He’s just PM’d me through PPRune trying to sell a database upgrade!
We’ve had complaints of Bogdan_aviaDB spamming people with his database offer. He has been removed.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Do you mean that the (non)morality of a property-related crime depends solely on the value lost?
Clearly not, or I would have written that, as opposed to what I wrote.
Timothy wrote:
Probably in absolute terms, no. There would be a degree of value, loss, intention etc in both.I guess the interface might be somewhere around the difference in stealing a paper book and a Kindle one, especially if they had the same sale value.
A copyright infringement might be valued at millions (the word Winklevoss comes to mind) and a theft be of something of no intrinsic or sentimental value, such as something already thrown in a skip.
Do you mean that the (non)morality of a property-related crime depends solely on the value lost?
If someone copies data or a computer programme they are depriving the owner of that data or programme of the money which would have been received had a properly licensed copy been purchased
What if you took Sebastian’s design and software in the ADL devices and copied it and resold it? You aren’t taking something and depriving him of it.
You can rationalise it however you like but it is still taking something without permission and behaving illegally.
Probably in absolute terms, no. There would be a degree of value, loss, intention etc in both.
I guess the interface might be somewhere around the difference in stealing a paper book and a Kindle one, especially if they had the same sale value.
A copyright infringement might be valued at millions (the word Winklevoss comes to mind) and a theft be of something of no intrinsic or sentimental value, such as something already thrown in a skip.
Timothy wrote:
If those of you who wish to defraud Jeppesen need to fall back on such dancing on the heads of pins, so be it; it doesn’t touch the moral argument.Just out of curiosity — you don’t see any moral difference between stealing (as legally defined) and copyright infringement?
I am fully aware of the definition of theft, but data theft is a term in common parlance. Stealing music likewise.
I was not advocating prosecution, merely suggesting the discussion of the morals, so it is quite acceptable to use terms which are understood outside the courtroom.
I have seen plenty of cases over the last 20 years where the defence has been on the “…with intent to permanently deprive” clause. There was even a case recently of someone whole took a painting from a gallery for his own enjoyment and then, years later, returned it, thus demonstrating it wasn’t theft.
If those of you who wish to defraud Jeppesen need to fall back on such dancing on the heads of pins, so be it; it doesn’t touch the moral argument.
Timothy wrote:
would we advocate stealing (…)?Can we have affronted threads about the theft of Rotax engines from English farms and gliders from Danish airfields while talking about stealing Jepp data?
Unauthorised copying of data is not theft, and cannot be described as stealing. An essential part, by definition, of the criminal offence of theft is that the previous (rightful) owner is deprived from what has been stolen. This is not the case when unlicensed copies of data are made. It is copyright infringement.
I’m not able to quickly find my way around English law (I’m discovering you guys don’t have an organised/unified criminal code…), but I found the following citation on the Internet:
Theft in English law, now defined in statutory terms as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. (…) Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006
Since you want to discuss this on moral grounds, please don’t conflate actions which have different consequences. Theft deprives the owner from his/her property. Copying data does not, the owner still has the data.
