The fact that "some people" consider "it" to be stealing isn't made clearer by agreeing with them. If by "it" they mean "copying" (which is what you are saying) then they are wrong. Using their ideas is wrong and stops discussion.
If, however, by "it" they mean "infringing" then they should say that to avoid confusion.
To continue to use "stealing" when the accurate term for what is illegal is "infringing" promotes the lie that all copying is stealing. Don't you think accuracy is better than hyperbole?
Why do you object to using the term "infringing" which is a quite accurate word to describe the exact type of copying that is illegal. Why insist on using a vague and sloppy term "stealing" when the exact, specific illegal action is "infringing"? Why be inaccurate when an accurate term exists?
Yet you make the absurd claim that "Copying" is "Stealing" when the words mean different things.
No one here (that I can see) is claiming that copying is legal, it may or may not be. But claiming that all copying is stealing is disingenuous. If, by copying, someone "obtains something they are not entitled to", that is wrong and accurately called "infringement".
You don't have to falsely conflate it with "stealing" to make it "more illegal". It's already illegal. Why argue about it? Infringement is illegal.
It is amazing that Andy Ihnatko could so totally miss the entire point.
Here is a sales opportunity. It represents thousands of such sales opportunities, and the "content owners" did everything they possibly could do to ENSURE the consumers could not buy it legally in any way.
And then the content owners whine that they are losing money...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I have given MS enough money
Yeah, because it "looks to you AS IF they are" illegal ... that's it. End of discussion. You're done.
Pardon me if I don't condemn people because it "looks to you as if they are illegal". Things are almost always more complicated then you might think.
I don't condone bad behavior but I don't condemn until REAL lawyers and REAL experts have investigated, analyzed and reported on these things. But you go ahead and pontificate and condemn because things "look to you as if", that's fine with me.
I don't think you read the article. While it would be a great idea if Moto/Google simply donated those patents license free, there are read problems with that or even lowering the price. Read the article.
Walt, keep believing ONLY the MS side of the story and be sure to parrot it exactly. Never look at the full picture. Then you will be protected from all the Evil Freetards who want to destroy the Internet.
Re: Re: The problem is with the means, not the ends
You say: "thats right, so dont ever try to enfore ANY crime EVER because it might at some point actually hurt someone who is innocent."You probably mean "don't enforce any law" but even if you'd stated it correctly it's pure strawman. NO ONE you are "arguing" with took that position.Try to argue against the actual position that they've stated: That ACTA doesn't address child porn AT ALL. Go ahead, try to use logic not logical fallacies.
Sure roads might have a legitimate use but no matter how hard you try, liability is attached. People were driving over the speed limit. People were using roads to drive to and from crime scenes. Sorry, it's just too bad. That's why we closed all the roads.
And you come to that conclusion how? They have no bearing as long as you completely ignore the fact that SOPA/Protect IP will make this sort of abuse much, much easier and much more common. Well, you are ignoring that, so your comment kind of makes sense.
Well, yes, you are confused. Content creators have NO inherent RIGHTS to ANY monopoly protection. Period. That isn't a RIGHT like Freedom of Speech. There is no "you shall have a monopoly" clause in the Constitution.
Why should "we the people" give them any monopoly at all? Many creative industries do quite well without such monopolies.
You are assuming that monopoly is their RIGHT and it isn't. It is a PRIVILEGE, given by US to them to encourage their creativity. That is the exchange. THEY get a limited monopoly and WE benefit from their creativity.
There is nothing in the vastly extended monopoly that encourages the ORIGINAL creator -- we're long past that cause and effect. Today the BENEFIT accrues to some big corporation and the original creator gets nothing.
The agreed-upon exchange has been destroyed. WE get NO benefit so why should we keep extending the privilege?