# Court Rules Computer Code Is Not "Property" and Can't be Stolen!



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

http://gizmodo.com/5901263/court-rules-it-is-impossible-to-steal-computer-code

[sigQUOTE]The 2nd Circuit Appeals Court ruled that since computer code cannot be physically obtained, it doesn't fit the legal description of a stolen good. "Because Aleynikov did not ‘assume physical control' over anything when he took the source code, and because he did not thereby ‘deprive [Goldman] of its use,' Aleynikov did not violate the [National Stolen Property Act]," the court wrote in its decision.[/sigquote]

[sigquote]The court was quick to point out that this decision should not be interpreted for all cases of electronic theft, however the legal recognition that code isn't physical property (which people have been saying for years) is sure to make this case a focal point in future MPAA/RIAA wranglings.[/sigQUOTE]

Sounds to me like they just threw a big wrench in a lot of MPAA/RIAA cases against people.

I'm glad someone finally did what is right and officially stated that if you aren't depriving someone of something it isn't stealing.


----------



## Darkleoco (Apr 13, 2012)

Nice to see that courts are finally showing just a bit of sense when it comes to things like this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2012)

Awesome!  Now this just needs to reach the Supreme Court so MPAA and RIAA can be ordered to GTFO.


It is "copied," not "stolen."  I'd imagine deleting it would be considered sabotauge though.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2012)

This is great news! Ill never have to buy software again. I can just DL anything I want and never pay a dime! I'm sure MS and all the game developers will still make games and stuff for everyone to DL for free! Everything will run off donations too! I'm sure they can raise tens of millions of dollars in R&D to just give the software away via donations! Super neat idea!

I can take code, change the name and BAM! I have a new program I can take credit for!


----------



## Anath (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This is great news! Ill never have to buy software again. I can just DL anything I want and never pay a dime! I'm sure MS and all the game developers will still make games and stuff for everyone to DL for free! Everything will run off donations too! I'm sure they can raise tens of millions of dollars in R&D to just give the software away via donations! Super neat idea!
> 
> I can take code, change the name and BAM! I have a new program I can take credit for!



While i do agree with this somewhat, there are cases such as doubletakes kickstarter program where "donations" do work if people want it bad enough.


----------



## 1freedude (Apr 13, 2012)

Ain't no rest for the wicked


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> This is great news! Ill never have to buy software again. I can just DL anything I want and never pay a dime! I'm sure MS and all the game developers will still make games and stuff for everyone to DL for free! Everything will run off donations too! I'm sure they can raise tens of millions of dollars in R&D to just give the software away via donations! Super neat idea!
> 
> I can take code, change the name and BAM! I have a new program I can take credit for!



I see you don't understand the difference in concept between stealing and piracy and why making the distinction(finally) is important.

I'll simplify the explanation for you.  Stealing is a criminal act, digital piracy is not.  So now all these whackjob MPAA/RIAA/Software Companies can't threaten to bring up criminal cases against people, the most they can do is civil cases, they can't ask for insane restitution anymore, and they can't claim that anything was stolen from them.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I see you don't understand the difference in concept between stealing and piracy and why making the distinction(finally) is important.



It was defined in 1985. Dowling vs. United States.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> It was defined in 1985. Dowling vs. United States.



That case handles physical copies, not digital.  It doesn't establish anything related to digital piracy.  _This_ case establishes precedent related to digital content.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> That case handles physical copies, not digital.  It doesn't establish anything related to digital piracy.



Its the exact same principle. If you read the case it supports your stance. They stated...

The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of [section] 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," *interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.*

However what saved Mr. Aleynikov was the fact he didn't distribute the code over the web as he doesn't hold the copyright to distribute the code. If he had done that his ass would be in the slammer.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

I know, I wasn't arguing with you, just saying that the MPAA/RIAA has argued that it doesn't apply to digital content, and this decision finally solidifies that it does.

The copyright issue is a completely different matter, and still very valid.  However, this removes the criminal aspect that the RIAA/MPAA leverages so heavily on, and makes it a civil matter.  Making defending against most of the BS claims the RIAA/MPAA make easier.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I know, I wasn't arguing with you, just saying that the MPAA/RIAA has argued that it doesn't apply to digital content, and this decision finally solidifies that it does.



Unless I'm mistaken they argue copyright infringement. Which if Mr. Aleynikov had posted this code on a torrent he would have been in violation of as that would have been "theft of market". New term I learned the other day! lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Unless I'm mistaken they argue copyright infringement. Which if Mr. Aleynikov had posted this code on a torrent he would have been in violation of as that would have been "theft of market". New term I learned the other day! lol



No, usually they are wrongly accusing theft.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> No, usually they are wrongly accusing theft.



Theft of market is the new "theft". Thats what they argue now. Anyway I just went to the RIAA website and found their statement on Copyright infringement which is what almost ALL their cases are based on.



> Common Examples of Online Copyright Infringement:
> 
> ◦You make an MP3 copy of a song because the CD you bought expressly permits you to do so. But then you put your MP3 copy on the Internet, using a file-sharing network, so that millions of other people can download it.
> 
> ...



Apparently the entire world is going to jail.  Anyway my point is this ruling will have like zero effect on the MPAA/RIAA and their crusade IMO.


----------



## phanbuey (Apr 13, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I see you don't understand the difference in concept between stealing and piracy and why making the distinction(finally) is important.
> 
> I'll simplify the explanation for you.  Stealing is a criminal act, digital piracy is not.  So now all these whackjob MPAA/RIAA/Software Companies can't threaten to bring up criminal cases against people, the most they can do is civil cases, they can't ask for insane restitution anymore, and they can't claim that anything was stolen from them.



Thanks for explaining that - wasn't originally clear on this.

This is good news - as it makes the act and the punishment fair.  Your actions cost someone money, you pay money.  Makes perfect sense.  Throwing someone in jail, or even the threat of, is extreme.  Not to mention I am sure that trying to get a professional job with a criminal record can't be easy.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Anyway my point is this ruling will have like zero effect on the MPAA/RIAA and their crusade IMO.



That is probably true, the MPAA/RIAA don't really like using that thing called logic when they do things...


----------



## AphexDreamer (Apr 13, 2012)

Now how about music made with computers?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2012)

I hope they take that $500,000 FBI Warning off movies because of this.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 13, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Awesome!  Now this just needs to reach the Supreme Court so MPAA and RIAA can be ordered to GTFO.
> 
> 
> It is "copied," not "stolen."  I'd imagine deleting it would be considered sabotauge though.



and Repay those who suffered damages from their activities


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 13, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I hope they take that $500,000 FBI Warning off movies because of this.



Its not the same thing Ford. I don't think you grasp what this means. The FBI warning is for copyright infringement. This judgement has NOTHING to do with that.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its not the same thing Ford. I don't think you grasp what this means. The FBI warning is for copyright infringement. This judgement has NOTHING to do with that.



Anything that is recorded is in 1/0s anymore...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 13, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Its not the same thing Ford. I don't think you grasp what this means. The FBI warning is for copyright infringement. This judgement has NOTHING to do with that.


Sure it does.  Making a backup violates copyright but, because it doesn't constitute a theft as per this ruling, it can't go to criminal court.  In civil court, they can't get anywhere close to $500,000 so the warning is a baseless threat.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 14, 2012)

The warning is a mixed bag.  It states "criminal copyright infringement in investigated by the FBI" but this new ruling means that it isn't criminal anymore.  And no more fine either.  However, they can still come after you in civil court for restitution based on the copyright infringement.

Also, the warning states that any unauthorized reproduction is illegal, but this is also no longer the case.  Reproduction without distribution is not illegal.


----------



## OneMoar (Apr 14, 2012)

O oOO a piracy thread 
/makes popcorn


----------



## qubit (Apr 14, 2012)

_Finally!_ 

A copy can be several things, but it cannot be theft, because the original is still there. Period. I'm glad that the courts are finally starting to get this terribly basic concept.

Thanks for posting this NT, you made my day.


----------



## stinger608 (Apr 14, 2012)

qubit said:


> _Finally!_
> 
> A copy can be several things, but it cannot be theft, because the original is still there. Period. I'm glad that the courts are finally starting to get this terribly basic concept.
> 
> Thanks for posting this NT, you made my day.



Exactly what I got from this. Music, software, movies, applications, etc... that are downloadable content would fall into this category then? Taking it without paying for it still leaves the creator with the original. So taking downloadable content without paying for it is not stealing!

That basically means that someone can take the web site code from.........say.....TPU, create a carbon copy and it would not be considered theft due to TPU still being completely in tact and still working? And not depriving W1zzard from the code. Crazy


----------



## qubit (Apr 14, 2012)

stinger608 said:


> Exactly what I got from this. Music, software, movies, applications, etc... that are downloadable content would fall into this category then? Taking it without paying for it still leaves the creator with the original. So taking downloadable content without paying for it is not stealing!
> 
> That basically means that someone can take the web site code from.........say.....TPU, create a carbon copy and it would not be considered theft due to TPU still being completely in tact and still working? And not depriving W1zzard from the code. Crazy



Sure, that's why it's an _infringement_, becauase the creator of that song/movie/program code etc doesn't want you to have a copy for free. This is why I said it can be a lot of things, but not theft. Crucially, you can't even make a solid argument for financial losses. All you can really argue is the morality of the act. Yeah, like anyone cares about that, lol and the courts certainly won't grant any damages over a mere moral argument. The RIAA and the rest of their cronies know this, which is why they will moronically insist down to their dying breath that copying is "stealing" or "theft".

So no, getting a copy of some DLC off a torrent isn't stealing or theft at all.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 14, 2012)

Seriously why is mailman a mod when all he does is troll. See first post of his in this thread, adds nothing to the thread, just pisses people off...

Reported btw, I believe that sort of posting is against the rules


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 14, 2012)

He isn't a Mod.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Ill never have to buy software again



This sentence assumes that you are "buying software" in the first place, prior to this decision. You have never bought software for years now. You are merely buying a license to use that software. The license is the product, not the software per se.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 14, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> He isn't a Mod.



Did he get demoted?


----------



## cadaveca (Apr 14, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Did he get demoted?



Nope, news posters in pink and reviewers in orange are not mods.


