[Vertigo 7]

bah i hate you net nerds picking a part every single word of a post. fine I'll play your game.

Disclaimer: This post contains hypothetical examples and shouldn't be considered admission or approval of anything.

a thief is a thief is a thief. I have about as much respect for a thief as i do a rapist. I think every single one of em should be persicuted, prosicuted, fined, jailed, etc.

Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?

who said anything about punishment? i was speaking about my respect towards a thief

What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?

again, a thief is a thief is a thief. and nope, i respect them all about the same. Rape, theft, murder... all equally worthless scum.

Also, persecution is a process in which individual or group is illegitimately harassed, accused or punished for something (anything that the persecuting group or person can think of). Prosecution is a legal process of officially accusing a person of committing a crime.

Thank you, Webster, I'm well aware of the definitions even if i didn't spell the word right.

People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!

You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.

don't make excuses for the thieves. they're worthless enough as it is. They're wrong and they know it otherwise you would see them come on the news and speaking to committees on why their piracy should be legal.

Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.

Definition of THEFT
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
   b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.

By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?


If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?

I'm not assuming anything about the prices. thats up to the distributors/merchants. They can set what ever prices they want to because.... yep, you guess it, its their ****. If they want to give it away for free, hey... its their ****.

That said, should the government spend millions of dollars to enforce copywright laws? I don't believe that to be the answer. It should lie solely in the hands of the manufacturers to protect their works... if someone steals it, go to the police file a report... just like any one of us would have to do if someone breaks into our homes, our car, etc.

These folks work too damn hard (most of the time) to keep the world entertained and if they want to charge people to use it, so be it, thats up to them. If you don't like it, too f'n bad, either pay for it or do with out.

blah blah blah

No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's  and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.

There is 0 justification for this. I don't give 2 ****s if the public library pays for permission to have a few copies of a video for people to take home for a couple of days. Not many do that, and if you're fortunate enough to live close to one that does, good for you. That is an approved medium for distribution and if you tried to argue that lame **** in court, yould get laughed at by the judge and we'd see you in a few years with some nice tats of "Bubba's" on your ass.

You're living in a delusion. If you disagree with a law, use the appropriate forum (i mean your law makers) for changing it, don't try to circumvent it or you might end up with a new picture and a number.

[Luis Dias]

Come on Vertigo, tell us how you REALLY feel

No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's  and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.

Man it's like we live in a totally different universe...

the law says its illegal, then its illegal.

So whatever it is written in the law is the only right thing to do? Ever?

Hmmmm

[Vertigo 7]

Come on Vertigo, tell us how you REALLY feel

No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's  and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.

Man it's like we live in a totally different universe...

the law says its illegal, then its illegal.

So whatever it is written in the law is the only right thing to do? Ever?

Hmmmm

i never said laws were perfect, however, i did say if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.

My father told me all the time to let the people in charge be in charge. You try to take matters into your own hands, you'll get the system shoved up your ass. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and taking something that clearly you have no right to is most definitely the wrong way to do something, period.

[karajorma]

Always nice to see fascism in action.

[Kosh]

Welcome back Herra.

In that case, I eagerly look forward to your elaboration on why Macs are also PCs and consoles, because...

That's what they are. A Mac, like a console, is a PC with an absolutely fixed hardware set (in theory) and ease-of-use improvements.

In fairness the original XBox actually was this, low end PC hardware with a modified easy to use OS.

That being said a major consideration with consoles is that they often use fairly exotic and proprietary hardware combos, the PS3 and xBox 360 both do this. Good luck getting your hands on those fancy IBM Xenon CPUs, let alone getting it to run anything off the shelf.......

[Luis Dias]

i never said laws were perfect, however, i did say if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.

My father told me all the time to let the people in charge be in charge.

Yeah, all this talk about power be in the hands of the people, you know democracy? Pure rubbish, right?

You try to take matters into your own hands, you'll get the system shoved up your ass. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and taking something that clearly you have no right to is most definitely the wrong way to do something, period.

You are confusing law with morals. You need history lessons hard, bro.

[Vertigo 7]

i never said laws were perfect, however, i did say if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.

My father told me all the time to let the people in charge be in charge.

Yeah, all this talk about power be in the hands of the people, you know democracy? Pure rubbish, right?

You try to take matters into your own hands, you'll get the system shoved up your ass. There's a right way and a wrong way to do things and taking something that clearly you have no right to is most definitely the wrong way to do something, period.

You are confusing law with morals. You need history lessons hard, bro.

I donno where you're from and... don't care tbh, but in this country (US) we vote for our leaders, have a voice in our government etc etc... so i'll say this for the final f'n time. if you disagree with a law, talk to your law makers.

This isn't about womens rights, oppression, or anything else that might be considered a revolutionary movement... this is about duche bags taking something that they know damn well they shouldn't be and have this stupid idea in their head that its okay. This isn't something that any person, or a group of people can EVER take a stand and say "WE WANT THIS **** FOR FREE JUST CUZ IM A CHEAP ASS" and the goverment will give in.

*edit
There is no amendment that guarantees the people the right to be entertained.

[Spicious]

you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.

If you're going to treat any lost potential sale as theft then any act that reduces sales for anything must also be considered theft. If you're going to make up your own definitions, at least have the decency to apply them uniformly.

[Vertigo 7]

you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.

If you're going to treat any lost potential sale as theft then any act that reduces sales for anything must also be considered theft. If you're going to make up your own definitions, at least have the decency to apply them uniformly.

Uhm... what? I'm not making up my own definitions... I was stating that i doubt the distributors consider every single download as a lost potential sale. That would just be silly if they did cuz some people have as much admitted they use torrents to download something and if they like it they buy it later. I'm not in any way shape or form saying i agree with that action.

[Herra Tohtori]

Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?

who said anything about punishment? i was speaking about my respect towards a thief

That's why I was asking.

If you view each crime equally damaging to the respect you have towards a human being, then the logical conclusion is to assume you view each crime as equal affront and equally punishable.

What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?

again, a thief is a thief is a thief. and nope, i respect them all about the same. Rape, theft, murder... all equally worthless scum.

What about blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, those who abandon Islam, those who criticize the party, or those who refuse to kill when ordered (conscripted), or those who consume alcoholic beverages underage or when it is otherwise disallowed? All these are very serious offenses in certain areas - most determined as such by the criminal code of those areas. Are these people worthless scum because they are breaking the law?

Or is the law worthless because these acts are illegal?

Which legislative system is it that determines your respect of a human being?


I would like to point out that in my opinion, relying on obedience to local laws is a very bad way to gauge a person's worth. Every human being deserves being treated respectfully and with dignity by definition of being a human being, no matter their crimes.

People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!

You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.

don't make excuses for the thieves. they're worthless enough as it is. They're wrong and they know it otherwise you would see them come on the news and speaking to committees on why their piracy should be legal.

You are completely missing my point. I am not making any excuses, I am pointing out that people at large do not determine their doings by legality, or fear of being caught doing illegal things. If they don't perceive something as being wrong, they'll sure as hell be doing it no matter what laws are set tp "prevent" it.

And even if they perceive it as wrong, some people will still be doing it.

Legislation is a bad way to deter normal people from doing what they want to do. It has never worked, and never will. Refer to prohibition laws for further reading.

Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.

Definition of THEFT
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
   b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.

That definition of theft certainly doesn't apply to digital data being copied from one peer to another. The original is not taken away from the owner.

You could argue that the data isn't theirs to give away, but is it then also illegal to borrow your movie DVD to a friend?

And regarding the equation of downloads to lost buyer, I am not sure how copyright lawyers calculate their demands for repayment of damages but I'm unsure how else they could possibly get into the ridiculous numbers they typically do. The projected losses are almost completely arbitrary, and you can freely scale the loss value based on how you decide to read the data.

By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?


If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?

I'm not assuming anything about the prices. thats up to the distributors/merchants. They can set what ever prices they want to because.... yep, you guess it, its their ****. If they want to give it away for free, hey... its their ****.

Okay. Good to know there are no assumptions about what an individual should pay for using a media (DVD, CD, game).


