Anyone Watching Rome On HBO

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's the same damned thing.

Clearly it is not. In one case an item changes ownership, in the other, both parties end up with their own item.

By copying it from an online site, he 'took' it without permission. HBO/BBC denied him permission to view the show without subscribing or purchasing the DVD (when it comes out) and he took it by other means.

'acquired'. He 'acquired' it by other means.

And one thing I wanted to add was that every Western country has a law protecting intellectual property and treat it as stealing when that law is violated. So they seem to believe that such actions are stealing (though sometimes they choose to punish the distributor rather than the downloader).

If it were stealing, it would not have its own law. It is (or should be) an entirely separate issue from stealing - there is no loss, no unsuffered loss, no change of ownership, just the creation of more copies. To equate the two is to equate loss with lost opportunity, which is, as Ludd said, silly.

I concede there is no suitable alternative noun to describe those who download TV shows, but "thief" is equally inaccurate. Nothing is stolen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Clearly it is not. In one case an item changes ownership, in the other, both parties end up with their own item.

In both cases you took something without permission. The result matters not.

'acquired'. He 'acquired' it by other means.

He 'took' it by other means.

If it were stealing, it would not have its own law.

Why not? After all, you have to define what intellectual property is, and state was is property.

Though interestingly enough the first intellectual property rights were stated in the Talmud as "Gnevat ha daat" which means "theft of ideas".

[Kuciwalker]

Better example:

Say you own a second home, to rent it out. You aren't living in it. Say you even put a lot of work into fixing it up, making it habitable. Someone then moves in and doesn't pay. As soon as you want to actually use the house yourself, he moves out as quick as you'd like, leaving it just the way it was. You aren't losing anything except the opportunity to earn money renting the house, right? Therefore it's not actually stealing! This is the conclusion of Ludd's logic, and why it's flawed.

(Sava doesn't actually have logic, so it can't be flawed.)

[MrFun]

Kuci and Imran

[Nickiow]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
If you've taken something, then the previous owner has lost that thing. I really don't see how anyone could dispute that.

If Imran and I cannot share a definition of loss, then we could attempt to dispute the meaning of "take" instead. If you take something without permission, it is a crime - Ok, I agree, and for the sake of argument, whether that something is known to be lost or not is irrelevant. But Sava doesn't "take" Rome, he copies Rome. No Rome is removed from anywhere, so nothing has been taken. Loss or not, it is not theft.

Learnt it, mastered it and moved on. It's good to see you back again.

Ok loss then, is rape of a virgin different from someone not a Virgin?, in english it used to be untill very recently, and US law it was lawfull to rape your wife until very very recently, maritaial rape only becoming unlawfull in the 70s iirc.

Now what has been lost?, clearly its a crime, at least taking without consent is a crime and all can agree on that, but finding what has been lost is another matter, or how about useing a famers fallow field to grow a crop yourself?, inteelectual copyright is another point raised, or how about your local Uni, it will lease from microsoft the rights to use x number of copies of its software, but what if its uses more than x?, is 2X of benifit to the Uni, well yes it can clearly be shown that it is, but is 2X loss to Microsoft as easy to show in respect of loss?.

Anyways something for you think on...

As you say no Rome has been lost, but copyright infirignment has indeed occured, penaltys may even, probably will be higher than an actual theft of a copy from a seller/owner.

[Nickiow]

It anyones intrested a standard Roman 2 Oxen wagon can haul 1200 lbs at 2 mph for 8 hours, after i looked it up, and Ceaser prosecucted a pro Pomey tribune for attemting to stop him from taking the treasury from the vault when he entered Rome, it being the 5% tax on slaves manumated and had been there since 375 BC and never before taken or used by anyone.

conclusion, nope, no such thing happened, and certainly not as portrayed, there are many mentions of peace offers between Pomp/Caeser but not one useing Gneus (Pomp eldest son) either.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Better example:

Say you own a second home, to rent it out. You aren't living in it. Say you even put a lot of work into fixing it up, making it habitable. Someone then moves in and doesn't pay. As soon as you want to actually use the house yourself, he moves out as quick as you'd like, leaving it just the way it was. You aren't losing anything except the opportunity to earn money renting the house, right? Therefore it's not actually stealing! This is the conclusion of Ludd's logic, and why it's flawed.

Where is the theft in this anaology?

I'm sorry, but you've just made my point.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Where is the theft in this anaology?

I'm sorry, but you've just made my point.

You're kidding right?

Someone who moves in without paying is a thief. He has taken your property without permission.

[Arrian]

You're talking to someone who doesn't really give a **** about your (or anyone else's) property, Imran.

-Arrian

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Someone who moves in without paying is a thief. He has taken your property without permission.

He's breaking and entering, and (presumably) illegally occupying, but not thieving. What is "stolen"?

Now what has been lost?, clearly its a crime, at least taking without consent is a crime and all can agree on that, but finding what has been lost is another matter,

I didn't say all crimes necessitate a loss. I said all thefts are crimes, and all thefts necessitate a loss. Draw a Venn diagram.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In both cases you took something without permission. The result matters not.

I note that Sava had the permission of the person he downloaded Rome from, or else it would not have been shared.

Why not? After all, you have to define what intellectual property is, and state was is property.

I'm fairly sure the law is still quite confused on this matter. Informational "things" (audio, video, text, etc) should not be treated the same way as abstract things (an idea for improving efficiency by 4%, a new scientific technique). "Theft" of either is a different act from "theft" of the other, and both differ from theft of physical property. Downloading Rome without monetary exchange probably should be illegal, but it should be illegal in a much more sensible way than blanketing under (IP) theft.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by MrFun
Kuci and Imran

Thankyou for your valuable input into this ongoing debate.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Arrian
You're talking to someone who doesn't really give a **** about your (or anyone else's) property, Imran.

-Arrian

yeah

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You're kidding right?

Someone who moves in without paying is a thief. He has taken your property without permission.

First of all, permission wasn't even mentioned.


But if a person is occupying your property, yet will vanish from it at a moment's notice, leaving the space in exactly the same condition it was before, what is being stolen?



If you crash at a friend's house, are you stealing from them because they are losing the opportunity to rent out the space you are occupying?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
Where is the theft in this anaology?

I'm sorry, but you've just made my point.

The home. Okay, illegal trespass. Is that better?