He's just going to stuff words in your mouth you didn't say, straw man your argument with examples that have no relevance, and do whatever else it takes to assert his psychological need to not be wrong. Like I said above, the innate refusal to believe that they are doing anything wrong is what drives these people because it conflicts with their self-image. Whatever helps ya like yourself.
Before this debate is over our right to imagine unicorns and happy ponies is going to enter the mix.
Ragdrazi: No. If you have a point of view that I can't immediately shoot down on its own merit I'd like to see it. It will be a welcome change of pace to a thread full of asinine people who want to call me a bunch of asinine names and then to back up their opinions provide ideas I've already shown aren't right.
Okay if your only reason to know it is to shoot me down then I'll tell you.
The point of me saying
perfectimo: Looks like you returned that book.
was to show that it is no longer in his possession. The comic leads me to think that what had been done is more like playing a demo in a store. You play it for how ever longer you want but at the end of the day you don't have it physically at home. When you download something it is sitting right there on your harddrive and is capable of full function.
Ok, yeah. I would have shot you down. The comic would still be portraying illegal distribution if this was anything but a library, and the library offers you the option of renewing a book until the day you die. It is their intention to provide you with a free copy of the book that is physically your own.
Anyway, thank you for not getting as "Ridge Racer" on this as other's have here. I don't know why I called it "Ridge Racer."
He's just going to stuff words in your mouth you didn't say, straw man your argument with examples that have no relevance, and do whatever else it takes to assert his psychological need to not be wrong. Like I said above, the innate refusal to believe that they are doing anything wrong is what drives these people because it conflicts with their self-image. Whatever helps ya like yourself.
Before this debate is over our right to imagine unicorns and happy ponies is going to enter the mix.
But my dear Rag, you keep forgetting I don't have to convince you of anything. I just have to convince everyone else that you don't know what you're talking about, you just make up crap whenever it doesn't suit you, and that you haven't even bothered to learn the basics of the very agenda you claim to support.
At least Cory Doctorow knows what the Hell he is talking about when he supports free information.
Ragdrazi: No. If you have a point of view that I can't immediately shoot down on its own merit I'd like to see it. It will be a welcome change of pace to a thread full of asinine people who want to call me a bunch of asinine names and then to back up their opinions provide ideas I've already shown aren't right.
Okay if your only reason to know it is to shoot me down then I'll tell you.
The point of me saying
perfectimo: Looks like you returned that book.
was to show that it is no longer in his possession. The comic leads me to think that what had been done is more like playing a demo in a store. You play it for how ever longer you want but at the end of the day you don't have it physically at home. When you download something it is sitting right there on your harddrive and is capable of full function.
Ok, yeah. I would have shot you down. The comic would still be portraying illegal distribution if this was anything but a library, and the library offers you the option of renewing a book until the day you die. It is their intention to provide you with a free copy of the book that is physically your own.
Anyway, thank you for not getting as "Ridge Racer" on this as other's have here. I don't know why I called it "Ridge Racer."
I've never heard the term "Ridge Racer" for anything other than referencing the game. Do you see now how when you download something you are stealing?
Alex_P: Moreover, for much of the library's history, duplication of works you got from the library was a difficult task. The best that someone without a lot of specialized resources could do is make a crappy xerox a book or an uncopyable copy of a video cassette. It's much, much easier to redistribute digital media you got from someone else.
That remains unimportant both to your case and mine. Libraries distribute, and that distribution would be considered illegal if they were anything other then libraries. But, interestingly enough, libraries have gained the legal exemption to make copies of works themselves, now that the technology allows them to make replacement copies. They are still constrained by their physical "stealing," but the difference is extremely minor.
Untrue!
Which part!
Alex_P: Copyright and patent law essentially assume that duplication is beyond the capabilities of a private citizen doing it just for kicks, so they only really regulate what happens when someone else tries to mass-produce "intellectual property."
