Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Waychel · Dec 11, 2003, 01:52 pm

Pooeypants: I believe comparing the downloading of un-licensed material with stealing is a poor analogy, personally. To steal would mean to physically take something from another party, leaving them at a loss. Warez, mp3s, etc. are not physical objects but immaterial copies. Does this make downloading un-licensed software or mp3s morally right? I believe that depends on the person. Stealing however is the wrong word to use. This is why people are sued on the grounds of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution" and not stealing or theft.

darwinist · Dec 11, 2003, 02:25 pm

Steal:-

thieve, take, appropriate, misappropriate, pilfer, purloin, filch, embezzle, plagiarize, pinch, nick, swipe, rip off....

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Pooeypants: I believe comparing the downloading of un-licensed material with stealing is a poor analogy, personally. To steal would mean to physically take something from another party, leaving them at a loss. Warez, mp3s, etc. are not physical objects but immaterial copies. Does this make downloading un-licensed software or mp3s morally right? I believe that depends on the person. Stealing however is the wrong word to use. This is why people are sued on the grounds of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution" and not stealing or theft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If everyone, downloads Cd's of Albums. From artist. You are stealing. Indirect theft of the record labels income. The indirect theft of the artist income.

If everyone is using Warez. Your also 'stealing' intellectual property.

Stealing is taking something, without the intent to pay for it... You can do all the word play you like. Look at the specail agreements for 'open' and 'free' source software. You can copy and change what ever you like. You can give your frieds copies. This is not stealing due to the special agreement.

Waychel · Dec 11, 2003, 03:21 pm

Darwinist, that is purely speculatory. Are you saying that you know my money making decisions? The money making decisions of every individual person who downloads music? Are you psychic?

The difference here is that estimated losses can be based upon statistics. When the RIAA sued a 12-year-old girl from NYC over distributing mp3s on KaZaA, their speculation was backed by numbers: those the girl distributed to, and the chances of those being prospective buyers. Here however, you are speaking of one individual. There is no knowing whether that one individual would have bought that CD or not. There is no room for statistic analysis.

Record labels are not being compensated by an individual downloading their music, but neither are they being financially compromised. This is why the RIAA has only sued those distributing music. If there was any case against those who simply download music, do you think an industry that goes after 12-year-old girls would hesitate in setting an example?

Bottom line is that your statements are analogous to shoplifting - not copyright infringement. Those who download music are not depriving the manufacturer of their physical property. Therefore, unauthorized electronic distribution of music itself - which actually is a crime - does not even constitute as "theft".

darwinist · Dec 11, 2003, 05:25 pm

Waychel, no of course i can not say about your money making dexisions. Or anyone elses, except my own.

But there are enough statistics out there. For a calculation. The average desposable income. The average anyone person, would normally spend on Cd's, games, etc. Plus the estimated loss. Of all these ripped-off music Cd's etc. You name it, they have numbers on everything. Of course, one thing effects another. As they do not know, exactly how wide scale these things are. And nobody is 'owning' up to it... Well not many.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Record labels are not being compensated by an individual downloading their music, but neither are they being financially compromised. This is why the RIAA has only sued those distributing music. If there was any case against those who simply download music, do you think an industry that goes after 12-year-old girls would hesitate in setting an example?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So if everyone 'downloaded' the lastest album from Robbie Williams, for free, from Warez. So not ever purchasing a copy. Your trying to tell me that the record label would not be financially compromised???

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Bottom line is that your statements are analogous to shoplifting - not copyright infringement. Those who download music are not depriving the manufacturer of their physical property. Therefore, unauthorized electronic distribution of music itself - which actually is a crime - does not even constitute as "theft".<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

So copying someone's test, is cheating. But also, you are stealing knowledge and/or ideas from someone else. True or false?

Waychel · Dec 11, 2003, 05:56 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
But there are enough statistics out there. For a calculation. The average desposable income. The average anyone person, would normally spend on Cd's, games, etc. Plus the estimated loss. Of all these ripped-off music Cd's etc. You name it, they have numbers on everything. Of course, one thing effects another. As they do not know, exactly how wide scale these things are. And nobody is 'owning' up to it... Well not many.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is the average for many people - not an individual.

You cannot say a specific individual "would have" acted a certain way based on statistics. You're essentially saying that we should judge the POTENTIAL actions of a singular individual - an actual entity - based on the average statistics of other people.

