Isn't "Rich's Sarcasm" some form of cancer?
Isn't "Rich's Sarcasm" some form of cancer?
No, I think it's a place near the Grand Canyon..Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@22 April 2003 - 22:03
Isn't "Rich's Sarcasm" some form of cancer?
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
I always thought Rich Sarcasm was a stand up comedian.
That would be Rich Little, who, to the best of my knowledge, is suffering neither from cancer nor, uh, crevasses. He may well be afflicted with tourists, though.Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 02:13
I always thought Rich Sarcasm was a stand up comedian.
I can't speak to the sister issue.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
To add a little muddy water to the argument over the characterization of the deed of copying, etc., what's generally accepted, in the legal community, as what is being "stolen," is that the author, performer, etc., is being deprived of his/her "right" of sole distribution of the material. In fact, at common law, this is the underlying vein - deprivation of just and legal rights. If you take someone's auto, you've not changed its form (unless you melt it down, I guess), but you have deprived the owner of his right of possession and control over the car. Same thing applied to land. In fact, at common law, the term used on the civil side is not "theft," but, rather, "conversion." "The miscreant converted the auto (land, etc.) to his own use."
Taking someones car is not even remotely analogous to copying a file. In the former you take the physical object and deprive the owner of it's use. In the latter you make a copy. However it is an elegantly specious arguement.
"Same thing applied to land". How do you take someones land. You may occupy it and deny them access or use, but you cannot remove it.
If they stick to the common law and civil at that, then pas de problem. Let them sue me.
And damn their eyes.
Well, Jim, I failed badly in my explanation. The argument is neither specious nor mine. It is taught to freshman law students in every English-speaking land. "Taking" at common law is the deprivation of or interference with another person's rights over his property, whether it be real, personal or incorporeal. Most new law students run into the concept most abruptly in trying to understand intangible rights to do something upon or over someone else's land - easements, profits-a-prende, and the like. They bloody their noses trying to understand how refusing someone entry for something he has a legal right to do is a "taking." If they don't understand it, well, they're not around the next year. In the US, some students come to law school from an engineering undergrad backgroud. They seem to have the most trouble with it. At any rate, in the context in which we are discussing it, the "taking" is the interference with the rights of another. The truly 'specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can't be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel.
'Tis good to have a lawyer amongst us.Originally posted by TIDE-HSV@23 April 2003 - 17:48
At any rate, in the context in which we are discussing it, the "taking" is the interference with the rights of another. The truly 'specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can't be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel.
Much of this discussion seems to come to a screeching halt with the bold assersion "I didn't walk into a store and steal a cd so I can't be accused of theft".
Poppycock.
JmiF- in your continued insistance on using land as an example, i.e. "land can't be stolen, it's still there" aren't you aware that land can't be "owned" as well? You don't own the dirt, you purchase the right to use it.
To the law, such ephemeral concepts as "idea", "song" and the like hold just as much physical substance as "land", "automobile", etc.
I assume that TIDE will correct me if I'm wrong.
"I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg
"It is taught to freshman law students in every English-speaking land."
I honestly cannot believe that someone is saying this. Are you really telling me that you are au fait with the law in every English-speaking land, and that you are familiar with how it is taught.
I have encountered arrogance in my time. Frankly this takes the proverbial biscuit.
"The truly 'specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can't be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel."
I didn't say that. You are just using the old trick of putting words in someone else's mouth in an attempt to make them look foolish. Thus reducing their credibility in order to win a point. Your behaviour is beneath contempt.
I have dealt with this in real life, I do not intend to deal with it in my leisure time.
You win, I lose. Congratulations.
Bookmarks