The importance of proper education.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:23 am

sweener2001 wrote:oskar's stupid. at least he is, in my opinion.

and i'll use this thread as proof

Proof of purchase?

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:24 am

Panzer88 wrote:this thread is great, the internet is a concept, it is a bunch of independent servers, all accessible through a series of networks. They all have to pay for utilities, copyrights, etc. but the internet itself is not some single entity or cooperation.

not that you didn't already know that Deathlike2, but some people might not

I've gotta see where this thread goes

Don't be silly, the internet is a series of tubes. Don't get very excited, chances are AoL will lock it once everyone is having fun.

AoL you party pooper, you.

alexz721 · Post by **alexz721** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:32 am

I would just like to state for the record that I am a cheapass.

Firon · Post by **Firon** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:33 am

aol is a dick with his thread locking sometimes :'(

but hey at least we have soulmata to brighten our day.
also franpa's misinformation and those lovely HIGH warning images

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:29 am

You fail to see my point. It DOESN'T MATTER if you think you have the right to obtain culture for free or not. as long as you download anything, they "lose money". So going on about the reasons is really pointless... I download an album that would cost $20 and claim its my right and that information should be free = they "lose" 20 bucks. You download the same album, with the difference you claim you would so pay for it if you could afford it = they "lose" 20 bucks. and they won't feel better knowing you would pay if you "could".. their money is still "gone" so I really don't see where the difference is except I have an OPINION that current copyright laws are bullshit. Not long ago it was legal to download anything you wanted, AS LONG AS YOU DID IT FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY and didn't made any profit from what you downloaded, that was a perfectly balanced good law. People who sell pirated stuff should be punished. However the greedy record industry must really like the taste of dick in their mouths as they got the law altered to now possibly give 2 years in prison for downloading, witch is often more than you get for rape.
Also, the thing with representative democracy is that for it to work you need politicians free of corruption, and that they will actually keep what they promise after the elections, this is not the case with Sweden, as nearly every party here was "Pro piracy" before the elections last year, and now they're having their dicks sucked again. so, in theory it is beautifull and nice if it works, but in reality you have to break laws to make them go away.. for laws to work they need to be respected by the people. Its really not any more complicated than that.
Regarding peoples RIGHTS to make money.. when cars became popular, coachman became an obsolete profession, they accepted this and found other jobs. but the record industry has way more money, so they can afford to hire people to lobby for their cause. but in practice they are coachmen who need to find other jobs, as people don't need their services anymore.

Also.. thinking of it, saying that "certain opinions are wrong" is like saying a certain part of freedom of thought and speech is wrong.

lockharte · Post by **lockharte** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:47 am

i won't read that even if you gave me a twenty

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:54 am

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Not long ago it was legal to download anything you wanted, AS LONG AS YOU DID IT FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY and didn't made any profit from what you downloaded, that was a perfectly balanced good law.

O_o since when have copyright laws not applied? I mean sure they aren't enforced in certain countries, but there are certain things as international copyright laws man.

Firon · Post by **Firon** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:55 am

yeah it was never really legal

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:28 am

Nowhere in our law books did it say anything about a punishment for downloading music or movies until June 2005. However there has been a law against software piracy as long as I know of.

@ lockharte I demand money if you want to read it. I wrote it and its my RIGHT to get paid for my artistic work WAAA WAAA

Panzer88 · Post by **Panzer88** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:56 am

if you obtain intellectual property without paying the author that is essentially theft, whether you're pirating the material or not.

Firon · Post by **Firon** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:31 am

No, it's copyright infringement. There is a legal distinction between theft and copyright infringement.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:20 am

Firon wrote:No, it's copyright infringement. There is a legal distinction between theft and copyright infringement.

exactly. theft means taking something away, piracy is copying. All though the entertainment industry would very much LIKE US to be classified as thieves. And frequently says we are. Witch leads me to the conclusion, they are uneducated and stupid.

