A Justice of the Supreme Court disagrees.runtheplacered said:
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
Should I buy a DS?
- Thread starter slyder35
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Justice Stephen G. Breyer: "deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
You wouldn't steal a car.
You wouldn't steal a handbag.
You wouldn't shoot a policeman.
Then steal his helmet.
Then take a shit in it.
Then mail it to his grieving widow.
THEN STEAL IT AGAIN.
You wouldn't steal a handbag.
You wouldn't shoot a policeman.
Then steal his helmet.
Then take a shit in it.
Then mail it to his grieving widow.
THEN STEAL IT AGAIN.
Hahaha, props for that reference Akirasfriend!
Slyder: a rumour has just hit that Nintendo might hace some kind of DS announcement at E3 this year [http://www.palgn.com.au/article.php?id=11080&sid=39ea682216108d18690c32109d81ee59&title=RUMOUR%3A+Nintendo+may+unveil+new+DS+at+this+year%27s+E3] - could be an updated model a la the DS Lite, could be an entirely new handheld, could be absolutely nothing. If it is a new model of some kind, I can't imagine it will actually arrive for at least a year yet, and there are already so many good games out for DS that it probably won't matter, especially since the size of the established DS market means developers will keep making DS games for a long time. Also: if you live in Melbourne, Dungeon Crawl on Elizabeth St in the city is a good place to get cheap imported DS games.
Okay.
Khell, planetmars, tiredinnuendo: we're talking about two concepts, theft and piracy. They're similar but they're not the same. So why can't we call them theft and piracy, like most people do? The argument that "the language is shifting" doesn't hold water, IMO, because the use of "theft" to mean "piracy" has come from music industry PR spin, and most people don't use it that way.
Language shift is worth resisting when the new meanings have a 1984-esque tendency to impair our ability to say what we want to say without ambiguity.
Slyder: a rumour has just hit that Nintendo might hace some kind of DS announcement at E3 this year [http://www.palgn.com.au/article.php?id=11080&sid=39ea682216108d18690c32109d81ee59&title=RUMOUR%3A+Nintendo+may+unveil+new+DS+at+this+year%27s+E3] - could be an updated model a la the DS Lite, could be an entirely new handheld, could be absolutely nothing. If it is a new model of some kind, I can't imagine it will actually arrive for at least a year yet, and there are already so many good games out for DS that it probably won't matter, especially since the size of the established DS market means developers will keep making DS games for a long time. Also: if you live in Melbourne, Dungeon Crawl on Elizabeth St in the city is a good place to get cheap imported DS games.
Okay.
Khell, planetmars, tiredinnuendo: we're talking about two concepts, theft and piracy. They're similar but they're not the same. So why can't we call them theft and piracy, like most people do? The argument that "the language is shifting" doesn't hold water, IMO, because the use of "theft" to mean "piracy" has come from music industry PR spin, and most people don't use it that way.
Language shift is worth resisting when the new meanings have a 1984-esque tendency to impair our ability to say what we want to say without ambiguity.
I don't think you're actually addressing my argument. A Justice of The Supreme Court clearly stated that copying files is synonymous with theft. Two Attorney Generals have made it clear that the acquisition of intangible media is stealing and that violators will be punished accordingly. This isn't the music industry PR machine we're talking about here. In fact, the Justice in question is one who has been held up as championing the existing technology and ensuring that it does not get blanketed as simply a means to enable piracy. This was AGAINST the wishes of said copyright holders.Fraser.J.A said:
If those in charge of making and enforcing the law tell you that a given action is theft, it IS theft.
They're in charge of the law. They're not in charge of the language. And they're not in charge of either where I live.
Please take note that I already clarified that my observation was limited to the US. As for the legal system not being in charge of the language, that's just absurd. The legal system is in charge of interpreting the legal definitions of words and applying them as they see fit. If this conversation is not about what is and is not legal, then it is a pointless discussion as interpretations vary widely and no one opinion (yours included) hold any weight.Fraser.J.A said:
Sorry, if I'd realised I was debating totalitarians I wouldn't have bothered.
Power is Truth. Oh, and war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Shine on you crazy diamonds.
Power is Truth. Oh, and war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Shine on you crazy diamonds.
In other words: You don't have an actual argument so you resort to petty insults.
