how-to block ads
|
Asmodeus
join:2004-05-26
Spring Valley, CA
1 edit | Re: So find them and swat them again 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". | |
| | | |
|
