Pirates copies are actually inconvenient to get because of the difficulty in finding quality copies and nice download sites involved.(And there's also a tint of danger of downloading from shady sites) However, a cash strapped teenager have lot of time and can afford inconvenience.
This is not necessary true for adults who have lot of money and whom time is scarce. So they are willing to pay for convenience.
If a convenient music store wish to succeed in the marketplace, it might be willing to give incentive to musicians to gain access to more music libraries. Moreover, it could succeed by making their music libraries more available for download than your typical pirates source, which depend totally on the whim of uploaders and their unreliable upload capacity.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Stranger:They never went to the patent office for Avatar. The state wasn't involved at all.
Or ever for that matter, but my point was that getting the "IP" does not make you the legit owner or originator. If I made 90% of the movie avatar, but then dang it that wiley james cameron didn't sleep for a week and beat me to 100% he shouldn't get 100% ownership of the idea. But of course I don't buy into the falsehood that you could own an idea at all.
twistedbydsign99: Stranger:They never went to the patent office for Avatar. The state wasn't involved at all. Or ever for that matter, but my point was that getting the "IP" does not make you the legit owner or originator. If I made 90% of the movie avatar, but then dang it that wiley james cameron didn't sleep for a week and beat me to 100% he shouldn't get 100% ownership of the idea. But of course I don't buy into the falsehood that you could own an idea at all.
If you make 90% of the movie Avatar you can still release it and it won't violate any copyright. Unfortunately, it will also be worthless and you will have wasted your time and money.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Because although the story may be the same, Pocahontas wasn't in 3D, therefore, they are, at least, slightly different. The idea of 3d movies has been around for decades. You are still bullshitting us.
Daniel Muffinburg: Because although the story may be the same, Pocahontas wasn't in 3D, therefore, they are, at least, slightly different.
Because although the story may be the same, Pocahontas wasn't in 3D, therefore, they are, at least, slightly different.
The idea of 3d movies has been around for decades. You are still bullshitting us.
Non sequitur. Just because 3D and Pocahontas have existed for decades, doesn't mean that I had conceived of James Cameron's Avatar before he did.
Stranger:I'll settle this so you don't continue to play innocent.
What am I alleged to be guilty of?
Stranger:You did not make Avatar because Avatar is a good, and like all goods in a world of scarcity it must be produced. Simply having the idea of a good does not bring it to reality. To produce a good takes skill labor and capital, and you have neither of those, which is why you do not constantly release blockbuster films. However, you do feel that you are entitled to having goods for free. That idea, like all other ideas, is worthless.
I want proof of me ever making this claim. If cannot you provide proof, please retract your statement.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Stranger:If you make 90% of the movie Avatar you can still release it and it won't violate any copyright. Unfortunately, it will also be worthless and you will have wasted your time and money.
But... isn't one of the reasons for IP to encourage creation of IP? I gotta admit I would feel pretty discouraged. Also should I be murdered for copying james cameron?
Daniel Muffinburg:I want proof of me ever making this claim. If cannot you provide proof, please retract your statement.
I didn't say you claimed it, I said you feel it. That is why you question why information producers should be protected from you.
twistedbydsign99: Stranger:If you make 90% of the movie Avatar you can still release it and it won't violate any copyright. Unfortunately, it will also be worthless and you will have wasted your time and money. But... isn't one of the reasons for IP to encourage creation of IP? I gotta admit I would feel pretty discouraged. Also should I be murdered for copying james cameron?
As I said, you do not create Avatar because you do not have the talent and means to do so, not because IP law prevents you from doing so. In fact IP law encourages you to do so by protecting your creation and allowing you to reap the full benefits of it.
Avatar truly is the avatar of capitalism.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:I want proof of me ever making this claim. If cannot you provide proof, please retract your statement. I didn't say you claimed it, I said you feel it. That is why you question why information producers should be protected from you.
Let me make this easier for you: How could you possibly know what I feel?
Stranger: twistedbydsign99: Stranger:If you make 90% of the movie Avatar you can still release it and it won't violate any copyright. Unfortunately, it will also be worthless and you will have wasted your time and money. But... isn't one of the reasons for IP to encourage creation of IP? I gotta admit I would feel pretty discouraged. Also should I be murdered for copying james cameron? As I said, you do not create Avatar because you do not have the talent and means to do so, not because IP law prevents you from doing so. In fact IP law encourages you to do so by protecting your creation and allowing you to reap the full benefits of it. Avatar truly is the avatar of capitalism.
