Question about piracy as theft

[WaltM]

I tip at restaurants. This is both a non-sequitur and a ad-hominen attack. Few people can pull that off. As for your argument, I am not going to keep talking to a lazy person who instead of thinking prefers to resort to name calling.

I wasn't attacking you, I was asking you a question, are you going to answer my point, that you consented to taxation upon creating income?

 

[WaltM]

No such thing as "ID theft". There is however ID fraud, but fraud and theft are not one in the same. Don't buy into the marketing cool aid

what makes it fraud?

Just because I use another person's ID doesn't mean I am forcing you to believe I am him, since you didn't ask me under oath whether I certify under perjury that that's my own identity.

 

[WaltM]

Well look up allodial title and you'll realize that we do not own our homes or our land. And since we can't have control over our own bodies we don't own our bodies either. We don't own anything come to think of it. Actually if we don't own anything we dont have any rights.

Unless you're being facetious and sarcastic, glad we agree.

 

[Matt Collins]

what makes it fraud?

Just because I use another person's ID doesn't mean I am forcing you to believe I am him, since you didn't ask me under oath whether I certify under perjury that that's my own identity.

It's called deceit or intentional perversion of truth.

 

[WaltM]

It's called deceit or intentional perversion of truth.

how can you say I had the intention of depriving anybody or pervert the truth?

 

[Matt Collins]

Well constitutionally by the US Code, sure it is legal to download... but the judges have another idea. They say now that since a term of use is available somewhere at some time then you should have known better (and are bound by a contract that you neither read nor signed) and can be held liable for copyright infringement just for downloading even a fraction of a file. Although I would go further and dispute the original argument since fair use covers the original copying as long as you own the copy and the upload only is the point of violation.

You cannot be held liable for a contract you never signed, saw, or had access to. Research EULAs

 

[WaltM]

You cannot be held liable for a contract you never signed, saw, or had access to. Research EULAs

then how can you be held liable to laws you never agreed to?

 

[micahnelson]

Intellectual Property is government intervention, and as such must advance the common good while respecting the rights of the individual.

Constitutionally, the purpose of protecting intellectual property was to create a financial incentive for inventors and artists so that culture and science would be advanced.Thus, if intellectual property law stymies culture and science, or deprives the pioneering spirits of their rightful cut, then we can say that the system is flawed and should be reformed.

Intellectual property is now held mostly by entities that have no intellect- corporate entities.
The Sony Bono copyright extensions lock away large swaths of our culture into corporate vaults into perpetuity, even as the descendants of the art, film, and literature greats see little benefits from the work.

Entire companies are formed to create patents on ideas that are meant to lock down an industry, preventing new growth.

The DMCA makes it illegal to make software modifications on hardware that you own, from Car computers to gaming consoles.

When a corporate entity with vast legal resources comes out with a new product, it is locked away for exclusive use. When a private individual with limited legal resources attempts to patent a product, his ideas are quickly stolen- with minor alterations to avoid serious legal threats.

So, like all other aspects in our current government, copyright and patent law are for the benefit of corporate entities at the expense of the individual.

 

[WaltM]

Intellectual Property is government intervention.

no, it's merely extension and application of government for what we already recognize as just (and can be abused)

 

[Matt Collins]

then how can you be held liable to laws you never agreed to?

I never agreed not to murder anyone or to be held accountable if I do. But if I murder someone I will be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which I committed the murder, regardless of whether or not I agree to it; and rightly so.

 

[low preference guy]

I never agreed not to murder anyone or to be held accountable if I do. But if I murder someone I will be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which I committed the murder, regardless of whether or not I agree to it; and rightly so.

yeah, but if WaltM murders someone, he will and should be left alone, because he didn't agree to laws that put him in jail.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

 

[micahnelson]

no, it's merely extension and application of government for what we already recognize as just (and can be abused)

So the government intervening in my duplication of something I can easily copy is not intervention.

Posts like this should carry a bit of script with them, DesireToRespond=DesireToRespond--

 

[jsu718]

You cannot be held liable for a contract you never signed, saw, or had access to. Research EULAs

Research idiot activist judges.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/20...rleader-dinged-27750-for-infringing-37-songs/
Because they existed somewhere in the world you are held responsible for knowing their contents.

 

[Matt Collins]

Research idiot activist judges.
[url]http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/former-teen-cheerleader-dinged-27750-for-infringing-37-songs/[/URL]
Because they existed somewhere in the world you are held responsible for knowing their contents.

Ok... you are confusing several things. Copyright notice is not the same thing as a contract. You are subject to federal copyright law whether you agree to it or not or whether or not there is notice.

 

[jsu718]

Ok... you are confusing several things. Copyright notice is not the same thing as a contract. You are subject to federal copyright law whether you agree to it or not or whether or not there is notice.

Not really... in the software piracy world this works the same way. You are held to the terms of the EULA that the product ships with regardless of whether the version YOU installed ever presented that EULA to you. For instance if someone buys a phone and agrees to the EULA and then sells it to you and all you have to do is update it to your number you are still assumed to have agreed to the EULA without ever having read it. Same thing with the copyright notice. You are held responsible for the knowledge of that copyright notice regardless of if you ever bought the media, read the notice, or even walked past a store that contained it, but you downloaded it or got a copy that had no such notice included.

 

[Matt Collins]

Not really... in the software piracy world this works the same way. You are held to the terms of the EULA that the product ships with regardless of whether the version YOU installed ever presented that EULA to you. For instance if someone buys a phone and agrees to the EULA and then sells it to you and all you have to do is update it to your number you are still assumed to have agreed to the EULA without ever having read it.

I haven't followed current EULA case law, but the key word in EULA is the last one: "AGREEMENT". If you don't agree to it, then you are not subject to it. If you are indeed subject to it however whether or not you agree to it, then it isn't a license, contract, agreement etc.

Again if you are subject to it even if you don't agree to it, then it's not an agreement, contract, license, etc.

Same thing with the copyright notice. You are held responsible for the knowledge of that copyright notice regardless of if you ever bought the media, read the notice, or even walked past a store that contained it, but you downloaded it or got a copy that had no such notice included.

That's because it's not an agreement, it's statutory law which one is subject to whether or not they agree to being subjected to it.

 

[jsu718]

I haven't followed current EULA case law, but the key word in EULA is the last one: "AGREEMENT". If you don't agree to it, then you are not subject to it. If you are indeed subject to it however whether or not you agree to it, then it isn't a license, contract, agreement etc.

Again if you are subject to it even if you don't agree to it, then it's not an agreement, contract, license, etc.

That's because it's not an agreement, it's statutory law which one is subject to whether or not they agree to being subjected to it.

I agree with you in theory... but that isn't how it ends up playing out.

 

[WaltM]

I never agreed not to murder anyone or to be held accountable if I do. But if I murder someone I will be subject to the laws of the jurisdiction in which I committed the murder, regardless of whether or not I agree to it; and rightly so.

so then even though you didn't specifically agree to EULA, or copyright laws, aren't you subject to them anyway?

 

[WaltM]

yeah, but if WaltM murders someone, he will and should be left alone, because he didn't agree to laws that put him in jail.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

laughing? that's the logical extension of "I never agreed to copyright protection so leave me alone" absurdity.

 

[WaltM]

That's because it's not an agreement, it's statutory law which one is subject to whether or not they agree to being subjected to it.

Is it fair to say EULA is an explicit agreement, whereas copyright law, patent law in general are statutory law, which apply to every person in the country, even if it's against his will, without his knowledge?