If you have admitted to the fact that you took something without the express consent of the owner, what defense could you use to deny the charge of theft? I am interested in this opinion.
No, it IS wrong. You are an accessory to the crime of theft. You are complicit to the act. You try to hide immoral and illegal reasoning behind technicalities and semantics, but it is still immoral and illegal. I'd like to see you try your defence in court (again: popcorn's on me).
Yes, I did. MS OEM licences are more limited than the Retail licences: only one install per licence, on one machine only.
This US attorney thinks otherwise. I'm sure the same applies to the UK Theft act. I did point this out to you a couple of posts ago.
What is it you missed in my previous posts where I explained about the small issue of theft requiring the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property? There's more to the offence of theft than the initial act of taking the item. Being charged with theft and being convicted of theft are two different things. Not to mention the page you linked to implies that the items were taken with the intention to permanently deprive the owner of them in which case it would be theft, and that's not something i've ever argued to the contrary.
RE - Edit: So if a person enters my house as a guest and takes my TV without my consent for just an hour, then brings it back in perfect condition, then this is not theft. As the attorney said, the act of taking the object without consent completes the act of theft. The theft has been committed, regardless of what happens next. Why are you being so obtusive over this point?
You only came here to troll this thread anyway. You've been a member of this forum for 2 weeks and not once contributed to any other thread, or this community in general, so I don't really care what you think. Go away troll. If you took my car without asking and were caught, you'd be prosecuted. If you were caught recording a movie in a theatre so you could watch it at home, you'd be prosecuted. If you were actually CAUGHT downloading pirate software, you would be prosecuted (albeit not very heavily). Arguing that it's not "THEFT" is neither here, nor there; You are committing criminal acts. The fact that you don't consider them to be so, doesn't alter the fact that they are. You would have very little in the way of defence, and all the crap you're posting on here (if you tried to use this as defence) would probably just make matters worse for you, as you clearly have no sense of remorse for your actions. These are facts. I can only hope that you don't ACTUALLY think like this in real life, as this blatant disregard for law, and lack of remorse for committing criminal acts just because you happen to not agree is borderline sociopathic behaviour.
If you are so sure of your theory, I challenge you to put your balls where you type, and go to a shop tomorrow, any shop will do. Take an item, telling the staff that you will bring it back in an hour. Proceed to walk out, and see how far you will get without having your collar felt. I really would love to see this, and would drive to see it (all night if needs be).
Frankly that'd be down to a jury to decide but i'd imagine the defence would argue that it wasn't due to the act lacking any intention to deprive you permanently of your telly. It would be down to the prosecution to demonstrate that the person did in fact have that intention. Actually the attorney says "The elements of theft are taking property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them of their property" and that the act of theft is commited at the time the items are taking. He never says anything about the act of simply taking an object without consent completing the act of theft. What is it about the simple concept that theft requires the taking of an item and the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it that you're finding so difficult to grasp? Yes, there are criminal offences that cover that and i'd likely be charged with theft or taking a motor vehicle without consent. Yes, i'd be likely charged with one of the criminal offences found under current copyright legislation. No, I wouldn't. I could get taken to court by the rights holders who could sue me but I wouldn't be prosecuted as I wouldn't have committed a criminal offence. Downloading software/music/movies etc for your own personal use is a civil tort, not a criminal offence. The fact that you consider downloading digital media for your own use to be theft doesn't alter the fact that it isn't. Some of what you've written is facts, other parts are your opinions. What's with the strawman argument? Where have I shown any disregard for the law? Or indeed admitted that i've committed any criminal acts or have a lack of remorse for any I may have committed?
What exactly would that prove? That walking out of a shop with something you've not paid for will get you arrested? Of course it would and anyone would be naive to think it wouldn't. However it doesn't alter the fact that you could attempt to argue that you had no intention to deprive the store of the item you took as a defence when you were likely charged with theft. It'd then be down to how well you could convince the jury of your claims as to whether or not they'd take the view that it was beyond reasonable doubt that you did have the intention to deprive the store of their property at teh time you took the item.
Well, in what circumstances would you take property from another person, without their consent, with the intention of returning it? What items would be obtained in this manner? As I said, I am genuinely interested in your viewpoint. Let's talk real world here for a mo.
You are clearly stating that you don't consider copyright infringement a crime. You have stated clearly that you think it's morally correct to take other people's belongings without asking so long as you bring them back, and you also think it's morally correct to not pay at the cinema. So this demonstrates disregard for the law. I have no idea if you have, or haven't committed any of these crimes, but as you clearly don't even see them as crimes, and see them as something morally correct, it's probably only a matter of time before you do... after all, what's to stop you? Not your morals, that's for sure. Fear of being caught? If so, then if that's the ONLY thing stopping you, in my book, you are a criminal because if an opportunity to commit one of these crimes presented itself with very little chance of being caught, what would stop you taking it if you actually believe it's not a crime and morally acceptable? People don't refrain from crime JUST because they fear getting caught, they refrain from crime because they morally disagree with it. Remove this remorse and moral coding, and we're one step from lawlessness. Your behaviour and attitude is very common amongst sociopaths. Maybe Nexxo can shed some light on this, but I find your attitude bizarre. What I "consider" is irrelevant. If you haven't paid to use that software, it's a criminal offense. You must be winding me up.. no one is this stupid, and maladjusted. This has to be a joke. Too many trolls in this thread now.. it's getting silly. You're far too polite. I've no patience for this **** any more.
Well I know of one case where someone took some property belonging to a friend (well that's what they thought at the time anyway) as a prank. The 'friend' then pushed for charges to be pressed despite the items being returned the next day I think it was and the Police/CPS went ahead with it. The person who took the items ended up in the High Court charged with theft where the Defence Barrister argued that the items had been taken as a childish prank and that there was no intention to deprive so his client could not be found guilty of theft. The jury agreed and the person was found not guilty by unanimous decision.
It's not a crime unless you're undertaking it for commercial reasons. Downloading for your own use is unlawful but it's not a crime and you can't be prosecuted for it. You can be sued by the rights holder but you can't be convicted of a crime for having done it. Where have I done anything of the sort? I think you'll find I've made no such statement or claim. Now you're just making up stuff about me which has absolutely no basis in what i've said. Perhaps you should try reading what i've said properly and make some attempt to try to understand it before making statements about me? Under which law? Please go find me the law and the section that declares downloading a piece of software for your own use to be a criminal offence. Having an understanding of the law makes me stupid and maladjusted? Interesting take on it.
OK, that sounds very plausible. In that case though, I would suggest that the "offender" made a very silly choice of prank, and was lucky that the jury went his way. The term "deprive the owner permanently" seems to have a loose definition: Now one could argue that by using the stolen item, one is treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
No. The fact that when asked if you have any moral problem with committing these offences, you reply "No". You don't think it is theft to take my car so long as you bring it back, and think it's fine to not pay at the cinema: The latter you actually readily admit that you would do it, so long as the cinema was not full This demonstrates a total lack of respect for the law and other people.
I suggested exactly the same thing to him at the time. Well it has to cover quite a large range of circumstances so I don't imagine it could be given a tighter definition without opening loopholes where people who have taken things with the intention of depriving the owner could get away with it. And i'm sure this argument gets used a lot in court as it seems a fairly logical train of thought but then you do get into the issues of what's the difference between using something that belongs to you as opposed to something that belongs to someone else? Is there a difference? Is it down to how you treat the item? The length of time you use it? What you do with it? I imagine it's probably a much more complex argument than it sounds.
Again, please point out where I've said anything of the sort. I've asked a couple of times now so rather than just making **** up about me how about trying to prove some of your claims?
Apologies. It was Roland777 the troll that replied to my question. I apologise unreservedly.. it's been a long day. I still disagree with everything you're saying, and for the life of me don't quite see why you're making these fine distinctions in teh law unless it's to try and legitimise piracy... but it's Roland777 I think has questionable ethics and social problems, not you. [edit] Hang on.. are you suggesting that if you download a piece of software illegally via peer to peer, or warez site, and that software can only legally be used by a license holder who has paid to use it, are you suggesting that it is not against the law for you to download it, and use it?
Pookey, I still personally think that the taking of property without the consent of the owner is theft, regardless of intent, and should be treated as such. But Krazeh was right in pointing out the fact that intent to permanently deprive the owner of said property has to be proven to make a charge of theft convert into a conviction. This doesn't really have a bearing on piracy, other than making a charge of theft on a pirate would be incredibly highly unlikely. I myself tried to claim otherwise, but now realise I was wrong and am not afraid to admit it. But again, the fact remains that I would like to see the act of piracy be included within the scope of the Theft Act, as I think the practice is immoral and dishonest, and does bring financial implications to bear on the victim. This is where I do still disagree with Krazeh. As there is very limited evidence on either side, this whole debate really falls on opinions and moral choices, and this is the reason why it has got so heated here. There are those who consider piracy to be of benefit to the industries involved, and there are those who consider it to be a threat. We can all pull tit bits of data here and there, but not one of us can conclusively prove their opinions translate into facts, especially when it comes to the financial implications. Piracy is not a new problem, and in the time that it has existed there have been no conclusive studies that we can apply to the whole industry (or even seperate industries).