...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So if everyone 'downloaded' the lastest album from Robbie Williams, for free, from Warez. So not ever purchasing a copy. Your trying to tell me that the record label would not be financially compromised???<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This, again, is changing your original argument from a singular individual to many other people. However, going along with your avoidance of my original argument, this would indeed cause financial harm. However, the fault would not be upon these individuals, but the individual who distributed the items originally. I explained this in my previous posts.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
So copying someone's test, is cheating. But also, you are stealing knowledge and/or ideas from someone else. True or false?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I suggest you visit this website if you really are having a problem understanding this. You cannot "steal someone's knowledge" unless you were to physically cut them open and steal their brain right out of their head. This is why cheating on a test is called "cheating" and not "stealing knowledge". Your use of the term is improper, making your analogy likewise illogical and inapplicable in this situation.

The Devil · Dec 11, 2003, 06:25 pm

1. You can't steal something that can be copied free of charge, like data. If this were true, you'd be stealing music just by remembering a song.
2. It's not illegal to download copyrighted material. In the US it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material. In Canada it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material for a price.

Back to the original topic... warez can be good, so that you can try a program before you spend $1000 on it. It can also be bad, because it gives people less incentive to use something that's free.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 11, 2003, 07:50 pm

Maybe we should take a communist view on software, there can be no copywriting of it, I mean seeing as society seems to have accepted P2P and co are acceptable way of stea...I mean sharing then we might as well make it legal.
Anyway, although it is not illegal to download the copywrited software, it is illegal to use/play it with a license (buying the CD in the case of music). Unless ofc it's off the radio but then the rights have been given the channels to broadcast it.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 11, 2003, 07:52 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Pooeypants: I believe comparing the downloading of un-licensed material with stealing is a poor analogy, personally. To steal would mean to physically take something from another party, leaving them at a loss. Warez, mp3s, etc. are not physical objects but immaterial copies. Does this make downloading un-licensed software or mp3s morally right? I believe that depends on the person. Stealing however is the wrong word to use. This is why people are sued on the grounds of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution" and not stealing or theft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
right, err so what do we have to engineer a new word for this crime? Will it change anything? Does it make it anymore correct?

The Devil · Dec 11, 2003, 09:04 pm

I'm wondering where you're pulling your "facts" from, because they're bullshit. I can play any MP3 I downloaded legally for my own use. So can Americans.

Your logic is flawed.

Waychel · Dec 11, 2003, 09:55 pm

Pooeypants, if you read through my previous posts, you would see that I explained very clearly the fact that there is no crime in either downloading or listening to un-licensed music exclusively.

Take a look at the RIAA's recent legal actions taken against KaZaA users: all are on the basis of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution". The legal grounds are SOLELY based upon potential losses, because that is where the actual crime is. However, you cannot hold somebody who makes up .1% of those potential losses accountable for $30,000 in damages (or whatever amount the RIAA claims) when they've only incurred maybe 5 cents of that themselves. This is why the only individuals who are and ever can be held responsible for those losses are those that distribute this material to the thousands of people that make up the statistics.

The common misconception here is that mp3s are illegal. They aren't legal copies, but they're not illegal contraband either. What is illegal and what these companies are suing over is propogation and distribution. This is why every lawsuit you will find in these regards is against someone who distributed this un-licensed material and is being held responsible for estimated losses incurred by downloads.

These are the facts. If you are going to argue against this, then present me with just one victorious lawsuit by the RIAA that proves otherwise.

RebelWithanAK · Dec 12, 2003, 12:04 am

Waychel, you're right that they're arguing based on perceived losses, but you're wrong on why they're wrong. We as consumers don't owe them profits: A sales slump cannot be directly attributed to filesharing, especially when we're going through a deep recession. Albums are an expensive luxury, though people aren't going to stop listening to music just because their spending power has lessened. The companies are counting their chickens before they're hatched, and are shooting themselves in the foot due to high legal fees and an alienated market of music afficionados. You think I'm going to buy a Metallica record after their label went ahead and sued 12 year old girls for thousands of dollars? You think I'm going to spend $18.99 on a CD when I'm moonlighting two jobs? Who the fuck are you kidding?

Waychel · Dec 12, 2003, 12:52 am

Uhm...?

I wasn't arguing that we owed the RIAA anything. O_o Where are you getting this from?

I've been arguing this whole time about mp3 legality.. LOL

white rice · Dec 12, 2003, 04:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)

You are wrong here on many accounts. First of all, law enforcement must obtain a search warrent if they wish to search your home. Second, because hundreds of copies of un-licensed software or other material are not contraband, they would be catagorized as evidence in a case on illegal distribution. If law enforcement wished to confiscate these, they would have to leave your home and come back with a second search warrent at a later time. This second search warrent would allow law enforcement to confiscate that material and book it into evidence on charges in an unlawful distribution case. There is a large distinction here between actual contraband and possible evidence in a criminal case, and that distinction makes what you just described wrongful seizure on law enforcement's part.

This is also ignoring the fact that, as I said before, un-licensed software is not illegal to be in the possession of. Un-licensed software, mp3s, etc. are not contraband like marijuana or (some) guns are. You cannot be prosecuted for having the warez version of Adobe Photoshop sitting on your home computer. What you would be prosecuted for would be having thousands of copies of the same un-licensed software on CD in your room, or having uploaded this un-licensed software to a website or FTP.

As for downloading this material playing a role in distribution, this isn't true either. By downloading something you are not distributing it to other people or sources. The person responsible for the crime of distribution is the person you are obtaining the software or other material from.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I was wrong on all counts. You were right about private use. I don't know where I came up with the illegal seizure.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)

Difficult for someone to be held responsible for breaking an EULA they never saw or agreed to. The person at fault here would be the person who created/initially distributed the warez copy.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Unless it was altered without the agreement or someone put it on your computer for you, the EULA comes up during software installation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)

May I see your pic? =D
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nothing here to see... I don't have any scanned pictures.

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 10:57 am

I still say we should legalise all forms of data transfer, if we can't stop it then we can tax it :p

darwinist · Dec 12, 2003, 11:55 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This is the average for many people - not an individual.

You cannot say a specific individual "would have" acted a certain way based on statistics. You're essentially saying that we should judge the POTENTIAL actions of a singular individual - an actual entity - based on the average statistics of other people.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You said, i had no statistics. I just proved, that you could get some.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
This, again, is changing your original argument from a singular individual to many other people. However, going along with your avoidance of my original argument, this would indeed cause financial harm. However, the fault would not be upon these individuals, but the individual who distributed the items originally. I explained this in my previous posts.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not changing my argument. You said that record label, would not suffer any costs. I just posted an example of where they would.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I suggest you visit this website if you really are having a problem understanding this. You cannot "steal someone's knowledge" unless you were to physically cut them open and steal their brain right out of their head. This is why cheating on a test is called "cheating" and not "stealing knowledge". Your use of the term is improper, making your analogy likewise illogical and inapplicable in this situation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I do not think, i am having a problem. I think your having a problem with semantics.

Cheat:- deceive, trick, swindle, DEFRAUD, dupe, hoodwink, doble-cross.

To DEFRAUD is to rip-off.

To rip-off is to steal.

Oh look, word play. Lets play with words, till it is not 'stealing' anymore. Let's make it morally right ?!#

**Pooeypants** · Dec 12, 2003, 11:58 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,)

I do not think, i am having a problem. I think your having a problem with semantics.

Cheat:- deceive, trick, swindle, DEFRAUD, dupe, hoodwink, doble-cross.

To DEFRAUD is to rip-off.

To rip-off is to steal.

Oh look, word play. Lets play with words, till it is not 'stealing' anymore. Let's make it morally right ?!#<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
That's precisely what I was getting at, but I guess ignorance is bliss for these ppl huh?

The Devil · Dec 12, 2003, 01:23 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
I still say we should legalise all forms of data transfer, if we can't stop it then we can tax it <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

ARE YOU AN IDIOT?!? You actually want people making MORE money off you than they do now, even though it doesn't benefit you at all? I think we have a case of someone mindlessly clinging to the guys in charge.

As for you, darwinist, cut the bullshit. I could change your name to "creationist" using the same method.

darwinist · Dec 12, 2003, 02:16 pm

Hi Devil,

Thanks for proving my point for me, again...

The Devil · Dec 12, 2003, 02:45 pm

No, I'm proving you wrong. You're trying to say that cheating = stealing. I'm trying to say neither word works. Unauthourized copying is the correct term.

darwinist · Dec 12, 2003, 03:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
No, I'm proving you wrong. You're trying to say that cheating = stealing. I'm trying to say neither word works. Unauthourized copying is the correct term.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No your not.

Semantics is the 'meaning' of language.

Your just using 'word play' again. To help support your moral rights...

View Poll Results: Is warez a positive or negative thing?
Positive	12	42.86%
Negative	3	10.71%
It's stealing, you idiot!	5	17.86%
I'm Mixed.	8	28.57%
Voters: 28. You may not vote

Dec 11, 2003, 01:52 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Pooeypants: I believe comparing the downloading of un-licensed material with stealing is a poor analogy, personally. To steal would mean to physically take something from another party, leaving them at a loss. Warez, mp3s, etc. are not physical objects but immaterial copies. Does this make downloading un-licensed software or mp3s morally right? I believe that depends on the person. Stealing however is the wrong word to use. This is why people are sued on the grounds of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution" and not stealing or theft. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 11, 2003, 02:25 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Steal:- thieve, take, appropriate, misappropriate, pilfer, purloin, filch, embezzle, plagiarize, pinch, nick, swipe, rip off.... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Pooeypants: I believe comparing the downloading of un-licensed material with stealing is a poor analogy, personally. To steal would mean to physically take something from another party, leaving them at a loss. Warez, mp3s, etc. are not physical objects but immaterial copies. Does this make downloading un-licensed software or mp3s morally right? I believe that depends on the person. Stealing however is the wrong word to use. This is why people are sued on the grounds of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution" and not stealing or theft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If everyone, downloads Cd's of Albums. From artist. You are stealing. Indirect theft of the record labels income. The indirect theft of the artist income. If everyone is using Warez. Your also 'stealing' intellectual property. Stealing is taking something, without the intent to pay for it... You can do all the word play you like. Look at the specail agreements for 'open' and 'free' source software. You can copy and change what ever you like. You can give your frieds copies. This is not stealing due to the special agreement. What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 11, 2003, 03:21 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Darwinist, that is purely speculatory. Are you saying that you know my money making decisions? The money making decisions of every individual person who downloads music? Are you psychic? The difference here is that estimated losses can be based upon statistics. When the RIAA sued a 12-year-old girl from NYC over distributing mp3s on KaZaA, their speculation was backed by numbers: those the girl distributed to, and the chances of those being prospective buyers. Here however, you are speaking of one individual. There is no knowing whether that one individual would have bought that CD or not. There is no room for statistic analysis. Record labels are not being compensated by an individual downloading their music, but neither are they being financially compromised. This is why the RIAA has only sued those distributing music. If there was any case against those who simply download music, do you think an industry that goes after 12-year-old girls would hesitate in setting an example? Bottom line is that your statements are analogous to shoplifting - not copyright infringement. Those who download music are not depriving the manufacturer of their physical property. Therefore, unauthorized electronic distribution of music itself - which actually is a crime - does not even constitute as "theft". Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 11, 2003, 05:25 pm	#44 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Waychel, no of course i can not say about your money making dexisions. Or anyone elses, except my own. But there are enough statistics out there. For a calculation. The average desposable income. The average anyone person, would normally spend on Cd's, games, etc. Plus the estimated loss. Of all these ripped-off music Cd's etc. You name it, they have numbers on everything. Of course, one thing effects another. As they do not know, exactly how wide scale these things are. And nobody is 'owning' up to it... Well not many. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Record labels are not being compensated by an individual downloading their music, but neither are they being financially compromised. This is why the RIAA has only sued those distributing music. If there was any case against those who simply download music, do you think an industry that goes after 12-year-old girls would hesitate in setting an example? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So if everyone 'downloaded' the lastest album from Robbie Williams, for free, from Warez. So not ever purchasing a copy. Your trying to tell me that the record label would not be financially compromised??? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Bottom line is that your statements are analogous to shoplifting - not copyright infringement. Those who download music are not depriving the manufacturer of their physical property. Therefore, unauthorized electronic distribution of music itself - which actually is a crime - does not even constitute as "theft".<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So copying someone's test, is cheating. But also, you are stealing knowledge and/or ideas from someone else. True or false? What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 11, 2003, 05:56 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by But there are enough statistics out there. For a calculation. The average desposable income. The average anyone person, would normally spend on Cd's, games, etc. Plus the estimated loss. Of all these ripped-off music Cd's etc. You name it, they have numbers on everything. Of course, one thing effects another. As they do not know, exactly how wide scale these things are. And nobody is 'owning' up to it... Well not many.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is the average for many people - not an individual. You cannot say a specific individual "would have" acted a certain way based on statistics. You're essentially saying that we should judge the POTENTIAL actions of a singular individual - an actual entity - based on the average statistics of other people. ... </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So if everyone 'downloaded' the lastest album from Robbie Williams, for free, from Warez. So not ever purchasing a copy. Your trying to tell me that the record label would not be financially compromised???<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This, again, is changing your original argument from a singular individual to many other people. However, going along with your avoidance of my original argument, this would indeed cause financial harm. However, the fault would not be upon these individuals, but the individual who distributed the items originally. I explained this in my previous posts. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by So copying someone's test, is cheating. But also, you are stealing knowledge and/or ideas from someone else. True or false?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I suggest you visit this website if you really are having a problem understanding this. You cannot "steal someone's knowledge" unless you were to physically cut them open and steal their brain right out of their head. This is why cheating on a test is called "cheating" and not "stealing knowledge". Your use of the term is improper, making your analogy likewise illogical and inapplicable in this situation. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 11, 2003, 06:25 pm	#46 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	1. You can't steal something that can be copied free of charge, like data. If this were true, you'd be stealing music just by remembering a song. 2. It's not illegal to download copyrighted material. In the US it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material. In Canada it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material for a price. Back to the original topic... warez can be good, so that you can try a program before you spend $1000 on it. It can also be bad, because it gives people less incentive to use something that's free.

