Reasons for not allowing continuous on line mooring.

[boathunter]

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.

I'm tee total, I never drink.

Twenty years ago? Ha-ha-ha. Methinks it was a lot more recently and I also think you've retained your illegally downloaded hoard, but merely started paying because you lost your bottle. That would be typical and nothing to be ashamed of.

Before you clutch at any more straws, I don't have any downloaded music, paid for or otherwise. Not one single track.

You cannot hold back this tide. Is Youtube illegal? If I want to hear something, there it is.

Edited October 6, 2014 by boathunter

[Guest]

I'm tee total, I never drink.

Twenty years ago? Ha-ha-ha. Methinks it was a lot more recently and I also think you've retained your illegally downloaded hoard, but merely started paying because you lost your bottle. That would be typical and nothing to be ashamed of.

Before you clutch at any more straws, I don't have any downloaded music, paid for or otherwise. Not one single track.

Then you know bog all.

 

I find piracy aborent as you seem to find alcohol.

 

All the downloaded music I own is legit.

[Sabcat]

 

I find piracy aborent

 

 

LOL

[Guest]

LOL

Lol.

 

Pirates steal, geddit?

[Sabcat]

Lol.

 

Pirates steal, geddit?

Yeah, I get it. I feel bad now. Who should I give it all back to?

[Guest]

Yeah, I get it. I feel bad now. Who should I give it all back to?

Who the hell you like bud, I couldn't give a flying fig....

 

Another thief.

[boathunter]

I have nothing aginst alcohol, it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

You're right, I know nothing about you, but I have read your posts on here for 3 years or more and they follow a pattern. You make claims of your own lilly-white extistance which are supposed to give credence to your nit-picking posts. Then when you're proved wrong you try and change the subject. When that fails you turn to insults and accusations, just as you have in this thread ending up calling someone a thief because you were wrong about something that was actually a minor diversion anyway.

 

About 18 months ago you turned a new leaf and for 6 months or so were polite. Then you lost your way again. It's like a soap opera on this forum and if you think the only people watching weighing you up are the few that converse directly you are mistaken. Post a lot and you become a character. Your character is largely negative.

 

Don't tell me I know bog all, I know lots of things and a lot more about your character than you do of mine.

Oooo you're calling everyone thieves now and can't speel abhorrent.

[Guest]

I have nothing aginst alcohol, it just doesn't appeal to me.

 

You're right, I know nothing about you, but I have read your posts on here for 3 years or more and they follow a pattern. You make claims of your own lilly-white extistance which are supposed to give credence to your nit-picking posts. Then when you're proved wrong you try and change the subject. When that fails you turn to insults and accusations, just as you have in this thread ending up calling someone a thief because you were wrong about something that was actually a minor diversion anyway.

 

About 18 months ago you turned a new leaf and for 6 months or so were polite. Then you lost your way again. It's like a soap opera on this forum and if you think the only people watching weighing you up are the few that converse directly you are mistaken. Post a lot and you become a character. Your character is largely negative.

 

Don't tell me I know bog all, I know lots of things and a lot more about your character than you do of mine.

I'm intrigued that somebody would take such an interest in my posts and perform a month by month analysis.

 

I also know about the non direct communication thing, BTW its played out on here before,

 

And yes you know bog all about me. Bog all, OK?

[boathunter]

I know how you behave on here and that's my only interest in you. You cast a shadow over this forum.

I read everyones posts, yours just stand out as pernickety, pointless and often rude. It's hard not to notice you.

[Guest]

I know how you behave on here and that's my only interest in you. You cast a shadow over this forum.

I read everyones posts, yours just stand out as pernickety, pointless and often rude. It's hard not to notice you.

'You cast a shadow'

 

Please....its an Internet forum.

 

Put me on ignore if it's too dark a shadow for you......

[Sabcat]

I know how you behave on here and that's my only interest in you. You cast a shadow over this forum.

I read everyones posts, yours just stand out as pernickety, pointless and often rude. It's hard not to notice you.

I think he's great value, his impotent witterings brighten the place up for me.

[Jerra]

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

I am not sure you necessarily need to deprive somebody of something for it to be theft.

 

Theft in my dictionary is described as the act or crime of stealing.

 

Stealing is described as to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

 

Music for example is intellectual property so copying is taking a copy of the persons intellectual property and so theft.

[Delta9]

I am not sure you necessarily need to deprive somebody of something for it to be theft.

 

Theft in my dictionary is described as the act or crime of stealing.

 

Stealing is described as to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

 

Music for example is intellectual property so copying is taking a copy of the persons intellectual property and so theft.

It doesn't matter what it is defied as in your dictionary, you are not the one that writes the laws.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

[Guest]

I think he's great value, his impotent witterings brighten the place up for me.

Much as your inane dribblings do for me......

 

well actually no, that was a lie.

[Sabcat]

I wish people would stop saying this. I've illegally downloaded the entire discography of Aerosmith recently (I only wanted one track but hey, why not eh?) and I reckon I've done Steven Tyler out of the best part of a gramme of chang. I feel bad about myself.

[Jerra]

It doesn't matter what it is defied as in your dictionary, you are not the one that writes the laws.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft

The laws as we have seen in the case of Bona fide navigation are often worded poorly. We (at least I ) speak the English language and you have in my post what is theft in English. Don't you speak English as your first language or are you trying to change the meaning of the language all on your own?

