kuri wrote:
> "Kevin Wayne Williams" <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote in message
> 
> 
>>It's technically closer to tresspass,
> 
> 
> And ? It's universally illegal to trespass ? Why would that be ?
> In my country, in many cases, it's still illegal to enclose and prevent
> people from trespassing. In the UK too, ask Madonna.
> It's illegal to close the access to the sea to people under the pretext you
> consider you *own* it, big rich pricks have had to destroy their tacky
> villas on the riviera. The list makes 10 000 pages.
> 
> 
>>but the differences are too subtle
>>for Kuri to understand, so I dumbed it down for him.
> 
> 
> You're dumber than me as you perceive only 2 colors : black and white, theft
> and property.
Sorry: the correlation between low intelligence and criminal behaviour 
is well established. I simply made an assumption.
> 
> 
>>What practical difference do you see that is so damnably important,
>>anyway? The infringer is unjustly enriched, and the infringee is
>>unjustly deprived of income.
> 
> 
> Your infringee is justly deprived of an injust income.
And you get to decide what is "just income" and "injust [sic] income"?
> 
> Maybe you could read a high school level (primary school level) book about
> the definition of property and the source of it.
> You are really limitated if you cannot get there is not one clear cut
> definition. 
I know that there are multiple definitions. The key is that your 
definition doesn't matter. It isn't recognised by any legal authority.

There are guys that say that property is the land that God gave
> them (Israeli definition), those that say it's the land you were the first
> white guy to enclose (American definition, cf most of the US), those that
> say it belong to the first inhabitants, those say it's the land your bum is
> sitting one (American definition too...), those that say the land belong to
> everybody (used to be 90% of the culture of the world)....and many position
> in between.
> 
> About intellectual property, I won't even start. That's not at your level.
I dealt with intellectual property rights for years. That's why I am 
sensitive to them, and won't tresspass on them.
> 
> I understand it's hard for you to get that *property* exist only as a
> tolerance by the society, that it is evolutive and laws are also evolutive.
Sure, laws evolve. Maybe, 10 years from now, downloading everything in 
sight will be legal, and people will have a way to compensate the 
creators. Until then, you are being a criminal.

KWW