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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #8928 > unrolled thread

Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-01 17:19 +0000
    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-08-01 11:36 -0600
      Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-01 10:40 -0700
        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-08-01 18:15 +0000
    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-01 21:57 +0100
      Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-02 00:28 +0100
        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-08-02 00:45 +0000
          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-04 00:27 +0100
            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal China Blue Peter <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-03 17:21 -0700
              Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-08-04 09:36 -0700
                Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-08-04 12:10 -0700
          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal mt <mahdert@gmail.com> - 2011-08-04 12:51 -0700
            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-08-05 07:30 -0400
              Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-08-08 00:03 +0100
                Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-08 15:58 +0000
        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 07:40 +0100
          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 11:42 +0000
            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 13:40 +0100
              Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 15:13 +0000
                Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 16:32 +0100
                  Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 15:59 +0000
                    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 17:09 +0100
                    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-02 16:11 +0000
                      Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 19:50 +0000
                        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-02 20:29 +0000
                          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 20:56 +0000
                            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-02 21:05 +0000
                              Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 21:32 +0000
                            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-02 21:13 +0000
                              Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 21:41 +0000
                                Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-08-02 23:55 -0700
                                [OT] Copyright infringement != Theft Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-08-03 10:50 +0200
                                  Re: [OT] Copyright infringement != Theft Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-08-03 08:51 -0700
                        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 13:40 -0700
                          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-08-02 14:31 -0700
                            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 19:23 -0700
                        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-08-02 23:39 -0700
                  Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-03 03:15 +0000
                    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-03 09:01 +0000
                      Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-08-03 22:46 +0000
                Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-08-02 16:06 +0000
                Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 13:15 -0700
                  Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 20:39 +0000
                    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 21:49 +0100
                      Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 21:25 +0000
                        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 22:49 +0100
                          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 22:11 +0000
                        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-08-03 00:02 -0700
                    Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-08-02 13:58 -0700
      Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 12:12 +0000
        Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 13:40 +0100
          [OT] Copyright infringement != Theft Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-08-02 16:52 +0200
          Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-08-02 15:55 +0000
            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal tactical <1@2.3> - 2011-08-02 17:12 +0100
            Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-08-02 16:15 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#8957

On 2011-08-02, tactical <1@2.3> wrote:
> Todd Carnes wrote:
>
>> The OP took something that belong to someone else without their 
>> permission. That's theft. Copyight infringement may be the specific type 
>> of theft, but it's still theft.
>
> I can't tell which is true:
>
> 1) You have the IQ of the average brick.
> 2) You are being intellectually dishonest.
>
> I presume it's #2, but I won't rule out #1.

I presume you're going ad hominem because you have no arguments left but
refuse to admit that maybe you are wrong.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#8960

Angel wrote:

>>> The OP took something that belong to someone else without their 
>>> permission. That's theft. Copyight infringement may be the specific type 
>>> of theft, but it's still theft.
>>
>> I can't tell which is true:
>>
>> 1) You have the IQ of the average brick.
>> 2) You are being intellectually dishonest.
>>
>> I presume it's #2, but I won't rule out #1.
> 
> I presume you're going ad hominem because you have no arguments left but
> refuse to admit that maybe you are wrong.

When someone says "X is true", and in reply you spend time arguing that X
is false, and their comback is to simply repeat, "X is true", what more can
you do?

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

#8961

Angel wrote:
) On 2011-08-02, tactical <1@2.3> wrote:
)> Todd Carnes wrote:
)>
)>> The OP took something that belong to someone else without their 
)>> permission. That's theft. Copyight infringement may be the specific type 
)>> of theft, but it's still theft.
)>
)> I can't tell which is true:
)>
)> 1) You have the IQ of the average brick.
)> 2) You are being intellectually dishonest.
)>
)> I presume it's #2, but I won't rule out #1.
)
) I presume you're going ad hominem because you have no arguments left but
) refuse to admit that maybe you are wrong.

Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.

If someone blatantly ignores valid arguments, and simply repeats their
previous assertion, then that must mean they have no arguments left but
refuse to admit that they are wrong.

