Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #68523 > unrolled thread

Best book to learn C++11 and C++14?

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-19 14:24 +0000
    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-09-23 20:37 +0200
      Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-25 11:16 +0000
        Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2019-09-25 13:16 +0000
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-09-25 13:05 -0700
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-30 12:02 +0000
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 05:32 -0700
            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-30 15:30 +0200
              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 07:14 -0700
                Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-09-30 16:48 +0200
                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Frederick Gotham <cauldwell.thomas@gmail.com> - 2019-10-01 01:14 -0700
                    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 10:54 +0200
                      Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-10-01 02:48 -0700
                        Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 13:25 +0200
                          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 13:53 +0100
                            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 15:33 +0200
                              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 16:10 +0100
                                Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 21:07 +0200
                                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 20:29 +0100
                                    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-10-01 22:58 +0200
                                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-01 12:52 -0700
                          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-10-01 11:50 -0700
                            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 20:22 +0100
                              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-10-04 17:28 +0200
            Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-09-30 14:47 +0000
              Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 14:07 +0100
                Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? queequeg@trust.no1 (Queequeg) - 2019-10-01 16:10 +0000
                  Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2019-10-01 19:58 +0100
          Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-09-30 15:06 +0200
    Re: Best book to learn C++11 and C++14? legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2019-09-23 19:28 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#68523 — Best book to learn C++11 and C++14?

Hi,

I'd like to read a book (Kindle ebook strongly preferred) explaining C++11 
and C++14 features to someone who already works with C++03. Do you have 
any recommendations?

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#68614

On 9/19/2019 4:24 PM, Queequeg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to read a book (Kindle ebook strongly preferred) explaining C++11
> and C++14 features to someone who already works with C++03. Do you have
> any recommendations?
> 

"Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)

The following stops at C++11, anyone knows if he'll do a new edition for 
C++20?
"The C++ Programming Language" (4th Edition, Bjarne Stroustrup)

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/388242/the-definitive-c-book-guide-and-list

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68650

Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote:

> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)

Thanks! I found it online.

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68654

Queequeg <queequeg@trust.no1> wrote:
> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)
> 
> Thanks! I found it online.

It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
intellectual property.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68670

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> writes:
> Queequeg <queequeg@trust.no1> wrote:
>> Manfred <noname@add.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Effective Modern C++" (Scott Meyers)
>> 
>> Thanks! I found it online.
>
> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.

That book is available from online retailers, in paper and ebook forms.
I *hope* that's what Queequeg was referring to.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68772

Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:

>> Thanks! I found it online.
> 
> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.

It's funny how quick people are to jump to wrong conclusions based on 
limited input and their own experience.

-- 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lSzL1DqQn0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68775

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:16:43 PM UTC+1, Juha Nieminen wrote:

> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
> intellectual property.


Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68778

On 30/09/2019 14:32, Frederick Gotham wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:16:43 PM UTC+1, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> 
>> It's funny how casually people just admit to their illegal piracy of
>> intellectual property.
> 
> 
> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
> 

Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing).  But copyright abuse is 
not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property.  (To be 
"theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so 
making a copy is not theft.)  However, accurate terms such as 
"unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".

Not that there was any suggestion of copyright abuse here - Queequeg 
(presumably) found a legitimate website selling the book.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68783

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:31:01 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:

> > Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
> > 
> 
> Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing).  But copyright abuse is 
> not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property.  (To be 
> "theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so 
> making a copy is not theft.)  However, accurate terms such as 
> "unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".


I can't keep track of the meaning in the paragraph.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68790

On 30/09/2019 16:14, Frederick Gotham wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:31:01 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> 
>>> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing).  But copyright abuse is
>> not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property.  (To be
>> "theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so
>> making a copy is not theft.)  However, accurate terms such as
>> "unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".
> 
> 
> I can't keep track of the meaning in the paragraph.
> 

Piracy is theft.

Making unlicensed copies, like copying e-books, games, music, etc., that 
you are supposed to buy, is not theft.  It is illegal, but it is not 
theft.  And it is certainly not piracy.

I hope that answers your original question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68838

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 3:48:45 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> On 30/09/2019 16:14, Frederick Gotham wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:31:01 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> > 
> >>> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing).  But copyright abuse is
> >> not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property.  (To be
> >> "theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so
> >> making a copy is not theft.)  However, accurate terms such as
> >> "unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".
> > 
> > 
> > I can't keep track of the meaning in the paragraph.
> > 
> 
> Piracy is theft.
> 
> Making unlicensed copies, like copying e-books, games, music, etc., that 
> you are supposed to buy, is not theft.  It is illegal, but it is not 
> theft.  And it is certainly not piracy.
> 
> I hope that answers your original question.


