[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "My dad is a pirate."

From: El Tux
Subject: Re: "My dad is a pirate."
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 21:28:54 -0000
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:50:38 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> El Tux wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:19:37 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
>> > El Tux wrote:
>> >
>> > [... Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985) ...]
>> >
>> > Oh dear El Tux, that (1985) was long before December 16, 1997, when
>> > President Clinton signed HR 2265 -- the No Electronic Theft Act --
>> > into law.
>> Dear Alexander, that doesn't matter in the least because we're
>> discussing concepts here, not legal definitions which, BTW, tend to use
>> common words in uncommon ways. The poster cited a USSC judge's comment
>> to support the *concept* that file-sharing is stealing, and I quoted
>> another to show that not all USSC judges share the same view. Simple
>> black-and-white cases rarely make it to the USSC so it's commonplace
>> for the justices to disagree with each other. One can find a quote to
>> support either side of just about anything that's been brought before
>> the Supreme Court.
> You brought up Dowling.

I sure did, but not as a legal argument (see above).

> All it shows is that, under a the language of a particular federal
> statute, the conduct of the defendant of making unauthorized copies of
> Elvis Presley records was not included.

And the example I was replying to is similarly constrained. You're
actually reinforcing my point that these legal opinions are
meaningless for the purpose of this discussion. Most filesharers are
not lawyers. Theirs is a layman's interpretation of the law. If you
want to talk to them about whether file-sharing is theft, you have to
communicate on their level.
> There is no reason why Congress could not have included what the
> defendant did within the National Stolen Property Act.  It didn't, but
> that doesn't mean that it couldn't.

That, however, isn't relevant to what was being discussed.

> For example, Utah has a general theft (78-6-401 et seq) as part of its
> criminal code, in Chapter 6, "Offenses against property".  And in its
> definition of "property," the legislature included not only "real
> estate" and "tangible and intangible personal property" but also "trade
> secrets, meaning the whole or any portion of any scientific or technical
> information, design, process, procedure, formula or invention which the
> owner thereof intends to be available only to persons selected by
> him."

Great, so now you're culling through invididual states in search of
one that supports your view. The problem is worldwide in scope, nobody
cares what Utah thinks unless they happen to live in Utah (and maybe
not even then).

> So, in Utah at least, it is just as proper to say that a trade secret
> was stolen as it is to say that a car is stolen, since both violate the
> same statute.

File-sharers aren't downloading trade secrets.

> Copyrights and patents weren't included in Utah's penal code when it was
> revised in 1973, presumably because they were to be subject to whatever
> laws Congress passes.
> But there is nothing in the Supreme Court's opinion that would prevent
> Congress from including criminal copyright infringement within the
> particular act that was being considered in Dowling.
> End quote. Attribution: Lee Hollaar

That isn't what we were discussing, as I so carefully explained. We
were talking about concepts, not fine legal definitions. If you want
to argue cases, take it to someone who cares.

> Now please (re)visit

NETA was, for all intents and purposes, written by the RIAA, MPAA, and
BSA. You might just as well quote them to support your argument.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]