What's the name of the act, dearie? I want to ignore you, but you keep posting stupid babble under the guise of intellectual discourse...and I refuted your silly little argument. And being an "author" is usually a way of saying you're "unemployed".
I prefer to take Eli's advice but I do remember this case here in New Jersey, not sure it's really on point with what is being discussed but they were charged with theft and piracy. http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/b_ridgewater_cops_bust_two_for.html
I'll let arn, Eli, Dave and the rest post the actual real research conducted by real developers on the subject as well, as they have done in the past. So the writers "can see it anyway they like...but it don't make it so", but if the programmers/developers see it the opposite way (agreeing with your stance), then it must be so. Wow. Solid argument there Times Online NY Times Oh, and btw: Also in Sweden, meatballs eat you!
Proving what, exactly? That content providers are prone to bouts of ridiculous hyperbolic hysteria about piracy? Well, there's a shock. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music Guess music must be pretty much dead by now, then, right? Not of theft, then?
And have another: They stole mah book! Oh, and this little gem of a quote in that article, which I think is just...aces:
oh lookey here i found a case of someone being tried criminally for copyright infringement. but this excert also shows that technically there is a legal distinction between theft and infringement. interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: ... 'an infringer of the copyright.' ... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217218
"Content providers"? How about the creators themselves. Oh, wait...you must fall into those who fall for the revised GNU hippy definitions of all terms that have been commonly held for over a century. I understand.... *sighs Nah, I just put it up there for giggles. I think it funny, tbqh. Don't drop the soap, boys, you know what type of pirates exist in prison...even in Swedish prisons Regardless, we go back to the commonly held definition of stealing, Spungo. Taking something that isn't yours to take. At the end of the day, it's stealing whether you think so or not. That the law is imperfect is not in question - what is in question is whether IP piracy is stealing. If one takes something without permission, that's stealing under the commonly held definition of the term. That's that.
I notice a conspicuous lack of response to Candy's article, Spungo. It's not like you to keep your pie hole shut, so there must be some reason why you haven't.
That merely alludes to the imperfectness of the law, the difficulty in grasping the concept of rights over an intangible creation, and the dichotomy between legal definitions and commonly held definitions. What I find humorous ITT is that the apologists are pointing to the law where in other topics they state that the law should not be the arbiter of what is or is not morally defensible.
Content providers ARE the creators, you balloon. You appear to have confused the terms "commonly held" and "held by me". Anyway, must dash. Y'all have fun with your little witch-hunting club and I'll see you tomorrow - unless the entire capitalist world's been destroyed by piracy in the meantime, of course!
What a shock! His elementary "argument" gets crushed, and off he runs to complain about the "legal theft" of his precious dollar somewhere else. "Im taking my toys and going home!"
Similar to how he disappeared from the Canabalt thread whenever it was going up in the iTunes charts only to reappear after it started sinking.
1. Content providers are not in all cases, or even in most cases, the creators. Internet content providers, for instance, are usually not the creators of the content but merely the providers of it. 2. "balloon"? Some writer.... Steal Stealing another definition Now, I'm sure you'll read it the way you wish to read it rather than read what's actually there. Have at it Spungo.
BTW, I have been called many names in my life (as a NYC resident, born and bred, such things are expected, even in friendly conversation ), but not once have I ever been called a "balloon". I honestly really don't even now how to respond to that term.
I'd say take it as a compliment, especially coming from him. Not to mention that "balloon" has taken on a whole new meaning since the "Balloon Boy" incident.
Now see, this is typical; I refute your opinion with fact, and you respond with the maturity of a playground brat. Whether someone has been charged for theft, larceny or whatever over IP Piracy is irrelevant, as the laws are there. Whether they're enforced or not is another story. However, there are cases involving IP involving Blizzard as far as software goes, and JK Rowling and Stephanie Meyers as far as books.
i dont think so because it doesnt say that the legal difinition is beyond the bounds of the commonly held definition making them wholly diffrent than eachother but that there is a distinction between the two making them slightly dissimilar. and i dont know who or what your talking about when you say in other topic blah blah blah whatever bmleh ...morally defensible so ill just nod and smile politley. thengiveyouthismeanface
It came from one episode in Spongebob when Squidward called him an "accommodating buffoon", and Spongebob said "everyone knows I look nothing like a balloon". Basically the cute version of "buffoon".