Dec 11, 2003, 07:50 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	Maybe we should take a communist view on software, there can be no copywriting of it, I mean seeing as society seems to have accepted P2P and co are acceptable way of stea...I mean sharing then we might as well make it legal. Anyway, although it is not illegal to download the copywrited software, it is illegal to use/play it with a license (buying the CD in the case of music). Unless ofc it's off the radio but then the rights have been given the channels to broadcast it. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 11, 2003, 07:52 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Pooeypants: I believe comparing the downloading of un-licensed material with stealing is a poor analogy, personally. To steal would mean to physically take something from another party, leaving them at a loss. Warez, mp3s, etc. are not physical objects but immaterial copies. Does this make downloading un-licensed software or mp3s morally right? I believe that depends on the person. Stealing however is the wrong word to use. This is why people are sued on the grounds of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution" and not stealing or theft.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> right, err so what do we have to engineer a new word for this crime? Will it change anything? Does it make it anymore correct? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 11, 2003, 09:04 pm	#49 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	I'm wondering where you're pulling your "facts" from, because they're bullshit. I can play any MP3 I downloaded legally for my own use. So can Americans. Your logic is flawed.

Dec 11, 2003, 09:55 pm	#50 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Pooeypants, if you read through my previous posts, you would see that I explained very clearly the fact that there is no crime in either downloading or listening to un-licensed music exclusively. Take a look at the RIAA's recent legal actions taken against KaZaA users: all are on the basis of "estimated losses incurred by illegal distribution". The legal grounds are SOLELY based upon potential losses, because that is where the actual crime is. However, you cannot hold somebody who makes up .1% of those potential losses accountable for $30,000 in damages (or whatever amount the RIAA claims) when they've only incurred maybe 5 cents of that themselves. This is why the only individuals who are and ever can be held responsible for those losses are those that distribute this material to the thousands of people that make up the statistics. The common misconception here is that mp3s are illegal. They aren't legal copies, but they're not illegal contraband either. What is illegal and what these companies are suing over is propogation and distribution. This is why every lawsuit you will find in these regards is against someone who distributed this un-licensed material and is being held responsible for estimated losses incurred by downloads. These are the facts. If you are going to argue against this, then present me with just one victorious lawsuit by the RIAA that proves otherwise. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 12, 2003, 12:04 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Waychel, you're right that they're arguing based on perceived losses, but you're wrong on why they're wrong. We as consumers don't owe them profits: A sales slump cannot be directly attributed to filesharing, *especially when we're going through a deep recession.* Albums are an expensive luxury, though people aren't going to stop listening to music just because their spending power has lessened. The companies are counting their chickens before they're hatched, and are shooting themselves in the foot due to high legal fees and an alienated market of music afficionados. You think I'm going to buy a Metallica record after their label went ahead and sued 12 year old girls for thousands of dollars? You think I'm going to spend $18.99 on a CD when I'm moonlighting two jobs? Who the fuck are you kidding? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Dec 12, 2003, 12:52 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Uhm...? I wasn't arguing that we owed the RIAA anything. O_o Where are you getting this from? I've been arguing this whole time about mp3 legality.. LOL Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Dec 12, 2003, 04:33 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) You are wrong here on many accounts. First of all, law enforcement must obtain a search warrent if they wish to search your home. Second, because hundreds of copies of un-licensed software or other material are not contraband, they would be catagorized as evidence in a case on illegal distribution. If law enforcement wished to confiscate these, they would have to leave your home and come back with a second search warrent at a later time. This second search warrent would allow law enforcement to confiscate that material and book it into evidence on charges in an unlawful distribution case. There is a large distinction here between actual contraband and possible evidence in a criminal case, and that distinction makes what you just described wrongful seizure on law enforcement's part. This is also ignoring the fact that, as I said before, un-licensed software is not illegal to be in the possession of. Un-licensed software, mp3s, etc. are not contraband like marijuana or (some) guns are. You cannot be prosecuted for having the warez version of Adobe Photoshop sitting on your home computer. What you would be prosecuted for would be having thousands of copies of the same un-licensed software on CD in your room, or having uploaded this un-licensed software to a website or FTP. As for downloading this material playing a role in distribution, this isn't true either. By downloading something you are not distributing it to other people or sources. The person responsible for the crime of distribution is the person you are obtaining the software or other material from. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I was wrong on all counts. You were right about private use. I don't know where I came up with the illegal seizure. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Difficult for someone to be held responsible for breaking an EULA they never saw or agreed to. The person at fault here would be the person who created/initially distributed the warez copy. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Unless it was altered without the agreement or someone put it on your computer for you, the EULA comes up during software installation. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) May I see your pic? =D <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nothing here to see... I don't have any scanned pictures. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Dec 12, 2003, 10:57 am	#54 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	I still say we should legalise all forms of data transfer, if we can't stop it then we can tax it :p War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 11:55 am	#55 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This is the average for many people - not an individual. You cannot say a specific individual "would have" acted a certain way based on statistics. You're essentially saying that we should judge the POTENTIAL actions of a singular individual - an actual entity - based on the average statistics of other people. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You said, i had no statistics. I just proved, that you could get some. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This, again, is changing your original argument from a singular individual to many other people. However, going along with your avoidance of my original argument, this would indeed cause financial harm. However, the fault would not be upon these individuals, but the individual who distributed the items originally. I explained this in my previous posts. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not changing my argument. You said that record label, would not suffer any costs. I just posted an example of where they would. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I suggest you visit this website if you really are having a problem understanding this. You cannot "steal someone's knowledge" unless you were to physically cut them open and steal their brain right out of their head. This is why cheating on a test is called "cheating" and not "stealing knowledge". Your use of the term is improper, making your analogy likewise illogical and inapplicable in this situation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I do not think, i am having a problem. I think your having a problem with semantics. Cheat:- deceive, trick, swindle, DEFRAUD, dupe, hoodwink, doble-cross. To DEFRAUD is to rip-off. To rip-off is to steal. Oh look, word play. Lets play with words, till it is not 'stealing' anymore. Let's make it morally right ?!# What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 12, 2003, 11:58 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (darwinist,) I do not think, i am having a problem. I think your having a problem with semantics. Cheat:- deceive, trick, swindle, DEFRAUD, dupe, hoodwink, doble-cross. To DEFRAUD is to rip-off. To rip-off is to steal. Oh look, word play. Lets play with words, till it is not 'stealing' anymore. Let's make it morally right ?!#<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's precisely what I was getting at, but I guess ignorance is bliss for these ppl huh? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Dec 12, 2003, 01:23 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) I still say we should legalise all forms of data transfer, if we can't stop it then we can tax it <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ARE YOU AN IDIOT?!? You actually want people making MORE money off you than they do now, even though it doesn't benefit you at all? I think we have a case of someone mindlessly clinging to the guys in charge. As for you, darwinist, cut the bullshit. I could change your name to "creationist" using the same method.

Dec 12, 2003, 02:16 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	Hi Devil, Thanks for proving my point for me, again... What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.

Dec 12, 2003, 02:45 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
The Devil Molten Ash Location: Canada Posts: 55	No, I'm proving you wrong. You're trying to say that cheating = stealing. I'm trying to say neither word works. Unauthourized copying is the correct term.

Dec 12, 2003, 03:01 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
darwinist Igneous Magma Location: Netherlands Posts: 200	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by No, I'm proving you wrong. You're trying to say that cheating = stealing. I'm trying to say neither word works. Unauthourized copying is the correct term.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No your not. Semantics is the 'meaning' of language. Your just using 'word play' again. To help support your moral rights... What goes 'up', must come 'down', unless it goes around and round.