[kode]

Yea. IS doing. Not HAVE done.

Have done for 6 years now, then.

[kode]

Am I to understand that this party has not rewritten the law regarding copyright yet?

Did you know that red tape takes more time to change than for you to wank? Lobbying is a long-term commitment. Where are you ****ing going with this you wanker?

[Blue Lion]

As for the discussion about whether it's optional or not to join the organisation representing artists, it really isn't. At least not here, as the organisation doing it does it by law backing it. You can't start up a competing organization - it'd be unlawful. If you do not join it, you can not get royalties for your records airing on the radio, you can not collaborate with members of the organization and you can not have your own CDs made without signing over your right to distribute to the organization. How would you suggest competing with that?

The same way the party you mentioned is dealing with copyright laws?

Why is "change the laws to better reflect our wants" such a bad solution?

Because it's too hard? It's easier to just steal stuff and rage against "the man"?

[Blue Lion]

Am I to understand that this party has not rewritten the law regarding copyright yet?

Did you know that red tape takes more time to change than for you to wank? Lobbying is a long-term commitment. Where are you ****ing going with this you wanker?

That by working to change the law, it kinda implies that it is currently illegal. Do you do other acts on the basis that at some point they will be legal? Do you expect to be punished for those?

[kode]

The party is working to change the laws by getting into parliament, yes. If that's such a bad thing, why do you ****ing suggest they do that, and then when I say that they are doing that, you make it a bad thing?

How about you get to the point you boy-loving redneck?

[kode]

They're not out to legalise copyright infringements. They are out to make the laws more balanced. Like making copyright last a shorter time after a persons death. The prime example used is Steamboat Willy, I guess. In itself a parody of an earlier movie whose copyright wasn't expired when the clip was made even, but famous for being the first appearance of mickey mouse. should copyright expire on it, disney is out one cash cow, thus they want to make the expiry time longer and longer and longer ad infinitum. 10 years after makers death would be a bit more sensible. The kids of the creator could still make a bit of cash on it until they get on their two ****ing legs and get a honest ****ing job.

[karajorma]

How about you get to the point you boy-loving redneck?

Watch it!

If you can't argue without resorting to name calling you won't be doing either here much longer!

[Blue Lion]

They're not out to legalise copyright infringements. They are out to make the laws more balanced. Like making copyright last a shorter time after a persons death. The prime example used is Steamboat Willy, I guess. In itself a parody of an earlier movie whose copyright wasn't expired when the clip was made even, but famous for being the first appearance of mickey mouse. should copyright expire on it, disney is out one cash cow, thus they want to make the expiry time longer and longer and longer ad infinitum. 10 years after makers death would be a bit more sensible. The kids of the creator could still make a bit of cash on it until they get on their two ****ing legs and get a honest ****ing job.

I never mentioned removing copyright infringement. As a matter of fact I mentioned redoing the copyrights in a better way (and used mickey mouse as an example).

You're saying "we're working on it"

Which is like saying "it's not done yet"

Which is like "It's still currently against the law"

Which is kinda like "Anyone who does it is kinda guilty"

Why are people arguing for guys they admit are violating the rules because you haven't changed them yet?

[karajorma]

Why are people arguing for guys they admit are violating the rules because you haven't changed them yet?

Well, while it doesn't make it lawful, civil disobedience has always been a valid method of protest.

Or do you want to say that no one should have stood up for Rosa Parks cause she broke the law?

[kode]

What? I've never admitted that the pirate bay guys have done anything other than providing a platform where people can share information, and that it is more up to the actual copyright infringers to get prosecuted. I mostly argued, at least initially, that at least one of the accused is so remotely removed from the others that he shouldn't even have been a figure in the case (except he's also a multimillionaire so guess where the accusers see a source of money - the others are more or less on welfare or at least have normal jobs). This, however, went over your head, it seems.

How about you get to the point you boy-loving redneck?

Watch it!

If you can't argue without resorting to name calling you won't be doing either here much longer!

Yes, yes, getting banned from a forum led by a bunch of capricious administrators that take donations from their members and instead of it going to hosting pays overprices for quite ugly plastic models would really break my heart. How about you explain how I recently had a few posts removed by your "brain" trust, and you don't even contact me about it, instead of making idle threats which I don't really care about?

[kode]

Or do you want to say that no one should have stood up for Rosa Parks cause she broke the law?

I'd argue she should've been flogged in public.

[Blue Lion]

Well, while it doesn't make it lawful, civil disobedience has always been a valid method of protest.

Or do you want to say that no one should have stood up for Rosa Parks cause she broke the law?

