underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Except, as we've seen, the legal definition doesn't require that the property actually be taken, only received. Now, I'm sorry if this is too complicated for you to understand, but it is quite legally theft.
No, I understand what you're saying, it's just objectively incorrect. What you've legally defined as theft defies the actual definition of the concept of theft. What I don't understand is why you slavishly defend the state's definition of sharing as theft when we can use our rational capacity to determine that it clearly is not. You can't point to any individual in the videogame industry who has lost property as a result of so-called piracy!
Lost physical property? Let's start with the guys at Pirate Bay and Iron Lore. We get them coming and going folks.
Who else has lost property? It's going to be a long list. Who else has had their property devalued? Every major publisher. I get that you don't understand that that is important, but life goes on without you.
Now, you're right, I am focusing on the legal definition. You know why? Because the legal definition is encompassing for a reason. Larceny and theft charges include a lot more than just shoplifting, and pickpocketing, and they
very explicitly include this. Now you can cry about how this doesn't sync up with your personal philosophical take on the law, but at the end of the day you can do precisely fuck all about that. If you actually listen, you may learn something, if you don't... well, sooner or later someone will set you straight about what your rights really are, and all I can say is I hope it isn't a judge, because they will fuck you over.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Now, you can't give something you don't own, so we're back at that.
Except you do own the data you're giving: it exists on YOUR hard-drive, after all. If those 1's and 0's belong to anyone, they belong to you. After all, who else could possibly claim to own them? I hear you fine, by the way. I understand your argument entirely. It's just not very rational.
"Piracy" is hardly a positive name for what it is properly called "sharing", and it's totally erroneous: it implies a loss of property which simply does not occur in the process of sharing.
Except, again, it does, in the form of equity. Property is lost every goddamn day. By stealing someone else's shit, you devalue their property.
If you
wanted to call it "vandalism" instead of "sharing" maybe you'd have room to talk. But you do harm others every time you pirate or post something for someone else to pirate.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Ah, so we'd be better off without government? I'm sorry, I've heard this argument before, no one credible who understands economics or politics believes that Ayn Rand was anything more than a lunatic.
Who said anything about Rand? I'm talking about parasitism: I can prove that government agents are parasites by definition, whereas you cannot prove the same of the so-called digital pirates. Rand defended copyright, by the way. She was wrong.
You're presenting the blithering Objectivity philosophies right down to some of the terminology. You're either doing that intentionally and being deliberately obtuse, or you're illiterate when it comes to political philosophy.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
By that logic counterfeiting currency wouldn't be a crime. I'd say we all understand that that simply isn't the case, but with you, I'm not so certain.
Actually that'd be fraud, an actual crime, and insulting me isn't going to make your case any stronger.
No, Fraud is fraud. Counterfeiting is counterfeiting. Its a different crime. But, wait, in counterfeiting you are creating copies of money. There's no loss. Only a gain of property. Huh. Funny how that works out. Just like... what was that word you used? Oh, right: "sharing". In both cases you can't really say you're taking something from someone else, but you are devaluing the economy they exist within.
underattack86 said:
The government "gives" you your human rights? I thought rights were "self-evident" and "inalienable"? Freedom of speech is properly recognised as a HUMAN RIGHT, that is, something inherent in human nature... and it isn't government which defines a human. The government can only deny your absolute freedom of speech, but there is nothing which can be done to stop you from having such a right. They could ban you from engaging in this discussion, but you'd still have a right to do so.
Again, I invite you to test out the fire argument and see how far your inalienable right to freedom and speech take you.
underattack86 said:
Sharing data is speech, and not theft. You can't demonstrate any case in which sharing data would be theft.
Again no. Because you cannot speak every line of data off a multigig data file. It isn't free speech for the same reason bludgeoning someone to death isn't free speech. Not because its a crime, but because it is not speech. But again, I can tell you don't actually believe any of this because if you did, then you'd be using this as your defense.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
No, the hard drive, and the physical medium is his, not the data. What's more, I can tell you know you don't actually believe any of the shit you're spewing, but we'll get back to that.
How on earth can the hard-drive belong to him but not the data? It's ON the hard-drive. When his computer accepted the shared file, it created those 1's and 0's. That's data created by the recipient's own property. How can something I create with my property possibly belong to another individual? That's absurd.
Hardly. Hey, you remember that box that popped up when you were installing whatever the fuck on your hard drive? The one you clicked through and ignored? Yeah, that was a contract which enumerated that you
don't own the software, only a license to use it. Now, don't get pissed off and cry, I'm sure you didn't realize that at the time, but you did agree to the conditions. In fact, you agreed that you did not own it. Right before you went and posted it to a torrent.
Beyond that a quick review of copyright law should explain things. And again, no one gives two tugs of a dead dog's cock what you believe is just or moral in relation to the law. You either follow the law, or you don't.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Tell that to all the people facing criminal charges for direct and secondary infringement. I'm sure they'd love to know your interpretation. Except, well, you know, it's flat out wrong. Again, crying about it doesn't change what is. What is, is this, you are flat out wrong. You can pretend whatever the fuck you want, but it will never make you right.
So you'd have called those who harboured escaped slaves criminals, since their actions were defined as such in law?
Don't even pretend for a moment that stealing someone else's work is at all related to slavery.
underattack86 said:
Of-course not, you'd recognise that their actions were right and the law was wrong. The law can be wrong, and has been on so many occasions throughout American history. It is wrong in this matter, for the reasons I've laid out above.
So here's the funny thing. The undeground railroad was about protecting human beings from exploitation, abuse and death. Theft has no such noble goals or aims. You disgust me. That you can't understand that there is a difference between the moral imperative protecting another human being and getting to play that new video game you wanted to, speaks to a kind of self centered hypocritical egotism that absolutely disgusts me. You don't give a flying fuck about slavery. You don't give a flying fuck about free speech. Free speech is only the venue you denigrate to get what you want without having to whine to your parents to the point that they backhand you. You have no ideology, only what is convenient
for you. You have no morals or ethics, only pretenses at them. And I can tell you all of this with absolute certaintly because you don't understand the difference, fuck you don't even get that there
is a difference, between the underground railroad and swiping a copy of Wolverine off the net.
underattack86 said:
The reality is that piracy is not theft; the state lying about this reality does not change the objective fact of the matter.
"The State" has nothing to do with this. Copyright law has been recognized for longer than you have, and longer than you will be. Without copyrights there would be no art. Without copyrights there would be no games for you to play. Without copyright you are nowhere. If you really believed that copyrights were a lie from "the man" you would not be on a copyrighted site, which deals in news on copyrighted content. You wouldn't be sitting at a PC running windows right now. And yet, you are.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
And this is where direct and secondary infringement comes in, but I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, you'd just cry and ignore it.
No, please. Try your best. I've responded to every point you've raised thus far, no reason why I wouldn't respond to this. How have I committed an act of theft in receiving data from a willing sender? Lets hear your argument. Just remember that saying "just because" isn't good enough; you have to objectively demonstrate the loss of property necessary to define an act of theft.
How about because the willing sender didn't have the legal authority to do so. Again, you don't get to reinvent the law, and whatever your feelings on the law, they're irrelevant. You don't get to give away shit that isn't yours. That's the law. There's no morality, no judgment, you simply cannot do it, and it doesn't matter if the person who does own it will notice or not, it's still illegal.
I'm not going to bother explaining secondary infringement and direct infringement because you've failed to demonstrate that you're up to the task.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Ah, so you're picking and choosing what parts of the constitution apply? What then protects you from the police torturing you without trial?
Nothing. Why, what protects you? A 200-year-old piece of hemp paper? That's hardly protection. And why shouldn't I pick and choose the laws I do and do not follow? Everybody else does. The Constitution has no validity whatsoever, by the way. It's no more powerful or meaningful than any other piece of paper with ink on it.
No. Because without the constitution you have no expectation to privacy. Without the constitution
nothing protects you from the whims of government. No due process. No right to free speech, that you are so fond of misinterpreting. For that matter, no checks and balances against a tyrant rising. You may belittle the document as much as you want, but at the end of the day it is the test all legislation is placed against. In that, you disregard it at your extreme peril. It is quite literally the font from which our system of government flows.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
The CD itself, the physical object is yours. The data that has been recorded on it is not yours. Again, if you have a problem with that, tough shit.
How can it not be mine? Demonstrate how this could be the case, please. I can't see how it could be anybody else's, since it was created by me (via the act of burning) and is in my possession.
Okay, I missed that, so you're the artist? If you're the artist on the disk then that's fine, it's yours... oh wait. You swiped these tracks off the internet, and then you burned a copy. Okay.
So, the DMCA lets you make one backup, it does not let you give that backup to someone else. The data was never yours. Never. You may have owned the physical media, the disk itself, but not what was on it. I'm sorry if I'm going to fast for you here, but ultimately, you
do not own the data.
More precisely you do not have the right to copy that data. But that may be too complex for you to understand.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
In data format, as ones and zeros, on the page, on a CD. You do understand the concept of data right? Because there seems to be some confusion on your part.
I love data, but data is physical. The 1's and 0's on my external hard-drive belong to me because they are a physical manifestation within my physical property. What you're talking about is owning the idea of the 1's and 0's, or the order of them... and those things are abstract, unlike the CD or the external hard-drive. So we return to the question: how can one own immaterial, non-physical property?
Via a copyright or patent. That is the entire point of intellectual property. And just because you don't want it to exist doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
AH! But if copyright law is inherently immoral, and unjust then you have no stake in this. But the moment you would have been benefited from the system you leap to its defense. How very telling.
No, you've misunderstood.
Hardly.
underattack86 said:
It's an act of fraud to sell somebody else's work with your own name on it, because you're misrepresenting what is being sold.
Again it would be larceny or theft, not fraud, (with a side of assault or aggravated assault).
underattack86 said:
The victim is the buyer, not the original author.
Hardly. By that logic you never had a right to the work in the first place. The reader is not victimized... well if you
were the author, maybe they would be. But, the reader is not victimized. They elected to purchase the book, and they did receive what they were paying for. So, no fraud occurred at that level. Unless of course it is absolutely critical that the right name is associated with the book, but that
would imply that there was some kind of ownership.
underattack86 said:
Copyright remains immoral and invalid.
And yet. The instant I suggested that something you created would be taken from you, you went on the defensive. Your efforts to mask your reaction are admirable, but your initial reflex betrayed you.
underattack86 said:
There's still no reason why I can't duplicate duplicate the book and sell it to others, so long as I sell it with the proper author's name on it.
If you were the author, and it was stolen from you? You're actually correct, but, remember, in this hypothetical, you can do that because you are the legitimate copyright holder.
underattack86 said:
There's also no reason why I can't give it out for free with my name on it, since there's no fraud without exchange of money.
The second half of that sentence is irrelevant. You can give it out freely with your name because you are the legitimate copyright holder.
underattack86 said:
These are perfectly valid uses of one's property, which you seem to have an arbitrary beef with.
No, in this case I do not. What I have issue with, is your insistence that copyright is immoral, but, at the same time, when presented with the prospect of your own artistic work being taken from you, your immediate response is to attempt to hold on to it.
Again, your argument exists only to benefit yourself. In copyright law this approach, almost by definition, precludes you from making a philosophically sound argument.
In fact we've moved on from your most glaring contradiction, when asked, your first response was to go to the police. Now either government (including the police) is a parasitic organism, meant only to restrain society so that it may feed off it in comfort,
or it is a necessary check protecting you from your fellow man. You cannot claim an anarchistic opposition to all government one moment and then hide behind the police the next and remain ideologically consistent, it is an inherent conflict, which undermines your argument as a whole.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Let us say, you strike me as the possessor of a singularly focused intellect. Interested only in what is best for him, with no regard for the common good. To disregard the law in a legal debate as "what's written by the criminals in power" and then bemoan the loss of your (fictional) work speaks to that.
You've nowhere near enough information about me to make that judgement (4th post y'all!), and like I said, it doesn't make your argument any stronger.
Actually? You have. You've posted about 8 or 9 pages of material to the escapist in those four posts. That's more than enough for me to start making accurate an analysis of your argument.
underattack86 said:
Lets drop the attitude and stick to the facts.
You first.
Okay, you may not realize this, but you are coming across with a very pronounced attitude.
underattack86 said:
We were bemoaning loss of physical property, not the replication of data. This is the distinction you are missing.
To an extent, that's a legitimate complaint, until you suggested copying the book. Further, if, as you claim, copyrights are inherently immoral, it does really not matter if the theft is in physical or electronic form.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
No. I subscribe to the idea that morality and law are by and large separate. You are the one who is attempting to make a moralistic argument out of this, and losing, badly.
It's not a race, Starke. Nobody is winning or losing. All I'm trying to do is to have a rational debate.
Well, you're failing on the rational test there. You may want to seriously reevaluate your position, with an eye for identifying why it is ideologically inconsistent.
underattack86 said:
Lets say that morality and law are separate, then we can ignore the legality of "piracy" and ask: what's immoral about it?
What is immoral about taking something from someone else without compensating them? Hmm. What was that you said about the government? Parasitic? It's an interesting dualism you've set up here. On one hand the government is immoral because it feeds off the population without giving anything back, while on the other hand pirates are moral, and yet they feed off the entertainment industry without giving anything back.
underattack86 said:
Can you answer that question?
Theft is one of the few laws where morality and legality coincide clearly. It's wrong to take something from someone else. When you pirate you are taking the economic value from a given product, which they worked on. Put more simply (and inaccurately), you are taking potential sales of their product away from them. It is an act of theft, and thereby both illegal and immoral.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Even there, it only was in certain jurisdictions. But are you trying to tell me that you are liberating enslaved music from its corporate masters? I'm sorry, that Robin Hood bullshit argument has no place here.
Again, a strawman, since I said no such thing.
You equated piracy to the underground railroad twice. You said exactly that. Distilling someone's argument isn't a strawman, inventing a new weaker one is.
underattack86 said:
I'm making a point about the true nature of criminality: would you call those who aided escaped slaves "criminals", since their actions were against the law? Because if not, you have to recognise that there is a definition of law higher than what is merely written.
Wow, we are on a roll with butchering legal philosophy.
Anyway, here's the one you haven't addressed, theft is not moral. Helping another human being to escape from oppression is (usually) a moral act. Ergo, there is no similarity. The only thing that unites these is your assertion that theft is somehow a moral act, which it isn't.
Even natural law will argue that theft is an immoral act. Now, if you want to turn this into a state of nature argument, which you're well on your way to, a lot of assumptions change.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Claiming ownership is like planting a flag in the front yard and claiming to be a sovereign state. Good luck, but its not going to help you.
Claiming to own my wallet won't keep the muggers from taking it, but that doesn't invalidate my claim. The data belongs to me, and so does my freedom of speech: the reluctance of criminals to recognise this fact does not change it.
Oh god. The irony. "The reluctance of criminals to recognize this fact"? By definition, if you're a pirate you
are a criminal. You can't seem to recognize that you don't really "own" the data. God, the irony is killing me.
underattack86 said:
You don't seem to believe in a freedom to do anything, merely permissions to do certain things as defined by the whims of the state.
Only if we take your suggestion and throw out the constitution. I'm not about to do that because it insures way too many of my rights for me to discard it so casually.
underattack86 said:
I can see why the concept of "freedom to share" might seem strange since it isn't enumerated in the law of the state, but it's a perfectly simple idea: your body is your own, hence what you do with it is your own business, hence you've a right to share data you possess with anyone you want.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Please try again.
underattack86 said:
That's your freedom to share, and it's the same concept as the freedom of speech... in truth it's all really just one freedom, to behave in a peaceful manner without interference from external parties. You've a right to this freedom. It being denied by criminals does not stop it from being true.
Again, enough with the criminals bullshit. You have to make a choice. Either the government is parasitic, and you must choose to live outside the law, or the government is non-parasitic and you must live within the law (ideologically). Waffling between them like this really does you no favors.
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
underattack86 said:
Starke said:
Let me know how that works out for you, if you would be so kind?
Perhaps I should also go negotiate with the Mafia, or Al-Qaeda? I've intelligence enough not to aggravate the criminal class, thank you. I'd rather just sit here and commit my perfectly moral acts of sharing.
And that's the moment I knew you didn't actually believe any of this. See, here's the thing, like the hypothetical above, and your interpretation that the constitution is wrong in Article 1, Section 8, but the first amendment is unassailable, with no exemptions, you've picked the side that benefits you without regard to the actual philosophy behind it.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. I think I've stated my philosophical position very clearly, and without wavering. I believe everything I've said... and I don't understand why you disbelieve that. Please explain.
Internally your argument has two fundamental flaws, both relating to governance.
The first is your parasitic argument, ignoring how cliche it is, you betrayed it during the hypothetical. You keep insisting that it is criminals criminalizing your behavior. But that's predicated on the concept that government is an unnecessary entity. But, your first response in the hypothetical was to go to the police. Again, police are a function of government, so either they're corrupt and parasitic, and going to them will only bring you more misery, or you really believe you can hide behind them, in which case either you don't care that they're criminals or you don't believe they are.
The second also comes out of the hypothetical. You really stepped in it. Either copyright laws are inherently invalid, as you keep claiming, or you really do have a legitimate claim to your work. Your response suggests you believe the latter when it is your work, but the former when it belongs to someone else. That isn't an ideology, it's a variety of greed.
underattack86 said:
TechNoFear said:
Your credit card information is just an 'order of data' in a bank's database, simply 0's and 1's (and so by your definition 'not scarce').
If I had that data (which would enable people to access your credit card) and I shared it with everyone, would you be concerned?
Of-course, and this is a question I'm really glad you've asked because it's crucial. The data which enables access to my bank account does not belong to me, (except in part where I own physical copies of it and mentally recall it) and if you were to obtain the data you would have every right to disperse it as you chose. To argue otherwise would be to argue that I have some level of control over your mind and body, which of-course is absurd. You've taken no property from me, so I've no right to complain.
HOWEVER! If you were to use my details to take my money, this would be a criminal act. Not because you've replicated my data (not a crime), but because you've committed fraud and theft in using my data to take my property (an actual crime). Like I said, a crucial distinction.
Same goes for the online vendor. If they use access to my account beyond the terms I've agreed in my transaction, then they are committing fraud and theft, not in duplicating my data but in taking my legitimate property in the form of my financial wealth.
Except, if, as you claim, government is simply a parasitic entity and laws only exist to exploit the population, it would be hypocritical of you to go to the police. In other words Tech, have at.
