Is piracy considered an act of theft?
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Fine, all laws across the world are totally black and white with no grey areas...now where did I park my unicorn.
Well I will have internet until Wednesday according to Comcast. After that I won't have it for a couple of months so I'm going to try and partake in the site as much as possible before Wednesday.
Grey Wolf
Now do you understand the saying:
"The law is black and white, human interpretation makes it grey."
Your previous post shows exactly what it means and does so better than what I was doing. That was black and white and straight forward, but misreading it (human interpretation) made it grey to you.
Grey Wolf
Now do you understand the saying:
"The law is black and white, human interpretation makes it grey."
Your previous post shows exactly what it means and does so better than what I was doing. That was black and white and straight forward, but misreading it (human interpretation) made it grey to you.
@ BHX: How old are you again?
@ Grey Wolf: My question about the double talk was sincere. I live pretty close to the border with Canada and just reading the way they write some of the stuff up there makes me feel like a mental defect. I expected a similar story with the UK. That first underline was an impossibly dangerous premise all on it's own since it means, to me at least, that a law regarding registration of any people who "collect data" which is already on the books can now be said to include anything they want. That was almost a fine example because it was a law written specifically to be misinterpreted. I just didn't see how the rest of it fit in. I can go full on 'Murican and rant about laws that are ignored over here because they were written by complete idiots, but I guarantee that it would only end up hijacking this thread. Those kinds of laws are the reason I started to side with BHX that is until he started posting again... Now I really don't know where he's going with this.
@ Grey Wolf: My question about the double talk was sincere. I live pretty close to the border with Canada and just reading the way they write some of the stuff up there makes me feel like a mental defect. I expected a similar story with the UK. That first underline was an impossibly dangerous premise all on it's own since it means, to me at least, that a law regarding registration of any people who "collect data" which is already on the books can now be said to include anything they want. That was almost a fine example because it was a law written specifically to be misinterpreted. I just didn't see how the rest of it fit in. I can go full on 'Murican and rant about laws that are ignored over here because they were written by complete idiots, but I guarantee that it would only end up hijacking this thread. Those kinds of laws are the reason I started to side with BHX that is until he started posting again... Now I really don't know where he's going with this.
| Computergeek01 wrote: |
|---|
| Those kinds of laws are the reason I started to side with BHX that is until he started posting again... Now I really don't know where he's going with this. |
I'm going the same place I was to begin with. Grey Wolf said he couldn't see how law could be black and white but interpreted grey. He just showed one way it can be black and white and interpreted grey with his post about the Data Protection Act in the UK. We covered how it is in terms of lawyers and judges, but for an everyday person he answered his own question of how the law can be black and white, but be misinterpreted (through simple human error of misreading it or misunderstanding what the law is saying).
closed account (z05DSL3A)
BHX,
My view: As you said it's a saying not a statement of fact. It is meant to convey the idea that the law is not wrong but also not totalitarian. Or to put it another way; the law is not open to interpretation but how you prosecute the law is.
So if you have a law that says the maximum speed limit on a motorway is 70 mph. The human factor can give a valid argument about the reasonable expectation of the accuracy of a cars speedometer and the accuracy and calibration of a radar gun used to detect a speeding car. This brings in the greyness of lets say 70-77 mph where you may be braking the law but genuinely think you are not.
To a degree, I agree with this saying but it is also not what I was saying originally.
---==#EDIT#==----------------------------------------
I believe that I said "I can not see how something can be Black and White but still be open to interpretation."
But any how, In a previous post[3] you used phrases such as "that causes no confusion" and "says very clearly" in describing 'black and white'. As that section of the act does not say very clearly and did cause confusion* it does not meet my criteria and apparently yours, unless you are going to change your definition, for being black and white.
In terms of its meaning, once you determine what it is, it is not open for interpretation.
* I made the mistake of only reading through it once , not the two or three times that I normal do when reading UK statutes.
------------------------------------------------------------
My original point was that all laws are not universal and they are not black and white. I gave my definition of Law and Black and White.[1]
"Grey areas of the law" came up somewhere along the line and I gave my definition[2].
So at this point I see three different topics going on, I think others are seeing it as the same.
Computergeek01,
Sorry I don't see a question involving double talk. What I will say is that double talk is a case of not being black and white. I have had to work with a certain area of law across three different countries, to make sure the product we supply into those countries meet the regulations. Two of those countries, the law is very clear cut easy to read and quite black and white. The UK on the other hand is not, it is the legal equivalent of obfuscated spaghetti code.
Another aspect of a law being black and white or not would be along the lines of boolean logic verses fuzzy logic. The UK has a law that, paraphrasing, you can use reasonable force in defending yourself or your property. What level of force is reasonable is determined after the fact, so this is fuzzy not black and white.
_______________________________________________________
[1] http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/138157/3/#msg733159
[2] http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/138157/3/#msg733412
[3] http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/138157/3/#msg733584
| Now do you understand the saying: "The law is black and white, human interpretation makes it grey." |
My view: As you said it's a saying not a statement of fact. It is meant to convey the idea that the law is not wrong but also not totalitarian. Or to put it another way; the law is not open to interpretation but how you prosecute the law is.
