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.

dogma wrote:
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.

In the new york statute, a thief that steals an already stolen item has still committed larceny. It's all about who has slightly more right to something and the law counts the first thief as having a tiny bit more legitimacy. So that argument would not go anywhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dogma, I said I would drop this if you could find me one jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft and you gave me that statute. I can only assume you meant that statute counted piracy as theft.

What else could you possibly have been saying by posting that? Are you just backpedaling now?

Rented Tritium wrote:Let's all argue about the same thing. Biccat, does this statute

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

Count torrenting as larceny?

I don't think so. The statute seems to be limited to "things" (a chose) and doesn't address intellectual property.

But I'll note that the statute also doesn't define "theft," nor equate it with larceny.

Rented Tritium wrote:
In the new york statute, a thief that steals an already stolen item has still committed larceny.

No, that's not necessarily correct.

Rented Tritium wrote:
It's all about who has slightly more right to something and the law counts the first thief as having a tiny bit more legitimacy. So that argument would not go anywhere.

That's not true either. The first thief has no more legitimacy, and I honestly don't know why you're bringing that in. The first thief is guilty of larceny, the second thief might be guilty of larceny if the jurisdiction considers stolen goods as property, which is unlikely.

Property in the legal sphere is not the same property in the colloquial sense.

Rented Tritium wrote:
Dogma, I said I would drop this if you could find me one jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft and you gave me that statute. I can only assume you meant that statute counted piracy as theft.

Ah, so you wanted a statute that said "Piracy is theft." I see your problem, and I'm guessing it is, as I've said, based on the idea that you don't want piracy to be considered theft.

Rented Tritium wrote:
What else could you possibly have been saying by posting that? Are you just backpedaling now?

I'm mostly trying to figure out why you are struggling with this concept.

biccat wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:Let's all argue about the same thing. Biccat, does this statute

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

Count torrenting as larceny?

I don't think so. The statute seems to be limited to "things" (a chose) and doesn't address intellectual property.

But I'll note that the statute also doesn't define "theft," nor equate it with larceny.

Yeah, but for the sake of arguing in good faith, I'm comfortable letting him count larceny as "theft" since they're way more synonymous than piracy/theft.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:
In the new york statute, a thief that steals an already stolen item has still committed larceny.

No, that's not necessarily correct.

Did you read the whole thing? The definition of "owner" pretty clearly covers someone who stole an item previously. There's no argument to be had there.

Rented Tritium wrote:
It's all about who has slightly more right to something and the law counts the first thief as having a tiny bit more legitimacy. So that argument would not go anywhere.

That's not true either. The first thief has no more legitimacy, and I honestly don't know why you're bringing that in. The first thief is guilty of larceny, the second thief might be guilty of larceny if the jurisdiction considers stolen goods as property, which is unlikely.

Property in the legal sphere is not the same property in the colloquial sense.

You're definitely not helping your "piracy=theft" argument by saying this, I hope you realize. And yes, almost every jurisdiction counts stolen property as property for the purposes of theft. If you steal stolen goods from a thief, it is still theft. Why would anyone write a law otherwise?

Rented Tritium wrote:
Dogma, I said I would drop this if you could find me one jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft and you gave me that statute. I can only assume you meant that statute counted piracy as theft.

Ah, so you wanted a statute that said "Piracy is theft."

Yeah, I pretty explicitly asked for a jurisdiction that counted piracy as theft. How did you think I was asking for anything else?

I see your problem, and I'm guessing it is, as I've said, based on the idea that you don't want piracy to be considered theft.

aaaand again, you ascribe positions to me that I never expressed. Weak strawman.

Rented Tritium wrote:
What else could you possibly have been saying by posting that? Are you just backpedaling now?

I'm mostly trying to figure out why you are struggling with this concept.

And I'm trying to figure out why you're struggling with it.