----------



## erocker (Apr 14, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Seriously why is mailman a mod when all he does is troll. See first post of his in this thread, adds nothing to the thread, just pisses people off...
> 
> Reported btw, I believe that sort of posting is against the rules



He is not a mod and how is stating an opinion on the topic at hand, trolling?


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 14, 2012)

actually this is very very bad. now the powers that be can redefine the term stolen for the digital age and INCREASE the penalty to whatever they deem appropriate.


----------



## stinger608 (Apr 14, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Seriously why is mailman a mod when all he does is troll. See first post of his in this thread, adds nothing to the thread, just pisses people off...
> 
> Reported btw, I believe that sort of posting is against the rules



Soooooooo, what your statement is saying is not trolling??????? Hmmmm



erocker said:


> He is not a mod and how is stating an opinion on the topic at hand, trolling?



Exactly. 

None the less, if someone copies anything, isn't that at the very least plagiarism at the very least?


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 14, 2012)

stinger608 said:


> None the less, if someone copies anything, isn't that at the very least plagiarism at the very least?



If you're distributing it, then it's theft of market, if you're claiming you made it, then it's plagiarism, however if you do neither than it is merely a breach of copywrite, and a civil issue.  So fines but no jail.

Well I'm fairly certain there are a number of people out there who will be happy to know they don't have to worry about going to jail because their kid decided to find a "free" mp3 player site and download a ton of music to impress their friends, along with viruses to clog their PC.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 14, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> If you're distributing it, then it's theft of market, if you're claiming you made it, then it's plagiarism, however if you do neither than it is merely a breach of copywrite, and a civil issue.  So fines but no jail.
> 
> Well I'm fairly certain there are a number of people out there who will be happy to know they don't have to worry about going to jail because their kid decided to find a "free" mp3 player site and download a ton of music to impress their friends, along with viruses to clog their PC.



you know, i was gonna troll but then i read your comment and had to add to it.

if downloading digital copies of games/movies/music can no longer be considered theft then imagine the boondoggle there. also imagine the immense amount of virus ridden files that will accompany people's downloads. most 0 day downloads already have trojans attached to them. the proliferation of malware will explode!

i mean, it would be really tough for an average user to find a clean copy of the movie or game they want. they will get so mad they will have no choice but to buy it. hilarious irony!


----------



## Steevo (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Theft of market is the new "theft". Thats what they argue now. Anyway I just went to the RIAA website and found their statement on Copyright infringement which is what almost ALL their cases are based on.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently the entire world is going to jail.  Anyway my point is this ruling will have like zero effect on the MPAA/RIAA and their crusade IMO.



The first and largest issue here is if a consumer purchases a CD, they don't own the content but merely the right to use it as set forth in copyright and fair use laws.

Now lets say I buy a music cd, my kids get ahold of it and decide it makes a good frisbee, currently I would still be charged with copyright infringement if I, within my fair use rights downloaded a new copy off the internet, or borrowed to make a copy. I would be expected to provide a lawyer, be wrongfully imprisioned, submit to unwarranted search and seisure, and take the loss of income and damage to my reputation.

Second, the guilty blanket is one I have personally experianced on a youtube video that was removed as in the background at a public place music could be heard.  I had to email a specific portion of the fair use law to tje studio agent and to the youtube complaint department to have it made availabe again. They spacificly infringed on my rights with an assumption of guilt.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 14, 2012)

What newtekie1 and I talked about is this has to do with the act of copying. Not copyright infringement. Its totally two different crimes. Dowling vs. United States already covered this 1985. All this court ruling brings is it applies to binary code now instead of phonorecords. The MPAA/RIAA will still be able to throw the book at you in court. Its not a hard concept to follow.

You guys have taken this ruling WAY out of context. This doesn't/will never allow you to violate copyrights via downloading illegally acquired/unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.



Steevo said:


> Second, the guilty blanket is one I have personally experianced on a youtube video that was removed as in the background at a public place music could be heard.  I had to email a specific portion of the fair use law to tje studio agent and to the youtube complaint department to have it made availabe again. They spacificly infringed on my rights with an assumption of guilt.



First off you don't have a "right" to post on a privately owned website. Second you agreed to the NDA when uploading that video so any perceived "right" was waved then. Does it suck? Sure but you can always start SteevoTube.


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

0011001001000001111100000011111111110100001000001.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> What newtekie1 and I talked about is this has to do with the act of copying. Not copyright infringement. Its totally two different crimes. Dowling vs. United States already covered this 1985. All this court ruling brings is it applies to binary code now instead of phonorecords. The MPAA/RIAA will still be able to throw the book at you in court. Its not a hard concept to follow.
> 
> You guys have taken this ruling WAY out of context. This doesn't/will never allow you to violate copyrights via downloading illegally acquired/unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material.




Well I never read it as such, just that it's not theft and therefore not a felony, and means those parents who should really monitor what their kids do on the internet but don't,  should hopefully not have to worry about being charged with a felony XD.  Just a court case and excessive fine.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> First off you don't have a "right" to post on a privately owned website.



