Even more pathetic is somebody rambling about arguments that weren't made, and arguing based on gross generalizations... (if I make music, and I want it to be shared freely, it is legal, no generalizations you make can change that). Take your own advice, loser.
In Florida, stores have to hold on to CDs for 30 days before they can sell them...
the local record shop makes copies of all of your identifying information and even collects your fingerprints.
I'd like to ask why someone always trots out some definition of "stealing", "theft", or similar words in these arguments, that isn't a legal definition.
Because, at least I think, they forget that the case as a whole in which the use of words is in question is a legal matter, at least in the example of this story.
"No" expectation of privacy is a far cry from it being ok to basically stalk people and pry into their lives that way, and too many people who carry the tagline about expectation of privacy, in my opinion at least, ar (intentionally or not) using a red herring to distract from the real problems raised.
If there are formattting tags that can be inserted into the myspace profiles/blogs, what would stop people from writing one of the forbidden words or phrases, and putting empty tags inbetween the words to fool the filter since the tags don't show up?
I mean, if a forum filters the word "shit"
, it is possible to type out "sh[b][/b]it"* and have the word come put uncensored, it's a matter of making it work in this situation.
...if you make and sell content that others copy and distribute for free, they have taken away your hard work and put you out of business.
Which automatically assumes that is the ONLY reason you get put out of business, which is a fallacy as there are many other reasons you may fail. That, and the concept of punishment fitting the crime, IMO, always applies.
IF stealing a car and copying a song are different, why are you saying they are the same? Why are you contradicting yourself? Logically, legally, they are not and for good reason. One = deprival of somebody's property or whatnot without permission and importantly, removing it from their posession. The other you are looking for, copyright infringement, is making a copy of data that violates the applicable restrictions, "rights," without depriving the owner of anything they had before, or of any property, though a breach of rights has occured alone this is different from theft. You also fail to back up your claim with little reasoning more than "it is, it is, it is, repeat argument, repeat argument". I also like how you lump all music downloading as one, broad big bad act, when many musicians would disagree with your stance quite strongly.
.... You'r childish approach to the argument, by assuming "X argument against Y = justifying bad behavior", shows that you need to take your own advice, young padawan.
It is still, in my mind, based upon an illogocal preposition or concept and unfortunately is meant not as a figure of speech, but as truth when said events could not occur. It is, outside of a figure of speech context, in my opinion, distortion of truth and nothing more.
as far as blatant theft of intellectual property goes
As it goes.... considerinng as a legal crime that does not exist and is nothing more than a factual and logical contradiction created and used as a tagline by the MPAA and RIAA... unless you can prove it to me (that it does), I feel that if this term, and the other rediculous ways to say he is a copyright infringere and fraud are not relieved, this guy, though having a good reason to be PO'd, will, and should fall on his ass if he can't get what he's fighting right to begin with.
True, but that is not a part of "theft" unless one believes that profit that one has and may not even get in the firt place can be removed from him when he/she diidn't have it to begin with.
See the philosophical conundrums this stance can sometimes get people into?
I would like to ask where you got the definition from?
#2 is a completely illogical proposition, as it requires one to do something impossible to do with the raw building blocks of creativity. Frankly put, the person who put definition of #2 is an illogocal moron.
I did miss it, since I was technically doing a very fast fast read since I was in a rrush when that post of mine was made, as you can tell by the typos.
Hey, if you have something to hide, you shouldn't be leaving the house.
It's called a private life.... everybody has something to hide that falls under this.... it's OK.... it's tehe whole idea of privace... take a dep breath and let the logical fallacies flow out of your system, purge your mind of the ill logic.:P
I don't think of it as unloving, I think of it as completely unoriginal - same arguments, same logic, same fallacies as before all wrapped in slightly different bread.
Saying it is inevitable in one country is NOT badmouthing, what's the problem with saying it? It may not be agreeable, but IN MY Opinion it has a ring of truth if applied not just to one coutnry.
Slashdot Mirror
...and anyone who does not support it is nothing more than a criminal trying to justify criminal behaviors and activitiesThis ladies and gentlemen is a real sign of idiocy, assuming the wors out of people wrongly.
Even more pathetic is somebody rambling about arguments that weren't made, and arguing based on gross generalizations... (if I make music, and I want it to be shared freely, it is legal, no generalizations you make can change that). Take your own advice, loser.
I though these were CDs, not guns!
So punish for the innocent for no wrongdoing? Try again... and no, you can't try the same answer again.
This is really stupid.... fuck them. people will ignore this before you know it - wait, better make that "People are already ignoring this" then. ^_^
That is one of my bigger.... problems... with expressing myself. My clarity is not as sharp as it should be.
Because, at least I think, they forget that the case as a whole in which the use of words is in question is a legal matter, at least in the example of this story.
Whether it is intentional or not... I can't say.
"No" expectation of privacy is a far cry from it being ok to basically stalk people and pry into their lives that way, and too many people who carry the tagline about expectation of privacy, in my opinion at least, ar (intentionally or not) using a red herring to distract from the real problems raised.
Because apathy like that leads to the inactiveness that allows for the technology to flourish inapropriately in the first place.
If there are formattting tags that can be inserted into the myspace profiles/blogs, what would stop people from writing one of the forbidden words or phrases, and putting empty tags inbetween the words to fool the filter since the tags don't show up? I mean, if a forum filters the word "shit" , it is possible to type out "sh[b][/b]it"* and have the word come put uncensored, it's a matter of making it work in this situation.
...if you make and sell content that others copy and distribute for free, they have taken away your hard work and put you out of business.Which automatically assumes that is the ONLY reason you get put out of business, which is a fallacy as there are many other reasons you may fail. That, and the concept of punishment fitting the crime, IMO, always applies.
IF stealing a car and copying a song are different, why are you saying they are the same? Why are you contradicting yourself? Logically, legally, they are not and for good reason. One = deprival of somebody's property or whatnot without permission and importantly, removing it from their posession. The other you are looking for, copyright infringement, is making a copy of data that violates the applicable restrictions, "rights," without depriving the owner of anything they had before, or of any property, though a breach of rights has occured alone this is different from theft. You also fail to back up your claim with little reasoning more than "it is, it is, it is, repeat argument, repeat argument". I also like how you lump all music downloading as one, broad big bad act, when many musicians would disagree with your stance quite strongly.
.... You'r childish approach to the argument, by assuming "X argument against Y = justifying bad behavior", shows that you need to take your own advice, young padawan.
It is still, in my mind, based upon an illogocal preposition or concept and unfortunately is meant not as a figure of speech, but as truth when said events could not occur. It is, outside of a figure of speech context, in my opinion, distortion of truth and nothing more.
As it goes.... considerinng as a legal crime that does not exist and is nothing more than a factual and logical contradiction created and used as a tagline by the MPAA and RIAA... unless you can prove it to me (that it does), I feel that if this term, and the other rediculous ways to say he is a copyright infringere and fraud are not relieved, this guy, though having a good reason to be PO'd, will, and should fall on his ass if he can't get what he's fighting right to begin with.
How praytell may one do this without relieving the victims/defense of this defense mentally to begin with?
True, but that is not a part of "theft" unless one believes that profit that one has and may not even get in the firt place can be removed from him when he/she diidn't have it to begin with.
See the philosophical conundrums this stance can sometimes get people into?
I would like to ask where you got the definition from?
#2 is a completely illogical proposition, as it requires one to do something impossible to do with the raw building blocks of creativity. Frankly put, the person who put definition of #2 is an illogocal moron.
A group of people != nobody, TPB != the onlty source one should use for your clame.
Has the term, gross generalization missed yur brain?
Oxymoron?
Copy&Paste trolls suck... expecially when spewing the EXACT SAME thing in each topic about similar issues.
I did miss it, since I was technically doing a very fast fast read since I was in a rrush when that post of mine was made, as you can tell by the typos.
It's called a private life.... everybody has something to hide that falls under this.... it's OK.... it's tehe whole idea of privace... take a dep breath and let the logical fallacies flow out of your system, purge your mind of the ill logic. :P
I don't think of it as unloving, I think of it as completely unoriginal - same arguments, same logic, same fallacies as before all wrapped in slightly different bread.
Saying it is inevitable in one country is NOT badmouthing, what's the problem with saying it? It may not be agreeable, but IN MY Opinion it has a ring of truth if applied not just to one coutnry.