In the US, you can end up in criminal court for activities related to
infringement, but not for the infringement itself. The terms of the
DMCA, for instance, can land you in criminal court for certain types of
circumvention of so-called "security" measures that were deemed at the
time (by a bunch of technically deficient legislators) to be indivisible
from copyright infringement.
It's getting pretty thick on Capitol Hill.
···
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:09:26AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
Tanner Burson wrote:
>On 3/22/07, Kyle Schmitt <kyleaschmitt@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Really? What type of crime is it. Completely off topic, but it's
>>interesting.
>
>
>The same kind of crime it is in the United States I imagine, civil
>copyright
>infringement. This is getting way OT, but google for essays by Lawrence
>Lessig for a lot more information on the differences between theft and
>copyright infringement.
No, it can land you in a criminal court, additional to the civil branch
of the justice system.
(Yes, our RIAA and MPAA equivalents have gone crazy, too)
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."
OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for something.
Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
original intent of the post?
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:07:59AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
Kyle Schmitt wrote:
Really? What type of crime is it. Completely off topic, but it's interesting.
Actually, it's theft, too, just not in the shoplifting-sense.
The fact that it's illegal does not make it "theft".
The law handles it similar to a theft, over here. And it is a *kind* of theft in any case (loss of revenue, for example, and I know stuff like that doesn't translate into automatic loss of revenue!).
Still, I placed the IANAL, disclaimer, and I'm expressing difficult stuff in layman's terms, from a layman's perspective to boot.
Rubyforge, RAA, and Ruby-doc.org are great resources, but
there doesn't seem to be anything as comprehensive as search.cpan.org.
Is there anything out there like that for Ruby? I.e., a search engine
for ruby itself, gems, etc. with Rdocs and source code?
I've been using http://rubykitchensink.ca/ recently. I don't know
anything about how sweet perl is, but I've been unearthing good stuff
quickly using the kitchen sink.
OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for something.
Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
original intent of the post?
Because programmers thrive on exact language, and exact meanings of terms, maybe? ESR has written some interesting stuff about that.
···
--
Phillip "CynicalRyan" Gawlowski
Rule of Open-Source Programming #7:
Release early, release often. Clean compilation is optional.
OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for something.
Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
Do we let people get away with mixing up Ruby with Rails? Static with strict typing? Relational databases with SQL? Just because a mistake is commonly made doesn't make it any less a mistake.
He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
original intent of the post?
My take is that the disapproval was taken as read, and didn't need any further embellishment. Besides, the nuances of international copyright law are far more interesting than a crude breach of community etiquette
IANAL, but I believe that is not the case, at least on a Federal level:
Prior to 1997, it was illegal to crime to commit copyright infringement for commercial or financial gain. The 1997 No Electronic Theft Act makes it illegal to willfully infringe a copyright (over a fairly minimal threshold) _without_ commercial advantage or financial gain. Possible penalties include fines and jail time.
I think the problem is that by using the term "theft" you're assuming
not only an inaccurate premise, but also an ethical premise that many
people aren't prepared to stipulate. It's like calling a nice juicy
steak "murder"; many people who like juicy steaks would argue with that.
I, for one dispute the notion that there's anything ethically sacred
about copyright law. Copyright is, by definition and according to the
letters of some of the men who provided for it in the US Constitution, a
temporary monopoly granted and enforced by governmental fiat, not a
natural right. That's why copyright is infringed, not violated or
stolen.
I still wouldn't go around passing out illegal copies of books, of
course. There are other reasons to avoid such behaviors than the
strictly ethical, such as professional integrity, et alii.
···
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:18:40AM +0900, Kyle Schmitt wrote:
OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for
something.
Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
original intent of the post?
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The ability to quote is a serviceable
substitute for wit." - W. Somerset Maugham
Chad Perrin wrote:
>>Kyle Schmitt wrote:
>>>Really? What type of crime is it. Completely off topic, but it's
>>>interesting.
>>Actually, it's theft, too, just not in the shoplifting-sense.
>
>The fact that it's illegal does not make it "theft".
>
The law handles it similar to a theft, over here. And it is a *kind* of
theft in any case (loss of revenue, for example, and I know stuff like
that doesn't translate into automatic loss of revenue!).
This is where my objection to the notion starts to stray into the area
of economic policy and larger political issues.
Assuming someone has a right to revenues, or at least a right to deny
revenues to others due to some kind of creative imprimatur, combines
aspects of fascism and socialism (both of which I find particularly
odious). I'm more of a free market capitalist -- you don't have a right
to a revenue stream. You only have a right to pursue revenue. If you
fail to get it, the fact you have a crappy business model is not *my*
fault.
Still, I placed the IANAL, disclaimer, and I'm expressing difficult
stuff in layman's terms, from a layman's perspective to boot.
IANAL, either. So it goes.
···
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:30:19AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
>On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 02:07:59AM +0900, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"There comes a time in the history of any project when it becomes necessary
to shoot the engineers and begin production." - MacUser, November 1990
C'mon Kyle, how do you read his intent out of the post, or that he
knew full well that it was illegal.
I for one gave, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It' pretty
clear that English is not his native language, and even if it is,
there's nothing in the post where he said that he wanted it for free.
Now if he'd started out saying that he couldn't find it on warez, that
would be a horse of another color.
···
On 3/22/07, Kyle Schmitt <kyleaschmitt@gmail.com> wrote:
OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for something.
Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
original intent of the post?
Nah. It's a bikeshed to the nuclear power plant of intellectual
property discussions in general.
-austin
···
On 3/22/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
Kyle Schmitt wrote:
> OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for
> something.
>
> Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
>
> He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
> Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
> original intent of the post?
