Obama Administration Announces Massive Piracy Crackdown

[BlueStar]

Sorry to offend you but, yes, the NAZIs were the National Socialist party.

Just because they are named the National Socialist Party doesn't mean they actually were socialists.

Like I say, you might as well say that democracy is evil because Kim Jong Il runs the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.

The bedrock of socialism, misguided as it may or may not be, is total and even enforced equality. That's why communist militias have so many female soldiers, why communism is said to stifle exceptional entrepreneurs, why under communism you can't make yourself a millionaire while someone down the street has nothing because they aren't as motivated, talented or lucky. Hitler believed the opposite, that some people were inferior and some people were superior.

Tha'ts why socialists and communists were murdered by the Nazis, why the Third Reich ended up in such a vicious war with Stalin's Russia.

Of course some of Hitler's economic policies lent towards socialism but that was simply because it was the easiest way to enforce his far-right social policies (And last I heard it wasn't his economic polices that people had a problem with). You see similar from the right in the US when it comes to immigration. Their right-leaning on things like free trade, lack of regulation of business and the free market is over-ruled by their dislike of immigration, and hence they support socialist-style control of the labour market to combat it. True capitalism would just allow 'self-regulation' and supply and demand. If business can get Mexicans to work for next to nothing, then a real free market would let them.

 

[George Dawes]

Sorry to offend you but, yes, the NAZIs were the National Socialist party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism
From your own link:

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany. It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and anti-Semitism. Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.

or from the NSDAP article on wikipaedo:

Nazi ideology stressed the failures of communism, liberalism, and democracy, and supported the "racial purity of the German people" and that of other Northwestern Europeans. The Nazis persecuted those they perceived as either race enemies or Lebensunwertes Leben, that is "life unworthy of living". This included Jews, Slavs, Roma, and so-called "Mischlinge" along with Communists, homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled, and others.

They weren't socialist. They hated socialists. Just like the current boneheads do (as BlueStar says).


QUOTE(BlueStar @ Jun 24 2010, 02:36 PM) True capitalism would just allow 'self-regulation' and supply and demand. If business can get Mexicans to work for next to nothing, then a real free market would let them.

Laissez-Faire capitalism does allow it - globalisation allows corporations in a wealthy western country to outsource to a cheap asian/african nation where worker/human rights pretty much don't exist.

Capitalism is all about wealth (and the wealthy) knowing no borders, but those less fortunate are forced to live where they are born.


To answer "china hanging on" from earlier -china is a state-capitalist nation, not communist. For a large period of the CCCPs history the same was true.

 

[luckwii]

And from my own link;

They declared support for a nationalist form of socialism that was to provide for the Aryan race and the German nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation

 

[BlueStar]

A bit like saying "A form of capitalism where the government controls industry", a form of socialism where the most basic factor of the socialist ideal is turned completely on its head.

 

[caster62003]

You know what makes me chuckle, this thread all started by somebody who does not live in America, or at least his/her flag shows that, and then the first 5 or so pages are mainly flags outside America, then the last 4 or so pages are flooded with American flags, with some others scattered about. Why is it that we Americans need other people who are not really affected by this, needs to share this with us lazy Americans who cannot find this out for ourselves? We really need to start paying attention to the news, and stop playing our video games so much, this may help in lowering the pirating rate, as we will have something better to do than playing video games for 24+ hours straight, and needing a new game every 2 days, thus eliminating our funds, thus making us think we don't have money to buy games, thus making us look to download stuff, thus making something like this bill occurring over and over again. Wow, everything can go back to us being lazy and not having a life outside of video games.

Please note: I did use words to group myself in the group of being a lazy American, and for this, I believe I am going to change my ways, and see what happens, could be interesting.

**FLAMESHIELD INITIALIZED**

PS: I bet at least one person is looking at all 10 or so pages right now looking at all the flags I mentioned

**FLAMESHIELD STILL ON**

 

[George Dawes]

lets go back to the bit (of your link) that says:

Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics

They declared for support of lots of things, in practice they were very different to what the theory promised.


I don't think there is any point trying to convince you, if you believe that the nsdap were socialist/communist then there is no helping you, but let us try:

In 1919 Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder and Dietrich Eckart formed the German Worker's Party (GPW) in Munich. The German Army was worried that it was a left-wing revolutionary group and sent Adolf Hitler, one of its education officers, to spy on the organization. Hitler discovered that the party's political ideas were similar to his own. He approved of Drexler's German nationalism and anti-Semitism but was unimpressed with the way the party was organized. Although there as a spy, Hitler could not restrain himself when a member made a point he disagreed with, and he stood up and made a passionate speech on the subject.

Anton Drexler was impressed with Hitler's abilities as an orator and invited him to join the party. At first Hitler was reluctant, but urged on by his commanding officer, Captain Karl Mayr, he eventually agreed. He was only the fifty-fourth person to join the German Worker's Party. Hitler was immediately asked to join the executive committee and was later appointed the party's propaganda manager.

In the next few weeks Hitler brought several members of his army into the party, including one of his commanding officers, Captain Ernst Roehm. The arrival of Roehm was an important development as he had access to the army political fund and was able to transfer some of the money into the GWP.

The German Worker's Party used some of this money to advertise their meetings. Adolf Hitler was often the main speaker and it was during this period that he developed the techniques that made him into such a persuasive orator.

Hitler's reputation as an orator grew and it soon became clear that he was the main reason why people were joining the party. This gave Hitler tremendous power within the organization as they knew they could not afford to lose him.

In April, 1920, Hitler advocated that the party should change its name to the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP). Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.

 

[Prophet]

Hope and pocket change.

Do you really believe that?

Let's say you own a home and in this home there is an empty room that you do not use. Now let's say I decide to move into that room without your consent. When you saw me moving in you would likely object and I would quote your very own sentiment, “I have not deprived you of anything.” It's not like you were using the room anyway right?

And you would be a fuckhead, because you are both depriving me of the ability to use that room and the ability to not have to put up with a jackass moving into my house, and a pile of other things I don't want to bother explaining.
If you built your own room from scratch designed exactly like my spare room down to the atomic structure and then moved into it, pretending it was mine, you would have a relevant analogy. Let's extend that:

Assuming that recreating rooms exactly like this was easily possible and very commonplace, would the fault for "losing profits" be on the hand of the people who copy rooms, or the people who are trying to monetize room designs in a world where it is both easily possible to attain the design without a designer's consent and entirely implausible to enforce rules about what can and can't be recreated without infringing on people's rights?

Digital "property" cannot possibly be defined in the same manner as physical property. You can't make exact copies of physical property without significant effort and loss of other physical materials, you can't take physical property for your own without depriving someone else of it, you can't transfer physical property without physical space, you can't create physical property by shifting ones and zeroes back and forth until they do something. None of these problems exist with digital "property," and yet we're attempting to legislate it based on the paradigms we've developed because of the limitations of physical property. We're trying to dictate what's moral or not based on limitations that do not actually exist.

The digital era has broken the rules. People have discovered that they can just use their own devices to boil the salt out of oceanwater instead of buying all their water from X Corp, and X Corp in retaliation has attempted to outlaw the production of materials in any shape that can potentially be used to boil water. People have realized that they don't have to purchase what there is an infinite supply of freely available, so they're stopping, even though X Corp put so much work into designing a specifically efficient manner of boiling water thinking that they were the only provider.

If you can't make a profit without criminalizing 90% of the populace, then you can't make a profit, too bad, you had your day, go home. We would clearly be better off without you.

Yes the thieves are the victims, proverbial revolutionaries fighting for free... music. Right.

Whether my property is digital or physical, I set the terms of use. There is no basis for you to just move into the home I own, any more so than simply download the product I produce. What no one has tackled, becuase i assume it is an arguement without flaw, is the simple fact: When you purchase digital media you enter into an agreement that you will not duplicate the media. Game over. Thats it. If you don't like the terms you don't purchase it. If you do purchase it and decide to duplicate it you break these terms and in turn subjegate the property rights of the company.

 

[meornot0]

All i can say, is this is what we get when people listen to stuff they don't understand and still vote, and then vote for the "cool" candidate rather than the most qualified. You reap what you sow.(A horrid administration.)

 

[MFDC12]

"communism is here"? in the usa?

LOL!

If only they could manage socialism, the country wouldn't be such a mess.

