Reasons for not allowing continuous on line mooring.

[Delta9]

Oh here we go again, Delta wants to infinitely pare down the definition of a single word just to show how clever he is.

 

Ok then what is it?

lol. I can't really be bothered with that tonight. There are lots of words that you could use to describe it, but theft is not one of them. I would say it is "copyright infringement" or "piracy"

Edited October 6, 2014 by Delta9

[Guest]

lol. I can't really be bothered with that tonight. There are lots of words that you could use to describe it, but theft is not one of them.

Nor me, but you are wrong it's theft.

 

Lol.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Delta9, on 06 Oct 2014 - 9:38 PM, said:Delta9, on 06 Oct 2014 - 9:38 PM, said:

lol. I can't really be bothered with that tonight. There are lots of words that you could use to describe it, but theft is not one of them.

 

I think the 1968 Theft Act has it covered :

 

Basic definition of theft.

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.

 

It must, at the very least be IP theft ?

 

Maybe Delta is considering this :

 

Dishonestly

(1) A personal appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest

 

(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or

(b ) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the others consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it;

Edited October 6, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Sabcat]

Copying something doesn't deprive the owner of it. Regardless though, call it theft or call it something else, it's reality. A reality that legislation and attempts at enforcement have done nothing to stem. It's here to stay.

 

Another parallel with the canals and the arrival of people looking for cheap housing. Possibly.

[Delta9]

 

 

 

I think the 1968 Theft Act has it covered :

 

Basic definition of theft.

(1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and 'thief' and 'steal' shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief's own benefit.

 

It must, at the very least be IP theft ?

 

By downloading music you are not "appropriating with the intention of permanently depriving" By making a copy of the music you are not depriving the original owner of it. Infinite copies can be made

[Guest]

By downloading music you are not "appropriating with the intention of permanently depriving" By making a copy of the music you are not depriving the original owner of it. Infinite copies can be made

No they can't because when you do you are depriving the original owner of what you should have legally paid for it.

 

Like walking out of ASDA with their CD under your coat.

 

It's theft no matter how you try to dress it up.

[Delta9]

No they can't because when you do you are depriving the original owner of what you should have legally paid for it.

 

Like walking out of ASDA with their CD under your coat.

 

It's theft no matter how you try to dress it up.

You aren't depriving the owner of it. They still have it. Yes, infinite copies can be made whether you think so or not.

 

Nothing like walking out of ASDA with a CD. In that case you would be depriving the owner of their CD.

 

Theft is a very distinct legal term. I'm not "dressing it up" or trying to excuse it. It is still illegal, but it is in no way "theft".

[Guest]

You aren't depriving the owner of it. They still have it. Yes, infinite copies can be made whether you think so or not.

 

Nothing like walking out of ASDA with a CD. In that case you would be depriving the owner of their CD.

 

Theft is a very distinct legal term. I'm not "dressing it up" or trying to excuse it. It is still illegal, but it is in no way "theft".

It is, I take it you do it?

 

In which case you are a thief.

 

If not you aren't.

Edited October 6, 2014 by The Dog House

[Alan de Enfield]

Copying something doesn't deprive the owner of it. Regardless though, call it theft or call it something else, it's reality. A reality that legislation and attempts at enforcement have done nothing to stem. It's here to stay.

 

Another parallel with the canals and the arrival of people looking for cheap housing. Possibly.

 

 

By downloading music you are not "appropriating with the intention of permanently depriving" By making a copy of the music you are not depriving the original owner of it. Infinite copies can be made

 

You are depriving the Artist of an income that would have been accrued if you had purchased a copy.

 

We had to pay £100's a year to be allowed to play CD's and even have the TV on in the public lounge so that Artists got their royalties .

 

We didnt have to pay for the TV because of the football, or news programmes, but because of the music during the adverts - they are all someone property/copyright.

 

We had to pay a fee to the Performing Rights Society (PRS)- based on the square metres of the bulding in which the music could be heard, then we also had to have a PPL licence.

 

PPL collects royalties on behalf of performers and record companies, while PRS for Music collects royalties on behalf of songwriters, composers and publishers

[Delta9]

It is, I take it you do it?

 

In which case you are a thief.

 

If not you aren't.

You do not understand the words 'theft' or 'thief'.

 

You are depriving the Artist of an income that would have been accrued if you had purchased a copy.

 

Depriving someone of something they have never had is not theft.

[Guest]

You do not understand the words 'theft' or 'thief'.

Do you illeagally download music?

 

If so you are a thief.

 

I used to, and I used to copy software discs many moons ago but stopped when I realised how wrong it was and that it was thieving.

 

Do you?

[Alan de Enfield]

You do not understand the words 'theft' or 'thief'.

 

 

Maybe you would be kind enough to enlighten us with your defintion of theft / thief ?

[mark99]

You aren't depriving the owner of it. They still have it. Yes, infinite copies can be made whether you think so or not.

 

Nothing like walking out of ASDA with a CD. In that case you would be depriving the owner of their CD.

 

Theft is a very distinct legal term. I'm not "dressing it up" or trying to excuse it. It is still illegal, but it is in no way "theft".

 

Selfish and very short termist.

 

No you are not depriving "it" of them only a proportion of the reward for their intellectual property which ultimately deprives everyone of more varied music cos everyone nicks it so the artist thinks it aint worth spending time making it.

 

Brother used to release albums but recently gave up because everything was copied and he makes his living now by live gigs only. He has released probably a couple of hundred tracks that are on Spotify etc.

 

I'm afraid your lost post has sealed my opinion about your logical and ethical drivers - and they are opposite mine!

 

Perhaps you should donate some of your time to working for nothing cos it amounts to the same.

Edited October 6, 2014 by mark99

[Delta9]

 

Maybe you would be kind enough to enlighten us with your defintion of theft / thief ?

You posted the definition of theft yourself in post #178. A thief is one that commits the act of theft.

[Guest]

You posted the definition of theft yourself in post #178. A thief is one that commits the act of theft.

Do you illeagally download music?

Edited October 6, 2014 by The Dog House

[Delta9]

Do you illeagally download music?

 

If so you are a thief.

 

I used to, and I used to copy software discs many moons ago but stopped when I realised how wrong it was and that it was thieving.

 

Do you?

It wasn't thieving, you were committing copyright infringement. As I said, whether I do it or not is irrelevant.

[Sabcat]

 

 

 

You are depriving the Artist of an income that would have been accrued if you had purchased a copy.

 

We had to pay £100's a year to be allowed to play CD's and even have the TV on in the public lounge so that Artists got their royalties .

 

We didnt have to pay for the TV because of the football, or news programmes, but because of the music during the adverts - they are all someone property/copyright.

 

We had to pay a fee to the Performing Rights Society (PRS)- based on the square metres of the bulding in which the music could be heard, then we also had to have a PPL licence.

 

PPL collects royalties on behalf of performers and record companies, while PRS for Music collects royalties on behalf of songwriters, composers and publishers

 

An artist is being deprived of an income, for what? If they want some cash they should go out and play gig and bloody earn it. If their music's any good I might turn up. The income you say I'm depriving them of isn't real, it was based on an old model that is no longer viable, reality has changed. I'm not prepared to pay money for something that in reality costs nothing. I don't pay money for something that costs nothing and despite the labels thrown around by the music industry I do so with impunity and will carry on doing so. Don't like it? Tough. Reality has a habit of persisting regardless of anyone's feelings.

[Guest]

It wasn't thieving, you were committing copyright infringement. As I said, whether I do it or not is irrelevant.

 

It is relevant because if you do it means you are a thief, I like to know the morals of people I interact with on here.

 

So do you illeagally download music?

 

Yes or no will suffice.

Edited October 6, 2014 by The Dog House

[Delta9]

 

Selfish and very short termist.

 

No you are not depriving "it" of them only a proportion of the reward for their intellectual property which ultimately deprives everyone of more varied music cos everyone nicks it so the artist thinks it aint worth spending time making it.

 

Brother used to release albums but recently gave up because everything was copied and he makes his living now by live gigs only. He has released probably a couple of hundred tracks that are on Spotify etc.

 

I'm afraid your lost post has sealed my opinion about your logical and ethical drivers - and they are opposite mine!

 

Perhaps you should donate some of your time to working for nothing cos it amounts to the same.

Like I said, I'm not excusing it or defending it, it is still illegal but it is not 'theft' It is copyright infringement.

It is relevant because if you do it means you are a thief, I like to know the morals of people I interact with on here.

 

So do you illeagally download music?

 

Yes or no will suffice.

 

It is none of your business. If you are really that desperate to call me a thief, I once stole some chocolate from a corner shop. Have at it.

[Guest]

That's a yes then.

 

Thief.

[Delta9]

That's a yes then.

 

Thief.

[boathunter]

It is relevant because if you do it means you are a thief, I like to know the morals of people I interact with on here.

 

So do you illeagally download music?

 

Yes or no will suffice.

Are you drunk? You've already confessed to being a "thief" in your own terms.

Funny thread.

 

Sorry, judgemental reformed thief. Nobody likes a quitter.

Edited October 6, 2014 by boathunter

[Alan de Enfield]

 

An artist is being deprived of an income, for what? If they want some cash they should go out and play gig and bloody earn it. If their music's any good I might turn up. The income you say I'm depriving them of isn't real, it was based on an old model that is no longer viable, reality has changed. I'm not prepared to pay money for something that in reality costs nothing. I don't pay money for something that costs nothing and despite the labels thrown around by the music industry I do so with impunity and will carry on doing so. Don't like it? Tough. Reality has a habit of persisting regardless of anyone's feelings.

 

In which case we will just have to agree that our morals are on opposite sides of the spectrum - I am prepared to pay someone for their work - apparently you, if you can get away with it, are not,

[Guest]

Are you drunk? You've already confessed to being a "thief" in your own terms.

Funny thread.

Not drunk at all.

 

I was talking about twenty or so years ago, so yes that made me a thief.

 

Try reading the posts, unless you are too drunk to do so.

[Sabcat]

 

Selfish and very short termist.

 

No you are not depriving "it" of them only a proportion of the reward for their intellectual property which ultimately deprives everyone of more varied music cos everyone nicks it so the artist thinks it aint worth spending time making it.

 

Brother used to release albums but recently gave up because everything was copied and he makes his living now by live gigs only. He has released probably a couple of hundred tracks that are on Spotify etc.

 

I'm afraid your lost post has sealed my opinion about your logical and ethical drivers - and they are opposite mine!

 

Perhaps you should donate some of your time to working for nothing cos it amounts to the same.

I'm not a fan but I'll quote Castro "intellectual property is imperialistic bullshit"