101–106 of 106 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and then you burn the stripped video back and put it in your home theater.
I know all this but it's the fact that I have to go through all this trouble to be able to use something that I paid good money for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
as any lawyer can tell you As a point of order they would almost certainly tell you it a) depends on the country, b) has been untested in the majority of countries so it is neither right nor wrong and anyway it probably would count as theft in a civil case sense. However I agree BREIN are a bit crazy - and the video they add to DVD's is inane. On the other hand better that than suing individuals I suppose :D (even th…
No, the crime is copyright infringement. Almost all countries have signed the Berne Convention treaty, and made copyright infringement illegal according to national law. Theft is a different crime that has been illegal pretty much for as long as there has been laws. Pirating a movie is illegal because it is copyright infringement, not because it is theft. Therefore, calling it theft is a lie, as any lawyer can tell y…
No, it hasn't. Copyright law was pretty much invented with the Statute of Anne which was passed in the UK in 1710. Before that some countries had printing monopolies, but no copyright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't get why this is so heavily down voted. Because it's a lie? "Piracy" isn't theft. Abortion isn't murder. You can argue that they're wrong, but this kind of misrepresentation is the lowest possible way of discusion. In fact it's an admission that people doesn't look at copyright infringement as wrong, so it must be tagged with a stronger word. This debate is not going away, because that's the politics…
dude, this debate is not "going away" because it's grey. abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
It's basically "because you can't provide an EXACT line that separates these things there's no separation at all!"
But that's plainly not a convincing argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
dude, this debate is not "going away" because it's grey. abortion at 8 months 29 days is undoubtedly murder. abortion at 8 months 28 days is undoubtedly murder. Now work backwards, when is it no longer murder?
That argument is a form of definition-mongering. It's basically "because you can't provide an EXACT line that separates these things there's no separation at all!" But that's plainly not a convincing argument.
what a weird comment!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't resist. I'm a freetard and here is my proposal: * Artists(haha, really? is Spears and "artist"?) perform live to earn income I know... it's earth shattering. If people don't think it's worth the trouble of recording, then they shouldn't do it. See how many people come to your live performance without the free advertising that recordings provide. Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Shoul…
>> Oh, maybe they won't make hundreds of millions of dollars. Should I give up my rights so "recording artists" can be filthy rich? It's a fallacy that most recording artists are "filthy rich", not mention how much they make is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What "right" are you giving up?
* The right to share * The right to modify * The right to use in anyway I want