Regarding "stealing" an apple as opposed to "stealing" a song:

Well, at least not the same way. Because: If you go into town, and *walk past* the grocery store, then you've also denied the grocer the possibility that you might have paid for an apple...

But you wouldn't call *that* "stealing". (Or would you?!?) So denying someone the _possibility_ that you might have paid him for something is NOT "stealing".

That's right. But with copying music, I have something more than I had before, while the singer still doesn't have my money.

It isn't "stealing" in that I haven't taken anything from the singer.

But it EVERYONE did that and the singer received ZERO revenue because NONE of the CD's were actually sold, would that be "stealing"?

Yeah, well... Where's the contract I signed with Hollywood / Musictown, that gives them the "right" to *expect* me to pay them the over-inflated price of a record / video, on a regular basis?

I haven't signed one, AFAICR. (Have you???) So your argument here is at least as bogus as Gilmor's.

Nor did you sign a contract stating that you would not steal apples from grocery stores. Is the presence of a contract what distinguishes whether it is "theft" or not?

I'd point out where you go wrong in your Disney / Snow White argumentation, too, if it weren't too tedious to reformat your one-short-sentence-per-paragraph style into neat blockquotes to demonstrate your fallacies. (Hmm... Come to think of it -- is *that* the *reason* you write like that?!?)

Yeah. I've heard that before. Strangely, to me, my writing style makes it easier to show where the fallacy is. Simply find the incorrect statement (or one of them if there are many) and quote it and then identify why it is incorrect.

Again, just because Disney made a movie called "Snow White" does not mean that you cannot use the exact same fairy tale to make your own movie called "Snow White". You just can't use Disney's artwork or songs or character names that were not part of the story before Disney did its version.

Don't believe me? "White as Snow" by Tanith Lee.
Yet Disney has NOT dragged her into court over her usage of 7 dwarves.

If you don't like what I'm saying, too bad.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, then state your case.

The way I see it, copying music means that you are gaining the product of the singer's labour WITHOUT compensating him.

Now, tell me that that isn't accurate.
-or-
Tell me that that isn't "stealing".

Because: If you go into town, and *walk past* the grocery store, then you've also denied the grocer the possibility that you might have paid for an apple...

And you have NOT received anything offered for sale.

Nor have you received any product of anyone's labour.

You have nothing more and nothing less than before.

When you copy a song, you have a copy of that song.

You have something more than when you started.

The singer has nothing from you.

That's largely because of your debating style; it is often -- as in this instance -- downright slimy.

Hey, you said I was wrong and you failed to point out what, exactly was wrong.

And I'm supposed to care what YOU think of MY style?

The above text by me, my dear liar-by-implication, was in response to this previous bit from you -- helpfully quoted by me in my previous post:

No. What I pointed out was that the presence or absence of a signed contract is NOT necessary to claim "theft".

You NEVER signed a contract with the grocery store owner.

Now, if you want to make the point that a contract is NECESSARY to determine "theft" in the case of non-physical products, then please feel free to make that claim.

The reason you are not making that claim is that you know good and well that such a claim is easily shown to be false.

Which you now carefully excised, in order to make it look as if it was *I* who brought up contracts ("Someone hires you") and "expectations". When in fact, as can be readily seen from your quote above, it was *you*; and I, OTOH, merely replied on your terms.

No. You are the one that claimed that a contract had not been signed. My point was that signed contracts do not always exist. Nor do explicitly stated verbal contracts always exist.

Again, because I do not have a problem with providing examples of how you're wrong, if you watch "Snow White" on a VCR, have you agreed to NOT "steal" Disney's artwork or songs?

No, you have not.

Can you be prosecuted if you do "steal" their artwork or songs?

Yes, you can be.

Whether you agree with the law or not, the law is the law.

To put this in tech terms, if you don't like the license the code is released under, then WRITE YOUR OWN DAMN CODE.

