• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

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

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.49/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 Extreme @ 3.0 GHz
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula
Cooling ZeroTherm Nirvana NV120 Premium
Memory 8GB (4 x 2GB) Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
Video Card(s) 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD6970
Storage 2 x Seagate Barracuda 320GB in RAID 0
Display(s) Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD (2560 x 1600)
Case Thermaltake Armor w/ 250mm Side Fan
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX 8ch Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750W Modular
Software Win8 Pro x64 / Cat 12.10
#51
We are already past that and we are beating this dead horse
Unfortunately the US court systems and patent offices were wholly unprepared for the onslaught of digital litigation as the laws in existance were not sufficient to cover this type of media.

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

trickson

OH, I have such a headache
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
6,486 (1.36/day)
Likes
927
Location
Planet Earth.
Processor Q9650
Motherboard Gigabyte.
Cooling air.
Memory 4gb kingston
Video Card(s) hd 5870
Software win7 64 bit
#52
Unfortunately the US court systems and patent offices were wholly unprepared for the onslaught of digital litigation as the laws in existance were not sufficient to cover this type of media.

Until they get something in place that covers all of the things that would be considered nebulous in the current laws, I feel that the poor dead horse is going to be pummeled into oblivion in discussions such as these.
Horse hamburger with pink slime! MMMMMMM so good!
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
391 (0.19/day)
Likes
90
Location
USA
#53
You know it is funny that in the United States of America's you're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Sad things don't seem to work that way anymor and that companies value profits over ethics and aiding humanity as a whole.
And while I know a business is a business, it is still run by men, although the illusion of power corrupts, and I can't say with any level of certainty that had I grown up as they had, and achieved such as level of financial success that I would act differently.
Which is one of the main issues with the copyright and patent system, while it does cause people to make new things and pay those who create, it has become such a system that rewards greed and reduces quality, pushing for profits instead of simply for the sake of others, innovation, and creativity.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
5,026 (1.57/day)
Likes
1,271
Processor Intel Core i7
Motherboard MSI P67
Cooling Cooler Master
Memory Kingston
Video Card(s) temporarily Palit (formerly Inno 3D)
Storage Seagate
Display(s) Acer 23"
Case Thermaltake
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply FSP 700W
Software Windows 7
#54
A "right" is something guaranteed to you by a Constitution or a bill of rights.

:wtf:

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

What he agreed to is he can post anything Youtube deems acceptable and at anytime can remove if they feel like it.
So you're insisting that that's what it actually means..?

Its like planting a tree in someones yard. They don't mind but reserve the right to dig it up at anytime for any reason...why? Because they own the yard.
Well you still have the right to plant the tree in someone's yard, so I don't see how it connects to the youtube issue. :laugh:

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


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

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.49/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 Extreme @ 3.0 GHz
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula
Cooling ZeroTherm Nirvana NV120 Premium
Memory 8GB (4 x 2GB) Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
Video Card(s) 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD6970
Storage 2 x Seagate Barracuda 320GB in RAID 0
Display(s) Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD (2560 x 1600)
Case Thermaltake Armor w/ 250mm Side Fan
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX 8ch Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750W Modular
Software Win8 Pro x64 / Cat 12.10
#55
The analogies are awful lol

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

That being said, if you want to come plant trees in my yard it's okay with me. I'll even supply the beer. :)
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
9,947 (2.25/day)
Likes
2,309
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
#56
If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.
 
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
22,400 (5.82/day)
Likes
8,922
Location
'Merica. The Great SOUTH!
System Name The Mailbox 4.5
Processor Intel i7 2600k @ 4.2GHz
Motherboard Gigabyte Z77X-UP5 TH Intel LGA 1155
Cooling Scythe Katana 4
Memory G.SKILL Sniper Series 16GB DDR3 1866: 9-9-9-24
Video Card(s) MSI 1080 "Duke" with 8Gb of RAM. Boost Clock 1847 MHz
Storage 256Gb M4 SSD, 500Gb WD (7200) 128Gb Agelity 4 SSD
Display(s) LG 29" Class 21:9 UltraWide® IPS LED Monitor 2560 x 1080
Case Cooler Master 922 HAF
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX X-Fi with Bose Companion 2 speakers.
Power Supply SeaSonic X Series X650 Gold
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei (RAW) and a Wacom Intuos 4 tablet.
Keyboard Razer BlackWidow
Software Windows 10 Pro (64-bit)
Benchmark Scores Benching is for bitches.
#57
You have a disturbing idea about laws and rights.


