Regont:
Correct. Doctors are paid more because people want to pay more for their services. However, by the same token, pirates exist because people want to pay them enough to compensate them for their risks and services.
Except that most pirates aren't paid.
You're utterly hopeless, or you took debate class, one or the other. Probably both. It's terrible what schools do to people.
No, I was like this before I took that class.
Wrong again. The shoplifter takes a physical object with a direct cost attributed to it. You have your point, perhaps, but it's irrelevant because you can't argue a single aspect in a vacuum.
And I address that point later in my post.
Since it's tomorrow. Millions of children will take candy they didn't pay for, often without asking. Would you say trick or treat is more like theft than internet piracy, or less? I can get more absurd too, if you have sex, and the woman gets pregnant without your permission, would that be more like theft than internet piracy? I bet you can find plenty of people that think the second is.
I probably shouldn't have assumed that you would gather from the bold text that I was talking about things you can do over the Internet. That was my mistake, and I should have seen this coming. But for the sake of argument:
Since it's tomorrow. Millions of children will take candy they didn't pay for, often without asking. Would you say trick or treat is more like theft than internet piracy, or less?
How could trick-or-treating possibly be considered theft? The candy is there for the specific purpose of being taken by costumed children. It is OFFERED to them. The fact that they aren't paying doesn't change that.
I can get more absurd too, if you have sex, and the woman gets pregnant without your permission, would that be more like theft than internet piracy?
No, it wouldn't. The sperm was freely given to her. I don't expect to get paid before someone gets pregnant from me.
Moral equivalencies are not perfect equivalencies to start with, so I fail to see why you quote the exact words and then change them to start with, but if you must...
Yes, you said "moral equivalency", but everything you said afterwards was about them not being perfectly equal. I then pointed out where I had said they weren't equal, but that piracy was as close as you could get.
Congratulations, you made a terrorist threat, let me know when you get out of jail?
Not a threat, a prediction. The difference being I won't be performing the predicted actions, I'm just saying someone will.
Ok, so you've simply missed the news. One of the recent posts here was on the very subject. There is now precedent for enforcing EULA's on end users, for anything short of "unconscionable" requirements. Now either you're a sucker, or this should worry you. We've the potential to get a hardcore marxist in office, and it's the loony left judges that keep hosing us with the copyright bullshit. They're protecting their loony left buddies in the movie and music industries mostly. Something to do with creativity and brains being a rare combination, most of them are nutty. How sure are you that the next eight years wont put a bunch of fucking nutjobs on your district too? As soon as just one of them upholds it at the federal level, we're utterly boned. The Supreme court has made quite clear that at this time it's not going to bother hearing them, and it's doubtful whether they give a damn about consumer rights at this point after their imminent domain ruling.
Okay, ignoring the nutty conservative stuff:
Sure, I'm fine with them enforcing everything but "unconscionable" requirements. After all, the only thing I do with games I purchase is play them, and anything that can be violated while playing an unmodified legitimate copy should damn well be considered "unconscionable". (All right, I sometimes may sell/lend my copy to a friend, but those transactions are not large enough for a game company to bother with)
IP != Copyright. Intellectual property is a broad encompassing idea that covers, yes, ideas themselves. Yes, there are people actually lobbying to have IP in general covered under a broad IP law with vastly extended scope. Yes, society will be utterly fucked in such an event. No, this isn't an irrational fear, it's already in the works. Idiots are arguing about it on here all the time. Like the shit for brains idiot saying "Star Wars" infringed on "The Hidden Fortress" as if the idea of telling a story from the viewpoint of minor characters is sacred to the earlier movie to start with.
All right, here we can agree. People that want to make deriving inspiration from somewhere illegal are not helping anyone, and the stricter definitions would inevitably result in approximately twelve legally recognized creative works.
My only problem with your argument against IP was that it seemed to me that you were placing programs under the category of "ideas". You don't need to defend its legitimacy or lack thereof.
Ok what about the anti pirates. Is it ok to dl a game that isnt for sale?
Not sure if that would really be "anti-piracy", but I would view that as acceptable.