That's downright fucking despicable, and disqualifies you from any right whatsoever to expect an intellectually honest answer.

Dude, I did not "expect" and "intellectually honest answer" from you the moment I read this from you:

I'd point out where you go wrong in your Disney / Snow White argumentation, too, if it weren't too tedious to reformat your one-short-sentence-per-paragraph style into neat blockquotes to demonstrate your fallacies. (Hmm... Come to think of it -- is *that* the *reason* you write like that?!?)

You stepped into this discussion with a claim that you weren't going to bother to answer me intellectually and now you're claiming that I've lost the right to an intellectual answer from you?

Why should I extend you a courtesy that you obviously don't feel compelled to extend to me?

Cool, it appears that you want to take this discussion off the track of whether copying files is "theft" or not and turn it into a personal attack on my lack of courtesy.

Feel free to do so.

For my part, I will re-state that Disney has not TAKEN anything from the public domain.

For proof, I offer the book "White as Snow" which has every element that the Disney movie "Snow White" does and yet Disney cannot sue Ms. Lee for "stealing" Disney's work.

You've seen at least a movie adaptation of some Shakespeare play, haven't you?

And you didn't compensate him (or his heirs!), either.

That is because Shakespeare's works are now in the public domain. Disney's works are not.

Sure, sure, again -- BUT: The difference that renders your "You're 'stealing' a song, just as if you take an apple from the greengrocer" analogy invalid is this: When you take an apple from the greengrocer, the greengrocer has an apple less than he had before. When you "take" a copy of a song from somewhere, the singer doesn't have anything less than he had before.

That wasn't my example, that was Dan's example. From the original article.

And that was one of my points in DEFINING "theft" and "piracy" and so forth.

Dan seems to be defining it soley in terms of loss of physical property.

Well, not exactly. Because Dan says that if someone is making copies of the CD's and selling them, then that is "piracy".

But that does not TAKE anything from the singer.

Which was where I started de-constructing the process of selling a bootlegged CD to determine at what point it became "piracy".

Since IN BOTH CASES, the singer would NOT RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT, that CANNOT be the determining factor of whether an act is "theft" or "piracy" or whatever.

Accourding to Dan.

Again, when you take physical property that belongs to someone else, that is "stealing". That is a fairly simple concept.

When the property is non-physical, what constitutes "theft" or "stealing" or "piracy" and what is the difference between them?

To use Dan's apparent definitions:
#1. If I will sell you a copy of any CD that I have and charge you $1, that makes me a "pirate".

#2. If I will allow you to copy any CD that I have, free of charge, that is "okay".

The only variants are:
a. Who purchases the media used to store the copy.

b. Who makes the copy.

c. Whether a medium of exchange is exchanged.

Therefore, the requirements for "piracy" MUST be based upon one or more of those factors.

Which factor(s) and why?

My point is that NONE of those factors matter because "theft" is NOT defined in as limited a fashion as Dan describes.

My definition is when an individual gains the product of another individual's labour WITHOUT compensating that individual for that product in a manner desired by the individual.

Now, to put this in even more easily understood terms.....

Albert steals a CD from Bob.

Albert sells the stolen CD to Charlie.

Albert has stolen from Bob, but Charlie did not steal.

Albert is guilty of theft and Charlie is guilty of possession of stolen merchandise.

Now, alter that a bit.

Albert steals a CD from Bob.

Albert then GIVES the stolen CD to Charlie.

Albert is guilty of theft and Charlie is guilty of possession of stolen merchandise.

Note how the absence of payment from Charlie to Albert does NOT affect what they are guilty of.

That is because the "crime" does NOT hinge upon the PAYMENT.

Now, Albert steals a CD from Bob.

Albert makes 5 copies and GIVES them away to Charlie and Dave and Eddie and Frank and George and then Albert burns the original.

The question:
What "crime" are Charlie, Dave, Eddie, Frank and George guilty of?

Are they not guilty of any crime?

Why?