Looks like they got raided

I did, and I did put in my thoughts on it too. But since we all are seemingly defending points that are in different planes of the same subject, the argument has a propencity to continue without a point agreed on.

Not ruining anything cruz, it's IB, we can have banters here. (even if it's just for my enjoyment, no?)

There's literally no point in making the same observation that many times, not even as a "funneh joke xD".

Who cares if you don't think any conversation here will go no where? As I said earlier, one would think you'd learn by now.

PB is one of those things that will never go away. There will always be a supply when there's demand for content. An interesting thing I learned from a professor was when the copyright of a book ends or anything ends, the object is technically free to the commons of the users.

That no one cares? yeah, that's a given.

Partly. Pirating is essentially breaking copyright laws.

Thus, Piracy is by definition not theft, but it is still illegal, on par with making a bootleg or camming a movie. The discussion in this thread is retarded, it doesn't matter if something is physically lost or not, theft and piracy are two completely different things (as with piracy and file-sharing.).

It doesn't come under theft by the legal definition either, as I earlier pointed out (that was the paragraph will posted about theft/ the meaning. It was the legal definition iirc)

I wouldn't say it's a theft at all. A breach of copywrite or patent? Yes. Not a theft or an act of stealing as such, at all. It's illegal, yes. But, I wouldn't say it's theft at all. It's been deemed theft, but by definition of the law, and the words (mostly theft and take (of which theft uses often)) it is not theft.
Again, you're not taking the idea, it still remains. You have copied the idea, and made no attempt to profit from it (of which counterfeit is).
Once the object is sold from the maker/ copywrite holder, they do not own it anymore. The particular data you're downloading is owned by the person seeding it. And, they are allowing you to copy it.
However, the copywrite remains, and means the idea is owned by the company. But, copying from that is not theft as such, by any definition of the words. Legally or oxford

What happens if I make a copy of Sony movie through torrents and then put it onto a plastic disk and proceed to take a shit on it and throw it away without watching the movie? Is it still piracy even when i'm out of few cents for buying said blank disk?

Hah.

You should take the time and actually read the terms & conditions on any kind of media.

I meant if you buy something, you tend to own it, and can do what you like with it. Albiet copywrite laws say you cannot copy it, and distribute it. You still own the copy, and the data inside the copy. The company owns the rights to it

You can't argue about whether or not something falls into x crime or y crime without appealing to law, it's the central factor in the argument. Even then, I've already provided a literary basis for theft that shows it does not require dispossession. Or do you mean that you just don't like appealing to "authority". Or do you just not like losing arguments?



It's stealing either way, not only does stealing not outright require dispossession (as I have already proven) but even if it did you're still dispossessing the owner of the product of the sale when you pirate something so even under your own definition piracy is theft.



>Not by definition of any of the words

I fail to understand how you missed the gigantic image I posted of an OED search citing the definition I gave for take that would legitimize a formal definition for stealing in the context of piracy. Or the massive report on how it can be classified as stealing even under your own definition.

If you're going to avoid the facts I've posted and continue ignorantly denying piracy as theft without providing any logical argument against it we're done here. You can't selectively ignore facts or points that I've made in my argument, then tell me I'm still wrong. That's called "losing the debate".

You actually haven't proven it at all. You haven't once proven it's dispossessing anybody, because you're not.



Copying isn't receiving something as such, as you're not removing the original, which take means. You're not 'taking' anything, nor are you 'accepting' it, or 'receiving' it. You're receiving a copy, yes. But not the original, so it's not taking or theft.
It still doesn't legitimise the formal definition.

Again, it's not theft by any definition. You're not stealing anything, you're not taking anything, you're not removing anything. You're illegally obtaining something, but you're not stealing it.

[size=10]It was meant to happen. [/h]

What is plagiarism then? Copying of ideas? Theft has a wide variety of meanings (The english dict is the only one with theft in it). But as it stands, piracy falls under the act of using someone's digital possession and not compensating them appropriately. The only difference between most physical and digital goods is that digital possession can be copied (so theft shouldn't have the same definition digitally as it is physically). Think of copying a book, and then dispersing it, that can be piracy, but it's literally not harmful enough to the owner (That's why AT&T piracy rules doesn't affect miniscule piracy). Piracy done in a small scale can be dismissed as too petty a theft, but otherwise it is literally robbing the person of the profit if done in a lagre scale (product not stolen, but the deserved compensation for the product is).

But plagiarism is stealing one's ideas and claim it's yours OC. Copyright and theft are two different things. If I said I program Facebook and copyrighted it knowing it was someone else's work that different. Because I would kill myself for creating aids incarnate.

That's my hook, freaky, not my point. Hmm, but thinking about it, it's still stealing one's property and making use of it without proper compensation. In the end the source is still accredited to the originator and the plagriarist doesn't get much, but if done with significant consequence (see the correlation to my previous post), it's outright theft of ideas and physical property. They are different things, copyright and piracy, but they both have enough similarity to be catergorize under the same kind of crime. Think of theft and piracy like the relationship between depression and dysthemia, it's still depression, but mild enough to not be immediately treated as depression, until it is.

Aw boo hoo anyways. Some rich fucks lose out on a couple more millions so the fuck what.

Then they want the same profit as last year, then they cut pay and lay off people, then the middle and lower class gets the shit poured on them.

Of course. Thou I'd still put the blame on the business owners not the pirates.

Yeah, the current situation doesn't require much finger pointing by both side. If there wasn't a DMCA law though, that shit would go down so fast it will be so much worse for us pirates.