But if I buy a movie DVD, CD or a computer game, can I borrow it to a friend?

No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's  and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.

And as I have already pointed out, legislation doesn't always coincide with our concepts of right and wrong.

There is 0 justification for this. I don't give 2 ****s if the public library pays for permission to have a few copies of a video for people to take home for a couple of days. Not many do that, and if you're fortunate enough to live close to one that does, good for you. That is an approved medium for distribution and if you tried to argue that lame **** in court, yould get laughed at by the judge and we'd see you in a few years with some nice tats of "Bubba's" on your ass.

Well, you're trying to say that categorically nothing illegal ever has justification. That's a poor way to argue, and I would like to hear your argumentation on this specific issue as opposed to you just saying that it's illegal and thus has no justification.

Aside from being illegal (this is not a definition of "wrong"), what makes online peer-to-peer distribution of data unjustifiable?

Is it just the "unapproved medium for distribution"? The end result is the exact same regardless of whether I get the film from public broadcast network (television), library, borrowing from a friend, or by downloading it via torrents or other method. So, where exactly is the problem?

Refer to earlier examples of why legislation does not always equate to right and wrong. Those terms are much more vague and complex than legislation.

You're living in a delusion. If you disagree with a law, use the appropriate forum (i mean your law makers) for changing it, don't try to circumvent it or you might end up with a new picture and a number.

Sadly, unlike copyright trolls, I do not have the monetary resources to attract politicians to my opinions on the matter.

This has no relevance to whether my argumentation is delusional or not, and stating something doesn't make it so.


On basic principle I agree that it would be an ideal solution if politicians actually knew what the hell they were doing or had the time to familiarize themselves properly with different sides of the issues, but as it stands, those with the money get to tell them their side and few are those individuals in politics who can bother learning the other side.

I could just as easily argue that it's a delusion to think that general population could ever get their voice heard on political issues, but I do believe in democracy over other forms of governance.

However, I do not view the legislature as the highest norm of my doings. Most of the time, my opinions of what is right and what is wrong coincide with the law, so it's usually not a problem. However, if a time came when I was presented with a choice between legal and illegal course of action, I wouldn't base my decision primarily on the law, but what I thought was the right thing to do at those circumstances.

[Spicious]

Uhm... what? I'm not making up my own definitions... I was stating that i doubt the distributors consider every single download as a lost potential sale. That would just be silly if they did cuz some people have as much admitted they use torrents to download something and if they like it they buy it later. I'm not in any way shape or form saying i agree with that action.

Your claims that "copyright infringement" is theft is in fact a definition made up by you. If you understand the copyright industry so well please explain how Limewire is responsible for $75 trillion in lost sales in music alone.

[headdie]

Uhm... what? I'm not making up my own definitions... I was stating that i doubt the distributors consider every single download as a lost potential sale. That would just be silly if they did cuz some people have as much admitted they use torrents to download something and if they like it they buy it later. I'm not in any way shape or form saying i agree with that action.

Your claims that "copyright infringement" is theft is in fact a definition made up by you. If you understand the copyright industry so well please explain how Limewire is responsible for $75 trillion in lost sales in music alone.

I am guessing it equates to something along the lines of £3.50 (or whatever it is) for the value of the average track multiplied by the number of Audio files they can find downloaded over the network.

the fact that a proportion of those downloads are made in instances where the downloader probably wouldn't have normally sought to obtain the track, legally or illegally, wont be factored into it.

[Vertigo 7]

Interesting. Do you also think rape and theft should be punished equally?

who said anything about punishment? i was speaking about my respect towards a thief

That's why I was asking.

If you view each crime equally damaging to the respect you have towards a human being, then the logical conclusion is to assume you view each crime as equal affront and equally punishable.

well that isn't the case here. Rapists and murderers should get life and or death on a case by case basis, theft... w/e the fitting punishment is. However, from personal experience, i may be a bit biased against thieves, but they're ****ing useless scum, so again, i lump em all in the same respect level.

What about petty theft and murder? Do you respect a pickpocket less or more than a murderer?

again, a thief is a thief is a thief. and nope, i respect them all about the same. Rape, theft, murder... all equally worthless scum.

