Ignorance abounds. Since fire is a natural phenomenon, it could not be patented. Of course, the first patents were not granted until ancient Greece, well after the disappearance of the cave man.

A better caption might be: If we are all Libertarians, why are we sitting around the same fire? We should each have our own fire on our own property. Oh. I got it. We have yet to invent property. Never mind.

By the same argument, the Myriad BRCA patents could not be patented, yet they were. People find loopholes for patenting nearly anything. I can easily see a modern court accepting the argument that, while "fire" in and of itself could not be patented, "isolated and controlled fire extract on the end of a piece of wood" could. Nevermind "method and apparatus for igniting a circular arrangement of sticks at a campsite" and variations thereupon. :P

Oh, and at the time of ancient Greece there were still "cave men", if by that is meant people with an aboriginal palaeolithic lifestyle and little to no contact with people that don't live that way or with post-palaeolithic technologies, in North and South America, Papua New Gunea, Australia, New Zealand, parts of Indonesia and Southeast Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. There still are some now in Papua New Guinea, in the Amazon Forest, and on an island off the coast of India.

And of course your caricature of libertarians is laughable. Libertarians can certainly willingly share the use of their property with one another, or give gifts. They just don't believe in forced redistribution, particularly by the state.

(How they propose to deal with forced redistribution by bandits, absent a police force funded by and enforcing laws made by a tax-levying state, I don't know. A user-fee levying state? Mostly they seem to dislike the notion of any kind of state at all though. And privately-owned security forces each out for particular property-owners' interests and with somewhat non-uniform "laws" to enforce would seem like a recipe for conflict, sometimes armed conflict, as well as instability against someone amassing enough wealth to control enough of the security forces to become defacto dictator.)

Beeswax:

lol...You got the point. A method for making fire might well have been patentable, had patents existed then. Of course, by the time the ancient Greeks created the first patent system, fire had been in use since prehistory, including by the cave men you mentioned.

Your description of forced redistribution is interesting, seeing as how the individual who hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy of their unreleased album was applauded as a hero by many with a Libertarian bent. Hypocrisy, maybe, or perhaps Libertarianism is highly fragmented. All animals (Libertarians) are equal, but pigs (MY particular brand of Libertarianism) are more equal than others.

As for your last paragraph, it sounds like you are describing that nearly perfect Libertarian state, Somalia.

"Removed"? As in, deleted? As in, Guns 'n Roses no longer had a copy afterward?

And yes, Somalia does seem to be a living reductio ad absurdum of extreme anarchic libertarianism.

Great post. I saw the Dilbert one, and was planning a post on my blog; but never got around to it.

What do you care about whether Guns 'n Roses still had a copy? The point is that someone forcibly redistributed something they owned by trespassing and hacking into a computer they owned. Forcible redistribution = bad. Breaking multiple laws, i.e., trespassing and computer hacking = bad. All anti-Libertarian.

Re Somalia: Similar situations have arisen in the past, and they seem to always go the same way. True, Somalia is an example where things have gone to an extreme, but other societies in similar situations have had a similar thing happen. A Libertarian state with an absence of government only works if everyone in the area agrees, and that is unlikely to happen. About the only time that has happened is during the era of the mountain men, and even those eventually disappeared with the advancement of "civilization."

Alonniemouse wrote:

What do you care about whether Guns 'n Roses still had a copy?

I care because I want to ascertain whether the inflammatory and rather implausible statement that you made in your first post had a motive. (It's implausible because leakers lack any motive for removing an album from an artist's computer system; copying it in-place suffices for their purposes.)

Beeswax:

I think it is sad that you find it acceptable for someone to enter someone's property without permission, break into someone's computer, remove that person's personal information, regardless of what that information might be, and then leave. Surely you are not saying it was acceptable to do these things?

Did he say it was acceptable? It seems to me that Beeswax was just asking whether or not the copy was removed or copied, and had yet to place a judgment on the act as a whole. In computing, copy, move, and remove are three very different things. What almost certainly happened was that the album was copied. As Beeswax points out, removing the original copy would serve no benefit. It is quite curious why you would describe the situation inaccurately.

I have no qualms with the copying, but I do take issue with the presumably illegal access of the computer.

Last Anonymous:

The music that was taken from the computer existed only on that computer on private property. Guns 'n Roses noted after the crime that the music taken was in work versions of the music that was eventually released. They had no intent to release those particular versions. Those versions would likely have been destroyed or archived once the final versions were created.

Yes, there were copies of the originals removed from the property. Once again, why should that matter? The moment that the person illegally accessed the property, hacked the computer (two crimes, two crimes in one!), they were forcibly redistributing the exclusive property of Guns 'n Roses without their permission.

Regardless of your religion, or political beliefs, the individuals involved behaved unethically and illegally. The person or persons entered private property without permission. They accessed a personal computer of another person on that property. They broke the security on that computer to be able to access information on that computer. They made a copy of personal and secret information that did not belong to them and existed in no other place and duplicated that information. These actions were illegal and immoral.

Alonniemouse wrote:

The music that was taken from the computer

Once again, you assume, without evidence, the highly improbable claim that the files were deleted from the computer after copying (implied by your use of the word "taken" rather than just "copied" -- if I "copy" your CD you still have it, whereas if I "take" (or "remove") your CD it goes missing).

Please provide evidence that the hackers maliciously deleted files, or else retract your thrice-implied claim that they did.

Guns 'n Roses noted after the crime that the music taken was in work versions of the music that was eventually released. They had no intent to release those particular versions. Those versions would likely have been destroyed or archived once the final versions were created.

So, there's perhaps even odds that the people you accuse of vandalism actually helped preserve possibly-historic documents that otherwise would have been lost? Imagine if we discovered, in some dusty place somewhere, some notes and works-in-progress and partially-made, never-finished original tracks by the Beatles. There'd be a huge uproar among music fans, mostly good.

the individuals involved behaved unethically and illegally.

This much is still true; computer hacking is, generally, immoral, and is illegal.

The person or persons entered private property without permission.

What evidence do you have that there was a B&E and not just hacking? Did they actually break into the place where the computer was stored, and make off with the machine, or disks? If so, then your claim that they entered private property and "removed" and "took" information may be a valid one. Please post a reference backing up that claim. Otherwise, most likely no breaking and entering took place, only computer hacking over the network, and you must retract your claim.

They made a copy of personal and secret information that did not belong to them and existed in no other place and duplicated that information.

I notice in your recap of their actions after they accessed the computer you make no reference this time of their supposedly deleting anything. Are you, then, retracting your they-deleted-stuff claim?

Beeswax:

Guns 'n Roses noted that the computer from which the files were taken was not connected to the internet. In order to copy files from the computer, you had to physically access the computer. The computer was also password protected.

Note also that the only person accused of a crime only denied that he was the one who physically entered the property and hacked into the computer, he never denied that someone in fact did those things. Of course, we only have Guns 'n Roses' statements that the computer was not connected to the internet, though it was apparently some kind of mixing computer and not a general purpose computer, and that the computer was password protected.

I have never said the persons who committed these crimes deleted anything. What I said, multiple times, is that they made a copy, which they then removed from the premises. Forget about the fact that the copy was music. The point is that the copy was personal information. It could have been social security numbers. It could have been account numbers. Data is data and making copies of data that only exists on your computer on private property and then removing that copy of data from the property, regardless of whether you wrote it on a piece of paper or put on a disk, is immoral, illegal, and unethical.

You implied repeatedly that Guns 'n Roses was deprived of the information (through language like "taken" and "removed"). Was this, or was this not, the case? A straight answer please.

Beeswax:

I never said the original music was deleted. The original early mix remained on the computer.

The references to "taken" were to the illegally made copy, which took place on private property and on a hacked computer. The reference to "deprived" was related to the ability of Guns 'n Roses to control their private information, which they lost due to forced distribution of their information.

I never said the original music was deleted.

You implied it, repeatedly.

The original early mix remained on the computer.

Ah. Then you were in error when you claimed that the hackers "removed" or "took" it. That's good to know.

Beeswax:

I never implied the music was deleted. You INFERRED it.

The hackers did take the music. They trespassed on private property, made a copy, and took or removed the copy from the premises, as I said multiple times. Illegal, immoral and unethical.

Anon, You have repeatedly said 'removed', when removed cannot conceivably be an accurate description. It was copied, not removed. I don't understand why you keep insisting on saying removed.

It does seem quite likely that the access of the computer was illegal and unethical, but don't conflate that with other issues.

Last Anonymous:

Let me see. If I make a copy of something on a piece of paper, or on a disk, or on anything, then I have this object in my hand. Now, if I take that object off the property, then I have removed that object from the property. Since Guns 'n Roses stated that the computer did not have internet access, which makes sense if the computer was for mixing rather than being a general purpose computer, then we know that the only way from the music to leave the property is if someone made a copy of the music and then removed that copy from the property. Someone had to take something off the property or else how did the music leave the property? I am assuming that some Libertarian fairy did not magically transport it ethereally through space using fairy dust and magic words.

Then again, considering posts of late claiming that Apple was against patents and that Google did not file for patents until "years" after they went into business, both of which were debunked fairly quickly, I believe, maybe there are Libertarian fairies accomplishing these magical activities. Either that or Libertarians have different definitions for things from what you see in Webster's. In Libertarian-speak, six months = several years.

I never implied the music was deleted.

Wrong.

You INFERRED it.

Correct. I inferred what you implied.

If I make a copy of something on a piece of paper, or on a disk, or on anything, then I have this object in my hand. Now, if I take that object off the property, then I have removed that object from the property.

If I take a disk onto someone's property, copy a file onto that disk from their computer, and leave with the disk, I may be removing the disk from their property, but I brought it there to begin with as well. I'm removing *my disk*. I am certainly *not* removing *their file*, assuming that it remains unmodified in their computer. You said the *file* was removed, not *a copy* of the file, and not *a disk*.

The way your statements earlier were phrased, they strongly implied that Guns 'n Roses no longer had their copies of the files the hackers copied. You have since admitted that, to the contrary, they retained their copies.

Just admit that your earlier phrasing was misleading and deliberately inflammatory.

Beeswax:

I said only what happened. Note my first post:

"removed a copy"

Wait...in your last post you said that I did not say "removed a copy," but my first post clearly says that.

Just admit it, you were trying to read something into my post that was not there.

You are totally backpedaling, and making unfounded assumptions. Whether or not a disk containing a copy left the studio is irrelevant, as the questionable act is the access of the computer. There may have been a manner to connect the computer to the internet. There may have been another computer in the studio that had internet access. Exactly what happened isn't of great importance. Also, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to say a copy was 'forcibly' removed even in your proposed scenario. The access of the computer and the creation of a copy is what was forced.

Last Anonymous:

Ummm...where am I backpedaling? I said at the outset, in my very first post, that a copy of the music was removed. I have maintained that throughout my posts, as I have maintained the illegality of the chain of events that led to the forcible redistribution of the music - which you are apparently having a problem seeing. Legally, and ethically, the events that led to the removal of the copy from the property are part of one continuous chain of events. You cannot separate one from the other.

- Illegal trespassing, an act of force. - Breaking and entering into the area containing the computer, an act of force. - Hacking into a secured computer, an act of force. - Making an unauthorized copy of personal and private information, an act of force given the three previous steps. - Removal of that copy. Since the copy was removed in a surreptitious manner, it is obvious that it could only be done by force since the owners took actions (private property, password protection, etc.) to prevent removal of a copy.

I find it humorous that you accuse me of unfounded assumptions when I relied on the public statements of the only person ever sentenced for any of these crimes, and then you turn around and imagine other computers and potential internet connections. What next? Luke Skywalker and Jedi Knights?

It seems the guy allegedly behind the leak was a former employee of Universal. I can't find the details of when his employment ended or his exact position, but it seems plausible that he had at least at one time had legitimate access to the computer. If that is the case, it seems questionable to call any of his actions force. His ill would in that case be betrayal of trust/breach of contract, not use of force.

I'm not sure why you think a potential internet connection or another computer is so unreasonable to make comparisons to Jedi. The leaking seems to have happened in 2008, so it could be handled by a USB 3G adapter, which would be around as easy to use as a flash drive, and not uncommon at the time. As to multiple computers, GNR is a high profile band, and would likely be using a nice studio. I would be more surprised if there was only one computer in the studio.

Last Anonymous:

Regardless of whether your imaginary computer existed, what is your point? It still required the presence of someone to transfer data from one computer to another.

As for the "former" Universal employee, if he was not authorized access to the computer, and based on the information released to the public, he was not, he still remains a hacker. I also suspect he was not authorized to be in that studio. It is common for companies to limit access to specific areas to "authorized personnel," and not once have I seen anything that claimed the person committing the crimes was authorized to enter the area where the computer existed. I did see a comment that claimed that the person illegally making a copy was not supposed to be in that area, which is a case for trespass and potentially breaking and entering. While employees gaining access into unauthorized areas are usually given a verbal or written warning, I have personally seen employees fired for being where they should not be and it seems that they could be prosecuted for trespassing.

However, all of this discussion is pointless. The person who pled guilty never denied that any of the alleged crimes were committed, only that he did not commit most of them, and that is the best information we have, in addition to the supporting comments by Guns 'n Roses band members.

I think this discussion has gotten off track. It seems that the original comment from which all this discussion depends was related to forcible distribution. Taking a copy of music from the only computer on which the music existed and transporting it to another computer or to any other location without the band's permission has to be the definition of forcible distribution. Why all the side discussion?

I believe it got sidetracked primarily because of your atypical example. There was far more than just copyright infringement involved with GNR, and you tried to conflate issues by saying that 'many with a libertarian bent' supported it, as if that means a damn thing. Also, you continued to insist on using 'removed' despite it having no relevance to your point. If the studio computer had had internet access but still involved someone physically accessing it, would the story be different in any significant way?

Last Anonymous:

If the computer had internet access then circumstances might well be different. Then the leak of the music might have been accidental or the computer might have had open access. The problem with this example of forcible redistribution is that someone had to be physically present and subvert several physical and electronic protections.

I use the word "removed" because it was appropriate to the example. A person made a physical copy of protected information and removed the physical copy, compounding all the other illegal acts with one final one.

You misleadingly implied that Guns 'n Roses was deprived of their file, or something, when that wasn't the case. Admit it and move on.

Beeswax:

I said a copy was made & removed. Deal with that and move on.

You ignored the other part of what I said. I said 'but still involved someone physically accessing it', which specifically precludes the scenarios you just listed. Some media leaving the studio with a copy on it is incidental, and no evidence of that occurring has even been presented as far as I know. The only thing that has been said was that the computer the songs were on didn't have internet access, according to the band. That says nothing about the rest of the facility, and it relies on the testimony of someone who may not have actually known what they were talking about. Lot's of people Axl Rose's age think 'the Internet' is the Internet Explorer 'e' on the desktop. If it was a Mac, than that wouldn't be present.

Also, you just said he had to 'subvert several physical and electronic protections.' It would likely be a key (that the guy might have legitimately had) and a password (that the guy might have legitimately had). If he didn't have the password, he might have simply booted the machine from a LiveCD. It wasn't some thug security cracker that broke down a door and spoofed his way through several biometric security measures. It was at least somewhat an inside job.

Last Anonymous:

Assuming it was a former employee, and you have presented nothing but hearsay for evidence, it would still be trespassing and breaking and entering.

To me the key act was not the breaking and entering, which was illegal, and not even the computer hacking, which is also illegal, but copying of information that no once else had with the intention of distributing that information to the world. Had these been social security numbers, they criminal would have been in prison for a long time. Because it was just a file of music, the only person ever charged got a vague slap on the wrist. Sad.

Alonniemouse writes:

To me the key act was not the breaking and entering, which was illegal, and not even the computer hacking, which is also illegal, but copying of information that no once else had with the intention of distributing that information to the world.

That's rather interesting, considering that to any rational person breaking and entering is easily the worst of the things you name, with computer hacking a close second, whereas copying information is generally a neutral to positive sum act, depending. We're not talking letting the Germans see crucial Allied battle plans right before D-Day here, or anything remotely similar, and that kind of thing is pretty much the only situation where I can see really strong justification for secrecy -- well, that, passwords, and anything harmless that might get someone persecuted, like that they're gay or something. And in an ideal world that third category wouldn't exist.

Oh, and by the way, you still haven't admitted that you had misleadingly implied that Guns 'n Roses was deprived of their file, or something, when that wasn't the case. Admit it and move on.

Beeswax:

I admit that I said that a copy was removed from the property. I never implied nor did I intend to imply that Guns 'n Roses was "deprived" of their file, that is something that you falsely attribute to me.

Had the criminal broken into the property and left without taking anything, then it would merely have been trespass and possibly vandalism. The moment that person removed anything from the property, whether it was copies of letters, personal information, or anything that did not belong to that person, the crime becomes quite serious, in my opinion and in the opinion of those who believe in that the right to privacy is one of the few rights that we seem to have left. Here you seem to be advocating that the right to privacy is trivial or is unimportant. How sad.

Quote from Kevin Cogill, the only person found guilty of involvement in the Guns 'n Roses affair:

"I've come to respect the artists' right to determine how their art is released. I do apologize to Axl for that disrespect. As a fan who had lost faith in all of the promises of release, I didn't see too many other options at the time. But in a fair world, it's not my place to judge, let alone act."

So, the person who pled guilty says he should not have violated the privacy of Axl Rose by participating in the publication of unreleased information from Axl. Wow. Who woulda thunk it?

"To me the key act was not the breaking and entering, which was illegal, and not even the computer hacking, which is also illegal, but copying of information that no once else had with the intention of distributing that information to the world" Then the 'forceful' and 'removed' parts are more or less irrelevant for the purposes of our conversation, and it doesn't matter exactly how this information was published, save the fact that it was not accidental or authorized.

"So, the person who pled guilty says he should not have violated the privacy of Axl Rose by participating in the publication of unreleased information from Axl. Wow. Who woulda thunk it? " Someone convicted of something but getting a light penalty saying that they were wrong in a public statement? Surely, these conditions would mean that the accused genuinely feels guilt for their actions, and this certainly isn't lipservice or possibly court ordered lipservice.

That said, I can't say I endorse his actions, even though he was probably correct that the album wouldn't have been otherwise released anytime soon. His actions were at the very least rude to GNR.

Alonniemouse writes:

I admit that I said that a copy was removed from the property. [calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Had the criminal broken into the property and left without taking anything, then it would merely have been trespass and possibly vandalism. The moment that person removed anything from the property, whether it was copies of letters, personal information, or anything that did not belong to that person, the crime becomes quite serious,

Originals, and you'd be talking theft. Copies is another matter. If they were uploaded, or physical media the criminal owned had been used, though, then they were his copies on his media and nothing was stolen, though copyright may have been infringed. Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft.

His actions were at the very least rude to GNR.

Agreed, though one might argue that a) teasing people with vaporware is itself rude, and b) a rude response to rude behavior may sometimes be justified. (I'm not making that argument myself; just saying.)

Beeswax:

I said in my very first post that the criminal or criminals removed a copy. Does that mean I am calling you a liar? Is the truth a lie?

Anonymous:

You also said "The music that was taken from the computer", "I think it is sad that you find it acceptable for someone to [...] remove that person's personal information". Both of those statements are incorrect.

Kevin:

If a copy of the music was not taken from the computer, then where did it come from? Magic? It seems to me that to the best of everyone's knowledge that one computer had the music on it. It also seems that someone left, i.e., took, a copy with them. Ergo, the music was taken, and since it came from the computer, it was taken from that computer. Just because something is taken does not mean nothing was left, only that a person had something with them that they did not have when they arrived.

For reference, I refer you to PUBLIC LAW 104-294 OCT. 11, 1996, paragraph 1832:

§ 1832. Theft of trade secrets (a) Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly (1) steals, or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains such information;

My usage of "take" is consistent with the law.

You implied, incorrectly, that the original was gone from the GNR computer. And all of your furious backpedaling is doing absolutely nothing to help your case.

Beeswax:

I said CLEARLY that a COPY was removed, nice black letters on a white background. None of your denials will change this fact. Not once did I ever say nor did I ever imply that the original was gone. You INFERRED it with your twisted interpretation of the English language.

I support my use of terminology with U.S. law, which clearly states that trade secrets can be stolen, taken or carried away. Of course, the trade secret has not been deleted, merely copied. Though I suppose the act of stealing, taking, or carrying away, i.e., removing, does in fact destroy the secret.

If your intent was not to deliberately mislead, then your word choice was simply poor.

I'm not sure how the law supports your word choice, seeing as you didn't use 'take' in your original statement. Instead, you used 'remove', which can sometimes be synonymous, but is not in this instance. Now, 'take' can be taken in multiple senses, and the one that would be appropriate here is like 'taking' advice. When you take advice, you obtain a copy of the advice, but the person who gave the advice still has the advice. In general parlance, you don't 'remove advice' or 'remove a copy of advice', even if you leave the premises on which you obtained the advice.

Even if one accepts that as a valid use, you yourself said that the physical components were not the point, so why don't you just drop the focus on the 'forcefully removed' garbage, since it distracts from the point of distributing files that were not intended to be distributed. Of course, this a completely different issue of copyright infringement, and the only real tie is that an idiot might include both under the awful blanket term of 'intellectual property.'

Last Anonymous:

I don't even care about the copyright infringement. The whole issue was the violation of privacy that occured when privately held data was stolen, using the language of trade secret law. I can think of no worse crime, short of a crime of physical violence, than when someone's privacy if violated. Once privacy is gone, what is left? Big brother is not the government we thought, but some moron who thinks it is their duty to hack into other people's computers.

As for choice of words, I guess I could have said "forcibly carried away," which is in the statute.

"The whole issue was the violation of privacy that occured when privately held data was stolen, using the language of trade secret law." Just because somebody erroneously titled the section 'theft' doesn't mean the data was stolen. The data was copied and the copied data was made available to the general public.

Now, I'm not fan of the invasion of privacy, but I don't think anybody here has endorsed that specifically, just objected to your insistence on wrong or misleading words.

"As for choice of words, I guess I could have said "forcibly carried away," which is in the statute. " Take is the only language in that part of the statute that doesn't inherently prescribe a physical presence. The next section gives you better options: "(2) without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys such information;"

Last Anonymous:

I am unsure of what you mean by "inherently prescribe a physical presence" in this context. The entire statute is related to theft of trade secrets, one form of intellectual property. Theft of trade secrets has long been recognized in the law. The only reason the federal government wrote a statute is that the state statutes varied all over the place. There was no mistake in describing the theft of this type of intellectual property, it was modeled on state laws. I believe 47 states have adopted this statute.

Section 2 covers a different set of crimes than section 1. Section 1 regards the removal of information, whether copy or otherwise, from a property. Section 2 is associated acts. Indeed, each of the sections cover a different aspect of trade secret law.

First of all, there is no such thing as 'intellectual property.' That's a dirty (and fictional) word around these parts, as it should be. As for the reason for this statute, it would most likely be to allow prosecution of trade secret violations that cross state lines (which wouldn't be prosecutable by a state). It is not theft, although some cases may involve theft. The GNR case absolutely did NOT involve theft. If the act was covered by this act, it was covered by section 2, not section 1.

Also, it doesn't seem to fit the definition of a trade secret as defined under §1839

"I am unsure of what you mean by "inherently prescribe a physical presence" in this context." It means you have to actually take the physical object, likely a prototype, from the physical premises. A physical object may have been taken from the premises, but whether or not that happened is not relevant in this case.

Last Anonymous:

Regardless of whether "intellectual property," which is more appropriately intellectual property rights, is a nearly universal right recognized by all but four countries in the world. So while you may not believe it, approximately 99.8% of all people do. While I am sorry that you are in the insignificant minority, I respect your belief, or lack thereof, as the case may be.

You misunderstand the nature of the statute. Each of the fifty states had their own trade secret laws, with varying definitions. Congress wrote the statute not as federal law, but as a statute that could be adopted by individual states for a more uniform treatment of theft of trade secrets. The statute has been adopted as state law by 47 states, I believe. For those 47 states, prosecution of theft of trade secrets is covered by actions that occur within the states and has nothing to do with crossing of state lines.

You are correct that the GNR case did not involve theft of trade secrets. However, the reason it did not was because of a technicality and not because the music was not a secret at the time the music was copied and taken. Since GNR released the music themselves after the secret was stolen, then they could no longer claim trade secret status. However, had they not released the music, they could have claimed theft of trade secrets and the criminal or criminals could have been prosecuted under criminal law.

Section 1 of the theft of trade secret law does not require you to remove physical property. It only requires that you take or steal a copy of trade secret information, including a digital copy. As you likely know, very few trade secrets are physically manifested as models or prototypes. Most trade secrets are knowledge or information. Note, however, that theft used as terminology with respect to trade secrets is appropriate with respect to common law. Trade secrets can be stolen because once stolen, the owner has been deprived of the secret.

Section 2 would also likely apply as a separate act, the act of making the copy. Removing or taking the copy constitutes the actual act of theft.

"Congress wrote the statute not as federal law, but as a statute that could be adopted by individual states for a more uniform treatment of theft of trade secrets" That's rather strange, seeing as it IS a federal law, and the exact way it is worded would be out of the jurisdiction of states, since it mentions INTERSTATE commerce. I also see no particular reason why trade secret laws would need to be uniform.

"However, the reason it did not was because of a technicality and not because the music was not a secret at the time the music was copied and taken. Since GNR released the music themselves after the secret was stolen, then they could no longer claim trade secret status." No, the technicality is that it was a secret, but not a trade secret. Not all secrets are trade secrets. Given the great fuss over the iPhone prototype, I suspect that your reasoning is not consistent with the law.

"Section 1 of the theft of trade secret law does not require you to remove physical property" Yes it does. You can only 'carry away' physical property.

"Section 2 would also likely apply as a separate act, the act of making the copy. Removing or taking the copy constitutes the actual act of theft. " It isn't in this case.

"Trade secrets can be stolen because once stolen, the owner has been deprived of the secret. " The owner is not deprived of the secret. It just isn't exclusively theirs anymore. Of course, this is also the case in reverse engineering and independent invention as well, and those cases certainly aren't theft. The English language is very rich and easily adaptable, so there's no need to call everything you don't like literal 'theft.' Destruction, expansion, and exposure are all better descriptions of what happens to the secret.

One of the anonymouses implied, incorrectly, that the original was gone from the GNR computer. And all of their furious backpedaling is still doing absolutely nothing to help their case.

Beeswax:

The only person inferring that anyone deleted anything is you. Your backpedaling does not help you make an argument when you have none.

Last Anonymous:

When the individual who stole the Coca Cola formula was prosecuted for stealing the formula for Coke, what was the physical good that the person carried away? Remember that Coke still had the formula. All that person did was make a copy.

I am not familiar with the specifics of that case, so I have no idea. The most likely scenario is that the person made a copy of the information, making them guilty of 1832(a)(2). That has the same penalties as 1832(a)(1), the section you were quoting. Now, one thing different about this case is that a 'formula' does meet the definition of a trade secret, unlike an unreleased recording.

Last Anonymous:

Here is a case that makes things clear. The individual involved made copies of files only, leaving the original files intact. He was charged under 1832(a)(1) for theft of trade secrets.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/laudeSent.pdf

With respect to music versus formula, the point was not music versus formula, but whether a physical object had to be involved to be charge under 1832(a)(1). The answer is no physical object is required.