Avatar's script is copyrighted. Next idiotic claim of yours, please.
Stranger: As I said, you do not create Avatar because you do not have the talent and means to do so, not because IP law prevents you from doing so. In fact IP law encourages you to do so by protecting your creation and allowing you to reap the full benefits of it. Avatar truly is the avatar of capitalism.
Ideas don't arise full formed, therefore IP discourages people from developing the partial ideas required for a grand idea because someone will probably beat them to the grand idea.
Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? Humans in general think of ideas and information they possess as being property that is owned by them...how are you going to force them to stop thinking like that and force them to agree with you? Your desire to defend the hacker against the company that has had data stolen is contradictory to liberty and property. Wut? When did I express that desire?
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? Humans in general think of ideas and information they possess as being property that is owned by them...how are you going to force them to stop thinking like that and force them to agree with you? Your desire to defend the hacker against the company that has had data stolen is contradictory to liberty and property.
Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry?
Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished.
Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening?
Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.)
(Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.)
How exactly does IP prevent that from happening?
Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished.
That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry?
Humans in general think of ideas and information they possess as being property that is owned by them...how are you going to force them to stop thinking like that and force them to agree with you? Your desire to defend the hacker against the company that has had data stolen is contradictory to liberty and property.
Wut? When did I express that desire?
It is the logical conclusion of your position.
Information can not be owned.
A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so.
Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy.
Therefore you defend the hacker.
Daniel Muffinburg: Avatar's script is copyrighted. Next idiotic claim of yours, please.
What prevents you from writing a script for Avatar?
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg:I want proof of me ever making this claim. If cannot you provide proof, please retract your statement. I didn't say you claimed it, I said you feel it. That is why you question why information producers should be protected from you. Let me make this easier for you: How could you possibly know what I feel?
Did I hurt your feelings?
Maxliberty: It is the logical conclusion of your position. Information can not be owned. A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so. Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy.
However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to.
They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Avatar's script is copyrighted. Next idiotic claim of yours, please. What prevents you from writing a script for Avatar?
Writing a script for Avatar? What prevents you from not trolling?
Stranger: Did I hurt your feelings?
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: (Okay, now you will tell me that the production company could have made a contract with the cinema owner, forbidding him to make copies of the film. But then suppose that an employee or someone else who didn't make a contract with the producers made the copy.) How exactly does IP prevent that from happening? Under IP law, both the buyer and the seller of the pirate copy can get punished. That's not prevention; that's punishment. Even if the pirates get punished, the production company (or whomever) will still go bankrupt (as you say they would). Anyway, why should production companies (or whomever) deserve to be protected? Is it because, otherwise, they would go out of business? Should we have also protected the horse and buggy industry? Humans in general think of ideas and information they possess as being property that is owned by them...how are you going to force them to stop thinking like that and force them to agree with you? Your desire to defend the hacker against the company that has had data stolen is contradictory to liberty and property. Wut? When did I express that desire? It is the logical conclusion of your position.
What is my position?
Maxliberty:Information can not be owned. A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so. Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy. Therefore you defend the hacker.
How did this turn into a discussion about hacking? Hackers have a right to copy?
Stranger: Maxliberty: It is the logical conclusion of your position. Information can not be owned. A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so. Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy. However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.
??? If the hacker copied information, then what did he take? Is the information he copied no longer in the computer the hacked?
From Daniel's position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel's definition I did not have.
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Maxliberty: It is the logical conclusion of your position. Information can not be owned. A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so. Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy. However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice. ??? If the hacker copied information, then what did he take? Is the information he copied no longer in the computer the hacked?
See, you are defending the hacker....and you wondered why I wrote that.
Maxliberty: Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Maxliberty: It is the logical conclusion of your position. Information can not be owned. A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so. Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy. However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice. ??? If the hacker copied information, then what did he take? Is the information he copied no longer in the computer the hacked? See, you are defending the hacker....and you wondered why I wrote that.
How am I defending the hacker? Are you saying that copying is the same as taking?
Maxliberty: Stranger: Maxliberty: It is the logical conclusion of your position. Information can not be owned. A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so. Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy. However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice. From Daniel's position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel's definition I did not have.
What is my position. Please provide me with this information.
