of course, it also coincides nicely with the position taken by the fucking host site. If it offends you so profoundly to think of it as Dex’s personal position, perhaps you could instead reflect on that fact?
Mr2001 – a telemarketer. That goes a long way to explaining his combinbation of ignorange and lug-headedness. Smart like bull; stong like streetcar.
Muffin, thank you for those quotes. While I’m obviously not a lawyer, I can honestly say that I’ve been studying the effect and ethics of copyright for many years, I’ve read and participated in many copyright debates here and elsewhere, and this is the first time I’ve seen any legal references to copyright infringement as “theft” other than in the title of the NET Act. I will take them into consideration.
Feel free, though, to cram those judgments about my employment history up your ass. I’m not proud of it, but call centers are among the most reliable sources of income in this area, and I’m hardly the only person with embarrassing moments in his past.
The Reader’s position is that it’s theft, huh? Interesting. What’s their position on recreational drugs? Human cloning? Late term abortion? Just wondering what other preachy gems I can expect to see in thread closure messages.
[QUOTE=Mr2001The Reader’s position is that it’s theft, huh? Interesting. What’s their position on recreational drugs? Human cloning? Late term abortion? Just wondering what other preachy gems I can expect to see in thread closure messages.[/QUOTE]
They’ve not voiced an opinon on any of those other subjects asshole. (except of course that “threads about how to commit a crime are not allowed”). they have however, voiced an opinion on the issue of copyrights. as a matter of fact, there are two entire paragraphs about the issue of copyrights in the user agreement:
and (to a lesser extent)
You’ll note that the user agreement doesn’t really discuss other laws specifically, or issues (other than the aforementioned stuff about not posting about how to commit a crime), so I’d take it to mean that the SDMBspecifically takes copyright laws pretty fucking seriously.
now, do you have anything that remotely suggests that the Reader doesn’t take the position that Dex verbalized? (which is, of course, the point I made and you attempted to address w/that red herring)
Both of which are straightforward policies, not political or moral stances.
Agreed. Now, what exactly does that have to do with your claim that “copyright infringement = stealing” is an official policy of the Reader?
I’ll take ‘Things mods can say but regular members can’t’ for $1000 please, Alex.
Your “studying” has been grossly deficient. You should not put forth arguments when you do not understand the fundamentals, for all you are doing is spreading ignorance. There is a wealth of information to be found under “intellectual property” in law libraries and on reputable internet sites, so rather than continue to fly your shorts in the wind, start doing your homework.
I have had to point out some very basic cases to you concerning theft of intellectual property, and concerning the fundamentals of coypright law with respect to tangibility. These are cases with which you should have already been familiar, and in any event, you should have found yourself before making rediculous assertions that run contrary to them. You failed to do your homework.
wring has had to point out the SDMB user agrement which you have no excuse for not having read. You again failed to do your homework.
When you blather about making profoundly erroneous statements without first having taken the time and effort to do some very basic homework, and then demand cites from others without bothering to produce cites for your own statements, you are behaving as a fool. I do not suffer fools.
Embarrassing moments in both your past employment and present posts. Be a good thing, and try not to drivel on into the future about that which you know nought.
[/QUOTE]
Muffin has supplied you with cites indicating that according to written opinions on copyright laws, copyright infringment = stealing. Therefore, such a comment is founded securely in the laws, although it can also be seen as both a moral and political stance.
you may disagree w/the law, wish that it didn’t say what it says, etc, but to continue to claim that it is ‘only’ a personal political or moral stance that would hold copyright infringement = stealing, does not seem to be supportable.
I posted the leading USSC copyright cases that confirm that copyright infringement is theft of intellectual property.
Wring posted the section of the SDMB user agreement that specifically prohibits copyright infringement.
But now Mr2001 wishes to quibble some more:
This reminds me of a delightful ongoing skit by SCTV that spoofed Jeopardy. The contestants were so profoundly stupid that the host could not elucidate correct answers from them even when he gave them the correct answers.
Sure that wasn’t SNL?
One should not be embarrassed for taking on legal employment. People who take on menial boring employment to support themselves and avoid depending on others should be lauded, not ridiculed. I should also add that any ad hominem argument based on a person’s occupation in society, particularly by a person in an occupation of high esteem is classist and disgusting.
The skit was performed by both – SCTV pre-dated SNL, and many of the SCTV troupe moved on to SNL. I’m a Kanukistani who watched a lot of SCTV and patronized the Old Firehall regularly, so the SCTV skits are what I recall most clearly.
Are telemarkets scum, or are telemarketers downtrodden? This isn’t the thread for such a discussion.
Oh, so this is just about your perceived right to get the last word.
Take two years of emotional maturing and call me in the morning.
They are only controversial in the sense that something that has been clearly proven time and time again is ignored by a bunch of whiney asshole Napsterheads who feel that theft is OK if you call it some other name.
That’s like claiming that Santa Claus’ existence or lack thereof is controversial because some kids don’t know yet, or that 2 + 2 being 4 is controversial because some lumpheads get the bright idea of denying it just to deny it. There’s no real controversy here just some delusional idiots who won’t shut up about their extreme ignorance of reality.
I think the whole “is copyright infringement theft?” thing is better suited for GD (since it is, in a sense, only a side issue in this thread). However, I will say I’m of two minds about it. I definitely don’t think it’s as harmless as many of the Slashdot folks say, but I think they have a point when they point out that copyright infringement doesn’t deprive anyone of any actual property or potential to make a profit. Sure, one could argue that someone who pirates is “stealing a sale” from the maker, but isn’t that condemning someone based on a decision that has not yet been made (if that makes sense)? After all, many of those who DL from P2P claim they have made purchases they wouldn’t have otherwise due to the downloading.
And this doesn’t even cover many of the fair use stifling that’s resulted from media’s efforts to stop pirating (though one could argue that those are the pirates’ fault).
This almost, but not quite, as good as Can Manhatten Swear When Closing a Thread in GQ?
In other words, those excerpts from the user agreement were irrelevant and I should pay attention to Muffin instead? Gotcha.
Oh, bullshit. I’m familiar with those parts of the agreement, and they have nothing to do with the subject at hand. The first part essentially says that we agree not to violate copyrights in our posts, and the second says everything we post belongs to the Reader. Those are pretty standard terms for signing up with a message board. Note that neither part addresses morality.
It’s no surprise that the user agreement pays special attention to the issue of copyrights - the whole point of a message board is to read other posters’ written material and submit your own, and that could lead to a lot of legal disputes if it weren’t clear up front who holds the copyright to the posts and who’s allowed to reproduce them.
Now, about those cites of yours. I’ve found the full text of Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (in which it seems no one was found to have broken the law at all), and the word “theft” only appears that one time. In the other example you gave, it also only appears once, in an excerpt from another case, Iowa State University Research Foundation, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., in which it yet again only appears once.
None of those instances are in any of the conclusions of the cases, they’re simply part of a long chain of reasoning, and AFAICT the word is being used in its informal sense of “getting something for free without authorization”. As a lawyer, perhaps you can explain to me how you get from that to claiming that a court has actually found a copyright infringer liable for theft.
Thank you.
Even if you want to dismiss one side as “delusional idiots” without taking the time to understand their position, the fact that use of those terms has sparked controversy in the past is undeniable. Whether those people really are delusional idiots is beside the point, and I suggest you take such discussion to another thread.
Leaper, while I commend your level-headedness, that goes for you too. If there’s any chance of a reasonable discussion about copyright, it’ll be in GD, not here.
Nonsense. It’s about open and honest debate on a message board known for such things.
I don’t have a right to respond, just like Bill O’Reilly’s guests don’t have a right to respond on his show. It’s the Reader’s board, and their appointed moderators can start and stop discussions however they like. That said, though, it’s still rude to make a jab when no one will be able to respond to it, even if it isn’t violating anyone’s rights.
Thank you for putting it in perspective. I certainly don’t think this is an important enough issue to warrant all the hostility.
“Copying and downloading Star Wars video games and movies is not okay—it’s breaking the law because it is stealing someone else’s property.” - Jon Dudas, Under Secratary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, 24 May 2005
Well, your proposed debate is a self-indulgent piece of crap and we will openly and honestly tell you so. Let freedom ring.
Well…[ul][li]You don’t have the right, and you never did, to overrule a moderator decision to close a thread.[/li][li]That said, you do have a venue for complaint, namely the Pit, but even then a moderator could close or delete the thread and you have no right to stop them.[/li][li]You have no right to be protected against moderator rudeness.[/li][li]You have no right to be protected against member rudeness when you dare complain about moderator rudeness in the Pit and receive scorn and ridicule and accusations of being a whiny bitch for your trouble.[/ul][/li]
You’re just the latest yarn-ball, fella. The current crotch-kick practice dummy, the dartboard du jour, the winner of this week’s dogpile raffle. Enjoy it while it lasts because as soon as this thread dies, so does interest in you.