You do have a right to post on a privately owned website. That's why site owners/administrators also have the right to stop you from doing so. How the hell can someone have a right to stop you from doing "something" if you don't have the right to do that "something" in the first place?



TheMailMan78 said:


> Second you agreed to the NDA when uploading that video so any perceived "right" was waved then. Does it suck? Sure but you can always start SteevoTube.



No rights are "waived" there, by agreeing all you did was accept that they also have the right to stop you from uploading something/deleting it. The typical terms and conditions of websites can be summarized thusly: you have the right to do A, B, C, but we also have the right to stop you from doing A, B, C, if you violate the others things we list down in the terms and conditions. What you're saying, wrongly, is that websites "gives you access" or "allows you to do something" and "we can disallow you or stop giving you access." Although some might argue the distinction is minor, it actually isn't.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> First off you don't have a "right" to post on a privately owned website. Second you agreed to the NDA when uploading that video so any perceived "right" was waved then. Does it suck? Sure but you can always start SteevoTube.



I abide by their regulations and rules, however it wasn't youtube directly that had the video removed, in case you don't know. Google, youtube viacom. 

Currently youtube is in the crosshairs of viacom to prevent any theft, and they have a court order to allow them to remove videos that might be infringing, and it is up to users to petition for their "innocence" in the matter. 

This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.



"Suggesting"? More like "becoming reality" with CISPA in the works. CISPA is TMM's dream come true, since personal data can be stored and distributed in the name of "cybersecurity".


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

THe only thing the courts are talking about is the CODE, 0100110000111100001111000000001111010101010100000011000001111, THis kind of stuff. Get over it. software , Music, Movies and other stuff is not going to change. It is still copyrighted!


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 14, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> You do have a right to post on a privately owned website. That's why site owners/administrators also have the right to stop you from doing so. How the hell can someone have a right to stop you from doing "something" if you don't have the right to do that "something" in the first place?
> 
> No rights are "waived" there, by agreeing all you did was accept that they also have the right to stop you from uploading something/deleting it. The typical terms and conditions of websites can be summarized thusly: you have the right to do A, B, C, but we also have the right to stop you from doing A, B, C, if you violate the others things we list down in the terms and conditions. What you're saying, wrongly, is that websites "gives you access" or "allows you to do something" and "we can disallow you or stop giving you access." Although some might argue the distinction is minor, it actually isn't.


 A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights. Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has a "right" to post anything on a privately own website. What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it. Its like planting a tree in someones yard. They don't mind but reserve the right to dig it up at anytime for any reason...why? Because they own the yard.



Steevo said:


> I abide by their regulations and rules, however it wasn't youtube directly that had the video removed, in case you don't know. Google, youtube viacom.
> 
> Currently youtube is in the crosshairs of viacom to prevent any theft, and they have a court order to allow them to remove videos that might be infringing, and it is up to users to petition for their "innocence" in the matter.
> 
> This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.


 Right to what? Post a video on a website that might be illegal? You expect Youtube to risk getting fined for copyright infringement because it may inconvenient you? No. Ill just take your video down until you can prove to me that I WILL NOT be fined. Remember its not your head on the block for posting copyrighted material in this case. Its youtubes if they willingly distribute something that violates copyright law KNOWINGLY. Want something better? Start Steevotube.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 14, 2012)

We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse here, now if you want to join in, you can, otherwise go away, you are distracting us.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Apr 14, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Nope, news posters in pink and reviewers in orange are not mods.



that avatar ya new rig Dave nice

OT imho i think if you understand that in essence were just buying a licence EVERY time we buy a piece of software to use and that this is the systeM  They the software distributers dreamed up and put in place ,that they have allready understood that code is just code (which it is there may be five ways to ask ""Whats for tea"but the meaning each time is the same, and code is just another language, its the ART, the tale, the experience that is imho the sold item the patent and licenceable item not the code.

I t appears to me that this had allready been foreseen and sidestepped by the devs as its still just as ilegal as it was to download and play any game without a Licence and the only difference is that unfortunately devs cant send people to jail as easy or rape them of as much compo

Again imho any game dev can side step piracy by makeing their game way better in original licenced form then a pirated experience , and unfortunately Drm dosnt make the bought piece of software anymore enticeing, pls dont rant at me, i dont practice or promote ilegal nonesense and have evolved as many do into a reasonable consumer who spends too much on games and just wants a fair deal these days


----------



## Steevo (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights. Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has a "right" to post anything on a privately own website. What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it. Its like planting a tree in someones yard. They don't mind but reserve the right to dig it up at anytime for any reason...why? Because they own the lawn.
> 
> Right to what? Post a video on a website that might be illegal? You expect Youtube to risk getting fined for copyright infringement because it may inconvenient you? No. Ill just take your video down until you can prove to me that I WILL NOT be fined. Remember its not you head on the block for posting copyrighted material. Its youtubes if they willing distribute something that violates copyright law KNOWINGLY. Want something better? Start Steevotube.




You have a disturbing idea about laws and rights. 


We can do anything, but if it is illegal (a law determines if your act is punishable) you do not have the "right" or permission to perform said act. 

Laws are meant to define and put restraints on what we CAN do. If there is not a law or there is no conflict with the law we have the RIGHT to do it. 