As for music versus formula, which is a separate and new question, there is nothing to restrict music from being a trade secret. In general, the only requirements for being a trade secret are:

- is not generally known to the public;

- confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself);

-is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

I could see music potentially being protectable as a trade secret based on this definition. The question would be whether there was value in the music not being known.

That particularly case fell under fraud or deception. I will admit a flaw on my part in regards to my choice of words. Fraud, artifice, and deception don't require physical elements, and those are in included in 1832(a)(1).

"As for music versus formula, which is a separate and new question, there is nothing to restrict music from being a trade secret." Except I don't think you can reasonably call an unreleased recording "forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes." This is part of the definition of a trade secret according to 1839(3)

Last Anonymous:

Regardless of whether YOU call if fraud or artifice, the court called it theft and pointed to the theft aspect in 1832(a)(1) rather than fraud or artifice. The defendant pled guilty to "stealing trade secrets." Furthermore, neither the words "fraud" nor "artifice" were used even once in the judgement.

With respect to 1839 and the definition of trade secret, I agree. Music does not seem to fit the definition. There are a few references as to why companies have not tried to prosecute under trade secret law when copies of unreleased music are taken. It seems the biggest reason is that the opportunity for monetary damages is bigger under copyright law than for trade secret law rather than music not fitting the definition.

One thing to keep in mind is that while 47 or so states have adopted the language of 1831-1839, not all states have. Some states retain much broader language that could potentially include music.

He obtained the knowledge that was a trade secret via fraud. Reading the PDF makes that evident. The crime he was charged with was 'theft of trade secrets', and fraud and deception are under 1832(a)(1). However, that crime is erroneously named and applies regardless of the specific means through which the act was done, so long as it is one of the means covered on the list.

"It seems the biggest reason is that the opportunity for monetary damages is bigger under copyright law than for trade secret law rather than music not fitting the definition."

I think the reason is the definition, since the entertainment industry likes to throw everything conceivable at a defendant.

Last Anonymous:

However, he was not charged for "fraud" or "deception." The two specific charges, as was clear from the pdf, was the downloading of 450,000 files that were considered trade secrets, which was an act of theft under the law, and then using allegedly using the information in those files at his new employer. The specific act to which he pled guilty was downloading 450,000 files that Qualcomm considered trade secrets to his home computer, which is defined under the law as theft.

Michael E. Laude's attorney pointed out in a press release that the only reason Laude was charge was that he kept the files after leaving employment. Had he deleted the files it is unlikely he would have been charged with anything, and had he been charged, unlikely that he would have been found guilty since the incriminating evidence of the crime of theft of trade secrets was sitting on his home computer.

"However, he was not charged for "fraud" or "deception."" I didn't say he was charged with fraud or deception. We both agree that he was charged under 1832(a)(1). Now, ask yourself, did he "appropriate, take, carry away, or conceal" the trade secret or did he "by fraud, artifice, or deception obtain such information?"

Now, technically, downloading the files would be 1832(a)(2), but because of his misrepresentation, he would fit under 1832(a)(1). Someone doing either would be convicted of "theft of trade secrets", but the act is not actually theft (although the act may include theft in some instances). The crime is labeled improperly.

Last Anonymous:

His actions were:

(1) To appropriate the files. (2) To conceal the files.

The only element of fraud in his actions was to gain access to files that his company claimed were outside his scope of work. However, there is nothing illegal about gaining access to files of a company while an employee of that company.

His first illegal action was to appropriate a copy of the files. That was his first illegal action that was within the scope of trade secret law. Since he appropriated a copy within the meaning of trade secret law, that was his first illegal act covered by that law. After that, anything he did with those files, except returning them or permanently deleting them, was a further illegal act.

Congress also noted when they drafte the new trade secret laws that they felt that the term "theft" was applied too narrowly with respect to the scope of current technology. It was Congress's intent that theft should have a broader meaning with respect to trade secrets, including making copies of electronic files.

I also point out that he was charged with theft because he appropriated copies of the files. You may dance around terms all you want, but he was not charged with fraudulently obtaining files or the use of deceipt to obtain files. He was charged with stealing trade secrets. Specifically, he was charged with taking (making copies of) 450,000 files and keeping them. The court apparently never concerned itself with the steps he took in acquiring the files, only the action of acquisition and the act of concealing them.

From:

http://www.foley.com/files/tbl_s31Publications/FileUpload137/1562/National%20Law%20Journal%208.11.03.pdf

"Congress made it clear that the act's misappropriation provisions were intended "to ensure that the theft of intangible information is prohibited in the same way that theft of physical items are protected." S. Rep. No. 104-359, 1996 WL 497065 (Leg. Hist.), at 15.

It seems that Congress specifically intended that the term "theft" should apply to a situation where the "only" crime is copying files that include trade secrets.

Digital files aren't appropriated, and I'm not sure if they were concealed in the relevant sense here. He did used deceit to obtain the information, which was willingly given to him under false pretenses.

Congress is wrong on this matter, assuming they used such words themselves. Calling it theft, whether in an argument or in legal documents, does not make it theft. This act is not an act of theft, despite erroneous rhetoric trying to draw comparisons.

Last Anonymous:

Congress is very clear in its intent. When it comes to trade secrets, digital files can be stolen even though the original files remain in place. I provided a cite, which is referenced in oher places. Case law has been implementing this definition of theft and stealing since 1996.

While you may claim Congress is wrong, the fact is that this is federal law and a similar standard has been adopted by nearly all states and several U.S. territories.

Being the law doesn't make you correct,and being the law through most of the US doesn't make you correct. The act in both cases was not theft,

Last Anonymous:

While you may claim it is not theft according to your definition of theft, several of these cases have gone through the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has had no problem with calling the actions of the defendants theft.

What I find interesting about the history of trade secret law is that the concern of the law has primarily been with the theft of knowledge, not with the theft of a physical item. Because theft laws deal specifically with physical goods and the concept of "deprivation," trade secret laws recognized that secret information constituted valuable property and thus could be taken or stolen. Thus, multiple state laws, though not all described the taking of trade secrets as theft.

The vast majority of the world describe the crime of compromising a trade secret as trade secret theft. Usage dictates correctness.

Knowledge can't be stolen. What is lost is the unique advantage once enjoyed by a specific party, and this loss of knowledge is the same regardless of the means through which the advantage is lost. If I reverse engineer a perfect recreation of the Coca-Cola formula and post it online for everyone to see, along with a spectral analysis or something that conclusively proves they are identical, the advantage is just as lost as if obtain a copy of the information by beating the information out of key employees and likewise post it online. While the law treats these two situations differently (besides just the assault element), both reverse engineering and unintended disclosure of a secret have the same thing gained by one party and lost by another, and there is no difference in the consent of the party that has lost the advantage. There is no logical reason to consider one theft and the other not to be theft.

As for the Supreme Court, I don't think they've made it a policy to correct the naming of laws. Where the Supreme Court would take exception is if a trade secret law was out of the constitutional bounds of Congress's enumerated powers, and they probably wouldn't find that to be the case, so long as there is an interstate or international commerce to it.

Now, one thing that might put weight into your argument would be if there was conviction of trade secret law violations under conventional theft statutes (absent cases where something was actually physically stolen, of course). It would also have the benefit of not being subject to the statutory limits of what is and is not a trade secret, so Axl could have pressed theft charges.

Last Anonymous:

Except, if you steal someone's idea, you have taken something that does not belong to you. If you recreate someone else's trade secret through your own efforts, congratulations! Indeed, several court cases have discussed these two differences at length, explaining why they are different and why one is theft and the other is not.

With respect to the Supreme Court, I can see where someone could make the logical argument that making a copy of secret information is not theft and that the law is therefore unenforceable. Of course, the Supreme Court would laugh that person out of the room because Congress already specifically stated that their intent was to call the taking of a trade secret by copying theft, and there is no constitutional prohibition against that definition.

To the best of my knowledge, trade secret laws have always been separate from "conventional" theft laws and I am unaware of any trade secret laws that have been prosecuted under "conventional" theft laws. Indeed, the whole point of trade secret laws is that they are there to protect secret information or knowledge. While the term "misappropriation" was the "standard" term for compromising trade secret information in the past, what Congress essentially said is, why are we dancing around terminology? When you take a trade secret that does not belong to you, even if the original is still there, it is stealing and it is time we should call it what it is.

"Except, if you steal someone's idea, you have taken something that does not belong to you." I can't steal an idea, but if break a trade secret law, I will have almost certainly have broken some other law, or at least engaged in some naughty behavior. You might argue that breaking those laws makes information I've acquired through those means 'tainted' much like the way a car bought with embezzled money is tainted. However, like I said, the information I have is the same either way, and the party who had the original idea gave no more consent for me to have the idea.

"Indeed, several court cases have discussed these two differences at length, explaining why they are different and why one is theft and the other is not. " I doubt that whether or not they were theft was the concern here, but rather about what acts are and are not violations of trade secret laws, possibly even what acts could be covered as trade secret laws. I could see a constitutional problem with protecting against reverse engineering using publicly available information being a patent-like behavior that is not subject to the limitations of patent statutes.

"While the term "misappropriation" was the "standard" term for compromising trade secret information in the past, what Congress essentially said is, why are we dancing around terminology? When you take a trade secret that does not belong to you, even if the original is still there, it is stealing and it is time we should call it what it is. " I think you've got things backwards. Well crafted laws are often very concerned with specifics and differentiation, often using different terms even if the differences between two acts are minute. The reason to change the name is to be more sympathetic to the victims, who are likely major campaign contributers. The NET act used theft rhetoric, and the proposed PROTECT IP act also used theft in the title, and I'm sure there are quite a few others. I hope you aren't stupid enough to think that copyright infringement is or can be theft too.

Last Anonymous:

I messed up a little. What I should have said is that if you steal someone's secret information (with definition of what constitutes a trade secret), then you have committed theft of a trade secret. The problem with existing laws was that many cases occurred where either no law was broken, or the punishment was inappropriate to the degree of theft. Trade secret laws closed the gap.

With respect to your second comment, the discussions were in fact relating to theft versus independent discovery. Many trade secret cases are dismissed because there was no theft, or no proof of theft, or no evidence of theft. If the defendant can show that they independently derived the information, or that the information was not held secret, there can be no theft. The existence of theft is critical to prosecution of many trade secret cases. When theft cannot be proven, the case is quickly dismissed.

I agree that well-crafted laws are concerned with specifics and differentiation. We now have a well-crafted trade secret law that focuses first on theft of trade secrets.

Copyright infringement is not theft, it is copyright infringement. How can you "steal" something that exists in the public eye? You may infringe on an intellectual property right, but there is nothing to steal. With trade secrets, compromising the trade secret is literally stealing the secret. Once stolen, it can be difficult to undo the damage, if ever. However, the vast majority of companies receiving such information work with law enforcment to track down the thieves.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

[calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Your backpedaling does not help you make an argument when you [false accusation deleted]

I have not backpedaled and none of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

But it is true that you had implied, incorrectly, that the original was gone from the GNR computer, and all of your furious backpedaling since being called on that error is still doing absolutely nothing to help your case.

"The existence of theft is critical to prosecution of many trade secret cases. When theft cannot be proven, the case is quickly dismissed. " The existence of breaking the specific requiremets of the law is critical.

"With trade secrets, compromising the trade secret is literally stealing the secret. Once stolen, it can be difficult to undo the damage, if ever." No, stealing the secret would be stealing the secret. That would mean the victim no longer has the secret and the accused has the secret. Generally speaking, the cases we are speaking of is when both parties have the secret.

Also, it would be possible for the same trade secret law to have been successfully disclosed to another party more than once without any recovery. Let's say Pepsi-Co has an employee break into Coca-Cola and find the formula. They then start producing Pepsi-CC, a Coca-Cola clone. Then, Dr Pepper Snapple Group independently does the same thing a year later, and starts production of Dr Kola, another Coca-Cola clone. Both parties would be guilty of 'theft of trade secrets', but you can't steal the same thing from the same person twice without the object in question being recovered by the original owner. This is a fundamental difference in the logistics of trade secret law violations and theft. This difference exists because violating trade secret law is not theft.

Last Anonymous:

For the crime to be committed, as you noted, the requirements of the law must be met. In the case of theft of trade secrets, the primary requirement is the theft of the trade secret. Stealing a trade secret does not mean that the former owner no longer has the information, only that it is no longer secret, or may not be secret if the criminal is not found before passing the secret on.

The situation you have noted has happened. However, if it is known that another party has the "secret," the case is dismissed because there is no secret. There is plenty of case law where a company claims that its trade secret has been stolen. One defense is that the plaintiff proves that the secret is known to another company. It is only when one party has a trade secret and that secret is compromised that a theft can potentially take place. A trade secret can only be stolen once. After that, it is no longer a secret unless the original owner can recover the secret before it is exposed, which has also happened in case law.

Beeswax:

I refer you to the third post from the top of the page, which states quite clearly:

"removed a copy"

I am unable to control your imagination and what you read into my quite clear text. My accusations have been true. You infer, I do not imply. My language is quite clear. If you consider that calling you a liar, so be it.

Last Anonymous:

Maybe this is a situation of language. I think the language of the law is quite clear. Is this anything like John Bennett's post about Google, where "some years" is equal to "six months"?

Last Anonymous:

So, the check list at the site below (starting around question 28 about the theft of the trade secret) can never be filled out since "theft" of trade secrets is impossible. Is that what you are claiming?

http://www.cybercrime.gov/reportingchecklist-ts.pdf

If that is what you are claiming, then my question is how so many people go to prison specifically for the crime of stealing trade secrets? I guess they should all appeal the decision on the grounds that stealing a trade secret is impossible.

The only way a secret could truly be recovered is that if everyone who has the knowledge dies or has forgotten it. I believe I've read that someone did successfully get the Coca-Cola formula and tried to sell it to Pepsi, who then refused and got the guy in trouble, so let's assume that they still remember it. By your logic, is the formula already stolen, as it is known to another party? The man is not a company, and is not practicing the formula, but he does know it, at least in our example. That would seem to suggest that PepsiCo could now pay off somebody in the company with access, produce a Coca-Cola clone, and get off scot-free. I have a hard time believing that is the case.

The situation of language is that you erroneously think 'theft' means something that it doesn't just because Congress has attempted to redefine the words for the gain of campaign contributers. There are much better words to use than theft to describe this situation, and the main reason to use theft is the emotional baggage tied to it.

Last Anonymous:

The problem I have is that the word "theft" seems quite appropriate to me. Something was in fact taken from the owner. Yes, the owner still has a copy, but he no longer has the secrecy he once had because it was stolen. How can that not be theft?

Regarding the formula for Coca Cola. I suppose someone might have a sufficiently good memory to remember the quantities of each of the ingredients and the appropriate processing steps it takes to make the formula work. However, competitors were quite happy to let Coke keep the formula and were uninterested. From a practical viewpoint, the trade secret remains secret.

There are hundreds of trade secret theft cases. You attribute the word "theft" to campaign contributors, but that seems to be a bit of a stretch. The use of the word theft with respect to trade secrets goes back a long way in history. Where things get interesting is in 1917, when a Supreme Court justice pointed out that the information part of trade secrets should be protected more than the physical part, because the information part was more important. It seems that the theft part of the law was retained in the shift from focusing on physical property to intellectual property at this time. So "theft" seems to have been used to apply to trade secrets for around 90 years or more.

I did find one little tidbit that needs more research. As I was looking at the history of trade secret law, one reference noted that trade secrets are Lockean in origin. I was unaware that John Locke was somehow involved in the creation of trade secrets.

"Yes, the owner still has a copy, but he no longer has the secrecy he once had because it was stolen. How can that not be theft?" Because it isn't stolen, it is disclosed. I don't see how you can't get that through your head. Also, using that term creates a decent inconvenience for if access to the knowledge changes. Like, if Pepsi has the formula for Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola doesn't. That would be a more appropriate claim of theft, although what actually would have happened would either be that media containing the formula was stolen, or that the information was copied and the original destroyed.

"From a practical viewpoint, the trade secret remains secret. " That's a total cop-out to cover that you made a mistake. Now, according to law, the elements of being known mean that "the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public." That would suggest that as long as it is not publicly known knowledge, a trade secret could be violated. So, in the Coca Cola example involving Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, both would be 'stealing', assuming that Pepsi didn't make the knowledge available even further, as Coca Cola still has economic value in nobody besides Pepsi knowing.

"So "theft" seems to have been used to apply to trade secrets for around 90 years or more. " No, that means that trade secrets have been about the secrecy of information. That's pretty obvious, but it doesn't make it about theft.

"I was unaware that John Locke was somehow involved in the creation of trade secrets. " I doubt he was. What they probably mean is that trade secrets are the result of labor, and thus fall into Locke's labor theory of property. However, trade secrets existed before Locke. They might not have had legal protection, but that isn't needed for a trade secret. What is needed is a trade, and a secret within that trade.

Last Anonymous:

It was stolen. I am unable to understand how you fail to see that. As I said before, I think there is a lack of common definition, just like the "several years" = six months.

Regarding Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, part of the problem is that I know too much. Pepsi never looked at the formula or accepted the formula. They worked with law enforcement and the formula was never opened by anyone at Pepsi. I am unable to determine whether the thief even looked at the formula, except to verify that it appeared to be a formula for Coca-Cola.

However, there is no copout. If Pepsi became aware of the Coke formula, then no one else can steal the formula. However, since Pepsi still does not know the Coke formula, then the trade secret is maintained. Could a trade secret be stolen twice? Not if the trade secret has been compromised.

Regarding John Locke and trade secrets. Ummm...no. Trade secrets trace their history to the early 19th century, at least from a legal viewpoint. Prior to that there was no protection for trade secrets. I just happened to encounter a reference that stated that trade secrets trace their creation to Lockean philosophy. Sounds like a smart guy to me.

I am sorry that you are unable to see that trade secrets knowledge can be stolen. 99% of the world understands it.

"It was stolen. I am unable to understand how you fail to see that" Because I am not an idiot. Breaches of trade secret law and theft have very little in common, and it takes quite the mental gymnastics to think they are the same.

"However, there is no copout. If Pepsi became aware of the Coke formula, then no one else can steal the formula. However, since Pepsi still does not know the Coke formula, then the trade secret is maintained. Could a trade secret be stolen twice? Not if the trade secret has been compromised. " The law itself doesn't seem to support that. Pepsi knowing the formula doesn't make it not a trade secret anymore, because Coca Cola still has a lot of financial value in keeping it from everyone else, making it still fit the definition of a trade secret. Now, it would be a lot harder to prosecute, given that the formula could have come from either Coca Cola or Pepsi, but it still appears to meet the legal definition of a trade secret.

"Regarding Pepsi and Dr. Pepper, part of the problem is that I know too much" And the other part is that you are apparently incapable of understanding what a hypothetical is. If using real life companies gets in your way, Then replace everything with Spacely Sprockets, Cogswell Cogs, and Acme Widgets, or whatever. The specific companies and products aren't really of consequence.

The other hypothetical involving the guy who actually did acquire the formula actually depended upon Pepsi's actions. Pepsi wasn't involved with the initial action, but the secret was already 'stolen' and was not 'recovered.' Your cop-out was saying that it was 'practically a secret.' I don't think I've ever seen something be stolen, not be recovered, and the owner still 'practically' have it. If the act described in 1832 is theft, and the guy who 'stole' it remembers the formula, then Coca-Cola doesn't have the trade secret anymore, and any actions Pepsi takes AFTER the first 'theft' (which, again, they were not a party to) would not be violating trade secret law.

"Regarding John Locke and trade secrets. Ummm...no. Trade secrets trace their history to the early 19th century, at least from a legal viewpoint" Legal protection for trade secrets may have happened in the 19th century, but that doesn't mean trade secrets didn't exist prior to that. You do understand that trade secrets can exist without legal protection, right?

Last Anonymous:

I do not see that it requires any mental gymnastics at all to consider the taking of a trade secret theft. Indeed, I think it takes far more mental gymnastics to think it is not theft.

Regarding Coke and Pepsi: Your answer seems a bit convoluted, to me. If Pepsi actually knew the Coke formula, and if a third party was alleged to have stolen the trade secret, and if the third party could prove that Pepsi had the Coke formula, then the the case would be dismissed. Two separate entities cannot be in possession of the same "trade secret," because then there is no trade secret. A significant portion of all trade secret cases are dismissed for specifically the reason that the "secret" is known to two independent entities and it can be proven to be known to two different entities. That should also answer your Spacely Sprockets hypothetical. Under the law, two separate entities may not be in possession of the same trade secret, or the secret is gone.

With respect to Coke, why is it that you think the secret was not recovered? The document with the formula on it was returned and the guy went to prison. Apparently he does not remember the details of the formula. Pepsi was never in possession of the document in question.

Regarding the origin trade secrets: You may call a gear a toaster, but if no else knows or understands, what does it matter? People have had "secrets" for as long as there have been people. There have supposedly been things akin to trade secrets for hundreds of years, but the first known legal case in history relating to trade secrets was 1817. Perhaps I should have been more specific: The legal basis for protection of trade secrets traces to Lockean philosophy.

"I do not see that it requires any mental gymnastics at all to consider the taking of a trade secret theft. " The problem is that secrets, including trade secrets, generally aren't 'taken', per se. What happens to the secrecy of a secret when it becomes known by other parties is the partial or full 'destruction' of that secret. Secrets are a rather odd thing, as they are the lack of knowledge of other people, knowledge itself being abstract. Using terms rooted in the tangible to describe something that is an abstract state of an abstraction is not something easily done.

"Under the law, two separate entities may not be in possession of the same trade secret, or the secret is gone. " That does not appear to be the case, according to the definition provided in federal trade secret law. All that is needed is that there be economic value in it not being known by the general public. It also makes things a lot less complicated for companies that deal with NDAs a lot. Also, since 1832 is criminal law, it carries a reasonable doubt burden, and it is far easier to create a reasonable doubt that someone else possesses the formula than a reasonable doubt that a company has vested economic interests in not having the knowledge be spread further. Actually adhering to the theft mindset is really far less kind in many respects than the law as it is written. Much like with copyright law, the theft rhetoric is mostly for the sake of emotional appeal, as true parity with theft would cause many disadvantages.

"With respect to Coke, why is it that you think the secret was not recovered?" Because it's useful for a hypothetical to posit an argument. It doesn't matter if in reality, Coca-Cola bashed the guys skull in and sent video of the act to all of his friends and family, the argument is based on the assumption that the guy still possesses the mental knowledge.

"Perhaps I should have been more specific: The legal basis for protection of trade secrets traces to Lockean philosophy. " I just wanted to emphasize the difference between trade secrets and trade secret law. Don't confuse those two, as they are very different creatures.

Last Anonymous:

The issue of whether the 8th commandment includes stealing of intellectual property has already been debated by religious scholars as well as the various churchs. The conclusion was that since religion focuses on the action of the individual rather than the consequences of the individual's actions, and the action was a taking, or, if you do not like that word, acquiring, by the individual, then the 8th commandment is as applicable to intellectual property as much as it is physical property. Zero mental gymnastics required.

Re trade secret law: I am not sure how you are seeing that two entities could hold a secret and have it remain a secret under the law. Regardless, one commonly used defense is that more than one entity knew the trade secret, other than the accused, of course. If you have case law showing where two entities in addition to a defendant held a trade secret and the defendant was convicted of trade secret theft, I would like to see that.

As for use of the word "theft" and rhetoric, when Congress passed the law they did a survey of the trade secret laws in the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the various U.S. territories, all of which had their own trade secret laws. Many of the states already used the word "theft" in their laws, many of which date back 100 years or more. Those that did not use theft, generally used "misappropriation" or "taking." I guess 100 years ago there was lots of concern over whether theft appealed to emotions.

Re Coke: If the guy still possessed the secret, then there is a possibility that someone else could learn from him. However, the court admonished him that he was not permitted to try to pass that secret on to anyone else or he would end up back in jail again. I know many trade secrets, as I am sure many current and former employees do. If I passed those trade secrets on, I could get into serious trouble. However, I consider myself an ethical person and I agreed not to pass on employer secrets to another company or to use them myself.

I now see your point regarding trade secrets versus trade secret law. The former is meaningless since there is no way to enforce them and they lack any sort of precise definition(evidenced by 50 states and multiple other U.S. territories with their own different version of trade secret law until Congress proposed single law that has been adopted by all but four states and most territories). The latter will get you sent to prison. I just read an essay on trade secret LAW that says that trade secret LAW stems from Lockean philosophy.

The religious argument is working under the assumption that a trade secret is property, and that exposing a trade secret is taking it, neither of which is true. As for your focus, I'd say that the key point is not the acquisition, but rather, the intent to deprive. The holder of a trade secret is not deprived of the secret itself. What they 'lose' is being the only party that knows the secret.

"I am not sure how you are seeing that two entities could hold a secret and have it remain a secret under the law." Because the legal requirement is that "the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public." This a far less strict requirement than not having two entities hold the secret.

"I guess 100 years ago there was lots of concern over whether theft appealed to emotions. " Yes, there was. There is 'piracy' and 'theft' rhetoric for copyright infringement going back even further than that.

"If the guy still possessed the secret, then there is a possibility that someone else could learn from him. However, the court admonished him that he was not permitted to try to pass that secret on to anyone else or he would end up back in jail again." Yes, but he is an entity that is not Coca-Cola, and he does know it (for the sake of example). It would be a trade secret under the actual legal definition of a trade secret (since a guy who can't tell anyone else and who can't practice the secret does nothing to the value of keeping it from the rest of the public), but not under your assertion that if two separate entities hold a secret, it is not a secret. And if it is not a trade secret, than it cannot be 'stolen.'

"The former is meaningless since there is no way to enforce them" There is no legal means to enforce them outside of contract law, but they can be enforced by technical means. I suspect that technical means and NDAs make up a substantial portion of the actual protection.

You implied that the "copy" that was removed was GNR's, not the hacker's own copy.

However, competitors were quite happy to let Coke keep the formula and were uninterested. From a practical viewpoint, the trade secret remains secret.

This also proves the pointlessness of yet another form of so-called "intellectual property" law. The companies don't want to copy one another; they want to differentiate their products.

Last Anonymous:

The religious leaders never addressed the "intent to deprive." The question was whether one would could take or steal intangible property, and the agreement was that taking such property was stealing just as much as physical property.

Regarding your second comment, I am not seeing your point. If company A supposedly has a trade secret, and company B supposedly has the same trade secret (which is impossible, but this is a hypothetical), and company C is accused of stealing company A's trade secret, a proper defense if noting that company B has the same trade secret. Regardless of how you are interpreting the law, the courts have interpreted two companies having possession of what is supposedly a trade secret as meaning that there is no trade secret.

Regarding the two separate entities, I did forget one small, but important detail. In addition to not practicing the secret, the second (and third, etc.) entity has a requirement, contractual or court mandated, to keep that information secret.

Regarding your final point of contract law, I believe you are correct. Of course, if you violate the contract law with respect to an actual trade secret, then you run into criminal law with respect to trade secret. Of course, there are still hundreds of trade secret cases in the current database.

Beeswax:

Let's say for the sake of argument that my statement meant that the thief took GNR's copy (. Then GNR would still have the original. However, the original post specifically said "removed a copy," not the copy. Generally, when people say make a copy, move a copy, take a copy, etc., that implies, as I did, that the original remains.

As for your second statement regarding other companies not wanting trade secrets, that is not an accurate statement. While Pepsi was uninterested in Coke's formula, there are hundreds of trade secrets cases that allege that a competitor did take a trade secret. Then there are thousands of cases alleging industrial theft, etc. Seems like competitors are quite interested in each other's information.

http://www.asksam.com/halligan/

Again, 'take' is hardly an accurate description of what happened. It also seems strange for morality to be rooted in the subtleties of statutes. One particularly interesting one is the existence of multiple entities knowing a secret. If we assume that breach of a trade secret is theft, then it would be morally theft to breach a trade secret one thinks is only known by one party, even if it is known by many. It also doesn't make sense to limit it to the specific things covered by trade secret law, making breach of any secret fit the bill. So, while we'll both acknowledge that the law wouldn't address this, would peeking at someone's newest diary entry be theft?

"Regardless of how you are interpreting the law, the courts have interpreted two companies having possession of what is supposedly a trade secret as meaning that there is no trade secret. " I suspect this matter is not as cut and dry as you are trying to make it, having a great deal more shades of gray.

"In addition to not practicing the secret, the second (and third, etc.) entity has a requirement, contractual or court mandated, to keep that information secret. " But it's not secret by your definition if other parties know it. The reality is that secrets aren't binary. There are several degrees to a secret. There is an absolute secret, where only one party knows. On the other end, there are 'secrets' that are known by a number of people, but are also not known by a number of people, like common magic tricks. Sometimes the importance of a secret is in not being known by a certain party, like in the case of a surprise party.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Let's say for the sake of argument that my statement meant that the thief took GNR's copy (. Then GNR would still have the original. However, the original post specifically said "removed a copy," not the copy. Generally, when people say make a copy, move a copy, take a copy, etc., that implies, as I did, that the original remains.

I will repeat your exact words:

hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy

Since one has no need to forcibly remove one's own copy, the clear implication here was that it was GNR's copy (perhaps the only one, perhaps not). Force is used against another person or their property, not your own.

As for your second statement regarding other companies not wanting trade secrets, [calls me a liar].

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I didn't claim that other companies didn't sometimes want them. Only that there is a clear tendency by those enforcing such things to overvalue the secret (or other so-called "IP") and undervalue the other aspects of a business, and consequently to think that any unauthorized copying means the world will end, when the likeliest outcome is merely the continuation of business as usual and unfettered copying in fact never causes great harm. (Military secrets in wartime are another matter, but one not relevant here.)

Beeswax:

Ummm...you claim that one has no need to forcibly remove one's own copy. However, in this case, someone FORCIBLY entered private property. FORCIBLY because that person was not authorized to be there. Second, someone FORCIBLY hacked into a computer. FORCIBLY because the computer was password protected and that person was not authorized to be on that computer. Third, someone FORCIBLY copied information from that computer onto some sort of medium. FORCIBLY because the owner(s) of the information had taken steps to safeguard that information from others. Fourth since that person has FORCED their way onto private property, the only way they could exit is to FORCE their way back off again, with information that was not theirs. FORCE, FORCE, FORCE, FORCE. The copy that you claim was theirs did not belong to them because they had to force their way to that copy, force the making of the copy, and force their way back off the property again. Every single step involved in making and taking this copy was force.

Let us revisit your statement about trade secrets:

Beeswax says..."The companies don't want to copy one another; they want to differentiate their products."

Now you are saying:

Beeswax says..."I didn't claim that other companies didn't sometimes want them."

First you say "companies don't want to copy one another. Now you say you claim that sometimes they do? Which is it?

Last Anonymous:

Regarding the diary: If the diary contained information that was valuable by not being known, then yes.

Regarding cut and dry and gray: Courts pretty much have to see things as black and white. Either they did or they did not. In the case law I have read regarding trade secrets, courts tend to err on the side of "it's not a trade secret until you can prove it is or was one."

Of course, if you could provide an example of a trade secret known by more than one entity, that would be helpful. While your hypothetical is that the person who stole the coke formula remembers it, there is no evidence that the person does remember it, or the ratios of the all the various elements in the formula, or the exact order of combining those elements or the temperature of combination or the wait times between steps. You are talking hypothetical, and to my knowledge it is rare when a second company knows a trade secret of another company and the trade secrecy is still maintained. As I have noted multiple times, regardless of hypotheticals trade secrets are fragile. They are difficult to maintain and are relatively easily lost.

"Regarding the diary: If the diary contained information that was valuable by not being known, then yes" That's completely irrational. Reading some diaries is theft and reading some diaries is not theft? A diary is intended to not be read by other people, at least while it is being written. That usually means the author places some value in it not being read by others, meaning that most diaries contain information that is valuable (to the author) by not being known. However, calling the reading of a typical diary theft is insane.

Last Anonymous:

Thank you for calling me insane, butthole

I tried to use the language of the trade secret law. If there is a trade secret in the diary, then it is illegal and CRIMINAL to read it.

And the 'language of trade secret law' is erroneous. You are correct that it might be illegal, but you seem to be leaning towards the idea that it's only 'theft' if there is a trade secret involved. Whether or not there is a trade secret involved determines whether or not its a violation of 1832. However, if the diary is not intended to be read by others, it would be just as much theft or not theft regardless of the content. Whether or not the law prosecutes it doesn't change whether or not it is theft.

Thinking that reading a diary can literally be theft is utterly ridiculous. It may be an awful thing to do, but it isn't theft, and if you think it is, it would seem there is something wrong with your head.

Last Anonymous:

I do not see how reading a diary can be theft unless there is a trade secret embodied in the diary. Furthermore, merely reading a diary can hardly be theft in any case. Unethical, probably. Invasion of privacy, absolutely. Why would you even bring up such an irrelevant issue?

Last Anonymous (and anyone else):

Based on the comment stream, it appears that you do not think identity theft is possible. Thoughts?

Last Anonymous (and anyone else):

Based on the comment stream, it appears that you do not think identity theft is possible. Thoughts?

Reading a diary is obtaining information that is intended to be secret. The secrecy of the contents of a diary has value to the author of the diary. The difference with trade secrets is that it is not prosecutable under trade secret law. However, this also applies to the GNR case, as music cannot be a trade secret. You kept insisting that the Cogill was a thief, which is how trade secret law got brought up in he first place.

So called 'identity theft' is not theft. It is a specific form of identity fraud.

Last Anonymous:

However, the contents of the diary have no value to anyone other than the author. A trade secret has value to more than just the author. Neither do we have a scenario involving a diary.

The GNR music obviously had value to the thief because the thief went to great lengths to trespass, hack, find the particular files of interest, copy them, and surreptitiously exit the property. I find it hard to believe anyone would do that for just any old diary.

Regarding identity theft: Okay. There is no possibility of meeting of the minds. There are hundreds of laws in both the United States and around the world, at the county, state, national and international level that specifically deal with "data theft," "identity theft," and "trade secret theft." However, other than the possibility of being charged with these crimes, since you do not recognize the crimes you would have no reasonable defense against them. You would go to prison if you committed any of these crimes.

"However, the contents of the diary have no value to anyone other than the author." It very well could have value to someone other than the author, if for nothing more than satisfying curiosity. If the person reading the diary knows the author, then some of the knowledge in the diary may be useful to them. The potential value of what is written in a diary to people other than the author makes up numerous cliches in various entertainment mediums, particularly in works featuring teenage protagonists.

"I find it hard to believe anyone would do that for just any old diary. " What does the lengths someone would go to have to do with the nature of an act? People would do far more for a billion dollars than they would do for a dime, but stealing either would still be theft. Also, it doesn't seem like he went to particularly great lengths to me. Acquiring a key that is likely easily accessible to you and putting in a password you probably know already are not great tasks.

"However, other than the possibility of being charged with these crimes, since you do not recognize the crimes you would have no reasonable defense against them. You would go to prison if you committed any of these crimes. " I didn't say I don't recognize the crimes or that I condone them, I just don't regard them as theft. We have many other words to describe these actions, and they likely fit better than theft as descriptions. If there isn't a better word, creating one might be a good idea, so we don't end up calling murder 'life theft' or slander/libel 'reputation theft.'

Last Anonymous:

And does the information in the diary include business plans, process, technical knowhow, etc.? Otherwise, there would appear to be no assignable monetary value.

He took a lot of risk being in a place he was not supposed to be. He could have been arrested for trespassing, or possibly breaking and entering since I never heard exactly how he got access. Any time you go on private property when you are not invited, the level of risk is quite high. He could have been shot.

I like the word theft. It feels just like what the crime is. Conversely, why do you have a problem with it? In a way, it is just semantics. Trying to get the average person to understand the difference between theft and whatever you want to call trade secret theft requires more mental gymnastics than the average person is interested in attempting. It is easier to call it what it looks like, the taking of information that did not belong to that person; i.e., theft.

Since we just went through an election, I scanned the list of elected Libertarians. It appears that the Libertarian party is taking a big hit right now in terms of people in office. I wonder if it has anything to do with not understanding the semantics of Libertarians? I am still trying to figure out how not filing for patents for a number of years is equal to six months.

"And does the information in the diary include business plans, process, technical knowhow, etc.? Otherwise, there would appear to be no assignable monetary value. " Actually, you could assign monetary value to things outside of what can be statutorily a trade secret, you just can bring a trade secret suit about it. Also, significant economic value is not required for theft.

"Conversely, why do you have a problem with it?" Because 'theft' is perhaps one of the most weighted words in the English language. Trade secret law needs to stand on its own merits, because the underlying economic arguments are very different between the two.

"Trying to get the average person to understand the difference between theft and whatever you want to call trade secret theft requires more mental gymnastics than the average person is interested in attempting." I'm not sure why the average person needs to have an understanding of trade secret law, and the proper method of getting someone to understand it wouldn't touch on theft. I wouldn't try and frame it within terms of something else, but if I did, privacy law would probably be my frame of reference. Trade secret law is not a great concern to the average person, and we have plenty of civil and criminal laws that aren't simple.

As for your the six months thing, I think your emphasis is on the wrong part. 'Avoided' doesn't inherently equal not doing something at all. Someone on a diet might avoid donuts, but that doesn't mean they never eat a donut. Relative to their competition, Google's patent portfolio was and still is pretty insignificant. It seem that in 2000, Google filed 15 patents, while Microsoft filed 1093. It seems that there is less than a 1000 patents publicly known to be granted directly to Google throughout their entire operating, which is less than what they've recently bought from IBM, and probably a good deal less than what they acquired through Motorola.

Last Anonymous:

Re diary: Correct, you cannot bring about a trade secret suit. What is your point?

Re theft: According to the dictionary, theft is quite simple to understand. It is the taking of something. While YOU personally might weight it, and while some other people do, the vast majority of people do not.

Re trade secret law and theft: The corollary is that the average person does not care what you call it. As far as the average person can tell, taking a trade secret is theft. All else is rhetoric.

Re avoided: Avoided is not doing something. If they were reluctant to file, that might mean fewer patents. If they filed on only critical features, that might mean fewer patents. Avoided is not doing.

Google has always been principally a service company, and service companies generally have fewer patents than hardware companies. I am shocked that Google applied for any patents at all in the first six years of existence. IBM, on the other hand, is primarily a hardware company. I would expect a hardware company to have lots of patents. The vast majority of the patents that Google "bought" are for hardware. Seems to signal Google's future direction.

Google has nearly 5000 patents and applications assigned to it. While some of these were likely procured from others, many are likely for unpublished applications or for those that were rejected and never issued. Also note that a company does not have to include an assignment when filing, which means that application would not show up in a search of that company. Some companies make it a routine practice to not file an assignment at the time of filing to make it harder to figure out how many patents they actually have. Some companies want people to think they have far fewer patents than they actually have. It would be a mistake to assume that getting 1000 hits in the USPTO database is equal to the actual number of applications Google filed.

"Correct, you cannot bring about a trade secret suit. What is your point? " That whether or not you can bring a trade secret suit doesn't change whether or not something is theft. You think the GNR suit was theft, but you can't bring a trade secret suit about it either. Whether or not something is actually theft has nothing to do with statutes. You seem to recognize that when it's convenient for you, but not when it harms your argument.

"While YOU personally might weight it, and while some other people do, the vast majority of people do not. " I said weighted, not complex. Theft is a word that often elicits a strong emotional reaction. Murder and rape are also words that elicit strong emotions. If you call someone a thief, rapist, or murderer, then it casts a strong judgment on someone. If you call someone a biologist, you generally won't get the same kind of negative reaction.

"The corollary is that the average person does not care what you call it. As far as the average person can tell, taking a trade secret is theft. All else is rhetoric. " The average person probably doesn't care too much about trade secrets at all. There are plenty of other civil and criminal laws that the average person doesn't care about either. There's no good reason to bring the law down to the lowest common denominator.

"Avoided is not doing something. If they were reluctant to file, that might mean fewer patents. If they filed on only critical features, that might mean fewer patents. Avoided is not doing. " Avoided can mean not doing something at all, or it can mean doing something less. If you are going to insist on your strict definition of avoid, then chalk it up to a misunderstanding of the provisional patent process, as the listed filing date of the patent in question is 2000, which would be reasonable to call some years.

As for the direction of Google, I wouldn't put too much faith in it. The primary reason for getting those patents seems to be to have something to countersue Apple et al with so the competition will more or less leave Android alone.

Last Anonymous:

Re GNR: Show me where I once said that the GNR suit was about theft.

As for whether something is a trade secret or not and whether something is theft, it makes a huge difference because the statute for trade secrets says there has to be a trade secret and it has to be taken (deletion of the original is not required).

Re theft: Some people have an emotional reaction to theft and thief. I do not. On the other hand, when people try to somehow downplay the theft of trade secrets for reasons that I do not understand, then I do have a reaction to that.

Definition of avoided:

a: to keep away from : shun; b : to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of c : to refrain from

Sounds to me that avoid means to not do. However, let's say that they tried not to do something. They have nearly 5000 patents and applications assigned to them. They were filing dozens of applications in their first three years of existence, which I would think would have to qualify as "some years." That hardly seems like avoiding much of anything, particularly given their size at that time.

There were no provisional patent applications in 2000.

Re direction: Ummm...first you say they are not changing direction, but then you talk about how this service company is trying to protect hardware. Service to hardware? Seems like a change in direction to me. Google has also stated publicly multiple times that they plan to get into more hardware offerings. That would be a change in direction.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Ummm...you claim that one has no need to forcibly remove one's own copy.

Yes.

However, in this case, someone FORCIBLY entered private property.

Irrelevant. Not removal of the copy.

FORCIBLY because that person was not authorized to be there.

Irrelevant. Not removal of the copy.

Second, someone FORCIBLY hacked into a computer.

Irrelevant. Not removal of the copy.

FORCIBLY because the computer was password protected and that person was not authorized to be on that computer.

Irrelevant. Not removal of the copy.

Third, someone FORCIBLY copied information from that computer onto some sort of medium.

I doubt there was any force involved in performing that step.

FORCIBLY because the owner(s) of the information had taken steps to safeguard that information from others.

Wrong. Forcibly means using force. If I take steps to safeguard my money from thieves and someone breaks into my home and swipes some, that's forcible. If a con artist tricks me out of some money it's not forcible (though it's still wrong).

Fourth since that person has FORCED their way onto private property, the only way they could exit is to FORCE their way back off again,

Nonsense. You break out of prisons, not out of GNR's computer lab. It was probably as simple as climbing out an open or pre-broken window.

with information that was not theirs.

Nonsense. Assuming they brought a USB key and copied to that, the USB key was theirs. That includes the various atoms in states encoding the information. Information, in the abstract, cannot itself be owned, only things which may embody or store a representation of information.

FORCE, FORCE, FORCE, FORCE.

Ah, repetition. A common refuge of those with weak arguments.

The copy that you claim was theirs did not belong to them because they had to force their way to that copy, force the making of the copy, and force their way back off the property again.

Nonsense.

Every single step involved in making and taking this copy was force.

Nonsense. Only the first step possibly did -- if they didn't have a key, or find a window or door left unlocked.

Let us revisit your statement about trade secrets:

Beeswax says..."The companies don't want to copy one another; they want to differentiate their products."

Now you are saying:

Beeswax says..."I didn't claim that other companies didn't sometimes want them."

First you say "companies don't want to copy one another. Now you say you claim that sometimes they do? Which is it?

I said a specific set of companies don't want to copy one another, and then that other companies sometimes wanted to discover another's trade secrets. I see no contradiction there, on two counts:

1. That one specific set of companies don't want to copy one another says nothing about the rest.

2. That a company wants another's trade secrets doesn't mean it wants to simply clone the other company's product or methods. That would not differentiate it in the marketplace and people would likely prefer the tried, tested, and true original. The likely purpose is to leapfrog and produce a superior product, or at least a different one with some element in common, rather than a mere knock-off. Even if they do intend to make a knock-off, it will probably be done with cheaper materials at a lower price, segmenting the market, rather than targeting the same consumers who buy the higher-priced, better-workmanship originals. (We see this all the time with fashion items: dresses, shoes, purses, jewelry, what-have-you. That market thrives in the presence of the knock-offs and without much in the way of "IP" law, save trademarks.)

"Show me where I once said that the GNR suit was about theft." You said "The whole issue was the violation of privacy that occured when privately held data was stolen" as well as "Since GNR released the music themselves after the secret was stolen"

"it makes a huge difference because the statute for trade secrets" The statute for trade secrets does not dictate whether or not something is theft. If we repealed all of our trade secret law, would you contend that actions that violate 1832 as it is now are no longer theft?

"Ummm...first you say they are not changing direction, but then you talk about how this service company is trying to protect hardware. " Their reason for protecting hardware is because hardware that they don't make that does use the software they wrote helps bolster their services.

"There were no provisional patent applications in 2000. " I didn't say there was. However, according to the USPTO, patent 6,678,681 was filed in March 2000, but that patent "claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/123,583, filed Mar. 10, 1999." The six months you keep citing is the date of filing the provisional application, and that fact would be easy to miss.

Last Anonymous:

However, I never said the SUIT was about the data being stolen. I could have been slightly more clear. For me, it was when the thief stole the date, using the language of trade secret law.

Re trade secret law: I suppose that if the dozens of trade secret laws in place that call stealing of trade secrets to be theft were repealed, and no longer called it theft, then it would no longer be considered theft.

Re hardware vs. software: So, they are changing their direction.

Re provisional patent: Oops...my bad. Provisional patents date from 1994. However, while that one patent shows a date of 2000, Google was filing other patents in the next year after incorporation. Again, considering the size of the company, they were pretty darn prolific, and have continuously filed patents since their first.

Beeswax:

Your quote:

Nonsense. Assuming they brought a USB key and copied to that, the USB key was theirs. That includes the various atoms in states encoding the information. Information, in the abstract, cannot itself be owned, only things which may embody or store a representation of information.

Well, the law of roughly 200 countries, 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and multiple territories says that in fact you can own information in the abstract.

"However, I never said the SUIT was about the data being stolen." That wasn't really the point of contention was. I said you claimed the act done in the GNR case was theft, and you did say that.

"I suppose that if the dozens of trade secret laws in place that call stealing of trade secrets to be theft were repealed, and no longer called it theft, then it would no longer be considered theft. " That seems strange to me, since I see an act being theft or not theft regardless of what statutes say.

"So, they are changing their direction. " It seems that would likely still be first and foremost a service company. Were there no lawsuits that affect Android, a software focus, they would have little need for those hardware patents. In a nutshell, it's a matter of what is the most useful tool they can acquire against Apple, MS, and perhaps Oracle. I don't see that as strongly indicative of a change in business model. It is a necessity to keep their current business model in light of lawsuits.

"Again, considering the size of the company, they were pretty darn prolific, and have continuously filed patents since their first. " I would hardly call them prolific. Their patent portfolio was and still is pretty small. Of course, their business model likely played a major role in it, and it might be that for their size and business model, they have a large portfolio.

Last Anonymous:

Re theft: I sure did, because the thief stole a secret file and I called the thiefs act stealing because I consider it so. Stealing forcibly merely added insult to injury.

Re trade secret laws & theft: I would also see that act as theft even if the statute did not use the term, but that would be just as meaningless as those who do not see it as theft now.

Re Google: Do not be so sure.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-15/tech/30026017_1_android-larry-page-google

Re patent portfolio size: Service companies in general have quite small patent portfolios. Take Amazon.com, with a revenue stream larger than Google's and which has been in existence several years longer than Google. Amazon has 159 patents assigned to it, versus Google's nearly 5,000. Google is ranked #32 in terms of patents over the last five years, with virtually all other companies (strangely, Yahoo has nearly the same number of patents as Google over the last five years) hardware companies or research facilities. The next service oriented company on the list is eBay, which is WAAAAAYYYYYY down on the list. Considering it is a service company, it has a HUGE patent portfolio.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Well, the law of roughly 200 countries, 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and multiple territories says that in fact you can own information in the abstract.

Then the law of roughly 200 countries, 50 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and multiple territories is wrong.

Seems dismal, but look on the bright side: a few hundred years ago they all thought the world was flat, too!

Meanwhile, you still haven't apologized for misleadingly implying that GNR's file disappeared from their computer earlier.

Beeswax:

It must make you feel great to know that 99% of the world is wrong and you and your flat earth friends are the only ones who are right.

I cannot apologize for something I never said. I clearly and plainly said that a copy of the secret data was removed.

I also note that you have said that while the USB or the CD was theirs, the physical arrangement of the electrons belonged to GNR since no one else had that combination and GNR never revealed it. After forcing his or her way into GNR's computer, after trespassing, he or she caused their electronic device to be configured identically to GNR's secret data. Then he or she removed his or her copy of with the stolen secret from the property. Since the thieves incurred risk getting onto the property, they also incurred risk getting off the property should they have been discovered. Regardless of whether they went through a broken window or not, they knew that they would have to sneak out against the wishes of the property owners and risk bodily harm or even death if they were caught. Did they leave forcibly? Perhaps not. However, they were clearly prepared to do so in the lengthy chain of events, most of which were forcible, that supported their efforts to forcibly redistribute GNR's secret information.

A few hundred years ago most people did not care whether the earth was flat. However, the belief that people of the Middle Ages thought the world was flat is a misconception. Most people in the world believed the earth was spherical after about 330 B.C., when Aristotle used empirical evidence to support his belief that the world was round. Europeans also believed that the earth was spherical (except for Libertarians; they continued to believe that the earth was flat and that if there was no government then we would live in utopia, kind of like Somalia). Yet another thing you are wrong about.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

It must make you feel great to know that 99% of the world is wrong and you and your flat earth friends are the only ones who are right.

Classic erroneous presupposition. It is your side that is comparable to the flat-earthers, Lonnie.

I cannot apologize for something I never said.

Classic erroneous presupposition. I only asked you to apologize for something misleading that you did say.

I clearly and plainly said that a copy of the secret data was removed.

And implied that it was GNR's copy, not the hacker's own:

hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy

Sure seems to be implying the forced deletion of data from a GNR computer, an event that you have since acknowledged never took place.

I also note that you have said that while the USB or the CD was theirs, the physical arrangement of the electrons belonged to GNR

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The physical arrangement of the electrons in a device belongs to whoever owns the device.

since no one else had that combination

Obviously, by that point the hacker had that combination, Lonnie.

and GNR never revealed it.

Irrelevant, Lonnie.

After forcing his or her way into GNR's computer, after trespassing, he or she caused their electronic device to be configured identically to GNR's secret data.

Classic pontification.

Then he or she removed his or her copy of with the stolen secret from the property.

Classic erroneous presupposition that anything was stolen.

Since the thieves incurred risk getting onto the property, they also incurred risk getting off the property should they have been discovered.

Classic erroneous presupposition that anything was stolen.

Regardless of whether they went through a broken window or not, they knew that they would have to sneak out against the wishes of the property owners and risk bodily harm or even death if they were caught.

Classic contradiction. If the property owners did not want them there, their departure cannot therefore logically have been "against the wishes of the property owners". If, on the other hand, they did want them there, their arrival was not trespass as you have claimed, Lonnie. In either case, you were wrong about something, Lonnie.

Did they leave forcibly? Perhaps not. However, they were clearly prepared to do so in the lengthy chain of events, most of which were forcible, that supported their efforts to forcibly redistribute GNR's secret information.

Another unsubstantiated claim. Did they (and I note you now seem to assume there were more than one) have guns or something? What is your evidence that they were prepared to use force if, say, a security guard showed up and tried to detain them?

A few hundred years ago most people did not care whether the earth was flat.

What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

However, the belief that people of the Middle Ages thought the world was flat is a misconception.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Most people in the world believed the earth was spherical after about 330 B.C., when Aristotle used empirical evidence to support his belief that the world was round.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? The classical civilizations, or at least the learned among them, knew, but then the Dark Ages came and Europe, in particular, was plunged into an age of religiously-enforced ignorance.

Europeans also believed that the earth was spherical (except for Libertarians; they continued to believe that the earth was flat and that if there was no government then we would live in utopia, kind of like Somalia).

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Yet another thing you are wrong about.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax:

Yes, I said forcibly removed A copy. In English, that means one copy of possibly many. Had I meant they took the only copy, I would have said so. Just admit you are wrong, as usual, and move on, flatearther.

Beeswax says:

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The physical arrangement of the electrons in a device belongs to whoever owns the device."

The law, and common sense, says otherwise. You do not get to keep something that you stole or obtained by fraudulent behavior.

Beeswax says:

"Classic erroneous presupposition that anything was stolen."

There was no erroneous presumption. Secret data was stolen. Even Proudhon would recognize the data as being property that was stolen.

Beeswax says:

"Another unsubstantiated claim. Did they (and I note you now seem to assume there were more than one) have guns or something? What is your evidence that they were prepared to use force if, say, a security guard showed up and tried to detain them?"

Are you trying to tell me there would have been no force involved if a guard showed up, or a member of GNR showed up? I think otherwise.

I said:

A few hundred years ago most people did not care whether the earth was flat. What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, [Anonymous]?

Beeswax replied:

"A few hundred years ago most people did not care whether the earth was flat. What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?"

I do not know. You brought up the supposed fact that people a few hundred years ago believed the earth was flat. You are wrong, of course, but I await your tie-in of your statement with monopoly. I am sure we will all be thrilled with the connection.

Beeswax says:

"The classical civilizations, or at least the learned among them, knew, but then the Dark Ages came and Europe, in particular, was plunged into an age of religiously-enforced ignorance."

However, they still knew the earth was round.

What I am wondering is why your original, erroneous statement about believe believing in a flat earth has to do with monopoly. I also wonder when you are going to retract your erroneous statement.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Yes, I said forcibly removed A copy.

From GNR's computer. When in fact nothing was removed from GNR's computer.

In English, that means one copy of possibly many.

Irrelevant, Lonnie.

Had I meant they took the only copy, I would have said so.

Irrelevant, Lonnie.

Just admit you are wrong, as usual,

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

and move on, flatearther.

Who is "flatearther", Lonnie? There is nobody on this blog using that alias.

"Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The physical arrangement of the electrons in a device belongs to whoever owns the device."

The law, and common sense, says otherwise.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The disk drive can't be half one person's and half someone else's, Lonnie. That way lies madness, Lonnie.

You do not get to keep something that you stole or obtained by fraudulent behavior.

But the hypothetical thumb drive wasn't stolen or obtained by fraudulent behavior, Lonnie.