How would you reply to someone who plainly refuses to admit that he's
wrong ?  You obviously can't argue with them.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#8968

On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
>
> Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.

There is a difference between the meaning of words in formal settings
(i.e. a court room) and normal spoken language. In normal spoken
language, theft means "taking something that is not yours". Guess what,
that is *exactly* what copyright infringement is about.

In court, "physical abuse leading to death" is not the same as "murder".
In informal settings, I doubt many will care about the difference.


Oh, guess what Wikipedia lists under "related and similar crimes" on the
page for "theft". And before you go "Wikipedia is not an official
source", two things: 1) this is not a formal discussion and 2) the
previous poster linked to Wikipedia as well.


Piracy is theft. You can play word games as much as you want, but you
cannot deny it involves taking something that is not yours to take.

If you steal my code, my artwork, or my ideas, I'm going to call you a
thief, not a "copyright infringer". Don't like it, bite me.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#8970

Angel wrote:
) On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
)>
)> Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.
)
) There is a difference between the meaning of words in formal settings
) (i.e. a court room) and normal spoken language. In normal spoken
) language, theft means "taking something that is not yours". Guess what,
) that is *exactly* what copyright infringement is about.

In normal spoken language, copying is not taking.  If I take something from
you, you no longer have it.  Guess what, you're one of those idiots that
fell for the copyright mafia, trying to convince that piracy is theft, when
in fact it is not.

) In court, "physical abuse leading to death" is not the same as "murder".
) In informal settings, I doubt many will care about the difference.

'Nobody cares about the difference' does not mean 'It is the same'.
In fact, it implies there *is* a difference.  And guess what, in this
case, people *do* care.

) Oh, guess what Wikipedia lists under "related and similar crimes" on the
) page for "theft". And before you go "Wikipedia is not an official
) source", two things: 1) this is not a formal discussion and 2) the
) previous poster linked to Wikipedia as well.

It also lists 'Espionage', 'Kidnapping', 'Tax evasion' and 'Extortion'.
None of which are even remotely close to theft.

Also, you should read the "Theft" heading on the Wikipedia entry for
"Copyright infringement".

) Piracy is theft. You can play word games as much as you want, but you
) cannot deny it involves taking something that is not yours to take.

Piracy is not theft.  You can play word games as much as you want, but you
cannot deny that theft is as old as the bible at least, while copyright law
was invented in the 18th century, by printing companies to protect their
own interests (i.e. money).

Also, it does *not* involve taking something.
I repeat: if I take something from you, you no longer have it.

) If you steal my code, my artwork, or my ideas, I'm going to call you a
) thief, not a "copyright infringer". Don't like it, bite me.

I'll laugh in your face for your silly claim of 'your ideas' as property.
That idea was invented in the 18th century by rich companies to make
themselves richer.

The only claim you have is an outdated law, and a bunch of rich media
companies trying to convince everyone of this falsehood.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#8974

On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> Angel wrote:
> ) On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> )>
> )> Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.
> )
> ) There is a difference between the meaning of words in formal settings
> ) (i.e. a court room) and normal spoken language. In normal spoken
> ) language, theft means "taking something that is not yours". Guess what,
> ) that is *exactly* what copyright infringement is about.
>
> In normal spoken language, copying is not taking.  If I take something from
> you, you no longer have it.  Guess what, you're one of those idiots that
> fell for the copyright mafia, trying to convince that piracy is theft, when
> in fact it is not.

Piracy involves taking something for yourself without paying the price.
That is theft in every sensible meaning of the word.

I do not support the antics of MPAA, RIAA and what have you, and I do
think the industry has mostly itself to blame for the rampant piracy
problem nowadays. But I do not support piracy either. You want
something, buy it.

> ) Oh, guess what Wikipedia lists under "related and similar crimes" on the
> ) page for "theft". And before you go "Wikipedia is not an official
> ) source", two things: 1) this is not a formal discussion and 2) the
> ) previous poster linked to Wikipedia as well.
>
> It also lists 'Espionage', 'Kidnapping', 'Tax evasion' and 'Extortion'.
> None of which are even remotely close to theft.

The latter two both involve taking something you are not normally
entitled to take, by fraud or force, respectively. Definitely forms of
stealing. Espionage can be seen as stealing information.

> ) Piracy is theft. You can play word games as much as you want, but you
> ) cannot deny it involves taking something that is not yours to take.
>
> Piracy is not theft.  You can play word games as much as you want, but you
> cannot deny that theft is as old as the bible at least, while copyright law
> was invented in the 18th century, by printing companies to protect their
> own interests (i.e. money).

I assume that you work for free then?


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#8976

Angel wrote:
) Piracy involves taking something for yourself without paying the price.
) That is theft in every sensible meaning of the word.

Whatever.

) I do not support the antics of MPAA, RIAA and what have you, and I do
) think the industry has mostly itself to blame for the rampant piracy
) problem nowadays. But I do not support piracy either. You want
) something, buy it.

That's not how the world works any more, no matter what the big-money
iondustry wants to make you believe.

)> It also lists 'Espionage', 'Kidnapping', 'Tax evasion' and 'Extortion'.
)> None of which are even remotely close to theft.
)
) The latter two both involve taking something you are not normally
) entitled to take, by fraud or force, respectively. Definitely forms of
) stealing. Espionage can be seen as stealing information.

I see you are taking more and more silly stances to support your position.

)> Piracy is not theft.  You can play word games as much as you want, but you
)> cannot deny that theft is as old as the bible at least, while copyright law
)> was invented in the 18th century, by printing companies to protect their
)> own interests (i.e. money).
)
) I assume that you work for free then?

I don't see any more reason to continue this 'discussion' when all you
do is repeat your initial argument, don't even bother to reply to half
my arguments and start throwing around silly non sequiturs.

Have a day.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#8979

On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:

> I don't see any more reason to continue this 'discussion' when all you
> do is repeat your initial argument, don't even bother to reply to half
> my arguments and start throwing around silly non sequiturs.

That from someone who brushes all arguments of the opposition aside with
just "that's not how the world works" or some other derogatory remark.

I see no more reason to continue listening to a thief desperately trying
to justify stealing.

*PLONK*


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#8978

On 2011-08-02, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Piracy involves taking something for yourself without paying the price.
> That is theft in every sensible meaning of the word.

Not really.  There's a very significant set of meanings in which it
refers specifically to the part of "taking" where it *deprives someone
else of the thing*.

Consider the concept of "taking someone's life".  The point about "taking"
is that someone else no longer has it.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#8980

On 2011-08-02, Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-08-02, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Piracy involves taking something for yourself without paying the price.
>> That is theft in every sensible meaning of the word.
>
> Not really.  There's a very significant set of meanings in which it
> refers specifically to the part of "taking" where it *deprives someone
> else of the thing*.

Or the full enjoyment of said thing. Copyright infringement can and does
negatively affect the value of the work being infringed upon.

> Consider the concept of "taking someone's life".  The point about "taking"
> is that someone else no longer has it.

If I steal your identity or your credit card number, you still have
them. Yet it is considered theft all the same. This is the digital age,
stealing no longer has to involve physically taking something. That is a
little fact that should not be ignored.

Anyway, I tire of these word games and plays around technicallities. I
think we should just agree to differ and let it be. We're way off topic
to begin with.


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

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

#8996

Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:

> On 2011-08-02, Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2011-08-02, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> Piracy involves taking something for yourself without paying the price.
>>> That is theft in every sensible meaning of the word.
>>
>> Not really.  There's a very significant set of meanings in which it
>> refers specifically to the part of "taking" where it *deprives someone
>> else of the thing*.
>
> Or the full enjoyment of said thing. Copyright infringement can and does
> negatively affect the value of the work being infringed upon.

Lots of things negatively affect things I care about without being
theft.  

>> Consider the concept of "taking someone's life".  The point about "taking"
>> is that someone else no longer has it.
>
> If I steal your identity or your credit card number, you still have
> them. Yet it is considered theft all the same. 

Taking the card number isn't theft.  Using the card number to empty my
account is theft, because I no longer have the money.  It's not that
hard a concept.

> This is the digital age, stealing no longer has to involve physically
> taking something. That is a little fact that should not be ignored.

I don't condone copyright violation, but neither do I condone use of
inaccurate alarmist language in the strong-copyright mafia's propoganda.

-- Patrick

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

#9001 — [OT] Copyright infringement != Theft

Angel wrote:

> If I steal your identity or your credit card number, you still have
> them. Yet it is considered theft all the same. This is the digital age,
> stealing no longer has to involve physically taking something. That is a
> little fact that should not be ignored.

You're not even wrong.

A bad analogy is like a leaky screw driver.

You can steal a credit card, yes. You cannot, I repeat CANNOT,
"steal a credit card number", because "stealing" involves
depriving someone of something. People will probably figure
out what you're trying to say, just like adults understand
the approximations of a 3-year old.

And there is no such thing as "identity theft" either, it's
just an imperfect analogy created by the media to turn a
concept (someone impersonating you by using your credentials)
into a cool sound bite.

To recap, you do NOT steal my identity, and you do NOT steal
my credit card number. If your premises are false, then your
entire argument falls to pieces.

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

#9008 — Re: [OT] Copyright infringement != Theft

Noob <root@127.0.0.1> writes:
[snip]

If you *must* post stuff that has nothing to do with C here, can
you at least leave the subject header alone?

Or better yet, take it someplace where it's actually topical,
like misc.int-property.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#8971

In article <slrnj3gl8t.4cg.angel+news@pearlgates.net>,
 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.
> 
> There is a difference between the meaning of words in formal settings
> (i.e. a court room) and normal spoken language. In normal spoken
> language, theft means "taking something that is not yours". Guess what,
> that is *exactly* what copyright infringement is about.

Not in the USA.

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
    securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
    exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Copyrights are limitted: they are only supposed to be for a limitted time and 
limitted extent, and they are allowed not because the Author has some inherent 
intellectual property right, but as a trade off to serve the needs of the 
public. There is no guarentee that people can profit from a copyright.

    Congress shall make no law respecting ... abridging
    the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

Otherwise you can print what you want.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |                 Go out with a bang.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

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

#8981

Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnj3gl8t.4cg.angel+news@pearlgates.net>,
>  Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> > On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.
> > 
> > There is a difference between the meaning of words in formal settings
> > (i.e. a court room) and normal spoken language. In normal spoken
> > language, theft means "taking something that is not yours". Guess what,
> > that is *exactly* what copyright infringement is about.

> Not in the USA.

>     To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
>     securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
>     exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

> Copyrights are limitted: they are only supposed to be for a limitted time and 
> limitted extent, and they are allowed not because the Author has some inherent 
> intellectual property right, but as a trade off to serve the needs of the 
> public. There is no guarentee that people can profit from a copyright.

If someone drives off in your leased car without your premission, have you
suffered a theft or merely an inconvenience? Your right to possess the car
is limited in both extent (what you can do with it) and duration (how long
your right exists).

I'm no fan of the term "intellectual property" (specifically, the modern
connotations and allusions), but the fact remains that in the common law
system copyright principally accords with what legal academics call a
property rule, as distinct from a tort rule. Property rules and tort rules
together describe almost the entirety of common law civil rights--as
distinct from criminal or constitutional. They're not mutually exclusive;
you can treat a claim on a tort as property, and you can commit a tort
against property.

A copyright was understood as property in the legal sense by the US founding
fathers just as today, and the term "intellectual property" goes all the way
back to at least the 18th century. Check Google Books. It becomes a common
phrase toward the end of the 19th century. But copyrights and patents--the
former, especially--have always been a legal backwater until the late 20th
century, so "common" is relative.

It's also worth noting that because something is physical doesn't mean it's
necessarily scarce, and something can be scarce without being physical. But
I digress.

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

#8991

In article <1v6mg8-u9j.ln1@wilbur.25thandClement.com>,
 William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> wrote:

> If someone drives off in your leased car without your premission, have you
> suffered a theft or merely an inconvenience? Your right to possess the car

The car is still property of someone.

> together describe almost the entirety of common law civil rights--as
> distinct from criminal or constitutional. They're not mutually exclusive;

There is no common law is the US. Many states use common law as the base of 
their tort law where consistent with state and federal law, but it does not 
trump the federal constitution.

> A copyright was understood as property in the legal sense by the US founding
> fathers just as today, and the term "intellectual property" goes all the way

Read the constitution. It does not say 'intellectual property'. It also states 
the purpose is not guarentee income to copyright holders but to enrich society.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |                 Go out with a bang.
Everyday my mind is all around you,|      I'm whoever you want me to be.
Looking out from my lonely room    | Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
Day after day.                     |   At least I can stay in character.

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

#8995

Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:

> On 2011-08-02, Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
>>
>> Copyright infringement is not theft BY LAW and BY DEFINITION. Look it up.
>
> There is a difference between the meaning of words in formal settings
> (i.e. a court room) and normal spoken language. In normal spoken
> language, theft means "taking something that is not yours". Guess what,
> that is *exactly* what copyright infringement is about.

Copyright infringers are not taking a thing, they are making a copy of a
thing.  The owner of the object still has it, so it can't have been
stolen.

-- Patrick

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

#8992

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:32:52 +0100, tactical wrote:

> Todd Carnes wrote:
> 
>>>>> "That idea" is the well-defined meaning of the word 'theft'.  Those
>>>>> who call copyright infringment theft are at best making a mistake,
>>>>> and at worst being intellectually dishonest.  Copyright infringement
>>>>> is copyright infringement.  It is not theft.
>>>> 
>>>> You guys can play word games all you want, but a thief is a thief.
>>> 
>>> It's not word games --- it's an appeal to use terms correctly.  Theft
>>> is one thing; copyright violation is another.  Just like murder is one
>>> thing and rape is another.  Imagine if people started calling murder
>>> rape.  How would that help matters?
>> 
>> The OP took something that belong to someone else without their
>> permission. That's theft. Copyight infringement may be the specific
>> type of theft, but it's still theft.
> 
> I can't tell which is true:
> 
> 1) You have the IQ of the average brick. 2) You are being intellectually
> dishonest.
> 
> I presume it's #2, but I won't rule out #1.

I can only assume you've resorted to personal attack because you know 
stealing is stealing, regardless of anything that you or the other 
armchair lawyers have to say about "the law"... 

In other words, you know I'm right and don't want to admit it.

I, for one, shall drop the topic because...

1. This is WAY off-topic here.

and

2. The "discussion" ceases to be worthwhile the moment people forget how 
to be civil to one another.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Have a nice day. :)

Todd

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

#9002

Todd Carnes wrote:
) On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:32:52 +0100, tactical wrote:
)> I can't tell which is true:
)> 
)> 1) You have the IQ of the average brick. 2) You are being intellectually
)> dishonest.
)> 
)> I presume it's #2, but I won't rule out #1.
)
) I can only assume you've resorted to personal attack because you know 
) stealing is stealing, regardless of anything that you or the other 
) armchair lawyers have to say about "the law"... 

No, he resorted to personal attack because you're repeating the same
argument over and over again, like a broken record:

You: - A is true.
Him: - No, because X and Y and Z.
You: - Yes, because A is true.
Him: - But what about X, Y and Z which prove that A is not true ?
You: - Irrelevant, because A is true.

That's not an argument, that's religious fanaticism.

From the above, I conclude that you're obviously unable to back up your
assertions with actual arguments, so further discussion is unneccesary.

) We will have to agree to disagree.

As long as you agree that you're also disagreeing with the legal
definition, I'll agree that you can Humpty Dumpty all you want.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#9010

On Wed, 03 Aug 2011 09:01:35 +0000, Willem wrote:

> As long as you agree that you're also disagreeing with the legal
> definition, I'll agree that you can Humpty Dumpty all you want.

I really don't give a damn what do or do not agree with.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web