Because programmers thrive on exact language, and exact meanings of
terms, maybe? ESR has written some interesting stuff about that.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:40:26AM +0900, Alex Young wrote:
My take is that the disapproval was taken as read, and didn't need any
further embellishment. Besides, the nuances of international copyright
law are far more interesting than a crude breach of community etiquette
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The first rule of magic is simple. Don't waste your time waving your
hands and hopping when a rock or a club will do." - McCloctnick the Lucid
Alas, I don't have time to read that right now. I'll get to it later.
For now, I'll just stipulate that your statement is correct as
presented, and say "Wow, I wasn't aware of that bit. Thank you for the
information."
···
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:27:04AM +0900, Faisal N Jawdat wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
>In the US, you can end up in criminal court for activities related
>to infringement, but not for the infringement itself.
IANAL, but I believe that is not the case, at least on a Federal level:
Prior to 1997, it was illegal to crime to commit copyright
infringement for commercial or financial gain. The 1997 No
Electronic Theft Act makes it illegal to willfully infringe a
copyright (over a fairly minimal threshold) _without_ commercial
advantage or financial gain. Possible penalties include fines and
jail time.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
My 2 cents:
I bought Agile Web Development, even though I could have downloaded it
for free.
Dave put a lot of hours writting that book and he deserves to be paid
for it. (BTW, great job, Dave!) Pragmatic Bookshelf guys put a lot of
hours publishing it and they deserve to be paid for it too. BTW, no,
I'm not related to PB or Dave in any way.
This whole conversation sounds a bit unrealistic to me. Forget the
whole 'is it theft', 'the law says blahblah', etc.
You go to a cab stop, and say 'I want you to take me to the airport,
but don't feel it's fair for you to charge me'. See what happens.
You go to a cafe and say 'I'll have a coffee but since coffee grows
from the Earth, and we ALL humans are entitled to a part of it, I
won't pay you.' See what happens.
You go to Barnes and Noble and say 'I'll take this book, but since the
ideas contained thereof are not truly ownable by anybody, I won't pay
for it.' See what happens.
How is Dave's book different? Please people, let's forget the 'is it
legal', 'is it moral'... is it logical to rationalize downloading
books and not paying for them? (Please don't answer me. I know where I
stand, I know where you stand, and don't want to be bothered arguing
about this)
If you don't want to pay for your own copy, get it from your library!
You already paid for it through your taxes!
JB.
···
On 3/23/07, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/22/07, Kyle Schmitt <kyleaschmitt@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for something.
>
> Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
>
> He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
> Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
> original intent of the post?
C'mon Kyle, how do you read his intent out of the post, or that he
knew full well that it was illegal.
I for one gave, and give him the benefit of the doubt. It' pretty
clear that English is not his native language, and even if it is,
there's nothing in the post where he said that he wanted it for free.
Now if he'd started out saying that he couldn't find it on warez, that
would be a horse of another color.
I still wouldn't go around passing out illegal copies of books, of
course. There are other reasons to avoid such behaviors than the
strictly ethical, such as professional integrity, et alii.
Wow! So having professionl integrity trumps ethical questions? However
you want
to "name" the "act" it is wrong and shouldn't be condoned but
confronted.
Robert
···
On Mar 23, 1:54 am, Chad Perrin <per...@apotheon.com> wrote:
Sorry to spam the list, but I seem to be having trouble getting emails
through. I'm testing to see whether I can reply.
I've already tried the help address, so don't bother telling me I should
have emailed that address for "help". It isn't working for me either.
···
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Leon Festinger: "A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts and figures and he
questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point."
Since I have an (admittedly non-mainstream) interpretation of the ethics
of "intellectual property" (note scare-quotes) that is decidedly not on
the side of counting it as "theft", I find that simply distinguishing
between theft and copyright infringement is the best compromise I can
generally come up with between ignoring the subject because it's
off-topic and refusing to let a bit of FUD go unchallenged. I don't
like to let such FUD go unchallenged, of course, because unchallenged it
becomes a meme, and propagates. Not my idea of fun.
···
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 03:36:35AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 3/22/07, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Kyle Schmitt wrote:
>> OK guys, stop jumping down my throat for using the common term for
>> something.
>>
>> Legally is it theft? Maybe not, but commonly it is referred to as such.
>>
>> He did ask for something illicit, knowing full well it was illegal.
>> Why was the use of one word in a response diverting all focus from the
>> original intent of the post?
>Because programmers thrive on exact language, and exact meanings of
>terms, maybe? ESR has written some interesting stuff about that.
Nah. It's a bikeshed to the nuclear power plant of intellectual
property discussions in general.
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"Real ugliness is not harsh-looking syntax, but having to
build programs out of the wrong concepts." - Paul Graham
Yep, this was one of the scarier points. Making DRM illegal to circumvent, stepping on the Fair Use doctrine, but not doing it clearly. This was used to jail a Russian who allegedly broke Adobe's eBook DRM scheme.
···
On Mar 23, 2007, at 3:05 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 08:27:04AM +0900, Faisal N Jawdat wrote:
On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:42 PM, Chad Perrin wrote:
In the US, you can end up in criminal court for activities related
to infringement, but not for the infringement itself.
IANAL, but I believe that is not the case, at least on a Federal level:
Prior to 1997, it was illegal to crime to commit copyright
infringement for commercial or financial gain. The 1997 No
Electronic Theft Act makes it illegal to willfully infringe a
copyright (over a fairly minimal threshold) _without_ commercial
advantage or financial gain. Possible penalties include fines and
jail time.
Alas, I don't have time to read that right now. I'll get to it later.
For now, I'll just stipulate that your statement is correct as
presented, and say "Wow, I wasn't aware of that bit. Thank you for the
information."
--
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of
others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any
Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."
