More on manuals plus rescue

Johnny Billquist bqt at
Fri Aug 21 17:48:34 CDT 2015

On 2015-08-22 00:17, Fred Cisin wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Mouse wrote:
>> But that is not what the word means in law and it is not what the word
>> means in ordinary usage.
> I'm confused on some of the terminology.  I don't think that I'm alone.
> A friend of mine was in law school before he'd believe me that
> "burglary" and "robbery" were not fully synonymous.

And they aren't synonymous. The point being...?

>> There is nothing you had before such an event
>> that you no longer have after,
> So, "steal", "theft"? require a component of having already gotten
> possession?


> Somebody who takes your packages off of the Fedex or USPS truck is not
> "steal"ing from you?

Correct. He is stealing from Fedex or USPS. The fact that the package 
was destined for you don't mean he stole it from you, since you did not 
have it.

> If your publisher promises you $10 for every copy, then somebody who
> cancels their order to make their own unauthorized copy did not "steal"
> your $10?

What $10? You never had them, how could someone steal them from you?

> Howabout somebody who buys COD and stops payment?  (apparently habitually)
> I had a college administrator cancel PO for "non-delivery" AFTER calling
> for installation tech support.

That is, I believe, a breach of contract. Fraudulent.

>> It's illegal (the copyright infringement, that is, not the
>> apple-seller).  It's unethical and/or immoral (to most people).  But
>> stealing it is not.
> Is "theft of service" valid under the law?

Theft of service... I have a hard time understanding that concept.

> Is "Intellectual Property" an oxymoron?

Sortof. It's an established term, but it do not actually refer to a 
physical property.
But there are many established terms which are oxymorons.

>>> That is reality, not the semantics of case law.
>> Perhaps you would like others to believe that.  Perhaps you believe it,
>> even.  But it is still false.
> It is too bad, when "SHOULD" and "LEGAL" are orthogonal.

Legal, I think is a rather strict term, which have nothing to do with 
words like "should", "sensible", "human", or even "logical". :-)

> I have had software that I was not legally entitled to, but also I have
> dealt with infringement of my trademark, and with unauthorized
> distribution of my copyrighted materials.  I haven't patented anything.
> Somebody suggested that failure to curtail infringement be considered
> defacto abandonment - I have to disagree, sometimes it's just not
> reasonable to make the effort.

I agree. Legal is sometimes weird. But we cannot ignore it.

But here I thought we were just discussing what theft was. :-)

And I think all have agreed with you that copying and making your work 
available without you getting reimbursed is illegal. and bad. We have 
just disagreed that the crime should be called theft. Using the word 
theft is just trying to pervert a word, and try to make people think and 
associate with other actions that they really should not.


Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                   ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt at             ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol

More information about the cctech mailing list