Re: Thieves Philosophy 101

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

In order for a case to to made every micro
point must be fully considered one-at-a-time.
The ONLY micro point covered here is
the refutation of your claim that theft does not
require "value". I have refuted this micro point,
thus can construct the next micro point, and
eventually (after many micro points have been
fully considered) my full reasoning will be
completely elaborated...

Here is the next micro point...
Wrong requires a Harmful Effect,
without a harmful effect, Wrong
can not occur...

Try to stay completely focused on
this one micro point, and try to
stick to reasoning... (you are getting
much better at this.)

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Cooter.
>
>  *>Word-for-word quote from our State law books, which was included in my post
>  *>in this same thread slightly earlier.
>
> Yes.  I saw it.
>
>  *>You can't even manage to pay attention?
>
> You addressed it to Matthew. If he wanted to follow up on it, that was fine.  I
> was busy crafting my thrashing of your many other idiotic assertions.  Now that
> you've abandoned that branch, I'll take you up here.  ;)
>
>  *>Legal: A person is guilty of theft if he or she takes, or exercises control
>  *>over, movable property of another with the intent to deprive him or her
>  *>thereof.
>
> Yes.  The person is deprived of his right to determine the copying of his work.
>
>  *>Deprive is defined to mean To withhold property of another permanently
>
> Once the copyright is infringed, how does the thief "give it back"?  ;)
>
>  *>or for so extended a period as to appropriate a major portion of its
>  *> economic value...
>
> Sure.
>
>  *>(The point is that value must exist, or theft does not occur)
>
> Uh.. the point that must have slipped past you was the word "or", as in
> "permanently *or* for so extended"
>
> You surely know the meaning of the word, OR, don't you? Only one of those
> conditions has to be met.  Once a thief infringes on a copyright, it IS
> permanent.  Sort of like virginity.  Once lost, you don't get it back again.  ;)
>
> Since we're tossing legal stuff around, I'll present further evidence:
>
> "On December 16, 1997, President Clinton signed HR 2265 -- the 'No Electronic
> Theft' Act -- into law. The act, sponsored by Representative Goodlatte
> (R-Virginia), was passed in the House on 11/4/97 and in the Senate on 11/13/97.
>
> HR 2265 was viewed as "closing a loophole" in the criminal law. Under the old
> statutory scheme, people who intentionally distributed copied software
> over the Internet did not face criminal penalties if they did not profit from
> their actions."
>
> Text for this act is at: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/hr2265.html
>
> The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act just boosted
> how much the thief would have to pay.  Cool.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat