Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dr. Harry" data-source="post: 1544521" data-attributes="member: 5468">Yes, the material has been copied.&nbsp; Material that was in the store for the purpose of sale was removed from the store without the sale occuring.&nbsp; The difference between this case and one where the book itself is shoplifted is immaterial as far as whether stealing has occured.&nbsp; Sure, someone could claim that no &quot;material&quot; has been stolen, similar to someone claiming that nothing was lost if a thief shoplifted a book and there were a lot of other copies, but I don't find this meaningful.&nbsp; The thief removed the material offered for sale as he now has a copy outside the door that he can use that he didn't pay for.&nbsp;&nbsp; No, it is not like saying that.&nbsp; The material was purchased by the library for the purpose of being used in the way you are using it.&nbsp; Photocopying the book when you got it home from the library would be stealing it, though.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; No, it doesn't lead there at all, unless you posit the idea of people who can read minds who can then read the material .&nbsp; A ridiculous fantasy, to be sure, but no more than your reductio ab absurdio.&nbsp; This accusation of yours depends on bouncing between two different descriptions of the &quot;idea&quot;.&nbsp; One the one case is anything gained from a casual reading of the material, and the material in a form in which it can be casually accessed whenever.&nbsp; As I said in another post, this cannot be divorced from the context.&nbsp; &nbsp; I didn't say that, so my response does not change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dr. Harry, post: 1544521, member: 5468"] Yes, the material has been copied. Material that was in the store for the purpose of sale was removed from the store without the sale occuring. The difference between this case and one where the book itself is shoplifted is immaterial as far as whether stealing has occured. Sure, someone could claim that no "material" has been stolen, similar to someone claiming that nothing was lost if a thief shoplifted a book and there were a lot of other copies, but I don't find this meaningful. The thief removed the material offered for sale as he now has a copy outside the door that he can use that he didn't pay for. No, it is not like saying that. The material was purchased by the library for the purpose of being used in the way you are using it. Photocopying the book when you got it home from the library would be stealing it, though. No, it doesn't lead there at all, unless you posit the idea of people who can read minds who can then read the material . A ridiculous fantasy, to be sure, but no more than your reductio ab absurdio. This accusation of yours depends on bouncing between two different descriptions of the "idea". One the one case is anything gained from a casual reading of the material, and the material in a form in which it can be casually accessed whenever. As I said in another post, this cannot be divorced from the context. I didn't say that, so my response does not change. [/QUOTE]

Verification