*pic* ok that made me laugh

What about blasphemers, adulterers, homosexuals, those who abandon Islam, those who criticize the party, or those who refuse to kill when ordered (conscripted), or those who consume alcoholic beverages underage or when it is otherwise disallowed? All these are very serious offenses in certain areas - most determined as such by the criminal code of those areas. Are these people worthless scum because they are breaking the law?

Or is the law worthless because these acts are illegal?

Which legislative system is it that determines your respect of a human being?


I would like to point out that in my opinion, relying on obedience to local laws is a very bad way to gauge a person's worth. Every human being deserves being treated respectfully and with dignity by definition of being a human being, no matter their crimes.

Well this certinally isn't a story of robin hood. This is people getting the case of the "me wants so me have" and using illegal methods to obtain something that there are plenty of perfectly legitimate and legal method of obtaining. My respect for a human being is determined by his or her own actions. If they cross that line, they're worthless to me. You may like em, thats up to you, I however, don't, and nothing will ever change my mind about that.

I say my brother is about as useful as a worn out eraser? Why? We'll hes all kinds of ****ed up.. hes an alcoholic, a drug addict, a thief (hes even stolen from my family, and no thats not the only experience ive had dealing with thieves), hes gotten 4 DUI's and got busted for driving on a suspended license and gets pissed off at the city for making him appear in court every 3 months? Really... hes mad at the court? If he were to drop off the face of the earth right now, i wouldn't shed 1 tear for him. I digress...

You can't really equate this to some of the things you mentioned. This particular issue has no grey areas. Stealing is illegal, not only is it illegal, its immoral as well. My god, kids in pre school are taught not to take things that don't belong to them.

People shouldn't steal something and think that it was okay because the likely hood of them getting caught is slim. That's just straight bs. Why anyone would support this behavior and mentality is beyond me... get off your bum ass and go pay for your ****!

You're making an assumption that people think piracy is ok because risk of getting caught is negligible. In fact, I believe people pirate stuff because they do not view it as being wrong, even though they might know it to be illegal.

don't make excuses for the thieves. they're worthless enough as it is. They're wrong and they know it otherwise you would see them come on the news and speaking to committees on why their piracy should be legal.

You are completely missing my point. I am not making any excuses, I am pointing out that people at large do not determine their doings by legality, or fear of being caught doing illegal things. If they don't perceive something as being wrong, they'll sure as hell be doing it no matter what laws are set tp "prevent" it.

And even if they perceive it as wrong, some people will still be doing it.

Legislation is a bad way to deter normal people from doing what they want to do. It has never worked, and never will. Refer to prohibition laws for further reading.

I'm not sure what you want me to say... if they get caught breaking the law, they'll go to jail. It doesn't really matter if they precieved their actions being right or wrong, legal or illegal. Ignorance of the law is no excuse either.

Also, theft incurs a loss. What is being stolen, though? The typical argument against piracy involves a lot of hypotheticals, including "possible sales" or "lost revenue". I like to call these "virtual losses" since it's obvious they aren't real losses, and it's hard to determine their potential impact on the sales just by equating each downloader as one lost buyer.

Definition of THEFT
1 a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
   b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

you don't have to touch it to steal it. the law says its illegal, then its illegal. It doesn't matter if you call it virtual or if they call it possible sales. They are well within their rights to make a big deal out of it because its their **** to begin with. And i seriously doubt they equate every single download as a lost buyer. Im well aware that some people use this torrent crap as a means to make an informed purchase, and if I'm aware of it, i'm quite sure the people affected by this are too.

That definition of theft certainly doesn't apply to digital data being copied from one peer to another. The original is not taken away from the owner.

You could argue that the data isn't theirs to give away, but is it then also illegal to borrow your movie DVD to a friend?

And regarding the equation of downloads to lost buyer, I am not sure how copyright lawyers calculate their demands for repayment of damages but I'm unsure how else they could possibly get into the ridiculous numbers they typically do. The projected losses are almost completely arbitrary, and you can freely scale the loss value based on how you decide to read the data.

