@Xca|iber
By one definition of the word, they would be stealing. They'd be
stealing away GW's customers.
Not, however, in the legal sense.
daedalus wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:
Fact:
Definition of "stealing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
I'm unable to find a definition at any respectable source which indicates that stealing requires someone to not be able to use the item any longer. In fact, numerous definitions at numerous sites seem to support those who call it stealing to copy a codex or other copyrighted work.
I'll see your M-W and raise you an Oxford:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1294092#m_en_us1294092
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
Now, the first half of that I can agree with... if and only if we concur that ideas are property. Without getting into that at this moment, I also argue that there is no possible way to return what was taken, because it's not 'real'. Take what a downloader 'stole' and hold it out for the audience to see. No... that's his hard drive. No, that's a monitor. Okay then, we're done here.
It's also said to not be stealing because the penalties (at least in the music/movie world) are typically not those for stealing, it's those for 'copyright infringement', which, assuming the normal fine of theft is $, comes out to be something more akin to $$$$$!!1. Plus that's done in a civil setting, not always criminal. Sometimes both, but not usually, because for criminal suits, you have some rights. Theft is typically criminal, though I suppose it could be civil too, depending. I'm not a lawyer; I've just been reading up on the topic.
Keep in mind that I'm kind of playing Devil's Advocate here and am, in NO WAY, attempting to express MY feelings on the subject, except to say that anyone stating things as FACTS -on either side- needs to make sure they know what a FACT is, and ensure that their statement qualifies. I'm seeing a LOT of opinions being touted as "fact."
As, it seems, we agree on "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right," I won't bother with this portion, unless is applies to something below.
The rest is, "and without intending to return it."
Now,
IMO, in this digital age, we need to use reason and apply it to laws. The courts would. That's how precedence is created.
So, yes. You are correct. You can't really "return" the download. Can you?
Some have claimed to download codices prior to purchase, so they can know what models they wayt to buy when they buy the hard copy of the dex. I "get" that, and can (again,
IMO) support it as "returning" it, as you're giving
GW the money they'd have gotten from you if you'd bought the item in the first place.
Also, povided no copies are shared, printed or saved elsewhere, I could be persuaded to accept deletion as "returning" the item, provided it's done in a reasonable amount of time (I'm still open on what I might be convinced is "reasonable." Nothing more than 30 days, probably, though).
I disagree that what was taken isn't "real." The pdf copy is real. It exists. It's not a physical, tangible item, but it does have the capability to be made into one. It's as real as a song or picture on your computer.
It's not real in that it isn't a genuine (hard) copy, but it is real in that it is a genuine copy.
Now, something else to consider in regards to, "and without intending to return it" is that the law of the land (in the US, at least) is pretty generous with this (and not in favor of those who are doing the taking). I could put a CD in my pants pocket, walk out of the store and attempt to take it home. If I'm caught and tell them that I was only holding it for a while (for whatever reason), and I intended on returning it in exactly the same condition it was currently in," I doubt there's a judge in the land that's going to give me the benefit of the doubt. There is a point where the law no longer gives you that benefit of the doubt on what you claim to have been your intentions.
So, while I may not be qualified to define when intent to return begins and ends, I do know that people who ARE (legally) qualified to make that decision do not tend to be lenient or generous with it.
If we use your example:
Take what a downloader 'stole' and hold it out for the audience to see. No... that's his hard drive. No, that's a monitor. Okay then, we're done here.
Then many things aren't real. Songs are only real as long as you're hearing them directly from the singer's mouth. Once they're gone, they're not real (even then, you couldn't hold the song up for an audience to *see*). Digital pictures also aren't real. Etc.
I really just cannot accept that as what defines "real" or not.
daedalus wrote:
Now, for the opinion:
People are hypocrites. Many, if not most or all of those here decrying the usage of copied codices would think nothing of jaywalking or speeding in their car. <SNIP>
To those of you who do not break any law, what-so-ever, I say, "Keep on condemning."
Eric
This I completely agree with. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
So, we agreed on the most important part. Excellent. : )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don't really feel that debating what is and is not "right" is a waste of time when -as in here- you have 2 groups of people who can or will not agree on certain base principals. You have to have a foundation for your debate, or you'll run in circles, as is happening here.
There are those who want to use the law of the land as basis for right and wrong. Those who disagree claim it to be a personal choice on right and wrong. Neither of you is wrong, but both are.
Until you can establish a framework, you'll accomplish nothing.
Eric
