Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Rented Tritium wrote:Well, it's not theft.

The rest of this is true, though. It deflates the equilibrium price by artificially satisfying demand in advance of the release. It's still a problem, but it's not theft, it's piracy.

There's a reason we have different words. They mean different things.

I'll grant that it's not larceny or robbery, but it is still theft.

Well, yes. It's their content and if they don't want to people in Australia to see it, I have no problem with that.

And if they deny people in Austrailia or any other location access to their content. Things they want to see/play/listen to/read, whatever. Just flat out make it impossible to aquire by any legal means then what's the issue? By denying access to the content the company has essentially told citizens of those areas that they don't want their money. There is no legal means to aquire their product. So again I ask, what's the issue if someone in Austrailia pirates it? There's no lost sale, the company is absolutely NOT selling this content and therefore can't claim they've lost money because they gave citizens of those locations no method to legally buy their product.

Not necessarily. It means there's a market not being served at a price they demand. If you're not willing to pay what the content provider demands then you aren't entitled to it. Of course, you can always complain about the lack of service, but it's not an excuse for piracy.

I don't argue that you are entitled to a product if you aren't willing to pay the price they demand. That's not the situation, they aren't demanding a price at all. They simply aren't selling it period. So it doesn't really make any sense to me to bitch about piracy in this situation since there's no legal method to aquire the product. This is a case of the industry's head being firmly up it's ass. If people aren't willing to buy your product at the price you are demanding the solution isn't to just not sell it to spite them, it's to find out the price they are willing to pay.

Because it's theft. And it distorts the market in the area, making it less likely that later producers will release products in the market in the future.

You can't distort a market that doesn't exist. They aren't selling their product, that's the root cause that's distorting the market. Until the product is sold there they can't bitch about what happens. They are leaving their customers with no other recourse but piracy. You can claim piracy is screwing up the market as soon as you give the customers an actual option to buy the product in the first place.

Adobe appear to be going down a subscription route, which could help to cut piracy. Obviously it won't stop everyone, but it could make the legal option more viable for one man bands.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Well, it's not theft.

The rest of this is true, though. It deflates the equilibrium price by artificially satisfying demand in advance of the release. It's still a problem, but it's not theft, it's piracy.

There's a reason we have different words. They mean different things.

I'll grant that it's not larceny or robbery, but it is still theft.

No it's not. Theft has a definition and piracy doesn't meet it. Theft and larceny are synonyms.

I don't understand why it's so important to call it theft. Piracy is bad and wrong. Are you afraid the word piracy isn't wrong enough?

It's basic supply and demand meets human nature. I'm willing to pay for this, so there's a demand. They aren't willing to give it to me, or at least not until they feel like it. In this day and age it's like shagging a tiger and being surprised when it mauls you. Living in australia we get things months, if not years later than you do in north america. When I can legally order it online, have it shipped to me on amazon, and not only am I watching the movie before it comes out in theatres here, but it's actually cheaper, what do you think people are going to do? Hmm? And that's the people who can be bothered.
Why not just go online, download it and enjoy it in the comfort of your own home, without all the hassle? These companies obviously don't want my money. It's human nature to do this. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it predictable and expected. And they act so surprised when it does. I would absolutely LOVE to watch things on tv when they come out. Except I'm hearing all these things about these shows I've never even heard of... so I check it out. And it's good! So now I'm left with a choice. Do I wait 6 months, or a year, or more to see it on TV here (where you're paying more for a basic cable package than you are for the full thing) or do I download it in it's full HDTV glory 2 hours after it's aired in the states?
But having looked into the Megaupload thing a little, I'm not sure which crime is padding out which. And it's going to cause so much damage to the american economy it's not funny. I'm reading all over the place of companies pulling out of their american holdings because it's too risky. If your company can be shut down by the US because they don't like you and you have, what was it, 2 servers in virginia? Why take the risk? And it's not going to do anything. It's a file sharing site. Not a pirate site like so many people say. Difference? They police it the best they can to make sure there's no copyright infringement. They get a report, they pull the file and all files like it. But instead of going after somebody like the Piratebay (hint: look at the name) who's entire site is dedicated to piracy, they go after Megaupload. Rapidshare, Fileserve, and all the others are going to pick up the slack, and in a week no one's going to notice. Except for those poor bastards who paid, and the people who used it legitimately. Which is a fairly decent amount.
Did it get used for piracy? Of course it did. You'd have to be a naive idiot to think otherwise. Was it the primary reason for the site being up? Arguable. I know enough people who paid for their service who think that there's few crimes greater than piracy.
I wonder if I can get paypal to refund me the amount I just paid for a year's subscription? I still had 340 days left

