Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

<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.

 

correct.

 

that's correct.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Ironically, just like theft of software.

 

But it doesn't unless you can describe how ?

 

I would, if I could trust you would be able to understand it.

 

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

I don't.

 

Whoosh!

 

I't correct that he wonders?

Do you have a meaningful statistic to back up your claim.

 

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?

 

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.

 

You quoted out of context.
You also snipped to imply that I said something i did not.