 

EDIT: To add your reference leads only to a part of an act which defines how the word theft is used in that act and that act alone not the whole of the English language.

 

Look at any act and there is a section explaining how the word is being used in that particular document.

Edited October 6, 2014 by Jerra

[Delta9]

The laws as we have seen in the case of Bona fide navigation are often worded poorly. We (at least I ) speak the English language and you have in my post what is theft in English. Don't you speak English as your first language or are you trying to change the meaning of the language all on your own?

Is the theft act of 1968 trying to change the English language all on it's own? The theft act is quite clear about the need to permanently deprive the owner for it to be theft. It isn't worded poorly at all. Why are you people so keen for it to specifically be called theft?

[saltysplash]

Its certainly not section 1 theft under the Theft Act for which firstly you have points to prove.

1. that a person acted dishonestly

2. that there was property belonging to another

3. that property was appropriated

4. the intention was to permanently deprive

 

Any one of those points missing means its not theft.

 

It is however Copyright Infringement under the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988 which can result in Civil Action or Criminal Action if you make copies to sell.

 

Dishonest? certainly

[Paul C]

A service is not an item

 

 

 

 

It isn't splitting hairs. By stealing the service you might not be depriving someone else of the service. For example CMing on a countryside mooring on an empty strip of canal isn't depriving anybody of anything, but taking the mars bar always deprives the owner of the mars bar from having it.

 

 

OK No worries, lets put it a different way - are there any long term moorings CRT offer, possibly in a quiet countryside area with little/no services, which are offered at £0?

 

Or.....consider those with online, towpath-side moorings (ie that offer little/no extra security over any other towpath mooring), not close to services etc, are they paying money for this type of mooring? If so, then it proves that there is a perceived value to some people; and thus an opportunity cost is lost if these types of mooring were not available; or made available for the actual cost, not the value attainable for them.

 

Thus, given that CRT would lose income from this type of "service" being offered, to keep the element of income from boaters the same, it would be a reasonable suggestion that licence fees were increased - including to genuine CCers - would you be happy with this?

 

Similar arguments could also be made for marina network acces agreements and EOG mooring fees.

[Delta9]

 

 

 

OK No worries, lets put it a different way - are there any long term moorings CRT offer, possibly in a quiet countryside area with little/no services, which are offered at £0?

 

Or.....consider those with online, towpath-side moorings (ie that offer little/no extra security over any other towpath mooring), not close to services etc, are they paying money for this type of mooring? If so, then it proves that there is a perceived value to some people; and thus an opportunity cost is lost if these types of mooring were not available; or made available for the actual cost, not the value attainable for them.

 

Thus, given that CRT would lose income from this type of "service" being offered, to keep the element of income from boaters the same, it would be a reasonable suggestion that licence fees were increased - including to genuine CCers - would you be happy with this?

 

Similar arguments could also be made for marina network acces agreements and EOG mooring fees.

None of that makes it the same as stealing a mars bar.

 

The countryside online moorings with no services only have value because of the threat of legal action if you don't move every 14 days or have a home mooring.

 

They don't need to increase the license fees, just spend the money they already get more wisely.

[Guest]

Why are you people so keen for it to specifically be called theft?

I generally find that those who indulge in software and music piracy, even at low levels of acvity want to soften the definition of their crime and therefore don't like to use the word 'theft' or 'thief' as it helps them make themselves feel better about what they perceive to be a 'victimless' crime, and helps them rationalise their 'well they (as in the music and software industries) can afford it' mentality.

 

Whilst it might not meet the strict definition in legal terms FAST consider it theft in order to re-enforce the seriousness of it and I feel comfortable with describing it as theft because if you ever get to court and are convicted the strict definition wont really concern the magistrate or judge (depending on the scale of your illegal activities) when he or she hands out the sentence.

 

Hence why I am keen for it to be called 'theft'.

Edited October 7, 2014 by The Dog House

[mark99]

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

 

Ah Castro - the chap who used to run his own theifdom with the whole Cuban population as slaves. Of course he had no interest in suppressing freedom of expression and free enterprise did he.

 

So far you:

 

1) don't have an issue with taking anothers IP without paying

2) taking stuff out of supermarkets without paying full amount (thread a few weeks back)

 

Is there anything else you want to tell us about? what is not fair game to you?

 

I still think you are a forum wind up.

Edited October 7, 2014 by mark99

[Jerra]

Is the theft act of 1968 trying to change the English language all on it's own? The theft act is quite clear about the need to permanently deprive the owner for it to be theft. It isn't worded poorly at all. Why are you people so keen for it to specifically be called theft?

Having had chance to dig a little deeper on copyright the gov.uk sight says

 

These words appear in the Theft Act 1968 and the meaning given for the purposes of that Act (section 34(2)(a)) is "... 'gain' and 'loss' are to be construed as extending only to gain or loss in money or other property, but as extending to any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent and

(i) 'gain' includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as gain by getting what one has not; and

(ii) 'loss' includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has...". R v Zaman [2002]

 

My bold but it seems the act you refer to includes such things as copyright theft

[Paul C]

 

 

The countryside online moorings with no services only have value because of the threat of legal action if you don't move every 14 days or have a home mooring.

 

 

 

Agree - but now you're also agreeing that a mooring has a value - which was the point I was making.

[mark99]

If ones only income was royalties, that income is used to put diesel a boat and someone nicks the diesel, at what stage does the word thief come into it?