@Tyyr: You and I just disagree on a fundamental issue regarding the legitimacy of copyright control and access. I'm going to leave it there.

Rented Tritium wrote:No it's not. Theft has a definition and piracy doesn't meet it. Theft and larceny are synonyms.

No, they're not. Theft includes, but is not limited to, larceny, robbery, embezzlement, false pretenses, and larceny by trick.

Theft is the taking of the property of another. It is depriving the person of their right to exclusive use of their property. Piracy is theft because it deprives the owner the exclusive control over copying.

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't understand why it's so important to call it theft. Piracy is bad and wrong. Are you afraid the word piracy isn't wrong enough?

I don't know why you're disputing that it is theft.

CoI wrote:I wonder if I can get paypal to refund me the amount I just paid for a year's subscription? I still had 340 days left

Not sure about Australia, but here in the United States you could just dispute the charges with your credit card.

biccat wrote:@Tyyr: You and I just disagree on a fundamental issue regarding the legitimacy of copyright control and access. I'm going to leave it there.

Rented Tritium wrote:No it's not. Theft has a definition and piracy doesn't meet it. Theft and larceny are synonyms.

No, they're not. Theft includes, but is not limited to, larceny, robbery, embezzlement, false pretenses, and larceny by trick.

Theft is the taking of the property of another. It is depriving the person of their right to exclusive use of their property. Piracy is theft because it deprives the owner the exclusive control over copying.

By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Murder is theft because it deprives the owner of exclusive control over life.

Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

Rented Tritium wrote:I don't understand why it's so important to call it theft. Piracy is bad and wrong. Are you afraid the word piracy isn't wrong enough?

I don't know why you're disputing that it is theft.

Because it isn't theft, it's piracy.

It's a war of words and perception. When you conflate the two, it makes you look intellectually dishonest and it makes it look like you're covering for a lack of credibility on piracy being bad in the first place. Making such a blatantly dishonest argument so frequently does serious damage to the anti-piracy cause. Please stop doing it. The pro-piracy crowd is very strong against anyone who looks like the man, and using doublespeak to turn one crime into a different one makes you look like that.

biccat wrote:
Theft is the taking of the property of another. It is depriving the person of their right to exclusive use of their property. Piracy is theft because it deprives the owner the exclusive control over copying.

It varies by state. For example, in Illinois piracy is not theft because it does not permanently deprive the owner of the ability to use the item in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

Its complicated, and deals specifically with how theft is defined in a given jurisdiction.

You and I just disagree on a fundamental issue regarding the legitimacy of copyright control and access. I'm going to leave it there.

Not really. I think that people who create content deserve compensation. I think you should be able to control what you create. I also think that the companies that are bitching about piracy right now are clinging to a business model that is dead and instead of changing to meet the times they are doing their level best to wage war on their own customer base. It's idiotic.

I guess if I had a central feeling its that while I completely support the ability of copyright holders to have those copyrights and benefit from their work the way the entertainment industry is pissing in the wind right now makes it hard to feel bad for them. They're taking their work and burning it out of spite rather than finding ways to profit from the way the world has changed.

Dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

Its complicated, and deals specifically with how theft is defined in a given jurisdiction.

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

Rented Tritium wrote:Murder is theft because it deprives the owner of exclusive control over life.

Nope, life isn't property. Therefore murder isn't theft.

Rented Tritium wrote:Meanwhile back over here in the real world, we use this great word "piracy" to describe the crime we're discussing now and we don't feel the need to conflate terms to make something sound worse.

I don't use the word "theft" to inflate the severity of piracy, I use the word "theft" because it's an accurate term.

