Adobe - Photoshop and their "Subscriptions"

PeterN wrote:
On 6/28/2013 6:52 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
peternew wrote:
On 6/26/2013 8:04 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

But the clues are still above
"to which the crime against intellectual property was committed"

so intellectual property and property must be differnt and therefor treated differntly. They'd also have to change the definition of theft too, no sign of that happening that I've heard of.

OK IP is property that has an owner.

My bike has an owner.
It surely is property.
Is it IP?

If someone appropriates it without
the permission of the owner, it is common theft.

Bike? possibly.[2]

Thoughts (even embodied on paper (books, blueprints, ...), in
numbers (digitally, that is), or in the way a thing is build or
operates (patent law?)) aren't appropriated. They are copied.

At worst you can steal all physical copies embodying the
principle[1] and the original creator can't (or can only
with lots of work) recreate the thoughs. Appropriating these
physical object may be theft[2]. The transfer of knowledge
isn't theft, however; that transfer is handled by other laws.

[1] or destroy these embodyments
[2] it could be fraud, it could be robbery, ... instead of theft

As I said earlier, I have no need to spend time researching to prove
your fallacy.
Bye

Of course not.

In fact, you have a blazing need *not* to research to prove
that copying without permission is "common theft", because you
KNOW that you won't come up with any law that defines copying
without permission as "theft".


Unless of course you want to make appropriate financial arrangements.
I'll go so far as to say if I'm wrong, you don't pay.

I'll call your bluff: how much money would that need?
I now fully expect an outrageous sum or silence ...
.... or some website of some "IP defender" who equates copying
with theft, but no actual law text tying copying to the word
"theft" and then claims that that would prove it.


You simply fell for the oldest trick in the book: since
"intellectual property" equals "property"[3] negating any
hypothetically possible sale[4] must equal "theft".

-Wolfgang

[3] a easily falsifyable claim
[4] which for property includes, but is not solely, theft ---
you can also damage or destroy property so it's not
saleable any more, just for example ...

On 2013-07-02 14:02:52 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:09:41 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:52:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

OK IP is property that has an owner.

My bike has an owner.
It surely is property.
Is it IP?

The sentence said "OK intellectual property is property that has an
owner". Use of the abbreviation, IP, does not change the meaning.

Maybe I misparsed.

I read it as
"Okay, intellectual property is (any) property that has
an owner".
Or as
"Correct; intellectual property is (any) property that
has an owner".
Or as
"(A) correct (type of) intellectual property is (any)
property that has an owner".

The alternative of "intellectual property is (intellectual)
property (that has an owner)" makes no sense, IMHO, there can
be property without an owner. (The same IP can even have an
owner & be restricted and be free-for-all just by changing
jurisdictions.)

What is "OK IP is property that has an owner." supposed to mean?

I didn't write that sentence. I forget who did.

Peter.

I read it as "Intellectual property is property that has an owner",
but understood it to mean that it is non-physical property (a creation
of the mind) of which rights are accorded to the person creating it.
Being somewhat familiar with the concept, I could read that meaning
into it without it being stated.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:09:41 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 12:52:04 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg

OK IP is property that has an owner.

My bike has an owner.
It surely is property.
Is it IP?

The sentence said "OK intellectual property is property that has an
owner". Use of the abbreviation, IP, does not change the meaning.

Maybe I misparsed.

I read it as
"Okay, intellectual property is (any) property that has
an owner".
Or as
"Correct; intellectual property is (any) property that
has an owner".
Or as
"(A) correct (type of) intellectual property is (any)
property that has an owner".

The alternative of "intellectual property is (intellectual)
property (that has an owner)" makes no sense, IMHO, there can
be property without an owner. (The same IP can even have an
owner & be restricted and be free-for-all just by changing
jurisdictions.)

What is "OK IP is property that has an owner." supposed to mean?

I didn't write that sentence. I forget who did.

I read it as "Intellectual property is property that has an owner",
but understood it to mean that it is non-physical property (a creation
of the mind) of which rights are accorded to the person creating it.

For a long time the US of A didn't recognize non-US authors'
copyright. So the same book (an IP) could have rights in, say,
England and no rights in, say, the USA. (And that doesn't even
encompass that the person creating the IP, e.g. writing the
book, may never have had moral and/or commercial rights ---
signed them away before the IP was created, for example.)

Additionally, the IP rights in the US are often not the ones
of the creator. (At least over here you can't sign away your
moral rights ...)


Being somewhat familiar with the concept, I could read that meaning
into it without it being stated.

That definition also makes no sense.

-Wolfgang