What's with the delay, Stranger and MaxLiberty? Arn't either of you able to twist around my last two comments to your liking? I guess that means no more nonsense comments form you two. Woohoo!
Daniel Muffinburg: Writing a script for Avatar? What prevents you from not trolling?
Under capitalism, you have to produce to consume. I'm sorry that IP prevents you from stealing and that makes you upset, but it doesn't prevent you from competing, and it doesn't prevent you from creating, so that's the end of your argument.
For some reason, there are always shadow currents of communism running around libertarians. This one is no different from those libertarians who believe there can't be ownership of land because land is given by nature.
Maxliberty: Stranger: However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice. From Daniel's position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel's definition I did not have.
Stranger: However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice.
In the scenario above the trespassed is not seeking recovery, but simply retaliating against trespass with another trespass (this is allowed of course, since the intellectual communists argue that trespass is not a violation of rights). In order to restore his right to his property, the trespasser must come to an agreement with his victim, which reasonably includes repairing the damages he caused.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: Writing a script for Avatar? What prevents you from not trolling? Under capitalism, you have to produce to consume.
Under capitalism, you have to produce to consume.
I is in agreement with yous.
Stranger:I'm sorry that IP prevents you from stealing and that makes you upset, but it doesn't prevent you from competing, and it doesn't prevent you from creating, so that's the end of your argument.
I'm not trying to plays a semantics game, but IP hardly prevent "stealing." It simply deters and legalizes the punishment of the "stealing" of other people ideas.
Stranger:For some reason, there are always shadow currents of communism running around libertarians. This one is no different from those libertarians who believe there can't be ownership of land because land is given by nature.
Let's see... I think that is the 4th time someone on this forum has implied that I am a communist.
Hey, please make your case for IP, so that I can then point out the fallacies. Gazie!
Stranger: Maxliberty: Stranger: However, the trespassed party can now trespass over the hacker at will, since by trespassing he has voided his claim to be protected from trespass. Hence his property can be occupied by the copyright owner and done whatever they wish to. They can both resolve this conflict if the hacker returns all the information he took and all the profits earned, as well as compensation for the costs of obtaining justice. From Daniel's position this would not be true since the information is not property. Only if you believe that information can be owned can the trespassed party seek recovery of what was taken. In other words, I have no right to recover something that by Daniel's definition I did not have. In the scenario above the trespassed is not seeking recovery, but simply retaliating against trespass with another trespass (this is allowed of course, since the intellectual communists argue that trespass is not a violation of rights). In order to restore his right to his property, the trespasser must come to an agreement with his victim, which reasonably includes repairing the damages he caused.
Who are the "intellectual communists" is this context, anti-IP libertarians or actual commies?
Remember paraphrasing what Mises said, 'You shouldn't only emulate routine/success, you should improve upon it'.
That's all I will say and I will leave you two to duke the rest out.
LvMIenthusiast: Remember paraphrasing what Mises said, 'You shouldn't only emulate routine/success, you should improve upon it'. That's all I will say and I will leave you two to duke the rest out.
I'm still trying to figure out what they claim is my position.
Daniel Muffinburg: Tobbog: And since, as a cinema, you can't hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn't dare violating IP law. Why wouldn't the same be true without IP?
Tobbog: And since, as a cinema, you can't hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn't dare violating IP law.
And since, as a cinema, you can't hide from public like a drug dealer, a cinema that collaborates with pirate copiers would be easily identifiable and hence wouldn't dare violating IP law.
Why wouldn't the same be true without IP?
Daniel Muffinburg: Without IP, any cinema owner, like everyone else, could obtain a copy of the movie without the production company profiting from it. With IP, however, no cinema owner would ever dare to pirate copy any of its movies since it always had to fear prosecution. Tobbog:The horse and buggy industry went out of business, because competition delivered a way better product: automobiles. In the case of IP, however, "competition" wouldn't deliver a better product, just a cheaper one. And the only reason they can have it cheaper is, because they didn't have any production expenses. Therefore, if pirate copiers were free to go into business with cinemas and consumers, they would, step by step, kill their host, the film industry, like parasites, whereas the car industry can perfectly prosper with or without any buggy factory Quality is subjective and there is always opportunity costs. There would be a cost for acquiring the pirated movie. Please rewrite your statement fixing the these flaws in your argument.
