More Powerful Than The Government?

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 19:09
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.

With all due respect Clocker, the land concept seems a bit flawed. Don't we still practice law under the idea that "possession is 9/10 of the law?"

I know this concept is far to vague to be applied here, but ultimately, this comes down to physical tangible goods, or services. The right to profit from this material could be licenced and owned, but the material is tangible. Consider this example:

I apologize first for not having all the "detail" but I'm sure you'll see where I'm going with this. A video store in California was getting complaints about the movies available for rent in their stores. People were saying that there was too much violence, cursing, nudity, etc. So this store put together an editing crew and started editing the movies, essentially "removing" anything which they deemed offensive. When they were finished, they repackaged the movie, and made it available for rent and for purchase thru mail order as a "family oriented version" available for all ages to watch. Of course the MPAA was all over this one. As of now, they have NOT been shut down. However, the movies must be labeled with different packaging to indicate that they are not the "originals."

So if the studios won't produce the movies in a family friendly format, why can't another young businessman do it instead?

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39
I'm sorry but I cant accept that infringement of copyright law is stealing. I am not saying that is is not illegal, it is an infringement of the relevant copyright law. However it is not stealing.

In the UK The Theft Act (1968 I believe)requires that you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the goods you steal. However I am never even taking their property, so I cannot be said to have stolen it. I am copying it. I may be depriving them of a potential sale, however I cannot se how I can steal that which is only potential.

In addition there are things which cannot, by definition, be stolen. The most quoted example is land. It is physically impossible to remove the land, therefore you cannot take it or permanently deprive it's owner of it. It cannot be stolen

Ah, actually, JmiF that is EXACTLY what you said.

TIDE didn't need to put words into your mouth, you provided them.
Don't take your ball and go home just yet.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 01:29--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--JmiF@22 April 2003 - 14:39
I&#39;m sorry but I cant accept that infringement of copyright law is stealing. I am not saying that is is not illegal, it is an infringement of the relevant copyright law. However it is not stealing.

In the UK The Theft Act (1968 I believe)requires that you intend to permanently deprive the owner of the goods you steal. However I am never even taking their property, so I cannot be said to have stolen it. I am copying it. I may be depriving them of a potential sale, however I cannot se how I can steal that which is only potential.

In addition there are things which cannot, by definition, be stolen. The most quoted example is land. It is physically impossible to remove the land, therefore you cannot take it or permanently deprive it&#39;s owner of it. It cannot be stolen

Ah, actually, JmiF that is EXACTLY what you said.

TIDE didn&#39;t need to put words into your mouth, you provided them.
Don&#39;t take your ball and go home just yet. [/b][/quote]
Seriously, please enighten me, what did I say which supports the last arguement. I am at a loss.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Jibbler@23 April 2003 - 18:26


So if the studios won&#39;t produce the movies in a family friendly format, why can&#39;t another young businessman do it instead?

Your hypothetical entrepeneur is free to do so, of course.
What he CAN&#39;T do is alter someone else&#39;s film and then profit from the results.
I find that whole "family friendly" entertainment movement to be creepy anyway.
Next they&#39;ll want a "Family" rated version of Caligula.
Film will be 25 seconds long...

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 01:09--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 01:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--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.&nbsp; The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel.

&#39;Tis good to have a lawyer amongst us.

Much of this discussion seems to come to a screeching halt with the bold assersion "I didn&#39;t walk into a store and steal a cd so I can&#39;t be accused of theft".
Poppycock.
JmiF- in your continued insistance on using land as an example, i.e. "land can&#39;t be stolen, it&#39;s still there" aren&#39;t you aware that land can&#39;t be "owned" as well? You don&#39;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&#39;m wrong. [/b][/quote]
I didn&#39;t say the dirt I said the land.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 18:20


"The truly &#39;specious" viewpoint is in thinking that nothing can be stolen which can&#39;t be gripped in the fingers, like an apple or a steering wheel."

I didn&#39;t say that. You are just using the old trick of putting words in someone else&#39;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.

Ahem.

[J'Pol]

My continued insistance of using land as an example is based on one simple thing.

Where I come from it cannot be stolen. This is not a point open to debate. It is a fact. It is tried and tested.

[clocker]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 18:41
My continued insistance of using land as an example is based on one simple thing.

Where I come from it cannot be stolen. This is not a point open to debate. It is a fact. It is tried and tested.

I&#39;ll bet that if I built a condo in your backyard you could find LOTS of legal casework re: theft.

[TIDE-HSV]

Jim, land can certainly be adversely possessed, which is lawyerese for theft of land. Certainly, in the broadest metaphysical sense neither land nor anything else can be either stolen or truly owned by man in his meager threescore and ten. All we can hope to do is to is to exercise dominion and control over it ephemerally. However, illegal interference with another&#39;s legal right is regarded as theft and the law characterizes it as such. As regards land, on the civil side, it&#39;s called "adverse possession." On the criminal side, it&#39;s called "criminal trespass." As for a copyright, it&#39;s called "infringement." In the eyes of the law, it&#39;s all the same - interference with the legal rights of another.

[Jibbler]

Originally posted by JmiF@23 April 2003 - 19:41
My continued insistance of using land as an example is based on one simple thing.

Where I come from it cannot be stolen. This is not a point open to debate. It is a fact. It is tried and tested.

We Americans (formerly you british), settled upon American soil and took this land from the Indians who were here (native americans we call them now). Of course, in those days we called it exploration. Today you might call it trespassing. Either way, lets stay on subject.

I&#39;ll bring up another point here, and JimF nailed this one dead to rights. All of this could come down to a simple debate regarding your local laws. This was once fought in court in the US in a similar instance. In the US, online gambling sites are considered illegal in many states due to your locals laws, even though the owners of these sites reside in an area where gambling is legal, such as the Bahamas. When it went to the courts, they determined that the "transaction" occured, not on your local computer, but in an offshore account where the transaction was legal. So thus today, we can gamble online in the US, even if local law doesn&#39;t allow it.

This could relate to filesharing in the same way. If the "transaction" or "filesharing" occurred in an area where it were legal, then the authorities wouldn&#39;t have jurisdiction to stop the crime. Unless of course, this "intellectual property" were stolen in "intellectual land."