If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Granny porn case dropped after evidence sags   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 53
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

7250 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Sep 2011 at 5:48 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-01 02:14:20 PM  
www.protias.com
 
2011-09-01 02:33:02 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-09-01 02:59:55 PM  
This "Law firm" should be getting counter sued.
 
2011-09-01 03:04:13 PM  
I wonder... do elderly women use their dentures on themselves?
 
2011-09-01 03:27:53 PM  
But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.
 
2011-09-01 05:53:32 PM  
That's bogus. Old people don't have sex. That would be icky...
 
2011-09-01 05:53:46 PM  
thats why my password is one letter long wanna hint itle start with the street i live on
 
2011-09-01 05:58:29 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: This "Law firm" should be getting counter sued.


No shiat. They were trying to extort her, plain and simple. "Pay us X and we'll make it all go away"? fark that,

And, just for the record, I think people who torrent stuff are, for the most part, people who want something for nothing, and deserve to get sued. Not this time.
 
2011-09-01 06:03:28 PM  
For the love of all pron, PLEASE

www.redkid.net
 
2011-09-01 06:04:08 PM  

Sybarite: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 472x256]


Actually, I would ***LOVE*** to see her personal sex tapes
 
2011-09-01 06:05:18 PM  

serial_crusher: But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.


Could you do us all a favor and rethink that stance?

Unsecured wi-fi crimes vs. loaded gun tragedies with 3 year olds? Does critical thinking even exist any longer?

The comparison the lawyer makes implies that the two examples are equal. Meaning that the parents of a 3-year old ignorant to the dangers of a loaded gun and an ignorant to wi-fi thieves granny are BOTH guilty of setting up scenarios capable of resulting in horrific magnitude.

You've essentially said that a pron download is an equal tragedy as compared to the death of a 3-year old?
 
2011-09-01 06:08:11 PM  

GT_bike: serial_crusher: But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.

Could you do us all a favor and rethink that stance?

Unsecured wi-fi crimes vs. loaded gun tragedies with 3 year olds? Does critical thinking even exist any longer?

The comparison the lawyer makes implies that the two examples are equal. Meaning that the parents of a 3-year old ignorant to the dangers of a loaded gun and an ignorant to wi-fi thieves granny are BOTH guilty of setting up scenarios capable of resulting in of horrific magnitude. FTFM

You've essentially said that a pron download is an equal tragedy as compared to the death of a 3-year old?

 
2011-09-01 06:09:16 PM  

GT_bike: You've essentially said that a pron download is an equal tragedy as compared to the death of a 3-year old?



He's got Fox on in the background. It was an accident...
 
2011-09-01 06:10:36 PM  

GT_bike: GT_bike: serial_crusher: But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.

Could you do us all a favor and rethink that stance?

Unsecured wi-fi crimes vs. loaded gun tragedies with 3 year olds? Does critical thinking even exist any longer?

The comparison the lawyer makes implies that the two examples are equal. Meaning that the parents of a 3-year old ignorant to the dangers of a loaded gun and an ignorant to wi-fi thieves granny are BOTH guilty of setting up scenarios capable of resulting in of horrific magnitude. FTFM

You've essentially said that a pron download is an equal tragedy as compared to the death of a 3-year old?


QFT. Thank you.
 
2011-09-01 06:19:49 PM  
thepatriotaxe.com
 
2011-09-01 06:33:43 PM  

serial_crusher: But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.


You aren't a lawyer, you might be a sleaze bag, but you're certainly an idiot.
 
2011-09-01 06:35:29 PM  

serial_crusher: Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.


Wow, you're a moron. The lawyer took his absolutely idiotic case and wrapped it around the dumbest analogy in the history of the world, and you agreed with it? Wow.
 
2011-09-01 06:35:37 PM  
Granny porn case dropped after evidence sags

You really went for the low-hanging fruit on that one, subby.
 
2011-09-01 06:51:09 PM  
But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

I wish some hacker would break into douchebag Steele's home network and download a lot of child porn into his machine. I mean if your house is not RF shielded, and not encrypt with at least wpav2 with EAP and AES 256 and a wireless intrusion prevention system in place then it's your faut if your network got hacked into..
 