Tobbog:The horse and buggy industry went out of business, because competition delivered a way better product: automobiles. In the case of IP, however, "competition" wouldn't deliver a better product, just a cheaper one. And the only reason they can have it cheaper is, because they didn't have any production expenses. Therefore, if pirate copiers were free to go into business with cinemas and consumers, they would, step by step, kill their host, the film industry, like parasites, whereas the car industry can perfectly prosper with or without any buggy factory
Quality is subjective and there is always opportunity costs. There would be a cost for acquiring the pirated movie. Please rewrite your statement fixing the these flaws in your argument.
And, in this case, IP doesn't provide a monopoly for the film producer. There are dozens or hundreds of other movies competing with Avatar. Or books, DVDs, computer games, you name it.
So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?
Three points I would like to bring up.
First, in a world of crappy movies, people wouldn't go to the theatre nearly as often. So if theatres started "pirating" works, making it useless to make big budget movies, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Don't you think most theatres would be willing to pay a little more to ensure they stayed in business longer than a year?
Second, even if the theatres got stupid, after the first movie was killed like this, every film would be sold to theatres at cost, minimum. The first theatre would have to cover the entire cost of production, then recoup that loss in the secondary copy market. The cool thing about the free market is that it self corrects a lot.
Third, suppose I created a movie called Avatar, with the same plot and characters, same script, everything identical because I'm that good at CGI. IP law would prevent me from selling it. Here, I have made a copy, but I actually have put in the time and money to produce the movie, rather than just copying a film strip or DVD. Isn't this restricting competition? If I shouldn't be allowed to sell the fruits of my work, then I'd say it certainly is ideas you are claiming people can own. If I should, however, be allowed to sell it, then what differentiates the copy made the same way as the original, and the copy made by reading a DVD that I never agreed not to copy and burning a new one? The time and cost? The free market isn't about things being fair, and if I can do something for cheaper then I should be allowed to.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that?
That is IP.
Aster_Lacnala: First, in a world of crappy movies, people wouldn't go to the theatre nearly as often. So if theatres started "pirating" works, making it useless to make big budget movies, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Don't you think most theatres would be willing to pay a little more to ensure they stayed in business longer than a year? Second, even if the theatres got stupid, after the first movie was killed like this, every film would be sold to theatres at cost, minimum. The first theatre would have to cover the entire cost of production, then recoup that loss in the secondary copy market. The cool thing about the free market is that it self corrects a lot.
How is this a better solution than copyright? All that you have proposed is that we would get crappier products and no benefits.
Aster_Lacnala:Here, I have made a copy, but I actually have put in the time and money to produce the movie, rather than just copying a film strip or DVD.
No difference, if you accessed the media to make your copy, it is theft. If you just make something similar, then that's a poor clone of the original, or a parody. Those are common but everyone ignores them. They don't have much value.
Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that? That is IP.
No, it can be a contract violation. i.e Breach of non disclosure agreement (NDA).
I'm not seeing any IP.
It's IP when the employee's contracts says "you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission"?
Daniel Muffinburg: Stranger: Daniel Muffinburg: So, anyway. Why do we need IP if the employee is already committing a crime by making a copy of the film and selling it? Why not prosecute him on that basis? Why do we need IP on top of that? That is IP. It's IP when the employee's contracts says "you are not allowed to 'make copies without our permission"?
It shouldn't even have to say that. It's like putting a sticker on your car that says "you are not allowed to steal this car".
The clause is just a reminder.
You can pursue a claim if the employment contract stipulated that certain actions by the employee would have certain results. There is no need for the legal fiction of intellectual property.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Maxliberty: It is the logical conclusion of your position. Information can not be owned.
Agreed
Maxliberty:A hacker copying data has caused no injury and therefore can not be punished for copying data even if he trespassed to do so.
Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker.
Maxliberty:Any attempt by the trespassed party to recover the data copied would be a violation of the hackers right to copy.
"Recover" in what sense? Did the hacker make a copy and the delete the original? If so, the hackee may certainly attempt to recover the data. If not, what's to recover? The original is still in place. The only question then is what to do about the crime of trespassing.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
JackCuyler: Trespassing is a crime unto itself, and therefore the hackee may seek restitution from the hacker.
(I wasn't around for a while sorry.)
I still don't see how hacking is trespassing unless some physical property is altered. What other action we could call "trespassing" occurs when a person is not physically anywhere near another's property?