how-to block ads
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
 ·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: So find them and swat them again Waaah! Waaah.. Crybaby.. Grow up, they aren't doing anything illegal in THEIR COUNTRY. The are exactly like allofmp3, which you critize for doing things that are perfectly legal IN THEIR COUNTRY. Again, I can't state it strong enough for the right-wing christian conservative whacko fundies to understand. It's not illegal where they are..
Ha! Haha!
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
|  | | Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| uh oh! the bad magician strikes again... come on karl, don't you understand by now that just because something isn't illegal doesn't necessarily make it right... didn't your parents or whatever you can call parents that would claim you as their child, ever tell you that theft is wrong...? of course, it's a different country, but it's a country that seems to not care about theft as a national priority... that's a position that is and can be reasonable to have... and as a right-winger, who is a christian conservative isn't that hard to understand...
you know karl, i wonder if you are always looking behind your shoulder to make sure that no evangelicals have their left-wing/socialist/communist/irrational nut-root radar on and it's pinging on you... | |
| | 
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| Re: So find them and swat them again said by Asmodeus  :uh oh! the bad magician strikes again... come on karl, don't you understand by now that just because something isn't illegal doesn't necessarily make it right... didn't your parents or whatever you can call parents that would claim you as their child, ever tell you that theft is wrong...? of course, it's a different country, but it's a country that seems to not care about theft as a national priority... that's a position that is and can be reasonable to have... and as a right-winger, who is a christian conservative isn't that hard to understand... you know karl, i wonder if you are always looking behind your shoulder to make sure that no evangelicals have their left-wing/socialist/communist/irrational nut-root radar on and it's pinging on you... Wrong is a moral judgement, and may vary from person to person. Illegal is the only standard that would matter in a court of law, though. | |
| | | Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
1 edit | Re: So find them and swat them again That's right, proclaiming something that would be construed as going against the norms of (a) society as a wrong is a moral judgement, but the distinctions of wrong and right are also based within a particular culture or society... I think the behavior of theft is universally accepted as being wrong and I don't think that i'm that far off in saying that theft, regardless of product or packaging or transportation, is wrong... since the law as you and I know it is based on a moral code, then it would be safe to say that making a moral judgement against theft is used in a court of law... It's up to the adjudication process to determine whether an act of theft can be defined and established... after that, then the legal standards come into play...
while moral judgements may vary from person to person, it is the society in many of it's manifestation that determines what is acceptable within it's confines and what is not... and if you not what i said in my prior post, it appears that theft visa vi software piracy through torrent distribution in sweden is a low priority for that country... but now that swedes have voted in a rightist government it will be a matter of time before this becomes a higher priority... | |
| | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | Re: So find them and swat them again As has been said to you a million zillion times, the definition of theft requires that the item is no longer available to the original owner. You're discussing copyright law, which, by the way, isn't in the bible. So you should have no problem with copyright infringement.
Many developing countries have a problem with copyright laws specifically because they will never get a chance to own the vast number of patents that new patents will be based on. They see it as a means to keep the rich countries rich.
Personally, it is absolutely necessary to have copyright laws, however; I still believe that if you are not harming the livelihood of the copyright holder (as the law actually states) you shouldn't be liable for civil damages. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| Re: So find them and swat them again said by TKJunkMail :HR>But you are denying the copyright holder income. You may not care, but I'm sure the copyright holder does.
A person is only denying the copyright holder income, if they would have purchased the work had a free copy not
been available. Since this can't be proved either way, you cannot claim definitivey that there is lost income. | |
| | | | | Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
1 edit | ah, i see, so now you want to redefine theft so it fits your particular skew of what you think legaleze is...? I'm discussing theft, the willful and knowledgeable stealing of intellectual property that doesn't belong to you because you didn't pay for the privilege of the use of that software... so take your stupid insults about copyright laws not being in the bible and spoon feed them to karl... i'm sure he's been missing his daily dose of christian hatred today...
be that as it may, are you making the statement now that sweden is a developing country that has a problem with theft via copyright law...? also, are you now going to strawman this argument into that of developing nations and how copyright law affects their access to patents as a function of your bias against those who attain and have wealth...? are you completely ignorant or just joking...? you can redefine theft all day long for i care, but just because you think in your precious little mind that if you say it, it will manifest, then you would be dumber than karl... at least he's honest in his hatred of anything legitimate...
but you, you are fairly dangerous in your thinking... first, because you presume to understand and try to impart to us what theft is... you have failed: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
second of all is because you are willfully misdirecting and falsely characterizing the topic at hand by stating that copyright law and patent law are the drivers for how theft is defined... this is patent nonsense (pun intended) and you are being either intellectually dishonest, intellectually ignorant, or just downright lying about what you think you know on this subject...
thirdly, because you make the supposition that "I still believe that if you are not harming the livelihood of the copyright holder (as the law actually states) you shouldn't be liable for civil damages." makes you even more dangerous in your thought pattern... if you believe for an instant that you are not stealing when you pirate, then you are a fool... if you take a car from one of millions of cars without paying for it, then you are stealing and therefore a thief... if you take a loaf of bread from one of many loaves of bread without paying for it, then you are stealing and therefore a thief... if you steal a man-made digital construct of programming code that is proprietary in nature, arranged in such a way as to be used for the purposes of use by an end user, or to be used in another piece of programming from which millions of copies are made for the sole purpose of sale without paying for it, then you are stealing and therefore a thief...
how can you possibly say you aren't harming the livelihood of the author, maker, copyright holder, owner of programming code, better known as software, for your personal use without paying for it or distributing it to others so they can also use it without paying for it and call that non-theivery...? you are directly affecting the ability for those people to collect the money from your use of said goods, tangible or intangible... so everytime you use a piece of software without paying for it, that's less money that the makers of it get, but you get the benefit of using it regardless and so do you cohorts that you distribute it too...
god, you are insanely stupid... | |
| | | | | | 
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
4 edits | Re: So find them and swat them again Let's drop the specious use of the word "steal" as it has been appropriated by the media industry.
Steal- through 1000 years of English Common Law (which our laws- with the exception of Louisiana -are based on) has meant, the unlawful taking (removing from the possession, custody or control) of the chattels (physical property) of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof. Nice, tight and to the point. Even Tommy Jefferson the wine soaked, slave humping, debt laden, "idea man" that slipped the radical new concept of copyright into our Constitution knew that: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Debate
The non-profit Sharing of music, movies, books or software with other people via the internet fits NONE of the key elements of the crime of THEFT as it has been used for a millennia. The fact that they've made it "theft" via lobbyslation still doesn't make it so to me. It disturbs me that others so willingly accept this as theft. It's an invented CRIME that didn't exist in any way 40 years ago. Copyright existed then too, but if you wanted to GIVE away copies you made of something copyrighted there was NO CRIME committed and the copyright holder would only have been entitled to civil damages in the amount of $ you made giving away the work, i.e. NADA.
Big Brother isn't the government, Big Brother is the media industry that wants you to see the movie in theatres, pay for the PPV, and then buy the limited edition Box DVD or have to buy a $500 Office Suite or $3000 CAD program every 3 years because they've made sure your files are no longer readable by those using the "new and improved" version of the product; and they get to make sure you do this and buy what they want you to, how they want you to by using the power of the government to make you.
Copyright monopoly has NO reason to be as expansive as it is. We need to develop a compulsory licensing schema and abandon this exclusive "ownership" and control crap ASAP. All it does is cost the consumer, stagnate cultural and technical growth and result in the further corruption of elected officials via troughs of money.
BTW, if you are going to claim fictional "sales" lost for every copyrighted work downloaded (assuming that such people would even buy 1/20th of everything they DL), then you need to also buoy them with sales obtained that would not have occurred BUT FOR the existence of P2P. I believe the Napster data proved file sharing was actually a Bonanza for the record companies, but it's NEVER mentioned in the mainstream media when these issues are discussed.
Yes, the non-profit sharing of copyrighted works is currently illegal and as long as jackass organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, ASCAP and BSA are able to throw around nonsense numbers of BILLIONS in lost sales along with suit cases full of money to politicians there will never be a rational debate about the REAL harm, or lack thereof, it actually causes or what "protection" is TRULY needed in order to promote the useful arts and sciences as laid out in our Constitution by Tommy Jeff.
All there will be is a lock-step clamoring for more and more protection and you will experience less and less freedom and more and more control over what you can do with what you "own". But apparently you won't miss those freedoms because "it's stealing" and "it's the law". | |
| | 
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
1 edit | (hit wrong reply button...) | |
| |
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN | nice Ad hominem argument there.
However the ethics of stealing non-tangible goods aren't equivalent to those of physical products and interactive services.
