|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.140.141.202
In Reply to: Hold on just a second there... posted by J on March 23, 2007 at 21:58:05:
"but this is not stealing we're discussing, it's copyright infringement."
Copyright infringement is theft.
"So stealing is okay if it's the person who signed the bad deal?
I said people who were fucked MIGHT be justified in stealing from those who fucked them, my point was that I'm not justified.
"Just because you haven't been victimized by this sort of thing, doesn't mean that others haven't."So what's his recourse? Copyright infringement? And like I said, they never stole anything from me.
"Sounds like that's not exactly a position you can relate to, so perhaps you might want to consider cooling it with yr own overheated rhetoric."
You're right, I've no need to steal from copyright holders, nor have I any need to rationalize such behavior.
Follow Ups:
> I said people who were fucked MIGHT be justified in stealing from those who fucked them, my point was that I'm not justified.No, they're NOT justified, not if you care about the law, that is. You appear to care a lot about the law when it suits yr argument, but here you are saying that you MIGHT justify theft. Quite a conundrum here, hmmm? I thought stealing was stealing, PERIOD. Or is situational ethics only okay when YOU'RE the one engaging in it?
> So what's his recourse? Copyright infringement?I never said that, and if that's what he's going to do, that's illegal activity that does not constitute recourse so far as I'm concerned. What's his recourse, indeed! He just might be the victim of fraud, which is NOT the same as signing a bad deal. It's a matter of being sold something that was represented to be functional, and, instead, it was not. I guess the only recourse is to go to small claims court. Unless you have any better ideas, that is.
What's that? It's not worth it to pay more to file the case than the amount of the damages? Oh, well, I guess he's just f*cked, then, isn't he. Too bad.
Sorry, I object to this. Strenuously. Illegal file-sharing devalues music. But so does this, and I have my own small stake in that. Do you?
> And like I said, they never stole anything from me.Oh, I guess it's okay then.
> You're right, I've no need to steal from copyright holders, nor have I any need to rationalize such behavior.Well, I don't know who that's supposed to be directed at, since I rationalize no such thing. However, if you knew anything about what copyright holders have been known to do to those who created the work that the copyrights are based on, you might feel differently. Now, I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that you should find it in yr heart to justify stealing, but you might be moved to think about issues you post about beyond the perfectly obvious that one sees on the surface, and how that impacts on you, or doesn't. I have a feeling that illegal file-sharing impacts negatively on me more than it does on you. Rational and critical thinking needs to be applied to this issue to produce a feasible legal result, and I say yr outrage doesn't help.
> Copyright infringement is theftIt is? I guess you didn't check this link that I dropped elsewhere in this thread. The linked post occurs approximately halfway through the discussion, which I recommend you take a look at if you believe what you just posted. Then perhaps you might want to take a look at a post I just put up in response to Sordidman & then get back to me if you want.
If you don't, fine. But I'm telling you flat-out you don't help matters here.
"You appear to care a lot about the law when it suits yr argument, but here you are saying that you MIGHT justify theft. Quite a conundrum here, hmmm? I thought stealing was stealing, PERIOD. Or is situational ethics only okay when YOU'RE the one engaging in it?"You waste your time on sophistry. I was musing, thinking out loud so to speak and didn't say stealing by anyone was OK. Remind me never to think out loud in front of you again, like other thinking it seems to be wasted on you.
I don't need you or the fella who posted on the thread to tell me what is and isn't theft. The Jesuits trained me in both conscience and dissembling, I know one from the other.
"But I'm telling you flat-out you don't help matters here."
I'm not here to help you or matters here, anyway no doubt the only people reading this are you and I so don't worry about it.
> You waste your time on sophistry. I was musing, thinking out loud so to speak and didn't say stealing by anyone was OK. Remind me never to think out loud in front of you again, like other thinking it seems to be wasted on you.It's my time, not yours, I'll decide whether or not I'm wasting it. This is a topic that is extremely important to me. You jumped in & stated something that happens to be factually incorrect.
Moreover, what you did was to inflame with rhetoric, precisely what you accused the other guy of, which is not to say that you were completely incorrect in yr assertion.
> I don't need you or the fella who posted on the thread to tell me what is and isn't theft. The Jesuits trained me in both conscience and dissembling, I know one from the other.
I see. Did the Jesuits teach you words like 'fuckee?'
Copyright infringement is NOT theft. Don't complain that anyone's splitting hairs here, because you're wrong about that. Period. This creates a problem where anyone who makes the point I'm making is typically then accused to be excusing or rationalizing theft, which is not the case.
Here's a thought, though: if you were correct about that, and you ever so much as made one cassette recording off the radio or of an album prior to 1992, then you were guilty of...theft. So was anyone who chose to make a cassette copy of anything off the radio, or any record, 8-track, whatever, that they did not own the copyright on. That means anyone who didn't buy a prerecorded cassette copy of an album to play in their walkman, boombox, or car stereo, even if they'd bought the album, was guilty of copyright infringement ...which you are telling us, erroneously, is theft.
Are you going to tell me you never did such a thing? Because unless you didn't, then by yr own standards you are a thief. I have to wonder if you were this much of a hard-liner prior to the Audio Home Recording Act. I also have to wonder if you have ripped any of your legally purchased CDs to your computer. Guess what: if you were robbed, and your CDs were stolen, you would be compelled by the law to destroy your MP3 files. Would you do that?
I don't really care if you're the only one left reading this. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, my business suffers from illegal file-sharing, and all you do by calling copyright infringement, theft, is to stir more people up & delay the process of a much-needed overhaul of the DMCA. Is that really yr intent here? When it comes down to defending yr estimation of the law based on who it was that schooled you while also telling others to kiss yr ass, I have to wonder.
In the meantime, copyright infringement remains just that, not theft. If you can point to a law that supports yr position & not mine, please do. I do know that courts have stated otherwise. I also know that the attorney who posted often in the thread I linked to is more knowledgeable on the subject than either you or I. I'll take his word for it over you & whoever schooled you on the law, ethics, or anything else, thank you very much.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: