, 2012
3,776
1,064
You didn't answer my point. You made up your own definition. I provided an accepted definition of the word "theft", and explained how piracy meets that definition.

If you want to provide your own definition of "theft" that doesn't include piracy, that's fine. Words have multiple meanings. But that doesn't make me wrong.



The post I quoted was from an IP lawyer and specifically addressed the argument. You also have not refuted any of his points.

So, let's reverse the roles. Tell me which part of the quote you provided from Wikipedia backs up that copyright is theft. I'm struggling what that tbh. Or even better, link me to one case in any courtroom in any country in which somebody has been charged with theft, for illegally downloading or copying somebodys intellectual property.

----------

Note where it specifically includes "intangible property".

It also says "permanently depriving the other of it;". Which you are not - since I was the one who brought that act up.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
It's. Not. Theft. According to the law, if you bothered to read what people had written instead of just trolling, you'd have realised that by now.

If you copy something, you haven't removed it, therefore, by legal definition, it cannot be theft.

Which legal definition?
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
So, let's reverse the roles. Tell me which part of the quote you provided from Wikipedia backs up that copyright is theft. I'm struggling what that tbh.

We don't need Wikipedia. The Theft Act is fine.

As summarized by cmaier, the act is in agreement with the common law definition.
theft is an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

When you infringe copyright, you are doing the stuff in bold, and hence stealing.

It also says "permanently depriving the other of it;". Which you are not - since I was the one who brought that act up.

See section 6. And again, note in section 4 where it specifically applies to intangible property.

And most specifically, section 3.
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation"
 

ericrwalker

macrumors 68030
Oct 8, 2008
2,812
4
Albany, NY
I pirate content all the time.

...to try it out.

If it's good, I buy it. If it's not, I delete it.


Best of both worlds.


That's still wrong, but I think developers should have a lite or trial version of their apps. I would imagine that most people don't pay for it if they like it, even if they claim they do.
 

Jsameds

Suspended
Apr 22, 2008
3,525
7,987
theft is an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

The developer doesn't own the 0's and 1's you are downloading, nor the electrons flowing down your ethernet cable. They only own the rights to their software, that's it.

So, once again, it's not theft, you're infringing on someone else's rights hence it is copyright infringement.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
The developer doesn't own the 0's and 1's you are downloading, nor the electrons flowing down your ethernet cable. They only own the rights to their software, that's it.

So, once again, it's not theft, you're infringing on someone else's rights hence it is copyright infringement.

From the Theft Act:
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation"

Copyright law gives the developer exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute their software. You are assuming their rights by creating a reproduction.
 

Brian Y

macrumors 68040
Oct 21, 2012
3,776
1,064
We don't need Wikipedia. The Theft Act is fine.

As summarized by cmaier, the act is in agreement with the common law definition.




See section 6. And again, note in section 4 where it specifically applies to intangible property.

And most specifically, section 3.
"Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation"

Dodging the question again, I just asked if you could point which part of the paragraph you used in your argument applied to your argument. Apparently not.

And from Section 6 of the Theft Act:

A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

Since we're talking about rights, by downloading an app, I have no intention to treat the exclusive right to distribute as my own.

Also, with regard to assumption:

Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.

Again, by downloading an app, I haven't assumed, nor appropriated, the exclusive right to distribute the app. Nor have I assumed or appropriated the right to reproduce it. I have, however, violated the owners rights to do such things, but at no point do I gain the right to do so. There is a massive difference between violating a right, and assuming it (to clear it up - I'm using these as examples, should you wish to throw another point at me accusing me of dodging the bullet, feel free and I'll apply it :)).
 

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,745
10,845
Dodging the question again, I just asked if you could point which part of the paragraph you used in your argument applied to your argument. Apparently not.

:confused: I didn't dodge the question at all. I provided the exact definition of theft that supports my assertion that copyright infringement is theft.

And from Section 6 of the Theft Act:

Since we're talking about rights, by downloading an app, I have no intention to treat the exclusive right to distribute as my own.

No, you are assuming their right to create a reproduction.

Also, with regard to assumption:

Again, by downloading an app, I haven't assumed, nor appropriated, the exclusive right to distribute the app. Nor have I assumed or appropriated the right to reproduce it. I have, however, violated the owners rights to do such things, but at no point do I gain the right to do so. There is a massive difference between violating a right, and assuming it (to clear it up - I'm using these as examples, should you wish to throw another point at me accusing me of dodging the bullet, feel free and I'll apply it :)).

Again, you are creating a distinction with no legal basis. By your logic, you can't even steal a hammer because the original owner still has rights to the hammer! What you are talking about is the legal transference of rights which would never happen during a theft. The closest thing I can think of would be fraud.

Assuming someone else's rights is inclusive of doing something that they have the exclusive right to do.

Assuming someone's rights. Violating someone's rights. Depriving someone of their rights. Interfering with someone's rights. These are all the same thing in this context.
 
Last edited:

ZacNicholson

macrumors 6502a
Jun 25, 2011
882
1,158
Austin
Oh that's right, because you are doing it from Mommies basement it means you don't have to actually feel as bad as if you were stealing from someone directly (or fear being caught).

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

Im not in my moms basement, i am at my university
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bumblebritches5

macrumors 6502
Nov 7, 2012
437
191
Michigang
But it is black and white. That's the point. Thieves try to blur the facts. But that doesn't change the facts. Someone puts their efforts and talents into developing a product, and under the law they are protected from those who would steal from them. Justifying that theft by attacking the victim's business model, security measures, etc. does not change the fact that it's theft.

Sorry to hear that you don't drink. Hate to think that your mind is naturally that addled.

Well, the word "Product" is debatable, and no it's not black and white, it's not stealing period, and your insistence on calling me a thief because I refuse to agree with you, isn't going to keep me from commenting on every single comment you post stating otherwise.

I love how you keep tooting your own horn "talents" nobody respects developers, and they never will, go play linux roulette. LOL "Victim" God, you're almost as bad as feminists.

----------

"But officer, I was just TRYING this new Big screen TV out... if I liked it, I was going to go back and pay for it, I SWEAR! If I didn't like it I was going to bring it back...."

Stealing is stealing. You can lie about your motives all you want, it doesn't change the fact that as soon as you download something you don't have the rights to without paying for it, you have STOLEN it. It's the same as if you walked into Best Buy and walked out with a TV. You can't do that, why do you think it's ok to do it here?

Oh that's right, because you are doing it from Mommies basement it means you don't have to actually feel as bad as if you were stealing from someone directly (or fear being caught).

At least be an honest thief lol... people will at least respect you for that ;)

What don't you people get? Does there need to be some big ass billboard with the words PIRACY ISN'T THEFT, PIRACY IS A COPY. THEFT IS REMOVAL. like Jesus christ.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.