There was no erroneous presumption.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Secret data was stolen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Even Proudhon would recognize the data as being property that was stolen.

Then Proudhon is confused, Lonnie, about what is and is not property and about what is and is not theft.

Are you trying to tell me there would have been no force involved if a guard showed up, or a member of GNR showed up?

No; I'm saying that no force actually was involved in the events as they actually transpired, Lonnie.

I think otherwise.

We'll probably never know, Lonnie, but it's irrelevant, since that didn't happen.

I do not know.

What does your ignorance have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You brought up the supposed fact that people a few hundred years ago believed the earth was flat.

Classic pontification.

You are wrong,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

of course,

Classic erroneous presupposition.

but I await your tie-in of your statement with monopoly.

Don't hold your breath, Lonnie.

I am sure we will all be thrilled with the connection.

What you're sure of is irrelevant, Lonnie.

However, they still knew the earth was round.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What I am wondering is why your original, erroneous statement about believe believing in a flat earth has to do with monopoly.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

I also wonder when you are going to retract your erroneous statement.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Beeswax:

I said: Yes, I said forcibly removed A copy.

Beeswax said: From GNR's computer. When in fact nothing was removed from GNR's computer.

Irrelevant, Beeswax. I never said anything was removed from GNR's computer, ever.

I said: In English, that means one copy of possibly many.

Beeswax said: Irrelevant, [anonymous].

Quite relevant, Beeswax. You claim that I said that the original was deleted, which I have never claimed. My use of plain English language supports my claim, which is QUITE relevant.

I said: Just admit you are wrong, as usual.

Beeswax said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

And what does your pontification have to do with admitting your rather obvious error?

I said: and move on, flatearther.

Beeswax said: Who is "flatearther", Lonnie? There is nobody on this blog using that alias.

And what does your pontification have to do with admitting your rather obvious error?

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The physical arrangement of the electrons in a device belongs to whoever owns the device.

I said: The law, and common sense, says otherwise.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The disk drive can't be half one person's and half someone else's, Lonnie. That way lies madness, Lonnie.

Answer me this: If taking a copy was not against the law, why was someone convicted of participating in the taking? To deny someone was convicted of their participation in removing a copy from the GNR computer is to deny reality.

I said: You do not get to keep something that you stole or obtained by fraudulent behavior.

Beeswax said: But the hypothetical thumb drive wasn't stolen or obtained by fraudulent behavior, Lonnie.

Really? Was it obtained by asking GNR nicely, or was it obtained by trespassing, breaking and entering, and hacking?

I said: Secret data was stolen.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Your statement is illogical and a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. We have statements from GNR that the music copied was never intended for release. Clearly a copy was removed from the premises where it was kept, against the will of GNR. I call taking of stealing secret information stealing. I know you call it copying, but you choose your words, I will choose mine.

I said: Even Proudhon would recognize the data as being property that was stolen.

Beeswax said: Then Proudhon is confused, Lonnie, about what is and is not property and about what is and is not theft.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Furthermore, Proudhon is not confused, he is dead.

I said: Are you trying to tell me there would have been no force involved if a guard showed up, or a member of GNR showed up?

Beeswax said: No; I'm saying that no force actually was involved in the events as they actually transpired, Lonnie.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I said: I think otherwise.

Beeswax said: We'll probably never know, Lonnie, but it's irrelevant, since that didn't happen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Beeswax said: [Ad hominem comments deleted.]

What does any of this have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

I said: You brought up the supposed fact that people a few hundred years ago believed the earth was flat.

Beeswax said: Classic pontification.

You are saying that your statement about people believing the earth was flat, which is wrong, is classic pontification? I agree that your statement is classic pontification, in addition to being in error, and has nothing to do with monopoly.

I said: You are wrong [about people believing the earth was flat several hundred years ago].

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Trying to divert attention from your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim does not change the fact that you made it.

I said: I await your tie-in of your statement with monopoly.

Beeswax said: Don't hold your breath, Lonnie.

Of course not. You like to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims and then try to avoid explaining why you made them.

I said: However, they still knew the earth was round.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I am not sure how classic it is, but it is true.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[7]

I said: What I am wondering is why your original, erroneous statement about believe believing in a flat earth has to do with monopoly.

Beeswax said: Classic erroneous presupposition.

You are making a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I said: I also wonder when you are going to retract your erroneous statement.

Beeswax said: Classic erroneous presupposition.

Beeswax is avoiding taking responsibility for making classic erroneous and unsubstantiated claims.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax said: From GNR's computer. When in fact nothing was removed from GNR's computer.

Irrelevant, Beeswax.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I never said anything was removed from GNR's computer, ever.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim:

hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy

Are you now denying having written that, Lonnie? If so, I think we're done here.

Beeswax said: Irrelevant, [anonymous].

Quite relevant, Beeswax.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

You claim that I said that the original was deleted, which I have never claimed.

You implied it:

hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy

Unless, of course, you're now being dishonest enough to deny having written that, Lonnie.

My use of plain English language supports my claim, which is QUITE relevant.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

And what does your pontification have to do with admitting your rather obvious error?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

And what does your pontification have to do with admitting your rather obvious error?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The disk drive can't be half one person's and half someone else's, Lonnie. That way lies madness, Lonnie.

Answer me this: If taking a copy was not against the law, why was someone convicted of participating in the taking?

Irrelevant, Lonnie. They were convicted of trespass and possibly break and enter. Possibly also privacy violations or copyright infringement. None of those has anything to do with theft, which makes sense if nothing was actually stolen, Lonnie.

To deny someone was convicted of their participation in removing a copy from the GNR computer is to deny reality.

And now you're explicitly contradicting yourself. From above:

I never said anything was removed from GNR's computer, ever.

Classic contradiction. One of the two quoted statements of yours is a lie, Lonnie. Which one?

Beeswax said: But the hypothetical thumb drive wasn't stolen or obtained by fraudulent behavior, Lonnie.

Really? Was it obtained by asking GNR nicely, or was it obtained by trespassing, breaking and entering, and hacking?

Neither; the hypothetical thumb drive was obtained by buying it at a Wal-Mart, Lonnie.

Your statement is illogical and a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

We have statements from GNR that the music copied was never intended for release.

Irrelevant, Lonnie.

Clearly a copy was removed from the premises where it was kept, against the will of GNR.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, if that copy was not GNR's own (regarding which you have repeatedly contradicted yourself).

I call taking of stealing secret information stealing.

What you call it is irrelevant, Lonnie. You could call it applesauce but that wouldn't make it usable as food, Lonnie.

I know you call it copying, but you choose your words, I will choose mine.

I choose my words based on their dictionary meanings, Lonnie, and neither use them arbitrarily to mean completely different things nor cynically to mislead.

Beeswax said: Then Proudhon is confused, Lonnie, about what is and is not property and about what is and is not theft.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On your part, Lonnie.

Furthermore, Proudhon is not confused, he is dead.

He was confused whenever he made a statement implying that information in the abstract could be owned like tangible property, Lonnie. If he actually made such a statement as you've asserted.

Beeswax said: No; I'm saying that no force actually was involved in the events as they actually transpired, Lonnie.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On your part, Lonnie. No evidence has been presented supporting your assertion that their exit from the premises involved a use of force.

Beeswax said: We'll probably never know, Lonnie, but it's irrelevant, since that didn't happen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

On your part, Lonnie. No evidence has been presented supporting your assertion that their exit from the premises involved a use of force.

Beeswax said: [Ad hominem comments deleted.]

I didn't write that, Lonnie, yet you attributed it to me anyway. Classic dishonesty on your part, Lonnie.

What does any of this have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

Reread the parts mentioning copyrights, Lonnie. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

You are saying that your statement about people believing the earth was flat, which is wrong, is classic pontification?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition of a question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I agree that your statement is classic pontification, in addition to being in error, and has nothing to do with monopoly.

You agree with whom, Lonnie? Yourself? I certainly don't agree with you, Lonnie, as should be quite evident by now. The facts also don't agree with you, Lonnie.

Trying to divert attention from your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim does not change the fact that you made it.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Of course not. You like to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims and then try to avoid explaining why you made them.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I am not sure how classic it is, but it is true.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

From Wikipedia:

What does your URL have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[7]

What does your irrelevant pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Educated Europeans were, at that time, a vanishingly small fraction of the total European population, Lonnie, and the rest believed the Earth was flat.

You are making a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax is avoiding taking responsibility for making classic erroneous and unsubstantiated claims.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax said: From GNR's computer. When in fact nothing was removed from GNR's computer.

I said: Irrelevant, Beeswax.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Your statement is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims for which you have provided no evidence or logic.

I said: I never said anything was removed from GNR's computer, ever.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim

That is untrue. I have supported my statement with evidence multiple times. You have continuously ignored the evidence I have provided.

I said: "hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy"

Beeswax said: Are you now denying having written that, [ad hominem removed]? If so, I think we're done here.

Of course I said someone hacked into the GNR computer, a true statement, and someone removed a copy, also a true statement. What I have never said, and you have no evidence that I said, is that the person who removed A COPY deleted the original.

Beeswax said: Irrelevant, [anonymous].

I said: Quite relevant, Beeswax.

Beeswax replied: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Your statement is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. I have supported my position multiple times and you keep changing the subject.

I said: You claim that I said that the original was deleted, which I have never claimed.

Beeswax said: You implied it

No, not once. Never.

Beeswax quoted me, again: hacked into the Guns 'n Roses computer and forcibly removed a copy

Beeswax said: Unless, of course, you're now being dishonest enough to deny having written that, [ad hominem removed].

Of course I said that someone hacked into the GNR computer, which is what GNR claimed. And since a copy of information that was only on the GNR computer was posted on the internet, it is clear that a copy was taken. Furthermore, since the computer is on private property and was password protected, the only way to get into the computer is by force. None of which has to do with deleting the original, which you, through a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, for which you have provided no evidence or logic, keeping INFERRING, because I never implied it.

I said: My use of plain English language supports my claim, which is QUITE relevant.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your pontification have to do with my clear and relevant statement?

I said: And what does your pontification have to do with admitting your rather obvious error?

Beeswax said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

There are no presuppositions. My statements are clear, precise and accurate. You are calling me a liar without evidence and with classic, irrelevant diversionary statements.

I said: And what does your pontification have to do with admitting your rather obvious error?

Beeswax said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

There are no presuppositions. My statements are clear, precise and accurate. You are calling me a liar without evidence and with classic, irrelevant diversionary statements.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The disk drive can't be half one person's and half someone else's, Lonnie. That way lies madness, Lonnie.

I said: Answer me this: If taking a copy was not against the law, why was someone convicted of participating in the taking?

Beeswax said: Irrelevant, Lonnie. They were convicted of trespass and possibly break and enter. Possibly also privacy violations or copyright infringement. None of those has anything to do with theft, which makes sense if nothing was actually stolen, Lonnie.

Actually, "they" were only convicted of copyright infringement, because they were unable to find the person who has actually trespassed, hacked, and took a copy. However, none of that has to do with the clear fact that secret data that was only on GNR's computer was revealed to the public. I call making a copy of secret data stealing, and if GNR had not subsequently released an album containing later versios of the music, I suspect they would have had an excellent case for trade secret theft.

I said: To deny someone was convicted of their participation in removing a copy from the GNR computer is to deny reality.

Beeswax said: And now you're explicitly contradicting yourself. From above:

I said: I never said anything was removed from GNR's computer, ever.

Beeswax said: Classic contradiction. One of the two quoted statements of yours is a lie, Lonnie. Which one?

Neither, both statements are accurate in context. To take a copy, i.e., to make a copy from something exists on a computer is "taking" or "removing" a copy. The second statement implies a different act, that of deleting or destroying a file on a computer. I have never said that a file was deleted from the GNR computer.

Beeswax said: But the hypothetical thumb drive wasn't stolen or obtained by fraudulent behavior, [ad hominem removed]. I said: Really? Was it obtained by asking GNR nicely, or was it obtained by trespassing, breaking and entering, and hacking?

Beeswax said: Neither; the hypothetical thumb drive was obtained by buying it at a Wal-Mart, Lonnie.

Sure, the hypothetical thumb drive was purchased, what about the copies put on the hypothetical thumb drive from the GNR computer? Were those files obtained by asking GNR nicely, or was it obtained by trespassing, breaking and entering, and hacking?

I said: We have statements from GNR that the music copied was never intended for release.

Beeswax said: Irrelevant, Lonnie.

Completely relevant. That is where the whole "force" thing comes in. Forcible distribution by someone other than the original owner is against everything that Libertarians stand for.

I said: Clearly a copy was removed from the premises where it was kept, against the will of GNR.

Beeswax said: Irrelevant, Lonnie, if that copy was not GNR's own (regarding which you have repeatedly contradicted yourself).

The copy was taken via force. Sure, the thief made the copy, after forcing his or her way onto the property, hacking, looking for the files, and making a copy of them, against GNR's will, but that means that person clearly knows they are breaking multiple laws in addition to being against everything that Libertarians consider the most fundamental rights.

I said: I call taking of stealing secret information stealing.

Beeswax said: What you call it is irrelevant, Lonnie. You could call it applesauce but that wouldn't make it usable as food, [ad hominem removed].

What does your classic and irrelevant pontification have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

I said: I know you call it copying, but you choose your words, I will choose mine.

Beeswax said: I choose my words based on their dictionary meanings, Lonnie, and neither use them arbitrarily to mean completely different things nor cynically to mislead.

Cool. I use dictionary meanings too. Let's see what the dictionary calls theft:

a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

b: to take away by force or unjust means

c: to take surreptitiously or without permission

Seems like stealing fits perfectly.

Beeswax said: Then Proudhon is confused, [ad hominem removed], about what is and is not property and about what is and is not theft.

I said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Beeswax said: On your part, [ad hominem removed].

Classic irrelevant pontificiation.

I said: Furthermore, Proudhon is not confused, he is dead.

Beeswax said: He was confused whenever he made a statement implying that information in the abstract could be owned like tangible property, [ad hominem removed]. If he actually made such a statement as you've asserted.

Here are two quotes from Wikipedia:

Proudhon strenuously rejected the ownership of the products of labor by society or the state, arguing in "What is Property?" that while "property in product [...] does not carry with it property in the means of production"[8] [...] The right to product is exclusive.

He argued that the result of an individual's labor which is currently occupied or used is a legitimate form of property.

Since the music on GNR's computer was (1) the product of a worker's labor, and (2) was being used to create an album, then Proudhon defined such as property. Proudhon also rejected the notion that such property belonged to society. Proudhon was also adamant that anything that took a worker's product from the worker was theft.

I said: When the person broke into

Beeswax said: No; I'm saying that no force actually was involved in the events as they actually transpired, [ad hominem removed]. I said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Beeswax said: On your part, [ad hominem removed]. No evidence has been presented supporting your assertion that their exit from the premises involved a use of force.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You have presented no evidence that the persons involved did not use force to make and remove a copy from the password protected computer on private property. The problem is that no one was ever convicted of actually making and taking copies from the computer. The only word we have is from GNR, who stated that the computer was in a locked studio on private property and that the computer was password protected. Details of how the files were made from that computer are missing. The GNR statement imply that the only way someone could make copies is to trespass, break and enter, and hack, and there has never been anything to contradict those statements.

Beeswax said: We'll probably never know, [ad hominem removed], but it's irrelevant, since that didn't happen.

I said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Beeswax said: On your part, [ad hominem removed]. No evidence has been presented supporting your assertion that their exit from the premises involved a use of force.

Neither have you provided evidence that their exit from the premises did not involve the use of force.

Beeswax said: [Ad hominem comments deleted.]

Beeswax said: I didn't write that, [ad hominem removed], yet you attributed it to me anyway. Classic dishonesty on your part, [ad hominem removed].

Classic diversionary tactics. You deleted whatever statement their were, which were copied exactly from your comments, and then claimed they were ad hominem remarks. Since I have no idea the statements to which you were referring, we only have your proven confused word that the statement was not yours and was in fact an ad hominem.

I said: What does any of this have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

Beeswax said: Reread the parts mentioning copyrights, [ad hominem removed]. Suffering from reading comprehension problems, [ad hominem removed]?

Ah, I see. So you refer to a statement made 30% the way up a lengthy post talking about copyright and then use that to justify a later, irrelevant comment. I repeat, what does any of this have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

I said: You are saying that your statement about people believing the earth was flat, which is wrong, is classic pontification?

Beeswax said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition of a question have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

There is no erroneous presumption. The belief that the earth was flat fell by the wayside a couple of thousand years ago.

I said: I agree that your statement is classic pontification, in addition to being in error, and has nothing to do with monopoly.

Beeswax said: You agree with whom, [ad hominem removed]? Yourself? I certainly don't agree with you, [ad hominem removed], as should be quite evident by now. The facts also don't agree with you, [ad hominem removed].

I agree with you that your statement is classic pontification. Actually, the facts do agree with me. If you actually presented any facts, we could talk about them.

I said: Trying to divert attention from your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim does not change the fact that you made it.

Beeswax said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

I think we are more interested in your erroneous claims rather than trying to divert attention from your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim

I said: Of course not. You like to make unsubstantiated and erroneous claims and then try to avoid explaining why you made them.

Beeswax said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

What does your classic irrelevant diversionary statement have to do with your original comment and my criticism of your comment? Are you saying because you have no good answer that now you have to use your typical diversionary tactics rather than admitting your error?

I said: I am not sure how classic it is, but it is true.

Beeswax said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

It was as relevant to monopoly as your original statement.

The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as "The Myth of the Flat Earth".[6] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[7]

Beeswax said: What does your irrelevant pontification have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]? Educated Europeans were, at that time, a vanishingly small fraction of the total European population, [ad hominem removed], and the rest believed the Earth was flat.

I provide this URL as a rebuttal to your comment immediately above:

http://www.bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm

Note that this article says:

It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was. The idea that the uncouth people of the Middle Ages thought the Earth was flat is an example of the myth that has been propagated since the nineteenth century to give us a quite unfair view of this vibrant and exciting period.

It was not just, as you attempted to misleadingly characterize, a vanishingly small number of people, MOST people believed the world was round. The principal argument with Columbus was not whether the world was flat, but how big the sphere was.

I said: Beeswax is avoiding taking responsibility for making classic erroneous and unsubstantiated claims.

Beeswas said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

Everything, Beeswax. My comments have all been directed to your comments, and to the extent your comments are relevant to monopoly, so are mine.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Your statement is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claims for which you have provided no evidence or logic.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

That is untrue.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I have supported my statement with evidence multiple times.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You have continuously ignored the evidence I have provided.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Of course I said someone hacked into the GNR computer, a true statement, and someone removed a copy, also a true statement. What I have never said, and you have no evidence that I said, is that the person who removed A COPY deleted the original.

But you implied it, Lonnie, when you said "... hacked into a GNR computer and removed ...".

Your statement is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I have supported my position multiple times and you keep changing the subject.

How ironic, coming from someone who keeps changing the subject away from monopoly.

Beeswax said: You implied it

No, not once. Never.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Of course I said that someone hacked into the GNR computer, which is what GNR claimed. And since a copy of information that was only on the GNR computer was posted on the internet, it is clear that a copy was taken.

Not necessarily. If the copy was uploaded directly from the GNR computer, as others have pointed out, then nothing was "taken". For that matter if media was brought in, such as a flash drive, and plugged into the GNR computer, then unplugged and carried off, nothing that was originally there was taken.

Furthermore, since the computer is on private property and was password protected, the only way to get into the computer is by force.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, and also wrong. Bypassing a password doesn't generally involve force; indeed, force is only likely to damage the equipment.

None of which has to do with deleting the original, which you, through a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, for which you have provided no evidence or logic, keeping INFERRING, because I never implied it.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

What does your pontification have to do with my clear and relevant statement?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

There are no presuppositions.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

My statements are clear, precise and accurate.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You are calling me a liar without evidence

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

and with classic, irrelevant diversionary statements.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

There are no presuppositions.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

My statements are clear, precise and accurate.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You are calling me a liar without evidence and with classic, irrelevant diversionary statements.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Actually,

Actually, nothing, Lonnie. Admit that you were wrong and drop this.

However, none of that has to do with the clear fact that secret data that was only on GNR's computer was revealed to the public.

Irrelevant, Lonnie.

I call making a copy of secret data stealing,

What you call it is irrelevant, Lonnie. You could call it applesauce, Lonnie, but that would not magically make it food.

and if GNR had not subsequently released an album containing later versios of the music, I suspect they would have had an excellent case for trade secret theft.

What you suspect is irrelevant, Lonnie. Only the real world matters, not your IP-maximalist fantasies.

Beeswax said: Classic contradiction. One of the two quoted statements of yours is a lie, Lonnie. Which one?

Neither,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. They directly contradict one another, Lonnie.

Beeswax said: But the hypothetical thumb drive wasn't stolen or obtained by fraudulent behavior, [ad hominem removed]. I said: Really? Was it obtained by asking GNR nicely, or was it obtained by trespassing, breaking and entering, and hacking?

Beeswax said: Neither; the hypothetical thumb drive was obtained by buying it at a Wal-Mart, Lonnie.

Sure, the hypothetical thumb drive was purchased, what about the copies put on the hypothetical thumb drive from the GNR computer?

What about them, Lonnie? It was the provenance of the thumb drive that was at issue. You claimed that it was stolen, when, per the hypothesis, it was not.

Completely relevant.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

That is where the whole "force" thing comes in.

No, Lonnie. Force means you hit someone, shot someone, broke something, or at least threatened those things.

Forcible distribution by someone other than the original owner is against everything that Libertarians stand for.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Breaking a state-enforced distribution monopoly like copyright is something Libertarians should applaud, based on their politics, Lonnie. It's also rather peculiar of you to use the phrase "forcible distribution", as if a copy is being shoved down someone's throat against their will, Lonnie, when in actuality the distribution is probably with the consent of both the distributor and recipient of the copy.

The copy was taken via force.

Once again, you suggest the ludicrous picture of someone having to use force to carry their own thumb drive off the premises, when in actuality the only likely use of force was much earlier, to gain entry, and perhaps not even then.

Sure, the thief made the copy, after forcing his or her way onto the property, hacking, looking for the files, and making a copy of them, against GNR's will, but that means that person clearly knows they are breaking multiple laws in addition to being against everything that Libertarians consider the most fundamental rights.

Who is "the thief", Lonnie? No evidence has been presented for any unlawful removal of tangible property.

What does your classic and irrelevant pontification have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Beeswax said: I choose my words based on their dictionary meanings, Lonnie, and neither use them arbitrarily to mean completely different things nor cynically to mislead.

Cool. I use dictionary meanings too.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Let's see what the dictionary calls theft:

a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

b: to take away by force or unjust means

c: to take surreptitiously or without permission

Seems like stealing fits perfectly.

Except that nothing was taken, Lonnie, as evidenced by the fact that nothing was missing.

Classic irrelevant pontificiation.

What does your classic irrelevant pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Here are two quotes from Wikipedia:

Proudhon strenuously rejected the ownership of the products of labor by society or the state, arguing in "What is Property?" that while "property in product [...] does not carry with it property in the means of production"[8] [...] The right to product is exclusive.

He argued that the result of an individual's labor which is currently occupied or used is a legitimate form of property.

That is not an argument in favor of distribution monopolies, Lonnie.

Since the music on GNR's computer was (1) the product of a worker's labor, and (2) was being used to create an album, then Proudhon defined such as property.

Property that was still there when GNR got back to it, if you're no longer contending that those files were deleted by the intruder, Lonnie.

Proudhon also rejected the notion that such property belonged to society. Proudhon was also adamant that anything that took a worker's product from the worker was theft.

So, removal of the GNR computer would have been theft, and deletion of the file would have been vandalism, but neither occurred, so that's irrelevant, Lonnie. "Took a worker's product from the worker" means the worker no longer has it, Lonnie, not that someone else has a copy and the worker still has theirs. If Proudhon had meant to include the act of making your own, separate copy as somehow "taking a worker's product from the worker", then Proudhon's definition would make everyone into thieves and dilute the meaning of "theft" into uselessness, Lonnie.

Beeswax said: On your part, [ad hominem removed]. No evidence has been presented supporting your assertion that their exit from the premises involved a use of force.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Yes, I know you made a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it.

You have presented no evidence that the persons involved did not use force to make and remove a copy from the password protected computer on private property.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since the burden of proof is on you, the accuser.

The problem is that no one was ever convicted of actually making and taking copies from the computer. The only word we have is from GNR, who stated that the computer was in a locked studio on private property and that the computer was password protected. Details of how the files were made from that computer are missing.

In other words you are speculating wildly in a vacuum of evidence, Lonnie. No surprise there, really.

The GNR statement imply that the only way someone could make copies is to trespass, break and enter, and hack, and there has never been anything to contradict those statements.

But the only use of force in that scenario is likely to be to gain entry, Lonnie. None would be needed while leaving, Lonnie, since by your own admission there was no altercation between the departing trespasser(s) and security guard(s) or other personnel.

Beeswax said: On your part, [ad hominem removed]. No evidence has been presented supporting your assertion that their exit from the premises involved a use of force.

Neither have you provided evidence that their exit from the premises did not involve the use of force.

Irrelevant, Lonnie, since the burden of proof is on you, the accuser.

Classic diversionary tactics.

I know you're using diversionary tactics to avoid admitting that you lied about files being deleted from GNR's computer, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it.

You deleted whatever statement their were, which were copied exactly from your comments, and then claimed they were ad hominem remarks.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Since I have no idea the statements to which you were referring, we only have your proven confused word that the statement was not yours and was in fact an ad hominem.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Ah, I see. So you refer to a statement made 30% the way up a lengthy post talking about copyright and then use that to justify a later, irrelevant comment.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I repeat, what does any of this have to do with monopoly, Beeswax?

Reread the various mentions of copyrights and other distribution monopolies above, Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

There is no erroneous presumption.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The belief that the earth was flat fell by the wayside a couple of thousand years ago.

Temporarily, Lonnie.

I agree with you that your statement is classic pontification.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Actually, the facts do agree with me.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

If you actually presented any facts, we could talk about them.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

I think we are more interested in your erroneous claims rather than trying to divert attention from your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

What does your classic irrelevant diversionary statement have to do with your original comment and my criticism of your comment?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Are you saying because you have no good answer that now you have to use your typical diversionary tactics rather than admitting your error?

What do your several classic erroneous presuppositions have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

It was as relevant to monopoly as your original statement.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax said: What does your irrelevant pontification have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]? Educated Europeans were, at that time, a vanishingly small fraction of the total European population, [ad hominem removed], and the rest believed the Earth was flat.

I provide this URL as a rebuttal to your comment immediately above:

What do your URL and your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

It comes as some surprise, therefore, to find that Columbus was wrong and his critics were right - not because the world is actually flat after all, but because at the time everyone knew it was a globe and were arguing about how big it was.

Define "everyone", Lonnie. Previously you claimed it was "educated Europeans", a thin minority of the European population at that time, Lonnie.

It was not just, as you attempted to misleadingly characterize,

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswas said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [ad hominem removed]?

Who is "Beeswas", Lonnie? There is nobody on this blog using that alias.

Everything, Beeswax.

So you admit that your claim was erroneous, Lonnie. Does this mean you'll drop your ridiculous arguments now, Lonnie?