Rented Tritium wrote:Because it isn't theft, it's piracy.

It's a war of words and perception. When you conflate the two, it makes you look intellectually dishonest and it makes it look like you're covering for a lack of credibility on piracy being bad in the first place. Making such a blatantly dishonest argument so frequently does serious damage to the anti-piracy cause. Please stop doing it. The pro-piracy crowd is very strong against anyone who looks like the man, and using doublespeak to turn one crime into a different one makes you look like that.

I'm not engaging in "a war of words and perception." I'm describing the actual legal implications of copyright infringement. It really is theft. It's also piracy.

Taking someone's wallet really is larceny. It might also be robbery. It is also theft.

You appear to be using the term piracy because it sounds less severe (although really, the association is much worse, historically speaking) than theft. Are you trying to define down the severity of piracy?

edit:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll drop this point and move on if you can find me a single jurisdiction on the entire planet that counts piracy as "theft" in a legal sense.

Just for fun, SOPA section 103: "An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if..."

New York.

dogma wrote:New York.

I think you maybe don't know how to interpret law, because piracy does not fall under that law.

Rented Tritium wrote:
I think you maybe don't know how to interpret law, because piracy does not fall under that law.

Under that law copies of certain pieces of data would be considered individual items of which people are permanently deprived in much the same way that I can be deprived of my copy of a particular book.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
I think you maybe don't know how to interpret law, because piracy does not fall under that law.

Under that law copies of certain pieces of data would be considered individual items of which people are permanently deprived in much the same way that I can be deprived of my copy of a particular book.

That's simply not what that statute says. I would cite passages to establish this, but since I have no earthly idea how you got that out of this, I'm having trouble with it. Why don't you post the part that you think says that and we'll go from there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

edit:

Rented Tritium wrote:I'll drop this point and move on if you can find me a single jurisdiction on the entire planet that counts piracy as "theft" in a legal sense.

Just for fun, SOPA section 103: "An ‘Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property’ if..."

SOPA isn't law. If it became law, it would be the first time it was defined that way outside of anti-piracy propaganda. Why would SOPA bother saying this if it was already law?

Rented Tritium wrote:
That's simply not what that statute says. I would cite passages to establish this, but since I have no earthly idea how you got that out of this, I'm having trouble with it. Why don't you post the part that you think says that and we'll go from there.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

1. "Property" means any money, personal property, real property,
computer data, computer program, thing in action, evidence of debt or
contract, or any article, substance or thing of value, including any
gas, steam, water or electricity, which is provided for a charge or
compensation.

2. "Obtain" includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a
transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest
therein, whether to the obtainer or another.

Rented Tritium wrote:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Mind if I ask your experience in dealing with IP theft/piracy? In my experience the term "theft" is widely used in the legal intellectual property industry to describe misappropriation of copyright, trade secret, and patent rights.

Admittedly, usually when you're trying to be inflamatory towards opposing counsel. But "piracy" wouldn't be any less inflamatory.

Rented Tritium wrote:
No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Yes, but in many places they're considered similar.

This a case in which you can be making one of two arguments:

1: Piracy is not theft.

2: Piracy should not be considered theft.

I suspect you're making argument 2.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
That's simply not what that statute says. I would cite passages to establish this, but since I have no earthly idea how you got that out of this, I'm having trouble with it. Why don't you post the part that you think says that and we'll go from there.

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to
deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to
a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property
from an owner thereof.

1. "Property" means any money, personal property, real property,
computer data, computer program, thing in action, evidence of debt or
contract, or any article, substance or thing of value, including any
gas, steam, water or electricity, which is provided for a charge or
compensation.

2. "Obtain" includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a
transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest
therein, whether to the obtainer or another.

Ah, I see how you got there.

Yeah, so if I take your music files without your permission, I have committed theft. This is because you, being the license holder for the music, have a greater claim over them then I do under the definition of "owner" in that law.

