No, I talk in a considered and rational way, sticking to the facts as I read. You talk like the chav that you are with your own brand of added disingenuity and obsfucation; but I doubt the readers are fooled. In actuality, as you dig yourself deeper and deeper into your hole, they will be seeing you in all your horror.Harvey Williamson wrote:Talking through your ass as usual no public war was started until after he got his free legal version and after that he then banned me. He entered the tournament on the 6th December that gave him 2 weeks to ask Mark or Amir for a free copy before round 1. CB did not release until weeks after the tournament started.Chris Whittington wrote:the word thief and/or the word stealing is not appropriate for this situation. Possession is not enough. From wiki with acknowledgement of my laziness:BB+ wrote:I was wondering if we'd ever get around to this, if "truth comes by conflict", then perhaps we are getting somewhere...I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter.
From a criminal legal standpoint, I don't think "use" has anything to do with theft -- possession of said merchandise is already sufficient (especially with "cracked" software). About the best Cock could hope for is an ersatz "necessity" defence, e.g. "Your barn was on fire, so I herded your cows into mine" -- this is still legally "theft", though the criminal content is mitigated (the analogy here also seems rather strained to me). The second legal aspect is civil; for instance, I still have to return your cows in due time.[...] is being accused of being a thief (which he is in essence... he is using something that does not have a legal right to use).In the case of hand, this seemed to have been remedied by future events, though now the claim is that said resolution was not reached in good faith.
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y's scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the "owner" of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it.
There has to be *intent* to deprive the copyright owner on the part of the "thief". C de G's intent was to act for the benefit of the copyright owner.
Analogous situation: A and B go to a restaurant. A leaves for the airport and forgets his coat. B leaves, notices the coat and brings it with him, for he is also due to travel by air to see A again the next day. B is acting for and on behalf of A and in A's interests, even though A has not actually asked him to do so.
Junior was entered into CSS Masters, whether by the copyright holder or by someone else is not clear, but we can assume that C de G was supposed to be operating or facilitating Junior. There's no valid copy of Junior, so, rather than allow Junior to lose the first round, C de G, acting in the interests of the copyright owner, uses a copy, figuring that was the better of some bad alternatives, without intention to deprive anybody of anything, and with clear good intention. Not only does he cease using the copy when he receives the original but he subsequently informs an agent of the copyright holder what he has done.
In no way does this fall into the category of theft, because there was no intention to deprive, and a clear intention to be a good helper, followed by a full and voluntary declaration.
Oner can clearly see how offended C de G would be by comments variously described by HW as "appalled by his actions", "using a cracked version", "brought his office into disrepute", "steals a product I am involved in selling" in particular those in front of his wife and then subsequently made public by HW.
There was NO INTENT TO DEPRIVE on the part of C de G, and therefore no theft. False allegations of "stealing" and "theft" are libellous.
We can also assume from Ed's report of his conversation with C de G ......
"I heard a different story from Cock de Gorter. He said he told you on beforehand, one day before the tournament started while waiting for his free-copy from ChessBase. This during a dinner you had with Cock and his wife. And you went mad and misbehaved. Cock's wife upset.
Cock wanted to do Amir a favour, so he told you, honestly. Not expecting you to misbehave and then start a public war quoting private email and all of that."
..... that HW was oblivious to the "intent" condition, even when C de G made it clear that his intentions were good, that he used his judgement to act on behalf of the copyright holder, in the copyright holders interest.
Further, if Junior was entered by the copyright holder or his representative and C de G was given the task of operating, then C de G is acting as AGENT of the copyright holder or his representative and is even more justified in using his judgement in the copyright holder's interests.
If I were you I would be concerned that C de G and/or the CSVN have the opportunity for a sue for both libel and blackmail, the first on false charges of stealing (your word, used in public) and blackmail (as written out by you in further public detail). Idiot.
Of course intent must be present in any (criminal) case, but merely "good intentions" is not a panacea of guilt absolution, particularly if the owner is not agreeable that said intent was actually good. If you could imagine a counterfactual decision for Amir et al. to make in mid-November: