tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post2192721882919503813..comments2024-03-18T17:17:00.423+13:00Comments on Not PC: In New Zealand it is not illegal to steal the fruit of other people's labourPeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-8290370190606178402017-03-14T00:36:15.276+13:002017-03-14T00:36:15.276+13:00*ping* ... still interested in any recommendations...*ping* ... still interested in any recommendations you have in this area Peter. Duncan Baynehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067439189657560427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-80316097820441985842017-02-23T01:30:13.648+13:002017-02-23T01:30:13.648+13:00Berend: I believe that the difference is that the ...Berend: I believe that the difference is that the aforementioned fat slug tailored his business specifically to cater to pirates, and did so quite consciously (hence the reference to shipping in his email). It's certainly a moral difference, even if the law makes no distinction.Duncan Baynehttps://duncan.bayne.id.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-16145374523106646352017-02-22T08:01:44.580+13:002017-02-22T08:01:44.580+13:00Every person commits an offence against this secti...Every person commits an offence against this section who, other than pursuant to a copyright licence … in the course of a business or otherwise, <b> sells or lets for hire; or distributes <i>otherwise than in the course of a business </i> … an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a copyright work</b>.<br /><br />" Otherwise than in the course of a business" the whole thing seems to be circumlocution . can Dotctrim go to Appeal /? paul scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15675247055484136242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-33022015928471290232017-02-21T15:09:27.847+13:002017-02-21T15:09:27.847+13:00Peter, do you have any recommended reading on the ...Peter, do you have any recommended reading on the topic of intellectual property, from an Objectivist perspective?<br /><br />I'm still a little hazy (and to be clear, see this as a failure of my own understanding) how:<br /><br />a) Patents work from an Objectivist position (i.e. actual ownership of an idea, with the use of force by the State against people who make use of that idea without your permission? Doesn't seem legitimate to me.)<br /><br />b) Unauthorized distribution of copies of content can constitute theft when the original is still in the hands of the owner, and fully functional. Violation of a civil contract, sure, and properly subject to a lawsuit could losses be proved objectively in court. But theft? I don't see it.Duncan Baynehttps://duncan.bayne.id.au/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-53050397334555504782017-02-21T14:39:53.404+13:002017-02-21T14:39:53.404+13:00Sorry Peter, I would get a brain scan.
You're...Sorry Peter, I would get a brain scan.<br /><br />You're claiming Telecom is guilty anytime transmits a pirated copy across its network?<br /><br />My businesses is guilty anytime uploads a pirated video to one of the servers I host??<br /><br />That's the only way I can make sense of your words, and I'm sure you know that is nonsense.Berend de Boerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11433622686361556089noreply@blogger.com