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

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


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



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

Again, this has NOTHING to do with youtube other than they were the content delivery and storage, and everything to do with my fair use rights. If the video they had removed had truly been in violation they could have sued me for copyright infringement, however they didn't. They are just using scare tactics and a blanket method to try and control the masses.
You have a right to do whatever you want with YOUR OWN PROPERTY. Youtube is not your property. Youtube is responsible for whatever video you upload that might violate copyright once they are informed it is in violation. If the owner of a song came along and said "Steevo is using our music illegally" then Youtube has to take it down. You never had a "right" to put it there to begin with and Youtube has every right to take it down to keep from getting sued. Would you rather Youtube keep it up and in case you were wrong take the full blame for illegally distributing copyrighted material? That doesn't make any sense man. You would do the EXACT SAME THING if you were in Youtubes shoes.

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

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

trickson

OH, I have such a headache
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
6,486 (1.36/day)
Likes
927
Location
Planet Earth.
Processor Q9650
Motherboard Gigabyte.
Cooling air.
Memory 4gb kingston
Video Card(s) hd 5870
Software win7 64 bit
#58
If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.
Well this is not trees, This is about code. Code is not intellectual property, It i written and can not be stolen. I think they got blind sided. If they would have said plagiarized then it might have been held up as intellectual property. But they went down a different path with it and this is what the court ruled on. Code is Code. every thing I just typed is coded. And there for can not be viewed as stolen or copyrighted material.
 

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.49/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 Extreme @ 3.0 GHz
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula
Cooling ZeroTherm Nirvana NV120 Premium
Memory 8GB (4 x 2GB) Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
Video Card(s) 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD6970
Storage 2 x Seagate Barracuda 320GB in RAID 0
Display(s) Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD (2560 x 1600)
Case Thermaltake Armor w/ 250mm Side Fan
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX 8ch Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750W Modular
Software Win8 Pro x64 / Cat 12.10
#59
uninvited by the landowner
If someone is removing YT videos (and it's not YT) then one would have to assume they were invited (given the ability) by YT to do so, no?
 

trickson

OH, I have such a headache
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
6,486 (1.36/day)
Likes
927
Location
Planet Earth.
Processor Q9650
Motherboard Gigabyte.
Cooling air.
Memory 4gb kingston
Video Card(s) hd 5870
Software win7 64 bit
#60
If we were to liken this to planting a tree, it would be like us being invited to plant trees in a privately owned area, by the owner. We could plant any type of tree we wanted. However there are certain trees that are fully and wholly owned by numerous companies, and while we can use parts of the tree, we cannot use or plant the whole tree.


This company new is following us around and removing our trees, uninvited by the landowner, as they bear too much semblance to their trees, and it is up to us to prove they do not.
There is a way around this. Build your own fence on your own property and plant your trees there. Or in this case your own video upload site. See that would fix your problem.
 

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#61
This is a direct violation of our rights in the US, irregardless of what website, media, or content delivery method. What you are suggesting is we allow companies to treat us first as criminals, and customers with rights come second.
In a private website you have no rights, period. The word you are looking for is privilege, you have the privilege of posting on their website. Just like you have the privilege of posting here on TPU. At any time, your privileges can be revoked and you can be stopped from posting completely. This applies here, youtube, or any other website that you don't personally own. If you don't think that is true, ask any one of the poeple that have been banned from posting on this site. A right can't be taken away in this manner, it is always there. People need to learn the difference between a right and privilege.

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

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

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

If someone is removing YT videos (and it's not YT) then one would have to assume they were invited (given the ability) by YT to do so, no?
Just like you and the other mods here delete posts here on TPU even though you don't own the site. 3rd parties can be given the right to manage content. You are given permission to manage content for W1z on behalf of W1z.
 
Last edited:

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.49/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 Extreme @ 3.0 GHz
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula
Cooling ZeroTherm Nirvana NV120 Premium
Memory 8GB (4 x 2GB) Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
Video Card(s) 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD6970
Storage 2 x Seagate Barracuda 320GB in RAID 0
Display(s) Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD (2560 x 1600)
Case Thermaltake Armor w/ 250mm Side Fan
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX 8ch Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750W Modular
Software Win8 Pro x64 / Cat 12.10
#62
This is about code. Code is not intellectual property
Code is definitely intellectial property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

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

trickson

OH, I have such a headache
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
6,486 (1.36/day)
Likes
927
Location
Planet Earth.
Processor Q9650
Motherboard Gigabyte.
Cooling air.
Memory 4gb kingston
Video Card(s) hd 5870
Software win7 64 bit
#63
Code is definitely intellectual property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use. :cool:
Well not all code is intellectual property. Like for instance every time I hit the key to make the letters I am typing are not intellectual property. Every letter has a "code" for that key ( Right?) so how can a letter be held as intellectual property? And how can it be perceived as stolen? But yes CODE a written program is intellectual property protected under copyright laws. So the court ruled that the transfer from one medium to another is not stolen! So one could take a program written on a floppy disk and transfer it to a CD and it is not stolen.
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2005
Messages
9,947 (2.25/day)
Likes
2,309
System Name MoFo 2
Processor AMD PhenomII 1100T @ 4.2Ghz
Motherboard Asus Crosshair IV
Cooling Swiftec 655 pump, Apogee GT,, MCR360mm Rad, 1/2 loop.
Memory 8GB DDR3-2133 @ 1900 8.9.9.24 1T
Video Card(s) HD7970 1250/1750
Storage Agility 3 SSD 6TB RAID 0 on RAID Card
Display(s) 46" 1080P Toshiba LCD
Case Rosewill R6A34-BK modded (thanks to MKmods)
Audio Device(s) ATI HDMI
Power Supply 750W PC Power & Cooling modded (thanks to MKmods)
Software A lot.
Benchmark Scores Its fast. Enough.
#64
Code is definitely intellectial property (it is ethereal (a product of imagination) but can be expressed on a medium), it's just that copying it does not fit the traditional definition of stolen (removed from possession of original owner) which is what the court ruled on.

So is anyone coming over to plant trees? I have a bobcat we can use. :cool:
I need to make a trip to the nursery on piccadilly, I killed our smoke tree, by accident of course, and am going to replace it with a peach, or pear tree. If have to water and prune them I might as well get benefit from them.

Going tomorrow.


I use one of our Case skid steers from work, get to use it when I need it. And sometimes at work when I don't want to.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
5,026 (1.57/day)
Likes
1,271
Processor Intel Core i7
Motherboard MSI P67
Cooling Cooler Master
Memory Kingston
Video Card(s) temporarily Palit (formerly Inno 3D)
Storage Seagate
Display(s) Acer 23"
Case Thermaltake
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply FSP 700W
Software Windows 7
#65
No, you do not have the right to plant a tree in my yard. You don't even have the right to enter my yard if I post a "no tresspassing" sign and I have the right to confront you at gunpoint if I feel the situation requires it (percieved threat). If you get physical becuase you are mad I won't let you plant a tree I have the right to shoot you (WI's castle doctrine law).
Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.


I can kick you off my property before or even after you plant the tree, and your tree is gone.
Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

I can prevent your from even coming on my property at any time.
Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.

And after I tell you to stay off my property, if you come back, I can have you arrested, in some places I can even shoot your ass if you step foot on my property after being told not to.
Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard. You are not depriving someone of his right to plant a tree on your yard. Rather you are enforcing your own right over your own property instead. You are preventing someone from using his right, but you are not depriving him of that right, and following that logical reasoning even further, that doesn't mean that someone suddenly has no right to do so. Preventing something from happening doesn't mean that something would no longer exist.


However, those don't really apply here, youtube is maintaining their site, and you know that they own the site.
They own the site but youtube does not exclusively maintain their site.
 
Last edited:

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.49/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 Extreme @ 3.0 GHz
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula
Cooling ZeroTherm Nirvana NV120 Premium
Memory 8GB (4 x 2GB) Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
Video Card(s) 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD6970
Storage 2 x Seagate Barracuda 320GB in RAID 0
Display(s) Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD (2560 x 1600)
Case Thermaltake Armor w/ 250mm Side Fan
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX 8ch Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750W Modular
Software Win8 Pro x64 / Cat 12.10
#66
Lol ... I agree trickson. What I actually meant when I said "code" was ..
"A collection of bits varying in value between one and zero which when combined in a specific manner perform a particular function or display a particular visual representation upon a medium which is comaptible with the order and combinations of said bits."