So when does making unlicensed copies become piracy? Does it become piracy when you try to sell these unlicensed copied to make a profit?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68839

On 01/10/2019 10:14, Frederick Gotham wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 3:48:45 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>> On 30/09/2019 16:14, Frederick Gotham wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:31:01 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing).  But copyright abuse is
>>>> not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property.  (To be
>>>> "theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so
>>>> making a copy is not theft.)  However, accurate terms such as
>>>> "unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".
>>>
>>>
>>> I can't keep track of the meaning in the paragraph.
>>>
>>
>> Piracy is theft.
>>
>> Making unlicensed copies, like copying e-books, games, music, etc., that 
>> you are supposed to buy, is not theft.  It is illegal, but it is not 
>> theft.  And it is certainly not piracy.
>>
>> I hope that answers your original question.
> 
> 
> So when does making unlicensed copies become piracy?

Never.

> Does it become piracy when you try to sell these unlicensed copied to make a profit?
> 

No.

It becomes piracy when you attack the ship carrying the book and steal
it physically by violence or threats of violence.


There can be different levels of law-breaking depending on whether you
are copying for private use, copying to sell, etc.  In particular, in
most jurisdictions (AFAIK), downloading an unlicensed copy of
copyrighted works is illegal but not a crime.  Selling it might make it
a crime.  And in some places, making it available for download is also a
crime, as can breaking encryption for the purposes of evading licensing.

But it is never theft, and never piracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68843

On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
> On 01/10/2019 10:14, Frederick Gotham wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 3:48:45 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 30/09/2019 16:14, Frederick Gotham wrote:
> >>> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 2:31:01 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Is piracy theft? Is it stealing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, piracy is theft (and therefore stealing).  But copyright abuse is
> >>>> not piracy, nor is any unlicensed use of intellectual property.  (To be
> >>>> "theft", you have to take something away from the rightful owner, so
> >>>> making a copy is not theft.)  However, accurate terms such as
> >>>> "unlicensed copyright abuse" do not sound as dramatic as "piracy".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I can't keep track of the meaning in the paragraph.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Piracy is theft.
> >>
> >> Making unlicensed copies, like copying e-books, games, music, etc., that 
> >> you are supposed to buy, is not theft.  It is illegal, but it is not 
> >> theft.  And it is certainly not piracy.
> >>
> >> I hope that answers your original question.
> > 
> > 
> > So when does making unlicensed copies become piracy?
> 
> Never.
> 
> > Does it become piracy when you try to sell these unlicensed copied to make a profit?
> > 
> 
> No.
> 
> It becomes piracy when you attack the ship carrying the book and steal
> it physically by violence or threats of violence.
> 
> 
> There can be different levels of law-breaking depending on whether you
> are copying for private use, copying to sell, etc.  In particular, in
> most jurisdictions (AFAIK), downloading an unlicensed copy of
> copyrighted works is illegal but not a crime.  Selling it might make it
> a crime.  And in some places, making it available for download is also a
> crime, as can breaking encryption for the purposes of evading licensing.
> 
> But it is never theft, and never piracy.

I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68844

On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:

>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
> 
> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
> 

Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
"software piracy".  The term was popularised by big copyright owners as
a way of scaring people who make unlicensed copies, and continues to be
used by people who are either ignorant of the matter, or don't think the
terms used are important enough to bother being accurate.  (We are only
having this discussion because someone asked for the details.)

There are even some public figures who have made fools of themselves by
comparing "software pirates" or "media pirates" to /real/ pirates on the
Somalian coast.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68850

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:25:12 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
> 
> >> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
> > 
> > I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
> > is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
> > blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
> > 
> 
> Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
> "software piracy".  The term was popularised by big copyright owners as
> a way of scaring people who make unlicensed copies, and continues to be
> used by people who are either ignorant of the matter, or don't think the
> terms used are important enough to bother being accurate.  (We are only
> having this discussion because someone asked for the details.)
> 
> There are even some public figures who have made fools of themselves by
> comparing "software pirates" or "media pirates" to /real/ pirates on the
> Somalian coast.

These semantic discussions are a waste of time.  What does it matter if
breaching copyright (the principles but not details of which are mainly
uniform within the "western" world) is "piracy" or "theft".  It is
unlawful and can render you liable to civil damages, and is normally a
criminal offence if done for profit (it is within the EU, North America
and some other places).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68853

On 01/10/2019 14:53, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:25:12 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
>>
>>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
>>>
>>> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
>>> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
>>> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
>> "software piracy".  The term was popularised by big copyright owners as
>> a way of scaring people who make unlicensed copies, and continues to be
>> used by people who are either ignorant of the matter, or don't think the
>> terms used are important enough to bother being accurate.  (We are only
>> having this discussion because someone asked for the details.)
>>
>> There are even some public figures who have made fools of themselves by
>> comparing "software pirates" or "media pirates" to /real/ pirates on the
>> Somalian coast.
> 
> These semantic discussions are a waste of time.  What does it matter if
> breaching copyright (the principles but not details of which are mainly
> uniform within the "western" world) is "piracy" or "theft".  It is
> unlawful and can render you liable to civil damages, and is normally a
> criminal offence if done for profit (it is within the EU, North America
> and some other places).
> 

Of course it matters.  If you steal something from me, I no longer have
it.  If you copy something I wrote, I still have the original.  Calling
copyright infringement "theft" is wrong.  Calling it "piracy" is
downright silly.

Driving 10 km/h over the speed limit is illegal, because it increases
the risk of dangerous accidents.  So if you are caught doing it, you get
a fine - and hopefully as a result, you won't do it again.  Do you think
it would be a good idea to call it attempted mass murder, on the basis
that you might have killed someone?

Copyright infringement is illegal, and you should not do it.  That does
not mean it is theft, piracy, or a crime.  No fair justice system would
treat it that way.  So why would you want to mix the terms?

But you are right that such semantic discussions are mostly a waste of
time, as people rarely take any new understanding to heart and continue
to muddle their terms.  Hopefully, however, the guy whose question
started this branch, has learned a little from it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68854

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:33:35 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 01/10/2019 14:53, Chris Vine wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:25:12 +0200
> > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> >> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
> >>
> >>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
> >>>
> >>> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
> >>> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
> >>> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
> >> "software piracy".  The term was popularised by big copyright owners as
> >> a way of scaring people who make unlicensed copies, and continues to be
> >> used by people who are either ignorant of the matter, or don't think the
> >> terms used are important enough to bother being accurate.  (We are only
> >> having this discussion because someone asked for the details.)
> >>
> >> There are even some public figures who have made fools of themselves by
> >> comparing "software pirates" or "media pirates" to /real/ pirates on the
> >> Somalian coast.
> > 
> > These semantic discussions are a waste of time.  What does it matter if
> > breaching copyright (the principles but not details of which are mainly
> > uniform within the "western" world) is "piracy" or "theft".  It is
> > unlawful and can render you liable to civil damages, and is normally a
> > criminal offence if done for profit (it is within the EU, North America
> > and some other places).
> > 
> 
> Of course it matters.  If you steal something from me, I no longer have
> it.  If you copy something I wrote, I still have the original.  Calling
> copyright infringement "theft" is wrong.  Calling it "piracy" is
> downright silly.
> 
> Driving 10 km/h over the speed limit is illegal, because it increases
> the risk of dangerous accidents.  So if you are caught doing it, you get
> a fine - and hopefully as a result, you won't do it again.  Do you think
> it would be a good idea to call it attempted mass murder, on the basis
> that you might have killed someone?
> 
> Copyright infringement is illegal, and you should not do it.  That does
> not mean it is theft, piracy, or a crime.  No fair justice system would
> treat it that way.  So why would you want to mix the terms?
> 
> But you are right that such semantic discussions are mostly a waste of
> time, as people rarely take any new understanding to heart and continue
> to muddle their terms.  Hopefully, however, the guy whose question
> started this branch, has learned a little from it.

On the principle of "theft", I don't agree.  If you steal a book of mine
you deprive me of it.  If you unlawfully copy the book and deliberately
make it available for download online, you deprive me of book sales.
The wrong is analogous if not direct.  You are liable to me in civil
damages for my losses, and a court can issue an injunction on my
application restraining the unlawful publication.

You wrong as a matter of fact about criminality.  Not all breach of
copyright is a criminal offence in addition to being a civil wrong, but
where done for profit it usually is.  You are simply wrong that for
breaches of copyright "it does not mean it is ... a crime".

In the UK the provision in question is section 107 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended and you can read it at your
leisure here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107 .
Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (covering all members of the World Trade Organization)
requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and
penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright
piracy on a commercial scale".  Directive 2001/29/EC is more opaque
about criminal offences: Article 8.1 says that "Member States shall
provide appropriate sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements
of the rights and obligations set out in this Directive and shall take
all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions and remedies
are applied. The sanctions thus provided for shall be effective,
proportionate and dissuasive."  The need for them to be dissuasive
implies criminal sanction for willful commercial breach of copyright
and I believe all EU members have in fact implemented such sanctions,
if only because they are also members of TRIPS.

