Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 1558049" data-attributes="member: 957">Um....&nbsp; Not by the defintion YOU just quoted.I agree with the defintion you quoted.&nbsp; And running contrary to that defintion is infringement.&nbsp; Not theft.&nbsp; Theft removes a real value from the possession of the rightful owner.&nbsp; Not a word in the definition you provided leads to the word &quot;stolen&quot;.Agreed.But, returing to your definition, there is that sticky word &quot;AND&quot; in it.&nbsp; Not &quot;or&quot; but &quot;and&quot;.If I buy ONE copy of ride the lightning, I have an infinite priviledge to use that IP for myself.&nbsp; I can copy it to cassette to listen in my car or toss it to my MP3 player for my own use. Now, if I start giving away or selling copies, I have breached the &quot;and&quot; in your defintion and I am a criminal of some degree.&nbsp; But not before.Granted, if I failed to make copies for myself and then my orginal died, according to the law I would be SOL.&nbsp; Downloading is not &quot;ok&quot; even then.&nbsp; But that is really beside the point.Anyway, just as in the other thread, all you have done is show that copyright infrigment is bad.&nbsp; I agree 100%.Then you wave your hands in the air and claim that magic has happened and the words &quot;theft&quot; and &quot;stolen&quot; suddenly apply to this particular wrong.&nbsp; Sorry, but the magic doesn't work.Robbing banks is not insider trading and copyright infringement is not theft.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 1558049, member: 957"] Um.... Not by the defintion YOU just quoted. I agree with the defintion you quoted. And running contrary to that defintion is infringement. Not theft. Theft removes a real value from the possession of the rightful owner. Not a word in the definition you provided leads to the word "stolen". Agreed. But, returing to your definition, there is that sticky word "AND" in it. Not "or" but "and". If I buy ONE copy of ride the lightning, I have an infinite priviledge to use that IP for myself. I can copy it to cassette to listen in my car or toss it to my MP3 player for my own use. Now, if I start giving away or selling copies, I have breached the "and" in your defintion and I am a criminal of some degree. But not before. Granted, if I failed to make copies for myself and then my orginal died, according to the law I would be SOL. Downloading is not "ok" even then. But that is really beside the point. Anyway, just as in the other thread, all you have done is show that copyright infrigment is bad. I agree 100%. Then you wave your hands in the air and claim that magic has happened and the words "theft" and "stolen" suddenly apply to this particular wrong. Sorry, but the magic doesn't work. Robbing banks is not insider trading and copyright infringement is not theft. [/QUOTE]

Verification