You appear to have the incorrect idea that we can't do anything unless the law allows it.



That aside, again, it wasn't youtube that had the video removed, as they don't patrol for infringement. It was the copyright holder who asserted my video was in violation of their rights, they failed to know my rights before forcing youtube to remove the video clip. I was forced to assert my rights of fair use to allow the content to stay. 

Again, this has NOTHING to do with youtube other than they were the content delivery and storage, and everything to do with my fair use rights. If the video they had removed had truly been in violation they could have sued me for copyright infringement, however they didn't. They are just using scare tactics and a blanket method to try and control the masses.


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse here, now if you want to join in, you can, otherwise go away, you are distracting us.



DID you even read the article? http://gizmodo.com/5901263/court-rules-it-is-impossible-to-steal-computer-code

What does this have to do with youtube? This is not about copyright infringement this is about code (Computer Code). This affects programers more than any thing. Not the use of programs or videos or movies or music. As that is protected under copyrights. Youtube can pull videos that cross this line as well as music that crosses this line. I think you need to stop reading into the courts ruling and read the courts ruling.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse



Unfortunately the US court systems and patent offices were wholly unprepared for the onslaught of digital litigation as the laws in existance were not sufficient to cover this type of media.

Until they get something in place that covers all of the things that would be considered nebulous in the current laws, I feel that the poor dead horse is going to be pummeled into oblivion in discussions such as these.


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Unfortunately the US court systems and patent offices were wholly unprepared for the onslaught of digital litigation as the laws in existance were not sufficient to cover this type of media.
> 
> Until they get something in place that covers all of the things that would be considered nebulous in the current laws, I feel that the poor dead horse is going to be pummeled into oblivion in discussions such as these.



Horse hamburger with pink slime! MMMMMMM so good!


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 14, 2012)

You know it is funny that in the United States of America's you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.  Sad things don't seem to work that way anymor and that companies value profits over ethics and aiding humanity as a whole. 
And while I know a business is a business, it is still run by men, although the illusion of power corrupts, and I can't say with any level of certainty that had I grown up as they had, and achieved such as level of financial success that I would act differently. 
Which is one of the main issues with the copyright and patent system, while it does cause people to make new things and pay those who create, it has become such a system that rewards greed and reduces quality,  pushing for profits instead of simply for the sake of others, innovation, and creativity.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 14, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights.








TheMailMan78 said:


> Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has a "right" to post anything on a privately own website.



Show me the amendment where Steevo or anyone has no "right" to post anything on a privately owned website.



TheMailMan78 said:


> What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it.



So you're insisting that that's what it actually means..?



TheMailMan78 said:


> Its like planting a tree in someones yard. They don't mind but reserve the right to dig it up at anytime for any reason...why? Because they own the yard.



Well you still have the right to plant the tree in someone's yard, so I don't see how it connects to the youtube issue.  

If it's a fruit-bearing plant though, laws typically gives the owner of the land the right to the fruits. Sometimes though there are laws that specify a 50/50 sharing, especially if the one that planted it is the one that maintains the tree, but doesn't own the land.


Anyway, I guess the crux of the code issue is that unlike other things that uses a language, like literature, programming is "too standardized" so to speak, and then of course (and more importantly) there's also the issue about the form the computer code exists in.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 14, 2012)

The analogies are awful lol

No, you do not have the right to plant a tree in my yard. You don't even have the right to enter my yard if I post a "no tresspassing" sign and I have the right to confront you at gunpoint if I feel the situation requires it (percieved threat). If you get physical becuase you are mad I won't let you plant a tree I have the right to shoot you (WI's castle doctrine law).

That being said, if you want to come plant trees in my yard it's okay with me. I'll even supply the beer.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 14, 2012)

If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree. 


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> You have a disturbing idea about laws and rights.
> 
> 
> We can do anything, but if it is illegal (a law determines if your act is punishable) you do not have the "right" or permission to perform said act.
> ...



You have a right to do whatever you want with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. Youtube is not your property. Youtube is responsible for whatever video you upload that might violate copyright once they are informed it is in violation. If the owner of a song came along and said "Steevo is using our music illegally" then Youtube has to take it down. You never had a "right" to put it there to begin with and Youtube has every right to take it down to keep from getting sued. Would you rather Youtube keep it up and in case you were wrong take the full blame for illegally distributing copyrighted material? That doesn't make any sense man. You would do the EXACT SAME THING if you were in Youtubes shoes. 

Now you may have had a legitimate use for the music but Youtube has an obligation to protect itself in case you didn't. So yes. You have no rights when it comes to someone else's privet property.

On a side note I'm impressed with you Steevo! You have managed to keep the discussion civil! lol  Normally you lose your temper. Kudos!


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.
> 
> 
> This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.



Well this is not trees, This is about code. Code is not intellectual property, It i written and can not be stolen. I think they got blind sided. If they would have said plagiarized then it might have been held up as intellectual property. But they went down a different path with it and this is what the court ruled on. Code is Code. every thing I just typed is coded. And there for can not be viewed as stolen or copyrighted material.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> uninvited by the landowner



If someone is removing YT videos (and it's not YT) then one would have to assume they were invited (given the ability) by YT to do so, no?