I seem to recall Rosa Parks did, in fact, get a punishment.

[karajorma]

Yes she did. But my point was that despite the illegal nature of her act people protested the verdict.

Yes, yes, getting banned from a forum led by a bunch of capricious administrators that take donations from their members and instead of it going to hosting pays overprices for quite ugly plastic models would really break my heart. How about you explain how I recently had a few posts removed by your "brain" trust, and you don't even contact me about it, instead of making idle threats which I don't really care about?

I've not deleted any of your posts and if someone else has you are free to use the various methods available to you to complain about it.

And if you don't care about it enough to complain, why bring it up now?

[Blue Lion]

What? I've never admitted that the pirate bay guys have done anything other than providing a platform where people can share information, and that it is more up to the actual copyright infringers to get prosecuted. I mostly argued, at least initially, that at least one of the accused is so remotely removed from the others that he shouldn't even have been a figure in the case (except he's also a multimillionaire so guess where the accusers see a source of money - the others are more or less on welfare or at least have normal jobs). This, however, went over your head, it seems.

Actually no, you haven't spent the last good number of posts talking about that poor poor millionaire.

Quite a few posts you've spent back and forth with me were about

Copyright laws. Political parties. Artist representation. Cinema monopoly. How DRM is bad. Olgiopols.

Quite frankly the last time you mentioned the guy you're so concerned about was on page 2.

Are you then implying that the other guys ARE really guilty?

[Blue Lion]

Yes she did. But my point was that despite the illegal nature of her act people protested the verdict.

I'm not saying don't complain. They can complain all they want about how copyright laws and internet usage laws and wrong and need to be changed. Bravo for them.

What I do have issue with is how they currently steal stuff hand over fist.

They aren't spending time telling me it needs to change (I know it needs to change). People are trying to tell me these people haven't done anything wrong.

[kode]

Because I'd rather not have to ask. I'd rather you actually told me why Booger removed my post without me having to inquire about it.

Also, do try to use your limitied cognition to recognize a difference between a threat which is worthless because the consequences of them bear no worth to me and for example a threat not even worth considering because the one making them is in no position to enforce them.

[kode]

Actually no, you haven't spent the last good number of posts talking about that poor poor millionaire.

Quite a few posts you've spent back and forth with me were about

Copyright laws. Political parties. Artist representation. Cinema monopoly. How DRM is bad. Olgiopols.

Quite frankly the last time you mentioned the guy you're so concerned about was on page 2.

Are you then implying that the other guys ARE really guilty?

Are you so illiterate that I need to explain to you what the word "initially" means?

And no, I'm not implying that they are guilty. I am however saying that the others are a lot more involved with the pirate bay than carl ever was or wanted to be.

[karajorma]

Because I'd rather not have to ask. I'd rather you actually told me why Booger removed my post without me having to inquire about it.

I don't know. Which is why you have to ask. It's really not that hard to understand that HLP's admins are not a gestalt entity who are instantly aware of everything the other members have done.

Also, do try to use your limitied cognition to recognize a difference between a threat which is worthless because the consequences of them bear no worth to me and for example a threat not even worth considering because the one making them is in no position to enforce them.

You were warned.

[Blue Lion]

Are you so illiterate that I need to explain to you what the word "initially" means?

And no, I'm not implying that they are guilty. I am however saying that the others are a lot more involved with the pirate bay than carl ever was or wanted to be.

Oh I get what you said. I just have to laugh that you've thrown all these arguments at me and you've resorted to "Well that's not what I was talking about first!"

But they're all innocent right? So who cares who is MORE innocent than the others?

[DarkBasilisk]

Blue's doing a nice job arguing what I would have argued

I wanted to add something on the whole benifit thing. I don't like to download things, and go out of my way to buy them. I found out recently I wouldn't have the money to sustain them. I got my first job and had to adjust and grow just a bit more to handle that. Without any long term needs to worry about I'll take those paychecks and throw them back into things I want.

So:
1) I've grown closer to becoming responsible and will be able to use the progress from that to help me succeed in future endeavors
2) People benefit from the work I do (especially when you consider this is a tutoring center on campus)
3) All the extra money I throw to pay for what I want goes and helps individual businesses and the economy in general.

The most people benefit if everyone does that. This is what people have done for years when faced with not enough money to buy things, either they find a way to get more money, or they just start stealing stuff. And since people don't like having their stuff stolen society generally supports coming down on thieves. There are much worse things to worry about then having to give up some time to get a job, you're not going to get too much pity out of me if you try and respond saying how it's too hard, you can't, etc.