Brandhi, d'you know why so many people so often get so...

...pissed off with you?

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

Here's an example:

[Quoting me:]
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?

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:

Suppose you go into business for yourself. As a contractor. Someone hires you to perform a task. Then that person refuses to pay you for the work.

If that isn't "stealing", is there another term that we can use to refer to the act of "services received in expectation of payment when payment is refused"?

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.

That's downright fucking despicable, and disqualifies you from any right whatsoever to expect an intellectually honest answer. Why should I extend you a courtesy that you obviously don't feel compelled to extend to me?

i. e, in short, this time you've pissed off *me*, too.

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.

Sounds fine, in theory... But in practice, you're wrong again.

Where you go wrong is, in the "Simply [...] quote it" bit: I can "quote it" VERY simply, just by selecting "Split Block" and clicking "Quote" -- with every sensible post, where a paragraph is (like the GRR intended) a coherent unit of logically related sentences, *without* any extraneous line breaks in between, that gives me a beautifully ready-formatted reply with each paragraph quoted as one (simple, logical, and coherent) block of text.

With your dribble-a-sentence-every-other-line approach, what I get is littered with superfluous occurrences of:

[...end of one sentence]</blockquote>

<blockquote type="cite"></blockquote>

<blockquote type="cite">[start of next sentence...]

It's tedious as hell to edit.

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

I would, if you had *earned the respect* required for being treated so.

Instead, you've done your best to destroy what credibility you've had with me.

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

Sure. So what?

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.

[Quoting me again:]
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.

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'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?

Welcome to IWETHEY!