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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#8959

On 2011-08-02, Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> wrote:
> The OP took something that belong to someone else without their 
> permission. That's theft.

Has the person whose property was "taken" ceased to have it until at some
future time it is returned?

If not, it's not been stolen.  Seriously, try to get the law enforcement
people to prosecute for "theft" of "this thing right here, which I still
have" sometime...

-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]

#8969

In article <pan.2011.08.02.15.14.00@gmail.com>,
 Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> 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.

In the US, no, it's not. If copyrights and patents weren't mentionned in the 
Constitution, they would be illegal because of the First Amendment. As it stands 
there is supposed to be a tension between copyrights and freedom of press so 
that copyrights were a limitted right; after a limitted period of time 
copyrights used to expire.

-- 
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]

#8972

On 2011-08-02, Light the China Blue Touch Paper <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <pan.2011.08.02.15.14.00@gmail.com>,
>  Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> 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.
>
> In the US, no, it's not. If copyrights and patents weren't mentioned in the 
> Constitution, they would be illegal because of the First Amendment. As it
> stands there is supposed to be a tension between copyrights and freedom of
> press so that copyrights were a limitted right; after a limitted period of
> time copyrights used to expire.

Copyright and patents were invented to protect individuals and encourage
innovation, but with the way corporations treat them nowadays, they
rather have the averse effect. It's sad really.

Doesn't change the fact that taking something that isn't yours is still
theft, maybe not to the letter of the law but certainly in the spirit.
Freedom of expression and freedom of press can never be an excuse for
blatant stealing.

Is there a tension? Yes, most certainly. Just look at "fair use"
provisions. Should copyright- and patent laws be reviewed to reflect the
modern digital age? Yes, definitely. Personally I'd like copyright to be
shorted to five or ten years at most, and patent laws to be revised to
exclude software patents and patents on trivial things. But that's just
IMHO, of course.


-- 
"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]

#8973

Angel wrote:

> Doesn't change the fact that taking something that isn't yours is still
> theft, maybe not to the letter of the law but certainly in the spirit.

I don't understand how you can keep making this mistake.  If someone
illegally downloads something, they do not take it --- they take **a copy
of it**.

Let's put that in even simpler terms:  The original item is not taken.  A
copy of the original item is taken.

This might not matter in some cases, but in this argument it matters very
much.  It's the key point of the argument.

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

#8977

On 2011-08-02, tactical <1@2.3> wrote:
> Angel wrote:
>
>> Doesn't change the fact that taking something that isn't yours is still
>> theft, maybe not to the letter of the law but certainly in the spirit.
>
> I don't understand how you can keep making this mistake.  If someone
> illegally downloads something, they do not take it --- they take **a copy
> of it**.

Doesn't matter. If I take a copy of your work and distribute it as my
own I am a thief no matter if I deleted the original or not.

It's not a mistake. I just use the normal everyday meaning of the word
"theft" instead of the formal one because, you know, I'm not a lawyer
and this is no court of law.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/wiki/theft

"The act of stealing property." Note that it doesn't say the property
has to be physical.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/wiki/steal

"3. (copyright law, chiefly informal, transitive) To copy
copyright-protected work without permission."

> Let's put that in even simpler terms:  The original item is not taken.  A
> copy of the original item is taken.

The original is not taken, but it can decrease in value as a direct
result of the copying. A movie or game leaked to the 'net is worth much
less than one that is not.

Taking a copy of something I own without my permission is just as much
theft as taking the original.

> This might not matter in some cases, but in this argument it matters very
> much.  It's the key point of the argument.

This is a newsgroup. Stop acting like it is a court of law.

Yes, technically "copyright infringement" is apparently not "stealing"
according to your courts of law, just like "physical abuse leading to
death" is not "murder". (I'm not sure about the laws in my own country,
would have to look that up.)

I will concede that point to you, but I consider it silly to put up a
huge argument about such technicalities in a place that is by no means a
courtroom, and to call people "intellectually dishonest" or even
"stupid" over it because they don't share your point of view is just
plain rude. People can and do understand a point perfectly and still
disagree with you, you know.

But oh well, I guess that is normal in Usenet...


-- 
"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]

#8982

Angel wrote:

>> Let's put that in even simpler terms:  The original item is not taken.  A
>> copy of the original item is taken.
> 
> The original is not taken, but it can decrease in value as a direct
> result of the copying.

So a bad review is also theft?

> A movie or game leaked to the 'net is worth much
> less than one that is not.

That's an enormous assumption on your part.  There are many cases where
leaks actually *increase* a company's profits -- for example, when the leak
creates interest in the company/product.

> Taking a copy of something I own without my permission is just as much
> theft as taking the original.

So if I cloned your car and took the clone, that'd be no worse than taking
your car, leaving you without a car.  Right...

>> This might not matter in some cases, but in this argument it matters very
>> much.  It's the key point of the argument.
> 
> This is a newsgroup. Stop acting like it is a court of law.

"Theft" and "copyright infringement are legal terms.  Stop pretending
otherwise.

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

#8984

On 2011-08-02, tactical <1@2.3> wrote:
>
> "Theft" and "copyright infringement are legal terms.  Stop pretending
> otherwise.

I see no more reason to argue with someone who cannot recognize that
words can and do have both legal and common meanings.

Besides, I tire of this whole off topic argument anyway, so I will just
agree to differ and post no more on this subject.


-- 
"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]

#8997

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

> The original is not taken, but it can decrease in value as a direct
> result of the copying. A movie or game leaked to the 'net is worth much
> less than one that is not.

If I own a house, and my neighbors stop maintaining their houses so the
neighborhood looks like a slum, my house's value has decreased in
value.  But I don't go around claiming that my neighbors have stolen my
house.

-- Patrick

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

#8975

In article <slrnj3go4m.4jf.angel+news@pearlgates.net>,
 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Doesn't change the fact that taking something that isn't yours is still

Outside the limitted protection of copyright, it's everybody's. It's public 
domain and anyone can publish it. You can't steal what belongs to everyone.

-- 
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]

#8950

On 2011-08-01, tactical <1@2.3> 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.

Identities and data are not physical things, and yet can most certainly
be stolen. This is the digital age, not all theft involves taking
physical things anymore. Or is someone who illegaly empties your bank
account not a thief?


-- 
"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]

#8951

Angel 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.
> 
> Identities and data are not physical things, and yet can most certainly
> be stolen.

Data can be physically stolen:  If somebody steals my hard disc, they also
steal the data on it.  I no longer have that data.

Using the word 'stolen' when referring to identities is, as far as I can
tell, a metaphor.  It seems like a good metaphor to me, because in general
an identity has only one instance.  If someone 'steals' my identity, I can
no longer use it, in general.

This metaphor doesn't work well when it comes to copyright violation,
however.  If somebody downloads a computer game illegaly, the manufacturer
of the computer hasn't lost the game.  They still have it.  The illegal
download was of a *copy* of the game.

So it's not theft or stealing -- it's copyright violation.  (Note that I'm
certainly not arguing in favour of copyright violation.  I'm arguing only
that we should use terms correctly.)

> This is the digital age, not all theft involves taking
> physical things anymore. Or is someone who illegaly empties your bank
> account not a thief?

Of course that's theft.  It involves money being taken away (from either
you or your bank, depending on the situation and one's perspective).  Sure,
the *process* that leads to money being taken away might be complex and
technological, but the end result is the same:  The rightful owner of the
cash has had her/his money taken away, with the end result being that they
no longer have it.

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

#8953 — [OT] Copyright infringement != Theft

tactical wrote:

> Angel wrote:
> 
>> Identities and data are not physical things, and yet can most certainly
>> be stolen.
> 
> Data can be physically stolen:  If somebody steals my hard disc, they also
> steal the data on it.  I no longer have that data.
> 
> Using the word 'stolen' when referring to identities is, as far as I can
> tell, a metaphor.  It seems like a good metaphor to me, because in general
> an identity has only one instance.  If someone 'steals' my identity, I can
> no longer use it, in general.
> 
> This metaphor doesn't work well when it comes to copyright violation,
> however.  If somebody downloads a computer game illegally, the manufacturer
> of the computer hasn't lost the game.  They still have it.  The illegal
> download was of a *copy* of the game.
> 
> So it's not theft or stealing -- it's copyright violation.  (Note that I'm
> certainly not arguing in favor of copyright violation.  I'm arguing only
> that we should use terms correctly.)
> 
>> This is the digital age, not all theft involves taking
>> physical things anymore. Or is someone who illegally empties your bank
>> account not a thief?
> 
> Of course that's theft.  It involves money being taken away (from either
> you or your bank, depending on the situation and one's perspective).  Sure,
> the *process* that leads to money being taken away might be complex and
> technological, but the end result is the same:  The rightful owner of the
> cash has had her/his money taken away, with the end result being that they
> no longer have it.

+1 (pet peeve)

Everyone NEEDS TO understand the concept of rivalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_(economics)

A piece of software is a non-rival good; in other words, "it may be
consumed by one consumer without preventing simultaneous consumption
by others."

The copyright cartels (the MAFIAA) are trying so very hard to
manufacture these artificial semantic shifts that it should
rightfully be considered propaganda.

cf. "piracy", "theft", "intellectual property",
"digital rights management"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

There's a special place in Hell for these people.

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

#8956

On 2011-08-02, tactical <1@2.3> wrote:
> Angel 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.
>> 
>> Identities and data are not physical things, and yet can most certainly
>> be stolen.
>
> Data can be physically stolen:  If somebody steals my hard disc, they also
> steal the data on it.  I no longer have that data.

Data can be stolen without the need to remove anything physical. It's
the act of taking someone that belongs to someone else that makes it
theft.

> Using the word 'stolen' when referring to identities is, as far as I can
> tell, a metaphor.  It seems like a good metaphor to me, because in general
> an identity has only one instance.  If someone 'steals' my identity, I can
> no longer use it, in general.

You still have it, though.

> This metaphor doesn't work well when it comes to copyright violation,
> however.  If somebody downloads a computer game illegaly, the manufacturer
> of the computer hasn't lost the game.  They still have it.  The illegal
> download was of a *copy* of the game.

They still have it, yes, but it has decreased in value. That's still
theft.

Theft is taking something from someone else without their permission.
Doesn't matter if it's physical goods, or something abstract like code,
an identity or an idea. If it was mine and you took it without my
permission, it is theft.


-- 
"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]

#8962

Angel wrote:

> On 2011-08-02, tactical <1@2.3> wrote:
>> Angel 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.
>>> 
>>> Identities and data are not physical things, and yet can most certainly
>>> be stolen.
>>
>> Data can be physically stolen:  If somebody steals my hard disc, they also
>> steal the data on it.  I no longer have that data.
> 
> Data can be stolen without the need to remove anything physical. It's
> the act of taking someone that belongs to someone else that makes it
> theft.

Well, that's exactly what we're arguing about.

>> Using the word 'stolen' when referring to identities is, as far as I can
>> tell, a metaphor.  It seems like a good metaphor to me, because in general
>> an identity has only one instance.  If someone 'steals' my identity, I can
>> no longer use it, in general.
> 
> You still have it, though.

No.  Please read what I typed again.

>> This metaphor doesn't work well when it comes to copyright violation,
>> however.  If somebody downloads a computer game illegaly, the manufacturer
>> of the computer hasn't lost the game.  They still have it.  The illegal
>> download was of a *copy* of the game.
> 
> They still have it, yes, but it has decreased in value. That's still
> theft.

No, they don't steal have it.  If someone steals £1,000 from a bank, the
bank has lost that money.

> Theft is taking something from someone else without their permission.

Theft is taking a physical object away, yes.

> Doesn't matter if it's physical goods, or something abstract like code,
> an identity or an idea. If it was mine and you took it without my
> permission, it is theft.

If it's theft, you no longer have it after I took it.

Anyway, this is getting a little boring now.  I suggest you look at the
links I posted earlier, or you look up "theft" and "copyright infringement"
in a legal dictionary.

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

#8963

Angel wrote:
) Data can be stolen without the need to remove anything physical. It's
) the act of taking someone that belongs to someone else that makes it
) theft.

No, it's the act of *removing* something from someone's posession that
makes it theft.  That is the law.

)> Using the word 'stolen' when referring to identities is, as far as I can
)> tell, a metaphor.  It seems like a good metaphor to me, because in general
)> an identity has only one instance.  If someone 'steals' my identity, I can
)> no longer use it, in general.
)
) You still have it, though.

Then it's not a good metaphor, is it ?  Identity 'theft' is not theft.

)> This metaphor doesn't work well when it comes to copyright violation,
)> however.  If somebody downloads a computer game illegaly, the manufacturer
)> of the computer hasn't lost the game.  They still have it.  The illegal
)> download was of a *copy* of the game.
)
) They still have it, yes, but it has decreased in value. That's still
) theft.

No it's not, by DEFINITION.  Go read a law book.

) Theft is taking something from someone else without their permission.

It's *removing* something from someone elses posession.

) Doesn't matter if it's physical goods, or something abstract like code,
) an identity or an idea. If it was mine and you took it without my
) permission, it is theft.

Wrong.


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] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web