HITNRUNXX wrote:
mikkel wrote:
What? Being tangible literally means being real, and not imaginary. Something able to be shown or handled. You can demonstrate a cut lawn. You can demonstrate a haircut. You can demonstrate a fixed transmission. Effort went into making it the way that it is.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
I am responding to the post as a whole... To you specifically, I was stating that there is a LEGAL difference between "Stealing" and "Unauthorized Use" but that they are both still illegal, and they both equate to the same thing.
No, you specifically compared copyright infringement with the theft of a car. Those most certainly do not equate to the same thing. One is the unlawful appropriation of a tangible asset that the owner is deprived of, while the other removes nothing tangible from the owner. You can argue about potential loss of profit, violation of control, and any other consequence of copyright infringement, but you can't lump it in the same category as general theft. It's neither legally or ethically identical, and that's why it's handled differently, both legally and ethically.
Read up a little more... I was comparing unauthorized use:
HITNRUNXX wrote:
Piracy is by definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy wrote:
the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
It is not technically stealing, but it is in every ethical way...
Exactly like if I loan you my car, and say I need it back in an hour, and you keep it for 6 months and refuse to give it back to me. You did not STEAL my car, and you can not be charged with STEALING my car... You would be charged with Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle...
But come on... You stole my car.
YOU replied to my post... Not the other way around... I stick by what I said. In LAW there is a difference in between STEALING (Car example) and Unauthorized Use (Car example). Ethically, it is the same thing.
You can't get around this by comparing "unauthorised use" of a copyrighted work with grand theft auto. Ethically it is not at all the same. The fundamental ethical motivation for penalising material theft is not that the perpetrator gains what he stole, but that the victim is deprived of his possession. In the case of copyright infringement, the victim is not directly deprived of any possession, and all losses are either speculative or rights based. It's a different ethical problem, it's a different legal problem, and that's why it's legislated separately from material theft.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
Stop saying what things mean when you have no clue.
I have a dictionary, too.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
STEALING:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing wrote:
... to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice
...to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>
...to take surreptitiously or without permission
Ethically or Legally, how can those not apply to what you are doing to the company that you take their property without permission? Play semantics all day long. Justify piracy all day long... It is the same thing in the end.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/theft wrote:
theft
noun
/θeft/ [C or U]
(the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it
Semantics? There are obvious ethical differences. You won't get anywhere by arguing that they're semantic. Additionally; justify piracy? Where do you see me justifying piracy?
HITNRUNXX wrote:
TANGIBLE:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tangible?show=0&t=1320352554 wrote:
1
a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch : palpable
b : substantially real : material
THE ACT of cutting my lawn is not TANGIBLE. The results can be seen/felt/whatever afterwards, but the SERVICE can't be.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/tangible wrote:
tangible
adjective
/ˈtæn.dʒə.bl ̩/
real or not imaginary; able to be shown, touched or experienced
Shown, touched or experienced. Your freshly mowed lawn can be shown and experienced in the state it was brought to by a service. There's a tangible difference between the lawn before it was mowed, and after it was mowed, offered by the service. You can experience the service, too, if you like watching lawns being mowed.
HITNRUNXX wrote:
SERVICE:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/service wrote:
1: the act of serving: as a : a helpful act <did him a service>
b : useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity —usually used in plural <charge for professional services>
READ b again. Now read it again. Now read it again. SERVICE is NOT TANGIBLE by definition... Literally, legally, ethically, however you want to look at it, you obviously don't know what the word means.
It does not
produce a tangible commodity. The service itself is clearly tangible. If you had a service done that was not tangible, as in, it couldn't be shown, touched or experienced, then I'd say that either you were cheated, or you didn't need the service. Are we done talking about services and whether or not they're tangible? I don't see how this even relates to the discussion at hand.
