This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

what do you think is the worst thing in gaming right now?

#181ItsTheSasquatchPosted 1/6/2013 5:39:09 PM
mrhappyguy12345 posted...
Kiddo? Friend I have a kid of my own. Again you haven't countered a single argument of mine and have finally given in to the frustration of defeat by calling me names. All you've done is try to justify stealing from hard working individuals who are trying to make a living. kiddo lol. Says the guy calling victims of theft terrorists. Again, it was nice putting you in your place, have a pleasant night. : )


You've been calling me names since your first post in this topic. The fact that you're now accusing me of it--and the way you keep talking about these fictional arguments of yours--tells me you're trolling. Well played. I fell for it.
---
*disappears into forest*
#182WinternovaPosted 1/6/2013 5:46:15 PM
ItsTheSasquatch posted...
Read that paper I posted.


That "paper" isn't as intellectual as you might like to think it is. Congress is allowed, through the Constitution, to set copyright laws. Statutory damages are common in torts where the actual amount of the damages would be difficult to ascertain. Additionally, the government does not investigate civil copyright infringements, but, rather, they investigate CRIMINAL copyright infringements. Unless the infringement reaches a certain threshold, the government isn't going to get involved.

One can tell that "paper" wasn't written by anyone with a legal background as it is very poorly reasoned.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#183mrhappyguy12345Posted 1/6/2013 5:49:50 PM
ItsTheSasquatch posted...
mrhappyguy12345 posted...
Kiddo? Friend I have a kid of my own. Again you haven't countered a single argument of mine and have finally given in to the frustration of defeat by calling me names. All you've done is try to justify stealing from hard working individuals who are trying to make a living. kiddo lol. Says the guy calling victims of theft terrorists. Again, it was nice putting you in your place, have a pleasant night. : )


You've been calling me names since your first post in this topic. The fact that you're now accusing me of it--and the way you keep talking about these fictional arguments of yours--tells me you're trolling. Well played. I fell for it.


Guy, you're calling people trying to protect their intellectual property terrorists. Seriously. You can take away any argument about anything else and throw it out the window bc victims of theft are not terrorists. No matter what way you want to spin it you are talking about justifying theft by saying "these guys already have enough money, and they're greedy for wanting to make more money off of what they made". Just stop already. Its like saying a women who's beaten by her husband should shut up and take it. And if she fights back? She's terrorizing other wife beaters out there bc now they have to worry about their victims fighting back. Your logic sucks, plain and simple.
---
What happened to happy, non-jaded gamers?
#184mrhappyguy12345Posted 1/6/2013 5:53:07 PM
And now you've got winternova involved. You should just put a pipe in it before he tears your argument apart worse than I possibly could.
---
What happened to happy, non-jaded gamers?
#185ItsTheSasquatchPosted 1/6/2013 5:59:31 PM(edited)
mrhappyguy12345 posted...
Guy, you're calling people trying to protect their intellectual property terrorists. Seriously. You can take away any argument about anything else and throw it out the window bc victims of theft are not terrorists.


It's not the fact that they're victims of copyright infringement (yes, copyright infringement, which is not theft) that makes them terrorists--that's a blatant and intentional distortion of the argument (one that seriously makes me think you're trolling).

What makes them terrorists are the terroristic acts they commit in response to copyright infringement, i.e., completely destroying the lives of individuals who, had they actually stolen what they shared online, would be guilty of nothing more than petty theft.

If you think that's okay, you are a monster. It's that simple.

You should just put a pipe in it before he tears your argument apart worse than I possibly could.

It's pretty clear that you can't. I don't even think you're trying.
---
*disappears into forest*
#186WinterstarPosted 1/6/2013 5:59:46 PM
ItsTheSasquatch posted...
mrhappyguy12345 posted...
Guy, you're calling people trying to protect their intellectual property terrorists. Seriously. You can take away any argument about anything else and throw it out the window bc victims of theft are not terrorists.


It's not the fact that they're victims of copyright infringement (yes, copyright infringement, which is not theft) that makes them terrorists--that's a blatant and intentional distortion of the argument (one that seriously makes me think you're trolling).

What makes them terrorists are the terroristic acts they commit in response to copyright infringement, i.e., completely destroying the lives of individuals who, had they actually stolen what they shared online, would be guilty of nothing more than petty theft.

If you think that's okay, you are a monster. It's that simple.


First you say copyright infringement is not theft (which is correct), then you say it's simply petty theft (which it isn't).

Pick one.
#187ItsTheSasquatchPosted 1/6/2013 6:01:49 PM
Winterstar posted...
First you say copyright infringement is not theft (which is correct), then you say it's simply petty theft (which it isn't).

Pick one.


Stealing the physical version of the CDs in question from a store would be petty theft. I apologize if I didn't word that clearly.
---
*disappears into forest*
#188WinterstarPosted 1/6/2013 6:06:06 PM
ItsTheSasquatch posted...
Winterstar posted...
First you say copyright infringement is not theft (which is correct), then you say it's simply petty theft (which it isn't).

Pick one.


Stealing the physical version of the CDs in question from a store would be petty theft. I apologize if I didn't word that clearly.


What you're missing is that the people who are being sued by copyright holders aren't those who download the content, but, rather, those who make it available online for others to download. THAT is what incurs the huge penalties - they are EXPLICITLY violating one of the few exclusive rights of the copyright holder, and, for that, they are sanctioned.

To put it in your analogy - it's not the people who steal the CD who are being sued, it's the people who copy the CDs and pass them out to random strangers on the street.
#189ItsTheSasquatchPosted 1/6/2013 6:16:47 PM(edited)
Winterstar posted...
To put it in your analogy - it's not the people who steal the CD who are being sued, it's the people who copy the CDs and pass them out to random strangers on the street.


Actually, they're beginning to prosecute the former as well, mostly via mass extortion attempts, demanding settlements from random bitTorrent users. Regardless, the damages being awarded are in blatant violation of the constitution--as I recall, there's a line in there explicitly forbidding the imposition of excessive fines. Even worse is the fact that they're not being required to prove any actual damages in these cases; they just have to say "this person uploaded our stuff, we believe 11 billion people downloaded it and all of them would have paid for it otherwise." You can't argue they're not doing this to frighten people into obeying them. They brag about these cases all the time.
---
*disappears into forest*
#190WinterstarPosted 1/6/2013 6:29:10 PM
ItsTheSasquatch posted...
Winterstar posted...
To put it in your analogy - it's not the people who steal the CD who are being sued, it's the people who copy the CDs and pass them out to random strangers on the street.


Actually, they're beginning to prosecute the former as well, mostly via mass extortion attempts, demanding settlements from random bitTorrent users. Regardless, the damages being awarded are in blatant violation of the constitution--as I recall, there's a line in there explicitly forbidding the imposition of excessive fines. Even worse is the fact that they're not being required to prove any actual damages in these cases; they just have to say "this person uploaded our stuff, we believe 11 billion people downloaded it and all of them would have paid for it otherwise." You can't argue they're not doing this to frighten people into obeying them. They brag about these cases all the time.


Torrenting involves "seeding", which is putting the copyrighted content on the internet for others to download. When statutory damages are present, there's no need to prove actual damages. This doesn't happen just in copyright law, libel doesn't require actual damages either. Uploading is quite illegal, even torrenting. There's no line in the Constitution regarding CIVIL damages. Trust me, everything that is being done has been illegal for 15+ years and people should really know better. The problem is that they don't care that they're violating the rights of other people, even though they would squawk horribly if it were THEIR rights being trampled on.