What this means is that if I am on the computers of the music publisher and I take the songs, that's theft. If I'm on the computer of someone who bought a digital copy and I take that, it is theft.

however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program. Because it's freely given, even though that person isn't supposed to have it, it's not theft. It doesn't meet the definition here. The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing. Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

Notice that the right to create and distribute copies is not listed under "property" in that statute. That's because the right to create and distribute copies is already protected under copyright infringement statutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Yes, but in many places they're considered similar.

This a case in which you can be making one of two arguments:

1: Piracy is not theft.

2: Piracy should not be considered theft.

I suspect you're making argument 2.

Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:By your logic, 99% of all crimes are "theft" because you can boil them down to something that fits in here.

Hey, it's not my definition, it's the legal community's definition.

No it really isn't. Like, at all. There is a reason we use two different words.

Mind if I ask your experience in dealing with IP theft/piracy? In my experience the term "theft" is widely used in the legal intellectual property industry to describe misappropriation of copyright, trade secret, and patent rights.

Admittedly, usually when you're trying to be inflamatory towards opposing counsel. But "piracy" wouldn't be any less inflamatory.

I don't have direct experience in IP, but I have a lot of experience reading statute because I've been hanging out and working in law enforcement support since I was a little kid. The terms are widely conflated, but it's widely incorrect. The piracy=theft message is a talking point the recording industry came up with a couple decades ago and doesn't have a grounding in law. It's quite effectively used to sway juries, but it's not actually a real thing.

Copyright infringement is what it's going to be called in most places. The reason they avoid "piracy" in law is so it won't be confused with laws against stealing boats on waterways (which are all still on the books and totally awesome to read).

Now, I'll be honest, I wouldn't be shocked if someone found some state where the law was written to be called 'copyright theft' or something similar, but that would be a purely symbolic choice, as the definitions are wildly different. Remember that in one, the person doing the GIVING is the perp and in the other the person doing the TAKING is the perp. That difference alone is HUGE in terms of classification.

You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Frazzled wrote:You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Rented Tritium wrote:
however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program. Because it's freely given, even though that person isn't supposed to have it, it's not theft. It doesn't meet the definition here. The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing. Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

That's not correct either. Generally trafficking and the possession of stolen property are classified as theft.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

Unless the jurisdiction in question considers them the same.

Again, you seem to be making an argument from "ought" not "is".

Rented Tritium wrote:
Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

You don't know many lawyers, do you?

But no, I'm not an IP attorney, I'm a political consultant.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Biccat.

where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Are you kidding? That's EXACTLY what I'd expect a lawyer to do.

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program. Because it's freely given, even though that person isn't supposed to have it, it's not theft. It doesn't meet the definition here. The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing. Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

That's not correct either. Generally trafficking and the possession of stolen property are classified as theft.

Moving the goalposts. We're talking about the new york law and what you say it says. I don't see anything in that law about trafficking.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

Unless the jurisdiction in question considers them the same.

And none of them do. Remember I asked for an example showing that they are the same and you brought me a new york statute that doesn't say what you think it says. Now you are trying to change the subject and not argue about new york statutes anymore. Which is it? Demonstrate your thesis, please.

Again, you seem to be making an argument from "ought" not "is".

Well I'm not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

You don't know many lawyers, do you?

I know about a half dozen lawyers. Now that I see you trying to redirect the discussion though, I'm starting to think maybe it is you. Though you're doing it pretty inexpertly, so maybe not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You know you're arguing with an IP attorney right RT?

Which one? Biccat I can see, since he's arguing in a more linguistic context, where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Biccat.

Yeah. See he's not arguing that the new york larceny statute covers piracy. That's how you can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:

where Dogma is arguing that laws say things that they really don't say, which is something I don't expect from a real lawyer.

Are you kidding? That's EXACTLY what I'd expect a lawyer to do.

Except when a real lawyer does it, forums poster rented tritium should not be able to blow holes in the argument.

Rented Tritium wrote:however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program.

The "rights holder" isn't involved in the torrent. The rights are held by the copyright owner.

Rented Tritium wrote:The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing.

It is infringement "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords." (note that there are exceptions for computer use that requires copying as part of the software operation)

I'm not aware of any cases where judges had a problem with this. Can you provide some examples?

Rented Tritium wrote:Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

The violation isn't of the downloader/uploader, it's of the owner of the copyright.