Socialism is the mess. As it has been for any other country that attempted it. And as the Marxist teachings suggest, it is the inevitable bridge to Communism. If you would like to be a socialist, you must study and learn its roots. I have yet to meet a socialist that truly understands its origins and intent. Like I said, very scary.

you know the us has socialism in our government, right. i mean, before obama?

the post office? i dont think you are against that

not to mention the fire dept, police, libraries, etc

 

[Deleted-247497]

All i can say, is this is what we get when people listen to stuff they don't understand and still vote, and then vote for the "cool" candidate rather than the most qualified. You reap what you sow.(A horrid administration.)

hmmm which voters were the ones voting for sarah palin again??

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

At this time, I'm convinced it is ill-advised to judge a political party simply based on what they say about themselves. The character of a political party can only be judged on their political and historical origins, as well as the future actions of the party itself. Once the origin is deduced, the class interests that they serve largely become clear.

The National Socialist party, for example, can be properly judged according to this criteria. They were initially right-wing fringe agitators deriving their racial ideology from a nineteenth century count named Gobineau. Hitler himself, before his party became a political force in its own right served exactly this social function. They were essentially a gang of thugs among others, trained to fight the organized worker's parties. Their principal source of income (needed to sustain themselves) came from the heavy industrialists; from this it flows that the Nazi party was enabled and helped to power by capitalist big business, who had to make large concessions to their workers in the aftermath of the First World War (and wished to take said concessions back). In their psychological manipulation of the masses, they attempted to transmute the anti-capitalism of the masses into antisemitism, and used this brew to great effect. In several speeches, Hitler made no bones about his opposition to Marxism. But he and his party did not simply say this. They executed and murdered several prominent worker's leaders to terrorize and divide the class amongst themselves. Despite these methods, Hitler did not even win a significant portion of the electorate. His coming to power had been decided a few days before between the reformist von Papen and Hitler himself, in the home of a banker with significant ties to heavy industry. He won the chancellorship through "legal" installation. The evidence dictates that Hitler's party was anything but socialist. Their origins and their actions were not in service of the masses or the workers, but in the preservation of German imperialism.

I imagine this topic was brought up to somehow illuminate Obama's so-called "socialist" policies. Just as the class interests of Nazism can be exposed, so can Obama's administration. When the economic collapse was finally acknowledged in the press, Obama made the deliberate move of "bailing out" the very social class responsible for the disaster: the capitalist bourgeoisie. Despite the socialist rhetoric, his health care "reform" strengthens the hegemony of private insurance companies. US citizens will only be required to possess health insurance, and those that do not will be charged for every month they are without it. How is there anything universal or communist about such a policy? A socialist would also not place his influence into the manufacturing of unmanned predator drones or extend a blatantly imperialist war beyond the borders of other Eastern countries. Obama is operating in the interests of the capitalists, not the working class. Such unsupported smears and ignorance claiming otherwise do a disservice to critical thought.

Edit: context in first paragraph
Edit II: Mr. Dawes, I only wished to expand on what you said a couple of posts ago.

 

[luckwii]

All i can say, is this is what we get when people listen to stuff they don't understand and still vote, and then vote for the "cool" candidate rather than the most qualified. You reap what you sow.(A horrid administration.)

hmmm which voters were the ones voting for sarah palin again??

And what is wrong with Sarah Palin? Is she dumb because Saturday Night Live says so? MSNBC? Joe Biden has had a lot more big dummy moments that Palin. Obama has looked dumb in all 57 states. It is funny how the liberals have now become sexist, racist, and oppresors of free speech. Whether you like Sarah or not, she has had a lot more experience that Obama. The Republicans have a lot of waking up to do, but nothing compared to the liberal Democrats. I am afraid the only way they will wake up is absolute catastrophe. But I have news for you, the rest of us do not want to go down with the ship.

 

[Deleted-247497]

All i can say, is this is what we get when people listen to stuff they don't understand and still vote, and then vote for the "cool" candidate rather than the most qualified. You reap what you sow.(A horrid administration.)

hmmm which voters were the ones voting for sarah palin again??

And what is wrong with Sarah Palin? Is she dumb because Saturday Night Live says so? MSNBC? Joe Biden has had a lot more big dummy moments that Palin. Obama has looked dumb in all 57 states. It is funny how the liberals have now become sexist, racist, and oppresors of free speech. Whether you like Sarah or not, she has had a lot more experience that Obama. The Republicans have a lot of waking up to do, but nothing compared to the liberal Democrats. I am afraid the only way they will wake up is absolute catastrophe. But I have news for you, the rest of us do not want to go down with the ship.

