And they did sin again when they blessed the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
THEY WILL BURN IN HELL FOR THIS AND RIGHTFULLY SO! (Not that I am a believer but they are/were so it applies to them fer sure!)
http://www.taddelay.com/2009/10/19/thoughts-on-violence-from-the-wwii-priest-who-blessed-the-atomic-bombs/

Does that mean you're opposed to the use of the word "theft" in this respect as well? E.g. it's about semantics and not ethics (which is something I'm prone to do myself - to the pronounced irritation of those around me).

Would it be "better" if there was a word that meant "unlawfully aquiring something of value"? Which is basically how I define "theft". Actually, it doesn't even have to be of any use or value, it's the "unlawful aquisition" part that's important.

Yes......I am. Unless the person who is using someone else's identity steals something using said identity, then it becomes theft under the normal definition.

And why does everyone I argue semantics with think i'm leaning a certain way on an issue by default? That's bloody rude and jumping the gun is what it is.

I guess text written in ancient history should be considered applicable to current technological advances. Or can they? Jesus must be rolling in his grave.

So what? does that make it defensible, or excusable? or not equally worthy of prosecution? No.

Every instance of "file sharing" of copyrighted materials not licensed for such sharing, i.e. piracy, is a crime on the exact same rank as theft, even though on a technicality it is not exactly theft.

Any attempt to make a pretense that "file sharing", i.e. piracy, is something less of a crime is merely a pretense put forth for the purpose of allowing pirates to think they are not culpable for their crimes and for freeloaders to think they can get something for nothing.

My immediate thought is that either the priest was a fraud, unable to actually bless those things (it should've been raining fish and bread - and possibly some wine? - from the sky, not death and destruction), or that god was totally on board with it (part of his offensive on making christianity the world religion?), or simply that no amount of blessing will supernaturally change anything at all.

Everyone going around blessing weapons and soldiers etc should have their heads examined. And that includes those saying 'god bless <insert nation or ruler of your choice>' - what in the bible makes you believe that god would make any distinction between nationalities when it comes to blessings?

Are you suggesting religions like Christianity include a concept of forgiveness? What a novel idea! Next you'll tell me Jesus also had love for whores, outcasts and criminals! And there was me thinking religion was all about looking down on other people, pointing out their vices and frightening them with the idea of hell if their way of living is different from yours ... ;)

No disrespect/rudeness intended. What exactly am I jumping the gun on?

I personally am against EULAs. I would love to see a law set up that treats software liscences as ownership. So you can own a game. So you can lend it out. We use software almost identically as books. Why not make them the same?

You still can't copy it.

For the Rager:
Software piracy is theft. Taking something that you don't have permission to take is theft.

Dictionary.com: Theft: the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another

To download a pirated copy of GOG's Flatout would be wrongfully taking. You would possess something that is an intellectual property of someone else's. And you're carrying away the intellectual property on your hard drive.

It fits the definition.

Also from Dictionary.com
Steal: to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, *bing*

It still is copyright infringment, yes. And it's more precisely copyright infringment, especially when talking about the letter of the law. But in plain English, it's theft.

Thou shalt not steal.

In details, the Bible goes on to talk about stealing wives and oxen and so forth. It of course does not talk about software. But to take property without permission is certainly stealing.

1. Where did I say it was defensible or excusable? Are you just trying to get my ire up with such words? It seems so, otherwise you wouldn't have worded your reply in such a manner or put words into my mouth.

2. I never said it wasn't a crime, now did I? Again more words in my mouth that I never said.

3. I showed no such pretense. Seriously it's like you and a handful of others on here can't discuss this issue rationally so you resort to underhanded trickery like putting words in people's mouths and making general assumptions to keep your arguments going.

Poor form, to say the least.
I may be wrong but some here(I thought you might be one) are thinking that if you discuss semantics or correct them that piracy isn't the same crime as theft that that automatically means you believe a certain way on other things.
By piracy is not stealing I meant stealing as in the legal definition/criminal act....i.e. theft of physical goods.

Also, part of the definition is to also deprive the original owner of their ownership of said item. This is not so in most piracy incidents.


------------------------------------

By the way, why is it that even in this obviously silly little thread do you antis have to keep bringing up the same old same old over and over again? Do you really think that people like me are going to change because we hear it one more time? Or that(on the reverse) anything we say will change your views?

If no then why bother other than to boost your own egos?

Let everyone believe as they will and don't lord yourself over others too much, is what I believe in.

Well, no politician could sustain popular support for a war without making a pretense that it is divine will and their god is on their side. This is essential to the act of blinding the people that is necessary to sustain a war.

The excuse-making that ministers of the Word have to make to carry on a ministry in support of a war is really appalling, making the slimiest defense lawyers seem honest in comparison.

I thought you might be aiming for the legal definition. It's like assault. You can assault someone by hitting them. That's English. But it's not law. In law, you just batteried them.

The Hebrew Law is neither English nor modern law. But I think a lot of discussion could be brought about in discussing the morality of software piracy.

I think the Bible would strongly defend that it's wrong. But I know lots of Christians who have no problem with it.

Piracy is theft colloquially, not legally. That's not a hard concept to understand, but people on both sides seem to enjoy arguing about it.

Again, claiming piracy is any crime of a lesser evil than theft regardless of technical distinctions made to define it is mere making of excuses for piracy, and an attempt to pretend that pirates should not be pursued for their crimes.

Making distribution of copies that the owner has the exclusive right to distribute is in fact depriving the copyright holder of the value of his property. If it is not the same as stealing a cow, it is at least no less than stealing milk from the cow.

I will not split hairs by making a false distinction between value and possession. The whole foundation of ownership of intellectual property is the ability to receive value for it, and the crime of piracy is the act of depriving the owner of the value that he would have received for each copy pirated.

Stop, just stop. Go no further as you're only shooting yourself in the foot here.

No one here has said pirates shouldn't be pursued for their crimes, that piracy wasn't a crime or that it was legal, or whether piracy was more or less a crime than stealing physical property....so don't keep bloody saying it or assuming it. But go ahead say it again as if that will make it true if you keep repeating it(Didn't Einstein say the definition of insanity was trying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?).

Also lost sales argument is flawed. Try again.