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.
> 
> 
> This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.



There is a way around this. Build your own fence on your own property and plant your trees there. Or in this case your own video upload site. See that would fix your problem.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.



In a private website you have no rights, period.  The word you are looking for is _privilege_, you have the _privilege_ of posting on their website.  Just like you have the privilege of posting here on TPU.  At any time, your privileges can be revoked and you can be stopped from posting completely.  This applies here, youtube, or any other website that you don't personally own.  If you don't think that is true, ask any one of the poeple that have been banned from posting on this site.  A right can't be taken away in this manner, it is always there.  People need to learn the difference between a right and privilege.

What you do have is the right to create your own site and post all the content you want to it.  That is your right, it is not a right to post freely on other's websites.  You also have the right to control content of your own website however you see fit.  If you don't like comments or content posted to it, you have the right to delete it, just like the owners of youtube and TPU have the right to delete anything posted to their sites.  You do not have to first prove the content is illegal, you don't have to ask the content owner's permission.  It is your right to delete content from your website for whatever reason you feel.

So if you want to complain about rights, learn what your rights actually are, learn the different between a privlege and a right and where each one applies, then create your own site where you actually do have rights.



entropy13 said:


> Well you still have the right to plant the tree in someone's yard, so I don't see how it connects to the youtube issue.



Actually, no you don't.  I can kick you off my property before or even after you plant the tree, and your tree is gone.  I can prevent your from even coming on my property at any time.  And after I tell you to stay off my property, if you come back, I can have you arrested, in some places I can even shoot your ass if you step foot on my property after being told not to.  And legally, if you do plant a tree on someone elses property, the tree becomes the property of the property owner.  There are some loopholes where if the property isn't being maintained and you start maintaining it you do have certain rights to claim partial ownership of the property, or if you didn't know it wasn't your property and the real owner didn't stop you right away you can have some rights to the tree.  However, those don't really apply here, youtube is maintaining their site, and you know that they own the site.



Kreij said:


> If someone is removing YT videos (and it's not YT) then one would have to assume they were invited (given the ability) by YT to do so, no?



Just like you and the other mods here delete posts here on TPU even though you don't own the site.  3rd parties can be given the right to manage content.  You are given permission to manage content for W1z on behalf of W1z.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 14, 2012)

trickson said:


> This is about code. Code is not intellectual property



Code is definitely intellectial property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use.


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Code is definitely intellectual property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.
> 
> So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use.



Well not all code is intellectual property. Like for instance every time I hit the key to make the letters I am typing are not intellectual property. Every letter has a "code" for that key ( Right?) so how can a letter be held as intellectual property? And how can it be perceived as stolen? But yes CODE a written program is intellectual property protected under copyright laws. So the court ruled that the transfer from one medium to another is not stolen! So one could take a program written on a floppy disk and transfer it to a CD and it is not stolen.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Code is definitely intellectial property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.
> 
> So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use.



I need to make a trip to the nursery on piccadilly, I killed our smoke tree, by accident of course, and am going to replace it with a peach, or pear tree. If have to water and prune them I might as well get benefit from them. 

Going tomorrow.


I use one of our Case skid steers from work, get to use it when I need it. And sometimes at work when I don't want to.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> No, you do not have the right to plant a tree in my yard. You don't even have the right to enter my yard if I post a "no tresspassing" sign and I have the right to confront you at gunpoint if I feel the situation requires it (percieved threat). If you get physical becuase you are mad I won't let you plant a tree I have the right to shoot you (WI's castle doctrine law).



Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.




newtekie1 said:


> I can kick you off my property before or even after you plant the tree, and your tree is gone.



Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.



newtekie1 said:


> I can prevent your from even coming on my property at any time.



Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.



newtekie1 said:


> And after I tell you to stay off my property, if you come back, I can have you arrested, in some places I can even shoot your ass if you step foot on my property after being told not to.



Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard. You are not depriving someone of his right to plant a tree on your yard. Rather you are enforcing your own right over your own property instead. You are preventing someone from using his right, but you are not depriving him of that right, and following that logical reasoning even further, that doesn't mean that someone suddenly has no right to do so. Preventing something from happening doesn't mean that something would no longer exist.




newtekie1 said:


> However, those don't really apply here, youtube is maintaining their site, and you know that they own the site.



They own the site but youtube does not exclusively maintain their site.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 14, 2012)

Lol ... I agree trickson. What I actually meant when I said "code" was ..
"A collection of bits varying in value between one and zero which when combined in a specific manner perform a particular function or display a particular visual representation upon a medium which is comaptible with the order and combinations of said bits."

Now don't "steal" my above line of codes.


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Kreij said:


> Lol ... I agree trickson. What I actually meant when I said "code" was ..
> "A collection of bits varying in value between one and zero which when combined in a specific manner perform a particular function or display a particular visual representation upon a medium which is comaptible with the order and combinations of said bits."
> 
> Now don't "steal" my above line of codes.



1110000111010111100000110101111001010001110011001100000001111111


----------



## radusorin (Apr 14, 2012)

>out of popcorn<



entropy13 said:


> Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.