....no shes dumb because shes completely unqualified, talks like a moron, and was put on the ballot to win the woman/right wing conservative christian vote.

 

[luckwii]

I imagine this topic was brought up to somehow illuminate Obama's so-called "socialist" policies. Just as the class interests of Nazism can be exposed, so can Obama's administration. When the economic collapse was finally acknowledged in the press, Obama made the deliberate move of "bailing out" the very social class responsible for the disaster: the capitalist bourgeoisie. Despite the socialist rhetoric, his health care "reform" strengthens the hegemony of private insurance companies. US citizens will only be required to possess health insurance, and those that do not will be charged for every month they are without it. How is there anything universal or communist about such a policy? A socialist would also not place his influence into the manufacturing of unmanned predator drones or extend a blatantly imperialist war beyond the borders of other Eastern countries. Obama is operating in the interests of the capitalists, not the working class. Such unsupported smears and ignorance claiming otherwise do a disservice to critical thought.

Edit: context in first paragraph
Edit II: Mr. Dawes, I only wished to expand on what you said a couple of posts ago.

Actually it was government mandate that led to the collapse. We were not in a free capitalist market.

Why is it then that our economy thrived in the capitalist years, and since the onset of socialism our market has suffered. This has been going on since before Obama, yet Obama has driven us off the cliff.

Obama's "so called" socialism has been expressed by he himself throughout his life. As have many of his appointees.

This is going nowhere. I think my best arguement will come later down the road as my points will be illustrated in real life. This post will still be here then. We can reflect back in a year or so and have a laugh. As they say, only time will tell.

You liberals had all these brilliant arguements and abstract views of history before the election. By now we should all be hope and changing into eutopian bliss. The grass should be greener, the sky more blue, and the "war for oil" should be over. And don't forget the bipartisan, transparent administration. The problem is Obama lived out his life fighting "the man". Now that he is "the man" has no freakin clue what to do. This is why he still blames Bush for everything. He has no experience, no answers, and no plan. And now he must fall back on what he knows. His black liberation theology, his marxist teachings, and his hatred of capitalist USofA.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

Actually it was government mandate that led to the collapse. We were not in a free capitalist market.

Why is it then that our economy thrived in the capitalist years, and since the onset of socialism our market has suffered. This has been going on since before Obama, yet Obama has driven us off the cliff.

Obama's "so called" socialism has been expressed by he himself throughout his life. As have many of his appointees.

This is going nowhere. I think my best arguement will come later down the road as my points will be illustrated in real life. This post will still be here then. We can reflect back in a year or so and have a laugh. As they say, only time will tell.

Canada faired better than the US through the economic troubles, in part due to our Government's (moderately) greater regulation of the banking industry, etc. America had too little regulation (whatever you might want to claim)... pure capitalism, a completely free and unregulated market, will never work... anywhere... period. Pure socialism, as well, similarly would never really work on a long-term basis. Until some better system is devised, the best path is a mix of both. The government needs to set limits on certain industries, and the government does need to provide certain services... without government services, society would collapse in on itself. Most people have no idea how far it extends, and how difficult it would be to have such things provided by a corporation, of all things. Big business answers to nobody, and they'll gladly screw people over even more than a government will. At least governments can be changed... a sufficiently powerful business is virtually untouchable.

Anyway, this thread is about digital copyright, isn't it?

 

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Mr. luckwii, I implore you not to insult my intelligence, or your own.

You completely missed the point of my last post, which is that political parties and ideologues can rarely be judged fully on the weight of their own words. Certainly their own words can provide significant clues about themselves. Hitler's infamous Mein Kampf was an expression of congealed right-wing hysteria, stemming from the recognition that German capitalist economy was in trouble and the Versailles treaty made its expansion all but impossible. But even in this example, Hitler's own words damn him. Obama's words, treated in the context of his social function and interests play a similar role.

I won't deny that the Obama administration has on several occasions played with extreme left-wing rhetoric, bringing FOX news to declare that he is a "closet socialist". Such claims were even then unsubstantiated, because Obama was prepped and groomed by the bougeois "left", among them Warren Buffet. Naturally, aware of social unrest, Obama was chosen precisely because his face and campaign was being constantly marketed as sensitive to the needs of the poor masses. This would explain the voter turnout of the last election. His "appointees" have expressed similar ploys, but their political records also expose them as being tools of Wall Street's capitalism. Paul Volcker is only the tip of the iceberg in this regard.