2011-09-01 06:56:37 PM  
What? no mention of the late lamented (name redacted)?
 
2011-09-01 07:15:38 PM  
The real tragedy here is how someone using bittorrent can get sued for an amount of money they theoretically cost some company despite the fact that their product wouldn't have ever fetched that amount in the first place.

Explain to me how 1 person downloading a complete pirated movie (something that has a value of 30 bucks) can net a virtually exponential amount of people who shared a bit of said movie and each of those sharing get busted for 3500 EACH???

Basically it's doubleexponential dipping on the part of the law firm and the studio.
 
2011-09-01 07:33:53 PM  
But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Any person whose child grew up and became a lawyer should be shot for crimes against humanity.
 
2011-09-01 07:37:25 PM  
The law firm can essentially make up evidence as a list of IPs, and know that most will pay the "damages" to to avoid the embarrassment.

Extortion, plain and simple.

Sleazy porn plus sleazy lawyers. What a combo of sucktitude.
 
2011-09-01 08:28:44 PM  

utardsRock: Sybarite: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 472x256]

Actually, I would ***LOVE*** to see her personal sex tapes


www.potlee.com
 
2011-09-01 08:34:11 PM  

GT_bike: The comparison the lawyer makes implies that the two examples are equal


I get in that situation a lot, but I still don't get how people like you tick. I'm not trying to insult you or anything, just that I think we have fundamentally different ways of interpreting the world around us or something.

Lawyer specifically limited his comparison to the responsibility shared by both groups. He didn't equate the severity of their outcomes, just said they both have a responsibility to keep their shiat secure. And, that's what I was agreeing with. You have something that could be exploited if you didn't take trivially easy steps to secure it. You didn't secure it, it got exploited, and people got hurt. Of course the extent to which the victims got hurt is pretty different in both scenarios, but in both somebody did get hurt. Kid died, pornographers lost money.

Course if it had gone to court, the grandma probably would have gotten a worse punishment for porn piracy than the parents who let their kid kill himself. The excessive penalties they go after (and often get) are the real problem here.
 
2011-09-01 08:35:46 PM  

Ivan Denisovitch: utardsRock: Sybarite: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 472x256]

Actually, I would ***LOVE*** to see her personal sex tapes

[www.potlee.com image 300x277]


Different strokes, man... She might have the same electrical activity between her ears as a bag of wet lettuce, but damn I'd happily plug every hole.
 
2011-09-01 08:45:12 PM  
utardsRock

Actually, I would ***LOVE*** to see her personal sex tapes


was going to flik you a random tubegalore/mature link but I don'tknow how to coz I never go there
 
2011-09-01 09:35:26 PM  
serial_crusher: But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.



You think not password protecting your network is like leaving a loaded gun around a child?

You are the biggest idiot I have seen in over 8 years of Fark. And I have seen a lot.

Care to explain your reasoning here?
 
2011-09-01 09:37:06 PM  
Oh I see 3 or 4 people have called you on your blatant idiocy. Carry on then.
 
2011-09-01 09:56:24 PM  

serial_crusher: But John Steele, a partner at the prosecuting lawfirm, slammed her defense, stating that anyone who fails to secure their Wi-Fi is "as responsible for the subsequent crimes or tragedies as a parent who leaves a loaded gun within the reach of a 3-year-old."

Wow, I just agreed with a sleazebag lawyer.


No biggie. Everyone gets stone-shiat retarded sometimes.
 
2011-09-02 12:23:32 AM  

GT_bike: You've essentially said that a pron download is an equal tragedy as compared to the death of a 3-year old?


I like downloading pron and killing 3-year-olds, so this seems like a win-win to me...
 
2011-09-02 08:32:28 AM  

serial_crusher: You have something that could be exploited if you didn't take trivially easy steps to secure it. You didn't secure it, it got exploited, and people got hurt. Of course the extent to which the victims got hurt is pretty different in both scenarios, but in both somebody did get hurt. Kid died, pornographers lost money.