My comments have all been directed to your comments, and to the extent your comments are relevant to monopoly, so are mine.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

P.S. Why are you mischaracterizing being called by your own given name as an "ad hominem", Lonnie? Suffering from self-esteem problems, Lonnie?

Beeswax:

Why do you insist on calling me by a name that I do not use? I deleted the name because I assume you intended it as an insult.

As for the rest of your ludicrous post, I look forward to responding to your nonsense very soon.

Beeswax:

Simple question for you.

Is it your contention that nothing was taken from the GNR computer?

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

Why do you insist on calling me by a name that I do not use?

You used to use it, Lonnie.

I deleted the name because I assume you intended it as an insult.

What does your false assumption have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

As for the rest of your ludicrous post, I look forward to responding to your nonsense very soon.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax:

Simple question for you.

Is it your contention that nothing was taken from the GNR computer?

There has been no statement from GNR indicating that anything was missing. We should take that at face value, Lonnie, until and unless any evidence turns up to indicate otherwise.

Beeswax:

Second question then:

From the perspective of GNR's ability to sell the music that was on the computer, was the value of the music changed by the fact that a copy was made of that music and posted on the internet by someone unaffiliated with GNR? The music was downloaded hundreds of times after posting and was reposted on numerous other sites.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

Second question then:

From the perspective of GNR's ability to sell the music that was on the computer, was the value of the music changed by the fact that a copy was made of that music and posted on the internet by someone unaffiliated with GNR?

Probably not. However, had they been a lesser-known band and the music of high enough quality it might have been increased, perhaps substantially, if the leaked tracks generated buzz and positive word-of-mouth for the artist.

For a well-known band, though, this effect is diluted enormously because the band's own reputation does most of the work of selling the music anyway, plus there's likely to be a large marketing department somewhere flogging the hell out of it.

In both cases, the band can expect little change in its (meagre-to-zero) track/album sales royalties; in the obscure-or-new case a potentially large increase in touring revenue; in the well-known case little or no increase in touring revenue.

Ultimately, for the band, making a big fuss over the copying is a waste of time and possibly even counterproductive. The only serious problem here is the break-and-enter/trespass. The focus should be on identifying whoever did that.

Beeswax:

So, GNR has the only copy of this music on the entire planet, and someone takes that copy and puts it on the internet and that does not change the value of the only copy? Remember that the album was not released at the time the tracks were leaked and the tracks were posted on the internet weeks before the album was finally released.

Beeswax:

Correction to my last post: Someone makes a SECOND copy of the music on GNR's computer and then posts the second copy on the internet. Essentially, they take the single unique copy owned only by GNR and provide the opportunity for a pseudo-infinite number of copies to exist.

Alonniemouse writes:

Beeswax:

So, GNR has the only copy of this music on the entire planet, and someone takes that copy and puts it on the internet and that does not change the value of the only copy?

Not if it's art they intend to publish, no; or it slightly increases it, as per the above.

If it was, say, their secret PIN to a large bank account then it'd be another matter, since the value of that PIN derives from its secrecy.

But even then there wouldn't be theft. Fraud, perhaps, if the PIN was used to withdraw funds from that account without the account holder's authorization.

Keep in mind, also, that not everything someone does that diminishes the market value of something someone else has is automatically wrong. For example, the value of the only pizza joint in town is perhaps substantial, but it's not wrong for a competitor to open a second one. In a subtler example, the value of my property goes down if a gang forms and starts committing crimes in the neighborhood, but the gang members can't be charged and convicted of stealing from me because of that (though they can be charged and convicted of their actual crimes).

Remember that the album was not released at the time the tracks were leaked and the tracks were posted on the internet weeks before the album was finally released.

Not relevant.

Correction to my last post: Someone makes a SECOND copy of the music on GNR's computer and then posts the second copy on the internet.

What evidence do you have that they made additional copies that were stored on GNR's computer? Not that there's anything significantly wrong if they did. If GNR begrudged the disk space usage they could easily select the extra copies and hit "delete". A minor inconvenience at worst.

Essentially, they take the single unique copy owned only by GNR and provide the opportunity for a pseudo-infinite number of copies to exist.

So?

Beeswax:

You said: Not if it's art they intend to publish, no; or it slightly increases it, as per the above.

GNR stated that the music that was taken, i.e., the copy that was made and posted on the internet, they had never intended to publish or release.

Beeswax said: What evidence do you have that they made additional copies that were stored on GNR's computer?

Ummm...I said they made a second copy of the music on GNR's computer. I did not say they made a second copy of the music on GNR's computer and put the second copy on GNR's computer.

The belief that having an album available on the internet does not affect the value of the album seems counterintuitive. Beanie Babies were worth a lot until there was a glut, and then their value went effectively to zero. Cabbage Patch dolls were worth incredible amounts until millions were produced, and then their value went to zero. There was a healthy demand for artwork from Thomas Kinkade, but a glut of his art dropped the prices of his artwork and reduced demand significantly. There are dozens and even hundreds of examples of where something has become undesirable or even worthless because there was too much of that something. Yet, having GNR music available for free on the internet has had no affect on the value of that music? Hmmmmm...

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax:

You said: Not if it's art they intend to publish, no; or it slightly increases it, as per the above.

GNR stated that the music that was taken, i.e., the copy that was made and posted on the internet, they had never intended to publish or release.

Then they were never going to derive any commercial value from it. If they didn't value it, then it's hardly possible for the leak to have reduced the value, is it now, Lonnie?

Beeswax said: What evidence do you have that they made additional copies that were stored on GNR's computer?

Ummm...I said they made a second copy of the music on GNR's computer.

Precisely.

The belief that having an album available on the internet does not affect the value of the album seems counterintuitive.

Perhaps so, but it's true, or rather, sometimes there's no effect and sometimes the value is increased.

Beanie Babies were worth a lot until there was a glut, and then their value went effectively to zero.

No, their price went down. Not the same thing. Value is determined by demand; price by the combination of supply and demand.

Cabbage Patch dolls were worth incredible amounts until millions were produced, and then their value went to zero. There was a healthy demand for artwork from Thomas Kinkade, but a glut of his art dropped the prices of his artwork and reduced demand significantly.

I doubt it actually "reduced demand". It may have saturated the amount of demand originally existing, but if there were only ever going to be N buyers, they'd have only ever sold N copies whether they did it all at once or took years to supply that many copies.

There are dozens and even hundreds of examples of where something has become undesirable or even worthless because there was too much of that something.

Spam?

But the thing is that, in these cases, whatever-it-is tends to have been undesirable to begin with, and large amounts just triggered a larger fuss about it; or its only value derived from novelty and then the novelty wore off.

More commonly the price of something is driven down to commodity but that is completely orthogonal to value. Do you value having air to breathe? How many dollars a month do you spend on buying air?

Yet, having GNR music available for free on the internet has had no affect on the value of that music? Hmmmmm...

Again, with music (and if it's any good) the usual effect is to increase the value of that music, for a variety of reasons including network effects. It also tends to increase demand in another way, by resulting in more people being exposed and "knowing what they were missing", so to speak. In that manner, it's self-advertising.

If having GNR music available for free on the internet made its value go down, then having the music available for free on the radio would make its value go down. And yet not only do major record labels continue to allow their music to be played on free-to-listen radio, but there have been repeated scandals where labels have been caught illegally bribing radio stations to preferentially play that label's stuff! If your theory of music value were correct, this would not have happened. Therefore your theory is wrong on the data, and mine, "counterintuitive" though you may find it, is correct.

Beeswax said: If having GNR music available for free on the internet made its value go down, then having the music available for free on the radio would make its value go down.

That does not necessarily follow. Music on the radio is typically two or three tracks from the album. The music on the radio frequently has talking over the intros and exits along with other issues that make recording from the radio not only iffy, but generally unsatisfying (I used to record music from the radio all the time - it is a pain in the rear to try to catch the intro at exactly the right time and then you have to choose when to cut off the recording because the DJ's often do a fade-out faster than the actual music does). In contrast, the music posted on the internet was the entire album.

The purpose of the radio is to entice you to buy the entire body of music with the released music as a teaser. The purpose of posting the entire album on the internet was to provide a free source for the music.

I said: Cabbage Patch dolls were worth incredible amounts until millions were produced, and then their value went to zero. There was a healthy demand for artwork from Thomas Kinkade, but a glut of his art dropped the prices of his artwork and reduced demand significantly.

Beeswax said: I doubt it actually "reduced demand". It may have saturated the amount of demand originally existing, but if there were only ever going to be N buyers, they'd have only ever sold N copies whether they did it all at once or took years to supply that many copies.

The demand appears to have dropped significantly. However, that should hardly be a surprise. If an artist is popular and does 30 paintings in a year, you can imagine that the demand for 30 paintings is going to be high. If the artist is doing 200 paintings a year then buyers perceive there is a glut and the artist becomes undesirable. Thomas Kinkade made a huge mistake by not selling his originals for years, keeping them all. Now he appears to be selling many of them - all at once. Originally the demand was high, but the demand was sated fairly quickly and Thomas Kinkade galleries are shutting down all over the place.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax said: If having GNR music available for free on the internet made its value go down, then having the music available for free on the radio would make its value go down.

That does not necessarily follow.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Music on the radio is typically two or three tracks from the album.

The two or three most desired tracks; the ones people buy the album to get.

Beeswax said: I doubt it actually "reduced demand". It may have saturated the amount of demand originally existing, but if there were only ever going to be N buyers, they'd have only ever sold N copies whether they did it all at once or took years to supply that many copies.

The demand appears to have dropped significantly. However, that should hardly be a surprise. If an artist is popular and does 30 paintings in a year, you can imagine that the demand for 30 paintings is going to be high. If the artist is doing 200 paintings a year then buyers perceive there is a glut and the artist becomes undesirable.

I don't think so. But it is true that the demand can be saturated, and he'll not sell many more copies than if he'd only made 30 distinct works.

None of that is an argument in favor of artificial scarcity, Lonnie.

Thomas Kinkade made a huge mistake by not selling his originals for years, keeping them all. Now he appears to be selling many of them - all at once. Originally the demand was high, but the demand was sated fairly quickly

Rather than having not existed.

As usual, you maximalists mistake business model problems for ones requiring enforcing artificial monopolies.

Beeswax said: As usual, you maximalists mistake business model problems for ones requiring enforcing artificial monopolies.

How does that follow from anything I said? All I said was that Thomas Kinkade made the mistake of churning out paintings. That has nothing to do with intellectual property at all, and everything to do with flooding a market having limited demand.

Who is Lonnie?

Beeswax said: The two or three most desired tracks; the ones people buy the album to get.

Yeah, like the two or three tracks on Dark Side of the Moon sold that album...well, then again, maybe not.

And like the two or three tracks on The White Album sold that album...well, then again, maybe not.

Well, how about the tracks from In the Court of the Crimson King that got that album sold? Oh, wait, that album got no airplay at all and still sold well.

It is not always the songs on the radio that are supposedly the most desirable. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, maybe even thousands of albums where the best songs, according to fans, were never released. There is often debate as to why better songs than the ones on the radio were not released.

Yes, many albums are sold because of the one, two or even three songs played on the radio. However, there are thousands of albums that never get any radio play that sell quite nicely.

Beeswax:

You seem to have claimed that I am an "IP maximalist." Just what is an IP maximalist? Please define. If you are going to call someone a name, we should all be capable of understanding what the term means.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax said: As usual, you maximalists mistake business model problems for ones requiring enforcing artificial monopolies.

How does that follow from anything I said?

I don't really feel like spelling it out for you again, this time in one-syllable words; sorry.

All I said was that Thomas Kinkade made the mistake of churning out paintings. That has nothing to do with intellectual property at all,

By your own admission, too!

Who is Lonnie?

The IP maximalist and forum troll you see every morning when you shave, Lonnie.

Beeswax said: The two or three most desired tracks; the ones people buy the album to get.

Yeah, like the two or three tracks on Dark Side of the Moon sold that album...well, then again, maybe not.

And like the two or three tracks on The White Album sold that album...well, then again, maybe not.

Well, how about the tracks from In the Court of the Crimson King that got that album sold? Oh, wait, that album got no airplay at all and still sold well.

There are two other obvious possibilities, in each case, that you seem to have overlooked: the album was by a sufficiently well-known and liked artist that a mere mention of existence suffices to trigger purchases; or it was the "airplay" on BitTorrent that marketed it.

It is not always the songs on the radio that are supposedly the most desirable. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, maybe even thousands of albums where the best songs, according to fans, were never released. There is often debate as to why better songs than the ones on the radio were not released.

Yes, many albums are sold because of the one, two or even three songs played on the radio. However, there are thousands of albums that never get any radio play that sell quite nicely.

What about artists that don't get radio play? I'm guessing they tend to do rather poorly, unless they make a substantial marketing effort of their own or get heavily torrented with good word-of-mouth.

And keep in mind that what puts serious money in artists' pockets is generally not album sales anyway; it is live performances. Neither radio airplay nor torrents can serve as a substitute for that, but both can serve as advertising (as can sold albums).

You seem to have claimed that I am an "IP maximalist." Just what is an IP maximalist?

What you see in the mirror, Lonnie.

Please define. If you are going to call someone a name, we should all be capable of understanding what the term means.

I'm not qualified to perform the kind of brain surgery that would probably be required in your case, but I'll post a definition for the benefit of everybody else: it's someone who is a fervent believer in intellectual monopolies and favors things like copyright term extensions, SOPA, DRM and anti-circumvention laws, binding EULAs, ACTA, the TPP, gene and software patents, "dilution" in trademark law, business method patents, and other such nonsense, and opposes things like term reductions, noncommercial copying, independent inventor defenses, jailbreaking devices and DRM'd files, term reductions, and so forth. Generally, someone who holds the erroneous theory that "IP is good" and, worse, the erroneous theory that "more IP is therefore better". Or is in the hip pocket of big entertainment or software companies, big pharma, or one of them ... if there's even any distinction. At this point I'm unsure if anyone who has thought very much about the issues honestly holds a strongly pro-IP position other than because they've been paid to.

I said: All I said was that Thomas Kinkade made the mistake of churning out paintings. That has nothing to do with intellectual property at all.

Beeswax said: By your own admission, too!

Duh. My point was that by flooding the market with his paintings, he reduced demand. Any time you oversaturate a market, either with copies of music, with paintings, or with cars, the demand and the value drop accordingly.

I said: Who is Lonnie?

Beeswax said: The IP maximalist and forum troll you see every morning when you shave, Lonnie.

That is not my name. I must assume that is some sort of bizarre and obscure ad hominem.

Beeswax said: There are two other obvious possibilities, in each case, that you seem to have overlooked: the album was by a sufficiently well-known and liked artist that a mere mention of existence suffices to trigger purchases; or it was the "airplay" on BitTorrent that marketed it.

King Crimson has always been a relatively obscure group. "In the Court of the Crimson King" became popular by word of mouth long before there was ever an internet. Pink Floyd was a very obscure group until "Dark Side of the Moon," which seemed to spread like wildfire by word of mouth. It went viral before there was such a thing, and virtually no airplay at all. Not bad for an album that was on the album charts for 741 weeks.

I said: You seem to have claimed that I am an "IP maximalist." Just what is an IP maximalist? Please define. If you are going to call someone a name, we should all be capable of understanding what the term means.

Beeswax said: I'm not qualified to perform the kind of brain surgery that would probably be required in your case, but I'll post a definition for the benefit of everybody else: it's someone who is a fervent believer in intellectual monopolies and favors things like copyright term extensions, SOPA, DRM and anti-circumvention laws, binding EULAs, ACTA, the TPP, gene and software patents, "dilution" in trademark law, business method patents, and other such nonsense, and opposes things like term reductions, noncommercial copying, independent inventor defenses, jailbreaking devices and DRM'd files, term reductions, and so forth. Generally, someone who holds the erroneous theory that "IP is good" and, worse, the erroneous theory that "more IP is therefore better". Or is in the hip pocket of big entertainment or software companies, big pharma, or one of them ... if there's even any distinction. At this point I'm unsure if anyone who has thought very much about the issues honestly holds a strongly pro-IP position other than because they've been paid to.

Okay...here is my response to your definition in my case...

Copyright extensions - I do not believe in them. I think copyrights were quite fine back when they were 14 years long or however long they were before Congress decided on lifetimes.

SOPA - I am against it.

DRM - I figure a company can do whatever it likes with its product. However, it also bears the consequences if consumers find that the product is difficult or impossible to use.

Anti-Circumvention Laws - Silly, at best.

Binding EULAs - lol...I am neither for them or against them. I basically ignore them.

ACTA - Overreaching.

TPP - I know little about it, but if it is anything like ACTA, then it is probably over-reaching.

Gene patents - No. I hope the Supreme Court will say they are unconstitutional.

Software patents - Unnecessary

"Dilution" in trademark law - Depends on the situation. I think there have been some valid cases, though the "dilution" in those cases was probably straight up trademark infringement.

Business method patents - Absurd

Term reductions - I have no idea what those are.

Noncommercial copying - I am not against or for.

Independent inventor defense - I am fine with an independent inventor defense.

Jailbreaking devices - I do not know what that is.

More IP is better - No. IP has over-extended in a number of areas and needs reeled back.

Based on your definition, I am not an IP maximalist. Please stop calling me names that do not apply to me.

Alonniemouse wrote:

I said: All I said was that Thomas Kinkade made the mistake of churning out paintings. That has nothing to do with intellectual property at all.

Beeswax said: By your own admission, too!

Duh.

Any time you oversaturate a market, either with copies of music, with paintings, or with cars, the demand and the value drop accordingly.

No. Value doesn't drop.

I said: Who is Lonnie?

Beeswax said: The IP maximalist and forum troll you see every morning when you shave, Lonnie.

That is not my name.

Of course it is. You just took to posting as "anonymous" after being bested a few too many times in arguments on this site. Your style, and your pro-monopoly opinions, and your penchant for replying specifically to me, give you away every time, though.

Beeswax said: There are two other obvious possibilities, in each case, that you seem to have overlooked: the album was by a sufficiently well-known and liked artist that a mere mention of existence suffices to trigger purchases; or it was the "airplay" on BitTorrent that marketed it.

[calls me a liar]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I said: You seem to have claimed that I am an "IP maximalist." Just what is an IP maximalist? Please define. If you are going to call someone a name, we should all be capable of understanding what the term means.

Beeswax said: I'm not qualified to perform the kind of brain surgery that would probably be required in your case, but I'll post a definition for the benefit of everybody else: it's someone who is a fervent believer in intellectual monopolies and favors things like copyright term extensions, SOPA, DRM and anti-circumvention laws, binding EULAs, ACTA, the TPP, gene and software patents, "dilution" in trademark law, business method patents, and other such nonsense, and opposes things like term reductions, noncommercial copying, independent inventor defenses, jailbreaking devices and DRM'd files, term reductions, and so forth. Generally, someone who holds the erroneous theory that "IP is good" and, worse, the erroneous theory that "more IP is therefore better". Or is in the hip pocket of big entertainment or software companies, big pharma, or one of them ... if there's even any distinction. At this point I'm unsure if anyone who has thought very much about the issues honestly holds a strongly pro-IP position other than because they've been paid to.

Okay...here is my response to your definition in my case...

Copyright extensions - I do not believe in them. I think copyrights were quite fine back when they were 14 years long or however long they were before Congress decided on lifetimes.

Bull. You've done nothing on this site but defend copyright overreach and defend bad patents -- up to and including even the execrable and infamous one-click patent.

SOPA - I am against it.

So, even some maximalists have standards?

DRM - I figure a company can do whatever it likes with its product. However, it also bears the consequences if consumers find that the product is difficult or impossible to use.

Of course, that doesn't help much if there's no other distributor than that company. Which is usually the case.

Anti-Circumvention Laws - Silly, at best.

Binding EULAs - lol...I am neither for them or against them. I basically ignore them.

ACTA - Overreaching.

TPP - I know little about it, but if it is anything like ACTA, then it is probably over-reaching.

Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

Gene patents - No. I hope the Supreme Court will say they are unconstitutional.

Software patents - Unnecessary

Really, now. This from the infamous defender of the one-click patent? Oh I suppose you mean you're against software patents, but in favor of patents on "computer-implemented inventions", i.e. software patents by another name.

"Dilution" in trademark law - Depends on the situation. I think there have been some valid cases

Figures.

Business method patents - Absurd

So, the one-click patent is fine in your books, but business method patents are right out? How odd.

Term reductions - I have no idea what those are.

Jailbreaking devices - I do not know what that is.

Ignorance. How typical.

More IP is better - No. IP has over-extended in a number of areas and needs reeled back.

Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

Fact is, whatever you may say in response to specific questions like those, at other times you walk and quack like a maximalist.

Beeswax:

Beeswax said: No. Value doesn't drop.

What do you call it when the price people are willing to pay for something drops below the level that it costs to make it?

I said: That is not my name.

Beeswax said: Of course it is. You just took to posting as "anonymous" after being bested a few too many times in arguments on this site. Your style, and your pro-monopoly opinions, and your penchant for replying specifically to me, give you away every time, though.

I did a search for AgainstMonopoly, Beeswax and the name of this person you keep calling me. You seem to have called quite a few different people by that name. That is neither convincing and neither is it me.

I have replied to quite a few people on this site. I replied to you specifically this time because I believe secrets can be stolen, and you obviously do not.

Beeswax said: There are two other obvious possibilities, in each case, that you seem to have overlooked: the album was by a sufficiently well-known and liked artist that a mere mention of existence suffices to trigger purchases; or it was the "airplay" on BitTorrent that marketed it.

Beeswax said: [calls me a liar]

What I said was: King Crimson has always been a relatively obscure group. "In the Court of the Crimson King" became popular by word of mouth long before there was ever an internet. Pink Floyd was a very obscure group until "Dark Side of the Moon," which seemed to spread like wildfire by word of mouth. It went viral before there was such a thing, and virtually no airplay at all. Not bad for an album that was on the album charts for 741 weeks.

My response was factual information relating to groups that received either little or no airplay and yet their albums sold quite well. How can a fact be calling you a liar?

Beeswax said: Bull. You've done nothing on this site but defend copyright overreach and defend bad patents -- up to and including even the execrable and infamous one-click patent.

I have never defended copyright overreach. In fact, I have never supported copyright. I also would never defend a bad patent. Owners defend patents.

Beeswax said: Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

I will always defend the right to privacy. It is my opinion that secrets can be stolen. If you are saying a secret is an intellectual monopoly, then yes, I defend secrets.

Beeswax said: Really, now. This from the infamous defender of the one-click patent? Oh I suppose you mean you're against software patents, but in favor of patents on "computer-implemented inventions", i.e. software patents by another name.

I have never defended the one-click patent. To the best of my recollection, I have never said anything about the one-click patent. For that matter, I do not anything about the one-click patent.

Beeswax said: So, the one-click patent is fine in your books, but business method patents are right out? How odd.

Did your record skip?

Beeswax said: Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

I never called a copier a thief. I called someone who stole a secret a thief. That they did so by making a copy of the secret is irrelevant. If you call defending secrets defending intellectual monopolies, then I am. I will always defend your right to keep your dates with blow-up dolls a secret.

Beeswax said: Fact is, whatever you may say in response to specific questions like those, at other times you walk and quack like a maximalist.

Nope. I am not and never have been a "maximalist." You, on the other hand, are a hyperbolist and every time someone comes up with a great argument that you are unable to rebut, you throw out this absurd statement about that person saying you are a liar. You may be mistaken about things, but I would never call you a liar.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Beeswax said: No. Value doesn't drop.

What do you call it when the price people are willing to pay for something drops below the level that it costs to make it?

The price dropping.

Beeswax said: Of course it is. You just took to posting as "anonymous" after being bested a few too many times in arguments on this site. Your style, and your pro-monopoly opinions, and your penchant for replying specifically to me, give you away every time, though.

I did a search for AgainstMonopoly, Beeswax and the name of this person you keep calling me. [calls me a liar]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I have replied to quite a few people on this site. I replied to you specifically this time because I believe secrets can be stolen, and you obviously do not.

Obviously. Only tangible items can be stolen.

What I said was: [calls me a liar]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

My response was factual information relating to groups that received either little or no airplay and yet their albums sold quite well.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

How can a fact be calling you a liar?

By not actually being a fact, of course.

Beeswax said: Bull. You've done nothing on this site but defend copyright overreach and defend bad patents -- up to and including even the execrable and infamous one-click patent.

[calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I also would never defend a bad patent.

No doubt that's true, if only by your own definition of "a bad patent". Others consider a lot of patents bad that you apparently don't.

And, really, the only good patent is a dead patent.

Beeswax said: Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

I will always defend the right to privacy.

What does privacy have to do with intellectual monopolies, Lonnie?

It is my opinion that secrets can be stolen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous "opinion".

If you are saying a secret is an intellectual monopoly, then yes, I defend secrets.

Organizations and corporations have no right to privacy as we'd ordinarily understand it. Why should they? They're not real people. The individual members may have but the organization as a whole should not.

Beeswax said: Really, now. This from the infamous defender of the one-click patent? Oh I suppose you mean you're against software patents, but in favor of patents on "computer-implemented inventions", i.e. software patents by another name.

[calls me a liar]

No! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Beeswax said: So, the one-click patent is fine in your books, but business method patents are right out? How odd.

Did your record skip?

What does your non sequitur question have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Beeswax said: Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

I never called a copier a thief.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I called someone who stole a secret a thief.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

That they did so by making a copy of the secret is irrelevant.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

If you call defending secrets defending intellectual monopolies, then I am.

When private organizations keep secrets, those are intellectual monopolies, almost by definition, Lonnie.

I will always defend your right to keep your dates with blow-up dolls a secret.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Beeswax said: Fact is, whatever you may say in response to specific questions like those, at other times you walk and quack like a maximalist.

[Calls me a liar.] You, on the other hand, are a [insult deleted]

No, no, no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

and every time someone comes up with a great argument that you are unable to rebut,

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

you [calls me a liar]. You may be [insult deleted] about things, but [calls me a liar].

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Beeswax wrote:

Beeswax said: No. Value doesn't drop.

I said: What do you call it when the price people are willing to pay for something drops below the level that it costs to make it?

Beeswax said: The price dropping.

Beeswax, then how do you define value?

I said: I did a search for AgainstMonopoly, Beeswax and the name of this person you keep calling me. [calls me a liar]

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the subject.]

I said: I have replied to quite a few people on this site. I replied to you specifically this time because I believe secrets can be stolen, and you obviously do not.

Beeswax said: Obviously. Only tangible items can be stolen.

In your opinion, which I believe to be an incorrect opinion.

Beeswax said: There are two other obvious possibilities, in each case, that you seem to have overlooked: the album was by a sufficiently well-known and liked artist that a mere mention of existence suffices to trigger purchases; or it was the "airplay" on BitTorrent that marketed it.

Beeswax said: [calls me a liar]

I said: What I said was: King Crimson has always been a relatively obscure group. "In the Court of the Crimson King" became popular by word of mouth long before there was ever an internet. Pink Floyd was a very obscure group until "Dark Side of the Moon," which seemed to spread like wildfire by word of mouth. It went viral before there was such a thing, and virtually no airplay at all. Not bad for an album that was on the album charts for 741 weeks.

My response was factual information relating to groups that received either little or no airplay and yet their albums sold quite well. How can a fact be calling you a liar?

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

I said: My response was factual information relating to groups that received either little or no airplay and yet their albums sold quite well.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

I said: How can a fact be calling you a liar?

Beeswax said: By not actually being a fact, of course.

However, you have failed to provide any counter facts. Would you like to have a list of best selling albums that have never had a single released from it? There are hundreds. There are many albums released before the internet existed that sold well without radio airplay to drive sales. How about an example. Elton John's third album, "Tumbleweed Connection," went to #5 on the album charts in the U.S. and #2 in the U.K. Elton released this album in 1970, the year after his U.S. debut with the single "Your Song." Here is this relative unknown who releases an album without a single song released from it to support the album and no airplay at all on AM radio, and yet the album sells incredibly well. Stop making excuses and start talking facts.

Beeswax said: Bull. You've done nothing on this site but defend copyright overreach and defend bad patents -- up to and including even the execrable and infamous one-click patent.

I said: I have never defended copyright overreach. In fact, I have never supported copyright. I also would never defend a bad patent. Owners defend patents.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

Beeswax said: Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

I said: I will always defend the right to privacy.

Beeswax said: What does privacy have to do with intellectual monopolies, [erroneous appellation deleted]?

Everything, Beeswax. A secret is by its nature a monopoly. For example, your relationship with your blowup doll is a secret. If someone surreptitiously took pictures of you and your blowup doll, then you would be quite upset because you would prefer to keep this information to yourself only.

I said: It is my opinion that secrets can be stolen.

Beeswax said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous "opinion".

lol...Opinions are just what they are. Most of your opinions are unsubstantiated and erroneous, but I would rather combat them with facts versus ad hominem attacks.

I said: If you are saying a secret is an intellectual monopoly, then yes, I defend secrets.

Beeswax said: Organizations and corporations have no right to privacy as we'd ordinarily understand it. Why should they? They're not real people. The individual members may have but the organization as a whole should not.

For a moment, let's say you are correct. I disagree with you, because I think organizations are entitled to secrets. In the case of GNR, the secret information was Axl Rose's compositions and a performance of those compositions. The compositions were solely Axl Rose's. When the thief took a copy of the music, the thief violated Axl Rose's privacy, as well as the privacy of the other members of the group who were at that time unprepared to share their secrets with the world.

Beeswax said: Really, now. This from the infamous defender of the one-click patent? Oh I suppose you mean you're against software patents, but in favor of patents on "computer-implemented inventions", i.e. software patents by another name.

I said: I have never defended the one-click patent. To the best of my recollection, I have never said anything about the one-click patent. For that matter, I do not anything about the one-click patent.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

Beeswax said: So, the one-click patent is fine in your books, but business method patents are right out? How odd.

I said: Did your record skip?

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

Beeswax said: Really. Then why were you calling copiers "thieves" and defending intellectual monopolies?

I said: I never called a copier a thief.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

I said: I called someone who stole a secret a thief.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

I said: That they did so by making a copy of the secret is irrelevant.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

I said: If you call defending secrets defending intellectual monopolies, then I am.

Beeswax said: When private organizations keep secrets, those are intellectual monopolies, almost by definition, [erroneous appellation deleted].

Fine, but in this case the privacy of individuals was violated, since a music company was not yet in possession of the tracks.

Beeswax said: Fact is, whatever you may say in response to specific questions like those, at other times you walk and quack like a maximalist.

I said: Nope. I am not and never have been a "maximalist." You, on the other hand, are a hyperbolist and every time someone comes up with a great argument that you are unable to rebut, you throw out this absurd statement about that person saying you are a liar. You may be mistaken about things, but I would never call you a liar.

Beeswax said: [Admits I am correct by attempting to divert the conversation from a discussion of facts.]

I feel so refreshed after this illuminating discussion with you Beeswax. Or should I call you Stephen Kinsella?

Alonniemouse writes:

[repeatedly misquotes me, puts words in my mouth, calls me a liar, and otherwise insults me without adding anything new to the debate]

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

You are wrong. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR. End of story.

Beeswax [aka Stephen] writes:

[Reaffirms his previous statements, attempts to further divert the conversation, avoids the facts, and insults me without adding anything new to the debate]

[A vain statement of diversionary tactics irrelevant to the discussion deleted]

Beeswax says: You are wrong. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR. End of story.

I have your position. It is okay for people to steal secrets from individuals. If the speculation that the record company actually orchestrated the theft to get Axl Rose to release an album, then you are endorsing corporations stealing secrets from individuals. When you salute your fascist state, do you click your heels together, raise your right arm and hold your hand out at an angle and shout "Heil"?

Alonniemouse writes:

Beeswax [aka Stephen] writes:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

[false accusations deleted]

No, no, a thousand times no! None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

I have your position. It is okay for people to steal secrets from individuals.

Classic erroneous presupposition that information can be stolen.

If the speculation that the record company actually orchestrated the theft to get Axl Rose to release an album, then you are endorsing corporations stealing secrets from individuals.

Classic erroneous presupposition that information can be stolen.

When you salute your fascist state, do you click your heels together, raise your right arm and hold your hand out at an angle and shout "Heil"?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Regardless, you are wrong. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR. End of story.

Beeswax (aka Stephen Kinsella) writes:

Regardless, you are wrong. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR. End of story.

Actually, you might be correct. The information appears to have actually belonged to Axl Rose. So it is probably more accurate to say that Axl Rose's personal and private information was stolen.

Thank you for reminding me to clarify that.

An intellectual monopoly is not evil any more than Libertarianism is evil. They are merely different systems of thought.

Something was stolen from Axl Rose.

End of story, Stephen.

Beeswax (aka Stephen Kinsella) writes:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Actually, you might be correct.

Classic understatement.

The information appears to have actually belonged to Axl Rose. So it is probably more accurate to say that Axl Rose's personal and private information was stolen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Pure information is intangible and cannot therefore be stolen.

Thank you for reminding me to clarify that.

What does your gratitude have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

An intellectual monopoly is not evil any more than Libertarianism is evil.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

They are merely different systems of thought.

Classic erroneous presupposition. A monopoly is not a "system of thought".

Something was stolen from Axl Rose.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

End of story,

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in these comments using that alias.

Regardless, you are wrong. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

Yes, the intangible can be stolen. Privacy can be taken away, and the definition of "steal" is to take. Secrecy can also be taken. That you keep repeating your mantra over and over again is your ego, and not fact.

You know, the terrorists who flew into the Twin Towers thought they were right too.

Life can also be 'taken' away, but the taking of life is generally not regarded as theft. Murder is not a special form of theft, but a completely different crime. In a similar vein, one's rights can be 'taken' as well, but that is also generally regarded as an act completely separate from theft. I believe invasion of privacy is generally accepted as the best terminology.

It really astounds me how intent various parties are on conflating various issues with theft in a ham-fisted manner, and pretty much only theft. There's rarely comparisons to trespassing, vandalism, murder, rape, libel, or any other tort or crime.

Also, you've hit a new low with your twin towers comment. It's a blatant appeal to emotion, which is a huge red flag that you've been backed into a corner.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Yes, the intangible can be stolen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Privacy can be taken away, and the definition of "steal" is to take.

And keep, at least temporarily. If nobody has it after the taking, it's more akin to vandalism than to theft.

Secrecy can also be taken.

Classic pontification.

That you keep repeating your mantra over and over again is your ego, and not fact.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You know, the terrorists who flew into the Twin Towers thought they were right too.

What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? A mathematician who thinks that A₅ is a nonabelian simple group also thinks he's right, and he is.

Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Last Anonymous:

You said: Life can also be 'taken' away, but the taking of life is generally not regarded as theft.

You statement is so erroneous that I almost completely ignored it. If you do searches for "stealing life," "stealing a life," and "steal a life," you get hundreds of thousands of hits. I contend that taking a life in fact is COMMONLY equated with stealing.

I also give you this quote from "The Kite Runner":

There is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft....When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife's right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness.

As for being backed into a corner, not hardly. I just happened to run into an article about ideology. In that article the author pointed out that there are several kinds of truth, and not one of them are true. The author also pointed out that when someone is so fixed on their own point of view to the point that they have excluded all others, it is because of ego. Ultimately, it was ego that led the terrorists to blow up the world trade center. I am not appealing to emotion, merely pointing out that others have analyzed people's motivations, and rarely are they because they have the "truth." Usually it is because they have a big ego.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

Yes, the intangible can be stolen. Privacy can be taken away, and the definition of "steal" is to take. Secrecy can also be taken. That you keep repeating your mantra over and over again is your ego, and not fact.

Yes, people have compared murder to theft on multiple occasions. Those people are speaking metaphorically or are outright wrong. Also, I didn't say that such erroneous comparisons weren't common. I said that people GENERALLY see them as separate offenses, and treating them as separate offenses is by far the norm. The comparisons you make are primarily used as figures of speech. It's worth noting that you get million of results for "stole her heart", "stole my heart", "stole his heart", and quite a few other variations. Of course, it's quite clear that rarely if ever is that interpreted as literal theft.

On a more technical note, you seem to be very liberally interpreting 'take' in the context of theft. It's a real shame that Webster et al didn't account for the utter idiocy of future generations in regards to reading in context. You seem to hold that theft, which in actuality requires acquisition and deprivation, can be committed by the presence of either one of those alone. A murderer doesn't acquire anything by 'taking' someone's life, and Kevin Cogill didn't deprive Geffen or GNR of the information he 'took'.

The quote from Kite Runner is absolute bullshit, but does seem to describe an idiotic mindset in which everything would be equated as theft. And, of course, if you agree with it, you are claiming that copyright and patent infringement are also theft if they are in any way an offense. However, I thought we had come to a consensus that such a notion was clearly untrue.

You are correct that people exclude outside ideas because they have big egos. The usage of the 9/11 attacks however, is almost certainly an appeal to emotion or a display of ignorance in regards to the countless other examples for which that principle applies. There are plenty of examples that are more clear cut as the result of ego that don't have nearly as much emotional baggage tied to them. For example, several well backed scientific findings that in some manner upset the status quo have been constantly denied and this continues to happen today. The choice of 9/11 is a modern variation of using Hitler or Nazi comparisons, something so commonplace on internet discussions, that it became addressed by the often cited Godwin's Law. Really, the 'War on Terror', particular in the Iraq theater, has cost more lives and other resources based upon false ideas ignored due to ego. It OUGHT to have a more emotional response than 9/11, but it doesn't, perhaps because emotions have this nasty habit of not being completely rational.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Yes, the intangible can be stolen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Privacy can be taken away,

Classic pontification.

and the definition of "steal" is to take.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. The definition of "steal" is to acquire, without permission or by deception, someone else's property, depriving that someone else of it in the process.

Secrecy can also be taken.

Classic pontification.

That you keep repeating your mantra over and over again is your ego, and not fact.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Last Anonymous:

I am curious, you stated:

"You seem to hold that theft, which in actuality requires acquisition and deprivation, can be committed by the presence of either one of those alone."

The crime with respect to trade secrets is "theft." In your mind, where is the deprivation required that allows the acquisition of trade secrets to be be considered theft? The vast majority of the people charged with trade secret theft have made copies of the information and taken the copies to their competitors.

As for Webster, recall that with respect to definitions that literally, "usage dictates correctness." Meaning that definitions are made not by some academic sitting in a high tower saying, "I think this word should mean...," but are in fact made by how people use the word. PEOPLE equate taking to theft, regardless of whether the object in question is tangible or intangible. It is that common usage that has caused the word "theft" to equate to taking versus anything to do with some lofty ideal or even a legal perspective.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

Yes, the intangible can be stolen. Privacy can be taken away, and the definition of "steal" is to take. Secrecy can also be taken. That you keep repeating your mantra over and over again is your ego, and not fact.

As for the definition of steal, I refer you to the dictionary, which defines "steal" as:

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. 3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance.

So, when you say that the definition of "steal" includes depriving someone else of their property, you are adding words to the definition that ARE NOT THERE. Either that, or you are just plain lying your ass off.

"In your mind, where is the deprivation required that allows the acquisition of trade secrets to be be considered theft?" I've already made it quite clear that I feel that so called 'theft of trade secrets' is not actually theft. As for your comment to Beeswax, deprivation is definitely in the definition of steal, you just aren't smart enough to pick up the context for take there. Me and Beeswax are not responsible for your gross incompetence in that matter. Like I already said, it's a shame that Webster didn't realize that the future would contain such idiots as yourself incapable of reading in context, thus thinking that the definition includes anything that can be perceived as fitting that particular combination of words. Such a populous would require a much more verbose dictionary. I shudder to think of the errors you would make with a current bilingual dictionary.

I do not agree that usage dictates correctness, at least in the sense of a long established meaning. Common usage of 'schizophrenia' is incongruent with the actual condition. Common usage of 'CPU' is incongruent with the actual computing part. The usage of 'piracy' by copyright holders is incongruent with the actual maritime act. Now, you might argue that usage dictates correctness in this case, as those idiots have yammered on about it for centuries now, and even those that find the act itself socially desirable often refer to it as 'piracy', but if I say 'copyright infringement is not actually piracy', you hopefully know what I mean. It is in that sense that all of these acts not actually theft or stealing, just as stealing hearts is not actually stealing and has no involvement with actual hearts.

Also, you've yet to comment on how the kite runner garbage and common usage by certain parties would reflect on copyright and patent infringement being theft, when we've agreed that they weren't theft.

Last Anonymous:

You may not agree that usage dictates correctness. However, you are swimming against the tide, especially in the sense of long-established meaning. There are words today that meant something completely different as recently as 50 or 100 years ago. A faggot is a measure of wood. To fag is to work someone to exhaustion. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples.

Once a word has a commonly accepted meaning, then it becomes the standard usage, accepted by dictionaries and ultimately even grammarians, even though they grouse about the bastardization of language. They have little room to speak, since all languages have evolved.

Finally, these words are used in how we write our laws. Is it any wonder that the actual crime for the taking of trade secrets is called theft? It does not matter what you think. It does not matter what I think. The law in most of the 50 states and most U.S. territories specifies that the taking of a trade secret, whether as a copy or otherwise, is stealing. You can philosophize, you can disagree, you can shout at the moon naked in a cemetary, it does not change the legal fact that in the case of trade secrets, the only deprivation required is that of the trade secret.

As for context, I look at this definition of "steal":

2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

How do you deprive someone of an idea? The answer is simple: you do not. I disagree with your statement that there is an implied context in reference to the definition of the word steal. However, I am not reponsible for your gross incompetence in interpreting the plain language of a dictionary or your lack of intelligence in comprehension.

Regarding your discussion of the term pirate, I have little to add in comment. I do know someone who used to make hundreds and even thousands of pirated copies of music, and he calls himself a pirate. Indeed, he is in a completely new business and refers to himself and his former buddies in the music business as the band of pirates and his new business has pirate in the title. So, even people who make copies have adopted the term pirate, whether you personally like it or agree with it.

As for "The Kite Runner" and your reference to copyright or patent infringement, I said nothing because I have nothing to say. Copyright and patent infringement are just that, infringement. However, there is no such thing as "trade secret infringement." There is misappropriation of trade secrets and there is stealing of trade secrets. That's all.

"Once a word has a commonly accepted meaning, then it becomes the standard usage, accepted by dictionaries and ultimately even grammarians, even though they grouse about the bastardization of language. " Yes, but generally, those dictionaries separate the different meanings into different meanings of the same word, while you attempt to be forcing them into a single definion. That's why there is a "2." beside your cited definition. While the usage of 'pirate' was absolutely the result of centuries of propaganda, most dictionaries put copyright infringement and a class of nautical crimes as clearly separate acts. At the very least, we can explain that someone isn't 'that kind of pirate.' Yes, a 'faggot' has acquired a new meaning within certain groups, but we generally don't conflate homosexuals with actual bundles of wood.

"I disagree with your statement that there is an implied context in reference to the definition of the word steal." I'm sorry, but you are wrong. There is, which is why many laws have explicitly defined intent to deprive as the mens rea of theft.

"However, I am not reponsible for your gross incompetence in interpreting the plain language of a dictionary or your lack of intelligence in comprehension. " Likewise, I am not responsible for your actual gross incompetence. It's much simpler for you to not use theft to describe what some people don't consider theft. It's not as pithy, but I don't 'breach of trade secret' law will not be particularly controversial here. We both acknowledge that trade secret law exists, and that if an act contrary to it occurs, it is a breach of that erroneously named law. Calling an act that is not theft theft to me reads as "I AM A MORON." If you wish to not seem like a moron, quite repeating moronic statements.

"As for "The Kite Runner" and your reference to copyright or patent infringement, I said nothing because I have nothing to say. Copyright and patent infringement are just that, infringement. However, there is no such thing as "trade secret infringement." There is misappropriation of trade secrets and there is stealing of trade secrets. That's all. " But the foolish hypothesis put forward in The Kite Runner suggests that all 'sins' are theft, so either copyright and patent infringement is not a 'sin', or it 'steals' an author's alleged 'right to profit.' Under real scrutiny, it's clear that the statement from the Kite Runner was a meaningless platitude. Just admit that the statement in the Kite Runner was garbage and I'll be satisfied. Otherwise, you've been inconsistent with yourself.

Last Anonymous:

"I disagree with your statement that there is an implied context in reference to the definition of the word steal.""

"'m sorry, but you are wrong. There is, which is why many laws have explicitly defined intent to deprive as the mens rea of theft."

However, trade secret theft does not. All it requires is a taking of the trade secret, including a copy of such a trade secret, or even describing the trade secret to a competitor. A deprivation is not required.

"It's much simpler for you to not use theft to describe what some people don't consider theft. It's not as pithy, but I don't 'breach of trade secret' law will not be particularly controversial here. We both acknowledge that trade secret law exists, and that if an act contrary to it occurs, it is a breach of that erroneously named law. Calling an act that is not theft theft to me reads as "I AM A MORON." If you wish to not seem like a moron, quite repeating moronic statements."

However, the actual crime is not "breach of trade secret." The actual crime is "THEFT of trade secret." I was not there when the laws were written, so I am unsure of the context. However, deprivation apparently did not enter into it. You somehow seem to attach a mystical significance to the word "theft," which literally means "taking." Taking does not equal depriving. The law has struggled with modern technology before. Conversion, which in most states is part of THEFT statutes, applies to the "TAKING" of satellite signals, cable television, and internet without paying.

As far as your comment noting that "some people don't consider [trade secret theft to be] theft," I will point out that there are many crimes that "some people," meaning a relative minority, do not consider to be crimes. I would provide examples but then I would hear about emotions and hysteria and we have been there before. Suffice it to say that for most crimes on the books, there are always "some people" who "don't consider" that law to be a crime, or even think the words used to describe the crimes are appropriate. That belief does not make them correct, it merely makes them a minority.

"But the foolish hypothesis put forward in The Kite Runner suggests that all 'sins' are theft, so either copyright and patent infringement is not a 'sin', or it 'steals' an author's alleged 'right to profit.' Under real scrutiny, it's clear that the statement from the Kite Runner was a meaningless platitude. Just admit that the statement in the Kite Runner was garbage and I'll be satisfied. Otherwise, you've been inconsistent with yourself."

It is not a garbage statement to the extent that the author was describing his philosophy. Another person's philosophy is only garbage when another person's ego refuses to see that person's viewpoint. Do I agree with the author of "The Kite Runner," which is a highly influential book read by millions of people and studied by hundreds of thousands of college students and high school students? I think the author has an interesting philosophical viewpoint that I had not previously considered. Hundreds of millions of people refer colloquially to a persons life having been stolen when they are murdered or die in an accident. Are you going to tell those people that they are morons, stupid, ignorant, illiterate, or uneducated? Then your ego is far larger than mine.

"Hundreds of millions of people refer colloquially to a persons life having been stolen when they are murdered or die in an accident. Are you going to tell those people that they are morons, stupid, ignorant, illiterate, or uneducated?" Most of those hundreds of millions of people are using it as a figure of speech, understanding the real differences between the two acts. The small minority that considers it to be literally true would be wrong, as such conflation underscores the very important differences between theft and murder, such as the fact that while I could possibly take my possessions back, I couldn't take my life back.

"However, the actual crime is not "breach of trade secret." The actual crime is "THEFT of trade secret." I was not there when the laws were written, so I am unsure of the context. " You are missing the point. If you just call it a breach of trade secret law, we won't have to have these arguments, and can focus on more constructive debate. Breaches of trade secret law aren't dependent on being actually theft for their justification, so your position loses absolutely nothing of real value by calling it 'breach of trade secret law' instead. Calling it that will not spark a semantics debate.

"You somehow seem to attach a mystical significance to the word "theft," which literally means "taking." Taking does not equal depriving. The law has struggled with modern technology before. " No, even the short definition of it is 'illegal taking of property.' Also, 'taking' can be understood in multiple ways, and I contend that it doesn't apply to all of them, just the meaning in which acquisition AND deprivation. Just deprivation is not theft and just acquisition is not theft.

"Conversion, which in most states is part of THEFT statutes, applies to the "TAKING" of satellite signals, cable television, and internet without paying. " Conversion is not theft, but is usually a separate (and lesser) offense. There are lots of similarities, which would be why they are often in the same section of law.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Yes, the intangible can be stolen.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Privacy can be taken away,

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, since "taken away" suggests carried off, as in the taker acquires it himself somehow, but that does not make sense in this instance.

and the definition of "steal" is to take.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Secrecy can also be taken.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

That you keep repeating your mantra over and over again is your ego, and not fact.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

As for the definition of steal, I refer you to the dictionary, which defines "steal" as:

1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, especially secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch. 2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment. 3. to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance.

That the dictionary you used contains errors hardly supports your case, Lonnie.

So, when you say that the definition of "steal" includes depriving someone else of their property, you are adding words to the definition that ARE NOT THERE.

That the dictionary you used contains errors hardly supports your case, Lonnie.

Either that, or you are just plain lying your ass off.

No, no, a thousand times no! You're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

Conversion, which in most states is part of THEFT statutes, applies to the "TAKING" of satellite signals, cable television, and internet without paying.

One of these things is not like the others, Lonnie; one of these things just doesn't belong.

Specifically, conversion is use of someone else's property without permission. In the case of cable and wired internet, you're physically using someone else's infrastructure; e.g. tapping a line somewhere. In the wireless internet case you're still using their routers to carry your outbound traffic.

However, if you simply sit in the footprint of a satellite transmission, your decoding it or not does not in any way make a difference to the satellite itself. You're not touching it or using it in any way. You're just using some ambient electromagnetic waves that are already washing over your land.

Put another way, unless they spy on you or something the owner of the satellite has no way of telling the difference, unlike if there's a voltage drop on some cable somewhere or traffic impinging on some router somewhere that they operate.

Likewise, nothing of theirs is being consumed that requires additional marginal work on their part. More router traffic costs them; more cable signal taps cost them. But more decoders in the footprint of a satellite signal will have no effect whatsoever on the costs of operating the satellite. So it makes no sense to consider decoding a signal, in and of itself given that you already received the (encoded) signal anyway, to be any form of "conversion" unless you hold the philosophically untenable belief that the information content of the signal can itself be regarded as property.

Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Last Anonymous:

You said: If you just call it a breach of trade secret law, we won't have to have these arguments, and can focus on more constructive debate.

The problem is that when people are charged under the law, they are charged with theft of trade secrets. It is difficult to say "breach" of trade secrets when they are not charged with "breach," but with theft.

When you do a Google search for "breach of trade secret," you get 8,570 hits. When you do a Google search for "theft of trade secret," you get 717,000 hits. You can argue semantics all you want. I argue that it is called "theft of trade secret."

On a more positive note, the IP Hall of Fame is seeking nominations. Two of the first selectees were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson for their work in establishing the patent system.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/12/ip-hall-of-fame-nominations.html

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella and Last Anonymous:

If you don't believe a dictionary, how about state law? This law is from Texas. Note that if you obtain services from a direct broadcast satellite without authorization, it is theft in the state of Texas. No deprivation required for intercepting satellite signals for it to be theft.

All these people using the wrong dictionary - even though most dictionaries define theft as taking.

Sec. 31.12. THEFT OF OR TAMPERING WITH MULTICHANNEL VIDEO OR INFORMATION SERVICES. (a) A person commits an offense if, without the authorization of the multichannel video or information services provider, the person intentionally or knowingly: (1) makes or maintains a connection, whether physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to: (A) a cable, wire, or other component of or media attached to a multichannel video or information services system; or (B) a television set, videotape recorder, or other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information system; (2) attaches, causes to be attached, or maintains the attachment of a device to: (A) a cable, wire, or other component of or media attached to a multichannel video or information services system; or (B) a television set, videotape recorder, or other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information services system; (3) tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a device installed by a multichannel video or information services provider; or (4) tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to an access device or uses that access device or any unauthorized access device to obtain services from a multichannel video or information services provider. (b) In this section: (1) "Access device," "connection," and "device" mean an access device, connection, or device wholly or partly designed to make intelligible an encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other nonstandard signal carried by a multichannel video or information services provider. (2) "Encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other nonstandard signal" means any type of signal or transmission not intended to produce an intelligible program or service without the use of a device, signal, or information provided by a multichannel video or information services provider. (3) "Multichannel video or information services provider" means a licensed cable television system, video dialtone system, multichannel multipoint distribution services system, direct broadcast satellite system, or other system providing video or information services that are distributed by cable, wire, radio frequency, or other media.

"The problem is that when people are charged under the law, they are charged with theft of trade secrets" Are you incapable of calling something by a different name than what the law calls it? Just don't use the term theft. If 'breach of trade secrets bothers you', go with USC 1832, or just about anything that doesn't have 'theft' in the title. Calling it theft starts these tired old arguments that never go anywhere. If you use a term other than theft, these arguments will not start.

"I argue that it is called "theft of trade secret."" I'm not saying it isn't called that. I'm saying the label is inappropriate.

Last Anonymous:

Sad that people get hung up on irrelevant semantics.

True, but both sides of the issue often get hung up on the semantics. That said, erring on the side of differentiation is far safer than erring on the side of conflation. Excessive differentiation would mean that we end up assessing what is essentially the same act more than once, and, assuming that we approach such assessments rationally, we end up with roughly the same results. Conflation means that we end up treating two or more acts that are substantially different as one act. This presents a great risk that one or more of these acts will end up with inappropriate results.

Last Anonymous:

Erring on the side of differentiation has yielded a law system that extends into volumes. The specific reason is that criminals continually find loopholes that they exploit until the loophole is closed with - typically - further differentiation.

However, legislatures are now pushing back back combining sections based on common usage and simplicity. Thus you find many states are saying that things that were previously called "conversion" are now being called "theft," Texas being one example (Wisconsin has also gone the same direction; I have not comprehensively surveyed other states to see where they are headed). Trade secret theft is a bit different because it was called trade secret theft from the very beginning - even though the law included making copies of the trade secrets or even verbally passing the secrets to someone from another company.

I much prefer narrowly tailored laws. Yes, they do open up the possibility of loopholes, but that is much more preferable to overly expansive laws, which are more susceptible to abuse and corruption.

One of the biggest problems with our copyright system is that it is very much one-size-fits all, with civil damages being based upon how many works were infringed. Having very little differentiation for the scale built into the laws has allowed various parties to use intimidation tactics. The statutory maximum is built around the economic scale of printing presses and such. Since the same laws affects individuals and small entities, it enables abuse by copyright holders to bring lawsuits with potential damages that might exceed all the money they will ever see. The RIAA took this to absurd new heights when they were seeking up to 'more than the world's GDP' from Limewire.