As to the claim that we are not living in a "free capitalist market," I must admit I don't understand your point. I imagine you may wish to make the case that Roosevelt's New Deal policies were "socialist," or whatever label you wish to give it. The New Deal was an exercise of reformism, and necessarily had to impede upon big business because social unrest was almost at a fever pitch. Even after the New Deal, its embrace of the War economy essentially left the foundations of American capitalism untouched. Even the New Deal reforms were too much for the wealthy; they have spent the past several decades repealing them and disintegrating what is left of the American worker's movement. These moves culminated into yet another financial disaster due to this treachery. For big business to dictate the mobilization of the means of production is exactly what "free market" capitalism comes down to. It ultimately collapses into competition between monopolies. I also don't know what this "mandate" is that you speak of. The evidence dictates that social forces behind Wall Street and their cronies are responsible for the present disaster.

Edit: It seems you changed your post to call me a "you liberal". The allegations you make toward Obama are nothing more than right-wing smears peddled and copied from Rush Limbaugh and the like. Black theology? In the word of the vernacular, Please.
Edit II: Changed "it's" to "its" in paragraph three.

 

[ProtoKun7]

Another noteworthy study from three years back notes that virtually every citizen violates intellectual property laws in some way on a daily basis.

Then wouldn't the simple solution be to just arrest everyone?

Spoiler

Apologies if someone's already said this, but I opened this thread from the start and didn't want to sift through 11 pages just to say this.

 

[luckwii]

Mr. luckwii, I implore you not to insult my intelligence, or your own.

You completely missed the point of my last post, which is that political parties and ideologues can rarely be judged fully on the weight of their own words. Certainly their own words can provide significant clues about themselves. Hitler's infamous Mein Kampf was an expression of congealed right-wing hysteria, stemming from the recognition that German capitalist economy was in trouble and the Versailles treaty made its expansion all but impossible. But even in this example, Hitler's own words damn him. Obama's words, treated in the context of his social function and interests play a similar role.

I won't deny that the Obama administration has on several occasions played with extreme left-wing rhetoric, bringing FOX news to declare that he is a "closet socialist". Such claims were even then unsubstantiated, because Obama was prepped and groomed by the bougeois "left", among them Warren Buffet. Naturally, aware of social unrest, Obama was chosen precisely because his face and campaign was being constantly marketed as sensitive to the needs of the poor masses. This would explain the voter turnout of the last election. His "appointees" have expressed similar ploys, but their political records also expose them as being tools of Wall Street's capitalism. Paul Volcker is only the tip of the iceberg in this regard.

As to the claim that we are not living in a "free capitalist market," I must admit I don't understand your point. I imagine you may wish to make the case that Roosevelt's New Deal policies were "socialist," or whatever label you wish to give it. The New Deal was an exercise of reformism, and necessarily had to impede upon big business because social unrest was almost at a fever pitch. Even after the New Deal, its embrace of the War economy essentially left the foundations of American capitalism untouched. Even the New Deal reforms were too much for the wealthy; they have spent the past several decades repealing them and disintegrating what is left of the American worker's movement. These moves culminated into yet another financial disaster due to this treachery. For big business to dictate the mobilization of the means of production is exactly what "free market" capitalism comes down to. It ultimately collapses into competition between monopolies. I also don't know what this "mandate" is that you speak of. The evidence dictates that social forces behind Wall Street and their cronies are responsible for the present disaster.

Edit: It seems you changed your post to call me a "you liberal". The allegations you make toward Obama are nothing more than right-wing smears peddled and copied from Rush Limbaugh and the like. Black theology? In the word of the vernacular, Please.
Edit II: Changed "it's" to "its" in paragraph three.

Not insulting your intelligence as it is obvious you are.

No, you liberals was the statement and it was a blanket statement not directed at you exclusively. You have a liberal leaning whether it is dominate or not I do not know.

Fox news nor Limbaugh give me my views. I try and read/watch everything as both sides are equally as important.

You go to church to improve yourself and your family. You go where you believe the right message is. Nobody attends a church with the wrong message without being forced to. Obama has said many things to indicate Black Theology is what he believes in. He himself said that hea agreed with Reverend Wright that "white greed hurts those in need". Or "his grandmother was a typical white person". Or how his wife was first proud to be an American once a black man was running for president (there were other liberals running but that didn't make her proud). The social justice and the dislike of Israel. It goes on and on.

I didn't want to get back into debate. This is the last post for me on this topic. I will though restate that the piracy ban is not to stop piracy. It is for control of the internet.

 

[Rydian]

What no one has tackled, becuase i assume it is an arguement without flaw, is the simple fact: When you purchase digital media you enter into an agreement that you will not duplicate the media. Game over. Thats it. If you don't like the terms you don't purchase it.

I have yet to see a videogame that presents me with an EULA before I buy it.

Nor have I seen an audio CD do that.
Not a video DVD.
Nor a Blu-Ray video.
Nor a game console.
Nor a videogame for said console.
Ever.

Nobody's tackled that because it's not how it works.

If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get to use the product... however you've already bought it, and stores are notorious for not taking software returns once the box has been opened (which needs to be done before the EULA can be viewed).

I am not aware of any case where an EULA (not a TOS) with a game or other sort of digital media has been legally enforceable. If you can find me a court case where that happened (and pull up the actual court documents stating so, and showing the verdict), I'll change my tone a bit. I won't give in, however, as being made to agree to an EULA for a product you've already paid for (or forgo use of it) can be seen as a contract under duress, which voids it (especially in the case of such expensive software as photoshop).

Again you attempt to talk about something you have no experience in.
Do not do it again. Legal matters are not things to be extrapolated upon.

 

[Prophet]

What no one has tackled, becuase i assume it is an arguement without flaw, is the simple fact: When you purchase digital media you enter into an agreement that you will not duplicate the media. Game over. Thats it. If you don't like the terms you don't purchase it.I have yet to see a videogame that presents me with an EULA before I buy it.

Nor have I seen an audio CD do that.
Not a video DVD.
Nor a Blu-Ray video.
Nor a game console.
Nor a videogame for said console.
Ever.

Nobody's tackled that because it's not how it works.

If you don't agree to the EULA, you don't get to use the product... however you've already bought it, and stores are notorious for not taking software returns once the box has been opened (which needs to be done before the EULA can be viewed).

I am not aware of any case where an EULA (not a TOS) with a game or other sort of digital media has been legally enforceable. If you can find me a court case where that happened (and pull up the actual court documents stating so, and showing the verdict), I'll change my tone a bit. I won't give in, however, as being made to agree to an EULA for a product you've already paid for (or forgo use of it) can be seen as a contract under duress, which voids it (especially in the case of such expensive software as photoshop).

This is written on the back of my Heavy Rain case: Software license terms available at www.us.playstation.com/support/useragreements and in-game. Similar statements can be found on the products that you listed. So the terms are available before purchase huh? Wild, I know. The Red Dead Redemption case even goes so far as to state: For use only with Xbox 360® entertainment systems with “NTSC” designation. Unauthorized copying, reverse engineering,transmission, public performance, rental, pay for play, or circumvention of copy protection is strictly prohibited. Maybe these terms could be more expressly written in some cases, but I can't imagine anyone would suggest that pirates pirate in order to advocate for stronger expression of terms.

You can also throw copyright law into the mix, namely copyright infringement. Reproduction of copyrighted material violates the rights of the copyright holder. Unless you want to pretend like you didn't know the media was protected when you bought it or act as though the idea of copyrights in general is foreign to you. Nonetheless, Ignorantia juris non excusat (Obligatory fancy talk/Look how smart I are).

As far as a legal precedence being set in court, you might be right or you might not be. I'm not going to waste my time researching it because frankly it is beside the point. Legality and enforceability are separate issues.

To be completely honest, I'm a philosophy major and I view the legal issues as simple premises. The actual issue at hand is of a moral nature. The question essentially is this: Is the piracy of non-essential goods right or wrong? If it is "right" then what is the justification? If it is "wrong" then why has the proposed crackdown created all this ruckus?

You are so busy looking for a legal loop-hole to justify your actions that you have forgotten to assess your actions independent of the system. Are you really willing to allow legality to decree what is and is not moral?

It's cool, we are pirates for various reasons. But for the love of God people, let's stop pretending like our actions are justified. Be an adult and simply admit that piracy is wrong, but its rewards far outweigh the diminutive burden that it places on your conscious.

QUOTE(Rydian @ Jun 24 2010, 02:07 PM)

Again you attempt to talk about something you have no experience in.
Do not do it again. Legal matters are not things to be extrapolated upon.

I did it again