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

trickson

OH, I have such a headache
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
6,486 (1.36/day)
Likes
927
Location
Planet Earth.
Processor Q9650
Motherboard Gigabyte.
Cooling air.
Memory 4gb kingston
Video Card(s) hd 5870
Software win7 64 bit
#67
Lol ... I agree trickson. What I actually meant when I said "code" was ..
"A collection of bits varying in value between one and zero which when combined in a specific manner perform a particular function or display a particular visual representation upon a medium which is comaptible with the order and combinations of said bits."

Now don't "steal" my above line of codes. :laugh:
1110000111010111100000110101111001010001110011001100000001111111 :roll:
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
71 (0.03/day)
Likes
11
Location
Internet
Processor Core i7 8700K @4.7
Motherboard MSI Z370 GAMING PRO CARBON AC
Cooling Thermalright HR-02 Macho Rev. B
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX Black 16GB DDR4 3200MHz CL16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1070 Armor OC
Storage 960 EVO 500GB(boot) + Mx300 1T + Barracuda 3TB
Display(s) Acer Predator XB1 XB271HB G-Sync 144hz + AOC e2752Vq
Case Fractal Design Define R5 Blackout Edition
Power Supply Corsair AX760
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Spectrum RGB
Keyboard Logitech G610 Orion - Cherry MX Brown
Software Win10pro x64
#68
>out of popcorn<

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.
I think you mean the right to plant a tree period. But not the right to do something with my property.

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

Kreij

Senior Monkey Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
13,817 (3.49/day)
Likes
5,524
Location
Cheeseland (Wisconsin, USA)
Processor Intel Core 2 Quad QX9650 Extreme @ 3.0 GHz
Motherboard Asus Rampage Formula
Cooling ZeroTherm Nirvana NV120 Premium
Memory 8GB (4 x 2GB) Corsair Dominator PC2-8500
Video Card(s) 2 x Sapphire Radeon HD6970
Storage 2 x Seagate Barracuda 320GB in RAID 0
Display(s) Dell 3007WFP 30" LCD (2560 x 1600)
Case Thermaltake Armor w/ 250mm Side Fan
Audio Device(s) SupremeFX 8ch Audio
Power Supply Thermaltake Toughpower 750W Modular
Software Win8 Pro x64 / Cat 12.10
#69
I need to make a trip to the nursery on piccadilly, I killed our smoke tree, by accident of course, and am going to replace it with a peach, or pear tree.
You should get another smoke tree too. When ours died for some unknown reason I planted another. They are quite the beautiful tree and I would like to plant a row of them on our property somewhere. When viewed from a distance at the right time of year, they indeed give you the impression they are surrounded by smoke.

Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.
This is just arguing semantics. Of course there are superceeding laws as it would impossible (and absurd to attempt) to write laws for any action someone could imagine.
When you come over to plant a tree in my yard you must perform two actions.
1) Enter my yard.
2) Plant a tree.
By the fact your first action violates a law you have no right to perform the second action.
Most parks are considered municipally owned, public property, but you have no right to dig a hole and plant a tree there either, even though your taxes are used to maintain it.

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

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#70
Anyone has the right to plant a tree in your yard. It just so happens you can also enforce your own rights as property owner and disallow people from doing so, but that doesn't mean that preventing people from planting a tree in your yard automatically means they do not have the "right." In the case you presented, what happens is that your right to stop people from entering your property is in a "superior" position over someone planting a tree on your yard. But once again, that doesn't automatically mean that someone has NO right simply because you have the right to prevent that someone from planting a tree on your yard.

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


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

Which doesn't automatically mean someone doesn't have the right to plant a tree in your yard.
And exactly how will they be planting a tree on my property if they can't get on it? Explain that to me?

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

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

They own the site but youtube does not exclusively maintain their site.
You point? They ensure the site is maintained. I own a large plot of land, I don't go out and mow it myself every week, I have a service that does that for me that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights over the property.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
5,026 (1.57/day)
Likes
1,271
Processor Intel Core i7
Motherboard MSI P67
Cooling Cooler Master
Memory Kingston
Video Card(s) temporarily Palit (formerly Inno 3D)
Storage Seagate
Display(s) Acer 23"
Case Thermaltake
Audio Device(s) onboard
Power Supply FSP 700W
Software Windows 7
#73
Look up what a right is, because I don't think it means what you think it means. If planting a tree on someone else property was a right, you could do it even if the property owner didn't want you to. Planting a tree on your own property is a right, because no one can stop you, planting a tree on my property is not a right because someone(me) can stop you.
Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all?

And exactly how will they be planting a tree on my property if they can't get on it? Explain that to me?
Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.

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

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

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

You point? They ensure the site is maintained. I own a large plot of land, I don't go out and mow it myself every week, I have a service that does that for me that doesn't mean I forfeit my rights over the property.
Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.
 
Last edited:

newtekie1

Semi-Retired Folder
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
24,277 (5.51/day)
Likes
10,367
Location
Indiana, USA
Processor Intel Core i7 4790K@4.6GHz
Motherboard AsRock Z97 Extreme6
Cooling Corsair H100i
Memory 32GB Corsair DDR3-1866 9-10-9-27
Video Card(s) ASUS GTX960 STRIX @ 1500/1900
Storage 480GB Crucial MX200 + 2TB Seagate Solid State Hybrid Drive with 128GB OCZ Synapse SSD Cache
Display(s) QNIX QX2710 1440p@120Hz
Case Corsair 650D Black
Audio Device(s) Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply Corsair HX850
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
#74
Why don't YOU look up what a right is? Are you seriously suggesting that you can only have a right if "no one can stop you"? I have the right to life, but someone can actually stop me from living, for very obvious reasons, and because someone "can stop" me in exercising that right, my right to life is actually not a right at all?
The difference is that if I kill you, stopping your right to live, I'd be violating your right, and I would be in the wrong(that is why I'd go to jail). If I stop you from planting a tree on my property I would not be violating your right, and I wouldn't be in the wrong(that is why I wouldn't go to jail). See the difference?

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

Having a right doesn't necessarily mean you can always exercise it, as I have already stated in my earlier posts. Your prevention of the exercise of that right is merely through your own exercise of your own rights, and not because you "removed" the right to plant a tree, or the right does not exist.
Actually, yes, by definition a right is something that can always be exercised. Again, I urge you to look it up. However, rights can be violated as I explained above, they can also be forfeited(for example, criminals that have been found guilty forfeit certain rights).

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

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

Although "depriving" someone of his right is also typically through illegal or unlawful practices (as killing someone is typically that; unless during a war, and both are combatants, for example)... That's why instead of using that term, in your case, you just enforced your own right, which leads to the inability of the other person's enforcement of his right.
Actually, yes you can say that something isn't a right to begin with. To begin with, nothing is a right that violates the rights of someone else. That is a basic concept of rights. That is why generally shooting someone in the face is wrong, because you are violating someone else's right. If planting a tree on my property was a right, me stopping you would be illegal.

Which is YOUR case. Considering that Universal can delete videos even though there is no infringing content makes Youtube actually different to the situation you presented. And we should really stop with this very bad analogy that TMM made up. Real Property Laws are quite well-defined, and to be honest can be considered in existence ever since civilization began. Unlike Intellectual Property which are just recent developments, and quite obviously unable to match technological progress.
Sort of. A better example would be print or broadcast media. Generally, freedom of speech is a right. However, newspapers and TV channels don't have to let every whackjob that wants to say something do so in their mediums. Someone can't walk into the Time's building and demand the Time's print their crazy false story. However, nothing stops that person from making their own newspaper and printing their story in their own paper.
 

HammerON

The Watchful Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
7,434 (2.32/day)
Likes
4,740
Location
Up North
System Name Cruncher / Cruncher 2
Processor i7 6900K / E5 2683 v3
Motherboard X99A Gaming Pro Carbon / ASRock X99 Extreme 4/3.1
Cooling EK Supremacy EVO Elite 2011-3 / EK Supremacy
Memory G.Skill Trident Z 32GB 3200 / G.SKILL Trident Z 16GB 3200
Video Card(s) EVGA 980 Ti Classified / ATI 3650
Storage Samsung 960 Pro 512 GB + Mushkin Reactor 1 TB / OCZ Vertex 4 256 GB
Display(s) Dell UltraSharp U3011 30"
Case Corsair Obsidian 800D / TT Core V51
Audio Device(s) On-board
Power Supply Corsair AX1200 / EVGA 500W
Software Win 10 Pro/ Win 10
Benchmark Scores Always changing~
#75
Now this has been a funny thread to read:slap: