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 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#8928 — Re: instructor's solutions manual for Digital Control & State Variable Methods 2nd Ed by Madan Gopal

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:10:18 -0700, ronald manual wrote:

> Please this service is NOT free.

It's not a service either. It's theft.

Todd

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8929

Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:10:18 -0700, ronald manual wrote:
>
>> Please this service is NOT free.
>
> It's not a service either. It's theft.

As well as an invitation to academic dishonesty.

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

#8930

Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
> Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:10:18 -0700, ronald manual wrote:
>>> Please this service is NOT free.
>>
>> It's not a service either. It's theft.
>
> As well as an invitation to academic dishonesty.

Thanks for making that clear to those of us who hadn't already figured
it out.

Please don't respond to spam.

-- 
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]

#8931

In article <ln4o21do7y.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson  <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> writes:
>> Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 00:10:18 -0700, ronald manual wrote:
>>>> Please this service is NOT free.
>>>
>>> It's not a service either. It's theft.
>>
>> As well as an invitation to academic dishonesty.
>
>Thanks for making that clear to those of us who hadn't already figured
>it out.
>
>Please don't respond to spam.

Please don't respond to people who respond to spam.

Thank you.

-- 
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don't have the time!

    - David Byrne -

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

#8936

Todd Carnes wrote:

>> Please this service is NOT free.
> 
> It's not a service either. It's theft.

This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
being physically taken away.

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

#8937

tactical wrote:
> Todd Carnes wrote:
> 
>>> Please this service is NOT free.
>> It's not a service either. It's theft.
> 
> This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
> being physically taken away.

I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.

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

#8938

In <j17crm$kd2$1@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> writes:

> > This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
> > being physically taken away.

> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.

Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
code of the country where he resides.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

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

#9012

John Gordon wrote:
> In <j17crm$kd2$1@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> writes:
> 
>>> This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
>>> being physically taken away.
> 
>> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.
> 
> Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
> code of the country where he resides.

This newsgroup isn't a legal forum; if someone posts here in English 
it's assumed that they're using normal English meanings for their words, 
not some precise legal definition from some unspecified jurisdiction.

The statement is wrong in everyday English, and it's wrong in at least 
some jurisdictions for a formal legal definition of "theft".

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

#9013

In article <j1clgj$r07$1@dont-email.me>, "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> 
wrote:

> John Gordon wrote:
> > In <j17crm$kd2$1@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> writes:
> > 
> >>> This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
> >>> being physically taken away.
> > 
> >> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.
> > 
> > Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
> > code of the country where he resides.
> 
> This newsgroup isn't a legal forum; if someone posts here in English 
> it's assumed that they're using normal English meanings for their words, 
> not some precise legal definition from some unspecified jurisdiction.
> 
> The statement is wrong in everyday English, and it's wrong in at least 
> some jurisdictions for a formal legal definition of "theft".

The US has an unusually broad and powerful freedom of the press. Calling 
infringement theft as been a propaganda move by RIAA and movie producers. Owners 
can control exploitation of real property themselves and their heirs allowing a 
more predictable return on investment. Publishers want the same kind immortal 
return on investment from copyrighted works; hence a limitted protection 
intended to enrich society is being turned into an unlimitted right to enrich 
one party.

-- 
I remember finding out about you,  |                 Go out with a ping.
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]

#9022

China Blue Peter <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <j1clgj$r07$1@dont-email.me>, "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> 
> wrote:
>
>> John Gordon wrote:
>> > In <j17crm$kd2$1@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> writes:
>> > 
>> >>> This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
>> >>> being physically taken away.
>> > 
>> >> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.
>> > 
>> > Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
>> > code of the country where he resides.
>> 
>> This newsgroup isn't a legal forum; if someone posts here in English 
>> it's assumed that they're using normal English meanings for their words, 
>> not some precise legal definition from some unspecified jurisdiction.
>> 
>> The statement is wrong in everyday English, and it's wrong in at least 
>> some jurisdictions for a formal legal definition of "theft".
>
> The US has an unusually broad and powerful freedom of the press. Calling 
> infringement theft as been a propaganda move by RIAA and movie
> producers. Owners
> can control exploitation of real property themselves and their heirs allowing a 
> more predictable return on investment. Publishers want the same kind immortal 
> return on investment from copyrighted works; hence a limitted protection 
> intended to enrich society is being turned into an unlimitted right to enrich 
> one party.

What's worse than the endless extension of copyright is that Digital
Millennium Copyright Act extends *all* copyrights *automatically*,
without requiring renewal, even if they haven't been selling for
decades.  For every Micky Mouse movie that's still producing revenue,
there's a million orphaned works that can't be photocopied by an entity
that scrupulously respects copyright and yet the copyright owner can't
be found to seek permission.

