[Gllug] Uh oh, ministers consider "anti file-sharing laws"

[Bruce Richardson]

On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 11:51:16PM +0000, Martin wrote:
> > From the Theft Act 1968 (http://tinyurl.com/36kx57):
> >
> > 	"Basic definition of theft: A person is guilty of theft
> > 	if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to
> > 	another with the intention of permanently depriving the
> > 	other of it."
> >   
> 
> aka The Slashdot Argument. 

Actually, it's a legal argument;  "Theft Act 1968" should have given you
a hint.

> 
> 
> > Downloading software doesn't do that (depriving them of hypothetical
> > future income doesn't count). Now while I don't approve of copyright
> > infringement[1], just as I don't approve of theft, it's not hard to
> > see that they are different things.
> >   
> 
> 
> Our moral compasses spin on different axis then,

Look, he made it quite clear that he disapproved of both activities but
that there are technical, *legal* differences between the two
activities.  So it's the technical details on which you differ, not the
moral one.  How many times do people have to spell this out to you, in
words of one syllable, before you stop ranting and actually read what
they say?

> I fail to see how 
> anyone could tell them apart.

Because one activity involves depriving somebody of their property,
while the other involves infringing somone's legally-protected monopoly
on the publishing of their work.  The fact that both activities usually
mean a loss of income on the part of the victim does not make them
identical in substance, it simply makes them similar in effect.  Judges
and lawyers manage to make this distinction every day, as do many other
educated people.

> This argumennt, in its purist intention, 
> is sophistry.

Some of the people in this thread have been arguing a moral case, but
many have simply been trying to clarify a technical point and Tethys was
very clearly in the latter category.  So what you say about the
intention is clearly a nonsense.

Similarly, if you actually go and read David Damerell's posts, instead
of simply frothing at the mouth, you might see that he did not give an
opinion on the morality of copyright infringement; instead, he stated
what he saw as the logical conclusion of your argument and tried to show
you how your premise led to that conclusion.

This list is full of pedants and you have been making statements that
many consider to be technically incorrect; they will therefor debate
those technical points with you, regardless of their moral or
philosophical position on the subject.  It is practically a law of
nature.  Responding with insults and accusations of dishonesty will not
change it.

-- 
Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20071101/51638b9d/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug