George Hotz Runs Away to South America; Lies About Having PSN Account

[Calmador]

fordy said:

Calmador said:

The problem isn't with my analogy or whatever I'm saying. The problem is with you taking me out of context. When I use the word copy I meant it within the context about what were talking about which is piracy. Like I said earlier yes making a backup copy of your game is fine. Yes the special situation you mention copying is fine too... but it can immoral in piracy which also involves copying too, THAT is what I'm talking about. I didn't think it would be a problem but I'll try to use the word piracy instead of copying since it is a vague word and if I do use copying please be understanding about it and understand I mean it within context.

No it isn't incredibly difficult to claim ownership of digital bits, but you try to paint a picture where it is. It's simple, you buy it, you get a receipt. There you now have easy claim of digital bits because of a receipt. It's not incredibly hard, it can be if you lose the receipt and you don't have anyone to testify your purchase but that's all we can go by and it's not incredibly hard.

Yes they can be created at anytime, that has nothing to do with how difficult it is to claim that you purchased a copy of digital bits for use. For example, I can also say that it's incrediblly difficult to claim ownership of pots... because they can be created anytime...I don't know where you were going with that but it doesn't make sense.

I can't help but think that your throwing in the towl, by trying to take the conversation to the law. The law is most definitely NOT the final answer because the law can be corrupted. I personally believe only God can have the final say on morals because it would take God to define morals and give true judgement. Who can judge you unless they know absolutely everything about you, even your thoughts? God, but that's me. I understand you may not accept with my God stand but I definitely don't think the law can be the final say because of corruption which history can easily show. That being said I am not saying we can act above the law, I think it's good and moral to respect the law even if it they were unjust to you (not necassarly in general) BUT that's another can of worms. Just clearing it up that I'm not promoting acting out of the law unless of course God himself said so, otherwise respect the government even though it is not perfect.

We'll leave it at that, from what I've heard here from you and from the other guy, I don't think there is any reason to think that piracy is not a form of theft. Plagiarism is widely accepted as theft... while the original copy is intact. Of course more clever plagiarizers don't copy exact dupilicates but that's a petty difference between the comparison. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't think piracy isn't theft, like plagairism.

But the concept seems hard for you to comprehend, since, as i stated once again, you cannot own the game. You're not buying a game, you're buying a license from the patent holders entitling you to be an "end user" for that game. It's not a very difficult concept to understand, and I have no idea why I need to be explaining this for the third time already.

Okay, your pots analogy is a little flawed, mainly because of the fact that nobody can hold a patent on them. However, say somebody did, then you'd find that yes, pots can still be made, but what you'd be charged for is not stealing pots, but breaching copyright on the patent held. Once again, incredibly simple for most to understand here.... 

I'm happy to continue this as much as you want, but the way your last paragraph is interpreted makes it sound like you're putting your fingers in your ears when somebody makes a totally valid and logical argument against your stance. I know it's not a crime to be ignorant, but if you're going to take a contradictory stand on such matters, you have to expect at least a handful of people coming in to stand up for common sense.

What seems hard for me to understand? That I can make a copy of digital products and I can't make copies in the same manner of physical products. I have games that are NES cartidge... do I own them? I don't? I never wondered? Why would I? I can make back up copies if I want ... can I make copies and give copies to other people yes but I shouldn't.. because I'd be a culprit of theft. I thought I addressed it all, but if I missed something, please tell me.  

Patents were never being talked about here... theft was. Yes people have to patent their intelicual property because they have to protect thier work, it makes sense. That little bit of digital information that we can make infinite copies of is all they have to show for the years of work that many people put into it. In a way the creator and the consumer both own the products, I understand it and respect (like I'd respect any other person, atleast try to anyways) them by not being abusive of what I'm capable of. A pot and a video game are not the same thing and likewise the ways to steal a pot or a video game are not the same thing and that's why it's ridiculous when someone thinks that the thing being stolen has to dissappear in the digital world just like in the physical world. You can make a copy of it and copying CAN (piracy specifically) be a form of theft.

So do I really really own my copy of Super Mario bros on the NES? Absolutely I have the codes (within the cartidge), I can literally do anything with it, could make back ups...  or even help someone commit theft but of course we shouldn't do that. I know I own it but I also understand that doing whatever you want with things... CAN be imorral.

I do dismiss some of the things because they don't really matter.

slowmo said:

's not theft, stealing or any other word that you've chose to define.  It doesn't fit the definition of the word.  It's called copyright infringement and as it's own laws governing it as such.  Secondly it doesn't matter what the word is or isn't, Geohotz isn't being sued for piracy, that much has been made quite clear.

For the record the below is taken from wiki of all places but you can look up the actual cases for proof yourself:

Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

 

Have a nice day

We weren't talking about the Geohot case...