I don't agree with alot of laws. But that doesn't actually change the law. Theft is a legal term that is governed by specific rules. Therefore what does and does not constitute theft is determined in a court of law. Not by you. You're certainly welcome to your opinion and you are welcome to advocate a change in what is legal. But we're talking about what IS. Not what you might wish could be.
I don't agree with alot of laws. But that doesn't actually change the law. Theft is a legal term that is governed by specific rules. Therefore what does and does not constitute theft is determined in a court of law. Not by you. You're certainly welcome to your opinion and you are welcome to advocate a change in what is legal. But we're talking about what IS. Not what you might wish could be.
Do you even know what you're arguing with me about? I'm really tired of repeating myself at this point. I can't believe this is going on this long. It's kinda getting hilarious.. I even had to show my fiancee and a few friends. I point to one of my sentences... then I point to yours, or someone else's and we say, "what the hell does that have to do with anything?"theplanetmars said:
My argument is that people who pirate aren't pathetic, in my opinion. Nobody has ever once addressed that claim.. instead I've had constant derailing from one person after another about some definition that fits their morals.. the Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the word "theft" and "pirate" in the same sentence. Whoopty Doo. How does that prove me wrong?
You want to call piracy, theft? Go for it. I'm not really seeing your point, or why anyones making a big deal out of semantics.. but you go right ahead. Meanwhile, I'm going to try to live in reality where things aren't just black and white.
(Hopefully in this reality I'll be living in, what I actually said gets referenced, rather then some ridiculous nuance that's got nothing to do with anything.)
I know I will regret this.. but.. what Justice Stephen Breyer was saying was the word "unlawful." I was wondering what that has to do with definitions of words.. Punching someone in the face is as unlawful as punching someone in the back of the head, but they are not one and the same. So both of our statements can be true, no?
But, don't answer this question, please! Because then once again my main point would be buried under useless rabble that hasn't got naught to do with much. Much like this great debate.
No, wrong. Bad Khell.. Bad. Please start paying attention.Khell_Sennet said:
My original claim was that you called people who pirate, pathetic, and that I find that to be pathetic, in and of itself. You decided at some point to sidetrack me and argue semantics. And like a fool I played along for a bit. Well, I'm finishing that now, by saying.. you win? I don't really give two shits about what you think certain words mean. (This is why medicine is practiced using heavy doses of Latin words.. so there's no arguing about these types of idiocies.)
What I do care about is that you find people who pirate pathetic. That's low. That's thoughtless. And that's my opinion. If you care to try to change it, go for it. But, good luck.
That's all. That's all I ever wanted to point out.
I'd be totally down for taking this to a PM if you wish.. considering we haven't used the word "DS" or "Nintendo" in quite awhile.
Yes I do. I quoted the exact aspect of your statement that I took issue with. I do not agree with the assessment that those who pirate are pathetic and I gave no endorsement to that argument anywhere.runtheplacered said:
I'm sorry your friends and family find this simple dialog difficult to follow. It's very basic. You contend that piracy and theft are not the same. I show you a statement from a Justice of the Supreme Court that contradicts your viewpoint on this specific matter.
Why would I address that claim? I don't disagree with you on that point and have never said anything to the contrary.runtheplacered said:
How nice for you to decide what my morals are. Just so you know, some of us are capable of discussing the law without discussing morality. Certainly the law does not match my particular moral outlook. But then, that's been the problem here. People discussing law based upon what they wish it might be, rather than what it is. This is why I have quoted actual legal opinion.runtheplacered said:
He stated that theft and copying are synonymous. If you forward the argument that theft and piracy are not synonymous (which you did), then it's fairly obvious exactly how it proves you wrong.runtheplacered said:
I quoted your specific words and responded accordingly. If you cannot follow such a simple dialog, then the failing is clearly your own.runtheplacered said:
No. The legal definition of theft is the "unlawful taking of property". If copying is synonymous with the "unlawful taking of property", then it is theft.runtheplacered said:
Don't bother asking question you don't want answers to.runtheplacered said:
I got a DS Lite last year and the only game that has ever kept me interested enough to beat was "Elite Beat Agents".
I've probably put about 20 hours into it in a year.
I've probably put about 20 hours into it in a year.
Well, I still haven't got one *sigh* - reason being Mario Kart for Wii is about to come out, and I am spending my April gaming time on that and Assassin's Creed for PC. Then there's Brawl too, argh - too many options, not enough damn time! The money aspect is significant, but the time aspect is more significant. I'm sure many of you know this feeling well.