A. No one "loses money" to piracy... That's bullshiat... At worst, they fail to earn money, and even that is a stretch, since it assumes that the pirate would've been willing to spend money if piracy were not an option...

2. Your stance sounds like blaming someone whose car was stolen and then used in a hit-and-run killing... Even if they happened to not lock their car doors, they aren't the ones responsible for the actions of the thief...

III. Maybe she wanted to have open WiFi and didn't mind sharing with her neighbors, because she's a nice old woman... Having open WiFi isn't a crime... Is Starbucks or McDonalds or any other place with open WiFi these days responsible for the actions of any of its customers that use it?
 
2011-09-02 10:16:17 AM  
"They had an unwinnable case and I called them on it,"

Smacked down with those saggy, saggy boobs for the WIN.

/no pics. please
 
2011-09-02 10:23:13 AM  

Iwan Dobski:

[thepatriotaxe.com image 192x189]


I'll see that and raise you this.
i.imgur.com

/Ummmm -- corndogs
 
2011-09-02 01:16:56 PM  

RobSeace: A. No one "loses money" to piracy... That's bullshiat... At worst, they fail to earn money, and even that is a stretch, since it assumes that the pirate would've been willing to spend money if piracy were not an option...


1.) I spend money to produce a product
2.) People steal the product, and I don't get paid
3.) I lose money

Media thieves seem to think content is delivered from on high by candy crapping unicorns, and is a gift to them personally.

If you don't want to pay, get the free stuff. There are shiat tons of it out there, and some of it is pretty good. If you don't want to support the big guys, support the indies FFS, but don't steal and call it "copyright infringement". You're not fooling anybody but yourself.
 
2011-09-02 01:59:49 PM  

AcneVulgaris: 1.) I spend money to produce a product
2.) People steal the product, and I don't get paid
3.) I lose money

Media thieves seem to think content is delivered from on high by candy crapping unicorns, and is a gift to them personally.

If you don't want to pay, get the free stuff. There are shiat tons of it out there, and some of it is pretty good. If you don't want to support the big guys, support the indies FFS, but don't steal and call it "copyright infringement". You're not fooling anybody but yourself.


Uh, dipshiat, I write commercial software for a living... I'm not a pirate... If anyone should be bothered by pirates, it's me...

But, the simple fact is piracy is not "stealing" anything, nor is it depriving anyone of money... Words have meanings; you can't just go around redefining them to suit your agenda... It's getting something for nothing unfairly... It's possibly depressing the market for your product, reducing how much you could possibly make, but not necessarily... In many cases, it actually increases your market due to basically functioning as advertising... The fact is, most of the hard-core pirates would never spend a cent on your product if it weren't available for pirating, so you're not actually out anything from them... The only losses are from those who would've handed over their money to you in the absence of the pirated product; and, those people tend to be very few and far between in reality... (Unless your product is one of those outrageously overpriced pieces of crap that costs an arm, 2 legs, a testicle, and part of your soul to buy legitimately... Then, you kind of deserve to be cheated, because you're trying to rip off the world...)
 
2011-09-02 02:38:36 PM  

AcneVulgaris: 1.) I spend money to produce a product
2.) People steal the product, and I don't get paid
3.) I lose money


You assume that Pirate X would have actually paid for your product if it wasn't available to download. This is a very, very wrong assumption. People may download things they a have a slight interest in but not enough interest to actually spend money (if they have the money) on it.
 
2011-09-02 04:10:21 PM  

MikeMc: AcneVulgaris: 1.) I spend money to produce a product
2.) People steal the product, and I don't get paid
3.) I lose money

You assume that Pirate X would have actually paid for your product if it wasn't available to download. This is a very, very wrong assumption. People may download things they a have a slight interest in but not enough interest to actually spend money (if they have the money) on it.


If they took the time to steal, store and consume it, it has value to them. Some of them would pay. fark the rest in the ear with a rubber giraffe. Vigorously. The world is chock full of interesting things that are absolutely free.
 
2011-09-02 04:40:27 PM  

MikeMc: AcneVulgaris: 1.) I spend money to produce a product
2.) People steal the product, and I don't get paid
3.) I lose money

You assume that Pirate X would have actually paid for your product if it wasn't available to download. This is a very, very wrong assumption. People may download things they a have a slight interest in but not enough interest to actually spend money (if they have the money) on it.


Oh, for the love of Jeebus, shut up. The "b-b-b-but I wasn't going to buy it anyway" argument is the absolute worst. Maybe you weren't going to buy it, but you sure have no problem taking it and enjoying it for free. I'll give you an example: Back in the day, I downloaded a ton of old songs off Napster/Aimster/WinMx that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Have I enjoyed them? Yes. Did I pay for them? No.

Just go ahead and say, "I want something for nothing", at least you'd be honest about it.

This is a close cousin of the "if I pirate it and like it, I'll buy it" argument. Sure some people will go and buy the CD/DVD of the artist after pirating it, but that figure is pathetically low, if you've got it already, why pay for it? If you think pirate+like= a legitimate sale, either you're being disingenuous or seriously naive.

Just go ahead and say, "I want something for nothing."

Then we have the "b-b-b-but, they're not releasing it the way I want it, and on my time schedule, and that justifies pirating" argument. This is the most self-entitled, whiny argument of all. Guess what, entitled snowflake? They made it. They get to decide how it's distributed. If you don't like how it's distributed, DON'T BUY IT, and, more importantly, tell them why. But that takes effort, and you won't get your precious shows on YOUR schedule, so

Just go ahead and say, "I want something for nothing."

See a pattern here?

/not defending the RIAA, just being honest
 
2011-09-02 04:53:04 PM  

oh_please: Just go ahead and say, "I want something for nothing."


I don't think anyone has been disputing this... No one has said "piracy is good and moral behavior!"... It's obviously not... Yes, they are just out to get something for nothing... I thought that was clear to everyone with more than a pair of braincells...

The dispute is over whether their unethical actions constitute "stealing" or cause the loss of any money... And, they clearly do not constitute "stealing" under the actual definition of the term, which requires actually depriving someone of their property, which clearly doesn't happen... And, whether or not they cause the loss of any money depends purely on how many of the pirates would have paid in the absence of the pirated version... Well, actually, that's not even a "loss" technically; it's merely a failure to profit... Also, you have to figure out how many people who otherwise wouldn't have heard of the product in absence of the pirated version, but for whom the existence of the pirated version inspired them to go out and purchase it legitimately... (Not only people who formerly used the pirated version and decided to go legit, but also those who see others around them using it and decide it's worth buying...) It's not as clear-cut as the RIAA/MPAA/etc. like to make it out to be...

Yes, pirates are basically freeloading scum, we can agree on that... But, that doesn't mean you get to redefine common English words and claim imaginary "losses" of money just to pillory them... That's the only thing I see people arguing about here, so please stop trying to cloud the issue by yelling, "PIRATES BAD!"... We know, and the only one disagreeing with that is the strawman you've all constructed... The rest of us are over here arguing more subtle issues...
 
2011-09-02 05:50:56 PM  

RobSeace: Well, actually, that's not even a "loss" technically; it's merely a failure to profit.


*head spins* So if you create something that cost you (at the very least) your time, you're OK with people just taking it because "it's not a loss, it's a failure to profit"? Damn, I'm not an artist, but if you can argue "more subtle issues", go ahead. Sounds like an excuse to get something for nothing, argue semantics all you want.

RobSeace: Also, you have to figure out how many people who otherwise wouldn't have heard of the product in absence of the pirated version, but for whom the existence of the pirated version inspired them to go out and purchase it legitimately... (Not only people who formerly used the pirated version and decided to go legit, but also those who see others around them using it and decide it's worth buying...)


If you think that even 5% of those people out of the pirating community exist, you're living in Fantasyland with Peter Pan and Wendy.

RobSeace: But, that doesn't mean you get to redefine common English words


Missed where I did that, enlighten me.

RobSeace: the strawman you've all constructed


Not a strawman, I've seen these arguments on Fark time and time again, and they're bullshiat. I'll totally agree that the RIAA/MPAA business model is outdated, and they are completely going the wrong way about it, but taking an artist's work and not paying for it is stealing, plain and simple. If it's not worth it to you, DON'T BUY IT, AND DON'T STEAL IT. But people make up all these bullshiat excuses, and that's what pisses me off.
 
2011-09-02 06:16:36 PM  

oh_please: *head spins* So if you create something that cost you (at the very least) your time, you're OK with people just taking it because "it's not a loss, it's a failure to profit"?


Jesus Christ, it's like you're incapable of comprehending the written word... Here you are rebuilding your strawman... No, it's not "OK", nor did I ever imply it was "OK"; in fact, I quite clearly and directly and explicitly said it's very, very NOT "OK"...

What I'm saying has nothing whatsoever to do with the "OK"ness of the act... It has to do with actual economic realities of the situation...

oh_please: RobSeace: But, that doesn't mean you get to redefine common English words

Missed where I did that, enlighten me.


Well, I was using "you" inclusively to cover everyone who seemed to be dancing around the actual arguments trying to be put forth and focusing on non-existent arguments about justifying piracy... AcneVulgaris was the one trying to redefine "steal" to mean something it quite plainly does not...

oh_please: Not a strawman, I've seen these arguments on Fark time and time again, and they're bullshiat.


Well, ok, but why not save your retorts for someone who actually makes those arguments that piracy is cool, then? Because, no one here in this thread did so, that I saw...

oh_please: but taking an artist's work and not paying for it is stealing, plain and simple.


Oh, wait a minute, there you go trying to redefine the verb "to steal", as well... Words have meanings; you don't get to invent your own private definitions... Stealing means something is taken and the original owner no longer has it... Period...

No, that doesn't mean piracy is good or justified or anything else you're imagining me to be saying... It's bad, it's morally and ethically wrong, it's selfish, dickish, and illegal... It's simply not stealing... That's it... You're using the wrong word, and it's not helping your cause... It's like refering to a bank robber as a rapist... Neither is a good thing, but that doesn't mean you can just interchange the terms... Nor does it mean anyone who corrects your misuse of language is justifying bank robbery...
 
2011-09-02 06:30:50 PM  

oh_please: I downloaded a ton of old songs off Napster/Aimster/WinMx that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Have I enjoyed them? Yes. Did I pay for them? No.


Did the artists lose sales because you download those songs you weren't going to buy anyway? No. Point made. There was no money lost because there wouldn't have been a sale even if you hadn't downloaded the songs.

BTW RobSeace is right in that you don't get to redefine words. Downloading a movie is neither theft nor piracy. Downloading is not piracy. Downloading a movie, burning DVDs and selling them out of the trunk of your car is piracy.
 
2011-09-02 06:31:46 PM  

RobSeace: Oh, wait a minute, there you go trying to redefine the verb "to steal", as well... Words have meanings; you don't get to invent your own private definitions... Stealing means something is taken and the original owner no longer has it... Period...


Hey, dude, we're not in the 1800's, grow up. Ever hear of Intellectual Property? (new window)

The funny thing is, we agree, but you are debating useless semantics.
 
2011-09-02 06:34:45 PM  

MikeMc: oh_please: I downloaded a ton of old songs off Napster/Aimster/WinMx that I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Have I enjoyed them? Yes. Did I pay for them? No.

Did the artists lose sales because you download those songs you weren't going to buy anyway? No. Point made. There was no money lost because there wouldn't have been a sale even if you hadn't downloaded the songs.

BTW RobSeace is right in that you don't get to redefine words. Downloading a movie is neither theft nor piracy. Downloading is not piracy. Downloading a movie, burning DVDs and selling them out of the trunk of your car is piracy.


Just say, "I want something for nothing", and I'll respect you a lot more. Quit making up bullshiat excuses.
 
2011-09-02 06:56:44 PM  

oh_please: ust say, "I want something for nothing", and I'll respect you a lot more. Quit making up bullshiat excuses.


I'm not making excuses for anything. If I really want something for nothing, and it's available, I'll get it. But categorizing grannies who photocopy recipes from the newspaper to share with friends as "thieves" and "pirates" is inaccurate to say the least. And yes, it is the same, mailing copies of a rhubarb pie recipe from the local paper is unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material and is illegal. The English language, and the law, are fairly specific and you don't get to redefine the words to try and lend moral weight to your argument.
 
2011-09-02 07:25:41 PM  

MikeMc: But categorizing grannies who photocopy recipes from the newspaper to share with friends as "thieves" and "pirates" is inaccurate to say the least. And yes, it is the same, mailing copies of a rhubarb pie recipe from the local paper is unauthorized duplication and distribution of copyrighted material and is illegal. The English language, and the law, are fairly specific and you don't get to redefine the words to try and lend moral weight to your argument.


Um, if you scroll up and RTFT, I said that this was extortion and bullshiat. I was totally on the side of grandma, because it was obvious she wasn't downloading jack.

Then you said

MikeMc: You assume that Pirate X would have actually paid for your product if it wasn't available to download. This is a very, very wrong assumption. People may download things they a have a slight interest in but not enough interest to actually spend money (if they have the money) on it.


That opened up a whole new argument, and I responded to it. We're talking about that now, and not trading rhubarb pie recipes. Try to keep up.
 
2011-09-02 07:29:29 PM  

oh_please: Hey, dude, we're not in the 1800's, grow up. Ever hear of Intellectual Property? (new window)


Yes, and the only way I could "steal" your Intellectual Property would be if I were to somehow acquire your copyrights away from you, thereby preventing you from exercising your lawful rights... Simply piracy doesn't do that... I merely prevents you from earning the profits you lawfully should for a copy made... Which is not to excuse or lessen the wrongness of the act! It's merely a different crime...

The funny thing is, we agree, but you are debating useless semantics.

Well, yeah, I happen to think words and their actual meanings are rather important, and if two parties in a debate are using completely different definitions for them, then the entire debate becomes rather pointless... Communication depends on us all agreeing to what terms mean...
 
2011-09-02 07:33:00 PM  

MikeMc: Downloading a movie is neither theft nor piracy. Downloading is not piracy. Downloading a movie, burning DVDs and selling them out of the trunk of your car is piracy.


Well, I don't know if I'd go that far... If we want to get old-school, "piracy" should be reserved for guys on boats with eyepatches who say "arrrrrr!" a lot, and rob, rape, and pillage... But, the modern definition has indeed changed so that "piracy" also means "copyright infringement"... Yes, there are varying degrees of copyright infringement, and indeed simply downloading one copy is a lesser crime than selling truckloads of illegal copies... But, I think they both qualify under the modern definition of "piracy"... Neither are "stealing", however...
 
2011-09-02 08:01:53 PM  

RobSeace: oh_please: Hey, dude, we're not in the 1800's, grow up. Ever hear of Intellectual Property? (new window)

Yes, and the only way I could "steal" your Intellectual Property would be if I were to somehow acquire your copyrights away from you, thereby preventing you from exercising your lawful rights... Simply piracy doesn't do that... I merely prevents you from earning the profits you lawfully should for a copy made... Which is not to excuse or lessen the wrongness of the act! It's merely a different crime...

The funny thing is, we agree, but you are debating useless semantics.

Well, yeah, I happen to think words and their actual meanings are rather important, and if two parties in a debate are using completely different definitions for them, then the entire debate becomes rather pointless... Communication depends on us all agreeing to what terms mean...


OK, let's try to agree on the definition of "steal"...You're an artist who just produced a hit song...It's all over the place, people are pirating it left and right because they don't want to pay for it....is that "stealing", or is it not because hey, it's out there, and any way you can get it doesn't mean you're "stealing" it, because you didn't go into the studio and physically steal the tapes, so then it's not stealing?
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report