Re: Oxygen Phone Manager 2 v2.5

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:57:36 +0100, CB, now with a spam-friendly email
address <rincewind@ukgateway.net> wrote:

>Piracy is not theft.

Uh huh.


>Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is.

Uh huh.


>It's _copyright_ theft
^^^^^

It's copyright what?

Theft?

Now, let's revisit your original assertion, shall we?

> Piracy is not theft.

Hmmmmm.....

You, sir, are a moron.

Thanks for playing.

DJ!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Colton wrote:
>> Piracy is not theft. Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is. It's
>> _copyright_ theft, it's not _physical_ theft.
> You might want to re-read what you just typed, copyrite theft and
> physical theft are still theft as you so succinctly pointed out.

- From dictionary.com on the definition of theft: "every part of the
property
stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it
must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. "

In other words, theft is not a correct term unless you remove the software
from its original location making it unavailable to the original owner.
Infringement is a better term it seems ("An encroachment on a patent,
copyright, or other special privilege").

>> To actually STEAL that
>> software a person would have to go break into the copyright holders
>> offices and actually physically STEAL the ORIGINAL code.
> Bull! Again, read what you typed, copyrite theft IS theft, plain and
> simple.

Sorry, not according to the definition of the word. It's morally in the
same camp though obviously.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPxUJWuXlGBWTt1afEQJA8gCg4X2ROP+V0fdG3ZA/70Q9VVOXRJYAoNpn
umDei2Ct8Mifpuuo7jXrC0k/
=KKTV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:02:16 +0100, HRH The Lord Buckley
<see@reply.to.field> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:35:58 +1000 and in article
><o20ahv8fcl5a0b27u7b6ef6e3pqrrnidde@4ax.com>, DJ! said...
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 00:57:36 +0100, CB, now with a spam-friendly email
>> address <rincewind@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Piracy is not theft.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>>
>>
>> >Don't kid yourself into thinking that it is.
>>
>> Uh huh.
>>
>>
>> >It's _copyright_ theft
>> ^^^^^
>>
>> It's copyright what?
>>
>> Theft?
>
>Message-ID: <3f1509e0$1@news.broadpark.no>
>
>Look there. All will become clear to your fuckwitted eyes.

No, my silly little fucktard (seeing you find it so grown-up to swear
et al).

You stated software piracy was _not_ theft.

Then, two sentences later, you state that it is a type of theft and
qualify what sort.

Can't have it both ways, genius. How stupid do you feel, just out of
curiousity?

DJ!

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 13:01:15 +0100, HRH The Lord Buckley, now with the
spam-friendly email address rincewind@ukgateway.net wrote:

>Yes, I did realise this minor error.

Massive foot-shot. Not a minor error.

You know it's theft, all your frantic straw-clutching won't change
reality.


>However, you are implying that
>piracy is 'theft'. It's not.

For the record, YOU stated that it was theft.

You, sir, are a cretin.

Thanks

DJ!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Webmaster wrote:
>> It is not 'theft' as the definition of theft stands. That is what I
>> meant.
> Theft is appropriation of proerty from the owner with the intent to
> permanently deprive. So stealing software which you do not own with no
> intention of ever paying for it is theft.

Check the definition. Theft is defined as removing something from its
original position without permission/removing the rightful owner's ability
to use said item.

In other words, if you steal software off a shelf in a store, that's theft.
If you download it, that's copyright infringement, not theft. Like I said
earlier in this thread, the two are obviously morally linked and "theft" is
probably what most people will think is an appropriate word. But that
doesn't make it correct.


- --
Frode

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBPxZ23eXlGBWTt1afEQKovwCg9czNcjUTFi/YFG4lYcUC36V0j3EAoJGC
J7ziviIqWLok+Ac4L/gRjpXg
=yWEb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:10:46 +0100, Webmaster
<spam@unlockingshop.co.uk> wrote:

>HRH The Lord Buckley reckoned that:
>> It is not 'theft' as the definition of theft stands. That is what I
>> meant.
>
>Theft is appropriation of proerty from the owner with the intent to
>permanently deprive. So stealing software which you do not own with no
>intention of ever paying for it is theft.

Stealing software requires that you to deprive the rightful owner of
his property. Copying software doesn't deprive the owner of it.
Copying software may be illegal, but its not theft.

HRH The Lord Buckley reckoned that:
> You are legally, and technically incorrect.

Ok, but it's still wrong.
--
www.unlockingshop.co.uk
Motorola, Nokia, Sagem remote unlocking
SonyEricsson T610 unlocking/flashing available
Samsung V200 unlocking available

In a blinding flash of insight Frode
<news@mascot.REMOVETOREPLY.dyndns.org> put forth fingers to the
keyboard and produced the following masterpiece of literature:
> Webmaster wrote:
>>> It is not 'theft' as the definition of theft stands. That is what I
>>> meant.
>> Theft is appropriation of proerty from the owner with the intent to
>> permanently deprive. So stealing software which you do not own with
>> no intention of ever paying for it is theft.
>
> Check the definition. Theft is defined as removing something from its
> original position without permission/removing the rightful owner's
> ability to use said item.
>
> In other words, if you steal software off a shelf in a store, that's
> theft. If you download it, that's copyright infringement, not theft.
> Like I said earlier in this thread, the two are obviously morally
> linked and "theft" is probably what most people will think is an
> appropriate word. But that doesn't make it correct.
>
> - --
> Frode


This sounds very much like a post I posted way back... but here you go...

In the UK, theft is defined as "the dishonest appropriation of property
belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the said
other, of the said same item or article..."

Consolidated Theft Act 1969 Sec 10 - IIRC.

THUS, in the UK, software theft IS covered by this legislation and IS
percieved to be a theft in exactly the same way as stealing a can of beans.

Because by the "dishonest appropriation" of the software, you have
"permanently deprived the said other" of the "said same item or article" in
this case, the profits or moneatry gain to be made from it.

Like I explained last time, take a person who 'borrows' your football club
season ticket, then returns in just before the season is over. Whilst the
season ticket book itself has been returned, and thus NOT permanently
deprived, it is the VALUE of the book, in terms of allowing access to a
football match to watch a game, that HAS been permanently deprived from you.

I make absolutely NO claim as to what might be the norm in other countries,
but just re-iterate once again, as I seem to have been ignored from last
time, that in the UK, or to be exact, England, as Scotland have slight
differences, software theft is exactly that, a theft, as stipulated under
the Consolidated Theft Act 1968.

I trust you will stop arguing about it now folks.

And this was aimed at ANYONE following this thread, not specifically just as
a reply to my mate Frode.

--

Shadamehr

************************************************** *******
"Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit materiari?"