Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by gamer_reg, Jun 4, 2013.

  1. gamer_reg

    J. Clarke Guest

    Whether something is "OK" is a separate issue from what nomenclature you
    use to describe it. Theft is a word which has meaning in law and in
    most states and under Federal law copyright violation does not meet the
    elements of "theft" any more than ripping off somebody's wallet meets
    the elements of "copyright violation".

    They're both wrongful criminal acts but they are not the same wrongful
    criminal acts and calling one the other just confuses the issue.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 26, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. gamer_reg

    Guest Guest

    Let's cut through the BS.
    Software pirating is as much theft as shoplifting.[/QUOTE]

    no it isn't.
    no they haven't.

    if you shoplift, the storekeeper no longer has the item to sell. the
    shoplifter has taken property from them, so they can no longer sell it
    to anyone else because they no longer have it.

    if you pirate, you've made an identical copy. the creator of the work
    still has a copy to sell. they might have lost a potential sale, but
    that's about it. often, the pirate wouldn't have bought the app or song
    in the first place so they really didn't lose a sale at all. not that
    it makes it ok, it's just the losses are grossly inflated.
     
    Guest, Jun 26, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. gamer_reg

    Guest Guest

    hacking an electrical meter is not the same as pirating software or
    music.
    might want to look again.
    might want to read a bit yourself.

    <http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/175>

    But technically, file sharing is not theft.

    A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man
    named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was
    prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The
    Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it
    was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of
    the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft
    statutes, had to be invoked.

    So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't
    have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

    Complicated matters further, copying is not always infringing. If the
    work is not copyrighted, if you have a license to make the copy, or
    if the work is in the public domain, you can copy at will. Also, not
    all "copies" are the same. Say you buy a CD and play it on your
    computer -- technically, you have already made a "copy" onto the PC
    in the process of playing it, but that's not an infringement.
     
    Guest, Jun 26, 2013
  4. gamer_reg

    Guest Guest

    Oh! I understand the Law, and the differences between theft of a
    physical item, theft of intellectual property, license and copyright
    infringement. Where do you draw the line? It's OK to steal from a
    multi-million dollar corporation, but reprehensible to mug a little old
    lady. (BTW: I know of a case where three teenage punks met their match
    taking on an 84 year old lady outside a supermarket.)[/QUOTE]

    nobody said it's ok.

    what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than
    taking physical property, and it is.
    that's just bullshit.

    it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try
    marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.
     
    Guest, Jun 26, 2013
  5. gamer_reg

    Guest Guest

    <http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/473/207/>

    (a) The language of § 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover
    such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen,
    converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of § 2314. The section's
    language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items
    unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some
    prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily
    defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character
    distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods,
    wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily
    equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright
    does not assume physical control over the copyright, nor wholly
    deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex
    set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft,
    conversion, or fraud. Pp. 473 U. S. 214-218.
     
    Guest, Jun 26, 2013
  6. gamer_reg

    Guest Guest

    correct.
     
    Guest, Jun 26, 2013
  7. gamer_reg

    Guest Guest

    that's correct.
     
    Guest, Jun 26, 2013
  8. gamer_reg

    Whisky-dave Guest

    In that case it depends on what dictinary you're using.

    I can;t see how someone can steal my identity while I'm still alive,
    unless it's some sort of clone.
    But then that does depend on what identities you're refering to.

    If you decide to hand over your camera to me because my ID card says I'm ansel adams, have I stolen ansel adams identity or have you just been fooled by someone smarter than you ?

    Then there fraud how does that fit in, there are many words you can use that basiclly mean taking something that doesn;t beloeng to you, when it's sexual it's called rape, when he take money from a place it's called burglurywhen you take money from someone by force it's, called mugging or a tax ;-)

    Changing teh word only changes the view point you want others to have of the incident it's doesn;t change the incident or the severity of it.
    It's an emotive way of getting others to see thin gs the same way as you dothat's all.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 27, 2013
  9. gamer_reg

    Whisky-dave Guest

     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 27, 2013
  10. gamer_reg

    Whisky-dave Guest

    yor electricity is a product it can be measured and calulated as kw-hours.

    Just lioike water or gas, but differnt from using software.



    or
    No it's a theft of a product.

    Theft of gas and electricity

    http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/Compl/Theft/Pages/Theft.aspx

    Theft of electricity and gas increases the cost of energy for customers. Interfering with gas and electricity meters also has potentially serious safety implications.

    If I'm using PS how are you or anyone else losing because of what I have.

    I have clearly seen that it is NOT, but can understand why people want it to be seen that way.
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 27, 2013
  11. gamer_reg

    Sandman Guest

    Sandman, Jun 27, 2013
  12. gamer_reg

    Whisky-dave Guest


    But it doesn't unless you can describe how ?
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 27, 2013
  13. gamer_reg

    Sandman Guest

    I would, if I could trust you would be able to understand it.
     
    Sandman, Jun 27, 2013
  14. gamer_reg

    Whisky-dave Guest

     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 27, 2013
  15. gamer_reg

    Sandman Guest

    I think I'd be able to undersatnd it[/QUOTE]

    I don't.
     
    Sandman, Jun 27, 2013
  16. gamer_reg

    PeterN Guest



    Whoosh!
     
    PeterN, Jun 28, 2013
  17. gamer_reg

    PeterN Guest

    I't correct that he wonders?

    Do you have a meaningful statistic to back up your claim.
     
    PeterN, Jun 28, 2013
  18. gamer_reg

    PeterN Guest

    nobody said it's ok.

    what they've said is that making an illicit copy is different than
    taking physical property, and it is.
    that's just bullshit.

    it's the old and bogus gateway drug argument, where if you try
    marijuana you'll move on to harder stuff. some might, but most won't.
    [/QUOTE]


    So now you're a sociologist. Do you even have qualifications to
    determine the physiology of addiction?
     
    PeterN, Jun 28, 2013
  19. gamer_reg

    PeterN Guest

    Unlike you I will not talk about all products. But, most software
    intended for use by an end user, is licensed. the specific terms of the
    license give you the right to make a copy, for specified purposes.
    I have a riht to place a copy of CS6 and use it on up to two machines.
    If I lend you a copy, I am violating my agreement. I have the right to
    sell you a copy, but in that case, I lose the right to use it on my
    machines.
     
    PeterN, Jun 28, 2013
  20. gamer_reg

    PeterN Guest

    You quoted out of context.
    You also snipped to imply that I said something i did not.
     
    PeterN, Jun 28, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.