So, games are costing more these days...

[Foo]

It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

This is perhaps one of the most retarded comments i've ever had the mispleasure of reading. You are completely incorrect in every way possible.

It's stealing if you download the game, end of story. Whatever state of mind you may be in (intending to buy the game or not) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

"No Judge don't send me to jail, it's not theft just because I downloaded because I was planning on never buying it!"

Then your legal system is likewise retarded:

technically, file sharing is not theft.

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

Complicated matters further, copying is not always infringing. If the work is not copyrighted, if you have a license to make the copy, or if the work is in the public domain, you can copy at will. Also, not all "copies" are the same. Say you buy a CD and play it on your computer -- technically, you have already made a "copy" onto the PC in the process of playing it, but that's not an infringement.

Making an archive copy is okay too, as long as your retain the original. What about a transformative copy -- say, making an MP3 out of a CD? You can do that, so long as you retain the original work. If the original CD get scratched, damaged or lost, you can probably burn the MP3 back to a CD (sans the really "sucky" titles), but this is not entirely clear.

So the RIAA and MPAA's claims that all "copying" is "stealing" are much overhyped.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28 ... and_other/

Just one reference to the Elvis case.

How convenient that you're so ignorant to have not been aware if it.

To add further:

The RIAA and MPAA also claim that if I download a song that I don't own, it's an infringement. This too is not always the case. The law recognizes that many uses of copyrighted works -- even without the permission of the copyright holder -- are not an infringement. While there is no "right" as such to make a fair use, the making of such a use is not an infringement.

Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so.

This isn't black and white, of course. In deciding whether a use is fair or not, courts will consider a number of factors: Did you make the copies for commercial purposes? Does the copy deprive the copyright holder of revenues? Did you copy all, or substantially all, of the work, or just a small portion? The less of the work copied, the less commercial and the less impact on the copyrighted work, the more likely it is to be considered "fair."

Doesn't matter which side of the argument I'm on here, really does it, but I'd be more ashamed to have to side with you

[Foo]

"No Judge don't send me to jail, it's not theft just because I downloaded because I was planning on never buying it!"

LOL

"Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so. "


Drum: "Oh shit, I don't know what I'm talking about but am going to just carry on talking anyway LOLOLOLOL"

[+JuggerNaut+]

Yeah because it was quite easy to divulge out of my above posts made on an internet bulletin board no less, that I never pay for anything. I probably download less shit off the net out of anyone here, I don't care if you believe me or not. The comments I made above where more of a reflection of the general opinion(s) shared by a good number the people that download software (or illicit contraband as most of you lot would put it).

then what do YOU use your "l33t" bandwidth for, smartass?

[dzjepp]

On the last paragraph foo, copied as in copied from one hand to another? That dosen't even take into account if you never share with anyone and just keep for yourself for your own private home use.

[Foo]

What do you use yours for Jugg?

[plained]

whatever he feels like dumbass

[Foo]

On the last paragraph foo, copied as in copied from one hand to another? That dosen't even take into account if you never share with anyone and just keep for yourself for your own private home use.

what

[plained]

at jugghead my post was

[dzjepp]

This isn't black and white, of course. In deciding whether a use is fair or not, courts will consider a number of factors: Did you make the copies for commercial purposes? Does the copy deprive the copyright holder of revenues? Did you copy all, or substantially all, of the work, or just a small portion? The less of the work copied, the less commercial and the less impact on the copyrighted work, the more likely it is to be considered "fair."

Sorry I thought this implied copying from the net/whatever other source and then sharing with multiple hands, not snagging yourself a copy for private use.

[The Butcher]

It's not stealing if you download the game off the net and never had any previous intentions of buying it in the first place.

This is perhaps one of the most retarded comments i've ever had the mispleasure of reading. You are completely incorrect in every way possible.

It's stealing if you download the game, end of story. Whatever state of mind you may be in (intending to buy the game or not) has absolutely no bearing whatsoever.

"No Judge don't send me to jail, it's not theft just because I downloaded because I was planning on never buying it!"

Then your legal system is likewise retarded:

technically, file sharing is not theft.

A number of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a man named Dowling, who sold "pirated" Elvis Presley recordings, and was prosecuted for the Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property. The Supremes did not condone his actions, but did make it clear that it was not "theft" -- but technically "infringement" of the copyright of the Presley estate, and therefore copyright law, and not anti-theft statutes, had to be invoked.

So "copying" is not "stealing" but can be "infringing." That doesn't have the same sound bite quality as Valente's position.

Complicated matters further, copying is not always infringing. If the work is not copyrighted, if you have a license to make the copy, or if the work is in the public domain, you can copy at will. Also, not all "copies" are the same. Say you buy a CD and play it on your computer -- technically, you have already made a "copy" onto the PC in the process of playing it, but that's not an infringement.

Making an archive copy is okay too, as long as your retain the original. What about a transformative copy -- say, making an MP3 out of a CD? You can do that, so long as you retain the original work. If the original CD get scratched, damaged or lost, you can probably burn the MP3 back to a CD (sans the really "sucky" titles), but this is not entirely clear.

So the RIAA and MPAA's claims that all "copying" is "stealing" are much overhyped.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/07/28 ... and_other/

Just one reference to the Elvis case.

How convenient that you're so ignorant to have not been aware if it.

To add further:

The RIAA and MPAA also claim that if I download a song that I don't own, it's an infringement. This too is not always the case. The law recognizes that many uses of copyrighted works -- even without the permission of the copyright holder -- are not an infringement. While there is no "right" as such to make a fair use, the making of such a use is not an infringement.

Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so.

This isn't black and white, of course. In deciding whether a use is fair or not, courts will consider a number of factors: Did you make the copies for commercial purposes? Does the copy deprive the copyright holder of revenues? Did you copy all, or substantially all, of the work, or just a small portion? The less of the work copied, the less commercial and the less impact on the copyrighted work, the more likely it is to be considered "fair."

Doesn't matter which side of the argument I'm on here, really does it, but I'd be more ashamed to have to side with you

I didn't read any of your bullshit internet references as they are meaningless. Do you have any knowledge of Law? You can not legally download games, end of story. If you stood before a Judge and told him that it's ok to download a game because you never had any intention of buying it or pulled out one of your internet references you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

[+JuggerNaut+]

What do you use yours for Jugg?

that was in retort to the same question he asked me earlier, kid.


@plained: alcohol

[plained]

fantasyland jugg har

[DRuM]

"No Judge don't send me to jail, it's not theft just because I downloaded because I was planning on never buying it!"

LOL

"Thus, if you make copies for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, it is not an infringement of the copyright, even if the copyright holder does not want you to do so. "


Drum: "Oh shit, I don't know what I'm talking about but am going to just carry on talking anyway LOLOLOLOL"

Foo, please stop being a smartass for second. I know you have loads of info at your fingertips to get around all the loopholes of downloading songs games and apps, but let's face it, we all know the real purpose of what we download, and it isn't for teaching or any other fair use. I started in this thread because geoff said he had principles against buying games. He hasn't disclosed what those principles are, but whatever he doesn't like about buying games I say to him , fuck you, don't play the game then.

[+JuggerNaut+]

fantasyland jugg har

[dzjepp]

I USE MY PIPE FOR http://the-fairy.deviantart.com/journal/6946563/

WHAT YOU USE YOURS FOR?

[Foo]

I didn't read any of your bullshit internet references as they are meaningless. Do you have any knowledge of Law? You can not legally download games, end of story. If you stood before a Judge and told him that it's ok to download a game because you never had any intention of buying it or pulled out one of your internet references you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Yes, I do.

If we're dealing with US law, see case Dowling vs Unites States (1983) for an overview of the supreme court's deliberate and considered drawing of a line between copyright infringement and theft.

However, since you seem to think that written text on the internet is meaningless, I don't see why you're continuing in this discussion. After all, meaningless right? When you need to descend into stating none of it matters as some kind of defence of your point, it's clear to everyone that you've lost your way in the debate.

[plained]

i doen care ihow low you will go

[Foo]

Foo, please stop being a smartass for second. I know you have loads of info at your fingertips to get around all the loopholes of downloading songs games and apps, but let's face it, we all know the real purpose of what we download, and it isn't for teaching or any other fair use. I started in this thread because geoff said he had principles against buying games. He hasn't disclosed what those principles are, but whatever he doesn't like about buying games I say to him , fuck you, don't play the game then.

No wait, fuck your 'smartass' line. I'm coming here with solid evidence to back my points and you're still back in the retard ages with the notion that 'COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT = THEFT'.

I dont care for the top-level debate about a specific person's morals. Some indeed so far ALL of the reasoning you've used to far to argue your side of that debate has proved to be ill-researched, illogical, or just plain fucking retarded.

BTW turns out that one of the 'fair use' cases listed there is 'Critique'. Ohshi.....

[The Butcher]

I didn't read any of your bullshit internet references as they are meaningless. Do you have any knowledge of Law? You can not legally download games, end of story. If you stood before a Judge and told him that it's ok to download a game because you never had any intention of buying it or pulled out one of your internet references you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.

Yes, I do.

If we're dealing with US law, see case Dowling vs Unites States (1983) for an overview of the supreme court's deliberate and considered drawing of a line between copyright infringement and theft.

However, since you seem to think that written text on the internet is meaningless, I don't see why you're continuing in this discussion. After all, meaningless right? When you need to descend into stating none of it matters as some kind of defence of your point, it's clear to everyone that you've lost your way in the debate.

There is no debate to be had. The only way you can make it appear that there's a debate is because this is taking place on a messageboard. If you tried any of your pathetic reasoning in a court of law you wouldn't stand a chance. The best thing you have going for you is the facade you're trying to create here.

[Foo]

There is no debate to be had. The only way you can make it appear that there's a debate is because this is taking place on a messageboard. If you tried any of your pathetic reasoning in a court of law you wouldn't stand a chance. The best thing you have going for you is the facade you're trying to create here.

Nice to see you producing documented court cases/legal text to support your argument.

You're right, there is no debate to be had with you. It relies on both parties being willing to provide and entertain discussion, hypothesis and most importantly evidence. You dont seem to be able to handle that. I'm the deceiver because I'm the one making unsubstantiated claims being disproven at every step by presented evidence.

[Tormentius]

[It's stealing, and it's really quite cut and dry.

If it was legally considered theft then people would be sued by the RIAA for "theft over X dollars". Instead, they're sued for copyright infringement which is different.

[The Butcher]

There is no debate to be had. The only way you can make it appear that there's a debate is because this is taking place on a messageboard. If you tried any of your pathetic reasoning in a court of law you wouldn't stand a chance. The best thing you have going for you is the facade you're trying to create here.

Nice to see you producing documented court cases/legal text to support your argument.

You're right, there is no debate to be had with you. It relies on both parties being willing to provide and entertain discussion, hypothesis and most importantly evidence. You dont seem to be able to handle that. I'm the deceiver because I'm the one making unsubstantiated claims being disproven at every step by presented evidence.

I guess it depends on whether both parties have any knowledge on the issue at hand. I know for a fact that there is no way you can rationalise game theft in a court of law, you seem to think that a few references, sidestepping answers and attempted loopholes means you can circumvent the law. Unfortunately for you it only works here on a messageboard and not in a court of law. I could google 10000 references to support my case but I have no need, law is law. And you can't change that no matter how many paragraphs you copy and paste from google.

[Foo]

I guess it depends on whether both parties have any knowledge on the issue at hand.Of course, or alternatively the ability to research information and apply it to human precepts I know for a fact that there is no way you can rationalise game theft in a court of law quite likely. Good job we're not talking about theft in legal terms isn't it! Also good that's been pointed out about 100 times in this thread, and unfortunate that you seem to have missed every one of those times! Better go copyright infringe some reading glasses from somewhere sweetie :kissu:, you seem to think that a few references, sidestepping answers and attempted loopholes means you can circumvent the law. Unfortunately for you it only works here on a messageboard and not in a court of law.Woah, good job the court of law isn't being used for an informal debate on ethics I could google 10000 references to support my case but I have no need, law is law. And you can't change that no matter how many paragraphs you copy and paste from google.

Woah. Law is law huh. Good job that's not a cyclical assertion.

Ohshi....

[dzjepp]

I'm glad the attention has shifted from me.

[DRuM]

Does it really matter foo whether it's called infringement or stealing? You're simply arguing the technical differences behind each word, whereas all I'm really arguing is the ultimate meaning behind downloading illegally. 'Technically' I accept it's not regarded as theft. You win on that point.
But if I download something illegally, I still see myself as a thief. You can still get a hefty fine or go to prison, whatever it's called, so arguing the differences about whether it's infringement or stealing doesn't make much difference.