I think you mean the right to plant a tree period. But not the right to do something with my property. 

After all if that is my property doing something on it or whit it, he needs to have my approval. After all that is the difference between my yard and no one yard or a public yard ... (even public yard was it own set of rules to be use but that is not the point here).


----------



## Kreij (Apr 14, 2012)

Steevo said:


> I need to make a trip to the nursery on piccadilly, I killed our smoke tree, by accident of course, and am going to replace it with a peach, or pear tree.



You should get another smoke tree too. When ours died for some unknown reason I planted another. They are quite the beautiful tree and I would like to plant a row of them on our property somewhere. When viewed from a distance at the right time of year, they indeed give you the impression they are surrounded by smoke.



entropy13 said:


> Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.



This is just arguing semantics. Of course there are superceeding laws as it would impossible (and absurd to attempt) to write laws for any action someone could imagine.
When you come over to plant a tree in my yard you *must* perform two actions.
1) Enter my yard.
2) Plant a tree.
By the fact your first action violates a law you have no right to perform the second action.
Most parks are considered municipally owned, public property, but you have no right to dig a hole and plant a tree there either, even though your taxes are used to maintain it.

But hey, I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV. So this is just interesting discussion here on my fave forum.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 14, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.




Look up what a right is, because I don't think it means what you think it means.  If planting a tree on someone else property was a right, you could do it even if the property owner didn't want you to.  Planting a tree on your own property is a right, because no one can stop you, planting a tree on my property is not a right because someone(me) can stop you.




entropy13 said:


> Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.
> 
> Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.



And exactly how will they be planting a tree on my property if they can't get on it?  Explain that to me?

So I have effectively stopped them from planting a tree on my yard, so it isn't a right.



entropy13 said:


> Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard. You are not depriving someone of his right to plant a tree on your yard. Rather you are enforcing your own right over your own property instead. You are preventing someone from using his right, but you are not depriving him of that right, and following that logical reasoning even further, that doesn't mean that someone suddenly has no right to do so. Preventing something from happening doesn't mean that something would no longer exist.



So they will be using magic then to get on my property to plant this tree?



entropy13 said:


> They own the site but youtube does not exclusively maintain their site.



You point?  They ensure the site is maintained.  I own a large plot of land, I don't go out and mow it myself every week, I have a service that does that for me that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights over the property.


----------



## Benetanegia (Apr 14, 2012)

So can I download a tree or not?


----------



## trickson (Apr 14, 2012)

Benetanegia said:


> So can I download a tree or not?



Yes just do not plant it on my network.


----------



## entropy13 (Apr 15, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Look up what a right is, because I don't think it means what you think it means.  If planting a tree on someone else property was a right, you could do it even if the property owner didn't want you to.  Planting a tree on your own property is a right, because no one can stop you, planting a tree on my property is not a right because someone(me) can stop you.



Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all? 



newtekie1 said:


> And exactly how will they be planting a tree on my property if they can't get on it?  Explain that to me?



Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.



newtekie1 said:


> So I have effectively stopped them from planting a tree on my yard, so it isn't a right.



So I have effectively stopped some person from living, therefore living isn't a right. 

And technically speaking, you can say that you have "deprived" someone of his specific right, but you cannot say he never had that specific right to do so in the first place, or that it isn't a right to begin with.

Although "depriving" someone of his right is also typically through illegal or unlawful practices (as killing someone is typically that; unless during a war, and both are combatants, for example)... That's why instead of using that term, in your case, you just enforced your own right, which leads to the inability of the other person's enforcement of his right.



newtekie1 said:


> You point?  They ensure the site is maintained.  I own a large plot of land, I don't go out and mow it myself every week, I have a service that does that for me that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights over the property.



Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 15, 2012)

entropy13 said:


> Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all?



The difference is that if I kill you, stopping your right to live, I'd be violating your right, and I would be in the wrong(that is why I'd go to jail).  If I stop you from planting a tree on my property I would not be violating your right, and I wouldn't be in the wrong(that is why I wouldn't go to jail).  See the difference?

If stopping the action is wrong, the action is a right.
If stopping the action isn't wrong, the action isn't a right.
It isn't really that hard of a concept to understand.



entropy13 said:


> Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.



Actually, yes, by definition a right is something that can always be exercised.  Again, I urge you to look it up.  However, rights can be violated as I explained above, they can also be forfeited(for example, criminals that have been found guilty forfeit certain rights).



entropy13 said:


> So I have effectively stopped some person from living, therefore living isn't a right.



No, therefor you have violated the persons right.  I'm not violating your rights by preventing you from planting a tree on my property, because planting a tree on my property isn't a right.



entropy13 said:


> And technically speaking, you can say that you have "deprived" someone of his specific right, but you cannot say he never had that specific right to do so in the first place, or that it isn't a right to begin with.
> 
> Although "depriving" someone of his right is also typically through illegal or unlawful practices (as killing someone is typically that; unless during a war, and both are combatants, for example)... That's why instead of using that term, in your case, you just enforced your own right, which leads to the inability of the other person's enforcement of his right.



Actually, yes you can say that something isn't a right to begin with.  To begin with, nothing is a right that violates the rights of someone else.  That is a basic concept of rights.  That is why generally shooting someone in the face is wrong, because you are violating someone else's right.  If planting a tree on my property was a right, me stopping you would be illegal.



entropy13 said:


> Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.



Sort of.  A better example would be print or broadcast media.  Generally, freedom of speech is a right.  However, newspapers and TV channels don't have to let every whackjob that wants to say something do so in their mediums.  Someone can't walk into the Time's building and demand the Time's print their crazy false story.  However, nothing stops that person from making their own newspaper and printing their story in their own paper.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 15, 2012)

Now this has been a funny thread to read


----------



## radusorin (Apr 15, 2012)

And as you know to piss is not a right, but in order for you to exercise you right of living you are obligated to piss. Because you can piss dosn't mean you have that right, it's only moral logic that if you don't do that you will deprive your self from the right to live. In the same manner you can fly to the moon, but that dosn't make it a right just because you can do it. A right is not something you to add to a action just because you can do it, it is something written in a constitution not something we make up just because we can do that action. Of course you can plant a tree, but you dont have the right to plant it in my yard. You will have that right only wen I (the owner) give you permission to do so. By planting a tree in my yard you are violating my right over that property. You are depriving me of my rights over that property. And it is my right and moral obligation to take care of my property as i am responsible for it. So if that tree is defined by the law as illegal and that information comes to my knowledge i do not have the right, but nether it is illegal to take it down.  Other wise my action (of not taking it down) would mean that i am intentional doing something illegal or helping someone in doing something illegal and here the law applies to me because I'm the owner of that land, not to you for planting it there in the first place. Even if I can proof that you planted that tree I'm still accused of helping you by not taken it down wen I was informed that that tree is illegal.

The same goes for youtube they are only evading the "intentionally doing something illegal". One of the ways is to give certain organization the right to delete content form there site if it is illegal or if they think it is illegal, something along this lines.


----------



## Steevo (Apr 15, 2012)

I need some shrubs, do you guys have any torrent links?


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 15, 2012)

Steevo said:


> I need some shrubs, do you guys have any torrent links?


umm... hold on one moment, I just have to figure out the airspeed velocity of this sparrow first.

On topic - rights are speculitive in the USA, as the constitution says we have unwritten rights.  And any rights not given to the federal government is given to the states and the people and all.  So you could try to argue your right to do something, although there is no certainty the judgment of your community as a whole that you have such a right

In the end "rights" are illusions made by assumptions, words, and actions of man.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Apr 15, 2012)

I think everything should be open source.  Code alone is very rarely a full program.  The gross tonnage of a modern application is 99% textures/pictures and unexecutable data. Most people can't program, let alone compile the stuff, so they'd still be buying it.

A lot of time spent programming involves "reinventing the wheel".  It is much as if scientific papers could only be written on their intrinsic strength, instead of using other papers to build a large body of evidence.  Perhaps they could arrange some sort of exclusivity period similar to pharmaceuticals that would preserve the incentive and reduce the impediment to progress.



Steevo said:


> I need some shrubs, do you guys have any torrent links?



Your argument disregards de facto standards of constitutional authority derived in deterministic methodology via shrubbery; such that if I were to plant a yard in your shrubbery a tree wouldn't necessitate a factual paradox until a singularity converged into a walrus.  Quid pro quo.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 15, 2012)

radusorin said:


> And as you know to piss is not a right, but in order for you to exercise you right of living you are obligated to piss.



Actually, to piss is a right, to use the bathroom to do it is not.  You are more than welcome to piss yourself all you want, no one is stopping you.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 15, 2012)

I love this discussion !! 

A "right" is something afforded to you by law. If you toss out the inclusion of law in the argument, you also toss out the concept of rights.
For instance, in a state of anarchy (no government or laws) you would have no rights whatsoever, as there would be no one to enforce what we consider rights.


----------



## newtekie1 (Apr 15, 2012)

Kreij said:


> I love this discussion !!
> 
> A "right" is something afforded to you by law. If you toss out the inclusion of law in the argument, you also toss out the concept of rights.
> For instance, in a state of anarchy (no government or laws) you would have no rights whatsoever, as there would be no one to enforce what we consider rights.



Exactly, thank you.  That is exactly why your rights change based on where you are in the world.


----------



## Kreij (Apr 15, 2012)

@Newtekie : This of course means that you have no "legal" right to piss, or even breath, as you are not _specifically_ afforded the right by law. However, since both are a requirement of living (right to life) it is superceded by that right and gets included in a package deal.

I'm a little torn by this inclusion rule as there are a few people who I feel are just wasting our precious oxygen by being allowed to breath. 
(Just kidding, Old Uncle Kreij likes everyone, even if they are a PITA sometimes.)

Also, just because a law does not specifically deem an action as illegal, does not grant you the right to do it. For instance, if you yell "Fire" in a crowded theater (and there is no fire), you will not be protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution, as your right to free speech does not protect you if you are purposefully (or ignorantly) endangering the life and well-being of others through your action(s).

Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in the US ... which is why I recommend that everyone take the time to learn their rights and the laws that apply to them.

Okay ... carry on.


----------