Rented Tritium wrote:Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

I'm not aware of anyone who knows the difference between Robbery and Burglary that would conflate the two.

All this talk of pirates makes me want a shot of grog. Who am I kidding, I don't need pirates to want a shot of grog.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Moving the goalposts. We're talking about the new york law and what you say it says. I don't see anything in that law about trafficking.

Theft is a category of offenses under New York law, larceny is a specific kind of theft.

I'm not moving the goalposts (Believe, if I were, it would be much more artful.) so much as explaining to you how to interpret a penal code.

Rented Tritium wrote:
And none of them do. Remember I asked for an example showing that they are the same and you brought me a new york statute that doesn't say what you think it says.

It says exactly what I think it says.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Now you are trying to change the subject and not argue about new york statutes anymore. Which is it? Demonstrate your thesis, please.

I didn't change the subject, you did when you brought up burglary and robbery. Obviously two different things may be considered to be different, that's nice, but it isn't relevant. If the law says two different things are the same, then for the purposes of the law it is true.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Well I'm not.

I honestly don't think you know what you're arguing.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:however, that's not actually what happens when people pirate music. When people pirate music, the rights holder freely gives the file to the person who does not have rights to it via a torrenting program.

The "rights holder" isn't involved in the torrent. The rights are held by the copyright owner.

I'm arguing with him about what he says the new york statute means. he's claiming that new york statute counts piracy as theft. That statute counts someone with limited rights as the "owner" for the purposes of theft so long as they have more claim than the person doing the stealing. So if I apply piracy to the law he cited, the person who bought the CD counts as "owner" for that crime.

Rented Tritium wrote:The crime in piracy is on the part of the person doing the sharing, not the person getting the file (though with torrenting, everyone involved is actually both, that's part of what confuses a lot of judges), where with theft the crime is on the part of the person taking the thing.

It is infringement "to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords." (note that there are exceptions for computer use that requires copying as part of the software operation)

I don't disagree with this. But again, I'm arguing about new york statute in the post you quoted, which doesn't talk about those things at all.

I'm not aware of any cases where judges had a problem with this. Can you provide some examples?

Nope. I agree. That should count as infringement. It doesn't really conflict with what I'm saying to dogma.

Rented Tritium wrote:Since the person doing the downloading from a torrent is doing so with the permission of the person doing the uploading, it is not theft.

The violation isn't of the downloader/uploader, it's of the owner of the copyright.

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that in theft, the person who is being charged is the person who took the item, where in copyright infringement, the person who is being charged is the person who distributed the item. The victim is the person stolen directly from in the new york larceny statute and the music studio in the second scenario. No real argument. I guess I wasn't clear enough.

Rented Tritium wrote:Robbery and burglary are similar in many places, but "robbery is burglary" is still wrong.

I'm not aware of anyone who knows the difference between Robbery and Burglary that would conflate the two.

It's an analogy. Dogma said that piracy and theft were similar, so they could be used interchangeably. I used robbery and burglary as an example of the fallacy involved in that logic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
Moving the goalposts. We're talking about the new york law and what you say it says. I don't see anything in that law about trafficking.

Theft is a category of offenses under New York law, larceny is a specific kind of theft.

I'm not moving the goalposts (Believe, if I were, it would be much more artful.) so much as explaining to you how to interpret a penal code.

If you think the statute you posted counts torrenting as larceny, believe me, you don't know how to interpret penal code.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's all argue about the same thing. Biccat, does this statute

http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article155.htm

Count torrenting as larceny?

Rented Tritium wrote:
It's an analogy. Dogma said that piracy and theft were similar, so they could be used interchangeably. I used robbery and burglary as an example of the fallacy involved in that logic.

Another example of an argument from "ought".

I said that piracy and larceny are considered to be similar in certain jurisdictions, not that they should be.

You're confusing what can be made true by statute, and what is true, or should be true, by argument.

Rented Tritium wrote:
If you think the statute you posted counts torrenting as larceny, believe me, you don't know how to interpret penal code.

That isn't what I said. Though the argument could be made as no one involved in torrenting an unauthorized file is the rights holder, as biccat noted.