You're right, i would argue that, but you would have to read the license agreement for the game/movie whatever to figure that out. And if its not clear, here's a radical idea... contact the distributor and ask them if its okay. Take some personal responsibility (not necessaraly directed at you).

By the way, are we making an assumption here that there should always be a price paid by the user for viewing a film or listening to music or playing a game? Perhaps instead of a physical media, we should be buying licenses or permissions to use some media - maybe even include a clause that says how many times we are allowed to watch a movie with certain license, or maybe a limited time frame during which we may use the media as much as we can or want?


If so, should that price be uniform and always the same? What about renting a movie/cd/game instead of buying a copy of your own? Or how about borrowing it from a friend to watch it, then returning it?

I'm not assuming anything about the prices. thats up to the distributors/merchants. They can set what ever prices they want to because.... yep, you guess it, its their ****. If they want to give it away for free, hey... its their ****.

Okay. Good to know there are no assumptions about what an individual should pay for using a media (DVD, CD, game).


But if I buy a movie DVD, CD or a computer game, can I borrow it to a friend?

see above

No matter how you dice it, at the end of the day, its still a clear violation of the law. You get busted for it, you'll get fined and or jail time. So what, people used VCR's  and cassette decks back in the day to sorta do the exact same thing today? Guess what... it was illegal then too, only people didn't get caught, and that still doesn't mean it was okay then or now. Now some people got caught and its OMFG THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUNISHED FOR THAT... and why? cuz the people defending them are doing the exact same damn thing.

And as I have already pointed out, legislation doesn't always coincide with our concepts of right and wrong.

Maybe, maybe not, but we empowered them to make said legislation and we also have the ability and right to voice our opinions if we don't agree with the legislation. Not every politician makes decisions that everyone goes a long with. You can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time. That still doesn't make taking personal action that's against the law the right thing to do especially in this case.

There is 0 justification for this. I don't give 2 ****s if the public library pays for permission to have a few copies of a video for people to take home for a couple of days. Not many do that, and if you're fortunate enough to live close to one that does, good for you. That is an approved medium for distribution and if you tried to argue that lame **** in court, yould get laughed at by the judge and we'd see you in a few years with some nice tats of "Bubba's" on your ass.

Well, you're trying to say that categorically nothing illegal ever has justification. That's a poor way to argue, and I would like to hear your argumentation on this specific issue as opposed to you just saying that it's illegal and thus has no justification.

Aside from being illegal (this is not a definition of "wrong"), what makes online peer-to-peer distribution of data unjustifiable?

Is it just the "unapproved medium for distribution"? The end result is the exact same regardless of whether I get the film from public broadcast network (television), library, borrowing from a friend, or by downloading it via torrents or other method. So, where exactly is the problem?

Refer to earlier examples of why legislation does not always equate to right and wrong. Those terms are much more vague and complex than legislation.

Firstly, i never said p2p was unjustifiable, i said illegally obtaining this stuff is. If a public library paid to have a few copies of a movie available, then thats what they have.... x number of copies. you'll never see millions of copies in a library for people to just take... why? because the distributors will never sell them that many copies because that would kill their sales in that area... so, using that as justification to get the video over p2p is stupid. They have a limited number for public use and thats it. If you want the video at the time but they don't have it... why would that trigger a thought process to say "oh well since i was going to watch it for free anyway, i'll just go download it from the internet, its the same thing" No its not, otherwise the library would hand out a damn tracker and a torrent link instead. And if you don't even bother checking to see if the library has it and you're just getting it anyway, you're f'n lazy and that falls into that worthless thief category.

Again, as to borrowing something from a friend, you'll have to read the involved license agreements for that one.

You're living in a delusion. If you disagree with a law, use the appropriate forum (i mean your law makers) for changing it, don't try to circumvent it or you might end up with a new picture and a number.

Sadly, unlike copyright trolls, I do not have the monetary resources to attract politicians to my opinions on the matter.

This has no relevance to whether my argumentation is delusional or not, and stating something doesn't make it so.


On basic principle I agree that it would be an ideal solution if politicians actually knew what the hell they were doing or had the time to familiarize themselves properly with different sides of the issues, but as it stands, those with the money get to tell them their side and few are those individuals in politics who can bother learning the other side.

I could just as easily argue that it's a delusion to think that general population could ever get their voice heard on political issues, but I do believe in democracy over other forms of governance.

However, I do not view the legislature as the highest norm of my doings. Most of the time, my opinions of what is right and what is wrong coincide with the law, so it's usually not a problem. However, if a time came when I was presented with a choice between legal and illegal course of action, I wouldn't base my decision primarily on the law, but what I thought was the right thing to do at those circumstances.

Well i don't have to pay anyone to pick up a phone and call my congressman... well maybe a LD charge if im out of the area, but i never said you had to go campaign. Hell, the FDA just got their ass handed to them in court over this ecig business and other than the people sueing the FDA, a bunch of internet forum members got heavily involved with very little cost (other than time) to make their voice heard in the form of... dun dun dunnnnnnn... a petition and written testimony! If you truly believe that you don't have a voice, that just tells me you aren't speaking up.

[NGTM-1R]

You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.

It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.

Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.

[Vertigo 7]

You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.

It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.

Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.

Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.

[headdie]

You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.

It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.

Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.

Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.

the difference here though is that goods which would have been sold have been removed, in doing so there is a definite action-> negative consequence and it is easy to prove that an act that is both immoral and illegal has been committed.

with piracy you have the issue that in the vast majority of cases legitimate purchase has been made and a copy of that item has been made.  the argument here is where is the line exsists between right and wrong.  What is the difference between lending your copy of Avatar, Death Magnetic or Crysis to a mate to watch/listen/play to and making a copy and giving that to them? 

In both cases the artists/producers, publisher and store owners have been done out of a sale as with the lending unless the person you are lending to will probably borrow it again unless they want to use it many times.  Yet lending your copy is ok but copying it isn't and in many cases the effect is the same.

And before you complain about that line not applying/exsisting, it is there because we all at some point lend stuff to mates and family we trust to get things back from thus for piracy to be wrong there has to be a threshold where the situation changes.

[Herra Tohtori]

Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.

And you saying that it's stealing doesn't mean it actually is stealing. It means that you say it's stealing, which doesn't really mean much. I can say the Moon is made of cheese, but it doesn't make it so unless I define cheese as being the stuff that Moon is made of. This is called circular logic.

We're not discussing what online piratism is defined as by law or copyright holders. We're discussing whether it actually fulfills the generally agreed upon definition of stealing. So far it seems it's failing hard. Exploitation of the data without creator's consent for distribution would be a more accurate description.


Look at it this way.


If I buy something, do I or do I not own it?

If I own something, am I or am I not able to do what I like with it?


Is there a legitimate or valid reason to prevent borrowing a film, audio CD or a game to a friend or aquaintance?

If you say yes, then you are essentially arguing for media licensing - you would have to buy a specific license to watch a movie, listen to music or play a game, and moving that license from person to another would be copyright infringement because that other person wouldn't pay anything to the creators. This would never be approved, so it really isn't available as an option, although the entertainment industry definitely would love this.

Technically it would be even worse copyright infringement if you sold your license to someone else - second hand media products would all be copyright infringements in this sort of system, since the licenses would be personal. You'd have to buy the license for everyone watching the film at your home to be strictly legal about it.


If your answer is no, there is no legitimate reason to prevent borrowing a film to friend or aquaintance, then we get into a quagmire of problematic definitions.

If you can borrow a physical copy of a product to a friend, what makes it different from sharing it digitally?

You can say "ah, but now the product is duplicated, so you are getting twice the product you paid for!"

And I'll counter by saying that isn't really relevant, as the media experience can't be forgotten just by transferring physical custody of the media. You have watched the film, and you know what happens in it - and now you're borrowing the film to a friend, so they'll experience it as well. You can also watch the film with one, two, three, or N other people. This has the exact same effect as duplicating the physical media by making a digital copy - N amount of people get to see the film which is the end result of "piracy".


So the question becomes, are the media corporations selling films, DVD's, licenses to watch the film, license to use the DVD in one device at a time, or what? They don't seem to have clear definitions for what exactly it is that I buy when I go to a shop and buy a CD, or DVD? Computer games are pretty clear, being software they have always been license based products rather than something you "own", but audio/video medias are suffering from distinct lack of definition of what exactly you get for your money.


To be logically consistent, categorical criminalization of peer-to-peer distribution of films, music and games would have to mean that they should demand that no media should be possible to borrow or give to a friend, much less sell second-hand. But they can't do that because the law protects the customers' rights to the product they have purchased; you CAN sell your films, audio CD's and games second-hand if you want, and there's nothing the entertainment industry can do about it - although they are trying really really hard.


Try to look at the situation comparing the ends, not means. It's true that peer-to-peer piratism is illegal and an unapproved channel of distribution for the product. But fundamentally, is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people? Or watching the film with a lot of people at the same time? Is the difference between private and public use? But then, what makes that difference? Is there some invisible numerical line that says you can only have N amount of people see this particular physical copy of the media? What would that difference be and how should it be enforced?


End result from both is that the media experience is not limited to the original buyer of the product. But what is it that makes one way of sharing your purchase with others illegal, while the other is not?

[Vertigo 7]

You know, it's not an honorable profession, but thievery is rarely motivated by actual greed. Granted this may be because I've developed a profound contempt for the concept of honor in the last year or so, but you talk like somebody stole your dog.

It's not theft, except in the hypothetical sense, and if we're prosecuting hypothetical crimes then frankly we're all ****ed because hypothetically we could all be serial killers.

Which brings me to my other point: despite the hyped-up nature of copyright infringement as a crime, it is not prosecuted for the most part. The resources of the government are used sparingly at best in the enforcement of it; it is played, legally, as a civil matter almost without exception. The FBI warning on your DVDs verges on an elaborate sham.

Its really no different than walking into walmart and taking the discs off the shelf and stuffing them in your pockets. Just because there's no physical media, it doesn't mean its not stealing.

the difference here though is that goods which would have been sold have been removed, in doing so there is a definite action-> negative consequence and it is easy to prove that an act that is both immoral and illegal has been committed.

with piracy you have the issue that in the vast majority of cases legitimate purchase has been made and a copy of that item has been made.  the argument here is where is the line exsists between right and wrong.  What is the difference between lending your copy of Avatar, Death Magnetic or Crysis to a mate to watch/listen/play to and making a copy and giving that to them? 

In both cases the artists/producers, publisher and store owners have been done out of a sale as with the lending unless the person you are lending to will probably borrow it again unless they want to use it many times.  Yet lending your copy is ok but copying it isn't and in many cases the effect is the same.

And before you complain about that line not applying/exsisting, it is there because we all at some point lend stuff to mates and family we trust to get things back from thus for piracy to be wrong there has to be a threshold where the situation changes.

i never would say that. Again, as i said several times previously, that would be up to the license agreement and or the distributors. In a lot of cases, games can't be played with out the media inserted (IE console games most especially). Now if you were to loan that game to a friend, you've effectively removed your ability to play the game. In most cases software is allowed to be installed/used on 1 device at a time per the license agreement. If thats so, hey guess what, the license agreement hasn't been violated and there's no issue there. The game was bought and paid for, so on and so on.

with piracy, you have a clear unlawful act to obatain/distrubte something with out consent. I don't understand how there is any confusion on this. ITS ILLEGAL. you can close your eyes and concentrate real real real hard all you want to, but that fact will not change unless the law does (and i highly doubt it).

[karajorma]

is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people?

Lending. Borrowing is when someone else lends it to you.

No, I'm not becoming a grammar nazi, it's just that I've spent quite a few hours explaining the difference in class recently.

[Herra Tohtori]

is there a difference to just borrowing the film you bought to other people?

Lending. Borrowing is when someone else lends it to you.

No, I'm not becoming a grammar nazi, it's just that I've spent quite a few hours explaining the difference in class recently.

I contemplated on whether there was a difference between lending and borrowing, but couldn't really bother finding out. In Finnish, there's one word for it both ways. This unit wants to express its gratitude and has saved this distinction to its memory banks. It shall use it appropriately next time.