No amount of arguing is going to prove anything. | |
| | | Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
| Re: So find them and swat them again being hypersensitive and claiming an ad-hom is foolish... however, the ethics of stealing tangible goods vs. tangible goods are quite equivalent... but since you've made the claim that the ethics aren't equivalent, i'd like to see an argument from you that defends this thesis... then for you to say that no amount of arguing is going to prove anything, only proves that you are setting yourself up for not being able to take criticism on a premise that you've just tried to define as being not true...
i have no problem justifying, defending, and giving proper argumentation to counter your claim that the ethics of stealing non-tangible goods cannot be argued according to you... i'll give you a perfect example... we all know that an apple is a tangible good... if you take it without paying for it, you are a thief... i think we can all agree on that...
now, let's say that an advertising agency creates an ad campaign for a particular product... the copy, the print, the graphics, the style, the shape, even the colors are all made using digital processes... in essence they are intangible... now, you take that digital intangible property and use it for your own gain, you have not paid for it, but yet you use it... it's intangible because it's simply a collection of electrical bits arranged in such a way that can be decoded for end use, but you didn't pay for and use it anyway... what does that make you...?
this isn't a difficult thing to argue and i think i've proven my point on the matter... the problem with people like you, is that you want to be contrarian(s) in nature... if someone says left, you want to say right... up becomes down... you want things your way because you have, through the use of technology the ability to manipulate data, an intangible product, with or without permission... the distinct difference is, is that it isn't yours to begin with now is it... you didn't invent it... you didn't create it... you didn't design it or engineer it, but yet you are willing to claim that an intangible assett has a completely different ethical basis that allows you the right use it without paying for the privilege of using it, to distribute it without said payment or permission to other who would do the same...
your idea of ethics is flawed... | |
| | | |
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Re: So find them and swat them again So, my ethics are 'flawed' according to you. Let's just say we agree to disagree. I most certainly won't listen to a right-wing christian trying to PREACH to me what is right and what is WRONG. I make my own moral decisions in life, and where in the world do YOU get off telling me I am wrong? It's people like you and your religious beliefs that have killed FAR MORE PEOPLE in history than any nation or tribe has. Religion isn't the solution to the problem, religion IS the problem.
--
Stick it to the MAN. Support your local torrent sites. Proudly providing 10mb of upstream for all your TV, Movie, and MP3 needs. | |
| | | | | | | | |
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
1 edit | Your advertising campaign example just kind of confuses me. Trademarks and copyright are fairly distinct and only somewhat similar.
When you abuse a trademark, you are decrementing the name of the company that stands behind it..
Branding encapsulated baking powder as Viagra is an example of your claim. I'm sure Pfizer would have a hard time maintaining the integrity of their advertisement established brand name if junk looked legit.
The form of infringement that I am referring to happens when individuals use information for greater benefit or enjoyment than the creator might like. Honestly now. When I picasa an entire book instead of buying the new edition, the book sits, unsold, on the shelf. Maybe the publisher is "deprived" of the sale, but they haven't lost their book either. Information wants to be free and technology is the key to opening up other channels of accessing knowledge.
one last bit..
quote:
didn't your parents or whatever you can call parents that would claim you as their child, ever tell you that theft is wrong...?
Sounds like a personal attack to me.. We are debating whether what is happening is objectively wrong because it genuinely deprives artists. AND, the answer is both yes and no, not that Karl was poorly raised because he doesn't believe one or the other side to be precisely right. | |
| | 
dadkins
Can you do Blu?
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | My parents always told me to share... | |
| | |
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
1 edit | My parents always told me to share.. (chuckle) | |
| |
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| The natural corollary of which is: Just because it's against the law doesn't make it wrong.
Drinking was against the law during prohibition and never wrong to most people. Viewing films or listening to music that another person is kindly willing to share with you doesn't strike many people as wrong.
Despite the fact that the media corporations have made it more and more "illegal" they are and will forever be unable to make media sharing WRONG to most.
--
Don't suspect your friends...turn them in. Brazil (if you haven't seen it, you should) | |
| 
TOPDAWG
Premium
join:2005-04-27
Midland, ON
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | The hell half your post has nothing to do with the story. Dems also side with the MPAA. Face it anyone in Washington is going to side with big business. Dem, Rep I don't care they're all the same when it comes to big business.
Also two posts under yours has been removed the hell is yours still up for? Your flame baiting bad. | |
| 
PolarBear
The bear formerly known as aaron8301
Premium
join:2005-01-03
 ·CableOne
| Oh, but Karl, it's illegal in the US, thus it is wrong and should be illegal EVERYWHERE in the universe, because, of course, the US decides what is right and wrong for everyone. Didn't you know that!
HA HA HA HA HA!
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. | |
| | | |
|
·