So if you have a law that says the maximum speed limit on a motorway is 70 mph. The human factor can give a valid argument about the reasonable expectation of the accuracy of a cars speedometer and the accuracy and calibration of a radar gun used to detect a speeding car. This brings in the greyness of lets say 70-77 mph where you may be braking the law but genuinely think you are not.
To a degree, I agree with this saying but it is also not what I was saying originally.
---==#EDIT#==----------------------------------------
| BHX wrote: |
|---|
| Grey Wolf said he couldn't see how law could be black and white but interpreted grey. He just showed one way it can be black and white and interpreted grey with his post about the Data Protection Act in the UK. We covered how it is in terms of lawyers and judges, but for an everyday person he answered his own question of how the law can be black and white, but be misinterpreted (through simple human error of misreading it or misunderstanding what the law is saying). |
But any how, In a previous post[3] you used phrases such as "that causes no confusion" and "says very clearly" in describing 'black and white'. As that section of the act does not say very clearly and did cause confusion* it does not meet my criteria and apparently yours, unless you are going to change your definition, for being black and white.
In terms of its meaning, once you determine what it is, it is not open for interpretation.
* I made the mistake of only reading through it once , not the two or three times that I normal do when reading UK statutes.
------------------------------------------------------------
---==#==---
My original point was that all laws are not universal and they are not black and white. I gave my definition of Law and Black and White.[1]
"Grey areas of the law" came up somewhere along the line and I gave my definition[2].
So at this point I see three different topics going on, I think others are seeing it as the same.
---==#==---
Computergeek01,
Sorry I don't see a question involving double talk. What I will say is that double talk is a case of not being black and white. I have had to work with a certain area of law across three different countries, to make sure the product we supply into those countries meet the regulations. Two of those countries, the law is very clear cut easy to read and quite black and white. The UK on the other hand is not, it is the legal equivalent of obfuscated spaghetti code.
Another aspect of a law being black and white or not would be along the lines of boolean logic verses fuzzy logic. The UK has a law that, paraphrasing, you can use reasonable force in defending yourself or your property. What level of force is reasonable is determined after the fact, so this is fuzzy not black and white.
_______________________________________________________
[1] http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/138157/3/#msg733159
[2] http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/138157/3/#msg733412
[3] http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/138157/3/#msg733584
Last edited on
I understand what BHX is saying, and he is right. But he is also wrong at the same time. It depends on how you interpret it. It's the same as the law. It's black in white, and also gray. There is a specific intention and based on measurable quantum. But people can come up with creative ways to measure in order to sway things in their favor; and if you have a large bank account and lots of layer-power, you can slant things pretty steeply. One critical aspect is that people can choose when they want to press charges, they can make deals, arbitrarily lessen the charges to barely anything in most cases if they like. If they choose to make an example of someone, or take down a competitor or enemy, they can throw everything at them with maximum consequences.
But whether you have broken the law or not should always be something you can be certain of. It should be completely unambiguous. How or whether to punish someone, or who to rule in favor of, is however all ultimately left up to choice.
And piracy is a perfect example. If you so much as download a single song illegally, you could theoretically be punished quite severely according to the law, but if they started punishing everyone to the maximum extent of the law, the people would rise against them, plus they have a limited budget; they can't prosecute everyone because they don't have the funds. They just try to keep the most damaging people at bay, protect as much profit as they reasonably can, and make examples of people here and there.
But whether you have broken the law or not should always be something you can be certain of. It should be completely unambiguous. How or whether to punish someone, or who to rule in favor of, is however all ultimately left up to choice.
And piracy is a perfect example. If you so much as download a single song illegally, you could theoretically be punished quite severely according to the law, but if they started punishing everyone to the maximum extent of the law, the people would rise against them, plus they have a limited budget; they can't prosecute everyone because they don't have the funds. They just try to keep the most damaging people at bay, protect as much profit as they reasonably can, and make examples of people here and there.
Well, I'll give up on arguing it especially after talking to both my former teacher and an old friend who is a lawyer in his father's law office.
My former teacher said
"This is a lost cause debate that has raged since my days in law school."
My friend simply said:
"To those in the legal profession it is black and white, but to those on the outside looking in it is grey. No matter how long you discuss it, as you have found out, it will always break down and become a circular discussion. Best to leave it alone."
So I'm going to follow their advice and leave this subject be. My past actions show I more than happily enjoy debates and honestly hate leaving one, but I feel they are right. Looking back at my previous posts I simply started restating the same point over and over with just different examples. I'm just glad this debate remained civil even with a certain member trying to provoke me into a childish altercation.
My former teacher said
"This is a lost cause debate that has raged since my days in law school."
My friend simply said:
"To those in the legal profession it is black and white, but to those on the outside looking in it is grey. No matter how long you discuss it, as you have found out, it will always break down and become a circular discussion. Best to leave it alone."
So I'm going to follow their advice and leave this subject be. My past actions show I more than happily enjoy debates and honestly hate leaving one, but I feel they are right. Looking back at my previous posts I simply started restating the same point over and over with just different examples. I'm just glad this debate remained civil even with a certain member trying to provoke me into a childish altercation.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.