-- Patrick

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

#9023

Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> wrote:
<snip>
> What's worse than the endless extension of copyright is that Digital
> Millennium Copyright Act extends *all* copyrights *automatically*,
> without requiring renewal, even if they haven't been selling for
> decades.  For every Micky Mouse movie that's still producing revenue,
> there's a million orphaned works that can't be photocopied by an entity
> that scrupulously respects copyright and yet the copyright owner can't
> be found to seek permission.

I believe that's the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. I was told by
someone who worked at the DoJ--where the draft committee worked--that the
Disney lawyer was there every day for many months, like a regular employee.
To say that Disney had a hand in drafting the bill is an understatement. To
be fair, for all I know there was a lawyer for the American Library
Association there as well. Although, my intuition is that only someone like
Disney could afford to dedicate an experienced lawyer to the matter for such
an extended period of time. Face time matters.

Still, this is how standards committees work as well. HTML5 is a collusion
of all the big incumbent players (Mozilla, Safari, IE). XHTML 2.0 was much
more open and allowed for more innovative and niche uses (especially
server-side), but the incumbents hemmed and hawed and got their way.

Same thing with the C1x standard. Some of the new features are on the cusp
of awesome (like _Generic), but only go far enough to please the incumbents
without too much concern for future use by new players. Other interfaces
(e.g. Annex K) are just ridiculous cruft intended only to further the
political goals of one or a few incumbents. Although perhaps the Annex
facility was designed to divert such pressures so they don't corrupt the
core standard too much.

On the flip side, it's worth pointing out that concessions are made for
incumbents because they're the ones most invested in the status quo, clearly
effected by any changes, and presumably possess a deeper insight into the
issues. Maybe _Generic is awesome enough, and the Annex K interfaces will
actually be used by real developers.

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

#9025

On Aug 1, 8:45 pm, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
> In <j17crm$kd...@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <j...@bcs.org.uk> writes:
>
> > > This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
> > > being physically taken away.
> > I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.
>
> Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
> code of the country where he resides.
>
> --
> John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
> gor...@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
>                                 -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

Probably India or pakistan.

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

#9035

On 08/04/2011 03:51 PM, mt wrote:
> On Aug 1, 8:45�pm, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
>> In <j17crm$kd...@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <j...@bcs.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>>> This is something, but it's not theft. �Theft involves physical property
>>>> being physically taken away.
>>> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.
>>
>> Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
>> code of the country where he resides.
...
> Probably India or pakistan.

Or the US, the UK, or Canada, among others. All of those countries
exclude intellectual property violations from the crime of "theft".
That's not to say that such violations aren't crimes - merely that
"theft" is not the correct term for such crimes.
-- 
James Kuyper

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

#9065

James Kuyper wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 03:51 PM, mt wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 8:45�pm, John Gordon <gor...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In <j17crm$kd...@dont-email.me> "J. J. Farrell" <j...@bcs.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>>> This is something, but it's not theft. �Theft involves physical property
>>>>> being physically taken away.
>>>> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.
>>> Probably from the definition of the word "theft" as defined by the criminal
>>> code of the country where he resides.
> ...
>> Probably India or pakistan.
> 
> Or the US, the UK, or Canada, among others. All of those countries
> exclude intellectual property violations from the crime of "theft".
> That's not to say that such violations aren't crimes - merely that
> "theft" is not the correct term for such crimes.

I don't know about Scotland or Northern Ireland, but the legal 
definition of theft in England and Wales includes stealing intangible 
property, in much the same way as normal English language usage does. 
Theft does not necessarily 'involve physical property being physically 
taken away'.

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

#9080

J. J. Farrell wrote:
) I don't know about Scotland or Northern Ireland, but the legal 
) definition of theft in England and Wales includes stealing intangible 
) property, in much the same way as normal English language usage does. 
) Theft does not necessarily 'involve physical property being physically 
) taken away'.

Nevertheless, according to that same legal definition, copyright
infringement is not theft.  The whole 'physical property' thing is
a red herring, probably a mispresentation of the underlying idea that
theft must necessarily involve that the original owner no longer has
posession of whatever was stolen.

My guess is that the OP meant 'physical property' in the sense of
'something that is no longer available to the original owner when taken'.


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]

#8944

J. J. Farrell wrote:

>>> It's not a service either. It's theft.
>> 
>> This is something, but it's not theft.  Theft involves physical property
>> being physically taken away.
> 
> I don't know where you get that idea from, but it's wrong.

"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.

Here are some good articles on this topic:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/2425
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#.22Theft.22
http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/5002/theft.html

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

#8949

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:40:49 +0100, tactical 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.

Todd

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

#8952

Todd Carnes wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:40:49 +0100, tactical 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?

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

#8954

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 13:40:08 +0100, tactical wrote:

> Todd Carnes wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 07:40:49 +0100, tactical 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.

Todd

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

#8955

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.

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

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web