Last Anonymous:

I do not have any answers with respect to copyright. That is an area outside my expertise and outside my interest. I copied from the radio to cassette. I copied from albums on to a reel-to-reel, making my own recordings. I have long believed that fair use should be broadly applicable to my personal activities for my personal use, and the law supports those activities.

However, narrowly tailored laws have allowed murderers, among others, to escape justice. Of course, Blackstone suggest that it was better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer. It is just unfortunate that the loopholes are closed after the guilty man has already gone free.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella and Last Anonymous:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

If you don't believe a dictionary, how about state law? This law is from Texas. Note that if you obtain services from a direct broadcast satellite without authorization, it is theft in the state of Texas. No deprivation required for intercepting satellite signals for it to be theft.

I never said that that wasn't the law anywhere, Lonnie. I said that any such law was wrong, Lonnie.

All these people using the wrong dictionary - even though most dictionaries define theft as taking.

Because of maximalist propaganda like yours, Lonnie. How, pray tell, do you "take" a signal, Lonnie? It's not some ethereal blanket draping down from the satellite that one might yank down and over to just your side of the bed while cackling "mine, all mine!", thus making it unavailable to anyone else, Lonnie. Unless you control the transmitter and you shut it down, anyway. But then the only entity that could really "steal" the signal would be the satellite company itself, Lonnie.

[much legalese deleted]

Obvious example of legislative capture by special interests, Lonnie. It's a textbook example of legislating artificial scarcity and the pretense that a non-consuming action can be "theft" purely for the sake of propping up a favored incumbent business at the public's and taxpayer's expense, Lonnie. It's shameful that you'd be holding up such cruft as an exemplar of anything other than cruft, Lonnie.

Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

I'm rather curious about some examples where narrowly tailored laws would let a murderer go. I'm not going to claim that it's impossible, but it seems like it would be very difficult to find a loophole, and I suspect that the number of parties exploiting said loophole would tend to be rather small.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

We have been over the ground of taking many times, Stephen. You are not convinced, and neither am I (or about 99% of the people in the world) by your explanation. If you acquire something that you did not previously have, Stephen, you have "taken" something. If I do not have satellite television, and I modify equipment so that now I do, then I have something I did not have before. Obviously, I have "taken" something from somewhere. Otherwise, where did it derive?

You have been a lawyer for many years, Stephen, so I am sure you know far more about the legal history of theft laws than I do, Stephen.

Intellectual monopolies are not evil, Stephen, and you have never provided any evidence that they are. I personally would dislike it if someone threw some white paint in a can and called it "White-Out" because intellectual monopolies did not exist. I would be expecting genuine "White-Out" and instead I get paint that does me no good. I would also be disappointed if I purchased a Ford Fusion and instead got a Yugo with a Ford logo on it. Intellectual monopolies often make sense and are only evil when they are evilly used.

A secret was stolen from GNR, specifically Axl Rose, Stephen. It is unfortunate, but not important, that you recognize that. Most people do, including at least one person involved, who has apologized to GNR and Axl Rose specifically, though he was not required to apologize.

Last Anonymous:

How many cases are there where a murderer either goes free or is released early because of a loophole in the law? I am unable to answer. Certainly dozens of times. Perhaps 100s. Who knows. I offer a few examples (I could give you an extremely lengthy list).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/410054.stm

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2006-03-17/Community/056.html

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=818768

http://scientificenquirer.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/murderer-goes-free-on-deterministic-universe-loophole/

http://www.cracked.com/article_16998_5-horrific-serial-killers-who-are-free-right-now.html

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/06/07/murder-case-dropped-over-flubbed-miranda-rights.html

Your examples are rather poor. The Miranda case failed because of a lack of due process. The scientific enquirer article appears to be a fictional humor article. The convicted in the rockawave article spent 4 years in prison, and the problem seems to be that he was convicted of the wrong type of murder. A lot of the cases you cited involve insanity, which would be a defense, not a loophole. There were some instances of what appeared to be manipulation within the mental health system, but that's an entirely different issue as far as I'm concerned.

The onenewsnow seems to be the only case of an actual loophole, and it involves the legal complexities of a newborn. She very likely could have been suffering from a mental illness.

"You are not convinced, and neither am I (or about 99% of the people in the world) by your explanation." That's a rather generous estimate.

"I personally would dislike it if someone threw some white paint in a can and called it "White-Out" because intellectual monopolies did not exist. I would be expecting genuine "White-Out" and instead I get paint that does me no good. I would also be disappointed if I purchased a Ford Fusion and instead got a Yugo with a Ford logo on it. Intellectual monopolies often make sense and are only evil when they are evilly used. " You've brought up trademark issues, which are often seen in a different light than patent, copyright, and trade secrets, and may or may not be included in Beeswax's comment Whether or not trademark is the best method of preventing deception for a product's origin is also a matter that I think deserves some debate.

"A secret was stolen from GNR, specifically Axl Rose, Stephen." As far as the law is concerned, nothing was stolen from GNR or Axl Rose (also, I would think Geffen or Universal would be more likely to be the one regarded as the victim).

"It is unfortunate, but not important, that you recognize that. Most people do, including at least one person involved, who has apologized to GNR and Axl Rose specifically, though he was not required to apologize. " I'm not sure why you feel you can again speak for the majority on this subject. I also doubt the sincerity of Cogill's public apology, given that making a PSA was part of the conditions he agreed to to avoid jail.

Last Anonymous:

You said: Your examples are rather poor. The Miranda case failed because of a lack of due process. The scientific enquirer article appears to be a fictional humor article. The convicted in the rockawave article spent 4 years in prison, and the problem seems to be that he was convicted of the wrong type of murder. A lot of the cases you cited involve insanity, which would be a defense, not a loophole. There were some instances of what appeared to be manipulation within the mental health system, but that's an entirely different issue as far as I'm concerned.

The onenewsnow seems to be the only case of an actual loophole, and it involves the legal complexities of a newborn. She very likely could have been suffering from a mental illness."

In each case, an individual who committed a capital crime either served a relatively small amount of time, or was never charged with a capital crime.

With respect to the Miranda case, the individual confessed to murder and because of the improper Miranda, he was acquitted. Is this not a loophole through which a murderer escaped?

The "fictional humor" article was in fact an accurate article. Two of the cases I researched myself through independent sources and the "fictional humor" article got the facts correct. The article was in fact not fictional and the only humor in the article is biting humor since the criminals got away with serious crimes, at least for the two cases I know about. I assume that the other three are accurate as well.

Insanity was a defense, and it turned into a loophole. The loophole was that once the person's case received disposition under the law, they were released - even though in one case the person was deemed incurable. So, we have an incurably insane person previously guilty of murder wandering the streets. If that is not a loophole, then what is?

I said: "You are not convinced, and neither am I (or about 99% of the people in the world) by your explanation."

You said: That's a rather generous estimate.

Oh, you think it is higher than 99%? I suspect you may be right about that.

I said: "I personally would dislike it if someone threw some white paint in a can and called it "White-Out" because intellectual monopolies did not exist. I would be expecting genuine "White-Out" and instead I get paint that does me no good. I would also be disappointed if I purchased a Ford Fusion and instead got a Yugo with a Ford logo on it. Intellectual monopolies often make sense and are only evil when they are evilly used."

You said: You've brought up trademark issues, which are often seen in a different light than patent, copyright, and trade secrets, and may or may not be included in Beeswax's comment Whether or not trademark is the best method of preventing deception for a product's origin is also a matter that I think deserves some debate.

A trademark is an intellectual monopoly. You cannot use it without permission and you cannot use it improperly. It is intangible since it applies even to verbal expression (Kimberly-Clark would be all over a speaker at a public gathering holding up a box of Puff's facial tissues and saying "Here I have a box of Kleenex).

As for your debate, I am sure the world is looking forward to your proposal to replace trademarks.

I said: "A secret was stolen from GNR, specifically Axl Rose, Stephen."

You said: As far as the law is concerned, nothing was stolen from GNR or Axl Rose (also, I would think Geffen or Universal would be more likely to be the one regarded as the victim).

Ummm...I doubt Geffen or Universal would be a victim because they did not own the music. Indeed, there was speculation by some that Geffen or Universal may have assisted in the crime because they wanted Axl Rose to release the album he had spent 17 years in developing.

I said: "It is unfortunate, but not important, that you recognize that. Most people do, including at least one person involved, who has apologized to GNR and Axl Rose specifically, though he was not required to apologize."

You said: I'm not sure why you feel you can again speak for the majority on this subject. I also doubt the sincerity of Cogill's public apology, given that making a PSA was part of the conditions he agreed to to avoid jail.

Cogill did not apologize to Axl Rose as part of a PSA. In fact, Cogill pointed out (some might say gloated) that he never made a PSA that he was supposed to make. His apology to Axl Rose was after his probation was over, when he no longer had anything to benefit from apologizing to Axl Rose, except for salving Cogill's conscience.

As for speaking for the majority, I think that standard usage, the law, and surveys (which indicate that around 66% of all people believe that copyright infringement is the same as stealing - even though it is not) indicate that the term "most" is accurate.

"The "fictional humor" article was in fact an accurate article. " Then that loophole applies to practically all crimes and torts.

"In each case, an individual who committed a capital crime either served a relatively small amount of time, or was never charged with a capital crime." That doesn't mean it's a loophole, and certainly not a loophole in defining a crime. If you think there needs to be reform in regards to how mental illness is dealt with in court, you are entitled to your opinion, but the problems you presented weren't that the act wasn't technically murder except in the case of the mother.

"With respect to the Miranda case, the individual confessed to murder and because of the improper Miranda, he was acquitted. Is this not a loophole through which a murderer escaped?" No, that's the design of the legal system.

"A trademark is an intellectual monopoly." Strictly speaking, yes, but that doesn't mean that an argument includes it. That's the problem with umbrella terms. As for what could replace trademarks, I have a few things to say on that. For digital works, there's a much simpler and effective solution that requires no central authority: public key cryptography. For physical goods, we might opt for some vendor ID system. Just a number has a fair amount of advantages. There's no need to worry about being generic or descriptive, and what is and is not illegal would be clearer. I can see the support for trademarks, but I also thinks it's wise to weigh other options.

"Ummm...I doubt Geffen or Universal would be a victim because they did not own the music. Indeed, there was speculation by some that Geffen or Universal may have assisted in the crime because they wanted Axl Rose to release the album he had spent 17 years in developing." You are correct in that they might have had incentives here as well, but the record company would certainly have some kind of ownership interest in the recordings, at least for 35 years.

"His apology to Axl Rose was after his probation was over, when he no longer had anything to benefit from apologizing to Axl Rose, except for salving Cogill's conscience. " His apology may have been after the end of the probation, but he was still obligated to make the PSA at that time. I doubt we are going to reach agreement here, but I don't think Cogill is sincere.

"Oh, you think it is higher than 99%? I suspect you may be right about that. " No, I suspect 99% is a high estimate.

"As for speaking for the majority, I think that standard usage, the law, and surveys (which indicate that around 66% of all people believe that copyright infringement is the same as stealing - even though it is not) indicate that the term "most" is accurate. " Was it a survey of RIAA executives? It's likely more accurate to claim that most people engage in copyright infringement. That appears to be true, given a survey by SSRC that reported 46% of adults, and 70% of adults 18-29 have engaged in infringement.

Last Anonymous:

I said: "In each case, an individual who committed a capital crime either served a relatively small amount of time, or was never charged with a capital crime."

You said: That doesn't mean it's a loophole, and certainly not a loophole in defining a crime. If you think there needs to be reform in regards to how mental illness is dealt with in court, you are entitled to your opinion, but the problems you presented weren't that the act wasn't technically murder except in the case of the mother.

Ummm...I do not understand your point. My point was that each of these individuals either (1) committed murder and served little or no time or (2) participated in a murder and served little or no time, because of a loophole in the law. I will also point out that many of the loopholes that allowed the murderers to go free have been closed.

In the Miranda case, the person committed the murder. The person confessed to the murder. Because the translation into Spanish was bungled, the guy went free. Now, you may say that that is the design of the legal system, but that "design" permitted a known murderer to go free.

Nikolai Dzhumagaliev: One of the worst serial killers in history. He may have raped and murdered as many as 100 woman. He was jailed, found "insane," "cured," and released from prison. His exact whereabouts are unknown.

http://thedeadcorner.blogspot.com/2008/05/nikolai-dzhumagaliev.html?zx=2c3998d8248ffd81

Karla Homolka: She helped her husband rape and murder at least three different girls, including her sister. She struck a plea bargain deal with prosecutors in exchange for her testimony against her husband. However, after reviewing videotapes of the couple, it quickly became apparent that Karla was an active and willing participant in the murders and the rapes. Since Karla's testimony was critical against her husband, prosecutors decided to hold to their plea bargain deal, which permitted her to go free in 12 years. It was called by the press "Deal with the Devil."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Homolka#Plea_bargain_controversy_and_videotapes

Pedro Lopez: This guy confesses to the murder and rape of more than 300 girls in Ecuador. Apparently, he liked Ecuadoran girls. He was sentenced to the maximum in Ecuador, 20 years, and got out after 18 years for good behavior. Doing the math, he served about three weeks for every girl he raped and murdered. He was deported to Colombia after his release, and apparently has murdered again and is on the run from Colombian authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_L%C3%B3pez_(serial_killer)

Issei Sagawa: Perhaps the worst one of all. Sagawa was held for two years in France without trial for the murder and cannibalism of a Dutch woman. He was extradited to Japan, declared sane but evil, and released because Japanese authorities did not have any legal reason to hold him. Sagawa is now somewhat of a celebrity in Japan. Strange kind of celebrity to me. Strange kind of loopholes in the laws of two countries that permits a known murderer to avoid trial and never be punished for murder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa

You said: Then that loophole applies to practically all crimes and torts.

I suppose if all crimes involved husband and wife teams raping and murdering young girls, including their relatives, then the answer would be yes. Or if "practically all crimes and torts" involved the rapes, murders and cannibalism of women, then sure. If "practically all crimes and torts" involved the murder and rape of 300 young women, then absolutely. If "practially all crimes and torts" includes the murder and cannibalism of a young woman and then being released by two countries, then of course.

The question here is whether the punishment fit the crimes, and whether release of these serial killers best served society.

Regarding your comments on trademark, somehow I do not see Coca Cola replacing "Things go better with Coke" with "Things go better with 8345729!" A numbering system would be meaningless and valueless and would likely be universally opposed by businesses and consumer advocates alike.

I said: "Ummm...I doubt Geffen or Universal would be a victim because they did not own the music. Indeed, there was speculation by some that Geffen or Universal may have assisted in the crime because they wanted Axl Rose to release the album he had spent 17 years in developing."

You said: You are correct in that they might have had incentives here as well, but the record company would certainly have some kind of ownership interest in the recordings, at least for 35 years.

Actually, that may have been the problem. Neither Geffen nor Universal, or whatever distribution companies involved, had any ownership of the recordings at all. What they did have was the distribution channel. Until Axl Rose released the recordings to them, there had no rights whatsoever.

You said: His apology may have been after the end of the probation, but he was still obligated to make the PSA at that time. I doubt we are going to reach agreement here, but I don't think Cogill is sincere.

Since he has never made the PSA, he is still theoretically obligated to make one. However, no one seems interested in pursuing him to make it. His apology to Axl Rose was made during an interview with the press, which did not meet the requirements of the PSA. I think he was sincere because he made the statement after his probation was over. In the same interview he almost bragged that he never made the PSA.

I said: "As for speaking for the majority, I think that standard usage, the law, and surveys (which indicate that around 66% of all people believe that copyright infringement is the same as stealing - even though it is not) indicate that the term "most" is accurate."

You said: Was it a survey of RIAA executives? It's likely more accurate to claim that most people engage in copyright infringement. That appears to be true, given a survey by SSRC that reported 46% of adults, and 70% of adults 18-29 have engaged in infringement.

No, it was a survey of adults. The survey was weighted toward young adult males. The questions involved how they felt about various types of acts, including theft of physical objects and making copies of intangible objects. Slightly more than 50% thought making copies of music was theft, but when the question was asked about making copies of information from an individual's computer, the number believing the act to be theft rose to nearly the same level as those stating that taking of physical objects was theft. People seem to find it less problematic to make copies of things owned by companies than making copies of things owned by indidivuals. Interestingly, less than 100% of the people involved considered taking of physical objects, one example was taking of a bicycle, was theft.

You said: It's likely more accurate to claim that most people engage in copyright infringement. That appears to be true, given a survey by SSRC that reported 46% of adults, and 70% of adults 18-29 have engaged in infringement.

Ummm...okay...you say in the same breath that most people engage in copyright infringement and then you state that 46% of adults have engaged in infringement. So, which is it? Is it most people or is it 46%? The two are different.

Surveys have been conducted regarding infringement over the last decade. I find it interesting that infringement seems to have peaked and is currently in decline across all age levels. At one point I recall surveys indicating that nearly 60% of all adults had engaged in infringement, and the number seems to be declining steadily from that peak. The number among adults 18-29 has risen slightly, but seems to be leveling off. It also appears that levels of infringement are much higher among unemployed adults 18-29, and declines significantly among married young adults with full time employment. What a shock. People with time on their hands infringe more.

"My point was that each of these individuals either (1) committed murder and served little or no time or (2) participated in a murder and served little or no time, because of a loophole in the law." Those cases you mention involved insanity defense (sometimes accompanied by later manipulation that could be applied to anyone who was criminally insane), a maximum sentence, plea bargains, or failure of due process. That's not what a loophole is generally considered to be, and certainly not examples of loopholes in what defines murder. For example, the insanity defense doesn't mean you didn't commit murder, but rather that you can't be held accountable for it. You have presented ONE case of a loophole, which was the mother with the umbilical cord. THAT is a loophole, and it's a very very narrow exception in defining murder.

"I suppose if all crimes involved husband and wife teams raping and murdering young girls, including their relatives, then the answer would be yes. Or if "practically all crimes and torts" involved the rapes, murders and cannibalism of women, then sure. If "practically all crimes and torts" involved the murder and rape of 300 young women, then absolutely. If "practially all crimes and torts" includes the murder and cannibalism of a young woman and then being released by two countries, then of course. " I don't believe you are talking about the same article. The defense in the scientific enquirer article was that the universe is deterministic, therefore he doesn't have free will. That defense WOULD apply to all crimes and torts. However, the article is almost certainly fictional.

"Since he has never made the PSA, he is still theoretically obligated to make one." Actually, he isn't anymore.

"I think he was sincere because he made the statement after his probation was over. In the same interview he almost bragged that he never made the PSA. " I don't think he was sincere.

"No, it was a survey of adults. " Do you mind linking it, then?

"So, which is it? Is it most people or is it 46%? The two are different. " There are people that are not adults (usually referred to as children or minors), and those people make up around a quarter of the population. This is just speculation, but I'm guessing the SSRC survey didn't involve minors because of potential legal issues. However, it seems almost certain that minors would have rates of infringement roughly equivalent to the 18-29 group, and if anything, their numbers would be higher than that. They have less disposable income, relatively high amounts of free time, and generally higher proficiency with the relevant technology.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

We have been over the ground of taking many times, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You are not convinced, and neither am I (or about 99% of the people in the world) by your explanation.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

If you acquire something that you did not previously have, Stephen, you have "taken" something.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I may have copied it instead, Lonnie, or even created it.

If I do not have satellite television, and I modify equipment so that now I do, then I have something I did not have before.

Perhaps, but what has been taken, and from whom? What does someone lack, that they had before?

Obviously, I have "taken" something from somewhere. Otherwise, where did it derive?

Classic erroneous presupposition that the world is a zero-sum game.

You have been a lawyer for many years, Stephen, so I am sure you know far more about the legal history of theft laws than I do, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Intellectual monopolies are not evil, Stephen, and you have never provided any evidence that they are.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I personally would dislike it if someone threw some white paint in a can and called it "White-Out" because intellectual monopolies did not exist.

Classic erroneous presupposition. Such an act would still constitute fraud.

I would be expecting genuine "White-Out" and instead I get paint that does me no good.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. White-Out basically is white paint.

I would also be disappointed if I purchased a Ford Fusion and instead got a Yugo with a Ford logo on it.

Classic pontification.

Intellectual monopolies often make sense and are only evil when they are evilly used.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. All that is needed to narrowly criminalize the objectionable behaviors you described is to regard false labeling as a form of fraud, which it basically is, as you pay for something and don't get what you paid for.

A secret was stolen from GNR, specifically Axl Rose, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

It is unfortunate, but not important, that you recognize that.

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Most people do, including at least one person involved, who has apologized to GNR and Axl Rose specifically, though he was not required to apologize.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

A trademark is an intellectual monopoly.

Classic pontification.

You cannot use it without permission and you cannot use it improperly.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Only use that creates a "likelihood of confusion" is regulated. I can use it without permission to refer to the genuine article all I want.

His apology to Axl Rose was after his probation was over, when he no longer had anything to benefit from apologizing to Axl Rose, except for salving Cogill's conscience.

One may feel guilty about an act without that act having constituted theft, Lonnie. It need not even be a crime, Lonnie. Yelling at someone while in a bad mood and then regretting it later, for instance, Lonnie. Your remarks about Cogill's conscience, besides being dubiously supported at best, are therefore a non sequitur, Lonnie.

around 66% of all people believe that copyright infringement is the same as stealing

If that argument proves that it is, then it proves that at various times the earth was flat, Lonnie.

Issei Sagawa: Perhaps the worst one of all. Sagawa was held for two years in France without trial for the murder and cannibalism of a Dutch woman. He was extradited to Japan, declared sane but evil, and released because Japanese authorities did not have any legal reason to hold him. Sagawa is now somewhat of a celebrity in Japan. Strange kind of celebrity to me. Strange kind of loopholes in the laws of two countries that permits a known murderer to avoid trial and never be punished for murder.

Classic erroneous presupposition. One might quibble about whether it was anywhere near enough, but being jailed for two years is certainly a punishment, Lonnie. The really odd thing is how they see-sawed between being too harsh (held for two years without trial? Unconstitutional, or should be) and too lenient (let go after that short a sentence for murder?).

Surveys have been conducted regarding infringement over the last decade. I find it interesting that infringement seems to have peaked and is currently in decline across all age levels. At one point I recall surveys indicating that nearly 60% of all adults had engaged in infringement, and the number seems to be declining steadily from that peak. The number among adults 18-29 has risen slightly, but seems to be leveling off. It also appears that levels of infringement are much higher among unemployed adults 18-29, and declines significantly among married young adults with full time employment. What a shock. People with time on their hands infringe more.

People with less money to spend on overpriced albums, for that matter, Lonnie. As for the decline, the cause is that the recording industry is finally beginning to accept the market force correction on pricing. It's services like Spotify and Netflix that charge flat, and realistic, rates for access to a large library that are displacing infringement, Lonnie; also, there would have been an initial surge in infringement as people sought to acquire back-catalog material, dropping once they only seek to get new releases, similarly to the initial surge in sales with a new format like CD or Blu-ray that then drops off.

Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

You have not proven that trademarks are evil.

A secret was stolen from GNR and anyone who supports stealing is evil. Therefore, you are evil. End of story.

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

One might quibble about whether it was anywhere near enough, but being jailed for two years is certainly a punishment, [ad hominem deleted]. The really odd thing is how they see-sawed between being too harsh (held for two years without trial? Unconstitutional, or should be) and too lenient (let go after that short a sentence for murder?).

The French do not have a constitution. The guy was held pending trial, but was never tried for anything. He was never sentenced for anything. He was released even though he was guilty of murder. Even though he was held pending trial for two years, that is not illegal in France. The fact remains that two countries had him and neither tried him for a crime. Ultimately, he got away with murder, literally.

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

You said: Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Who is "Lonnie," Stephan? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

Beeswax said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: We have been over the ground of taking many times, Stephen.

Stephan said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Does it really make a difference that you do not use your real name Stephen? You have been outed.

I said: You are not convinced, and neither am I (or about 99% of the people in the world) by your explanation.

Stephen said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: If you acquire something that you did not previously have, Stephen, you have "taken" something.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I may have copied it instead, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or even created it.

If you make a copy of information that only I have, and you did so with out my permission, you have stolen that information. That has everything to do with my monopoly of that information. If you created something on your own, using your own information, then obviously it could not have belonged to me.

I said: If I do not have satellite television, and I modify equipment so that now I do, then I have something I did not have before.

Stephen Kinsella said: Perhaps, but what has been taken, and from whom? What does someone lack, that they had before?

What does that have to do with the fact that in Texas the law states that this action is theft, Stephen?

I said: Obviously, I have "taken" something from somewhere. Otherwise, where did it derive?

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition that the world is a zero-sum game.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: You have been a lawyer for many years, Stephen, so I am sure you know far more about the legal history of theft laws than I do, Stephen.

Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You do not know who you are, Stephen? Do you have some sort of personality disorder?

I said: Intellectual monopolies are not evil, Stephen, and you have never provided any evidence that they are.

I said: I personally would dislike it if someone threw some white paint in a can and called it "White-Out" because intellectual monopolies did not exist.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Such an act would still constitute fraud.

No, it would not, Stephen. I can call my product anything I like if there is no trademark law. When sail makers were in competition 200+ years ago, they complained to Thomas Jefferson that anyone could use whatever they liked without penalty. Even today, there is a Burger King restaurant in Mattoon, Illinois that is NOT affiliated with Burger King Corporation and there is no fraud involved.

I said: I would be expecting genuine "White-Out" and instead I get paint that does me no good.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. White-Out basically is white paint.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. White-Out is specifically formulated to dry quickly and to be a similar color to the paper on which it is used. It took Bette Nesmith Graham years to perfect the original formula of Liquid Paper, on which White-Out is based. To call it "basically white paint" is not only erroneous, but insulting the years of work it took to figure out how to make it.

I said: I would also be disappointed if I purchased a Ford Fusion and instead got a Yugo with a Ford logo on it.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic pontification.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: Intellectual monopolies often make sense and are only evil when they are evilly used.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. All that is needed to narrowly criminalize the objectionable behaviors you described is to regard false labeling as a form of fraud, which it basically is, as you pay for something and don't get what you paid for.

Except, to the best of my knowledge not one state recognizes using a name as a form of fraud, and to the best of my knowledge, use of identical names was not recognized as fraud prior to the existence of trademarks. Why should it be? If my name is Ford, I should be able to produce Ford cars, if trademarks did not exist.

I said: A secret was stolen from GNR, specifically Axl Rose, Stephen.

Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Have you forgotten your name, Stephen?

I said: It is unfortunate, but not important, that you recognize that.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: Most people do, including at least one person involved, who has apologized to GNR and Axl Rose specifically, though he was not required to apologize.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Which part of my claim is unsubstantiated? Fact: Kevin Cogill apologized to Axl Rose. Fact: He was not required to apologize to Kevin Cogill. Seems to me that the only one making erroneous claims here is you, Stephen Kinsella.

I said: A trademark is an intellectual monopoly.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic pontification.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

I said: You cannot use it without permission and you cannot use it improperly.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Only use that creates a "likelihood of confusion" is regulated. I can use it without permission to refer to the genuine article all I want.

