What Happened To 'If You Didn't Pay For It, It's Stealing'?

from the except-when-we-do-it dept

For years, the entertainment industry has pushed a propaganda line in its "education" programs that are used in schools: "if you haven't paid for it, you stole it." Of course, that's not actually true. But, if the entertainment industry wants to claim that, shouldn't it live by those rules too? Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN, that's currently involved in numerous lawsuits against file sharing sites, is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker" and that it was confiscated from that hacker. So, clearly, BREIN didn't pay for it. Doesn't that mean it was stolen by their own definition? While the police may have the right to confiscate goods, BREIN is not the police. It's a private industry organization, that claims it's against theft, but doesn't seem to mind participating in "getting things without paying for it" when it has the chance.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Joseph Durnal, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 12:35pm

    I didn't pay to read this blog

    I must have stole it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 12:36pm

    Stupid Peasant!

    If you make an unauthorized copy of something, it's stealing.

    If I physically take your laptop, it's for great justice!

    Look at the lights. Tell me how many you see....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 12:38pm

    Er?

    How straight forward is this story, Mike? I can't click through, so I have to know.

    "Apparently, the managing director of Dutch anti-piracy group BREIN...is happily talking up the fact that he now has possession of a laptop from a "hacker""

    Unless you're omitting the end of that sentence and it reads something along the lines of "...and he was subsequently arrested for tampering with evidence of a crime, receiving property used in the commission of a crime, and obstruction of justice." then I don't see how this is anything but a perfect example of how govenments around the world are turning towards a form of corporatocracy.

    Industry groups with policing authority? What is this, Tank Girl?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 12:45pm

      Re: Er?

      "Unless you're omitting the end of that sentence and it reads something along the lines of "...and he was subsequently arrested for tampering with evidence of a crime, receiving property used in the commission of a crime, and obstruction of justice." then I don't see how this is anything but a perfect example of how govenments around the world are turning towards a form of corporatocracy. "

      Um, even if it did end that way, it' shouldn't make a difference.

      "Industry groups with policing authority? What is this, Tank Girl?"

      Nope, Judge Dredd. Welcome to Megacity One, citizen.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 12:45pm

      Re: Er?

      "Although he doesn’t elaborate on how he obtained the machine, it is hard not to conclude that it has been misappropriated."

      Beginning of the article

      "The laptop was given to him by one of the parties involved in the case who received it as compensation."

      Update to the article. I don't see how that's possible since it is evidence and property used in the commission of a crime.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Matt (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 3:09pm

        Re: Re: Er?

        How do we know it was used in the commission of a crime? Because bunglehead says it belonged to a hacker?

        Decode "parties involved in the case who received it as compensation". I'm guessing this means one of two things: either it was received as part of a judgment by some company that sued the "hacker," or the "hacker" paid his lawyer with it. Either way, that person then gave it to the idiot.

        This is too bad, but not hypocrisy. The same could be done (without raising claims of piracy) with a CD and perhaps with non-DRM digital music (do we know if the first sale doctrine applies to an MP3?).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 12:47pm

    It's only stealing if you're a poor and powerless person, rich and powerful people don't steal no matter how much they take that doesn't belong to them and they don't murder no matter how many people they kill unjustifiably.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:22pm

    How reassuring to note continued reliance on a site that has not investigated how this might happen consistent with law. Also nice to see that the linked site continues in its fine tradition of presenting "articles" having absolutely nothing to do with the downloading via P2P of unauthorized content. Hey, why talk about a real issue when you can talk about an irrelevant one?

    I have to admire the persistence of those who frequent this site and try to play "lawyer". These same ones who cry "it is not theft, it is infringement" are the very same ones who say "it is not infringement, it is sharing".

    Quit wordsmithing and admit what it really is...you have made a copy of something knowing full well that it is illegal to do so without the permission of the rights holder. If you choose not to call it stealing, then so be it. But get off your high horse and admit you have broken the law and what you have done is wrong no matter what feel-good term you may choose to use.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Belle de Monarch, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:59pm

      Re: "How reassuring to note...."

      My darling "How reassuring to note", I am no wordsmith, nor am I a legal commentator, but I take a few minutes to visit this site as it raises some important/interesting social questions in relation to our techno-culture many enjoy debating - it's not hurting anyone, oh and may ask why you were visiting when you hold so much disdain for the article writer? Oh that's right, so that YOU can 'wordsmith' and 'try to play lawyer', hmmmmm are you giving Michael yet another example of 'you can't do it but I can?' Anyway - perhaps you should just quiet down and re-read the article - sure it makes mention of the fact that the writer doesn't agree with the entertainment industry's perspective, but the actual point he is trying to make is about how a company can get a hold of something that does not belong to them - i.e. 2 wrongs do not make a right, and isn't that just a little bit hypocritical. Instead of all of us getting off 'our high horse' (which I am sure none of us are actually on, rather it's just a small soap box that allows people an opportunity to fairly discuss our opinions about the matter at hand) and perhaps you could get your head out of the sand and think with a little heart and soul - corporations should know better.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:04pm

      Re:

      How reassuring to note continued reliance on a site that has not investigated how this might happen consistent with law.

      Heh. Take a look upwards... way up... see all the way up over your head? That's "the point" that you missed.

      I'll lay it out for you now. It's the copyright industry that has publicly stated "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it." That's obviously ridiculous. There are (as you note) plenty of ways that you could get something without paying for it "consistent with the law."

      So the entire point of this post was not to suggest that BREIN *illegally* got the laptop, but to mock the claim of BREIN and its partners that "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it."

      Reading comprehension is such a rare thing.

      Also nice to see that the linked site continues in its fine tradition of presenting "articles" having absolutely nothing to do with the downloading via P2P of unauthorized content.

      Huh? Is there some rule no one told me about?

      Hey, why talk about a real issue when you can talk about an irrelevant one?

      I am talking about a real issue. Keep up.

      I have to admire the persistence of those who frequent this site and try to play "lawyer". These same ones who cry "it is not theft, it is infringement" are the very same ones who say "it is not infringement, it is sharing".

      Again, start over. Try figuring out the point first.

      Quit wordsmithing and admit what it really is...you have made a copy of something knowing full well that it is illegal to do so without the permission of the rights holder.

      This post has nothing to do with that, as you yourself pointed out. So why are you bringing it up?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Matt (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 3:17pm

      Re:

      I, for one, agree that copyright infringement (however labelled) is presently illegal. That is a travesty, but I think Mike and others would agree that it is the (bad, ill-advised, poorly drafted) law of the land.

      I do _not_ agree that it is "wrong." Clearly, your normative framework is different from mine. Mine has the benefit of all of human history less the last 200 years to recommend it, among other things, but we can agree to disagree.

      As for whether copyright infringement is "theft" - it clearly is not, because "theft" requires depriving the owner of ownership. The copyright industries have waged an apparently deliberate war on the English language, attempting to inflate the rhetoric. There are some who have a problem with this. In politics, the words you use can make a difference.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      HolaJohnny (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 8:19am

      Re:

      Oh good we have another AC/Shill.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    David (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:26pm

    Geez Louise

    This is another tempest in a teapot. The article says absolutely nothing about how BREIN got the laptop. ALL it says is he is using one that was "confiscated from a hacker". As DH above pointed out it could have illegally been given to BREIN by the police, or BREIN could have bought it at a police auction. WE JUST DON'T FUCKING KNOW.

    Mike needs to have a delay added to his "submit" button.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:30pm

      Re: Geez Louise

      A mere trifle. Suggesting someone did something wrong is a whole lot more newsworthy than actually trying get the facts. Never let it be said that facts should ever get in the way of forming an opinion.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:09pm

        Re: Re: Geez Louise

        A mere trifle. Suggesting someone did something wrong is a whole lot more newsworthy than actually trying get the facts. Never let it be said that facts should ever get in the way of forming an opinion.

        Ok, again, for the slow pokes. I wasn't saying BREIN did something illegal. I was using *its own logic* back against it.

        Didn't realize I needed to spell this stuff out.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      slacker525600 (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:32pm

      Re: Geez Louise

      even if they did buy it at a police auction, the hard drive should have been wiped. They most certainly dont own the licenses for any software on the machine. And the evidence for any prosecution should not be available to open bidding (no matter how much I like open markets).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Me, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:55pm

      Re: Geez Louise

      And tomorrow Mike will post an article about how blogs are so much better than newspapers, are more factually accurate, do more fact checking, the usual line, and the people here will slurp it up, forgetting this post today.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:01pm

        Re: Re: Geez Louise

        "... and the people here will slurp it up"

        Your mom slurpped it up....

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Me, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 4:39pm

          Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise

          Very clever. Was that before or after she pulled the dildo out of your ass? You're so witty, having a conversation with you must be about as exciting as talking to Rain Man. He seems interesting at first, then you realize he's a fucking retard. By the way, when Mike finished shooting his load into your mouth, did you have that big old shit eating grin on your face that you're obviously sporting now? Asswipe.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            iNtrigued (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 9:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise... by Me

            I believe you just showed yourself to be the "Asswipe." I would argue that any of them, as you call "fucking retard"(s), are about 10 folds more interesting than you.

            Look at me, I can use words like "dildo", "ass", and "fucking," I sure am interesting.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:09pm

      Re: Geez Louise

      This is another tempest in a teapot

      Yes, exactly. That's the whole point.

      The article says absolutely nothing about how BREIN got the laptop

      It says it was taken from the hacker. The hacker was not paid for it. By BREIN's own definition, then, it was "stolen."

      Yes, the very point (which wooshed by you, apparently) is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why the laptop may have been confiscated and why BREIN may now possess it. But, it's BREIN and its buddies who state "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it."

      The point of the article is to show how sill that is.

      I'm not saying that BREIN got the laptop illegally. I'm using its own logic, and showing how messed up it is.

      I would have thought that folks around here would be able to figure that out. I guess I shouldn't have overestimated some of you.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:13pm

        Re: Re: Geez Louise

        "Yes, the very point (which wooshed by you, apparently) is that there are plenty of legitimate reasons why the laptop may have been confiscated and why BREIN may now possess it. But, it's BREIN and its buddies who state "if you didn't pay for it, you stole it."

        The point of the article is to show how sill[y] that is."

        Kind of scary to see how many people missed that point, isn't it? An indication that the war being waged for the minds of the masses is being lost, perchance?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Glaze, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:24pm

          Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise

          i guess it takes the few of us who post discussable comments rarely to get the "point". Who wants to play mad libs?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise

            "i guess it takes the few of us who post discussable comments rarely to get the "point". Who wants to play mad libs?"

            I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or insulting me, bu either way, the answer to your question is an unqualified hells yes!

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Glaze, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:34pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise

              it was an agreement... sorry sometimes i lose it... but since you are the Mad Libs genious post away...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Dark Helmet (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 3:02pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise

                (A shout out to Angry Dude Mad Libs Post for typical story response, including mis-punctuation and odd capitalization)

                PUnky,

                won't somebody just steal this [adjective][adjective] blog and Shut mIke the fuck up? He's a [noun] that never invented anything

                The only PEople stealing is the [adjective] hacker who [adverb] stole using his laptop.

                Why all you lemming techdirt [noun]s go [verb] your [noun]s in the [noun] until they [verb], you [noun]-[adjective]ing [noun]s!

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  iNtrigued (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 9:31am

                  Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise - Dark Helmet's MADLIBS

                  PUnky,

                  won't somebody just steal this [hard][floppy] blog and Shut mIke the fuck up? He's a [banana] that never invented anything

                  The only PEople stealing is the [boring] hacker who [amazingly] stole using his laptop.

                  Why all you lemming techdirt [leaf]s go [run] your [iPod]s in the [umbrella] until they [spelunk], you [consultant]-[maroon]ing [calculator]s!

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        David (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 3:35pm

        Re: Re: Geez Louise

        Nope, sorry.

        "It was once confiscated from a hacker" is all the article says. That's it. Not "taken" or "stolen".

        Now, it could mean that the police handed it over with out apparent due process, etc. Or, it could mean that the hacker was arrested, his computer confiscated, then, after the trial, sold at auction. Or something else. WE DON'T KNOW.

        That's the point, not whatever bullshit you are trying to peddle.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 3:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: Geez Louise

          Now, it could mean that the police handed it over with out apparent due process, etc. Or, it could mean that the hacker was arrested, his computer confiscated, then, after the trial, sold at auction. Or something else. WE DON'T KNOW.

          Um, but we do know: Confiscated means it was not paid for.

          And, again, using their own logic, that means it was stolen.

          That's the point, not whatever bullshit you are trying to peddle.

          David, thanks, but I'm pretty sure I know the point of my own posts. Until we hire you to tell us what the point is, I'll assume that my knowledge of the point is a lot more accurate than yours.

          Thanks for playing, though.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    slacker525600 (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:29pm

    surprised nobody has pointed out the obvious

    they did pay for it.

    They may not have directly paid the police for it, but they most certainly contributed money to a number of campaigns and/or organizations. How else do you think they got the laptop?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 1:39pm

    haha little did they no about his custom bios rootkit. That hacker is still hacking them prison.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:03pm

    AC#1, you should be concerned and get off your own damn high horse.

    "Kuik added, noting that he couldn’t give out any more info because of the type of people his organization deals with."

    When someone asked you where you got a piece of music or a book does that sound like the response someone who used legal means to obtain it would say?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:30pm

    YouTube is theft

    I watched a few videos^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H stole $160,000 in property on YouTube this morning.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    TW Burger (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:32pm

    Devine Right

    Obviously BREIN believed it has far more morality than any of us so they can do whatever they want. Isn't that the definition of a religious cult?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:34pm

    Since the linked article provides not a whit of information concerning how the company happened to get the laptop, it is impossible to say with any intellectual honesty "See, they are hypocrites!"

    It is illogical to suggest:

    1. The company says "If you didn't pay for it, you stole it."

    2. The company has a laptop that was once owned by a "hacker", with nary a mention about how it came into its possession.

    3. In view of 1 and 2, the company must not have paid for it and thus stole it.

    Sorry, but the logic or this illogic escapes me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    WammerJammer (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:37pm

    Aren't you glad you don't live in Europe

    Thank God I live in the United States where cops are fat and happy from seizure money. Hell in Texas they get so much they loan it to the other cops. It's great to take what's not yours. Also cheap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 2:39pm

    I just love it when Mike gets in one of his moods...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bidpicture, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 4:44pm

    The Law

    Ah! All hail the law and the corrupt greedy politicians that make it and the corrupt legal system that administers it. Lets all bow down to this almighty law. Lets ignore JUSTICE and let the corrupt greedy selfish Recording Companies keep on stealing from the ones not equally protected and represented by "The LAW". (artists and fans) Lets ignore that we don't really need the RECORDING COMPANIES, they are dying like dinosaurs. What value do they provide???

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 7:27pm

    "And, again, using their own logic, that means it was stolen."

    In techdirt jargon, steal is equated to unlawfully taking away the property of another.

    Since this device was likely confiscated within the bounds of law, then certainly the confiscation would be outside techdirt's use of the word steal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 8:28pm

      Re:

      Since this device was likely confiscated within the bounds of law, then certainly the confiscation would be outside techdirt's use of the word steal.

      Yes, indeed. That's the exact point. Glad you finally got it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 9:54pm

        Re: Re:

        I see. The current laptop possessor has "stolen" it because it was apparently lawfully taken by law enforcement officials. Your point is not exactly on point in that they use the word steal to signify acts that are not lawful.

        So, if I understand correctly, lawfully taking possession(of a device) is the equivalent of unlawfully taking possession (of a content file).

        Sorry, but your point is not exactly jumping off the page at me.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 9th, 2009 @ 10:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I see. The current laptop possessor has "stolen" it because it was apparently lawfully taken by law enforcement officials. Your point is not exactly on point in that they use the word steal to signify acts that are not lawful.

          Heh. Okay, for the really slow pokes, let's try this again:

          1. I am NOT saying the laptop is stolen.
          2. BREIN and other organizations put out propaganda with the line "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it."
          3. That point is obviously false.
          4. To prove that it is obviously false, I'm showing that BREIN got a laptop that was taken from someone without paying for it, and no one in their right mind would think it's "stolen."
          5. But, based on BREIN's definition, it must be.

          Got it? I'm not knocking BREIN for taking the damn laptop. I'm using it as an example of why their claim "if you haven't paid for it, it's stolen" is obviously false.

          Can't believe I needed to spell that out again.

          So, if I understand correctly, lawfully taking possession(of a device) is the equivalent of unlawfully taking possession (of a content file).

          Um. No.


          Sorry, but your point is not exactly jumping off the page at me.


          Obviously.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Luci, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 10:40pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's because you fail to read the article in its entirety and attempt to understand the point Mike makes. Sorry, not going to explain it to you. Mike's done that so many times, already. I'd suggest taking five minues and reading.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 8:47pm

    And...

    "In techdirt jargon, steal is equated to unlawfully taking away the property of another."

    Yes, and its also the "jargon" of something called Copyright Law. You should look up its precepts and understand them before trying to be clever again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Sep 9th, 2009 @ 9:59pm

      Re: And...

      I haven't the slightest clue about the point you are trying to make.

      BTW, I have studied copyright law for more years than I care to count. It is fair to say that I well understand its precepts, doubtless in much more detail than what I presume is the amount of time you have devoted to its study.

      Would I be wrong in assuming you are not an attorney, much less one steeped in the copyright law, both from a statutory and historical perpective?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 3:18am

    To those who don't get the point

    WOW!!!

    Are you really that dense? My God, my brain physically hurts from reading your stupidity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Lisae Boucher (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 3:18am

    Explaining how you can get a laptop from a hacker.

    In the Netherlands, the police can take away items used by criminals to commit their criminal acts. These items will not be returned to their owner but are stored by the police until a judge determines that these items are permanently confiscated.
    So, what does the police do with these confiscated items? Well, some items are just destroyed. But if the item itself is legal, then they're sold again to civilians. For example, though the site at http://www.domeinenrz.nl/ which, as you've guessed, is written in Dutch so most of you need a translator to visit it. ;-)
    The "Dienst Domeinen" in the Netherlands is responsible for selling these items through all kinds of auctions. Basically, anyone can visit such an auction and place a bid on any item they're selling. Thus, it would be perfectly legal for Tim Kuik to visit such an auction and thus buy stuff that previously belonged to a hacker.
    Right now, you can buy an Aston-Martin if you want to. About four years old and only used for 32.118 KM. Then again, they also sell plenty of laptops, so if you need one... Go visit the Netherlands and buy one at the next auction! ;-)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Hazmat, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 6:19am

    Explaining how you can get a confiscated laptop from a hacker - part 2

    Yes, they might have gotten it from an auction. And they might have obtained it when they assisted the FIOD-ECD in one of their raids. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIOD-ECD)

    It's like I accuse my neighbour of a break-in of my house.
    I then go with the police in the apartment of my neighbour
    and point out various things that I think the neighbour
    stole from me.

    Great gig if you can get it.

    Hazmat

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    RD, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 7:48am

    And...Redeauxbag

    "I haven't the slightest clue about the point you are trying to make."

    Of course not dear. Otherwise, you wouldnt be the troll you are.

    "BTW, I have studied copyright law for more years than I care to count. It is fair to say that I well understand its precepts, doubtless in much more detail than what I presume is the amount of time you have devoted to its study."

    Apparently not, since you fail to understand the difference between theft and infringement, and the legal standing of each. Regardless of how you FEEL about it, they do have different definitions in law, and laws are all about this kind of specificity and differentiation in meaning. You dont need to be a lawyer to understand this, or to be able to discuss it.

    "Would I be wrong in assuming you are not an attorney, much less one steeped in the copyright law, both from a statutory and historical perpective?"

    Would I be wrong in assuming that you are an arrogant, elitist attorney who thinks he is better than everyone else and that no one should dare discuss a topic unless they have made a career of said topic?

    I'm so glad the founding fathers werent someone like you, or we would never have the great country we have now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 10:23am

    Nothing quite like stating a mantra used by rights holders, taking it out of context by ignoring clearly implied (and in many other aricles stated explicitly), and then twisting the mantra to make a point that rights holders most decidedly are not making.

    I do understand the point being made in the above article, however it is my opinion that it is little more than linguistic gymnastics that is disingenuous and intentionally misleading.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 12:30pm

      Re:

      Now, now, don't get so defensive. It's ok to admit that you were wrong.

      Nothing quite like stating a mantra used by rights holders, taking it out of context by ignoring clearly implied (and in many other aricles stated explicitly), and then twisting the mantra to make a point that rights holders most decidedly are not making.

      But it is the point they were making. We took it straight from an "educational lesson" that was being given to schools, where there is no implication otherwise. It clearly states "if you haven't paid for it, you've stolen it." It seems quite reasonable that these groups would live up to their own definition, right?

      I do understand the point being made in the above article

      Yes, you've proven that time and time again. However, seeing as it's been spelled out for you, in big bold letters, multiple times now, at some point we're just going to have to conclude the problem is you, not us.

      Having had these discussions with you specifically in the past, perhaps it is not a surprise that you are unable to comprehend such things.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Sep 10th, 2009 @ 2:33pm

        Re: Re:

        Thank you very much for pointing out to me my apparent inability to comprehend your points.

        Of course, they would be much easier to comprehend if they were directed to a substantive matter, and not just another attempt to inaccurately flame and mischaracterize copyright law and rights holders.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 10th, 2009 @ 11:04pm

          Re: Re: Re:


          Of course, they would be much easier to comprehend if they were directed to a substantive matter, and not just another attempt to inaccurately flame and mischaracterize copyright law and rights holders.


          The only one mischaracterizing copyright law is the folks like BREIN who claim "if you didn't pay for it, it's stolen." Funny... don't see you attacking them or posting one of your "merely FYI" posts there...

          Wonder why not?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Sep 11th, 2009 @ 8:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Merely FYI [ ;) ], many folks, myself included, are not "attacking" the quote primarily because it is intended as a broad, generalized statement placed into layman terms. As with any such statement it can be parsed to the point that the original meaning and intent is changed 180 (BTW, it drives me nuts when I read that something was changed 360).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Sep 16th, 2009 @ 1:40am

    Reality Check

    I am just a random reader that got bored on the Internet one night and really have no idea how I ended up on this site. You can respond to this but lets face it I will probably never see the response so why bother? And really I am not intending to hurt feelings or pick sides. The reason I am saying all this is simple, I want to show everyone who frequents this site I am in fact completely unbiased. Oh and sorry for any grammar mistakes/run-on sentences, I am no English professor. I am a Janitor and a Medic in the National Guard.
    The topic at hand is an argument concerning The acquisition of a hackers laptop, which the term "hacker" in this day in age is probably someone who just downloads music. It is obvious I would like to point out that the article is incomplete and heavily opinionated. So why may I ask is everyone freaking out at each other, and so passionately arguing over such pointless information? I am one who is very fond of intelligent debate, however any debate that strays from logic, That involves heavy name calling and responses based solely on emotional responses to taunts, or that has to present itself with flowery speech or honeyed words to boost personal ego's, Is a total waste of the intellectual time of everyone involved, as nothing productive will come of it(great now i am doing it). It is the fatal sin of bureaucracy.
    Too put it in plain speech as all knowledge should be. If someone writes something you disagree with, step back, count to 10, try to see it from the other side of the fence, and if you still disagree then state your opinion but keep things civil. Or as your mothers probably always told you when you were little...Play nice children. :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Entertainment Expert, Sep 18th, 2009 @ 3:12pm

    World's Most Advanced Entertainment Multimedia School!

    World’s Most Advanced Entertainment, Multimedia, 3D Computer Animation, Music Business and Gaming School in Videos that will make you wish you went there! http://su.pr/2c4mpZ

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This