Re: dvd recorder/player

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 18:34:02 -0600, Jer used
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say...
 
>Kurt Hamster wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:40:47 -0600, Jer used
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say...
>>  
>> 
>>>Kurt Hamster wrote:
>>>

>>>>
>>>>They aren't thieves though. 
>>>>
>>>>To be guilty of theft one must have taken property with the intention of
>>>>permanently depriving the legal owner of it.
>>>>
>>>>I dislike pious bastards and if one wanders in here and demonstrates as
>>>>such then they can damn well expect to get tagged for it.
>>>
>>>As I understand it, copying copyrighted material without paying for the 
>>>priviledge IS depriving the copyright owner of their property.
>> 
>> 
>> Then you understand it wrong. Simple really! 
>> 
>> The operative word being "property", not profit. A pirate does not
>> deprive a copyright holder of any property as the copyright holder still
>> has 'his' film (his property) in his own possession.
>> 
>> Now do you understand it?
>
>I already do.  Perhaps you would care to explain to us all what the 
>point of a copyright is.  Or perhaps you'd prefer to wait until you're a 
>defendant to learn how juries equate property with profits.


Duh! Fortress America strikes again.

You obviously still don't understand it. 

To make it easy for a simpleton like yourself, there are two different
words involved - "copywrite" "theft". They aren't spelt the same, they
don't mean the same and juries would not be put in a position where they
would have to decide whether someone who is in breech of copywrite is
guilty of theft.

>> 
>> 
>>>Is there something about this legal concept that eludes your 
>>>understanding?  I'm no attorney so I won't pretend to be one, but my own 
>> 
>> 
>> The legal concept you refer to is copyright infringement. It isn't
>> theft, never has been theft, never will be theft. Does that elude your
>> understanding?
>
>No, it doesn't elude me at all.  Copyright infringment = theft.  Got it? 
>    (Clue: I'm a photographer)

So if someone copies your photographs, who is in possession of the
negative? Easy answer that one. So you have not been permanently
deprived of your property have you? As for your definition of profit ==
property, then that's easy too. You never possessed the profit that came
from the copy. If you never possessed it then you could never be derived
of it. Duh!

>> 
>> 
>>>attorney has explained this concept to me in terms even a pious bastard 
>>>couldn't possibly misunderstand.  So, as a result, I sleep pretty good 
>>>in my own pious bed.
>> 
>> 
>> It sounds like your attorney dumbed it down too much, even so you still
>> managed to misunderstand it.
>
>Considering she makes her living at dealing with these issues, I'd defer 
>to her professional opinion, in lieu of your internet opinion.

If that's the advice she's handing out then I suggest you change
lawyers. A lawyer who confuses morals with laws is fucking useless.

Next time you are there ask her the legal difference between theft and
breach of copywrite. If she tells you they are the same then ask here
which part of Mexico she got her law degree from.

>> 
>> Which only goes to show that piety != intelligence.
>
>And she's far more pious than both of us together.

She sounds fucking thick too.