That is correct. You can use it to apply to the genuine article. You cannot use it to apply to any other item, unless you are doing a parody. I am glad we agree on that.

I said: His apology to Axl Rose was after his probation was over, when he no longer had anything to benefit from apologizing to Axl Rose, except for salving Cogill's conscience.

Stephen Kinsella said: One may feel guilty about an act without that act having constituted theft, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. It need not even be a crime, Lonnie. Yelling at someone while in a bad mood and then regretting it later, for instance, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Your remarks about Cogill's conscience, besides being dubiously supported at best, are therefore a non sequitur, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen? Because you seem to want evidence, here is a reference:

Cogill carries a great deal of remorse for what he did, though he never intended any harm to Axl Rose he was just a fan who was excited about a band he loved. "I've come to respect the artists' right to determine how their art is released. I do apologize to Axl for that disrespect," he said. "As a fan who had lost faith in all of the promises of release, I didn't see too many other options at the time. But in a fair world, it's not my place to judge, let alone act."

I said: around 66% of all people believe that copyright infringement is the same as stealing

Stephen Kinsella said: If that argument proves that it is, then it proves that at various times the earth was flat, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen? One is not linked to the other. The last time people believed that the earth was flat was about 2,000 years ago. Many people still believe copyright infringement is theft.

I said: Issei Sagawa: Perhaps the worst one of all. Sagawa was held for two years in France without trial for the murder and cannibalism of a Dutch woman. He was extradited to Japan, declared sane but evil, and released because Japanese authorities did not have any legal reason to hold him. Sagawa is now somewhat of a celebrity in Japan. Strange kind of celebrity to me. Strange kind of loopholes in the laws of two countries that permits a known murderer to avoid trial and never be punished for murder.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition. One might quibble about whether it was anywhere near enough, but being jailed for two years is certainly a punishment, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. The really odd thing is how they see-sawed between being too harsh (held for two years without trial? Unconstitutional, or should be) and too lenient (let go after that short a sentence for murder?).

Unconstitutional in France? Apparently not. This guy, a known murderer, never went to trial, was never convicted, and was released due to a loophole in the law.

I said: Surveys have been conducted regarding infringement over the last decade. I find it interesting that infringement seems to have peaked and is currently in decline across all age levels. At one point I recall surveys indicating that nearly 60% of all adults had engaged in infringement, and the number seems to be declining steadily from that peak. The number among adults 18-29 has risen slightly, but seems to be leveling off. It also appears that levels of infringement are much higher among unemployed adults 18-29, and declines significantly among married young adults with full time employment. What a shock. People with time on their hands infringe more.

Stephen Kinsella said: People with less money to spend on overpriced albums, for that matter, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. As for the decline, the cause is that the recording industry is finally beginning to accept the market force correction on pricing. It's services like Spotify and Netflix that charge flat, and realistic, rates for access to a large library that are displacing infringement, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]; also, there would have been an initial surge in infringement as people sought to acquire back-catalog material, dropping once they only seek to get new releases, similarly to the initial surge in sales with a new format like CD or Blu-ray that then drops off.

All you are doing is saying that people are, regardless of the reason, respecting intellectual monopolies more, Stephen.

Stephen Kinsella said: Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen? Secret data was stolen from GNR and Axl Rose specifically. End of story.

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

You have not proven that trademarks are evil.

I didn't set out to prove that trademarks were evil, Lonnie. I never claimed that trademarks were evil, Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

A secret was stolen from GNR and anyone who supports stealing is evil.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Intangible, pure information cannot be stolen, Lonnie.

Therefore, you are evil.

Non sequitur.

End of story.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

[ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

The French do not have a constitution.

Their mistake, then.

The guy was held pending trial, but was never tried for anything.

Didn't the phrase "right to a speedy trial" mean anything to his jailers?

He was never sentenced for anything. He was released even though he was guilty of murder.

Since there was no trial, his guilt has not been established, Lonnie.

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Who is "Lonnie," Stephan?

Who is "Stephan", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

There is one who used to use that alias, Lonnie.

Beeswax/Stephen Kinsella:

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

[erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

[erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Does it really make a difference that you do not use your real name Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You have been outed.

What does your classic unsubstantiated, erroneous, and ironic claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephen said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly,

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

[erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly,

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

[erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

[erroneous ad hominem deleted],

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

If you make a copy of information that only I have, and you did so with out my permission, you have stolen that information.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

That has everything to do with my monopoly of that information.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. A monopoly is, by definition, a single supplier in a marketplace, Lonnie. Your scenario involves no marketplace, since your secret is not for sale or obviously it couldn't be secret, Lonnie.

If you created something on your own, using your own information, then obviously it could not have belonged to me.

If I create something at all, then, unless I was hired by you to do so, then obviously it does not belong to you, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: Perhaps, but what has been taken, and from whom? What does someone lack, that they had before?

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

What does that have to do with the fact that in Texas the law states that this action is theft, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias. And it's already been established that that Texas law is erroneous, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition that the world is a zero-sum game.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You do not know who you are, Stephen? Do you have some sort of personality disorder?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Such an act would still constitute fraud.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

No, it would not, Stephen.

What does your erroneous denial have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? And who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I can call my product anything I like if there is no trademark law.

Not if it's deceptive, and other laws barring deceptive trade practices remain in force, Lonnie.

When sail makers were in competition 200+ years ago, they complained to Thomas Jefferson that anyone could use whatever they liked without penalty. Even today, there is a Burger King restaurant in Mattoon, Illinois that is NOT affiliated with Burger King Corporation and there is no fraud involved.

If it was named that before the chain existed, then there cannot have been any attempt to deceive, Lonnie. That ought to be obvious, Lonnie. It's also irrelevant to my points, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. White-Out basically is white paint.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

I know you made a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it.

White-Out is specifically formulated to dry quickly and to be a similar color to the paper on which it is used.

That color would be white, Lonnie, so any white paint that dries quickly will do.

It took Bette Nesmith Graham years to perfect the original formula of Liquid Paper, on which White-Out is based. To call it "basically white paint" is not only erroneous, but insulting the years of work it took to figure out how to make it.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic pontification.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. All that is needed to narrowly criminalize the objectionable behaviors you described is to regard false labeling as a form of fraud, which it basically is, as you pay for something and don't get what you paid for.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

Except, to the best of my knowledge not one state recognizes using a name as a form of fraud, and to the best of my knowledge, use of identical names was not recognized as fraud prior to the existence of trademarks. Why should it be? If my name is Ford, I should be able to produce Ford cars, if trademarks did not exist.

Right now, trademark law is used instead, Lonnie. And coincidental naming without deceptive intent would never have been fraud, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Have you forgotten your name, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Which part of my claim is unsubstantiated?

The part where you said he wasn't required to apologize. He was court ordered to do so, a matter that was discussed earlier in this thread. Still suffering from memory problems, Lonnie?

Fact: Kevin Cogill apologized to Axl Rose.

What does your pontification have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Fact: He was not required to apologize to Kevin Cogill.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Seems to me that the only one making erroneous claims here is you, Stephen Kinsella.

What does your hallucination have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic pontification.

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Only use that creates a "likelihood of confusion" is regulated. I can use it without permission to refer to the genuine article all I want.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

That is correct. You can use it to apply to the genuine article. You cannot use it to apply to any other item, unless you are doing a parody. I am glad we agree on that.

Then why did you erroneously claim that you couldn't use it, at all, without permission, if you knew that that wasn't true, Lonnie?

Stephen Kinsella said: One may feel guilty about an act without that act having constituted theft, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. It need not even be a crime, Lonnie. Yelling at someone while in a bad mood and then regretting it later, for instance, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Your remarks about Cogill's conscience, besides being dubiously supported at best, are therefore a non sequitur, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Because you seem to want evidence, here is a reference:

Cogill carries a great deal of remorse for what he did, though he never intended any harm to Axl Rose he was just a fan who was excited about a band he loved. "I've come to respect the artists' right to determine how their art is released. I do apologize to Axl for that disrespect," he said. "As a fan who had lost faith in all of the promises of release, I didn't see too many other options at the time. But in a fair world, it's not my place to judge, let alone act."

None of that proves that the act in question was a theft, Lonnie, or even that Cogill believed it to be a theft.

Stephen Kinsella said: If that argument proves that it is, then it proves that at various times the earth was flat, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

One is not linked to the other.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? The arguments take the same form, so if one is sound the other also is, Lonnie. Suffering from logic problems as well, Lonnie?

The last time people believed that the earth was flat was about 2,000 years ago.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? There are a few flat-earthers even now, Lonnie.

Many people still believe copyright infringement is theft.

Many people still believe in ghosts, demonic possession, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster too, Lonnie, so you'll forgive me if I don't take what "many people still believe" as sufficient evidence for any proposition other than one about what some people believe.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition. One might quibble about whether it was anywhere near enough, but being jailed for two years is certainly a punishment,

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

[erroneous ad hominem deleted].

What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Unconstitutional in France? Apparently not.

"Or should be".

This guy, a known murderer, never went to trial, was never convicted, and was released due to a loophole in the law.

But not a loophole in the definition of murder, Lonnie. Furthermore, your phrase "a known murderer" presumes guilt even though guilt was never established at trial; thus your argument is begging the question, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: People with less money to spend on overpriced albums, for that matter, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. As for the decline, the cause is that the recording industry is finally beginning to accept the market force correction on pricing. It's services like Spotify and Netflix that charge flat, and realistic, rates for access to a large library that are displacing infringement, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]; also, there would have been an initial surge in infringement as people sought to acquire back-catalog material, dropping once they only seek to get new releases, similarly to the initial surge in sales with a new format like CD or Blu-ray that then drops off.

Who is "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

All you are doing is saying that people are, regardless of the reason, respecting intellectual monopolies more, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias. And no evidence has been posted that people are "respecting intellectual monopolies more", Lonnie. One may continue to disrespect intellectual monopolies (with numerous valid reasons, such as the multiple ongoing attempts by the United States government at blatantly censoring the Internet using copyright as the excuse) and still prefer Spotify and Netflix to BitTorrent, Lonnie; for many, the former are more convenient, are more reliable, produce results of higher and more consistent quality, and expose them to less legal risk (whatever they may think of the validity of the laws in question), and that may well make those services worth the price to them, Lonnie.

Stephen Kinsella said: Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", Lonnie. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Lonnie?

What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Secret data was stolen from GNR and Axl Rose specifically.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie? Intangible, pure information cannot be stolen, Lonnie.

End of story.

What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, Lonnie?

Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Stephan Kinsella/Beeswax:

I said: You have not proven that trademarks are evil.

You said: I didn't set out to prove that trademarks were evil, Lonnie. I never claimed that trademarks were evil, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Stephen, you said that intellectual monopolies were evil. You have said this many times. A trademark is an intellectual monopoly. Therefore, according to you, trademarks are evil. Are you suffering from logical thought problems again, Stephen, as well as reading comprehension problems?

I said: A secret was stolen from GNR and anyone who supports stealing is evil.

Stephen said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? Intangible, pure information cannot be stolen, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Stephen, you have stated that my claim is unsubstantiated. In the United States v. Kissane, No. 1:02CR626 (S.D.N.Y.), Kissane pled guilty to the charge of stealing the source code for software belonging to his employer. His specific action was to make a copy of that source code and offer it to a competitor, but the crime charged was theft. In United States v. Morris, No. 02-CR-120 (D. Del.), Morris was charged with stealing bid information from his employer. His exact crime was making a copy of that information and attempting to sell it. In both cases the original information remained with the employer, and in both cases the individuals were found guilty of theft of trade secrets.

Therefore, I have substantiated my claim that pure, intangible information can be stolen under the laws of the United States of America. Since the trade secrets were monopoly information, I have also addressed that portion of your comment.

I said: The French do not have a constitution.

You said: Their mistake, then.

What does your statement have to do with monopoly, Stephen? Furthermore, what sort of arrogance does it take to dictate the beliefs of people in your country, which you have tried to do repeatedly, and now to dictate the beliefs of people in other countries as well? The people of France have their own system of government and you have no standing to tell them that their system is any more or less erroneous than our system.

I said: The guy was held pending trial, but was never tried for anything.

You said: Didn't the phrase "right to a speedy trial" mean anything to his jailers?

There is no right to a speedy trial in France. What part of "this happened in France" are you failing to comprehend?

I said: He was never sentenced for anything. He was released even though he was guilty of murder.

You said: Since there was no trial, his guilt has not been established, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Stephen, the guy confessed to the murder. He confessed to eating the woman. His guilt was never in question. The problem was a trial. Because of his obvious insanity, the French were unable to try him. Because he was a Japanese citizen, they were able to extradite him to Japan, essentially making him their problem. However, the Japanese had no standing to try him for murder. The guy got away with murder because of a loophole in the law.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Well, Stephen, I have information that strongly suggests you are Stephen Kinsella. However, if you are not, then just deny that you are not Stephen Kinsella and be done.

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Well, Stephen, I have information that strongly suggests you are Stephen Kinsella. However, if you are not, then just deny that you are not Stephen Kinsella and be done.

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Well, Stephen, I think it is useful to know the person behind the comments. Since you are illogically and unrealistically against all forms of intellectual monopoly, including personal and private information, I think that it has been alleged that you are patent attorney Stephen Kinsella is completely relevant to this discussion. I said: Does it really make a difference that you do not use your real name Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Stephen, just because you are not using that name in this article's comments does not mean that you are not him. Your failure to deny that you are Stephen is even more suspicious.

I said: You have been outed.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated, erroneous, and ironic claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

I think we have already been over that. That someone has alleged to me that you are Stephen Kinsella, an intellectual monopoly attorney, is quite relevant to monopoly.

Stephen said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly,

Stephen said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote that, not some "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

So, are you denying that you are Stephen Kinsella, patent attorney, hmmmm?

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

I said: What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Even though you are not using that "alias" in this article's comments, you could still be Stephen Kinsella, intellectual monopoly attorney.

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Even though you are not using that "alias" in this article's comments, you could still be Stephen Kinsella, intellectual monopoly attorney.

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

So, now you are repeating yourself? Repetition is not a substitute for logical argument, Stephen.

You said: What does your classic erroneous presupposition have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

So you compound your lack of argument by yet another repetition? Repetition is not a substitute for logical argument, Stephen. I said: If you make a copy of information that only I have, and you did so without my permission, you have stolen that information.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Stephen, you have stated that my claim is unsubstantiated. In the United States v. Kissane, No. 1:02CR626 (S.D.N.Y.), Kissane pled guilty to the charge of stealing the source code for software belonging to his employer. His specific action was to make a copy of that source code and offer it to a competitor, but the crime charged was theft. In United States v. Morris, No. 02-CR-120 (D. Del.), Morris was charged with stealing bid information from his employer. His exact crime was making a copy of that information and attempting to sell it. In both cases the original information remained with the employer, and in both cases the individuals were found guilty of theft of trade secrets.

Therefore, I have substantiated my claim that pure, intangible information can be stolen under the laws of the United States of America. Since the trade secrets were monopoly information, I have also addressed that portion of your comment.

I said: That has everything to do with my monopoly of that information.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. A monopoly is, by definition, a single supplier in a marketplace, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Your scenario involves no marketplace, since your secret is not for sale or obviously it couldn't be secret, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

No, a monopoly is, by definition, "The exclusive possession, control, or exercise of something." Therefore your statement is a non sequitur.

I said: If you created something on your own, using your own information, then obviously it could not have belonged to me.

You said: If I create something at all, then, unless I was hired by you to do so, then obviously it does not belong to you, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Then we are agreed. If you create your own information or your own trade secrets, then they belong to you and not to me. Just do not steal my information to make yours.

Stephen Kinsella said: Perhaps, but what has been taken, and from whom? What does someone lack, that they had before?

Stephen Kinsella said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I said: What does that have to do with the fact that in Texas the law states that this action is theft, Stephen?

Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias. And it's already been established that that Texas law is erroneous, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

First, I am shocked that you do not know your own name. Second, it has not been established that Texas law is erroneous. That is a classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. You keeping making these claims but offer no evidence. Now I have provided additional information for two additional lawsuits. Are you going to claim they are erroneous as well? Instead of just diatribes, how about some actual evidence or logic, Stephen? You keep claiming others have no substantiation, and yet you offer none of your own. Pony up, dude.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition that the world is a zero-sum game.

I said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Stephen Kinsella said: I wrote that

I thought I just said that. Are you having reading comprehension problems again?

Stephen Kinsella said: not some "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Are you bipolar? You keep denying your inner self and you keep substituting ad hominem arguments for facts and logic.

I said: What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias. Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I said: You do not know who you are, Stephen? Do you have some sort of personality disorder?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I said: I personally would dislike it if someone threw some white paint in a can and called it "White-Out" because intellectual monopolies did not exist.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic erroneous presupposition. Such an act would still constitute fraud.

I said: No, it would not, Stephen. I can call my product anything I like if there is no trademark law. When sail makers were in competition 200+ years ago, they complained to Thomas Jefferson that anyone could use whatever they liked without penalty. Even today, there is a Burger King restaurant in Mattoon, Illinois that is NOT affiliated with Burger King Corporation and there is no fraud involved.

I said: I would be expecting genuine "White-Out" and instead I get paint that does me no good.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. White-Out basically is white paint.

I said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. White-Out is specifically formulated to dry quickly and to be a similar color to the paper on which it is used. It took Bette Nesmith Graham years to perfect the original formula of Liquid Paper, on which White-Out is based. To call it "basically white paint" is not only erroneous, but insulting the years of work it took to figure out how to make it.

I said: I can call my product anything I like if there is no trademark law.

You said: Not if it's deceptive, and other laws barring deceptive trade practices remain in force, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

The problem with deceptive trade practices is that unless admissible statements are made, it can be quite difficult, or even possible, to prove deceptive trade practices. I can throw white water color paint in a bottle and call it "White Out" because the white paint covers up black lines. There is no deception. The product does what I claim it does. It does not do it nearly as well as the original "White Out," but I never claimed that my "White Out" is as good as the original. No deceptive intent involved, I just choose to call my product "White Out."

I said: When sail makers were in competition 200+ years ago, they complained to Thomas Jefferson that anyone could use whatever they liked without penalty. Even today, there is a Burger King restaurant in Mattoon, Illinois that is NOT affiliated with Burger King Corporation and there is no fraud involved.

You said: If it was named that before the chain existed, then there cannot have been any attempt to deceive, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. That ought to be obvious, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. It's also irrelevant to my points, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

However, it is relevant to my points. The Burger King in Mattoon prevailed because of trademark law. When the Burger King chain attempted to open a restaurant in Mattoon, they were not trying to be deceptive, they were trying to expand their chain. Had trademark law not existed, there might have been two Burger King restaurants in Mattoon, which would have confused consumers.

You said: White-Out is specifically formulated to dry quickly and to be a similar color to the paper on which it is used.

You said: That color would be white, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], so any white paint that dries quickly will do.

I said: It took Bette Nesmith Graham years to perfect the original formula of Liquid Paper, on which White-Out is based. To call it "basically white paint" is not only erroneous, but insulting the years of work it took to figure out how to make it.

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. All that is needed to narrowly criminalize the objectionable behaviors you described is to regard false labeling as a form of fraud, which it basically is, as you pay for something and don't get what you paid for.

So, you are saying that current laws, outside of trademark laws, do not cover the act of throwing white paint into a bottle and calling it White Out. Why not just stick with trademark laws, Stephen? After, all, by criminalizing false labeling, you are going back to saying that there are benefits to the intellectual property of names.

I saidK Except, to the best of my knowledge not one state recognizes using a name as a form of fraud, and to the best of my knowledge, use of identical names was not recognized as fraud prior to the existence of trademarks. Why should it be? If my name is Ford, I should be able to produce Ford cars, if trademarks did not exist.

I said: Which part of my claim is unsubstantiated?

You said: The part where you said he wasn't required to apologize. He was court ordered to do so, a matter that was discussed earlier in this thread. Still suffering from memory problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Sigh. Your statement is erroneous and unsubstantiated. No one ever provided one whit of evidence that he was required to apologize to Axl Rose or to anyone else. However, since you like substantiation, here is Kevin Cogill's exact sentence:

A Los Angeles man who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of uploading pre-release Guns N' Roses tracks was handed one year probation and two months' home confinement Tuesday after agreeing to cooperate with the Recording Industry Association of America to produce an anti-piracy message.

Do you see anywhere in there where he was required to apologize to Axl Rose or anyone in GNR? Of course not. Furthermore, the RIAA never contacted Cogill to make the PSA because they apparently did not want him to make one. If I was them I would not want him to make a PSA either.

I said: Seems to me that the only one making erroneous claims here is you, Stephen Kinsella.

You said: What does your hallucination have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

How does your ad hominem statements support your arguments, Stephen?

Stephen Kinsella said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Only use that creates a "likelihood of confusion" is regulated. I can use it without permission to refer to the genuine article all I want.

I said: That is correct. You can use it to apply to the genuine article. You cannot use it to apply to any other item, unless you are doing a parody. I am glad we agree on that.

You said: Then why did you erroneously claim that you couldn't use it, at all, without permission, if you knew that that wasn't true, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

Because you have explicit permission to use the name when it is in application to the actual product. That is not an erroneous claim, that is the law. In fact, the company owning the trademark would love you to use their name, as long as you use it as specified by law. Otherwise, they are likely to send you a letter.

Stephen Kinsella said: One may feel guilty about an act without that act having constituted theft, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. It need not even be a crime, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Yelling at someone while in a bad mood and then regretting it later, for instance, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Your remarks about Cogill's conscience, besides being dubiously supported at best, are therefore a non sequitur, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Stephen Kinsella said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

I said: What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

So, are you going to deny that your name is Stephen? I said: Because you seem to want evidence, here is a reference:

Cogill carries a great deal of remorse for what he did, though he never intended any harm to Axl Rose he was just a fan who was excited about a band he loved. "I've come to respect the artists' right to determine how their art is released. I do apologize to Axl for that disrespect," he said. "As a fan who had lost faith in all of the promises of release, I didn't see too many other options at the time. But in a fair world, it's not my place to judge, let alone act."

You said: None of that proves that the act in question was a theft, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], or even that Cogill believed it to be a theft.

However, what is important here is not what Kevin Cogill called it, but that he admitted he made a mistake.

I said: Many people still believe copyright infringement is theft.

You said: Many people still believe in ghosts, demonic possession, alien abduction, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster too, [erroneous ad hominem deleted], so you'll forgive me if I don't take what "many people still believe" as sufficient evidence for any proposition other than one about what some people believe.

However, that was not my point. My point is that because people believe it is theft, it grows in acceptance. Eventually, theft comes to be applied in situations where it was never intended to be applied. It would seem valuable to try to differentiate terms. Otherwise, the broader definition will eventually stick.

I said: This guy, a known murderer, never went to trial, was never convicted, and was released due to a loophole in the law.

You said: But not a loophole in the definition of murder, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Furthermore, your phrase "a known murderer" presumes guilt even though guilt was never established at trial; thus your argument is begging the question, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

Known because he confessed. The forensic evidence backed up his statements. There was never a question of his guilt. The problem was the French could not try him under their laws. They handed the problem off to the Japanese, who then found they did not have standing to try him. He murdered. He got away with it. Are you trying to tell me that is not a loophole in the law?

Stephen Kinsella said: People with less money to spend on overpriced albums, for that matter, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. As for the decline, the cause is that the recording industry is finally beginning to accept the market force correction on pricing. It's services like Spotify and Netflix that charge flat, and realistic, rates for access to a large library that are displacing infringement, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]; also, there would have been an initial surge in infringement as people sought to acquire back-catalog material, dropping once they only seek to get new releases, similarly to the initial surge in sales with a new format like CD or Blu-ray that then drops off.

I said: All you are doing is saying that people are, regardless of the reason, respecting intellectual monopolies more, Stephen.

You said: And no evidence has been posted that people are "respecting intellectual monopolies more", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. One may continue to disrespect intellectual monopolies (with numerous valid reasons, such as the multiple ongoing attempts by the United States government at blatantly censoring the Internet using copyright as the excuse) and still prefer Spotify and Netflix to BitTorrent, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]; for many, the former are more convenient, are more reliable, produce results of higher and more consistent quality, and expose them to less legal risk (whatever they may think of the validity of the laws in question), and that may well make those services worth the price to them, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

So, philosophically people may not be respecting intellectual monopolies more, but practically speaking, they are.

Stephen Kinsella said: Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? I wrote that, not some "Stephen Kinsella", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]. Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]?

I said: What does your extraneous and irrelevant non sequitur comment have to do with monopoly, Stephen?

You said: Who is "Stephen", [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Avoiding the use of your name may be indicative of a personality disorder. Have you seen a doctor about that?

I said: Secret data was stolen from GNR and Axl Rose specifically.

You said: What does your classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim have to do with monopoly, [erroneous ad hominem deleted]? Intangible, pure information cannot be stolen, [erroneous ad hominem deleted].

I have substantiated my claim with multiple data sources. However, that is also my opinion.

You said: Regardless, intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Very strange. First, you claim intellectual monopolies are evil, but then you say that you never said trademarks were evil. So, which is it? Are trademarks evil or not? Make up your mind.

I consider personal and private information to be my property. If someone makes a copy of that information against my wishes, I consider that stealing. For these reasons, I consider the taking of a copy of the information on Axl Rose's computer to be theft.

People who insist it is okay to take personal and private information from another individual are evil.

End of story.

Alonniemouse wrote a huge volume of irrelevant, largely erroneous drivel laced with misattributions and ad hominems in an attempt to distract from the fact that intellectual monopolies are evil and nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Stephen Kinsella/Beeswax wrote a small paragraph of complete nonsense that does nothing to address any of my valid criticisms in attempt to distract from the fact that his comments were full of error and that he has yet to prove intellectual property is evil. On the other hand, my comment regarding the theft of secret information from Axl Rose and GNR is fully supported. End of story.

Alonniemouse wrote:

Stephen Kinsella/Beeswax wrote a small paragraph of complete nonsense that does nothing to address any of my valid criticisms in attempt to distract from the fact that his comments were full of error and that he has yet to prove intellectual property is evil.

Who is "Stephen Kinsella/Beeswax", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

On the other hand, my comment regarding the theft of secret information from Axl Rose and GNR is fully supported. End of story.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Anosywax wrote:

I said: Stephen Kinsella/Beeswax wrote a small paragraph of complete nonsense that does nothing to address any of my valid criticisms in attempt to distract from the fact that his comments were full of error and that he has yet to prove intellectual property is evil.

You said: Who is "Stephen Kinsella/Beeswax", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Just because you are not using your name is no reason to avoid the issues, Stephen.

I said: On the other hand, my comment regarding the theft of secret information from Axl Rose and GNR is fully supported. End of story.

You said: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.

Classic diversionary and irrelevant claim that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Secret information was stolen from Axl Rose and from GNR. End of story.

Anosywax wrote:

Who is "Anosywax", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Just because you are not using your name is no reason to avoid the issues, Stephen.

Who is "Stephen", Lonnie? There is nobody in this article's comments using that alias.

Classic diversionary and irrelevant claim that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I know your post was a classic diversionary and irrelevant claim, Lonnie. No need to tell me about it.

Secret information was stolen from Axl Rose and from GNR. End of story.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. Intellectual monopolies are evil. Nothing was stolen from GNR or from any member of GNR. End of story.