As an example. In Sweden we have the "Anti Piracy Agency", an organisation specialized in playing cops and sucking dicks of politicians, there was a story on them on a radio station. they put a direkt link to the audio file on the radio stations website, witch is indeed very illegal here unless you have the expressed permit of the author, they had not. When the radio station called their guy who claims to have juridic education he defended this with "Well aaah... we work wiith movie and software piracy only".
Also, Sony infringed the copyright of LAME when they made their root kit (they included code from it not telling who was the author.)
All in all, these are the things that make me Believe it is my RIGHT to download whatever I want. if the copyright holders don't give a shit about laws, I won't either. Fuck copyright.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:34 am

still not your right.

if you won't pay the artist, it's not your right. i boycott the itunes store because of their DRM. after purchasing a few albums and realizing just how limiting it was, i won't purchase anything from them until DRM is dropped. which may never happen. oh well.

the day it's your right to steal, well, that'll be the day, i guess.

i purchase cd's that are reasonably priced, like 10 bucks. the shins most recent effort comes to mind. anything by green day, ok go, or the killers is automatically a purchase for me. but that's because i really like those bands. if no one buys their cd's, the label can't know that people like them. when all you do is steal software, you force the companies to raise their prices so that the few copies that are sold can recompense them.

you're retarded. this is the exact same argument you've had at least 5 times here already. you're opinion has not changed, which is fine; but you still have no supporting evidence whatsoever. you still refuse to listen. but whatever. it's not like you're the SOLE reason the human race is on a swift decline to oblivion.

your "opinion" is basically like this: you hate a videogame. you've never played this game, or actually seen it in action, but you hate it. the fact that it's been applauded by critics and users alike makes you hate it more. That's the equivalent of what your opinion is like.

and opinions can be wrong. i am of the opinion that 2+2=5. that's my opinion. how am i possibly right in that?

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:05 pm

Its copyright infringement. not theft, not theft, never ever can it be theft, And my "evidence", witch by the way I think is unnecessary as long as we're speaking about opinions and not facts, is this:
1) I just COPY, i DON'T STEAL.
2) the idea of music on CD is stone age, the record companies themselves provided so suitable marketing model (DRM is a joke) so there really is no other option.
3) The record companies and artists have enough money already. I haven't seen anyone go homeless because nobody is buying his records, the day I see this, I will laugh at him because he relied in a record label when he could simply sell the music on his own, or do concerts.
4) Its convenient.
5) Breaking the law gives the same punishment as rape, witch is why I find it obvious it doesn't matter who its right, its simply a matter of who deepthroats the best.
6) Its convenient

these are my REASONS for having the opinions I have, if you find it sufficient "evidence" or not is up to you.

Also, with your math example you show perfectly that you are incapable of distinguishing between OPINIONS and FACTS.

sweener2001 · Post by **sweener2001** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:21 pm

have you ever considered that number 2 exists because so many people are smarter than you? if everyone were like you, artists would be homeless. you're depending on the law-abiding to give you, the lawbreaker, an excuse. that's wrong and stupid. and ignorant of the world around you.

and if you're enjoying the fruits of someone else's intellectual property without their consent, i.e. payment, you have stolen from them. end of story.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:05 pm

I have infringed their copyright, even if I never went to any law school at least I am capable of telling the difference, to say it is theft is a lame trick to make people who engage in copyright infringement look like thieves, witch is not the case, juridically OR morally. the sad thing is they managed to brainwash people such as yourself to believe in their propaganda bullshit.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 2:58 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:Also.. thinking of it, saying that "certain opinions are wrong" is like saying a certain part of freedom of thought and speech is wrong.

Well, freedom of speech does not allow you to lie or spout out stuff like "Fire" when there is no fire. There are specific limitations spelled out and if you cannot comprehend that, just feel free to distribute illegal material and never think you won't get caught.

I have infringed their copyright, even if I never went to any law school at least I am capable of telling the difference, to say it is theft is a lame trick to make people who engage in copyright infringement look like thieves, witch is not the case, juridically OR morally. the sad thing is they managed to brainwash people such as yourself to believe in their propaganda bullshit.

You'd be in jail moreso than pass law school, that's for sure.

2) the idea of music on CD is stone age, the record companies themselves provided so suitable marketing model (DRM is a joke) so there really is no other option.

The simple fact that you didn't obtain it legally doesn't give you any special right to have a copy of the music. It doesn't matter what form it takes, you don't have any right to do this.

3) The record companies and artists have enough money already. I haven't seen anyone go homeless because nobody is buying his records, the day I see this, I will laugh at him because he relied in a record label when he could simply sell the music on his own, or do concerts.

You clearly keep using this excuse, forgetting that piracy doesn't apply to just music dumbass.

5) Breaking the law gives the same punishment as rape, witch is why I find it obvious it doesn't matter who its right, its simply a matter of who deepthroats the best.

Well, if you raped someone, people would want you dead instead. Just because the offense is not as severe as in "noone gets hurt", that doesn't quite justify the means to an end.

As an example. In Sweden we have the "Anti Piracy Agency", an organisation specialized in playing cops and sucking dicks of politicians, there was a story on them on a radio station. they put a direkt link to the audio file on the radio stations website, witch is indeed very illegal here unless you have the expressed permit of the author, they had not. When the radio station called their guy who claims to have juridic education he defended this with "Well aaah... we work wiith movie and software piracy only".

Yes, they never got permission from the author of the song to use it personally. So, that makes total sense there. The law is very simple for that.

Also, Sony infringed the copyright of LAME when they made their root kit (they included code from it not telling who was the author.)
All in all, these are the things that make me Believe it is my RIGHT to download whatever I want. if the copyright holders don't give a shit about laws, I won't either. Fuck copyright.

That's up for LAME to do what they need to do. However, none of this magically gives you the right to anything.

Not long ago it was legal to download anything you wanted, AS LONG AS YOU DID IT FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY and didn't made any profit from what you downloaded, that was a perfectly balanced good law. People who sell pirated stuff should be punished. However the greedy record industry must really like the taste of dick in their mouths as they got the law altered to now possibly give 2 years in prison for downloading, witch is often more than you get for rape.

Only if the author allowed it (and generally this is written into the license agreement you auto-sign for using said software) is where this is ok. You can't make this exception because you think the RIAA is evil. It doesn't quite work the way you want it to.

alexz721 wrote:I would just like to state for the record that I am a cheapass.

Heh, same. If a game is sold for like $20 or less because it is out there for too long, I don't see any problem with that (I don't see fault in people saving money as long as they look for the legitimate deals and pay for it).

In any case Oskar, you are effectively doing no less than shoplifting when you are pirating. That's what it comes down to. Sure we can all that the RIAA is a horrible group and that the sound on the cd is not worth the cd it is recorded on. However, you cannot just decide that the RIAA is the exception to the rule. You just can't do that if you follow the law. It doesn't matter what you believe is "ok", but that is the law. If you really feel like being a big douchebag, no doubt people will continue to mock you and your baseless opinion.

You clearly cannot comprehend that the author (and in the case of music, the RIAA), has to give you permission to have it on your system. The general way of doing this, like all things, is pay for it. Now if you can't grasp the idea that piracy is very much like shoplifting, then you clearly don't understand the law.

corronchilejano · Post by **corronchilejano** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:19 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:I have infringed their copyright, even if I never went to any law school at least I am capable of telling the difference, to say it is theft is a lame trick to make people who engage in copyright infringement look like thieves, witch is not the case, juridically OR morally. the sad thing is they managed to brainwash people such as yourself to believe in their propaganda bullshit.

... allright, first of all, copyrights are that, COPYRIGHTS. If you LISTEN to a song an artist made, and YOU LIKE IT, you might as well give the guy his two cents (or well, 20 bucks). He makes his job, you like it.

If you CAN'T afford it, then you may not use it. Why are you compared to a thief? Well, It's a long shot, and pretty exagerated, but it's like stealing bread from a bakery (or however places that sell bread are called in english). If you steal ONE piece of bread, that's worth almost NOTHING, who cares? But who else steals a piece of bread other than a bum that wants something to eat or a spoiled brat that has a broken home?

Whatever. The point is, if it's under sale, because SOMEONE ACTUALLY CREATED IT and YOU are enjoying, pay for it.

And that Soulmata bashing thing? Think about it Oskar. When you get bashed HERE, it's always for a reason. I can really tell you that.

And there ARE stupid people all over the world. Once a very old woman brought me a V3 with a fork going through it and she was asking me why it wasn't working.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:22 pm

"Well, freedom of speech does not allow you to lie or spout out stuff like "Fire" when there is no fire. There are specific limitations spelled out and if you cannot comprehend that, just feel free to distribute illegal material and never think you won't get caught. "

Pretty please explain to me how yelling FIRE when there is no fire has ANYTHING to do with having a certain OPINION about something.

"You clearly keep using this excuse, forgetting that piracy doesn't apply to just music dumbass. "

Fine, the entire entertainment industry is selling overpriced products, and they make enough money from the people willing to buy it, for moral reasons, or from fear of getting caught.

"Well, if you raped someone, people would want you dead instead. Just because the offense is not as severe as in "noone gets hurt", that doesn't quite justify the means to an end. "

Neither does it justify the severe punishment, as rape is clearly much much worse than copyright infringement, other than to the RIAA and similar organizations ofcource.

"Only if the author allowed it (and generally this is written into the license agreement you auto-sign for using said software) is where this is ok. You can't make this exception because you think the RIAA is evil. It doesn't quite work the way you want it to. "

I was talking about the law in Sweden. it WAS legal to download for personal use, and the authors had no right to stop you as long as you didn't make profit from it, witch was good in my opinion, but they had to screw it up.

Contrary to what some people seem to believe, laws are not written by divine people, they are written by humans, and they were put there based on OPINIONS that it should be. For the same reason, in the future other OPINIONS may CHANGE these laws The law is the law. But I don't give a shit as long as I don't get caught, and the law can still be changed. The pirate party here may only have gotten 0.63% of the votes last election, but the next generation of voters will grow up in a society where downloading an mp3 is as horrible as raping someone, and the Justice system being more or less ran by lobby groups, Many people got shocked when they shut down the pirate bay.. though they could only keep it down for 3 days untill it was back up again, witch means the Law enforces in Sweden are our bitches so far, and with a growing disinterest in politics I think the horrible thieves, shoplifters and cheapasses are going to see a bright future when the pirate party grows.

edit: @ Corronchilejano: With your "logics" it should be illegal to bake your own bread. THAT is what piracy is. you obtain the same thing, only you pay very little or nothing for it, and the bakery won't get a cent, so the poor bakers have to get new jobs? no? Bakerys still exists. EVEN though people make their own bread. and the bakers don't want to ban flour, salt, egs and whatnot from the stores. so, in conclusion. The entertainment industry created a problem that doesn't exist. Also your comparison is worthless because when you download an mp3 nothing disaphears, opposite to what happens when you steal a loaf of bread. also, each individual loaf of bread is an individual piece of work, witch is certainly not the case with an Mp3.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:35 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:"Well, freedom of speech does not allow you to lie or spout out stuff like "Fire" when there is no fire. There are specific limitations spelled out and if you cannot comprehend that, just feel free to distribute illegal material and never think you won't get caught. "

Pretty please explain to me how yelling FIRE when there is no fire has ANYTHING to do with having a certain OPINION about something.

The point of my example was that even if you have particular rights, it doesn't mean you can abuse said right. However, in the case of piracy, you don't have any rights for using said product until you paid for it.

"You clearly keep using this excuse, forgetting that piracy doesn't apply to just music dumbass. "

Fine, the entire entertainment industry is selling overpriced products, and they make enough money from the people willing to buy it, for moral reasons, or from fear of getting caught.

They do, and that's sad. However, they provide something we want, and we have to pay for it. I'm sure you would want to have sex with a stripper, and not pay for her service because they are "the hopeless trash" in the world. It doesn't work like that. It has nothing to do with morality, it has everything to do with compensation.

For example, say you were working with someone on the homework. You had a deal that he does one half of the assignment, and you doing the other half. Let's say you fail to complete your half... the other guy has no obligation to give you his half when you have not done your half. Similar situations have been done over many many centuries, and it has not changed at all. You want something and the guy won't give it away from free, you have to compensate for that product or service. It doesn't matter who it is and how you feel about him or a group. You have to pay up.

"Well, if you raped someone, people would want you dead instead. Just because the offense is not as severe as in "noone gets hurt", that doesn't quite justify the means to an end. "

Neither does it justify the severe punishment, as rape is clearly much much worse than copyright infringement, other than to the RIAA and similar organizations ofcource.

Noone said the laws for piracy were fair. That doesn't mean "it is ok to pirate".

"Only if the author allowed it (and generally this is written into the license agreement you auto-sign for using said software) is where this is ok. You can't make this exception because you think the RIAA is evil. It doesn't quite work the way you want it to. "

I was talking about the law in Sweden. it WAS legal to download for personal use, and the authors had no right to stop you as long as you didn't make profit from it, witch was good in my opinion, but they had to screw it up.

I'm sure there is specific language that says specifically what is allowed for personal use.

Contrary to what some people seem to believe, laws are not written by divine people, they are written by humans, and they were put there based on OPINIONS that it should be. For the same reason, in the future other OPINIONS may CHANGE these laws The law is the law. But I don't give a shit as long as I don't get caught, and the law can still be changed. The pirate party here may only have gotten 0.63% of the votes last election, but the next generation of voters will grow up in a society where downloading an mp3 is as horrible as raping someone, and the Justice system being more or less ran by lobby groups, Many people got shocked when they shut down the pirate bay.. though they could only keep it down for 3 days untill it was back up again, witch means the Law enforces in Sweden are our bitches so far, and with a growing disinterest in politics I think the horrible thieves, shoplifters and cheapasses are going to see a bright future when the pirate party grows.

Coincidentally, these same people (the majority of them) very much believe that stealing stuff, in whatever form, whether it be piracy, shoplifting, etc. is not legal. It is there written in the law and is very consistant across each and every country (although the punishment may not be). You are very fortunate that stealing(pirating) doesn't have the sentence of your hand or fingers being chopped off like back in the old days.

edit: @ Corronchilejano: With your "logics" it should be illegal to bake your own bread. THAT is what piracy is. you obtain the same thing, only you pay very little or nothing for it, and the bakery won't get a cent, so the poor bakers have to get new jobs? no? Bakerys still exists. EVEN though people make their own bread. and the bakers don't want to ban flour, salt, egs and whatnot from the stores. so, in conclusion. The entertainment industry created a problem that doesn't exist. Also your comparison is worthless because when you download an mp3 nothing disaphears, opposite to what happens when you steal a loaf of bread. also, each individual loaf of bread is an individual piece of work, witch is certainly not the case with an Mp3.

No, he is stating that even though the bread may be "not valuable" in terms of cost to produce said product... the effort to actually make the bread is significantly important (it has no actual dollar value). The fact that it is not being compensated for is the very problem (eg. stealing == no compensation). That's why people have laws for it.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:50 pm

If the laws are unfair the only way to change it is for people to don't care for it, thus making the law toothless and ineffective.

"Private use" was described as "Obtaining the material without distributing it to anyone else"

Yes, people are aware of the law that doesn't mean they will respect it, there is a huge difference in theft and piracy, I would never steal anything from a store and those who do should be punished for it, but Piracy just isn't that big of a deal, but "thanks to" the RIAA and others, it is now equal to rape, in the EU they now try to lobby a directive that would increase the punishment to 4 years, making it equal to second degree murder here. They are insane, I will not ever respect their laws, Its very very simple. If people won't buy the records or games or whatever they're going to have to find other sources of distribution (commercially financed p2p networks for example) to get their money.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:03 pm

Oskar_Hanberg wrote:If the laws are unfair the only way to change it is for people to don't care for it, thus making the law toothless and ineffective.

That statement doesn't even make sense. When people care, they will change it. Doing otherwise will get nothing done. If every rapist subscribed to what you just said, then whatever jail sentence they have would be considered no less than a slap on the wrist.

Yes, people are aware of the law that doesn't mean they will respect it, there is a huge difference in theft and piracy, I would never steal anything from a store and those who do should be punished for it, but Piracy just isn't that big of a deal, but "thanks to" the RIAA and others, it is now equal to rape, in the EU they now try to lobby a directive that would increase the punishment to 4 years, making it equal to second degree murder here. They are insane, I will not ever respect their laws, Its very very simple. If people won't buy the records or games or whatever they're going to have to find other sources of distribution (commercially financed p2p networks for example) to get their money.

Noone forced you to respect the laws. Don't expect to use that excuse in a court of law.

There are many reasons for piracy. Most people who are against it usually want to remove the people who have the intent to distribute it. People who pirate aren't generally ones who really don't have the money to pay for it. That still doesn't change the fact that they are still breaking the law.

darkbenny · Post by **darkbenny** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:08 pm

this thread is so full of funny

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:18 pm

darkbenny wrote:this thread is so full of funny

Yes, and it needs a special award.

Oskar_Hanberg · Post by **Oskar_Hanberg** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:40 pm

@ Deathlike2: Sorry, I was a little fast, what I mean with "don't care for" (witch should have been NOT care for) is "ignore" as in pretend there wasn't a law against it in the first place. Because laws need ACCEPTANCE to be efficient in the long run.

As an example, there was a law in Sweden you must pay a tax for giving gifts of greater value than about $700. however they never got any tax paying requests what so ever, concluding that people didn't want this kind of law, they removed it, and that is what I hope will happen with laws agains piracy, excepted if you make a profit from it, witch in my opinion is wrong.