Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 26th Aug 2011 22:06 UTC, submitted by Morgan
Legal And we have another contender for the stupidest technology-related lawsuit of 2011. Do you remember RealNetworks? The scourge of '90s web users? Lucky for us, their horrible media player is no longer a requirement on the web. Also lucky, for those of us who occasionally run into content encoded in any of Real's codecs, there's Real Alternative (download here). Well, apparently, RealNetworks is not happy with Real Alternative (download here), as the US company has completely destroyed the life of the Dutch maintainer of a website who dared to link to Real Alternative (download here).
Thread beginning with comment 487271
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Alex Hitech on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Alex Hitech
Member since:
2005-12-29

And I should give a fcuk about Israel and Russia, why, exactly? Are you telling me their laws apply to us as well? Wtf?


I'm merely saying that, unless laws explicitly state something else, theft is illegal obtaining. Theft is unapproved possessing. Without any concern if the legal owner still holds the original.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:17 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

theft is illegal obtaining


Uhm, no.

The only law that matters here is the Dutch one, which states:

"Hij die enig goed dat geheel of ten dele aan een ander toebehoort wegneemt, met het oogmerk om het zich wederrechtelijk toe te eigenen, wordt, als schuldig aan diefstal, gestraft met gevangenisstraf van ten hoogste 4 jaren of geldboete van de vierde categorie."

Sorry.

Edited 2011-08-27 18:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by MOS6510 on Sat 27th Aug 2011 18:58 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Wist je dat je geen pennen kan stelen van je werkgever? Dat is geen diefstal, maar ontvreemding. Je mag namelijk een pen pakken, gebruiken, maar niet tot je eigen bezit gaan rekenen. Beetje het zelfde als boodschappen doen, daar mag je ook alles pakken en in je wagentje stoppen.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by Doc Pain on Sun 28th Aug 2011 06:46 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I'm merely saying that, unless laws explicitly state something else, theft is illegal obtaining. Theft is unapproved possessing.


That's a contradiction, because possessing is the result of obtaining. Without first obtaining something, no matter by which means, you can't possess it (unless you invented or created it). So theft is the act of illegal obtaining, not its result.

Maybe one of those handy guides can be used for clarification:

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/piracy1.png

http://burnabrain.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/piracy-a-hand...

http://classicfun.ws/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Piracy-is-not-theft...

Without any concern if the legal owner still holds the original.


A further problem of theft is that it includes the concept that the original (i. e. the thing that gets stolen) is removed from the legal owner. It is quite hard to translate this concept to immaterial things, such as software (of which one could make an illegal copy), or even more abstract things like intellectual property (which one could infringe upon).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by WereCatf on Sun 28th Aug 2011 09:15 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

A further problem of theft is that it includes the concept that the original (i. e. the thing that gets stolen) is removed from the legal owner. It is quite hard to translate this concept to immaterial things, such as software (of which one could make an illegal copy), or even more abstract things like intellectual property (which one could infringe upon).


For some reason that is really hard for many people to grasp. "Theft" by very literal definition means removing something from someone else without permission and then keeping it for yourself; the person who originally had that something now no longer has access to it. In this case a clear loss of property has happened.

Unauthorized reproduction or copying is exactly that: an act where a duplicate is made without the permission of the owner of the original, he however still has access to the original and can continue to use it as before. In this case there has been no loss of property, only possibly a loss of income that could've otherwise been made. However, it's only a possibility, there's still no saying the parties who obtained the unauthorized copy would've bought it anyways if they couldn't have access to the unauthorized copy.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer
by JAlexoid on Sun 28th Aug 2011 18:11 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by ilovebeer"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

And even in case of Russia you are incorrect. Copyright infringement is not theft in Russia.(There is an explanation of the term by the Russian Supreme Court)
There is no legal concept of IP in a lot of countries, BTW.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[6]: Comment by ilovebeer
by kristoph on Sun 28th Aug 2011 18:36 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by ilovebeer"
kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

IP laws are an absolute PITA in the US and yet, there is more venture dollars in the US then in the EU combined.

Maybe there is a correlation?

]{

Reply Parent Score: 2