Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Peter Mackay wrote:
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent is the same
crime as stealing a million.
I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make that claim.
Most criminal codes will identify the crime of theft (or larceny) without discrimination as to amount: Theft is "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Theft_in_English_law
To define theft as a concept doesn't require any statement as to the amount or value of the property stolen. Nevertheless, at least in the United States, most jurisdictions classify theft in different degrees of seriousness, generally tied to the dollar amount involved. The standard sentences that accompany these degrees of theft increase along with the minimum dollar amount, which is effectively an element of the crime.
--Michael Snow
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Snow
Peter Mackay wrote:
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Delirium
Peter Mackay wrote:
It's morally wrong in any sort of degree. Stealing a cent
is the same
crime as stealing a million.
I would have to say there are precious few ethical systems that make that claim.
Most criminal codes will identify the crime of theft (or larceny) without discrimination as to amount: Theft is "...the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Theft_in_English_law
To define theft as a concept doesn't require any statement as to the amount or value of the property stolen. Nevertheless, at least in the United States, most jurisdictions classify theft in different degrees of seriousness, generally tied to the dollar amount involved. The standard sentences that accompany these degrees of theft increase along with the minimum dollar amount, which is effectively an element of the crime.
Fair enough. US criminal law is something of which I have no direct knowledge - and happy to keep it that way, thanks! - but I think we're splitting hairs and arguing fine points at this stage.
I don't think there's any great wrong being committed if you upload a picture of yourself onto your user page, even though it was taken by someone else. I think we can AGF enough to say that people doing so will only do it if they know that the partner/relative/friend/random person on the street who was the actual photographer isn't going to complain.
My concern is really that a lot of those uploading such images will have been telling small untruths by identifying themselves as the creator when they know very well that they didn't take the photograph. I don't think we should require Wikipedians to tell even small untruths and I think we need to work out the copyright situation.
My opinion is that fair use would cover it and we aren't likely to have any problems with this.
-- Peter in Canberra
Peter Mackay wrote:
Fair enough. US criminal law is something of which I have no direct knowledge - and happy to keep it that way, thanks! - but I think we're splitting hairs and arguing fine points at this stage.
Sorry, but I thought that that was why you started this thread in the first place.
Ec