The paucity of your argument is made evident by your implication that I
was comparing copyright infringement to mass murder, or any other kind
of unlawful killing for that matter.  No fair reading of my post could
possibly imply that.  Nor for that matter do I think that when people
refer to copyright "piracy" (I did not) they are making a similar
suggestion.  I do say that there is an analogy to theft.  And I do say
that the semantic arguments are a waste of time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68863

On 01/10/2019 17:10, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:33:35 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> On 01/10/2019 14:53, Chris Vine wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:25:12 +0200
>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>> On 01/10/2019 11:48, Öö Tiib wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 11:55:07 UTC+3, David Brown  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But it is never theft, and never piracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have observed that unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work
>>>>> is now also called "piracy" in English quite officially. It is indeed
>>>>> blowing severity of that misconduct committed out of proportions. 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it is certainly true that people talk about "music piracy" or
>>>> "software piracy".  The term was popularised by big copyright owners as
>>>> a way of scaring people who make unlicensed copies, and continues to be
>>>> used by people who are either ignorant of the matter, or don't think the
>>>> terms used are important enough to bother being accurate.  (We are only
>>>> having this discussion because someone asked for the details.)
>>>>
>>>> There are even some public figures who have made fools of themselves by
>>>> comparing "software pirates" or "media pirates" to /real/ pirates on the
>>>> Somalian coast.
>>>
>>> These semantic discussions are a waste of time.  What does it matter if
>>> breaching copyright (the principles but not details of which are mainly
>>> uniform within the "western" world) is "piracy" or "theft".  It is
>>> unlawful and can render you liable to civil damages, and is normally a
>>> criminal offence if done for profit (it is within the EU, North America
>>> and some other places).
>>>
>>
>> Of course it matters.  If you steal something from me, I no longer have
>> it.  If you copy something I wrote, I still have the original.  Calling
>> copyright infringement "theft" is wrong.  Calling it "piracy" is
>> downright silly.
>>
>> Driving 10 km/h over the speed limit is illegal, because it increases
>> the risk of dangerous accidents.  So if you are caught doing it, you get
>> a fine - and hopefully as a result, you won't do it again.  Do you think
>> it would be a good idea to call it attempted mass murder, on the basis
>> that you might have killed someone?
>>
>> Copyright infringement is illegal, and you should not do it.  That does
>> not mean it is theft, piracy, or a crime.  No fair justice system would
>> treat it that way.  So why would you want to mix the terms?
>>
>> But you are right that such semantic discussions are mostly a waste of
>> time, as people rarely take any new understanding to heart and continue
>> to muddle their terms.  Hopefully, however, the guy whose question
>> started this branch, has learned a little from it.
> 
> On the principle of "theft", I don't agree.  If you steal a book of mine
> you deprive me of it.  If you unlawfully copy the book and deliberately
> make it available for download online, you deprive me of book sales.
> The wrong is analogous if not direct.  You are liable to me in civil
> damages for my losses, and a court can issue an injunction on my
> application restraining the unlawful publication.
> 

I think you are misunderstanding what "theft" means.  If you have a
physical book, and I take it from you unlawfully, it is stealing - you
no longer have the book, and I have it.  If you have a computer file and
I copy it unlawfully, it is not theft of the file - you still have the
file.  If you had planned to make money from that file, and can't now
that I have an unlawful copy that I pass on to others, it is not theft
of the file - you still have the file.  It is not theft of your lost
income, because you never had that income to take (it is potential
income, not real money), and I don't have the money either.  If it is
over a certain limit, it is a crime - but it is not theft.

If I break your fingers, thus depriving you from income from working as
a programmer, I am committing a crime - but I did not steal your fingers.

You are also mixing up crimes with unlawful actions.  A "crime" is when
you do something against the state - you can be arrested by police,
charged in a criminal court, and jailed or fined by the court - if
proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.  In civil lawsuits, you do
something against another person that does not harm the state - such as
copyright infringement, breaking a contract, etc.  You cannot be
arrested for it, but you can be summed to a civil court.  The case is
decided on "burden of evidence" (i.e., a fair fight between the
parties), and the losing part must pay compensation to the winner, and
perhaps abide by injunctions - but you cannot be imprisoned.

(This is based on my rough understanding, and on an average for Western
judicial systems.  Don't take it as legal advice!)


> You wrong as a matter of fact about criminality.  Not all breach of
> copyright is a criminal offence in addition to being a civil wrong,

No breach of copyright is a criminal office - it is a civil offence.

> but
> where done for profit it usually is.  You are simply wrong that for
> breaches of copyright "it does not mean it is ... a crime".

Depriving someone of their expected income can be a criminal offence.
In some jurisdictions, there are additional laws making things like
breaking encryption systems a criminal offence.  But it is not the
copyright breach that is the crime - it is the other matters or
consequences of it.

(And even when it leads to a crime, that crime is not "theft" and it
most certainly is not "piracy".)

> 
> In the UK the provision in question is section 107 of the Copyright,
> Designs and Patents Act 1988 as amended and you can read it at your
> leisure here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/107 .
> Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
> Property Rights (covering all members of the World Trade Organization)
> requires that signatory countries establish criminal procedures and
> penalties in cases of "willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright
> piracy on a commercial scale".  Directive 2001/29/EC is more opaque
> about criminal offences: Article 8.1 says that "Member States shall
> provide appropriate sanctions and remedies in respect of infringements
> of the rights and obligations set out in this Directive and shall take
> all the measures necessary to ensure that those sanctions and remedies
> are applied. The sanctions thus provided for shall be effective,
> proportionate and dissuasive."  The need for them to be dissuasive
> implies criminal sanction for willful commercial breach of copyright
> and I believe all EU members have in fact implemented such sanctions,
> if only because they are also members of TRIPS.
> 
> The paucity of your argument is made evident by your implication that I
> was comparing copyright infringement to mass murder, or any other kind
> of unlawful killing for that matter.  No fair reading of my post could
> possibly imply that.  Nor for that matter do I think that when people
> refer to copyright "piracy" (I did not) they are making a similar
> suggestion.  I do say that there is an analogy to theft.  And I do say
> that the semantic arguments are a waste of time.
> 

I did not in any way imply that you viewed copyright infringement as
being akin to mass murder.  (I /have/ seen public figures claim it is as
bad as real piracy, which can involve murders - but I am not suggesting
at all that you think that.)  And I agree that when people talk about
"software piracy" they do not mean "real piracy".  But they often /do/
think it is theft, which is wrong.

I believe we agree that simple copyright infringement is typically a
civil matter, leading perhaps to being sued for compensation.  And we
agree that more serious cases, such as when copies are sold or the the
rightful owner loses significant money, can be crimes.

What we do not agree on is the name of the crime (when it is a crime).
AFAIK, it is never "theft".  And it is never "piracy" - though people
use that term.  People also incorrectly call it a crime, "theft" or
"piracy" even for cases that are not a crime at all.

I believe you will not find anyone in this newsgroup who could honestly
deny having ever breached a copyright.  But I believe you will find very
few who would admit to being a criminal, a thief, or a pirate.  The
terms /do/ matter.

But it is probably still a waste of time arguing about the terms.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68869

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 21:07:39 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> I think you are misunderstanding what "theft" means.
[snip]

I said copyright infringement, particularly for commercial purposes, was
analogous to theft. It is.

> No breach of copyright is a criminal office - it is a civil offence.
[snip]

You are completely and utterly wrong, and bewilderingly so.  I gave you
links to the provisions which indicate what copyright infringement is a
criminal offence (to which another poster has now added Polish law).  I
hope for honesty on your part so I assume you have not got around to
reading any of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#68873

On 01/10/2019 21:29, Chris Vine wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 21:07:39 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> I think you are misunderstanding what "theft" means.
> [snip]
> 
> I said copyright infringement, particularly for commercial purposes, was
> analogous to theft. It is.
> 
>> No breach of copyright is a criminal office - it is a civil offence.
> [snip]
> 
> You are completely and utterly wrong, and bewilderingly so.  I gave you
> links to the provisions which indicate what copyright infringement is a
> criminal offence (to which another poster has now added Polish law).  I
> hope for honesty on your part so I assume you have not got around to
> reading any of it.
> 

I had not got around to reading it.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems I was badly outdated, and certain types
of copyright infringement are criminal offences in their own right,
rather than the crime being in addition to the civil offence of
copyright infringement.  Thank you for the correction here.  (I am
assuming that other jurisdictions are similar.)

As I read the link, simple copyright infringement for personal
non-commercial use is still just a civil matter.

But while commercial copyright infringement is a crime, it is not theft
- any more than it is vandalism or another crime.  Nor is it piracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web