Replies

Nobody is defending theives. I've said over and over in my posts that I'm not doing so. IMO nobody else is.

Then they (and you) are doing a darned good impression of doing so by not condemning file sharers for what they are - thieves.

The problem is that technology outpaces the law's ability to stop swapping. Hence the repeated calls for a new model.

I hope you get your "new model," I really do. But the law is the law, and theft is still theft.

Why must you insist on asserting that I am defending thieves?

Maybe because you're not condemning them?

You've done it four times now, and I've corrected you each time. Get over it.

I'll never "get over" theft, nor will I ever sanction or approve of it, no matter who is doing the stealing. Theft even for a good reason is still theft.

Then they (and you) are doing a darned good impression of doing so by not condemning file sharers for what they are - thieves.

Bring forth a good argument that something was stolen (removed from the owner in some manner), and we'll take you seriously. If you can't show that something was actually removed from the owner, then you haven't shown theft, by definition.

There are three was that the song could have been stolen: 1) The song itself. The way intellectual property (IP) is stolen is by someone claiming it to be their own. Has this happend? No. 2) The medium itself. The way a medium (object) that contains the IP is stolen is by removing it from the owner, thus not allowing the owner to sell the medium. Has this happend? No. 3) The service. One can steal a service (like a radio song) by removing the ability of the radio station to play it and playing it themselves. Has this happend? No.

The only value argument that could be used is a potential value argument (the owner lost a potential sale if the copy is created). However, creating a potential loss of value isn't illegal, and it happens all the time. In fact, it happens everytime competition gets the upper hand.

-The Hajman-

So now you've amended your accusation!

I'm not, after all, defending thieves! I'm just "failing to condemn them" huh??

Well, far be it from me to let another screw up by...

MY ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT THIEVERY - IT'S THAT THE LAW WON'T PREVENT SWAPPING!

My gawd you're stuck on arguing only a certain point of view. Your handlers need some work training you better.