I'm not really following how this is important to your case. But no. Copyright law didn't original differentiate between mass production and mass distribution and small scale production and distribution. Those protections had to be written in under the title "fair use," and even then the concept of "fair use" can be incredibly nebulous. Pre-schools have been shut down for showing Aladdin, because it was considered a public presentation. A public distribution.
Alex_P: The original idea was that creating the initial thing was a significant investment that a duplicator doesn't have to pay, so the originator gets a temporary monopoly to recoup those costs (and the potential to make additional money during that, as an incentive).
That's the original idea on patent. Copyright was created by distribution houses as a way of protecting their "right" to exclusive profit on a work of author wether or not they intended on passing off any of that money to the author at all. That is still the model used. Distribution companies can, and very often have, taken copyright control of ideas away from their original authors, even in the modern day.
Alex_P: Our old system honestly didn't have a particularly robust mechanism for individuals trying to use copyrighted or patented stuff non-commercially because, well, it didn't matter economically. Some guy making his own gizmo out of spare parts or hand-writing a copy of his favorite book wasn't going to noticeably affect the originator's economic interest.
Ok. But in the past the law was willing to give robust exemptions to organizations who in a large scale way were distributing works for free. This was before this massive copyright crunch, when it was believed it simply was the best idea to keep information free. Now that individuals are founding their own "libraries,"... yeah, I can see what you're saying there about the law not having caught up to protect them. But you also have to see what I'm saying about the law and the emphasis of the law being changed. Before information was meant to be free. We organized people and funded them to make sure it was. Then companies realized they could make incredible money off of information and pressed very very hard for their "intellectual properties" to be protected. Along comes the internet with its ability to make information free in a way it had never been before, and the law is caught between protecting that freedom, as it was written to do, and the new much more powerful distribution houses that seek to control it. Yeah, I think we're both right here.
Ragdrazi: No. If you have a point of view that I can't immediately shoot down on its own merit I'd like to see it. It will be a welcome change of pace to a thread full of asinine people who want to call me a bunch of asinine names and then to back up their opinions provide ideas I've already shown aren't right.
Okay if your only reason to know it is to shoot me down then I'll tell you.
The point of me saying
perfectimo: Looks like you returned that book.
was to show that it is no longer in his possession. The comic leads me to think that what had been done is more like playing a demo in a store. You play it for how ever longer you want but at the end of the day you don't have it physically at home. When you download something it is sitting right there on your harddrive and is capable of full function.
Ok, yeah. I would have shot you down. The comic would still be portraying illegal distribution if this was anything but a library, and the library offers you the option of renewing a book until the day you die. It is their intention to provide you with a free copy of the book that is physically your own.
Anyway, thank you for not getting as "Ridge Racer" on this as other's have here. I don't know why I called it "Ridge Racer."
I've never heard the term "Ridge Racer" for anything other than referencing the game. Do you see now how when you download something you are stealing?
I know. It felt right to use "Ridge Racer" instead of asinine and insulting. I think it was because the way they said "Ridge Racer" was so asinine and insulting.
Um... But do I see now how when I download something I am stealing? Uh, no, I really don't see any truth in that at all, for the reasons I provided you quoted above.
But my dear Rag, you keep forgetting I don't have to convince you of anything.
Oh! Oh, good! Because otherwise I just thought you were doing a terrible job at this.
L.B. Jeffries: I just have to convince everyone else that you don't know what you're talking about, you just make up crap whenever it doesn't suit you, and that you haven't even bothered to learn the basics of the very agenda you claim to support.
And I'll leave that up to them. The great thing about that, though, is that my words are right there available for them to read. Anyone who does that it gong to find your attempt to convince them a hell of a lot less... honest.
TsunamiWombat: It's theft. Wow, this topic is still going?
What a revelation. And yeah, it's impressive how this thing manages to go.
Edit: Instead of calling it theft it can be called "the illegal gaining of property that is very similar to theft but is in no way going to have the word theft in its name".
SteveDave: Symantics,you deny profit to a game developer, retailer, and publisher whenever you download a game. You are stealing and don't try to sugar coat it any other way.
And you're going to "steal" from me when you get my book from the library. The only difference is, I don't care.
I'm really tired of this. I really don't want to see anyone on this thread attack torrents, until they can explain to me how their ideas could not be used to attack libraries. Period.
Either we start tossing librarians in jail, or we stop attacking "pirates." Pick one.
Books are rented from the library because librarys are a paid service that is paid for by local governments. You are not paying for a game if you download it, you are breaking copyright laws. You are a thief and don't try to say your not. I hope you admit what you are and quit trying to hide behind symantics. It is very dispicable.
As has been pointed out before, the government pays for the books they distribute to people for free, in the same way torrent users pay for the games they distribute to people for free. If you're going to call me despicable, at least please first read what I've written. I find people who make me repeat myself truly despicable.
Do you pay taxes to torrent users? We pay taxes to our local governments so they could provide such services as public libraries. You are indeed a dispicable thief who is a bain on society. If you don't have the money to buy a game then get a job you bumb asshole.
Nimbus: I wish people would stop saying illegal=wrong. The law isn't infallible.
Sorry for double but just read this.
Not everything illegal is "wrong" but it is branded legally and socially wrong in most cases.
Legally wrong... isn't that, like, the definition of illegal? And socially? Not here.
Yeah, after looking at my post I noticed what I had written and how stupid it was. It is seen as somewhat socially wrong around here, though downloading music is perfectly fine.
Yeah, around here we have a pretty lax attitude to breaking the law. Ireland rules!
TsunamiWombat: It's theft. Wow, this topic is still going?
What a revelation. And yeah, it's impressive how this thing manages to go.
Edit: Instead of calling it theft it can be called "the illegal gaining of property that is very similar to theft but is in no way going to have the word theft in its name".
its really funny when you can see how peoples getting so lazy day by day. is this the effect of the financial crisis? how can it be a new way, when it is illegal? come on guys' wake up.
Aside from the fact that lending libraries and downloading torrents are only very superficially similar and in fact operate in very different ways, in the case of lending/renting, the creators of the works are entitled to fair payment for the rights to rent their works. (more info here)
This isn't the case with torrents, as aside from the initial purchase, no one involved in the creation of the work is renumerated in any way.
It was an interesting comparison, but unfortunately, the facts don't bare it out.
MistAlchemist: its really funny when you can see how peoples getting so lazy day by day. is this the effect of the financial crisis? how can it be a new way, when it is illegal? come on guys' wake up.
Ahem, a bad poem...
i think your post unthoughtful like too many you oversimplify "not like stealing" doesn't mean "not wrong" we have other legal concepts that fit better
what's up with the formatting? e e cummings you are not you give us stanzas but no poetry does your heart so blandly sing?
Great point OP. What would happen if you read a book completely in-house and left? Can they do anything? Its not like they can take the knowledge of the book's plot away from you >.<
L.B. Jeffries: I just have to convince everyone else that you don't know what you're talking about, you just make up crap whenever it doesn't suit you, and that you haven't even bothered to learn the basics of the very agenda you claim to support.
And I'll leave that up to them. The great thing about that, though, is that my words are right there available for them to read. Anyone who does that it gong to find your attempt to convince them a hell of a lot less... honest.
They mostly seem to be picking up that you like to take people's comments out of context, use bizarre analogies like the library one that doesn't even work, and talk down to them like a pompous ass.
TsunamiWombat: It's theft. Wow, this topic is still going?
What a revelation. And yeah, it's impressive how this thing manages to go.
Edit: Instead of calling it theft it can be called "the illegal gaining of property that is very similar to theft but is in no way going to have the word theft in its name".
I'll bend that far. Lets call it that.
To the press. Then onward to the pub to celebrate the new term "the illegal gaining of property that is very similar to theft but is in no way going to have the word theft in its name" that we may end up shortening into a single word "theft".
TsunamiWombat: It's theft. Wow, this topic is still going?
What a revelation. And yeah, it's impressive how this thing manages to go.
Edit: Instead of calling it theft it can be called "the illegal gaining of property that is very similar to theft but is in no way going to have the word theft in its name".
I'll bend that far. Lets call it that.
To the press. Then onward to the pub to celebrate the new term "the illegal gaining of property that is very similar to theft but is in no way going to have the word theft in its name" that we may end up shortening into a single word "theft".
But thats prevents a circular argument that is contradictory to the coining of the new phrase, which in turn will require us to coin a new phrase which will take 9 pages and then we'll celebrate that, get drunk, call it theft and asdfgha oh god there's a blackhole in my computer
But thats prevents a circular argument that is contradictory to the coining of the new phrase, which in turn will require us to coin a new phrase which will take 9 pages and then we'll celebrate that, get drunk, call it theft and asdfgha oh god there's a blackhole in my computer
That's funny, that is what happened to me as well. My finger went kind of weird as well when I tried to poke the black hole.
Do you pay taxes to torrent users? We pay taxes to our local governments so they could provide such services as public libraries. You are indeed a dispicable thief who is a bain on society. If you don't have the money to buy a game then get a job you bumb asshole.
So... wait. Because libraries take money from everyone in society regardless of whether or not you use them and distribute books for free, while torrent users purchase out of pocket, this means torrents are stealing and libraries are not?
As for the rest of the bullshit there, you know... you and I don't agree. And that's fine. But you know the fact is, I'm presenting you with an intellectually honest case here, and this is something I really believe in. You want me to sit here calling you a fascist? You want me to start comparisons to Hitler or something, because that isn't going to happen. You believe something. I think you're wrong, and I have a flat fantastic case for proving that. I believe I'm right. And if you aren't willing to come to this conversation with some fundamental respect for that difference and a willing to discuss reasonably it is you who are despicable.
As defined by law, it is theft of intellectual property, plain and simple. You're not stealing a physical thing, but you're depriving your victims -- the retailer, the record company and the artist -- of profits they would make had you paid for the purloined item.
Seems the original poster is trying to justify their downloading. I'd say they could use a lawyer, and the "logic" displayed here definitely justifies paying the legal fees. Seek help.
DangerChimp: As defined by law, it is theft of intellectual property, plain and simple. You're not stealing a physical thing, but you're depriving your victims -- the retailer, the record company and the artist -- of profits they would make had you paid for the purloined item.
Nope. "Infringement" seems to be the most popular legal term.
"Theft" is chiefly a term for a set of criminal-law concepts: larceny, robbery, burglary, &c. I think fraud narrowly skates into the category, but I can't remember.
Most cases of copyright infringement are issues of civil law. The main exception, until recently, was anti-bootlegging efforts -- that's what that "FBI Warning" on videos was about. Recent changes driven by the MPAA/RIAA have pulled government into prosecutions of other activities potentially related to infringement.
The only use of the word "theft" in relation to copyright law that I'm aware of -- and here I will stress that I am not a lawyer(*) -- occurs in the "No Electronic Theft Act" of 1997. It's in the title. That's because Congress feels like its job isn't done without bullshit grandstanding, so most of our laws have trashy names like that.
-- Alex __________ * - But I still know more than you.
Aside from the fact that lending libraries and downloading torrents are only very superficially similar and in fact operate in very different ways, in the case of lending/renting, the creators of the works are entitled to fair payment for the rights to rent their works. (more info here)
This isn't the case with torrents, as aside from the initial purchase, no one involved in the creation of the work is renumerated in any way.
It was an interesting comparison, but unfortunately, the facts don't bare it out.
I see I got the big boys involved.
So... I just want to make sure everyone on this thread understands that what you've posted there is a piece of EU law. It's completely inapplicable to the US libraries I was talking about that continue to have a blanket immunity for remuneration under Title 17, Chapter 12, Subsection 1201.
You still clearly have a point. In that, in 1992, European libraries were fundamentally changed by the law you have quoted. Let me ask you a question. Can you see how how private interests are rewriting law, changing our fundamental institutions in ways they were not intended? Libraries were not meant to be video stores. And if libraries are made to pay a fee every time someone checks out a book they're not going to be doing well. If this happened in America the librarian outrage alone would be defining. And I know a few, and believe me, they fall on my side in this whole torrent debate. I don't think the people of the Europe let this happen on purpose, I think it was slipped by you guys. If action hasn't already been taken, I would encourage all European Escapists to stand up against this. This isn't right. It's hurting your libraries and that means it is absolutely hurting your freedom.
So, Nilcypher, you're right. You're right, but for absolutely the wrong reasons. You're right because in your country these institutions have been forced to change. So do something.
DangerChimp: As defined by law, it is theft of intellectual property, plain and simple. You're not stealing a physical thing, but you're depriving your victims -- the retailer, the record company and the artist -- of profits they would make had you paid for the purloined item.
Nope. "Infringement" seems to be the most popular legal term.
"Theft" is chiefly a term for a set of criminal-law concepts: larceny, robbery, burglary, &c. I think fraud narrowly skates into the category, but I can't remember.
Most cases of copyright infringement are issues of civil law. The main exception, until recently, was anti-bootlegging efforts -- that's what that "FBI Warning" on videos was about. Recent changes driven by the MPAA/RIAA have pulled government into prosecutions of other activities potentially related to infringement.
The only use of the word "theft" in relation to copyright law that I'm aware of -- and here I will stress that I am not a lawyer(*) -- occurs in the "No Electronic Theft Act" of 1997. It's in the title. That's because Congress feels like its job isn't done without bullshit grandstanding, so most of our laws have trashy names like that.
-- Alex __________ * - But I still know more than you.
Oops. Looks like you're wrong. As far back as 2005, the Justice Department itself has referred to large-scale illegal downloaders as thieves, citing intellectual property law. Check out the Trowbridge and Chicoine case here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/jan/19/piracy.news). The five-year prison term these guys faced also is indicative of the attitude that has formed towards illegal downloaders unless they settle directly out of court with the record companies.
This quote seems at least a little relevant to what you're talking about:
"As today's pleas demonstrate, those who steal copyrighted material will be caught, even when they use the tools of technology to commit their crimes," the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, said. "The theft of intellectual property victimises not only its owners and their employees but also the American people, who shoulder the burden of increased costs for goods and services."
DangerChimp: As defined by law, it is theft of intellectual property, plain and simple. You're not stealing a physical thing, but you're depriving your victims -- the retailer, the record company and the artist -- of profits they would make had you paid for the purloined item.
Nope. "Infringement" seems to be the most popular legal term.
"Theft" is chiefly a term for a set of criminal-law concepts: larceny, robbery, burglary, &c. I think fraud narrowly skates into the category, but I can't remember.
Most cases of copyright infringement are issues of civil law. The main exception, until recently, was anti-bootlegging efforts -- that's what that "FBI Warning" on videos was about. Recent changes driven by the MPAA/RIAA have pulled government into prosecutions of other activities potentially related to infringement.
The only use of the word "theft" in relation to copyright law that I'm aware of -- and here I will stress that I am not a lawyer(*) -- occurs in the "No Electronic Theft Act" of 1997. It's in the title. That's because Congress feels like its job isn't done without bullshit grandstanding, so most of our laws have trashy names like that.
-- Alex __________ * - But I still know more than you.
Oops. Looks like you're wrong. As far back as 2005, the Justice Department itself has referred to large-scale illegal downloaders as thieves, citing intellectual property law. Check out the Trowbridge and Chicoine case here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/jan/19/piracy.news). The five-year prison term these guys faced also is indicative of the attitude that has formed towards illegal downloaders unless they settle directly out of court with the record companies.
This quote seems at least a little relevant to what you're talking about:
"As today's pleas demonstrate, those who steal copyrighted material will be caught, even when they use the tools of technology to commit their crimes," the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, said. "The theft of intellectual property victimises not only its owners and their employees but also the American people, who shoulder the burden of increased costs for goods and services."
They can call it what ever they want, but the wording of the law sides with Alex.
And again, these are people who would really like the public not to scrutinize the logic behind what they're doing. Theft sounds good.
Oh, and your URL is mistyped. You might want to fix that.
I don't feel at all guilty for getting Silent Hill 1 free through torrents, because they never released the game for PC, but someone made a PC compatible rip. Basicly, when you make a game console-exclusive & charge half a grand for a console, you deserve to get shit on.
Downloading games is theft, but not the kind that every one says.
when you download a game without buying it(unless it it free) you are stealing ideas and thoughts of gamming desiginers, many say they want to try the game before they buy it( but if there is not a demo, it is like sneeking into a musaim without paying and looking at a magnificant piece of art. yes it does not hurt the artice neither musaim ,but now those two people don't know if you saw it, or even liked it.
you are without permission and it makes you look like losser, because you have money and your to lazy to get it.
it has been proven that video gamming prices are up 30% because people download the game illeagaly.
it is like adobie Premier pro it is $1200 because a lot of dip shits thought "I'm not going to pay $500-600 for this!"
Aside from the fact that lending libraries and downloading torrents are only very superficially similar and in fact operate in very different ways, in the case of lending/renting, the creators of the works are entitled to fair payment for the rights to rent their works. (more info here)
This isn't the case with torrents, as aside from the initial purchase, no one involved in the creation of the work is renumerated in any way.
It was an interesting comparison, but unfortunately, the facts don't bare it out.
I see I got the big boys involved.
So... I just want to make sure everyone on this thread understands that what you've posted there is a piece of EU law. It's completely inapplicable to the US libraries I was talking about that continue to have a blanket immunity for remuneration under Title 17, Chapter 12, Subsection 1201.
You still clearly have a point. In that, in 1992, European libraries were fundamentally changed by the law you have quoted. Let me ask you a question. Can you see how how private interests are rewriting law, changing our fundamental institutions in ways they were not intended? Libraries were not meant to be video stores. And if libraries are made to pay a fee every time someone checks out a book they're not going to be doing well. If this happened in America the librarian outrage alone would be defining. And I know a few, and believe me, they fall on my side in this whole torrent debate. I don't think the people of the Europe let this happen on purpose, I think it was slipped by you guys. If action hasn't already been taken, I would encourage all European Escapists to stand up against this. This isn't right. It's hurting your libraries and that means it is absolutely hurting your freedom.
So, Nilcypher, you're right. You're right, but for absolutely the wrong reasons. You're right because in your country these institutions have been forced to change. So do something.
The thing is Ragdrazi, that law I quoted was passed in 1992 and yet my local library continues to lend books for free. I don't think that having to pay people for the fruits of their labour is really that unreasonable, do you?
Also, in the exemption that American laws enjoy is this paragraph:
"(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure."
Which would suggest that if a library were to offer identical duplicates of a work, they'd be in trouble.
Do you pay taxes to torrent users? We pay taxes to our local governments so they could provide such services as public libraries. You are indeed a dispicable thief who is a bain on society. If you don't have the money to buy a game then get a job you bumb asshole.
So... wait. Because libraries take money from everyone in society regardless of whether or not you use them and distribute books for free, while torrent users purchase out of pocket, this means torrents are stealing and libraries are not?
As for the rest of the bullshit there, you know... you and I don't agree. And that's fine. But you know the fact is, I'm presenting you with an intellectually honest case here, and this is something I really believe in. You want me to sit here calling you a fascist? You want me to start comparisons to Hitler or something, because that isn't going to happen. You believe something. I think you're wrong, and I have a flat fantastic case for proving that. I believe I'm right. And if you aren't willing to come to this conversation with some fundamental respect for that difference and a willing to discuss reasonably it is you who are despicable.
You are right I have no respect for you and your attempt to justify your illegal actions, nor should I. You are breaking copyright laws no matter how you put it. Turn yourself in and see if your bullshit argument holds up in court. If it so fantastic then you should have no problem getting off. Torrents do not have authorization to distribute and you can not compare them to libraries because of the fact that libraries have been authorized to distribute and you don't return the things you steal through torrents. Again, you are a thief and a bain on the economy and I have no respect for you as I have no respect for someone who shoplifts.
Do you pay taxes to torrent users? We pay taxes to our local governments so they could provide such services as public libraries. You are indeed a dispicable thief who is a bain on society. If you don't have the money to buy a game then get a job you bumb asshole.
So... wait. Because libraries take money from everyone in society regardless of whether or not you use them and distribute books for free, while torrent users purchase out of pocket, this means torrents are stealing and libraries are not?
As for the rest of the bullshit there, you know... you and I don't agree. And that's fine. But you know the fact is, I'm presenting you with an intellectually honest case here, and this is something I really believe in. You want me to sit here calling you a fascist? You want me to start comparisons to Hitler or something, because that isn't going to happen. You believe something. I think you're wrong, and I have a flat fantastic case for proving that. I believe I'm right. And if you aren't willing to come to this conversation with some fundamental respect for that difference and a willing to discuss reasonably it is you who are despicable.
You are right I have no respect for you and your attempt to justify your illegal actions, nor should I. You are breaking copyright laws no matter how you put it. Turn yourself in and see if your bullshit argument holds up in court. If it so fantastic then you should have no problem getting off. Torrents do not have authorization to distribute and you can not compare them to libraries because of the fact that libraries have been authorized to distribute and you don't return the things you steal through torrents. Again, you are a thief and a bain on the economy and I have no respect for you as I have no respect for someone who shoplifts.
I agreed with everything you said, up until you tried to imply that the courts of justice are right, or indeed just - in reality, whoever has the most money for the best lawyers will win, because they'll find some loophole.
Well, the word "illegal" should mean something to you. I mean, what if you spent millions of dollars making a movie/game and distributing and advertising it, and then nobody pays for it. You don't earn profit from something that was meant to gain profit. That's what illegal downloading is, it's taking profit from someone who deserves it.
Although, when I make music, I will support not paying for my albums.
In my opinion, entertainment should not have to be payed for. It should be for the love of doing what you're doing, a lesson that Disney should learn. But as much as I wish it were free, it's still illegal, and therefore I don't.
Do you pay taxes to torrent users? We pay taxes to our local governments so they could provide such services as public libraries. You are indeed a dispicable thief who is a bain on society. If you don't have the money to buy a game then get a job you bumb asshole.
So... wait. Because libraries take money from everyone in society regardless of whether or not you use them and distribute books for free, while torrent users purchase out of pocket, this means torrents are stealing and libraries are not?
As for the rest of the bullshit there, you know... you and I don't agree. And that's fine. But you know the fact is, I'm presenting you with an intellectually honest case here, and this is something I really believe in. You want me to sit here calling you a fascist? You want me to start comparisons to Hitler or something, because that isn't going to happen. You believe something. I think you're wrong, and I have a flat fantastic case for proving that. I believe I'm right. And if you aren't willing to come to this conversation with some fundamental respect for that difference and a willing to discuss reasonably it is you who are despicable.
You are right I have no respect for you and your attempt to justify your illegal actions, nor should I. You are breaking copyright laws no matter how you put it. Turn yourself in and see if your bullshit argument holds up in court. If it so fantastic then you should have no problem getting off. Torrents do not have authorization to distribute and you can not compare them to libraries because of the fact that libraries have been authorized to distribute and you don't return the things you steal through torrents. Again, you are a thief and a bain on the economy and I have no respect for you as I have no respect for someone who shoplifts.
I agreed with everything you said, up until you tried to imply that the courts of justice are right, or indeed just - in reality, whoever has the most money for the best lawyers will win, because they'll find some loophole.
No you are wrong. Judgements are handed down based on precedents that past cases have set forth. And the precedent for someone who breaks copyright laws is that it is illegal and the accused is a thief.
Sour grapes, Jeff. Sour grapes.